Very Bad Wizards

David and Tamler take a break from moral grandstanding to talk about moral grandstanding. How often do we moralize to make us look respectable? Does grandstanding make us more cynical about ethical debates? Does it contribute to outrage exhaustion and increased polarization? Most importantly, who does it more, David or Tamler? Plus: some of our favorite answers to this year's Edge.org question. (You can read the paper by Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke on the links page.) Support Very Bad Wizards Links: What Scientific Term or Concept Ought to Be More Widely Known? | Edge.org Edge.org - Brian Eno "The Confirmation Bias" Edge.org - Daniel Rockmore "The Trolley Problem" Edge.org - Michael Gazzaniga "The Schnitt" Edge.org - Sean Carroll "Bayes' Theorem" Edge.org - Lisa Randall "Effective Theory" Tosi, J., & Warmke, B. (2016). Moral Grandstanding. [full text preprint] Gross Anatomy: In This Political Climate, When Are We Right to Feel Disgusted? | News & City Life | Houstonia Minson, J. A., & Monin, B

David and Tamler go back to basics--discussing a paper (Victoria McGeer on responsibilty and Strawson) and arguing about restorative justice. What is the function of attitudes like resentment and anger? Do they presume anything metaphysics of agency? Why is Josh Greene trying to erode the moral scaffolding of society? Plus we talk about the latest Aeon troll piece on why sexual desire is wrong. Support Very Bad Wizards Links: Why sexual desire is objectifying – and hence morally wrong | Aeon Ideas Satoshi Kanazawa - Wikipedia Victoria McGeer Co-reactive attitudes and the making of moral community Final MS, forthcoming in In Emotions, Imagination and Moral Reasoning, eds., C. MacKenzie & R. Langdon. Macquarie monographs in Cognitive Science. Psychology Press, 2010. Roskies, A. (2006). Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(9), 419-423. Greene, J., & Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything. Philos Trans R Soc Lond

Paul Bloom takes some time away from his "Waking Up" appearances to join us for a very special movie episode: our top three films about empathy. Can movies help us understand the experiences of people who live completely different lives? Do serial killers need empathy to effectively torture their victims? Does empathy make you want to blow up the world, or lead naked men into black liquid-y voids? Plus Paul and David try to bully Tamler into watching "Westworld." Also, buy Paul's new book (link below) "Against Empathy"! [Note: this episode is heavy on the spoilers. If you're worried, check the links below--they contain the titles for each movie in the order discussed on the podcast]. Special Guest: Paul Bloom. Support Very Bad Wizards Links: Against Empathy by Paul Bloom [amazon.com affiliate link] Paul Bloom on Sam Harris' "Waking Up" podcast Review: ‘Against Empathy,’ or the Right Way to Feel Someone’s Pain - The New York Times Ex Machina (2015) - IMDb (Paul's Pick) The Revenant (2015) - IMDb (David's Pick

It’s the Thanksgiving episode! David and Tamler give thanks to their listeners and Patreon supporters with an episode chosen by our top Patreon subscribers (it was the most enjoyable election we've had all month). It was close, we had a bunch of great suggestions (that we'll refer to for upcoming episodes), but the winner was this topic from Bryan Farrow: "In the vein of the Republic and Rationalia, I want to hear Peez and Tamler draft a constitution for "Oz", a sovereign state that maximizes whatever they cherish most. (Honor and porn, presumably.)" Bryan’s wish is our command. Welcome to “Honoraria†and “Puerto Ricoâ€, currently at war over the five paragraph essay. Plus, Dave relates how it feels to get the bulk of the critical feedback for once. And we talk about a few other things we’re grateful for – including students who don’t try to bullshit us, “honeybunsâ€, academic PEDs -- and Tamler says a few words about his Mom. Support Very Bad Wizards Links: Gross Anatomy | News & City L

David and Tamler stumble their way through talking about the election results, how Trump got elected, the role of racism, sexism, the liberal bubble, complacency, economic anxiety - and find they're just as confused as everyone else. In the second segment, we lighten things up a little (really!) and discuss the Black Mirror episode "San Junipero" (available on Netflix). Spoiler talk so try to see the episode before listening. Support Very Bad Wizards Links: Wes Alwan's Facebook post about the election [facebook.com] — Telling the millions of uneducated white rust belt voters who put Obama in office in 2008 and 2012 that they are evil bigots is not a strategy for winning an election. Glenn Greenwald on Who’s to Blame for Trump’s Election What So Many People Don't Get About the US Working Class by Joan Williams [hbr.org] I Will Never Underestimate White People's Need to Preserve Whiteness Again [verysmartbrothas.com] Episode Break Music [soundcloud.com] Black Mirror - San Junipero [imdb.com] Heaven is a Place

Why do we call Mozart a creative genius? He created his music, but do we also think that he created himself? How do we determine who deserves praise as an artist? What about athletes? What standards do we use - do they involve a strong notion of free will that’s incompatible with determinism? If not, why should we think that moral praise and blame require agents to act with that sort of free will? David and Tamler argue over how much we can learn about moral responsibility from our responsibility practices in the domains of arts and sports. Plus, it’s Halloween – time to rev up the campus culture wars. Do concerns about “cultural appropriation” amount to a “war on Halloween”? Support Very Bad Wizards Links: Oregon Student Government: Dressing Up as Any Character Is Cultural Appropriation, Not Okay - Hit & Run : Reason.com Russell, P. (2008). Free will, art and morality. The Journal of ethics, 12(3-4), 307-325. [academia.edu] Infernal Affairs - Wikipedia Paul Gauguin - Wikipedia

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).

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.c

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.or

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). Mot

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.

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

We all remember the famous iTunes review calling David and Tamler "repugnant." (And the T-shirt/mugs are coming soon, we promise!) But what did the reviewer mean by that? Was he calling us "immoral"? Did he actually feel disgust when he listened to the podcast? And if so, was there wisdom in his repugnance--did the feeling offer any moral insight about the podcast's value? How did an emotion that originally evolved for pathogen avoidance get into moralizing business anyway? And why do white people kiss their dogs? Plus, an illuminating two week old discussion about the election, and Tamler finally comes around to defending a Kantian position—“the cart-egorical imperative”  Links Kass, L. R. (1997). The Wisdom of Repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans, the. Val. UL Rev., 32, 679. [stanford.edu] Very Bad Wizards Episode 7: Psychopaths and Utilitarians Pt. 2 [verybadwizards.com] "Freedom" internet blocking app [freedom.to] Dolly the cloned sheep [wikipedia.org] Kelly, D. (2011). Yuck!: the nature a

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

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. Lin

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 Adve

Inspired by a recent ProPublica report on racial bias in an algorithm used to predict future criminal behavior, David and Tamler talk about the use of analytic methods in criminal sentencing, sports, and love. Should we use algorithms to influence decisions about criminal sentencing or parole decisions? Should couples about to get married take a test that predicts their likelihood of getting divorced? Is there something inherently racist about analytic methods in sports? Plus, David asks Tamler some questions about the newly released second edition of his book A Very Bad Wizard: Morality Behind the Curtain. Links Machine Bias by Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu and Lauren Kirchner [propublica.org] Mission Impossible: African-Americans & Analytics by Michael Wilbon [theundefeated.com] A Very Bad Wizard: Morality Behind the Curtain [amazon.com affiliate link to the Kindle version of 2nd edition. Eight new interviews. And an all-new foreword by Peez.] Paperback version of the 2nd edition (currentl

David and Tamler have their first real fight in a while over an article defending "social mixing"--distributing babies randomly across families such that no infant is genetically related to the parents who raise them.. Then they discuss a study published in Science in 2013 in which participants could earn money if they agreed to let mice be killed in a gas chamber.  Do free markets threaten our moral characters and cause us to abandon our principles? What are mechanisms behind this phenomenon when it happens? And why does David hate mice so much? Episode Links Maus by Art Spiegelman [wikipedia.org] If babies were randomly allocated to families, would racism end? by Howard Rachlin and Melvin Frankel [aeon.co] Falk, A., & Szech, N. (2013). Morals and markets. Science, 340, 707-711. [sciencemag.org] .pdf available here [gtcenter.org] Support Very Bad Wizards

David and Tamler welcome author and environmental science professor Jennifer Jacquet to the podcast to discuss the pros and cons of shame. What's the difference between shame and guilt? Is shaming effective for generating social progress or getting tax cheats to pay up? Is twitter shaming on the rise or on its way out? And what does David do when he's alone in the dark? But before all of that, David and Tamler introduce a new way to support the podcast--through our Patreon account (patreon.com/verybadwizards). Plus, we discuss the retraction of a press release announcing that a professor agreed to referee a journal article (!) And can one passage get Tamler, the eternal optimist, to hate philosophy? Links Very Bad Wizards are on Patreon [patreon.com] Sociology faculty member publishes book chapter [psu.edu] Penn State retracts press release about sociologist reviewing an article. [retractionwatch.org] A very confusing paragraph [verybadwizards.com] Bradley, B. (2009). Well-being and death. OUP Oxford. Jenn

David and Tamler celebrate Passover with a high-spirited episode on guns, revenge, liberals, being offended, the fear of death, and whether kids have a right to be loved. Thanks to all you listeners for emailing your questions, comments, and complaints--this was a fun, energetic discussion. Plus, a blast from the past from an unusually alert Pizarro: Michael Shannon reading a sorority letter.  But won't somebody please think of the children???!!  Links Mr. Robot Season 2 premiere date [usanetwork.com] Michael Shannon reads sorority letter [youtube.com] George Rainbolt's review of "The Right to be Loved" by Matthew Liao [npdr.nd.edu] The Right to be Loved by S. Matthew Liao [amazon] The Denial of Death by Ernest Becker [wikipedia.org] A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell [wikipedia.org] The Story of Philosophy by Wil Durant Rick and Morty [imdb.com] Marijuana is Kosher [npr.org] Louis CK on the Bill Simmons podcast [youtube.com] Is Shame Necessary? by Jennifer Jacquet [amazon.com affiliate