Very Bad Wizards

David and Tamler have their 100th episode hijacked briefly before taking it back like Wesley Snipes in Passenger 57. To celebrate the milestone Tamler pops some champagne, Dave sips his high priced Ivy League bourbon, and we both take a quiz designed by MIT that assesses our moral worldview and determines how driverless cars should be programmed. In the second segment we answer a bunch of questions our listeners submitted on Facebook and Twitter for an AMA. (We didn’t get to all of them, and some were cut not because they were bad questions but because our answers were incoherent. But we did our best.) Plus, has David changed his mind about Straw Dogs? How would we argue if we switched positions in our big fights? And we expose the vast Partially Examined Life conspiracy that keeps us down in the iTunes (and Linux) ratings. Special Guests: Eliza Sommers and Isabella Pizarro. Support Very Bad Wizards Links: Moral Machine — MIT Media Lab's Self-Driving Car Moral Test Garfield Minus Garfield Bem, D. J. (2011). Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(3), 407. Simmons, Joseph P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. "False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant." Psychological science (2011): 0956797611417632. [haas.berkeley.edu]

David and Tamler tackle three topics on their last double digit episode. First, should a middle school perform "To Kill a Mockingbird" even if they have to use bad language the "n-word," and talk about sexual assault? Tamler relates a story involving his daughter (who was supposed to play Scout) and a playwright who refused to allow his play to be censored. But when it comes to drama, middle school's got nothing on social psychology. Next, David and Tamler break down the latest controversy surrounding Princeton psychologist Susan Fiske's leaked column about the bullying destructo-critics and methodological terrorists that are challenging the establishment in the field. Finally, they give a spoiler-filled analysis of season 2 of Mr. Robot, a polarizing season for many fans. Tamler's suffering from a little theory fatigue, but David blows his mind with his explanation of what's really going on with the Dark Army and F-Society. Have you ever cried during sex? Links To Kill a Mockingbird stage play [stageagent.com] Mob Rule or the Wisdom of Crowds? Susan Fiske's forthcoming column in the APS Observer [verybadwizards.com] Andrew Gelman's blog post about Susan Fiske's column [andrewgelman.com] Ioannidis, J. P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2(8), e124. [plos.org] The Hardest Science blog by Sanjay Srivastava (@hardsci) sometimes i'm wrong blog by Simine Vazire (@siminevazire) The 20% Statistician blog by Daniel Lakens (@lakens) Too Many Cooks [youtube.com] Bitcoin explained and made simple [youtube.com] Key generation [wikipedia.org] Support Very Bad Wizards

David and Tamler break down the biggest question in moral philosophy -- can we derive value judgments from a set of purely factual claims? Like the Scottish Philosopher David Hume they're surprised when the usual copulation of propositions 'is' and 'is not' suddenly turn into conclusions in the form of 'ought' and 'ought not.' And what's the deal with all these copulating propositions anyway? Aren't they a little young for that?  Do propositions practice safe copulation?  Is proposition porn about to be the new fad? They also talk about Moore's Open Question Argument, which introduced the term "naturalist fallacy," and respond to angry criticism over last episode's Rationalia segment.      Links Listener C. Derek Varn's blog post: "The Dogmatic Slumber of Neil deGrasse Tyson" [symptomaticcommentary.wordpress.com] Hume's Moral Philosophy [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Is-ought problem [wikipedia.org] GE Moore's Moral Philosophy [Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] Open-question argument [wikipedia.org] The Naturalistic Fallacy [wikipedia.org] Support Very Bad Wizards

Do you have strong views on climate change, taxes, health care, or gun control? Do you think the evidence and reason support your side of the debate? How do you know you’re right? David and Tamler discuss a recent paper by Dan Kahan and colleagues showing how prone people are to make errors in processing information to favor positions they are predisposed to believe. And even more shocking: the higher your numeracy skills, the more prone you are to fall prey to this bias. So how do we correct for this? Can we know anything at all with any confidence? Could it be that 'Are You There God? It’s Me Margaret' in not in fact a completely accurate depiction of how young girls think about puberty? Plus, we decide whether to join Neil deGrasse Tyson as a citizen of Rationalia. To paraphrase Mr. T, I pity the newscasters! Links Reflections on Rationalia by Neal deGrasse Tyson [facebook.com] Vulcan learning pods from Star Trek (2009). [youtube.org] Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Dawson, E. C., & Slovic, P. (2013). Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government. Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper, (307). [uoregon.edu] Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568. [phi.org] Support Very Bad Wizards

So where are you? You’re in some house. What am I listening to? Sounds like the radio. Is it the radio? No, you’re not allowed to use that language on the radio. What are they talking about? A movie, it’s called "Memento." Have I seen that? I think so, yeah. Who are these people? Hey I recognize that voice, that’s Paul Bloom! I took his Coursera course before the accident, it was awesome! What’s he doing talking to these guys? One of them sounds like he has a tampon down his throat. Hey wait, this is starting to get interesting. Personal identity, the search for purpose. All right, let’s settle in... So where are you? You're in some house. What am I listening to? Sounds like the radio... Links Paul Bloom [campuspress.yale.edu] Memento [imdb.com] Christopher Nolan [imdb.com] Everything you wanted to know about "Memento" by Andy Klein [salon.com] Kania, A. (Ed.). (2009). Memento (Philosophers on Film Series). Routledge. [amazon.com affiliate link] Clive Wearing: Man without a memory [youtube.com] Patient H.M. (Henry Molaison) [wikipedia.org] Christina Starmans [christinastarmans.com] Special Guest: Paul Bloom. Support Very Bad Wizards

Hello friend, did you come from the Berenstein with an 'E' universe? Or have you lived in the Berenstain with an 'A' universe? David and Tamler try to make sense of what's going on in Season 2 of Mr. Robot (Ep.1-5). You're gonna want to dig through your vomit for adderall for this one. Links The Berenstain Bears [wikipedia.org] The Berenstein Bears: We Are Living in Our Own Parallel Universe [woodbetween.world] On the Berenstein Bears Switcheroo [woodbetween.world] Support Very Bad Wizards

The hosts discuss the concept of repugnance and its relation to their podcast, explore the reasons behind the success of Trump's campaign, talk about their struggle with distractions and a new app to prevent procrastination, delve into the association between human cloning, disgust, and moral judgment, explore the role of repugnance in ethical and moral decisions, discuss the nature of disgust and its influence on emotions and beliefs, and explore cultural differences in psychological research.

Dave and Tamler don’t agree about much, but one thing they do share is an affinity for character-based approaches to ethics. Using Tamler’s interview with Georgetown Philosopher Nancy Sherman as their guide (link to chapter included), they discuss two ancient perspectives on how to develop good character and live happy, virtuous lives: Aristotle's and that of the Stoics. Why did Aristotle focus so much on friendship and what happens when those friendships get too "watery"? Are emotions crucial for developing virtues or are they “so much mist on the windshield?” Are the stoics right that we shouldn’t get attached to things that are beyond our control? Plus, a new Twitter account has David and Tamler polishing their CVs, and a request for listener suggestions for our 100th episode. Note: We recorded this episode after the police shootings in Baton Rouge and Minneapolis but before the shootings of the police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge. We talk a bit about the violence, but not about what happened after Minneapolis. Links Very Bad Wizards No Context (@vbw_no_context) Effective altruism [wikipedia.org] Nancy Sherman Homepage [nanycsherman.com] Nancy Sherman "Navigating our Moral World." In Sommers, T. (2016). A Very Bad Wizard: Morality behind the curtain. Routledge. [verybadwizards.com] Support Very Bad Wizards

Scandinavian film scholar Yoel Inbar joins the podcast for a deep dive on the Swedish film Force Majeure, a darkly funny meditation on what our instinctive behavior in a moment of panic can reveal about our characters and relationships. The story: while having lunch on a ski slope in the French Alps, a family believes that an avalanche is bearing down on them. Just as it seems the avalanche is going to hit them, the father (Tomas) grabs his phone and gloves and runs indoors, abandoning his wife Ebba and two children. How does the family reckon with this incident? Is the act itself unforgivable, or is it Tomas’s behavior afterwards that makes him despicable? How blameworthy is Tomas for his display of cowardice? Is it even cowardice since he didn’t have time to think about it? What’s the deal with that creepy janitor and all the tooth brushing scenes? Why can’t Yoel and Tamler agree about the answers to any of these questions? Plus, more on the Redskins and Tamler tells an embarrassing story from his past. Links Yoel Inbar [yoelinbar.net] On that one awkward sex scene from The Americans [vulture.com] Scandinavia [wikipedia.org] Force Majeure [imdb.com] Louie Season 1 Episode 9 "Bully" [imdb.com] Special Guest: Yoel Inbar. Support Very Bad Wizards

David and Tamler continue their intermittent “classic paper series” with an episode on Jonathan Bennett’s “The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn” (published in 1974—before the reason vs. emotion debate was all cool again). Using fictional and historical examples, Bennett raises a number of questions that are central to our understanding of human morality, such as what ought to guide our behavior--human sympathy or moral beliefs? Do emotions like empathy/sympathy have judgments built into them? Are these emotions dumb? Is morality dumber? Why was Jonathan Edwards such an asshole? Plus, we talk about the implications of a poll that suggests that most Native Americans aren’t offended by the name “Redskins” for the Washington D.C. NFL team. Episode Links New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name by By John Woodrow Cox, Scott Clement and Theresa Vargas [washingtonpost.com]  Bennett, J. (1974). The conscience of Huckleberry Finn. Philosophy, 49, 123-134. [earlymoderntexts.com] The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn [wikipedia.org] Heinrich Himmler [wikipedia.org] Jonathan Edwards [wikipedia.org] Pizarro, D. (2000). Nothing more than feelings?: The role of emotions in moral judgment. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 355-375. [peezer.net] Support Very Bad Wizards