Or like the meme where the 2 guys are arguing about whether it’s a 6 or a 9 written on a parking spot and agree to disagree. But when you look further there’s a 5 on the previous spot and a 7 on the next one.
Great work as always, Josh, and thanks for bringing these diverse topics to our community!
I run into these conversations a lot in the deliberative democracy literature, and I have a big problem with them that I can’t quite digest.
Stephanie talks about views that are “unintegratable”, and that need to just be left out (radically pro-life or pro-choice, for example). The problem, then, is that we’re really just playing the synthesis game with willing participants (people who are willing to integrate / budge). The conversation game is fun when it’s seen as a sort of intellectual negotiation, with two consenting partners willing to move their points of view. But I think this vastly overestimates how many of us are so reasonable.
My issue is that we need more help with the first, prior move: getting people to be willing to interrogate and think critically about their own opinions in the first place. Only then can the synthesis methodology bear fruit.
I applaud the efforts of Stephanie for sure but I worry that she’s a little optimistic about the number of people who are actually willing to play the game in the first place.
Two thoughts: first, "My issue is that we need more help with the first, prior move: getting people to be willing to interrogate and think critically about their own opinions in the first place." You might be interested in a podcast I produced called Reckonings -- which told the stories of people who transformed their worldviews. I learned a lot about what creates the conditions conducive to self-reflection. Here's a thread with some of those lessons: https://x.com/stephlepp/status/1498351935434280962
Second, "I worry that she’s a little optimistic about the number of people who are actually willing to play the game in the first place." I'm optimistic, because we don't even know how much we agree! Social media is a total fun-house mirror that doesn't give us an accurate view of ourselves. Data about how much we actually agree is constantly coming out -- like this from FIRE yesterday: https://x.com/TheFIREorg/status/1852018269617529103
Side note: I’ve tried for a few years to get a First Year Writing course going at the University where I teach called Socratic Writing where we would read several of the early dialogues and then the students could write a few themselves on contemporary issues; three college kids in a bar arguing about immigration etc… I had given up on it because of the bureaucratic paperwork etc but you’ve inspired me to revive it!
I love this! Look at us synthesizing in the Substack chat it’s all happening haha!!
Thanks for these great responses…
Still thinking things over, but I wonder if a good litmus test for “integratable” ideas is falsifiability. Or maybe that’s too strict? I’m a big Karl Popper guy, and his ideas on the path to knowledge through criticism definitely overlap with this great conversation… still just trying to figure out which piece goes where.
Thanks again, Stephanie, for all the very cool work you’re doing!
Wow Stephanie, it's awesome that you've come to join us! I read through the link you shared here on reckoning and it's a very interesting response to the original challenge posed there by Evan.
Interestingly, the idea of "expanding your mind" (instead of changing it) doesn't appear in that thread, but it did appear in yesterday's episode with Josh. Maybe that's just a temporal thing. I thought your articulation of the point about expanding one's mind in the chat with Josh was very elegant.
My sister teachers a class here in Australia helping young people explore concepts of identify. I have shared with her the Faces of X episode about gender because I thought it might be useful to her as material for her class.
I wonder if the work the Labor party did in Australia of setting a quota for 50% female representation in Parliament is a good example of a systemic response that has achieved it's aim and now is no longer needed.
I find this a really interesting question (i.e. what kind of products should the host be allowed to promote on a free version of the podcast), so I asked an AI to examine this issue using Hegelian Philosophy. Here is what the AI came back with:
A dialectical response to the challenge of a listener criticizing a podcast host for advertising a disliked product might follow this structure:
Thesis: The listener enjoys the podcast but dislikes the ads, particularly the product being advertised.
Antithesis: The host relies on advertisements to fund the podcast, which enables the listener to access content for free. Potentially, there could be a misunderstanding of the economic model behind free content.
Synthesis: The resolution could involve recognizing that while the listener may not like certain ads, the existence of ads is necessary for the sustainability of free content. The host might consider listener feedback to balance ad choices better or engage with a broader range of products, while the listener can understand that ads are a trade-off for free access.
This synthesis encourages a dialogue between the listener and the host, promoting a mutual understanding of the podcast's funding model while acknowledging the listener's right to express concerns. It also opens the door for potential changes that could enhance listener experience without compromising the podcast's viability.
Does this help? Or is the concern here more about the method that was used to promote the product (i.e. integration with regular content), and not the product itself?
Pithy bumper sticker.
Capitalism is the short game, humanity is the long game.
Captures its goodness but that it must change to something better.
Whenever I hear this applied Hegelianism approach I’m reminded of this Simpsons scene:
Lisa: the vet appointment is on Tuesday
Bart: it’s on Wednesday
Tuesday, Wednesday, Tuesday, Wednesday….
Then Homer comes in and says:
Children, you’re both right.
Or like the meme where the 2 guys are arguing about whether it’s a 6 or a 9 written on a parking spot and agree to disagree. But when you look further there’s a 5 on the previous spot and a 7 on the next one.
Cute :)
Altho a good synthesis gets you to a higher order of complexity...
Amazing conversation! An approach that is desperately needed in today's hyperbolic discourses.
Thank you Stephanie and Josh 🙏
Great work as always, Josh, and thanks for bringing these diverse topics to our community!
I run into these conversations a lot in the deliberative democracy literature, and I have a big problem with them that I can’t quite digest.
Stephanie talks about views that are “unintegratable”, and that need to just be left out (radically pro-life or pro-choice, for example). The problem, then, is that we’re really just playing the synthesis game with willing participants (people who are willing to integrate / budge). The conversation game is fun when it’s seen as a sort of intellectual negotiation, with two consenting partners willing to move their points of view. But I think this vastly overestimates how many of us are so reasonable.
My issue is that we need more help with the first, prior move: getting people to be willing to interrogate and think critically about their own opinions in the first place. Only then can the synthesis methodology bear fruit.
I applaud the efforts of Stephanie for sure but I worry that she’s a little optimistic about the number of people who are actually willing to play the game in the first place.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment, Evan!
Two thoughts: first, "My issue is that we need more help with the first, prior move: getting people to be willing to interrogate and think critically about their own opinions in the first place." You might be interested in a podcast I produced called Reckonings -- which told the stories of people who transformed their worldviews. I learned a lot about what creates the conditions conducive to self-reflection. Here's a thread with some of those lessons: https://x.com/stephlepp/status/1498351935434280962
Second, "I worry that she’s a little optimistic about the number of people who are actually willing to play the game in the first place." I'm optimistic, because we don't even know how much we agree! Social media is a total fun-house mirror that doesn't give us an accurate view of ourselves. Data about how much we actually agree is constantly coming out -- like this from FIRE yesterday: https://x.com/TheFIREorg/status/1852018269617529103
Side note: I’ve tried for a few years to get a First Year Writing course going at the University where I teach called Socratic Writing where we would read several of the early dialogues and then the students could write a few themselves on contemporary issues; three college kids in a bar arguing about immigration etc… I had given up on it because of the bureaucratic paperwork etc but you’ve inspired me to revive it!
Omg YES revive that course! We need it! 🎸🎸🎸🎸
I love this! Look at us synthesizing in the Substack chat it’s all happening haha!!
Thanks for these great responses…
Still thinking things over, but I wonder if a good litmus test for “integratable” ideas is falsifiability. Or maybe that’s too strict? I’m a big Karl Popper guy, and his ideas on the path to knowledge through criticism definitely overlap with this great conversation… still just trying to figure out which piece goes where.
Thanks again, Stephanie, for all the very cool work you’re doing!
Wow Stephanie, it's awesome that you've come to join us! I read through the link you shared here on reckoning and it's a very interesting response to the original challenge posed there by Evan.
Interestingly, the idea of "expanding your mind" (instead of changing it) doesn't appear in that thread, but it did appear in yesterday's episode with Josh. Maybe that's just a temporal thing. I thought your articulation of the point about expanding one's mind in the chat with Josh was very elegant.
My sister teachers a class here in Australia helping young people explore concepts of identify. I have shared with her the Faces of X episode about gender because I thought it might be useful to her as material for her class.
Aw thank you, Paul! I hope Faces of X is helpful to your sister 🥰
Thanks Josh, I really enjoyed this listen.
I wonder if the work the Labor party did in Australia of setting a quota for 50% female representation in Parliament is a good example of a systemic response that has achieved it's aim and now is no longer needed.
Josh, what the hell? Magic Mind?!!
A host-read advertisement is one thing. It’s another when the host-read ad is disguised as a chat with the show’s guest.
It feels gross. Probably because It feels like a Deceptive Pattern.
This is not a welcome addition to your podcast.
Don’t blur the lines. Just don’t.
I find this a really interesting question (i.e. what kind of products should the host be allowed to promote on a free version of the podcast), so I asked an AI to examine this issue using Hegelian Philosophy. Here is what the AI came back with:
A dialectical response to the challenge of a listener criticizing a podcast host for advertising a disliked product might follow this structure:
Thesis: The listener enjoys the podcast but dislikes the ads, particularly the product being advertised.
Antithesis: The host relies on advertisements to fund the podcast, which enables the listener to access content for free. Potentially, there could be a misunderstanding of the economic model behind free content.
Synthesis: The resolution could involve recognizing that while the listener may not like certain ads, the existence of ads is necessary for the sustainability of free content. The host might consider listener feedback to balance ad choices better or engage with a broader range of products, while the listener can understand that ads are a trade-off for free access.
This synthesis encourages a dialogue between the listener and the host, promoting a mutual understanding of the podcast's funding model while acknowledging the listener's right to express concerns. It also opens the door for potential changes that could enhance listener experience without compromising the podcast's viability.
Does this help? Or is the concern here more about the method that was used to promote the product (i.e. integration with regular content), and not the product itself?
Yep, the method is the concern.
Omg I LOVE that you took a synthesis approach to host-read ads.