Really interesting info. Thanks.

Just a couple of little things...

The picture with the old 1959 or 1962 rolling stock looks like it’s taken at Harrow and Wealdstone station which these days is a Bakerloo line and london overground station.

And the scene with the train leaving the station where the time is at 2:40 of the video looks like a bakerloo or northern line station but it’s definitely not a bakerloo line train. Looks like a jubilee or northern line train. So I’m not sure... 🤷🏻‍♂️

After all this suffering this member is going through due to 'the met lottery' the least one can do is sent him/her some cookies! If no one else is willing to do so please dm me your details and I ll try to find the best cookies here in Athens and send them your way 😉

Thanks met!

The kind of double speak that I am most wary of is political language. The way in which politicians are communicating almost always deserves a second and sometimes even a third look.
A fine example of recent times is the wedding of The Minister of Justice and Security of The Netherlands, Ferd Grapperhaus. Ferd married his long-time girlfriend last summer.

He was photographed several times during this event while he did not keep a distance of 1,5 meters between himself and other party guests. He was even hugging some of them. Few will blame him personally for that, but the rule of keeping a distance of 1,5 meters is a rule that the Dutch cabinet prescribes for citizens. And it was prescribed quite firmly. Grapperhaus even issued fines (in the amount of 95 euro) to citizens for violations of that rule.

When the photos became public, our Prime Minister Mark Rutte stated in a newspaper article that “Grapperhaus is still believable”. Our Deputy Prime Minister Hugo de Jonge did the same and he even told the press: "Ferd Grapperhaus is very believable".

As an attentive reader you then look for some clues to humor and/or satire, because one expects given the situation that the letters "Un" must stand before the word "believable". Could this be some kind of joke? But the newssources turned out to be very credible indeed. Rutte and De Jonge actually really used the word "believable" to indicate a situation in which Grapperhaus and his policy were in fact unbelievable because of his behaviour that summerday.

Suppose both of these politicians were to do this every week. At some point it is then no longer possible to use the word ‘unbelievable’ in relation to Ferd Grapperhaus, because that indicates a situation that according to the politicians cannot (and should not) exist.

Ultimately, the public will automatically internalize that the word believable from now on is also intended to indicate situations of unbelievability. The word unbelievable thus loses its function.

To consistently maintain this kind of deception, a politician must be able to believe two things that conflict with each other: knowing that it is necessary to cover up that Grapperhaus’s behaviour makes him in fact unbelievable and at the same time think that Grapperhaus is believable. Doublespeak at its best, if you ask me. Orwell would eat his heart out :-)

Political doublespeak can also turn into satire itself. A fine example that I really like is the East German word (actually two words) ‘Antifaschistischer Schutzwall’, or “Anti-fascist protective rampart”. It is also a very nice to pronounce this one.

Antifaschistischer Schutzwall was used by the East German government as a euphemism for the East German Wall.

Suppose you don’t know anything about the history of (divided) Germany, you might think that this wall was indeed meant to keep fascists out of East Germany. In reality however this wall had the exact opposite intention: it was build to prevent East Germans to leave the country and flee into the so-called fascist West Germany, a country which wasn’t fascist at all in those days.

There are of course many more examples of political doublespeak. Next week it is election time in The Netherlands: on the 17th of March we have the chance to vote a new parliament. Doublespeak seems to multiply these days; the sheer mass of it is unbelievable. As a close and avid reader I really can’t keep up. It is very interesting though as it gives me lots of examples which I then use again to show and tell my daughter (she is 15) the ways in which people in general and politicians in particular communicate.

Hey met

unfortunately the lack of time and the even greater lack of knowledge of the english language do not allow me to cover the topic as much and as clearly as I'd wished. I hope this is at least "understandable"...

Let's start listing the four types of doublespeak identified by Lutz:

euphemism: an indirect word or phrase that people often use to refer to something embarrassing or unpleasant, sometimes to make it seem more acceptable than it really is
gobbledygook: complicated language that is difficult to understand, especially when used in official documents
inflated language: puffed-up, important-sounding words used to give commonplace things and events an elevated, glowing appearance
jargon: words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group of people, and are difficult for others to understand

Although in different contexts all of them can be used to abuse, mislead and exclude people, that is to exercise some sort of power, inflated language is in my opinion the kind of doublespeak to be the most on guard against nowadays.

In the last thirty years, mainly due to the introduction of new media, communication is undergone a complete revolution making it quicker and thus necessarily shorter.

Advertising, which in the western advanced capitalistic world benefited most of any other field in the availability of resources to study and exploit these new communication systems, can be considered as a sort of avantgarde in the communication development.
In fact, if we consider the artists to be the ones capable of understanding and express the essence of their time and, in some cases, even the essence of the times to come, it's enlightening that McLuhan considered "Advertising the greatest art form of the 20th century", moreover many great artists made more and more use of form of expressions taken from advertising (Barbara Krueger being just the tip of the iceberg).

Also in politics it's increasingly seldom to find someone giving a long elaborated speech (which was very common just 20/30 years ago and where gobbledygook was used very extensively), whereas tweets, FB and IG posts (even memes!) are now the normal way of delivering the political message and sometimes even official communications, that is in forms very similar to the ones in use by advertising.

So taking advertising as the reference of most kind of modern communications -and also considering consumer is the main role of most people in western societies, which makes advertising the most common form of communication delivered to the people-, I think we have to be especially aware of the kind of doublespeak advertising makes use of, which I believe is "inflated language".
Actually advertising makes also use of euphemism and jargon but in my opinion to a much lesser extent.


Anyway, although as said we must be aware of the way language is used, images are actually by far the most common form of communication today and their hidden message is much more difficult to "decode". We are flooded by images all of the time in all aspects of our lives. Even newspapers have completely changed their format in the latest two decades(to an even greater extent their online versions), where words are often used just to give confirmation of what is shown by images.
So, in some way, images are the real new doublespeak we must be more on guard against as they are no longer an extension of the words but are now the "verb"

About this I found very interesting the work "All I Remember" by italian artist Elisabetta Benassi, where the back of famous photographs taken from the archives of the most important newspapers in world are shown; here she gave words again a the central role even if images had taken the show (here at half price).


As a final note, although the word (doublespeak) is mainly given a negative connotation, I think it's important to remember it's nothing else that a sophisticated use of language, which is the first and most important human tool.

In the same way as power and commerce use them to reach their aims, trying to keep the status quo and maximize profits, people can "fight" back by unmasking and "decoding" these practices and opposing to the power of the mis-used words the power of knowledge and well used words (modern media give people much more opportunities to make their voice heard nowadays than in the past).


...and, anyway, in the worst case, such "tool" can be used to make life more pleasant, so for instance...

inflated language can be used to make events and conversation much more interesting:




gobbledygook (although "supercazzola" is something slightly different, I would consider it more as a "reversed-gobbledygook") can be a very funny and witty way of making jokes (and fight back authority):

(*)

and jargon is very common in subcultures and children games

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verlan


(*) this is very very very famous italian movie, but I'm afraid it can't be fully appreciated by non-italian speakers. Most of the words used in the "supercazzola" don't make any sense and they're often used to mock authority.

Great job, kjg, viz and astarti.

Cookies for everyone.


Bearing in mind that the threshold for passing this task on doublespeak was low (as previously mentioned, it could have been a single cut-and-paste sentence), the level of effort made by all participants was impressive. I've only had a quick scan of the responses thus far, but will in the coming days have a proper read and watch.


A sample answer — with the kind of doublespeak I myself am especially wary of — will also be posted shortly for members to consider.


__________


Separate congratulations as well.

In completing the task, you automatically qualified for a leisurely, possibly more challenging, and rather interesting future bonus task, exclusive to the three of you. Details to be announced in about a week's time. [Sorry for the delay. I'm still thinking about the parameters needed to encourage participation.]

Everyone who completes the bonus task shall secure a bonus prize, which I hope will be attractive enough to compensate any time and energy they put in.

For now, I confirm that task relates to the two videos below (previously posted as Part C of the competition) — which I consider to be important viewing and worth revisiting. Those videos feature Jonathan Haidt and Tim Ferriss.



C.

Jonathan Haidt - The moral roots of liberals and conservatives (TED2008, Monterey, California, February 2008)
- uploaded by TED-Ed



What is a 'Bigoteer'? (Pt. 2) | Tim Ferriss | LIFESTYLE | Rubin Report
- uploaded by The Rubin Report on 22 December 2016

Define or describe one specific type of doublespeak you feel you most need to be on your guard against when reading or listening to what others are saying.



SAMPLE ANSWER


Below is one of the more insidious types of doublespeak I am wary of. What it emphasises is the manipulative nature of the language brought into play.


This kind of doublespeak can be broken down into two key components:


1.  The doublespeaker knows their words will be received by the majority of their audience to mean something that reflects better on them (or on the situation being described) than a candid statement would. However, this understanding by the majority doesn't correspond to the truth, or at least not the whole truth.

To the extent that factual information has been volunteered by the doublespeaker, it is restricted in scope to the point of being intentionally misleading. And sometimes entirely misleading, where what's been understood by a reader or listener is at complete odds with reality.

Psychopaths aside, most liars would feel uncomfortable if they were caught out and exposed for lying. That's a risk they typically try to mitigate. So if there's a suitable alternative, capable of achieving the same ends, it will generally be embraced.

The primary benefit of doublespeak more generally is that it allows the doublespeaker to deceive. And, crucially for this particular type, without having to resort to overt, unambiguous lies.


2.  Now, in many audiences, we can expect to find a small number of people who are astute and alert. Being the ones most likely to question what's been said, those individuals are potentially inconvenient.

A proper setback for the doublespeaker comes when they're challenged on their statements. Especially if that's done publicly, in a manner that might raise doubts about their integrity. But even in this worst-case scenario of being confronted, the doublespeaker has a final card up their sleeve — which is to disingenuously claim it was all a misunderstanding:

"No, of course I wasn't lying; I'd never stoop that low. My reputation for honesty is far too precious to me. The statement I made was simply misinterpreted. If you look at it again, you'll see what I actually said is different to what you mistakenly thought I said."


Indeed, the specific words used had, from the very outset, been carefully chosen with this scenario in mind. They were intended to offer the doublespeaker an "out". Hidden within them was another possible meaning — one that was deliberately far less obvious to the average reader or listener. Most importantly, even if misleading, the alternative interpretation was in itself semantically truthful (or not untruthful).

The secondary benefit of this type of doublespeak is that it offers the doublespeaker a safety net if they get cornered. They have plausible deniability, always retaining the option of playing innocent. And quite often, that's enough for some of their audience to give them the benefit of the doubt — whether out of naivety or a spirit of generosity.



____________________


The Lance Armstrong reply* when he was asked about doping, raised earlier by Dive Jedi, arguably falls within this type of doublespeak.

I've also found another example for illustration purposes, this one art-related:



CASE STUDY


Ann Freedman, former president of the Knoedler gallery*

Below are stills with subtitles from the enjoyable documentary film, Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art (2020)*






[Although a fair amount could be mentioned here on the subject of microexpressions*, including possible duping delight*, that's a separate discussion of its own.]



"I did not knowingly sell fakes."


So — what does this statement actually mean?


1.  Well, the average person might just assume it was synonymous with, "I genuinely believed the artworks I sold were authentic."

And for a doublespeaker, that is precisely what they want everyone to "hear" — an assertion of their righteousness. Confirmation they were, and always had been, dealing in good faith. Moreover, that they too were an innocent victim of a much bigger scam that fooled so many other people as well.


2.  But everyone who's paying attention will appreciate the potential elasticity of those six words. Frankly, they could mean almost anything.

If, with respect to counterfeits that were sold, a doublespeaking dealer:

(i) had initial suspicions regarding their authenticity; or

(ii) had serious and credible reasons to believe they could be fake; or even

(iii) was 99% certain they were fake,

then the faintest glimmer of doubt remaining in their mind — the fact they did not 100% know the artworks to be fake, perhaps due to a 1% chance those pieces might still be real — could suffice in allowing that dealer to later claim (dishonestly, but without technically lying), "I did not knowingly sell fakes."



And that's why this kind of language is a red flag for me.

To my mind, it often seems the equivalent of, "Catch me out if you can. In the meantime, go fuck yourself."

This thread could use a fair amount of housekeeping.

A late reply to your post seems like a good place to start.

__________


You and me both, regarding Christopher Hitchens. It's also reassuring to know that other forum members are fans of the writer, speaker, debater and polemicist.

At my home, there are more books by Hitchens than by anyone else — including Orwell and Bukowski (but possibly excluding Helmut Newton).



To his credit, I don't recall ever witnessing Hitchens engage in intellectual dishonesty. He didn't have to because he was always prepared. He did the reading beforehand, and quite often seemed to know the arguments of his debating opponents better than they did. So there was no need to resort to cheap tactics. Like strawmanning the other side's position. Or ducking awkward questions, as a slippery politician might do. On the contrary, in some of the talks I've watched, he went out of his way to ensure audience members didn't feel their challenges were sidestepped and left unanswered.

Hitchens' courage to voice unpopular opinions is worth emphasising as well.

Thankfully, that kind of courage still exists in the public realm. But it is pretty rare. Especially in the current climate of pervasive social media — when the consequences of expressing views deemed to be heterodox, or simply engaging in critical thinking and asking basic questions, have become so extreme. The far easier approach to take in such an environment is to keep your head down, cower to the illiberal (and often vindictive) rage mob, and hope somebody else is willing to take on the fight in your place.

__________


Whenever meeting anyone who's unfamiliar with Christopher Hitchens' work, I feel almost duty-bound to initiate them. [Likewise, albeit to a lesser extent, with people like Sam Harris, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt and Coleman Hughes, all of whom I consider phenomenal.]

My default suggestion is that they type "Hitchslap" into the search bar of YouTube. The results are instant, they're accessible, and it's a bit like being shown the goal highlights of a football match.

But for those who display genuine interest, I always recommend they watch Hitchens in a full discussion or debate. It's the difference between listening to The Wall in its entirety, versus limiting oneself to the single, Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2).



Old footage from C-SPAN is a favourite of mine, and the clip below is among many that demonstrate Hitchens' knowledge, clarity of thinking, and willingness to place himself at risk in defence of freedom of speech. Arthur Miller had expressly refused to do the latter on this occasion. [As an aside, it pains me today whenever I hear the suggestion that the principles of free speech, free expression, and free enquiry are "right wing" issues. What that betrays is a grotesque if not criminal ignorance of history. Even contemporary history.]

The programme that follows was broadcast on 21 February 1989, one week after the Ayatollah Khomeini had issued a fatwa on Salman Rushdie.*

20 years later, Hitchens would write, "For our time and generation, the great conflict between the ironic mind and the literal mind, the experimental and the dogmatic, the tolerant and the fanatical, is the argument that was kindled by The Satanic Verses."*


Christopher Hitchens on C-SPAN - Salman Rushdie and 'The Satanic Verses' (1989) [40:06]
- uploaded by machinist




Random comments:


1.  At around 14:56, Hitchens refers to discussions with his wife about the potential security concerns of taking a public stand in defence of Rushdie. He mentions she comes from a country where there was once a dictatorship. His wife back then was the Greek Cypriot Human Rights lawyer, Eleni Meleagrou.


2.  How fantastic are live programmes with viewer dial-ins?

Leaving aside the great response to the first caller, a brief but memorable exchange between host and guest takes place immediately following the call that starts at around 22:07:

Caller: [...]

Bruce Collins: Alright ma'am, thank you very much. [To Hitchens] Um, comment?

Christopher Hitchens: Nothing immediate, no.


__________


Although I posted the next video on two previous occasions**, it is strong enough and important enough to do so again.

On 15 November 2006, at the invitation of the University of Toronto's Hart House Debating Club, Hitchens argued in favour of the motion, Be It Resolved: Freedom of Speech Includes the Freedom to Hate.


Christopher Hitchens - Free Speech (2006) [21:07]
- uploaded by hitch archive

In my humble opinion - he was good at rhetoric, enjoyed an argument, interesting to read and reflect on - but often superficial. The concept of anti-theism is nothing new and fundamentally missed the experiential aspect of religious faith, other than to dismiss it.   He struggled to get beyond reason as an evidential base. Give me Singer, James, Dawkins or even Russell. 

To offer an on topic reflection - Banksy’s Toxic Mary is a better ‘read’!  ... perhaps that’s a motion worth debating!?

no offence intended, just a personal view on a fascinating  topic! 

Just how extraordinary is the journey Ze Frank takes us on?


Ze Frank: Are you human? [4:34]
- uploaded by TED on 18 July 2014

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-asia-china-57314397

[BBC link with a video worth watching. It features proper heroism, given the penalty for lighting a candle is now up to five years in prison. "I am willing to pay the price for fighting for democracy."]


Lighting a candle for Tiananmen and Hong Kong freedoms

Every 4 June for the past three decades, tens of thousands of Hongkongers have gathered in a park to hold a candlelight vigil, mourning those killed in the 1989 Tiananmen crackdown in Beijing.

The incident, also known as "June Fourth", is considered highly politically sensitive in the mainland. Hong Kong has been one of the very few places in China which has allowed public commemoration - but now this tradition is under threat.

Authorities have banned the event for the second year in a row. They've cited Covid concerns - but activists fear it is much more than that.

Tonyee Chow, vice-chairperson of the vigil's organiser Hong Kong Alliance, tells the BBC why they are asking Hongkongers to light candles on 4 June.


__________


www.pri.org/stories/2021-06-03/hong-kong-lighting-candle-tiananmen-victims-now-crime


In Hong Kong, lighting a candle for Tiananmen victims is now a crime

Wearing black, or being in or around Victoria Park on the anniversary, could also land someone a one-year sentence in jail.

The World
June 03, 2021 · 12:30 PM EDT
By Patrick Winn

It’s much more than a candlelight vigil. In Hong Kong, commemorating victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre is a treasured act of resistance. There is no other place on Chinese soil where a mass remembrance of the tragedy is remotely possible.

But now, that right is being stripped away.

As of this year, anyone publicly lighting a candle in public in Hong Kong to recall the massacre on June 4, 1989, in Beijing — a turning point in China’s history in which a movement for greater freedoms was crushed — faces up to five years in prison.

This is just the latest endeavor by China’s Communist Party (and the Hong Kong government, obsequious to Beijing) to pick apart the coastal territory’s autonomy, a concept called “One Country, Two Systems," that is rapidly eroding.

[...]

Psychologists Nick Davis and Emma Barratt discovered that whispering was an effective trigger for 75% of the 475 subjects who took part in an experiment to investigate the nature of ASMR*; this statistic is reflected in the popularity of intentional ASMR videos that comprise someone speaking in a whispered voice.



Real Housewives ASMR: Kim Richards vs. Eileen Davidson and Lisa Rinna in Amsterdam
- uploaded by T. Kyle



__________



Narcissists and #SOCIALMEDIA III
- uploaded by joeybtoonz



Narcissists and #SOCIALMEDIA VI
- uploaded by joeybtoonz



Best of Narcissists and #SOCIALMEDIA
- uploaded by joeybtoonz

Side rant about the deletion of posts


For members who are tempted to delete any of their posts, or substantive parts thereof, I would discourage them from doing so.



1.  Even if unrecognised at the time they're drafted, along with their corresponding threads, individual posts may have long-lasting value to this forum.


For example:

(i)  they're a source of knowledge and context that can be referred back to in the years to come (including when the subject matter is as trivial as pricing or a sales thread);

(ii)  they sometimes provide valuable warnings to others about market manipulation, overpricing, scamming, counterfeiting, the identities of deceitful individuals (both private and professional), and other risks and shenanigans constantly faced by art collectors;

(iii)  they can offer insights on the artists, artwork or concerns that many forum members were fixated on at a particular point in time — which may be informative, especially after hype subsides, initial interest wanes, and sheep-like focus (along with the familiar pattern of speculation) has shifted elsewhere; and

(iv)  so on and so forth (fourth).


Deleting posts is unhelpful to the forum because it compromises the integrity of threads, sometimes making them incoherent. As previously mentioned*, it can result in a needless waste of an educational opportunity.



2.  More broadly, removing posts can potentially corrupt our memories of forum history and the truth.



3.  The act of deleting posts also does a disservice to the perceived character of the deleter. It betrays a revisionist mindset, with the relevant member seemingly trying to hide what they previously stated.

While understandable, attempting to cover their tracks by expunging everything that may be incorrect, ill-judged, embarrassing or otherwise compromising seems rather cowardly. It does little to elicit respect. Even less so when posts are removed surreptitiously, on the sly — as if to pretend they were never published in the first place.


__________


If a member has drafted any posts that:

(i)  turn out to be factually inaccurate or misleading;
(ii)  could make them look foolish, misguided or petty; or
(iii)  might indicate they're prone to losing self-control,

on balance I suggest it's preferable that they retain the original posts in their entirety, and just insert a later correction or apology by way of addendum, using the forum's Edit function. And if need really be, using the Strike Through option.


__________


Despite the above reference to a "rant", this text could also be reframed as an ode, which has more positive connotations.


Let this therefore be an ode to:

(a)  keeping original posts in place, so that forum threads remain comprehensive and comprehensible (rather than incomplete or disjointed); and

(b)  manning up, being transparent when we make mistakes, by acknowledging and addressing them openly (rather than heeding the often pride-based, feeble temptation to cover up and delete).

COMPETITION 42


A.

Facts Don't Win Fights: Here’s How to Cut Through Confirmation Bias | Tali Sharot | Big Think [5:41]
- uploaded by Big Think on 19 September 2017



If you want someone to see an issue rationally, you just show them the facts, right? No one can refute a fact. Well, brain imaging and psychological studies are showing that, society wide, we may be on the wrong path by holding evidence up as an Ace card. Neuroscientist Tali Sharot and her colleagues have proven that reading the same set of facts polarizes groups of people even further, because of our in-built confirmation biases—something we all fall prey to, equally. In fact, Sharot cites research from Yale University that disproves the idea that the social divisions we are experiencing right now—over climate change, gun control, or vaccines—are somehow the result of an intelligence gap: smart people are just as illogical, and what's more, they are even more skilled at skewing data to align with their beliefs. So if facts aren't the way forward, what is? There is one thing that may help us swap the moral high ground for actual progress: finding common motives. Here, Sharot explains why identifying a shared goal is better than winning a fight. Tali Sharot's newest book is out now: The Influential Mind: What the Brain Reveals about Our Power to Change Others.



B.

Why you think you're right -- even if you're wrong | Julia Galef
[TEDxPSU, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 28 February 2016.] [11:37]
- uploaded by TED on 8 August 2016



Perspective is everything, especially when it comes to examining your beliefs. Are you a soldier, prone to defending your viewpoint at all costs — or a scout, spurred by curiosity? Julia Galef examines the motivations behind these two mindsets and how they shape the way we interpret information, interweaved with a compelling history lesson from 19th-century France. When your steadfast opinions are tested, Galef asks: "What do you most yearn for? Do you yearn to defend your own beliefs or do you yearn to see the world as clearly as you possibly can?"



C.

🇺🇦 Slava Ukraini. Uninterrupted video from 2017 available in 4K here*.


Vocal Coach/Opera Singer FIRST TIME REACTION & ANALYSIS Jinjer "Pisces" (Live Session)
- uploaded by The Charismatic Voice (Elizabeth Zharoff) on 19 June 2020



VOCAL COACH REACTS | FIRST TIME REACTION to JINJER PISCES... I wasn't ready.
- uploaded by Julia Nilon on 21 August 2020




D.







E.

Thierry Mugler, Spring/Summer 1997, Paris, 22 January 1997




Thierry Mugler Haute Couture Spring/Summer 1997 Full Show | EXCLUSIVE | HQ
[Tire dress at 2:33–3:21.]
- uploaded by christianzh




🇺🇦 Euromaidan, Independence Square, Kiev, 20 February 2014*






________________



At around 19:00 UK time on Thursday 31 March, I'll quote this post and add one or more questions or instructions. The first eligible member to answer correctly, wins.

COMPETITION 44


A.

Deride and Conquer, a.k.a. Monkey Queen
First exhibited at the Peace is Tough show with Jamie Reid, at The Arches, Glasgow, March 2001




Exposure magazine, Vol. 25, January 2002




London, 30 May 2002




Hamburg, Urban Discipline 2002: Graffiti Art, 26 June–2 July 2002




Pictures On Walls, 2003





B.

Coleman Hughes on How to Think with Julia Galef [S2 Ep.13] [1:32:00]
- uploaded by Coleman Hughes on 6 May 2021



Welcome to another episode of Conversations with Coleman.

My guest today is Julia Galef. Julia Galef is an author and podcaster. She's the Co-founder of the Centre for Applied Rationality and the host of the podcast "Rationally Speaking".

In this episode, we discuss her new book, "The Scout Mindset: Why Some People See Things Clearly and Others Don't". We talked about the difference between intelligence and open-mindedness, the tension between pursuing the truth dispassionately and belonging to a tribe, the notion of instrumental rationality, the trade-off between building a larger audience and remaining true to one's principles, and whether affiliating with a political party makes it harder to form true beliefs.



***Video already posted in Competition 43, but repeated here for emphasis.

Discover also Julia Galef's Rationally Thinking podcast — including episode 249: The case for racial colorblindness (Coleman Hughes)*.



C.





D.

Ozzy Man Reviews: Speedboat Crash
- uploaded by Ozzy Man Reviews on 4 July 2020



Ozzy Man Reviews: Humans Being Nice
- uploaded by Ozzy Man Reviews on 2 June 2020



Ozzy Man Reviews: Humans Being Nice #2
- uploaded by Ozzy Man Reviews on 1 July 2020



Ozzy Man Reviews: Best of Ping Pong 2016
- uploaded by Ozzy Man Reviews on 10 February 2017



Ozzy Man Reviews: Destination F Compilation (Vol.15)
- uploaded by Ozzy Man Reviews on 25 February 2021



________________



At around 19:02 UK time on Thursday 31 March, I'll quote this post and add one or more questions or instructions. The first eligible member to answer correctly, wins.