Podcasts about motivated reasoning

This week on The Professional Left, we're asking the question that's suddenly on everyone's mind: "Does motivated reasoning have any limits?" When a president accepts a $400 million jet as a "gift" from Qatar and his administration floats suspending habeas corpus, are we finally reaching a tipping point?We'll explore why even some of the most devoted right-wing voices are squirming uncomfortably as Trump's corruption moves from the shadows into broad daylight. Is this his "Katrina moment," or just another Tuesday in America's descent into authoritarianism?Join us for a deep dive into cults, corruption, and the Constitution as we continue broadcasting from the Cornfield Resistance. Plus, what a little-known DC Comics villain can teach us about the emotional spectrum of greed in politics today.Links for this episode: Oxford Research Encyclopedias, 'Motivated Reasoning and Politics' https://oxfordre.com/politics/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-923Capitol Fax, Former Gov. Jim Edgar: Last hundred days 'scariest of my life'. https://capitolfax.com/2025/05/08/former-gov-jim-edgar-last-hundred-days-scariest-of-my-life/ Stay in Touch! Email: proleftpodcast@gmail.comWebsite: proleftpod.comSupport via Patreon: patreon.com/proleftpodMail: The Professional Left, PO Box 9133, Springfield, Illinois, 62791Not safe for work.  Support the show

David Siegel is a tech entrepreneur from Silicon Valley. He has been researching and writing about climate since 1990. 00:00 Introduction and Setup00:17 Understanding Statistical Numeracy02:26 Gun Control Study04:12 Motivated Reasoning and Political Bias07:23 Personal Beliefs and Group Identity10:04 Medical Misconceptions and Drug Efficacy12:10 Critical Thinking and Scientific Curiosity16:13 Climate Change and CO2 Debate25:32 Heat Transport and Climate Dynamics27:15 Skeptics vs. Promoters: A Historical Perspective27:59 The Precautionary Principle and Government Overreach28:25 The Importance of Scientific Curiosity30:27 Proposing a Climate Debate32:12 Debate Structure and Logistics35:32 Challenges and Funding for the Debate38:07 Final Thoughts and Call to ActionX: https://x.com/PullNewsLongevity: https://www.infinitegameoflife.com/=========AI summaries of all of my podcasts: https://tomn.substack.com/p/podcast-summariesMy Linktree: https://linktr.ee/tomanelson1

In this episode of the podcast, Dr. Ryan Moyer speaks with psychiatrist and author Dr. Joe Pierre about his new book, False: How Mistrust, Disinformation, and Motivated Reasoning Make Us Believe Things that Aren't True. They discuss how the internet has changed the way we learn and absorb information, how human thinking often diverges from objective reality, why it's so challenging to evaluate ideas that contradict our beliefs, the role of information institutions in shaping what we believe, and practical tools to improve how we engage in conversations about controversial topics. For more on Joe, visit www.drjoepierre.com. Why Do We Do That? is a psychology podcast that deconstructs human behavior from the perspectives of social scientists, psychologists, and others that use applied psychology in their work. Web | Patreon | YouTube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter |

Microchips in our vaccines, stolen elections, climate change denial--in the face of a bewildering range of misbeliefs that stem from mistrust of informational sources, exposure to misinformation and disinformation, and partisan polarization, it's easy to dismiss those who disagree with us as "delusional", "psychotic", or merely "ignorant". But what if none of these judgments are supported by how we really come to believe things, and the truth is that we are all prone to false beliefs? What can we do to protect ourselves in this post-truth world? In False: How Mistrust, Disinformation, and Motivated Reasoning Make Us Believe Things That Aren't True (Oxford UP, 2025), psychiatrist and clinical professor Joe Pierre invites readers to journey with him through the normal quirks of brain functioning--such as "heuristics", cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and bullshit receptivity--that create the cognitive vulnerabilities to false belief innate within us all. With a cross-disciplinary approach, False illuminates the psychology of false belief that lies at the root of contemporary media mistrust, science denialism, and political polarization, and highlights that contrary to popular opinion, deficits of intelligence and mental health are usually not to blame. With a refreshingly unbiased lens, Pierre suggests an antidote to false beliefs and makes the case for softening our convictions, viewing our ideological opponents with compassion, and mending the rifts in our relationships as individuals and societies alike. Joe Pierre MD is a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. Caleb Zakarin is editor at the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Microchips in our vaccines, stolen elections, climate change denial--in the face of a bewildering range of misbeliefs that stem from mistrust of informational sources, exposure to misinformation and disinformation, and partisan polarization, it's easy to dismiss those who disagree with us as "delusional", "psychotic", or merely "ignorant". But what if none of these judgments are supported by how we really come to believe things, and the truth is that we are all prone to false beliefs? What can we do to protect ourselves in this post-truth world? In False: How Mistrust, Disinformation, and Motivated Reasoning Make Us Believe Things That Aren't True (Oxford UP, 2025), psychiatrist and clinical professor Joe Pierre invites readers to journey with him through the normal quirks of brain functioning--such as "heuristics", cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and bullshit receptivity--that create the cognitive vulnerabilities to false belief innate within us all. With a cross-disciplinary approach, False illuminates the psychology of false belief that lies at the root of contemporary media mistrust, science denialism, and political polarization, and highlights that contrary to popular opinion, deficits of intelligence and mental health are usually not to blame. With a refreshingly unbiased lens, Pierre suggests an antidote to false beliefs and makes the case for softening our convictions, viewing our ideological opponents with compassion, and mending the rifts in our relationships as individuals and societies alike. Joe Pierre MD is a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. Caleb Zakarin is editor at the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Microchips in our vaccines, stolen elections, climate change denial--in the face of a bewildering range of misbeliefs that stem from mistrust of informational sources, exposure to misinformation and disinformation, and partisan polarization, it's easy to dismiss those who disagree with us as "delusional", "psychotic", or merely "ignorant". But what if none of these judgments are supported by how we really come to believe things, and the truth is that we are all prone to false beliefs? What can we do to protect ourselves in this post-truth world? In False: How Mistrust, Disinformation, and Motivated Reasoning Make Us Believe Things That Aren't True (Oxford UP, 2025), psychiatrist and clinical professor Joe Pierre invites readers to journey with him through the normal quirks of brain functioning--such as "heuristics", cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and bullshit receptivity--that create the cognitive vulnerabilities to false belief innate within us all. With a cross-disciplinary approach, False illuminates the psychology of false belief that lies at the root of contemporary media mistrust, science denialism, and political polarization, and highlights that contrary to popular opinion, deficits of intelligence and mental health are usually not to blame. With a refreshingly unbiased lens, Pierre suggests an antidote to false beliefs and makes the case for softening our convictions, viewing our ideological opponents with compassion, and mending the rifts in our relationships as individuals and societies alike. Joe Pierre MD is a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. Caleb Zakarin is editor at the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/communications

Microchips in our vaccines, stolen elections, climate change denial--in the face of a bewildering range of misbeliefs that stem from mistrust of informational sources, exposure to misinformation and disinformation, and partisan polarization, it's easy to dismiss those who disagree with us as "delusional", "psychotic", or merely "ignorant". But what if none of these judgments are supported by how we really come to believe things, and the truth is that we are all prone to false beliefs? What can we do to protect ourselves in this post-truth world? In False: How Mistrust, Disinformation, and Motivated Reasoning Make Us Believe Things That Aren't True (Oxford UP, 2025), psychiatrist and clinical professor Joe Pierre invites readers to journey with him through the normal quirks of brain functioning--such as "heuristics", cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and bullshit receptivity--that create the cognitive vulnerabilities to false belief innate within us all. With a cross-disciplinary approach, False illuminates the psychology of false belief that lies at the root of contemporary media mistrust, science denialism, and political polarization, and highlights that contrary to popular opinion, deficits of intelligence and mental health are usually not to blame. With a refreshingly unbiased lens, Pierre suggests an antidote to false beliefs and makes the case for softening our convictions, viewing our ideological opponents with compassion, and mending the rifts in our relationships as individuals and societies alike. Joe Pierre MD is a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. Caleb Zakarin is editor at the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/journalism

Microchips in our vaccines, stolen elections, climate change denial--in the face of a bewildering range of misbeliefs that stem from mistrust of informational sources, exposure to misinformation and disinformation, and partisan polarization, it's easy to dismiss those who disagree with us as "delusional", "psychotic", or merely "ignorant". But what if none of these judgments are supported by how we really come to believe things, and the truth is that we are all prone to false beliefs? What can we do to protect ourselves in this post-truth world? In False: How Mistrust, Disinformation, and Motivated Reasoning Make Us Believe Things That Aren't True (Oxford UP, 2025), psychiatrist and clinical professor Joe Pierre invites readers to journey with him through the normal quirks of brain functioning--such as "heuristics", cognitive biases, motivated reasoning, cognitive dissonance, and bullshit receptivity--that create the cognitive vulnerabilities to false belief innate within us all. With a cross-disciplinary approach, False illuminates the psychology of false belief that lies at the root of contemporary media mistrust, science denialism, and political polarization, and highlights that contrary to popular opinion, deficits of intelligence and mental health are usually not to blame. With a refreshingly unbiased lens, Pierre suggests an antidote to false beliefs and makes the case for softening our convictions, viewing our ideological opponents with compassion, and mending the rifts in our relationships as individuals and societies alike. Joe Pierre MD is a Health Sciences Clinical Professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco. Caleb Zakarin is editor at the New Books Network.

Dr. Gray is a Professor in Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he directs the Deepest Beliefs Lab and the Center for the Science of Moral Understanding. He is also an Adjunct Professor in Organizational Behavior at the Kenan-Flagler Business School at UNC, where he teaches about organizational ethics and team processes. Dr. Gray received his PhD from Harvard University. My instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jamesbrackiniv Find Kurt Here: https://x.com/kurtjgray Coaching inquires: https://calendly.com/jamesbrackin/1?month=2024-10Timestamps:00:00 03:01 Exploring Typecasting and Moral Conflict 05:52 The Disconnect Between Modern Problems and Ancient Brains 09:04 Moral Outrage and the Competition for Victimhood 11:55 Conflict Entrepreneurs and the Victimhood Olympics 14:59 The Rise of Learned Helplessness 17:55 Empathy and Understanding in a Divided World 20:59 The Importance of Motivation in Conversations 23:58 The End of History Effect and Moral Certainty 26:59 Finding Common Ground Amidst Political Polarization 28:43 The Humanity in Conflict 30:02 Moral Judgments and Intuition 31:58 Motivated Reasoning and Group Identity 33:50 The Evolution of Social Belonging 35:55 Finding Common Ground 37:40 The Threat of Anti-Pluralism 39:35 The Power of Personal Stories 40:19 The Challenge of Facts in Divisive Times 42:49 The Impact of Social Isolation 44:24 Reflections on Writing and Self-Discovery

In this episode of Upzoned, co-hosts Abby Newsham and Chuck Marohn talk about satellite communities — towns that are developed a distance away from existing urbanized areas. They also discuss the psychological phenomena that incline people toward big projects that may solve an immediate issue (such as housing) but will cause larger difficulties later on (such as maintenance debt). ADDITIONAL SHOW NOTES “Tewin's $590M infrastructure bill locks in 'forever sprawl,' councillor says” by Arthur White-Crummey, CBC Ottawa (June 2024). Abby Newsham (X/Twitter). Chuck Marohn (Twitter/X).

" When there is a need for the emotions to come into the room, when we should talk about our feelings, we need to do that in an intentional and probably structured way."Karen & Paul tackle the importance of acknowledging emotions in decision-making, especially when groups are stuck. Links and items mentioned in this episode:The Cooperative Culture Handbook, Exercise 12.1

How to Build Mental Immunity Against Misinformation and ConspiraciesIn this episode of Outrage Overload, host David Beckmeyer joins forces with science educator Melanie Trecek-King to unpack the power of critical thinking in our everyday lives. They equip listeners with practical tools to become discerning information consumers. Learn how to evaluate evidence, identify your own biases, and build mental immunity against the constant barrage of misinformation. The episode also dives into navigating the emotional rollercoaster of social media and separating emotional triggers from facts. Melanie shares inspiring success stories from her platform. This episode is your roadmap to becoming a more informed and critical thinker, both online and off.Send us a Text Message.How do you think toxic polarization is fueling political violence in our society today?Support the Show.Show Notes:https://outrageoverload.net/ Follow me, David Beckemeyer, on Twitter @mrblog. Follow the show on Twitter @OutrageOverload or Instagram @OutrageOverload. We are also on Facebook /OutrageOverload.HOTLINE: 925-552-7885Got a Question, comment or just thoughts you'd like to share? Call the OO hotline and leave a message and you could be featured in an upcoming episodeIf you would like to help the show, you can contribute here. Tell everyone you know about the show. That's the best way to support it.Rate and Review the show on Podchaser: https://www.podchaser.com/OutrageOverloadMany thanks to my co-editor and co-director, Austin Chen.

"คนเราจะเชื่อในสิ่งที่เราอยากจะเชื่อ" Tell Me Why ชวนมาหาคำตอบและรู้จักกับ Motivated Reasoning ผ่านตัวอย่างของเรื่องฟุตบอลและอื่น ๆ ที่ถึงแม้เราจะมองชุดข้อมูลชุดเดียวกัน แต่ความเห็นกลับแตกต่างกัน

"The president is now a king above the law. With fear for our democracy, I dissent." Those were the words of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor about yesterday's Supreme court decision conferring what the press described as "partial immunity" on Donald Trump and future presidents for crimes they may commit in office. But the reality goes much deeper than that. Legal scholar Kim Wehle -- a former US Attorney who regularly explains rulings like this on ABC news (subscribe to her substack here)-- explains the stark reality of what this ruling could mean. 01:29 Implications of the Ruling 03:42 Motivated Reasoning and Judicial Philosophy 09:37 The Role of Intent and Evidence 12:58 Political and Social Ramifications 22:08 The Importance of Voting and Democracy 25:36 Conclusion: Reflecting on the Future

“Do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life.” Are you tired of that ditty? We are. How are you supposed to know what you love if we don't 100% know who we are? “Know thyself” is a maxim that has been central to Western civilization for the last 2500 years. It has been pervasive in philosophy over the ages and more recently in psychology. Who are we? Who am I? These questions blend nicely with understanding why we do what we do, a foundational question in behavioral science. And it is with this curiosity that cohosts Kurt Nelson, PhD and Tim Houlihan delve into the mysteries of who we think we are. More importantly, this episode is interested in honest self-discovery: the answer to the question: who am I? To help you answer that, we humbly submit a series of questions and reflections for your consideration, for the purpose of having a clearer sense of who I am. (At least at the moment.) We use three sets of reflections for you to consider: 1.) Identify where in your life you find energy, joy, and satisfaction. These questions and reflections allow us to target the ideals and desires we have in our lives. These are enhancers. 2.) Identify what aspects of our lives are not going the way we want them to. These questions help us clarify what is not working for us. These are detractors. 3.) Identify what requirements we have to live in this world. In others, what obligations, relationships, and financial requirements, among other things, are commitments we must live by? These are necessities.  We also talk about the nature of memories, the present moment, and ways our future aspirations influence who we are. We even discuss Dr. Bryan Lowry's idea that who we are is largely influenced by the people around us. (Talk about mind-bending!) By reflecting on these questions and our general discussion, we hope that Groovers can discover a clearer picture of who you are and that these reflections will lead you to a more perfect version of knowing thyself, as Socrates might say. © 2023 Behavioral Grooves, LLC Links Behavioral Grooves Website: www.behavioralgrooves.com  Ethan Hawke TED Talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/ethan_hawke_give_yourself_permission_to_be_creative?language=en  Bhagavad Gita: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita  Hal Hershfield Episode 369: https://behavioralgrooves.com/episode/your-future-self-hal-hershfield/  Brené Brown: https://brenebrown.com/  Brian Lowry Episode 312: https://behavioralgrooves.com/episode/meaning-in-life-brian-lowery/  Self-Serving Bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-serving_bias  Fundamental Attribution Error: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error  Motivated Reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning  Confirmation Bias: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias  Intention-Action Gap: https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/psychology/intention-action-gap  Know Thyself Questions:  Finding Energy and Satisfaction Questions (Enhancers: What You Love To Do) What activities or experiences make me feel the most fulfilled and content?  When do I feel the most authentic and genuine?  What aspects of life are non-negotiable for me?   What principles am I unwilling to compromise?  What kind of person do I want to be remembered?  What causes or issues do I feel most passionate about?  What qualities do I admire most in others?  What decisions or situations have made me feel proud or satisfied with myself?  What kind of person do I want to be remembered as?   Avoiding Negative Emotion Questions (Detractors: What You Hate To Do) What has been my lowest point in the past 5 years?  What situations or people drain my energy and leave me feeling exhausted?  What triggers my negative emotions such as anger, sadness, or anxiety?  Where do I feel regret for things I've done or for things I haven't done?   What do I stress over the most?   What negative self-talk or inner critic do I struggle with?  What are some common sources of conflict or tension in my relationships?  What do I fear?    What decisions or situations have made me feel guilty or uncomfortable?  Living in this World Questions (Necessities: What You Have To Do) Am I honoring your relationship? Do I have what I need to provide for my basic necessities?   Where do I compromise to ensure that I have positive relationships?   Am I being responsible? Am I honoring my commitments to others, to my job, and to other aspects of my life?   What are the pressures that the world places upon me?  Your responses and reflections should be as honest and truthful as possible. Try your best to not be tainted by your biases. A clearer picture will help you identify the key areas that drive you.  Examine your self through the lens of what you love to do, what you hate to do, and what you have to do.    Write out a 7-word value statement that defines who you are at the core.      Topics (0:07) Understanding “Know Thyself” through history.  (5:00) Personal growth throughout history.  (11:28) Understanding one's true identity.  (19:33) Understanding one's biases.  (25:03) Self-awareness and personal growth.  (31:50) Finding your groove.    © 2023 Behavioral Grooves, LLC

"One of the things we know about human beings and the way that they make decisions is that very often we are led by our immediate emotional response that we then find facts to support."Karen & Paul talk about how we make "logical" arguments that aren't as logic-based as we think they are.

An article in the New York Times about the entrenched views by many on the right that the 2020 election was stolen prompts Rabbi Dunner to consider the concept of motivated reasoning. A remarkable insight by Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg (1884-1966) regarding Moses' act of omission at the beginning of Parshat Pinchas is underpinned by the idea of motivated reasoning, and offers timely guidance for us all.

Yoel and Alexa embrace their credulous sides and consider concepts from psychology that have importance for people in their private and public lives. Each of us lists the three social psychological ideas that we think are most relevant to people's lives - the kinds of things we would teach if we could give just one lecture. There are areas of consensus, but at some point Alexa wonders what Yoel has against insurance. We also discuss our inability to meaningfully discuss international politics.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/highlights-from-the-comments-on-motivated I. Comments From People Who Actually Know What They're Talking About Gabriel writes: The brain trains on magnitude and acts on sign. That is to say, there are two different kinds of "module" that are relevant to this problem as you described, but they're not RL and other; they're both other. The learning parts are not precisely speaking reinforcement learning, at least not by the algorithm you described. They're learning the whole map of value, like a topographic map. Then the acting parts find themselves on the map and figure out which way leads upward toward better outcomes. More precisely then: The brain learns to predict value and acts on the gradient of predicted value. The learning parts are trying to find both opportunities and threats, but not unimportant mundane static facts. This is why, for example, people are very good at remembering and obsessing over intensely negative events that happened to them -- which they would not be able to do in the RL model the post describes! We're also OK at remembering intensely positive events that happened to us. But ordinary observations of no particular value mostly make no lasting impression. You could test this by a series of 3 experiments, in each of which you have a screen flash several random emoji on screen, and each time a specific emoji is shown to the subject, you either (A) penalize the subject such as with a shock, or (B) reward the subject such as with sweet liquid when they're thirsty, or (C) give the subject a stimulus that has no significant magnitude, whether positive or negative, such as changing the pitch of a quiet ongoing buzz that they were not told was relevant. I'd expect subjects in both conditions A and B to reliably identify the key emoji, whereas I'd expect quite a few subjects in condition C to miss it. By learning associates with a degree of value, whether positive or negative, it's possible to then act on the gradient in pursuit of whatever available option has highest value. This works reliably and means we can not only avoid hungry lions and seek nice ripe bananas, but we also do

------------------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. Peter Ditto is Professor of Psychological Science at UC Irvine School of Social Ecology. His research examines the role of motivation, emotion and intuition in social, political, moral, medical, and legal judgment. Most generally, he has sought to explain the phenomenon of “motivated reasoning” — how the desire to reach a particular conclusion biases the processing of information related to that conclusion. Another key focus of his current research is partisan political bias. In this episode, we talk about motivated reasoning, morality, and politics. We start with motivated reasoning, what it is, and the domains where it applies. We apply it to medical decision-making. We discuss how moral reasoning works, moral intuitions, moral foundations, and the connection between morality and politics. We talk about political bias and science denial on the left and the right. We discuss the special case of libertarians. Finally, we talk about how we should think about the relation between personality and politics, and personality and morality, and Dr. Ditto gives an evolutionary rationale for motivated reasoning and political behavior. -- 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, DENISE COOK, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, AND TIM DUFFY! 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!

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/motivated-reasoning-as-mis-applied Here's something else I got from the first Yudkowsky-Ngo dialogue: Suppose you go to Lion Country and get mauled by lions. You want the part of your brain that generates plans like “go to Lion Country” to get downgraded in your decision-making algorithms. This is basic reinforcement learning: plan → lower-than-expected hedonic state → do plan less. Plan → higher-than-expected hedonic state → do plan more. Lots of brain modules have this basic architecture; if you have a foot injury and walking normally causes pain, that will downweight some basic areas of the motor cortex and make you start walking funny (potentially without conscious awareness). But suppose you see a lion, and your visual cortex processes the sensory signals and decides “Yup, that's a lion”. Then you have to freak out and run away, and it ruins your whole day. That's a lower-than-expected hedonic state! If your visual cortex was fundamentally a reinforcement learner, it would learn not to recognize lions (and then the lion would eat you). So the visual cortex (and presumably lots of other sensory regions) doesn't do hedonic reinforcement learning in the same way. So there are two types of brain region: basically behavioral (which hedonic reinforcement learning makes better), and basically epistemic (which hedonic reinforcement learning would make worse, so they don't do it).

DYOR stands for Do Your Own Research. It is a common acronym used throughout the internet due to how fast and easily misinformation can spread. It is encouraging people to research things and become informed before making a decision. However, it turns out it’s not so easy to do your own research for a variety […]

welcome to the nonlinear library, where we use text-to-speech software to convert the best writing from the rationalist and ea communities into audio. this is: The motivated reasoning critique of effective altruism, published by Linch on the effective altruism forum. Epistemic status: Half-baked at best I have often been skeptical of the value of a) critiques against effective altruism and b) fully general arguments that seem like they can apply to almost anything. However, as I am also a staunch defender of hypocrisy, I will now hypocritically attempt to make the case for applying a fully general critique to effective altruism. In this post, I will claim that: Motivated reasoning inhibits our ability to acquire knowledge and form reasoned opinions. Selection bias in who makes which arguments significantly exacerbates the problem of motivated reasoning Effective altruism should not be assumed to be above these biases. Moreover, there are strong reasons to believe that incentive structures and institutions in effective altruism exacerbate rather than alleviate these biases. Observed data and experiences in effective altruism support this theory; they are consistent with an environment where motivated reasoning and selection biases are rampant. To the extent that these biases (related to motivated reasoning) are real, we should expect the harm done to our ability to form reasoned opinions to also seriously harm the project of doing good. I will use the example of cost-effectiveness analyses as a jumping board for this argument. (I understand that effective altruism, especially outside of global health and development, has largely moved away from explicit expected value calculations and cost-effectiveness analyses. However, I do not believe this change invalidates my argument (see Appendix B)). I also list a number of tentative ways to counteract motivated reasoning and selection bias in effective altruism: Encourage and train scientific/general skepticism in EA newcomers. Try marginally harder to accept newcomers, particularly altruistically motivated ones with extremely high epistemic standards As a community, fund and socially support external (critical) cost-effectiveness analyses and impact assessments of EA orgs Within EA orgs, encourage and reward dissent of various forms Commit to individual rationality and attempts to reduce motivated reasoning Maybe encourage a greater number of people to apply and seriously consider jobs outside of EA or EA-adjacent orgs Maintain or improve the current culture of relatively open, frequent, and vigorous debate Foster a bias towards having open, public discussions of important concepts, strategies, and intellectual advances Motivated reasoning: What it is, why it's common, why it matters By motivated reasoning, I roughly mean what Julia Galef calls “soldier mindset” (H/T Rob Bensinger): In directionally motivated reasoning, often shortened to "motivated reasoning", we disproportionately put our effort into finding evidence/reasons that support what we wish were true. Or, from Wikipedia: emotionally biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence I think motivated reasoning is really common in our world. As I said in a recent comment: My impression is that my interactions with approximately every entity that perceives themself as directly doing good outside of EA is that they are not seeking truth, and this systematically corrupts them in important ways. Non-random examples that come to mind include public health (on covid, vaping, nutrition), bioethics, social psychology, developmental econ, climate change, vegan advocacy, religion, US Democratic party, and diversity/inclusion. Moreover, these problems aren't limited to particular institutions: these problems are instantiated in academia, activist groups, media, regulatory groups and "mission-oriented" companies. What does motivated reasoning loo...

Facts > feelings please!!

Plug: https://www.freepeopleofthesouthwest.com/ Plug: General Dentist, The UnMack Doctor Couch Scientists/Couch Karens · Not a new phenomenon. This tendency is part of human nature, and has not changed for thousands of years. o “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.” (Proverbs 18:2) o Similar and related terms: Armchair General; Know-It-All o A single person can be an example of how to avoid this in one area of their life, and fall into this trap in another area. o Simultaneously, being an amateur does not mean you're wrong, and being an expert does not mean you're right · Characteristics of couch scientist reasoning o Non-sequiturs (an especially common non-sequitur over the last two years: “this works, therefore it should be mandatory”) o Tends to rely on authority rather than original sources and primary evidence. o Will often disparage an unappealing explanation on the basis that the explanation itself needs to be explained before it can be accepted o I believe it is more common among people with authoritarian tendencies – who want to make everyone behave a certain way or to force everyone to delegate the ultimate authority for rules of behavior to a third party of equally fallible politicians, bureaucrats, or "experts" o Confirmation Bias, motivated reasoning, and cognitive dissonance. § Cognitive dissonance – arises from simultaneously holding two contradictory beliefs. § Confirmation bias – the propensity for people to look for what confirms their beliefs and ignore what contradicts their beliefs. § Motivated Reasoning – selective skepticism, not applying the same standard of proof to things we already agree with. In the case of mask science, this tends to manifest as objections to studies showing that masks don't work which, if applied consistently, would result in discarding even more studies cited as evidence that masks work. o Decision-making: Head vs. Gut has a huge effect on risk assessment intuitions § The Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic – “The Anchoring Rule”: when you're not sure of the answer, your gut intuition starts from the nearest associated number and your head adjusts upwards from there § The Representativeness Heuristic – “The Rule of Typical Things” § The Availability Heuristic – the easier it is to recall an example of something, the more common our intuition tells us that thing must be. The presence of fear when a memory is formed makes those things easier to recall. · Characteristics of couch scientists in debate

Learn why self-control isn't always good for you; why you can't win an argument using facts; and what SETI is looking for. More from Dr. Steven Novella: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe http://www.theskepticsguide.org/  New England Skeptical Society http://www.theness.com/  NeuroLogica blog http://theness.com/neurologicablog/  Steven Novella faculty bio https://medicine.yale.edu/profile/steven_novella/  More from Seth Shostak: Seth Shostak's Website http://sethshostak.com/  Follow @SethShostak on Twitter https://twitter.com/SethShostak  Big Picture Science: The radio show and podcast of the SETI Institute, with Seth Shostak http://bigpicturescience.org/  To learn more about motivated reasoning and how we think, read "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt: https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777   The stories in this episode originally aired July 8, 2018 “SETI on How We Search for Aliens (w/ Seth Shostak), Facts Don't Win Arguments, Self-Control, and The Red Baron” https://omny.fm/shows/curiosity-daily/seti-on-how-we-search-for-aliens-w-seth-shostak-fa   Follow Curiosity Daily on your favorite podcast app to learn something new every day withCody Gough andAshley Hamer. Still curious? Get exclusive science shows, nature documentaries, and more real-life entertainment on discovery+! Go to https://discoveryplus.com/curiosity to start your 7-day free trial. discovery+ is currently only available for US subscribers. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Slideshow for this message is available Introduction As a society we disagree. With so many people, so many backgrounds, perspectives, religions, this disagreement is inevitable. Now, resolving factual disputes, in theory, should be relatively easy: find a group of experts to collect the data and ask them to lay out the conclusions. This approach works fabulously when the issue at stake is the atomic weight of helium. We hear the expert opinion and we have no reason to question it. It's settled. But what if those FACTS have implications? As humans we are programmed, maybe even hard-wired, to dismiss FACTS that don't align with our worldview. We have this built in tendency to interpret, favor, selectively recall certain information that confirms our prior beliefs or values. This tendency is strongest when we are dealing with highly emotionally charged issues or deeply entrenched beliefs. Social scientists call this MOTIVATED REASONING. We are all motivated to look at data a certain way based on your preconceptions. Take a hot topic issue. Are we all being objective with the data? What does the data say about climate change, or gun control or vaccination or the safety of nuclear energy or genetically modified foods? I'm sure you have an opinion on that. We are all biased. We are all victims of our own MOTIVATED REASONING. According to studies done on this subject, this MOTIVATED REASONING has nothing to do with the level of education a person has, the family they grew up in, the type of culture in which a person lives. None of us are immune to this. Now today we get to John chapter 11. This is the story of the raising of Lazarus from the dead. This is one of the only examples we have in the Bible of Jesus intentionally making a miracle more dramatic. What Jesus is doing is graciously creating a situation in which even those who are heavily biased by motivated reasoning will have to confess the truth. He's trying to establish the FACTS of who he is so dramatically, so indisputably, so incontestably, so undeniably, so indubitably that his opponents will have no choice. Some will believe. But we will also see some, astoundingly, harden themselves further in unbelief. Now before we get too judgmental, let me assure you, all of us in the room are approaching the text this morning with MOTIVATED REASONING. Jesus will tell is things we don't want to hear and we are hard-wired to go to great lengths to explain those things away, to find alternate explanations, to rationalize, to justify and to excuse ourselves from the implications. So as we begin would you just ask the Lord to remove that from you right now. “Lord, would you allow the truth to penetrate my heart regardless of the implications and protect me from my motivated reasoning.” Overview We are in John chapter 11 and we are at a bit of a turning point in the book so we would do well to take a moment to get our bearings. Chapter 11 and the story of the raising of Lazarus occurs sometime between September and April. We know that because of two time markers we have been given in John 10 and 12. This is a calendar of the Jewish feast and how the Jewish calendar overlays on top of our Gregorian calendar. If you remember in John chapter 8-9 it was the feast of tabernacles. That's here in September/October. In John 10 we are told it is the feast of dedication (Hannakah) which is here in December and in John 12 we are told it's passover. And this is Jesus' last passover. So today we enter John chapter 11, which means we are somewhere in between those two which means we are approaching the final months of Jesus' ministry. Think about where we are in the book. We are just a little over half way. That tells you something about the emphasis doesn't it? The gospels are essentially four biographies of the Life of Jesus of Nazareth but they are oddly heavily lopsided in their content. If you were to count the number of chapters in Mt-Jn you'd have 89 chapters. 85 of those chapters focus on the last 3 1/2 years of Jesus ministry. Of those 85 chapters 27 of them deal with the last 8 days of his life. Why? Because you give space for that which you want to emphasize. The focus of Jesus life is his death. Because it is through his death that we achieve atonement, redemption, forgiveness of sins, resurrection and life. That becomes the entire focus of the epistles that follow. So we are roughly halfway through the book of John and John will spend as much time on these last 8 days of Jesus life as he does on the previous 33 years of Jesus life. Now there are events which really set the stage for these last eight days and John 11 is one of the most significant. Now to understand it, let's pick it up where we left off last week. Remember from John chapter 10, Jesus preaches the sermon on the good shepherd. The Jews say, tell us plainly who you are and Jesus says, "I and the Father are one." The Jews pick up stones to stone him. I want to focus for just a moment on the geography and strategy behind that move for just a moment. Let's ask the question, why does Jesus make this move to the area across the Jordan. Answer: this is almost certainly a political move on the part of Jesus. The emperor in Rome at this time is Tiberius. And the way Roman emperors ruled their empire is to appoint prefects over the various districts of the Roman empire. So the area we call Israel was broken up into these various regions. Here's a map that demonstrates that. In John 10 Jesus is in the city of Jerusalem celebrating the feast of dedication at the temple. Jerusalem was part of the region of Judea and this whole area was under the governing jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate who of course features heavily in the chapters to come. After the Jews pick up stones, Jesus flees and heads East to Perea. This area along with Judea were under the Jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. To go from Jerusalem to Perea is not very far, maybe something like 15-20 miles. Why would Jesus do this? You have to understand Pilate's situation. Pilate at this time, was a bit of a crippled ruler. Early on in his reign he was very powerful. He ruled with significant authority. He had a protector in Rome named Seganus who funded and protected him. But a couple things happened that changed that. First, Segenus his protector was executed for sedition. And then Pilate did a few things that upset the Jews and Rome sided with the Jews. So Pilate got in trouble and he no longer had a defender. Pilate was in the dog house with Rome and the Jews knew it. He couldn't muscle his way around among the Jews. The Jews had leverage on him and could get him to do their bidding. And the overwhelming evidence of this in the NT is the crucifixion. Just a cursory reading of the text shows that Pilate doesn't want to crucify this guy but the Jews force his hand. So Jesus flees from the area of Judea where Pilate is ruling because the Jews have all sorts of power there. He crosses over the Jordan river and ministers in Perea where Herod Antipas is ruling. Now let's talk about Herod Antipas. This is a different Herod by the way, than Herod you read about in nativity story. Herod Antipas and Tiberius (who, remember, was the emperor) were childhood friends. He's got all sorts of protection from Rome. In addition to that, Herod Antipas is ruling a largely gentile area. The Jews don't factor into the politics of this area. The Jews have no power over Herod Antipas. So Jesus flees to this area to escape the Jews and particularly to escape the political power the Jewish leaders enjoy in this area over Pontius Pilate. So he's going to be in Perea for 2-3 months. Now only Luke records this part of Jesus' ministry. And there's one very significant interchange that Jesus has that is going to be very helpful both in illustrating this political dynamic but also in setting us up for John chapter 11 and the raising of Lazarus. Now you have Pharisees coming to Jesus and warning him that Herod wants to kill him. Now right there, just that in and of itself, ought to be a red flag. Didn't the Pharisees, just a chapter earlier want him dead? Something doesn't seem right. Something's afoot. I'm pretty sure the Pharisee isn't motivated by his affectionate desire for the wellfare of Jesus. And almost certainly this is a ploy. Herod doesn't care about Jesus. Herod Antipas probably barely knows who Jesus is. He hasn't stirred up any trouble in his domain. So when the Jews say, “Herod wants to kill you.” Jesus knows it's a trap. The Pharisees are trying to push him out of the territory of Herod Antipas and move him into the territory of Pilate where they have control. That's what's going on. Now Jesus knows that and so he responds. 32 And he said to them, Go and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out demons and perform cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I finish my course. 33 Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem.' He's saying, my time has not yet come. It's really kind of dark humor. He responds, “You guys are coming from Jerusalem, the city that always kills the prophets. Remember Jeremiah? remember Micah? Prophets have to die in Jerusalem, so until I go there I'm safe.” If you wanted to make an analogy you might say, “Surfers don't have to worry about being eaten by sharks unless their surfing in shark infested waters and prophets don't have to worry about dying unless they are in Jerusalem.” Do, you realize the Jews of Jesus' day would actually build tombs for the prophets. They didn't pretend that the bodies were there, but they wanted a place to put wreaths and garlands as if to say, “We are so embarrassed that our forefathers killed the prophets who wrote our Bible.” And of course we would never do that. In another place Jesus is going to say, “You build tombs to the prophets, but you are going to bring the blood of Abel to Zechariah upon yourselves.” All those prophets spoke of Jesus, and they are trying to kill Jesus! And then you have this lament. 34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing! Behold, your house is forsaken. Jesus isn't in Jerusalem. But he's mourning their hardened hearts. And then he says this marvelous, prophetic WORD. And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!'" What does that mean? Jesus, right here is quoting Psalm 118. Psalm 118 is a Messianic Psalm. This is the Psalmist giving God's people instruction on how they are to receive their Messiah. It's almost like the Psalmist is giving them a future hymn book. When Messiah comes, you sing this Psalm. Who hasn't woken up and said, “This is the day that the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Yeah, that's true. But that's not what this Psalm is talking about. It's talking about the day that Messiah comes. And when that day comes, you should all cry out, “Hossana” which means save us. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. That's how you welcome Messiah. And so what Jesus is saying to the Pharisees is this: the next time you see me will be when all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem spill out of the city and lay down their garments and palm branches and WELCOME ME AS MESSIAH, "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord." The whole city is going to welcome me as KING. Now, here's the point, if you were to have been there when Jesus said those words, you would have said, “That's impossible. By this time it was public knowledge, The Pharisees hate Jesus. The Pharisees and Saducees control that entire hill. They control the temple. The disciples of Jesus are convinced that a journey to Jerusalem is the same thing as a journey to the grave.” How in the world, Jesus, are you going to OPENLY walk into Jerusalem with the crowds welcoming you as Messiah, when you know good and well that the Pharisees and Sadducees are BENT on destroying you? Well the answer in part the raising of Lazarus. And you want to talk about MOTIVATED REASONING? This is a text book example. Now let's regain our bearings. Jesus has crossed over the Jordan and has had this entire exchange with the Pharisees in the relative safety of Herod Antipas. But now Jesus gets word that Lazarus is sick. Jesus is good friends with Lazarus. Lazarus lives in Bethany. Where is Bethany? Bethany is only about a mile from Jerusalem so Jesus would have likely stayed here when he was in the city for Feasts. But notice the region in which Bethany lies. Bethany is right here, back in the region of Judea, right where the Pharisees want him (back in the jurisdiction of Pontius Pilate where they have control). So this is a dangerous mission. Jesus, come back to the area where you were just about stoned to death. As we continue through the text you can detect the disciples resistance to the suggestion that they should go back up to Judea. As a side note, it's very interesting that John distinguishes which Mary he's referencing. Mary, the one who annointed Jesus feet with oil and washed it with her hair. Why is that interesting? Because he hasn't yet told the story yet about Mary anointing Jesus feet with oil. That's coming later in chapter 12. This is a pretty good evidence that John assumes you've got the other gospels in your hand. Remember John wrote his gospel last. What he's doing is assuming that you as the reader know the story as told by Matthew, Mark and Luke and since we've been introduced to more than one Mary in the synoptic gospels, he's clarifying which one he's referencing. At any rate, Jesus gets word that his friend Lazarus is very ill. Now notice the careful wording of Jesus. This is an illness that does not lead to death. He doesn't say, Lazarus will not die. He says it's an illness that doesn't culminate, terminate in death. Instead it's a sickness that leads to the glory of God. Now let's get very specific as to what is meant by that. God's doesn't receive glory from the fact that illness exists. Illness is not part of the original design. God did not look at illness in the garden and pronounce it good. Death is the consequence of sin. But, this disease and its associated suffering will be the mechanism through which God's glory over illness is displayed. In the end, the illness DOES not win. The illness lead to death. In the LONG VIEW, this illness actually leads to resurrection life. And it's at that moment that God's glory is revealed. Now at this point, the disciples understand PRECISELY ZERO of what Jesus means by this. Here's almost certainly what is going through the disciples minds. They get word that Lazarus is sick and Jesus, using his divine insight responds to the messenger, this is not a sickness that leads to death and he sends the messenger away. Sweet! Instead this is an illness that leads to the glory of God. Great! He's going to get healed like many of the others that Jesus healed. There are multiple examples in the Scripture where Jesus heals from afar with a mere word. I'm certain that's what the disciples thought. I'm certain that's what the messenger who returned thought. I'm sure the disciples thought, it will be interesting to hear the rest of the story next time we meet up and see Lazarus. I'm sure everyone mentally checked the time and said, “Okay's about noon on Thursday and Lazarus will say, ‘yeah, right about noon on Thursday I just instantly started feeling better.'” And everyone forgets about it. Jesus announces no further intention. But, we as readers get special insight into his plan. But our special insight is shocking! Did you hear that? Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus. Let's zoom in on that word for love. As you know, there are several words for love for love in Greek and this is the word agape. It's the highest form of love. It's perfect, unconditional, pure. It most often refers to DIVINE love because only God can love with that much purity. So the text says, he LOVED these three with that kind of love. Now look at verse 6. The word so is a strong word. It means THEREFORE. Jesus LOVED these guys and on the basis of his love for them, he stayed two days longer in the place where he was. Did you hear that? Because God loved them so perfectly, in a totally unconditional way, he didn't come when they called upon him in their moment of GREATEST need. This is bottomlessly instructive for us. We think it ought to read, since Jesus loved them so much, he immediately did what they asked and went to the aid of Lazarus to make sure he wouldn't die. We think that the Love of God means doing what we we want. God if you loved me you would fix this financial problem in my life. God if you REALLY loved me, you'd fix this relational problem that I am experiencing either in my marriage or with my kids, or my friends or in the church. That, Lord would be evidence of your love for me. God if you REALLY, REALLY loved me then you would get rid of this cancer or this disease or this health handicap. But actually the love of God is doing what is best for the person even if it involves our suffering. Did you catch that? God LOVES you; and so often times he will wait those two extra days. The very best thing in the world for you right now might be the delay of God. Why did he wait two additional days? When Jesus arrived on the scene Lazarus had already been dead four days so If he had set out immediately, Lazarus would have still been dead two full days. But he waited. Why? Because he wanted to establish with spectacular certainty that LAZARUS was not just mostly dead, but CERTAINLY dead. God's delays are not denials. The fact you think its a delay is an evidence of your MOTIVATED REASONING. What Mary and Martha wanted was for Jesus to swoop in and overcome sickness. What Jesus wanted was to swoop in and overcome death. Which is better? Now at this point, remember, the disciples still have no idea that this is what's going to go down. Remember, the last thing they heard was that this was not an illness that leads to death. They assumed this was a healing from afar. That was two days ago when Jesus said that. They've completely forgotten about Lazarus. They've totally learned to trust Jesus. He's not going to die. End of story. Move on with our life. But then Jesus, undoubtedly, surprises them and says. Now I'm not sure they are even making the connection at this point between Lazarus and Judea. I think because they have so completely abandoned the idea that the sickness of Lazarus was a problem that when they hear Jesus say, “Let us go to Judea” they understood him to be updating them on their itinerary. And their initial reaction was this idea is not one of your better ideas, Jesus. To our ears this would be like Jesus saying, “let us go to Kabul international airport in Afghanistan.” What's wrong with JFK or Kona? When they hear this suggestion, they get real concerned. Jesus, you know the politics over there. Last time we were there they tried to kill you. You barely escaped with your life. Are you sure, Jesus? So out of their mouths comes this complaint and Jesus' response: Now Jesus is basically forcing them to square their theology with their fear. He says, why do we work in the day instead of the night? Because in the day you can see. You don't stumble in the day. There's no fear of stumbling when there is light. The light of the world prevents you from making a wrong step. If you are with me, guess what? It's daytime. Why? because I am the light of the world. You can't make a mistake if you are following me. Keep that in mind folks. You can't make a mistake if you are obeying what Jesus tells you to do. There is no possible way to REGRET obedience. That is a perfect step made in the light. The outcome might be horrendous by any other standard, but it's not a mistake. It's not a mistep. Following Jesus means you will never stumble. And the converse is true as well. "If anyone walks in the night he stumbles, because the light of the world is not in him." If you do anything apart from Jesus, if you make decisions in life and don't include Jesus, if you ignore your conscience and push Jesus to the side, then whatever decision you make, no matter how successful it is in the eyes of the world, will result in stumbling. You can't be on the right path if the path doesn't include Jesus as Lord and savior of your life. You will CERTAINLY stumble. Listen, we are going to Judea. Yes, it is dangerous. But you won't stumble because I am the light of the world. Now he tells them what their Judean mission will be. The disciples are, at times, dense; however, this is not one of those times. Jesus had plainly told them this was not a sickness that leads to death. How else is a person supposed to interpret those words? The disciples hear Jesus say, “I'm going to go wake up Lazarus.” Again, how else are they supposed to interpret those words. Jesus, I'm sure he's tired. After all, he's had a brush with death. But you told us it wasn't a sickness leading to death. Right? I'm sure he's sleepy. Do we really need to go to Judea and risk our lives to get him out of bed? He'll wake up when he's kicked the virus and feels better. Now comes plain language. Now here's where things get chilling. I am glad for your sake that I was not there so that you might believe that I really do have power to raise people from the dead. Which means what? Which means that they currently DO NOT believe. This is basically our stopping point. The miracle itself we are going to talk about next time. But I want you to just hear what Jesus is saying. You guys have been following me around for a few years now. And you still don't really believe. And this is applicable for all of us as well. We believe in Jesus, but we don't really believe he has power over the things we are suffering RIGHT NOW. You believe. But you don't believe. Jesus says to to his disciples, you believe I can heal people. You've seen that. But do you realize who I am? Who I really am? I can raise people from the dead. I can overcome the grave. You don't yet believe that. Now as evidence that they don't belive that, look what Thomas says. So Thomas, called the Twin, said to his fellow disciples, “Let us also go, that we may die with him.” This gives you some idea of the level of danger represented in Jesus' suggestion. In the minds of the disciples, this was a suicide mission. This was Normandy. These guys know the hornets nest of Judea. Now what does Thomas mean here? This is one place in the Bible where you'd love to have some tone, inflection and intonation. Either Thomas is saying: “Jesus, I'm so committed to you, I'll gladly go to Jerusalem and die with you.” In that case it's a very commendable statement of loyalty… “Fine, if you want to go to Jersualem to try and raise Lazarus from the dead, you'll likely be having to raise more than just Lazarus. We are all dead if we go there.” In this case it's heavy sarcasm But in either case, in both cases, what is Thomas lacking? He does not believe that Jesus has power OVER death. Either we will die, Jesus will die or both. But someone is going to die. And Jesus says, “I'm glad Lazarus died, so you can believe.” He's painting them into a corner. Let's apply this. Gospel Message Let me assure you. All of us today walk into the room with motivated reasoning. None are unbiased. None are objective. None are willing to just receive truth without question. There are FACTS presented here that our conception of reality wont readily support. What is the FACT established in this passage? The FACT above every other FACT is that Jesus has power over suffering and death. The FACT is that Jesus has purposes in SUFFERING and DEATH. Jesus is LORD over it. The whole Bible is written to establish that FACT. Now that conflicts with a deeply emotional conviction that if God loves me, I will not suffer. And so when we suffer, our MOTIVATED REASONING kicks in. How can God still love me. And rather than interpreting our circumstances through the love of God we interpret the LOVE of God through our circumstances. That's motivated reasoning. If you are suffering right now, what is true of Lazarus is true of you, "your suffering is for the glory of God." But I guarantee you that if you are suffering right now you are motivated to reason differently. It doesn't feel that way. The FACT that Jesus is LORD over suffering is in conflict with your sense that if Jesus loved you, he would rescue me from suffering. This passage is teaching us to look beyond our feelings to what is true. Of course it feels that way. Of course the suffering is not fun. Suffering always hurts. For Lazarus the coughing and the vomiting and the sweating and the fever were all real. He had to endure all that. The evil of suffering had its way. If God was to exercise supremacy OVER death, then logically speaking, death and the accompanying suffering must have its way first. Perhaps the silence of God in our life is the silence of those two days. Perhaps God is waiting so that he can establish with such spectacular certainty that he is sovereign over the suffering you experience. We don't know his good purposes. But we know that they are for his glory and our good. I'm glad, for your sake, that you are suffering. Why? How can you say that? Because through the suffering you will believe. You will know who I am. There's no alternate explanation. And would you not agree, that there is no more loving thing in the world that God could possibly do for you than to help you see him more clearly. Baptism This evening, we have a baptism service. And so come out to that. Come out and watch a FUNERAL and a BIRTH. That's what baptism is. We bury the old man. This man whose MOTIVATED to reason that this world is all about me. We put that old man in the grave. And what rises is new life. New life is born. Unless a man is BORN AGAIN, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. If you are not a Christian and are wondering how you become one, the answer of the Scriptures, is repent and be baptized. The Bible sees these events are simultaneous. It's a physical expression of what has taken place in the heart. We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:4 ESV) Baptism is our funeral and birthday. We get a death certificate and a birth certificate on the same day. So bring a dinner to enjoy on the lawn afterwards. Bring a chair or a blanket and let's listen to the stories of life and celebrate Jesus' victory over death.

In this two-part episode, Ash and Aidan discuss the biggest threat to Gen-Z: the erosion of critical thinking due to the digital world. They debate what's been called an "epidemic of cognitive contagion" with no end in sight. The boys explore the three biggest culprits to this epidemic: Motivated Reasoning, Tribalism, and the rampant spread of Misinformation. In Part 1 they welcome Alex Lickerman, M.D., a renowned physician and author, to discuss why healthcare is particularly vulnerable to misinformation and what Gen Z can do to separate fact from fiction in a world of unlimited and unfiltered content. Who was more convincing: Aidan or Ash? Vote at HoldMeBack.com

This season of Mind Full we will be featuring some of the work of students in Jim Cresswell's History of Psychology class at the University of Calgary. In this episode, Joyce Singh, Madison Fairholm, Natalie Sebastian and Susan Flynn Lowry present their podcast on cognitive dissonance and social media. Then the students discuss their work with an expert in the field, Dr. Alexa Tullett from the University of Alabama.

Projection is mere conjecture with out foundation. Support the show: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=Q2PZ6NSMG7X7N&source=url See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, we all know that. But Dr. Christopher French, professor of Anomalistic Psychology at the University of London, might know it more than the rest of us - he's spent his career in pursuit of tangible evidence for all kinds of paranormal beliefs. Extrasensory perception, telepathy, dowsing - and has come up with little proof that these phenomena occur - but has not lost the skeptical spark that leaves all possibilities on the table. Along the way, he became interested in the question of cognition - how do people come to believe in magical phenomena? Did they feel the appeal of motivated reasoning, or did it take them by surprise? Proof and disproof don't seem to have much of an effect in this world of metaphysical beliefs, since cognition doesn't depend on facts - it's much more about emotions, tribal associations, and the way that humans *want* the world to be, rather than how it *is.* ªº¬˚∆≤≥≤≥ Join the mailing list http://eepurl.com/gRUCZL​ ≤≥≤≥∆˚¬ºª ªº¬˚∆≤≥≤≥ Subscribe & Ring the bell to study the Secrets of the Universe ≤≥≤≥∆˚¬ºª EPISODE LINKS: Dr. French Twitter: https://twitter.com/chriscfrench Dr. French Lab Site: https://www.gold.ac.uk/apru/ Dr. French Articles on Anomalistic Psychology: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/chris-french PODCAST INFO: Blog: http://demystifyingscience.com/blog Apple Podcasts: https://apple.co/3uhn7J1 Spotify: https://spoti.fi/39IDJBD RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss Full episodes playlist: https://bit.ly/3sP1WgR Clips playlist: https://bit.ly/2OieYEG Donate: rb.gy/a7ueoz Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y SOCIAL: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/demystifysci - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/demystifyingscience - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/demystifysci/ We wrote and performed the music in this episode! Shilo Delay: https://soundcloud.com/laterisgone​ And everywhere else (Spotify, etc..) https://g.co/kgs/fc8WbA #Science #Power #Futurism --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/demystifying-science/support

In this episode of the Idea to Value podcast, we speak with renowned Science journalist David Robson, about his new book "The Intelligence Trap: Revolutionise your Thinking and Make Wiser Decisions". See the full article at https://wp.me/p6pllj-1zx #science #journalism #intelligence #trap #creativity We speak about what leads highly intelligent people to wrong conclusions, or why they sometimes stick with ideas when evidence suggests these are wrong. Topics covered in this episode: 00:01:15 - David's background in science Journalism, and his it led him to find examples of eminent scientists who believed in incorrect theories 00:03:15 - What is the intelligence trap? 00:05:30 - The need for checks and balances in thinking, even for highly intelligent people. 00:06:30 - Cognitive Miserliness and Motivated Reasoning 00:08:45 - The Dunning Kruger effect and Earned Dogmatism (Our self-perceptions of expertise mean we have gained the right to be closed-minded and to ignore other points of view) 00:10:00 - The curse of expertise 00:11:45 - How companies can suffer from the Intelligence Trap, when new ideas don't fit with what already exists in the firm 00:14:15 - How to perform a personal cognitive autopsy, and why it makes sense to speak to yourself in the third person 00:16:15 - If a leader shows humility, this can be contagious to others in your company 00:19:00 - How to speak with someone who isn't willing to change their mind, by appealing to a different identity of theirs Links mentioned in this episode: David Robson's website: https://davidrobson.me/ The Intelligence Trap book: https://amzn.to/3wZOXf0 David's Twitter: https://twitter.com/d_a_robson Bonus: This episode was made possible by our premium innovation and creativity training. Take your innovation and creativity capabilities to the next level by investing in yourself now, at https://www.ideatovalue.com/all-access-pass-insider-secrets/ * Subscribe on iTunes to the Idea to Value Podcast: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/idea-to-value-creativity-innovation/id1199964981?mt=2 * Subscribe on Spotify to the Idea to Value Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/4x1kANUSv7UJoCJ8GavUrN  * Subscribe on Stitcher to the Idea to Value Podcast: http://www.stitcher.com/s?fid=129437&refid=stpr * Subscribe on Google Podcasts to the Idea to Value Podcast: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9pZGVhdG92YWx1ZS5saWJzeW4uY29tL3Jzcw  Want to rapidly validate new ideas and innovative products and GROW your online business? These are the tools I actually use to run my online businesses (and you can too): * The best email management and campaigns system: ActiveCampaign (Free Trial) http://www.activecampaign.com/?_r=M17NLG2X  * Best value web hosting: BlueHost WordPress http://www.activecampaign.com/?_r=M17NLG2X  * Landing pages, Sales Pages and Lead collection: LeadPages (Free Trial) http://leadpages.pxf.io/c/1385771/390538/5673  * Sharing & List building: Sumo (Free) https://sumo.com/?src=partner_ideatovalue  * Payments, Shopping Cart, affiliate management and Upsell generator: ThriveCart https://improvides--checkout.thrivecart.com/thrivecart-standard-account/  * Video Webinars for sales: WebinarJam and Everwebinar ($1 Trial) https://nickskillicorn.krtra.com/t/lwIBaKzMP1oQ  * Membership for protecting content: Membermouse (Free Trial) http://affiliates.membermouse.com/idevaffiliate.php?id=735  * eLearning System for students: WP Courseware https://flyplugins.com/?fly=293  * Video Editing: Techsmith Camtasia http://techsmith.z6rjha.net/vvGPv  I have used all of the above products myself to build IdeatoValue and Improvides, which is why I can confidently recommend them. I may also receive affiliate payments for any business I bring to them using the links above. Copyright https://www.ideatovalue.com

On today's episode, we switch gears a bit to focus on the concept of motivated reasoning. It is a powerful influence in the way we search for and evaluate information.  We hope you enjoy! As always we would love to hear from you at anamythics@gmail.com. Some resources about topics mentioned in the podcast:A review of motivated reasoning in politics:Kraft, P. W., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2015). Why people “don't trust the evidence” motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 121-133.An article about the telescope:https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1997-04-02-9704020119-story.html

Are you making decisions using motivated reasoning? Fake news isn't meant to change minds; beliefs are hard to change. Fake news amplifies beliefs people already have. Social media fans the flames. Plus more ideas from Annie Duke. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

There is often inconsistency between what people believe and how they behave which motivates them to engage in actions that will help minimize feelings of discomfort. People attempt to relieve this tension in different ways, such as by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding new information, also known as Cognitive Distortions and Motivated Reasoning.

The seed article: - Coronavirus Responses Highlight How Humans Have Evolved to Dismiss Facts That Don’t Fit Their Worldview - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coronavirus-responses-highlight-how-humans-have-evolved-to-dismiss-facts-that-dont-fit-their-worldview/ Matt Taibbi and his book Hate Inc's 10 rules: 1. THERE ARE ONLY TWO IDEAS 2. THE TWO IDEAS ARE IN PERMANENT CONFLICT 3. HATE PEOPLE, NOT INSTITUTIONS 4. EVERYTHING IS SOMEONE ELSE’S FAULT 5. NOTHING IS EVERYONE’S FAULT 6. ROOT, DON’T THINK 7. NO SWITCHING TEAMS 8. THE OTHER SIDE IS LITERALLY HITLER 9. IN THE FIGHT AGAINST HITLER, EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED 10. FEEL SUPERIOR F. Scott Fitzgerald "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." Contact us at info@cloudstreaks.com

On today's show Chong and Dan use the COVID-19 situation as a springboard to talk about a very important concept in philosophy and psychology: motivated reasoning. What is it, when does it become a problem, what does the Bible say about it, and how can we combat it in our own lives? (Note: this episode was recorded before the protests that have occurred in the aftermath of George Floyd's killing in the United States. We refer to earlier protests against the coronavirus shelter-in-place orders.)Connect with usInstagram - https://www.instagram.com/ingoodfaithfm/Twitter - https://twitter.com/ingoodfaithfmEmail - ingoodfaithmail@gmail.comShow notesDefinition of motivated reasoning (1:34)Examples from our personal lives (7:41)Example from the church (13:24)Why is motivated reasoning bad? (20:40)Living by lies or not living in truthJustifies sinful behaviourWhat does the Bible say? (30:26)Our thinking became futile and our hearts became darkened (Romans 1:21)The heart is deceitful above all things (Jeremiah 17:9)To suit our own desires and satisfy our itching ears (2 Timothy 4:3)How can we combat motivated reasoning? (34:30)Awareness, humility, advice, empathy, pursuing truth (even when it’s uncomfortable)

Motivated reasoning is a circular information processing pattern where we notice and seek out evidence that confirms our beliefs and we rarely challenge the validity of that confirming evidence. On top of that we ignore or work hard to actively discredit information contradicting our belief. In motivated reasoning, we are stuck in a loop where we never learn or become more accurate in our thinking. This concept is from the book “Thinking in Bets” by Annie Duke, an American professional poker player, author, and decision strategist. She holds a World Series of Poker gold bracelet from 2004 and used to be the leading money winner among women in WSOP history. Our internet experience, especially on social media, encourages motivated reasoning (and it's not a good thing). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Dr. Michael Rota returns to The Pat Flynn Show to discuss the power (and snare!) of motivated reasoning, what role this played in the justification of slavery, and how it may continue to blind us morally to similar moral atrocities (or obligations) today.  Dr. Rota finishes with the hypothesis that our failure to adequately care for the poor may itself be the result of motivated reasoning. This was a challenging and fascinating conversation. Please enjoy! ... Dr. Michael Rota on Taking Pascal's Wager: https://www.chroniclesofstrength.com/should-you-take-pascals-wager/  The Pat Flynn Show If you enjoyed this episode, it would mean the world to me if you could subscribe to, and leave a review for, The Pat Flynn show on iTunes HERE or Stitcher HERE. Reading your reviews and hearing your feedback is what keeps me fired up to make The Pat Flynn Show happen. Thank you!

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

How did politics get so damn polarised? Jay Van Bavel joins Igor and Charles to discuss political polarisation, the partisan brain, the inexorable rise of superheroes in dark times, the misperceptions of polarisation levels, and how to reach out to other tribes. Igor highlights the partisanship-transcending benefits of a Watchmen-style alien invasion, Jay proposes the judicious use of ‘off-ramps’ when engaging with loved-ones from across the political divide, and Charles learns that even the abstract purity of Mathematics is not immune from the tentacles of partisanship when guns are involved. Welcome to Episode 18. Special Guest: Jay Van Bavel.

‘Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena?’ Does it, really?! Why do some people fall for pseudo-profound bullshit and others don’t? When we share fake news stories, is this because we're motivated to think they're real, or because we don't bother to think at all? And why do scientists fight tooth-and-nail over the mechanisms involved, such as “System I vs. System II”, “Fast vs. Slow” and other frameworks? Gordon Pennycook joins Igor and Charles to discuss the critical distinction between a liar and a bullshitter, the cognitive reflection test, the random Deepak Chopra quote generator, the Ig Nobel prize, motivated reasoning, climate change beliefs, academic turf wars among dual process theorists, and how to stop yourself from compulsively retweeting fake news. Igor suggests that Gord only thought of studying bullshit after disbelief at one of Igor’s early talks, Gord reminds us that even the most enlightened social media platforms are in no hurry to help people STOP sharing news, and Charles unexpectedly finds common ground with the Chinese government. Welcome to Episode 15. Special Guest: Gordon Pennycook.

NECSS Private Show with George Hrab and Hai Ting; News Items: Why We Yawn, Motivated Reasoning vs Lazy Thinking, Isreali Moon Probe; Questions from George; Science or Fiction

NECSS Private Show with George Hrab and Hai Ting; News Items: Why We Yawn, Motivated Reasoning vs Lazy Thinking, Isreali Moon Probe; Questions from George; Science or Fiction

In this podcast, Cody Gough and Ashley Hamer discuss the following stories to help you get smarter and learn something new in just a few minutes: Self-Control Isn't Always Good for You The Red Baron Was a Real Person Who Absolutely Tore It Up in Battle Motivated Reasoning Is Why You Can't Win an Argument Using Facts Inside Pseudoscience And Conspiracy Theories [Podcast] Plus, hear how and why we search for aliens using current methods, straight from special guest Seth Shostak. Seth Shostak is the Senior Astronomer at the SETI Institute in Mountain View, California, and the Director of the Institute's Center for SETI Research. More from Seth Shostak: Seth Shostak's Website Seth Shostak on Twitter @SethShostak Big Picture Science: The radio show and podcast of the SETI Institute, with Seth Shostak To learn more about motivated reasoning and how we think, read "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt.  Follow Curiosity Daily on your favorite podcast app to learn something new every day withCody Gough andAshley Hamer. Still curious? Get exclusive science shows, nature documentaries, and more real-life entertainment on discovery+! Go to https://discoveryplus.com/curiosity to start your 7-day free trial. discovery+ is currently only available for US subscribers. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Joseph Kahne for a conversation with fellow educators about his recent article, “Educating for Democracy in a Partisan Age: Confronting the Challenges of Motivated Reasoning and Misinformation,” co-authored by Benjamin Bowyer. Guests will discuss the study that informs the article, which investigated youth judgments of truth claims tied to controversial political issues, and media literacy strategies educators can use to improve judgments of accuracy. They are joined by the co-founders of Marginal Syllabus, Remi Kalir and Joe Dillon, for a discussion of the text, which is the featured article this month for Writing Our Civic Futures, which explores a range of scholarship on civic engagement and supports their web annotation at Educator Innovator.

Denis challenges us to give freely and have compassion, motivated by the Holy Spirit not our own thoughts and desires. 1 Corinthians 7:25-40

Bob discusses motivated reasoning, the use of critical thinking to answer moral questions, and related topics with guest Peter Ditto, Professor of Psychology and Social Behavior at U.C. Irvine.

Renowned skeptic Dr. Steven Novella, host of The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe and author of the NeuroLogica Blog, joins the Curiosity Podcast to explain how to tell the difference between reality and fantasy – and why it's sometimes hard to do so. He brings years of experience as a neuroscientist and researcher to take a look inside the minds of both skeptics and those who believe in pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Dr. Novella is an academic neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine. In addition to his work on The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcast, he is the president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society. His NeuroLogica science blog covers news and issues in neuroscience, but also general science, scientific skepticism, philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society. More from Curiosity: Start your one free month of The Great Courses Plus (Special for Curiosity Podcast listeners) Motivated Reasoning Is Why You Can't Win An Argument Using Facts This Airport Is The Unassuming Home To Countless Conspiracies Hey Sleepy Drivers, Don't Count On These Two Things To Keep You Awake More from Steven Novella: The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe New England Skeptical Society NeuroLogica blog Additional resources discussed: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion" The Skeptic Movement Why Is There a Skeptical Movement? Carl Sagan's Life and Legacy as Scientist, Teacher, and Skeptic Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing (Study) Bill Nye Had a Fixed View on GMOs. Then Something Happened.To learn more about this topic and many others check out Curiosity.com, download our 5-star iOS or Android app and join the conversation on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe on iTunes, Stitcher, SoundCloud, Google Play Music, and everywhere else podcasts are found so you don't miss an episode! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In which Ian breaks from the news to talk about how your brain processes political news. Freaky.

Dave and Tamler try their best to do a show without guests--we talk about moral persuasion, motivated reasoning, and whether it's legitimate to use emotionally charged rhetoric in a philosophical argument. Plus, we describe how students proceed through the "Stages-of-Singer," and Tamler finally defends himself against Dave's slanderous accusation of hypocrisy about animal welfare. LinksThomson, J. J. (1971). A defense of abortion.  Philosophy & Public Affairs,1, 47-66.Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral.  The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183-202.Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (4), 568.Ditto, P.H., Pizarro, D.A., & Tannenbaum, D. (2009). Motivated Moral Reasoning. In B. H. Ross (Series Ed.) & D. M. Bartels, C. W. Bauman, L. J. Skitka, & D. L. Medin (Eds.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 50: Moral Judgment and Decision Making. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Dawson, E., Gilovich, T., & Regan, D. T. (2002). Motivated Reasoning and Performance on the Wason Selection Task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1379-1387.Sam's House, an orphanage in Nepal [sams-house.org] The identifiable victim effect [wikipedia.org] Tamler's mediocre TEDx talk on Moral Persuasion [youtube.com]10 Classic South Park Impressions (including Sally Struthers) [youtube.com]*musical breaks in this episode stolen from DJ Premier and Jay Electronica. Please don't sue.