
Insights from recent episode analysis
Audience Interest
Podcast Focus
Publishing Consistency
Platform Reach
Insights are generated by CastFox AI using publicly available data, episode content, and proprietary models.
Total monthly reach
Estimated from 18 chart positions in 18 markets.
By chart position
- 🇦🇺AU · Philosophy#6230K to 100K
- 🇨🇦CA · Philosophy#7230K to 100K
- 🇩🇪DE · Philosophy#9130K to 100K
- 🇺🇸US · Philosophy#1885K to 30K
- 🇲🇽MX · Philosophy#4530K to 100K
- Per-Episode Audience
Est. listeners per new episode within ~30 days
111K to 391K🎙 Biweekly cadence·263 episodes·Long inactive - Monthly Reach
Unique listeners across all episodes (30 days)
159K to 558K🇦🇺18%🇨🇦18%🇩🇪18%+15 more - Active Followers
Loyal subscribers who consistently listen
48K to 167K
Market Insights
Platform Distribution
Reach across major podcast platforms, updated hourly
Total Followers
—
Total Plays
—
Total Reviews
—
* Data sourced directly from platform APIs and aggregated hourly across all major podcast directories.
On the show
Recent episodes
Is cash the best way to help the poor? (Michael Faye)
Dec 23, 2021
Unknown duration
Humanity on the precipice (Toby Ord)
Dec 10, 2021
Unknown duration
Dangerous biological research - is it worth it? (Kevin Esvelt)
Nov 30, 2021
Unknown duration
Why we're polarized (Ezra Klein)
Nov 5, 2021
Unknown duration
The genetic lottery (Kathryn Paige Harden)
Oct 15, 2021
Unknown duration
Social Links & Contact
Official channels & resources
Official Website
Login
RSS Feed
Login
| Date | Episode | Description | Length | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12/23/21 | ![]() Is cash the best way to help the poor? (Michael Faye) | The idea of giving poor people cash, no strings attached, is "very unappealing" for most donors, admits economist Michael Faye -- but it's still one of the best ways to help the poor. Michael and Julia discuss the philosophy behind his organization (GiveDirectly), the evidence we have so far about cash transfers as an anti-poverty intervention, and the various concerns people have about it: How long-lasting are the effects? Does it make recipients less likely to work? Does it cause inflation? | — | ||||||
| 12/10/21 | ![]() Humanity on the precipice (Toby Ord) | Humanity could thrive for millions of years -- unless our future is cut short by an existential catastrophe. Oxford philosopher Toby Ord explains the possible existential risks we face, including climate change, pandemics, and artificial intelligence. Toby and Julia discuss what led him to take existential risk more seriously, which risks he considers underrated vs. overrated, and how to estimate the probability of existential risk. | — | ||||||
| 11/30/21 | ![]() Dangerous biological research - is it worth it? (Kevin Esvelt) | Kevin Esvelt, a scientist at MIT, argues that research intended to prevent pandemics is actually putting us in a lot more danger. Also discussed: Kevin's own research on engineering wild animal species. Are the risks worth the benefits? | — | ||||||
| 11/5/21 | ![]() Why we're polarized (Ezra Klein) | Ezra Klein explains how Republican and Democrats in the US became so different from each other, ideologically and demographically, and why that trend + our institutions = political gridlock. Questions covered include: Is polarization necessarily bad? Has the left polarized more than the right? And what should we make of polls that seem to show Republicans and Democrats used to agree on immigration policy? | — | ||||||
| 10/15/21 | ![]() The genetic lottery (Kathryn Paige Harden) | Kathryn Paige Harden, author of "The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality" explains what scientists have learned about how our genes affect our educational success. Why is this research so controversial? And is it worth doing anyway? | — | ||||||
| 9/14/21 | ![]() How to reason about COVID, and other hard things (Kelsey Piper) | Journalist Kelsey Piper (Future Perfect / Vox) discusses lessons learned from covering COVID: What has she been wrong about, and why? How much can we trust the CDC's advice? What does the evidence look like for different drugs like Fluvoxamine and Ivermectin? And should regular people really try to evaluate the evidence themselves instead of deferring to experts? | — | ||||||
| 8/19/21 | ![]() "Price gouging" in emergencies | Every time there's an emergency, the prices of certain goods skyrocket -- like masks and hand sanitizer during COVID -- and the public gets angry about price gouging. In this episode, two economists (Raymond Niles and Amihai Glazer) make the case for why "price gouging" is actually a good thing, and Julia raises potential counterarguments. | — | ||||||
| 6/10/21 | ![]() How to be a data detective (Tim Harford) | When you see a statistic reported in the news, like "10% of University of California Berkeley students were homeless this year," how do you evaluate it? You shouldn't blindly accept every statistic you read. But neither should you reject everything that sounds surprising. Tim Harford, economist and author of The Data Detective: Ten Easy Rules to Make Sense of Statistics, talks about the heuristics he recommends using, and the mistakes people tend to make. | — | ||||||
| 4/9/21 | ![]() Are Uber and Lyft drivers being exploited? | How much do Uber and Lyft drivers really earn, after expenses? Are they getting a raw deal by being classified as 'independent contractors' instead of employees? I explore the debate over these questions with three guests: Louis Hyman (Cornell), Veena Dubal (UC Hastings College of the Law), and Harry Campbell (The Rideshare Guy). | — | ||||||
| 3/19/21 | ![]() Unfair laws / Why judges should be originalists (William Baude) | Is there any justification for seemingly unjust laws like "qualified immunity," which allows cops to get away with bad behavior? William Baude, a leading scholar of constitutional law, explores how these laws came to be and why they're so hard to change. Also, Baude makes the case for originalism, the view that judges should base their rulings on the original meaning of the Constitution. And Baude explains how rationalist principles have influenced his teaching and legal scholarship. | — | ||||||
Want analysis for the episodes below?Free for Pro Submit a request, we'll have your selected episodes analyzed within an hour. Free, at no cost to you, for Pro users. | |||||||||
| 3/4/21 | ![]() Intellectual honesty, cryptocurrency, & more (Vitalik Buterin) | Julia and guest Vitalik Buterin (creator of the open-source blockchain platform Ethereum) explore a wide range of topics, including: Vitalik's intellectually honest approach to leadership, why prediction markets appear to be biased in favor of Trump, whether it was rational to invest in Bitcoin ten years ago, Vitalik's defense of life extension research against its critics, and more. | — | ||||||
| 2/18/21 | ![]() Understanding moral disagreements (Jonathan Haidt) | Julia and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) discuss his moral foundations theory and argue about whether liberals should "expand their moral horizons" by learning to think like conservatives. Julia solicits Jon's help in understanding her disagreement with philosopher Michael Sandel, in episode 247, over the morality of consensual cannibalism. | — | ||||||
| 2/3/21 | ![]() The case for one billion Americans, & more (Matt Yglesias) | Matt Yglesias talks about One Billion Americans, his book arguing that it's in the United States' national interest to dramatically boost its population, by expanding immigration and having more babies. Matt and Julia also discuss arguments for and against the "YIMBY" movement, which pushes for building more housing; what they've both learned from reflecting on their misguided support for the Iraq War in 2003; and why (and how) Matt is trying to be more of a rationalist. | — | ||||||
| 1/20/21 | ![]() What's wrong with tech companies banning people? (Julian Sanchez) | Companies like Twitter and Facebook are increasingly willing to ban users -- and even if you agree with their decisions, is it worrying that a few companies have so much power? Julia discusses with Julian Sanchez, expert on tech and civil liberties. | — | ||||||
| 1/5/21 | ![]() The case for racial colorblindness (Coleman Hughes) | Coleman Hughes explains why he favors a "colorblind" ideal and why the "race-conscious" camp disagrees with him. Coleman and Julia also discuss whether reparations are just, and what counts as racism. | — | ||||||
| 12/22/20 | ![]() Are Democrats being irrational? (David Shor) | Data scientist David Shor discusses some of the bad choices made by Democratic political campaigns. What's the cause of the errors? Is it irrationality, coordination problems, or something else? | — | ||||||
| 12/8/20 | ![]() The moral limits of markets / The problem with meritocracy (Michael Sandel) | Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel argues with Julia about human dignity, consensual cannibalism, and the case in his new book, The Tyranny of Merit, that meritocracy is to blame for recent populist backlashes in the U.S. | — | ||||||
| 11/24/20 | ![]() Deaths of despair / Effective altruism (Angus Deaton) | Economist and Nobel Laureate Angus Deaton discusses the rise in "deaths of despair" in the U.S. – deaths from drugs, alcohol or suicide. What's causing it, and how do we know? Also, Julia and Angus debate whether effective altruism can help the poor. | — | ||||||
| 11/9/20 | ![]() Are Boomers to blame for Millennials' struggles? | Rationally Speaking returns from hiatus with a look at a clash between two generations: Millennials, and their parents' generation, the Baby Boomers. Faced with stagnant wages and rising costs of education, rent, and health care, Millennials have a tougher path to economic security than Boomers did. And a growing number of millennial writers argue that their situation is the result of misguided and irresponsible policy choices made by the Boomers themselves. Are they right? Are Boomers to blame for Millennials' current economic struggles? To answer this question, Julia gets three different perspectives: Jill Filipovic, author of OK Boomer, Let's Talk: How My Generation Got Left Behind, Joseph C. Sternberg, author of The Theft of a Decade: How the Baby Boomers Stole Millennials' Economic Future, and Patrick Fisher, author of Demographic Gaps in American Political Behavior. | — | ||||||
| 11/30/19 | ![]() Rationally Speaking #244 - Stephanie Lepp and Buster Benson on "Seeing other perspectives, with compassion" | This episode features a pair of interviews on a similar topic: First, Stephanie Lepp (host of the Reckonings podcast) discusses what she's learned from interviewing people who had a serious change of heart, or "reckoning," including a former Neo-nazi and a former sex offender. What causes a reckoning? Second, Buster Benson (author of Why Are We Yelling? The art of productive disagreement) shares his tips for coming away from a disagreement feeling more alive -- for example, don't just focus on the literal arguments the other person is making; drill deeper. Buster and Julia debate whether there's a downside to approaching disagreements emotionally, rather than intellectually. | — | ||||||
| 11/12/19 | ![]() Rationally Speaking #243 - Bryan Caplan on "The Case for Open Borders" | The idea of open borders -- letting people move freely between countries, taking a job wherever they can find a job they want -- is still a pretty fringe position, politically speaking. But economist Bryan Caplan makes a compelling case for it in his new graphic nonfiction book, "Open Borders: The Science and Ethics of Immigration," illustrated by cartoonist Zach Weinersmith. In this episode, Julia questions Bryan about several aspects of his case. | — | ||||||
| 10/29/19 | ![]() Rationally Speaking #242 - Keith Frankish on "Why consciousness is an illusion" | Philosopher of mind Keith Frankish is one of the leading proponents of "illusionism," the theory that argues that your subjective experience -- i.e., the "what it is like" to be you -- is a trick of the mind. It's a counterintuitive theory, but Keith makes the case for it in this episode, while explaining the other leading theories of consciousness and why he rejects them. | — | ||||||
| 10/15/19 | ![]() Rationally Speaking #241 - Thibault Le Texier on "Debunking the Stanford Prison Experiment" | The Stanford Prison Experiment is one of the most famous psychology experiments in history. For decades, we've been told that it proves how regular people easily turn sadistic when they are asked to role play as prison guards. But the story now appears to be mostly fraudulent. Thibault Le Texier is a researcher who dug into the Stanford archives and learned that the "prison guards" were actually told how to behave in order to support the experimenters' thesis. On this episode, Thibault and Julia discuss his findings, how the experimenters got away with such a significant misrepresentation for so long, and what this whole affair says about the field of psychology. | — | ||||||
| 9/17/19 | ![]() Rationally Speaking #240 - David Manheim on "Goodhart's Law and why metrics fail" | If you want to understand why things go wrong in business, government, education, psychology, AI, and more, you need to know Goodhart's Law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to become a good measure." In this episode, decision theorist David Manheim explains the dynamics behind Goodhart's Law and some potential solutions to it. | — | ||||||
| 9/3/19 | ![]() Rationally Speaking #239 - Saloni Dattani on "The debate over whether male and female brains are different" | Several recent books have argued there's no difference between male and female brains. Saloni Dattani, a PhD in psychiatric genetics, discusses some of the problems with the argument, and what we really know so far about gender and the brain. | — | ||||||
Showing 25 of 263
Sponsor Intelligence
Sign in to see which brands sponsor this podcast, their ad offers, and promo codes.
Chart Positions
18 placements across 18 markets.
Chart Positions
18 placements across 18 markets.



















