Delve into the scandalous world of the Mitford Sisters, focusing on Unity Mitford's extraordinary life and her controversial ties to Hitler. Discover their complex family dynamics and contrasting political beliefs, revealing their influence on 20th-century celebrity culture. Explore Unity's background from Swastika, Ontario, and her troubling obsession with fascism. The discussion contrasts her privileged existence with the dark realities of Nazi Germany, culminating in a tragic narrative of loyalty and downfall.

In this engaging discussion, Brian Boyd, a leading expert on Karl Popper and Vladimir Nabokov, shares his insights into these two intellectual giants. He reveals how he discovered Nabokov and examines whether Nabokov had a philosophy. The conversation dives into Nabokov's dual life as a writer and scientist, questioning if he was merely a puzzle creator. Boyd also challenges the significance of an author’s intentions in literary interpretation, highlighting the fascinating interplay between their ideas and how they shaped each other.

Liron Shapira, host of the Doom Debates podcast, dives deep into the controversial realm of AI risks and creativity. He and the panel discuss the real implications of superintelligent AI and the ethical conundrums it presents. They tackle whether AI can be genuinely creative, exploring its limitations in humor and originality. The conversation also touches on the psychological effects of doomerism and the stark differences between human intelligence and AI mechanisms. Prepare for a thought-provoking and entertaining exploration!

Liron Shapira, host of Doom Debates and an expert in AI risks, welcomes Vaden Masrani and Ben Chugg for a vibrant discussion on epistemology. They dive into the contrasting views of Popperian and Bayesian reasoning while exploring the existential threats posed by AI. The trio debates whether it's reasonable to quantify beliefs and the challenges of predicting catastrophic events. Additionally, they touch on the complexities of prediction markets and the philosophical implications of Bayesianism in understanding human cognition and decision-making.

Tamler Sommers, a Professor of philosophy at the University of Houston and co-host of the Very Bad Wizards podcast, dives deep into the philosophical conundrum of induction. He challenges the idea of whether regularities exist in nature and debates Popper's controversial solution to this age-old problem. Expect lively discussions on the difference between certainty and justification, the reliability of predictions, and the intriguing intersection of science with meditation. With humor and insight, the conversation navigates the complexities of scientific theories and our understanding of reality.

David Deutsch, an influential thinker and author renowned for his contributions to the philosophy of science and quantum computation, takes center stage. He delves into whether belief is a useful lens for understanding cognition and debates the role of probability in meaningful analysis. The conversation challenges the limits of Bayesian reasoning, explores the complexities of truth, and critiques Popper's theories. Deutsch also reflects on the intricacies of language, creativity, and how they intersect with our understanding of reality.

Want to make everyone under 30 extremely angry? Tell them you don't like proportional representation. Tell them proportional representation sucks, just like recycling. In this episode, we continue to improve your popularity at parties by diving into Sir Karl's theory of democracy, and his arguments for why the first-past-the-post electoral system is superior to proportional representation systems. And if you find anyone left at the party who still wants to talk to you, we also cover Chapter 13 of Beginning of Infinity, where Deutsch builds upon Popper's theory. And always remember, First-Past-The-Post: If it's good enough for the horses, it's good enough for us. We discuss Why democracy should be about the removal of bad leaders How Popper's conception of democracy differs from the usual conception Why Popper supports first-past-the-post (FPP) over proportional representation (PR) How PR encourages backroom dealing and magnifies the influence of unpopular leaders The sensitivity of FPP to changes to popular will How FPP makes it easier to obtain majorities How majorities make it easier to trace the consequences of policies Deutsch and his criticism of compromise-policies. References Popper on democracy (economist piece). Vaden's blog post Chapter 13: Choices of The Beginning of Infinity Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Help us form a majority and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What's the first post you past? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Support Increments

Part two on Chapter 19 of Conjectures and Refutations! Last time we got a little hung up arguing about human behavior and motivations. Putting that disagreement aside, like mature adults, we move on to the rest of the chapter and Popper's remaining theses. In particular, we focus on Popper's criticism of the idea of a nation's right to self-determination. Things were going smoothly ... until roughly five minutes in, when we start disagreeing about what the "nation" in "nation state" actually means. (Note: Early listeners of this episode have commented that this one is a bit hard to follow - highly suggest reading the text to compensate for our many confusing digressions. Our bad, our bad). We discuss Are there any benefits of being bilingual? Popper's attack on the idea of national self-determination Popper's second thesis: that out own free world is by far the best society thus far Reductions in poverty, unemployment, sickness, pain, cruelty, slavery, discrimination, class differences Popper's third thesis: The relation of progress to war Whether Popper was factually correct about his claim that democracies do not wage wars of aggression Self-accusation: A unique feature to Western societies Popper's fourth thesis about the power of ideas And his fifth thesis that truth is hard to come by References Conjectures and Refutations Definition of self-determination from Cornell Law School The UN Charter Wilson's 14 Points Quotes The absurdity of the communist faith is manifest. Appealing to the belief in human freedom, it has produced a system of oppression without parallel in history. But the nationalist faith is equally absurd. I am not alluding here to Hitler’s racial myth. What I have in mind is, rather, an alleged natural right of man— the alleged right of a nation to self-determination. That even a great humanitarian and liberal like Masaryk could uphold this absurd- ity as one of the natural rights of man is a sobering thought. It suffices to shake one’s faith in the wisdom of philosopher kings, and it should be contemplated by all who think that we are clever but wicked rather than good but stupid. For the utter absurdity of the principle of national self-determination must be plain to anybody who devotes a moment’s effort to criticizing it. The principle amounts to the demand that each state should be a nation-state: that it should be confined within a natural border, and that this border should coincide with the location of an ethnic group; so that it should be the ethnic group, the ‘nation’, which should determine and protect the natural limits of the state. But nation-states of this kind do not exist. Even Iceland—the only exception I can think of—is only an apparent exception to this rule. For its limits are determined, not by its ethnic group, but by the North Atlantic—just as they are protected, not by the Icelandic nation, but by the North Atlantic Treaty. Nation-states do not exist, simply because the so-called ‘nations’ or ‘peoples’ of which the nationalists dream do not exist. There are no, or hardly any, homogenous ethnic groups long settled in countries with natural borders. Ethnic and linguistic groups (dialects often amount to linguistic barriers) are closely intermingled everywhere. Masaryk’s Czechoslovakia was founded upon the principle of national self-determination. But as soon as it was founded, the Slovaks demanded, in the name of this principle, to be free from Czech domination; and ultimately it was destroyed by its German minority, in the name of the same principle. Similar situations have arisen in practically every case in which the principle of national self- determination has been applied to fixing the borders of a new state: in Ireland, in India, in Israel, in Yugoslavia. There are ethnic minorities everywhere. The proper aim cannot be to ‘liberate’ all of them; rather, it must be to protect all of them. The oppression of national groups is a great evil; but national self-determination is not a feasible remedy. Moreover, Britain, the United States, Canada, and Switzerland, are four obvious examples of states which in many ways violate the nationality principle. Instead of having its borders determined by one settled group, each of them has man- aged to unite a variety of ethnic groups. So the problem does not seem insoluble. C&R, Chapter 19 How anybody who had the slightest knowledge of European history, of the shifting and mixing of all kinds of tribes, of the countless waves of peoples who had come forth from their original Asian habitat and split up and mingled when reaching the maze of peninsulas called the European continent, how anybody who knew this could ever have put forward such an inapplicable principle, is hard to understand. Open Society, Page 355 The nationalist religion is strong. Many are ready to die for it, fer- vently believing that it is morally good, and factually true. But they are mistaken; just as mistaken as their communist bedfellows. Few creeds have created more hatred, cruelty, and senseless suffering than the belief in the righteousness of the nationality principle; and yet it is still widely believed that this principle will help to alleviate the misery of national oppression. My optimism is a little shaken, I admit, when I look at the near-unanimity with which this principle is still accepted, even today, without any hesitation, without any doubt—even by those whose political interests are clearly opposed to it. C&R, Chapter 19 In spite of our great and serious troubles, and in spite of the fact that ours is surely not the best possible society, I assert that our own free world is by far the best society which has come into existence during the course of human history. C&R, Chapter 19 But before examining these facts more closely, I wish to stress that I am very much alive to other facts also. Power still corrupts, even in our world. Civil servants still behave at times like uncivil masters. Pocket dictators still abound; and a normally intelligent man seeking medical advice must be prepared to be treated as a rather tiresome type of imbecile, if he betrays an intelligent interest—that is, a critical interest—in his physical condition. C&R, Chapter 19 I have in mind the standards and values which have come down to us through Christianity from Greece and from the Holy Land; from Socrates, and from the Old and New Testaments. C&R, Chapter 19 My third thesis is that since the time of the Boer War, none of the democratic governments of the free world has been in a position to wage a war of aggression. No democratic government would be united upon the issue, because they would not have the nation united behind them. Aggressive war has become almost a moral impossibility. C&R, Chapter 19 I believe that it is most important to say what the free world has achieved. For we have become unduly sceptical about ourselves. We are suspicious of anything like self-righteousness, and we find self-praise unpalatable. One of the great things we have learned is not only to be tolerant of others, but to ask ourselves seriously whether the other fellow is not perhaps in the right, and altogether the better man. We have learned the fundamental moral truth that nobody should be judge in his own cause. This, no doubt, is a symptom of a certain moral maturity; yet one may learn a lesson too well. Having discovered the sin of self-righteousness, we have fallen into its stereotyped inversion: into a stereotyped pose of self-depreciation, of inverted smugness. Having learned that one should not be judge in one’s own cause, we are tempted to become advocates for our opponents. Thus we become blind to our own achievements. But this tendency must be resisted. C&R, Chapter 19 Thus we learnt not only to tolerate beliefs that differ from ours, but to respect them and the men who sincerely held them. But this means that we slowly began to differentiate between sincerity and dogmatic stub- bornness or laziness, and to recognize the great truth that truth is not manifest, not plainly visible to all who ardently want to see it, but hard to come by. And we learnt that we must not draw authoritarian conclu- sions from this great truth but, on the contrary, suspect all those who claim that they are authorized to teach the truth. C&R, Chapter 19 # Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Help us revoke the UN charter and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube Form a nation and liberate yo' selves over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Support Increments

Back to the Conjectures and Refutations series, after a long hiatus! Given all that's happening in the world and the associated rampant pessimism, we thought it would be appropriate to tackle Chapter 19 - A History of Our Time: An Optimist's View. We get through a solid fifth of the chapter, at which point Ben and Vaden start arguing about whether people are fundamentally good, fundamentally bad, or fundamentally driven by signalling and incentives. And we finally answer the all-important question on everyone's mind: Does Adolf Eichmann support defunding the police? Banal Lives Matter. We discuss Thoughts on the recent Trump assasination attempt How can Popper be an optimist with prophesying about the future? The scarcity value of optimism Russell's view that our intellectual development has outrun our moral development Relationship of this view to the orthogonality thesis Popper's competing view that our troubles arise because we are good but stupid How much can incentives compel us to do bad things? How easy it for humans to really be led by the nose Ben's experience during the summer of 2020 References Conjectures and Refutations Orthogonality thesis Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt Adam Smith's thought experiment about losing a pinky Radiolab episode, "The Bad Show" Quotes Now I come to the word ‘Optimist’. First let me make it quite clear that if I call myself an optimist, I do not wish to suggest that I know anything about the future. I do not wish to pose as a prophet, least of all as a historical prophet. On the contrary, I have for many years tried to defend the view that historical prophecy is a kind of quackery. I do not believe in historical laws, and I disbelieve especially in anything like a law of progress. In fact, I believe that it is much easier for us to regress than to progress. Though I believe all this, I think that I may fairly describe myself as an optimist. For my optimism lies entirely in my interpretation of the present and the immediate past. It lies in my strongly appreciative view of our own time. And whatever you might think about this optimism you will have to admit that it has a scarcity value. In fact the wailings of the pessimists have become somewhat monotonous. No doubt there is much in our world about which we can rightly complain if only we give our mind to it; and no doubt it is sometimes most important to find out what is wrong with us. But I think that the other side of the story might also get a hearing. And whatever you might think about this optimism you will have to admit that it has a scarcity value. In fact the wailings of the pessimists have become somewhat monotonous. No doubt there is much in our world about which we can rightly complain if only we give our mind to it; and no doubt it is sometimes most important to find out what is wrong with us. But I think that the other side of the story might also get a hearing. We have become very clever, according to Russell, indeed too clever. We can make lots of wonderful gadgets, including television, high-speed rockets, and an atom bomb, or a thermonuclear bomb, if you prefer. But we have not been able to achieve that moral and political growth and maturity which alone could safely direct and control the uses to which we put our tremendous intellectual powers. This is why we now find ourselves in mortal danger. Our evil national pride has prevented us from achieving the world-state in time.To put this view in a nutshell: we are clever, perhaps too clever, but we are also wicked; and this mixture of cleverness and wickedness lies at the root of our troubles. My first thesis is this. We are good, perhaps a little too good, but we are also a little stupid; and it is this mixture of goodness and stupidity which lies at the root of our troubles. The main troubles of our time—and I do not deny that we live in troubled times—are not due to our moral wickedness, but, on the contrary, to our often misguided moral enthusiasm: to our anxiety to better the world we live in. Our wars are fundamentally religious wars; they are wars between competing theories of how to establish a better world. And our moral enthusiasm is often misguided, because we fail to realize that our moral principles, which are sure to be over-simple, are often difficult to apply to the complex human and political situations to which we feel bound to apply them. (All Popper) “The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.” - EO Wilson Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Help us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What do Benny Chugg and Adolf Eichmann have in common? I mean, what don't they have in common? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Support Increments

Sick of hearing us shouting about Bayesianism? Well today you're in luck, because this time, someone shouts at us about Bayesianism! Richard Meadows, finance journalist, author, and Ben's secretive podcast paramour, takes us to task. Are we being unfair to the Bayesians? Is Bayesian rationality optimal in theory, and the rest of us are just coping with an uncertain world? Is this why the Bayesian rationalists have so much cultural influence (and money, and fame, and media attention, and ...), and we, ahem, uhhh, don't? Check out Rich's website, his book Optionality: How to Survive and Thrive in a Volatile World, and his podcast. We discuss The pros of the rationality and EA communities Whether Bayesian epistemology contributes to open-mindedness The fact that evidence doesn't speak for itself The fact that the world doesn't come bundled as discrete chunks of evidence Whether Bayesian epistemology would be "optimal" for Laplace's demon The difference between truth and certainty Vaden's tone issues and why he gets animated about this subject. References Scott's original piece: In continued defense of non-frequentist probabilities Scott Alexander's post about rootclaim Our previous episode on Scott's piece: #69 - Contra Scott Alexander on Probability Rootclaim Ben's blogpost You need a theory for that theory Cox's theorem Aumann's agreement theorem Vaden's blogposts mentioned in the episode: Critical Rationalism and Bayesian Epistemology Proving Too Much Socials Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani Follow Rich at @MeadowsRichard Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link Help us calibrate our credences and get exclusive bonus content by becoming a patreon subscriber here. Or give us one-time cash donations to help cover our lack of cash donations here. Click dem like buttons on youtube What's your favorite theory that is neither true nor useful? Tell us over at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. Special Guest: Richard Meadows.Support Increments