What is the illusion of explanatory depth? Are there forms of debate or dialogue that actually help people to change their minds (instead of stacking the incentives such that people feel forced to harden and defend their views)? What is epistemic "debt"? Should people avoid having opinions on things where they haven't thought deeply and carefully about all of the relevant considerations? How does one choose which experts to trust? What is "growth mindset"? How can social science be used to do good in the world?

Daniel Greene is a postdoctoral researcher and fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, where he works with Dr. Megan Palmer to research methods of engaging life scientists with the potential safety and security risks of their work. He has a Ph.D. in Education from Stanford and worked as a social psychologist and data scientist at the Project for Education Research that Scales. You can find more information about Daniel at danielgreene.net.