<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" encoding="UTF-8" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:googleplay="http://www.google.com/schemas/play-podcasts/1.0" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:fireside="http://fireside.fm/modules/rss/fireside">
  <channel>
    <fireside:hostname>web01.fireside.fm</fireside:hostname>
    <fireside:genDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:15:00 -0500</fireside:genDate>
    <generator>Fireside (https://fireside.fm)</generator>
    <title>Increments - Episodes Tagged with “Cognitive Biases”</title>
    <link>https://www.incrementspodcast.com/tags/cognitive%20biases</link>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
    <description>Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. 
Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. 
</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <itunes:type>episodic</itunes:type>
    <itunes:subtitle>Science, Philosophy, Epistemology, Mayhem</itunes:subtitle>
    <itunes:author>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</itunes:author>
    <itunes:summary>Vaden Masrani, a senior research scientist in machine learning, and Ben Chugg, a PhD student in statistics, get into trouble arguing about everything except machine learning and statistics. Coherence is somewhere on the horizon. 
Bribes, suggestions, love-mail and hate-mail all welcome at incrementspodcast@gmail.com. 
</itunes:summary>
    <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/3/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/cover.jpg?v=18"/>
    <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
    <itunes:keywords>Philosophy,Science,Ethics,Progress,Knowledge,Computer Science,Conversation,Error-Correction</itunes:keywords>
    <itunes:owner>
      <itunes:name>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</itunes:name>
      <itunes:email>incrementspodcast@gmail.com</itunes:email>
    </itunes:owner>
<itunes:category text="Society &amp; Culture">
  <itunes:category text="Philosophy"/>
</itunes:category>
<itunes:category text="Science"/>
<item>
  <title>#39 - The Enigma of Reason</title>
  <link>https://www.incrementspodcast.com/39</link>
  <guid isPermaLink="false">21d2237b-a7e7-48a7-a37e-4f10ed93f7c1</guid>
  <pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
  <author>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</author>
  <enclosure url="https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/https://chrt.fm/track/1F5B4D/aphid.fireside.fm/d/1437767933/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/21d2237b-a7e7-48a7-a37e-4f10ed93f7c1.mp3" length="59999900" type="audio/mpeg"/>
  <itunes:episodeType>full</itunes:episodeType>
  <itunes:author>Ben Chugg and Vaden Masrani</itunes:author>
  <itunes:subtitle>A discussion of The Enigma of Reason by Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber. </itunes:subtitle>
  <itunes:duration>1:01:59</itunes:duration>
  <itunes:explicit>no</itunes:explicit>
  <itunes:image href="https://media24.fireside.fm/file/fireside-images-2024/podcasts/images/3/3229e340-4bf1-42a5-a5b7-4f508a27131c/episodes/2/21d2237b-a7e7-48a7-a37e-4f10ed93f7c1/cover.jpg?v=1"/>
  <description>The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book The Enigma of Reason by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! 
*We discuss *
- Reason as a social phenomenon 
- The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others 
- Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories 
- The "intellectualist" vs the "interactionist" approach to reason 
- Nassim Taleb's notion of "skin in the game" 
- The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche 
- The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings 
Quotes: 
The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. 
EoR (pg. 332)
In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. 
EoR (pg. 247)
References
Dan Sperber's talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsjWo6K4w0) at the Santa Fe Institute
Image credit: https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama
Social media everywhere
Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani
Check us out on youtube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ
Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link
Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to incrementspodcast@gmail.com. 
</description>
  <itunes:keywords>reason, rationality, bias, psychology, evolution, cognitive biases</itunes:keywords>
  <content:encoded>
    <![CDATA[<p>The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book <em>The Enigma of Reason</em> by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! </p>

<p>*<em>We discuss *</em></p>

<ul>
<li>Reason as a social phenomenon </li>
<li>The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others </li>
<li>Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories </li>
<li>The &quot;intellectualist&quot; vs the &quot;interactionist&quot; approach to reason </li>
<li>Nassim Taleb&#39;s notion of &quot;skin in the game&quot; </li>
<li>The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche </li>
<li>The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings </li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Quotes</strong>: </p>

<blockquote>
<p>The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. <br>
EoR (pg. 332)</p>

<p>In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. <br>
EoR (pg. 247)</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>References</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Dan Sperber&#39;s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsjWo6K4w0" rel="nofollow">talk</a> at the Santa Fe Institute</li>
<li>Image credit: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama</a></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Social media everywhere</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani</li>
<li>Check us out on youtube at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ</a></li>
<li>Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link</li>
</ul>

<p>Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to <em><a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">incrementspodcast@gmail.com</a></em>. </p><p><a rel="payment" href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments">Support Increments</a></p>]]>
  </content:encoded>
  <itunes:summary>
    <![CDATA[<p>The most reasonable and well-reasoned discussion of reason you can be reasonably expected to hear. Today we talk about the book <em>The Enigma of Reason</em> by Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier. But first, get ready for dogs, modern art, and babies! </p>

<p>*<em>We discuss *</em></p>

<ul>
<li>Reason as a social phenomenon </li>
<li>The two roles of reason: To justify our actions, and to evaluate the reasons of others </li>
<li>Reason as module of inference, and how that contrasts with dual-process theories </li>
<li>The &quot;intellectualist&quot; vs the &quot;interactionist&quot; approach to reason </li>
<li>Nassim Taleb&#39;s notion of &quot;skin in the game&quot; </li>
<li>The consequences of reason having evolved in a particular (social) niche </li>
<li>The marshmallow test and other debunked psychological findings </li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Quotes</strong>: </p>

<blockquote>
<p>The interactionist approach, on the other hand, makes two contrasting predictions. In the production of arguments, we should be biased and lazy; in the evaluation of arguments, we should be demanding and objective— demanding so as not to be deceived by poor or fallacious arguments into accepting false ideas, objective so as to be ready to revise our ideas when presented with good reasons why we should. <br>
EoR (pg. 332)</p>

<p>In our interactionist approach, the normal conditions for the use of reasoning are social, and more specifically dialogic. Outside of this environment, there is no guarantee that reasoning acts for the benefits of the reasoner. It might lead to epistemic distortions and poor decisions. This does not mean reasoning is broken, simply that it has been taken out of its normal conditions. <br>
EoR (pg. 247)</p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>References</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Dan Sperber&#39;s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXsjWo6K4w0" rel="nofollow">talk</a> at the Santa Fe Institute</li>
<li>Image credit: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/culture/charlottehigginsblog/2009/oct/20/classics-barack-obama</a></li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Social media everywhere</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Follow us on Twitter at @IncrementsPod, @BennyChugg, @VadenMasrani</li>
<li>Check us out on youtube at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_4wZzQyoW4s4ZuE4FY9DQQ</a></li>
<li>Come join our discord server! DM us on twitter or send us an email to get a supersecret link</li>
</ul>

<p>Send a reason, any reason, any reason at all, to <em><a href="mailto:incrementspodcast@gmail.com" rel="nofollow">incrementspodcast@gmail.com</a></em>. </p><p><a rel="payment" href="https://www.patreon.com/Increments">Support Increments</a></p>]]>
  </itunes:summary>
</item>
  </channel>
</rss>
