Michael Shermer with Julia Galef: The Scout Mindset
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 авг 2021
- When it comes to what we believe, humans see what they want to see. We have what Julia Galef calls a “soldier” mindset: a drive to defend the ideas we most want to believe - and shoot down those we don’t.
But if we want to get things right more often, we should train ourselves to have a “scout” mindset.
Unlike the soldier, a scout’s goal isn’t to defend one side over the other. It’s to go out, survey the territory, and come back with as accurate a map as possible. Regardless of what they hope to be the case, above all, the scout wants to know what’s actually true.
In The Scout Mindset, Galef explores why our brains deceive us and what we can do to change the way we think.
juliagalef.com/
rationallyspeakingpodcast.org/
SUPPORT THE PODCAST
If you enjoy the podcast, please show your support by making a donation. Your patronage will ensure that sound scientific viewpoints are heard around the world.
www.skeptic.com/donate/
#michaelshermer
#skeptic
Listen to The Michael Shermer Show via Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, Google Podcasts, Stitcher, iHeartRadio, and TuneIn.
www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm... 
Наука
Julia is the best!!! Rationally Speaking is one of the best podcasts to listen to for working through difficult thoughts and subjects!
Julia was on my wish list for Shermer interviewees, so I'm a happy subscriber today. Her sharpness cuts through Shermer's shotgunning conversational style, to engaging effect.
bump for the algorithm, Julia's the best!
Thank you for the wonderful conversation ❤️🍃
Great conversation!
A great interview
Julia rules!
Always gonna be good with Thinkers like Julia on the Show. 👌
A few times I've had these weird arguments where the other guy clearly knew far more than I did, and he was almost certainly right, but I had stated my position and why I believed it and couldn't see where I was wrong. So, I'm trying to understand why/how I was getting it wrong, so I keep explaining in more detail why I'm taking the position I'm taking, and the other guy keeps acting like I'm disagreeing with him, that I'm insisting I'm right. I even say more than once that I'm sure he's right, that I'm just trying to understand what I'm getting wrong. A couple of times, these 'arguments' got heated. I don't know why this happened, was the other guy simply unable to understand what I was trying to do? Or maybe he was too used to bad arguments and kept putting me in that category? For me, if you disagree with someone but can't tell them why/how they're wrong, you should re-examine your position.
I cannot find the links for Julia's website, nor her youtube site. It's all about Michael!
Fantastic interview with a great guest in this age of heightened polarization, divided discourse and echo chambers. Never heard of JG. Thanks, MS.
The style, more precisely!
The audio is very good on this one.
Best crossover ever!
Good points! There are no standards when people grievance balance. Your oppression cannot overturn my oppression in a story narrative, and nobody wins. Yet this argument overtakes our ability to think empirically
Regarding the question about Linda being "a bank teller" or "a bank teller and feminist," a significant factor not mentioned is that the listener is given a choice between only two options, and both options include her being a bank teller. In my view, that makes it a given that the hypothetical Linda is a bank teller, reducing the actually choice options down to simply "feminist" or "not feminist."
It's an excellent book.
been a fan of hers for a while now
That's good content
Think more the hardest way of how I specifically focused on how I should win every particular arguments..
Vs
Think more the hardest way on how I shouldn't dealt with those whom I don't associated with
1:27:04 Yeah, I really wish people wouldn't do that. It makes it really hard to understand someone actual position when you don't know whether you have to interpolate with an opposite position to get the actual position.
Within the context of dress code. Opposing personal interests are the issue. For example (assuming in these examples that people are free to choose the other option, if they wished to), one person feels liberated by not wearing many clothes (i.e., a bikini), whilst another person feels more secure or modest by covering up their bodies. In the context of personal privacy (e.g., when anyone is alone), people generally don't know and, even if they did, don't try to enforce how others behave . These issue occur in public life, when others feel that others are not behaving the way they want them to. The only civilised (non-brute enforcement) answer is a compromise. For example, (assuming there is a freedom to choose. e.g., not enforced by others), non-hypocrites ( because there free to choose their choice of dress), compromise and permit others to dress how they choose.
However, it's no accident that these dress-code issues tend to be more about females bodies than males. Because many of the authoritarian forms of dress, originate from religions that are biased towards males psychology ( e.g., even the deity being expressed as male. Even though all life is either approx 50/ 50 biologically female \ male or asexual ( i.e., species that don't have sex to reproduce). Biological reality generally objectively and actually explicitly shows the "truth".
Loved her book
Also known as petitio principii, or 'begging the question'.
Remember Michael Ilhan Omar was born in Somalia, given a chance for a better life in the US and she wants to bring ISIS, Taliban and Qaeda to the US. Equal opportunity might sometimes lead us astray as well!
Think more the hardest way of how I strugglingly struggle to get the results of what I concentratedly focus on everyday...
Vs
Think more the hardest of how I know it's the only possible way to nurture myself in the right path
Think more the hardest way to not be fool by what I shouldn't believe to what I wasn't supposed to believe
Vs
Think more as wise as how I remained in focus to one particular videoer you.
What a great opportunity for learning it would be if believers in evoution and believers in creationism would have goodfaith conversations together.
At 50:00 you hear about "Proxy truths". These are positioning statements that identify you as being one a certain team. It has nothing to do with reality, truth, reasoning...it's all about whose team you are on. It explains so many of the ridiculous statements that defy reason.
Love her
I literally have the same Saturn 5 Lego rocket on my desk :)
I think about human evolution as a good example of being 65% right vs. 100% wrong (or whatever the numbers were). It's becoming more and more clear that human evolution was pretty complicated with quite a bit of cross breeding between semi-independent species. Also it may well be that walking upright was a pretty early adaptation, all of which makes the classic evolution image of the ape rising in stages to become a man very inaccurate. And even this newer understanding, which I'm no expert in, is probably inaccurate in some way as well. Yet that doesn't mean creationists aren't 100% wrong.
Think more as wise as possible for how long we as human shared the stuffs that aren't real enough
Vs
Think more for how long shall we stick with the unreal
Think more as wise as possible to think simple but understandable
Vs
Think more as wise as possible with little things in a great way
whoa
NAME THEM!
Julia's talking about rationality and bias would come across better if it wasn't combined with repeated jabs at the right wing. Pot, meet kettle as they say.
Think more the hardest way as wise as possible the hardest way with bricks inside the house compound...
Vs
Think more the hardest way as wise as how I feel uncomfortable with the stuffs inside the house compound that are improperly managed
I feel objectified as a software engineer! Coal miner argument seems completely valid.
To change how the "game" is "played", we can change the the social norm rules. For example, how about a political panel show where the politicians remit was only to discuss the aspects of the oppositions policies that they agreed with. In other words, methods to mitigate the behavioural tendency to engage in ingroup V's outgroup posturing. I realise this idea sounds "lame" because it's not generally how the social norms engage with their sociopolitics. In other words, it would be like watching a sports match where neither side was trying to win the other side. But, I live in hope that politics can be more than a social norm win-lose dichotomy. In the context of ecological issues that operate outside of our politics, if we don't get our acts together, it's a lose-lose for civilisations. When it could of been a general ecological win-win.
🕊
Think more the hardest way as how not to be fool as barbarian
Vs
Think more the hardest way to not be fool as a person who break somebody else's cabin and used it as sheltering place by force
Think more the hardest way with dirt dusty feet, cracky skin etc..
Vs
Think more the hardest way with the same love to nieces and nephews from both mother and father's family
Think more as wise as Matchbox borrower...
Vs
Think more as wise as how I shouldn't be fool as a person who generous to others from others' plate
Think concious
Vs
Think figuratively
Think more as wise as possible to fool not by what fakers expected from me..
Vs
Think more the hardest way by what my real instincts aught me to speak clearly to the point without adding additional qualification phrase
Islamic veils are not a free choice, by any definition of the word.
They are a Hobson's choice.
Having your entire family, friend network, community, religious leaders, and everyone else in your life force you into a paradigm since birth does not allow anyone to make what could honestly be considered a "free" choice...
I can't see any way of disentangling equality of opportunity and outcome, because kids inherit both of them to some extent. As someone who leans to the left I'm mostly concerned with equality of the essentials of life (food, shelter, health care, education) and with the elimination of ascriptive hierarchies. Hierarchies of merit would be ideal if they were achievable. I could certainly roll the dice under the veil of ignorance, if it only meant that I might live a life free of unnecessary suffering though also without luxury or high esteem.
Edit: ideological Turing test! WOW, what a great idea!
It scares me when some brilliant people like you are not sure if people are ok with strict Hijab or having a theocratic government in some countries. Well, as someone from an oppressed society, i should say most people hate dogmatic rules or hijab. But they are scared of revealing what they think. They may risk their lives. And their government use fear control people and to lie to the world that "hey, we are different from you; don't intervene in our affairs. We are culturally and historically different"... . Well that destroys the little hope we might have from the outside (west) to help us free ourselves from these monsters who are controlling our countries in middle east.
Within the context of females choice regarding pregnancy. There are right possible outcomes (ethically right). In general, the aim is to have only wanted (planned) pregnancies. Therefore, there would be no demand for abortions. It's not a "stretch" to think how this could be achieved if humans manage to achieve a more modern civilised ( ethical\ equitable) society. Of course, the issues to achieving many social improvements seem "messy" or improbable whilst we exist in cultures that are far from that "utopia".
if you want to prevent or limit abortions, all you need is One Pill -- held tightly between the knees....
Am I the only one who keeps smiling like an idiot while seeing Julia pouring brilliance?
I am inspired!
nope
Think more as wise with 20years-less way that deducted from my life since 1996-2016 with incompetent grades report cards
Vs
Think more the hardest way of how wise enough am I able to like with 10 years of acedemical-less
So let us not indulge with that!
Think more till 75.56 % of a day...
Vs
Think more the cooparate-less way
It is obvious judging by some comments that certain men do not like intelligent, fast talking women and find them annoying.
It is a reoccuring theme no matter what the subject is.
I am the opposite.(and a man btw).
Think more as wise as possible the hardest way of how me as a person from right hand side steering wheel drive who honestly dealt with you as a person from left hand side steering wheel drive...
Vs
Think more as wise as how I shouldn't be fool by incompleted white line colouring on the highway
Think more the hardest way with enough thankful decadal recalled memorised sources of information and knowledge...
Vs
Think more as wise as how I understandably deal with internet on the next level, but fool not by moment I was repeatedly framed to waste with what I didn't love doing
I have seen beneath Lincoln skirt! And I owe that a play! And and essay!
i am excite with full release! all your writings are belong to us!
Thus I term that which is in unison and cannot be bridged!
Think more as wise with portion of busiest four lanes highway within the radius of 500KM geographical location that I lived...
Vs
Think more as wise like approximately 60% House-compound households with no parked vehicles, 20% house compound households with less than two parked vehicles or two wheelers, 10% with less than 4, 7% with less than 8, 3% with more than 8 apart from Office buildings, Hotels, Educational Institution Buildings, Hospitals, Maxi-cab/Bazar-Buses/Local cab etc parking lot, indoor or outdoor Play ground stadiums, Worshipping centres etc
I sketched out many philosophical interest!
Think more the hardest way of how I dealt with specifically you for next new day updating
Vs
Think more as wise as possible after every one are sleeping for individual daily scheduled timing legally business
Social Media, where friends share themselves with friends and their opinions!
Social media: not meant to indece oddity my the public and its creators but as it's scripted purpose!
It was technical, but the labor to understand the preface seduced us!
Think more the hardest way till 10:48 AM, with 43.98% of Monday
Vs
Think more the hardest way on my own world way, and how not to be fool by the over-simplifiers who die-hardly tried to judgementally read my every comments
I had once developed an entire philosophical system having read Kant!
but did you write it all down using the Kantian style of obtuse obfuscation and an off-the-charts Fog Index?
Think more as wise as how how I never stopped to ask why? to many of your excuse whys?'
Vs
Think more as wise as possible yet I shouldn't be fool like I am abled to answer the questions that are just madeup
I have gone deeper into the irrational! And it is physiology!
She understands Rawles. Shermer is striking me as a mediocre intellect.
and she is a lunatic leftis extremist
Even my writings, earliest, were very much influenced my Kant's style!
What the hell are you doing dude. Leaving more than 10 comments on the same video? Completely unhinged.
@@michaelo.1320 I enjoy intelligent conversations! What should I say!
@@mckincygolokeh7991 Seek professional help.
@@michaelo.1320 were it so that you are in need of help?
@@michaelo.1320What the hell is wrong you? I once responded to 14,440 comments on a Joe Rogan Atlantis video.
Quickly, Karen! Alert the YouTubian Comment Enforcement Authorities! As well as the YouTubian Psychiatric Institute for Violations of Societal Norms Regarding Comment Allotments.
Think more as wise as possible how I feel when I cannot completing my daily 3GB internet data pack above 80%
Vs
Think more the hardest way to fool not like I throw away my 56 days duration E-Recharge gap into waste always
Surprisingly (to me), Shermer is weak on morality in the mix. Thanks for the vid.
26:11 Can this be equal to :attempts at imposing freedom to the slaves are likely to be worse? I am an Iraqi and say about 80% of the Iraqis to this day are thankful for America toppling Saddam
thats interesting stats. is there sources for that?
@@wasdwasdedsf Are you lefty or righty, or truly interested?
@@nishuee9349 can i be a right and truely interested? what does that have to do with anything? it was an interesting stat and wondered how certain/verifiable it was
Checkout ray comfort just witnessing channel to find out the reasons why to follow Jesus to land safely in the afterlife.
Social media is not that serious to make a book! Could be crushed by government!
All else is rational!
Prostitution vs. homelessness and starvation… For the government to stand in the way seems wrong.
Another is that the state making decisions for what a woman does with her body has been already covered in the abortion debate.
but we should of course destroy the whole country with inforcing a rushed untested batch of chemicals to treat a fl season that kills noone, with a terrible socalled "vac-e" that is objectively garbage.
and we should of course destroy ouir economies locking down everyone to the cost of tens of trillions for a fl season that kills noone.
why is anyone still on the side of these lunatics, again?
Algorithm
Kinda like voting for a team over a country?
and thus an old folks home opatient who cant speak was illegally installed
Hence, social media must be reduced to government! And the gorvenment must be reduced to?....
Think more as wise as Internationally TV broadcasting host who had a Interviewing conversation with selected past former footballers each segments before every football match begin infront of billion of viewers across the world, apart from ticketing spectators in the stadiums...
Vs
Think less to not be fool as a person who had to deal with anyone by competing with money in whose team I support with the one that my opponent support
Even lies!
And behold, there was Nietzsche!
Would be disgusted by that Lincoln!
If social meadia is used as a pltafor to promote disorderness, it would be unfine
Michael spouts a lot of canned talking points, doesn't he?
It's the grammer of these men books that make them a bad read!
Sadly, I doubt you'll notice the irony in your comment!
@@miriam-english surely, a Divine irony!
She should not utter," Oh, My God". She is still a victim of god conditioning culture . When you begin to think , you start rejecting god conditioning culture .
cringe bro
when you begin to think, you discover words are just words
jesus
there are no atheists during orgasms
Do not bring Oj to us~~ We care for serious stuff~~~ for the forwarding of man
I will reduce that American God, Lincoln!
I like Shermer but he’s the king of building up straw men and knocking them to the ground.
so, you believe in a "God"? 🙃
so, you believe in a "God"? 🙃
Camilla, if you are rejoicing in my misfortunes, we'll have a problem
Slow your rate of speech Julia! Very distracting.
Please dont..
This chick is so hot
I like her, but I find it pretty weird, that what ever they are talking about, racism, murders...she just keeps on smiling. Obviously she likes attention. ; )
I think it is very natural. We can't really emphatize with a lot of unknown people in pretty general situations. Only politics are very hypocritical about it
@Ari Tuhkanen, what an absurdly superficial statement to make. You don't think perhaps she's enjoying the conversation?
@@miriam-english Of course she was enjoying the conversation, so was I! That was just my observation, don't burn you knickers because of that!
she got a purty mouth.
This is the worst interviewer Shermer had on his channel. Extremely annoying to listen to, particularly the second half.
Or interviewee
@@AdrianCalgary I saw a natural conversation, was it perhaps something else?
@@raycarnis9540 personal observations. Her whole style of talking
17:22 Is it really that funny? She is nice, but doesn't come across as having that depth of personality.
Michael Shermer wrong again. As usual he says mostly sensible stuff, but then throws all his skepticism out of the window when there's a question clearly hedged by his blue team and he becomes just another soldier for his team.
We have a video of Derek Chauvin murdering George Floyd? No we don't.
This is a begging the question fallacy. We do not know a priori what the video shows, that's what the trial was for.
For a supposed skeptic Shermer does commit plenty of fallacies.