Do facts have an expiration date? (with Samuel Arbesman)
Read the full transcript here. What does it mean to treat facts as drafts rather than monuments? If truth is something we approach, how do we act while it’s still provisional? When definitions shift, what really changes? How do better instruments quietly rewrite the world we think we know? Are we mostly refining truths or replacing them? When do scientific metaphors clarify and when do they mislead? What public stories make self-correction legible and trusted? What features make science self-correct rather than self-congratulatory? How should we reward replication, repair, and tool-building? Do we need more generalists - or better bridges between tribes? How does measurement expand the very questions we can ask? Is progress a goal-seeking march or a search for interesting stepping stones? Should we teach computing as a liberal art to widen its aims? Will AI turn software into a home-cooked meal for everyone? How do we design tools that increase wonder, not just efficiency? Samuel Arbesman is Scientist in Residence at Lux Capital. He is also an xLab senior fellow at Case Western Reserve University’s Weatherhead School of Management and a research fellow at the Long Now Foundation. His writing has appeared in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and The Atlantic, and he was previously a contributing writer for Wired. He is the author of the new book The Magic of Code, and his previous books are Overcomplicated: Technology at the Limits of Comprehension and The Half-Life of Facts: Why Everything We Know Has an Expiration Date. He holds a PhD in computational biology from Cornell University and lives in Cleveland with his family. Links: Sam's Recent Titles: The Half-Life of Facts and The Magic of Code Staff Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead Uri Bram — Factotum WeAmplify — Transcriptionists Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant Music Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com Affiliates Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]
--------
1:15:37
--------
1:15:37
From prisoner to escaping inner prisons (with Shaka Senghor)
Read the full transcript here. What changes when we treat violence as a human problem rather than a demographic story? Are fear, anger, and shame the real levers behind sudden harm? How much agency can we ask of people shaped by chaos without ignoring that chaos? Where is the line between explanation and excuse? What would an honest narrative about community safety sound like? Do neighborhoods want fewer police, or different policing grounded in respect? How do we build cultures where accountability and care reinforce each other? If separation is required for rehabilitation, how do we keep it from becoming psychological punishment? How do we welcome people back into society without chaining them to their worst moment? Shaka Senghor is a resilience expert and author whose journey from incarceration to inspiration has empowered executives, entrepreneurs, and audiences around the world. Born in Detroit amid economic hardship, Shaka overcame immense adversity - including 19 years in prison - to become a leading authority on resilience, grit, and personal transformation. Since his release in 2010, Shaka has guided individuals and organizations to break free from their hidden emotional and psychological prisons, turning resilience from theory into actionable practice. Links: Shaka's Book: How to Be Free: A Proven Guide to Escaping Life's Hidden Prisons Shaka's TED Talk Staff Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead Uri Bram — Factotum WeAmplify — Transcriptionists Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant Music Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com Affiliates Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]
--------
1:16:44
--------
1:16:44
A new paradigm for psychology research (with Slime Mold Time Mold)
Read the full transcript here. What changes when psychology stops naming traits and starts naming parts - can “entities and rules” turn fuzzy labels into testable mechanisms? If the mind is a web of governors with set points, what exactly is being controlled - and how do error signals become feelings? Are hunger, fear, and status-seeking all negative-feedback problems, and where do outliers like anger or awe fit? What would count as disconfirming evidence for a cybernetic view - useful constraint or unfalsifiable epicycle? Could a “parliament of drives” explain why identical situations yield different choices? And how would we measure the votes? Do abstractions like the Big Five help, or do they hide the machine under the hood? How many rules do we need before prediction beats metaphor? And could a new paradigm help make psychology a more mature and cumulative science? SLIME MOLD TIME MOLD is a mad science hive mind with a blog. If you believe the rumors, it’s run by 20 rats in a trenchcoat. You can reach them at [email protected], follow them on twitter at @mold_time, and read their blog at slimemoldtimemold.com Links: The Mind in the Wheel Obesity and Lithium Staff Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead Uri Bram — Factotum WeAmplify — Transcriptionists Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant Music Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com Affiliates Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]
--------
1:27:01
--------
1:27:01
A cybernetic view of the mind (with Slime Mold Time Mold)
Read the full transcript here. What changes when psychology stops naming traits and starts naming parts - can “entities and rules” turn fuzzy labels into testable mechanisms? If the mind is a web of governors with set points, what exactly is being controlled - and how do error signals become feelings? Are hunger, fear, and status-seeking all negative-feedback problems, and where do outliers like anger or awe fit? What would count as disconfirming evidence for a cybernetic view - useful constraint or unfalsifiable epicycle? Could a “parliament of drives” explain why identical situations yield different choices? And how would we measure the votes? Do abstractions like the Big Five help, or do they hide the machine under the hood? How many rules do we need before prediction beats metaphor? And could a more cybernetic paradigm help make psychology a more mature and cumulative science?SLIME MOLD TIME MOLD is a mad science hive mind with a blog. If you believe the rumors, it’s run by 20 rats in a trenchcoat. You can reach them at [email protected], follow them on twitter at @mold_time, and read their blog at slimemoldtimemold.comLinks:The Mind in the WheelObesity and Lithium StaffSpencer Greenberg — Host + DirectorJosh Castle — Producer + Technical LeadRyan Kessler — Audio EngineerUri Bram — FactotumWeAmplify — TranscriptionistsIgor Scaldini — Marketing ConsultantMusicBroke for FreeJosh WoodwardLee RosevereQuiet Music for Tiny Robotswowamusiczapsplat.comAffiliatesClearer ThinkingGuidedTrackMind EasePositlyUpLift[Read more]
--------
1:27:01
--------
1:27:01
Beyond saving lives: happiness and doing good (with Michael Plant)
Read the full transcript here. Are we trying to maximize moment-to-moment happiness or life satisfaction? Can self-reports really guide policy and giving? What happens to quality of life metrics when we judge impact by wellbeing instead of health or income? How should we compare treating depression to providing clean water when their benefits feel incomparable? Do cultural norms and scale-use quirks impact the accuracy of global happiness scores? How much do biases warp both our forecasts and our data? Is it ethical to chase the biggest happiness returns at the expense of other meaningful interventions? Where do autonomy, agency, and justice fit if philanthropy aims to reduce suffering or maximize aggregate happiness? Can we balance scientific rigor with the irreducibly subjective nature of joy, misery, and meaning? What should donors actually do with wellbeing-based cost-effectiveness numbers in the face of uncertainty and long-run effects? And could a wellbeing lens realistically reshape which charities, and which policies, the world funds next? Dr. Michael Plant is the Founder and Director of the Happier Lives Institute, a non-profit that researches the most cost-effective ways to increase global well-being and provides charity recommendations. Michael is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Wellbeing Research Centre, Oxford and his PhD in Philosophy from Oxford was supervised by Peter Singer. He is a co-author of the 2025 World Happiness Report. He lives in Bristol, England, with his wife. Links: The Happier Lives Institute Wellbeing Research Centre at Oxford PersonalityMap (correlation between life satisfaction and moment-to-moment happiness) The Elephant in the Bed Net World Happiness Report 2025 Staff Spencer Greenberg — Host + Director Ryan Kessler — Producer + Technical Lead Uri Bram — Factotum WeAmplify — Transcriptionists Igor Scaldini — Marketing Consultant Music Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com Affiliates Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]
Clearer Thinking is a podcast about ideas that truly matter. If you enjoy learning about powerful, practical concepts and frameworks, wish you had more deep, intellectual conversations in your life, or are looking for non-BS self-improvement, then we think you'll love this podcast! Each week we invite a brilliant guest to bring four important ideas to discuss for an in-depth conversation. Topics include psychology, society, behavior change, philosophy, science, artificial intelligence, math, economics, self-help, mental health, and technology. We focus on ideas that can be applied right now to make your life better or to help you better understand yourself and the world, aiming to teach you the best mental tools to enhance your learning, self-improvement efforts, and decision-making. • We take on important, thorny questions like: • What's the best way to help a friend or loved one going through a difficult time? How can we make our worldviews more accurate? How can we hone the accuracy of our thinking? What are the advantages of using our "gut" to make decisions? And when should we expect careful, analytical reflection to be more effective? Why do societies sometimes collapse? And what can we do to reduce the chance that ours collapses? Why is the world today so much worse than it could be? And what can we do to make it better? What are the good and bad parts of tradition? And are there more meaningful and ethical ways of carrying out important rituals, such as honoring the dead? How can we move beyond zero-sum, adversarial negotiations and create more positive-sum interactions?
UK