How to Seek Truth - Nomological Networks of Cumulative Evidence (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_684)
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
137.4049
Summary
In this lecture, Dr. Carl Sagan talks about the concept of empirical truth, and how it can be used as an epistemological tool to argue that something is true or false. He uses examples from evolutionary psychology and mathematical logic to make the point that there is an abundance of evidence in support of a particular hypothesis.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Yeah, hi everybody. I'm very excited today. In an ideal world, I would have loved to
00:00:06.040
actually be delivering this lecture with the video capability. I know that Elon
00:00:15.280
stated that the video option for X Spaces should be available soon. I think that would be really
00:00:25.020
helpful because then I can actually show some diagrams that are important to show as I try to
00:00:31.940
explain some of these concepts. In the meantime, what I've done is if you go to the thread where I
00:00:41.820
posted the alert that there'll be an X Spaces today, I posted three screenshots of three
00:00:53.220
normological networks of cumulative evidence that I constructed part of my 2017 paper. Let me just
00:01:01.020
read for you the title. The title of the paper is On the Method of Evolutionary Psychology and Its
00:01:06.720
Applicability to Consumer Research. It's published in the Journal of Marketing Research, which is one of
00:01:12.680
the truly top A-plus journals in the field. It's June 2017, pages 464 to 477. And what I've done is
00:01:24.960
shown you figures 2, 3, and 4. And I'll get into all that. So what are normological networks of
00:01:32.660
cumulative evidence? We'll get into all that in a second. And some of you who follow my work
00:01:37.900
have probably heard me talk about this. And this is something that not only did I discuss in the
00:01:44.620
paper that I just cited, my 2017 paper, but in chapter 7 of The Parasitic Mind, the chapter is on
00:01:52.820
how to seek truth. I go into great detail about this epistemological tool. And again, I can almost
00:02:01.960
think of nothing that is more important epistemologically than for me to lecture about this
00:02:08.900
because it is an incredibly powerful technique for amassing evidence in support of a position that
00:02:21.220
you are taking. Before I do that, let me step back a bit. So in science, or just generally when we're
00:02:30.760
talking about truth, we can break up truth into different classifications of truth. So for example,
00:02:39.080
a mathematical truth or an axiomatic truth is different from an empirical truth. So a mathematical
00:02:48.120
proof or truth would be, you know, 2 plus 2 equals 4. Is that a true statement or not?
00:02:56.520
In axiomatic truth, let's say when you talk about rational choice theory, you might say,
00:03:03.500
if I prefer car A to car B, and I prefer car B to car C, it must be that I prefer car A to car C.
00:03:11.520
That's called the transitivity axiom. And therefore, that has to be true. In mathematical logic,
00:03:17.780
we talk about, say, we talk about, say, a syllogism, right? So for example, you know, all humans are
00:03:28.700
whatever, all dogs are mammals, humans are mammals, therefore, right? So you can set up a if-then set
00:03:36.140
up premises and depending on certain Boolean parameters, Boolean operators, the and operator,
00:03:43.020
the or operator, you can determine whether that statement is true or false. So in that case,
00:03:49.460
it's a binary system where given a set of premises, does the conclusion follow? So there are all sorts
00:03:56.720
of ways by which we can establish whether something is true, axiomatically true, logically true,
00:04:03.180
mathematically true. But today, what I'd like to talk about are empirical truth. In other words,
00:04:09.200
this is where you have to amass empirical evidence that suggests that, well, there really seems to be
00:04:18.300
an abundance of data that supports this position, okay? Now, the way that I came to think in this manner
00:04:31.300
is in my evolutionary work where I'm trying to, say, argue for a particular position
00:04:38.820
and demonstrating that, let's say, a phenomenon is indeed an evolutionary adaptation. Well, how would I go
00:04:46.340
about constructing an argument that makes it rather unassailable and incontrovertible that the position
00:04:54.320
that I'm taking seems to be the vertical one? And so Darwin himself, when he was amassing the evidence
00:05:03.920
in support of the theory of evolution, amassed data from a bewildering number of fields. So it wasn't as
00:05:11.480
though, you know, he ran data with a study with butterflies and came to his conclusion. There was
00:05:16.960
paleontological data, there was comparative anatomical data, there was ecology data, there was biodiversity
00:05:24.800
data, there was geology data, there was data from a broad range of disciplines, all of which, when
00:05:34.500
triangulated, made it quite apparent that, you know, he was espousing a theory that till today has not
00:05:44.380
been falsified. But of course, he didn't call it nomological networks of cumulative evidence.
00:05:49.720
Nomological networks of cumulative evidence, the term nomological networks, I mean, there are several
00:05:55.740
contexts where it arises, but when you're developing a psychometric test, let's say you want to measure
00:06:03.100
a particular personality trait, how do you go about ensuring that the scale that you've developed
00:06:10.540
measures exactly what you're purporting that it measures and nothing else? Well, there are several
00:06:17.340
psychologists in the 50s, Campbell and Fisk, Kronbach and Meal, who argued that there are ways by which
00:06:26.860
you can triangulate many sources of evidence. So, for example, the multi-trait, multi-method approach,
00:06:33.720
you're exactly doing that. You're using a triangulation of multiple measurements that
00:06:41.180
demonstrate that that which you are stating you're measuring must be exactly that. So, you take this
00:06:47.700
principle and now you want to apply it to all sorts of other things. So, for example, in the three
00:06:53.180
figures that I've given you, so hopefully if you're able to access them there, as I said, they're in the
00:06:59.280
thread of the call for today's x-spaces, figure two is a nomological network of cumulative evidence
00:07:06.660
arguing that the sex specificity of toy preferences have a biological root. So, if I wanted to demonstrate
00:07:15.560
that no, it's not true that toy preferences are simply due to social construction, how would I go
00:07:22.080
about demonstrating that to you? So, if you look at that figure, I've got data. So, if you look, so in the
00:07:29.260
center of the figure, there is the biological roots of toy preferences, and now what I'm going to do is
00:07:36.020
collect data from across cultures, across species, across time periods, across methodologies, across
00:07:45.640
theoretical frameworks, all of which triangulate in demonstrating that the phenomenon that I'm purporting to
00:07:54.000
hold true holds true for the exact reasons that I'm saying it holds true. So, let's go through this.
00:08:00.220
And I'll describe this example. This is one that some of you may have heard me mention in the past, and then I
00:08:06.080
want to read something to you from chapter 7 in the parasitic mind. So, bear with me. It might seem like I'm all
00:08:12.600
over the place, but it will all come together. So, social constructivists tell us that, no, no, no, the reason why
00:08:20.100
John likes to play with blue trucks and Cindy likes to play with pink dolls is because, you know, mommy and
00:08:27.600
daddy are just promulgating the gender role sexist stereotypes. But if only you were to reverse those,
00:08:34.420
then suddenly boys would want to play with little dolls and girls would want to play with, you know,
00:08:41.300
with trucks and guns. Okay. Nothing could be further from the truth. Now, how can I show you
00:08:45.400
that? Okay. So, now I'm going to build you a nomological network that will make it incontrovertible
00:08:53.560
that they are not due to social construction. Let's start. So, I can get you data from developmental
00:08:58.880
psychology that demonstrates that sex-type toy preferences are already documented in infants
00:09:07.720
who are too young to yet be socialized. In other words, by definition, their toy preferences could
00:09:14.880
not have been due to social construction because they haven't reached the developmental stage that
00:09:20.520
would allow them to be socialized. So, already just that piece of evidence is a death nail,
00:09:27.520
is a death blow to the social constructivist argument. But that's the beauty of a nomological
00:09:32.420
network of cumulative evidence. I don't stop there. So, and by the way, if you want the references to
00:09:37.140
all of the studies that I'm mentioning, that's why I included those. Usually, it would cost a lot of
00:09:43.900
money, by the way, for you to go and actually access that paper. So, all I've done is taken
00:09:48.720
three screenshots, you know, to allow you to follow the figure. So, first line of evidence comes from
00:09:59.160
developmental psychology. Next one comes from morphological studies. So, let me just read you
00:10:04.700
what my figure says here. In preschool boys, more masculinized digit ratios, bear with me,
00:10:12.260
I'll explain what that means, correlate to more masculinized play behaviors and toy preferences.
00:10:19.160
So, there's something in evolutionary theory that's called the 2D-4D ratio. This is the ratio
00:10:26.520
of your index finger to your ring finger. Now, that's a sexually dimorphic trait, meaning that
00:10:33.700
in girls, those two fingers are roughly the same length. In boys, the ring finger is much longer
00:10:43.140
than the index finger. So, that's what we mean by a sexually dimorphic trait. And the more you've been
00:10:50.960
exposed to testosterone in utero, the more that difference between the 2D-4D is, meaning that
00:11:02.580
that morphological trait is correlated to a endocrinological marker. In this case, testosterone
00:11:11.040
in utero. Well, it turns out that boys who've got more masculinized digit ratios are more likely to
00:11:19.020
have masculinized play behaviors and toy preferences. Now, that's a pretty incredible finding. So, right now,
00:11:27.280
I've given you data from developmental psychology. I've given you data from morphological and
00:11:32.740
endocrinological studies. Now, let's go on to pediatric endocrinology. Okay? So, this is from
00:11:40.080
medicine, specifically from pediatrics, more specifically from pediatric endocrinology. Right?
00:11:47.140
There is a... So, let me just read it and then I'll come back.
00:11:51.560
Now, testosterone levels of infant boys and girls collected from 7 days old to 6 months of age
00:11:59.780
correlate with the expected sex-specific toy preferences and play patterns. Now, that's
00:12:06.840
astonishing, right? So, if you take testosterone levels of little boys and girls, we're talking from
00:12:12.800
who are 7 days old to 6 months of age, the higher the testosterone level, the more
00:12:20.980
the sex-specific... So, for example, if it's higher testosterone level, then the play behavior is
00:12:28.040
going to be... and the toy preferences will be more masculinized. Let's keep going. I can get you data
00:12:34.560
from around the world because you might say, oh, but those toy preferences are... it's just a Western
00:12:40.560
construct. Okay? Well, how about this? I can get you non-Western data. So, following extensive analysis
00:12:47.400
of dolls and doll play among peoples of Saharan and North African regions, mainly girls play with
00:12:54.840
dolls and female dolls are much more common than their male counterparts. This was done by a French
00:13:01.120
anthropologist and the number of non-Western societies that we're studying is quite bewildering. So, it can't
00:13:08.340
be due to... it's a Western construct. So, you see how I am tightening the epistemological
00:13:15.120
noose around the social constructivists. So far, I've gotten you data from developmental psychology,
00:13:21.740
from morphology and endocrinology, from pediatric endocrinology, from non-Western anthropological
00:13:29.880
studies, but let's keep going. How about you say, oh, but, you know, that doesn't prove that it's
00:13:35.940
biological. That doesn't prove that it's evolutionary. Okay, well, here we come. Here we come with
00:13:39.980
cross-species studies. I can show you that vervet monkeys, rhesus monkeys, and chimpanzees,
00:13:48.880
our close primate cousins, exhibit the same sex-specific toy preferences that human infants exhibit.
00:13:58.760
Oh, boy, it's not looking good for the social scientist bullshitters, is it? Let's keep going.
00:14:03.160
Oh, but Professor Saad, that's... this is a contemporary thing. Maybe in the past, the toy preferences were
00:14:11.300
reversed. Oh, no, I got data for you. I can get you data from classics and from... so by classics, it means
00:14:19.540
ancient Greece. Analysis of depiction of children in funerary monuments from ancient Greece reveals that
00:14:28.780
boys were shown with toys with wheels while girls were depicted with dolls. So now I've gotten you
00:14:34.420
cross-era data showing you that the exact same toy preferences occurred back then, as they do today.
00:14:44.640
Okay, two more sets of lines of evidence. From clinical endocrinology, you're ready?
00:14:51.780
You're focused? I should be charging you $5,000 for this lecture.
00:14:58.780
Girls afflicted with congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which is an endocrinological disorder that
00:15:06.560
masculinizes their morphology, that masculinizes their behavioral patterns. Girls who suffer from
00:15:14.620
congenital adrenal hyperplasia are more likely to exhibit toy preferences that are akin to those of
00:15:20.980
come on, let me hear you say it, of boys. Meaning that once there's an endocrinological
00:15:28.420
malady that masculinizes the behaviors of little girls, suddenly their toy preferences switch.
00:15:36.180
And finally, I'm going to get you cross-cultural data to test the socialization argument for toy
00:15:44.580
preferences. So Sweden, by the way, scores the highest on gender equality.
00:15:50.980
Meaning that Sweden is the country that is of the countries that have been studied. This is from
00:15:57.660
Hofstad. Of all the countries that have been studied, I think it's roughly 50 or 51 or 52 countries.
00:16:06.140
Sweden is the one that has sort of the most gender neutral or the most non-gender role specialization
00:16:13.040
scored. Because Sweden has gone through a social engineering experiment where for many decades they've tried
00:16:21.420
to eradicate those gender roles, right? Because, you know, they're so progressive in Sweden. Well, so Sweden
00:16:28.060
has had 40, 50 years to eradicate. If it's due to socialization that why boys prefer certain toys and girls
00:16:36.060
prefer certain other toys, then after 40 or 50 years of reverse socialization, we should see that
00:16:42.940
the toy preferences in Sweden might not be akin to what's been found anywhere else. Well, you're ready
00:16:48.760
to say for this. Nelson, in 2005, inventoried 40,673 and 40,891 toys in Swedish girls' and boys' rooms,
00:17:03.180
respectively, and found the exact same sex-specific toy preferences. This is not running a study with
00:17:10.500
40 undergrads in your undergraduate class. These are in the 40,000s of actual toys that little boys and
00:17:21.840
little girls play with in Sweden. And the exact same pattern, sex-specific pattern was found even
00:17:29.060
though Sweden has gone through a massive gender role eradication program for 40, 50 years. So look how
00:17:35.760
many data I've got for you. Developmental data from psychology, morphological data, endocrinological
00:17:41.440
data, pediatric endocrinological data, cross-cultural anthropological data, comparative data across
00:17:48.040
species, clinical endocrinological data, cross-cultural data from Sweden to rule out the socialization
00:17:54.800
argument, and finally, classics data, historical data from 2,000 plus years ago from ancient Greece.
00:18:02.380
So what have I done? I've amassed data across cultures, across time periods, across species,
00:18:09.920
across methodologies, across dependent measures, across theoretical frameworks, across procedures,
00:18:16.720
all of which point to the exact same conclusion. That's the power of nomological networks.
00:18:24.660
Now, how do you construct such a network? That's the hard part, because what you have to do here,
00:18:30.120
this is not some literature review on steroids, as I explained in the parasitic mind. A literature
00:18:38.460
review is much more narrow, okay? A literature review in a scientific study is basically summarizing
00:18:45.360
what's been done in the very narrow area that you are studying by people in the past. So for example,
00:18:51.940
if I'm studying, does coffee consumption alleviate asthma symptoms, okay? Well, I'd like to do a study,
00:19:04.280
but there have been other people that have done those studies, and you know, some have found this, some have
00:19:09.520
found that, and so the literature review in this case is very narrow. It is looking at what has been previously
00:19:16.820
done on the specific relationship between coffee consumption and asthma, okay? Now, so that's one
00:19:25.680
type of sort of review, if you want, the classic literature review. Now, how is that different from
00:19:30.760
a meta-analysis? Some of you have heard that term in science. A meta-analysis is where you take
00:19:37.200
a whole bunch of studies that have been done on that exact topic, and you want to know,
00:19:43.820
so what's the bottom line? What is the net effect? If we were to take a snapshot of all those studies,
00:19:50.620
can we conclude anything? So let's say 40 studies have been done on the link between coffee consumption
00:19:57.380
and asthma symptoms. 20 have found that it alleviates asthma consumption symptoms. 10 studies have found
00:20:09.400
there is no relationship. Another 10 studies have found the other way. How can we put all those
00:20:15.260
studies together and come up with one final metric? Well, that's what a meta-analysis does. A meta-analysis
00:20:21.860
takes a bunch of studies using some inclusion or exclusion criteria to say whether all these studies
00:20:30.420
are, you know, comparing apples to apples or whether you can't compare them. So for example, if some of the
00:20:35.840
studies are being done on kids who are less than 10 years old, while other studies are being done on
00:20:40.760
adults, well, maybe you don't want to mix those two sets of studies because the respiratory system of a
00:20:45.820
10-year-old might be different from that of an adult, and so therefore I want to only restrict my
00:20:49.920
meta-analysis to adults. So a meta-analysis is a statistical means of aggregating many studies together
00:20:59.620
so that we can come up with one final net effect. Does drinking coffee alleviate asthma symptoms?
00:21:10.400
Okay? And it's a very, very powerful tool to use. But both literature review and both meta-analysis
00:21:17.520
are nothing compared to what I'm proposing here when I'm talking about nomological networks of
00:21:24.140
cumulative evidence. Because nomological networks of cumulative evidence require a completely
00:21:28.740
different, if you like, thought process. You have to say to yourself, what would be the entire
00:21:39.280
universe of possible data that I could amass to convince my most, my staunchest detractor? And that's
00:21:50.120
why you start thinking, okay, well, can I get data from across disciplines? Can I get data that rules
00:21:56.340
out socialization? Can I get data across species? Can I get data across cultures? And so on. So it's a way
00:22:02.980
of thinking that doesn't come naturally. It doesn't, it's not easy to just come up with what should be the
00:22:11.780
boxes that you include in the nomological network. Okay? And so one of the things that I'm thinking of
00:22:19.040
doing next is, is there a way to automatize that process so that you can kind of create,
00:22:25.840
and I have another paper that I published in 2020, whereby I argue, can we create, if you like,
00:22:33.060
a Wikipedia of nomological networks, like a repository of nomological networks? You want to know what is the
00:22:41.160
the adaptive argument for, you know, menstrual cycle effects in women? Well, I can build you a
00:22:50.320
nomological network that will, you know, argue whatever point I'm trying to argue. Okay? So that
00:22:56.580
will be an incredibly powerful epistemology to have. Right now, you have to manually, right? So I have
00:23:05.480
to sit there and say, okay, how can I construct such a nomological network? So what I've done in
00:23:11.720
the three diagrams that I shared with you guys is I've given you a nomological network for the
00:23:18.900
biological roots of toy preferences, which I just went through in great details. I've also given you
00:23:24.560
a nomological network. This is figure three of, so men's evolved preference for the hourglass figure
00:23:33.040
in women. In other words, if you look around the world, men tend to prefer, as their preferred
00:23:38.920
body shape of a woman, the hourglass figure. And so if I wanted to prove to you that that hourglass
00:23:47.080
figure is not due to social construction, it's not because we learned it in Vogue magazine. It's
00:23:54.500
actually the exact opposite. It exists in this form in Vogue magazine because it caters to men's evolved
00:24:01.040
preferences. And so if I wanted to demonstrate to you the evolutionary and biological roots of the
00:24:09.380
adaptive reason for the hourglass figure, how would I go about doing that? And you know what? Let me
00:24:16.780
actually go through it. I'm going to go through that figure in details. You ready? So I can get you
00:24:24.260
medical data that demonstrates that the hourglass figure has been shown to be a reliable queue of
00:24:30.900
fertility and health, which is a very direct evolutionary argument, right? In other words, a woman that has
00:24:39.620
the body of a male swimmer simply doesn't have the right fertility cues that you would typically be
00:24:51.640
desiring as a man, right? In other words, there are fertility-related reasons and health-related
00:25:00.060
reasons why we are attracted to the hourglass figure. So when you say these hips look like
00:25:06.200
they can bear a child healthily, well, that's exactly what the evidence suggests. So I can get
00:25:12.780
you medical data that suggests that this link holds true, evolutionarily speaking. I can get you
00:25:20.340
theoretical data that demonstrates that sexual selection yields mate preferences that confer
00:25:27.560
reproductive advantage. So for example, sexual selection basically is the mechanism that explains
00:25:36.240
not for survival reasons, but for mating advantage reasons, right? So the peacock's tail did not evolve
00:25:45.020
because it confers a survival advantage to the peacock, but rather because it signals, hey, I've got this
00:25:51.540
big tail, I'm still around despite the fact that it makes it harder for me to avoid predators,
00:25:57.460
then this is an honest signal of my phenotypic quality, so you should choose me as a likely mate,
00:26:06.240
right? And so these morphological preferences evolve precisely via the mechanism of sexual selection.
00:26:13.720
So that's theoretical argument stemming from evolutionary theory as to why men and women have each evolved
00:26:20.800
preference for certain traits. All other things equal,
00:26:25.060
women are not attracted to a man that has a pear-shaped body.
00:26:32.060
male Olympic swimmers, and there is a reason for that, an evolutionary reason,
00:26:36.740
and no culture has ever been found where that doesn't hold true, okay?
00:26:45.240
So the hourglass penchant has been elicited via multiple methods, paper and pencil tasks,
00:26:52.260
eye tracking, brain imaging, and multiple stimuli, including photos of cosmetic surgeries and line
00:26:59.860
drawings. In other words, I can show you a wide range of types of stimuli, and men will always
00:27:07.180
elicit or exhibit the preference to the hourglass figure.
00:27:11.380
I can show you data, cross-temporal data, from an analysis of Playboy centerfolds and Miss America
00:27:21.760
winners spanning several decades that suggest that the same hourglass figure is always depicted.
00:27:32.040
Now, the weight of the women might change, right? So for example, I've often been asked,
00:27:36.440
well, how come the Rubenesque painting, the women were much more rotund than the thinner models of
00:27:43.180
today? That's true, but what you don't realize is that that's not what matters. What matters is that
00:27:49.060
both the thin model and the heavier Rubenesque woman depicted in the paintings are exhibiting the
00:27:58.380
I can get you cross-cultural data showing you that the hourglass figure has been established in
00:28:05.060
widely different racial populations and cultures. In other words, it's not African Americans that love
00:28:12.420
hourglass figure, but not Japanese people. Irrespective of the race of the women that are being evaluated,
00:28:19.760
and irrespective of the race of the men who are doing the evaluating,
00:28:24.040
you have the universal preference for the hourglass figure. I can get you data. Now,
00:28:30.960
look at this one, cross-cultural and cross-temporal. The hourglass figure has been found in an analysis of
00:28:37.740
286 Egyptian, African, Greco-Roman, and Indian sculptures and statuettes going back several millennia
00:28:46.960
and 155 prehistoric Joman figurines, meaning that across different art traditions spanning several
00:28:57.100
millennia, the depiction of female beauty is always depicted with the hourglass figure. I can get you
00:29:05.800
data, as this is actually one of my studies that I published in 2008, where I did a content analysis
00:29:13.660
across 48 countries looking at the measurements that women advertise when they advertise themselves
00:29:23.520
as online escorts all over the internet. And guess what? That's exactly what you find across the 48
00:29:30.760
societies. It's the hourglass figure. So the hourglass figure is basically a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.68 to
00:29:37.460
0.72. And that's exactly what I found in that study. Also, women who have the hourglass figure end up
00:29:47.520
receiving higher paid fees. In other words, there is a price premium on, you know, going with an escort
00:29:58.820
who has the hourglass figure. I can also, now this is the one that blows people's mind. I think I might
00:30:05.860
have mentioned that study in one of my earlier Joe Rogan episodes. You ready for this? This is
00:30:14.260
mind-blowing. Congenitally blind men exhibit the hourglass preference via touch. Did you hear what I
00:30:24.980
just said? So one of the things that the social constructivists will argue is, oh, you can't rule
00:30:31.040
out that men all over the world across all time periods just by magic were all coincidentally
00:30:38.220
taught to prefer the hourglass figure. Well, you see, I apparently learned to be attracted to a body
00:30:45.100
type that Beyonce has and to be attracted to her more than I'm attracted to a lawnmower because that's
00:30:52.100
what I saw in Hollywood media images. If only Hollywood media images had told me to be attracted to trees
00:30:58.560
or squirrels or lawnmowers, that's what I've been, that I would have been attracted to. No, no, no.
00:31:04.920
Congenitally blind men, meaning we are taking a population for our study that by definition rules out
00:31:12.580
the socialization possibility. They've never seen media images. They've never seen rap videos. They've never
00:31:21.140
seen Hollywood images, yet haptically, through touch, they prefer the mannequin that exhibits the hourglass
00:31:29.520
figure. So look how many data I've gotten you. I've gotten you medical data. I've gotten you global online
00:31:36.440
escort data. I've gotten you data from several millennia across many different art traditions, across cultures.
00:31:44.760
I've gotten you data from blind men. I've gotten you psychological data. I've gotten you data from
00:31:50.700
Playboy centerfolds and from Miss America winners. I've gotten you data from across races around the
00:31:56.960
world, across ethnic groups, and it all points to the hourglass figure. That's the power of building
00:32:06.260
nomological networks. One of the reasons why I don't get canceled is precisely because when I
00:32:13.560
take positions, I've done my homework. Therefore, when I come prepared with a gigantic bazooka called
00:32:23.260
I've already built my nomological network of cumulative evidence for whatever it is that I'm
00:32:28.280
arguing. Therefore, if you want to debate me, good luck to you because I can assure you that you haven't
00:32:34.060
built your nomological network for your bullshit position. That's why I can walk into rooms with
00:32:41.060
hostile audience members and believe me, they shut their mouth and put their head down. Why? Because
00:32:47.040
I've done my homework. Now, when I don't know what I'm talking about, if you ask me, as I've explained
00:32:53.500
before, hey, what is the net effect on the legalization of cannabis in Canada? You know what I'm going to
00:33:00.240
say? Hey, that's a great question, but it's above my pay grade. I don't really know the answer to that.
00:33:05.100
What I'm effectively telling you is I haven't built the requisite nomological network that would allow me
00:33:11.580
to answer you in an incontrovertible manner. So one of the beauties of knowing how to build these
00:33:19.200
nomological networks is that you end up having epistemic humility because I know what I know and I know what
00:33:26.480
I don't know. And so I'm very well calibrated. And therefore, so you can't catch me in, you know,
00:33:33.160
in half truths and lies and trying to wing it and try to phoning it in because I exactly know
00:33:40.300
what I know and what I don't know. Okay. I won't go through the third one here. I added a third one.
00:33:47.500
This is one where I, a third nomological network where I demonstrate the biological and
00:33:54.440
evolutionary roots of loss aversion. Loss aversion is a cognitive bias whereby for a given amount of,
00:34:04.680
let's say, money, people are much more worried about losing $100 than about gaining $100. In other words,
00:34:14.340
the pain of losing is about two times greater, that's an estimate, than the pleasure of gaining an
00:34:26.280
equivalent amount. In other words, we tend to be risk seekers in our desires to mitigate, minimize
00:34:32.680
losses, and we are more risk averse when it comes to the, and that's to the gain region of the curve.
00:34:39.360
So that's precisely what Kahneman and Tversky did in their prospect theory, right? Remember Kahneman won
00:34:47.460
the Nobel Prize in 2002 in economics for his work. The only reason that his partner Tversky didn't win
00:34:55.740
it with him is because regrettably he had passed away in 1996, so you can't get it posthumously.
00:35:00.460
And so I wanted to demonstrate in this third nomological network that loss aversion is something
00:35:09.140
that is baked into our evolutionary DNA. In other words, that cognitive bias doesn't just arise
00:35:18.220
through magic or socialization or learning. There are very clear biological and evolutionary reasons
00:35:25.060
why the loss aversion bias exists. And I provide developmental data, genomic analysis data, behavioral
00:35:34.260
genetics data, cross-cultural data, theoretical data, mathematical modeling data, neuroscientific data,
00:35:41.360
and comparative data across species to make my point. So hopefully you're starting to understand
00:35:48.380
the power, the epistemological power that you gain in building these nomological networks.
00:35:57.980
It basically turns you into a world champion debater because you can go into any setting with the most
00:36:06.280
hostile people. And as long as the nomological network that you've built is tight. Now, by the way,
00:36:13.540
of course, there's a very important point to be made here. In building your nomological network,
00:36:21.820
you have to be an honest purveyor of the data that you are amassing, right? If in the process of
00:36:31.420
building your nomological network, you come across data that does not support your position, that has to be
00:36:38.940
built into the network so that the totality of the data might still support overwhelmingly your position.
00:36:45.500
But you certainly should not be selective, right? So you don't look for all of the evidence that supports
00:36:53.360
your position and somehow ignore that which doesn't support it. But if your position is one that is truly
00:37:02.260
veridical, then it should be a no-brainer. In other words, all of the triangulation of lines of evidence
00:37:08.860
should be in support of your data. But now, I'm going to end today by something that I raised in,
00:37:16.800
so in chapter seven of The Parasitic Mind, the chapter is titled How to Seek Truth,
00:37:24.480
Nomological Networks of Cumulative Evidence. But then, as I start that chapter, I give people
00:37:33.180
a somewhat pessimistic warning. And let me read you that passage. So this starts on page 141,
00:37:43.120
and I'm going to read on to page 142. Let me just read it straight out, and then I'll link it back to
00:37:51.300
the discussion on nomological networks, okay? So this is at the bottom of page 141. Along with two of his
00:38:00.300
co-authors, Leon Festinger, the pioneer of the theory of cognitive dissonance, reminded us more
00:38:07.120
than six decades ago about the difficulty of getting someone to change his mind. And so now I'm going to
00:38:13.600
read you a quote. You ready? This quote is absolutely unbelievable. So here we go. So this is from Leon
00:38:20.800
Festinger et al. A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree, and he turns
00:38:28.700
away. Show him facts or figures, and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic, and he fails to see
00:38:35.540
your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if
00:38:42.440
the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious
00:38:48.660
defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most
00:38:55.640
devastating attacks. But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an
00:39:02.460
individual believes something with his whole heart. Suppose further he has a commitment to this belief
00:39:08.480
that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it. Finally, suppose that he is presented with
00:39:14.120
evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence that his belief is wrong, what will happen? The
00:39:21.140
individual will frequently emerge not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs
00:39:29.780
than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his
00:39:37.540
view. Close quote. I hope you understand why I let off with that quote in the chapter on seeking truth. Because I'm
00:39:46.760
offering a mind vaccine. I'm offering an epistemological tool to demonstrate that a position is true. But that only applies
00:39:58.660
if your interlocutor is open to listening honestly to your evidence. If they're not, if they go la la la, I don't want to hear
00:40:09.680
it, or if any amount of evidence will be, you know, the person will be unshakable in their willingness to alter their
00:40:19.200
position, then no amount of evidence, no nomological network that I could ever build you can change your opinion. Right? So this is why
00:40:28.540
if I can go on, I'm going to read another set. Oh, by the way, before I go on, if some of you might remember that I was
00:40:34.120
recently asked on a podcast that was hosted by a British host, what is the singular most surprising evidence or piece, you
00:40:46.940
know, phenomenon in human behavior that I have found in my 30 plus years as a behavioral scientist as an evolutionary
00:40:55.840
psychologist and as a professor. And I stopped for a minute, I thought, and then I said, well, it's probably the
00:41:03.460
inability of most people to change their opinions, irrespective of the amount of evidence that I show
00:41:09.740
them. So that's exactly what we're talking about here. So now let me, now why is that? You may say, okay, so
00:41:15.720
I've given you the epistemological mind vaccine. It's called nomological networks of cumulative evidence.
00:41:21.640
But I've also told you that most people are unwilling to be honest interlocutors when it comes to that
00:41:28.840
process. So why is that? So here I'm going to read you just one more paragraph on page 142 of the
00:41:36.960
parasitic mind. By the way, I highly recommend if you haven't bought a copy to do so, I highly recommend
00:41:42.080
that you gift it to other people. This is not because I stand to make $3 of royalties from your
00:41:48.860
purchase. It's because it really is the mind vaccine for the lunacy. I mean, that's why the
00:41:56.220
book has been so successful. So more than anything, I want people to be able to think properly. And
00:42:03.700
with all due modesty, my book is that mind vaccine. So hurry and order your copy. So let me just read one
00:42:12.160
more paragraph. So more recent, now the paragraph basically here that I'm reading is to offer an
00:42:18.220
evolutionary explanation for why most people are not willing to be honest purveyors of the truth.
00:42:25.740
So more recently, Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier, by the way, who's been on my show, developed their
00:42:32.600
argumentative theory of reasoning, which speaks to the fact that it might be difficult for people to alter
00:42:39.400
their opinions, even when faced with contrary evidence. They posit that our reasoning faculties
00:42:46.220
did not necessarily evolve to seek truth, but rather to convince ourselves and others in a battle of
00:42:54.080
wits. Given the apparent innate penchant for most people to engage in motivated reasoning, meaning biased
00:43:02.100
information processing to protect one's beliefs, attitudes, or ideological position, is it feasible to
00:43:09.280
expect people to seek an objective truth? As an optimistic realist? I'd like to think so. So basically,
00:43:16.020
what I wanted to do there is say, look, I have given you the epistemological mind vaccine in seeking
00:43:23.780
truth and in building unassailable arguments, but that mind vaccine only works as long as your opponent
00:43:32.380
is willing to be honest interlocutor. And if yes, then you can flip them, you could convince them.
00:43:40.120
If no, then no amount of mind vaccines could ever, you know, alter their positions. So there you have
00:43:46.540
it, folks. So to summarize, nomological networks of cumulative evidence are not just a big literature
00:43:54.660
review. They're much more than that. They're not a meta-analysis. They're much more than that.
00:43:58.360
They are basically an epistemological tool that says what would be all possible data in the universe
00:44:06.920
that I can collect and present to you to demonstrate the veracity of my position, of my argument. And if
00:44:15.840
you're able to do that, my goodness, do you have an unbelievable epistemological weapon in your
00:44:23.380
toolbox? So there you have it, folks. I hope you enjoyed it. Maybe my next X spaces will be to turn
00:44:31.900
this nomological network of cumulative evidence to other contexts. By the way, you don't need to
00:44:38.680
apply this only for evolutionary arguments, right? The three examples that I gave you for nomological
00:44:44.380
networks were the sex specificity of toy preferences, the evolutionary roots of the hourglass figure
00:44:52.540
preference, and the evolutionary and biological roots of loss aversion. But it doesn't have to be
00:44:58.180
only for, you know, evolutionary phenomena. So in the next X spaces, maybe, what I'll be doing
00:45:05.680
is demonstrating how you can build a nomological network of cumulative evidence to answer the question,
00:45:13.380
is religion X a peaceful one? And I'll leave it to you to decide what X might be, which religion I might
00:45:23.780
turn my weaponry toward. There you have it, folks. I discuss all this, as I said, in Chapter 7 of The
00:45:30.140
Parasitic Mind. I hope you've enjoyed this. If you have, please consider supporting my work in one of
00:45:37.100
several ways, of course, by The Parasitic Mind, by The Sad Truth About Happiness, which is a fantastic
00:45:43.640
and optimistic and positive and fun book. Subscribe to my exclusive content. It literally, I just spend
00:45:51.080
right now 45 minutes. If you were taking this course with me, you'd be spending thousands of dollars to
00:45:56.660
take it. You've gotten it for free. Don't be a social parasite. Reciprocate. Reciprocity is a
00:46:05.180
Darwinian mechanism. You take something, I give something in return. So do the right thing.
00:46:11.860
Support, not just me, anybody who you love what they're doing. Don't just free ride. Support their
00:46:17.820
work. They're providing you their time, their expertise, their knowledge, their wisdom, their humor.
00:46:23.540
That should be monetized. So please consider doing so. Thank you so much for your attention.
00:46:28.160
I will be posting this subsequently on my platforms. So in case someone you know missed this, they can
00:46:37.040
certainly just listen to it on X or they can go to my YouTube channel or my podcast and listen to it
00:46:44.720
probably tomorrow. Have a great evening, everybody. Thank you so much for your attention. And I hope