On April 14, we recorded a live episode on the Fusion stage at the ASU/GSV education conference in San Diego. We dove into what I would argue is one of the most important questions, not just in education, but for us as a species: Does AI Expand or Atrophy Human Intelligence? 

Is AI making us smarter, or is it actually eroding our cognitive capabilities?

Embed video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQpwAl8Tm0&t=2s

I’d like to give a big thank you to the team at ASU/GSV for inviting us back for another great conversation. Huge thanks to Mary McCall Leland, Lucy Baldwin, Deborah Quazzo, and the incredible production team at Clarity Experiences. 

The Questions:

The Guests

Benjamin Riley is the founder of Cognitive Resonance, a new venture dedicated to improving the understanding of human cognition and generative AI. Previously, he founded and served as CEO of Deans for Impact, a nonprofit education organization working to improve teacher training through the use of cognitive science.

James Donovan is the head of learning and cognitive outcomes at OpenAI. His work focuses on how AI use affects learning outcomes and the cognitive processes that support them. James’ work has focused on translating research into practical tools designed to support human cognition. 

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

This week’s disagreement is on Oz The Mentalist and the Ethics of Deception.

This episode is about magic and mentalism, but, more than that, it’s about the nature of how we form beliefs, determine what is real, what is true, and the social consequences of mass deception.

First off: who is Oz the Mentalist?

He’s the guy you’ve probably seen in your social media feed, appearing to read the minds of celebrities. He’s performed live at the Golden Globes and appeared on Howard Stern, The View, and 60 Minutes. He’s the guy who guesses the name of a celebrity’s high school crush or their third-grade teacher.

Oz doesn’t claim to be psychic. His tagline is: “I don’t read minds, I read people.” He says he has extraordinary powers of perception. On Joe Rogan’s podcast, he compared himself to Jason Bourne—someone who can read micro-expressions, facial tics, and eye movements to uncover whatever is inside your head.

That’s what separates mentalism from traditional magic. In magic, everyone knows a trick is happening. With mentalism, performers distance themselves from magic entirely. Oz constantly says he doesn’t do magic tricks. Instead, he says he uses real psychological tools to access people’s thoughts.

He’s turned those alleged abilities into a self-help empire, with a viral TED Talk titled “How to Read Minds Without Magic” and a New York Times bestselling book, Read Your Mind.

I became fascinated with Oz a few months ago. My son is obsessed with magic, so we started watching his videos together and trying to figure out how the tricks worked. And honestly, I was pretty confused. None of the explanations we came up with made much sense. Then I came across a video from an Australian law student named Stevie Baskin, who came out of nowhere and started posting a five-hour viral video debunking Oz and mentalism.

So how does a mentalist guess the name of your third-grade teacher? What kind of intense training lets someone peer inside your head and know exactly what you’re thinking?

It turns out the answer is a lot more straightforward than you might think—and I’m sharing it because it’s important context for this conversation.

Mentalists use a range of techniques, but one of the most common is something called pre-show. Before the show even begins, the mentalist and the guest agree on the question that will be asked later during the performance.

The guest writes down the answer in a notepad. The mentalist might say something like, “Tear it off and put it in your pocket so you can’t change your answer when we’re live.” But it’s not a normal notepad. It’s a special one that secretly records the writing on the sheet underneath. When the guest hands the pad back, the mentalist already knows the answer—before the show even starts. From there, the rest is just acting. There are other variations of this too, involving special cell phone apps or surreptitiously designed websites.

It kind of bothered me when I learned that. With the TED Talk and the New York Times bestseller, it felt like Oz had moved beyond entertainment and into something closer to misinformation—and monetizing it.

Stevie Baskin agreed to come on the show to discuss the ethics of all of this. And to represent the other side, I wanted someone who actually practices mentalism. So I’m very grateful to mentalist, The Amazing Dr. Scott, for joining us. When not performing mentalism, Dr. Scott AKA Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman is a renowned cognitive scientist and professor at Columbia University.

The Guests

Steve Baskin is a skeptic, rationalist, and YouTube sensation who is in the midst of earning a law degree. Stevie crafted a five-hour YouTube video critiquing metadeceptions and articulating way mentalists like Oz Pearlman present create moral hazards for everyone. Stevie’s video, Metadception: The Truth About Oz Pearlmen has close to 200k views and has created a stir amongst both fans and critics of mentalism, and the greater mentalist community. 

Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman is a psychologist, coach, best-selling author, professor, keynote speaker, and mentalist. Dr. Kaufman is a professor of psychology at Columbia University and director of the Center for Human Potential, and is among the top 1% most cited scientists in the world for his research on intelligence and creativity. Dr. Kaufman’s writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Scientific American, Psychology Today, and Harvard Business Review, and he is the author and editor of 11 books, including his most recent book Rise Above: Overcome a Victim Mindset, Empower Yourself, and Realize Your Full Potential.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Today we’re trying something new on the show –  it’s a different kind of book review, where we have a healthy disagreement around the core arguments made in a recently released book.

The book is The Case for American Power by Shadi Hamid, a columnist for the Washington Post and host of the Wisdom of Crowds podcast. It’s a fascinating read – Shadi makes a case that you don’t hear very often: that America should be using its power for moral and humanitarian ends. It’s a broad-based appeal but also a specific appeal to those on the left who have become deeply skeptical and disillusioned with American power.

So to offer a critique we have brought on someone who is deeply skeptical of American power. Trita Parsi is an Iranian-Swedish-American political scientist, author, and foreign policy expert and is currently the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

It’s a thought-provoking conversation and serves as an excellent follow-up to Shadi’s previous appearance on our show in April 2024, when he discussed American Power and the role that the United States should be playing on the global stage.

The Questions:

The Guests

Shadi Hamid is the host of the Wisdom of Crowds podcast, a columnist at The Washington Post, and a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Previously, he was a longtime senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. Hamid is the author of several books, including The Problem of Democracy and Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World.

Trita Parsi is the co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute. He is an award-winning author and the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order. He is an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign policy, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He has authored four books on US foreign policy in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iran and Israel. He has been named by the Washingtonian Magazine as one of the 25 most influential voices on foreign policy in Washington DC for five years in a row since 2021.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Today, we’re sharing a special live recording of The Disagreement at the Harvard Graduate School of Education*. Our topic: Parents' Rights and K-12 Curriculum. This is our first live recording in a university class, and we are incredibly appreciative of Professor Jim Peyser and his students for having us.

This episode was sparked by the judgement in the recent Supreme Court case, Mahmoud v. Taylor (24-297), which ruled in favor of allowing parents to “opt-out” children from lessons that did not align with their religious beliefs. It was a highly controversial ruling and has the potential to reshape U.S. public education on both national and local levels.

*A Note: The Harvard Graduate School of Education recently launched the Dialogue Across Differences initiative, which fosters conversations on a wide range of topics from diverse perspectives. Please note that the views and opinions expressed by our guests today are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of HGSE or Harvard University.

The Questions:

• To what extent should parents be allowed to opt their children out of K-12 school curriculum and courses?
• In a pluralistic society, how should decisions about what should—and should not—be part of school curriculum be made and by whom?
• To what extent is exposing children to views that differ from their religious, cultural, or ideological beliefs an essential component of, or threat to, public education?

The Guests

Jennifer Berkshire is a writer and co-host of a biweekly podcast on education, policy, and politics, Have You Heard? She teaches a course on the politics of public education at Yale University and, through the Boston College Prison Education Program, is an instructor in a Massachusetts prison. Jennifer is the author of The Education Wars, which examines the impact of the culture wars on the foundation of public education.

Naomi Schaefer Riley is a journalist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of several books across a variety of topics, including No Way to Treat a Child: How the Foster Care System, Family Courts, and Racial Activists Are Wrecking Young Lives, and Be the Parent, Please. A lot of Naomi’s work focuses on child welfare, child protective services, foster care, and adoption. 

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Today, we’re continuing our How to Disagree series with an episode called How to Disagree On Gaza and Zohran Mamdani.

A reminder: these episodes feature coaching sessions and real-life disagreements. Our goal is to equip everyone with the skills (and some inspiration) to more productively disagree.

Please note: this session was recorded live, on Substack, this summer. And as you know, quite a lot has changed since then…But with the NYC mayoral election today, we thought this was the right time to share this conversation.

In this episode, journalist, podcast host and author Anya Kamenetz meets with the New York Times best-selling conflict guru, Amanda Ripley. Anya was struggling with discussing not only the war in Gaza, but also how the war, and divergent information sources, were complicating discussions with a close friend over Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy in the New York City mayor’s race.

The session features in-depth coaching from Amanda on the concepts of “looping” an opposing argument and identifying the “understory,” tools we can all use to keep our disagreements healthy. And if you’re listening from NYC, perhaps they can specifically help in conversations unfolding in your own life.

The Questions:

How do we discuss politics with friends and family who are not only reading different news sources, but who have internalized beliefs different to our own?

How do you listen tactically and how can you encourage those in your life to do the same?

How can you identify the understory for yourself and your counterpart in a disagreement?

The Guests

Anya Kamenetz is a journalist and the author of The Gold Hour on Substack. Her work primarily focuses on the intersection of children, well-being, education, and climate change. She covered education for many years, including for NPR, where she co-created the podcast Life Kit: Parenting. Her last book was The Stolen Year: How Covid Changed Children’s Lives, And Where We Go Now.

Amanda Ripley is a New York Times bestselling author, a Washington Post contributing columnist, and the co-founder of Good Conflict, a media and training company that helps people reimagine conflict. She has written three award-winning, nonfiction books about three very different subjects: High Conflict, The Smartest Kids in the World, and The Unthinkable

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Today, we’re doing the second episode in our new series: How to Disagree.

A reminder: these episodes feature coaching sessions and real-life disagreements. Our goal is to equip everyone with the skills (and some inspiration) to more productively disagree. 

On to the episode…You know that feeling when you walk into a room and realize someone’s talking about you? Imagine that on steroids: you tune into a Substack Live to learn your friend is talking about your disagreement in front of an audience! 

That’s exactly the set up for today’s episode, a follow-up to How to Disagree about Gender with a Close Friend (Part I). In Part II, we get to hear from Larissa Phillips’ friend, “Jane,” and see them bring Bob Bordone’s coaching to life as they navigate their disagreement and a new chapter in their friendship.

The Questions:

• Is it possible to remain close friends after growing apart ideologically?
• How can you remain curious when you strongly disagree?
• Are there some topics we should avoid entirely as friends? Is gender one of them? And how did it get this way?

The Guests

Larissa Phillips is a columnist for The Free Press whose work focuses on finding community and fostering relationships as a Democrat living in the rural Hudson Valley. She is also the Director and Founder of the Volunteer Literacy Project, teaching basic literacy to adults. 

Christina Thyssen is a writer, story coach, and professor of writing and literature at the University at Albany. She is the co-founder of Hudson Valley Story Workshops and runs a story slam in Catskill, NY. Christina also teaches writing and storytelling to prisoners. 

A special thank you to Larissa and Christina for going on this journey with us. It took a tremendous amount of courage. And if you haven’t already, check out Larissa’s excellent article on her experience with us in The Free Press.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Today, we’re introducing the first episode in a new series: How to Disagree. As we expand our work to model and enable productive disagreement across lines of difference, we are trying something new with “How To Disagree.” Instead of bringing together experts to have a productive disagreement on social or political issues, we’re delving into interpersonal disagreements.

Episodes will feature coaching sessions with an individual struggling with a real-life disagreement (with a friend, family member or colleague) working with a world-class conflict resolution expert. Through these sessions, our guests will learn how to approach their particular rift, as well as more general skills and tools on how to more productively disagree. 

The first in this series is How to Disagree About Gender with a Close Friend, featuring Larissa Phillips. We actually recorded this session with Larissa live on Substack, and are very excited to share a produced version with you. Also, check out Larissa’s excellent article on her experience with us in The Free Press.

The Questions:

• How do we discuss politics with our friends when we don’t see eye to eye?
• How do we engage one another without trying to persuade?
• How do we prepare for disagreements on hot button topics like gender?

The Guests

Larissa Phillips is a columnist for The Free Press whose work focuses on finding community and fostering relationships as a Democrat living in the rural Hudson Valley. She is also the Director and Founder of the Volunteer Literacy Project, teaching basic literacy to adults. 

Bob Bordone is a senior fellow at Harvard Law School who has spent the last 25 years teaching negotiation and conflict resolution. He teaches negotiation to individuals and teams with a particular interest in addressing the United States’ polarized climate. Bob recently wrote a book with a neuroscientist called Conflict Resilience: Negotiating Disagreement Without Giving Up or Giving In.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Recently, First Lady Melania Trump convened the second White House Task Force on Artificial Intelligence in Education. There is simultaneously an incredible amount of excitement around AI in schools and just beneath it, a sort of terror about its potential impacts and all we do not know. We wanted to take a macro approach and examine the current state of AI in education, its promise, the fears, and what the near future may look like.

The Questions:

• Is AI in the classroom a force for good?
• Can we still produce critical thinkers in an AI-driven classroom?
• Will AI just be another ed tech flash in the pan?

To have this conversation, we brought together two leading eduction experts with nuanced, divergent views on the roles technology, and AI specifically, should play for teachers and students.

Eric Westendorf is a former principal who founded the ed tech company LearnZillion, and now is the co-CEO of Coursemojo, which is using AI to enhance in-class learning by supporting teachers in providing the right support for every student.

Justin Reich is an Associate Professor in Comparative Media Studies and Director at MIT Teaching Systems Lab, and is the author of a new book, Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education.

Two notes on terms. Our guests mention NAEP: the National Assessment of Education Progress. There's also discussion of the Alpha School: a network of US private schools that combines AI-driven adaptive software for core academics with in-person adult “Guides” who act as mentors. It operates in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and California. According to Alpha School, their combination of technology and mastery based learning allows children learn core subjects in just two hours daily.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Today's disagreement is about US Selective Public High Schools. These schools, also known as “Exam Schools”, are elite publicly funded high schools that have historically relied on a single entrance exam to determine admission.  You’ve likely heard of many of them:

In Boston, you have Boston Latin, the oldest public high school in the country. Alums include Ben Franklin and Sam Adams. In New York: You’ve got Stuyvesant, whose alums include U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and, of coruse, Timothy Chalamet. New York also has The Bronx High School of Science, whose alums have more Nobel prizes (9) than any other high school in the world. In Northern Virginia, there's Thomas Jefferson (or TJ), established in 1985 and one of the newest selective high schools. It has spent many years rated the #1 High School in the Country by U.S. News and World Report.

In the episode, we ask a number of questions: What is the purpose of these schools? Should they exist? Are standardized entrance exams the best path to meritocratic admissions? How concerned should we be about diversity and equity and whether student bodies are representative of their surrounding communities?

Ian Rowe is the CEO and cofounder of Vertex Partnership Academies, a virtues-based International Baccalaureate high school in the Bronx. He is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His most recent books is “Agency: The Four Point Plan (F.R.E.E.) for ALL Children to Overcome the Victimhood Narrative and Discover Their Pathway to Power”

Stefan Redding Lollinger is the Executive Director of Next100, a multi-issue, progressive policy think tank. He’s a Scholar in Residence at American University and the first Director of a Century Foundation initiative to advance diversity and integration in schools and neighborhoods.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Today’s disagreement is about college and its worth-it-ness. Does the traditional college model still make sense in today’s economy? Should we embrace shorter-term skills-based alternatives? And how can institutions balance access, affordability, and workforce readiness in a rapidly changing world?

Ryan Craig is a Managing Director at Achieve Partners and co-founder of Apprenticeships for America. Ryan is also the author of Apprentice Nation: How the "Earn and Learn" Alternative to Higher Education Will Create a Stronger and Fairer America.

Dr. Bridget Burns is founding CEO of the University Innovation Alliance, a ‘multi-campus laboratory’ for student success in higher education. Previously, Dr. Burns served as an American Council on Education Fellow at Arizona State University and a Senior Policy Advisor and Chief of Staff for the Oregon University System.

Episode Notes

02:00 - Bridget's Perspective
04:15 - Ryan's Counterpoint
06:12 - Defining 'Worth It': Beyond Economic ROI
09:59 - The Role of Higher Education in Society
15:19 - The Need for Accountability and Reform
17:14 - The Apprenticeship Dilemma
21:04 - College or Chipotle
21:32 - The European Model vs. The American System
22:59 - The Need for Adaptability and Social Skills
25:05 - The Cost and Value of College Education
26:17 - The Future of College and Employment
33:28 - Steel Man

This episode was recorded live in San Diego at the annual ASU+GSV Summit. You can watch the live stream of it on YouTube.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at [email protected] or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/