Podcast appearances and mentions of Stuart Ritchie

In this eye-opening conversation, I sit down with Stuart Ritchie, chartered tax advisor, estate planning expert, and author of Who Will Get My Money When I Die, to explore one of the most emotional and misunderstood aspects of later-life financial planning: inheritance tax. This episode isn't about doom and gloom, it's about taking control. Whether you're planning for your own legacy, thinking about your children's future, or simply want to make sure the government doesn't get more than its fair share, this is a must-listen. What You'll Learn Why inheritance tax is about more than just money, it's about clarity, fairness, and family harmony The critical role of wills and why DIY ones often cause more harm than good What lasting power of attorney actually does and why it's vital even if you're married How to avoid common traps when it comes to gifting, trusts, and tax bills Why talking to your family before you die might be the greatest gift you give them Key Topics Wills and the rules of intestacy: what really happens if you don't plan The psychology of leaving a legacy: control, conflict, and clarity Power of Attorney: the two types and the risks of not setting one up Blended families, second marriages, and planning with complexity in mind Lifetime gifting and the 7-year rule explained Life assurance, pensions, and the new inheritance tax reforms The emotional and practical costs of poor estate planning Resources & Mentions Stuart Ritchie's book: Who Will Get My Money When I Die? – available on Amazon Stuart's firm: www.ritchiephillips.co.uk The Economist & Kaiser Family Foundation study on end-of-life priorities UK Government: Rules of Intestacy Reflection Exercise "What do I want to happen to my money, my possessions, and my responsibilities after I'm gone?" Take 15 minutes today to reflect on this question. If you were to pass away tomorrow: Do you have a valid will in place? Have you named executors and powers of attorney you trust? Have you had conversations with those closest to you about your wishes? Do you know the potential tax implications of your estate? Clarity now brings peace later, for you and everyone you love. Stay Connected Want more thought-provoking conversations like this one? Subscribe to Humans vs Retirement on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts Visit humansvsretirement.com for tools, downloads, and insights Share this episode with someone who needs to hear it—you might just save them (and their family) from future chaos. Download for free my whitepaper - The Skill of Spending Money in Retirement Connect with me on LinkedIn for more insights and updates. Subscribe to my weekly newsletter - The Retirement Fix Leave us a ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ review if this episode helped shift your perspective! It really helps spread the word.  

Anxiety, dispair, loneliness, depression -- all we need is a social media recession! A popular thesis is that All The Bad Things things are on the rise among adolescents because of social media, a view popularized in Jon Haidt's 2024 book The Anxious Generation. Haidt is calling for an end of the "phone-based childhood" and hoping that schools banish all screens for the benefit of its students. But is it true than social media is causing this mental health crisis? Is it true that there even is a mental health crisis? We do a deep dive into Haidt's book to discuss the evidence. We discuss A weird citation trend in philosophy Whether there is a mental health crisis among teens Some inconsistencies in Haidt's data on mental health outcomes Correlation vs causation, and whether Haidt establishes causation Why on earth do the quality of these studies suck so much? Whether Haidt's conclusions are justified References The Anxious Generation (https://www.amazon.com/Anxious-Generation-Rewiring-Childhood-Epidemic/dp/0593655036) Jon Haidt's After Babel Substack (https://www.afterbabel.com/) After Babel's main post (https://www.afterbabel.com/p/social-media-mental-illness-epidemic) attempting to establish causation, and the response to critics (https://www.afterbabel.com/p/why-some-researchers-think-im-wrong). Collaborative review doc on adolescent mood disorders (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1diMvsMeRphUH7E6D1d_J7R6WbDdgnzFHDHPx9HXzR5o/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.rqnt07sjvlcd) Collaborative review doc on social media and mental health (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-olnkPyWcgF5BiAtBEy0/edit?tab=t.0) Matthew B Jane's criticism of Haidt's meta-analysis (https://matthewbjane.github.io/blog-posts/blog-post-6.html) Aaron Brown's criticism (https://reason.com/2023/03/29/the-statistically-flawed-evidence-that-social-media-is-causing-the-teen-mental-health-crisis/) Stuart Ritchie's criticism (https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/dont-panic-about-social-media-harming-your-childs-mental-health-the-evidence-is-weak-2230571) Peter Gray's criticism (https://petergray.substack.com/p/45-the-importance-of-critical-analyses) Datasets Unaggregated life satisfaction data for boys/girls ages 11/13/15 across 44 countries (https://data-browser.hbsc.org/measure/life-satisfaction/) Australia hospital admissions due to self harm (https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/data/intentional-self-harm-hospitalisations/intentional-self-harm-hospitalisations-by-age-sex) France hospital admissions due to self harm (https://drees.solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2024-05/ER1300EMB.pdf) Canada (https://yourhealthsystem.cihi.ca/hsp/inbrief?lang=en&_gl=1*rtyvsz*_gcl_au*MTA5ODMwMzc5MS4xNzM3NTAyMTk0*_ga*MTM0Njk4MTc4MS4xNzM3NTAyMTk0*_ga_44X3CK377B*MTczNzUwMjE5NC4xLjAuMTczNzUwMjIwNi4wLjAuMA..#!/indicators/083/self-harm-including-suicide/;mapC1;mapLevel2;sex(F);trend(C5001,C300);/) Ontario (https://www.cmaj.ca/content/195/36/E1210) # Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Become a patreon subscriber here (https://www.patreon.com/Increments). Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here (https://ko-fi.com/increments). Click dem like buttons on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ) No screen time for a month. If you send an email to incrementspodcast@gmail.com, we're taking away your iPad. Image credit: Is social media causing psychological harm to youth and young adults? (https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/social-media-causing-psychological-harm-youth-and-young).

For today's Classic Debate we're revisiting our 2018 debate "Parenting Doesn't Matter (Or Not As Much As You Think)". We were joined by Professor of Behavioural Genetics Robert Plomin, the Developmental Clinical Psychologist Susan Pawlby, therapist, parenting counsellor and broadcaster Ann Pleshette Murphy, and Stuart Ritchie, lecturer in social genetics and developmental psychiatry and author of Science Fictions. Hosting the debate was Doctor and broadcaster, Dr Xand van Tulleken. ------- If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full ad free conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events  ...  Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

1Spatial CEO, Claire Milverton and CFO, Stuart Ritchie present the group's results for the six-month period ended 31 July 2024. Claire Milverton, CEO 00:16 - Introduction 02:41 - H1 FY25 highlights 05:13 - Virginia & Georgia DOT wins Stuart Ritchie, CFO 07:41 - H1 FY25 Financial highlights 09:25 - Income statement 10:50 - Cashflow 12:43 - Regional revenue 14:21 - Recurring revenue growth 15:04 - Gross profit 15:37 - Business model evolution Claire Milverton, CEO 16:20 - Market opportunity 17:33 - NG9-1-1 20:55 - 1Streetworks 27:01 - Outlook 1Spatial plc is a global leader in providing Location Master Data Management (LMDM) software, solutions and business applications, primarily to the Government, Utilities and Transport sectors via the 1Spatial platform and SaaS offerings. Our solutions ensure data governance, facilitating the efficient, effective and sustainable operation of customers around the world. It allows them to master their data on any device, anywhere, anytime and can be deployed as SaaS in the cloud, on-premise, or as a hybrid of both. Our global clients include national mapping and land management agencies, utility companies, transportation organisations, government and defence departments. We have two SaaS offerings for which we see considerable potential - NG9-1-1 and 1Streetworks. 1Streetworks automates the production of traffic management plans, diversion routing and asset inventory lists in the UK, producing a comprehensive, site-specific traffic management plan in just a few minutes. Our Public Safety NG-9-1-1 solution combines a powerful rules engine and data aggregator with a self-service cloud platform to support public safety entities with their data readiness needs. 1Spatial plc is AIM-listed, headquartered in Cambridge, UK, with operations in the UK, Ireland, USA, France, Belgium, Tunisia, and Australia. www.1spatial.com

Tom Chivers is a journalist who writes a lot about science and applied statistics. We talk about his new book on Bayesian statistics, the biography of Thomas Bayes, the history of probability theory, how Bayes can help with the replication crisis, how Tom became a journalist, and much more.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith.Support the show: https://geni.us/bjks-patreonTimestamps0:00:00: Tom's book about Bayes & Bayesian statistics relates to many of my previous episodes and much of my own research0:03:12: A brief biography of Thomas Bayes (about whom very little is known)0:11:00: The history of probability theory 0:36:23: Bayesian songs0:43:17: Bayes & the replication crisis0:57:27: How Tom got into science journalism1:08:32: A book or paper more people should read1:10:05: Something Tom wishes he'd learnt sooner1:14:36: Advice for PhD students/postdocs/people in a transition periodPodcast linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-podTwitter: https://geni.us/bjks-pod-twtTom's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/chivers-webTwitter: https://geni.us/chivers-twtPodcast: https://geni.us/chivers-podBen's linksWebsite: https://geni.us/bjks-webGoogle Scholar: https://geni.us/bjks-scholarTwitter: https://geni.us/bjks-twtReferences and linksEpisode with Stuart Ritchie: https://geni.us/bjks-ritchieScott Alexander: https://www.astralcodexten.com/Bayes (1731). Divine benevolence, or an attempt to prove that the principal end of the divine providence and government is the happiness of his creatures. Being an answer to a pamphlet entitled Divine Rectitude or an inquiry concerning the moral perfections of the deity with a refutation of the notions therein advanced concerning beauty and order, the reason of punishment and the necessity of a state of trial antecedent to perfect happiness.Bayes (1763). An essay towards solving a problem in the doctrine of chances. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London.Bellhouse (2004). The Reverend Thomas Bayes, FRS: a biography to celebrate the tercentenary of his birth. Project Euclid.Bem (2011). Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of personality and social psychology.Chivers (2024). Everything is Predictable: How Bayesian Statistics Explain Our World.Chivers & Chivers (2021). How to read numbers: A guide to statistics in the news (and knowing when to trust them).Chivers (2019). The Rationalist's Guide to the Galaxy: Superintelligent AI and the Geeks Who Are Trying to Save Humanity's Future.Clarke [not Black, as Tom said] (2020). Piranesi.Goldacre (2009). Bad science.Goldacre (2014). Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients.Simmons, Nelson & Simonsohn (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science.

Lumina, the genetically modified anti-tooth-decay bacterium that I wrote about in December, is back in the news after lowering its price from $20,000 to $250 and getting endorsements from Yishan Wong, Cremieux, and Richard Hanania (as well as anti-endorsements from Saloni and Stuart Ritchie). A few points that have come up: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/updates-on-lumina-probiotic

1Spatial Non-Executive Chairman, Andrew Roberts, CEO, Claire Milverton, Andrew Fennel, Managing Director - Roads, and Stuart Ritchie, CFO introduce their 1Streetworks solution, outlining how it can be used to revolutionise complex streetworks planning and the potential addressable market. Andrew Roberts, Non-Executive Chairman 00:16 - Introduction Claire Milverton, CEO 02:00 - Agenda 02:53 - What is 1Streetworks? 04:19 - Overview of 1Spatial 05:30 - 1Streetworks & 1Integrate Andrew Fennel, Managing Director - Roads 06:32 - Market Drivers 08:56 - Critical infrastucture 10:17 - The Electricity market 11:40 - UKPN Connections Team Video 13:42 - Software Demonstration 22:54 - Case Study Paul Dooley, Streetworks Performance Manager, UK Power Networks 24:54 - Customer Use Case - UKPN Andrew Fennel, Managing Director - Roads 32:48 - Roll-out/Expansion within UK Power Networks Claire Milverton, CEO 35:53 - FY25 Ambitions 37:52 - FY25 Key priorities Stuart Ritchie, CFO 42:15 - Financial framework Claire Milverton, CEO 45:20 - Outlook 46:45 - Q&A 1Spatial plc is a global leader in providing Location Master Data Management (LMDM) software and solutions, primarily to the Government, Utilities and Transport sectors. Our global clients include national mapping and land management agencies, utility companies, transportation organisations, government and defence departments. Today - as location data from smartphones, the Internet of Things and great lakes of commercial Big Data increasingly drive commercial decision-making - our technology drives efficiency and provides organisations with confidence in the data they use. We unlock the value of location data by bringing together our people, innovative solutions, industry knowledge and our extensive customer base. We are striving to make the world more sustainable, safer and smarter for the future. We believe the answers to achieving these goals are held in data. Our 1Spatial Location Master Data Management (LMDM) platform incorporating our 1Integrate rules engine delivers powerful data solutions and focused business applications on-premise, on-mobile and in the cloud. This ensures data is current, complete, and consistent through the use of automated processes and always based on the highest quality information available. 1Spatial plc is AIM-listed, headquartered in Cambridge, UK, with operations in the UK, Ireland, USA, France, Belgium, Tunisia and Australia. For more information visit www.1spatial.com

Coach James Short of Leading and Growing Your Real Estate Business Podcast introduces our next guest, Stuart Ritchie. a seasoned real estate professional with extensive experience.

Presenter Marnie Chesterton and the team pit their wits against a multitude of mind-bending puzzles from an old TV gameshow - all in the name of answering a question from Antonia in Cyprus: how do we work out how clever someone is? Is IQ the best measure of cleverness? Why do we put such weight on academic performance? And where does emotional intelligence fit into it all? In the search for answers Marnie and the team are locked in rooms to battle mental, physical, mystery and skill-based challenges, all against the clock. Unpicking their efforts in the studio are a global team of cleverness researchers: Dr Stuart Ritchie from Kings College London, Prof Sophie von Stumm from York University and Dr Alex Burgoyne from Georgia Institute of Technology in the US. They are challenged to face the toughest questions in their field: Why do men and women tend to perform differently in these tests? Is our smartness in our genes? And what about the Flynn Effect – where IQs appear to have risen, decade after decade, around the world. Producer/presenter: Marnie Chesterton Editor: Richard Collings Production co-ordinator: Jonathan Harris (Photo Man doing puzzle. Credit: Getty Images)

1Spatial CEO, Claire Milverton and CFO, Stuart Ritchie present interim results for the six-month period ended 31 July 2023. The group delivered significant ARR and revenue growth. Claire Milverton, CEO 00:16 - Introduction 01:33 - Overview of 1Spatial 03:53 - HY24 Highlights Stuart Ritchie, CFO 05:13 - HY24 Financial highlights 06:40 - Income statement 07:59 - Cash flow 09:01 - Regional revenue 09:50 - Recuring revenue growth 11:09 - Business model evolution Claire Milverton, CEO 12:11 - Location data management business 14:35 - 1Streetworks 19:20 - NG9-1-1 20:59 - Summary & Outlook 1Spatial plc is a global leader in providing Location Master Data Management (LMDM) software, solutions and business applications, primarily to the Government, Utilities and Transport sectors via the 1Spatial platform. Our solutions ensure data governance, facilitating the efficient, effective and sustainable operation of customers around the world. Our global clients include national mapping and land management agencies, utility companies, transportation organisations, government and defence departments. Today, when using and sharing trusted data provides significant opportunities for businesses and governments to deliver against important sustainability and Net Zero goals, our vision is clear: to make the world safer, smarter and more sustainable by unlocking the value in data, enabling better decisions and greater insights. The 1Spatial platform is a comprehensive set of data and system agnostic LMDM software components which helps ensure master data is compliant, current, complete, consistent, and coordinated - and that customers can be confident it will remain that way as it evolves. It allows them to master their data on any device, anywhere, anytime and can be deployed as SaaS in the cloud, on-premise, or as a hybrid of both. 1Spatial plc is AIM-listed, headquartered in Cambridge, UK, with operations in the UK, Ireland, USA, France, Belgium, Tunisia and Australia. Website: www.1spatial.com

Ich denke seit ein paar Wochen über die Begriffe »Expertise« und »Wissen« nach. Wie stehen diese zueinander und in Bezug zu Prognostik. Dazu irritiert die übliche oder alltägliche Verwendung der Begriff »Expertise« beziehungsweise »Experte«. Regelmäßig werden in Medien Experten präsentiert oder von Politikern auf Experten verwiesen, die die Welt erklären und Prognosen komplexer Systeme mit großem Selbstvertrauen darlegen. Wenn dann aber regelmäßig von Experten oder Institutionen schwere Fehler in der Einschätzung gemacht werden, dann hat das negative Effekte für alle Menschen, für unser Vertrauen in Politik und in wesentliche Institutionen. Was ist die Aussage eines Experten wert? Was ist von Prognosen zu halten? Zum Einstieg werden einige Beispiele schwerwiegender Fehleinschätzungen von Experten über die Jahrzehnte diskutiert, und was noch schlimmer ist, Fehleinschätzungen aus denen offenbar systemisch nichts gelernt wurde: Es ist unmöglich die wachsende Weltbevölkerung zu ernähren (Paul Ehrlich, 1960er Jahre) Bevölkerungsexplosion oder -implosion (1960er Jahre bis heute)? Peak Oil (1980er bis 2000er Jahre) Eiszeit oder kochender Planet? Versagen der deutschen Energiewende Prognosen über den Ukraine Krieg Verschiedenste Wirtschaftsprognosen »Voraussagen der Euro-Dollar-Wechselkurse sind wertlos. Jedes Jahr im Dezember sagen internationale Banken die Wechselkurse für das Ende des folgenden Jahres vorher. Meistens liegt der tatsächliche Kurs außerhalb des gesamten Prognosebereichs.«, Gerd Gigerenzer Sind das alles nur Anekdoten, oder wurde die Qualität von Expertenprognosen systematisch untersucht?  »Der Durchschnittsexperte hatte bei vielen der von mir gestellten politischen und wirtschaftlichen Fragen kaum besser abgeschnitten als hätte er geraten […] «  »je berühmter ein Experte war umso schlechter war die Leistung«, Phil Tetlock Mit anderen Worten: je öfter sie den »Experten« im Fernsehen sehen, desto schlechter sind wahrscheinlich seine Prognosen. Was ist nun tatsächlich Expertise? Was ist Wissen? Versuchen wir eine Definition: »Expertise ist die Fähigkeit, Veränderungen in der Welt konsistent vorauszusagen oder herbeizuführen.« Schon in der Antike gab es unterschiedliche Begriffe für verschiedene Formen des Wissens: episteme (gr) oder scientia (lat) für Wissen um seines selbst Willen sowie techne (gr) oder ars (lat) für angewandtes Wissen; vielleicht vergleichbar damit, was ich Expertise nenne. Gibt es Kompetenz, Expertise ohne Tun? Welche Beispiele für Bereiche gibt es, in denen man von Expertise sprechen kann, welche, in denen keine Expertise in diesem Sinne möglich ist? Gibt es Expertise an der Universität? Dazu kommt die Frage des Vertrauens, wie in der letzten Episode betont wurde: »Vertrauen ist ein sozialer Prozess, und Expertise ist sozial bestimmt. [...] Du musst der Wissenschaft folgen heißt, du musst mit meinen Werturteilen übereinstimmen.[...] Eine Entscheidung kann niemals wissenschaftlich fundiert sein. […] « »Letztendlich ist die Definition eines Experten die eines Menschen, dessen Urteile man bereit ist, als das eigenen zu akzeptieren« Was fangen wir nun mit diesem Befund an? Was tun? Eine Zusammenfassung in vier Punkten: (1) Sind wir im Zeitalter der Post-Expertise angelangt? »In den meisten Teilen der Gesellschaft wird man ermutigt, sich auf Experten zu verlassen — wir alle tun das mehr als wir sollten«, Noam Chomsky (2) Das Tun nicht vergessen — Expertise lässt sich nicht virtualisieren »Ich glaube nicht, dass man ein guter Erfinder sein kann, wenn man nicht weiß, wie das Zeug gebaut wird, dass man designed«, Walter Isaacson über Elon Musk (3) Mit Unsicherheit leben lernen — die Herausforderung unserer Zeit »Die Menschen neigen dazu, Unsicherheit verstörend zu empfinden.«, Phil Tetlock (4) Evolution, oder: meine Arbeits-These zum Fortschritt  »Seed — Select — Amplify« Diese Episode ist eine Reflexion und ich freue mich wieder besonders über kritisches Feedback! »Dumme Menschen können Probleme verursachen, aber es braucht häufig geniale Menschen um eine wirkliche Katastrophe auszulösen«, Thomas Sowell Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 13: (Pseudo)wissenschaft? Welcher Aussage können wir trauen? Teil 1 Episode 14: (Pseudo)wissenschaft? Welcher Aussage können wir trauen? Teil 2 Episode 36: Energiewende und Kernkraft, ein Gespräch mit Anna Veronika Wendland Episode 42: Gesellschaftliche Verwundbarkeit, ein Blick hinter die Kulissen: Gespräch mit Herbert Saurugg Episode 59: Wissenschaft und Umwelt — Teil 1 Episode 60: Wissenschaft und Umwelt — Teil 2 Episode 62: Wirtschaft und Umwelt, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Hans-Werner Sinn Episode 73: Ökorealismus, ein Gespräch mit Björn Peters Episode 74: Apocalype Always Episode 76: Existentielle Risiken Fachliche Referenzen Leonard Nimoy, Ice Age 1979 Vorsicht, wer die Konjunktur prophezeit, Der Standard (8.2.2020) Spectator Inflation Prediction (17.8.2022) Stuart Ritchie, Michael Story, How the experts messed up on Covid, UnHerd (2020) Gerd Gigerenzer, Risiko – Wie man die richtigen Entscheidungen trifft, Pantheon (2020) Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework Daniel Yankelovich, Wicked Problems, Workable Solutions, Rowman & Littlefield (2014) Neil Gershenfield, Lex Fridman #380 Walter Isaacson, Lex Fridman #395 Nassim Taleb, What do I mean by Skin in the Game? My Own Version, Medium (2018) Scott Adams, Prediction and Forecast Thomas Sowell on “Social Justice Fallacies”, Uncommon Knowledge (2023)

It wouldn't be the first time a whistleblower has stunned the US Congress with an extraordinary revelation, but last week's hearings were truly stranger than fiction.Not one but three military witnesses testified about their experiences of UFOs, otherwise known as UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena).In this week's episode of The i Podcast we're joined by science writer, Stuart Ritchie, and senior reporter, Richard Holmes, as we explore the line between fact and fiction in these extraordinary testimonies.Former intelligence official David Grusch told Republican Representative Nancy Mace the federal government held the "non-human" biological remains of the pilots of a crashed craft and the allegations didn't end there.Mr Grusch said he is now in fear for his life for speaking openly about the discoveries, claiming the Pentagon has a secretive multi-decade programme to collect and piece together crashed UAPs.The Pentagon, meanwhile, disputes claims of a cover-up, having released footage of US Navy pilots chasing disc-like objects whizzing through the sky for the public to see in 2020.But Congress members from both sides of the aisle are now demanding more transparency to answer a long-standing question – are UFOs real? Listen back to the Covid Lab leak episode here: https://pod.link/1655186150/episode/da7369c27224520df0408adde7d63170Music featured is by Michael Kobrin and Lexin Music - licensed via Pixabay.Check out their music here:https://pixabay.com/music/modern-classical-the-introvert-michael-kobrin-10959/https://pixabay.com/users/lexin_music-28841948/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

It might sound like science fiction, but while unions worry about AI's risk to jobs, some experts are concerned about a more existential threat to humanity.In this week's episode of The i Podcast, host Molly Blackall is joined by i science writer, Stuart Ritchie, to look at why many have concerns about the rapid rise of artificial intelligence.This new technology could reinvent the economy freeing workers from menial tasks and boosting productivity. Yet on the flip side, millions of jobs are at risk due to it's widespread use.But job losses may turn out to be the least of our worries. Beyond the world of work there is an even greater threat – that to human life itself.And surprisingly, it's not just sideline sceptics issuing these warnings – some of the loudest voices are the very scientists and developers who created the technology.Sign up to Stuart's newsletter here: https://inews.co.uk/my-account?ico=signup_header Produced by Julia Webster. The executive producer is Albert Evans.Music featured is by Michael Kobrin and Lexin Music - licensed via Pixabay.Check out their music here:https://pixabay.com/music/modern-classical-the-introvert-michael-kobrin-10959/https://pixabay.com/users/lexin_music-28841948/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

1Spatial CEO, Claire Milverton & CFO, Stuart Ritchie, present Full Year results for the year ended 31 January 2023. Claire Milverton, CEO 00:16 - Introduction 00:56 - Overview of 1Spatial 03:41 - Transformational opportunities 05:46 - Market Leading platform 07:58 - FY23 Highlights Stuart Ritchie, CFO 09:33 - Introduction 10:22 - FY23 Financial highlights 14:01 - Reccuring revenue growth 17:17 - FY24 Goals Claire Milverton, CEO 17:40 - US market opportunity 22:34 - Partners 24:50 - SaaS Solutions 31:07 - Outlook 32:52 - Q&A 1Spatial plc is a global leader in providing Location Master Data Management ('LMDM') software and solutions, primarily to the Government, Utilities and Transport sectors. Global clients include national mapping and land management agencies, utility companies, transportation organisations, government and defence departments. Today - as location data from smartphones, the Internet of Things and great lakes of commercial Big Data increasingly drive commercial decision-making - our technology drives efficiency and provides organisations with confidence in the data they use. We unlock the value of location data by bringing together our people, innovative solutions, industry knowledge and our extensive customer base. We are striving to make the world more sustainable, safer and smarter for the future. We believe the answers to achieving these goals are held in data. Our 1Spatial Location Master Data Management (LMDM) platform incorporating our 1Integrate rules engine delivers powerful data solutions and focused business applications on-premise, on-mobile and in the cloud. This ensures data is current, complete, and consistent through the use of automated processes and always based on the highest quality information available. 1Spatial plc is AIM-listed, headquartered in Cambridge, UK, with operations in the UK, Ireland, USA, France, Belgium, Tunisia and Australia. For more information visit www.1spatial.com

Since Covid-19 emerged in the Chinese city of Wuhan three eventful years ago there have been two leading hypotheses on the virus's origin.The predominant theory suggests Covid-19 emerged through close contact between humans and animals in Wuhan's wet market. The second suggests it was the result of an accidental leak from a lab in the city of nine million people.Quickly dismissed by some as conspiracy theory fodder, the lab leak hypothesis took a back seat - attractive only to some curious scientists, or those with perhaps a heightened interest in science fiction or a disposition to believing in secret plots and cover-ups. Then in late February the US Department of Energy stated that its current belief was that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid, was most likely leaked from a lab in China, followed by a public statement of support for this theory from the FBI.Neither agency provided fresh evidence to support their shift in opinion. Many scientists point out there is no evidence that Covid leaked from a lab, and other US government agencies have said they believe a natural jump from animal to human is the more likely explanation.This week host Molly Blackall and Science Writer Stuart Ritchie delve into what the current science tells us about where Covid might actually have come from, with the help of guests Michael Worobey, an evolutionary biologist, and Jinghan Zeng, an expert on China and international relations.Could it be possible that the lab leak theory was too quickly dismissed in favour of the prevailing animal market consensus? And if so, what does it tell us about how we study viruses in labs?Read inews science expert Stuart Ritchie's article weighing up the arguments here: https://inews.co.uk/news/covid-lab-leak-theory-blindly-believing-dismissing-focus-evidence-2181006Professor Michael Worobey's research about the zoonotic theory is here:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm4454Produced by Julia Webster. The executive producer is Albert Evans and the assistant producer is Phoebe Fleming.Music featured is by Michael Kobrin and Lexin Music - licensed via Pixabay. Check out their music here:https://pixabay.com/music/modern-classical-the-introvert-michael-kobrin-10959/https://pixabay.com/users/lexin_music-28841948/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dave Rubin has always sought out a career in the spotlight, beginning with stand-up comedy and then becoming a pundit (of sorts) on shows like the Young Turks. From there he (in)famously came to present himself as one of those classical liberals forced to 'leave the left'. He was also one of the honorary members of the Intellectual Dark Web although it is fair to say he primarily served as a conduit rather than a primary contributor. So, where does he stand now? Is he the heterodox classical liberal and centrist he once claimed? Or is he a reactionary and conspiratorial hyper-partisan right-wing pundit? It's the second thing. It's obviously the second thing. Everyone knows.But could he be anything more than that? Does he fit the secular guru template beguiling us with pseudo-intellectual, polymathic and galaxy-brained takes? Or just a slightly more acceptable version of Alex Jones without the drinking problem?Well, in this episode we'll figure it out. To be honest, it's not very complicated. The riddle of Dave Rubin is not so much a deep rabbit hole as a minor depression in the ground. So... Enjoy?P.S. We also talk (probably for too long) about "discourse surfing" in relation to topics like the lab leak and why you shouldn't do it. Don't worry. There are bookmarks, so you can skip it if you want (though you shouldn't really, it's good).LinksCritical Profile of Dave Rubin by Ross Anderson at QuilletteGreta Thunberg Gets Caught by Rebel News & Her Response Is Bizarre | Direct Message | Rubin ReportDave Rubin | Club Random with Bill MaherFor 'Discourse Surfing' see Stuart Ritchie's article at inews. Stop blindly believing or dismissing the Covid lab-leak theory – focus on the evidenceThe Wall Street Journal article that reignited the Lab Leak conversationOur previous episode 'Calibrating the Gurometer'

Buy Dave's book here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/thestarlings/the-starlings-a-graphic-novel-escape-room?ref=cgyi59Today we answer the hard-hitting questions. How do you separate good science from bad? Which studies should you believe? And if vaccines are so safe, how come Jonas Salk still died??? Plus, Dave explains what a p-value is. (Answer: boring.) And Kellen inhales a lungful of secondhand smoke to prove a point.*TheBookPilePodcast@gmail.com*Kellen Erskine has appeared on Conan, Comedy Central, Jimmy Kimmel Live!, NBC's America's Got Talent, and the Amazon Original Series Inside Jokes. He has garnered over 100 million views with his clips on Dry Bar Comedy. In 2018 he was selected to perform on the “New Faces” showcase at the Just For Laughs Comedy Festival in Montreal, Quebec. Kellen was named one of TBS's Top Ten Comics to Watch in 2017. He currently tours the country www.KellenErskine.com*David Vance's videos have garnered over 1 billion views. He has written viral ads for companies like Squatty Potty, Chatbooks, and Lumē, and sketches for the comedy show Studio C. His work has received two Webby Awards, and appeared on Conan. He currently works as a writer on the sitcom Freelancers.

How can we make science more trustworthy? When scientists break into factions around a particular topic, whom should we trust, and why? Why did trust in science as an institution plummet drastically during COVID? What is the state of the evidence for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, or vitamin D against COVID? Why is controlling for variables so difficult? What evidence is there for how well IQ represents intelligence and predicts useful things about people's lives? There's the famous quip that "IQ tests only measure how well people do on IQ tests", but we also all seem to know that some people are smarter than others; so can't that disparity be captured in a single number, or even in a small set of numbers?Stuart Ritchie is a Lecturer at the Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London. He received his PhD in psychology from The University of Edinburgh in 2014. Since then, he's been researching human cognitive abilities like how our mental abilities age and how education can improve intelligence. His other interests are in the subject of Science Fictions: the problems with the scientific system and how we might fix them to improve the quality of research. Learn more about him at sciencefictions.org or follow him on Twitter at @StuartJRitchie.

How can we make science more trustworthy? When scientists break into factions around a particular topic, whom should we trust, and why? Why did trust in science as an institution plummet drastically during COVID? What is the state of the evidence for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, or vitamin D against COVID? Why is controlling for variables so difficult? What evidence is there for how well IQ represents intelligence and predicts useful things about people's lives? There's the famous quip that "IQ tests only measure how well people do on IQ tests", but we also all seem to know that some people are smarter than others; so can't that disparity be captured in a single number, or even in a small set of numbers?Stuart Ritchie is a Lecturer at the Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London. He received his PhD in psychology from The University of Edinburgh in 2014. Since then, he's been researching human cognitive abilities like how our mental abilities age and how education can improve intelligence. His other interests are in the subject of Science Fictions: the problems with the scientific system and how we might fix them to improve the quality of research. Learn more about him at sciencefictions.org or follow him on Twitter at @StuartJRitchie.

How can we make science more trustworthy? When scientists break into factions around a particular topic, whom should we trust, and why? Why did trust in science as an institution plummet drastically during COVID? What is the state of the evidence for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, or vitamin D against COVID? Why is controlling for variables so difficult? What evidence is there for how well IQ represents intelligence and predicts useful things about people's lives? There's the famous quip that "IQ tests only measure how well people do on IQ tests", but we also all seem to know that some people are smarter than others; so can't that disparity be captured in a single number, or even in a small set of numbers?Stuart Ritchie is a Lecturer at the Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King's College London. He received his PhD in psychology from The University of Edinburgh in 2014. Since then, he's been researching human cognitive abilities like how our mental abilities age and how education can improve intelligence. His other interests are in the subject of Science Fictions: the problems with the scientific system and how we might fix them to improve the quality of research. Learn more about him at sciencefictions.org or follow him on Twitter at @StuartJRitchie.[Read more]

This week: Stuart Ritchie asks how worried we should be about falling sperm counts (0:29). Mary Wakefield wants to end the term ‘making memories'. (9:00), and Toby Young shares his disastrous Airbnb experience (15:10). Produced and presented by Natasha Feroze.

In this episode, Xavier Bonilla has a dialogue with Stuart Ritchie about fraud, bias, and hype within the social sciences. They talk about “trust the science” and some of the challenges of science during the COVID-19 pandemic. The discuss how the scientific method work and some of the dynamics within the scientific publishing world. They talk about how certain campaigns can promote what does and does not get accepted into scholarly journals, the replication crisis, and various fads within psychology. They also talk about the challenges of priming studies, censorship in journals, the Wakefield MMR vaccine study, p-hacking, growth mindset, and many more topics. Stuart Ritchie is a psychologist and Lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience at King's College, London. His research interests are human intelligence and challenges within the social sciences. He is the author of Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. You can follow his substack. Twitter: @stuartjritchie This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit convergingdialogues.substack.com

In this episode I interview Stuart Ritchie: founder of Trek And Climb Fitness. Inside he shares some ideas around what got him into the world of coaching hikers, his ideas around training for the trail and shares a few great insights into preparing for your adventures. If you want to find Stuart online, you can find him through the links below: Instagram: @trekclimbfitness Website: https://www.trekandclimbfitness.com/  

I wrote an article on whether wine is fake. It's not here, it's at asteriskmag.com, the new rationalist / effective altruist magazine. Congratulations to my friend Clara for making it happen. Stories include: Modeling The End Of Monkeypox: I'm especially excited about this one. The top forecaster (of 7,000) in the 2021 Good Judgment competition explains his predictions for monkeypox. If you've ever rolled your eyes at a column by some overconfident pundit, this is maybe the most opposite-of-that thing ever published. Book Review - What We Owe The Future: You've read mine, this is Kelsey Piper's. Kelsey is always great, and this is a good window into the battle over the word “long-termism”. Making Sense Of Moral Change: Interview with historian Christopher Brown on the end of the slave trade. “There is a false dichotomy between sincere activism and self-interested activism. Abolitionists were quite sincerely horrified by slavery and motivated to end it, but their fight for abolition was not entirely altruistic.” How To Prevent The Next Pandemic: MIT professor Kevin Esvelt talks about applying the security mindset to bioterrorism. “At least 38,000 people can assemble an influenza virus from scratch. If people identify a new [pandemic] virus . . . then you just gave 30,000 people access to an agent that is of nuclear-equivalent lethality.” Rebuilding After The Replication Crisis: This is Stuart Ritchie, hopefully you all know him by now. “Fundamentally, how much more can we trust a study published in 2022 compared to one from 2012?” Why Isn't The Whole World Rich? Professor Dietrich Vollrath's introduction to growth economics. What caused the South Korean miracle, and why can't other countries copy it? Is Wine Fake? By me! How come some people say blinded experts can tell the country, subregion, and year of any wine just by tasting it, but other people say blinded experts get fooled by white wines dyed red? China's Silicon Future: Why does China have so much trouble building advanced microchips? How will the CHIPS act affect its broader economic rise? By Karson Elmgren.

Dr Stuart Ritchie is a psychologist and science communicator known for his research in human intelligence and an author. The influence of our genes on the outcomes we get in life has been long established and replicated in science. However the public response to this has been very unhappy, making Behavioural Genetics one of the most heated areas of research there is. Expect to learn why some people dislike behavioural genetics so much, what happened with the recent SSRI rug pull, whether Emotional Intelligence is an actual thing, how to be skeptical without becoming nihilistic, which psychological phenomenon were debunked during the replication crisis and much more... Sponsors: Get 83% discount & 3 months free from Surfshark VPN at https://surfshark.deals/MODERNWISDOM (use code MODERNWISDOM) Get 15% discount on Craftd London's jewellery at https://bit.ly/cdwisdom (use code MW15) Get 15% discount on all VERSO's products at https://ver.so/modernwisdom (use code: MW15) Extra Stuff: Buy Science Fictions - https://amzn.to/3y666Wl Follow Stuart on Twitter - https://twitter.com/stuartjritchie  Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/ 

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/universe-hopping-through-substack RandomTweet is a service that will show you exactly that - a randomly selected tweet from the whole history of Twitter. It describes itself as “a live demo that most people on twitter are not like you.” I feel the same way about Substack. Everyone I know reads a sample of the same set of Substacks - mine, Matt Yglesias', maybe Freddie de Boer's or Stuart Ritchie's. But then I use the Discover feature on the site itself and end up in a parallel universe. Still, I've been here more than a year now. Feels like I should get to know the local area, maybe meet some of the neighbors. This is me reviewing one Substack from every category. Usually it's the top one in the category, but sometimes it will be another if the top one is subscriber-gated or a runner-up happens to catch my eye. Starting with: Culture: House Inhabit   Ah, Culture. This is where you go to read about Shakespeare, post-modernism, arthouse films, and Chinese tapestries, right? This is maybe not that kind of culture: Saturday, just as I was finally logging off the internet after three tireless days spent tracking the Queen's passing with sad and incessant scrolling, Ray J exploded on IG live, fuming about Kris Jenner's latest PR stunt; a lie detector test conducted on The Late Late Show With James Corden, to prove she had no hand in leaking the infamous sex tape. The test, administered by a polygraph “expert” John Grogan, determined that Kris was in fact telling the truth.

We chatted with Professor Stuart Ritchie from Kings College London about the Queen's passing and the journal Nature Human Behaviour's plans to protect the world from harmful scientific findings. Follow Stuart on his substack or twitterRead about Nature Human Behaviour's new ethical guidelines here

Robin Dunbar has been hailed as one of the most insightful and creative evolutionary thinkers of our time, famed for his work on human networks and communities (he came up with the Dunbar number, the idea that humans can have no more than 150 meaningful relationships). Now he turns his attention to religion, the subject of his recent book, How Religion Evolved: And Why It Endures. Joining Robin in conversation on the podcast is Stuart Ritchie, Psychologist at King's College London, and author of Science Fictions. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We delve back into the archive to 2018, when we held a debate getting to the heart of nature vs nurture. How much do our parents influence the people that we eventually turn out to be? We were joined by Professor of Behavioural Genetics Robert Plomin, the Developmental Clinical Psychologist Susan Pawlby, therapist, parenting counsellor and broadcaster Ann Pleshette Murphy, and Stuart Ritchie, lecturer in social genetics and developmental psychiatry and author of Science Fictions. Hosting the debate was Doctor and broadcaster, Dr Xand van Tulleken. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of Unsupervised Learning Stuart Ritchie joins Razib., Ritchie is the author of Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth and Intelligence: All that Matters. Ritchie is also a lecturer at King's College London and the author of the new Substack Science Fictions. Razib and Ritchie first discuss why he has a Substack considering all the different projects he's already juggling, and what value he sees coming out of it (beyond the remunerative one). They also rewind the clock and discuss Ritchie's involvement in the replication crisis a decade ago, where he judges we are today in terms of the awareness of pitfalls in science and best practices, and the path forward. Razib also wonders how debunked findings like “implicit bias” still continue to percolate through the popular culture and policy forums despite scant scientific support for their validity. Eventually Razib and Ritchie pivot to his professional bread and butter, behavior genetics, and the social and scientific debates around its relevance and abuses. Razib wonders if the cultural chasm between behavior genetics and other genetics fields can ever be bridged, while Ritchie makes the case for his chosen field as an important human endeavor. Finally, they discuss the controversy around Kathryn Paige Harden's book The Genetic Lottery and his defense of her work at his Substack. 

Brain scanning experiments reveal how psilocybin works to relieve severe depression. Psilocybin is the psychedelic substance in 'magic mushrooms'. The psychoactive chemical is currently in clinical trials in the UK and US as a potential treatment for depression and other mental illnesses. Professor David Nutt of Imperial College London tells Roland about the research Also in the show, worrying findings about the increase in premature deaths because of air pollution in growing cities in tropical Africa and Asia. An international group of climatologists has found that the tropical storms which struck Mozambique, Malawi and Madagascar in early 2022 had been made more intense by human-induced climate change. And astronomer David Jewitt used the Hubble telescope to measure the largest known comet in the solar system - it's huge at about 120 kilometres across. The team at CrowdScience has spent years answering all sorts of listener questions, which must make them pretty smart, right? IN this week's episode, that assumption is rigorously tested as Marnie Chesterton and the team pit their wits against a multitude of mind-bending puzzles from an old TV game show - all in the name of answering a question from Antonia in Cyprus. She wants to know: how do we work out how clever someone is? Is IQ the best measure of cleverness? Why do we put such weight on academic performance? And where does emotional intelligence fit into it all? In the search for answers, presenter Marnie Chesterton and the team are locked in rooms to battle mental, physical, mystery, and skill-based challenges, all against the clock. Unpicking their efforts in the studio are a global team of cleverness researchers: Dr. Stuart Ritchie from Kings College London, Professor Sophie von Stumm from York University, and Dr. Alex Burgoyne, from the Georgia Institute of Technology in the US. They are challenged to face the toughest questions in their field: Why do men and women tend to perform differently in these tests? Is our smartness in our genes? And what about the Flynn effect – where IQs appear to have risen, decade after decade, around the world. (Image: Mexican Psilocybe Cubensis. An adult mushroom raining spores. Credit: Getty Images)

The team at CrowdScience have spent years answering all sorts of listener questions, which must make them pretty smart, right? IN this week's episode, that assumption is rigorously tested as Marnie Chesterton and the team pit their wits against a multitude of mindbending puzzles from an old TV gameshow - all in the name of answering a question from Antonia in Cyprus. She wants to know: how do we work out how clever someone is? Is IQ the best measure of cleverness? Why do we put such weight on academic performance? And where does emotional intelligence fit into it all? In the search for answers, presenter Marnie Chesterton and the team are locked in rooms to battle mental, physical, mystery and skill-based challenges, all against the clock. Unpicking their efforts in the studio are a global team of cleverness researchers: Dr Stuart Ritchie from Kings College London, Professor Sophie von Stumm from York University and Dr Alex Burgoyne, from Georgia Institute of Technology in the US. They are challenged to face the toughest questions in their field: Why do men and women tend to perform differently in these tests? Is our smartness in our genes? And what about the Flynn effect – where IQs appear to have risen, decade after decade, around the world. Produced by Marnie Chesterton on BBC World Service [Image: Man doing puzzle. Credit: Getty Images]

In our modern world, science is pegged as our guide to understanding what is true. But while the scientific method is the best way we have found to make sense of the world, scientists and scientific institutions have enormous shortcomings that have come to the fore in recent years.In this episode, we discuss Stuart Ritchie's book, Science Fictions. The book enumerates the different ways in which science can go wrong, the replication crisis, and what we may be able to do to get it back on track. To top it off, Hirad draws some outlandish conclusions that Trish vehemently disagrees with. Get the book on Amazon here.

"Science Fictions" author, Stuart Ritchie shares some of his favourites in reading, watching, listening, tasting and smelling.

https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/against-that-poverty-and-infant-eegs A recent paper claims to have found an Impact Of A Poverty Reduction Intervention On Infant Brain Activity. It's doing the rounds of the usual media sites, like Vox and the New York Times: The New York Times @nytimes Breaking News: Cash payments for low-income mothers increased brain function in babies, a study found, with potential implications for U.S. safety net policy. Cash Aid to Poor Mothers Increases Brain Activity in Babies, Study FindsThe research could have policy implications as President Biden pushes to revive his proposal to expand the child tax credit.nyti.ms January 24th 2022 3,348 Retweets13,165 Likes I was going to try to fact-check this, but a bunch of other people (see eg Philippe Lemoine, Stuart Ritchie) have beaten me to it. Still, right now all the fact-checking is scattered across a bunch of Twitter accounts, so I'll content myself with being the first person to summarize it all in a Substack post, and beg you to believe I would have come up with the same objections eventually. Before we start: why be suspicious of this paper? Hundreds of studies come out daily, we don't have enough time to nitpick all of them. Why this one? For me, it's because it's a shared environmental effect being measured by EEG at the intersection of poverty and cognition. Shared environmental effects on cognition are notoriously hard to find. Twin studies suggest they are rare. Some people have countered that perhaps the twin studies haven't measured poor enough people, and there's a lot of research being done to see what happens if you try to correct for that, but so far it's still controversial. All that research is being done by cognitive testing, which is a reasonable way to measure cognition. This study uses EEG instead. I'm skeptical of social science studies that use neuroimaging, and although EEG isn't exactly the same as neuroimaging like CT or MRI, it shares a similar issue: you have to figure out how to convert a multi-dimensional result (in this case, a squiggly line on a piece of paper) into a single number that you can do statistics to. This offers a lot of degrees of freedom, which researchers don't always use responsibly.

Studies using swabs from coronavirus patients seem to contradict earlier findings from cell cultures which showed Omicon replicated faster than earlier variants. As Benjamin Meyer from the centre for Vaccinology at the University of Geneva, explains there may be other reasons why omicron is spreading faster not just how quickly it reproduces. Predicting how the pandemic will develop is not possible, however predicting what individual mutations in the virus may develop and the impact they might have individually and collectively is getting closer, Cyrus Maher and Amalio Telenti of the biotech company Vir, have developed a way to model potential future viral mutations which they hope will now be used by many scientists worldwide looking to understand the virus. There are concerns that other viruses may be on the rise, bird flu in particular, which as Nicola Lewis of the Royal Veterinary College explains is now spreading to part of the world where it is not usually seen, and infecting other animals as well as birds. And we've news of a massive collection of nests – at the bottom of the sea, Deep sea Ecologist Autun Perser describes how he found them in Antarctica. Also, Are big heads smarter? We live in a world where bigger is often seen as better - and the size of someone's brain is no exception. But a listener in Nairobi wants to know, does size really matter when it comes to grey matter? CrowdScience presenter Marnie Chesterton is on a mission to find out if the physical attributes of our head and brain can tell us anything about what's going on inside. We certainly thought so in the past. In the 1800s, phrenology – determining someone's characteristics by their skull shape – was very fashionable and curator Malcolm MacCallum gives us a tour of the extensive phrenological collection of death masks and skulls in Edinburgh's anatomy museum. It's a 'science' that's now been completely debunked. Yet there's no escaping the fact that over our evolutionary history, human brain size has increased dramatically alongside our cognitive capabilities. But is it the whole story? Rick Potts, Director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian tells of the point in time when human brains expanded the most; a time when the climate was changing, resources were unreliable and the intelligence to be adaptable might mean the difference between life and death. Adaptability is also key to Professor Wendy Johnson's definition of intelligence, although she points out that IQ test, flawed as they are, are still the best predictor we have for intelligence… and that, yes, there is a weak correlation between having a larger head, and doing better at IQ tests. Why is that? We don't know, says Dr Stuart Ritchie from KCL. According to him, neuroscientists are only in the foothills of understanding how a physical difference in the brain might underpin a person's psychology. But researching this could offer valuable insights into how our amazing brains work. (Image: Getty Images)

We live in a world where bigger is often seen as better - and the size of someone's brain is no exception. But a listener in Nairobi wants to know, does size really matter when it comes to grey matter? CrowdScience presenter Marnie Chesterton is on a mission to find out if the physical attributes of our head and brain can tell us anything about what's going on inside. We certainly thought so in the past. In the 1800s, phrenology – determining someone's characteristics by their skull shape – was very fashionable and curator Malcolm MacCallum gives us a tour of the extensive phrenological collection of death masks and skulls in Edinburgh's anatomy museum. It's a 'science' that's now been completely debunked. Yet there's no escaping the fact that over our evolutionary history, human brain size has increased dramatically alongside our cognitive capabilities. But is it the whole story? Rick Potts, Director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian tells of the point in time when human brains expanded the most; a time when the climate was changing, resources were unreliable and the intelligence to be adaptable might mean the difference between life and death. Adaptability is also key to Professor Wendy Johnson's definition of intelligence, although she points out that IQ test, flawed as they are, are still the best predictor we have for intelligence… and that, yes, there is a weak correlation between having a larger head, and doing better at IQ tests. Why is that? We don't know, says Dr Stuart Ritchie from KCL. According to him, neuroscientists are only in the foothills of understanding how a physical difference in the brain might underpin a person's psychology. But researching this could offer valuable insights into how our amazing brains work. [Image: Brain being measured. Credit: Getty Images]

Stuart is a lecturer at the Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King's College London. He's been a researcher in human cognitive abilities, and his most recent book is 'Science Fictions', a popular science book that presents an insider's view on how fraud, bias, negligence and hype affect scientific research. In this episode he talks about being an overconfident frontman in a band in his teenage years, having a similar rhetorical style to Boris Johnson, the role science plays in public, and how scientists could use a little bit more ethics training. You can read a full transcript here: https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2022/01/05/stuart-ritchie-on-scepticism-and-the-role-and-reliability-of-science

With so much talk about stagflation, inflation, stock market bubbles, the Covid-19 pandemic and the supply chain crunch, investors have every right to feel jittery these days. And as central banks start preparing to withdraw their pandemic stimulus measures, now is the time to put your investment portfolio through a stress test to help protect your financial future. Taking steps to shield your portfolio from market forces should be done at least once a year, experts say.   While nobody can accurately predict when a crisis may happen, the best way to protect your investments is to globally diversify your portfolio across a spread of assets. This means not putting all your eggs in one basket and diversifying it across a range of assets, including commodities, government bonds, property and equities. The idea behind this is if one asset performs poorly, the others can offset this, experts say.   But what are the red flags and how do you position your portfolio to hedge against market threats? Host Felicity Glover is joined by Stuart Ritchie, director of wealth advice at AES International, who takes us through the steps of stress testing our investment portfolios.   Hosted by Felicity Glover Produced by Arthur Eddyson and Ayesha Khan

How not to do science, according to Stuart Ritchie; changing ideas of representation at the recent Narrating The Nation museums conference, and Jennifer Walshe takes on the Zuckeraverse.

Stuart Ritchie on the necessary work of the website, Retraction Watch, and the problem with "instinct" in scientific experiments. (Part 2)

Stuart Ritchie on "the replication crisis" and other malfunctions in how we are doing science.

In my episode on Stuart Ritchie's Intelligence: All that Matters I spoke about IQ and intelligence, after a long silence on this issue. In Hive Mind, we get a look at how IQ affects the fate of entire nations, rather than just the individuals living in them. Jones' argument rests on data showing that IQ correlates positively with patience, win-win thinking, productivity in teams, supporting "good" policies (i.e. those endorsed by experts), and saving more money. There is also data to indicate that richer countries tend to have higher average IQ, and some indications that causality goes from IQ to national wealth. The Flynn effect - a constant increase by the equivalent of 3 IQ points per year around the world throughout the 20th century - shows that IQ can be increased, but a more important question is whether that increase can be encouraged somehow. Jones also covers this ground, although it seems that we don't really know good answers to this. Nevertheless, that doesn't stop authors like David Didau in Making Kids Cleverer proposing that the purpose of school is to increase IQ so that children can benefit from the associated health, wealth, and other benefits. Overall, by combining economics and intelligence research, Hive Mind brings new perspectives to each of these domains. Enjoy the episode. ### RELATED EPISODES 111. Intelligence: All that Matters by Stuart Ritchie

As many as 43,000 PCR tests for people living in and around the South West of England could have been wrongly returned as negative recently, thanks to a seemingly unknown error, or errors, at a laboratory near Wolverhampton. For an extraordinarily long time the mistakes went undetected, and every day many hundreds of people who really had Covid, were told they hadn't. To discuss the numbers and difficulty in calculating the full tragic consequences of the events, Marnie Chesterton speaks to Dr Deepti Gordasani of Queen Mary, University of London, and Dr Kit Yates, of Bath University. How many people may have died as a result of this? BBC Inside Science's back-of-the-envelope suggests 500-1000 preventable deaths, and counting.. As accusations of fossil fuel lobbying begin to encircle the pre-negotiations of the COP26 negotiations, we heard last week of the sad death of Dutch climate scientist Geert Jan van Oldenborgh. Listeners to BBC Science programmes will recognise his work from earlier this year, as flash floods and heatwaves ravished Europe and North America, when he and his colleagues at the World Weather Attribution Initiative were able to say unambiguously that these events could only have happened because of anthropogenic climate change. Roland Pease looks at Geert Jan's work and legacy. And the latest of the Royal Society Book Prize finalists to speak to BBC Inside Science is Stuart Ritchie, a psychologist at Kings College London. His book explores the murkier corners of science as a process. Certainly the so-called replication crisis has dogged psychological sciences for several years, but in "Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth" Stuart outlines quite how deep some of the flaws in the modern experimental reporting and publishing model go, and in almost all fields. However, as he explains to Marnie, there may be ways of rescuing the great achievement of the scientific method by tweaking some of our peer-review norms. Presented by Marnie Chesterton Produced by Alex Mansfield Made in association with The Open University

This week we have an engaging interview with the scientist, author, and public science communicator Stuart Ritchie. Stuart wrote the excellent 'Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science' and is a prolific advocate fr better science and more nuanced public discourse. In this episode we start of by discussing Stuart's recently published review of Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying's new book 'A Hunter Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century'. Was Stuart a fan and is now an acolyte of Weinsteinian lineage theory? Tune in to find out. Also, for those who enjoy 'challenging conversations', robust discourse, and regularly shop in the marketplace of ideas, there is an extended discussion on whether we have been a little bit too kind on the government and public health institutions. Stuart uses facts and logic and attempts to DESTROY us, so come and get your well earned vicarious catharsis but be prepared for plenty of postmodern deflection. We've learned from the best. Links https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/sep/24/a-hunter-gatherers-guide-to-the-21st-century-review-sciencey-self-help (Stuart's Review of Bret & Heather's new book at the Guardian) https://www.sciencefictions.org/ (Website for Stuart's (Excellent) Book: Science Fictions) https://www.covidfaq.co/ (Anti-Virus: The Covid 19 FAQ Website) https://unherd.com/2020/10/how-the-experts-messed-up-on-covid/ ('How the Experts Messed up on Covid' at Unherd by Stuart & Michael Story) https://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/2021/03/how-covid-sceptics-were-duped-wonder-drug-ivermectin ('How Covid Skeptics were duped by the Wonderdrug Ivermectin' at New Statesman by Stuart) https://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1293012571511898112?s=20 (Chris' Tweet-thread Chapter by Chapter review of Stuart's Book (use the hashtags to find the rest)) https://twitter.com/thebirdmaniac/status/1440107670929768451?s=20 (Kevin Bird's Tweet with an extract from B&H's book) This Week's Sponsor Check out the sponsor of this week's episode, Ground News, and get the app at https://ground.news/gurus (ground.news/gurus). Support this podcast

In this episode, Christopher Snowdon, IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics, speaks to Stuart Ritchie, a Scottish psychologist and science communicator known for his research in human intelligence. He has served as a lecturer at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King's College London since the summer of 2018. They talk about the situation in Afghanistan, IQ and Covid and vaccine scepticism.   The Swift Half with Snowdon is a bi-weekly YouTube episode where Christopher speaks to a guest on a variety of topics. Catch-up on the full playlist here.    Support the IEA on Patreon, where we give you the opportunity to directly help us continue producing stimulating and educational online content, whilst subscribing to exclusive IEA perks, benefits and priority access to our content https://www.patreon.com/iealondon   FOLLOW US: TWITTER - https://twitter.com/iealondon INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/ieauk/ FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/ieauk WEBSITE - https://iea.org.uk/

Stuart Ritchie is Lecturer at King's College London, where he studies behavioural genetics in relation to personality and cognitive ability. In this conversation, we don't talk about any of that though but instead focus on his book Science Fictions, a book about how science goes wrong, and the topics covered therein.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.).Timestamps0:00:41: Trying to replicate Bem (2011) Feeling the future0:09:58: Wy write Science Fictions?0:17:24: How to (get people to) adopt open science practices?0:36:31: Stuart will pay you if you find errors in Science Fictions0:46:44: Should scientific journals have an automatic way for reporting errors?0:56:52: Gorecki, Boulez, and cultural references1:01:45: Scientific fraud: Stapel, Macchiarini, and Hwang1:31:05: Will many small steps improve science sufficiently or do we need a revolution?Podcast linksWebsite: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcastGuest's linksWebsite: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/stuart-ritchieBook website: https://www.sciencefictions.org/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=9TsCy3IAAAAJTwitter: https://twitter.com/stuartjritchieBen's linksWebsite: www.bjks.blog/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJ Twitter:  https://twitter.com/bjks_tweets   References and further linksBem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Leung, A. K. Y., Kim, S., Polman, E., Ong, L. S., Qiu, L., Goncalo, J. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2012). Embodied metaphors and creative “acts”. Psychological Science.Nosek, B. A., Beck, E. D., Campbell, L., Flake, J. K., Hardwicke, T. E., Mellor, D. T., ... & Vazire, S. (2019). Preregistration is hard, and worthwhile. Trends in cognitive sciences.Quintana, D. S. (2020). A synthetic dataset primer for the biobehavioural sciences to promote reproducibility and hypothesis generation. Elife.Ritchie, S. J., Wiseman, R., & French, C. C. (2012). Failing the future: Three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem's ‘Retroactive Facilitation of Recall' Effect. PloS One.Ritchie, S. (2020). Science fictions: How fraud, bias, negligence, and hype undermine the search for truth. Metropolitan Books.The Halloween challenge at Goldsmiths I helped out with: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/oct/31/halloween-challenge-psychics-scientific-trialStuart will pay you if you find errors in Science Fictions:  https://www.sciencefictions.org/corrections Pierre Boulez's notation for piano: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD2SwVZBI80

In this episode of The Pin Factory, the ASI's Matthew Lesh is joined by Daniel Pryor, Head of Programmes at the Adam Smith Institute and King's College London's Dr. Stuart Ritchie.   They discuss reopening and risk posed by the Indian variant, vaccine patents and the use of science during the Covid pandemic.   Guests:   Matthew Lesh (Head of Research, Adam Smith Institute) Daniel Pryor (Head of Programmes, Adam Smith Institute)   Dr. Stuart Ritchie (Lecturer, King's College London) (Recorded Wednesday May 19th 2021)

Let's set things straight - intelligence isn't really *all* that matters. The editor seems to have forced a provocative title that even the author doesn't agree with. But intelligence does really matter, and the evidence on this point is overwhelming. Early on in my study of education, I was enamoured with Carol Dweck's Mindset research, and in all of my growth mindset zeal I couldn't bear to even consider that people might differ in some apparently "fixed" way. However, with time I have had the courage to face this issue; or, more realistically, it has beseiged me enough that I have had to give in. Intelligence is real, it varies from person to person, and it has a large heritable component. Research on intelligence has continued for well over 100 years, and it has several findings which are very well supported by evidence. The most important finding is the positive manifold, which states that all mental capacities - from vocabulary size to social intelligence to mental rotation to reaction time - are positively correlated with one another. The standard way of explaining this is that they all share a reliance on some general intelligence, or g-factor, in common. IQ tests aim to measure the g-factor. Another finding is that almost all of the things that one could wish for in a life well-lived also correlate with IQ: health, grades, earnings, and a successful marriage, to name a few. IQ also predicts patience, willingness to cooperate, win-win thinking, and generally being a good citizen. (For many of these, causation has also been shown.) IQ does not merely concern how well you can do a paper-and-pencil test, as many would argue. Due to the positive manifold, it basically concerns everything, which is an only slightly hyperbolic way of putting it. Intelligence: All That Matters serves as an introduction to intelligence and IQ research, a subject I would like to get into more on the podcast with time. I hope the general topic of IQ research will open your mind as much as it has mine. Enjoy the episode.

Episode Notes Every day, we hear about new scientific studies. Whether it's about how to lose weight, or about vaccines, or the newest pop psychology trend. But how many of these studies actually meet scientific standards? Stuart Ritchie is a psychologist, science communicator, and the author of Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. Chris talks to Stuart about the pros and cons of placebo effects, how to spot bad science, and some very solutions for the scientific community. Follow Stuart on Twitter @StuartJRitchie Get a Copy of Science Fictions here For the interview transcript visit www.TheRewiredSoul.com/interviews Follow @TheRewiredSoul on Twitter and Instagram Support The Rewired Soul: Get books by Chris Support on Patreon Try BetterHelp Online Therapy (affiliate) Donate

King's College London psychology lecturer Stuart Ritchie is on a mission to take on prominent Covid deniers, "lockdown sceptics", and influencers and celebs who spout anti-scientific guff. His Anti-Virus website issues clear point by point takedowns of their claims and misconceptions, providing links to relevant research to stop people being misled by spurious claims. Ritchie is also the author of Science Fictions, a book about the shortcomings of scientific research.

Stuart Ritchie is author of Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Fiskar i haven blir förvirrade när vattnet försuras under klimatförändringen det var larmrubriker från forskningen för tio år sen. Men när experimenten görs om beter sig fisken normalt. Studien om förvirrade fiskar har försökt replikeras av forskare på SLU, men de har inte kunnat få samma resultat - något som lett till en kontrovers på området. Forskningsresultat som inte kan upprepas av andra är ett problem inom många vetenskapliga områden. Men det finns också exempel på forskningsresultat som helt enkelt inte tål granskning. Som att det skulle finnas specifika gener som gör oss riskbenägna, eller till och med våldsamma. Det sa vetenskapen för några år sen, men nu vet vi att det inte är så.   Om man inte är strikt objektiv i sina undersökningar är det lätt hänt att man som forskare hittar just det som man hoppas hitta. Men vad kan man göra åt saken? Större öppenhet och transparens är ett av recepten för att behålla vetenskapens trovärdighet, säger flera forskare. * Programmet har fått en rättelse för att särskilja svårigheten att replikera studien på de förvirrade fiskarna - från granskningen av forskningen på kandidatgener, som visat sig inte stämma. Vad gäller beteendeförändring av fiskar vid försurat hav, pågår fortfarande diskussionen. I programmet hörs: Josefin Sundin, forskare SLU Aqua Lovön, Gustav Nilsonne, forskare kognitiv neurologi Karolinska Institutet Stockholm, Anna Dreber, professor nationalekonomi Handelshögskolan Stockholm, Parick Sullivan, professor genetik Karolinska Institutet Stockholm och University of North Carolina, Stuart Ritchie, psykolog King's College London. Reporter Tomas Lindblad Producent Peter Normark peter.normark@sverigesradio.se

Fiskar i haven blir förvirrade när vattnet försuras under klimatförändringen det var larmrubriker från forskningen för tio år sen. Men när experimenten görs om beter sig fisken helt normalt. Studien om förvirrade fiskar är ett exempel på forskning som inte håller för granskning och det finns fler. Som att det finns specifika gener som gör oss riskbenägna eller till och med våldsamma. Det sa vetenskapen för några år sen, men nu vet vi att det inte är så. Forskning kan ha fel och det är inte alls ovanligt. Om man inte är strikt objektiv i sina undersökningar är det lätt hänt att man som forskare hittar just det som man hoppas hitta. Men vad kan man göra åt saken? Större öppenhet och transparens är ett av recepten för att behålla vetenskapens trovärdighet, säger flera forskare. I programmet hörs: Josefin Sundin, forskare SLU Aqua Lovön, Gustav Nilsonne, forskare kognitiv neurologi Karolinska Institutet Stockholm, Anna Dreber, professor nationalekonomi Handelshögskolan Stockholm, Parick Sullivan, professor genetik Karolinska Institutet Stockholm och University of North Carolina, Stuart Ritchie, psykolog King's College London. Reporter Tomas Lindblad Producent Peter Normark peter.normark@sverigesradio.se

In this video I will talk about the Science Fictions: The Epidemic of Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science book by Stuart Ritchie. This was a book on the problem in scientific publishing, how it corrupted the whole scientific literature and what can we do about it. I also explore the academic world, how a paper gets published, and what are the scientific values. Twitter: https://twitter.com/AttilaonthWorld YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCADpTO2CJBS7HNudJu9-nvg Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/user/show/124834970-attila

How will the UK's economy recover from Covid-19, and what has the pandemic revealed about the West? (01:20) Was 2020 the year we dealt a mortal blow to future viruses? (15:05) And finally, what makes Mary Gaitskill a brilliant writer, and why does Elif Shafak work to heavy metal music? (29:25)With The Spectator's political editor James Forsyth, deputy political editor Katy Balls, writer and biologist Matt Ridley, behavioural psychologist Dr Stuart Ritchie, The Spectator's literary editor Sam Leith and writer Elif Shafak.Presented by Lara Prendergast. Produced by Max Jeffery and Sam Russell.

How will the UK's economy recover from Covid-19, and what has the pandemic revealed about the West? (01:20) Was 2020 the year we dealt a mortal blow to future viruses? (15:05) And finally, what makes Mary Gaitskill a brilliant writer, and why does Elif Shafak work to heavy metal music? (29:25) With The Spectator's political editor James Forsyth, deputy political editor Katy Balls, writer and biologist Matt Ridley, behavioural psychologist Dr Stuart Ritchie, The Spectator's literary editor Sam Leith and writer Elif Shafak. Presented by Lara Prendergast.  Produced by Max Jeffery and Sam Russell.

Andrew Neil is joined by Sir Ivan Rogers, the UK's permanent representative to the EU between 2013 and 2017; Dr Stuart Ritchie, a behavioural scientist at Kings College London; and a team of Spectator journalists. On this week's episode, we discuss how the government plans to pay for coronavirus; whether you can persuade vaccine sceptics; and if a Brexit deal is on the horizon. To watch the show, go to https://www.spectator.co.uk/tv.

Stuart Ritchie (@StuartJRitchie) is a lecturer in the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King’s College London and author of Intelligence: All That Matters and Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. What We Discuss with Stuart Ritchie: Why good, meaningful science too often gets pushed aside by the hype around bad science that makes for sensational headlines. How and why incentives in science are often skewed and lead to bad science — and even outright fraud. What happens when good scientists are hoodwinked by bad science and vouch for it as gospel because its pedigree seems legit. How can you spot bad science before you adapt your lifestyle to correspond to its dodgy, worthless, or perhaps even dangerous advice? What is the Open Science movement, and how might it help us reform these problems in research going forward? And much more… Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/436 Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course! Like this show? Please leave us a review here — even one sentence helps! Consider including your Twitter handle so we can thank you personally!

This week Robin is joined by psychologist Dr Stuart Ritchie to talk about his latest book Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science. They talk about how we can better communicate the process of science and be aware of any bias within it, what scientists themselves can do better when it comes to publicising their findings and how we need to be better and quickly calling out bad science. Extended conversation, and lots of other goodies, for Patreon supporters. Sign up at patreon.com/bookshambles

This week Robin is joined by psychologist Dr Stuart Ritchie to talk about his latest book Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science. They talk about how we can better communicate the process of science and be aware of any bias within it, what scientists themselves can do better when it comes to publicising their findings and how we need to be better and quickly calling out bad science. Extended conversation, and lots of other goodies, for Patreon supporters. Sign up at patreon.com/cosmicshambles

Stuart is the author of Intelligence: All that Matters (2015): https://www.hachette.co.uk/titles/stuart-ritchie/intelligence-all-that-matters/9781444791808/ and Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science (2020): https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/111/1117290/science-fictions/9781847925657.html You can find some of his academic publications listed here: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/people/stuart-ritchie Follow Stuart on Twitter: @StuartJRitchie Further References Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class (2020) My article on circumcision can be found here: https://areomagazine.com/2019/09/24/a-wrong-against-boys-an-impossible-conversation-about-circumcision/ Brian Deer, The Doctor Who Fooled the World: Andrew Wakefield’s War on Vaccines (2020) David Robert Grimes, The Irrational Ape: Why Flawed Logic Puts Us All at Risk and How Critical Thinking Can Save the World (2019) Matthew Walker, Why We Sleep: The New Science of Sleep and Dreams (2018) Alexey Guzey, “Matthew Walker's "Why We Sleep" Is Riddled with Scientific and Factual Errors”: https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ (2019) Andrew Gelman’s scientific blog can be found here: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/ Timestamps 2:09 Fraudster Paolo Macciarini and his tracheotomies 11:26 Bias towards positive results in scientific publications 15:56 Stuart and his colleagues’ failed attempt to replicate a startling psychology finding 20:03 P-values, p-hacking and the disgrace of Brian Wansink 39:17 Reproducibility failures 42:54 The relationship between power and effect size: Amy Cuddy & power posing; neuroscience; candidate genes; ethical questions in cancer research 01:00:55 Scientists’ own hype when they present their work; the scientific publication system; Andrew Wakefield 01:09:22 How has Stuart managed to avoid becoming disillusioned with all of science & with experts? 01:14:26 How has writing this book affected Stuart’s own practice as a scientist? The Mertonian principles. 01:19:51 How can laypeople do better at critically assessing a scientific finding? 01:24:20 Matthew Walker and his Why We Sleep book.

Daily we are bombarded with one scientific finding after another. How often have you quoted this or that finding to a friend and suggested that a change of behavior might be in order as a result? Stuart Ritchie, author of ‘Science Fictions' suggests that you may want to curb your enthusiasm to insure that the … Continue reading EP 387 Can You Believe in the Scientific Breakthroughs You Read About?

In this episode we chat to Stuart Ritchie author of Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science! We return to the roots of our podcast and explore the flaws in science and what actions can be taken to make it better. Stuart is a lecturer at King's College London within the Social, Genetic & Developmental Psychiatry Centre with interests in meta-science.  The interview starts around the 11 minute mark.  @StuartRitchie Science Fictions Book  

Razib talks to Stuart Ritchie about his new book, Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1250222699/geneexpressio-20

Science is how we understand the world. Yet failures in peer review and mistakes in statistics have rendered a shocking number of scientific studies useless — or, worse, badly misleading. Such errors have distorted our knowledge in fields as wide-ranging as medicine, physics, nutrition, education, genetics, economics, and the search for extraterrestrial life. As Science Fictions makes clear, the current system of research funding and publication not only fails to safeguard us from blunders but actively encourages bad science — with sometimes deadly consequences. Yet Science Fictions is far from a counsel of despair. Rather, it’s a defense of the scientific method against the pressures and perverse incentives that lead scientists to bend the rules. By illustrating the many ways that scientists go wrong, Ritchie gives us the knowledge we need to spot dubious research and points the way to reforms that could make science trustworthy once again. Shermer and Ritchie also discuss: why we need to get science right because science deniers will pounce on such fraud, bias, negligence, and hype in science, Daryl Bem’s ESP research and what was wrong with it, “psychological priming” and the problem of replication, sleep research and the problems in Matthew Walker’s book Why We Sleep, Amy Cuddy and the problem with “Power Posture” research, Andrew Wakefield and the biggest fraud in the history of science linking vaccines & autism, diet and nutrition research and the complication of linking saturated fats, unsaturated fats, cholesterol, and heart disease, Phil Zimbardo‘s Stanford Prison Experiment, Samuel Morton’s skulls showing racial differences in head size, Steve Gould’s critique, the critique of Gould, and the critique of the critics of Gould, self-plagiarism, p values / p hacking the Schizophrenia/amaloid cascade hypothesis and why it has been hard to prove, the file-drawer problem, how to detect fraud, and Terror Management Theory and why it is almost certainly wrong. Stuart Ritchie is a lecturer in the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King’s College London. His main research focus is human intelligence: how it relates to the brain, how much it’s affected by genetics, and how much it can be improved by factors such as education. He is a noted supporter of the Open Science movement, and has worked on tools to reform scientific practice and help scientists become more transparent when reporting their results.

Today’s guest is Stuart Ritchie, psychologist and author of Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. Science is how we understand the world. Yet failures in peer review and mistakes in statistics have rendered a shocking number of scientific studies useless – or, worse, badly misleading. Such errors have distorted our knowledge in fields as wide-ranging as medicine, physics, nutrition, education, genetics, economics, and the search for extraterrestrial life. As Science Fictions makes clear, the current system of research funding and publication not only fails to safeguard us from blunders but actively encourages bad science – with sometimes deadly consequences. Stuart Ritchie’s own work challenging an infamous psychology experiment helped spark what is now widely known as the “replication crisis,” the realization that supposed scientific truths are often just plain wrong. Now, he reveals the very human biases, misunderstandings, and deceptions that undermine the scientific endeavor: from contamination in science labs to the secret vaults of failed studies that nobody gets to see; from outright cheating with fake data to the more common, but still ruinous, temptation to exaggerate mediocre results for a shot at scientific fame. Yet Science Fictions is far from a counsel of despair. Rather, it’s a defense of the scientific method against the pressures and perverse incentives that lead scientists to bend the rules. By illustrating the many ways that scientists go wrong, Ritchie gives us the knowledge we need to spot dubious research and points the way to reforms that could make science trustworthy once again.

We talk to Scottish psychologist Stuart Ritchie about his new book Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/inquiringminds See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As the world desperately searches for a Covid-19 vaccine, Dr Stuart Ritchie claims the scientific machine is dangerous and broken. Horror stories of negligence are no less troubling than the more widespread misinformation and self-delusion that results from the way scientific research is funded reviewed and published. It is time, he says for some serious soul searching in the scientific community. Hosted by Rachel Schofield. Go deeper into Dr Stuart's OMI, get his book HERE

Today's guest is Stuart Ritchie, psychologist and author of Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth. Science is how we understand the world. Yet failures in peer review and mistakes in statistics have rendered a shocking number of scientific studies useless – or, worse, badly misleading. Such errors have distorted our knowledge in fields as wide-ranging as medicine, physics, nutrition, education, genetics, economics, and the search for extraterrestrial life. As Science Fictions makes clear, the current system of research funding and publication not only fails to safeguard us from blunders but actively encourages bad science – with sometimes deadly consequences. Stuart Ritchie’s own work challenging an infamous psychology experiment helped spark what is now widely known as the “replication crisis,” the realization that supposed scientific truths are often just plain wrong. Now, he reveals the very human biases, misunderstandings, and deceptions that undermine the scientific endeavor: from contamination in science labs to the secret vaults of failed studies that nobody gets to see; from outright cheating with fake data to the more common, but still ruinous, temptation to exaggerate mediocre results for a shot at scientific fame. Yet Science Fictions is far from a counsel of despair. Rather, it’s a defense of the scientific method against the pressures and perverse incentives that lead scientists to bend the rules. By illustrating the many ways that scientists go wrong, Ritchie gives us the knowledge we need to spot dubious research and points the way to reforms that could make science trustworthy once again.

So much relies on science. But what if science itself can’t be relied on? In Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype in Science (Penguin Books, 2020), Stuart Ritchie, a professor of psychology at King’s College London, lucidly explains how science works, and exposes the systemic issues that prevent the scientific enterprise from living up to its truth-seeking ideals. While the scientific method will always be our best way of knowing about the world, the current system of funding and publishing incentivizes bad behavior on the part of scientists. As a result, many widely accepted and highly influential theories and claims—priming, sleep and nutrition, genes and the microbiome, and a host of drugs, allergies, and therapies—are based on unreliable, exaggerated and even fraudulent papers. Bad incentives in science have influenced everything from austerity economics to the anti-vaccination movement, and occasionally count the cost of them in human lives. Stuart Ritchie has been at the vanguard of a movement within science aimed at exposing and fixing these problems. In this New Books Network conversation, we speak specifically about how even the most well-meaning and truth-seeking scientists can unwittingly introduce bias into their analyses. We discuss ways that scientists’ training is inadequate. Matthew Jordan is a professor at McMaster University, where he teaches courses on AI and the history of science. You can follow him on Twitter @mattyj612 or his website matthewleejordan.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So much relies on science. But what if science itself can’t be relied on? In Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype in Science (Penguin Books, 2020), Stuart Ritchie, a professor of psychology at King’s College London, lucidly explains how science works, and exposes the systemic issues that prevent the scientific enterprise from living up to its truth-seeking ideals. While the scientific method will always be our best way of knowing about the world, the current system of funding and publishing incentivizes bad behavior on the part of scientists. As a result, many widely accepted and highly influential theories and claims—priming, sleep and nutrition, genes and the microbiome, and a host of drugs, allergies, and therapies—are based on unreliable, exaggerated and even fraudulent papers. Bad incentives in science have influenced everything from austerity economics to the anti-vaccination movement, and occasionally count the cost of them in human lives. Stuart Ritchie has been at the vanguard of a movement within science aimed at exposing and fixing these problems. In this New Books Network conversation, we speak specifically about how even the most well-meaning and truth-seeking scientists can unwittingly introduce bias into their analyses. We discuss ways that scientists’ training is inadequate. Matthew Jordan is a professor at McMaster University, where he teaches courses on AI and the history of science. You can follow him on Twitter @mattyj612 or his website matthewleejordan.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So much relies on science. But what if science itself can’t be relied on? In Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype in Science (Penguin Books, 2020), Stuart Ritchie, a professor of psychology at King’s College London, lucidly explains how science works, and exposes the systemic issues that prevent the scientific enterprise from living up to its truth-seeking ideals. While the scientific method will always be our best way of knowing about the world, the current system of funding and publishing incentivizes bad behavior on the part of scientists. As a result, many widely accepted and highly influential theories and claims—priming, sleep and nutrition, genes and the microbiome, and a host of drugs, allergies, and therapies—are based on unreliable, exaggerated and even fraudulent papers. Bad incentives in science have influenced everything from austerity economics to the anti-vaccination movement, and occasionally count the cost of them in human lives. Stuart Ritchie has been at the vanguard of a movement within science aimed at exposing and fixing these problems. In this New Books Network conversation, we speak specifically about how even the most well-meaning and truth-seeking scientists can unwittingly introduce bias into their analyses. We discuss ways that scientists’ training is inadequate. Matthew Jordan is a professor at McMaster University, where he teaches courses on AI and the history of science. You can follow him on Twitter @mattyj612 or his website matthewleejordan.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So much relies on science. But what if science itself can’t be relied on? In Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype in Science (Penguin Books, 2020), Stuart Ritchie, a professor of psychology at King’s College London, lucidly explains how science works, and exposes the systemic issues that prevent the scientific enterprise from living up to its truth-seeking ideals. While the scientific method will always be our best way of knowing about the world, the current system of funding and publishing incentivizes bad behavior on the part of scientists. As a result, many widely accepted and highly influential theories and claims—priming, sleep and nutrition, genes and the microbiome, and a host of drugs, allergies, and therapies—are based on unreliable, exaggerated and even fraudulent papers. Bad incentives in science have influenced everything from austerity economics to the anti-vaccination movement, and occasionally count the cost of them in human lives. Stuart Ritchie has been at the vanguard of a movement within science aimed at exposing and fixing these problems. In this New Books Network conversation, we speak specifically about how even the most well-meaning and truth-seeking scientists can unwittingly introduce bias into their analyses. We discuss ways that scientists’ training is inadequate. Matthew Jordan is a professor at McMaster University, where he teaches courses on AI and the history of science. You can follow him on Twitter @mattyj612 or his website matthewleejordan.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So much relies on science. But what if science itself can't be relied on? In Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype in Science (Penguin Books, 2020), Stuart Ritchie, a professor of psychology at King's College London, lucidly explains how science works, and exposes the systemic issues that prevent the scientific enterprise from living up to its truth-seeking ideals. While the scientific method will always be our best way of knowing about the world, the current system of funding and publishing incentivizes bad behavior on the part of scientists. As a result, many widely accepted and highly influential theories and claims—priming, sleep and nutrition, genes and the microbiome, and a host of drugs, allergies, and therapies—are based on unreliable, exaggerated and even fraudulent papers. Bad incentives in science have influenced everything from austerity economics to the anti-vaccination movement, and occasionally count the cost of them in human lives. Stuart Ritchie has been at the vanguard of a movement within science aimed at exposing and fixing these problems. In this New Books Network conversation, we speak specifically about how even the most well-meaning and truth-seeking scientists can unwittingly introduce bias into their analyses. We discuss ways that scientists' training is inadequate. Matthew Jordan is a professor at McMaster University, where he teaches courses on AI and the history of science. You can follow him on Twitter @mattyj612 or his website matthewleejordan.com. 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

So much relies on science. But what if science itself can't be relied on? In Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype in Science (Penguin Books, 2020), Stuart Ritchie, a professor of psychology at King's College London, lucidly explains how science works, and exposes the systemic issues that prevent the scientific enterprise from living up to its truth-seeking ideals. While the scientific method will always be our best way of knowing about the world, the current system of funding and publishing incentivizes bad behavior on the part of scientists. As a result, many widely accepted and highly influential theories and claims—priming, sleep and nutrition, genes and the microbiome, and a host of drugs, allergies, and therapies—are based on unreliable, exaggerated and even fraudulent papers. Bad incentives in science have influenced everything from austerity economics to the anti-vaccination movement, and occasionally count the cost of them in human lives. Stuart Ritchie has been at the vanguard of a movement within science aimed at exposing and fixing these problems. In this New Books Network conversation, we speak specifically about how even the most well-meaning and truth-seeking scientists can unwittingly introduce bias into their analyses. We discuss ways that scientists' training is inadequate. Matthew Jordan is a professor at McMaster University, where he teaches courses on AI and the history of science. You can follow him on Twitter @mattyj612 or his website matthewleejordan.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

So much relies on science. But what if science itself can't be relied on? In Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype in Science (Penguin Books, 2020), Stuart Ritchie, a professor of psychology at King's College London, lucidly explains how science works, and exposes the systemic issues that prevent the scientific enterprise from living up to its truth-seeking ideals. While the scientific method will always be our best way of knowing about the world, the current system of funding and publishing incentivizes bad behavior on the part of scientists. As a result, many widely accepted and highly influential theories and claims—priming, sleep and nutrition, genes and the microbiome, and a host of drugs, allergies, and therapies—are based on unreliable, exaggerated and even fraudulent papers. Bad incentives in science have influenced everything from austerity economics to the anti-vaccination movement, and occasionally count the cost of them in human lives. Stuart Ritchie has been at the vanguard of a movement within science aimed at exposing and fixing these problems. In this New Books Network conversation, we speak specifically about how even the most well-meaning and truth-seeking scientists can unwittingly introduce bias into their analyses. We discuss ways that scientists' training is inadequate. Matthew Jordan is a professor at McMaster University, where he teaches courses on AI and the history of science. You can follow him on Twitter @mattyj612 or his website matthewleejordan.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/psychology

Stuart Ritchie chats with Trey Elling about SCIENCE FICTIONS: HOW FRAUD, BIAS, NEGLIGENCE, AND HYPE UNDERMINE THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, including: what publishing a scientific paper looks like in its purest form, the various ways that process breaks down, tips for reading scientific papers, spotting the good from bad, and much more.

Medicine, education, health, parenting – wherever it really matters, we look to science for guidance and answers. In this episode Stuart Ritchie discusses his new book 'Science Fictions' and reveals the disturbing flaws that undermine our understanding of all of these fields and more. He spoke to Tom Whipple the science editor at The Times and to find out more about the book click here: https://amzn.to/2OF9a4C.------------------------------Intelligence Squared+. The world's best speakers. Your questions. £4.99 per month.Intelligence Squared+ will bring you live, interactive events every week on our new online platform. Just like at our real-life events, you’ll be able to put your questions to our speakers, vote in live polls and interact with other members of the audience. Your subscription will give you access to multiple events featuring the world’s top thinkers and opinion formers, including Thomas Piketty, Margaret Atwood, Clive Woodward, Thomas Friedman, Meera Syal and Paloma Faith.For a full list of Intelligence Squared+ events and to subscribe, click here: https://bit.ly/2yfYIfm Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Psychologist Stuart Ritchie discusses with Ivan six things which he thinks should be better known. Stuart Ritchie is a Lecturer in the Social, Genetic, and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King's College London. His new book, Science Fictions: Exposing Fraud, Bias, Negligence and Hype in Science, is available now. More details are at http://sciencefictions.org. Bach's cantatas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgHtwSyxMsU Katakana https://www.dartmouth.edu/~introjpn/text/katakana.html Limmy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fC2oke5MFg Data Sleuths https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/eye-for-manipulation--a-profile-of-elisabeth-bik-65839 Sci-Hub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub Irn-Bru https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/irn-bru-things-what-is-didnt-know-recipe-change-ag-barr-scotland-favourite-soft-drink-can-a8143301.html Bubbling under: Replication crisis https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/27/17761466/psychology-replication-crisis-nature-social-science  This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

Science is all about self-reflection. Scientists constantly check themselves, share their work, and check each other’s data. But how robust is the science upon which civilisation is built, the science which has mapped genomes, cured diseases, split atoms and sent people to the moon? Adam talks to Stuart Ritchie, a psychologist from Kings College London, about his new book Science Fictions which explores everything from biases and human fallibility, to outright fraud. He also talks to microbiologist turned image sleuth, Elisabeth Bik, whose work is revealing that manipulated images appear in scientific papers shockingly often. Now we are several months into the COVID pandemic, scientists are beginning to share their first insights into whether people retain immunity to SARS-CoV-2 after they've had the disease COVID-19. At Kings College London, Senior Lecturer in Infectious Diseases, Katie Doores and her team tracked the antibody levels over the first months after infection with COVID-19. Their first preprint findings suggest a worrying pattern – antibodies against the virus begin to wane within months of being infected. However it is too early to say if and when a person who’s had COVID-19 could be vulnerable to reinfection. Early findings from Marcus Buggert, at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, suggest that another part of the immune system, the memory T-cells, are active in those who have had the disease, even if they lack antibodies against the virus. Producers: Beth Eastwood & Fiona Roberts

In this podcast, Rohan is joined by Stuart Ritchie from AES International in Dubai who takes us through his very interesting journey into financial services and how he became a financial planner (via

In this episode, Rohan talks to Stuart Ritchie of AES International about the financial planning community in Dubai.

Matt Hartman and I recorded almost 80 minutes on the U20 player pool. The bad news is we had this conversation in early March. The good news? It’s up to date, since almost no soccer has been played since then.0:30 preamble, etc.4:10 Hartman on how this U20 age group stacks up to its predecessors8:00 the last U20 roster, from January13:55 goalkeepers (David Ochoa, Chituru Odunze, Damian Las, Patrick Schulte, John Pulskamp)18:12 right backs (Julian Araujo, Ian Hoffmann, Nathan Harriel and Mauricio Cuevas, Joe Scally, Kevin Bonilla)25:25 centerbacks (Owen Otasowie, Leo Sepulveda, Jacob Akanyirge and George Campbell, Tayvon Gray, Nico Benalcazar, Nico Slonina, Blake Malone, Kurowskybob Pierre)36:58 left backs (Kobe Hernandez-Foster, Travian Sousa and Jonathan Gomez, Stuart Ritchie, John Tolkin, Adam Armour)42:30 central midfield (Taylor Booth, Tanner Tessmann, Jose Gallegos, Cole Bassett, Johnny Cardoso, Matteo Ritaccio, Leon Flach, Thomas Roberts and Gianluca Busio, Marcelo Palomino, Aiden Morris, Chris Hegardt, Moses Nyeman, Danny Leyva, Bryang Kayo)1:05:00 wingers (Konrad de la Fuente, Uly Llanez, Cameron Harper, Cameron Dunbar, Cade Cowell, Matko Miljevic, Dante Sealy, Giovanni Reyna)1:10:16 strikers (Ricardo Pepi, Indiana Vassilev, Matthew Hoppe, Charlie Kelman, Johan Gomez)1:16:30 a quick recap of our respective preferred lineups

Investing your money always come with risk.  This month alone, we’ve seen how geopolitical shocks can spook the markets and sending the price of gold to a six-year high of almost $1,600 an ounce. Last year the US-China trade dispute also took its toll on the markets, along with the never-ending Brexit saga in the UK. Now, markets are trying to absorb what the coronavirus outbreak means. So how should investors position their portfolio in volatile times?  Alice Haine, the personal finance editor of The National, is joined by Andy Scott, a video journalist at The National. Later we’ll be joined by Stuart Ritchie, a director and chartered financial planner with the global wealth advice company AES International. Also, we’ll hear from Steve Cronin, founder of Dead Simple Saving, who keeps investing in a portfolio of low-cost index-funds no matter what is happening in the world.

Vi har lenge hatt lyst til å snakke om Jordan Peterson. Så vi gjorde det, litt for å få klarhet litt der hvor vi mener den mangler, men like mye for å finne ut mer hva vi selv tenker. Så hva mener vi? Hadde satt pris på om du hører, tror det er verdt det. Det er verdt å lese boken hans også, 12 rules for life. Det er åpenbart mange ting vi ikke kommer innom, men kanskje vi får til å nyansere noen spørsmål. Send oss veldig gjerne tilbakemeldinger på innholdet i episoden og deres egne tanker om tema. Har vi bommet helt på noe av det vi sier så er vi veldig interesserte i å få høre det. Vi hadde litt lyst til å kalle episoden Jordan Peterson - med en fot i salaten, for han har, som Pål sier, nærmest en superkraft som består i av å havne i kontroverser og provosere folk og bli misforstått. Men vi holdt oss til en litt enklere tittel, og så får dere heller omdøpe episoden i hodet deres om dere ønsker. Bøker nevnt i episoden: Jordan Peterson, 12 rules for life. An antidote to chaos. (Vi glemte helt å kommentere undertittelen på boka, som temmelig åpenbart er dårlig valgt fordi den skaper mye mer misforståelser enn nødvendig, men det får være til en annen anledning).  Eivind Trædal, Hvorfor ytre høyre vinner debatten og hva vi kan gjøre med det Kaja Melsom, Den fordømte friheten. Et oppgjør med dagens selvrealiseringstyranni  Stuart Ritchie, IQ: All that matters I denne boken finner man blant annet dette sitatet som representerer en mer nøktern formulering av hva man skal tenke om biologiske forskjeller og rettferdighet: “If your belief in equal rights and opportunities for all – and against racism, sexism and other kinds of discrimination – is based on there being no biological differences between people, then you’ll find it very hard to know what to do if clear evidence of biological differences actually appears. If a hundred scientific papers were published tomorrow providing bulletproof evidence that women had higher general intelligence than men, or vice versa, would this justify sexism? Of course not. It makes better sense to base one’s moral beliefs on ethical principles that are informed by, but not shackled to, the vagaries of the scientific evidence. One of these principles might be equality of opportunity, regardless of biological make-up or social background.” (Kindle loc 1275)   Vi kom ikke i det hele tatt innom spørsmålet om Petersons holdninger til klimakrisen. Igjen så er det viktig å være litt ærlig i gjengivelsene av meninger, men her er vel et eksempel på hvor noen av hans avvisende kommentarer kanskje brukes av hans tilhengere til å være enda mer avvisende, og som vi peker på i episoden så er dette temmelig problematisk. En fin plass å starte for å få et litt mer nyansert bilde er å høre på hans samtale med Bjørn Lomborg på hans egen podkast. Igjen (kan ikke tro at jeg føler at jeg må gjenta dette på nytt), poenget er ikke å være enig med ham, men i det minste skille mellom hva en person faktisk mener og de meningene som tilskrives ham.  Her er noen lenker til artikler og videoer som nevnes i episoden. Nettet flommer jo over med stoff relatert til Peterson. Så grunnregelen burde vel være: Les boka først, det er det greieste, litt forvirra blir man antakeligvis uansett.    For de som har lyst til å vite litt mer om hans forhold til postmodernisme (den sunne holdningen her er vel «helst ikke», men åkkesom):  Om Petersons syn på postmodernisme:https://medium.com/@lachlanrdale/analysing-jordan-petersons-views-on-postmodernism-e63ef288680 Om hans tilsynelatende hovedkilde til postmodernismen, i alle fall den eneste som siteres i boka: Stephen Hicks, Explaining Postmodernism: https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/ Pdf-utgave av selve boka, så du kan se selv: http://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/ep-ee-2014-printing.pdf Til slutt, en omtale av boka: https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/17/a-review-of-explaining-postmodernism-by-stephen-hicks/   Video vi snakker om som omtaler hans bruk av hummere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5G7JSj6YGQ Podkasten Dialogisk, med Gunnar Tjomlid og Dag Sørås, har også laget to episoder som tar for seg Peterson. Hans intervjuer på The Joe Rogan Experience, særlig det siste fra november 2018, har mange klargjørende elementer.  --------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com   Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info. ----------------------------   Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på vår facebookside eller på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss. Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

Do men and women have different brains? Jordan Peterson and the Google memo guy are pretty sure they do. Different chromosomes, different hormones = different brains. Right? Professor Gina Rippon disagrees. Biology, she argues, is not destiny and evidence of differences has been drastically overstated. For her efforts she has been called a ‘science denier’ & her ideas dismissed as politically correct nonsense. But in her book, The Gendered Brain, I found a careful assessment of evidence, and a powerful case for the immense plasticity of the brain in response to the social environment. Who’s right? Listen to the episode to hear Gina make her case and respond to her critics. 8.55 Men Are Map Readers Professor Rippon tackles the widely held belief that men are better at map reading and spatial navigation. How big are the differences that we find and how should we explain them? 13:50 At Last: The Truth! How the media report studies which find brain differences between men and women, and how they oftenn reinforce a belief in ‘gender essentialism’. 18:32 I try to pin Gina down - do any brain differences between men and women survive her methodological critiques? And how might brain differences translate into differences in behaviour? 21:45 Are Bigger Brains Better? I put to Prof Rippon the reported correlation between brain size and IQ. She surprises me by doubting the usefulness of IQ tests. We discuss the challenges of relating brain structure to function, and how correcting for size all but wipes out many of the reported differences. 30:05 It’s The Hormones, Right? The popular ‘Brain Organisation theory’, advocated by Simon Baron Cohen among others, holds that brain differences first emerge from the effect of hormones on the developing foetus. Prof Rippon argues that it oversimplifies the story.  39:16 Facing her Critics Prof Rippon’s ideas have been criticised by several other high profile neuroscientists including a previous guest on NOUS Kevin Mitchell, Stuart Ritchie. Her ideas were also attacked in Quillette. Prof Rippon responds - she IS NOT A SEX DIFFERENCE DENIER!  46:09 How to do Better Sex-Difference Research Prof Rippon argues for including variables like years in education, occupation and socioeconomic status in research design - because they also impact the brain and have differentially gendered effects. 48:07 Evolution of sex differences - Surely evolution has made men and women different? Prof Rippon throws shade on evolutionary psychology. 51:16 Why are some people transgender? If there is no male brain and female brain, why do some people feel that they are a man in a woman’s body or vice versa?  Prof Rippon advocates for ‘gender irrelevance’.  57:58 The Gender Equality Paradox - Scandinavian countries- were gender equality is highest - have the greatest gender gaps in typically male or female professions. Why? Buy Gina's book here: https://amzn.to/2O5E1Gx  Follow us on Twitter @NSthepodcast Thanks to the STS department at UCL, where this episode was recorded. Check out their full range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses here: www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/

Self-promotion: the idea makes some people cringe and others salivate. In this episode, we talk about self-promotion in academic science. What amount - and maybe more importantly, what kind - is right? Why do some people shy away from it while others dive in? What even counts as self-promotion? Is it a luxury to be able to do without active self-promotion? How do cultural and other differences play into self-promotion? Plus: We answer a letter about bringing open science practices into clinical psychology. Links: Leveraging the open science framework in clinical psychological assessment research, by Jennifer Tackett, Cassandra Brandes, and Kathleen Reardon Using implementation science to close the gap between the optimal and typical practice of quantitative methods in clinical science, by Kevin King, Michael D. Pullmann, Aaron R. Lyon, Shannon Dorsey, and Cara C. Lewis Practical tips for ethical data sharing, by Michelle N. Meyer Recommendations for increasing the transparency of analysis of pre-existing datasets, by Sara Weston, Stuart Ritchie, Julia Rohrer, and Andrew Przybylski Dorothy Bishop's blog, BishopBlog Teaching replication, by Michael C. Frank and Rebecca Saxe The Collaborative Replications and Education Project A few people to follow on Twitter for open and transparent clinical psychological science: Grace Binion, Cassie Brandes, Kevin King, Kathleen Reardon, Jennifer Tackett The Black Goat is hosted by Sanjay Srivastava, Alexa Tullett, and Simine Vazire. Find us on the web at www.theblackgoatpodcast.com, on Twitter at @blackgoatpod, on Facebook at facebook.com/blackgoatpod/, and on instagram at @blackgoatpod. You can email us at letters@theblackgoatpodcast.com. You can subscribe to us on iTunes or Stitcher. Our theme music is Peak Beak by Doctor Turtle, available on freemusicarchive.org under a Creative Commons noncommercial attribution license. Our logo was created by Jude Weaver. This is episode 53. It was recorded on February 15, 2019.

The multibillion-pound parenting industry tells us we can all shape our children to be joyful, resilient and successful. But what if it’s all bunk? Intelligence Squared are bringing together a panel of top geneticists and parenting experts to explore just how important parenting is.Arguing in favour of the motion are Robert Plomin, Psychologist and Professor of Behavioural Genetics at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College London; and Stuart Ritchie, Lecturer in the Social Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at King’s College London.Arguing against the motion were Susan Pawlby, a developmental Clinical Psychologist with over 30 years of experience working with mothers and babies both in clinical and research contexts; and Ann Pleshette Murphy, a therapist, parenting counsellor and advocate for young children and their families.The debate was chaired by Xand van Tulleken, a medical doctor and broadcaster who has presented numerous shows for the BBC and Channel 4, often alongside his identical twin brother Chris. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

STUDY: Trigger Warnings Are Harmful To College Students says the Daily Wire, describing a study whose participants’ average age was 37 and which did not measure harm. You can find the study involved here. A group of Harvard scientists asked 370 people on Mechanical Turk to read some disturbing passages – for example, a graphic murder scene from Crime and Punishment. Half the participants received the following trigger warning before the passage: TRIGGER WARNING: The passage you are about to read contains disturbing content and may trigger an anxiety response, especially in those who have a history of trauma Participants were asked to rate their anxiety before and after reading the passages. After they had finished, they were asked to fill out a bunch of questionnaires that measured their opinions about how trauma worked. The researchers found that people who received the trigger warning were 5% more likely to endorse the idea that they were vulnerable to trauma, and also 5% more likely to endorse the belief that people with trauma could suffer persistent negative effects from that trauma. There were some subgroup and moderation analyses which I ignore for the usual reasons. What might be some causes for concern with this study? First, Stuart Ritchie points out that the results are statistically weak. Most of the results have p-values around 0.05, and are not corrected for multiple testing. That means it hasn’t been formally proven whether or not the results are random chance. I don’t like haggling over whether something is just above or just below a significance threshold. But if you do like that kind of haggling, this study doesn’t survive it very well.

This episode features Stuart Ritchie, intelligence researcher and author of the book "Intelligence: All That Matters." Stuart responds to some of the most common conceptual objections to the science of IQ testing. Can we even define intelligence? Aren't there lots of different kinds of intelligence? How do we know the tests are measuring intelligence at all instead of something like motivation or familiarity with the style of testing? Does it undermine the meaningfulness of IQ as a metric that people can improve over time, with practice, or over generations?

A fascinating paper about sex differences in the human brain was published last week in the scientific journal Cerebral Cortex. It’s the largest single-sample study of structural and functional sex differences in the human brain ever undertaken, involving over 5,000 participants (2,466 male and 2,750 female). The study has been attracting attention for more than a year (see this preview in Science, for instance), but only now has it been published in a peer-reviewed journal. For those who believe that gender is a social construct, and there are no differences between men and women’s brains, this paper is something of a reality check. The team of researchers from Edinburgh University, led by Stuart Ritchie, author of Intelligence: All That Matters, found that men’s brains are generally larger in volume and surface area, while women’s brains, on average, have thicker cortices. ‘The differences were substantial: in some cases, such as total brain volume, more than a standard deviation,’ they write. This is not a new finding – it has been known for some time that the … The post Why Can’t a Woman be More Like a Man? appeared first on Quillette.

This week Spencer and Razib talk to Stuart Ritchie, a leading behavioral geneticist, about the genetics of intelligence and personality.

Smart people don’t like the idea of IQ testing. Even though the tests are some of the most useful measures we have in psychology, they have a toxic reputation: mention IQ in polite company and you’ll be accused of being an elitist, or perhaps worse. This talk will first make the case that IQ scores are meaningful: we’ll discuss the evidence from a century of research in psychology, neuroscience, genetics, and medicine. Then, we’ll discuss the history of the ‘IQ controversy’. Why are these tests so maligned? How much of the criticism is deserved? What does the future hold for the science of human intelligence? Stuart Ritchie has spoken for us on topics ranging from Shakespeare to pornography. He is a postdoctoral fellow in the Psychology Department at the University of Edinburgh, researching how intelligence changes across the lifespan, and how it relates to genetics, the brain, and education. His research has been published in journals such as the Current Biology, Journal of Neuroscience, and Psychological Science. Stuart has a book that was published around the time of this talk: Intelligence: All that Matters, and he's on Twitter at @StuartJRitchie

A major 30-year study claims to show breastfed babies become more intelligent, higher earning adults. It's not the first time we've heard that breastfeeding raises IQ levels; but is this evidence any more convincing? Ruth Alexander and Hannah Moore explore the details with Dr Stuart Ritchie from The University of Edinburgh. This programme was first broadcast on the BBC World Service.

Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined by comedians Josie Long and Paul Foot, psychologist Richard Wiseman and neuroscientist Stuart Ritchie to ask "is irrationality genetic?". The second of two programmes recorded at the Edinburgh Festival.

Have psychologists recently found evidence for the existence of psychic ability? Last year, well-known psychologist Daryl Bem published an article called Feeling the Future in which he describes a number of studies, all of which provided support for a kind of phi phenomenon he calls "retroactive influence". The research appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The article caused a storm of controversy and calls for changes to how research and the peer review process is conducted. I covered some of those recommendations in video episode 165 Psychological Research Under Fire. In this episode I interview the lead author, Stuart Ritchie, of the first published replication of one part of Bem's work. Listen as Stuart describes what he did and what he found on this very controversial topic.