Shadowing Practice: The “Nietzsche Thesis”: Why we don’t really care about truth - Learn English Speaking with Video
Choose a practice mode
Each mode opens a full-screen practice room.
74 sentences
If sentences are too short or too long, click Edit to adjust them.
1
Humans lie all of the time.
2
In fact, you've probably lied a few times today
3
because lying is one of the most important strategies that any of us use to get an advantage over somebody else.
4
And so human communication often degrades into a kind of arms race.
5
People will try to deceive you and then you will develop the tools to call out their deception.
6
People will try to sell you something and so then you will learn how to smell a rat.
7
This has led some philosophers and and psychologists to coin an idea known as epistemic vigilance.
8
Epistemic vigilance is the argument that we all possess an arsenal of tools
9
that allow us to identify and to call out lies.
10
In a seminal paper on the topic, Serba et al argued that humans have a suite of cognitive mechanisms for epistemic vigilance,
11
targeted at the risk of being misinformed by others.
12
In other words, we have a built-in lie detector.
13
But according to a recent paper on the topic, it might be time to call BS on our BS detectors.
14
There are two strands to the argument for epistemic vigilance.
15
The first is that adults are constantly recalibrating how trustworthy or how reliable we see other people.
16
We tend to be a truth by default species which means
17
that we assume that most people at least start out being truthful in their interactions with us.
18
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.
19
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.
20
But one of the biggest factors is that we assume
21
that other people are telling the truth most of the time and in normal circumstances.
22
But of course over time if somebody tells a lie
23
or they get something wrong again and again we will recalibrate our epistemic vigilance.
24
We say okay well Alex clearly knows nothing about football
25
so let's stop asking him about that or Nina is a total and pathological liar let's not trust her.
26
The second observation is that children learn very early on whom to trust and whom not to trust.
27
The psychologist Pascal Boyer observed that infants seem to be sensitive to the difference between an expert and a novice agent.
28
Later toddlers will use cues of competence to judge different individuals utterances
29
and mistrust those who have been wrong in previous instances or those who seem determined to exploit others.
30
The argument therefore goes that humans are born with a certain skill set or a certain vigilance for seeking truth over falsity.
31
We have epistemic vigilance.
32
But the philosopher Joseph Scheiber thinks that there is something wrong with this analysis.
33
He doesn't dispute the fact that we are vigilance, the evidence seems to suggest that we are.
34
But he does dispute whether that vigilance is epistemic.
35
The problem is that humans have been shown again and again to be especially bad at telling truth from falsehood.
36
As Scheiber puts it, despite many decades of research, the findings are remarkably consistent in demonstrating that humans are quite poor at deception detection.
37
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.
38
In 1991, Paul Ekman and Maureen O'Sullivan did a review,
39
and in that review they showed that most people can only spot a lie about 60% of the time.
40
And that means for most people you might as well be tossing a coin.
41
And over three decades since, the research barely has moved that number.
42
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.
43
People like customs inspectors, federal law enforcement, and police officers, people whose entire working lives depend on their ability to detect a lie,
44
are no better than the rest of us.
45
We also aren't very good at telling who is competent or not.
46
There are two studies from 1996 and 2005
47
that show how people often use non-epistemic factors to determine when somebody is good at their job.
48
For example, we might wrongly think that somebody with the right face is competent
49
or that somebody who walks or who talks or who holds themselves a certain way can reveal their ability.
50
But in reality, none of these can reliably account for a person's trustworthiness or their competence.
51
And so we are left with two facts.
52
We are vigilant about what people are saying, but that vigilance is not based on epistemic grounds.
53
And so the question then becomes, what kind of vigilance do we have?
54
For that Scheiber coined the expression the Nietzsche thesis.
55
Scheiber argues that our goal in conversation is not primarily to achieve truthfulness but actually self-preservation.
56
In other words we accept or reject statements based on utilitarian grounds not on their truthfulness.
57
In Nietzsche's words we will accept or look for truth only when it has pleasant or life-preserving consequences.
58
Conversely, we are hostile to potentially harmful and destructive truths.
59
We do not have an epistemic vigilance but a Machiavellian vigilance.
60
There is one important observation about modern society
61
that might lend credence to Scheiber's ideas and that is the popularity and prevalence of echo chamber nonsense.
62
If epistemic vigilance were true then we would be fact-checking
63
and dismissing nonsense all of the time but that's simply not the case.
64
when a charismatic
65
or a compelling speaker delivers a statement we will accept it
66
much more often based on these Machiavellian lines I will nod along
67
if others nod along I will accept it
68
if it preserves my social status Schaeber's thesis raises huge questions not only for philosophy
69
but also for law because
70
if people aren't wired for the truth then how reliable is
71
their testimony it's also an important point to remember in our
72
interactions with other people as well as in what we hear or read or see online.
73
It's good to remember that we are very bad at and little concerned with the truth.
74
We are often concerned with other non-epistemic things.
Download App
Everything you need to speak fluently
AI PronunciationScore every sentence
IPA PracticeMaster every sound
VocabularyBuild your word bank
Vocab GameLearn while playing
Same Channel
C1118
Arguments for God: The Fine Tuning Argument
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C152
Shakespeare: Hamlet
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity Students
C120
Why you can't quit social media (and the Romans knew it)
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C112
“But you did it first!”: A defense of the whataboutism
British AccentIELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C111
Why you should "steel man" other people
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C110
Some brains are built for philosophy. Is yours?
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C15
The day you died (and didn't notice)
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B26
One of the cruellest things to tell any child
British AccentTeensDaily ConversationHigh School Students
C17
Every monster you fear is really you
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B25
The 4 moments that will change your life
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C15
3 philosophy classics that are better than self-help books
British AccentDaily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
FOR YOU
Recommend Video
C17
35 sentences
SEtalk: Why We Hate Being Wrong
British AccentIELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C11
97 sentences
Pragmatics: Crash Course Linguistics #6
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C221
534 sentences
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson | Introduction to Nietzsche | Lecture 1 (Official)
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
C12
9 sentences
Our Greatest Delusion
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C111
372 sentences
The 3 ways stupidity spreads throughout a society | Jonny Thomson
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C1527
14 sentences
Tanya’s opinion on humans
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C13
39 sentences
Why humans need fiction, according to neuroscience
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
233 sentences
Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
B213
41 sentences
RE2 Unit 11B
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepBusiness English
C13
241 sentences
The strange reason nobody views their own retaliation as evil | Paul Bloom
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
C12
166 sentences
The Hedgehog Theory: Why Your Favorite Smart Person Is (Probably) Full of Sh*t
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepUniversity Students
Vocabulary and speaking notes for this lesson
This video has 74 sentences and 1051 words to shadow. The speech runs for 6:07. The speaker talks at a natural 172 words per minute, close to everyday conversation. Only 80% of the words are among the 3,000 most common in English, so the vocabulary is demanding.
Key vocabulary in this video
15 words from the video worth learning, with pronunciation and meaning:
| Word | Pronunciation | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| argue verb | /ˈɑɹ.ɡju/ | To show grounds for concluding (that); to indicate, imply. |
| coin noun | /ˈkoɪ̯n/ | A piece of currency, usually metallic and in the shape of a disc, but sometimes polygonal, or with a hole in the middle. |
| philosopher noun | /fəˈlɑsəfɚ/ | A lover of wisdom. |
| detector noun | /dɪˈtɛktə(ɹ)/ | A device capable of registering a specific substance or physical phenomenon, and that optionally sounds an alarm or triggers a warning. |
| topic noun | /ˈtɑpɪk/ | A subject; a theme; a category or general area of interest. |
| interaction noun | /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/ | The situation or occurrence in which two or more things act upon one another to produce an effect; the effect resulting from such a situation or occurrence. |
| reliable adjective | /ɹɪˈlaɪəbl̩/ | Suitable or fit to be relied on; worthy of dependence, reliance or trust; dependable, trustworthy |
| dispute noun | /dɪˈspjuːt/ | An argument or disagreement; a failure to agree. |
| nonsense noun | /ˈnɒn.səns/ | Letters or words, in writing or speech, that have no meaning or pattern or seem to have no meaning. |
| preserve verb | /pɹəˈzɝv/ | To protect; to keep from harm or injury. |
| observation noun | /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/ | The act of observing, and the fact of being observed (see observance) |
| profession noun | /pɹəˈfɛʃ.ən/ | A promise or vow made on entering a religious order. |
| thesis noun | /ˈθisɪs/ | A proposition or statement supported by arguments. |
| competent adjective | /ˈkɒmpətənt/ | Having sufficient skill, knowledge, ability, or qualifications. |
| psychologist noun | /ˌsaɪˈkɑl.ə.d͡ʒɪst/ | An expert in the field of psychology. |
Phrasal verbs you will hear
| Word | Meaning |
|---|---|
| call out verb | To specify, especially in detail. |
| start out verb | To emerge suddenly; to jump out. |
| turn off verb | To power down, to switch off, to put out of operation, to deactivate (an appliance, light, mechanism, functionality etc.). |
Grammar in this video
The structures the speaker uses most, with the exact words from the video:
| Structure | In the video |
|---|---|
| Conditional sentences if + clause, will/would + verb — a condition and its result | if others nod along I will accept |
| Passive voice be + past participle — the focus is on what happens, not who does it | being misinformed · are born · have been shown |
| Present perfect have/has + past participle — a past action that still matters now | has led · have been · have been shown |
| Relative clauses who / which + clause — extra information about a person or thing | species which means · those who have · somebody who walks |
Pronunciation to watch
The speaker uses 7 contractions and reduced forms, such as aren't, doesn't, won't. Say them the short way, as you hear them.
- The “th” sounds: thesis /ˈθisɪs/, trustworthy /ˈtɹʌst.wɜː.ði/, truthfulness /ˈtɹuθfəlnəs/, pathological /ˌpæθ.əˈlɑd͡ʒ.ɪ.kəl/, trustworthiness /ˈtɹʌst.wɜɹ.ði.nɛs/
- The “sh” and “zh” sounds: interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, observation /ˌɑbzɚˈveɪʃn̩/, profession /pɹəˈfɛʃ.ən/, deception /dɪˈsɛpʃən/, potentially /pəˈtɛnʃ(ə)li/
- Long words — get the stress right: philosopher /fəˈlɑsəfɚ/, interaction /ˌɪn.təˈɹæk.ʃən/, psychologist /ˌsaɪˈkɑl.ə.d͡ʒɪst/, primarily /ˈpɹaɪ.mə.ɹə.li/, potentially /pəˈtɛnʃ(ə)li/
How to practise with this video
- Listen to the whole video once without speaking and note the words you do not know.
- Start at 0.75× speed, shadow it sentence by sentence, then go back to normal speed once it feels easy.
- Record yourself and compare with the original, paying attention to words like argue, coin, philosopher.
What is the Shadowing Technique?
Shadowing is a science-backed language learning technique originally developed for professional interpreter training and popularized by polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. The method is simple but powerful: you listen to native English audio and immediately repeat it out loud — like a shadow following the speaker with just a 1–2 second delay. Unlike passive listening or grammar drills, shadowing forces your brain and mouth muscles to simultaneously process and reproduce real speech patterns. Research shows it significantly improves pronunciation accuracy, intonation, rhythm, connected speech, listening comprehension, and speaking fluency — making it one of the most effective methods for IELTS Speaking preparation and real-world English communication.