The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad - How to Seek Truth - Nomological Networks of Cumulative Evidence (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_684)

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 1.00

00:08:27.600 daddy are just promulgating the gender role sexist stereotypes. But if only you were to reverse those, 0.70

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 1.00

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. 0.92

00:13:58.760 Oh, boy, it's not looking good for the social scientist bullshitters, is it? Let's keep going. 0.95

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 0.99

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. 1.00

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 0.99

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 0.95

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 1.00

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

00:25:32.820 why species evolve certain traits

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. 0.98

00:26:29.680 They're attracted to men that look like

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?

00:26:40.660 Let's go on.

00:26:42.840 I can get you psychological data.

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 1.00

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

00:27:57.660 hourglass figure.

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 0.96

00:28:12.420 hourglass figure, but not Japanese people. Irrespective of the race of the women that are being evaluated, 0.88

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 0.99

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 0.95

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 1.00

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 1.00

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 0.99

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 0.98

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 0.99

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

00:46:50.540 it was time well spent. Cheers, everybody.

The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad - June 13, 2024

How to Seek Truth - Nomological Networks of Cumulative Evidence (The Saad Truth with Dr. Saad_684)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript