Podcast
Cognitive Engineering
Hosted by Cognitive Engineering · EN
Welcome to the Cognitive Engineering podcast. Occasionally coherent musings of Aleph Insights. We hope you like listening to them as much as we like recording them.
12episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Evil Corporations
1w ago00:45:31Tap to summarizeIn this episode, we explore the idea of “evil corporations,” prompted by a legal case in which a woman successfully sued social media companies for making their platforms addictive. We examine whether corporations deliberately design harmful products, concluding that in many cases they do, and question whether it makes sense to describe corporations as “evil” in human terms at all. Along the way, we trace a long history of suspicion toward large organisations, from the East India Company to modern tech giants, and discuss examples such as tobacco, leaded petrol and planned obsolescence. We also reflect on how corporations often rely on euphemistic language to soften harmful practices, while the individuals within them may not feel personally responsible for the outcomes.We then turn to why harmful behaviour emerges in the first place, focusing on structural forces like profit incentives, diffusion of responsibility and competitive pressures that can drive a race to the bottom. We compare corporate harms with those caused by governments, noting differences in visibility, scale and accountability, and ask whether corporations deserve particular scrutiny given their built-in amoral incentives. While we touch on alternative models such as stakeholder capitalism, we remain sceptical about their effectiveness in practice, ultimately returning to regulation as the most reliable tool available. Our conclusion is that corporations behaving badly should not come as a surprise, and that the real challenge is designing frameworks that recognise and constrain those tendencies."Nicotine is not addictive": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08Phoebus Cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartelThe Love Canal incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_CanalStakeholder Capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism
Transcribe →The Sense of an Ending
2w ago00:39:51Tap to summarizeIn this episode, we ask how we know when something has really ended, starting with the much-criticised finale of Game of Thrones. We explore why some endings feel satisfying while others feel rushed, artificial or unresolved, looking at the difference between fiction and real life. We discuss how stories impose structure on events, why audiences crave resolution and how endings can depend on framing, perspective and the difference between something simply stopping and something properly ending.We then broaden the discussion to real-world endings, from the Second World War and the fall of apartheid to the Cold War, the war on terror and other messier historical examples. We consider why humans are so drawn to narrative, how stories help us understand the world and why fiction may train us to expect closure that reality rarely provides. Finally, we test a five-part “endingometer” for what makes an ending work: significance, uncertainty, symbolism, irreversibility and a quiet moment of resolution.
Transcribe →How to Buy a Car
3w ago00:46:03Tap to summarizeIn this episode of the Cognitive Engineering Podcast, the team responds to a listener’s question about how to buy a car, using it as a springboard into wider ideas about decision-making. They explore the tension between analytical approaches—spreadsheets, cost breakdowns and rational comparisons—and more instinctive, emotionally driven choices. Drawing on their own contrasting experiences, from careful, criteria-based selection to impulsive, passion-led purchases, they highlight how factors like price, depreciation, usage and even the buying experience itself can influence both decisions and long-term satisfaction. The discussion also touches on how identity, politics and personal values can shape preferences, as well as the role of emotional responses in supposedly rational decisions.Broadening out beyond cars, the conversation examines how people make big, infrequent decisions more generally, from buying houses to choosing careers. The hosts discuss psychological concepts such as “maximisers” versus “satisfiers”, the role of subconscious decision-making and the tendency to rationalise choices after the fact. They note that more analysis doesn’t necessarily lead to greater satisfaction, and may even increase regret. Practical takeaways include reframing big purchases as ongoing costs versus ongoing value, being honest about what you actually care about and recognising that people quickly adapt to new possessions. Ultimately, they suggest that while structured thinking can help, overthinking can be counterproductive—and sometimes the better question isn’t which option to choose, but whether you’re asking the right question in the first place.
Transcribe →Accessing the Past
4w ago00:43:02Tap to summarizeIn this episode, we explore why some older media remain surprisingly accessible while other, much newer works become almost impossible to experience. We compare a 300-year-old piece of music that can still be played from notation with old computer games that no longer run because of lost code, outdated hardware, vanished servers or obsolete software. We discuss how digital media can be fragile precisely because it depends on layers of technology, compression and decoding, whereas older forms like printed music, books or physical records can sometimes survive in more direct and recoverable ways.We then turn to a different kind of accessibility: whether we can still appreciate older works as their original audiences did. From silent films and early recordings to Trainspotting, Star Wars, strange 1970s cinema and old sci-fi television, we ask how much cultural context, nostalgia and changing technology shape our experience. We consider whether some art forms stop evolving or whether each generation simply mistakes its own moment for the endpoint. Finally, we share examples of older media we still enjoy, from Charlie Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy to cult sci-fi and ancient decorated stone spheres.P.T.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.T._(video_game)Difficulty of playing Black and White on the PC: https://www.reddit.com/r/gamesupport/comments/3glp00/black_white_the_first_game_on_windows_10/Video game preservation efforts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_preservationAppreciation or Nostalgia? https://from.ncl.ac.uk/nostalgia-in-retro-gamingBronze Age stone balls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carved_stone_balls
Transcribe →Sensitive Topics
May 600:35:51Tap to summarizeIn this episode, we discuss a forthcoming board game about the Troubles in Northern Ireland and ask why some subjects feel uncomfortable when turned into games. We explore whether the controversy comes from the topic itself, the tone, the medium, the time elapsed since the events or the cultural distance from them. We compare this with other difficult subjects represented in films, books, video games and board games, from the Second World War and the war on terror to natural disasters and pandemics.We then look more closely at what games actually do, especially the idea of adopting temporary agency: playing a role without morally endorsing it. We ask whether participatory media are judged differently because players actively make choices, rather than simply watching or reading. Finally, we broaden the discussion into what makes board games compelling at all, comparing them with sport, horror films and other forms of imaginative suspension, before ending with a few reflections on why board games can be both intellectually rich and emotionally difficult to explain to non-gamers.The Troubles boardgame: https://www.compassgames.com/product/the-troubles-shadow-war-in-northern-ireland-pay-later/Guardian article about the controversy: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/23/target-mainland-planned-troubles-board-game-condemned-in-northern-irelandLa Famiglia: The Great Mafia War: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/367517/la-famiglia-the-great-mafia-warLabyrinth: The War on Terror: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62227/labyrinth-the-war-on-terror-2001Agency as Art by C. Thi Nguyen: https://academic.oup.com/book/32137
Transcribe →Training
Apr 2900:43:11Tap to summarizeIn this episode we discuss training: what it can realistically achieve, why it often fails and how people actually become good at things.The conversation begins with Aleph’s past experience delivering analytical training, and Nick’s frustration that training often strips away the excitement of discovery. The group explores whether people really learn best through formal instruction, or whether genuine understanding comes from practice, mistakes, motivation and real-world need.Links:Michael Polanyi's 'Tacit knowledge' - We know more than we can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge
Transcribe →Aleph Peace Prize
Apr 2200:37:06Tap to summarizeEpisode summaryIn this episode, the team explores what prizes are actually for. Starting with a discussion of FIFA’s much-mocked “Peace Prize” and the longer pedigree of the Nobel Peace Prize, they examine how prizes gain prestige, whether they genuinely incentivise good behaviour and how they can shape status, motivation and public recognition.The conversation moves from global peace prizes to personal experiences of winning school and university awards, before turning to the deeper question: what makes a prize valuable? Is it age, scarcity, continuity, the calibre of previous winners or the significance of what it rewards?The episode ends with the proposal of a new award: the Aleph Peace Prize, aimed not at symbolic virtue but at people or institutions that have plausibly reduced the risk of actual conflict.In this episodeWhy FIFA’s “Peace Prize” is seen as absurd and performativeWhat the Nobel Peace Prize was originally meant to rewardControversial Nobel winners, including Henry Kissinger and Barack ObamaHow Nobel Peace Prize winners tend to fall into categories such as:peace process participantshuman rights advocatesinstitution buildershumanitarian organisationsWhether prizes are mainly about:incentivesrecognitioncredentialisationrewardWhy prestige depends on factors like age, continuity, scarcity and past winnersThe idea that too many prizes can dilute the value of all prizesPersonal reflections on school and university prizes, and how recognition can affect confidence and effortA proposed alternative peace prize focused on real-world conflict reduction
Transcribe →Username and Password
Apr 1500:30:03Tap to summarizeIn this episode, Fraser McGruer, Nick Hare, Chris Wragg and Peter Coghill explore one of modern life’s most persistent irritations: being asked to create yet another username and password.The conversation starts with a familiar frustration—setting up endless accounts for everyday tasks, from charging an electric car to buying a coffee—and quickly broadens into a deeper discussion about identity, convenience, data and the trade-offs built into digital life.Why do so many companies want us to log in all the time? Is it really about making life easier, or is it about harvesting data? The team examines the competing incentives at work: users want speed and low friction, while businesses want persistent identity, customer lock-in and as much information as possible.Along the way, they distinguish between situations where accounts are genuinely useful and those where they feel completely unnecessary. They also explore how the digital world has transformed ordinary interactions that once depended on human recognition and informal trust into bureaucratic login rituals.Nick introduces a “new account nuisance matrix” to sort the helpful from the pointless, while Peter outlines the technical case for more robust digital identity systems—without handing all power to Google, Apple or the state. The discussion ends with a look at possible solutions, including the idea of self-sovereign identity, where users retain control over their own credentials and data.In this episode:Why account creation feels so relentless nowThe trade-off between convenience and data harvestingWhy companies want persistent digital identityThe technical reasons accounts can be usefulWhy some logins feel justified and others feel absurdThe differences between digital and analogue identityThe nuisance of fragmented sign-ins and password fatigueWhy centralised digital identity systems may be riskyThe case for self-sovereign identityKey ideas and concepts:Greed vs speed: businesses want your data, users want less frictionPersistent identity: proving you’re the same person across visits or devicesState: the saved information attached to you, such as baskets, preferences and purchase historyAttribution and accountability: knowing who posted, purchased or interactedAccount fatigue: the frustration caused by low-value services demanding high-effort sign-upWalled gardens: big tech identity systems that simplify things while increasing dependencySelf-sovereign identity: a model where users control their own credentials and accessExamples discussed:Electric vehicle charging appsCoffee shop loyalty schemesAmazon and frictionless checkoutIndependent bookshops and analogue orderingGuest checkout versus full account creationHouse buying and repeated identity verificationSmart home devices that require accountsLocal newspaper paywallsRecipe websites and corporate brochure downloadsGoogle, Apple and Facebook sign-in systemsTimestamps00:00 Introduction: username and password fatigue00:27 Nick’s frustration with electric car charging apps and endless account creation02:40 Peter introduces the “greed versus speed” tension behind digital accounts03:28 Data harvesting, free products and the business model behind sign-ups04:17 Why convenience often pushes people towards platforms like Amazon05:03 Chris questions whether personal data is really as valuable as companies claim07:14 Nick explains the legitimate technical reasons accounts exist: identity, state and accountability10:39 Why digital life makes account creation feel more frequent and intrusive11:32 Chris compares digital sign-ups with older, more human forms of transaction12:56 The independent bookshop as an analogue alternative14:15 Identity and authentication in the physical world15:32 Online purchasing as self-service bureaucracy16:18 Peter points out that non-digital bureaucracy can be just as bad, especially when buying a house17:14 The appeal of a reusable digital identity18:03 Why fragmented identity systems are inefficient and frustrating19:46 Nick presents the “new account nuisance matrix”20:19 Good accounts versus pointless accounts23:25 The worst part of the Internet: sign-up demands for low-value services24:42 Electric car charging as a prime example of unnecessary account friction25:21 Peter begins discussing solutions and warns against false promises from big tech26:18 The dangers of relying on Google, Apple or governments to own digital identity28:02 Why centralised identity systems create security risks28:48 Self-sovereign identity as a possible solution29:26 OutroContactIf there’s a topic you’d like the team to cover, email: podcast@alephinsights.com
Transcribe →Turning It Off and On Again
Apr 800:42:12Tap to summarizeIn this episode, Fraser McGruer, Nick Hare, Peter Coghill and Chris Wragg explore one of the most enduring pieces of technical advice: have you tried turning it off and on again?What begins with a glitchy video call and a reluctant router reboot quickly develops into a wide-ranging discussion about systems, states and the surprisingly deep logic behind rebooting—not just in computers, but in societies, economies and even our own lives.The team unpack what actually happens when you power cycle a device, from memory leaks and zombie processes to cosmic rays flipping bits in memory. From there, they build a broader framework: what counts as a “state”, what a “good state” might be, and when a system can—or cannot—be reset.Peter introduces a theory of rebootability, with criteria including whether a system has an external reference point, whether it depends on consensus, and whether it can be restarted from outside itself. These ideas are applied to everything from national constitutions and financial systems to climate change and rainforest collapse.Along the way, the conversation touches on revolutions, failed societal resets, post-war reconstruction, and the limits of trying to “go back” to a supposedly better past. The episode closes with personal reflections on resets—from Covid lockdowns to life-changing career shifts and the everyday reboot of sleep.In this episode:Why turning something off and on again actually worksWhat a “state” is (and why it matters)The concept of a “known good state”Peter’s theory of rebootabilitySystems that can’t be reset (climate, ecosystems, global economy)The role of consensus in rebooting social systemsWhy revolutions and resets often failThe appeal of starting over—from software to psychologyPersonal and societal examples of “reboots”Key ideas and concepts:State: The internal condition of a system that determines how it responds to inputsKnown good state: A reliable baseline you can return toRebootability: Whether a system can be reset to a functioning stateBootstrap problem: A system often needs something external to restart itPath dependency / hysteresis: How the past shapes what’s possible nowConsensus vs reality: Some systems only work if people agree they workTipping points: States from which recovery is difficult or impossibleExamples discussed:Routers, computers and memory leaksChess, board games and “soft locks”The climate and rainforest collapseWritten constitutions as “system blueprints”Currency resets (e.g. post-war Germany)The French Revolution and failed systemic resetsPost-war Germany and Japan vs Iraq and AfghanistanReligious and mythological “reboots” (e.g. the Flood narrative)Sleep as a daily biological reboot
Transcribe →Culturally Significant Deaths
Apr 100:38:21Tap to summarizeIn this episode, we explore a deceptively simple question: what makes a death culturally significant?The conversation begins with an unsatisfying Reddit-style list of famous deaths by decade and quickly turns into a more analytical discussion. The team teases apart different kinds of significance: the death of an already important person, the death of someone whose future mattered as much as their past, and deaths that became historically or culturally transformative even when the individual was not especially well known.Along the way, they discuss deaths that mark the end of an era, deaths that act as catalysts for social or political change, and deaths that become mythologised through mourning, media and time. They also consider whether cultural significance can be measured at all, and toy with building a rough model comparing the significance of a person’s life with the significance of their death.Examples range from Princess Diana, JFK and Julius Caesar to George Floyd, Mohamed Bouazizi, Emmett Till and Jesus, with stops along the way for Harambe, Queen Victoria, Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Alan Turing.The episode closes on a more personal note, as each speaker reflects on a death that feels significant to them personally, from Ray Charles to John Cazale and Alan Turing, before things take an irreverent turn in classic Cognitive Engineering fashion.In this episode:What counts as a culturally significant deathThe difference between a significant life and a significant deathDeaths that changed history versus deaths that symbolised lost potentialWhether cultural significance can be measuredWhy time, myth and collective mourning matterPersonal reflections on deaths that still resonatePeople and examples mentioned:Queen Victoria, Vladimir Lenin, John Lennon, Princess Diana, Elvis Presley, John F. Kennedy, Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens, the Big Bopper, Queen Elizabeth II, Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Michael Jackson, George Floyd, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse, Jimi Hendrix, Harambe, Mohamed Bouazizi, Kitty Genovese, Emmett Till, Neda Agha-Soltan, Rachel Corrie, Thích Quảng Đức, the Princes in the Tower, William of Norwich, Crispus Attucks, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr, Jeffrey Epstein, Ray Charles, John Cazale, John Candy and Alan Turing.
Transcribe →