unSILOed with Greg LaBlanc

What can be gained from looking back now at the pandemic response during COVID? What would a “postmortem” tell us about how policies were designed and how scientific discussions played out? Stephen Macedo is a professor of politics at Princeton University, as well as at the University Center for Human Values, and the author of several books including Greg and Stephen discuss the decision-making flaws during the COVID-19 pandemic, the lack of robust debate, the role of public health experts, and the increasing influence of partisanship. Stephen explores the potential long-term implications for democracy and science, the concept of noble lies, and the necessity of balancing expert advice with broader public interests. Their conversation also touches on the importance of liberal virtues and the need for both improved decision-making structures and individual adherence to professional ethics.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:When public health crowds out public values09:52: The public health mindset is that you only pay attention to reducing disease, and so public health experts had too much power. Wider decision-making should have been made by people looking at the whole range of public values, not just disease reduction or attempts to reduce disease. So, the many things that came together—but we regard the book as a window onto the state of our democracy, and in a way, our—you know—the dangers of our epistemic tribalism, to put it that way. The degraded state of deliberation in our country.How epistemic bubbles are making us dumber50:57: We are making ourselves stupider by being ensconced in these epistemic bubbles. We are undermining our own capacity for critical thought by not being more open to disagreement.Science can’t decide for a democracy alone55:58: We need both more checking of a wide array of elites being involved in thinking, challenging, questioning decisions, but also some way of making sure—possibly through legislative oversight, House of Representatives being involved. The public voices need to be heard as well because they bear the cost of these—need to be heard as well because they bear the cost of these measures. And as we said before, science is not going to make these decisions for us. There are value judgments involved, and it is the people's value judgments that matter to some degree of risk tolerance…[56:35] We need more checking and balancing in these kinds of decisions that affect the public as a whole, and more open debate, discussion, more tolerance of disagreement—including, or maybe even especially, coming from the partisan other, as it were.Science needs scrutiny, not censorship14:17: We need empirical inquiry to test the assumptions behind these particular policies and assumptions—not censorship in advance of evidence that might be unwelcome with respect to, you know, certain kinds of policy claims. So, I think there's a wider politicization of science. I do think we need more viewpoint diversity in the academy, and people say, "Wasn't this the code word for having more conservatives?" And I'll say, yes. I think we're a bit too far out of balance. We should not reflect the American public—I mean, that's not the aim—but I think we do not take seriously enough, reasonable concerns coming from the other side of the political spectrum. So, it's a long-winded answer to your question, but I think the COVID experience is emblematic and indicative of a wider problem and deeper problem.Show Links:Recommended Resources:David HalberstamGraham AllisonNeil FergusonDavid ZweigFrancis CollinsAnthony FauciSandro GaleaStephen HaberJohn IoannidisScott AtlasDeborah BirxAlasdair MacIntyreCharles TaylorThe Federalist PapersJohn LockeAdam SmithConsequentialismBen BernankeThe Great Exception: The New Deal and the Limits of American Politics (Politics and Society in Modern America) by Jefferson CowieInsecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign by Frances E. LeeGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Princeton UniversityWikipedia PagePrinceton Politics PageSocial Profile on XPhilPeople.org ProfileGuest Work:Amazon Author PageIn Covid's Wake: How Our Politics Failed UsDeliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and DisagreementDiversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural DemocracyAmerican Constitutional InterpretationThe New Right v. the Constitution | CATO Institute

Eric A. Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago and author of 'The Demagogue's Playbook', dives into the rise of populism and demagoguery in American politics. He contrasts the emotional tactics of leaders like Trump and Andrew Jackson with Lincoln's reasoned approach. The discussion reveals the historical tension between elites and populist movements, and Posner explores contemporary challenges in antitrust laws and labor markets. He also highlights the potential for political recovery after controversial leadership, drawing on lessons from history.

Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of 'Lawless,' discusses the shifting landscape of legal education and the deepening politicization of judicial appointments. He highlights the influence of cancel culture, emphasizing the challenges of fostering free speech in law schools. Ilya critiques the ideological biases permeating legal academia and proposes reforms for a more balanced educational system. Their engaging conversation touches on the implications of these trends for the legal profession and the broader society.

Scott E. Page, a professor at the University of Michigan and author of 'The Model Thinker,' dives into the power of diverse perspectives in decision-making. He argues that incorporating varied models enhances outcomes, especially in complex scenarios. The conversation explores how AI can facilitate this diversity, promoting collaborative and inclusive environments. Page emphasizes the need for cognitive diversity over mere demographic representation and discusses how effective organizational cultures can emerge from embracing a rich tapestry of ideas.

Helena Rosenblatt is a professor at CUNY and an author specializing in liberalism's history. She dives into the shifting meanings of liberalism, discussing its evolution from character-driven concepts to modern rights-focused interpretations. Helena highlights the historical tension between liberalism and religion, and the impact of civic education on democracy. She emphasizes the need for rethinking liberal values in contemporary society, addressing influences from historical thinkers and the dangers of consumerism on citizenship.

Greg M. Epstein, Humanist chaplain at Harvard and MIT, explores the intersections of technology and humanism. He argues that technology functions as a modern religion, reshaping our lives and beliefs. The discussion dives into the ethical implications of widespread tech integration and the need for a reformation, akin to past religious movements. Epstein also examines effective altruism in tech culture, revealing the psychological motivations driving Silicon Valley elites and warns against the addictive devotion to technology that can overshadow genuine human connections.

Ward Farnsworth, a law professor and former dean at the University of Texas at Austin, delves into the intricate ties between philosophy, rhetoric, and law. He argues that the Socratic method is more than a teaching tool—it's a vital way of thinking that cultivates critical analysis in legal education. Farnsworth emphasizes the importance of deeper dialogues, self-awareness, and the impact of Stoicism in modern thought. He also discusses the challenges posed by AI in education and advocates for reviving interactive learning to foster genuine understanding and civic responsibility.

Rochelle Gurstein, an esteemed intellectual historian and critic, discusses the evolution of what defines a classic in art. She dives into the historical obscurity of masterpieces like the Mona Lisa and the shifting perceptions surrounding iconic works. The conversation explores how societal taste influences the appreciation of art, with highlights on the Elgin marbles and the Venus de Medici. Gurstein also reflects on the complex standards of artistic judgment and the role of critics in shaping cultural values over time.

Martin Reeves, Chairman of the BCG Henderson Institute, and Bob Goodson, founder of Quid, delve into the creation and cultural impact of the ubiquitous 'like' button. They recount the serendipitous journey behind its invention, and discuss how it transformed user-generated content and social interactions. The duo reveals how this simple piece of code shaped online behavior, influenced advertising strategies, and even affected offline socializing. Their insights challenge traditional narratives of innovation, highlighting the collaborative nature of tech advancements.

Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin and author of 'Hate the Game,' shares her insights on applying economic principles to life’s toughest decisions. She discusses how game theory can influence career choices, relationship dynamics, and real estate investments. Daryl also tackles the complexities of the housing market, including bidding wars and commission structures. Additionally, she highlights the emotional aspects of homeownership and the importance of communication in balancing love and financial stability, making economics deeply personal.