Psyphilopod

Bo and Ben discuss Biden’s agenda. What can we ascertain about his plan to govern from his first few days and from a flurry of executive orders? During his inaugural speech, Biden spoke of a desire to unify the country, but did any of his rhetoric serve that end? Bo and Ben agree that it did not, and that he failed to offer conservatives much of substance, even verbally.

Furthermore, some executive orders were divisive, especially the one on LGBQT+ discrimination, which seems to require high schools and colleges to allow biological men who identify as women to play women’s sports, among other things. His immigration bill, which includes a path of citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, is also likely to anger conservatives. Much of this is probably for Biden’s base, but it is disconcerting and doesn’t signal an actual desire to meet in the middle.

They conclude by discussing Michael Brendan Dougherty’s piece on the future of populism. Will populism survive the wreck of Trump or is it tied to his unique personality traits? Although they disagree about particulars, both Bo and Ben believe, with MBD, that populism isn’t going to disappear now that Trump is gone: too many of the concerns that he gave voice to remain.

Michael Brenan Dougherty piece: https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/01/trumpism-after-trump/

Biden’s executive orders: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/biden-executive-orders.html

Biden’s immigration bill: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/politics/biden-immigration-policies.html

Unity?: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/senate-republicans-throw-cold-water-biden-s-immigration-proposal-n1255232

Bo and Ben discuss impeachment, social media crackdowns, and an essay defending big businesses by Matt Yglesias. They agree that at least in principle Donald Trump should be impeached and convicted. His actions after the election have been repellent, and they should be punished forcefully. They are uncertain about social media curation. Social media presents unique challenges, and easy answers are hard to find. However, they agree that social media has almost certainly degraded discourse and has encouraged a kind of performative politics that is lamentable.

Finally, they discuss Matt Yglesias’s piece, “Small business is not the answer,” which argues that we should not confuse bigness with anti-trust violations; and that big businesses are more innovative and better paying than small businesses. It’s easy to have fond nostalgia about small shops and businesses, but they are generally inefficient and bad for workers and customers. Bigness is not bad. A lack of competition is. And creating a more equitable economy does not require attacking big firms; it requires pro-wage policies and a more progressive tax code.

Yglesias’s paper: https://www.slowboring.com/p/small-business-is-not-the-answer

Bo and Ben discuss Trump for over two hours. In the wake of the Capitol riot, they reflect upon his influence on politics over the last four years. Is he a symptom of an underlying disease? A cause? Or both? They agree that he confirms the adage that character is destiny and also the hypothesis that character is an important trait to consider when electing a POTUS: His character, manifestly flawed, lead almost inexorably to this moment. Those Republicans who contended that this was a surprise willingly blinded themselves to the dangers he posed. This was not only predictable, but it was also predicted by many observers.

The Trump phenomenon, nevertheless, is important to understand because he came to represent the legitimate interests of many aggrieved people. And those people aren’t going away. The important thing is to assimilate them into a more responsible populist movement, a movement with less dependence on wild conspiracy theories and more respect for institutions.

Bo and Ben both agree that permanently banning Trump from twitter, although understandable, was wrong and should worry us. They also agree that Biden and Harris’s response to the deplorable riot was disappointing and will likely only stoke the cinders of partisan division in this country. Although there’s not much to be hopeful about right now, it is possible that a responsible figure will emerge, a Marco Rubio or even a Tom Cotton, who channels the frustrations that gave rise to populist in a more praiseworthy direction.

Bo and Ben discuss wokeism, a nearly religious ideology which is ardently held by many of today’s educated elites. Both believe that wokeism is inimical to liberalism because it challenges liberal values such as due process, free speech, and a reverence for liberal civilization. They argue that it likely arose and spread for a variety of reasons, some noble, some cynical, some malevolent.

Whatever the cause of its rise, Bo and Ben both agree that it is here to stay, at least for the short term. They end by discussing its consequences, and its likely trajectory.

David French on the great white civil war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjMGq4uzCIc

Bo and Ben Winegard on the Great Awokening: https://quillette.com/2018/09/21/the-preachers-of-the-great-awokening/

Rob Henderson on luxury beliefs: https://nypost.com/2019/08/17/luxury-beliefs-are-the-latest-status-symbol-for-rich-americans/

In a comeback for Psyphilopod, Bo and Ben Winegard, MZ Twins, take the helm and discuss evolutionary psychology, intelligence, and polices. They start with natural and sexual selection. Then they talk about modularity. Modules are domain specific processing systems that evolved to solve recurrent evolutionary challenges. However, not all features of the human mind/brain are modular. Intelligence seems domain general. (Perhaps it is domain specific to novelty!)

Politics are caused and constrained by human nature. Humans are implacably competitive, so any political ideology that minimizes competition is probably a bad ideology. In the modern West, society seems to be pulling apart based on certain traits such as intelligence and self-control. Those higher in IQ and self-control (and more educated) are largely thriving. Those lower are not. And these two groups, which we can, following David Goodhart, call "somewheres" and "anywheres" are creating two more and more disparate cultures and competing against each other for limited resources and cultural status. Populism can be viewed as a response to the cultural ascendancy of the anywheres.

Charles Murray's "Coming Apart": https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/119020/coming-apart-by-charles-murray/

Leda Cosmides and John Tooby's "Evolutionary psychology primer": https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/primer.html

David Geary's "Origin of Mind": https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4318015

Bo Winegard's: "Conservatism: An Intellectual Defense": https://arcdigital.media/conservatism-an-intellectual-defense-db37af1879e7

David Goodhart's "Road to Somewhere": https://www.hurstpublishers.com/book/the-road-to-somewhere/

Episode 18: Bo and Cory discuss whether the field of Social Psychology, on whole, has been positive or negative for the world.

Follow Psyphilopod on Twitter: @Psyphilopod

Follow Bo on Twitter: @EPoe187

Follow Cory on Twitter: @ImHardcory

Episode 18: Bo and Cory discuss whether the field of Social Psychology, on whole, has been positive or negative for the world.

Follow Psyphilopod on Twitter: @Psyphilopod

Follow Bo on Twitter: @EPoe187

Follow Cory on Twitter: @ImHardcory

What is the significance of implicit bias in the lab and in the real world? And why are social scientists, the public, and the media so fascinated with unconscious bias? These questions and more on Psyphilopod Episode 17 with guest-host, Dr. Calvin Lai.

Follow Calvin on Twitter: @CalvinKLai

Follow Psyphilopod on Twitter: @Psyphilopod

Follow Bo on Twitter: @EPoe187

Follow Cory on Twitter: @ImHardcory

What is the significance of implicit bias in the lab and in the real world? And why are social scientists, the public, and the media so fascinated with unconscious bias? These questions and more on Psyphilopod Episode 17 with guest-host, Dr. Calvin Lai.

Follow Calvin on Twitter: @CalvinKLai

Follow Psyphilopod on Twitter: @Psyphilopod

Follow Bo on Twitter: @EPoe187

Follow Cory on Twitter: @ImHardcory

Psyphilopod Episode 16: Our guest-host, Diego Reinero, chats with Bo and Cory about the relationship between the ideological slant of research and replicability, and whether scientists can and should eliminate moral concerns from their research.

Read Diego's meta-analysis: https://psyarxiv.com/6k3j5/

Follow Diego on Twitter: @diegoareinero

Follow Psyphilopod on Twitter: @Psyphilopod

Follow Bo on Twitter: @EPoe187

Follow Cory on Twitter: @ImHardcory