Through the conversation.
20 sections010:00 – 4:45Introduction to the Podcast and Guest Dan Williams
Hosts Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof introduce the podcast, banter about their show tagline, and welcome guest Dan Williams, a philosopher from the University of Sussex and author of the Substack Conspicuous Cognition, marking the show's first philosopher guest.
The hosts note that Dan Williams is the first philosopher they have hosted on the program.
“and Dan Dan is uh our first philosopher that we've had on the podcast.” 1:35
024:45 – 12:01The Evolutionary and Social Logic of Human Belief
Guest Dan Williams discusses his overarching philosophical research into why humans hold strange or irrational beliefs, arguing that viewing humans as intensely social animals competing for status and reputation illuminates complex domains like religion and ideology.
Dan Williams explains that his primary research question examines why people hold strange or irrational beliefs.
“why do people believe what they do, especially when they seem to believe things that are strange or irrational” 5:41
Williams argues that many seemingly paradoxical psychological features make sense when situated within the context of being social animals.
“human beings are these intensely social animals. And most of the features of human psychology” 6:03
0312:01 – 14:47Social Motives and Strategic Signaling in Human Belief
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Dan Williams discuss how historical and psychological theories have often overlooked strategic social motivations, such as status competition, reputation management, and propaganda, in shaping human beliefs and behaviors. They explain that because social signaling can carry negative inferences, people often conceal their signaling motives under the cover of darkness.
the fact that people have not been sensitive to the to the importance of things like social signaling
“the fact the fact that people have uh not been sensitive to the to the importance of things like social signaling” 12:29
in order to effectively compete for political power, you have to conceal the fact that your primary motive is, you raw power seeking.
“In order to effectively compete for political power, you have to conceal the fact that your primary motive is, you raw power seeking.” 14:13
The speakers examine self-deception, contrasting inward-facing Freudian defense mechanisms with externalized social motivations like propaganda and reputation management. Dan Williams explains why he prefers terms like internalizing propaganda and signaling over self-deception, and the group considers how folk psychology concepts create false paradoxes that can be resolved by looking at mechanistic levels of analysis.
this is what is leading to the to these paradoxes, that there is a singular self that can deceive itself.
“this is what is leading to the to these paradoxes, that there is a singular self that can deceive itself.” 22:33
0524:02 – 30:54Distinguishing Inert Beliefs and Functional World-Modeling
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Dan Williams discuss the psychological distinction between genuine world-modeling beliefs that drive behavior and compartmentalized identity or religious convictions that serve social signaling functions. They explore theoretical frameworks from anthropology and cognitive science, highlighting how cultural narratives and extreme group contexts complicate our understanding of internalized commitment.
nobody would ever masturbate in front of their parents, right? But but but they'll say they think God is always watching
“nobody would ever masturbate in front of their parents, right? But but but they'll say they think God is always watching” 25:38
These are cases in which I think people are sincere. As you say, the belief is often very strangely compartmentalized.
“These are cases in which I think people are sincere. As you say, the belief is often very strangely compartmentalized.” 25:28
Dan Williams and the hosts examine the challenges of empirically distinguishing between genuine beliefs and strategic social signals. They discuss how natural selection shaped human psychology to navigate deceptive signaling, where behavioral cues rapidly destabilize into costly social games as individuals attempt to convince others of their loyalties.
natural selection designed you to not to foil future psychologists, basically designed the mind in this respect.
“natural selection designed you to not to foil future psychologists, basically designed the mind in this respect.” 32:56
beliefs are really powerful cues that we try to use to anticipate others' behaviors
“beliefs are really powerful cues that we try to use to anticipate others' behaviors” 35:29
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Dan Williams discuss the concept of pseudo beliefs, comparing them to biological mimicry where distinguishing fake beliefs from true beliefs is difficult by design. They explore how people can hold social or strategic pseudo beliefs that function as signals, and how individuals might convince themselves or adopt beliefs through second-order psychological mechanisms.
I think a similar phenomenon is happening with us where we have a kind of belief mimicry
“I think a similar phenomenon is happening with us where we have a kind of belief mimicry” 36:47
often in our quest to convince others that we believe our beliefs, we convince ourselves as well
“often in our quest to convince others that we believe our beliefs, we convince ourselves as well” 41:18
0842:46 – 48:07Evidentiary Bias and Adaptationist Puzzles in Belief
David Pinsof, Dan Williams, and Dave Pietraszewski examine how advocacy and biased evidence-gathering can lead people to sincerely internalize propaganda or arguments they initially presented for strategic reasons. They debate whether self-deception in persuasion represents an evolutionary design flaw or a functional feature of human reasoning systems.
as a consequence, we can end up becoming sincerely persuaded of that of that thing
“as a consequence, we can end up becoming sincerely persuaded of that of that thing” 43:05
if you're trying to persuade and deceive others, you don't want to accidentally persuade and deceive yourself
“if you're trying to persuade and deceive others, you don't want to accidentally persuade and deceive yourself” 46:06
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Dan Williams discuss whether human belief formation is primarily truth-seeking or driven by social coordination, prestige economies, and cultural signaling. They explore how social pressures shape our convictions, using examples like opinions on public figures, and how difficult it is to separate genuine epistemic trust from conformity.
it is more important to coordinate with other members of your group than it is to coordinate with reality
“often it is more important to coordinate with other members of your group than it is to coordinate with reality” 52:09
distinguishing social conformity from truth-seeking reliance on a social network is quite difficult
“distinguishing that from cases in which, no, you are trying to get at the truth, but you're just forced to rely upon kind of the higher order evidence” 56:46
1057:02 – 1:00:12Dan Williams's Intellectual Origins in Evolutionary Psychology
Host Dave Pietraszewski asks Dan Williams about his background and what led him to study the evolutionary and strategic functions of belief. Williams shares how reading popular science authors in his youth shaped his worldview, and expresses his initial surprise upon entering academia and discovering that evolutionary approaches to psychology are often stigmatized in the humanities.
reading evolutionary books in his youth provided a compelling framework that transformed his worldview
“when I was a teenager, I read books by you know Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, a little bit later on, Dan Dennett” 58:23
Williams experienced culture shock entering humanities academia due to the widespread hostility toward evolutionary psychology
“it was this shock to me that evolutionary psychology, even understood in a really broad sense, is incredibly stigmatized” 59:47
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Dan Williams discuss why evolutionary cognitive science offers a fruitful framework for studying human psychology. Williams contrasts the traditional 'you can not handle the truth' model of self-deception with an evolutionary perspective focused on advocacy, propaganda, and social influence, explaining why humans often hold distressing or seemingly maladaptive beliefs.
if you take a a kind of a a a a goal which makes a lot more evolutionary sense, as we've been talking about something like advocacy or propaganda
“if you take a a kind of a a a a goal which makes a lot more evolutionary sense, as we've been talking about something like advocacy or propaganda” 1:03:00
if the goal of these beliefs is to be spread and to persuade and to propagandise, then it makes sense that you would try to recruit selectively evidence and arguments in favor of them.
“if the goal of these beliefs is to be spread and to persuade and to propagandise, then it makes sense that you would try to recruit selectively evidence and arguments in favor of them.” 1:05:12
The hosts and Dan Williams explore whether adopting a cynical or evolutionary view of human motivation has practical utility in daily life. They argue that scientific models of belief are primarily meant for understanding the world and society rather than improving personal relationships, though they can reduce surprise and improve predictive models of global events.
it needn't be the case that the things we learn in science would benefit us in the ordinary interactions we're we're having with each other.
“it needn't be the case that the things we learn in science would benefit us in the ordinary interactions we're we're having with each other.” 1:08:35
one thing I've noticed is that it makes me less surprised by things happening in the world
“one thing I've noticed is that it makes me less surprised by things happening in the world” 1:11:24
Host Dave Pietraszewski opens by discussing expected propagandistic responses and asks guest Dan Williams and co-host David Pinsof about how people react professionally and day-to-day to revealing insights about human bias. Dan discusses biases in modern misinformation research and the defensive reactions from researchers. David and Dave reflect on using humor, writing, and cynicism to navigate hostility toward evolutionary psychology.
everyone is biased when it comes to thinking about the world
“everyone is biased um when it comes to thinking about the world” 1:14:24
Dave Pietraszewski asks Dan Williams why people push back against critiques of misinformation research. Dan explains that the social sciences skew heavily toward the liberal left, creating coalitional dynamics where any critique is incorrectly interpreted as partisan attacks, ultimately threatening the objectivity and public reputation of scientific research.
psychology and the social sciences overwhelmingly skewed towards the left
“psychology and the social sciences overwhelmingly skewed towards the left” 1:21:06
science is our best way of escaping these kinds of partisan biases
“it's our best way of escaping these kinds of partisan biases” 1:23:18
Host Dave Pietraszewski and guest Dan Williams discuss how coalitional thinking influences scientific discourse and public debates. Host David Pinsoff then raises a concern about epistemic nihilism, reflecting on whether individual humans can ever truly attain objective knowledge given their inherent psychological and social limitations.
it feels good to sort of defend my side, but then I'm like, but is this a situation where I'm taking sides as opposed to taking a principle?
“it feels good to sort of defend my side, but then I'm like, but is this a” 1:25:01
everything we know about our own psychology and our epistemology suggests that truth, if it exists, is an emergent phenomenon.
“everything we know about our own psychology and our epistemology suggests that truth, if it exists, is an emergent phenomenon.” 1:26:59
Dan Williams responds to epistemic distress by emphasizing that individual differences and supportive community norms can improve reasoning. The speakers then examine how scientific and institutional critiques are often dismissed not on their intellectual merits, but because critics worry those arguments will be weaponized politically.
I do think there are individual differences in in cognition. Often I think they're downstream of the social norms that get enforced in particular communities.
“I do think there are individual differences in in cognition. Often I think they're downstream of the social norms” 1:29:08
objecting to a claim or an argument not on its merits, but on the basis that it might be weaponized in a in a way that people object to.
“objecting to a claim or an argument not on its merits, but on the basis that it might be weaponized” 1:34:49
Dan Williams, Dave Pietraszewski, and David Pinsof discuss whether it is reasonable to hold people accountable for how their claims or arguments might be weaponized in social and political contexts. Williams argues that while caution has a place, dismissing arguments merely because they could be instrumentalized by political rivals is corrosive to truth-seeking and encourages groupthink within institutions like universities.
this idea that you should be able to criticize a claim or an argument not on its merits
“this idea that you should be able to criticize a claim or an argument not on its merits” 1:37:45
It's such a recipe for groupthink
“It's such a recipe for groupthink.” 1:37:25
The speakers examine institutional functions and the role of cynicism in designing norms for knowledge production. David Pinsof suggests that the norm against promoting weaponizable ideas is itself unsustainable because coalitional primates will exploit it to protect their own narratives. Williams and Pietraszewski agree that recognizing human bias is essential for building robust institutional procedures that safeguard truth.
this idea that um we we should only promote ideas that have good consequences and avoid bad consequences
“this idea that um we we should only promote ideas that have good consequences and avoid bad consequences” 1:44:51
this is one area where I think cynicism can be a good thing when thinking about the broader social incentives
“this is one area where I think cynicism can be a good thing when thinking about the broader social incentives” 1:45:45
Dave Pietraszewski, David Pinsof, and guest Dan Williams discuss how demographic skews and social bargaining power within academia, such as in philosophy, impact the questions researchers ask. They examine whether evolutionary psychology debates are driven by genuine scientific inquiry or political agendas, and emphasize the rarity of good-faith intellectual collaboration.
Philosophy is overrepresented by people who receive the benefit of the doubt due to social bargaining power.
“Philosophy is way overrepresented as the phenotypes of people who will give people” 1:49:11
Good faith conversation aimed at arriving at the truth collaboratively is a rare and precious flower.
“good faith um conversation and debate where people care about arriving at the truth” 1:51:21
In the concluding segment, the hosts Dave Pietraszewski and David Pinsof thank Dan Williams for appearing on the podcast and engaging in a collaborative conversation. They banter about upcoming deep dives into Jordan Peterson, thank their listeners, and encourage support via social media, reviews, and Patreon.
The hosts thank Dan Williams for an awesome conversation and express hope for future appearances.
“thank you, Dan, for having this uh awesome conversation with us.” 1:51:59
The hosts ask listeners to leave kind reviews and support the show on Patreon.
“leave us a kind review.” 1:53:35