Everyone knows Tamler hates numbers but he’s not the only one who worries about them. We talk about the philosopher C. Thi Nguyen’s excellent paper “Value Capture” which examines how the ever-increasing presence of metrics, data, indicators, rankings, and other forms quantification shape our values as individuals and institutions. Plus, VBW Does Conceptual Analysis – we’re on to the ‘S’ words now: smug. 

Nguyen, C. T. (2024). Value capture. J. Ethics & Soc. Phil., 27, 469.

What makes something weird? What makes something eerie? David and Tamler wander into Mark Fisher’s The Weird and the Eerie to learn more about these concepts. How does weird art expand our imagination of what’s possible? Why does the feeling of eeriness dissolve when we get an explanation for what we see? What draws us to phenomena that evoke these unsettling feelings?  

Plus – DeepSeek has Silicon Valley shitting themselves but how does it really stack up against good old American AI?

The Weird and the Eerie by Mark Fisher [amazon.com affiliate link]

It’s Back 2 Basics: Psychology edition! Do coins look bigger to poor people? Do hills look steeper to people wearing heavy backpacks? What’s the difference between perception and attention, or perception and judgment? David and Tamler discuss the long standing debate over whether our beliefs, desires, and past experience can penetrate our vision and change our visual perception. Plus some thoughts on the passing of Tamler’s favorite artist David Lynch.

Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016).  Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for “top-down” effects. Behavioral and brain sciences, 39, e229.

Cognitive Penetration and the Epistemology of Perception by Nico Silins 

Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. The journal of abnormal and social psychology, 42(1), 33.

Fodor, Jerry A. "Precis of the modularity of mind." Behavioral and brain sciences 8.1 (1985): 1-5.

David and Tamler celebrate their 300th episode with a deep dive into the movie that inspired the podcast’s title. Why is "The Wizard of Oz" the most influential American movie of all time? How does it dig deep into our collective psyches? What makes the effects so timeless and effective? And what’s the actual moral of the story? Plus we crawl up our own asses and talk about what we’re proud of from last year, excited for in 2025, and the ways the podcast has changed since episode 1.

The Wizard of Oz (1939)[wikipedia.org]

Roger Ebert's review of The Wizard of Oz [rogerebert.com]

The Wizard of Oz as allegory for atheism [forgetfulfilmcritic.com]

Technicolor [wikipedia.org]

A Very Bad Wizard: Morality Behind the Curtain by Tamler Sommers [amazon.com affiliate link]

Break Music [soundcloud.com]

David and Tamler wrap up the new year talking about intellectual virtues and Rachel Fraser’s excellent essay “Against Humility.” What is intellectual humility exactly and do we need it for knowledge and understanding? Does the value of humility depend on the person or the circumstances? Are there contexts where intellectual arrogance is the epistemic virtue? We arrive at the definitive answers to these questions and anyone who disagrees with us is a stupid idiot.

Plus in the second segment we present THE AMBIES (..the ambies), the final episode of "The Ambulators," our episode by episode breakdown of David Milch’s Deadwood. It’s a clip-filled awards ceremony to celebrate what might be the great TV series of all time. Highlights include Best Quote, Best Scene, Best Character (other than Al), Best Slur, Best Antisemitic slur, and lots more.

"Why intellectual humility isn't always a virtue" by Rachel Fraser [aeon.co]

Deadwood (TV Series) [wikipedia.org]

Why do we punish people? How did our punishment practices evolve and what is their primary function? David and Tamler talk about a new paper that examines punitive justice in three small-scale societies - the Kiowa equestrian foragers in late 19th century North America, Mentawai horticulturalists in Indonesia, and Nuer pastoralists. The authors challenge the dominant view of punishment as a means of norm enforcement arguing instead that its main function is reconciliation, restoring cooperative relationships, and preventing further violence. Get ready for runaway pigs, peace pipes, wife stealing, banana stealing, black magic, leopard-skin chiefs, and David maybe finally coming around to restorative justice. Plus we choose from a long list of fantastic topic suggestions from our beloved Patreon supporters and narrow down to six finalists for the listener selected episode.

Fitouchi, L., & Singh, M. (2023). Punitive justice serves to restore reciprocal cooperation in three small-scale societies. Evolution and Human Behavior, 44(5), 502-514.

Third-party punishment [wikipedia.org]

David and Tamler face off with the Misfit in Flannery O’Connor’s classic short story “A Good Man is Hard to Find.” We sort through the biblical allusions, dark comedy, nihilism, and the possibility of grace or rebirth (but whose?). Plus why do motorists dehumanize cyclists? Is it the helmets? Sounds like a job for the insect-based "Ascent of Man" scale.

Limb, M., & Collyer, S. (2023). The effect of safety attire on perceptions of cyclist dehumanisation. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 95, 494-509.

"A Good Man is Hard to Find (short story)" [wikipedia.org]

A Good Man is Hard to Find and Other Stories by Flannery O'Connor [amazon.com affiliate link]

(note: you can google for a .pdf of the story and you'll find some links floating around!)

David and Tamler share a few brief thoughts on the election and then raise some questions about Tucker Carlson being attacked by a demon as he slept in the woods with his wife and four dogs (still don’t believe in ghosts, people?). In the main segment we talk about one of the most popular measures in social psychology – the cognitive reflection test (CRT). Originally designed to identify differences in people’s ability to employ reflection (system 2) to override their initial intuition (system 1), this three-item measure has mushroomed into its own industry with researchers linking CRT scores to job performance, religious belief, conspiracy theorizing and more. But what psychological attribute is this test supposed to measure exactly, and how can we determine its validity? And has the dual process system 1/system 2 framework outlived its usefulness? 

Tucker Carlson was totally mauled by a demon and not scratched by his dogs [youtube.com]

Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(4), 25-42.

Blacksmith, N., Yang, Y., Ruark, G., & Behrend, T. (2018, July). A Validity Analysis of the Cognitive Reflection Test Using an Item-Response-Tree Model. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2018, No. 1, p. 18090). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.

Erceg, N., Galić, Z., & Ružojčić, M. (2020). A reflection on cognitive reflection–testing convergent/divergent validity of two measures of cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision making, 15(5), 741-755.

Meyer, A., & Frederick, S. (2023). The formation and revision of intuitions. Cognition, 240, 105380.

David and Tamler hop into their Scooby Van and drive into Tobe Hooper’s mad and macabre horror classic The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.  How does this endlessly imitated movie still have the power to scare the shit out of people fifty years after its release? We talk about the sounds, smells, heat, and sweat (but not so much the blood) that pour out of the screen. And we dare to ask the question: are the Sawyers – a family of craftsmen and artists, committed to sustainability and fine dining – actually the victims here? Plus we take and fail a test to see if we can identify fake Republicans and Democrats. 

Hart, M., & Nazarian, N. (2024) Season's mis-greetings: why timing matters in global academia. Nature.

Both Democrats and Republicans can pass the Ideological Turing Test [experimental-history.com]

The Ideological Turing Test [ituringtest.com]

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre [wikipedia.org]

CD Broad called induction “the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy.” As a matter of habit, we’re all confident that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and that we can predict where the planets and stars will be tomorrow night. But what’s the rational justification for beliefs like this? According David Hume, there is none. Deductive justifications can’t give you new information about the world, and inductive justifications are circular, they beg the question. David and Tamler dive into the notorious problem of induction and some (failed?) attempts to offer a resolution.

Plus, an article about toddlers and small children who seem to remember their past lives – what should we make of these reports? And is "remembering a past life" and "being possessed by the ghost of that person" a distinction without a difference?

The Children Who Remember Past Lives [washington post.com]

Ian Stevenson - criticisms [wikipedia.org]

The Problem of Induction [plato.stanford.edu]

Salmon, W. C. (1978). Unfinished business: The problem of induction. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 33(1), 1-19.