August 1st, 2022 | 48 mins 26 secs
amos tversky, basketball, bias blind spot, black and white thinking, cosmic insignificance, critical thinking, daniel kahneman, emotions, george loewenstein, happiness, hot hand effect, i-frame, less ross, meaning, nick chater, nudges, oliver burkeman, philosophy, psychology, purpose, reasoning, richard nisbett, s-frame, social science, spotlight effect, tom gilovich, well being, wisdom
Is "the spectrum" a more helpful way to think about the world than "categories"? Tom Gilovich joins Igor and Charles to discuss the perils of black-and-white thinking, the evolving data on the hot hand phenomenon, the science of regret, why foxes are wiser than hedgehogs, and the freedom that comes from learning that we are of less interest to other people than we think. Igor considers the limits of psychological nudging in tackling society’s structural problems, Tom shares the perspective that leads him to be so unrelentingly joyful, and Charles learns that even scientists have to work hard to avoid being typecast. Welcome to Episode 48.
December 4th, 2021 | 1 hr 11 mins
actor-observer bias, amos tversky, analytic perception, culture, daniel kahneman, emotions, happiness, holistic perception, intelligence, iq, job interviews, lee ross, meaning, mental processes, philosophy, psychology, purpose, reasoning, richard nisbett, social psychology, society, wisdom
A disturbing thought - might it be impossible for us to directly observe the workings of our minds? Richard Nisbett joins Igor and Charles to discuss a life lived on the cutting edge of behavioral sciences in the second part of the 20th Century. He shares tales from his groundbreaking research into our faulty mindware, discussing various biases, cultural differences in cognitive processes, our inability to directly observe our mental processes, and why job interviews are not only unhelpful but potentially harmful to our ability to hire the best person for the job. Igor is keen to learn about the human beings behind some of the 20th Century’s academic idols in social psychology like Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky and Lee Ross, Richard explains why important work and interesting work are not necessarily the same thing, and Charles struggles to make sense of when we do and don’t intervene to help strangers in peril. Welcome to Episode 43.
October 7th, 2019 | 51 mins 46 secs
10% of your brain, abraham lincoln, bias blind spot, carl sagan, clinical psychology, cognitive biases, confirmation bias, daniel kahneman, elizabeth loftus, emily pronin, emotions, epistemic humility, evidence-based medicine, evidence-based practice, happiness, intellectual humility, linus pauling, lucy, mark leary, meaning, nobel prize, philosophy, psychology, purpose, reasoning, richard nisbett, scarlett johansson, seymour epstein, social science, walter mischel, well being, werewolves, wisdom
Patients always receive treatment in agreement with the best scientific evidence available, right? Well, no. Not really. Clinical practitioners seem to suffer from many of the cognitive biases that affect the rest of us, and treatment decisions are often much less science-based that we might like to think. Scott Lilienfeld joins Igor and Charles to discuss evidence-based practice in psychotherapy, the importance of doubting, clinical psychology’s dirty little secret, Scarlett Johansson’s brain, confirmation bias, how science really works, and why people just can’t let go of the idea that a full moon triggers werewolf-style behaviour. Igor reveals he learnt his English from TV detective ‘Columbo’, Scott discusses the fine art of planting seeds of doubt in conversations, and Charles learn from Abraham Lincoln that intellectual humility can ultimately be a path to earned intellectual confidence. Welcome to Episode 22.