Why do people spend extraordinary amounts of money on objects that seem to serve no practical purpose? And what exactly separates luxury from quality?

Inspired by the case of former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell's misuse of party funds for high-end personal purchases, Fraser, Nick and Peter use a series of examples to explore the deeper psychology of luxury.

The conversation moves beyond political scandal into philosophy, economics and psychology, asking why humans are drawn to unnecessary things, whether luxury serves a genuine purpose, and where the line lies between excellence, indulgence and excess.

In this episode, we explore the phenomenon of AI slop - the flood of bland, over-polished, formulaic content generated by chatbots and their ilk - and ask how AI content has gone from cool, to naff, to actively despised.

The conversation ranges from AI-generated writing and artwork. to clip art, stock photography, PowerPoint transitions and social media, asking whether technologies become naff simply because everyone can use them, or because democratisation genuinely lowers quality. Along the way, we examine how status, craftsmanship and scarcity shape our perceptions of value, and whether AI is simply following a path that other technologies have trammelled before.

Links:

• Rogers' theory of innovation diffusion
• Ricardo Montalbán
• Pierre Bourdieu

Why do days filled with quick, easy tasks leave us feeling as though we've achieved nothing? In this episode, we explore the psychology of the "five-minute job": the seemingly trivial administrative tasks that can consume entire days.

Starting with Nick's frustration at Mondays disappearing into emails, shopping, backups and life admin, the discussion uncovers why knowledge work is uniquely vulnerable to interruption, why context switching is so mentally expensive, and why maintenance work rarely feels satisfying, even when it's essential.

Along the way, we discuss cognitive psychology, productivity research, organisational behaviour and personal working styles, and ask whether we can ever learn to stop worrying and love the five-minute task.

Links:

• Hofstadter's Law
• Parkinson's Law
• Zeigarnik Effect
• Maker's Schedule, Manager's Schedule
• Eisenhower Matrix
• The Strength of Weak Ties

Every great power eventually faces decline—but does decline inevitably lead to collapse?

In this episode, Fraser, Nick and Peter examine what it really means for a nation, empire or civilisation to decline. Is America's relative loss of global dominance something to fear, or simply the natural consequence of the rest of the world becoming more prosperous?

Drawing on examples ranging from the British Empire and Ancient Rome to the Ottoman Empire and modern China, the discussion explores how nations rise, transform and reinvent themselves. The team argues that decline is rarely a sudden event, but a gradual process whose outcome depends less on economics than on identity, institutions and the ability to adapt.

Along the way they distinguish between absolute and relative decline, debate whether empires ever truly disappear, introduce Nick's "Declinometer", and consider why Britain's transition from imperial power to modern nationhood was comparatively successful. The conversation concludes with a practical set of lessons for how countries, and perhaps even individuals, can learn to decline with dignity.

In this episode, we begin with Hitler’s supposed Alpine Redoubt and use it to explore a broader question: how do we make sense of irrational decision-making? We discuss why Allied planners expected the Nazis to behave “sensibly” by retreating to Bavaria, when Hitler instead chose a symbolic last stand in Berlin. From there, we look at other examples where leaders appear to act against their own interests, including Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Trump’s strike on Iran.

We then set out a framework for irrationality, asking whether bad decisions come from strange goals, wanting the wrong thing, misunderstanding the world, choosing tactics that do not work or simply failing to think clearly. We consider how this applies to politics, war, climate denial, government policy and personal choices, before turning to the awkward fact that apparent irrationality can sometimes be strategically useful. Ultimately, we conclude that irrationality is messy, difficult to diagnose and often inseparable from the values and beliefs that drive people in the first place.

In this episode, we explore why weather carries such powerful symbolic meaning in storytelling and everyday language. From storms representing conflict and change, to sunshine signalling hope and renewal, we unpack how these associations appear across literature, film and culture. We consider whether these meanings are rooted in physical experience—how weather affects our bodies and behaviour—or whether they emerge from deeper symbolic structures in how we think.

We also examine how context shapes interpretation, noting that the same weather can mean very different things depending on geography, culture or situation. Along the way, we introduce a “symbolism-o-meter” to explain why certain phenomena—like weather—are especially rich for metaphor, due to their universal human experience and wide range of variations. Finally, we reflect on personal moments where weather and emotion aligned, illustrating how these symbolic connections play out in real life.

A Passing Storm: https://www.artrenewal.org/artworks/a-passing-storm/james-jacques-joseph-tissot/1133

In 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_ZDQKq2F08

Phoebus Cartel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel

The Love Canal incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

Stakeholder Capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism

In 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.

In 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.

In 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_preservation

Appreciation or Nostalgia? https://from.ncl.ac.uk/nostalgia-in-retro-gaming

Bronze Age stone balls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carved_stone_balls

In 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-ireland

La Famiglia: The Great Mafia War: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/367517/la-famiglia-the-great-mafia-war

Labyrinth: The War on Terror: https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/62227/labyrinth-the-war-on-terror-2001

Agency as Art by C. Thi Nguyen: https://academic.oup.com/book/32137