POPULARITY
Hosted by yoel inbar
19 episodes with yoel inbar
2 episodes with yoel inbar
2 episodes with yoel inbar
2 episodes with yoel inbar
2 episodes with yoel inbar
In this bite-sized edition we look back at perhaps my favouritest episode ever - episode 9 about disgust, with Yoel Inbar. We all have a gag reflex. But when we find people - like polluters - disgusting, are we feeing *actually* disgusted, or is it just a metaphor? What about how we might feel about things like climate change itself? Does it make us want, literally, to vom?If you like the show please do consider chipping in a couple of quid over at http://www.patreon.com/yourbrainonclimate. And a written review would be ace. Please thank you please. The show is hosted and produced by me, Dave Powell, who you can find @powellds on Bluesky and X/Twitter, although I don't use the latter any more. YBOC theme music and iterations thereof, by me. Show logo by Arthur Stovell at www.designbymondial.com.
Mickey joins Yoel for the first new episode in nearly a year. We talk what's been up with the show, plans for the future, and what it feels like to briefly be (almost) internet-famous. In the second half of the show, we talk about expertise and prediction. When social scientists make predictions about the future, should we listen? How much should failures of prediction make us distrust expert advice more generally, and if so, how skeptical should we be?
Read the full transcript here. How does psychological time differ from clock time? How does a person's perception of time relate to their personal identity? How does a person's view of their past shape how they view their future? To what extent do people differ in the degree to which they feel like a single, continuous person across time? What effects does a person's perception of time have on their assessment of injustices? Why aren't there more adversarial collaborations in academia? Is academia generally politically left-leaning? How does lack of political diversity in academia compare to (e.g.) lack of gender or economic diversity? Are liberal or progressive academics openly willing to discriminate against conservative academics when, for example, the latter have opportunities for career advancement? Is anyone in the US actually calling for legal changes around free speech laws, or are they only discussing how people ought to be socially ostracized or punished for expressing certain viewpoints? And is there a meaningful difference between legal and social punishments for those who make illegal or taboo statements? Are we in the midst of an ideological war right now? And if so, ought we to quash in-group criticism to avoid giving ammunition to our ideological enemies? Academia seems to have hemorrhaged public trust over the last few decades; so what can be done to begin restoring that trust?Anne Wilson is a professor of social psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University. Much of her research focuses on self and identity over time both for individual self and collective identities like nation, race, and gender. Her work illuminates the often-motivated malleability of our reconstructions of the past, forecasts of the future, and subjective perceptions of time itself. Her broad focus on motivated reasoning and cognitive bias has also led to more recent research on intergroup misperception, political polarization, and how speech suppression and censorship can inhibit collective bias correction. Follow her on Twitter / X at @awilson_WLU, email her at awilson@wlu.ca, or learn more about her work at her labe website: annewilsonpsychlab.com.Further reading:"Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda", by Cory J. Clark, Lee Jussim, Komi Frey, Sean T. Stevens, Musa al-Gharbi, Karl Aquino, J. Michael Bailey, Nicole Barbaro, Roy F. Baumeister, April Bleske-Rechek, David Buss, Stephen Ceci, Marco Del Giudice, Peter H. Ditto, Joseph P. Forgas, David C. Geary, Glenn Geher, Sarah Haider, Nathan Honeycutt, Hrishikesh Joshi, Anna I. Krylov, Elizabeth Loftus, Glenn Loury, Louise Lu, Michael Macy, Chris C. Martin, John McWhorter, Geoffrey Miller, Pamela Paresky, Steven Pinker, Wilfred Reilly, Catherine Salmon, Steve Stewart-Williams, Philip E. Tetlock, Wendy M. Williams, Anne E. Wilson, Bo M. Winegard, George Yancey, and William von Hippel"The Future of Memory: Remembering, Imagining, and the Brain", by Daniel L. Schacter, Donna Rose Addis, Demis Hassabis, Victoria C. Martin, R. Nathan Spreng, and Karl K. Szpunar"Autobiographical Memory and Conceptions of Self: Getting Better All the Time", by Michael Ross and Anne E. Wilson"When Slights Beget Slights: Attachment Anxiety, Subjective Time, and Intrusion of the Relational Past in the Present", by Kassandra Cortes and Anne E. Wilson"Crimes of the Past: Defensive Temporal Distancing in the Face of Past In-Group Wrongdoing", by Johanna Peetz, Gregory R. Gunn, and Anne E. Wilson"Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration", by Stephen J. Ceci1, Shulamit Kahn, and Wendy M. Williams"Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology", by Yoel Inbar and Joris LammersKindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, by Jonathan RauchBreaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing, by Chris Bail Staff Spencer Greenberg — Host / Director Josh Castle — Producer Ryan Kessler — Audio Engineer Uri Bram — Factotum WeAmplify — Transcriptionists Miles Kestran — Marketing Music Lee Rosevere Josh Woodward Broke for Free zapsplat.com wowamusic Quiet Music for Tiny Robots Affiliates Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]
The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 3: In a new editorial for Reason, Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott argue that universities are now using diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements to “enforce group think” on campuses. They write: “Yoel Inbar must not be allowed to teach psychology at UCLA—or so a student petition informed the California university's administration this past July. Inbar is an eminent, influential, and highly cited researcher with a Ph.D. in social psychology from Cornell University. There is no question that he is qualified. Anyone worth their salt doing work on political polarization knows Inbar's name. Inbar also jumped through all the hoops UCLA put up for the job, including submitting a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statement, which is currently all the rage in colleges and universities. He even shares the politics of the majority of the psychology department. But on his podcast, Inbar had expressed relatively mild concerns over the ideological pressures that DEI statements impose and wondered aloud whether they do harm to diversity of thought. As a result of this petition—signed by only 66 students—UCLA did not hire Inbar. And he's not the only academic this has happened to. Far from it.” You can read the full editorial here: https://reason.com/2024/01/06/the-conformity-gauntlet/ A brief debate on deontological ethics. Would Immanuel Kant agree that it is ok to lie if a woman asks you, “does this dress make me look fat?” On Monday, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Dr. Anthony Fauci testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. PLUS, Howard Stern tells his audience that he finally contracted Covid. Now that he has immunity, will he continue to avoid society? While appearing on State of the Union with Jake Tapper, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said “I'm not worried, I'm very concerned” about President Joe Biden having underwhelming support from Black voters ahead of the 2024 presidential election. Tyler Pager of The Washington Post writes: “Former president Barack Obama has raised questions about the structure of President Biden's reelection campaign, discussing the matter directly with Biden and telling the president's aides and allies the campaign needs to be empowered to make decisions without clearing them with the White House, according to three people familiar with the conversations.” You can read the full article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/06/obama-biden-meeting-campaign-2024/ Is Transylvania a real place?
The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (01/08/2024): 3:05pm- Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spent several days in an intensive care unit at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland following elective surgery—though the precise surgery has not been disclosed. Alarmingly, the White House—including President Joe Biden—was not informed of Secretary Austin's incapacitation for more than three days. Equally concerning, while Secretary Austin was in intensive care, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks was on vacation in Puerto Rico. Will anyone be held accountable for this disastrous breakdown in communication? Secretary Austin released a statement on Saturday addressing the issue: “I am very glad to be on the mend and look forward to returning to the Pentagon soon. I also understand the media concerns about transparency and I recognize I could have done a better job ensuring the public was appropriately informed. I commit to doing better.” 3:30pm- While appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said it should be up to the states to determine whether or not Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump appears on primary ballots. 3:35pm- While speaking with Symone Sanders on MSNBC, Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said states should take “very aggressive action” to keep Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump off their ballot. 3:40pm- #1 Global Best-Selling Author Terry Hayes joins The Rich Zeoli Show to announce he'll be participating in a 1210 WPHT Speaker Series event on February 7th at Rosemont College in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Hayes is the author of the new book, “The Year of the Locust”—and has won numerous awards for his work as an author and film producer. His credits include I Am Pilgrim, Payback, Road Warrior, Mad Max, and Dead Calm—and has worked with Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp, and Nicole Kidman. For event and ticket information visit: https://www.audacy.com/1210wpht/events/terry-hayes-with-special-guest-host-rich-zeoli 4:05pm- The National Park Service has announced its plan to remove the William Penn statue from Welcome Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—citing a desire to be more inclusive and an “expanded interpretation of the Native American history of Philadelphia.” Welcome Park is, of course, named after the ship which carried Penn to Philadelphia in 1682 and his statue currently marks the location of his home. The National Park Service is currently seeking commentary on its decision to redesign Welcome Park—including the removal of Penn's statue. You can leave your comments here: https://parkplanning.nps.gov 4:30pm- Rich refuses to watch movies with subtitles, Matt believes “The Holdovers” starring Paul Giamatti was the best picture of 2023, and is Microsoft's Clippy male or female? 5:05pm- In a new editorial for Reason, Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott argue that universities are now using diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements to “enforce group think” on campuses. They write: “Yoel Inbar must not be allowed to teach psychology at UCLA—or so a student petition informed the California university's administration this past July. Inbar is an eminent, influential, and highly cited researcher with a Ph.D. in social psychology from Cornell University. There is no question that he is qualified. Anyone worth their salt doing work on political polarization knows Inbar's name. Inbar also jumped through all the hoops UCLA put up for the job, including submitting a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statement, which is currently all the rage in colleges and universities. He even shares the politics of the majority of the psychology department. But on his podcast, Inbar had expressed relatively mild concerns over the ideological pressures that DEI statements impose and wondered aloud whether they do harm to diversity of thought. As a result of this petition—signed by only 66 students—UCLA did not hire Inbar. And he's not the only academic this has happened to. Far from it.” You can read the full editorial here: https://reason.com/2024/01/06/the-conformity-gauntlet/ 5:20pm- A brief debate on deontological ethics. Would Immanuel Kant agree that it is ok to lie if a woman asks you, “does this dress make me look fat?” 5:25pm- On Monday, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Dr. Anthony Fauci testified before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. PLUS, Howard Stern tells his audience that he finally contracted Covid. Now that he has immunity, will he continue to avoid society? 5:40pm- While appearing on State of the Union with Jake Tapper, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) said “I'm not worried, I'm very concerned” about President Joe Biden having underwhelming support from Black voters ahead of the 2024 presidential election. 5:50pm- Tyler Pager of The Washington Post writes: “Former president Barack Obama has raised questions about the structure of President Biden's reelection campaign, discussing the matter directly with Biden and telling the president's aides and allies the campaign needs to be empowered to make decisions without clearing them with the White House, according to three people familiar with the conversations.” You can read the full article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/06/obama-biden-meeting-campaign-2024/ 5:55pm- Is Transylvania a real place? 6:05pm- Dr. Victoria Coates— Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss The National Park Service's bizarre decision to remove William Penn's statue from Welcome Park in Philadelphia, PA as part of an effort to better promote “inclusivity.” Dr. Coates is the author of “David's Sling: A History of Democracy in Ten Works of Art.” You can find her book here: https://www.amazon.com/Davids-Sling-History-Democracy-Works/dp/1594037213 6:30pm- #1 Global Best-Selling Author Terry Hayes joins The Rich Zeoli Show to announce he'll be participating in a 1210 WPHT Speaker Series event on February 7th at Rosemont College in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Hayes is the author of the new book, “The Year of the Locust”—and has won numerous awards for his work as an author and film producer. His credits include I Am Pilgrim, Payback, Road Warrior, Mad Max, and Dead Calm—and has worked with Mel Gibson, Johnny Depp, and Nicole Kidman. For event and ticket information visit: https://www.audacy.com/1210wpht/events/terry-hayes-with-special-guest-host-rich-zeoli
Andrew Devendorf joins Alexa and Yoel to discuss his work on "me-search" (or self-relevant research) within clinical psychology. He talks about the prevalence of mental health difficulties within the field, and the harmful taboos against speaking openly about them. And, he shares his own reasons for studying depression and suicide, and how he has been discouraged from citing personal experience as a motivation for his work. Their conversation also explores common misconceptions about mental illness, strengths of self-relevant research, and ways to be more supportive to those facing mental health challenges. In the end, Yoel and Alexa fail to resolve their debate about the existence of the "unbiased researcher." Special Guest: Andrew Devendorf.
Playing devil's advocate, Yoel and Mickey mount a criticism against the scientific study of mindfulness. What is mindfulness? Can we measure it? Is mindfulness-based therapy effective? Can mindfulness improve the quality of attention beyond the meditation cushion? Are effects of mindfulness mostly placebo effects produced by motivated practitioners and adherents? Should we be impressed by mindfulness meditation's supposed effects on conceptions of the self? Is mindfulness, in all its complexity, amenable to scientific study? Bonus: Is the value of diversity and inclusivity a core part of open science? This is a re-release of an episode first released on August 7, 2019.
Yoel and Alexa are joined by Joe Simmons to talk about fraud. We go in-depth on a recent high-profile fraud case, but we also talk about scientific fraud more generally: how common is it, how do you detect it, and what can we do to prevent it? This is a re-release of Episode 73, originally released on September 29, 2021. Special Guest: Joe Simmons.
We are back with a double-bill decoding! That's right like moths to the flame, or aliens to a Unified Geometric Field drive, we are back in Weinstein world.This time we are looking at a conversation between the irrepressible (ex?) podcaster & mathematician, Eric Weinstein, and skeptical investigator, author, and recent guest on the show, Mick West.The conversation here concerns the evidence for UAP/UFOs and the reaction of skeptics and advocates. It had the potential to be something forensic and transcendent but sadly it gets mired in the messy 'interpersonal drama' that Eric just hates so much and tries to avoid at all costs.Nonetheless, there is much that can be learnt here, including: the linguistic complexities of the word 'flex', the precise levels of passive aggressiveness that a human mind can tolerate, if there is already secret anti-gravity tech, and whether our obsession with Einsteinian physics is what is stopping us from really understanding what is going on with UAPs.We don't have answers. We are just asking questions... honest!Also featured: a recent kerfuffle in the online psychology world over DEI statements, the numerology spectrum, the potential harms of green drinks, and much much more!So join us, won't you, as we boldly venture through the outermost reaches of the gurusphere.LinksTheories of Everything- Eric Weinstein & Mick West: UAPs, Evidence, SkepticismJonathan Pageau: The Surprising Symbolism of 666QAnon Anonymous- Episode 168: The Mutant QAnon Numerology Cult in Dallas.Very Bad Wizards- Episode 263: Free YoelReason article on the Yoel Inbar incident2020 Paper on the potential liver impacts of Green Tea ExtractMick West's Book- Escaping the Rabbit Hole: How to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Using Facts, Logic, and Respect
Kat and Phoebe discuss plotting a murder with ChatGPT and the latest in academic diversity dramas.Links:With End of Affirmative Action, a Push for a New Tool: Adversity ScoresPhoebe on the state of academic affairs:https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-waterloo-attack-is-part-of-a-broader-trend-of-hatred-for-academia/ https://thecjn.ca/perspectives/affirmative-action-and-diversity-statements-a-complicated-history-phoebe-maltz-bovy-on-local-and-not-so-local-edi-news/Our friends at Blocked & Reported explain the Yoel Inbar imbroglio:Suspect charged in hate-motivated stabbing in Canada university gender issues classUChicago Course on Whiteness Sparks Debate Over Free Speech and Cyberbullying - The New York Times"Some of my best ex-wives are lesbians!"https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/05/nyregion/de-blasio-marriage-chirlane-mccray.html This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit femchaospod.substack.com/subscribe
A VBW exclusive report! For years David and Tamler have been a little dismissive of fears about cancel culture in academia but now the SJWs have come for one of our own! We welcome back Yoel Inbar to talk about his experience applying for a position at UCLA psychology only to have his candidacy pulled at the last minute because of remarks he made on his podcast (!) about diversity statements. What does this mean for freedom of expression in academia? Should we advise our students and younger faculty to watch what they say when it comes to politically charged topics? Are they really going to start combing through podcast episodes now – is nothing sacred? Plus another case of fraud in psychology comes to light courtesy of the Data Colada guys. Data Colada post about Gino fraud Sponsored by: BetterHelp: You deserve to be happy. BetterHelp online counseling is there for you. Connect with your professional counselor in a safe and private online environment. Our listeners get 10% off the first month by visiting BetterHelp.com/vbw. Promo Code: VBW Rocket Money: Stop throwing your money away. Cancel unwanted subscriptions, and manage your expenses the easy way, by going to RocketMoney.com/vbw. Promo Code: VBW
Harkening back to episode 73, Alexa and Yoel discuss recent evidence of fraud documented in the Data Colada blog post "Clusterfake." The post is the first in a series of four, which will collectively detail evidence of fraud in four papers co-authored by Harvard Business School Professor Francesca Gino. First, the co-hosts dive into the details, with Alexa soberly (in both senses of the word) explaining the revelations of calcChain. They go on to discuss the potential impact of these findings for collaborators, some of whom have begun conducting audits of work co-authored with Gino. In addition, they speculate about ways to reduce fraud that could relieve some of the burden from those who currently do this time-consuming and often thankless work. Finally, they consider what this means for a field still struggling to build a more trustworthy foundation.
In heated political debates, people are often accused of being hypocrites, lacking consistent foundational values. Today, Yoel and Alexa discuss a recent paper by David Pinsof, David Sears, and Martie Haselton, that challenges the commonsense notion that political belief systems stem from our core values. Instead, the authors propose that people form alliances with others, and develop political beliefs that serve to maintain those alliances. The cohosts discuss how these alliances might form, the various biases used to defend them, and whether values are truly absent from the process. They also tackle the deeper question of whether the alliance model means that neither side is right or wrong.
Yoel and Alexa discuss a recent paper that takes a machine learning approach to estimating the replicability of psychology as a discipline. The researchers' investigation begins with a training process, in which an artificial intelligence model identifies ways that textual descriptions differ for studies that pass versus fail manual replication tests. This model is then applied to a set of 14,126 papers published in six well-known psychology journals over the past 20 years, picking up on the textual markers that it now recognizes as signals of replicable findings. In a mysterious twist, these markers remain hidden in the black box of the algorithm. However, the researchers hand-examine a few markers of their own, testing whether things like subfield, author expertise, and media interest are associated with the replicability of findings. And, as if machine learning models weren't juicy enough, Yoel trolls Alexa with an intro topic hand-selected to infuriate her.
Alexa and Yoel chat with Paul Bloom about his newest book, Psych: The Story of the Human Mind (https://amzn.to/3ZrycHk). The book, built from Paul's popular Introduction to Psychology course, is an opinionated overview of the field of psychology but also a window into his deep fascination with the mind. Yoel and Alexa spend some time picking Paul's brain, inquiring about writing, and teaching, and how to avoid boredom. But Paul has a few questions of his own, challenging the cohosts to consider what their own version of Psych would look like. In the process, their conversation ranges from Freudian dream content, to the limitations of psychology, to the (glaring omission of) the anatomy of the inner ear. Special Guest: Paul Bloom.
Andrew Devendorf joins Alexa and Yoel to discuss his work on "me-search" (or self-relevant research) within clinical psychology. He talks about the prevalence of mental health difficulties within the field, and the harmful taboos against speaking openly about them. And, he shares his own reasons for studying depression and suicide, and how he has been discouraged from citing personal experience as a motivation for his work. Their conversation also explores common misconceptions about mental illness, strengths of self-relevant research, and ways to be more supportive to those facing mental health challenges. In the end, Yoel and Alexa fail to resolve their debate about the existence of the "unbiased researcher." Special Guest: Andrew Devendorf.
Alexa and Yoel discuss the much trodden topic of implicit bias from a less trodden perspective: that of the general public. Offering insight into the public's views is a paper by Jeffrey Yen, Kevin Durrheim, and Romin Tafarodi, which explores public thinking about the implicit association test (IAT) through an examination of the New York Times comments section. These comments demonstrate varying reactions to the idea that negative associations with some identities - racial and otherwise - can bubble beneath the surface of our explicit attitudes. Some dismiss the IAT as "academic abstraction," while others see their scores as an opportunity for confession, or even absolution. Still others embrace the role of troll, a topic foreshadowed by our discussion of the proposed overhauling of New College of Florida.
Yoel and special guest Rachel Hartman discuss the recent ouster of Klaus Fiedler, the former Editor in Chief of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, over allegations of racism and abuse of power. They try to untangle a complicated story of peer review gone awry, explain the dueling open letters condemning and supporting Fiedler, and critically evaluate the allegations against him as well as the process that led to his dismissal as EIC. Along the way, they also talk about wine spritzers and journal prestige. Special Guest: Rachel Hartman.
In a recent article, psychologists Webb and Tangney document their experience collecting psychology data online using Amazon's crowdsourcing platform MTurk. Alarmingly, the authors conclude that ultimately only 2.6% of their sample was valid data from human beings. Yoel and Alexa weigh in on these findings, discussing what researchers can reasonably expect from online studies and platforms, and how their personal experiences have informed their own practices. They also consider a response written by Cuskley and Sulik, who argue that researchers, not recruitment platforms, are responsible for ensuring the quality of data collected online. Questions that arise include: What studies do people want to do? Does anyone read the fine print? And what are the ethics of mouse-hunting?
Yoel and Alexa are joined by Spencer Greenberg, founder of the behavioral science startup incubator Spark Wave and host of the Clearer Thinking podcast. He describes how he became fascinated with psychology and behavior change, and how he's been working to provide empirically-backed strategies for everday tasks, like making decisions or forming habits. He also offers an alternative perspective on open science, arguing that a phenomenon he calls "importance hacking" has been overshadowed by p-hacking in calls for science reform. Greenberg further challenges the Alexa and Yoel to consider whether the "open scientist" will fall short of what can only be achieved by the truly "inspired scientist." Finally, Spenccer has a major project in the works, and he gives us the honor of the big reveal. Special Guest: Spencer Greenberg.
What role does disgust play in our moral judgments? What about in our political beliefs? Do some folks get more "grossed out" by things than others? Yoel Inbar, associate professor of Psychology at University of Toronto and co-host of the popular podcast "Two Psychologists Four Beers," explains.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
With grad school application deadlines around the corner, Alexa and Yoel discuss how, exactly, that process works. Big picture, they talk about their goals in selecting graduate students to work on their labs, and whether they've gotten good at the process. They also examine typical application requirements - including recommendation letters, personal statements, GPAs, and (sometimes) the GRE - and consider which they'd keep, and which they'd prefer to never deal with again.
Yoel and Alexa discuss a recent paper, written by Hughes, Srivastava, Leszko, and Condon, that created and validated a new index of "occupational prestige." The index is intended to provide a tool to measure the third component of socioeconomic status, alongside income and education. The cohosts consider how occupational prestige might lead to differential treatment, or even unrealistic expectations ("is anyone in this hotel a doctor?"). Digging deeper, they discuss the paper's exploration of ways that prestige tracks with the physical, critical thinking, and interpersonal demands of a profession. Finally, they realize that as a "former social neuroscientist," Alexa hasn't been getting the respect she deserves.
Paul Bloom joins Yoel and Alexa to talk about the glamour and humiliation of teaching psychology at the college level. They discuss how they've changed their approaches to teaching over the years, and whether they've become more skilled or more out of touch (or both). Alexa shares her experiences teaching about morality and evolution to a predominantly Christian student body, Yoel laments the fact that his students aren't more disagreeable, and Paul claims that critical thinking is overrated. In an era of increasing remote instruction, they claim that online courses can't do what they do. But, only Yik Yak knows for sure. Special Guest: Paul Bloom.
Inspired by a recent Atlantic article ("The Myth of Independent American Families" by Stephanie H. Murray) Alexa and Yoel consider what it means to live in an indiviualistic society. At an abstract level, they discuss different visions for interdependence, from communes to church communities to welfare states. On a more personal note, they reflect on ways that they depend on, and support, people in their families and communities, and whether it would be desirable to increase those levels of reliance. They also consider the domains of romantic relationships (should we feel like we're free to leave at any time?) and college education (how affordable should it be?). And, Yoel explains his beef with student loan forgiveness.
Yoel and Alexa are joined by Stefan Uddenberg, a social perception researcher and author of the paper "Deep Models of Superficial Face Judgments." This paper was the focus of a previous episde - "A Face for Podcasting" - in which the co-hosts discussed the research, and the resulting controversy. Now, Stefan offers a new, insider perspective. He begins by offering a deeper explanation of the work, noting that a large, diverse set of facial images, is essential for studying how people are unfairly judged based on appearance (e.g., their race and gender). He also recounts the outrage on Twitter and somehow finds lessons to be learned from even the harshest and most misinformed attacks. In an unexpected twist, Yoel and Alexa discover Stefan's hidden talent. Special Guest: Stefan Uddenberg.
As the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP) starts gearing up for their 2023 conference, Alexa and Yoel debate some of the organization's recent efforts to be more anti-racist and politically engaged. First, the co-hosts discuss debate over moving the conference from its originally scheduled location (Atlanta, Georgia) due to the state's restrictive abortion laws. They consider how boycotting (or, as SPSP ultimately decided, not boycotting) fits with the organization's mission and identity. Second, they examine SPSP's new submission evaluation criteria, which reward submissions for promoting equity, inclusion, and anti-racism. Yoel and Alexa are largely divided on both topics, but Yoel provides at least one improvement they can agree on.
David and Tamler find themselves unable to attach rational meaning to a single act in their entire lives. Let's say we publish more articles and books. What then? What about our kids? They're going off to college. Why? What for? We think about the future of the podcast. Let's say we get bought out by Spotify and become more famous than Joe Rogan, Dolly Parton, and even Yoel Inbar -- more famous than all the podcasters in the world. So what? And we can find absolutely no reply. Plus, we take a test to determine whether we can we tell an AI apart from an analytic philosopher. When should we start getting scared of what AIs are gonna do to us, or what we're doing to them? *Note: the main segment is on the first half of Tolstoy's great memoir "A Confession," but you don't need to be familiar with the text to appreciate the discussion for this one.
Yoel and Alexa chat with Jennifer Cox and Lauren Kois, co-directors of the Southern Behavioral Health and Law Initiative. Established in 2020, the initiative was created to address the dearth of mental health resources for people who become involved with the legal system. Jennifer and Lauren walk our co-hosts through common scenarios that can occur when a person with mental illness encounters the legal system, some of which involve long waits in understaffed state hospitals with little access to basic mental health resources. They also describe various efforts to ameliorate these problems, including their own work to optimize use of the 988 mental health emergency line in Alabama. In the process, they offer hope for researchers who aim to effect policy change without becoming mired in political polarization. And, they challenge future guests to a deadlifting contest. Special Guests: Jennifer Cox and Lauren Kois.
Independent researcher Aella joins Yoel and Alexa to talk about her experiences doing freelance social science. Their discussion touches on some far-ranging topics, from the upsides of Twitter microfame to the humbling experience of questioning one's faith. At one point, they consider the compromises - good and bad - that come from catering to one's critics. Aella also discusses a recent funded research project where she asks people about their sexual fetishes. Special Guest: Aella.
Mickey returns with the hot takes you know and love. He joins Yoel and Alexa to discuss Jonathan Haidt's recent Atlantic article, "Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid." Haidt claims the answer is social media, but the cohosts aren't fully convinced. To shed a bit more light on the matter, they turn to an article by Amy Orben and Andrew Przybylski which provides a rigorous analysis of the relationship between social media use and well-being. In the end, Mickey admits to being a hypocrite, and Alexa makes a plug for Big Potato.
Earlier this year, the last of five "Many Labs" projects was accepted for publication at Collabra: Psychology, representating the culmination of a nearly-decade long series of multi-lab replication efforts. In this episode, Alexa and Yoel consider what they've learned from Many Labs 1 through 5, including insights about replication, expertise, and the impact (or lack thereof) of small effects. They also discuss their own connections to the project - Yoel as an original author, and Alexa as a researcher examing psychologists' reactions to the findings. Although the co-hosts deny they have any existential fear of death (see Many Labs 4) they do share their most recent life-threatening experiences.
Originating within the behavioral sciences, "nudging" has received attention as a way to achieve broad societal change by promoting small, individual adjustments. We're told, for instance, that if we all do our part reduce our carbon footprints we can stave off climate change. In today's episode, Yoel and Alexa consider a critique of "nudging" offered by Chater and Loewenstein. These authors argue that individual-level interventions often fail to accumulate to impressive societal change, and meanwhile distract from much needed system-level solutions. Also, Yoel claims to be less relatable than Alexa.
Yoel and Alexa discuss a recent study that examines the facial features that people perceive as "smart," "dorky," "trustworthy," or a number of other traits. The study quickly captured a lot of attention, eliciting both fascination and anger. The cohosts turn to Twitter, and to Alexa's undergraduate students, to attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the criticisms and suspicions expressed about the work. In the process, they consider whether glasses make you look smart, and whether babies can be trusted.
In this episode we are joined by famous podcaster Yoel Inbar (who we also found out is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto) to discuss a recent controversy surrounding this paper in PNAS, and the ethics of training machine learning models to judge and modify facial images in ways consistent with the stereotypical impressions of humans.We also briefly discussed the dumb stick-figure meme people have been talking about. Here are just a few pieces of research on people's ability to judge personality from physical appearance: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.994.7&rep=rep1&type=pdfhttps://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1348/000712606X109648https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-20823-006
Originally, Yoel and Alexa set out to discuss a study examining stress and decision-making during the pandemic. However, they get sidetracked by the ways that data are packaged - first by APA, and then by NPR - into a newsworthy account that may not tell the whole story. They identify ways in which the summary statements and headlines may exaggerate or twist the data into a more interesting narrative. Despite their skepticism, they consider NPR's advice about how to improve day-to-day decision-making. In a particularly humble moment, Yoel concedes that he should have known better than to buy a car without air conditioning.
Alexa and Yoel fight some more, this time over whether or not science should be value free. They consider a position taken by W. E. B. Du Bois, who argued that social change was only possible if scientists focused solely on finding truth. In the process, they consider whether scientists should ever keep findings to themselves, and discuss the merits of leaving the value judgments to the politicians. In the end, they somehow conclude that it is fine that they never justify their alphas. Next time, Alexa promises to find out what's happening on UA frat house lawns.
Yoel and Alexa discuss the "grand challenges" of psychological science, as identified in a recent survey of APS members. While usually nauseatingly agreeable, the two find many points of contention when it comes to psychology's shortcomings - from the kinds of diversity worth wanting to the value of decolonizing your syllabus. In the end, they make amends by agreeing that psychological science is, unfortunately, unlikely to solve climate change. And, along the way they express their appreciation for winter sports, tax advice, and alcoholic seltzers without artificial sweeteners.
What disgusts you? For starters, I bet, other people's oozings, or rotten meat, or other such things that hint at the Unclean. But you might also say corruption, or pollution. Or a particular political, or a group of people. Or perhaps... even climate change itself? It's one of our most base, guiding emotional responses to the world, so in this episode we find out all about disgust - how it shapes societies, defines what's right and wrong, and affects how we think about who's to blame for a changing climate, and what to do about it. Joining Dave this week is Professor Yoel Inbar from the University of Toronto. Yoel's an expert in disgust and how it shapes morals, politics and societies, and a very funny and warm fellow to boot. You can follow him on Twitter at @yorl. Extra reading as highlighted by the owl noises: -- 11:10: Plutchik's wheel of emotions idea. -- 12:30: More on Jonathan Haidt's musings on elevation. Your Brain on Climate is a podcast about human psychology vs the climate crisis: what we think, why we think it, and how it all adds up to a planet-sized emergency. Contact the show: @brainclimate on Twitter, or hello@yourbrainonclimate.com. The show is hosted by Dave Powell, who you can find @powellds on Twitter. All music throughout the show and audio production is by Dave, because he's far too much of a control freak to let anyone else loose on it. Show logo by Arthur Stovell at www.designbymondial.com.
Yoel and Alexa embrace their credulous sides and consider concepts from psychology that have importance for people in their private and public lives. Each of us lists the three social psychological ideas that we think are most relevant to people's lives - the kinds of things we would teach if we could give just one lecture. There are areas of consensus, but at some point Alexa wonders what Yoel has against insurance. We also discuss our inability to meaningfully discuss international politics.
Alexa moonlights as a guest and answers Yoel's questions about her recent paper, in which she argues that the criminal justice system should abandon retribution. Alexa claims that when we ask if someone is blameworthy, we are asking social scientific questions: Were they rational? Were they being coerced? Were they acting out of character? We discuss some aspects of the social scientific evidence - from vignettes about soaping windows to group-to-individual inference - and consider whether it can provide satisfying answers. And, Yoel challenges Alexa to consider whether her utopian vision might have unintended consequences. Plus, we talk about Canadian truckers, and Alexa keeps her valentine's day collage shrouded in mystery.
Personality psychologist and methodologist Julia Rohrer joins the show to talk about causal claims, strategic ambiguity, and how tough it is to tell what empirical claims many psychology papers are making. To illustrate, we subject Yoel's first paper, "Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals," to some vigorous post-publication peer review. We also discuss what makes Julia most hopeful about psychology, as well as the recent progress in alcohol-free beer. Special Guest: Julia Rohrer.
Alexa and Yoel talk authenticity. What is it? Is it good to have it? And why does Alexa score higher on it than Yoel? We talk about a draft paper examining how people infer authenticity in themselves and others, and a recently-published paper suggesting that supposedly highly authentic people might just be motivated to present themselves that way. Plus, Alexa drinks some listener-supplied beer, with favorable results, and we discuss who the most famous academic is.
Alexa and Yoel are back with more amateur philosophy of science. This time, we do a deep dive into a paper by the legendary Paul Meehl: "Appraising and Amending Theories: The Strategy of Lakatosian Defense and Two Principles that Warrant It." What can this classic paper tell us about how to do better research? We also talk about lactose, tandem bicycles, and New Year's resolutions (not in that order).
In this episode of the Decision Corner, Brooke speaks with Yoel Inbar - professor of psychology at the University of Toronto and expert in how the feeling of disgust influences human judgment and decision-making. Together they define what it really means to feel a sense of disgust and its evolutionary purpose as a means of preventing risk or harm (like stopping us from eating rotten food!). On the flip-side, we hear about the negative consequences of disgust and why it can lead to biased or flawed judgements. Some of the things discussed include: - What is disgust and what purpose does it serve from a biological or evolutionary perspective? - Why justifying our disgust with moral reasoning, i.e. “It disgusts me so it must be wrong!” can be troublesome. - Descriptive versus normative beliefs, and how disgust affects both in different ways. - Does disgust affect people differently, and do some people get more ‘grossed out' by things than others? - Strategies to acknowledge our disgust, and allow us to question whether it's serving us effectively or not.
Alexa and Yoel tackle Paul Feyerabend, the wild man of philosophy of science. What can we learn from his "anything goes" argument for methodological anarchy? We go deep on the first five chapters of Feyerabend's most famous work, "Against Method," and discuss his (maybe not entirely serious) arguments for extreme theory proliferation, ignoring the data, and Chinese herbal medicine. Also, we discuss which Christmas album is superior: Sia or Dolly Parton.
Alexa and Yoel talk about objections to preregistration. Does preregistration imply that researchers can't be trusted? Does it mean that they can't use their best judgment? When might preregistration be unhelpful? We also discuss researcher degrees of freedom in a recent paper testing Cardi B's maxim that "hoes don't get cold." Plus: ketchup on ice cream, and Alexa's controversial replacement for Daylight Savings Time.
Alexa and Yoel talk about a paper purporting to show that winning the Nobel Prize increases your lifespan. In the process, they dip their toes into non-experimental causal inference and discuss whether there is a taboo in psychology about drawing causal conclusions from non-experimental data. Plus, Yoel does his best to explain what an instrumental variable is and Alexa drinks a very large beer.
Paul Bloom joins us to talk about why we want to suffer. Sometimes it's a means to an end, but sometimes we desire it for its own sake. Among other things, we talk about mountain-climbing, whether you'd want to run just the end of the marathon, experience machines, BDSM, and parenting. Plus, a very special extra guest host, kidney donation, pronouns, and trigger warnings. Special Guest: Paul Bloom.
Yoel and Alexa are joined by Joe Simmons to talk about fraud. We go in-depth on a recent high-profile fraud case, but we also talk about scientific fraud more generally: how common is it, how do you detect it, and what can we do to prevent it? Special Guest: Joe Simmons.
Danielle McDuffie is a graduate student in psychology at the University of Alabama. This is the story of how she ran a graduate student climate survey, the explosive results, and the very contentious year that ensued. Special Guest: Danielle McDuffie.
Alexa and Yoel discuss a new paper (Oishi & Westgate, 2021) arguing that psychological richness is an overlooked aspect of the good life. In the process, they compare psychologically-rich-life scores, plan hypothetical vacations, and compare major regrets. Also, Alexa reviews an (accidentally-purchased) alcohol-free beer.
Alexa and Yoel tackle the most dreaded subject: getting older. Have they become better researchers and people over the years? Are they happier and more connected? Or are they just more forgetful and less good at stats? Plus: some listener feedback about self-care raises conceptual questions about suffering.
Alexa and Yoel go deep on self-care. What is it, how do you do it, and why does the term raise Yoel's hackles? How hard do we actually work, and should we be trying to work less? Also, Alexa shares an amazingly successful culinary experiment.
Alexa and Yoel discuss "The Anticreativity Letters," a satirical article by Richard Nisbett that advises young psychology researchers to (among other things) avoid being overly critical. How does the article's advice hold up today? How does one combine appropriate skepticism with enthusiasm for research? Or are the two in conflict at all? Plus: Alexa gets salty about salty drinks, and Yoel returns to the gym.
Mickey and Yoel welcome repeat guest Ted Slingerland to talk about his new book "Drunk: How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization," in which he makes the case for alcohol. Also, why are Yoel's guns out, and what was Mickey's worst trip? Special Guest: Edward (Ted) Slingerland.
Yoel and Alexa discuss progress in open science over the past 10 years. Is the scientific reform glass half-full or half-empty? Where have we made progress, and what still needs work? We use two papers describing "Scientific Utopia" by Nosek and colleagues (written nearly 10 years ago!) in order to evaluate our progress. Also, the true story of how Ashley Madison got its name.
Mickey, Alexa, and Yoel break down "Breaking the Social Media Prism," a new book arguing that social media reinforces our pre-existing political beliefs and polarizes us against the other side. Plus, HUGE NEWS about who's hosting the show. Also, Yoel gets a French lesson.
Canada’s leading Russian literature scholar Yoel Inbar joins us to try to make sense of Gogol’s 1836 short story “The Nose.” A nose goes missing from a Russian official’s face and winds up in the barber’s loaf of bread. A few hours later, the nose has rocketed up the social hierarchy and denies his connection to the official. What’s going on? Is Madame Alexandra Grigorievna up to something? Plus we can’t say how but we got access to submitted abstracts for the new Journal of Controversial Ideas. We read a few of them in the opening segment, and let’s just say this journal is living up to its name. Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
Journalist and podcaster Jesse Singal joins the show to talk about the enduring popularity of social-psychological quick fixes and how they go wrong. Plus: what is wrong with how the media covers science? Special Guest: Jesse Singal.
Neuroscientist and addiction researcher Carl Hart joins the show to talk drug legalization. Why does he think all drugs should be legal? What are some common myths about drug use and addiction? And how has his personal experience as a regular drug user influenced his views? Bonus: What drugs should we try next? Special Guest: Carl Hart.
This week, we chat with fellow podcaster and social psychologist Mickey Inzlicht, Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto, and co-host of Two Psychologists Four Beer (with Yoel Inbar). We talk about the advisor-graduate student dynamic, the past and future of social psychology, the replication crisis, and discuss some of the recent Psych Academic Twitter controversies. Two Psychologists Four Beers: https://www.fourbeers.com/Sexism and Racism on Campus (with Anne Wilson): https://www.fourbeers.com/58The COVID debate (with Robb Willer and Simine Vazire): https://www.fourbeers.com/53Lee's tweet: https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1360973699822796802Turns out Hoegaarden is Belgian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoegaarden_Brewery
"You Might Have a Point" is a podcast that features interviews with guests who specialize in one or more of a broad range of subjects, including philosophy, psychology, politics, public policy, journalism, and culture. In this episode, Stephen Dause interviews the hosts of the Two Psychologists, Four Beers (https://www.fourbeers.com/) podcasts, Michael Inzlicht (https://twitter.com/minzlicht) and Yoel Inbar (https://twitter.com/yorl). They discuss their own podcast, the intent behind it, and the reception they've gotten from academics and the public at large. In the second segment, Stephen talks with Michael and Yoel about the social construct theory of emotion, the role that emotion and intuition plays in how we respond to political events, the extent to which the IAT is a valid and reliable psychological measure, and more. All views expressed on this podcast are the opinions of those expressing them and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization. You can reach me on Twitter at @StephenDause (https://twitter.com/StephenDause) or subscribe to notifications about new blog posts and podcast episodes at @have_point (https://twitter.com/have_point). You can also email me at stephen@youmighthaveapoint.com.
A couple of weeks ago, Mickey Inzlicht and Yoel Inbar, of the excellent podcast Two Psychologists Four Beers, released a discussion of theirs called 'Against Academia?' The motivation for the discussion was that Mickey had noticed several occasions on which people -- one of them being himself -- were called out for expressing positive takes on life in academia. The mainstream position to hold on academic life is a negative one: it's a biased system, a pyramid scheme, a travesty for mental health, etc. They break down a number of considerations on both sides, digging into where some of these claims are identifying something real and important and other areas where they are exaggerations. Both Mickey and Yoel are tenured professors at an excellent university, and they acknowledge that their view is one of the better ones you can get in an academic appointment. It's a really useful conversation that brings up a lot of worthwhile, well-considered points. I'd like to add to it by responding to it from my own perspective: as someone currently doing a PhD who does not plan to pursue an academic career. Full transcript: https://www.codykommers.com/post/actually-against-academia
The psychologist Yoel Inbar has always tried to imbue his work with a sort of interiority, and now he joins us for a deep dive into Charlie Kaufman’s baffling and distressing new film “I’m Thinking of Ending Things.” Why does Jessie Buckley’s name and career keep changing? What’s going on with the dog? Why are the parents unstuck in time? Don’t worry you’ll get home, we have tire chains in the trunk. Plus, aliens, open science, and the illuminati. It’s all connected. Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
David and Tamler dive into the most celebrated and philosophically rich scenes in Dostoevsky’s masterpiece "The Brothers Karamazov." Alyosha gets in the middle of a rock-fight, Ivan Karamazov makes a devastating moral case against God, and the Grand Inquisitor convicts Jesus Christ of heresy against the church. (Note: this segment is the second of an upcoming five episode VBW miniseries on The Brothers Karamazov – more info on that to come very soon!) Plus one of us has a milestone birthday... [Special note from Peez: Stick around after the closing music to hear VBWs most frequent guests Paul Bloom and Yoel Inbar talk to David about Tamler behind his back.]
Yoel Inbar is a social psychologist at University of Toronto. He studies the feeling of disgust and how it shapes people's moral judgments. We talk about how disgust is associated with certain opinions, and why moral emotions can make people hold onto negative beliefs about genetically modified crops (even when the science supports their safety and usefulness).Yoel is also co-host of another psychology podcast, Two Psychologists, Four Beers.Things we mention in the episode:The relationship between “disgust sensitivity” and political beliefs (Inbar, Pizarro, & Bloom, 2008)The “behavioral immune system” (see this article by Schaller)Disgusting smells and attitudes toward gay men (Inbar, Pizarro, & Bloom, 2012)Reasons to be skeptical that disgust amplifies moral judgments (Landy & Goodwin, 2015)Facial expressions of disgust during moral judgments (Chapman et al., 2009) Public opinions of genetically modified food (check out Scott, Inbar, et al., 2018)Evaluating evidence in a way that fits your current opinion (Lord, Ross, & Lepper, 1979) Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.
Podcasting legend Yoel Inbar (from Two Psychologists Four Beers (https://fourbeers.fireside.fm)) joins us to break down Tal Yarkoni's "The Generalizability Crisis,” the paper that launched a thousand Twitter wars. Psychologists make verbal claims about the world, then conduct studies to test these claims - but are the studies actually providing evidence for those claims? Do psychological experiments generalize beyond the the strict confinments of the lab? Are psychologists even using the right statistical models to be able to claim that they do? Does this debate boil down to fundamental differences in the philosophy of science - induction, Popper, and hypothetico-deductive models and so forth? Will David and Tamler ever be able to talk about a psych study again without getting into a fight? Plus ahead of tonight's New Hampshire primary, expert political analysis about what went down in Iowa. Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
Part 2 in a trilogy of previously unpublished Quick Fire Questions featuring Prof. Linda Gask, Prof. Graham Davey, Dr. Tomasz Witkowski, Prof. Patrick Corrigan, and Prof. Yoel Inbar.
Dr. Kurt Gray is an associate professor of Psychology at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. There, he directs the Mind Perception and Morality Lab—a research lab dedicated to understanding who we interpret to have minds, and why it matters. Specifically, Dr. Gray and his research team examine how mind perception influences moral judgments. In this podcast, we discuss his research, his new Center for the Science of Moral Understanding which aims to reduce social and political polarization, as well as his most recent book co-edited with Jesse Graham, The Atlas of Moral Psychology. NOTES: 3:00 - Book, Illusion of Conscious Will 8:30 - Paper, humans don't like AI making moral decisions 12:10 - Paper, the moral agency and patiency of moral exemplars 16:00 - Paper, helping veterans get hired 18:45 - Center for the Science of Moral Understanding 28:55 - Paper, meta-analysis of replicating incidental disgust 39:00 - The Atlas of Moral Psychology 41:05 - Yoel Inbar's paper, Applied Moral Psychology 51:20 - Book, The Mind Club 51:40 - Book, The Mind's I
Prof. Yoel Inbar joins us to discuss why Social and Personality Psychology is dominated by political liberals, how one-in-three academic psychologists admit that they would willingly discriminate against their conservative colleagues, how ideological homogeneity affects psychological research, the benefits of encouraging more diversity of thought, and how to make the field of psychology more welcoming to political conservatives. Check out Yoel's podcast: https://fourbeers.fireside.fm/ *** SUPPORT US ON PATREON *** http://patreon.com/mowe *** SHOW NOTES *** https://mowe.uk/2TGqgQ8 *** BOOKS MENTIONED *** "Identity Crisis" by Sides, Tesler & Vavreck https://amzn.to/2RuiI5R "Pale Fire" by Vladimir Nabokov https://amzn.to/2SHSnOK "Basic Economics" by Thomas Sowell https://amzn.to/2RCOQUG *** SOCIAL MEDIA *** Facebook: http://facebook.com/mowepod Twitter: http://twitter.com/mowepod *** CREDITS *** Theme Music: Falling Down by Ryan Little http://youtube.com/user/TheR4C2010 Podcast Image: Wikimedia https://bit.ly/2H7eugs DISCLAIMER: My Own Worst Enemy is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk and affiliated sites.
Today we have Dr. Michael Inzlicht on the podcast. Dr. Inzlicht's primary appointment at the University of Toronto is as professor in the Department of Psychology, but he is also cross-appointed as Professor at the Roman School of Management, and he is a Research Fellow at the Behavioral Economics in Action group. Michael conducts research that sits at the boundaries of social psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience. Along with Yoel Inbar, he hosts the podcast “Two Psychologists Four Beers.” In this episode we discuss: How serious is the replication crisis in psychology? Can the human social realm ever be removed from scientific critique? Do psychologists need to grow a thicker skin? Academic bullying vs. respectful critique Is there a gendered element to bullying in science? Is ego depletion real? Methodological issues with the ego depletion paradigm Real world ego depletion vs. laboratory-based ego depletion The lack of correspondence between self-report measures of self-control and performance measures The importance of distinguishing between self-control and self-regulation The paradoxical relationship between trait self-control and state self-control The "law of least work" or why we are so lazy most of the time The psychology of boredom
ABOUT THIS EPISODE Implicit bias has been studied by many social psychologists, and one particular measure, the Implicit Association Test (or IAT) has often been used in that research. It has also been used by practitioners, often for purposes of raising participants' awareness of their own biases. And millions have completed IAT's online at the Project Implicit website. In this episode, I continue a discussion with six people who have all thought about the IAT, with the conversation covering such topics as (a) how well the IAT predicts discriminatory behavior and other behavior, (b) whether it's appropriate for the Project Implicit website to give individualized feedback to visitors who complete online IAT's there, and (c) the content and effectiveness of implicit bias training. My guests are psychologists Calvin Lai, Brian Nosek, Mike Olson, Keith Payne, and Simine Vazire, as well as journalist Jesse Singal. LINKS --Interpreting correlation coefficients (by Deborah J. Rumsey) (https://www.dummies.com/education/math/statistics/how-to-interpret-a-correlation-coefficient-r/) --Project Implicit (where you can take an IAT) (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/) --Brian Nosek's departmental web page (https://med.virginia.edu/faculty/faculty-listing/ban2b/) --Calvin Lai's departmental web page (https://psychweb.wustl.edu/lai) --"Psychology's favorite tool for measuring racism isn't up to the job" (Jesse Singal, in The Cut) (https://www.thecut.com/2017/01/psychologys-racism-measuring-tool-isnt-up-to-the-job.html) --Keith Payne's departmental web page (http://bkpayne.web.unc.edu/) --Michael Olson's departmental web page (https://psychology.utk.edu/faculty/olson.php) --Simine Vazire's departmental web page (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/people/svazire) --The Black Goat (podcast on which Simine Vazire is a co-host) (http://www.theblackgoatpodcast.com/) --"Understanding and and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity (Greenwald, Poehlmann, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009) (http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/GPU&B.meta-analysis.JPSP.2009.pdf) --"Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Test can have societally large effects" (Greenwald, Banaji, & Nosek, 2015) (https://faculty.washington.edu/agg/pdf/Greenwald,Banaji&Nosek.JPSP.2015.pdf) --"Using the IAT to predict ethnic and racial discrimination: Small effects sizes of unknown societal significance" (Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Mitchell, & Tetlock, 2015) (https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/44267412/Using_the_IAT_to_predict_ethnic_and_raci20160331-25218-20vauz.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1530481600&Signature=lS5rybckXwezHZrqSzHTlW%2FgKtI%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DUsing_the_IAT_to_predict_ethnic_and_raci.pdf) --"Arbitrary metrics in psychology" (Blanton & Jaccard, 2006) (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.314.2818&rep=rep1&type=pdf) --"The bias of crowds: How implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice" (Payne, Vuletich, & Lundberg, 2017; access is subscription-controlled) (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1335568) --"Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test" (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) (http://faculty.fortlewis.edu/burke_b/Senior/BLINK%20replication/IAT.pdf) --A summary of David Hume's thoughts on the association of ideas (http://www.livingphilosophy.org.uk/philosophy/David_Hume/the_Association_of_Ideas.htm) --Two Psychologists Four Beers (podcast featuring psychologists Yoel Inbar and Mickey Inzlicht) (https://fourbeers.fireside.fm/) --Very Bad Wizards (podcast featuring psychologist David Pizarro and philosopher Tamler Sommers) (https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/) Cover art credit: "Still Life with Bottles, Wine, and Cheese," John F. Francis (1857; public domain, from Wikimedia Commons, copyright tag: PD-US) Special Guests: Brian Nosek, Calvin Lai, Jesse Singal, Keith Payne, Michael Olson, and Simine Vazire.
In what has to be the most somber VBW to date, David and Tamler welcome Harvard psychologist Matthew Nock to the podcast to talk about suicide and other forms of self-harm. Matt tells us what we know – and what we don’t know - about the causes of suicide and the ways to prevent it. In the first segment we talk about the recent exposé of Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. Were the guards told to be brutal? Were the prisoners never aware that could have left the study at any time? What is Tamler going to do about the Zimbardo interview in A Very Bad Wizard the book? Is David going to continue teaching it in his intro psych course? And does Yoel Inbar need to preregister his beers? Special Guest: Matthew Nock.
Award-winning screenwriter and medieval philosophy scholar Yoel Inbar joins us for a deep dive on the Charlie Kaufman/Michel GondREY masterpiece Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. When relationships go bad is it better to believe they never happened? What is the nature of memory, how is it constructed, and is it possible to zap them out existence with an Apple IIe? Will Tamler have a more optimistic take on the ending of the movie than David? (Hint: yes) Also--only two more weeks to preorder Why Honor Matters and get your free bonus episode! Upload your receipt here (https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/tamler-sommers/why-honor-matters/9780465098873/) Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
In Part 2 of our episode with film scholar Yoel Inbar (AOS: Quebecois New Wave Cinema), we break down the philosophy and psychology of the movie Arrival. [Note: Massive spoilers, see the movie first!] Does our language shape our perception of reality? Would you have a child that you knew had a short time to live? What color is 'fuschia'? Why does right-wing radio make you want to dynamite alien spacecrafts? For Part 1 of this episode, see https://verybadwizards.fireside.fm/110 Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
Any time the topic is campus politics there's a good chance we'll have to record more than once. True to form, David and Tamler yelled at each other for most of the first attempt to discuss the Middlebury College incident while special guest Yoel Inbar wept quietly in the corner. We did a little better the second time but the whole recording session took so long that we have to release it in two parts. In part one we talk about the most popular porn search terms by U.S. State and then wade into the Charles Murray protest at Middlebury. In part two (coming next week) we do a deep dive on the movie Arrival (so if you haven't seen it yet you have one more week!) Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
Scandinavian film scholar Yoel Inbar joins the podcast for a deep dive on the Swedish film Force Majeure, a darkly funny meditation on what our instinctive behavior in a moment of panic can reveal about our characters and relationships. The story: while having lunch on a ski slope in the French Alps, a family believes that an avalanche is bearing down on them. Just as it seems the avalanche is going to hit them, the father (Tomas) grabs his phone and gloves and runs indoors, abandoning his wife Ebba and two children. How does the family reckon with this incident? Is the act itself unforgivable, or is it Tomas’s behavior afterwards that makes him despicable? How blameworthy is Tomas for his display of cowardice? Is it even cowardice since he didn’t have time to think about it? What’s the deal with that creepy janitor and all the tooth brushing scenes? Why can’t Yoel and Tamler agree about the answers to any of these questions? Plus, more on the Redskins and Tamler tells an embarrassing story from his past.LinksYoel Inbar [yoelinbar.net]On that one awkward sex scene from The Americans [vulture.com]Scandinavia [wikipedia.org]Force Majeure [imdb.com]Louie Season 1 Episode 9 "Bully" [imdb.com] Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
Hello, listener. Hello, listener? That's lame. Maybe I should give you a name, but that's a slippery slope. You're only in my head. Or maybe we're in your head. Are you listening to this with headphones?Shit. It's actually happened, I'm talking to imaginary listeners. What I'm about to tell you is top secret, a conspiracy bigger than all of us. There's a powerful group of people out there that are secretly running the world. I'm talking about the guys no one knows about, the guys that are invisible. The top 1% of the top 1%, the guys that play God without permission. That's right, it's the Partially Examined Life guys. And now I think they're following me.Special guest Yoel Inbar joins us to talk about the best show of last year. Warning: This episode is full of spoilers. Do not listen until you've seen Season 1 of Mr. Robot.LinksMr. Robot IMDBWikipedia Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
Dave and Tamler celebrate their 75th episode by welcoming six BFFs of the podcast and asking them to share the biggest thing they've changed their minds about in their professional careers. You'll hear Dan Ariely on our moral duty to take science into the real world, Laurie Santos on the the role of neuroscience in explaining psychological findings, Yoel Inbar on what it means to do good science as a psychologist, Eric Schwitzgebel on his metaphysical epiphany about materialism, Nina Strohminger on breaking-up with priming research, and Sam Harris on Artificial Intelligence and its perils, and his recently changed views about vegetarianism. (Sadly, we had a technical glitch with the audio when we recorded our most-frequent guest Paul Bloom, but we'll bring him on again soon.) Plus we play some hilarious mash-ups, raps, and voicemails sent in from listeners.Links to info about our GuestsDan ArielyLaurie SantosYoel InbarNina StrohmingerEric SchwitzgebelSam Harris Listener-Created Music in this Episode Special Guests: Dan Ariely, Eric Schwitzgebel, Laurie Santos, Nina Strohminger, Sam Harris, and Yoel Inbar.
Special guest Yoel Inbar (author of Hitchcock’s Women: From Margaret Sullivan to Tippi Hedren) joins us to talk about Hitchcock’s long take masterpiece/gimmick Rope. Based loosely on the case of Leopold and Loeb, Rope tells the story of two young men who have read Nietzsche and decide to murder a schoolmate in order to cement their Übermensch status. Did they read Nietzsche correctly? Is conventional morality nothing but a construct to keep the inferior masses in line? Are professors accountable for what they teach? (Please God, no.) Plus, we delve deeper into Julie and Mark’s motivation, and Yoel plays a round of “Does the government deem this trademark scandalous?” LinksYoel Inbar [yoelinbar.net]Very Bad Wizards Episode 22: An Enquiry Concerning Slurs and Offensiveness [verybadwizards.com]Rope [IMDB.com]Leopold and Loeb [wikipedia.org]Leopold and Loeb's Criminal Minds (Smithsonian Magazine)The Leopold and Loeb Trial Page (UMKC Law)Paul Gauguin [wikipedia.org]The Moon and Sixpence by W. Somerset Maugham [wikipedia.org]Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy [plato.stanford.edu]Damasio, A. "Remembering When," Scientific American, 2002. [antonellapavese.com]What's the matter with a little brother sister action? by Tamler Sommers [psychologytoday.com]
Film critic, VBW regular, and social psychologist Yoel Inbar joins David and Tamler to talk about Spike Lee's controversial 1989 film, Do the Right Thing, a movie about a day in the life of a small Brooklyn community on the hottest day of summer, and how the day's events lead to a race riot. Which characters in the film deserve our sympathy? (Maybe all of them?) Who was Spike Lee criticizing with his depiction of the characters in this community? Why did Mookie start the riot at Sal's? Was his action justified? Was starting the riot the "Right Thing" that Spike Lee was referring to in the title? Twenty five years after its release, how much have things changed? [Please note: we recorded this episode before the Ferguson verdict, which is why--despite some parallels--we don't refer to the verdict or the aftermath.]LinksDo the Right Thing [imdb.com]Do the Right Thing Scene: Insults [youtube.com]Do the Right Thing Scene: RIP Boom Box [youtube.com]Do the Right Thing Scene: Just Off the Boat [youtube.com]When Spike Lee Became Scary by Jason Bailey [atlantic.com] The Boondocks [wikipedia.org]Uncle Remus [wikipedia.org]Lyrics to Black Korea by Ice Cube [rapgenius.com]Do the Right Thing and Night of the Hunter Side by Side [youtube.com]The movie ends with the following two quotes: Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys a community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I think there are plenty of good people in America, but there are also plenty of bad people in America and the bad ones are the ones who seem to have all the power and be in these positions to block things that you and I need. Because this is the situation, you and I have to preserve the right to do what is necessary to bring an end to that situation, and it doesn't mean that I advocate violence, but at the same time I am not against using violence in self-defense. I don't even call it violence when it's self-defense, I call it intelligence. - Malcolm X Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
Dave, Tamler, and special guest Yoel Inbar break down Sam Peckinpah's brilliant (at least according to one of us) 1971 film Straw Dogs. They talk about the notorious rape scene, the meaning of the final siege, standing up to Cornish townies, and whether the urge to respond to insults is rational in in modern society. Also: Yoel and Tamler go another round in their debate about statistics and grad school. LinksStraw Dogs [imdb.com] Yoel Inbar [yoelinbar.net] "The Power of Straw Dogs" [dailybeast.com] Edward Copeland on Straw Dogs [eddieonfilm.blogspot.com]"Home Like No Place: Peckinpah's Straw Dogs." [criterion.com] Musical interlude courtesy of Monibeatz [http://monibeatz.bandcamp.com/] Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
Dave and Tamler shrug off inside baseball concerns and argue whether to go to grad school, what to do when you get there, and share horror stories about the job market. Also, Tamler explains why the sorority sister who wrote the infamous email is a "civil rights visionary," Dave refuses to say "c*#t punt," and listener contributions from Boomer Trujillo, Yoel Inbar, Rachel Grazioplene, Dave Tucker, and Nina Strohminger. LinksMichael Shannon Reads Sorority Letter [funnyordie.com]David Ortiz Pregame Speech [youtube.com] Twitter beef"Thesis Hatement" by Rebecca Schuman [slate.com]"Thesis Defense" by Katie Roiphie [slate.com] The Impossible Decision by Joshua Rothman [newyorker.com] VBW Bonus content: Dave and Yoel inbar on the "replicability crisis."
Social psychologist Yoel Inbar joins Tamler and David to discuss Clint Eastwood's masterpiece of the Western genre, "Unforgiven." The discussion includes the nature of revenge, the requirements of justice, the rules of nicknaming, and who or what was being referred to as "unforgiven" in the movie's title.LinksUnforgiven (1992): IMDB, Wikipedia PageIf you haven't seen "Unforgiven," don't worry : Story Spoilers Don't Spoil Stories Actor Saul Rubinek [wikipedia.org] Relevant Book about moral character by a couple of great social psychologists: Out of Character: Surprising Truths About the Liar, Cheat, Sinner (and Saint) Lurking in All of Us Special Guest: Yoel Inbar.
After a clip from The Third Man, Dave and Tamler continue their discussion from Episode 6 on Ted Bundy, utilitarians, and trolley problems. They also talk about Tamler’s TED talk envy, inappropriate acts with trees, and make a plea for more listener feedback. The second segment begins with the long-awaited return of the ‘eat the poo-poo’ clip, but this time in a somewhat relevant context. Dave and Tamler then discuss the role that emotions play in moral judgment and the role they should play. If we feel disgust at someone’s behavior, does that mean the behavior is morally wrong? Tune in to find out…LinksThe Third Man Ferris Wheel Scene (maybe Dave will see this movie one day) Dave’s TEDx talk, bumped up to TED (129,000 views)Tamler’s TEDx talk, not as much bumping up. (676 views) “Consequentialist are Psychopaths” The Splintered Mind blog postEat the poo pooYuck by Dan Kelly"Grime and Punishment." Brief review of disgust and moral judgment from The Jury Expert by Yoel Inbar (the brains--and brawn--behind all the disgust work) and David P.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
