Decoding the Gurus - The Replication Crisis Christmas Quiz w/ Mickey Inzlicht & Dave Pizarro

Episode Date: December 25, 2025

In this festive descent into methodological despair, Chris and Matt convene a secret cabal of elite psychology podcasters within the Decoding Cloister, operating under the distant yet reassuring gaze of Arch-Wizard Paul Bloom, whose role is largely ceremonial but nonetheless morally binding.Joining them are Dave Pizarro (Very Bad Wizards) and Michael Inzlicht (Two Psychologists Four Beers, emeritus), for what can only be described as an end-of-year audit of social psychology’s moral character.What follows is a mixture of intense hubris, disciplinary self-loathing, and revolutionary insights, delivered via one of the most sadistic Christmas quizzes ever devised. The quiz format allows the episode to do what psychology does best: create the feeling of measurement while hovering dangerously close to intuition.Alongside the quiz, we engage in some meta-commentary and sensemaking reflections on audience capture and the state of psychology-themed podcasts in 2025. In other words, it’s Christmas, so naturally everyone is discussing perverse incentives, damaged reputations, and the slow moral corrosion of institutions.So join us, won’t you? For the first International Congress on Psychology-Themed Podcasting and Gurus…LinksMickey's SubstackMickey's Work and Play LabTwo Psychologists Four BeersVery Bad WizardsUhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., & Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72-81.Ovsyannikova, D., de Mello, V. O., & Inzlicht, M. (2025). Third-party evaluators perceive AI as more compassionate than expert humans. Communications Psychology, 3(1), 4.ReferencesAlter, A. L., Oppenheimer, D. M., Epley, N., & Eyre, R. N. (2007). Overcoming intuition: Metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136(4), 569–576.Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 18–28.Zimbardo, P. G. (1973). On the ethics of intervention in human psychological research: With special reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment. Cognition, 2(2), 243–256.Resnick, B. (2018, June 13). The Stanford Prison Experiment was massively influential. We just learned it was a fraud. Vox.Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., & Schachter, S. (1956). When prophecy fails. University of Minnesota Press.

Hello and welcome. A very special addition today. Joining me, as usual, is the elder statement of the podcast. Matthew Brown, psychologist, extraordinaire. Though this time, he's not the only legitimate. It's like, oh, and I'm Chris. Yeah, I'm an anthropologist slash psychologist, right? But we don't, everybody knows that.

The other thing is lurking in the shadows summoned a secret cabal of superstar psychology, podcasters has gathered in our little decoding cloister. I summoned them today under the instructions of the Arch Wizard Paul Bloom. He conducts everything from afar. And we have summoned the superstars of the psychology podcasting world to take stock of things. Now, the majority could not attend because they had better things to do. So you might be like, well, what about all these other people? what we have with us, Dave Pizarro from the very bad wizards, and Mickey Inslicht formerly, but still sort of honorary two psychologists for beers, both psychologists, Dave Pizarro, moral psychologist and social psychologist,

and Mickey Inslich, social psychologist and experimental psychologist. That's what I'm going to say. So thank you both for coming. Thank you for joining us. thank you for having us i will say much like the rest of my career this uh it's built on paul bloom saying no to things um and then suggesting mine just to be clear i is i assume paul would say no so yeah i like how you introduce us though as the superstars of the psychology podcasting world i think this is it i think we're it uh yeah there too many others

It's a small pond, but, you know, the four of us are big fish. I mean, Scott Barry Kaufman stopped doing his. Well, that's why someone did you hear. The pie is not bigger for us. It's a kind of crisis meeting. What are we going to do? Scott Barrizzan of the game. The vacuum with the vacuum, the power vacuum that he's left.

Like a, you know, a meeting of mob bosses. Okay. Scott Barry's out, who's going to step into that territory? He was going to go to Sam Harris's parties and do mentalist tricks. That's what he uses got to do it. That's it. No, but, you know, your other co-hosts were also within the sidespots. I feel they're more disagreeable.

I'm not like to say yes. Well, well, that's more disagreeable. I'm a case, Tamler maybe. You all is a pushover. You all is a disagreeable guy. Oh, yeah. Maybe it's just as cancel. makes them seem like more debonair you know you all shares a thing with

Tamler which is they they care less about what people think than I do I'll say that much oh really yeah I think so that's why you all can can take strong stances you know like I'm just like I'm just agreeing with everybody like say anything I'll agree with it right now I'm gonna try that you don't you don't agree with Tamler though all the time. No, that's true. That's true. You guys have moderated

with the age, but you know, the thing that when I was mentioning in the Patreon, that was going to talk to you guys, the main thing, David will never, it's going to haunt you very dramatically relevant. There's like, people were just like,

you know, ask him about the ghost thing. And I'm like, he's not even the ghost guy. He's that crazy. It's that him. I know. I get Tamler Shrapnel. It's like crazy, you know? I actually think if that, If that are the lasting memory of a very bad wizard,

which I think that's something to be proud of. Yeah. Wasn't there a show? It was about, like, psychology and ghosts or so. Yeah, philosophy. No, but I do actually have, like, ceremonies and things that I intend to take you through. I have been beavering away preparing a quiz.

I have a quiz. Oh, and it's dramatically, orientated for all three of you. Oh, okay. Look at this. I'm nervous. Yeah, we just hop on and Chris has done all the work. That's not familiar with this.

Yeah, this does feel familiar. You guys should know that usually when we do quizzes, it's me versus Chris. And someone like him is, it is as opposed to quiz. And it's very, very unfair because, you know, although Chris struggles with abstract and conceptual thinking. When it comes to basic facts, he's got a mind like a steel trap. Whereas, you know,

I dwell in the realm of, you know, ideas more. So he always wins. So hopefully I'd do better this time. But Matt, I think him winning is actually him losing because I've heard those quizzes. And it's like knowing the minutia of like

the bottom of the internet. And Chris knows it because he's listened to it, double speed, all of it. I think you're the winner here, Matt. Thank you, thank you. That's right. I see his mind is like a very cluttered room, like a hoarder. You know, someone that's got like a pathology.

You know, just rooms and rooms filled with boxes and little bits of newspapers and stuff. That's Chris's mind. That's slantress. But, you know, I've got a question for you, for you so-called psychologists. Are any of you teaching introductory statistics courses for psychiatry? psychologists this year, sat on your docket, any of you? I love my pay grade. I love your pay grade.

Oh, I just mentioned because I might have been teaching the introductory statistics course for psychologists in Japan. So you know about means and standard deviations. That's right. I mean, if you've got some questions about regressions, you know, that's right. Is it a Z test or a Z test? Which one? Oh, is it?

It's Z test. That's right. Don't ask my eye. He'll be like, Largo, I should say. Z score. It's a Montfisher's R to Z.

That doesn't sound right. And I'm Chris's go-to. This is the price I've paid for being the co-host where he just comes to me, Matt, Matt, I'm teaching, I don't know, whatever. Correlation.

Or regression with covariate control. Now, how did that work exactly? Just give me the juice. Like, why Google it? Why ask an AI when you can just pick up the phone and call me? You guys have an experience because I cut it out, but Matt has attempted on several occasions to explain concepts where it's like, oh, this will be a really simple explanation that, you know, let me explain degrees of freedom.

And we spent like 40 minutes talking about degrees of freedom. Okay, I'm going to run this past you guys because I tried to illustrate the idea as, look, you know, it's like it, like imagine an aeroplane. It could be oriented, you know, it could be oriented in different directions. it could be pointing this way or it could or you know it can rotate this way so it's got like you know even in one spot it's got like three degrees of freedom yeah pitch and yaw that kind of stuff that's right and chris is going like but what kind of aeroplane is it and i go no that's not true that is the mind of a concrete thinker right there was it a sessna i don't understand look you got the thing there so like what's illustration where it's like this is oh this is simple right

Already you've got pitch and you're on. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Is it moving in three dimensions? The metaphor is supposed to be simpler than the concept that it's tempting to explain. Yeah. But I've got a question that if anyone asked me, I would be like in fear of my life. Like, I can't explain it. Like, what is a P value?

Oh. Say it. I know. I know. I know it's one of those things where no matter how many times you read it or, you know, the probability of making errors, right? Hey, hey, hey, hey. It's a problem, it's the probability of observing a statistic under the null hypothesis.

Yeah. In a universe where the effect doesn't exist, what are the chances that you observed this? Yeah, yeah. But there's no better rage bait for statisticians than to say it's like the odds that this finding was due to pure chance. It's like 5% sounds to be wrong. That's exactly. I mean, and this is what gets Bayesian's all. hot under the COLA, right?

Because I want to be... Yeah, we need the probability of the model, not the probability of the data. It's like, oh, it's the same thing. It's roughly, you know, it's fine. Don't worry about it. This is like, you know, when teaching statistics or something like that,

there's like the level for undergraduates, right? But there's always, like, whenever I was preparing the stuff, because I had to prepare the stuff for this course this year, I, you know, did all this additional research, right? to be like epic, and then Bessel's correction, right? Bessels, oh, my God. Bessels correction, right?

And so, like, the easy way is just say, like, and take away one, right? Just do that if it's a sample, that's not the population. But then someone is always like, but why? But why? And you're like, well, well, okay. Let's try. And somebody came up to me in the brick and was like talking to me about the philosophical, statistical reasoning behind Bessel's correction.

And you know that thing where you're like, I'm pretty sure this is correct. But like, I have to answer confidently, but not say something that's completely wrong. So, yeah, I think I walk that type rope. But, yeah, that's, how would you have done that? Would you have answered that? I would have given another metaphor. I would have given that. It's like a submarine.

Well, actually, I did. I have tried to explain this to you. And I encouraged you to. Imagine the situation where you just have two points and you're calculating the mean. Underwater. Right? And then, you know, once you have the mean, it's kind of like one degree of freedom's been used up. Like it's not.

I know this. All right. I know this. Of course, I've, like, I've got better YouTube videos. I would as, I thought Bessel's test was whether two women ever talk to each other without talking about a man. That's, yeah, that's, that's a variation. It's like Bayesian's, you know. I've got different interpretations.

But, you know, okay, so look, I have the quiz, which I'm going to give you. But before that, there was also two general big picture questions, right, that I wanted to put to both of you as peers in our field, right? Dave, you are the three of us. Yeah, the three of you, they are. But I'm ignoring Matt for this purpose. But like, Dave, you, I checked and your podcast started in 20, 12 if my fact-checking is not wrong, right?

Now, Mickey, you're Johnny completely like us, but you're still earlier than us, right? And in that, so in that time, you've been around the block. We've all had Sam Harris in our podcast. We've all done that. But how are you feeling about the state of podcasting or psychology podcasting, academic themed podcasting in general? Is it tired? Are we in late stage?

psychology podcasting now or is this the golden era where you know you're you're free of the newcomers coming up with their hot shows like us that's what's i think dave you should answer this year that you're the godfather here well spin off of spinoffs of you like yeah we're like we're all in the dv universe yeah we're we're like that uh that autistic kid in saint else where is it what was that show where it's all every TV show after is a figment of his imagination you know that remember that theory that's what all of you podcasts are just a figment of our our neurodivergent imagination I you know I I think along with maybe generally less excitement about our field in the in the eyes of the public

things have slowed down a bit you know but um but i think i guess i guess you well has stuck really well to covering psychology topics more i think more maybe than than we have at least but it really is like when you're when we've done whatever that that many years of podcasting we just realized like we were going to get bored talking about about stuff so that's when started talking about movies and then we're like okay let's throw something else in the mix about short stories or books you know now we're talking about the fucking odyssey and i have always viewed it as like am i having fun doing this then great if we can have like if we can drag an audience that supports us through all of this stuff then i'm i'm happy and i'll say that like

Our stopping to worry about downloads and growth that came really after stopping to do advertising has been the best thing for my mental health ever. Like now I don't care. Like, I don't even check our numbers anymore. Like, it's wonderful. And so I think that that makes me a little resistant to thinking broadly about whether or not this is like a dying. The truth is there are so many podcasts.

that are vying for our attention that just to have the same audience size that we had five years ago is an amazing feat in my book. But, yeah. What do you think, Mickey? Mickey? Yeah, so I'm, you know,

I think Chris, the way you described, that Johnny Come lately, I think true. And also I haven't, you know, Yuel is really the one is carried it through. And I just, every once in a while, when I have an idea, I'm like, yeah, let's go on. And you all seem to say yes whenever I introduced such an idea. You're like, Ma.

Yeah. Well, you know, you said something which I find interesting, which is you said, as long as you're having fun, you're going to get in you doing it. And I think for me, that's why, to some extent, I stopped. It wasn't so much that I wasn't having fun. I was.

I loved chatting with you well. But the effort reward ratio, at least for me personally, wasn't there. I think also we were covering like more controversial space. And, you know, 2020 energy was, you know, strong. And at one point I just felt like was getting not so safe to just talk and speak

my mind. Now I actually don't care that much anymore. I actually feel like the the splitting of social media like into like different camps has actually been freeing to some extent. So I'm much less concerned about, you know, someone being angry on blue sky.

Like who fucking care about blues guy? Yeah. So but shout into the void, buddy. cancel this yeah so but you know I must say it's been I still today even though I'm like really like hardly ever podcasting anymore when I go to any conference

people talk to me first and foremost about the podcast more than any like any of my projects which is like somewhat deflated because I work a lot harder on the projects that I do on the podcast but it's really powerful and I still think it is so but Chris I want to I don't know. I want to understand the origin of this question. Clearly, do you think that we're kind of like we're past peak podcasting, psychology

podcasting at least? Yeah, I want to hear that. But before you answer, Chris, I just wanted to say one thing just to like not be misleading because as Mickey said, the reward to like effort ratio, honestly, if we weren't making money, I would have stopped a long time ago because it's a lot of work. But if it were making money and not fun, I would have stopped too. it's so there needs two conditions.

I'll just say, I feel that you as the elder statesman should respond to that before me, but I just want to say, Dave, that the refreshing thing about you saying that is like me and Matt have been ranting recently that like all the people we cover are making an insane amount

of, we're not complaining about that, we're completing that they, they make an insane amount of money and then they present it that that is the least important. Oh my God. Like what it's about is the mission the you know the subscribe to my channel and we might just get through this

we might you know there's a chance we'll change the law and you know Matt and I've been very clear from the start just like you said there and Mickey you described that like it's fun for us that's why we're primarily doing it and if it wasn't like it would have stopped

we would lost motivation a long time ago so it's just also refreshing to hear someone where you still enjoy it but you're like and it's really nice you know, to get paid by people for it because it's so rare to hear people kind of acknowledge that that does help, right? But I have an actual amount in my head that if I stop making that much, then both Tamler and I are like, yeah, then it won't be worth it. Wow, that's like $4. It's like Eric Weinstein. Yeah, yeah. Brat grabbing them. Loose change. If you don't done yet, there's a chance that's all. It's whatever twice my weekly salary, you know.

So, like, $73. Anyway, sorry, I want to hear what Chris, or sorry, yeah, what Matt or Chris would. Well, I think, yeah, it is refreshing because, like, it's true for us, too. Like, if we'd mainly do it because it's fun, but if we weren't getting paid a little bit of money, then we'd be producing content a lot more haphazardly, you know, we'd just be doing whatever we felt like it could be whenever, you know, because we are fundamentally very lazy. So, yeah, so, but the rest of them, like, you know, Lex Friedman, he's, he's. I think.

Chris didn't like that. Who do you think Kemp's on shit? I'm fundamentally way there. Sorry. Matt, I'm with you. I'm lazy to.

Yeah, I think it's important. It's good. It helps you focus your efforts on. But, yeah, the other ones, like, you know, Lex Friedman, his mission is to, no, he doesn't care about money. He's just spreading lashings of love

all over the world. And Gary, he's economic, he's got a mission to save the world from the billionaires. Anyway, we are skeptical. But I think the state of psychology podcasting, I mean, I guess we're jaded because we look at, yeah, they're what most people listen to, like the, you know, the most popular podcast in the world, like Huberman or Joe Rogan or Chris Williamson. And their content is constantly sprinkled with pop psychology, right? They love it.

So when you listen to those podcasts, then you kind of come away with the feeling like, public understanding of psychology has never been worse. Like, it's better to know nothing about IQ or evolutionary psychology or whatever it is than to know what these people know, which is worse than nothing. So anyway, that's a downer. Sorry. And as far as, like, the podcasting landscape goes, I think the, like, interesting thing for me is when we started, there was this very clear thing where people wanted to categorize you

as like, where in regards to the IDW? Where are you? Are you an opponent? Are you adjacent? Are you, like, a member? We were sometimes classified as IDW light, as I think you both have been at times or... Well, Mickey is a card carrying, you know?

He goes to these quillette parties and shit. You were as a quillette. The thing that redeemed him from the quillette party was that him and you all did a very funny, like, report and basically came back. I'm like, they're all fucking weirdos. I met some weird people, for sure. I mean, it was fun being in this crazy party and taking a cab with Claire Lehman in like minus 20 degrees in January in Toronto.

But I met some strange unsavory characters. And that was just leisureism. That's interesting because I've got a, you know, I've got a friend Diana Italia who is definitely. much more IDW. And either there are Quillette now. Yeah. Yeah. She works there now.

She's constantly hanging out at Quillette parties. And yeah, I mean, she's much more IDW adjacent than me. But I've seen a lot of photos and I was just curious. Are they weirdos or are they normies? And I think you're, you're helping resolve that a little bit for me. Can I also mention just, I did remind me of the old spirit of Twitter and on pylons and whatnot that recently on I have said

dug out and went like what is the relationship between the podcast and Iona Italia the person that Matt just mentioned right and Collette right and for this they had dug up my tweets like two or three tweets where Iona

had mentioned me and she was mostly complaining about things I'd said about Sam Harris that was the thing but this was presented like look at this connection like there's a subtle connection and a thing is Iona has a rather contentious relationship with me. I wouldn't say I'm her

favorite person, but mildly, she's blocked me on several occasions. I can't imagine anybody who wouldn't like you, especially... I know. But the thing that got me was like the Twitter archaeologist that had done that, had not noted that Vant had all these, you know, very

open interactions. I think they even skinny dipped together. Oh, look at that. Yeah. I did not want to know that, but thank you. I can't erase that in Mitch from my mind now now I'm like Homer like stupid sexy Matt like just thinking about Matt's getting

but the thing is that Matt seems to get away with it like people don't seem to like he just is accepted that he I mean this is Paul Bloom's Teflon Paul Bloom is like fucking magic man he could have hung out with Jeffrey Epstein and people would be like

ah but you got to love Paul he did not hang out with Jeffrey Epstein I did not. I highlighted that Paul had did an interview with Diana a freshman and it was put up on what is that thing? The rare science blog that I don't know if it still exists Apogia or something like that. Do you remember

my name? Aporia. Aporia. Yeah, but we were very clear where we were talking about that like, you know, even when we're talking about Paul, we like Paul and stuff, I was still like, we can't make sure that we're not you know, we're not saying it in a super negative way, right? And, like, I talked to Paul about it, but like, that's the thing with, you know, if I was talking about you two, I wouldn't mind being like, yeah, and I think Dave's into race science.

So that makes, that make sense that he would have been there. But with, so with Paul. So a backstory about that is that he recorded that podcast like a year earlier. And it was, yeah, I think he was surprised that I got posted later. Yeah. Here I am defending Paul, but I want to. I love Paul. See, you're doing that.

My neighbor. And Diana, Diana Fleischman as well. Like, so the thing is Aporia offered me a paid blogging position, which I mentioned as well, right? Just that I think race is nothing but a social construct,

whereas I'm like, give me your 23 and me if you want me to talk to you, you know? They were going to use me to whitewash their reality. That's the thing. They were like, you know, you're a critical voice,

but it will be, but they were offered like $1,500 pound a month. which is, you know, in America, yeah, that's like, you know, that's a million Canadian dollars, I think. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. In Australian, it's like a year's salary. So, you know, but yeah, so the thing I wanted to mention.

You can buy 18 acres in Australia per month. The Matt lives only 18 acres, but the IDW thing, obviously like it's feted. But the good point about that is like, well, it's good and bad. Like, our podcast used to be more niche. And now it's like all the people who were talking about are hanging around with Trump or like, you know, on the TV appointed health director or whatever. And like, so now the bar has gotten really low. And people in IDW, you know, went in as we've covered endlessly with the Weinstein's and whatnot. But they went into completely mental spaces where initially, you know, Jordan Peterson

and whatnot were holding on the veneers of respectability. But now it feels like, yeah, that there's not really that question anymore because everybody's busy. Like who's complaining about Quillette these days? I guess people in this guy. So can I ask you guys, has your podcast grown as a sort of a function? of the national prominence of the people that you criticize?

No. No, I mean, no, Matt, do you know? You don't know. I don't know any of that. Yeah, I'm like, Mickey, I never look. Oh, no, sorry. Don't tell me, Chris. I never look.

Chris occasionally tells me. But I think my general impression is we've been stagnating in terms of that kind of thing for quite some time. Matt, come on. Is that the word stagnating? Is that the technical terms? We're not stagnating. We just had a large, like we had a lot,

Like, we had a significant period of growth, mainly when I started out, you're dead, yeah. You became more efforts. Like, it was, it was basically when we took out the banter and put it into a separate, like, bonus podcast, right? But after that, it's just the same trajectory. So it doesn't really matter. I mean, if we do an episode where if we had Sam Harris or something on again, we'd get a bunch of downloads for that episode. but it doesn't translate it into like... But it's totally fine.

Like what you said before, David, is exactly right and exactly how we approach it, which is when we're looking to, you know, talk to someone, like we want to talk to Julian Wara, for instance, about science and epistemology and stuff like that. That's who we're keen to talk to next. And it's like, we don't care. Like, is that going to...

Is that going to juice the numbers? Is that going to be hot? You know, of course not, right? We don't care. It's liberating. But, you know, you... Don't speak down, Julia. She's a very good guest.

She's awesome. She's awesome. I know she's awesome, but that's the thing. Awesome by our lights and we don't care about the other thing. But, you know, like, it's just interesting how normal, like normal people. And, you know, and I'm not really digging them that hard because we all have day jobs, right? So, you know, so largely we have. Some of us more than others.

Some of us more than others. That's true. I think you probably work harder than me. Dave, isn't it your full-time job a podcaster now? You're, you're not a bitch. Seven, seven classes this semester. Seven classes.

Seven classes. Oh, my God. You need that. It's joking, right? No, that's true. Three universities, seven classes. Wow. Oh, my God. And Matt's like, oh, what?

What's a class? What are you doing? You mean your load is like one and one and one and one and one? Wait, how many ones do you not? No, don't you have, like, grad students that do that for you? Generally, Matt's response. You don't grade, right, though? I do create.

I had to grade 100 students. I have assignments for the whole year. Yeah, what do you think they're giving this guy, TAs? Hey, I hear chat GPD is good for grading. Well, I wouldn't know about that. No comment, hey, Chris. Yeah, but see, the TAs that I got were overworked. to the point of refusing to create assignments.

Yeah, that was the, that was a problem. But, yeah, why was I completed an appointment? Yeah, so Mike, you said we all have jobs. Oh, that's right. Which gives us a luxury, not to be like that. But, you know, most podcasts are, you know, it's a small business. You know, it doesn't matter if you're super successful or not. And so I, you know, you have to understand it from their point of view.

But they do have 100% focus on what is going to maximize. clicks and downloads and subscriptions and all that stuff. And same goes with their decisions about advertising. You know what I mean? Everyone's doing the cheesy voiceover reads. And it's so jarring to hear someone like Jordan Peterson go straight from railing against, you know, insipid socialism or something like that to, yeah, you know, now, meandis, you know, they'll keep your dung and tight.

At least with the Kratom advertisement, Steve, I knew you were doing the Kratom. Adam. Yeah, right, right. Exactly. We need a trade a form, yeah. I would endorse a whiskey. I want to get approached if there's any whiskey distilleries, any managers of whiskey distilleries, I would endorse that. I would do it. Yeah, a mechanical keyboard reached out to us and asked. Oh, I'd endorse that. Yeah, I said I'll endorse that. I responded to them and they just didn't reply. And I was like, like, he responded too fast. Yeah, we don't want anybody who wants us. You know, I'll anything else.

Whatever, just send me a keyboard. But yeah, yeah. So we're very content. And actually, I'll mention that it was from talking to you. Because when we start the podcast, like, I asked you and Mickey about, like, you know, what are downloads? Like, what are downloads? But, like, what is a reasonable?

It's like a plane in, like, three-dimensional space. But I remember that, like, when we started, Mickey, I think you said if you get the 10 episodes, then that will, like, you'll probably stick around. And then the other thing that I heard you and Tamler talk about, I can never it was on the air of you told me privately, but whichever way was like that you guys would, like, kind of note the temperature in your audience. And if they got kind of like hyped up about culture war stuff, that you would like hit them with like a, you know, philosophy. article or whatever but yeah like some you know Kafka or something you know something just to like

completely like we just want to lose those people for a bit you know yeah and that's something we have really lived by which is like when people think you know that we are the anti you know like IDW style podcast or whatever then we've tried to like put

someone that's intensely going to annoy people that are only interested in that, right? Like Chomsky or Naomi Klein or that kind of thing. And that's been very good because it means that you do get people who are like, oh, you know, screw these guys. I thought they were on my team and we're not. But in the long run, it's just it's so much more enjoyable because having those people in your audience, I think is incredibly annoying. Like if you're, if you're heeding what they want you to do. So there you go. So this is your strategy for how to combat audience capture. Yes. Yeah. Endlessly. Yeah.

Disappoint them every chance you get. That's the secret. I mean, I, so we, with two psychologists, four beers, I don't think we, we, we had that problem. But I found with my substack, you were old head or down. Yeah, exactly, just went in whatever we felt like doing. But I found with my substack, it's actually quite interesting

because the stuff that I like is completely different in the stuff than what gets lots of downloads. Yeah. Oh, yeah. And I, I struggled with trying. to make sure I get that that balance right. I still want to write stuff that I like, but also, you know, I don't want to completely, you know,

not give my audience what they want. And in my case, what they want is just science. I'm a subscriber. I like the, I like the gossip about the conferences. You want to hear what I really think of that conference? Sign up here. Oh, what did he really? The conference.

Yes. Your Paul Bloom have good payrolls where, you know, it's just enough to be like, oh, he's going to say. it's spicy and then like they don't have a level paywalls though oh yeah that's right not yet give it give it a year so well that's good that's good you've you've kind of satisfied my curiosity about that and i feel i've eased you in you're all comfortable now you're relaxed and now you're ready you're prepared for the replication crisis christmas quiz

That's a Reclamation crisis This Christmas And it's time For a quiz That's what's coming All right I might be well on this one

We'll see We'll see I need to keep a little tally here Of Marks Because Matt tries to cheat Very often So we got to Is it like speed?

Like what are the rules here? No Your only answer in the So, you know, just keep an eye on, you know, maybe utilize your psychology Machiavellian skills to throw people off if you want, whatever. Okay. I'll go third then. I'll answer to third. Oh, okay. That's it. All right. Well. I'm going to have Chachyp. right now. Here we go. Oh, wait. I try. Chachyp.T can't do this. Or you'll see. It's suggestions were so shit.

So I did, I did, of course, try to outsource it to it field. Um, all right. In study three of the silence of the library, environment, situational norm, and social behavior, participants were primed with Euler an exclusive for restaurant or a railway station environment. All right, this is a well-known priming study from like the early 2000s. Can we get an author? God, you damn, you, Mickey.

It's two Dutch people, Ertz and someone. Ertson. What? Don't you be Googling it now? Not Google. I won't Google. I will not cheat, I promise. Arts and Dexter House, maybe? I was going to say, it could be. That sounds about right. I thought I should write down the names of studies, but for some of them you're going to get it. For this one, you're not.

So there's an experiment in it, okay? But this is, you're just going to have to use your methodology house. What, they were primed with what? They were primed with a restaurant or a railway station, okay? Railway. the question. The researchers then measured well-mannered behavior using an unobtrusive behavioral indicator. There are four options. Which of these is the unobtrusive behavioral indicator? A, the number of times participants wiped crumbs from the table while eating a biscuit. B, the proportion

of the biscuit eaten versus left unfinished interpreted as restrained consumption. C, the frequency with which participants aligned cutlery and napkins after consuming a small snack, or D, the care taken to avoid spilling liquid while drinking a glass of water provided during the task. Which one?

Very good. I've locked in my answer. You've got biscuit crumbs, proportion of biscuit, aligning cutlery, or spilling liquid. Okay. Okay, Dave, the senior podcaster, you go for it.

I'm going to say, um, a line in cutlery. Aligning cutlery, okay. Yeah, I was locked in on that one, too. You were locked in on that one? I promise, I didn't just change my answer to it. I feel my degrees of freedom have just been stolen.

And I also was going to see a line in cutlery. The only thing that gave me pause was the use of the word cutlery. Yeah. If you think about it. a plan, right? You've got two... I'm sorry, you're all wrong. The answer was the number of times participants wiped crumbs from the table while eating the crumbly biscuit. Well, you didn't say they were given a very crumbly biscuit. Oh, I added that in because that would have been too easy for you. Yeah. I think none of us picked that one because... With a shortbread? You wouldn't know

if the biscuit was crumbly. It didn't specify, but it did say it was crumbly. Wait, did you mean cookie? Because then it wasn't. Look. It's a weird cookie with cutlery. Neither of you get any marks. You all got zero. So just extent that. What if I didn't drop any crumbs? That's a terrible. We got a lot

of questions. That's a terrible observable indicator. That's a terrible. I agree. That is like zero. You measure 12. You report the one that works. Yes. It's a creative endeavor. Okay. Question two. There's only like 10 questions or So there might be a couple extra.

I want you to tell us all, are these good studies? Are these well-regarded studies or are these essentially bad studies? Two different questions, are they good studies? They're certainly highly cited studies. That doesn't mean anything, does it? Were they removed from Connemon's second edition is the question? Well, they're still in your textbooks. You're under-catchezed textbooks.

That's the problem. second question. When questioned by reporter Brian Resnick about evidence that an experimenter encouraged the guard to behave more harshly, despite leader claims that guards' behavior emerged spontaneously, Philip Zimbardo offered the following response. Now, which of these is Zimbardo's actual response? Okay? You're going to have four options, all right? And pay attention to them. Option 1. The guards were already showing dominance tendencies and any comments from staff simply aligned with behaviors they were predisposed to display. That's option 1. Option 2. If a participant required encouragement to perform the role, that itself revealed something meaningful

about authority and compliance. That's option 2. Option 3. These are people we've hired who are doing it for salary, $15 a day to play the role of a guard. And the warden picks on this guy because he's doing nothing. He's got to earn his keep as a guard. It's option three. And option four, I mean, what the fuck do people expect? This was a powerful social situation, not a scripted play. Focusing on one comment completely misses the point of the entire experiment. I'm going to go with the last option just because it's the most colorful. Yeah. Okay.

Matt's locked in on option D. I'm going to go for option B. Option B. Okay. Okay. I'm going for option A. Option A. That's right.

Okay. The guards are already showing dominance. Well, the good thing is you're all for all again. The correct answer is. These are people we've hired who are due to it for salary, $50. a day to play the rule of a guard and the warden picks on this guy because he's doing nothing he's got out of his keep as a guard. Oh my God. Wow. There you go. I'm going to commend you, Chris, on how the high quality of the distractors. These are good. Yeah. Yeah. You must be good at

Balderdash. Well, this is how I spent my morning. Yeah. And as you can see, Chachapiti Not good for this, not good for this. When Amy Cuddy contacted me, Chris Kavana, after a critical exchange on Twitter in 2018, with a request to interview me for her planned book on bullying, bystanding, and privary, which of the following was not included in her email signature? Option A. How are we supposed to know this, man? You got to use your psychology skills, okay?

The three of these were there. One of them was not in the email signature. A, best-selling author of presence. B. Ted Speaker. C. Harvard Social Psychologist and Lecturer. D. International Speaker on Confidence and Presence. Only one was not in the email signature. Which was it?

Can you say them again? This is very interesting. Best-selling offer of presence, our previous book. Ted Speaker, Harvard Social Psychologist and Lecturer, International Speaker on Confidence and Presence. I'm going to see. Harvard Social Psychologist and Lecturer was not there. I'm also going to go with that, but you just, because was she at Harvard at that point? I'm not sure.

She was at Harvard at that point. But that could just be needed during my research. So you're all lined up, CCC. Yeah. And I knocked you down. I knocked your time. She did not include international speaker on confidence. That was my next guest, you know.

Gosh, should have gone with my God. I was quite impressed with Ted Speaker. That was it. So this was the intimidating email that I received after having the tussle on Twitter. I'm just not waiting for the book. Oh, it's out. It's out.

I'm not in it. Is it out, really? I didn't know that. It's out? I believe it's out. I think it was out a couple of years ago. I don't think she was going to put me in as a bystander or a brie fart. You're going to be the bully.

I think I was going to be. Well, probably bully or bystander. Probably one of those, actually. But yeah. So, well, your psychology skills have field you so far. Easy for me to keep track of the points, but that's okay. I think there's too much stuff. I think it would be beautiful if we were tied edge.

zero at the end of this. I think that would be, like, amazing. Your life's will have been well-spent. Okay. In Experiment Free of overcoming intuition, metacognitive difficulty activates analytic reasoning. Alter at all, 2007, Mickey. Say that again? Alter at all. Alter. Okay. The offers tested, well, our cues associated with cognitive difficulty and disfluency, could reduce reliance on intuitive reasoning. Okay. So in Experiment Free,

20 Harvard undergraduates were asked to make judgment under conditions intended to induce greater cognitive effort. Completing the offer's logic, which is the thing that they actually investigated

to do this, right? Okay, so they answered the questions. Then they had to do something while they were answering it, and it was designed to see if they could activate the association, okay? So when answering questions, were they, A, presented in a distracting comic sounds font,

which reduced performance in logic puzzles, B, requested to furrow their brow, which increased confidence in their judgment, C, asked to chew a flavorless gum, which improved their performance on a logic grids puzzle. A flavorless gum, right? That would be confusing. D. Required to maintain eye contact with the experimenter, which suppressed

heuristic responding. Comic sands. I'm going to go, hey. Comic sands. You've got comic sands. So these are intended to increase cognitive load. Is that right? Yes, make it difficult.

Comic sands. Yeah. Comic sands. Comic sands font. Furrow your brow as you answer the questions. chew your flavorless gum or maintain eye contact with the experimenter. Oh, so silly. So which did you say, Mickey?

Comic Sans. Comic Sans. Dave? Comic Sans. Matt, are you going to be influenced like the famous ash experiments? Well, I don't want... Well, look, I'm medigating. No, I'm metagaving this, right?

I can either be a point behind you two or be zero with you two. and that's probably I'm probably not going to get it right. Well, that's assumed you're going to get it right. You've got three options. I just think I'm not going to get it right. I just think they're all equally silly.

So I'm going to go with the comic sense too. I think like something an experiment would do. I know that they did like to vary the font. That's something. Yes, exactly. I knew it was fonts. Yeah. Yeah.

But usually the graded fonts, like made them lighter. Well, well, so let me just say that you're wrong. It was actually the first. The furrowing the bride. You had the fur of your bride. See, I feel like you're cheating now because they have used comic sands before. So, like, you're using real like a...

Oh, no, sorry. It wasn't comic sand. Now what you're asking is whether we know it was Experiment 3. No, no, no, no. The U.R. mistakiness for the Sharif and Lorin Zion people or the... No, no, no, no. Because, no. Danny Op and Amir had a whole line of research with Alter looking at fonts.

Oh, correct. Correct. But none of them were comic science. I added not, okay? Oh, it's Helvetica. Right. Comic Sans is the joke font, okay? That's the, it's easy to read. You're right. They do use that as a manipulation,

but it's like a font that makes things like slightly harder to see. It's still, it shouldn't work anyway, right? But in any case, I agree. But I love about all these studies thus far is how ridiculous it makes social psychology seem. The manipulations and measurements, like, are willy-nilly. And this is like cowboy psychology. Tamler would love this.

We'd be having a field day. Well, let's get something that's a little bit more solid, something that's rock solid finding in psychology that everybody knows. In when prophecy feels, Festinger, Rick and Schachter report that the cult Martin's group, the cult of Martin or whatever was called. The 33 people attending meetings in East Lansing, only eight were heavily committed, seven were somewhat doubtful, and 18 can hardly be called members, with beliefs ranging from partial acceptance to almost complete skepticism. Okay? So this is from when prophecy feels 1996. That's how they described it. One year later, in a theory of cognitive dissonance, how did Festinger describe the group. Okay? So you heard the description there. You now have four options. Option A, a small

but committed subgroup were convinced of the prophecy with the larger group displaying diverse motivations. Option A small but committed subgroup were convinced of the prophecy with the larger group displaying diverse motivations. Option B, although several members expressed doubts, the majority of members maintain strong commitment to the prophetic message. Option C. The group numbering 25 to 30 persons believed completely in the validity of these messages. Option D. The group of approximately 30 people was largely committed but had been infiltrated by a smaller group of skeptics, wistrels, and malingos. Well, all of the above. I think with this, you have to game it out in terms of Christopher's psychology in choosing the options.

and choosing the questions. And I think he was to make social psychology look as bad as possible. So therefore, I'm going to choose C, based entirely on psychologistsizing. Chris. Okay. And what we'll see again? What would see the C option?

That all of the members completely believed in the validity of the message. I have one clarifying question. Yes. Is this from literally from 1957 or because there was a recent publication, like I think a month ago revisiting this book. So I just want to know which source you're looking at.

I am taking those quotes from that paper which quoted from the original books. So assuming that they quoted accurately, these are quotes from the recent paper. I'm looking at the recent paper, but this is a quote from the original book that was in that recent paper.

My God, that changes things. I say D. D? Okay. Can you tell me what B is again? Although several members expressed doubts, the majority of members maintain strong commitment to the prophetic message.

I'm going to go for B. Okay. Matt, congratulations. Your first point. You're on the board. Oh, damn. I should have followed Matt. See, that's right.

You can't go wrong by psychologicalizing Chris. I don't know, Chris is fucking psychology. One year later. A black box. After saying the majority of the group didn't believe it had changed. to everybody in the group was completely... You've got to understand what drives Chris.

He wants to, you know, show people up in being inconsistent. Hey, you've got one, right? Don't get conkey. I mean... We're not Darren Bryan. Yeah. No wonder you haven't taken a good look at geometric unity with this attitude. Yeah.

Well, we're at the halfway point. Matt is leading with one point. Let's see if the second half of the quiz goes. better for you. This is a short one, okay? Harvard psychologist Mark Hauser was caught fabricating data and committing other acts of scientific misconduct leading to his resignation. He then self-published a book that provided a novel and elegant explanation for why individuals engage in evil and why we uniquely evolve this capacity. What was the title of his book? Four options. The architecture of evil, evil-licious, dark instinct, or born to transgress.

What was option A? What was the first one? Yeah. What was what? The first one? The architecture of evil, evil-licious, dark instinct, or born to transgress. One of them is true. Evil-licious. Okay. Evil-licious. That's the only one I think that's wrong. well i know chris's psychology with wheels wheels within wheels maybe that's a strategy

games within games i don't know i think i think what was the dark what was the third one dark instincts dark instinct the dark instinct podcast dark

dark instinct is not a bad title is it um sounds a little racist the dark triad The dark continent. Yeah, I think the Dark Triad. Okay, yeah, I'll go for that one. I think that's a good time.

Dark instinct, locked in. I'm doing the same, dark instinct. Okay, well, uh, the answer is evilicious. It was right. Did you see you raising my hands already? I kind of knew that answer already. Oh, did you? You knew it.

But I have very good stories about that whole thing. The whole affair. Oh, that's it. Maybe it may be all fair. You can't explain them. Does it involve capuchin sex? It did not. But it definitely involved Markhouser giving a talk.

About his forthcoming book. As most of the people in the room. Inflicious, the worst title. Yeah. He didn't have that title, but I heard about it. yeah yeah well that is a terrible title that's why it's delicious like did it sell like five copies or well where's where's mark harser these days

you know he did he went on the another career i can't remember what it was but i saw him yeah he's still he was still around he started like a consulting education consulting business then it turned out that he had like literally copy pasted the html from somebody else's website that had a similar company like if I'm you know, not to slander or libel or whatever it is that we're doing

here. Wow. Turtles all the way down. You really have done yourself with this service. If you haven't looked at the book cover of Evil Delicious, by the way. Okay. I'm going to Google well. I encourage everyone to look it up. It's incredible graphic design.

You would hardly know it's self-published. It's passion. Self-published. Nice. Well, now we're approaching, you know, the curve. We're coming towards them, but we've got a tie, two-way tie. Darryl Bam, our favorite of social psychologists the world over, known for his pioneering experiments on retroactive causality.

When Darryl Bam responded to Uly Schemak regarding the field replications of his precognition findings, he offered an explanation for why the later attempts did not reproduce the original effects. So which of the following is Bem's actual defense? Okay, four options. A, that the erotic stimuli used in replication attempts were too mild, leading him to progressively introduce more explicit image and alter the trial structure mid-study.

So option one, more sexy trials. B, that replication teams failed to reproduce the subtle experimenter participant rapport necessary for sci-effects to emerge. C. that pre-cognitive effects fluctuate over time and therefore require adaptive experimental designs

rather than fixed protocols. Kind of like a ghost hunter. D. that skeptics' expectations and analytic choices suppressed genuine precognitive effects for experimenter demand effects.

Which one? My God. These are excellent questions. All of them sound plausible. Thank you, Becky. They are plausible, and I will say that he may have offered these on other occasions, but to Uli Shemak, he specifically invoked. What date?

One. 27th of March, 20. Yeah, no, I don't have that, but yeah. I have my answer already, but I don't want to change. Don't reveal it. I don't want to change. You go first. have you loitering around the edge.

I think B and D are just kind of very similar in tone. They are similar, but suddenly different. Remind me of B again. What are they again? Well, B is that they didn't have the rapport with the participants necessary to produce it. And D is that they're skeptics, right? And that beams out skeptic, negative beams, which make the effects go away.

Yeah, I think I'll go for D. D, okay. Yeah, me too. Did he? Dave, what about you? Hey? Dave seems confident. On a roll. God damn it.

The erotic stimuli, not erotic enough in the replications. Not erotic enough. Got to get them up. So, okay. So it's a little unfair. I feel like, like, um, he's your colleague. Because you're, because you're really in the erotica. He was my colleague.

Oh. I feel like, uh, was that movie about the Indian kid who gets all the trivia questions right I want to slumdog millionaire. I feel like I'm slumdog millionaireing these last two having been there you're like on board with a replete you're the like Eric Weinstein behind the same you're like ground zero of the replication crisis a little a little bit Darrell Bem told me that and it was hilarious because so he was relying on this you know the the Zion's priming stuff, but he was reversing the order, right? So it was priming people after they gave their answer.

And he was using erotic primes. So for the psychologists here, you may know. Sorry, Chris. Hey. The IAPs, the IAPs database of pictures. I know that database. He at first himself was using quote unquote erotic pictures of women from the iaps which if you know the iaps

it was like pretty dated by that time it was like women wearing you know nude stockings and and like very unshaven in a way that was lots of bush by the yeah like you know like very hairsprayy hair um and uh darrell bem is gay and so the experiment wasn't working and he went to his son who was not gay and said i don't know why this experiment's not working and his son said, because those aren't sexy pictures, dad.

And so this prompted Daryl to go find actual sexy pictures. And then, according to him, it worked. Oh, see? This is, well, that's what this is what this quiz is for. It's the deep psychology lore that you need. This isn't the stuff you could get in an undergraduate degree. The story behind the story. Now, Matt, this next question, I'm going to ask you first, because if you get it, I will move to my second question.

But if you feel this, it just shows that you don't listen to me, right? Because I talked about this at some length. Why are you testing your partner, you know? I've got a backup question. But if he doesn't get it, we'll go to the YouTube. So Martin, Martin's scientific ethos is widely known. by the acronym Kudos. Okay.

In that acronym, you have universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. That's the UDOS. What does the C stand for, Matt? C. What are the other ones? In modern scientific norms. There's four of them.

Yeah. You've got universalism. Universalism. Disinterest in this. And organized skepticism. organize skepticism? Yes. What does the C stand for?

There's no options here. So if you don't, oh, you don't know, right? You don't know. This is the thing. I don't know. I remember we talked about disinterestedness. Well, this is great.

This is actually very good. So now you're all in. You're all in the game. You can all make suggestions. What is the C? What is the fourth Mertonian norm? Care. Oh, care.

Okay. I'm getting care. I don't care. is part of it. I love the universalism. I was like, give me that one. You got that one?

I think I might, I think I might have remembered it, but I'll, I'll say it. I'll say, I'll say my thing last. And if, if I'm right, actually,

I'll forget the point. I'll give you half a point. Give me half a point. Yeah. It's the same. Half a point will be, when, communication.

Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. This is good. Community. Ah, I think that's warm up. Community. Okay, we'll switch there. I just thought of a sea.

That's so soft. China. China. Well, China. Matt, do you want to reveal? Well, I could be misremembering this, but I think it's actually like communism or something like. Correct. It is communism.

Yeah. Communism. So community, I feel like Nikki gets a half point for community there. He does. He does. He does. But you said China, so you should also. we all get a half point

oh no is that Mickey who said half who said China I think I think especially given the answer communism everybody should get half a point

everybody that's right let's take one point and average it so that we all get point three yeah three three three half points for all

I'm on the board man I'm just happy for this well so nine this is a follow up that you don't know Matt

Bruce McFarland in 2023, argued that Martin's scientific norms have been supplanted by a new academic ethos summarized by the acronym, Decay. In McFarlane's formulation, Decay stands for differentiationalism, egoism, and the A is advocacy. So he's cheated and used AY.

But what is the C in Bruce McFarland's modern scientific norms? But hold that. I want to understand, is this legit or is he taking a piss on... So it's a critique. I mean, it's a real article that was published. I think he's unhappy with the way things have gone. Careerism. Correct.

Careerism. I'm going to feel careerism. Careerism. So what are the other ones again? Differentialism as opposed to universalism. I love how you say that. It's a dulcism. Egoism as opposed to disinterestedness and advocacy.

Sorry, I guess advocacy is the one against disinterestedness. So egoism must be instead of universalism. So what about the sea? Oh, maybe corporatism. Which are you going with? Corporatism, careerism. Can I hedge? Can I put like half on each?

Half on each? All right. I'm going to say he, I'm going to say he's stuck with communism. in a twist in a twist Mickey Crayons Crayons And Mickey gets it

You all should have been Thinking about academics And they're having Capitalism Capitalism Inverse of communism Come on, corporatism Another one

Matt Okay Well you only put a half mark on it So you're All right A quarter of it. Give me half on the half. You get two.

Well, you get two. You're up to two marks now. So he's tied with me now? No, you're two and a third. I'm two and a half. Yeah.

Third. You still had. He made a call for half. We've only got, it looks like one more question and then the two bonuses, the wild cards. I'm still in it. I'm just still in the mixture.

You're still in it. Yeah. Yeah. Last point wins. Yeah. All right. In Kay et al, 2004, a series of studies examined how exposure to business related items like boardroom tables or briefcases influenced social cognition and behavior. Which of the following was not reported in this research? Okay. So three of these were reported in this paper. One was not. A. Exposure to business related objects increased the cognitive access. of competition-related concepts. They're all exposure to business-related objects. B, were more likely to interpret ambiguous social interactions as uncooperative.

That's B. Participants kept more money for themselves in the ultimatum game. Or D, administered more intense sound blasts. to other participants during a negative reinforcement learning task. Okay, we're looking for the one that wasn't something that they found. So they were shown like briefcases, right? Look at these. And them made to do various activities.

And which one were they not made to do? Or which one did they not find? Can you repeat them? Yep. So you have increased accessibility of competition-related concepts, more likely to interpret ambiguous social interactions as uncooperative, kept more money for themselves in the ultimatum game, or administered more intense sound blast to other participants

during a negative reinforcement learning test. They all sound plausible. I want to say D, but I feel like it's a trick. It's a trap. I know. That's what, yeah, that's what I feel to. Yeah. See, look at that face.

That's the face of Amanda wants to stop you. from the solo movies try your luck I'm gonna go for B you're on B I'll forget what was B again B is the ambiguous social interactions being interpreted

more uncooperative yeah I think I'm going for B I actually like yeah I like B too we're all following can I'll be shoot is stuck with your original Matt Jack him

B D mine blast I mean, that's the one that made sense. That's the one that makes sense. But now it's just a quiz about what way Chris's fuckery is going. Look, that was the most Atlantic one, right? You guys, this is your

discipline. Yeah. That's the issue of picked that up. I know, but that was such a commonly used dependent variable. Yeah, but it doesn't have been the team. Yeah. Negative reinforcement learning task, though, that's a milkman.

I know. But this is your fault. That was the part that I thought would have been weird. I might I'll admit that, but I'm just ignored it. If I didn't think you were trying to screw with us, I would have chosen a day. I think we should get some points given that. No, you don't get any. Because I've just realized there's like the bonus round is slightly longer than I intended.

So this is bonus rind because it's guru focused, not not social psychologist. Or is it? Let's see. Here's a short review of a book I loved, viral by Alina Chan and Matt Ridley, reviewed by Nicole Barboa. Once you understand the research being done in Wuhan and the sloppiness of many labs, it seems extremely likely that COVID leaked from that lab. Who said that?

Jonathan Haidt, Barry Scott Kaufman, Sam Harris, or Lee Jussam? Who sent that, right? Really? say the quote again Here's a short review of a book I loved viral by Lena Chan and Matt Ridley reviewed by Nicole Barboa Once you understand the research being done

in Wuhan and the sloppiness of many labs It seems likely that COVID leaked from that lab Is this the bonus round? This is the bonus round, yeah Okay I feel like there needed to be more fanfare to transition but whatever it's your show There's gonna be sound, there's gonna music

There is, Andy will put in all music so you almost sound silly for even asking bonus round and who are the candidates again you've got Jonathan Haidt illustrious spiritual psychologist Barry Scott Kaufman former Scott Barry Kaufman

blogcaster Sam Harris needs no introduction and lead you some SBK I'm locking in SBK SBK mm-hmm I don't know man And I can definitely not drive the night.

It could be any of them. It could be any of them. I think it could be any of them. That's because you guys are jaded. God, I don't know. It's because the jab has fucked you up. You know? Yeah.

We're just NPCs at this point. Yeah, SBK. SBK. It's another clean strip for team Kvna. That is Jonathan Haidna. That is Jonathan Haidt. Jonathan Haidt. Oh, wow.

Really? Yes, but choice, Mr. Nate. You should have listened to our podcast, but say, LaVie. Even Matt didn't listen to the podcast. Is what you're saying? Listen, I just record. Yeah, yeah. Talk about an NPC.

Look, I meant Jonathan Haidt should listen to our very good episodes that I went. You got it. I thought you meant that you had discussed Jonathan Heights on your podcast. And Matt did not remember. I'm not getting any special advantages. Don't worry. Okay, this is a review of Brett Weinstein's Hunter Galler's Guide to the 21st century. Brett and Heather.

Sorry, yes, thank you. Jesus, sex isn't much? Dear, dear. Well, can you hear her scolding you in that sexy voice? I hear it every night. But razor sharp and fun to read, a hunter-gallor's guide to the 21st century secures Weinstein and Haynes reputation as heroes who stood up not only for academic freedom, but also moral principles.

This book guides readers for the most pressing puzzles of our time, developing their conceptual toolkit without being didactic, okay? I don't even need you to give me options. I know it's Sir Ritchie. No, no Ritchie Slander. Yes, he wrote a very negative book review. I know. I've read it. same as before. Same as before. The same four people. SPK, Sam Harris,

Lee, too, someone, Jonathan Haidt. Who blurbed their book? This is not a review. It's a blurb. Oh. I'm going to go with Jonathan Hyde again. Yeah, me too. Just because it's sick, trust even so crazy. Yeah, I mean, who are they going to seek who are they going to seek a blurb from? That's the Christian.

Lee Johnson. Come on. Yeah, I know. He's not going to sell bucks. SPK isn't going to sell bucks. Who are the other? Was it was a fourth one? I'm Harris. Sam Harris. Oh, Sam Harris. I don't think he would say that. I'm going to go for a Jonathanite.

Yeah, Jonathan Hyatt. All right. All right. You take you. Okay. You all got a point. Good job. Good job.

Yes. We defeated the Chris. That's it. I feel I primed you by Kevin D. The previous one. I feel like I actually remember seeing that and having like a disappointing feeling in like the of my stomach, you know. Yeah.

My co-author, Jonathan Knight. That sucks, man. Drop some names. I know. He does have bad judgment about these things. I mean, he hasn't read any of these books. Let's be honest. But I hope not.

I hope not. But, okay, so these are the, this is the bonus, bonus question. So very short, and you shouldn't know them. But if you do, okay, yeah, if you do, I'll give you two points. This is the white card. So there could be a winner. I'm still possible. I can still win here.

Wait, what's the score? I feel like you need to be reminding us what the score is. Oh, yeah. The score coming into this is Matt has three because he got a half point, two half points. Mickey has 1.5 and Pizarro is ahead by 3.5. It's all the play for of these final two questions. Which I'm out.

No, you're not out. If you get them, because there's a couple. Oh, a couple. Okay. You'll be the dark horse. You could do it. Stefan Molyneux, famed anarcho-capitalist anti-spanker philosopher, the biggest philosopher on the internet. He was the leader of an online cult, which promoted cutting off contact with family.

And the acronym for this was called D-3. D-Fereen. What is... Your accent makes you... It's incomprehensible to me. D-3? D-F-O-O-I-N-G. De-fooing.

Okay. De-fooing. Now this is the question. What does that stand for? What is the F-O-O? I mean, is he a multiple choice, I hope? Okay. No.

No. So it's not because he... So... I didn't be... Does each letter actually stand for a word or are there combos in there? No. Each one is a word. It's a proper word.

F-O-O. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, proper word. There's an F, there's an O, there's an O, there's an I. Yes, yes. It's not like a spell out the word. Three words, starting with F.

D. Well, I feel like I can at least help you here, which is like this is about cutting off contact. With your family. Yeah. F for family. Yeah, F for family. Mickey gets one point. Yeah, yeah.

But just to be clear, the next two words both start with O. Is that right? Yes. Yes, that's right. De-filling? Nicky, you got a home point. That'll bring you up. I'm there, man.

Yeah. Okay. Family over and out. Oh. Family over and I. Over and out. I like that. But there's a D there.

Family over. You said there's a D, D-F-O-O? No, no, forget about it. D as in D-E. High family. As a demolished, the deconstructs, the detached. I see. I see.

I see. Okay. God. O's. There's how many words start with O. That's right. You might be able to get a point if you just say some of the words and start to O.

Ocean. Onyx. Obligations. Ocelop. You're not going to get it. Ocelah. I love it. It's too.

So, Becky, you are up to 2.5. You still have a chance to steal. It's a. I live here, man. The family of origin. chin. Oh, that's right. I should have actually known that because I haven't counted that. You guys shouldn't

know this. But Matt just did an episode on it. I'm actually proud of Matt for that because anything that goes in should go out immediately. So I think he gets the point. I'll give him my point. You shouldn't be retaining any information about Stefan Moliner in your head. You just get it out of her.

What a horrible fucking message that is, too. This is the last. one. Last one for all of you. One of these is an actual title from a recent trigonometry YouTube video. Which one is the real one? Every time Constantine Kissin dropped the hammer. Every time Constantine Kissin went beast mode. Every time Constantine Kissin engaged in full intellectual combat. Every time Constantine Kissin unleashed the beast. Which one is the real? And this is an

ad for, for trigonometry? This was a video he put up like the video title. Wait, are you asking which one is the real one or which one is the real one? Which one's real? Which one's real? One of them is real. I'm going to go for Unleash the Beast. Can you say the first two again? Went beast mode or dropped the hammer?

Dropped a hammer or dropped the hammer? There's four of them. So what's the other one? He was. He went, so one is went beast mode. Two is dropped the hammer. Three is engaged in full intellectual comment. And four is Unleashed the Beast. I'm winning here now. This is where I'm taking over the pack.

Beast mode. Isn't that what I said? Matt said. That's what I said. Unleashed the beast. You said Unleashed the beast. Oh, I see. Sorry.

Yeah. So I'll go with, what was B, drop the hammer? Drop the hammer. I'm going to go with drop the hammer just to give these guys a chance. All right. Well, let me just tally off. This will take a little minute. It's a very specific sign.

You can see the equations floating in the air around his head. If my calculations are correct, the final score is, as it should be, Mickey Dark Horse comes in 4.5. It was... Hey. You're guessing it goes to... You're taking part. You're not showing off, not falling behind, 3.5.

Matt, teaching up the rear. Last again. That's it. Always laughs. You know what's a crazy coincidence is how this lined up with our penis sizes almost exactly. Isn't that weird? Well, I think you all did pretty well. And this is a, you know, a good introduction for those who wonder what social

psychologists are doing, they are interested in, you know, potentially studying that. Does this give them a... Are you saying that these studies you were talking about weren't true? Like, was this the implication that you were bringing to, like, because I thought we learned a lot about how priming works. That's, I taught priming yesterday, and I taught, you know, the field replications all that. And one of the students put his hand kind of dejected and was like, so are we supposed to believe these studies are real or like not?

And I was like, that's up to you. But I did feel that I'd kind of like, I'd done the rugpool because I showed them all the interesting studies with the results. And then I, in the second class, took them through all the field traffic. Oh, that's it. You're single-handedly eroding trust in the minds of the youth. I'm building it up, baby. The many lab studies and all these, they also get that.

So they see the better stuff. You guys are the good guys, right? What's the current status of priming? Is it still a thing? I mean, cognitive priming is a very solid phenomenon, but it means something. Social priming. Yeah. Semantic priming, clearly real.

And social priming is, you know, the thing we don't mention, we now say reminders of something. That's right. Triming is that word we don't use anymore. People stop doing the word gap things or unscramble sentences. I feel like that is now fallen by the wayside. I have a couple of those studies in my dark sorted history. I did a file drawer. It looks stuff back there, dear.

No, no, no. Unfortunately, they're published. Actually, I had a did a problem and studied by one of my PhD students, but before the current A&TVX thing was, happening. We were studying anti-vax, and, you know, there are these, like, psychological motivation, supposed psychological motivations for a kind of an irrational kind of dislike of them, like disgust, contamination, and having a body pierce, whatever that's called. And so, yeah, we...

Body envelope violations. Yeah, that kind of thing, yeah. And so it's theoretically very... That's a technical term? Or... Mm-hmm. Yeah, like, it's very, like, it's very attractive that these exist, and... So we did a priming thing. And there was a big study and we tried really hard with the stimuli and everything. You didn't try hard enough. That's the thing.

I'm too honest. I'm too honest, David. That's my problem. I'm too good a statistician to fool myself. That's my problem. And we reported a big fat null result. I'm your man. Like I can make anything null validator is.

Give it to me. and it will, it was quite null. So, well, I, I appreciate this was a good, you know, look, I will also say that, and this is honestly true, not you, Matt, because I don't cover addiction. But, Mickey, I've been teaching your recent study about the AI and empathy all over the shop in Japan, promoting it all around.

And I've liked a whole bunch of your, you know, your studies, not just the mea cupis around the willpower things. And Dave, I also spend an entire week dedicated to person-centered morality, your papers around that. And I think that's still a pretty rock-solid approach to, like, moral psychology. So you can't think of anything about my research you admire. Okay. All right. In research, it's so, well, when we publish a paper together, that's when we'll be there.

But you know, I love your research, man. I love it. I'm always telling my family about it. Matt's on the other study. What happened to that paper that I helped you with the stats on? Does that publish yet? Did you get that over the line? No, that was rejected.

It needs to go back there. You need on the stats or? That was, yeah, help of the stats. It was rejected years ago. Yeah, I know. It was like half a year ago. Let's not, let's not exaggerate. It'll go back in.

I can't even remember any of Matt's work when I see him because all I can focus on is that silver fox hair of old I get lost I get lost in the moment lost of the girls yeah

you're not the only one when the AI makes images because my has greater it just makes him it just makes him old

that was mean that's not me it's the AI right are you going to post that AI image in the in the part of the episode because

I thought it was actually quite good you look very good you look very good I mean, I'm not sure I look good, but it looked like me. So I was like, wow, how did you? You're a prompt. Hold on.

I'm pulling this up right now. I took your profile images from your academic. Your academic pictures, your whole lab looked incredibly attractive. It's like you're all charts. I was putting your co-author's pictures up, and it looked like I went to a photo shoot. Clam shot.

Yeah. Chris, are you the blonde girl? Yeah, that's me. that's Helen that's Helen Lewis she's not here but she was here and we just didn't bring her did she you promise me

there'd be a message for me because I'm a huge fan of Helen Lewis and I was this is why I agreed to be on this podcast man because I thought I would chat with her oh yeah let me just play it and I really respect your work

we just she gave us a Christmas quiz let me just say angry angry woman That's all I could say about Helen. That joke lands more when you have heard the conversation with Helen. But yes, yes. So I forgot Mickey.

She, you know, I already know that she likes you. So that's it. So you're conveying her love through you? I'll take it. I did tell her afterwards that I forgot to do it. Yeah, I want a personalized message in my inbox by the end of the week. I don't see if I said like and you said love. I just want to put it out there.

Hello, Mickey. It's Helen Lewis. You know that people get paid like 50 quid to do this on cameo. So I hope you're sensible of the great honour that I'm doing to hear by wishing you a happy Christmas saying that I am impressed with the number of beers you have relative to the number of psychologists that you have on your podcast. And I wish you all the best for 2026.

yeah well look we'll we'll have to do this again we've took up your time at the weekend unlike me and matt who never have parties or cocktails you guys were like oh on friday i've got a dinner party i'm going to an idw function on saturday and tango dancing in the morning clearly i'm glad you found amongst the dinner parties and the underground raves to find the time to hang out with us and generally really appreciate it and still enjoy you guys podcast and work so thanks for coming on and hanging out with us

on a Friday evening in all sincerity it was an honor thank you guys yeah thanks for having us and I'm jealous of Dave for having met Matt I've met Chris now but not Matt yet

but one day hopefully dreams dreams can come true I haven't met either of them oh that's right you can so there you go Mickey you're the only one although I've met Matt and I've even been naked with Matt

in an onset amazing That picture was just released in the Epstein files. I just realized like everybody, the meat smart, most of them say that he got the kid. One way or another. Do you just have tear away clothes, like at all times? I will say this.

This is a true story. I own now a pair of chaps. Asless ones? Asless? Aslis. I ride a motorcycle. it's it's for they're heated

their electric shots for the cold but you have a little you got a little print in about you you know let's say a little well

you know this is going to take time to upload so I know you guys will try to escape so I'm going to end now but I'm like it's very bad wizards check out two psychologists

for beers check out all the publications including mats if you want if you're interested Mickey Substack Oh Mickey Substack.

Oh, yes. Speaking of a lot of sure. Yeah. You want to all the cost up about all the conferences. That's the ways to go. Who does Mickey hit the most? Runky 1 to 5. And what's the name of the substack?

I am. I genuinely am. Speak now. Regret later. That's right. That's right. And you had a project about it. I remember.

So, okay. Thank you all. Bye. Happy for that. Bye. We're going to be able to be. Thank you.