Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
Subscribe to our Personal Growth newsletter
The biggest European festival on the future will tackle tough questions once again
Scientists, artists, writers, and entrepreneurs will tackle the most exciting and controversial topics shaping our future at Brain Bar, Hungary’s most inspiring event.
Brain Bar.
How can nature thrive in an age of extinction? Can millennials upgrade socialism? Can philosophy save business? Will androids become your friends or foes? Why is everybody suddenly an entrepreneur?
These are some of the questions that will spark discussions amongst the scientists, artists, writers, entrepreneurs and the audience of Brain Bar, Hungary’s most inspiring event.
Taking place for a fourth year in a row, the festival features “the bravest and edgiest thinkers of our time to discuss the most exciting and controversial topics shaping our future.”
In the past few years, Brain Bar has been making serious efforts to differentiate itself from other thought-conferences. It strives to spark discussion and debate by engaging its speakers in original formats, rather than just delivering talks.
This year, for the first time, the festival will feature the Mastermind Sessions, a series of workshops that provide a unique opportunity to engage with Brain Bar’s speakers in an intimate setting and come up with actionable ideas on several topics related to business and innovation.
In addition, Brain Bar is striving to be truly inclusive by providing free admission to 2,000 students and their teachers.
Students, who are arguably the audience that can benefit the most from such thought-provoking events, are usually the first to be left out by the prohibitive price of tickets. It is refreshing to see a high-profile festival stand by its values that “students and teachers are the most honored people at Brain Bar.”
With them in mind, Brain Bar is dedicating an entire day to Future Jobs, where selected employers will be ready “to fill 50 positions by the end of the day.”
The lineup for this year promises three stimulating days between 31 May and 2 June.
Amongst the more popular speakers are Sophia, the humanoid robot from Hanson Robotics, capable of expressing emotions, recognizing faces, and making conversations; Peter Thiel, the co-founder of PayPal; Massimo Bottura, the triple Michelin-starred chef who revolutionised Italian gastronomy; Ted Chiang, the superstar of new millennium sci-fi; and George Friedman, one of the globe's best known intelligence experts and geopolitical forecasters.
The list includes also a “warrior of anti-communism”, a “glass-ceiling cracker”, “whizzkid of music technology”, “chief skeptic of Silicon Valley” and “virtuoso of 3D animation.”
To learn more or take part, visit brainbar.com.
LIVE ON MONDAY | "Lights, camera, activism!" with Judith Light
Join multiple Tony and Emmy Award-winning actress Judith Light live on Big Think at 2 pm ET on Monday.
11 July, 2020
Big Think LIVE
Add event to calendar
<p>
In this Big Think Live session, multiple Tony and Emmy Award-winning actress Judith Light (
<em>Transparent, Ugly Betty)</em> and host, writer, and actor Winsome Brown will discuss the art of acting, the challenge of choosing the right roles, and why any career is made better by asking "How can I be of service?" instead of "How do I get more...?" From her work fighting for equality and dignity at the height of the AIDS epidemic (and long after) to advancing acceptance of the LGBTQ community through screen and stage, Light will share insight from her incredible career that can help you fine-tune your own goals toward a greater good.
</p><p>
Ask your questions for Judith Light during the live Q&A!
</p><p>
<strong>Join the stream 2 pm ET on Monday, July 13.</strong></p><p><strong>STREAMING LINKS:</strong></p><p>
<strong><a href="https://edge.bigthink.com/live_streams/100">Big Think Edge</a> | <a href="https://youtu.be/KY69l1pik9Y">YouTube</a> | </strong><a href="https://www.facebook.com/BigThinkdotcom/posts/10157497938128527"><strong>Facebook</strong></a>
</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
8 logical fallacies that are hard to spot
From "if-by-whiskey" to the McNamara fallacy, being able to spot logical missteps is an invaluable skill.
20 December, 2019
Photo: Shutterstock
Mind & Brain
- A fallacy is the use of invalid or faulty reasoning in an argument.
- There are two broad types of logical fallacies: formal and informal.
- A formal fallacy describes a flaw in the construction of a deductive argument, while an informal fallacy describes an error in reasoning.
<p><br></p></div>
<p>In arguments, few things are more frustrating than when you realize that someone is using bad logic, but you can't quite identify what the problem is.</p><p>This rarely happens with the more well-known logical fallacies. For example, when someone in an argument starts criticizing the other person's reputation instead of their ideas, most people know that's an ad hominem attack. Or, when someone compares two things to support their argument, but it doesn't make sense, that's a false equivalency. But other fallacies are harder to spot. For example, say you're arguing about politics with a friend, and they say:</p><p>"The far-left is crazy. The far-right is violent. That's why the right answers lie the middle."</p><p>Sure, it <em>might </em>be true that moderation is the answer. But just because two extremes exist doesn't mean that the truth necessarily lies between those extremes. Put more starkly: If one person says the sky is blue, but someone else says it's yellow, that doesn't mean the sky is green. This is an argument to moderation, or the middle ground fallacy — you hear it a lot from people who are trying to mediate conflicts. </p><p>When you find yourself in arguments, it's valuable to be able to spot and, if necessary, call out logical fallacies like this. It can protect you against bad ideas. Check out a few more examples of logical fallacies that can be tough to spot.</p>
Appeal to privacy
<p>When someone behaves in a way that negatively affects (or could affect) others, but then gets upset when others criticize their behavior, they're likely engaging in the appeal to privacy — or "mind your own business" — fallacy. Examples:<br></p><ul><li>Someone who speeds excessively on the highway, considering his driving to be his own business.</li><li>Someone who doesn't see a reason to bathe or wear deodorant, but then boards a packed 10-hour flight.</li></ul><p>Language to watch out for: "You're not the boss of me." "Worry about yourself."</p>Sunk cost fallacy
<p>When someone argues for continuing a course of action despite evidence showing it's a mistake, it's often a sunk cost fallacy. The flawed logic here is something like: "We've already invested so much in this plan, we can't give up now." Examples:<br></p><ul><li>Someone who intentionally overeats at an all-you-can-eat buffet just to get their "money's worth"</li><li>A scientist who won't admit his theory is incorrect because it would be too painful or costly</li></ul><p>Language to watch out for: "We must stay the course." "I've already invested so much...." "We've always done it this way, so we'll keep doing it this way."</p>If-by-whiskey
<p>This fallacy is named after a speech given in 1952 by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_S._Sweat" target="_blank">Noah S. "Soggy" Sweat, Jr.</a>, a state representative for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi" target="_blank">Mississippi</a>, on the subject of whether the state should legalize alcohol. Sweat's argument on prohibition was (to paraphrase):<br></p><p><em>If, by whiskey, you mean the devil's brew that causes so many problems in society, then I'm against it. But if whiskey means the oil of conversation, the philosopher's wine, "</em><em>the stimulating drink that puts the spring in the old gentleman's step on a frosty, crispy morning;" then I am certainly for it.</em></p><span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="0377b55ffd4fa251691b1baea0a51188"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wmuMLd_lAIU?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Note: If-by-whiskey really only becomes a fallacy when it's used to conceal a lack of position, or to dodge a tough question. In Sweat's speech, if-by-whiskey was an effective rhetorical device used to summarize two competing perspectives on alcohol, and to make his position clear.</p><p><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey#Where_.22If-by-whiskey.22_is_not_fallacious" target="_blank">RationalWiki</a> provides an example of the usual format this fallacy takes:</p><p>"If by [noun], you mean [negative descriptors of noun], then of course [statement of lack of support/belief]. If, however, by [noun], you mean [positive descriptors of noun], then [statement of support/belief]."</p>
Slippery slope
<p>This fallacy involves arguing against a position because you think choosing it would start a chain reaction of bad things, even though there's little evidence to support your claim. Example:<br></p><ul><li>"We can't allow abortion because then society will lose its general respect for life, and it'll become harder to punish people for committing violent acts like murder."</li><li>"We can't legalize gay marriage. If we do, what's next? Allowing people to marry cats and dogs?" (Some people actually made this <a href="https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/national/cats-marrying-dogs-and-five-other-things-same-sex-marriage-won-mean/dLV9jKqkJOWUFZrSBETWkK/" target="_blank">argument</a> before same-sex marriage was legalized in the U.S.)</li></ul><p>Of course, sometimes decisions <em>do </em>start a chain reaction, which could be bad. The slippery slope device only becomes a fallacy when there's no evidence to suggest that chain reaction would actually occur.</p><p>Language to watch out for: "If we do that, then what's next?"</p>"There is no alternative"
<p><span style="background-color: initial;">A modification of the </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma" target="_blank" style="background-color: initial;">false dilemma</a><span style="background-color: initial;">, this fallacy (often abbreviated to TINA) argues for a specific position because there are no realistic alternatives. Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used this exact line as a slogan to defend capitalism, and it's still used today to that same end: Sure, capitalism has its problems, but we've seen the horrors that occur when we try anything else, so there is no alternative.</span><br></p><p>Language to watch out for: "If I had a magic wand…" "What <em>else</em> are we going to do?!"</p>Ad hoc arguments
<p>An ad hoc argument isn't really a logical fallacy, but it is a fallacious rhetorical strategy that's common and often hard to spot. It occurs when someone's claim is threatened with counterevidence, so they come up with a rationale to dismiss the counterevidence, hoping to protect their original claim. Ad hoc claims aren't designed to be generalizable. Instead, they're typically invented in the moment. <a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc" target="_blank">RationalWiki</a> provides an example:<br></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Alice: "It is clearly said in the Bible that the Ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Bob: "A purely wooden vessel of that size could not be constructed; the largest real wooden vessels were Chinese treasure ships which required iron hoops to build their keels. Even the <em>Wyoming</em> which was built in 1909 and had iron braces had problems with her hull flexing and opening up and needed constant mechanical pumping to stop her hold flooding."</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">Alice: "It's possible that God intervened and allowed the Ark to float, and since we don't know what gopher wood is, it is possible that it is a much stronger form of wood than any that comes from a modern tree."</p>Snow job
<p><span style="background-color: initial;">This fallacy occurs when someone doesn't really have a strong argument, so they just throw a bunch of irrelevant facts, numbers, anecdotes and other information at the audience to confuse the issue, making it harder to refute the original claim. Example:</span><br></p><ul><li>A tobacco company spokesperson who is confronted about the health risks of smoking, but then proceeds to show graph after graph depicting many of the other ways people develop cancer, and how cancer metastasizes in the body, etc.</li></ul><p>Watch out for long-winded, data-heavy arguments that seem confusing by design.</p>McNamara fallacy
<p>Named after <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara" target="_blank">Robert McNamara</a>, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense" target="_blank">U.S. secretary of defense</a> from 1961 to 1968, this fallacy occurs when decisions are made based solely on <em>quantitative metrics or observations,</em> ignoring other factors. It stems from the Vietnam War, in which McNamara sought to develop a formula to measure progress in the war. He decided on bodycount. But this "objective" formula didn't account for other important factors, such as the possibility that the Vietnamese people would never surrender.<br></p><p>You could also imagine this fallacy playing out in a medical situation. Imagine a terminal cancer patient has a tumor, and a certain procedure helps to reduce the size of the tumor, but also causes a lot of pain. Ignoring quality of life would be an example of the McNamara fallacy.</p><p>Language to watch out for: "You can't measure that, so it's not important."</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Space travel could create language unintelligible to people on Earth
A new study looks at what would happen to human language on a long journey to other star systems.
12 July, 2020
Cylindrical space colony.
Credit: NASA Ames Research Center.
Surprising Science
- A new study proposes that language could change dramatically on long space voyages.
- Spacefaring people might lose the ability to understand the people of Earth.
- This scenario is of particular concern for potential "generation ships".
<p>Given the mounting crises of 2020, wouldn't it be nice to just get on a giant spaceship and leave this troubled planet behind? While we don't yet have a surefire candidate for the new Earth, and our tech is still probably decades if not centuries behind, proposals and achievements in interstellar travel are stacking up. A new study makes the fascinating case that if a group of humans was to venture out on a space journey that lasted generations, their language would likely change. It could evolve into something the people of the original Earth would not understand.</p><p>Let's say, a contingent of people boards a so-called "<a href="https://www.universetoday.com/144894/what-is-a-generation-ship/" target="_blank">generation ship</a>," a fully-stocked world-onto-itself spaceship that can sustain generations of humans in space, slowly traversing the heavens towards another possibly inhabitable planet like <a href="https://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1629/" target="_blank">Proxima b</a> in the Proxima Centauri star system. We cannot yet build such a ship, which might have to fly for thousands of years, unless we invent some type of warp-drive or use antimatter, as has been imagined in science fiction, but there have been some initial <a href="https://www.universetoday.com/144894/what-is-a-generation-ship/" target="_blank">studies</a> on the subject. </p>
<p>Such a journey could be subject to a variety of dangers and unforeseen circumstances like viruses, asteroids, computer malfunctions, you name it. New research, carried out by linguistics professors <span style="background-color: initial;"><strong>Andrew McKenzie</strong> from the University of Kansas and <strong>Jeffrey Punske </strong>of Southern Illinois University</span>, shows what might also happen is that the language of the travelers would mutate. The study highlights the fact that when communities become isolated from each other, conditions are ripe for language to transform. Over time, the spacefaring colonizers would not be able to able to understand their original language.</p><p>In the study, the linguists use examples of effects from long-distance voyages on Earth, like the changing languages of Polynesian island explorers, to show how much language can change, even within one's lifetime.</p><p>Professor McKenzie described a likely (and somewhat sad) scenario in a <a href="http://news.ku.edu/2020/06/30/without-care-lost-space-could-mean-lost-translation" target="_blank">press release</a>:</p>
<blockquote>"If you're on this vessel for 10 generations, new concepts will emerge, new social issues will come up, and people will create ways of talking about them," McKenzie explained, "and these will become the vocabulary particular to the ship. People on Earth might never know about these words, unless there's a reason to tell them. And the further away you get, the less you're going to talk to people back home. Generations pass, and there's no one really back home to talk to. And there's not much you want to tell them, because they'll only find out years later, and then you'll hear back from them years after that."</blockquote>
Generation Ships
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="a1e6445c7168d293a6da3f9600f534a2"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/H2f0Wd3zNj0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>What might also happen is that the language of people on Earth would change. So it's possible, given the distance, and the dwindling reasons to communicate, that both parties might simply not be able to speak each other as time passes.</p><p>One way to prevent this issue – have a member of the crew trained in linguistics or make other accommodations to remember the language of Earth. Thinking even further ahead, the professors propose that each new ship of people coming over to a faraway space colony would essentially contain "linguistic immigrants" and an effort would have to be made to train them in the changed language to help them avoid discrimination.</p><p>In case you're deadset on going to Proxima b, <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1806/1806.03856.pdf" target="_blank">recent research</a> found that using currently-imaginable-tech such a trip would take <strong>6300</strong> years and would need to start out with a crew of at least <strong>98</strong> people.</p><p>Check out the study, "<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3747353" target="_blank">Language Development During Interstellar Travel</a>" in Acta Futura, the journal of the European Space Agency's <a href="https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/index.html" target="_blank">Advanced Concepts Team</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Your emotions are the new hot commodity — and there’s an app for that
Many of the most popular apps are about self-improvement.
12 July, 2020
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Personal Growth
Emotions are the newest hot commodity, and we can't get enough.
<p>Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, we've come to rely even more on our digital devices, including to help manage our emotions. </p><p>There are approximately 2.57 million apps available for Android users to download and approximately <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/276623/number-of-apps-available-in-leading-app-stores/" target="_blank">1.84 million apps available for Apple users</a>. Apps are those tools on our phones or tablets which help us monitor, record and regulate some of the most intimate aspects of our lives, from sleep and menstrual cycles, to food intake and finances. </p><p>Many of the most popular apps in the West include the goal of self-improvement, which seems to be a constant drive for many. </p><p>The investment of our time and money into apps that help us become better performers, managers and producers is one of the consequences of neoliberalism, <a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/neoliberalism" target="_blank">the idea that humans can make progress in their lives through market competition and economic growth</a>.</p><p>Neoliberalism empasizes <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp" target="_blank">individualism, economic efficiency, low to no government interference</a> and generally ignores systemic issues.</p><p>Under neoliberalism, a person is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038960" target="_blank">an enterprise</a> whose personality traits and skills are considered valuable assets that need continuous <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038960" target="_blank">management, improvement and investment</a>.</p><p>Apps can help with the business of us: we can easily track and monitor our bodies with <a href="https://sworkit.com/" target="_blank">workout classes</a>, <a href="https://www.myfitnesspal.com/" target="_blank">diets</a> and <a href="https://www.duolingo.com/" target="_blank">skill-building exercises</a>. As we track our progress in apps, we can literally visualize our bodies and capabilities improve. </p><p>Emotions, however, are trickier. We haven't had the same kind of metric tools and assessment criteria to track our minds to the same degree we can track our bodies <a href="https://lifesum.com/" target="_blank">caloric intake</a> or <a href="https://www.fitbit.com/en-ca/home" target="_blank">waist circumference</a>. </p><p>Enter mood tracking apps. </p><p>The simultaneous production and consumption of emotion, or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1469540509354673" target="_blank">emotional prosumption</a> manufactures emotion for consumer consumption. </p>
<h2>The pursuit of happiness</h2><p>Mood tracking apps are sophisticated tools which promise the ability to track, measure and improve our emotions. Positive emotions, like happiness, are encouraged through visual features like "<a href="https://daylio.webflow.io/" target="_blank">best day streaks</a>."</p><p>Negative emotions like sadness or anger are dissected with aims <a href="https://happify.com/" target="_blank">to avoid or erase their existence</a>.</p><p>In this new emotional frontier, happiness is the bar against which we measure all other emotions. The very existence of mood tracking apps is a testament to this.</p><p>The potential to improve our emotional traits and skills through apps appears limitless. While there is nothing wrong with pursuing a more fulfilling emotional life, there is a danger in being blinded by the quest for happiness. Since mood tracking apps are designed to direct us solely toward happiness, will we be prevented from understanding and engaging with the true complexity of our emotions?</p>
<h2>Data dangers</h2><p>By reducing our experiences, bodies and emotions to numbers, or quantified data, we make them ripe for consumption by app developers and interested third parties.</p><p>As a critical health researcher and a digital health literacy researcher, we are both concerned with how unsuspecting users may be taken advantage of within this frontier of continual self-improvement, especially if their personal data falls into the wrong hands and manipulated against them.</p><p>When it comes to commerce, emotions are powerful. They have the ability to move us towards action, change our minds and foster new relationships. They are also fast and reactive. Making decisions becomes more challenging when choices are everywhere and need to be made at lightning speed.</p><p>Modern advertising, by design, targets this impulsivity by hooking us on products and content through emotion.</p><p>In his book, <a href="https://www.versobooks.com/books/2505-psychopolitics" target="_blank"><em>Psychopolitics, Neoliberalism and New Technologies of Power</em>,</a> cultural theorist Byung- Chul Han discusses how this shift signals a creation of emotional consumption. We no longer buy a phone because it's a good phone, but rather because the ad displays happy people surrounded by friends using that phone.</p><p>We are drawn to ads and marketing campaigns because <a href="https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/emotions-in-advertising-examples" target="_blank">of the way they make us feel</a> rather than the service they provide.</p><p>In a similar vein, social media platforms like Instagram, Tinder and Facebook hook us by "selling" us "likes," matches and affirmation through numbers. Since likes and swipes take less than a second to perform, they target and rely on the reactive nature of emotion.</p>
<h2>The consumption of emotions</h2><p>Emotions then become a new commodity that we knowingly or unknowingly produce and are for sale to the highest bidder. This is known as emotional prosumption.</p><p>Emotional prosumption produces two consequences. First, due to the reactivity of emotions, our decision making can be swayed when the information we consume is emotionally charged.</p><p>As such, in 2016, the emotions of voters in the United States were taken advantage of and manipulated through <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-russia-linked-groups-used-facebook-to-meddle-in-2016-election/" target="_blank">specifically targeted ad campaigns</a>. Specifically, emotionally charged ads pertaining to <a href="https://www.wired.com/story/russian-facebook-ads-targeted-us-voters-before-2016-election/" target="_blank">immigration, gun laws and other political issues</a> were deliberate targeted at the U.S. electorate just days before the election.</p><p>Our emotional data can be sold to third parties without our permission. Likes, swipes and mood tracking logs can all be classified as emotional data and provide companies with information on how to promote products to us in ways that trigger the highest emotional response.</p><p>These abilities raise questions not only for data privacy, but also for advertising ethics.</p><p>The unregulated creation and consumption of emotional data is therefore problematic for two reasons: It places emphasis on "positive" emotions rather than a healthy spectrum, and it takes information about immaterial consumption without user knowledge.</p><p>The ethical implications of emotional prosumption may leave a lasting impact on how we advertise, how and what we consume, and what aspects of ourselves we are willing to alter in the never ending quest of personal optimization.</p><p><a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anna-rudkovska-959435" target="_blank">Anna Rudkovska</a>, PhD Candidate, School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-university-882" target="_blank">Western University</a></em> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/danica-facca-959434" target="_blank">Danica Facca</a>, PhD student, Health Information Science, <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/western-university-882" target="_blank">Western University</a></em></p><p>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com/" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/your-emotions-are-the-new-hot-commodity-and-theres-an-app-for-that-131629" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Politics & Current Affairs
Study details the negative environmental impact of online shopping
Frequent shopping for single items adds to our carbon footprint.
Scroll down to load more…
