#746

[@j.b.4340]

37:39, beautiful part. It’s great that we have such a wonderful, dedicated, open minded, ally.

[@UtarEmpire]

Whoa, another huge guest - great work

[@hellxapo5740]

Thank you so much for the talk!!

[@jonstewart464]

This is great. Keep them coming!

[@alistairmurray626]

really good questions

[@vagabondcaleb8915]

My wife! Sorry. I couldn't help myself. Really cool guest! Name dropper :{P

[@manuelcastellanosjr4929]

@5:53 I do sometimes wonder if, at least in the U.S. context, we aren't still trapped in something like an Aristotelian sort of teleology, at least when it comes to human development. Because, at least under evolution, does it even make sense to say that something is "normal" anymore? Unless they're maladaptive, some of these "abnormal" traits may be adaptive in certain contexts, as lighter forms of Autism are. If you reject the idea that humans are like Aristotle's acorn and develop in a teleogical way (as one should), then I'm not even sure what the word "normal" means anymore... It's like "normal to what?" or "normal to what environment?' Also, the stuff at 15:30 sounds like Dewey.

[@modvs1]

Another corker- thanks Ricardo!

[@ouroborosalarichard]

Have a ton of questions and nothing to really add.

[@porlawright]

I see he's been to re-education camp since the last time we spoke.

[@lokitekone]

He's still saying somewhat subversive stuff, just under deep deep cover of all the politically correct caveats.

[@porlawright]

@@lokitekone It's not subversive at all. But if he thinks it's going to placate the activist nutters he's wrong.

[@divinegon4671]

@@porlawright can u explain what u mean? Is cohen actually based?

[@entfaltungschannel]

i'd also be interested in further elaboration

[@lucilaci]

im also curios.

[@distopiadnb]

52:22 This is not true. It does tell you something, which we take so much for granted that it's even hard to imagine how ordinary social interaction would play out if that something wasn't there. External appearance does a very good job in predicting chromosomal sex, which itself does predict aspects of "the kind of mind or brain" a person has. The point is more subtle: it does so sufficiently imperfectly that, in very many situations (although not in all of them), the right thing to do is not to stop at this stage, keep judgment on hold, and gather new information in addition to observed sex - first of all, at a job interview, the very fact that the person chose to show up for that job. In other words, asking the person more about himself or herself to find out more about the specificity and individuality of the person, beyond what is surely important but ultimately insufficient for many purposes, such as being a good worker in the overwhelming majority of jobs and tasks. But these individuals do come from populations, exactly like the samples from which the group averages in Simon's studies are computed. It's just that in many cases it's really narrow-minded to stop there. We are increasingly led to think that the cost of additional information is worth incurring for the benefit of avoiding misjudgment and its bad consequences cast on others. Statistical discrimination is not irrational, the real problem is how much information we decide to collect before choosing - a decision which is likely more about values than about anything else. And to cultivate these other-regarding values, rather than relying on increasing anonymization and de-personalization of any "sensitive" interactions, is what alone can really solve the problem at the root - as opposed to keeping it under control by legal and social sanctions in an increasingly frustrated and tense professional environment as it happens today.