app_store_button

google_play_button

is Device Banner Block 894x1036

Stígðu inn í heim af óteljandi sögum

Hlustaðu og lestu

Spencer Greenberg

Clearer Thinking is a podcast about ideas that truly matter. If you enjoy learning about powerful, practical concepts and frameworks, wish you had more deep, intellectual conversations in your life, or are looking for non-BS self-improvement, then we think you'll love this podcast! Each week we invite a brilliant guest to bring four important ideas to discuss for an in-depth conversation. Topics include psychology, society, behavior change, philosophy, science, artificial intelligence, math, economics, self-help, mental health, and technology. We focus on ideas that can be applied right now to make your life better or to help you better understand yourself and the world, aiming to teach you the best mental tools to enhance your learning, self-improvement efforts, and decision-making. • We take on important, thorny questions like: • What's the best way to help a friend or loved one going through a difficult time? How can we make our worldviews more accurate? How can we hone the accuracy of our thinking? What are the advantages of using our "gut" to make decisions? And when should we expect careful, analytical reflection to be more effective? Why do societies sometimes collapse? And what can we do to reduce the chance that ours collapses? Why is the world today so much worse than it could be? And what can we do to make it better? What are the good and bad parts of tradition? And are there more meaningful and ethical ways of carrying out important rituals, such as honoring the dead? How can we move beyond zero-sum, adversarial negotiations and create more positive-sum interactions?

Clearer Thinking with Spencer Greenberg

Read the full transcript here. 
 
What explains fearing nuclear more than the harms we tolerate from fossil fuels? Can we judge energy risk by evidence rather than headlines? What mix of firm power and renewables actually keeps costs low and lights on? How much should we pay up front for safety, and who decides? Do iconic disasters outweigh statistics in policy debates? What did past build-outs teach us about standardization, permitting, and getting big projects done? Can trust be built without hype or spin? Is government-scale coordination required, or can markets deliver at scale? How should long-lived waste be weighed against climate and air-pollution deaths now? What would a realistic near-term plan look like if we stopped treating tech choices as tribal identity?
 
Isabelle Boemeke is an author, philanthropist, and entrepreneur who advocates global clean energy. Boemeke is also known as Isodope, the digital persona on a mission to 'make nuclear cool.' She is the Founder and Executive Director of Save Clean Energy and board member of Nature is Nonpartisan and Nuclear Scaling Initiative, where she works at the intersection of policy, culture, and technology to accelerate pragmatic solutions. She delivered a TED Talk that has been viewed nearly 2 million times, led a grassroots campaign that helped delay the closure of California’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant, and is a TIME Magazine “Next Generation Leader”.
 
Links:
 
 • Isabelle's book: 
Rad Future • Isabelle's 
TED Talk 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

Why aren't we relying on nuclear power? (with Isabelle Boemeke)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
Where is the line between ordinary intrusive thoughts and an OCD pattern that hijacks the day? How do obsessions and compulsions condition each other so that brief relief entrenches the loop? What clinical markers - ego-dystonic content and intact reality testing - separate OCD from psychosis? How do thought–action fusion, inflated responsibility and “zero-risk” striving amplify checking and covert mental rituals? Why does repeated checking degrade memory confidence and widen doubt? How should ERP be structured to target hidden mental rituals as well as visible behaviors, and what metrics best define success? When are SSRIs a helpful platform for ERP, and why are effective doses often higher than for depression? What boundaries and scripts help families avoid reassurance and accommodation while staying empathic? How do culture and news cycles shape obsession themes without changing the underlying mechanism? What relapse-prevention practices keep gains durable - normalizing setbacks, tracking triggers, and refocusing on work, love, and presence?
 
David Adam is an author and journalist, who covers science, environment, technology, medicine and the impact they have on people, culture and society. After nearly two decades as a staff writer and editor at Nature and the Guardian, David set up as a freelancer in 2019. David's book - The Man Who Couldn’t Stop - is his attempt to understand the condition and his experiences with OCD, where he explores the weird thoughts that exist within every mind and explains how they drive millions of us toward obsession and compulsion.
 
Links:
 
 The Man Who Couldn't Stop: OCD and the True Story of a Life Lost in Thought 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

A conversation with a person with OCD (with David Adam)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
Are we going to solve climate change with technology rather than personal sacrifice? If most offsets fail on additionality, should we stop pretending they meaningfully cut emissions? Can policy push dollars into the hard stuff - steel, cement, shipping, aviation - where tech is still nascent? Will clean-firm power unlock a reliable, land-light grid? Do early adopters and advanced market commitments move markets faster than lifestyle campaigns? What mix of R&D, loans, tax credits, procurement, and permitting reform actually drives costs down the curve? How should we weigh “central” damage estimates against fat-tail risks? If $1 can avert a ton while society pays ~$200 in harm, are we underinvesting by orders of magnitude? Can corporate climate action shift from PR offsets to catalytic demand for green steel and concrete? Where should donors place bets when global coordination stalls and national politics swing?
 
Dan Stein champions evidence-based approaches to fight the climate crisis while leading Giving Green as founder and executive director, and serving as a senior advisor to IDinsight. He previously held the position of Chief Economist at IDinsight and worked as an Economist at the World Bank. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from the London School of Economics and a BA from UC Berkeley.
 
Links:
 
 Giving Green 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

What, if anything, will save the environment? (with Dan Stein)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
Are stock prices set by cash flows or crowd vibes? Why do bubbles last if “smart money” can short them? What should retail traders learn from GameStop and zero-commission options? When does momentum make sense - and when does it burn you? Why don’t obvious mispricings get fixed - what actually stops arbitrage? Will AI help us think clearer, or supercharge manipulation and personalized pricing? Where should regulators draw the line on gamified trading and price discrimination? Do tariffs feel good because they keep others out—even if we pay more? What does the "winner’s curse" mean for auctions, IPOs, and everyday deals? How much of what we want is copied from other people, and why does that matter for markets?
 
Alex Imas is the Roger L. and Rachel M. Goetz Professor of Behavioral Science, Economics and Applied AI and a Vasilou Faculty Scholar at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, where he has taught Negotiations and Behavioral Economics. Alex studies behavioral economics with a focus on cognition and mental representation in dynamic decision-making. His research explores topics related to choice under uncertainty, applied AI, discrimination, and how people learn from information. Professor Imas’ work utilizes a variety of methods, including lab experiments, field experiments, analysis of observational data and theoretical modeling. His research has been published in the American Economic Review, Journal of Finance, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Quarterly Journal of Economics, and Management Science, among others.
 
Links:
 
 The Winner's Curse Alex's personal website Alex's Twitter 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

Are markets rational or is sentiment contagious? (with Alex Imas)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
What does “100x more good” mean relative to your current giving? How can your giving more closely align with your pre-existing values? If cost-effectiveness is the denominator we forget, what changes when dollars per outcome sit front and center? Can independent evaluators fix a charity market that rewards storytelling over outcomes? Greatest need, stronger evidence, cost per result, a wider moral circle, multipliers - how do each of these levers compare in your giving portfolio? How do self, passion, and effectiveness map cleanly onto your intrinsic values? How do you avoid bad compromises? When do risky policy bets beat reliable bed nets? How do you keep prevention’s invisible wins from being crowded out by visible cures and photogenic stories? What kind of pledge or trial would actually help you follow through and inspire others without preaching? If the biggest brands need your dollar least, where is it marginally decisive right now?
 
Sjir Hoeijmakers is the CEO of Giving What We Can, the global organization promoting effective giving and the 10% Pledge, which recently reached the 10,000 10% Pledger mark. He has a background in impact evaluation and non-profit entrepreneurship, serving as GWWC’s Director of Research immediately prior to becoming their CEO. Sjir is a long-time pledger himself as well, having pledged 20% previously and currently donating ~50% of his income to high-impact charities across various causes.
 
You can find Sjir on LinkedIn, and read more about his work at GWWC and the 10% Pledge on their website.
 
Links:
 
 Giving What We Can The 10% Pledge 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

Can you do 100x more good? (with Sjir Hoeijmakers)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
Note: Please note that in this episode, Spencer and Dr. O'Sullivan discuss a controversial and complex medical topic where the science is still in development and there is a lot of ongoing debate. We don't know whether or not the perspective that Dr. O'Sullivan expresses is correct, but the topic appears to be an important one as we look towards the future of neurophysiological diagnostics and treatment.
 
What changes when long COVID is split into medical damage, post-viral fatigue, misattribution, and psychosomatic mechanisms? When symptoms soar while tests stay normal, what should count as evidence? When do surveys without controls manufacture a syndrome we then chase? Does renaming “psychosomatic” to “functional” clarify or conceal? If long COVID and severe COVID affect different populations, what follows for causation and care? How do clinicians explain mind–body pathways without sounding dismissive? When is stopping more tests the most scientific decision? What actually helps once the testing spiral ends - graded activity, distraction skills, or non-reactive awareness? Can early diagnosis break fear–avoidance loops before habits harden? How should we meet chronic pain when anatomy is silent? If suffering is real and causes are mixed, how should we measure success?
 
Suzanne O'Sullivan is an Irish physician practising in Britain, specialising in neurology and clinical neurophysiology. In addition to academic publications in her field, O'Sullivan is an author of acclaimed non-fiction focusing on medical casework related to neurology and medically unexplained illness.
 
Links:
 
 • 

Is It All in Your Head? (Book)
 • 
 • 

The Age of Diagnosis: How Our Obsession with Medical Labels Is Making Us Sicker (Book)
 • 
 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

What is psychosomatic illness? (with Suzanne O'Sullivan)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
What do we miss when we treat public shootings as the whole story of mass murder? If public events are a small slice, how should prevention and attention shift? Does saturation coverage turn tragedy into aspiration for the fame-seeking few? Do school “active-shooter” drills protect kids—or seed fear and imitation? Should reporting drop names and faces to starve the infamy motive? How should we talk about risk without distorting it? Can culture stop romanticizing guns without denying self-defense? Are the core drivers of public mass shootings nihilism, toxic self-regard, and a fascination with guns more than psychosis? If suicide removes the final barrier, how should that reshape prevention?Should screening target a narrow profile rather than broad traits with sky-high false positives? If most weapons used are legally owned, what levers actually matter - enforcement, registration, or smart-gun locks? Do “more weapons” predict fatalities better than weapon type, and what policy follows from that? What would it take for laws, norms, and platforms to make infamy harder to harvest? How do we design prevention that is specific, ethical, and effective?
 
Ragy Girgis, MD, MS, is a Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the Columbia University Department of Psychiatry and New York State Psychiatric Institute. He is an expert in psychosis (e.g., schizophrenia), violence in mental illness, and mass murder/shootings. Dr. Girgis often conducts studies involving MRI, PET (Positron Emission Tomography) and clinical trials, and is the curator of the Columbia Mass Murder Database. Dr. Girgis has published numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers on these topics and several books on severe mental illness, including a recent book on the interface between religion and psychiatry, “On Satan, Demons, and Psychiatry: Exploring Mental Illness in the Bible."
 
Links:
 
 Dr. Girgis' Selected Publications • Dr. Girgis' latest title: 
On Satan, Demons, and Psychiatry: Exploring Mental Illness in the Bible 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host / Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

What causes mass shootings? (with Ragy Girgis)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
What makes a forum truly open-minded rather than performative? When does listening change minds instead of just hardening identities? Are we teaching citizens to separate facts from frames? Do the best debates surface values as well as evidence? How can we reward calm argument over outrage economics? What reforms reduce polarization without dulling real disagreement? Should any topic be off-limits in a free society? Is philanthropy giving back—or building what’s missing? Should generosity optimize impact or express the values we want to grow? How much risk is acceptable when the upside is transformative?
 
Robert Rosenkranz is a dedicated philanthropist, an advocate for intellectual engagement, and respected commentator on philanthropy. He founded Delphi Capital Management and championed the renowned Open to Debate debate series. Robert’s latest book, The Stoic Capitalist, explores the intersection of ancient Stoic wisdom and modern capitalism. When he’s not crafting ideas, Robert dedicates his time to supporting the arts, advancing education, and contributing to public policy through The Rosenkranz Foundation.
 
Links:
 
 • Robert's Book:
The Stoic Capitalist: Advice for the Exceptionally Ambitious More Information on Robert's Foundation 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

Contempt-free public discourse (with Robert Rosenkranz)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
What does rationality mean when life won’t fit a spreadsheet? If models demand one common scale, what happens to values that can’t be compared? Are we optimizing choices, or narrowing them to what’s easy to count? When do toy problems stop teaching us about real ones? Can preferences be “mapped” if the act of asking reshapes them? When is precision a disguise for guesswork? What standard should judge error when the world is fuzzy by design? If we want better decisions, should we start by choosing better frames? How do fast intuitions and slow reflection share the work when stakes are high? When should we pause because the first answer felt too easy? How can diverse perspectives expose what one mind won’t see? How do we weigh the uncountable without pretending it’s all commensurate? What does a life well chosen look like beyond being error-free?
 
Barry Schwartz is an emeritus professor of psychology at Swarthmore College and a visiting professor at the Haas School of Business at Berkeley. He has spent fifty years thinking and writing about the interaction between economics, psychology, and morality. He has written several books that address aspects of this interaction, including The Battle for Human Nature, The Costs of Living, The Paradox of Choice, Practical Wisdom (with Kenneth Sharpe), Why We Work, and most recently, Choose Wisely (with Richard Schuldenfrei). Schwartz has spoken four times at the TED conference, and his TED talks have been viewed by more than 25 million people.
 
Links:
 
 Choose Wisely: Rationality, Ethics, and the Art of Decision-Making The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

Beyond the assumption that humans are rational (with Barry Schwartz)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
Are the existential risks posed by superhuman AI fundamentally different from prior technological threats such as nuclear weapons or pandemics? How do the inherent “alien drives” that emerge from AI training processes complicate our ability to control or align these systems? Can we truly predict the behavior of entities that are “grown” rather than “crafted,” and what does this mean for accountability? To what extent does the analogy between human evolutionary drives and AI training objectives illuminate potential failure modes? How should we conceptualize the difference between superficial helpfulness and deeply embedded, unintended AI motivations? What lessons can we draw from AI hallucinations and deceptive behaviors about the limits of current alignment techniques? How do we assess the danger that AI systems might actively seek to preserve and propagate themselves against human intervention? Is the “death sentence” scenario a realistic prediction or a worst-case thought experiment? How much uncertainty should we tolerate when the stakes involve potential human extinction?
 
Nate Soares is the President of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute and the co-author of the book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies. He has been working in the field for over a decade, after previous experience at Microsoft and Google. Soares is the author of a large body of technical and semi-technical writing on AI alignment, including foundational work on value learning, decision theory, and power-seeking incentives in smarter-than-human AIs.
 
Links:
 
 • Nate and Eliezer's recent book: 
If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies: Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All The Machine Intelligence Research Institute 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host + Director
 Ryan Kessler • — Producer + Technical Lead
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Igor Scaldini • — Marketing Consultant
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

Will AI superintelligence kill us all? (with Nate Soares)

Read the full transcript here. 
 
What is futarchy? Why does it seem to be easier to find social innovations rather than technical innovations? How does it differ from democracy? In what ways might a futarchy be gamed? What are some obstacles to implementing futarchy? Do we actually like for our politicians to be hypocritical to some degree? How mistaken are we about our own goals for social, political, and economic institutions? Do we enjoy fighting (politically) more than actually governing well and improving life for everyone? What makes something "sacred"? What is a tax career agent?
 
Robin Hanson is associate professor of economics at George Mason University and research associate at the Future of Humanity Institute of Oxford University. He has a doctorate in social science from California Institute of Technology, master's degrees in physics and philosophy from the University of Chicago, and nine years experience as a research programmer at Lockheed and NASA. He has over ninety academic publications in major journals across a wide variety of fields and has written two books: The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life When Robots Rule the Earth (2016), and The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life (2018, co-authored with Kevin Simler). He has pioneered prediction markets, also known as information markets and idea futures, since 1988; and he suggests "futarchy" as a form of governance based on prediction markets. He also coined the phrase "The Great Filter" and has recently numerically estimated it via a model of "Grabby Aliens". Learn more about Robin at his GMU page or follow him on the-website-formerly-known-as-Twitter at @robinhanson.
 
Staff
 
 Spencer Greenberg • — Host / Director
 Josh Castle • — Producer
 Ryan Kessler • — Audio Engineer
 Uri Bram • — Factotum
 WeAmplify • — Transcriptionists
 Miles Kestran • — Marketing
 
Music
 
 Broke for Free Josh Woodward Lee Rosevere Quiet Music for Tiny Robots wowamusic zapsplat.com 
Affiliates
 
 Clearer Thinking GuidedTrack Mind Ease Positly UpLift [Read more]

Systems of governance built on prediction markets (with Robin Hanson)

Hlustaðu og lestu

Other podcasts you might like ...