Pilot

Full Transcript

How much information do you receive each day?

A lot, right?

And how well do you handle it?

I hear you. Probably not that well.

Our minds are brilliant. But they're also biased, easily distracted, and easily fooled. They are not good under such a heavy load of information.

Why do I say all this? Because we need better tools: tools to curate, analyze, and interpret this informational excess.

That was an argument. The first of many to follow, as I welcome you to "The World in Arguments", a podcast from Phronisis, hosted by me, G. Michalis Papadopoulos.

Each episode, we'll take one argument shaping the world, spoken by politicians, founders, scientists, artists, philosophers, and anyone in between.

Each episode, we'll do three things. First, we clarify what the argument actually claims. Second, we map the logic behind it. And third, we test whether it actually holds.

The goal is simple: to give you the tools to evaluate arguments yourself; one argument, one episode at a time.

One quick disclaimer. I'm biased. Like you, like everyone else. I can't change that. But what I can change, and promise for the show from now on, is to stick to the facts and offer the most charitable version of each argument. What you do with that analysis, and what opinions you choose to form, is always your responsibility.

As for the format? Sometimes, like today, it will be just me. Others, we'll bring in people who know the subject better, both for depth, and to spare you from hearing only my voice.

If you feel tired of feeling manipulated, ready to view disagreements in a fairer light, or simply hungry for smarter ways to understand the world, this one's for you. So let us begin.

---

This is the pilot episode. I thought that, as a demonstration, we'll start with the argument I just made at the start, so that you both understand the show's structure from now on, but also my reasons why I created it in the first place.

As we'll come to see in this show, in real life, arguments come wrapped in filler, repetition, and rhetorical shortcuts. However, today's one is rather clean. Do you remember it? No worries, I'll reinstate it.

Let's focus first on the quality of the argument. Was it perfect? No. Far from it. This is normal. Sometimes, it's difficult to convey your point in one go; a thorough version would require walking people through an entire thesis of ideas, assumptions, and common knowledge.

That's why, when analyzing arguments, we often use a strategy called steelmanning. It's a simple concept: when someone makes an argument, you don't start by attacking the weakest version of it. No, you do the opposite.

You try to reconstruct the strongest, most charitable version of that argument. Yes, even if you disagree with it. Actually, especially when you disagree with it. The reason why is that we're not really debating here. Rather, we wish to understand the person's point of view.

In practice, steelmanning means asking questions like: What exactly is being claimed here? Is the logical structure correct? What would have to be true for this to work? And what is being assumed, but not said out loud?

Through asking and answering, you make all the hidden or missing parts of an argument explicit. With all this new information, you can now pick and choose the strongest plausible interpretation.

Let's try with mine.

The first premise we can accept as is. Information overload is indeed an established phenomenon, with plenty of evidence to prove it.

The second premise is a bit more complex, though, so we can begin our questioning from here. Why aren't we "very good"? What does "very good" mean in this context? Why are we so easily biased, fooled, or distracted?

To steelman it, we need to go deeper. Being "bad" at evaluating information, one could claim, is really changing from person to person. These kind of subjective claims, like "good" and "bad", are usually vague and context-specific.

To connect my dots, it helps to view this argument from a biological perspective. I'll borrow the logic of a fantastic book on the subject, David Robert Grimes' The Irrational Ape. The whole book explores the issue, but it can be well summarized using a quote from Edward O. Wilson, a biologist from the United States:

I'll use this framing to alter the second premise. It shifts the argument from a critique of our habits to a critique of our biology, as a species: we are running ancient software in a digital world.

Now that we understand the premises, what about the conclusion? It can raise a lot of questions. Like, does "informational excess" always translate to negative consequences? Is there really a reason to believe that there is a direct link between the two?

Most importantly, why is the assumption of better tools the one chosen here? Other solutions, systemic ones acting directly on the political, societal, and economic levels, would be more appropriate? This could be a discussion in itself, reviewing how information is filtered and rewarded in today's societies.

And finally, even if we were to stick with this solution, what constitutes "better tools"? What do we have now to even begin?

The answer to all this from me, Michalis? I don't have the perfect answer. Still, I wanted to do something about it and test the waters. Originally a marketer, I am a fellow learner of logic and argumentation, and I wish to do something that will help me and others to stop being manipulated, to better understand my world around me.

It might not be the ideal solution, but it's one I could do now. One that I could test with, use my writing skills, and revisit a medium I already have experience with: the well-known, loved podcast form.

Thus, The World in Arguments was born, with this episode. And that's what it's all about.

And with that groundwork in place, next time, we'll start with an argument that's already shaping how people think, vote, work, and worry.

---

Thank you for sticking around until the end of this pilot episode. If you want to support the show, follow it wherever you listen to it, and if you know someone who'd enjoy it, send it to them. Any feedback on how to improve is very welcome!

So, see you soon. Until then, keep a keen eye on arguments around you and, why not, try to analyze one yourself?