Artwork

内容由J. Paul Neeley提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 J. Paul Neeley 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
Player FM -播客应用
使用Player FM应用程序离线!

Why Bias is Rational, with Kevin Dorst

39:58
 
分享
 

Manage episode 278198614 series 2827257
内容由J. Paul Neeley提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 J. Paul Neeley 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
“When evidence is ambiguous––when it is hard to know how to interpret it—it can lead rational people to predictably polarize.”

Turi talks with philosopher Kevin Dorst to understand why all our cognitive ‘flaws’ - from confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, through our selective exposure to media, even the prejudice we apply to our analysis of evidence that contradicts our beliefs - should actually be thought of rational behaviour.

Ever since the 1970s, when Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky began working on the cognitive / psychological bases of our logical errors, the idea that humans are profoundly irrational has grown in popularity.

We think to satisfy emotional needs (the need to feel safe, to belong, to feel better than others) as much as epistemic ones (finding out the truth).

So much is certainly true, but - as Kevin explains - it has profound political implications.

When we come to believe that humans are irrational, it is only and always those on the other side whom we accuse of the flaw; never ourselves. And accusing our political opponents of irrationality - accusing them of intellectual corruption and cognitive breakdown - is a step towards demonising them, and a massive accelerant of the polarisation we see across our political landscapes.

Kevin Dorst tells us that story is wrong. Politics and Culture are not maths. The evidence we have for thinking one way or another is always ambiguous. The ways we think about politics and culture are, Kevin tells us, fundamentally rational approaches to Ambiguous Evidence.

Join us to hear how, and why, and what that should mean for the way we engage with those on the other side of the political spectrum.

Listen to Kevin and Turi discuss:

  • Ideological Sorting
  • Attitude Polarization
  • Affective Polarization
  • Ambiguous Evidence
  • And the pernicious effects of de-rationalising humans
“Irrationalism turns polarization into demonization.”

More on this episode


Learn all about the Parlia Podcast here.


Meet Turi Munthe: https://www.parlia.com/u/Turi


Learn more about the Parlia project here: https://www.parlia.com/about


And visit us at: https://www.parlia.com



Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

  continue reading

45集单集

Artwork
icon分享
 
Manage episode 278198614 series 2827257
内容由J. Paul Neeley提供。所有播客内容(包括剧集、图形和播客描述)均由 J. Paul Neeley 或其播客平台合作伙伴直接上传和提供。如果您认为有人在未经您许可的情况下使用您的受版权保护的作品,您可以按照此处概述的流程进行操作https://zh.player.fm/legal
“When evidence is ambiguous––when it is hard to know how to interpret it—it can lead rational people to predictably polarize.”

Turi talks with philosopher Kevin Dorst to understand why all our cognitive ‘flaws’ - from confirmation bias and motivated reasoning, through our selective exposure to media, even the prejudice we apply to our analysis of evidence that contradicts our beliefs - should actually be thought of rational behaviour.

Ever since the 1970s, when Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky began working on the cognitive / psychological bases of our logical errors, the idea that humans are profoundly irrational has grown in popularity.

We think to satisfy emotional needs (the need to feel safe, to belong, to feel better than others) as much as epistemic ones (finding out the truth).

So much is certainly true, but - as Kevin explains - it has profound political implications.

When we come to believe that humans are irrational, it is only and always those on the other side whom we accuse of the flaw; never ourselves. And accusing our political opponents of irrationality - accusing them of intellectual corruption and cognitive breakdown - is a step towards demonising them, and a massive accelerant of the polarisation we see across our political landscapes.

Kevin Dorst tells us that story is wrong. Politics and Culture are not maths. The evidence we have for thinking one way or another is always ambiguous. The ways we think about politics and culture are, Kevin tells us, fundamentally rational approaches to Ambiguous Evidence.

Join us to hear how, and why, and what that should mean for the way we engage with those on the other side of the political spectrum.

Listen to Kevin and Turi discuss:

  • Ideological Sorting
  • Attitude Polarization
  • Affective Polarization
  • Ambiguous Evidence
  • And the pernicious effects of de-rationalising humans
“Irrationalism turns polarization into demonization.”

More on this episode


Learn all about the Parlia Podcast here.


Meet Turi Munthe: https://www.parlia.com/u/Turi


Learn more about the Parlia project here: https://www.parlia.com/about


And visit us at: https://www.parlia.com



Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

  continue reading

45集单集

Alle Folgen

×
 
Loading …

欢迎使用Player FM

Player FM正在网上搜索高质量的播客,以便您现在享受。它是最好的播客应用程序,适用于安卓、iPhone和网络。注册以跨设备同步订阅。

 

快速参考指南