You Are Not So Smart

Common sense used to dictate that men and women should only come together for breakfast and dinner. According to Victorian historian Kaythrn Hughes, people in the early 19th Century thought the outside world was dangerous and unclean and morally dubious and thus no place for a virtuous, fragile woman. The home was a paradise, while men went out into the world and got their hands dirty. By the mid 1800s, women were leaving home to work in factories and much more, and if you believed in preserving the separate spheres, the concept that men and women should only cross paths at breakfast and dinner, then as we approached the 20th century, this created a lot of anxiety for you.In this episode of the You Are Not So Smart Podcast, we explore how the separate spheres ideology is still affecting us today, and how some people are using it to scare people into voting down anti-discrimination legislation.Show notes at: www.youarenotsosmart.com• Patreon: www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart• Donate Directly through PayPal: www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaneySPONSORS• Blue Apron: www.blueapron.com/YANSS• The Great Courses Plus: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smartPatreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

Hypothetical situations involving dragons, robots, spaceships, and vampires have all been used to prove and disprove arguments.Statements about things that do not exist can still be true, and can be useful thinking tools for exploring philosophical, logical, sociological, and scientific concepts. The problem is that sometimes those same arguments accidentally require those fictional concepts to be real in order to support their conclusions, and that’s when you commit the existential fallacy.In this episode we explore the most logical logical fallacy of them all, the existential fallacy. No need to get out your pens and paper, we will do that for you, as we make sense of one the most break-breaking thinking mistakes we’ve ever discovered.Show notes at: www.youarenotsosmart.com• Patreon: www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart• Donate Directly through PayPal: www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaneySPONSORS• Bombas: www.Bombas.com/SOSMART• Casper: www.casper.com/sosmart • The Great Courses Plus: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smartPatreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

Here is a logic puzzle created by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.Linda is single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with the issue of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in demonstrations. Which of the following is more probable: Linda is a bank teller or Linda is a bank teller AND is active in the feminist movement?In studies, when asked this question, more than 80 percent of people chose number two. Most people said it was more probably that Linda is a bank teller AND active in the feminist movement, but that's wrong. Can you tell why?This thinking mistake is an example of the subject of this episode - the conjunction fallacy. Listen as three experts in logic and reasoning explain why people get this question wrong, why it is wrong, and how you can avoid committing the conjunction fallacy in other situations.Patreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

We often overestimate and overstate just how much we can learn about a claim based on where that claim originated, and that's the crux of the genetic fallacy, according to the experts in this episode.The genetic fallacy appears when people trace things back to their sources, and if you traced back to their shared source the ad hominem attack (insulting the source instead of attacking its argument) and the argument from authority (praising the source instead of supporting its argument), you would find the genetic fallacy is the mother of both kinds of faulty reasoning.You might be in danger of serially committing the genetic fallacy if your first instinct is to ask where attitude-inconsistent comes from once you feel the twinge of fear that appears after a belief is threatened.In this episode, listen as three experts in logic and rationality when we should and when we should not take the source of a statement into account when deciding if something is true or false.• Show Notes: http://bit.ly/1XCvCdr• Patreon: www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart • Donate Directly through PayPal: www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaney SPONSORS• Bombas: Bombas.com/SOSMART• Exo Protein: exoprotein.com/sosmart• The Great Courses Plus: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smartPatreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

Sometimes you apply a double standard to the things you love, the things you believe, and the things crucial to your identity, and often you do so without realizing it. Special pleading is all about searching for exemptions and excuses for why a standard, or a rule, or a description, or a definition does not apply to something that you hold dear.It's also used to explain away how something extraordinary fails to stand up to scrutiny, or why there is a lack of evidence for a difficult-to-believe claim. In this episode, listen as three experts in logic and reasoning dive deep into the odd thinking behind the special pleading fallacy.• Show Notes: http://bit.ly/208Sv6V• Patreon: www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart• Donate Directly through PayPal: www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaneySPONSORS• SquareSpace: www.squarespace.com - Offer Code SoSmart• The Great Courses Plus: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smart• MIT Press: mitpress.mit.edu/smartPatreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

If you believe something is bad because it is...bad, or that something is good because, well, it's good, you probably wouldn't use that kind of reasoning in an argument, yet, sometimes, without realizing it, that's exactly what you do.In this episode three experts in logic and rationality explain how circular reasoning leads us to "beg the question" when producing arguments and defending our ideas, beliefs, and behaviors.• Show Notes: http://bit.ly/1MNKhQu• Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart• Donate Directly through PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaneySPONSORS• SquareSpace: http://www.squarespace.com - Offer Code SoSmart• The Great Courses Plus: https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smart• MIT Press: https://mitpress.mit.edu/smartPatreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

Neil A. Manson, a philosophy professor at the University of Mississippi, and Julia Galef, co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality, delve into the nuances of belief and probability. They explore how beliefs are not simply true or false, but exist on a spectrum of certainty. The discussion centers around Bayes' theorem, illustrating its importance in updating beliefs with new evidence. They emphasize the need to embrace a 'grayscale' approach to thinking, where confidence in beliefs can shift based on context and information, helping listeners navigate uncertainty.

In this episode, we explore why we are unaware that we lack the skill to tell how unskilled and unaware we are. The evidence gathered so far by psychologists and neuroscientists seems to suggest that each one of us has a relationship with our own ignorance, a dishonest, complicated relationship, and that dishonesty keeps us sane, happy, and willing to get out of bed in the morning. Part of that ignorance is a blind spot we each possess that obscures both our competence and incompetence called the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It's a psychological phenomenon that arises sometimes in your life because you are generally very bad at self-assessment. If you have ever been confronted with the fact that you were in over your head, or that you had no idea what you were doing, or that you thought you were more skilled at something than you actually were – then you may have experienced this effect. It is very easy to be both unskilled and unaware of it, and in this episode we explore why that is with professor David Dunning, one of the researchers who coined the term and a scientist who continues to add to our understanding of the phenomenon.• Show Notes: http://bit.ly/1NfbAhf• Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart• Donate Directly through PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaneySPONSORS• The Great Courses Plus: https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smartPatreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

When you desire meaning, when you want things to line up, when looking for something specific, you tend to notice patterns everywhere, which leads you to ask the question, “What are the odds?” Usually, the odds are actually pretty good.For instance: Does the Bermuda Triangle seem quite as mysterious once you know that just about any triangle of that size drawn over the globe just about anywhere planes and ships frequently travel will contain as many, if not more, missing planes and ships?Drawing circles (or triangles) around the spots where randomness clusters together seemingly chance events is called The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, and it is one of the easiest mistakes to make when trying to understand big, complex sets of data.Though some things in life seem too amazing to be coincidence, too odd to be random, too similar to be chance, given enough time (and enough events) randomness will begin to clump up in places. Since you are born looking for those spots where chance events have built up like sand into dunes, picking out clusters of coincidence is a predicable malfunction of a normal human mind, and it can easily lead to the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.Listen as three experts in reasoning and logic explain why it is so easy to find what you are looking for when you go anomaly hunting in a large set of data.This episode of the You Are Not So Smart Podcast is the fifth in a full season of episodes exploring logical fallacies. The first episode is here.• Show Notes: http://bit.ly/1Nokeze• Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart• Donate Directly through PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaneySPONSORS• Mac Weldon: https://www.mackweldon.com/• The Great Courses Plus: https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smart• SquareSpace: http://www.squarespace.com - Offer Code SoSmartPatreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

When your identity becomes intertwined with your definitions, you can easily fall victim to something called The No true Scotsman Fallacy.It often appears during a dilemma: What do you do when a member of a group to which you belong acts in a way that you feel is in opposition to your values? Do you denounce the group, or do you redefine the boundaries of membership for everyone?In this episode, you will learn from three experts in logic and argumentation how to identify, defend against, and avoid deploying this strange thinking quirk that leads to schisms and stasis in groups both big and small.• Show Notes: http://bit.ly/1NokrTa• Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart• Donate Directly through PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaneySPONSORS• Trunk Club: http://bit.ly/1Sp2wZj• The Great Courses Plus: https://www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smartPatreon: http://patreon.com/youarenotsosmart