You Are Not So Smart

Common sense used to dictate that men and women should only come together for breakfast and dinner.

According to Victorian historian Kaythrn Hughes, people in the early 19th Century thought the outside world was dangerous and unclean and morally dubious and thus no place for a virtuous, fragile woman. The home was a paradise, while men went out into the world and got their hands dirty.

By the mid 1800s, women were leaving home to work in factories and much more, and if you believed in preserving the separate spheres, the concept that men and women should only cross paths at breakfast and dinner, then as we approached the 20th century, this created a lot of anxiety for you.

In this episode of the You Are Not So Smart Podcast, we explore how the separate spheres ideology is still affecting us today, and how some people are using it to scare people into voting down anti-discrimination legislation.

Show notes at: www.youarenotsosmart.com

• Patreon: www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

• Donate Directly through PayPal: www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaney

SPONSORS
• Blue Apron: www.blueapron.com/YANSS
• The Great Courses Plus: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smart

Direct download: 079_-_Separate_Spheres.mp3
Category:psychology -- posted at: 7:19pm EDT

Hypothetical situations involving dragons, robots, spaceships, and vampires have all been used to prove and disprove arguments.

Statements about things that do not exist can still be true, and can be useful thinking tools for exploring philosophical, logical, sociological, and scientific concepts.

The problem is that sometimes those same arguments accidentally require those fictional concepts to be real in order to support their conclusions, and that’s when you commit the existential fallacy.

In this episode we explore the most logical logical fallacy of them all, the existential fallacy. No need to get out your pens and paper, we will do that for you, as we make sense of one the most break-breaking thinking mistakes we’ve ever discovered.

Show notes at: www.youarenotsosmart.com

• Patreon: www.patreon.com/youarenotsosmart

• Donate Directly through PayPal: www.paypal.me/DavidMcRaney

SPONSORS
• Bombas: www.Bombas.com/SOSMART
• Casper: www.casper.com/sosmart
• The Great Courses Plus: www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/smart

Direct download: 078_-_The_Existential_Fallacy.mp3
Category:psychology -- posted at: 12:36pm EDT

Here is a logic puzzle created by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

Linda is single, outspoken, and very bright. She majored in philosophy. As a student, she was deeply concerned with the issue of discrimination and social justice, and also participated in demonstrations. Which of the following is more probable: Linda is a bank teller or Linda is a bank teller AND is active in the feminist movement?

In studies, when asked this question, more than 80 percent of people chose number two. Most people said it was more probably that Linda is a bank teller AND active in the feminist movement, but that's wrong. Can you tell why?

This thinking mistake is an example of the subject of this episode - the conjunction fallacy. Listen as three experts in logic and reasoning explain why people get this question wrong, why it is wrong, and how you can avoid committing the conjunction fallacy in other situations.

Direct download: 077_-_The_Conjunction_Fallacy.mp3
Category:psychology -- posted at: 11:03am EDT

1