Steven Bartlett said two glasses of wine ruined three days of his life, and the internet lost it. Who is more fragile, Stevie boy or the internet?

In this episode, we discuss Cass Sunstein’s “Why Nudge?” and his defense of “libertarian paternalism,” the idea that the state should steer people toward better choices and can do so without violating the tenets of classical liberalism.

In this episode, we discuss philosopher Hrishikesh Joshi's paper "Debunking Creedal Beliefs." A creedal belief is one where: (1) there's little personal cost to being wrong, (2) the belief is policed by your social circle, and (3) it's not trivial to verify. Joshi argues you should hold these beliefs with less confidence—not because they're false, but because you'd hold them regardless of whether they're true.

In this episode, we sit down with Greg Salmieri, senior scholar of philosophy at the Salem Center at UT Austin, to discuss ethical egoism—the theory that central to what makes an action good, what makes it right, what makes it moral—is that it benefits the person taking it.

Salmieri argues that unlike other living creatures who follow biological algorithms, humans must consciously compose their lives through reason. We dive deep into why this leads to a specific form of rational egoism, one grounded in understanding human life as a creative, self-sustaining system. Salmieri explains why values only make sense from the standpoint of a living agent, why productive work is both an economic and psychological necessity, and why the choice to focus your mind forms the foundation of free will and individual ethics.

Along the way, we touch on how this perspective interacts with other issues and social movements of our times: the problems with traditionalism, objections to utilitarianism and Effective Altruism, enforcing, social norms, the pronatalist movement and more. LInks to Greg's media presence and work: A Companion To Ayn Rand Talks & Lectures Follow Greg on X

In this episode, philosopher and host of the Elucidations podcast, Matt Teichman, joins us to explore conversational implicature & the hidden rules that help us understand what people mean beyond their literal words. We dive into Paul Grice's cooperative principle and discuss a few real-world examples where communication famously broken down, like the infamous Kathy Newman/Jordan Peterson interview and Trump's "very fine people" comment. We also discuss implicatures in the corporate world and dating etiquette. Matt helps us unpack why some conversations go catastrophically wrong, how different communities develop their own communication norms, and why sometimes saying things indirectly is both more efficient and more fun.

In this episode, we talk with Bryan Caplan about his letter to his daughter on feminism. We cover whether women have been historically disadvantaged, how male and female experiences stack up today, the problems with viewing identity groups through a justice lens, arranged marriages, the gender pay-gap or lack thereof, and more.

In this episode of Moral Mayhem, we stick up for those without a voice — bankers and hedge fund managers. We explore why middle men and financiers - from ancient moneylenders to modern hedge funds - are unique objects of scorn in the eyes of the public. We discuss the ethics of payday lending and consumer credit, the social value of public markets, positive externalities of active management and the oft-repeated claim that finance “sucks up too much talent”. In our introductory segment, we discuss Shrimp Welfare — a recently trending topic on Substack and the assumptions that underpin the Effective Altruism movement.

This week we were joined by our friend Jacob Falkovich. Jacob publishes some of the best “White-pilled” dating advice out there on his blog Second Person, and in addition to being a great Twitter follow he’s also known for putanumonit. We discuss the importance of agency in dating, the negativity bias prevalent in dating discourse, and the limited use-cases for dating apps. Jacob suggests taking a break from the metanarratives about dating (and how hopeless it is) to focus on your actual experiences—who are you meeting, what kind of things do you want to do with a partner (as opposed to what can you notice about them in the first 10 seconds), what is your actual dating market and is there a way to make it more favorable? We also touch on transactional relationships and the impact of identity and social norms on dating choices. Jacob suggests that when looking for a match, it’s always helpful if you generally like and care about people of the other sex, but he’s optimistic even about incels who he thinks are just “one smile from a cute girl away” from tossing their self-defeating ideology in the bin. Stay tuned to the end to hear Jacob’s take on the Barbie movie.

We’re talking about Love is Blind, the ‘scientific’ dating ‘experiment’ to discover how shallow reality TV stars really are (see the video version on Youtube). The show involves men and women dating in pods where they can hear but not see one another, and ultimately getting engaged “sight unseen” (at least if they want to stay on the show). We discuss how the ‘experiment’ can be understood as an attempt to solve an adverse selection problem for people who feel they overweight looks, or a particular type, to their own detriment and whether they achieve the promise of the show. And at the end we discuss the most interesting couple’s dynamics (to us) on the latest season: Marissa and Ramses, Hannah and Nick, and Tyler and Ashley.

Check us out on Youtube for the video version of the episode.

Chapters:

* 00:00 Introduction to Love is Blind

* 06:13 The Experiment of Love is Blind

* 11:49 Reality TV Dynamics and Contestant Motivations

* 17:56 The Nature of Attraction and Compatibility

* 24:10 Transactional Relationships and Marriage

* 29:53 Is This Modern Arranged Marriage?

* 39:19 Incentives and Filtering

* 42:14 (Lack of) Privacy

* 45:31 Marissa and Ramses

* 58:05 Hannah and Nick

In this episode, we chat with Robin Hanson about his proposed solution to falling fertility rates in the US: since each newborn is effectively responsible for hundreds of thousands in national debt obligations, governments could endow parents with a portion of their children’s future tax payments - creating a win-win scenario where both parents and the nation's fiscal future benefit. Robin also shares his approach to his career, risk-taking and how to succeed as a polymath. 

Relevant Links:

Policy proposal to incentivize higher fertility (Robin Hanson)

Can we afford to buy marginal babies (Regan Arntz-Gray)

That fertile formula is inefficient (Regan Arntz-Gray)

Robin Hanson and Agnes Callard on Transformative Choices