쉐도잉 연습: The “Nietzsche Thesis”: Why we don’t really care about truth - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

각 모드는 전체 화면 연습실로 열립니다.

74 문장

문장이 너무 짧거나 길면 Edit를 눌러 조정하세요.

Humans lie all of the time.

In fact, you've probably lied a few times today

because lying is one of the most important strategies that any of us use to get an advantage over somebody else.

And so human communication often degrades into a kind of arms race.

People will try to deceive you and then you will develop the tools to call out their deception.

People will try to sell you something and so then you will learn how to smell a rat.

This has led some philosophers and and psychologists to coin an idea known as epistemic vigilance.

Epistemic vigilance is the argument that we all possess an arsenal of tools

that allow us to identify and to call out lies.

In a seminal paper on the topic, Serba et al argued that humans have a suite of cognitive mechanisms for epistemic vigilance,

targeted at the risk of being misinformed by others.

In other words, we have a built-in lie detector.

But according to a recent paper on the topic, it might be time to call BS on our BS detectors.

There are two strands to the argument for epistemic vigilance.

The first is that adults are constantly recalibrating how trustworthy or how reliable we see other people.

We tend to be a truth by default species which means

that we assume that most people at least start out being truthful in their interactions with us.

In the 1970s the philosopher Paul Grice argued that when we go into any conversation with somebody else, we often assume that everybody is obeying the same four principles.

We assume that they will keep the conversation relevant, that they won't say too much, they won't say too little and so on.

But one of the biggest factors is that we assume

that other people are telling the truth most of the time and in normal circumstances.

But of course over time if somebody tells a lie

or they get something wrong again and again we will recalibrate our epistemic vigilance.

We say okay well Alex clearly knows nothing about football

so let's stop asking him about that or Nina is a total and pathological liar let's not trust her.

The second observation is that children learn very early on whom to trust and whom not to trust.

The psychologist Pascal Boyer observed that infants seem to be sensitive to the difference between an expert and a novice agent.

Later toddlers will use cues of competence to judge different individuals utterances

and mistrust those who have been wrong in previous instances or those who seem determined to exploit others.

The argument therefore goes that humans are born with a certain skill set or a certain vigilance for seeking truth over falsity.

We have epistemic vigilance.

But the philosopher Joseph Scheiber thinks that there is something wrong with this analysis.

He doesn't dispute the fact that we are vigilance, the evidence seems to suggest that we are.

But he does dispute whether that vigilance is epistemic.

The problem is that humans have been shown again and again to be especially bad at telling truth from falsehood.

As Scheiber puts it, despite many decades of research, the findings are remarkably consistent in demonstrating that humans are quite poor at deception detection.

If we have a built-in lie detector, it is hugely inaccurate, it's often turned off, and it's easily distracted by other things.

In 1991, Paul Ekman and Maureen O'Sullivan did a review,

and in that review they showed that most people can only spot a lie about 60% of the time.

And that means for most people you might as well be tossing a coin.

And over three decades since, the research barely has moved that number.

And what's more, Scheiber even argues that this number doesn't change between job to job, or profession to profession, or even person to person.

People like customs inspectors, federal law enforcement, and police officers, people whose entire working lives depend on their ability to detect a lie,

are no better than the rest of us.

We also aren't very good at telling who is competent or not.

There are two studies from 1996 and 2005

that show how people often use non-epistemic factors to determine when somebody is good at their job.

For example, we might wrongly think that somebody with the right face is competent

or that somebody who walks or who talks or who holds themselves a certain way can reveal their ability.

But in reality, none of these can reliably account for a person's trustworthiness or their competence.

And so we are left with two facts.

We are vigilant about what people are saying, but that vigilance is not based on epistemic grounds.

And so the question then becomes, what kind of vigilance do we have?

For that Scheiber coined the expression the Nietzsche thesis.

Scheiber argues that our goal in conversation is not primarily to achieve truthfulness but actually self-preservation.

In other words we accept or reject statements based on utilitarian grounds not on their truthfulness.

In Nietzsche's words we will accept or look for truth only when it has pleasant or life-preserving consequences.

Conversely, we are hostile to potentially harmful and destructive truths.

We do not have an epistemic vigilance but a Machiavellian vigilance.

There is one important observation about modern society

that might lend credence to Scheiber's ideas and that is the popularity and prevalence of echo chamber nonsense.

If epistemic vigilance were true then we would be fact-checking

and dismissing nonsense all of the time but that's simply not the case.

when a charismatic

or a compelling speaker delivers a statement we will accept it

much more often based on these Machiavellian lines I will nod along

if others nod along I will accept it

if it preserves my social status Schaeber's thesis raises huge questions not only for philosophy

but also for law because

if people aren't wired for the truth then how reliable is

their testimony it's also an important point to remember in our

interactions with other people as well as in what we hear or read or see online.

It's good to remember that we are very bad at and little concerned with the truth.

We are often concerned with other non-epistemic things.

앱 다운로드

유창하게 말하는 데 필요한 모든 것

AI 발음 평가문장마다 점수 확인

IPA 발음 연습모든 소리 마스터

단어 학습나만의 단어장 만들기

단어 게임놀면서 외우기

QR 스캔

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

같은 채널

FOR YOU

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 영상에는 섀도잉할 문장 74개와 단어 1051개가 있습니다. 말하는 구간의 길이는 6:07입니다. 화자는 분당 약 172단어로, 일상 대화에 가까운 자연스러운 속도로 말합니다. 영어에서 가장 많이 쓰이는 3,000단어에 속하는 단어가 80%뿐이라 어휘가 어려운 편입니다.

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 익혀 둘 만한 단어 15개를 발음, 뜻과 함께 정리했습니다.

단어	발음	뜻
argue 동사	/ˈɑɹ.ɡju/	논하다, 의논하다
coin 명사	/ˈkoɪ̯n/	동전, 코인
philosopher 명사	/fəˈlɑsəfɚ/	철학자
topic 명사	/ˈtɑpɪk/	화제, 주제
interaction 명사	/ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/	상호작용
reliable 형용사	/ɹɪˈlaɪəbl̩/	믿음직스럽다
dispute 명사	/dɪˈspjuːt/	논쟁, 론쟁
nonsense 명사	/ˈnɒn.səns/	무의미, 어리석은 소리
observation 명사	/ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/	관찰
thesis 명사	/ˈθisɪs/	테제, 논제
psychologist 명사	/ˌsaɪˈkɑl.ə.d͡ʒɪst/	심리학자
deception 명사	/dɪˈsɛpʃən/	기만, 속임
chamber 명사	/ˈt͡ʃeɪ̯mbɚ/	침실
sensitive 형용사	/ˈsɛn.sɪt.ɪv/	민감하다
custom 명사	/ˈkʌstəm/	습관, 풍속

영상에 나오는 구동사

단어	뜻
turn off 동사	끄다, 턴오프하다

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
조건문 if + 절, will/would + 동사 — 조건과 그 결과	if others nod along I will accept
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	being misinformed · are born · have been shown
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	you've probably lied · has led · have been
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	species which means · those who have · somebody who walks

주의할 발음

화자는 aren't, doesn't, won't 같은 축약형과 약화된 형태를 7번 사용합니다. 들리는 대로 짧게 발음하세요.

“th” 소리: thesis /ˈθisɪs/, trustworthy /ˈtɹʌst.wɜː.ði/, truthfulness /ˈtɹuθfəlnəs/, pathological /ˌpæθ.əˈlɑd͡ʒ.ɪ.kəl/, trustworthiness /ˈtɹʌst.wɜɹ.ði.nɛs/
“sh”와 “zh” 소리: interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, profession /pɹəˈfɛʃ.ən/, deception /dɪˈsɛpʃən/, potentially /pəˈtɛnʃ(ə)li/
긴 단어 — 강세 위치에 주의: philosopher /fəˈlɑsəfɚ/, interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, psychologist /ˌsaɪˈkɑl.ə.d͡ʒɪst/, primarily /ˈpɹaɪ.mə.ɹə.li/, potentially /pəˈtɛnʃ(ə)li/

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

먼저 말하지 않고 영상을 끝까지 듣고 모르는 단어를 적어 둡니다.
0.75배속으로 한 문장씩 섀도잉을 시작하고, 익숙해지면 보통 속도로 돌아갑니다.
자신의 목소리를 녹음해 원본과 비교하고, argue, coin, philosopher 같은 단어에 특히 주의합니다.

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: The “Nietzsche Thesis”: Why we don’t really care about truth - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

연습 모드 선택

앱 다운로드

같은 채널

Some brains are built for philosophy. Is yours?

Shakespeare: Hamlet

Arguments for God: The Fine Tuning Argument

3 philosophy classics that are better than self-help books

Why you should "steel man" other people

“But you did it first!”: A defense of the whataboutism

Every monster you fear is really you

The day you died (and didn't notice)

Why you can't quit social media (and the Romans knew it)

One of the cruellest things to tell any child

The 4 moments that will change your life

추천 영상

SEtalk: Why We Hate Being Wrong

Pragmatics: Crash Course Linguistics #6

Our Greatest Delusion

The 3 ways stupidity spreads throughout a society | Jonny Thomson

Tanya’s opinion on humans

Your brain doesn’t detect reality. It creates it. | Lisa Feldman Barrett

RE2 Unit 11B

The strange reason nobody views their own retaliation as evil | Paul Bloom

The Hedgehog Theory: Why Your Favorite Smart Person Is (Probably) Full of Sh*t

The inequality of life why people turn their heads from it.