Superposed copertina

Superposed

Superposed

Di: Aidan Lewis
Ascolta gratuitamente

Every decision exists in superposition — multiple outcomes, all possible, until you choose. But how do you know which decision to make? Superposed applies quantum cognition — an emerging framework that uses quantum mechanics principles to explain how humans make decisions — to history's most consequential choices. Learn from this deeper perspective on how political, business, and scientific leaders have made the decisions that effect our everyday lives to gain a sharper mental model for the decisions you face today.Aidan Lewis Scienza
Episodi
  • E8: Deep Dive Into Quantum Cognition – The Irrational Physics of How You Think

    E8: Deep Dive Into Quantum Cognition – The Irrational Physics of How You Think
    Jul 14 2026

    Linda is 31, outspoken, and marched against nuclear weapons in college. Ask people whether she's more likely to be a bank teller, or a bank teller AND a feminist, and almost everyone picks the second option – a statistical impossibility. Classical models of the mind call this an error. Quantum cognition calls it a clue. Today we go deep into the framework that treats the irrational parts of human decision-making not as glitches, but as evidence that the mind runs on the same probabilistic logic as subatomic particles.


    This isn't a metaphor – it's a modeling framework built directly from the mathematics of quantum mechanics. We trace why classical, Bayesian-based models of cognition – heuristics, biases, the whole toolkit – started running into walls, and how a quantum approach fills the gaps: explaining the Linda problem, the prisoner's dilemma, and decades of decisions that don't follow the rules of classical probability.


    We break down three of quantum cognition's four core pillars. Superposition, where a mind holds multiple, competing beliefs at once as a single combined state – not yet resolved into a decision. Interference, where those competing beliefs collide, sometimes amplifying each other (constructive interference) and sometimes canceling each other out (destructive interference), reshaping the outcome before a choice is even made. And contextuality, where the surrounding frame of a decision changes both what's being considered and how those competing beliefs interact. We close on the frontier concepts researchers are still working out: entanglement, order effects, measurement effects, and the speculative case for cognitive tunneling.

    =================================

    What you'll take away:

    - Why the Linda problem and the prisoner's dilemma reveal a consistent, non-random pattern of "irrationality" that classical probability can't account for

    - How superposition and interference mechanistically explain why the order and framing of information changes the decision itself, not just how it's perceived

    - Why contextuality means there's no such thing as a decision made in a vacuum – the frame is part of the math

    =================================

    Primary Sources:

    Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2022). Quantum cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-123501

    Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1983). Extensional versus intuitive reasoning: The conjunction fallacy in probability judgment. Psychological Review, 90(4), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.90.4.29

    Cervantes, V. H., & Dzhafarov, E. N. (2018). Snow Queen is evil and beautiful: Experimental evidence for probabilistic contextuality in human choices. Decision, 5(3), 193–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/dec0000095

    Busemeyer, J. R., Pothos, E. M., Franco, R., & Trueblood, J. S. (2011). A quantum theoretical explanation for probability judgment errors. Psychological Review, 118(2), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022542

    McKenzie, C.R.M., Lee, S.M. and Chen, K.K. (2002), When negative evidence increases confidence: change in belief after hearing two sides of a dispute. J. Behav. Decis. Making, 15: 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.400

    Bergus, G. R., Levin, I. P., & Elstein, A. S. (2002). Presenting risks and benefits to patients. Journal of general internal medicine, 17(8), 612–617. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.11001.x

    Moore, D. W. (2002). Measuring new types of question-order effects: Additive and subtractive. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1086/338631

    =================================

    Secondary Sources:

    Qognitive

    =================================

    Episode Tags / Keywords:

    quantum cognition, decision science, cognitive bias, Linda problem, conjunction fallacy, prisoner's dilemma, disjunction effect, superposition, interference effects, contextuality, behavioral psychology, Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, Emmanuel Pothos, Jerome Busemeyer, quantum probability
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    39 min
  • E7: Project Titan – How Apple’s Volatile Decisions Killed the iCar

    E7: Project Titan – How Apple’s Volatile Decisions Killed the iCar
    Jul 7 2026
    In February 2024, Apple summoned nearly 2,000 people to a 12 minute meeting to terminate Project Titan, Apple's decade-long, $10 billion attempt to build a car. No one in the room was shocked. They had lived through five leadership changes and just as many versions of what the "Apple Car" was supposed to be. The real question isn't why Apple's car failed to ship. It's why a company this good at decisions couldn't make the same one twice.Through the lens of quantum cognition, Titan's death wasn't one bad call, it was a decade of collapsing and re-expanding the same decision superposition – every leadership change re-opened the range of possible outcomes instead of narrowing it, forcing the next leader to collapse the superposition from scratch. Interference shows up on both sides of the org chart: employees who watched prior directions die grew more guarded each cycle, and leadership, watching cash burn without stabilizing, grew more uncertain, and uncertainty in business tends to get resolved with prejudice. Contextuality did the rest. Tesla's rise likely triggered Titan in 2014, and the generative AI boom of 2022-23 likely helped kill it, but the more consequential context was Titan's own track record: by 2024, five or six pivots and $10 billion in losses had shifted the probability landscape toward cancellation. That's the non-commutative effect worth sitting with: committing to any single version of this decision, in order, could have produced a different car, or no car, but almost certainly not this particular decade of drift.What you'll take away:Why repeated collapsing and re-expanding of the same decision burns more resources than picking the "wrong" option and sticking with itHow each pivot doesn't just cost money, it also degrades the context the next decision gets made in, making cancellation more likely with every cycleWhy consistency of direction, not the boldness of the vision itself, is often the actual variable separating moonshots that ship from moonshots that don't=================================Primary Sources:Busemeyer, J. R., & Wang, Z. (2015). What is quantum cognition, and how is it applied to psychology? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414568663Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2022). Quantum cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-123501Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. T. (2006). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50(3), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2006.01.003Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of 'rational' decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1665), 2171–2178. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0121=================================Secondary Sources: Bloomberg cancellation announcementThe Verge same-day breakNYT postmortem featureBloomberg cost deep-diveWikipedia project overviewTechCrunch project timelineMacRumors comprehensive roundupAppleInsider cancellation reportPatently Apple cancellation recap9to5Mac chip detailsTechSpot chip detailsMotor1 cost estimateBenzinga annual spendHypebeast cancellation summaryMacRumors permit cancellationEpisode Tags / Keywords Project Titan, Apple Car, Tim Cook, Steve Zadesky, quantum cognition, superposition, interference, contextuality, non-commutative effects, decision science, behavioral economics, cognitive bias, corporate strategy, leadership turnover, autonomous vehicles, Tesla
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    19 min
  • E6: Infernal Inertia – Was Dropping the Bomb Really Truman's Decision?

    E6: Infernal Inertia – Was Dropping the Bomb Really Truman's Decision?
    Jun 30 2026
    In August 1945, Harry Truman authorized the single most destructive act in the history of warfare – two atomic bombs that killed an estimated 214,000 people. He had been president for fewer than four months. He hadn't even known the Manhattan Project existed until 12 days after taking office. This episode asks the question that decision science was built to answer: was this Truman's decision, or had the outcome already been determined before he ever walked into the Oval Office?Truman inherited a war that had already consumed 400,000 American lives. The Japanese military was distributing bamboo spears to civilians. A land invasion was projected to cost between 250,000 and 1,000,000 Allied casualties. And at every turn, advisors warned Truman against appearing weak. Using the four core concepts of quantum cognition – superposition, interference, contextuality, and non-commutative effects – we map the full decision landscape Truman faced, the internal conflict that may have vexed his choices, and the external pressures that railroaded him to make one of humanity's greatest judgments.What you'll take away from this episode:- Why a decision made under institutional momentum can feel like a free choice even when the realistic option set has already been narrowed to one- How non-commutative effects explain why Truman could not have reversed the bomb decision even if he had wanted to – the sequence of prior commitments had made alternatives politically nonviable- Why "I am here to make decisions" is sometimes the statement of a person exercising agency, and sometimes the statement of a person ratifying a process they didn't design=================================Primary Sources:Busemeyer, J. R., & Wang, Z. (2015). What is quantum cognition, and how is it applied to psychology? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414568663Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2022). Quantum cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 749–778. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-123501Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z., & Townsend, J. T. (2006). Quantum dynamics of human decision-making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50(3), 220–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmp.2006.01.003Pothos, E. M., & Busemeyer, J. R. (2009). A quantum probability explanation for violations of 'rational' decision theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1665), 2171–2178. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0121=================================Secondary Sources:Heritage Foundation: bomb averted larger tragediesOSTI: Manhattan Project in retrospectNational Archives atomic bomb exhibitICAN Hiroshima Nagasaki casualtiesTruman Library biographical sketchBritannica: Truman's decision to use the bombBulletin: counting the dead at HiroshimaMiller Center: Truman life in briefDannen.com: Truman diary and papersBritannica: atomic bombings overviewU.S. Naval History: Operation DownfallJapan Focus: Hasegawa on Soviet entry and surrenderTruman Library: atomic bomb options 1945History Learning Site: Operation Downfall casualtiesHistory Skills: Operation Downfall planningSherwin: atomic bomb and Cold War originsAtomic Heritage Foundation: Interim Committee reportAtomic Heritage Foundation: the Interim CommitteeMIT: Truman Potsdam diary primary sourceNuclear Museum: Potsdam atomic diplomacyBulletin: psychology of nuclear restraintNational WWII Museum: Japan's surrender part IVeterans Breakfast Club: road to V-J DayNuclear Secrecy blog: Japanese surrender before Hiroshima=================================Episode Tags / Keywords:Harry Truman atomic bomb decision, Hiroshima Nagasaki 1945, Manhattan Project, quantum cognition, decision science, Operation Downfall, World War II Pacific theater, behavioral psychology, cognitive bias, institutional momentum, Interim Committee, James Byrnes, FDR legacy, WWII decision making podcast, nuclear history
    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    27 min
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Ancora nessuna recensione