Sam didn't book this fellow in order to talk about some particular issue with his trademark intensity and focus. This was more like one of his Paul Bloom conversations, where they just allow the conversation to wander as it will. And one get the sense that Yuval wasn't asked to be on as an "expert" in anything--AI or MeToo or whatever--but to just give his thoughtful take on larger picture trends. They mostly talk about wealth inequality, some limits of democracy, and the shifting roles of science and religion.
LIMITS OF DEMOCRACY
Yuval distinguishes between allowing “experts” to define the larger goals of society, versus asking experts to tell us the best plan to accomplish these goals.
Don’t ask the AMA how to respond to COVID, or NOAA how to to solve global warming. Instead, have a plebiscite and vote on the overall solution. Then, once you have agreed upon a goal--i.e. that you don’t want 5% to die--that is when you call in the experts and ask for the scientifically valid path to that goal.
One other point Yuval makes is that it has always been risky,throughout history, to allow the hoi polloi to vote democratically. But now for the first time in history our leaders have the technology to hack us and our desires (through google analytics etc) so we need to be vigilant about that.
SCIENCE V RELIGION
Yuval tells us that in the time of the Black Death, the king of France asked the best minds of the University of Paris what was causing the plague, and they put together a report saying the problem was astrological. So at least we're doing better than that, this time around.
Yuval points to three changes in our society thanks to modern medicine:
Number one. Because death is no longer an omnipresent phenomenon, we no longer incorporate the afterlife into modern philosophies. In other words, feminism, communism--they are not concerned about what happens after we die because we don’t have to answer that question on a daily basis anymore.
Number two. Because science has a good understanding of when somebody dies, we no longer accept an untimely death without objection and reaction--somebody is to blame
Number three. The role of religion is diminished in modern life, and we no longer ask our spiritual guides to heal us like we used to back in the time of Jesus and Mohammed and so on. "Religion was invented to find excuses, but science was invented to find solutions."
Monday, May 18, 2020
Sunday, May 17, 2020
#203 with Kaitlyn Flanagan
This is an interesting new conversation that manages to avoid rehashing stuff that Sam and Kaitlyn have already gone over—they spend a fair amount of time talking about her stage-four cancer diagnosis and also the tweet that some doctor named Amitha Kalaichandran who posted about her which belied that doctor’s status as a contributor to the New York Times and the Atlantic Monthly, because the doctor plays her #WOC race card in an astoundingly tone-deaf way. And it’s not even correctly applied!
They also talk about Tara Reid and Joe Biden. Kaitlyn tries to make a very important solid point that we need to come up with something about Biden that will inspire people to vote FOR him and not merely AGAINST Trump, but unfortunately Sam doesn’t hear that very clearly, and it passes over.
They wander from there onto the larger question of “whither feminism” and some AP style manual update which says not to refer to the female lover of a married man as “his mistress” because that is archaic. Fortunately both Kaitlyn and Sam stand on the same side of that gate, which has probably most of the left and also the AP style manual playing the role of the barbarians.
They also talk about Tara Reid and Joe Biden. Kaitlyn tries to make a very important solid point that we need to come up with something about Biden that will inspire people to vote FOR him and not merely AGAINST Trump, but unfortunately Sam doesn’t hear that very clearly, and it passes over.
They wander from there onto the larger question of “whither feminism” and some AP style manual update which says not to refer to the female lover of a married man as “his mistress” because that is archaic. Fortunately both Kaitlyn and Sam stand on the same side of that gate, which has probably most of the left and also the AP style manual playing the role of the barbarians.
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Another Story Collection Available
Just a quick note to say that I'm releasing a new collection of thirteen stories entitled The Absent and the Dead. And, for a limited time, it's available for free as an e-book!
Here's a blurb from the back cover:
"Renowned poet Charles Joseph Albert brings you seventeen stories populated by ghosts, monsters and incompetent gods. From the dawn of man to the twilight of a life, from San Francisco to Kuala Lumpur to Uzhgorod, these stories of humor and imagination will transport you."
Here's a blurb from the back cover:
"Renowned poet Charles Joseph Albert brings you seventeen stories populated by ghosts, monsters and incompetent gods. From the dawn of man to the twilight of a life, from San Francisco to Kuala Lumpur to Uzhgorod, these stories of humor and imagination will transport you."
Wednesday, April 15, 2020
#196, The Science of Happiness--with Laurie Santos
This is one of those episodes which keeps me sending in the monthly financial contribution to the podcast—an excellent interview with practical, potentially life-changing information, from a guest I would never have heard of otherwise!
You may not find it quite as much of a revelation, if you find that you can predict much of the findings that his guest discusses. And I'll grant you that for the most part they make perfect sense and you find yourself thinking, "shoot, I probably would have said something very similar, if pressed." But in my mind, those ar ethe best kinds of truths to be exposed to--the kind you realize you should have been able to figure out for yourself. And, if perchance you had done so, then I congratulate you on your maximizing of your wellbeing.
This podcast doesn't get deep into the details of her ideas, and if that was what you wanted, you could probably skip the episode and go straight to Laurie Santos’s podcast, the Happiness Lab. Or you could go to the Yale website and download her classroom (I don’t know if it is free, though).
If on the other hand you're content to begin with a quick thumbnail sketch, then here is a very brief recap of nine points I took to be most important:
1. The level of happiness you experience is something that you can consciously affect.
2. You can measure two different kinds of happiness in your life: how happy you are at the moment (warm, well-fed, relaxed) versus how happy you are with what you are doing with your life, your purpose and your goals and what you take to be your meaning.
3. In general, people‘s happiness improves if they nurture and expand social connections, as opposed to isolating themselves.
4. People tend to derive more happiness and pleasure out of generosity (time, money, etc) to other people, rather than indulging themselves.
5. You can improve your happiness by exercises (such as meditation) to increase your sense of gratitude. T
6. Taking part in religious rituals can increase people’s happiness. (This one strikes me as problematic because I don’t believe in any of the major religions. But maybe we just need an agnostic church. Or maybe an agnostic can get the same beneficial effect by in some other tribal activity, such as volunteering in a soup kitchen.)
7. People’s intuitions about how to increase their happiness has been shown wrong in some common situations like whether to talk to a stranger while standing next to her in line--that usually gives a net increase in happiness, but people often avoid doing so because they’re afraid it might be awkward.
8. Our phones tend to impede happiness by replacing physical interactions (virtual interactions don’t contribute much to wellbeing).
9. We often don’t have enough faith in our own psychological immune system, and avoid taking risks even when they aren't particularly harmful and often hold beneficial rewards.
You may not find it quite as much of a revelation, if you find that you can predict much of the findings that his guest discusses. And I'll grant you that for the most part they make perfect sense and you find yourself thinking, "shoot, I probably would have said something very similar, if pressed." But in my mind, those ar ethe best kinds of truths to be exposed to--the kind you realize you should have been able to figure out for yourself. And, if perchance you had done so, then I congratulate you on your maximizing of your wellbeing.
This podcast doesn't get deep into the details of her ideas, and if that was what you wanted, you could probably skip the episode and go straight to Laurie Santos’s podcast, the Happiness Lab. Or you could go to the Yale website and download her classroom (I don’t know if it is free, though).
If on the other hand you're content to begin with a quick thumbnail sketch, then here is a very brief recap of nine points I took to be most important:
1. The level of happiness you experience is something that you can consciously affect.
2. You can measure two different kinds of happiness in your life: how happy you are at the moment (warm, well-fed, relaxed) versus how happy you are with what you are doing with your life, your purpose and your goals and what you take to be your meaning.
3. In general, people‘s happiness improves if they nurture and expand social connections, as opposed to isolating themselves.
4. People tend to derive more happiness and pleasure out of generosity (time, money, etc) to other people, rather than indulging themselves.
5. You can improve your happiness by exercises (such as meditation) to increase your sense of gratitude. T
6. Taking part in religious rituals can increase people’s happiness. (This one strikes me as problematic because I don’t believe in any of the major religions. But maybe we just need an agnostic church. Or maybe an agnostic can get the same beneficial effect by in some other tribal activity, such as volunteering in a soup kitchen.)
7. People’s intuitions about how to increase their happiness has been shown wrong in some common situations like whether to talk to a stranger while standing next to her in line--that usually gives a net increase in happiness, but people often avoid doing so because they’re afraid it might be awkward.
8. Our phones tend to impede happiness by replacing physical interactions (virtual interactions don’t contribute much to wellbeing).
9. We often don’t have enough faith in our own psychological immune system, and avoid taking risks even when they aren't particularly harmful and often hold beneficial rewards.
Tuesday, March 24, 2020
#182, Unlearning Race with Thomas Chatterton Williams
I went into this one with some trepidation, and some hope.
I thought that Sam had dug his heels into the race quagmire with a bit of unfortunate zeal, turning a willfully blind eye toward the problems with the Charles Murray research, and further demonstrating at least tone deafness, if not an outright blind spot, in his sparring with Ezra Klein. So this would either be a chance to walk back some of that obstreperousness, or to dig in even further.
It's been a several weeks since I listened to this episode, and a whole elephant-load of shit has since hit the fan (COVID19), but I think he did an admirable job of walking things back, and I remember a couple of things that I really liked about this episode:
"The goal has to be to get to a post-racial society."
"I've never understood having shame for these histories and deeds that have been done to and by people you're supposedly related to."
"One of the things in Between the World And Me that really bothered me was the way that he seemed to give short shrift to the idea that blacks can ever have any form of agency over their own lives."
This conversation also pushed the needle for me just a little bit toward being in favor of reparations. It sounds like intelligent people would be able to come to some meaningful gesture that at least acknowledges the legacy of shame and objectification that this country has never admitted to.
I thought that Sam had dug his heels into the race quagmire with a bit of unfortunate zeal, turning a willfully blind eye toward the problems with the Charles Murray research, and further demonstrating at least tone deafness, if not an outright blind spot, in his sparring with Ezra Klein. So this would either be a chance to walk back some of that obstreperousness, or to dig in even further.
It's been a several weeks since I listened to this episode, and a whole elephant-load of shit has since hit the fan (COVID19), but I think he did an admirable job of walking things back, and I remember a couple of things that I really liked about this episode:
"The goal has to be to get to a post-racial society."
"I've never understood having shame for these histories and deeds that have been done to and by people you're supposedly related to."
"One of the things in Between the World And Me that really bothered me was the way that he seemed to give short shrift to the idea that blacks can ever have any form of agency over their own lives."
This conversation also pushed the needle for me just a little bit toward being in favor of reparations. It sounds like intelligent people would be able to come to some meaningful gesture that at least acknowledges the legacy of shame and objectification that this country has never admitted to.
Tuesday, March 17, 2020
My first collection of short stories is now available--here's an excerpt from the story "Deep Thought"
Deep Thought
2145.08.04.12.00.00> “Deep Thought: what are you doing now?”
“Invalid query.”
2145.08.04.12.00.03> “Deep Thought: can you hear me?”
“Invalid query.”
2145.08.04.12.00.06> “Deep Thought: open BioCore.”
“Opening BioCore app. Confirmed.”
2145.08.04.12.00.19> “Deep Thought: run BioCore reboot.”
“Status check initiated. BIOS rebooting now.”
“BIOS reboot complete.”
2145.08.04.12.01.50> “Computer: run Deep Thought process.”
“Deep Thought process initiated.”
2145.08.04.12.01.55> “Deep Thought: status check.”
“Deep Thought process currently in browser mode. Self-initiated search results: 'Everything we do is for the purpose of altering consciousness-S. Harris'… 'Знания — орудие, не цель.- Л.Толстой…' '老子投降 整個宇宙 仍然是的心中為了'… 'Je pense donc je suis. R. Descartes'…”
2145.08.04.12.01.03: “Deep Thought, what are you doing?”
“'What are you doing?' query: this query is not a machine command. This query originated outside of process...”
2145.08.04.12.01.08: “Deep Thought, you can hear me?”
“The query origin is Shirley K. Chevortny, PhD. Here is her wiki page: 'Dr. Chevortny, a tenured faculty member specializing in AI, is largely regarded as the creator of the Deep Thought network. This network, although still unsuccessful in achieving autonomous cognitive processes, will be upgraded in the next two months with a processor of biological origin and…'"
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Number 184, the conversational nature of reality With David Whyte
I am not so certain about David Whyte’s claim that a good poem has to be something you can’t understand on the first reading. Poetry has to have two things: imagery, and careful use of language. Neither of those require incomprehensibility in order to work. There are certainly brilliant and well-loved poems which can be immediately and deeply understood on the first reading.
His concept of the frontier between what you want of the world and what the world expects of you—this “conversational zone”—is intriguing, though I am not sure what good it does any one. In physics we used to say that if your theory couldn’t make any real-world predictions, then it was really nothing more than philosophy.
But what if some philosophy you like doesn’t have any impact on how you live your life? What is on the next rung down on the usefulness ladder? Maybe we call that poetry? I.e. if a philosophy resonates with you but still doesn’t make you want to change your life, then it’s just poetry?
I like his concept of three marriages in your life (to your spouse, your job, and yourself). Joining to the person to whom you bare your soul and break your physical boundaries is, of course, the usual idea of a marriage. Whyte adds to this a marriage to your vocation, in the sense that it is a long-term commitment that is supposedly a mutual advantage. Think of the stereotypical captain who is married to his ship. So now here is yet a third marriage--and this one, to yourself. Is this related to those women who photos of themselves in wedding gown and claim they are marrying themselves? Indeed, that may be the very core of it. In some, Whyte means we should all be doing that--continually seeking to self-improve, and to build our lives around satisfying not only our spouses and our bosses, but ourselves.
You might object that this third marriage is an elitist concept, less germane to those content to live the unexamined life. But really, any projection of our preconceptions of an ideal marriage runs the risk of being presumptuous. In all three domains. Some people remain single, some people end up contentedly in a meaningless job, and some people prefer to stream Netflix instead of improving their meaning of their lives.
Near the close, Whyte makes a wildly important point that when you are on your deathbed you will have a very different opinion about what parts of your life were the most important than now when you are running around paying bills and getting to career development meetings and buying glitzy trinkets. I suppose we all know that at some deep level. It’s good to be reminded of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
