Read the full transcript here.

Are stock prices set by cash flows or crowd vibes? Why do bubbles last if “smart money” can short them? What should retail traders learn from GameStop and zero-commission options? When does momentum make sense - and when does it burn you? Why don’t obvious mispricings get fixed - what actually stops arbitrage? Will AI help us think clearer, or supercharge manipulation and personalized pricing? Where should regulators draw the line on gamified trading and price discrimination? Do tariffs feel good because they keep others out—even if we pay more? What does the "winner’s curse" mean for auctions, IPOs, and everyday deals? How much of what we want is copied from other people, and why does that matter for markets?

Alex Imas is the Roger L. and Rachel M. Goetz Professor of Behavioral Science, Economics and Applied AI and a Vasilou Faculty Scholar at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where he has taught Negotiations and Behavioral Economics. Alex studies behavioral economics with a focus on cognition and mental representation in dynamic decision-making. His research explores topics related to choice under uncertainty, applied AI, discrimination, and how people learn from information. Professor Imas’ work utilizes a variety of methods, including lab experiments, field experiments, analysis of observational data and theoretical modeling. His research has been published in the American Economic Review, Journal of Finance, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, and Management Science, among others.

Links:

• The Winner's Curse
• Alex's personal website
• Alex's Twitter

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

What does “100x more good” mean relative to your current giving? How can your giving more closely align with your pre-existing values? If cost-effectiveness is the denominator we forget, what changes when dollars per outcome sit front and center? Can independent evaluators fix a charity market that rewards storytelling over outcomes? Greatest need, stronger evidence, cost per result, a wider moral circle, multipliers - how do each of these levers compare in your giving portfolio? How do self, passion, and effectiveness map cleanly onto your intrinsic values? How do you avoid bad compromises? When do risky policy bets beat reliable bed nets? How do you keep prevention’s invisible wins from being crowded out by visible cures and photogenic stories? What kind of pledge or trial would actually help you follow through and inspire others without preaching? If the biggest brands need your dollar least, where is it marginally decisive right now?

Sjir Hoeijmakers is the CEO of Giving What We Can, the global organization promoting effective giving and the 10% Pledge, which recently reached the 10,000 10% Pledger mark. He has a background in impact evaluation and non-profit entrepreneurship, serving as GWWC’s Director of Research immediately prior to becoming their CEO. Sjir is a long-time pledger himself as well, having pledged 20% previously and currently donating ~50% of his income to high-impact charities across various causes.

You can find Sjir on LinkedIn, and read more about his work at GWWC and the 10% Pledge on their website.

Links:

• Giving What We Can
• The 10% Pledge

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

Note: Please note that in this episode, Spencer and Dr. O'Sullivan discuss a controversial and complex medical topic where the science is still in development and there is a lot of ongoing debate. We don't know whether or not the perspective that Dr. O'Sullivan expresses is correct, but the topic appears to be an important one as we look towards the future of neurophysiological diagnostics and treatment.

What changes when long COVID is split into medical damage, post-viral fatigue, misattribution, and psychosomatic mechanisms? When symptoms soar while tests stay normal, what should count as evidence? When do surveys without controls manufacture a syndrome we then chase? Does renaming “psychosomatic” to “functional” clarify or conceal? If long COVID and severe COVID affect different populations, what follows for causation and care? How do clinicians explain mind–body pathways without sounding dismissive? When is stopping more tests the most scientific decision? What actually helps once the testing spiral ends - graded activity, distraction skills, or non-reactive awareness? Can early diagnosis break fear–avoidance loops before habits harden? How should we meet chronic pain when anatomy is silent? If suffering is real and causes are mixed, how should we measure success?

Suzanne O'Sullivan is an Irish physician practising in Britain, specialising in neurology and clinical neurophysiology. In addition to academic publications in her field, O'Sullivan is an author of acclaimed non-fiction focusing on medical casework related to neurology and medically unexplained illness.

Links:

• Is It All in Your Head? (Book)

• The Age of Diagnosis: How Our Obsession with Medical Labels Is Making Us Sicker (Book)

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

What do we miss when we treat public shootings as the whole story of mass murder? If public events are a small slice, how should prevention and attention shift? Does saturation coverage turn tragedy into aspiration for the fame-seeking few? Do school “active-shooter” drills protect kids—or seed fear and imitation? Should reporting drop names and faces to starve the infamy motive? How should we talk about risk without distorting it? Can culture stop romanticizing guns without denying self-defense? Are the core drivers of public mass shootings nihilism, toxic self-regard, and a fascination with guns more than psychosis? If suicide removes the final barrier, how should that reshape prevention?Should screening target a narrow profile rather than broad traits with sky-high false positives? If most weapons used are legally owned, what levers actually matter - enforcement, registration, or smart-gun locks? Do “more weapons” predict fatalities better than weapon type, and what policy follows from that? What would it take for laws, norms, and platforms to make infamy harder to harvest? How do we design prevention that is specific, ethical, and effective?

Ragy Girgis, MD, MS, is a Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry and New York State Psychiatric Institute. He is an expert in psychosis (e.g., schizophrenia), violence in mental illness, and mass murder/shootings. Dr. Girgis often conducts studies involving MRI, PET (Positron Emission Tomography) and clinical trials, and is the curator of the Columbia Mass Murder Database. Dr. Girgis has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers on these topics and several books on severe mental illness, including a recent book on the interface between religion and psychiatry, “On Satan, Demons, and Psychiatry: Exploring Mental Illness in the Bible."

Links:

• Dr. Girgis' Selected Publications
• Dr. Girgis' latest title: On Satan, Demons, and Psychiatry: Exploring Mental Illness in the Bible

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host / Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

What makes a forum truly open-minded rather than performative? When does listening change minds instead of just hardening identities? Are we teaching citizens to separate facts from frames? Do the best debates surface values as well as evidence? How can we reward calm argument over outrage economics? What reforms reduce polarization without dulling real disagreement? Should any topic be off-limits in a free society? Is philanthropy giving back—or building what’s missing? Should generosity optimize impact or express the values we want to grow? How much risk is acceptable when the upside is transformative?

Robert Rosenkranz is a dedicated philanthropist, an advocate for intellectual engagement, and respected commentator on philanthropy. He founded Delphi Capital Management and championed the renowned Open to Debate debate series. Robert’s latest book, The Stoic Capitalist, explores the intersection of ancient Stoic wisdom and modern capitalism. When he’s not crafting ideas, Robert dedicates his time to supporting the arts, advancing education, and contributing to public policy through The Rosenkranz Foundation.

Links:

• Robert's Book:The Stoic Capitalist: Advice for the Exceptionally Ambitious
• More Information on Robert's Foundation

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

What does rationality mean when life won’t fit a spreadsheet? If models demand one common scale, what happens to values that can’t be compared? Are we optimizing choices, or narrowing them to what’s easy to count? When do toy problems stop teaching us about real ones? Can preferences be “mapped” if the act of asking reshapes them? When is precision a disguise for guesswork? What standard should judge error when the world is fuzzy by design? If we want better decisions, should we start by choosing better frames? How do fast intuitions and slow reflection share the work when stakes are high? When should we pause because the first answer felt too easy? How can diverse perspectives expose what one mind won’t see? How do we weigh the uncountable without pretending it’s all commensurate? What does a life well chosen look like beyond being error-free?

Barry Schwartz is an emeritus professor of psychology at Swarthmore College and a visiting professor at the Haas School of Business at Berkeley. He has spent fifty years thinking and writing about the interaction between economics, psychology, and morality. He has written several books that address aspects of this interaction, including The Battle for Human Nature, The Costs of Living, The Paradox of Choice, Practical Wisdom (with Kenneth Sharpe), Why We Work, and most recently, Choose Wisely (with Richard Schuldenfrei). Schwartz has spoken four times at the TED conference, and his TED talks have been viewed by more than 25 million people.

Links:

• Choose Wisely: Rationality, Ethics, and the Art of Decision-Making
• The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

Are the existential risks posed by superhuman AI fundamentally different from prior technological threats such as nuclear weapons or pandemics? How do the inherent “alien drives” that emerge from AI training processes complicate our ability to control or align these systems? Can we truly predict the behavior of entities that are “grown” rather than “crafted,” and what does this mean for accountability? To what extent does the analogy between human evolutionary drives and AI training objectives illuminate potential failure modes? How should we conceptualize the difference between superficial helpfulness and deeply embedded, unintended AI motivations? What lessons can we draw from AI hallucinations and deceptive behaviors about the limits of current alignment techniques? How do we assess the danger that AI systems might actively seek to preserve and propagate themselves against human intervention? Is the “death sentence” scenario a realistic prediction or a worst-case thought experiment? How much uncertainty should we tolerate when the stakes involve potential human extinction?

Nate Soares is the President of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the co-author of the book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. He has been working in the field for over a decade, after previous experience at Microsoft and Google. Soares is the author of a large body of technical and semi-technical writing on AI alignment, including foundational work on value learning, decision theory, and power-seeking incentives in smarter-than-human AIs.

Links:

• Nate and Eliezer's recent book: If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All
• The Machine Intelligence Research Institute

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

What does it mean to treat facts as drafts rather than monuments? If truth is something we approach, how do we act while it’s still provisional? When definitions shift, what really changes? How do better instruments quietly rewrite the world we think we know? Are we mostly refining truths or replacing them? When do scientific metaphors clarify and when do they mislead? What public stories make self-correction legible and trusted? What features make science self-correct rather than self-congratulatory? How should we reward replication, repair, and tool-building? Do we need more generalists - or better bridges between tribes? How does measurement expand the very questions we can ask? Is progress a goal-seeking march or a search for interesting stepping stones? Should we teach computing as a liberal art to widen its aims? Will AI turn software into a home-cooked meal for everyone? How do we design tools that increase wonder, not just efficiency?

Samuel Arbesman is Scientist in Residence at Lux Capital. He is also an xLab senior fellow at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management and a research fellow at the Long Now Foundation. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic, and he was previously a contributing writer for Wired. He is the author of the new book The Magic of Code, and his previous books are Overcomplicated: Technology at the Limits of Comprehension and The Half-Life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date. He holds a PhD in computational biology from Cornell University and lives in Cleveland with his family.

Links:

Sam's Recent Titles: The Half-Life of Facts and The Magic of Code

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

What changes when we treat violence as a human problem rather than a demographic story? Are fear, anger, and shame the real levers behind sudden harm? How much agency can we ask of people shaped by chaos without ignoring that chaos? Where is the line between explanation and excuse? What would an honest narrative about community safety sound like? Do neighborhoods want fewer police, or different policing grounded in respect? How do we build cultures where accountability and care reinforce each other? If separation is required for rehabilitation, how do we keep it from becoming psychological punishment? How do we welcome people back into society without chaining them to their worst moment?

Shaka Senghor is a resilience expert and author whose journey from incarceration to inspiration has empowered executives, entrepreneurs, and audiences around the world. Born in Detroit amid economic hardship, Shaka overcame immense adversity - including 19 years in prison - to become a leading authority on resilience, grit, and personal transformation. Since his release in 2010, Shaka has guided individuals and organizations to break free from their hidden emotional and psychological prisons, turning resilience from theory into actionable practice.

Links:

• Shaka's Book: How to Be Free: A Proven Guide to Escaping Life's Hidden Prisons
• Shaka's TED Talk

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift

Read the full transcript here.

What changes when psychology stops naming traits and starts naming parts - can “entities and rules” turn fuzzy labels into testable mechanisms? If the mind is a web of governors with set points, what exactly is being controlled - and how do error signals become feelings? Are hunger, fear, and status-seeking all negative-feedback problems, and where do outliers like anger or awe fit? What would count as disconfirming evidence for a cybernetic view - useful constraint or unfalsifiable epicycle? Could a “parliament of drives” explain why identical situations yield different choices? And how would we measure the votes? Do abstractions like the Big Five help, or do they hide the machine under the hood? How many rules do we need before prediction beats metaphor? And could a new paradigm help make psychology a more mature and cumulative science?

SLIME MOLD TIME MOLD is a mad science hive mind with a blog. If you believe the rumors, it’s run by 20 rats in a trenchcoat. You can reach them at [email protected], follow them on twitter at @mold_time, and read their blog at slimemoldtimemold.com

Links:

• The Mind in the Wheel
• Obesity and Lithium

Staff

• Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director
• Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead
• WeAmplify — Transcriptionists
• Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant

Music

• Broke for Free
• Josh Woodward
• Lee Rosevere
• Quiet Music for Tiny Robots
• wowamusic
• zapsplat.com

Affiliates

• Clearer Thinking
• GuidedTrack
• Mind Ease
• Positly
• UpLift