TRANSLATE GAME
SKIP INTRO
Translate the highlighted words as you listen to the song
Three
people
are
at
a
dinner
party
Paul
who's
married
is
looking
at
Linda
Meanwhile
Linda
is
looking
at
John
who's
not
married
Is
someone
who's
married
looking
at
someone
who's
not
married?
Take
a
moment
to
think
about
it
Most
people
answer
that
there's
not
enough
information
to
tell
And
most
people
are
wrong
Linda
must
be
either
married
or
not
married
There
are
no
other
options
So
in
either
scenario
someone
married
Is
looking
at
someone
who's
not
married
When
presented
with
the
explanation
most
people
change
their
minds
And
accept
the
correct
answer
Despite
being
very
confident
in
their
first
responses
Now
let's
look
at
another
case
A
2005
study
by
Brendan
Nyhan
and
Jason
Reifler
Examined
American
attitudes
regarding
The
justifications
for
the
Iraq
War
Researchers
presented
participants
with
a
news
article
That
showed
no
weapons
of
mass
destruction
had
been
found
Yet
many
participants
not
only
continued
to
believe
That
WMDs
had
been
found
But
they
even
became
more
convinced
of
their
original
views
So
why
do
arguments
change
people's
minds
in
some
cases
And
backfire
in
others
?
Arguments
are
more
convincing
when
they
rest
On
a
good
knowledge
of
the
audience
Taking
into
account
what
the
audience
believes
Who
they
trust
And
what
they
value
Mathematical
and
logical
arguments
like
the
dinner
party
Brainteaser
work
Because
even
when
people
reach
different
conclusions
They're
starting
from
the
same
set
of
shared
beliefs
In
1931
a
young
unknown
mathematician
Named
Kurt
Gödel
presented
a
proof
That
a
logically
complete
system
of
mathematics
was
impossible
Despite
upending
decades
of
work
by
brilliant
mathematicians
Like
Bertrand
Russell
and
David
Hilbert
The
proof
was
accepted
Because
it
relied
on
axioms
that
everyone
In
the
field
already
agreed
on
Of
course
many
disagreements
involve
different
beliefs
That
can't
simply
be
reconciled
through
logic
When
these
beliefs
involve
outside
information
The
issue
often
comes
down
to
what
sources
And
authorities
people
trust
One
study
asked
people
to
estimate
several
statistics
Related
to
the
scope
of
climate
change
Participants
were
asked
questions
Such
as
'how
many
of
the
years
between
1995
and
2006
Were
one
of
the
hottest
12
years
since
1850?'
After
providing
their
answers
They
were
presented
with
data
from
the
Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change
In
this
case
showing
that
the
answer
was
11
of
the
12
years
Being
provided
with
these
reliable
statistics
From
a
trusted
official
source
Made
people
more
likely
to
accept
the
reality
That
the
earth
is
warming
Finally
for
disagreements
that
can't
be
definitively
settled
With
statistics
or
evidence
Making
a
convincing
argument
May
depend
on
engaging
the
audience's
values
For
example
researchers
have
conducted
a
number
of
studies
Where
they've
asked
people
of
different
political
backgrounds
To
rank
their
values
Liberals
in
these
studies
on
average
rank
fairness
Here
meaning
whether
everyone
is
treated
In
the
same
way
above
loyalty
In
later
studies
researchers
attempted
to
convince
liberals
To
support
military
spending
with
a
variety
of
arguments
Arguments
based
on
fairness
Like
that
the
military
provides
employment
And
education
to
people
from
disadvantaged
backgrounds
Were
more
convincing
than
arguments
based
on
loyalty
Such
as
that
the
military
unifies
a
nation
These
three
elements
Beliefs
trusted
sources
and
values
May
seem
like
a
simple
formula
for
finding
agreement
and
consensus
The
problem
is
that
our
initial
inclination
is
to
think
of
arguments
That
rely
on
our
own
beliefs
trusted
sources
and
values
And
even
when
we
don't
It
can
be
challenging
to
correctly
identify
what's
held
dear
By
people
who
don't
already
agree
with
us
The
best
way
to
find
out
is
simply
to
talk
to
them
In
the
course
of
discussion
You'll
be
exposed
to
counter-arguments
and
rebuttals
These
can
help
you
make
your
own
arguments
And
reasoning
more
convincing
And
sometimes
you
may
even
end
up
being
The
one
changing
your
mind