Wisdom of Crowds

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveWith artificial intelligence threatening to take over our imaginations, Shadi and Damir this week decided to talk through some of the philosophical quandaries with none other than political philosopher and Wisdom of Crowds contributing writer Samuel Kimbriel. The Crowd takes on ChatGPT, existential risk, "the simulation", navigating uncertainty and whether we can know what is real.After a recent encounter with ChatGPT, Damir is impressed that AI is now well on its way to modeling language, an advancement he thinks could upend the elite publishing world. On the potential existential threat posed by AI, Shadi's faith leaves him less than panicked about technological doomsday. Meanwhile, Sam reminds us that humanity lives in a state of uncertainty subject to inquiry which can breed distrust with political institutions that insist they have it all figured out.In the full episode (for paying subscribers only) Damir and Sam differ on whether ChatGPT is a new version of an old mechanism or whether it's something more sophisticated. Shadi asks whether such a technology can ever feel longing, wistfulness, and regret. How do we seek to understand human consciousness let alone that of artificial intelligence? A rich conversation ensues.Required Reading:- "You’re Better Off Not Knowing," by Shadi Hamid (The Atlantic).- "ChatGPT and Me," by Damir Marusic. (Wisdom of Crowds).- "Why I Am Not (As Much Of) A Doomer (As Some People)," by Scott Alexander (Substack).- A very politically incorrect tweet about ChatGPT and Joe Biden.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live With Ron DeSantis embracing an aggressively illiberal agenda of cultural reaction, how worried should we be? This week on the podcast, The New Republic's Osita Nwanevu—one of the most original leftist thinkers working today—joined us to debate the future of the Republican Party and the dangers of 2024. Very quickly, the conversation morphed into a spirited exchange on whether it's American institutions—or the madness of crowds—that explains the GOP's sharp turn to the right on questions of culture and identity. Osita argues that the GOP as an institution is dangerous. It has taken advantage of existing political institutions to promote anti-democratic values and rule as a minoritarian party even as it claims to represent the views and grievances of a sometimes silent majority. We also discuss whether Republican messaging against "wokeness" is truly a winning issue with voters—and what this says for prospects of an outright GOP victory in 2024.   (And, yes: we also touched on Osita's preference that the U.S. Constitution be abolished.) In Part 2 (available here for subscribers), Damir sets out a dark theory. Could the arrival of true mass democracy, where social media makes everyone far too interested in politics, actually be encouraging demagoguery? And can a democratic system withstand repeated assaults by such unscrupulous political entrepreneurs? Shadi's more optimistic on balance, seeing conflict as a sign of democratic health. And Osita sticks to his institutionalist guns. Believe it or not, the episode ends on a cautious note of optimism. Required Reading: "Trump has a better shot at the Republican nomination than people realize," by Osita Nwanevu (Guardian). "The Constitution is the Crisis," by Osita Nwanevu (New Republic). "DeSantis Derangement Syndrome and the Return of Mass Panic," by Shadi Hamid (Substack). "My Fellow Liberals Are Exaggerating the Dangers of Ron DeSantis," by Damon Linker (NYT). "Ron DeSantis is Not a Fascist," by Damon Linker (Substack)

This week, we're bringing you something special: our first recording with a live audience! Hosted by the University of Pittsburgh's Center for Governance and Markets and moderated by the center's director, Jen Murtazashvili (a friend of the Crowd), we had a freewheeling discussion about Shadi's new book, The Problem of Democracy.Shadi made his case for decoupling democracy and liberalism—what he calls "democratic minimalism." Instead of viewing democracy as a means to other ends, it should be seen an end unto itself. In other words, let us lower expectations and like (and perhaps even love) democracy for its more modest pleasures. Democracy is not about delivering economic growth, competence, or consensus. And it may even produce the opposite.The argument, expressed in its more provocative form, is that democracy is about a way of making choices, while liberalism is one choice among many. Citizens in conservative societies may choose otherwise—including by passing restrictions on abortion, alcohol consumption, and even "blasphemy laws" that prohibit insulting divine texts and prophets.Losing no time, Damir and Jen (and audience members) pose a series of challenges to Shadi's idiosyncratic view of democracy. Is this minimalistic conception of democracy realistic, even if it were desirable? Jen thinks that there needs to be a classically liberal limited state whereas Damir isn't so sure that ethnically and religiously divided countries are places where democracy flourishes. Is it enough to simply ask citizens to accept democratic outcomes not to their liking? Or must there be a deeper, shared cultural bond before anything else?On foreign policy, things get even more thorny. Can the United States truly promote democracy without doing damage to its own national security interests? The problem is that reasonable observers no longer agree, if they ever did, on which vital interests are, in fact, "vital." And, if America is a superpower, presumably it could absorb the costs of a democracy-first policy in the Middle East if it really wanted to.As the event became more of a free-for-all, extending into 2 hours of spirited exchanges with the audience, the crowd debated sharia courts, India under Modi, whether Obama actually had a dislike for Muslims, whether Israel was the ideal "illiberal democracy", what making America "more democratic" means, and the resiliency of American institutions over the last six years.Required Reading: - The Problem of Democracy: America, the Middle East, and the Rise and Fall of an Idea, by Shadi Hamid (Amazon).- Jen Murtazashvili’s personal website.- The Center for Governance and Markets at Pitt.- Full YouTube video of this conversation. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit wisdomofcrowds.live/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThis week, we were excited to have author Luke Burgis on the pod, to talk about a hot topic: desire. Specifically, mimetic desire—the idea that desires are often generated through our human propensity to copy each other. He's written an excellent book, Wanting: The Power of Mimetic Desire in Everyday Life, that affected both of us deeply.First theorized by the French philosopher Rene Girard, and present in everything from The White Lotus to the writings of Peter Thiel, mimetic desire is everywhere around us.We talked about how to identify the power of mimetic desire in our society: in ever more adversarial politics, in an economy increasingly focused on attention, and especially in social-media-mediated quests for collective scapegoats (Shadi shares how he became a scapegoat for Philadelphia sports fans last week).We discussed if it was possible to ever break the cycle of scapegoating, and how knowledge of this dynamic should change how we view politics. What does it mean to be a "political atheist," as Girard, a Catholic, called himself? And is Damir going to Hell?In the full episode (for paying subscribers only), we also pondered what the more pessimistic conclusions of the theory of mimetic desire might be. What does it mean that societies are to some extent bound to engage in cycles of mimetic imitation, rivalry, and scapegoating? Do citizens in democracies really deliberate rationally, or are they just following the leader? Is Shadi's insistence that democracy is an end in itself in peril?We closed by asking what implications this could all have for our personal lives. How can we determine which of our desires are "thin"—mimetically taken from others—or "thick"—coming from a deep sense of self? Do we have to consciously restrain our own choices? And what might our lives look like if we regain our sense of self-possession?Required Reading:- Wanting: The Power of Mimetic Desire in Everyday Life, by Luke Burgis (Amazon).- Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, by Rene Girard (Amazon).- Shadi’s bad sports tweet.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveIn recent months, Shadi has drawn a lot of online ire for saying that liberals were needlessly (and harmfully) catastrophizing ahead of the November midterms. We decided to talk to one of Shadi's smartest and most eloquent critics on this count—our friend Damon Linker, a former columnist at The Week and current author of the excellent Substack, Eyes on the Right.We argue about what's "normal" polarization, and what arguments end up making democracy less workable. Is Shadi really too complacent, or is he just being prudent? Is the Muslim Brotherhood "better" on democracy than the GOP? And why does the center-left have a newfound respect for military and intelligence agencies?In the full episode (for paying subscribers only) Shadi shares some insights gleaned while attending a far-right birthday party (don't ask). Why does the new generation of young conservatives feel so alienated from American politics, and can their grievances ever be accommodated? What can we learn from populist victories in Israel and Hungary? And can a convincing Ron DeSantis victory be the best thing that could happen to us in 2024?Required Reading:- “The ‘Democracy Panic’ of 2022 Was Fully Justified,” by Damon Linker (Eyes on the Right).- Our first podcast with Damon, “Reassessing the Reactionary Right.”- Fiona Hill’s podcast with us.- “General Milley says he wasn’t trying to undermine Trump in China Call,” by Teaganne Finne (NBC News).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThis was one of the richest conversations we've recorded in a while. Our guest this week is Robert Nicholson, the founder of The Philos Project, an organization that promotes Christian engagement with the Middle East, and host of The Deep Map, a new podcast that explores the religious and historical roots of conflict in the region.We asked Robert about what he thinks Westerners misunderstand the most about Middle Eastern politics: the role religion does, and doesn't play in the region's conflicts. Will countries need to craft collective identities that rise above religion for societies to progress? Robert thinks that goal is wildly unrealistic, and not even necessarily desirable.Veering from from minimal democracy to forced population transfers, the conversation only gets more contentious—and weirdly philosophical—from there.In the full episode (for paying subscribers only) Damir tries to push Shadi's fundamental commitments to a breaking point. If democratic minimalism requires that we respect the basic outcomes of the democratic process, then why should we be particularly concerned about illiberalism in Middle Eastern countries (or France, for that matter)? What higher principles can we appeal to, other than notions of liberal universalism that voters in the Middle East may not respect? And finally, we close out the discussion by asking Robert about the incoming Israeli coalition government—and the likelihood of things getting seriously ugly on the ground in the coming months.Required Reading:- Shadi’s appearance on Robert’s podcast, The Deep Map.- “Benjamin Netanyahu: What Drives Israel’s Incoming Prime Minister?” by Michah Goodman (The Jerusalem Post).- The Problem of Democracy: America, the Middle East and the Rise and Fall of an Idea, by Shadi Hamid (Amazon).- The Mossawa Center, an advocacy organization for Arab citizens in Israel.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.liveThe boys are back in town! Damir is back from yet another globetrotting trip, so the Crowd is returning to podcasting after a brief hiatus. Beginning with Kanye West's recent antisemitic interview with Alex Jones and dinner with Donald Trump, we discussed the success Democrats have had with pinning crazy candidates and viewpoints on the GOP. Shadi is concerned that overheated rhetoric about the death of democracy may be harmful in the long run, while Damir, ever the cynic, is impressed by the dirty politics.Of course, propping up crackpot candidates in a primary so that they can be beaten in the general election is a risky maneuver. Will covertly helping Donald Trump stay in the race invite divine judgement? Less theologically, how many people who seriously believed rhetoric about encroaching fascism will ever let that belief go? Shadi and Damir consider whether the "split personality" created by lives lived increasingly online leads to belief in outlandish, alarmist claims.In the full episode (for paying subscribers only), Shadi, on a characteristically theological tangent, wonders what Heaven will be like. Will we be able to know the deepest thoughts of our friends and acquaintances? Will we even have the identities and selves that we do now?Damir, also considering a (relatively) "undiscovered country" fills the Crowd in on his recent trip to Japan. What about Japan do Westerners not understand? Is it a modern, "Western" country, or some other, stranger, form of modernity. And are the media's representations of Japan as a deeply dysfunctional society all that accurate?Required Reading:- “Can You Pair Bond During Cybersex?” by Katherine Dee (Default Friend).- “Why Liberals Should Support a Trump Republican Nomination,” by Jonathan Chait (New York Magazine).- Patrick Stewart’s scene with Ricky Gervais on Extras.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live The Crowd returns triumphantly this week, for a rollicking conversation with one of Twitter's brightest and most iconoclastic personalities, Phillippe Lemoine. Phillippe writes the War on Science newsletter for the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology, and is also working on a book on the recent history of Russo-American foreign policy. We begin the show talking about direct democracy, and whether "the people" are worth listening to. Should we actually want the vox populi to weigh in on, say, American policy towards China, or public health? Maybe not—but does the educated elite have a much better track record? Phillippe tells of his personal encounters with motivated reasoning, ideologically driven conclusions, and just plain stupidity among epidemiologists and statisticians during the pandemic. We also discuss how deeply felt "wokeism" is among younger generations. Are we doomed as generations turn over, or will the ideological fever eventually break? In Part 2 (available here for subscribers), we dig into that final question—the fate of the Great Awokening—even further. What is it about social media that makes us crazy? We ask Phillippe how he stays sane, and protects himself from the pressure to conform ideologically. His answer shows just how far gone Shadi and Damir really are. Required Reading: One of Philippe's many articles critiquing conventional modeling of the Covid pandemic (War on Science). The study Philippe criticized, “Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe,” by Waxman et. al (nature). Scott Alexander’s rundown of Covid models and their critiques, including Philippe’s (Slate Star Codex).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live The Crowd is back to two members this week, as we sat down to talk about Elon Musk's recent takeover of Twitter and what, if anything, it means. One of Musk's first posts as the owner of Twitter was retweeting a conspiracy theory about the recent attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband— is this a sign that Twitter will become more like Parler, or significantly less-censored corners of the internet? Liberals are furious about the Musk takeover of Twitter. We discussed what a mass exit from Twitter, or some other series of events that leads to its decline, might mean for broader politics. Will the "dreampolitik" that otherwise quite banal liberals act out on Twitter spill out into real life, if its digital cage erodes? And why are mainstream liberals obsessed with labeling the spaces they create as "nonpartisan?" In Part 2 (available here for subscribers) we branched out to discuss the ways in which political balkanization has reshaped the boundaries of religious identity and tolerance. Dr. Oz is angling to become America's first Muslim senator, and his religion is almost a nonissue in the campaign— have Muslims quietly become part of the American mainstream? Shadi also shares his insights into why ethnic minorities are shifting to the right— "personal stories of radicalization," as he puts it. As the twin issues of crime and gender identity become more personal, whether experienced in major cities or in schools, will previously staunchly Democratic ethnic groups become ever more alienated from the left? And as these voters, from the privacy of the ballot box, threaten to punish Democrats in the midterms, will liberals react by questioning the legitimacy of elections? Required Reading: Shadi tweeting about Houellebecq. Shadi and Mehdi Hasan arguing about American democracy. Youssef Chouhoud’s tweeting about how Shadi and Hasan's argument was a sign of progress. “Dearborn divisions over LGBTQ books spur national debate as candidates compete for votes,” by Niraj Warikoo (Detroit Free Press).

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit wisdomofcrowds.live American men are struggling across the board. Falling behind in school, rapidly shrinking as a share of students in higher education, overwhelmingly the victims of violent crime, males in the United States are increasingly alienated and disconnected from our economy and society. That's the argument of Richard Reeves, a scholar at the Brookings Institution and author of the acclaimed new book, Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why it Matters, and What to do About It. The book is making waves across liberal and conservative media, and we were thrilled to have Richard on to discuss it with the Crowd. He has sharp criticisms for both sides of the culture war: the right weaponizes men's struggles without providing realistic solutions, and the left simply refuses to admit there is a problem at all. We pushed Richard on his proposed solutions of technocratic reforms in areas like education and family law: should we seek to restore social norms around marriage instead of consigning the institution to the past? How do we provide useful social scripts for young men to follow, in a society weighted towards brain and against brawn? In Part 2 (available here for subscribers) we talk about the deep differences in social development between boys and girls. For example, Richard's childhood in England included playing chicken with passing trucks, while schoolyard rock fights were a daily occurrence during Damir's time in Croatia (hailing from the gentler culture of the Philadelphia Main Line, Shadi is shocked). More seriously, we also discussed the way that the right has monopolized thinking about the effects of cultural and societal norms: how do liberals relearn discussing the importance of culture? Can a broken dating market be fixed? What does it mean if alienated men increasingly turn to illiberal movements and cultural figures like Jordan Peterson? And finally, why is Richard cautiously optimistic about the long-term prospects for men? Required Reading: Of Boys and Men: Why the Modern Male is Struggling, Why it Matters, and What to Do about It, by Richard Reeves (Amazon). Rethinking Sex: A Provocation, by Christine Emba (Amazon). Our podcast with Christine Emba. The Center for Arabic Studies Abroad.