How meanings get words and social sciences get broken (with Literal Banana)

May 25, 2022 Episode Page ↗
Overview

Spencer Greenberg speaks with Eric Schwitzgabel about the surprising lack of empirical evidence that studying ethics makes people more ethical, exploring concepts like hypocrisy, moral mediocrity, and his "theory of jerks." They also discuss the challenges and skepticism in social science research.

At a Glance
21 Insights
1h 20m Duration
14 Topics
6 Concepts

Deep Dive Analysis

Impact of Ethical Reflection on Behavior

Empirical Evidence on Ethicists' Moral Behavior

The Toxic Rationalization View of Ethics

Hypocrisy and Intellectual Honesty in Ethics

Aiming for Moral Mediocrity and Do-Gooder Derogation

Balancing Moral Values with Self-Interest

Different Types of Belief and Their Motivation

A Dispositional Theory of Belief

Defining and Understanding 'Jerks'

Identifying and Overcoming 'Jerk Goggles'

Skepticism and Challenges in Social Science Research

Problems with Psychological Diagnostic Systems (DSM)

The Value of Adversarial Collaborations and Learning from Failure

The Nature of Anecdotes and Human Universals

Toxic Rationalization View of Ethics

This perspective suggests that studying ethics can provide individuals with the capacity to generate numerous justifications for actions they already desire to perform, potentially leading to the rationalization of unethical behavior rather than its prevention.

Aiming for Moral Mediocrity

This describes a common human tendency where individuals strive to be about as morally good as their peers, or perhaps slightly better to feel good about themselves, rather than aiming for absolute moral excellence or sainthood by universal standards.

Do-Gooder Derogation

This is a psychological phenomenon where people may react negatively or feel threatened by others who are perceived as morally excellent or who conspicuously present themselves as highly moral.

Dispositional Theory of Belief

This view posits that to truly believe something means to be disposed to act, react, think, and feel in the world as though that thing is true. It encompasses a complex mix of behavioral, cognitive, and experiential dispositions, rather than just intellectual assent or verbal claims.

Jerk

According to Eric Schwitzgabel's theory, a jerk is someone who culpably fails to appreciate the intellectual and emotional perspectives of the people around them. They tend to treat others as mere tools or fools rather than engaging with them authentically as peers deserving respect.

Jerk Goggles

This refers to a characteristic way of perceiving the world, where a 'jerk' tends to see others in broad, negative social categories, viewing them as undeserving of attention or concern. It's a biased lens through which individuals are seen as fools and tools rather than unique, valuable individuals.

?
Does thinking about ethics make people more ethical?

Not necessarily; empirical evidence suggests that professional ethicists, despite often holding more stringent moral views, do not generally behave significantly better than non-ethicists of similar social backgrounds.

?
Why do people often fail to act on their ethical beliefs?

People are generally willing to trade some self-interest for what is morally good, but they often do not want to sacrifice significantly more than their peers, leading to a tendency to aim for moral mediocrity rather than absolute moral excellence.

?
What is a 'jerk' according to Eric Schwitzgabel's theory?

A 'jerk' is defined as someone who culpably fails to appreciate the intellectual and emotional perspectives of others, treating them as mere tools or fools rather than engaging with them as respected individuals.

?
How can one assess if they are being a 'jerk'?

One can reflect on whether they are seeing the world through 'jerk goggles,' which involves viewing people in broad, negative social categories rather than recognizing their individuality, humanity, and value, and then attempt to correct this perception.

?
What is Eric Schwitzgabel's general attitude towards social science papers?

He approaches them with extreme skepticism, assuming they are likely flawed or 'fake,' and reads them primarily to identify new ways research can go wrong rather than to gain reliable factual conclusions.

?
What are some fundamental problems with the DSM diagnostic system in psychology?

The DSM uses arbitrary cut-offs for symptoms, lumps disparate symptoms together, and employs binary categories for conditions that are often continuous, leading to a loss of information and potentially inconsistent diagnoses among practitioners.

?
What can be learned from contradictory anecdotes?

Contradictory anecdotes can both be true in different contexts, teaching us that opposite things can be valid in varying situations and providing rich, context-dependent information about human experience, especially when the context is known.

1. Check for “Jerk Goggles”

Regularly ask yourself if you are seeing the world through “jerk goggles” by perceiving others as fools, tools, or negative social categories, and instead strive to see their humanity, value, and individuality. This self-correction can improve daily interactions and self-awareness.

2. Bundle Valued Activities

Arrange your life to bundle multiple valued activities and goals into a single action, making it easier to consistently pursue them and achieve more “bang for your buck.” This strategy helps advance various personal values simultaneously.

3. Make Ethics Enjoyable

To sustain ethical behavior, find ways to bundle doing good with activities that make you feel good, as making ethical actions unpleasant will likely lead to doing them less over time. This approach enhances motivation and behavioral consistency.

4. Prefer Honesty Over Rationalization

When failing to meet moral demands, it is more intellectually honest to acknowledge the stringent norm you’re not meeting (hypocrisy) rather than rationalizing your way into undemanding norms with excuses. This fosters intellectual integrity and self-awareness.

5. Strive for Ethical Growth

Aim for ethical reflection and thought to make you a better person and help you live up to your stated moral norms, rather than just casually accepting moral failings. This sets a fundamental goal for continuous personal improvement.

6. Cultivate Motivating Beliefs

Recognize that beliefs vary in their motivational power; strive to cultivate types of beliefs that concretely connect with your actions and drive behavioral change, rather than just abstract intellectual assent. This helps ensure your beliefs translate into desired behaviors.

7. Prioritize Deeds Over Claims

When assessing belief, especially moral belief, prioritize how someone acts and reacts in the world over their intellectual self-attributions and verbal claims, as this offers a more useful and value-aligned understanding. This provides a pragmatic framework for evaluating true conviction.

8. Read Ethical Philosophy

Reading philosophical works, such as those by Peter Singer or Jeremy Bentham, can profoundly shift one’s ethical stance and lead to significant behavioral changes, like becoming vegetarian. This is a direct action for fundamental ethical re-evaluation.

9. Strengthen Moral Convictions

If you want to change your behavior, strengthen your moral view on the topic, as a stronger conviction about something being morally bad correlates with a reduced likelihood of engaging in that behavior. This provides a mechanism for driving personal behavioral change.

10. Adopt Skeptical Paper Reading

When reading scientific papers, adopt a highly skeptical mindset, assuming findings are likely flawed or “fake” until thoroughly scrutinized, rather than trusting claims at face value. This critical approach helps in discerning reliable information.

11. Adopt Truth-Seeking Research

Approach research with a truth-seeking attitude, focusing on designing experiments that will provide clear updates to your beliefs, regardless of the outcome. This mindset is crucial for generating genuine knowledge and avoiding confirmation bias.

12. Design Bayesian Experiments

When conducting social science research, design experiments that yield strong Bayesian evidence, where the probability of observed evidence is significantly higher if your hypothesis is true than if it’s false, to effectively update beliefs. This method enhances the rigor and informativeness of studies.

13. Engage in Adversarial Collaboration

Actively seek out and participate in adversarial collaborations where researchers with differing viewpoints work together on papers or studies to clearly delineate areas of agreement and disagreement. This practice can lead to more robust and nuanced scientific conclusions.

14. Learn from Adversarial Debates

To gain deeper understanding, read not just individual papers or literature reviews, but also the adversarial debates and arguments between different researchers, as this reveals concessions and points of contention. This approach provides a richer, more critical perspective on complex topics.

15. Concrete Social Science

To improve social science, be extremely concrete about research goals and target populations, then design and implement interventions to empirically test if they achieve their intended outcomes. This practical approach focuses on measurable impact and effectiveness.

16. Learn from Pseudoscience

Study pseudoscience and its communication methods to understand common ways of being wrong, identify patterns of flawed reasoning, and learn how claims resonate with people. This unconventional learning strategy can sharpen critical thinking skills.

17. Interpret Anecdotes Contextually

Understand that contradictory anecdotes can both be true in different contexts; use them to learn that opposite things can be valid in varying situations and to appreciate the richness of individual experiences. This helps in extracting nuanced insights from personal stories.

18. Value Anecdote Context

When evaluating anecdotes, prioritize those with full context (who, what, where, when) as information divorced from its context carries significantly less value and reliability. This filter helps in discerning credible and informative anecdotes.

19. Utilize ClearerThinking.org Tools

Visit clearerthinking.org to use free interactive tools and programs that integrate psychology and economics insights to help you make better decisions, create new habits, and achieve goals. This resource offers practical applications for self-improvement.

20. Take Gender Continuum Test

Visit clearerthinking.org to take the free Gender Continuum Test, which provides a personalized analysis of your personality based on data from over 15,000 people, helping you learn about gender and personality. This tool offers self-discovery through data-driven insights.

21. Use ThoughtSaver for Retention

Utilize ThoughtSaver, a free tool that sends daily flashcard quizzes, to help you remember valuable information learned from podcasts, books, and articles. This habit-forming tool addresses the problem of forgetting consumed information.

When you're thinking about the treatment of animals, what matters is not whether the animal can reason, but whether the animal can suffer.

Jeremy Bentham (quoted by Spencer Greenberg)

I had one ethicist tell me that there is no more beautiful crime than stealing a book.

Eric Schwitzgabel

I'd rather, I think, have a hypocrite than a rationalizer.

Eric Schwitzgabel

The more demanding a moral view you have, the more you tend to see the world is permeated with moral choices and as every moral choice as being less than ideal.

Eric Schwitzgabel

I think people don't really aim to be saints.

Eric Schwitzgabel

I think that one of the more practical aspects of ethics is how do you interact with people on a day-to-day basis.

Eric Schwitzgabel

There's a pure diamond grade 100% jerk. It just wouldn't even occur to them that they might be being a jerk.

Eric Schwitzgabel

I go in with, this is probably fake. What's wrong with it? What are the main levels of problems with this thing? I don't go in trusting something. I'm very suspicious when someone tweets something and says, this is a great study.

Eric Schwitzgabel

My favorite ones that make me the happiest are the absolute worst ones that are just ridiculous.

Eric Schwitzgabel

One of the alleged human universals is Proverbs, comma, in mutually contradictory forms.

Eric Schwitzgabel (referencing Donald Brown)

Self-Assessment for Jerkiness (Jerk Goggles)

Eric Schwitzgabel
  1. Once in a while, especially when you are around other people, ask yourself: 'Am I seeing the world through jerk goggles?'
  2. Reflect on whether you are perceiving the people around you as fools and tools, as idiots, or through broad negative social categories.
  3. Alternatively, consider if you are seeing the humanity, value, and individuality in the people around you.
  4. Notice when you are seeing people in the first way (through 'jerk goggles') and consciously try to correct your perception.
60%
Ethicists rating regularly eating mammal meat as 'bad' Percentage of ethicist respondents in a 2009 questionnaire who rated regularly eating mammal meat as 'bad' on a nine-point scale.
45%
Non-ethicist philosophers rating regularly eating mammal meat as 'bad' Percentage of non-ethicist philosophers in the same questionnaire who rated regularly eating mammal meat as 'bad'.
19%
Professors in other departments rating regularly eating mammal meat as 'bad' Percentage of professors in departments other than philosophy in the same questionnaire who rated regularly eating mammal meat as 'bad'.
38%
All respondents who reported eating mammal meat at their previous evening meal Overall percentage of respondents across all groups who reported eating mammal meat at their previous evening meal, not including snacks.
37%
Ethicists who reported eating mammal meat at their previous evening meal Percentage of ethicist respondents who reported eating mammal meat at their previous evening meal, showing no statistically detectable difference from other groups despite their stricter views.
two-point reduction
Antidepressant efficacy (reduction on scale) The approximate reduction on a 52-point scale caused by antidepressants over and above placebo, according to recent meta-analyses.