Is AI making us smarter, or is it actually eroding our cognitive capabilities?

Embed video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQpwAl8Tm0&t=2s

I’d like to give a big thank you to the team at ASU/GSV for inviting us back for another great conversation. Huge thanks to Mary McCall Leland, Lucy Baldwin, Deborah Quazzo, and the incredible production team at Clarity Experiences. 

The Questions:

• Do AI Tools enhance an individual’s cognitive capabilities or erode them?
• What is the right approach to deploying AI to students without longitudinal data?
• How pervasive and harmful is “cognitive offloading”?

The Guests

Benjamin Riley is the founder of Cognitive Resonance, a new venture dedicated to improving the understanding of human cognition and generative AI. Previously, he founded and served as CEO of Deans for Impact, a nonprofit education organization working to improve teacher training through the use of cognitive science.

James Donovan is the head of learning and cognitive outcomes at OpenAI. His work focuses on how AI use affects learning outcomes and the cognitive processes that support them. James’ work has focused on translating research into practical tools designed to support human cognition. 

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

This episode is about magic and mentalism, but, more than that, it’s about the nature of how we form beliefs, determine what is real, what is true, and the social consequences of mass deception.

First off: who is Oz the Mentalist?

He’s the guy you’ve probably seen in your social media feed, appearing to read the minds of celebrities. He’s performed live at the Golden Globes and appeared on Howard Stern, The View, and 60 Minutes. He’s the guy who guesses the name of a celebrity’s high school crush or their third-grade teacher.

Oz doesn’t claim to be psychic. His tagline is: “I don’t read minds, I read people.” He says he has extraordinary powers of perception. On Joe Rogan’s podcast, he compared himself to Jason Bourne—someone who can read micro-expressions, facial tics, and eye movements to uncover whatever is inside your head.

That’s what separates mentalism from traditional magic. In magic, everyone knows a trick is happening. With mentalism, performers distance themselves from magic entirely. Oz constantly says he doesn’t do magic tricks. Instead, he says he uses real psychological tools to access people’s thoughts.

He’s turned those alleged abilities into a self-help empire, with a viral TED Talk titled “How to Read Minds Without Magic” and a New York Times bestselling book, Read Your Mind.

I became fascinated with Oz a few months ago. My son is obsessed with magic, so we started watching his videos together and trying to figure out how the tricks worked. And honestly, I was pretty confused. None of the explanations we came up with made much sense. Then I came across a video from an Australian law student named Stevie Baskin, who came out of nowhere and started posting a five-hour viral video debunking Oz and mentalism.

So how does a mentalist guess the name of your third-grade teacher? What kind of intense training lets someone peer inside your head and know exactly what you’re thinking?

It turns out the answer is a lot more straightforward than you might think—and I’m sharing it because it’s important context for this conversation.

Mentalists use a range of techniques, but one of the most common is something called pre-show. Before the show even begins, the mentalist and the guest agree on the question that will be asked later during the performance.

The guest writes down the answer in a notepad. The mentalist might say something like, “Tear it off and put it in your pocket so you can’t change your answer when we’re live.” But it’s not a normal notepad. It’s a special one that secretly records the writing on the sheet underneath. When the guest hands the pad back, the mentalist already knows the answer—before the show even starts. From there, the rest is just acting. There are other variations of this too, involving special cell phone apps or surreptitiously designed websites.

It kind of bothered me when I learned that. With the TED Talk and the New York Times bestseller, it felt like Oz had moved beyond entertainment and into something closer to misinformation—and monetizing it.

Stevie Baskin agreed to come on the show to discuss the ethics of all of this. And to represent the other side, I wanted someone who actually practices mentalism. So I’m very grateful to mentalist, The Amazing Dr. Scott, for joining us. When not performing mentalism, Dr. Scott AKA Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman is a renowned cognitive scientist and professor at Columbia University.

The Guests

Steve Baskin is a skeptic, rationalist, and YouTube sensation who is in the midst of earning a law degree. Stevie crafted a five-hour YouTube video critiquing metadeceptions and articulating way mentalists like Oz Pearlman present create moral hazards for everyone. Stevie’s video, Metadception: The Truth About Oz Pearlmen has close to 200k views and has created a stir amongst both fans and critics of mentalism, and the greater mentalist community. 

Dr. Scott Barry Kaufman is a psychologist, coach, best-selling author, professor, keynote speaker, and mentalist. Dr. Kaufman is a professor of psychology at Columbia University and director of the Center for Human Potential, and is among the top 1% most cited scientists in the world for his research on intelligence and creativity. Dr. Kaufman’s writing has appeared in The Atlantic, Scientific American, Psychology Today, and Harvard Business Review, and he is the author and editor of 11 books, including his most recent book Rise Above: Overcome a Victim Mindset, Empower Yourself, and Realize Your Full Potential.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

The book is The Case for American Power by Shadi Hamid, a columnist for the Washington Post and host of the Wisdom of Crowds podcast. It’s a fascinating read – Shadi makes a case that you don’t hear very often: that America should be using its power for moral and humanitarian ends. It’s a broad-based appeal but also a specific appeal to those on the left who have become deeply skeptical and disillusioned with American power.

So to offer a critique we have brought on someone who is deeply skeptical of American power. Trita Parsi is an Iranian-Swedish-American political scientist, author, and foreign policy expert and is currently the Executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

It’s a thought-provoking conversation and serves as an excellent follow-up to Shadi’s previous appearance on our show in April 2024, when he discussed American Power and the role that the United States should be playing on the global stage.

The Questions:

• Does the world need America to use its power to decrease global strife? To what extent and in which circumstances?
• How do we reconcile past American foreign policy failures with a continued interventionist stance?
• What are the alternatives to American Power and what gives us reason to believe?

The Guests

Shadi Hamid is the host of the Wisdom of Crowds podcast, a columnist at The Washington Post, and a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Previously, he was a longtime senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing writer at The Atlantic. Hamid is the author of several books, including The Problem of Democracy and Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam is Reshaping the World.

Trita Parsi is the co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute. He is an award-winning author and the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order. He is an expert on US-Iranian relations, Iranian foreign policy, and the geopolitics of the Middle East. He has authored four books on US foreign policy in the Middle East, with a particular focus on Iran and Israel. He has been named by the Washingtonian Magazine as one of the 25 most influential voices on foreign policy in Washington DC for five years in a row since 2021.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

This episode was sparked by the judgement in the recent Supreme Court case, Mahmoud v. Taylor (24-297), which ruled in favor of allowing parents to “opt-out” children from lessons that did not align with their religious beliefs. It was a highly controversial ruling and has the potential to reshape U.S. public education on both national and local levels.

*A Note: The Harvard Graduate School of Education recently launched the Dialogue Across Differences initiative, which fosters conversations on a wide range of topics from diverse perspectives. Please note that the views and opinions expressed by our guests today are solely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of HGSE or Harvard University.

The Questions:

• To what extent should parents be allowed to opt their children out of K-12 school curriculum and courses?
• In a pluralistic society, how should decisions about what should—and should not—be part of school curriculum be made and by whom?
• To what extent is exposing children to views that differ from their religious, cultural, or ideological beliefs an essential component of, or threat to, public education?

The Guests

Jennifer Berkshire is a writer and co-host of a biweekly podcast on education, policy, and politics, Have You Heard? She teaches a course on the politics of public education at Yale University and, through the Boston College Prison Education Program, is an instructor in a Massachusetts prison. Jennifer is the author of The Education Wars, which examines the impact of the culture wars on the foundation of public education.

Naomi Schaefer Riley is a journalist and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. She is the author of several books across a variety of topics, including No Way to Treat a Child: How the Foster Care System, Family Courts, and Racial Activists Are Wrecking Young Lives, and Be the Parent, Please. A lot of Naomi’s work focuses on child welfare, child protective services, foster care, and adoption. 

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

A reminder: these episodes feature coaching sessions and real-life disagreements. Our goal is to equip everyone with the skills (and some inspiration) to more productively disagree.

Please note: this session was recorded live, on Substack, this summer. And as you know, quite a lot has changed since then…But with the NYC mayoral election today, we thought this was the right time to share this conversation.

In this episode, journalist, podcast host and author Anya Kamenetz meets with the New York Times best-selling conflict guru, Amanda Ripley. Anya was struggling with discussing not only the war in Gaza, but also how the war, and divergent information sources, were complicating discussions with a close friend over Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy in the New York City mayor’s race.

The session features in-depth coaching from Amanda on the concepts of “looping” an opposing argument and identifying the “understory,” tools we can all use to keep our disagreements healthy. And if you’re listening from NYC, perhaps they can specifically help in conversations unfolding in your own life.

The Questions:

How do we discuss politics with friends and family who are not only reading different news sources, but who have internalized beliefs different to our own?

How do you listen tactically and how can you encourage those in your life to do the same?

How can you identify the understory for yourself and your counterpart in a disagreement?

The Guests

Anya Kamenetz is a journalist and the author of The Gold Hour on Substack. Her work primarily focuses on the intersection of children, well-being, education, and climate change. She covered education for many years, including for NPR, where she co-created the podcast Life Kit: Parenting. Her last book was The Stolen Year: How Covid Changed Children’s Lives, And Where We Go Now.

Amanda Ripley is a New York Times bestselling author, a Washington Post contributing columnist, and the co-founder of Good Conflict, a media and training company that helps people reimagine conflict. She has written three award-winning, nonfiction books about three very different subjects: High Conflict, The Smartest Kids in the World, and The Unthinkable

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

A reminder: these episodes feature coaching sessions and real-life disagreements. Our goal is to equip everyone with the skills (and some inspiration) to more productively disagree. 

On to the episode…You know that feeling when you walk into a room and realize someone’s talking about you? Imagine that on steroids: you tune into a Substack Live to learn your friend is talking about your disagreement in front of an audience! 

That’s exactly the set up for today’s episode, a follow-up to How to Disagree about Gender with a Close Friend (Part I). In Part II, we get to hear from Larissa Phillips’ friend, “Jane,” and see them bring Bob Bordone’s coaching to life as they navigate their disagreement and a new chapter in their friendship.

The Questions:

• Is it possible to remain close friends after growing apart ideologically?
• How can you remain curious when you strongly disagree?
• Are there some topics we should avoid entirely as friends? Is gender one of them? And how did it get this way?

The Guests

Larissa Phillips is a columnist for The Free Press whose work focuses on finding community and fostering relationships as a Democrat living in the rural Hudson Valley. She is also the Director and Founder of the Volunteer Literacy Project, teaching basic literacy to adults. 

Christina Thyssen is a writer, story coach, and professor of writing and literature at the University at Albany. She is the co-founder of Hudson Valley Story Workshops and runs a story slam in Catskill, NY. Christina also teaches writing and storytelling to prisoners. 

A special thank you to Larissa and Christina for going on this journey with us. It took a tremendous amount of courage. And if you haven’t already, check out Larissa’s excellent article on her experience with us in The Free Press.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Episodes will feature coaching sessions with an individual struggling with a real-life disagreement (with a friend, family member or colleague) working with a world-class conflict resolution expert. Through these sessions, our guests will learn how to approach their particular rift, as well as more general skills and tools on how to more productively disagree. 

The first in this series is How to Disagree About Gender with a Close Friend, featuring Larissa Phillips. We actually recorded this session with Larissa live on Substack, and are very excited to share a produced version with you. Also, check out Larissa’s excellent article on her experience with us in The Free Press.

The Questions:

• How do we discuss politics with our friends when we don’t see eye to eye?
• How do we engage one another without trying to persuade?
• How do we prepare for disagreements on hot button topics like gender?

The Guests

Larissa Phillips is a columnist for The Free Press whose work focuses on finding community and fostering relationships as a Democrat living in the rural Hudson Valley. She is also the Director and Founder of the Volunteer Literacy Project, teaching basic literacy to adults. 

Bob Bordone is a senior fellow at Harvard Law School who has spent the last 25 years teaching negotiation and conflict resolution. He teaches negotiation to individuals and teams with a particular interest in addressing the United States’ polarized climate. Bob recently wrote a book with a neuroscientist called Conflict Resilience: Negotiating Disagreement Without Giving Up or Giving In.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

The Questions:

• Is AI in the classroom a force for good?
• Can we still produce critical thinkers in an AI-driven classroom?
• Will AI just be another ed tech flash in the pan?

To have this conversation, we brought together two leading eduction experts with nuanced, divergent views on the roles technology, and AI specifically, should play for teachers and students.

Eric Westendorf is a former principal who founded the ed tech company LearnZillion, and now is the co-CEO of Coursemojo, which is using AI to enhance in-class learning by supporting teachers in providing the right support for every student.

Justin Reich is an Associate Professor in Comparative Media Studies and Director at MIT Teaching Systems Lab, and is the author of a new book, Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can’t Transform Education.

Two notes on terms. Our guests mention NAEP: the National Assessment of Education Progress. There's also discussion of the Alpha School: a network of US private schools that combines AI-driven adaptive software for core academics with in-person adult “Guides” who act as mentors. It operates in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and California. According to Alpha School, their combination of technology and mastery based learning allows children learn core subjects in just two hours daily.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

In Boston, you have Boston Latin, the oldest public high school in the country. Alums include Ben Franklin and Sam Adams. In New York: You’ve got Stuyvesant, whose alums include U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, and, of coruse, Timothy Chalamet. New York also has The Bronx High School of Science, whose alums have more Nobel prizes (9) than any other high school in the world. In Northern Virginia, there's Thomas Jefferson (or TJ), established in 1985 and one of the newest selective high schools. It has spent many years rated the #1 High School in the Country by U.S. News and World Report.

In the episode, we ask a number of questions: What is the purpose of these schools? Should they exist? Are standardized entrance exams the best path to meritocratic admissions? How concerned should we be about diversity and equity and whether student bodies are representative of their surrounding communities?

Ian Rowe is the CEO and cofounder of Vertex Partnership Academies, a virtues-based International Baccalaureate high school in the Bronx. He is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. His most recent books is “Agency: The Four Point Plan (F.R.E.E.) for ALL Children to Overcome the Victimhood Narrative and Discover Their Pathway to Power”

Stefan Redding Lollinger is the Executive Director of Next100, a multi-issue, progressive policy think tank. He’s a Scholar in Residence at American University and the first Director of a Century Foundation initiative to advance diversity and integration in schools and neighborhoods.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Ryan Craig is a Managing Director at Achieve Partners and co-founder of Apprenticeships for America. Ryan is also the author of Apprentice Nation: How the "Earn and Learn" Alternative to Higher Education Will Create a Stronger and Fairer America.

Dr. Bridget Burns is founding CEO of the University Innovation Alliance, a ‘multi-campus laboratory’ for student success in higher education. Previously, Dr. Burns served as an American Council on Education Fellow at Arizona State University and a Senior Policy Advisor and Chief of Staff for the Oregon University System.

Episode Notes

02:00 - Bridget's Perspective
04:15 - Ryan's Counterpoint
06:12 - Defining 'Worth It': Beyond Economic ROI
09:59 - The Role of Higher Education in Society
15:19 - The Need for Accountability and Reform
17:14 - The Apprenticeship Dilemma
21:04 - College or Chipotle
21:32 - The European Model vs. The American System
22:59 - The Need for Adaptability and Social Skills
25:05 - The Cost and Value of College Education
26:17 - The Future of College and Employment
33:28 - Steel Man

This episode was recorded live in San Diego at the annual ASU+GSV Summit. You can watch the live stream of it on YouTube.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Sign up for our newsletter at thedisagreement.substack.com

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Gender Affirming Care is a method of treating gender dysphoria by affirming a child’s gender identity and tailoring medical and social interventions around this identity. This might begin with a social transition and often leads to a medical protocol that involves puberty blockers and then cross sex hormones.

Almost a year ago, we had a conversation with leading national clinicians, Dr. Jack Drescher and Dr. Erica Anderson about the state of gender affirming care for young people in the United States. If you haven’t listened to that episode, I highly recommend it as a helpful primer for this conversation. Since then, a lot has changed in the conversation about trans care for young people.

In April 2024, the Cass report came out in the UK. It is one of the most thorough reviews of the evidence base for gender-affirming care. It also called into question the limits of what we know and don’t know about care for minors. Right now, 27 states have enacted laws to ban or restrict the practice and the supreme court will be ruling on it later this year. And the United States has a new presidential administration who recently issued the executive order: “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation," which attempts to put forth a national ban on gender affirming care.

We ask some important questions around gender affirming care and the trans rights movement. Have trans advocates and medical practitioners overstated the quality of the evidence base for gender-affirming interventions for minors?

Brianna Wu is a political commentator and trans rights activist. She is executive director of the progressive Rebellion PAC.

Dr. Marci Bowers is a pelvic and gynecological surgeon with more than three decades of experience in healthcare. Dr. Bowers was most recently the president of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). She was the organization's first transgender president.

Thank you to Brianna and Marci for coming together to have this critical conversation. It's a difficult topic and as you’ll hear, a difficult conversation. But we need more of this. We need more people willing to come together and have hard conversations out in the open, and we really appreciate you both.

This conversation is pretty “in the weeds” when it comes to youth gender medicine and the state of the research. If you have the context, that’s great – you can skip ahead. If you don’t, here is a highly efficient glossary:

• WPATH is the leading trans health organization in the world. Its “Standards of Care” or SOC - have served as the national guidelines for youth gender medicine in most gender clinics.
• The Standards of Care have evolved a great deal over time: SOC 6, published in 2001, required multiple psychological assessments and a period of Real Life Experience (RLE), living as the preferred gender, before any medical interventions. The most recent SOC, SOC 8, was published in 2022. It removed many of these requirements which activists have described as “gatekeeping.”
• The Dutch Protocol, also known as “watchful waiting”, is a more conservative alternative to gender-affirming care. It focuses on providing large amounts of psychological support and monitoring during childhood. If the dysphoria continues to persist, then putting young people on puberty blockers and cross sex hormones in late adolescence.
• Language around gender identity is constantly evolving. Brianna uses the term FTM (or Female to Male) to describe females who transition. For the same demographic, Marci uses “transmasculine.”
• We also talk about Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) and Facial Feminization Surgery (FFS).
• Okay, that will hopefully create a solid foundation. Take a deep breath. Open your mind as far as it’s willing to go. And prepare for a different kind of conversation on gender affirming care and the future of the trans rights movement.

Recommended Reading and Listening

• WPATH Standards of Care Version 8
• Last year’s episode of The Disagreement about gender-affirming care: https://podcasts.apple.com/si/podcast/12-gender-affirming-care-for-children-and-adolescents/id1735027795?i=1000658885782

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

In this episode, we use The Telepathy Tapes as a springboard to ask some big questions about science, skepticism, and the nature of truth. 

Is telepathy real? How should we evaluate the claims in the podcast? Do these claims adversely affect–even harm–the autistic young people being celebrated?

To have this conversation, we’ve brought together a journalist and a religious scholar with very different approaches to understanding the truth.

Zaid Jilani is a journalist whose work has appeared in The Intercept, News Nation and Alternet. He writes about politics and culture on his Substack The American Saga.

Jeffrey Kripal is the J. Newton Rayzor Chair in Philosophy and Religious Thought at Rice University and the Associate Director of the Center for Theory and Research at the Esalen Institute. Jeffrey is also the author of thirteen books, including most recently: How to Think Impossibly.

Before we get started, a note. In The Telepathy Tapes, the nonverbal autistic young people use a controversial method to communicate with the outside world. It’s called “facilitated communication.” There is an adult that helps to facilitate the young person’s communication—usually through some form of touch and holding a letterboard that the young person point to. We get into this in-depth on the podcast.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Want to listen to more live conversations from EDTECH WEEK 2024? Watch more here.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

What is the nature of biological male advantage? What constitutes fairness? How do we reconcile gender identity and underlying biology?

Host Alex Grodd moderates a disagreement between sports legal expert Doriane Coleman and sports physicist Joanna Harper. They explore the nuances of sex/gender category definitions, the implications of hormone therapy for gender diverse athletes, and the broader societal impacts of inclusion in female sports categories. Through deep dives into the science, historical context, and ethical considerations, this is a different kind of conversation about fairness, biology, and gender identity in competitive sports.

Got questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our Substack at thedisagreement.substack.com.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

In our Gentle Parenting, episode with Lori Gottlieb and Ryan Allen, we covered a lot of ground, but didn’t dive deeply into the role of discipline and punishment in raising kids. So we're circling back with one of the internet's most influential, gentle parenting thinkers, Destini Ann Davis.

This episode is partly Alex being coached by Destini and partly a disagreement about the role that punishment should play in cultivating and exercising authority as a parent. While they agree on a lot, you'll hear some substantive differences in styles, tactics, and core philosophies.

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Is the rapid ascent of online sports betting creating a public health crisis? Is the online sports betting industry predatory? How should it be regulated?

Dr. Harry Levant is the Director of Gambling Policy with the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University. Harry is also an Internationally Certified Gambling Counselor and a gambling addict in recovery for more than ten years.

Ben Fawkes is a sports betting expert and industry insider. As a consultant and writer, Ben has produced work for CBS Sports, Gannett, and ESPN. Previously, was the Vice President, Digital Content at VSiN, The Sports Betting Network.

Show Notes

• 3:16 - Legalization: Benefits and Risks
• 6:44 - Public Health Concerns
• 11:30 - Infrastructure, Addiction and Revenue
• 22:00 - Same Game Parlays
• 32:00 - Advertising and The Impact on Young People
• 36:21 - Sports Gambling and Fandom
• 45:00 - VIP Hosts and Reload Bonuses
• 48:08 - The Need for Regulation
• 55:51 - Steelman

Extra Credit

• Surge in problem gambling in NJ
• DraftKings CEO rebuffs argument that AI could make sports betting more addictive: ‘There is some onus on the individual’
• A Psychiatrist Tried to Quit Gambling. Betting Apps Kept Her Hooked.
• Fanduel network shows an industry bought and paid for by gambling

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

In the age of climate change, is it more ethical to have kids or not have kids? What are the costs and benefits of either choice when the reality of our shared future is unknown? What does the pro-natalist movement and its policies get right and wrong?

Heather Houser is a professor of English Literature at the University of Texas at Austin. A cultural critic and author of the book Infowhelm, Heather is an expert on climate change and feminism.

Liz Bruenig is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where she writes about theology, politics and policy. Previously, Liz was an opinion writer for The New York Times and The Washington Post, where she was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing.

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Two education experts come together for a longform, productive disagreement about whether AI is going to usher in a new era of personalized learning – and whether that is a good thing.

Niels Hoven is the Founder and CEO of Mentava, a software company committed to accelerating learning for top-performing students. Mentava’s first product is a software-based tutor, designed to teach preschool students how to read.

Benjamin Riley is the founder of Cognitive Resonance, a new venture dedicated to improving understanding of human cognition and generative AI. Previously, he founded and served as CEO of Deans for Impact, a nonprofit education organization working to improve teacher training through the use of cognitive science.

Show Notes

• Reflections on personalized learning 15 years in [03:00]
• AI and the new path to personalized learning [05:02]
• The risk of moving away from collective learning [06:47]
• Theory of mind considerations [10:10]
• Bill gates and the dream of AI in Ed [15:17]
• The future of ungated learning [17:15]
• The danger of magnifying differences [20:12]
• The 5% problem [22:15]
• Engagement and learning [23:40]
• Balancing AI risks and benefits [30:09]
• Is our current system working or failing [33:05]
• What should we be improving [36:32]
• The joy of effortful thinking [38:01]
• Steelmanning [40:20]

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Ryan Allen is a licensed child therapist and gentle parenting expert and influencer. He specializes in helping “little kids with big emotions.” He’s a bit of a social media phenom, with 1M followers on TikTok.

Lori Gotlieb is a psychotherapist and New York Times bestselling author. Her book, Maybe You Should Talk to Someone, has sold more than a million copies. She also co-hosts the podcast “Dear Therapists” and writes The Atlantic’s “Dear Therapist” advice column.

The Questions

• How should parents help kids regulate their emotions? 
• What is the right role for punishments and consequences?
• And…what is the happy medium between “Because I said so!” and Lord of the Flies?

Mentions

Lori Gottlieb’s 2011 Article in the Atlantic: “How to Land Your Kid in Therapy”

Dr. Becky, Founder of Good Inside and ‘Millennial Parenting Whisperer’

Janet Lansbury’s ‘No Bad Kids’ Method

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

To have this conversation, we’ve brought together two experts: a world class computer scientist and a Silicon Valley AI entrepreneur.

Roman Yampolskiy is an associate professor of Computer Engineering and Computer Science at the University of Louisville. His most recent book is: AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable.

Alan Cowen is the Chief Executive Officer of Hume AI, a startup developing “emotionally intelligent AI.” His company recently raised $50M from top-tier venture capitalists to pursue the first fully empathic AI – an AI that can both understand our emotional states and replicate them. Alan has a PhD in computational psychology from Berkeley and previously worked at Google in the DeepMind AI lab.

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Andrew Biggs is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He studies social security reform, pensions and public sector benefits. Before joining AEI, Biggs was the principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

Monique Morrissey is a Senior Economist at the Economic Policy Institute. Her areas of expertise span social security, pensions, older workers and household savings. A member of the National Academy of Social Insurance, Monique is active in efforts to reform the private retirement system.

• Will millions of us never be able to stop working?
• Is social security actually on the verge of collapse?
• How much should we be panicking?

Before we get started, economists think about retirement as a three-legged stool: social security, employer retirement accounts, and personal savings or other assets. We’ll talk about all three legs, how shaky they are, and whether or not the U.S. government needs to fold up a napkin and jam it under one or two of them. ;)

Since the 1970s, there has been a national shift away from defined-benefit plans or “DB Plans,” such as pensions, in which employers funded and guaranteed a retirement benefit for their workers. We started seeing a lot more defined-contribution (“DC Plans”) such as 401(k)s, where workers primarily fund their own accounts, and employers can match contributions - or choose not to. 

This episode is moderated by Catherine Cushenberry.

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

On the Left, white privilege is a bedrock principle, a foundational assumption that motivates much of the discourse around race in America. On the Right, the concept is primarily an object of derision. It’s dismissed, mocked and held up as the sign of the Left’s moral confusion and obsession with identity politics.

To work through this problem, we’ve brought together a Black conservative philosopher and a white anti-racist activist.

Jason D. Hill is a professor of philosophy and the author of five books, including most recently What Do White Americans Owe Black People: Racial Justice in the Age of Post-Oppression. He holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and has been a professional writer and author for more than thirty years. 

Garrett Bucks is the founder of The Barnraisers Project, which is committed to organizing majority-white communities for racial and social justice. He is also the author of the popular Substack newsletter The White Pages, and recently released a memoir called The Right Kind of White.

The Questions

• Does white privilege exist?
• How does it interact with other forms of privilege, like class class and gender?
• Is it a useful concept politically and culturally?

Show Notes

• 3:09 - Defining white privilege
• 6:22 - White working class critique
• 12:44 - Black excellence
• 15:04 - American individualism vs. communitarianism
• 16:41 - Black immigrant experiences
• 19:15 - On Robin DiAngelo
• 22:58 - Left and Right class critiques of racial privilege
• 25:11 - Intersectionality
• 28:19 - White saviors
• 33:02 - White guilt
• 36:34 - Steelmanning

Further Reading

Jason Hill’s letter to Ta-Nehisi Coates

Critique of Robin DiAngelo

White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack by Peggy McIntosh

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com. You can also DM us @thedisagreementhq

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Dr. Avi Loeb is an astrophysicist and professor of Science at Harvard University. As head of The Galileo Project at Harvard, Dr. Loeb directs the search for evidence of extraterrestrials. Avi is also the author of more than eight hundred scientific papers and the books Interstellar and Extraterrestrial: The First Sign of Intelligent Life Beyond Earth.

Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine. He is the bestselling author of many books, including Why People Believe Weird Things and The Believing Brain. Michael is the host of the podcast The Michael Shermer Show and a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University.

Today we ask a wide range of important questions about extraterrestrial life:

• Do we already have evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life?
• What would it take for us to all agree there are technological civilizations beyond earth?
• How does the media complicate our understanding of the subject?
• And why is there so much tension in the scientific community about this work?

Show Notes

• Fermi’s question: where is everybody? [3:45]
• Addressing anomalies [6:45]
• Radio communication versus finding objects [10:00]
• Why media coverage loves “aliens” [12:00]
• Skepticism and anomalies [14:00]
• Disagreements in the scientific community [16:00]
• Real material evidence and the US government [21:00]
• Machine learning for observing anomalous objects [27:00]
• Steelmanning [31:30]

What did you think about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Rafael A. Mangual works on the Policing & Public Safety Initiative at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. He is a contributing editor of City Journal AND is the author of Criminal (In)Justice: What The Push For Decarceration And Depolicing Gets Wrong And Who It Hurts Most.

Chesa Boudin is the founding executive director of Berkeley's Criminal Law and Justice Center. Previously, Chesa served as elected district attorney for the city of San Francisco from 2020 - 2022 as part of a wave of “progressive prosecutors.” In 2022, there was a successful recall campaign that resulted in him leaving the office. Chesa’s biological parents, David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, were members of the weather underground, who went to prison and served a combined 62 years. As you’ll hear him reference, he grew up visiting his parents in prison.

Today we ask a wide range of important questions about criminal justice reform.

• What is the rationale behind incarceration? Is it an effective means of deterring and preventing crime?
• What is the right role for the police to play in communities?
• Should police spend less time and energy responding to smaller, non-violent offenses and be more focused on preventing and responding to violent crime?

This is an incredibly consequential topic that has a massive impact on the lives of millions of Americans. As you are likely aware, the entire life cycle of the criminal justice system impacts marginalized communities and communities of color in highly disproportionate ways. We discuss this explicitly at times but it also hovers over the entire conversation. 

There’s a lot of data in this episode so strap in – take breaks whenever you need it.  

Show Notes

• Four theories of incarceration - [10:00]
• Deterrence and Sentence Length [15:00]
• Incapacitation [18:00]
• Recidivism, Cost and Age [19:30]
• Measuring Arrests versus Convictions [26:00]
• Geographic concentration of violence [29:00]
• Arrest patterns and offenders [31:00]
• Role of policing [39:00]
• Policing versus prosecution

What did you think about this episode? Reply to this message, comment below, or email us at 

podcast@thedisagreement.com

. You can also DM us on Instagram @thedisagreementhq or subscribe for more special content on our YouTube channel.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Gender-affirming care, as defined by the World Health Organization, includes social, psychological, behavioral, and medical interventions “designed to support and affirm an individual’s gender identity” when it conflicts with their gender assigned at birth.

How long should physicians and clinicians observe a child before they decide to treat them for gender dysphoria?

When (if ever) should a child socially transition, begin hormones, and/or undergo surgery for their gender?

Dr. Erica Anderson is an internationally recognized clinical psychologist and academic, specializing in Gender, Sexuality, and Identity. She served on the medical staff of the Youth Gender Clinic at the UCSF Benioff Children’s Hospital and on the board of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH).

Dr. Jack Drescher is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In 2022, Dr. Drescher was a member of the APA’s DSM-5 Workgroup on Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders – responsible for revising the definition of what is now referred to as “gender dysphoria.” An openly gay psychiatrist, Dr. Drescher has also served on the World Health Organization’s workgroup revising sexual and gender diagnoses.

Show Notes

• Defining gender [04:16]
• Shift in patients at pediatric gender clinics [11:20]
• The Canadian approach [16:33]
• Treatment options [20:11]
• Determining if a child will benefit from transition [27:04]
• Increase in cases [29:19]
• Risks and benefits of treatment [35:01]
• Level of caution for when to use medicines [42:46]
• Canadian vs Dutch approach [46:58]
• Question of rapid medicalization [49:14]
• Difficulty of the conversation [54:44]
• Comparison with gay marriage [57:24]

Do you have questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

The "math wars” is a debate happening in K-12 education about the best way to teach math. Broadly speaking, there are two camps that have conflicting pedagogical approaches:

Explicit instruction focuses on procedural fluency, guided practice, and repetition.

Inquiry-based instruction focuses on conceptual understanding, open-ended problems, and productive struggle.

This is an incredibly high-stakes debate — especially if you have children or loved ones that are currently receiving K-12 math instruction. To explore its contours, we’ve brought on two math education experts

The Guests

Kevin Dykema is President of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), an international organization with more than 30,000 members. Kevin has been a passionate advocate for inquiry-based instruction and NCTM is one of the method’s leading proponents. Kevin is also a teacher — currently in southwest Michigan — and he has taught 8th grade mathematics for over 25 years.

Holly Korbey is an independent education journalist, whose work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and many more. Holly also writes and produces The Bell Ringer, a Substack newsletter about the science of learning.

Today we ask a wide range of important questions about the Math Wars:

How do children actually learn math, and what’s the best way to teach them?

Which approach has a more compelling body of evidence on its side?

What is the best way to teach students from low-income and marginalized communities?

Show Notes

• Why the math wars are consequential [03:20]
• Inquiry-based instruction overview [05:19]
• Cognitive science [06:52]
• Relationship between conceptual understanding and fluency [11:26]
• Productive struggle [13:15]
• Research overview [20:05]
• What does explicit instruction look like? [23:50]
• Income and race [25:13]
• Arithmetic automaticity [29:19]
• What would change your mind? [32:01]
• Steelmanning [34:24]

This is a special episode of The Disagreement. What you’re about to hear is a live recording from the New Schools Summit, one of the most important education events of the year. 

This our first ever live taping and we had a blast. Huge shout out to the NewSchools team for making it happen.

And we should add that we’re taking our podcast on the road! Would you like The Disagreement to come to your conference, event, off-site, college, synagogue, or mosque? We want to hear from you. Email podcast@thedisagreement.com.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

In mid-April 2024, the United States Congress passed legislation that gave ByteDance, the parent company of TikTok, 270 days to sell TikTok or it would be banned in the United States. In response, TikTok filed a lawsuit declaring the legislation unconstitutional on a number of free speech grounds. And it’s currently making its way through the courts.

What are the compelling arguments for and against a potential ban or forced sale? Is it constitutional?

The Guests

Evan Greer is a Director at Fight For the Future, an advocacy organization focused on technology and free expression. She writes for major publications including The Guardian, Time, and Newsweek. And…we should add that Evan is also a musician who has performed with artists such as Pete Seeger, Talib Kweli, and Dispatch.

Sam Lessin is a partner at Slow Ventures, a venture capital firm based in the Bay Area. He is also the co-host of More or Less, a podcast that analyzes the tech industry. Previously, Sam founded a number of tech companies and was the VP of Product at Facebook.

Show Notes

• Evaluating the legislation [2:47]
• The 1st Amendment [05:36]
• How independent is ByteDance? [11:17]
• Data collection [16:37]
• Is there a slippery slope? [17:28]
• Privacy protection [24:12]
• What will happen to TikTok after the legislation? [36:09]
• China’s interests [40:25]
• Young people and TikTok [46:50]
• Political factors [47:27]
• Steelmanning [50:04]

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

We’ve brought together an activist and a doctor to dive into the topic:

Dr. Ira Byock is a physician, author, and advocate for palliative care — the medical practice of treating people with serious, complex, and terminal illnesses. Ira is the founder of the Providence St. Joseph Health Institute for Human Caring and is an emeritus professor of medicine and professor of community health and family medicine at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College.

Kim Callinan is an end-of-life leader and advocate in the field of medical aid in dying. She is President and Chief Executive Officer of Compassion & Choices, an organization that aims to “improve care, expand options and empower everyone to chart their end-of-life journey.”

Today we ask a wide range of important questions on medical aid in dying.

How broken is end-of-life care in America? And how should we fix it?

What are the potential risks and benefits of implementing medical aid in dying?

How should we be thinking about death, dying, and the end-of-life for our loved ones?

And one more very exciting note: today's disagreement is facilitated by Catherine Cushenberry, one of our producers and someone who has been helping to bring the idea for this podcast to life from the very beginning. Catherine is also a healthcare industry veteran and the perfect facilitator for this topic.

And as you'll hear, she's awesome at it.

Show Notes

Current state of end-of-life care [03:25]

Palliative care [07:45]

Question of unintended consequences [12:56]

Defining medical aid in dying [16:47]

Effect of medical aid in dying on end-of-life care [22:36]

Medical aid in dying outside the U.S. [28:02]

Process of medical aid in dying [33:56]

Is there a slippery slope? [37:30]

Reasons why people choose medical aid in dying [43:21]

Financial incentives [47:08]

Steelmanning [51:05]

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

We wanted to get into the alternatives, but didn’t have enough time in the main disagreement. 

Sarah agreed to come back and talk about the other options available to parents — what she calls the more ‘gentle techniques.’ 

Sarah Moore is a conscious parenting trainer and founder of Dandelion Seeds Positive Parenting. Sarah is Board Chair for the American Society for the Positive Care of Children, and the author of Peaceful Discipline: Story Teaching, Brain Science & Better Behavior.

If you haven’t listened to the original disagreement between Megan and Sarah yet, head over to our feed and take a listen. Or start right here and then circle back for the more comprehensive dive into the topic. 

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

The Guests

Sarah Moore is a conscious parenting trainer and founder of Dandelion Seeds Positive Parenting. Sarah is Board Chair for the American Society for the Positive Care of Children, and the author of Peaceful Discipline: Story Teaching, Brain Science & Better Behavior.

Megan Tucker is a registered nurse, certified lactation consultant and certified childbirth instructor. Megan is the founder of Baby Basics Atlanta, where she works with families of newborn children.

Today we ask a wide range of important questions about sleep training:

What is the best way to help parents get their newborns to sleep through the night?

What are the ethics of the “cry-it-out” method?

How should the parents balance the needs of their children with their own needs?

Show Notes

• Defining the cry-it-out method [04:31]
• Longterm effects of parental responsiveness [08:43]
• Challenges in sleep research [11:54]
• What is the average duration of crying in the cry-it-out method? [14:50]
• Co-sleeping [17:23]
• Sleep training trade-offs [28:31]
• Critiques of sleep training [32:28]
• Impact of less sleep on parents [39:55]
• Reasons why newborns cry [46:19]
• Needs of the baby vs. needs of the family unit [48:23]

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

• Is marijuana harmful? And if so, what is the nature of the harm?
• Has the increasing regulation of marijuana over the past few years been positive or negative for public health, criminal justice, and the US economy?
• What are the most compelling arguments for and against regulation?

Guests

Paul Armentano is the Political Director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and a leading national advocate for legalizing marijuana. He has written many books and policy papers, including: Marijuana is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People to Drink? and Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids.

Dr. Stuart Gitlow is a psychiatrist and internationally recognized addiction expert. He previously served as President of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. In 2016, he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee opposing the legalization of marijuana. He is the author of Substance Use Disorders: A Practical Guide.

Show Notes

• Comparison with seatbelt laws [05:12]
• Effects on criminal justice [07:15]
• Economic impacts [11:29]
• Impact on productivity [12:52]
• Public health implications [14:36]
• Comparison with alcohol [17:27]
• Substance dependence [19:39]
• Basis of addictive disease [23:03]
• Profit motive [26:50]
• Issue of psychosis [31:46]
• Impact of THC on psychosis [34:14]
• Steelmanning [37:26]

Resources

• Link to the Lancet study referenced in the podcast on cannabis use and psychosis
• Link to a Journal of the American Medical Association study that shows the disproportionate impact of anti-marijuana laws on African-Americans

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Shadi Hamid is an American author and political scientist, who is currently a columnist and member of the Editorial Board at The Washington Post. He is also a host on the Wisdom of Crowds podcast.

Daniel Bessner is the Annett H. and Kenneth B. Pyle Associate Professor in American Foreign Policy at the University of Washington. He also co-hosts the American Prestige podcast. 

Today we ask a wide range important questions about American power:

• To what extent should the U.S. be involved in Ukraine, Taiwan, and the Middle East?
• Are we the good guys?
• What are the alternatives to American hegemony?

This conversation is a sequel to an extended disagreement between Shadi and Danny on The Wisdom of Crowds podcast two years ago. It’s definitely worth a listen.

Show Notes

• U.S. role in promoting democracy abroad [04:12]
• The historical record of U.S. interventions [09:39]
• How many democracies are there in the world? [12:20]
• What metrics measure democracy? [13:24]
• U.S. policy toward Ukraine [15:28]
• Possible motivations for Russia’s invasion [17:41]
• Is perception of American strength a deterrent? [20:25]
• Comparing Russia, China and the U.S. [24:50]
• China-U.S. conflict [39:44]
• Israel and Gaza [41:36]
• Steelmanning [51:24]

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Professor Brian Morris is professor emeritus of molecular medical sciences at the University of Sydney in Australia. Over the last few decades, he has become perhaps the most prolific researcher in the world when it comes to the medical benefits of circumcision.  

Dr. Ted Handler is a pediatrician at East Bay Pediatrics in northern California and the founding pediatrician for Oath Care, a venture-backed healthcare startup. In 2023, he wrote a viral article called “A Jewish pediatrician’s surprising take on circumcision." 

Today we ask a wide range of questions:

• How common is circumcision in the United States and across the globe?
• How do you weigh the risks and benefits?
• What are the implications for sexual health and pleasure?

Show Notes

• Differing UTI rates [07:45]
• Hygienic argument for circumcision [14:07]
• Sexual experience sensitivity [16:34]
• Does removing the foreskin remove sensation receptors? [18:35]
• Evolutionary purpose of foreskin [25:20]
• Risk of injury from circumcision [26:28]
• Trauma for the parents [30:21]
• The Plastibell technique [34:38]
• Perspectives of sexual partners [39:24]
• Social/cultural reasons [41:15]
• Changing rates of circumcision [42:36]
• Steelmanning [43:59]

If you know of anyone who would be a good guest on the following episodes, please reach out to Greg Woodward at greg@thedisagreement.com:

• An expert who is opposed to banning TikTok in the U.S.
• An expert who supports the use of consequences/punishments in day-to-day parenting

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

The Guests

Rabbi Stuart Weinblatt founded Congregation B’Nai Tzedek in Potomac, Maryland in 1988 and is the Senior Rabbi there. He is the Chair of the Zionist Rabbinic Coalition and has previously served as the President of the Rabbinic Cabinet of the Jewish Federations of North America, and the Director of Israel Policy and Advocacy at the Rabbinical Assembly. 

Rabbi Matthew Soffer is the Senior Rabbi at Judea Reform Congregation in Durham, North Carolina. Previously, Rabbi Soffer served at Temple Israel in Boston, where he led the nationally influential Riverway Project and Ohel Tzedek, the synagogue’s social justice wing. 

Today we ask a wide range of questions relating to the war in Gaza and Zionism more broadly: 

• Is the war in Gaza a just war? 
• How does one balance the particularism of Jewish peoplehood with the universalism of Jewish teaching?
• How should advocates of Israel be publicly speaking about Palestinian suffering? 
• Can Israel defeat Hamas? If so, at what cost?

Two quick notes:

1. This is the first of what will hopefully be many conversations on Israel/Palestine and the broader conflict. Our goal is to give voice to a wide variety of stakeholders and perspectives.
2. Disagreements are live and feral and unpredictable. In my conversation with the Rabbis, there are times where I cross over into being more of a participant than a host. This happened organically. It’s not our core model. But it’s honest and real. And it’s representative of many of the conversations that are taking place right now.

Show Notes

• General atmosphere in Israel [05:09]
• Feelings of moral confusion vs moral clarity [06:44]
• What is the cost of defeating Hamas? [08:35]
• Jewish ultra-nationalists in Israeli government [15:41]
• Acknowledging the suffering of Palestinians [21:54]
• What does “defeating Hamas” mean? [28:42]
• Ratio of civilian to combatant deaths [30:42]
• Jewish concept of tikkun olam [32:43]
• Do American Jews need Israel? [40:32]
• Netanyahu’s impact on Jewish peoplehood [42:46]
• Does Israel fill a spiritual vacuum for American Jews [46:16]
• Anti-Zionist Jews [51:44]
• Steelmanning [53:20]

If you have any recommendations for other guests on the topic of Israel/Palestine/Gaza (or any recommendations for any other topics/guests) please reach out to producer Greg Woodward at greg@thedisagreement.com.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

We’re working through most of the major arguments for and against nuclear power – such as:

• Pragmatic concerns with nuclear energy: specifically, the cost and timing
• China’s advantages over the United States when it comes to creating nuclear power plants
• The strengths and weaknesses of renewable energy sources

The Guests

Joshua Goldstein is an emeritus professor of International Relations at American University and the co-writer of the documentary Nuclear Now with Oliver Stone. He also co-authored the book A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change and the Rest Can Follow.

Stephanie Cooke is a journalist who specializes in reporting on nuclear energy. She has previously served as the editor of Nuclear Intelligence Weekly and is the author of In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age.

Show Notes

• Why nuclear energy? [02:37]
• Growing support for nuclear power [07:11]
• Reorganizing our energy grid [09:06]
• Nuclear as nonpartisan [11:02]
• History of nuclear power in the U.S. [11:27]
• How China approaches nuclear energy [14:47]
• What are the economics of building nuclear power plants? [17:34]
• Obstacles for renewables [21:45]
• Natural gas as replacement for nuclear [23:24]
• Small modular reactors [26:40]
• Downsides of wind and solar [24:54]
• Is nuclear safe? [30:44]
• Dealing with nuclear waste [36:04]
• Steelmanning [43:31]
• Hiding nuclear weapons production in nuclear energy programs [49:26]

Resources

Overview of what nuclear energy is according to the International Atomic Energy Agency if you need a primer/refresher.

If you have any insights into new possible topics or guests, please reach out to producer Greg Woodward at greg@thedisagreement.com.

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

Specifically, what are the causes of ADHD? Is it biological or environmental or both? And given that, what is the right approach to medicating and treating our children?

In today’s episode: two health experts with very different perspectives on ADHD.

The Guests

Marilyn Wedge (Phd, LMFT) is a practicing Family Therapist in Westlake, CA and author of A Disease called Childhood: Why ADHD Became an American Epidemic. She holds a Phd in Social Psychology from the University of Chicago.

Ryan Sultan (MD) is Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York State Psychiatric Institute. Ryan is a national expert on ADHD and cannabis use.

Show Notes

• What is ADHD? [04:10]
• How does the home environment impact ADHD symptoms? [10:53]
• Use of medication when nothing else works [14:22]
• Does ADHD exist? [17:05]
• Skyrocketing U.S. rates of ADHD [19:07]
• Is ADHD a disease or a constellation of traits? [20:54]
• Conflation of ADHD and other mental health disorders [32:00]
• ADHD underdiagnosis pre-2000s? [34:26]
• The use of amphetamines in treating ADHD [36:45]
• Side effects of ADHD medication [39:16]
• How and why schools identify ADHD in children [45:15]
• Ryan’s personal story with ADHD [46:14]
• Gender differences in diagnosis rates [52:19]
• Steelmanning [54:03]

Resources

The original 1937 article by Dr. Charles Bradley about the impact of benzedrine on children in the American Journal of Psychiatry

ADHD Nation: Children, Doctors, Big Pharma, and the Making of an American Epidemic by Alan Schwarz

The ADHD Advantage by Dale Archer

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/

First, the border: how did we get here and what should we do now? Second, what is the right strategic approach to U.S. immigration?

How do we weigh the costs and benefits? How do we balance national interests and humanitarian concerns?

In today's episode: two immigration experts with two very different perspectives on this pressing issue.

The Guests

Marielena Hincapié is a Distinguished Immigration Scholar at Cornell University and served as the Executive Director of the National Immigration Law Center for 14 years. She also served on the Biden-Sanders Unity Taskforce on Immigration.

Philip Cafaro is a professor of Philosophy at the College of Liberal Arts at Colorado State University. He is the author of How Many Is Too Many?: The Progressive Argument for Reducing Immigration into the United States from the University of Chicago Press (2015).

Show Notes

• Why do people immigrate to the United States?  [04:15]
• Who bears the brunt of responsibility for the current crisis: Pres. Biden or Pres. Trump? [05:49]
• Did the Biden administration incentivize mass immigration? [07:24]
• The difference between asylum-seekers and refugees [16:12]
• The humanitarian crisis in Central America [17:11]
• U.S. culpability in the conditions in Latin American countries [25:45]
• Impact on domestic wages  [27:30]
• Enforcement of labor laws [32:29]
• Environmental impact of overpopulation [33:00]
• Is there a labor shortage? [35:17]
• Impact of immigration on African Americans [41:30]
• White working class identity [48:11]
• Steelmanning  [53:42]

Questions or comments about this episode? Email us at podcast@thedisagreement.com or find us on X and Instagram @thedisagreementhq. Subscribe to our newsletter: https://thedisagreement.substack.com/