Theory Gang: NeoAcademia

22. Existential MedLife Crisis

Theory Gang — Tue, 07 Jan 2025 22:29:22 GMT

The problem with physicians is that their talents are underutilized. They spend a lot of time on administrative bs and could spend a lot more improving the lives of their patients - but they’re not really trained to handle 21st century health questions.

Big Nerve Challenge

How could we better incorporate philosophy into medicine?

This episode is possible with support from ya’ll (thank you), and also BigNerve. Big Nerve is pushing hard to get thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money, AND help me answer some tough questions click the linked question and start playing!

21. The Other Side of Conservatism

Theory Gang — Thu, 07 Nov 2024 19:24:26 GMT

It’s been about a year since I recorded this, but let’s just say I was waiting for the right time to put this out. I often feel like people aren’t ready for the things I’m thinking about right when I’m thinking about them. This is one such topic. I daresay most people are not thinking about Christian Socialism, but now that the election is over, maybe we’ll be a little more primed for… interesting ideas.

Enjoy!

Episode Time Stamps

Watch the episode for more.

01:44 The (Neo) Academic lifestyle

04:35 Conservatives in academia

07:32 Conservative public intellectuals vs left-wing academics

10:48 The life of the intellectual

13:42 The origins and cost of left vs right political framing

16:00 Why you should read what you’re opposed to

19:15 What is a conservative?

25:34 How we deal with inequality

30:11 The place between Meritocracy and Absolute Determinism

32:04 The aesthetics and the unwashed masses

35:16 Donald Trump’s sublime aesthetic

40:36 The ideal aesthetics of the left

42:07 The regression of leftist countercultural aesthetics

44:58 The conservative Hegelian

49:09 12 Things You Could Do Besides Read Hegel

52:22 Why you should read Tolstoy (and Dostoyevsky)

01:00:08 Tolstoy’s Struggles and Rich Boi Socialism

01:06:41 Patrick Deneen’s Assessment of the failure of Classic Liberalism

01:12:15 A Divine Intervention for the Left

01:19:41 Christian Socialism

Matt’s Book

Syllojism Episode w/Matt

Podcast

Big Nerve Challenge

How could we approach the art of reading opposing perspectives as a way to uncover unexpected truths and foster conversations that challenge our own beliefs?

20. Who Cares about Free Speech?

Theory Gang — Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:07:58 GMT

*December 2024!! Regardless it’s been too long…

I really wanted to be snarky with a video, but I think you’d have to be an expert on Free Speech to get most of my jokes, and I realize most of you are not, but you value it.

So, instead, I give you a straightforward podcast on a very important topic and if you watch this great YouTube video (not mine) that explains John Milton’s pursuit to publish Areopagitica, you can go ahead and make your own.

Whoever you are, you should be concerned about Free Speech because

The Right is Killing Free Speech, The Left is Killing Free Speech, and hell - even AI is Killing Free Speech.

However you look at it: Free Speech is receding.

The problem Adam Conover reports is true, ADVERTISERS and sponsors are what regulate free speech. Self-censorship is the act of not saying shit that would get you in trouble or irritate your audience or benefactors. He even says “People with more money get to speak more.”

The biggest problem I see is that this creates a global monoculture, and as a biologist you probably understand why I think diversity is important. Human flourishing depends on plurality.

I hope you enjoy this podcast, and check out Jacob’s book.

Time Stamps:

07:06 How to be a free speech girlie

12:55 The history of free speech

14:58 Elite Gatekeepers of free speech

16:30 The Modern free speech recession

18:04 From the River to the Sea Speech must be Free

20:04 Free speech in Europe

25:28 The university monoculture and free speech

36:24 The Limits of free speech

38:29 Misinformation as free speech

45:24 AI and free speech

48:35 Money as speech

58:33 Utopian information society and how the some groups feel protected by restricting speech

01:03:49 The potential pitfalls of principled free speech

Don’t forget to check out the Big Nerve Question where you can earn money for your ideas!

The YouTube version

19. Misinformation, Memes, and Mockery

Theory Gang — Sat, 20 Jan 2024 20:12:36 GMT

This episode almost didn’t see the light of day. I’ve been on a few-month hiatus to figure out what to do with it. Watch the video to hear the explanation, and let me know if you like the video on Substack, or want to keep it to audio. For now, the audio is still available on all podcast platforms.

And for the record, I really like Danna. She’s hilarious.

Time Stamps

0:00 Wake up Babe, new NeoAcademia format just dropped

04:23 To increase the probability of being right, be more open to being wrong

08:00 Terror Management Theory and manmade horrors beyond comprehension

11:21 Causal Emergence: Institutions = People+

13:02 Tony Fauci and the Dumpster Fire of science/tech + politics

16:06 Real NeoAcademic shit

17:17 Irony/meme punditry

22:08 Off-label media use

25:28: Opportunities to increase tolerance for uncertainty/ambiguity

28:21Understanding Citizen’s United through punditry and mascots

31:43 Free speech vs Misinformation

34:15:Operationalizing truth and the asymmetrical production of misinformation

37:27 Not being so douchey

BIg Nerve Question:

How could we reframe the discussion about what it means to be wrong?

tough questions click the linked question and start playing!

18. Imperial Empiricism w/ Michael Strevens

Theory Gang — Thu, 05 Oct 2023 12:00:47 GMT

I wish I could remember which of you recommended The Knowledge Machine to me because talking with its author Michael Strevens was the most pleasant serendipity. I had his book on my desk when I logged into the National Academy of Science’s committee on misinformation and saw his smiling face. Around 24:28 minutes in Strevens says science COULD NEVA be totalitarian and Idk if this is true. I think this depends mainly on the definition of science. Reductionist science as it stands could not but a mutated Swiss Army knife kind of thing, could do some damage, and honestly, this is my worry about labeling complexity as a science. However, talking with people like Erik gives me some assurance since he admits that science may always be incomplete. I think the reductionist scientists are a bit more ignorant about these dangers than those who are studying complexity, but both have enough hubris to think they can do better.

I also feel like a big chunk of the episode was Strevens and I going back and forth on our scientific/existential/philosophical anxieties. I’m not complaining. It was great. He was incredibly easy to talk to and is one of those kinds of academics that makes me miss being on campus. I hope our conversation brings you as much fun as it did me!

Time Stamps

This BIg Nerve Question:

What could be some unexplored misconceptions about science that need to be rectified to enhance its value?

This episode is possible with support from ya’ll (thank you), and also BigNerve. Big Nerve is pushing hard to get thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money, AND help me answer some really tough questions click the linked question and start playing!

More resources:

Video episode

The Knowledge Machine

17. Old-School Marxist Academia w/ Freddie deBoer

Theory Gang — Mon, 18 Sep 2023 16:19:56 GMT

I was certain this episode was going to be a disaster. I cracked a joke right away and Freddie didn't even smirk.

And then for the next few minutes, it got worse. My entire opening question hinged on what I thought was the absurdly funny way Freddie kinda dragged Agnes Callard on his Substack, and he didn't seem amused at all. So then, I'm thinking, these fuckin' Marxists, so damn serious... and of course, then my dog escapes from the place where I put him, but the reset was welcomed. Anyway, I cut that whole bit because it was so awkward and while I was cracking up watching it, I'm sure you would be cringing. Luckily, things got better.

One point of clarification I want to make is that towards the end I said I think we need to stop taking big swings as individuals and be happy with what we have...listening back I wondered if I was agreeing to close the episode because that doesn't seem like something I'd say. I mean, I can agree to a certain extent, but it’s a balance. Maybe it's a ‘good for the goose, but not the gander’ situation, because Imma keep taking big swings and very large bites that I might not be able to chew. I remember a friend, the friend who helped me make my board game, Denesa, saying that she just wanted to teach her kids to be mediocre and happy. What's wrong with that? Why should they strive for greatness? I tried to wear her perspective, but it really didn't fit me, and I think the major issue is that society seems to believe in some Kantian Imperative. We ALL need to agree on a shared perspective, even though we pretend to espouse the benefits of liberalism and diversity. Ya'll be at peace with mediocrity, but Imma bust my ass cuz I like it. So do you boo, boo. Just wanted to make that clear.

Otherwise, I enjoyed Freddie. I don't agree with him on everything, but that's not my job. My job is to bring out a different perspective on interesting thinkers. I think I did a mediocre job here, but maybe he’s rubbing off on me because I’m ok with it. From me according to my ability, to you according to your need. Or some shit like that.

Time stamps

00:00 Intro

2:16 Agnes Callard and the interrogation of philosophical perspectives

4:31 The Case Against Travel

6:00 The elite academic perspective and the enjoyment of travel

12:33 The caricature of the left vs. an actual Marxist perspective

19:35 Marxism as a teleological philosophy - aka prophecy

24:16 Marxist “science” vs descriptive/prescriptive value of Marxism

27:45 The rise of the hybrid owner/working class/petit bourgeois

29:48 Freddie’s position on the political compass

34:26 The issue with anarcho-communism and the withering of the state

38:18 Send your kids to school?

46:22 If everywhere were like Denmark, nowhere would be like Denmark.

54:24 Why Leftists hate Freddie

56:24 College as a social justice engine

1:00:00 Motivating people to do something bigger

1:05:16 Have we achieved something like equality?

1:10:03 Who will be the leaders of the future and how will they be selected?

This BIg Nerve Question:

What could be a new role for the University moving forward?

This episode is possible with support from ya’ll (thank you), and also BigNerve. Big Nerve is pushing hard to get thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money, AND help me answer some really tough questions click the linked question and start playing!

More resources:

Video episode

Freddie’s new book

16. Spelunking the Mind w/ Erik Hoel

Theory Gang — Mon, 28 Aug 2023 14:17:45 GMT

Imma warn you: This is probably my favorite episode so far, but when I listened to it during editing I thought, “Oh fuck. We went in”.

A bitch always goes too far, but this one is extra. Not that we’re using a ton of jargon, but even in plain language, the topic of consciousness is intense. It’s definitely one of those episodes you could listen to more than once because there’s so much said between the lines, and Erik’s work is at the leading edge of the study of consciousness (if such a thing even exists).

I say this to inspire you. You’re going to get lost, and that’s a good thing - I mean this in a general way, too. I’m always on the verge of being lost because that’s where you find interesting stuff. As we discuss in the episode, the field of consciousness is likely still in its pre-paradigm era - this means that you don’t need a ton of highly niche knowledge to make basic observations - for now. If you can live in the liminal space between empirical science and who knows what, this is the episode for you.

I do recommend Erik’s book to anyone who is interested in neuroscience, but the middle section on Integrated Information Theory is tough. IIT is tough for many reasons, but one of them might be that it’s considered to be outside the realm of what we consider science. It gets a little more than woo-woo at times, and as you hear in the intro Erik and I agree on how absurd scientists can be. Absurd or not, none of this stuff can be digested in one sitting. The volume of people-hours dedicated to trying to understand consciousness is incalculable, so don’t feel bad if it feels over your head. It’s over all of our heads.

Time Stamps

0:00 Introduction

2:08 Two neuroscientists walk into a house of consciousness

6:18 NeuroPOV: Philosophy and/or science?

13:13 The greatest scientists are absurd

17:08 Spelunking the black hole of scientific incompleteness

27:28 Self-reference in systems

29:50 Manipulating consciousness

32:47 Pros of a Theory of Consciousness

34:06 Complexity vs. Consciousness

39:34 Causal emergence

40:25 MacroScale allows error correction on a micro level

45:46 Classic error correction from information theory

51:01 Plausabile parsability/mechanistic interpretability

55:15 Substackademia

1:01:42 A supracademic structure for theoretical work

1:03:56 Science communication: Purpose and boundaries

1:06:13 Natalism cures solipsism

This BIg Nerve Question:

What could be an unexpected place to look for a theory of consciousness?

A little clue about my answer: I’m thinking about making a video essay about this.

This episode is possible with support from ya’ll (thank you), and also BigNerve. Big Nerve is pushing hard to get thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money, AND help me answer some really tough questions click the linked question and start playing!

More resources:

Video episode

Erik’s Twitter

15. Questioning Academia at Scale w/Geoffrey West

Theory Gang — Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:09:53 GMT

Some conversations really give me the warm and fuzzies, and I wouldn’t have expected them to come from one with a theoretical physicist.

You often hear about great scientists being absolute shit people, but rarely do you hear about people who are genuinely wonderful all the way around. I don’t know Geoffrey’s dark side (as a Jungian psychoanalyst, I’m sure his wife would argue he has one), but I know vibes. And the vibes with Geoffrey West are immaculate. I mean, this man spilled the tea! I love how messy boots he was, and I hope to always speak my mind the way he does.

To spill our tea from the beginning of the episode, I met him in Santa Fe, and we were supposed to record there, but I was really pushing myself to get my in-person set up together, and frankly, it was stressing me out. It felt more important to focus on the conversation, so I told Geoffrey what I was thinking and he had forgotten we were recording anyway. Plus he was driving around on a (pretty much) flat tire, which I hypocritically scolded him for (I literally had two leaking tires at the exact same time). So, it was better that we post-pone, and then he had some other crisis the day we were supposed to record online -yada yada, we made it work. He was a peach about it, and it just showed me the kind of person he is.

Another thing I admire in Geoffrey is the way he seems to think in memes. His story relating Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca to misinformation is a sweet example of how his mind works. Part of what I love about doing this podcast is getting a different view into these great minds that I haven’t seen before. Obviously, I watch/listen to shows that have had my guests on them before they come on - I’m noticing an interesting pattern there as well regarding who has my guests on before and after I do - but I try to bring up different conversations than what you’d hear from the regular suspects. Great minds are more than the products that arise from them. Sometimes, the little moments tell us so much more about them (and the world) than their greatest discoveries.

In these moments, I’ve started to realize I fall into similar conversational patterns with my guests. The only reason I can see for this is that I’m looking to each of these people for insights into these open social questions which they experience to varying degrees. Most of the time, they defer to their lack of knowledge on the subject, apart from anecdotes, but even if I were to ask “the experts” - I can’t honestly say I trust most social science. Asking these people their opinions gives me little clues to possible solutions. For example, in this episode talking with Geoffrey the pace of life/research seems to be a huge component of a number of these problems - and he has potential physical laws of scale that might support this. At the end of this season, I will reflect on these things and see what I can do with this information, but I do hope to turn my findings into something more tangible to help not only academics but the vast majority of people out there who are curious and not in the academic world.

You’re part of this, no matter where your career path (or lack thereof) has taken you. You’re interested in things like physics, intellectualism, and knowledge, and your curiosity should be not only rewarded but integrated. So, as always I’d love to hear your thoughts. Don’t be shy about your contribution. Your input as a listener is an inherent part of the collective intelligence we need to harness. The only thing I ask is that you contribute your honest thoughts and context. Did you really think about this and if so, say more. If not, tell me that this is a gut reaction. It’s not that these things count for more or less, but the context of our thoughts seems to matter.

I hope you enjoy this episode, my friends. Cuz I sure did!

Time Stamps:

0:00 Introduction

02:03 Geoffrey’s attitude

4:40 How has the Santa Fe Institute changed over time?

6:57 The SFI’s radical approach toward integrated problems

14:04 Why the Sante Fe Institute is a conservative one

15:50 The High Table vs. the Corporate University

18:16 The Economics of CERN

20:18 The Making of Middlebrow Science

21:54 Explaining science vs popularizing it

25:09 How the University kills Godzilla

33:44 No days off for academics

36:45 Recipe for pressure-cooked assholes

38:07 The Revenge of the C students

43:06 Hubris, fear, and narcissism

45:02 The problem with Nobel prize winners

50:40 The life of a scholar

56:41 Stan Ulam Adventures of a Mathematician

58:41 What Geoffrey doesn’t regret

01:00:31 Catching the intellectual overflow

1:04:08 Collective Stupidity Symposium

1:09:57 David Baltimore and scientific fraud

1:15:09 Incentives for/against dis/misinformation

01:17:57 Complex Obscurantism

01:19:56 Biomedical Esotericism

01:20:49 Advertising in biomedical journals

I hope you enjoyed the episode! Here’s the Big Nerve Question:

What could be an interesting solution to one of the problems I discussed with Geoffrey West on my podcast?

(defining and evaluating misinformation, catching the intellectual overflow, fixing a culture of hubris, fear, and narcissism, or managing scientific fraud) Check the time stamps for our thoughts.

This episode is possible with support from ya’ll (thank you), and also BigNerve. Big Nerve is pushing hard to get thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money, AND help me answer some really tough questions click the linked question and start playing!

More resources:

Geoffrey’s book Scale (we read this for book club last year)

The full video episode (subscribe on YouTube, yeah?)

My TikTok where I’m reading philosophy LIVE at 11am CT

14. Doomer Optimism w/ Jason Snyder

Theory Gang — Mon, 24 Jul 2023 14:47:22 GMT

Jason and I shared a little tech struggle for a minute before deciding that he should use his phone for the interview (apologies for any little buzzies or text bings he might have gotten during the episode). Our plan failed, but ultimately we made do with our failing system and pulled our shit together enough to do what we set out to do. To me, this was representative of the Doomer Optimism movement. The way I see it:

Shit is hitting the fan. We’ve got goals, but our systems are failing. So, we’re struggling trying to figure out the challenges of new technology, faced up against physical constraints, while balancing a million things in our lives. At the same time, we recognize that together, with all the knowledge we’ve accumulated we can figure this shit out - and if not - WELP. We tried!

Jason and I connected initially on some homesteading vibes and looking at his garden tunnel compared to mine, I wondered if we had the same kind of climate. I wondered what in his garden might do better than mine, and vice versa, and if we could swap seeds or tips.

Anyone who has tried their hand at some aspects of homesteading knows that the perfect canning videos on YouTube and beautiful gardens are snapshots that are not representative of reality, but the imperfections are part of the alure. In trying to do things for yourself and your community that you otherwise might now, you learn to accept good over perfect and appreciate the value of simplicity. I think this is a good thing for us as a society and on an individual level. Starting new systems is difficult and messy, but with practice, we can refine them. I’m excited to see what ya’ll think about this, and where you might be able to apply these principles to your own life.

You might never be on the garden/canning/grow your own food vibes, but it seems there could be something for everyone in this movement. Food systems aren’t the only thing that will see profound changes in the future; every system you think of is changing: family, social, work, science, tech, climate, travel, logistics, and so on. If you’re interested in this movement, my suggestion is to explore your interests and think about how they fit in your local community, and how you could leverage the power of the internet and technology to support a larger community - what Jason calls cosmolocalism.

Socially, this movement seems incredible. I‘ve already talked to a couple people in my local area, and the concept resonates. Online, as soon as I tweeted about talking to Jason, tons of DO folks jumped in to engage. We’ve all missing a theory that links up our online lives with our physical ones. When the two realities converge, it’s a funny thing, but I’m learning from experiences like how we might be able to marry two different realities.

A new DO Twitter friend even commented on this lovely image that demonstrates many different aspects of thinking about permaculture. So, not only are the people in the movement welcoming, they’re helpful, too. I get good vibes from DO. Like, best possible outcome while maintaining that currently, shit’s cray.

Time Stamps:

0:00 Introduction

2:24 Not-so-small talk and a sense of place

5:44 Embodied cognition

9:49 What is Doomer Optimism?

11:15 Cosmolocalism and doomer optimism political dichotomies

16:07 Minimum Viable Pluralism in Communities - we gonna fight

18:39 Top-down technocratic degrowth vs grassroots Doomer Optimsm

23:33 Galaxy-brain future planning

26:06 10 policies Jason would implement for governments to do less harm

27:32 Zapatistas and Kerala India as examples of resilient communities

29:55 Uncoupling capitalism from our civilization - pros, cons, and how?

32:24 The viability of a post-fossil fuel world - redirecting incentives towards human survival

36:58 Planetary boundaries and the climate change narrative

42:13 Redesigning higher educational field schools to integrate practical skills into theory

47:09 Educational Boom and Bust the value of education in various regions and fields

50:56: Increasing demand for tradesmen and over-intellectualization

55:50 Could there be a modern-day morrill act to bolster a change in education?

58:02 Will you send your kids to college?

58:35 One of the things we don’t want to give over to AI

1:02:40 Purple collar jobs

1:05:22 Jason’s “favorite” Doomer Optimism episode: What does Regeneration mean?

I hope you enjoyed the episode! Here’s the Big Nerve Question:

How could everyday people get involved in building resilient sustainable systems in their communities?

This can be anything from social, education, food, or waste… go crazy!

This episode is possible with support from ya’ll (thank you), and also BigNerve. Big Nerve is pushing hard to get thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money, AND help me answer some really tough questions click the linked question and start playing!

More resources:

13. Certainty and the End of Science w/Heather Heying

Theory Gang — Mon, 03 Jul 2023 16:06:27 GMT

This episode was an unexpected delight. I had no idea how much I’d end up liking Heather. Of course, I don’t see eye-to-eye with her about everything, but it sure seemed as though we agreed on a lot in this episode. As someone people tend to find disagreeable from afar, maybe I feel a kinship with her. People want to ascribe nasty characteristics to people who ask a lot of questions…

I think my big realization in this episode is that I need to get used the idea that asking questions will unsettle a good chunk of people because the search for answers is going to disturb our environment. I KNOW this cognitively, but I saw myself in Heather and specifically saw why people don’t like us, or what we do: people aren’t comfortable when someone starts digging around their feet. Even if the ground seems shaky, and we know something is wrong, no one wants the foundation that they stand on to fall out beneath them. The difference between scientists and non-scientists is that scientists would rather dig than stand around and guess what’s going on - even if that means making people uncomfortable.

Speaking of discomfort, one of the biggest topics of this episode was on being wrong. I think one thesis on this could easily be that our culture of narcissism creates an environment where we are terrified of being wrong. This culture produces shallow curiosity, if any, which allows us to make bold claims but doesn’t require us to have the courage to dig up enough evidence or specificity to support them. A lot of us are not good at self-criticism. Maybe we think evaluating our ideas would shatter the facade of certainty that we have created - it would - and that’s good, but we end up making loose claims that could never be tested or fully supported. I think Karl Popper would agree that this is a way of “inoculating” ourselves against being wrong.

It seems we want the big claim for cheap. The issue is that there are some claims so big that no matter how much intellectual capital we spend, only trial and error over time will bring us closer to the truth. The bigger the guess and the bigger the buy-in, the bigger the consequences. I suppose it all boils down to the old ECREE situation: don’t write checks your ass can’t cash.

but why does err anger us?

When we make big claims, especially ones that are time sensitive and require large-scale compliance - we should demand better evidence and we must think for ourselves. Then, if we’re wrong, at least we can say, we’ve done our due diligence. And this is what I appreciate about Heather. She’s willing to dig deep and be wrong.

I could say more, and probably will another time.

Another thing to look out for in this episode is a general feeling I had while recording: Heather has a warmth to her that really radiates when she talks about her fieldwork and education. Talking with her brought me back to a time when I felt such a passion for discovery and science. I wonder if you’ll feel it too. Either way, I hope you enjoy this episode. I sure did.

0:00 Introduction

02:32 Heather’s goal: helping people think for themselves

10:06 On Being Wrong

14:34 The end of science: when ScienceTM is viewed as an authority

16:23 Unlikely scientific allies and misalignments: Hillsdale College vs UATX

21:28 What’s missing from science education

24:45 Misanthropy and modern scientific education

26:40 How could we improve science education in or outside the university setting? Big Nerve Question!

32:05 How metrics kill serendipity and “the vibe”

44:01 Heather’s advice for young Heather

46:23 Lab vs fieldwork

50:21 The consilience of diversity

51:57 Heather’s passions and potential next project

57:56 What science fiction get’s wrong

1:00:08 Getting spaghettified by the critics (or ourselves)

1:05:35 On certainty

1:07:43 Terrain theory and Bayesian reasoning

1:15:41 Philosophy in science - a priori or a experimenti?

1:25:43 First principles of biology: What is worth observing?

This episode is possible with support from ya’ll (thank you), and also BigNerve. Big Nerve is pushing hard on getting thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money AND help me answer some really tough questions head over there to put your thoughts in on this episode’s question:

How could we change science education to uphold the values of trial and error and critical evaluation of evidence?

Deprofessionalizing science with Adam Mastroianni

Theory Gang — Thu, 08 Jun 2023 13:23:07 GMT

NeoAcademia is a series of real conversations with trailblazing thinkers, beyond the ivory tower

I thought for a minute it might have been over, but we’re so back! I really was not sure what to do with NeoAcademia. Podcasts are so fucking annoying, and the last thing I want to do is clutter up the airwaves with another carbon copy. I was feeling pretty discouraged about exploring the shifting walls of academia, so I had to change my perspective. The way I’m looking at NeoAcademia is a little different this season:

In talking with Adam, it occurred to me that this show is about changing the vibe of scholarly discourse. I want you to witness scholars having conversations outside of their expertise, unplugged and informal, thinking in real-time, and hopefully sharing a few laughs.

It’s like Revenge of the Nerds over here, between me and

Episode Time Stamps

01:08 Corrupting the youth

04:30 Learning how to be the Good kind of Cringe

10:24 What If You Just Dd The Things You Think Are Right and to hell with over professionalization

11:42 Kimmy Gibbler and the NeoAcademic Science House

22:05 The Weak Link Problem in Science

26:01 @siminevazire on Unearned prestige: Nonzero sum players playing Zero sum games

30:13 The Validation meter

33:07 The psychology of having a sense of humor - puzzle solving as a normal human person

35:47 Academic sudoku - Respect tha game

39:36 Suffering as an academic outcome - Just cure mimetic desire!

46:20 The Ones Who Swipe Left on Omelas

50:31 Doing laps on the hedonic treadmill

51:55 The Emperors of Science command the destruction of all monkey paws and Science Emperors

57:57 How *some* money should be dispensed for grants:

01:00:29 Santa Claus running the careerist watering hole

I also have a new sponsor, but if you’ve been around a while, you might have heard of them. BigNerve is pushing hard on getting thinkers funded and recognized. You should be one of those thinkers. To enter my idea tournament, win money AND help me answer some really tough questions answer this question:

What could be an interesting way to grant money to people who will do cool, innovative things in the world?

If you want the video.

If you want Adam’s Twitter.

NeoAcademia Episode 11: Steve Rathje - The psychology of academic social media

Theory Gang — Wed, 18 Jan 2023 17:48:59 GMT

NeoAcademia is a biweekly exploration of the shifting walls of the ivory tower.

I have to admit, I had mixed expectations for my conversation with Steve. As you might know, I choose guests on a whim…sometimes. I have a running list, but sometimes someone strikes me, and before I know it, we’re recording. Just like with Todd Kashdan and Tani Berlo, I saw Steve’s TikTok, and within 2 minutes knew I wanted to have him on. However, when I was prepping for the episode, I started to worry that he was gonna be an academic NPC. SORRY STEVIE! His TikTok is so neutral, that you wonder if he has a personality!

This is the thing about the term “NPC”, though. If you don’t know, it is video game shorthand for Non-Player Character. You know, the guy you walk up to and ask for directions, who has a pre-selected set of answers. The NPCs are getting better and better, and you’re less able to tell which ones are AI-operated. It’s making us question everything. The science behind this is more about free will and determinism, but if you follow this logic through, you start to wonder, am I an NPC? Is my personality programmed?

Probably, but that’s for another episode.

In this season’s final episode, we get into the rationale for his TikTok branding, and I get it. Putting yourself “out there” is always a risk, and get why Steve has chosen to mitigate risk on social media. Young academics who want to get a job and eventually get tenure have to be calculated in what they say and what they study. This is true in the corporate world as well… yet another parallel between the two. We talk about this at length throughout the episode, and I appreciate Steve’s candor and openness to having a somewhat ‘risky’ conversation about ‘risky’ conversations. :)

Show Notes

01:40 Academics on TikTok, and predicting success

06:04 Academic NPC fragility and the stigma around science communication

09:10 Publishing and the tenure track job search in psychology vs. biomedical science,

14:35 Who gatekeeps the hidden academic curriculum?

17:48 Neoacademia brainstorming about duties for academics: mentoring and sci-comm

21:33 Gatekeeping, hierarchies, metrics and heuristics in academic success

23:29 Academic mentorship: the keys to the gate

25:39 What NeoAcademia is about

28:03 The meta-psychology of @stevepsychology

29:09 The data on what goes viral

31:00 Neutral branding vs having a personality online

33:40 Why people love Lex Fridman and Joe Rogan

35:52 Gay Rams and how the left can be anti-science

38:11 Controversy in psychology around political ideology; @dankahan on Motivated reasoning

43:48 The future of creators and platforms

48:27 The idyllic undergrad experience and the mystery of academia

54:10 Thoughtful content and what if…

56:40 SciComm: The difference between Psychology, Physics, and Biology

01:00:54 Social media villains

So you’ve been publicly shamed: Jon Ronson

01:05:23 Tech worship and Even more bay area house party

01:06:57 Having an impact through research on social media

Follow Stevepsychology on TikTok!

For more resources from this episode, check out the collection Steve and I created for you. Use the password “neoacademia” for access.

Readocracy is NeoAcademia’s first sponsor, and I highly encourage you to sign up for an account. I have been using it daily for years now, and I even include some of my personal metrics in my monthly Rabbithole newsletter for my paid subscribers. It’s a fun way of reflecting on what you consume, and potentially building your expertise as a NeoAcademic.

If you think what we’re doing is cool you can support this project by upgrading to be a paid subscriber and get a little deeper view into some of these subjects.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Thought experiment:

Win money for answering on Big Nerve!

How could science communication be improved on social media?

NeoAcademia Episode 10: The Paper Belt on Fire w/Michael Gibson

Theory Gang — Wed, 04 Jan 2023 16:51:26 GMT

NeoAcademia is a biweekly exploration of the shifting walls of the ivory tower.

I’ve been really excited about this episode since I first heard about Michael’s book, The Paper Belt on Fire, like the day it came out. Shout out to (~@ 50:00). from episode 4 who tweeted about another organization that looked interesting, and I scrolled for a second and saw an interview with Michael. I immediately downloaded the book and was captured by his storytelling.

The projects that Michael funds are clear examples of how changing the way we view innovation, credentialling, and academia might push things towards solutions. We mention one of the companies he’s supported, Luminar, and the story of their founder is a great one Michael tells in the book. Austin is a non-traditional physicist who invented a technology that moves the needle forward in driverless cars and other arenas. Basically, the kid was a surf bro who liked to play with lasers. Now, he’s got a tech company with a billion+ valuation.

The book is great, and our conversation was great. I Love Michael’s work through and through - don’t hold it against him that he’s a Thiel baby.

Don’t forget, now is the time to sign up to be full GangGang. Offer ends soon!

Get 50% off for 1 year

Show Notes

2:30 Getting the burning paper belt published

5:23 Michael, the writer

8:18 The Paper Belt is on Fire, but it’s an underground fire

10:53 The Paper Belt is more than just Academia, why it’s on fire, and why decentralization is the best bet for replacing it

14:15 How creative funding can rise all ships

15:39 The alternative college signals for everyone except Vitalik Buterin

18:50 What if we inverted undergrad and grad school with a focus on problem-based education?

20:09 Cultivating intellectual arenas of ambition

23:31 How our low-trust society leads to intellectual burnout and incrementalism

25:40 The Invisible College

27:05 Experiments > theory

28:47 How 1517 fund supports action from unorthodox scientists

30:12 How the perverse system of incentives in academia perpetuates conformity

32:53 Academic identity crises

34:31 What’s worth saving from academia?

35:57 Apprenticeships and the clumping of creative thinkers

37:15 The candle problem and other lame creativity experiments

40:02 Creative parturition from The Beatles, Diddy and TSwift

44:39 Capturing moments of inspiration in academia

45:33 The balance of physical proximity, isolation, and intellectual bonding

50:24 A lack of incentives toward action: a million knives at a gunfight

52:28 The unity of doers/dreamers and insider/outsiders

56:36 How VC is under and overrated

58:21 How universities can slow the commercialization of research

1:02:05 Breaking out of the cult

1:04:15 Conflict of the over-produced elites

1:05:07 The biggest hurdle for early startups

1:08:09 The rare combo of Big 5 traits for creative success

1:10:23 Software Tech Bros vs entrepreneurial scientists

1:13:01 Women in tech as the lonely coder and the importance of early identity

1:16:33 The pregnancy wage gap and solving problems post infant terrorism

For more resources from this episode, check out the collection Michael and I created for you. Use the password “neoacademia” for access.

If you think what we’re doing is cool you can support this project by upgrading to be a paid subscriber and get a little deeper view into some of these subjects.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Thought experiment:

(Win $ for answering!)

What could be a new way venture funds might be able to fund projects that have a slow start?

NeoAcademia Episode 9: The University's Existential Crisis w/Adam Sitze

Theory Gang — Wed, 21 Dec 2022 14:31:14 GMT

NeoAcademia is a biweekly exploration of the shifting walls of the ivory tower.

There’s so much info in this episode, I’m just gonna jump right in:

A lot of conservatives think Marx is the crux of the existential problem in universities. I think that’s a reductionist view. It’s a complex issue, but my brain decided to hone in on one question that seemed far more loaded than I realized:

48:45 Is the university full of Marxists?

It’s a simple question, but I think it’s ill-framed. First of all, Adam is right. No one in the biomedical science department is reading Das Kapital… but in my experience, many do reference anti-capitalist or anti-capitalist adjacent sentiments in casual conversation. I mean, a lot of people do. But why?

Well, two reasons, I think:

1. In the social studies departments, a lot of modern thinkers are influenced by Marx, so the better question is: Are derivations of Marxism contributing to the existential crisis of the university? Adam said his colleagues cite John Dewey far more than Marx, and in line with our questioning, I wondered: Was Dewey a Marxist? I don’t know as much about John Dewey as Adam does, but my search brought me to this very interesting essay.

Former British Minister for Higher Education, George Walden, recently suggested that, even in Marx's adopted homeland, it would be wrong to see what he considered the moral instability of British educational values, as the result of some Marxist conspiracy. "I sometimes think that a full-blown Marxist conspiracy in English education would have been more bracing," he said. "What we have had instead is a vulgarized, bastardized version of the creed: not Marxist but Marxoidal."

The chemistry department doesn’t know this or much about John Dewey or Marx, and a large part of the university is made up of hyper-specialists just like this, so statistically speaking, Adam is right again, most people aren’t talking about Marx… Or they don’t know they are.

2. The university outside of social studies promotes casual Marxists. They believe in derivative ideas like intersectionality, equity, and the like, and the ‘experts’ eschewing these theories are Marxist or Marx-derivatives. So they repeat talking points about capitalism, patriarchy, etc., Adam’s right, most people are neoliberals. They want small tweaks to free market capitalism, but young people starting out in the futureless society Adam and discuss see that everything is wrong and nothing is working. Everything mainstream is racist, capitalist, and systemically oppressive, so we have to swim against the current in the left direction. They don’t have to worry about the repercussions of doing this because they’ve been sold the idea that Capitalism is unstoppable and so the fantasy of Marxism is one that they don’t have to really think about. They can just move in the direction of an imagined utopia without examining exactly what that looks like or what has happened in the past because it’s impossible anyway. We can’t burn the system down, so let’s just keep saying “Seize the means of production” - even though we don’t have a clue what it means, the implications of such, or the history of the idea.

On the other side of the aisle, the people worried about the University being a Marxist domain, Karl Marx, like Foucault, is a scapegoat. The pattern of thought that Marx employed is attached to his name, but at what point does a derivative work no longer resemble its origin? My child is 25% Armenian, but her grandchildren will be 1/16th Armenian, and what if they have some Turkish blood mixed in? The analysis reaches a point where there is no utility in discussing the origin. Marx’s story has become fable, and to many, he’s a big bad wolf. One side tells a parable of Marxism, but the ‘wolves’ tell their side, too: a derivation of the popular anti-communist narrative.

So, claiming universities aren’t Marxist by searching for mentions of Marx is like claiming that we don’t see any traces of the Big Bad Wolf anymore when Johnny Depp’s swallowed up Little Red Riding hood in the Woods. Now, I can’t stop thinking about Sarah Palin using Marx’s head on a wolf’s body for target practice. Talk about derivatives… What is my brain sometimes? LMAO.

Is the University Marxist? Yes and No.

57:40 The truth is: The Marxists are on the meme pages.

Better question: What should it be?

ANYWAY. This conversation was great and Adam was a phenomenal discussion partner. He was very sweet to meet me and my minimal knowledge of his area with such intellectual charity and humility.

This part is important:

This episode made me rethink the way I’m doing this podcast. I might cut the crap with the Bonus Content and just give you everything. I only did this because I worried that a 90-minute episode might deter folks, but it’s really hard to chop these episodes down. I hate putting any of this behind a paywall. So, here’s what I’ll say:

If my paid subscribers support it, and I can get buy-in from a couple of new paid subscribers I’ll start releasing the whole episode for free.

Why would anyone pay me to not put this behind a paywall? My rationale is this:

If you follow my work, you know that I believe this personal subscription model to individual thinkers and creators is a shitty lifeboat. It’s not sustainable for people to support 10 of their favorite creators. So, I want off the lifeboat. I’ll use the remnants of the life raft to build something better - that’s what you’re supporting by helping me take things out from behind the paywall. Building a better model for getting knowledge and creativity out there.

If I take things from behind the paywall, I can spend less time yapping/editing and more time doing. I’m planning next season, and I’ve got some ideas for how to take action, but I need resources to help facilitate these ideas. I’ll write an update over the next couple of weeks about what next year might look like, but for now, here’s a 50% off Christmas special, and let’s call it a 2-year anniversary coupon as well.

Get 50% off for 1 year

Show Notes

2:20 The melancholic “unalienated labor” of humanists

4:24 Foucault and objective truth

The Order of Things -Michel Foucault

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Thomas Kuhn

Science as a Vocation - Max Weber

Liberalism and Its Discontents - Francis Fukuyama

Institution - Roberto Esposito

Truth and Politics - Hannah Arendt

9:55 Difficulty in discussing "The University" as a concept

12:29 “The body corporate of teachers and students”

The King’s Two Bodies - Ernst Kantorowicz

14:55 Plato's Academy vs. modern vocational universities

16:54 The existential problem of the modern university - A communication divide

18:36 The desire to know has been sated

20:03 Futurelessness, an epistemic killer

23:05 The beef between students and faculty/administrators

On Violence - Hannah Arendt

28:05 A minority class of youth must have the courage to break through untruth

29:44 What is the beating heart of the university?

34:27 How the paywall is part of the epistemological crisis

35:51 The Ironic Dark Age

38:24 The protected religious and judiciary role of professors

41:58 The moral purpose of the university - epistemic leftovers

Making of the Modern University - Julie Reuben

45:09 A guiding light for democracy?

48:45 The conservative critique of the university

50:58 Academic freedom as a religion in God and Man at Yale by William F Buckley

54:01 Conservative fear of the shapeshifting religiosity of the university

57:55 Adam’s hope for the future of The University

58:51 “Conservatives aren’t conservative enough”

Justice Ketanji Jackson as an originalist

1:00:35 Montesquieu's original influence over the US founders opposes modern libertarian/conservative ideas about education

1:03:35 Adam’s interest in the preservation of the long-term intergenerational body corporate of the university

1:07:40 “The university is eating its seed corn” thinking out loud about the next generation of professors

Adam provided a TON of resources for the collection. We referenced a lot of resources so if I missed one let me know. Use the password “neoacademia” for access.

Big Nerve Thought experiment:

Be sure to check out Big Nerve to win cash for creative ideas on this question:

How could the existential crisis of the university lead to a better outcome for everyone?

BTS w/ John K. Wilson

Theory Gang — Thu, 08 Dec 2022 16:16:04 GMT

John said he wished more podcast hosts would disagree with their guests… well he came on the right podcast, then. We disagreed on a lot - so much that it couldn’t all fit in an episode. Here’s what’s inside:

Academic celebrities - How Twitter followers are starting to count towards promotion
How to get tenure according to Sean Carroll
University presidents, potential NeoAcademic pursuits, and future guests

It’s a short video, but as a special treat, I break down some data from an academic paper on social media and the academy.

NeoAcademia Episode 8 - Academic Freedom w/John Wilson

Theory Gang — Wed, 07 Dec 2022 14:43:04 GMT

NeoAcademia is a biweekly exploration of the shifting walls of the ivory tower.

I’ve known John K. Wilson for a year or so through the Heterodox Academy writing group. I never got anything published on their blog, and the organization disbanded us as a group, but that’s another story. John was always interesting to me because he and I were the only Ph.D-holding, non-academics in the group. I asked myself on several occasions What the fuck am I doing in here? I always felt like an outsider, whose opinion wasn’t really valued, but then I remembered… that’s just how academics act, and also, I don’t care.

We wrote largely about viewpoint diversity, and I got tired of the same old arguments about woke-ism, religion, and the culture wars and never really wanted to write about it, so I’ve stopped attending. When the group was “let go” from HxA, we tried to keep it going, and a few people still meet. I really like a handful of them, one of which suggested a funding announcement and I penned a grant for the group, which one of the members submitted since I wasn’t faculty, but that in and of itself was a process. No one took initiative to write it, so I did. No one wanted to submit it, so I pointed at a couple of people. As it stands, I’m slated to administer the grant if it is awarded, but honestly, unless we get some fresh, non-academics in there… I don’t think I’ll continue.

The reason I bring this up is that John and I disagreed largely on reform. Some institutions like academia are too big to reform. It’s like saying ‘let’s reform central banking!’. Yeah, no. How about we build an alternative? That’s more my speed. The HxA group felt much the same. Once an institution becomes an Institution, it is rigid and immutable. I hoped that being ousted from HxA would free us from their constraints, but everyone seemed to want to keep doing things the HxA way. Academics who leave academia are often traumatized. They rarely admit it, but the Ivory Tower has a way of making you think you’re not good enough unless you’re the cream that has risen to their top. The institution is not open to ideas. They make sure their constituents don’t have time or freedom to reform it, and no one from the outside cares enough to try or has the inroads to make progress.

But then there’s John.

That’s all I’ll say for now, but this was a great debate. Tomorrow, I’ll share some addendums to my thoughts in the bonus content. There were a few points that needed clarification on my part and things I realized I should have said after the fact, as always. Enjoy!

Show Notes:

4: 13 The insular character of academic freedom

7: 33 ThreeThreats to academic freedom: the Left, the Right, and the Centrist Administrators

11:00 Desantis’ Stop Woke Act

13:40 Scopes Monkey trial

15:05 Why protecting people who say and think horrible things is important not only in academia?

21:42 Academic Freedom and The 1st Amendment

25:50 Brett Weinstein and The Evergreen State Incident

27:34 Vectors of disease

27:59 Centrist administrator-led witch burnings

29:33 Boise State University Hoax

33:11 Kanye and social shaming bad ideas

37:58 Why independent scholars still want to be hired by the university

41:03 University of Austin controversy and who should decide who gets hired on the university

44:20 Remodel, rebuild, or destroy: what to do with Academia?

49:56 “Good” harm, critique vs defunding

52:13 The Multiversity concept vs academia as an idealistic sandbox to ignore capitalism

John’s work at Academe blog

John’s books

For more resources from this episode, check out the collection John and I created for you. Use the password “neoacademia” for access

Thought experiment:

What could be an unexpected consequence of granting everyone "academic freedom"?

BTS: NeoAcademia x John Gibbs

Theory Gang — Fri, 25 Nov 2022 15:43:49 GMT

John and I talked about the depth of information that is available on the internet, and what The People want: the democratization of knowledge. We didn’t really talk about:

What The People might use academic knowledge for
Why The People might want to dig deep into knowledge
Which complex ideas are ripe for populist adoption
How the recursive nature of talking about ideas happens in and outside of the university

…so you know Imma talk about it here.

NeoAcademia Episode 7: Academic Populism w/ John Gibbs

Theory Gang — Wed, 23 Nov 2022 15:45:55 GMT

NeoAcademia is a biweekly exploration of the shifting walls of the ivory tower.

When I thought about starting this podcast, I hoped to get all kinds of perspectives, but John covered one I hadn’t thought about: the retired professor turned podcaster. We had a very playful conversation about what we both do now: have playful conversations.

I had been thinking about this idea of academic populism for a while, but I wasn’t sure if it made sense - as a term and in general. John didn’t tell me I was an idiot, so there might be potential for this idea. In my mind the concept is simple, The People want in on the decisions about knowledge. Or at least they think they do. Just like with politics, people think they want responsibility, but I suspect they mostly want power. After thinking about this more, I wonder if the word ‘academic’ is redundant because populism applies to politics, politics is about the allocation of resources, and education and knowledge are resources. Either way, I haven’t heard much said about the dangers of democratizing knowledge, but it does seem like some people are afraid of this. And a lot of people are scared of populism…so this idea is definitely gaining merit in my mind.

There’s a book somewhere in all this exploration. I feel it brewing… More on Friday in the bonus content.

Subscribe now

Show notes:

1:59 Teaching vs Podcasting, Great Resignation, Covid and Teaching Online

7:04 The performative environment of the NeoAcademic world

10:38 The essence of all communication is lies

13:30 Academic populism and the limits of what can be done outside of the university

16:17 The hierarchy of knowledge: philosophy vs. science

22:51 Dangers of the democratization of knowledge: evolution as an example

24:19 String theory are post-modernists

28:03 The purpose of higher education Universities sell us on “how to live”

33:01 The persuasion of democratic or authoritarian populism

35:31 Is the education system a Leviathan or are humans their own Leviathan?

41:07 Why aren’t college kids throwing stones at policemen anymore?

44:02 The adolescent rebellion of today leaves us open to Gorgias’ persuasion

47:24 The instrumentalism of institutionalized education and the vanity of teaching

48:38 Power is found in the expectation that something is “common sense”

YouTube video episode

Spinoza Triad

John on Teacher’s Talk Radio

For more resources from this episode, check out the collection John and I created for you. Use the password “neoacademia” for access

Thought experiment:

What could be an unintended consequence of democratizing knowledge? Comment or enter your answers on Big Nerve!

BTS w/Tani Berlo

Theory Gang — Thu, 10 Nov 2022 16:54:50 GMT

Tani had me all in my feminine energy this week. It was weird how she entered my universe and all of a sudden everything was bathed in this pale pink light. I think I’ve been rejecting my femininity on accident lately. So, I’ll dive into that a bit more.

Here’s a summary of what’s in the bonus video:

My favorite surgeon friend
Being an agile Girl Friday for startups
Tani’s Ted Talk dreams
Andrew Tate and what it takes to get kicked off TikTok
Hate from Bots, NPCs and crusty academics
- And a little side note about recent misogyny. You know, just fun girly stuff.

I also included my most recent Readocracy stats because I’m pausing my monthly rabbit hole newsletters.

NeoAcademia Episode 6: Hot Girl History w/Tani Berlo

Theory Gang — Wed, 09 Nov 2022 16:21:35 GMT

NeoAcademia is a biweekly exploration of the shifting walls of the ivory tower.

Tani and I had SO MUCH FUN on this episode. Fair warning, it felt a little more like the Syllojism version of me (i.e., raunchy jokes and swearing) because I felt super comfortable with Tani.

She has a beautiful mind for holding paradox and contradiction, and if you know me that’s something I value. She really embraces and embodies my philosophy “Get comfortable being uncomfortable (33:20)”. Tani is one of my favorite NeoAcademic Archetypes, which I’ll share more about in tomorrow’s Bonus Content.

Show notes:

2:39 Litmus test for finding fun, inquisitive people

4:27 Historical manifestations of sex differences and retroactive mental health diagnoses

9:30 Bro you can’t judge history” Alexander the Fabulous and the importance of objectivity in the face of historical dualism

12:17 Christian tattoo bonding

14:26 Escaping the Academia Trap: tips, tricks and is it worth it?

16:16 Love of learning, transferrable skills and self-awareness in a workplace as an alternative to Academia

19:44 Finding creativity in the tedium of traditional institutions

26:18 “The knowledge whores”, using your PhD as content

28:18 Injecting personality into academic content as a marketing strategy

31:26 Finding compromise between the conservative nature of Academia and the progressive nature of learning

33:20 “Get comfortable being uncomfortable”

35:44 Get used to being wrong, because new discoveries are constantly changing everything

39 Speculative science and censorship of the internet

39:37 Pretty privilege within fact-based content creation space

42:04 Prioritizing and habit compounding to stay focused especially as a woman

44:58 Evolution of marketing on social media

53:26 Tani’s advice for growing as a NeoAcademic creator on social media

YouTube video episode

Tani’s TikTok

My TikTok

For more resources from this episode, check out the collection Tani and I created for you. Use the password “neoacademia” for access.

Big Nerve Question:

How are stereotypes influencing who you listen to, what you subscribe to, or how you process information?