Benjamen Walker's Theory of Everything - True Lessons (False Alarm! part xi)

Episode Date: September 12, 2018

  I set out on this False Alarm! journey with a quest to figure out how to better deal with this blurry line between fiction and reality. Phase Three of False Alarm! begins with a return to this question… can fiction help us see the truth? Jeffery Lewis, Nuclear expert tired of people ignoring his direct warnings, thinks it can– and he just wrote a novel – a fictional account of what led to North Korea bombing America. I also recently came across a non fiction book, a book that argues it is Logic that will enable us to better deal with our new reality  Dr. Eugenia Cheng wants us to think about logic in a brand new way.  Plus ToE’s Andrew Callaway gives us an update on our False Alarm! Hero Stormy Daniels.  

You are listening to Benjamin Walker's Theory of Everything. At Radiotopia, we now have a select group of amazing supporters that help us make all our shows possible. If you would like to have your company or product sponsor this podcast, then get in touch. Drop a line to sponsor at radiotopia.fm. Thanks. episode. Why is there something called influencer voice? What's the deal with the TikTok shop? What is posting disease and do you have it? Why can it be so scary and yet feel so great to block someone on social media? The Neverpost team wonders why the internet and the world because of the internet is the way it is. They talk to artists, lawyers, linguists, content creators, sociologists, historians, and more about our current tech and media moment. From PRX's Radiotopia, Never Post, a podcast for and about the Internet.

Episodes every other week at neverpo.st and wherever you find pods. This installment is called True Lessons. You are reaching me at Stanford University. I'm at a conference to look at how disinformation, bad information, bad social media can affect nuclear command and control. So this interview that we're doing, Jeffrey, actually kicks off part 11 in this epic series that I'm doing on the real and the fake. But the way this thing started way back in episode one was with a friend of mine and his wife who told me about what happened to them when the missile alert went off when they were on vacation in Hawaii. And what was amazing to me was that their first instinct was to search

for the truth on Twitter. Well, yeah, you know, that's actually a topic that's come up at this meeting. It turns out the warning systems are incredibly vulnerable to hacking. I guess people send fake evacuation text messages to U.S. troops in South Korea all the time. You know, like, oh, yeah, like, you know, official alert, you must evacuate all family members, you know, stuff like that to mess with them, which I totally would have used in the book if I'd known. Jeffrey Lewis attends a lot of conferences related to nuclear weapons because he is one of the world's leading experts on North Korea's weapons program. And for the past few years, he's been trying to raise awareness as to just how close we are

to actual nuclear war. This past summer, he decided to try something new. He wrote a book of fiction. It's called The 2020 Commission, and it's a fake report written in the year 2020 for the United States government by a civil servant named Jeffrey Lewis. The report documents in detail all the events that led to North Korea bombing Seoul, Tokyo, New York, Washington, D.C., and Florida. I spend a lot of time trying to explain things on a nonfiction basis to people, and it never works. Because I think a lot of times when we read things in nonfiction, a lot of the emotion, which is a real part of a decision-making process, sort of disappears or it fades into the background. It's way easier to show it. It's far easier to just

show people things and tell people things as a story. I actually had to write a conference paper for this conference. And it was really hard to switch gears. And I'm kind of a little nervous about my talk this afternoon because I'm worried it's going to be a little shallow. So you've already been seduced by the power of fiction. But I should point out to the listeners that your book isn't like fiction fiction. You didn't have to speculate that much as to how the United States and North Korea could be pulled into nuclear conflict because talking about the plausibility of this exact scenario is what you do in your day job.

Yes. All I had to do was curate real events that had to happen. And, you know, I used real people and you've got some great characters. You know, I sometimes think Trump in the book is less of a character and more like a force of nature. A force that's difficult to contain, as we know. It's amazing that, you know, we just learned that Trump's staff actually stopped him from tweeting out, I'm pulling American families from South Korea because the North Koreans would have interpreted it as a step towards an attack. But in your fictional book, Trump's tweet gets out. Yeah, that wrote itself. You have these very clear historical moments where things like airliners get shot down, like that happens.

And it's just not hard to imagine how somebody like Trump or the people around him, how they might feel about that and how they might react. So, yeah, that rooted itself. So coming back to your day job then, I'd really like to know what you feel you've gained, you know, insights from now having written this fictional take on the problem. Putting the scenario out helps identify off-ramps. And some of the off-ramps, which I probably wouldn't have thought about before, are now super clear to me, and they're probably worth

talking about. For example, there comes a point where North Korea has used nuclear weapons against US forces in South Korea and Japan and killed a lot of people. And there is almost no discussion in the United States about the possibility that we would stop, because stopping would be surrendering, it would be losing. And like, that's just not a thing that people would consider. But you know, that's actually, that's the last off ramp. In the fictional report, the U.S. escalates its attack on North Korea after the bombs go off in Seoul and Tokyo and the Kim Jong-un regime launches its entire nuclear arsenal at the USA, which leads to a bomb going off in the D.C. area, a near miss of the White

House, in Florida, a near miss of Mar-a-Lago. And then in New York, a direct hit this time on Trump Tower. Millions of Americans die. And so from my perspective, by laying out the scenario, I think it helps identify all the little pathologies in how we think about our security. And so it allows me to focus a little more. Like, why would no one in that room suggest stopping? Why did everybody suggest, yes, let's run the risk of a nuclear attack on the United States and keep going? What was that about?

And I think that was about ego and masculinity and not wanting to come away empty handed and opportunism. It was about a lot of things that didn't really matter. to the guy that keeps Trump from using nuclear weapons, the soldier responsible for the nuclear football who pretty much decks Trump in the face and runs off with it. It's such an amazing scene. And it's also kind of like your nod to this mythical beast that we imagine, you know, embedded in the White House that's going to save us from Trump. Yeah. Although, you know, he's punished, right? Yeah, but he's the only person who's punished. Your fictional report is just an accounting of what happened. No one is held accountable in the report for what happens.

But I think that's true of our political system in general. People just don't get held accountable. Let's talk about something even more depressing, at least for me, also from the end of the book. I'm just going to read this passage. Noted at the beginning of this report, the members of the commission have been surprised by how many times they were asked one question in particular at these public hearings. While the answer to this question has been elusive, I feel it's important enough to mention again in closing. Should the United States seek the elimination of nuclear weapons?

This is an important and challenging policy question. There are many strong and differing opinions, even among the commissioners. Ultimately, however, they agreed that it lay beyond the scope of their mandate. So, Grim, is this how you, the real Jeffrey Lewis, imagines it would go down as well? I just am not someone who thinks that something bad happens and then magically people learn their lesson. I suppose that's how a lot of stories end, right? But I think those are like fairy tales.

Yeah, but there's nothing wrong with hoping that when nuclear weapons go off, we might learn a lesson. Well, you know, here's the thing. Two of them did go off. We have those lessons. They're right there. You just have to go to Hiroshima.

There's a thing people often say, and they don't mean it, but they say it. They say, well, once a nuclear weapon goes off, then people will see. And I don't think that's true. I think that's a way of surrendering, of giving up and not really doing the hard work to persuade our fellow human beings that maybe basing our security on these things forever is not the greatest idea. I just did not want the book to end with this idea that, you know, there could finally be something so horrible that would short circuit that learning process. You know, the kind of change that we would want, I think, is going to require like a lot more work, you know,

and a lot more effort. And it's not just something you can count on to happen automatically. So, you know, the book isn't totally pessimistic. Oh, come on. But I think it's, I think it suggests that our optimism is misplaced. I'll say that there are other sources of optimism. It's so fascinating to me to find someone like Jeffrey Lewis who's turning to fiction with the hope of communicating something that's becoming more and more difficult to do with facts and numbers. And after I got off the phone with him, I was struck by the idea that maybe I still have it all wrong,

my quest to figure out the real and the fake. Perhaps the tension isn't between fiction and nonfiction. Or even fiction and lies. Perhaps the real tension is between optimism and hopelessness. I happened upon another new book recently. This one's a nonfiction book. It's called The Art of Logic, How to Make Sense in a World That Doesn't. And its author, Dr. Eugenia Chang, makes the case that logic can not only help us make sense of our new reality, but logic can also provide us with hope. Obviously, I had to call her up.

Let's just plunge into this. In a world of hyper-partisanship and alternative facts and fake news where people are ready to believe things as true simply because other people post them on Facebook, how is logic the answer? Well, first of all, my belief is that you're being a little overly pessimistic. And I can understand why the current climate makes one like that. But I think that we shouldn't fall into the trap of black and white thinking and thinking that there are only people who like logic and people who absolutely refuse

to believe in it. It's not that everyone who disagrees with us simply believes in fake news. That's a very black and white argument. And in fact, I think it might be a straw man argument. I think that we need to really want to understand people who disagree with us. And people say, oh, I can't understand why anyone would do that. I can't understand why anyone would believe in this. And I think about it, and I can always understand why they believe in it. And I think it's because I am able to use abstract logic very carefully on their argument from their point of view. So it's a combination of logic and empathy. I think about it from their point of view, and then I use careful logic to trace it back to what their fundamental beliefs

probably are. And this helps me to feel, first of all, less depressed, and secondly, to have ways I can talk to those people instead of just clashing with them all the time. Maybe we can just take one of the situations or teaching examples you use in your book and walk through it. I want the listener to get a sense of how we can recognize when logic is being used incorrectly. Well, one important example, I think, especially in this moment, is about sexual harassment. There are

increasing numbers of mostly women, but not always women, who are coming forward and saying that somebody has harassed them or abused them. And there has been a sort of turning of the tide where we now start to believe those people, and perhaps more than we used to. And some people object to this, often men, but not always. Some people object and say, well, people should be innocent until they're proved guilty. And so we can't just believe everyone who accuses somebody. And the thing is that this is a very limited logic, because if we push that logic forward, then we should say, also, if we're going to believe everyone innocent until they're proved guilty, we have to believe the accuser to be innocent until they're proved guilty. And that means that we can't assume that they're lying. If we assume that the accused

person is innocent, that means we're saying that the accuser is lying and falsely accusing somebody. So we can't actually hold both of them as innocent until proved guilty. That's not a logical position to take. Yeah, but I do want to point out that, you know, if you really listen to people who make arguments like this, like they really don't seem to care about things like logical consistency. So how then do we use logic and math to not just argue, but even communicate with people like this? The reason that they don't mind about that logical inconsistency is that they really truly believe that we shouldn't give so much weight to the accusations. And I think that's the belief that we should focus on. They're trying to

provide a justification for it. And I don't think their justification is the real one that they're using. I think the real one that they're using is that they're very afraid of false accusations. And if we understand that, then we can stop trying to just say they're being illogical, and we can instead try to understand what the root of their logic actually is. And how do we do that? In mathematics, when we encounter a paradox, we try to find ways to resolve it. We don't just leave it there. And mathematics has many ways of resolving paradoxes. And so I think in this one, once we've accepted that we can't hold both people innocent until proven guilty at the same time,

then we have to decide whose innocence we should favour. And that comes down to an argument about false positives and false negatives. I think that in the past we have fallen much too heavily on the side of favouring the accused person. And that means that there have been many people who have got away with things when they shouldn't have got away with them. And that's very harmful to victims. And it means that there is a culture in which people believe they can get away with things because, in fact, they can. Whereas if we are in the direction of believing the accused person then what's the danger the danger is that we might accuse some people who are innocent and so what we need to weigh up is the false positive that is accusing somebody when they were actually innocent as

opposed to the false negatives which is letting somebody off when they were actually innocent, as opposed to the false negatives, which is letting somebody off when they were actually guilty. And I think that's what the argument comes down to. And personally, I believe that it's more important to avoid the false negatives. I think that we have spent too many hundreds of years letting people off when they're guilty, and that this has created a society in which people think they can get away with it, and so they do try and get away with it. Whereas some other people think that somehow accusing an innocent, usually man, of harassment is somehow a worse thing that we need to avoid than the hundreds of thousands of women who are being abused by people. And I'm not sure if they see it in quite those terms,

but if we boil it down to that logic, then I think we can have a more sensible discussion about it rather than just shouting at cross purposes all the time. So to solve mathematical paradoxes, we need to use both emotions and logic. Yes, that's right. And the important thing is that we use emotions for the appropriate aspect of math and we use logic for the appropriate aspect of math. We don't try and use emotions to justify things in math and we don't try and use logic to discover things in math. That's the difference. Whereas we do use emotions to sort of feel our way through what might be going on. And then we use logic to justify ourselves

once we've decided what we think might be going on. And those are sort of two separate roles, and it's important that we don't mix them up. And the trouble in the world is when people use emotions to try and justify something. Logic and emotions are not in dichotomy with each other. They're not mutually exclusive. We can use them both at the same time. So the way I view it, many things actually, the way I view many things is in a two-dimensional graph rather than a one dimensional continuum. So sometimes we think we're being

terribly nuanced because we say, oh, there's a continuum between one thing and another on a straight line. Whereas I think it's two dimensional. So it's like there's an x-axis and a y-axis and the x-axis is emotions and the y-axis is logic. And so they're completely independent of each other. And you can be just one of them or you can be just the other and anywhere in between but the thing about the in-betweenness is it doesn't just mean that you're using logic and emotions equally because that could mean you're using neither of them very much and some people are like that they have neither emotions nor logic but I suggest that we should be further up than that, where

we're using both of them a lot. And I feel that this is how I am as a person, because I feel emotions very strongly, and I have very immediate emotional reactions to everything that happens around me. But I also know I'm an extremely logical person. I am a research mathematician in abstract mathematics in one of the most abstract possible branches of mathematics. And I have published papers in it. I know I'm extremely powerfully logical as well as being extremely emotional. So I feel like I'm living proof

that it's possible to be both things at the same time. I have very strong emotional reactions that I don't recover from. And instead I try to transform them into something. And that transformation is something that caused, for example, this book. Because I was very depressed about what was going on in the world and I thought it was all hopeless. And then I thought, well, what can I possibly do to try and help? Oh, I know what I can do. I could write this book. You have been listening to Benjamin Walker theory of everything.

This installment is called True Lessons. Before I do the credits, we're going to have an update on a false alarm hero from earlier in the series. But first, this message. Support for this episode comes from Bombas. The folks at Bombas are serious about comfort, and Bombas socks are perfectly engineered to support your everyday hustle. Innovative arch support, seamless toes, super soft cotton, and cushioned footbeds all come together to keep your feet happy. On top of providing you with serious comfort, each pair of Bombas socks sold equals one brand new pair donated to communities in need. To date, they've sold and donated over 7 million pairs. For 20% off your first order, go to bombas.com slash prx.

That's bombas.com slash prx. And you'll get 20% off your first order. As I've said, False Alarm is truly an epic series. I think it is probably the longest you've ever done. Indeed. And that's why TOE's Andrew Calaway is going to update us over the next few episodes with some of the threads that well need updating. First up is Stormy Daniels.

And as she took off her cape and then her cap, I realized all of my hopes are riding on this woman. Which is unfair, I know. But if an unabashed, unashamed exhibitionist can't help us see that the emperor has no clothes, then who can? Ladies and gentlemen, give a warm welcome to the one, the only, Stormy. Of course, there's absolutely no evidence to support my theory that she can do it. In fact, after the 60 Minutes interview in which she detailed how Donald Trump had her spank him with a magazine with his face on it,

his approval with evangelical voters went up. So yes, I get it. It's irrational to believe that Stormy Daniels has the power to take this corrupt regime down. But I do. I really do believe. And sitting there watching her dance, I realized I had to tell her. And so I stood up and I approached the stage. So that clip is from part two of False Alarm, fake nudes. Ah, it brings back so many great memories. I'm so glad we got to do that. Thinking back now that Michael Cohen's on trial and Trump has dropped his lawsuit against her, it's so amazing that we got to show our support before she was vindicated.

We're lucky we caught her when we did, because her strip club tour of America had some major complications after she started talking. Stormy Daniels arrested during one of her shows. Daniels was taken to jail in handcuffs, accused of letting people touch her on stage. It's illegal in Ohio for non- of letting people touch her on stage. It's illegal in Ohio for non-family members to touch a nude or semi-nude dancer. Daniels, formerly known as Stephanie Clifford, forced the faces of patrons into her chest, among other actions, including inappropriately touching female patrons.

Okay, no, no, no, no. Don't tell me that Trump train stopped Stormy Daniels. No, no, no. Stormy cannot be stopped. Not even by the cops. All of the charges have been dropped. It's the same show that I've done every night thousands of times. The crazy thing is that the undercover officers, who, by the way, were female, actually, in my opinion, it was entrapment. Because if you sit at the stage and put a dollar in your mouth and say, motorboat me, put your boobs in my face, and I do it, you can't do that. But that's exactly what happened. And then they actually stood in line and got pictures with me and bought autographs and then arrested me. There was a link found to a Facebook page by one of the officers that was a Trump supporter. I don't know how high up it goes. I'm not going to speculate.

Who cares? But a whistleblower did release emails between the officers saying, you know, that they were going to set me up, that the entire thing was a setup. Once again, Stormy Daniels has been vindicated. But, you know, it's worth mentioning the implications of this are terrifying. Trump supporting cops colluding to take her down on bullshit charges. And that's just the beginning.

She's been getting death threats. You know, mysterious powdery packages sent to her dressing room. And so she's had to hire three full-time bodyguards, which she calls her dragons. So she's going full Game of Thrones. She is totally the Khaleesi, putting together a posse piece by piece to save the whole realm. Including Michael Avenetti, who might be running for president in 2020. Sure. Yeah, yeah. He's good. He's fine. But I'm no Avenetti stan. I'm a Stormy stan.

All right. Me too. Obviously. My money's been on her from the beginning. And I just do want to say, though, which is why I'm glad we're doing this update, it is so great she's getting the recognition she deserves. True, true, but it's also been a big burden on her. Stormy Daniels never wanted to be a hero. It's like the classic Joseph Campbell hero's journey where you have to refuse the call at first. wanted to be a hero. It's like the classic Joseph Campbell hero's journey where, you know,

you have to refuse the call at first. Like Stormy, she just wanted to keep on living her normal life. I was happy and I had a child. I had a, my husband had no idea that I had ever even met Donald Trump. I wanted him to like, I wanted my, the, you know, my daughter's father to like me. The best way to make somebody not go on a second date is say, oh, you know that Donald Trump guy? He's been in me. Wait, hasn't her husband filed for divorce? Yeah, that happened last month. Oh, wow.

But it can't be all bad, right? No. I mean, you know, there are some benefits to all of this for her. You know, she got photographed by Annie Leibovitz for Vogue, for instance, and she even got to fulfill her lifelong dream of appearing on Saturday Night Live. I solve North and South Korea. Why can't I solve us?

Sorry, Donald, it's too late for that. I know you don't believe in climate change, but a storm's a-coming, baby. From New York, it's Saturday Night Live! So how has all of this affected her livelihood? She, by no means, needed this for her career. I was one of the highest paid and most successful adult film directors ever in the history of the adult film business.

The story broke in January, I think, is when it got leaked. A week later was the Avian Awards, where I already had 17 nominations. In fact, all of this has actually been really bad for her career. You know, for example, she can hardly do her regular stripping job without getting arrested. And then, you know, funders are dropping out. My investors have ghosted me. Box office poison. You know, this is like the exact

opposite of when a sex tape ruins a politician's career. Stormy has worked for decades to make the best sex tapes in the business. And all this political stuff is overshadowing her real work. You know, and it's honestly like good stuff. She's a talented director. This is not your average Pornhub video. You know, the blocking, the angles, all the acting, set design, composition, light. No, I mean, you know, it's still porn. But Stormy's, you know, she's got an eye. And so that's just another thing on the list of all the sacrifices that Stormy has made for us. So do we know what's next for her?

Well, she's not saying a lot right now, but listen to this. There's a lot of things that people don't know. There is a lot of information that has yet to come out, and I think a lot of it is going to be very shocking, and it will make sense of why they were so desperate to come after me. Is there something you know now, which we will know soon, that could bring down this presidency? Yes, there's stuff that I know, and I would say it's 50-50 shot at this point, which is pretty scary odds if you're the president. Wow, wow. That is kind of amazing news for those of us who believe Stormy and hate Donald Trump.

But as you said, she has already sacrificed a lot for us. What can we do in support of her? Well, on digitalplayground.com, you can find her latest feature adult film, Highway Home. On onlyfans.com, you can pay $15 a month. It's kind of like an adult triple X Patreon. But you know, for those listeners who want to support Stormy, but aren't necessarily fans of the adult genre, there is another option. What's that?

Just today, she announced that she has a book available for pre-order it's called Full Disclosure thanks so much for that Andrew Calloway we'll check back with you next time for another update Thanks so much for that, Andrew Calloway. We'll check back with you next time for another update. This episode was produced by me, Benjamin Walker, and Andrew Calloway. And it featured Dr. Eugenia Cheng, author of the new book, The Art of Logic,

and Jeffrey Lewis, author of the new book, The 2020 Commission. You can get them both wherever you get your books. This episode was supported in part by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, enhancing public understanding of science, technology, and economic performance. More information on Sloan at sloan.org. The Theory of Everything is a proud founding member of Radiotopia, home to some of the world's best podcasts. Find them all at radiotopia.fm.

Radiotopia. From PRX.