SIO49: The Pro-Truth Pledge, with Dr. Gleb Tsipursky

Joining me this week for interview Monday is Dr. Gleb Tsipursky! Gleb is an expert in decision sciences, focusing on politics and business. In the wake of the 2016 election, Gleb has decided to focus on fighting against fake news and misinformation in our politics. That’s why he has created the Truth Pledge, which he tells us all about in the interview. His insight is very valuable and is another in the series on how to change minds and where to focus our efforts.

Make sure you take the Pro-Truth Pledge! https://www.protruthpledge.org/

Research links: http://intentionalinsights.org/how-can-facts-trump-ideology/

http://intentionalinsights.org/how-behavioral-science-can-help-truth-triumph-over-baseless-accusations/

http://intentionalinsights.org/the-brain-science-of-political-deception-in-the-2016-election/

Link to Gleb’s bio: http://glebtsipursky.com/about/

 

Leave Thomas a voicemail! (916) 750-4746, remember short and to the point!

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/seriouspod

Follow us on Twitter: @seriouspod

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/seriouspod

For comments, email thomas@seriouspod.com

Questions, Suggestions, Episode ideas? email: haeley@seriouspod.com

 

Direct Download

2 Replies to “SIO49: The Pro-Truth Pledge, with Dr. Gleb Tsipursky”

  1. Mandatory voting is a good idea. It might actually tend to short circuit some of the influence of mega-dollars on elections. You could give monumentally uninspiring candidates like Hillary Clinton, who very few people would go out of their way to vote for, at least a chance if you forced people to choose. But:

    1) It should be strictly by mail with ballots mailed to voters by their county clerk’s office.

    2) The window for returning the ballot should be at least two weeks giving everyone plenty of time to decide and to comply.

    3) Ballot return should be postage free so that no one can claim they couldn’t afford to return it.

    4) Completed ballots should have nothing on them identifying the voter and should be enclosed in an outer envelope with the voter’s ID on the outer envelope only
    .

    5) When the ballot is received by the clerk’s office, a bar code on the outer envelope could be scanned to give the voter credit for returning the ballot.

    6) A post-paid postcard could then be detached from the outer envelope and sent back to the voter as a receipt and proof of compliance.

    7) Completed ballots with no identifying information would then be removed from the outer envelope and placed in a bin for machine reading.

    8) The machine-tallied ballots whould be kept in bonded storage for at least a year—maybe till the next election—so that if irregularities are suspected, the ballots can be re-counted by different machines or even by hand.

    The paper ballots, filled out with a Sharpie and read optically, provide a traceable and recountable hardcopy. There should ALWAYS be a hard copy and we should NEVER rely on purely electronic means to count votes and store the results—that just invites hacking, tampering and “computer failure.” If that’s too much trouble, then we don’t deserve a democracy. So there.

  2. I haven’t listened to your latest episode yet so I’m not sure if you’ve addressed this, but at the end you mention that you received an unusual and significant amount of response on the Evergreen story. I thought it might be worth pointing out that this likely came from the fact that your episode was linked on /r/samharris (the reddit sub) and the sub has a bit of a habit of brigading places it’s linked to.

    Recently (before your episode) there was a big thread where everybody was getting very angry about the situation and I think the anger fed into itself, so even suggesting that Weinstein was overreacting to describe being invited to voluntarily take part in a demonstration as “oppression” was heavily downvoted and disagreed with. Then your episode came out and I think people used you as an outlet for their outrage. Which is why, as you probably noticed, none of it seemed to be evidence-based or attempted to address the facts.

    Looking forward to the interview with Shermer! I too was shocked when he seemed open to changing his mind when corrected and then instantly retweeted and endorsed that “hoax” after agreeing that he needs to fact check the things he supports…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *