Love Mearsheimer's lecturing style: no notes, no podium, hand in the pocket, centre-stage, relaxed and confident. He's like a charismatic MC, working the room at a fashionable lounge.

3:01 beginning & intro 8:18 J.J. Mearsheimer 10:27 rationality 11:38 rational choice: expected utility maximization 17:08 political psychology: heuristics & analogy 22:59 the definition of state rationality: theoretical world views 26:14 credible vs irrational vs wrong threories 29:14 credible theory 31:20 rational legal discussion 32:36 rational theory 32:59 14 case-studies 35:05 A. Tellis's critics 40:03 substantive & instrumental rationality 41:46 process & internal argument 43:15 issue of policy effectiveness/success 46:07 issue of approximation of rational choice 48:25 issue of deliberation 50:51 justification of international relations theories 55:11 Mearsheimer's response 1:00:27 Tellis: intuition about benefit/risk is necessary 1:02:54 Mearsheimer 1:03:36 Tellis: theory is not algorithm 1:06:00 Mearsheimer: a simple theory leads to single option 1:07:17 theory taxonomy & how to choose between credible theories? 1:16:35 Q&A 1:16:55 armenia-azerbaijan conflict according to balance of power 1:19:03 access to information in choice: problem of unknown unknowns 1:25:21 intuition : one uncredible theory makes it irrational 1:26:52 answer 1:26:13 is invasion of irak irrational 1:29:47 answer

Thank you for a brilliant discussion. Both very informative and interesting speakers. Discussions such as this are very important and very much appreciated.

John Mearsheimer is probably the most brilliant mind of our generation in the IR field. Future generations will look back and wish they could have heard him in person. All policymakers would be wise to heed his prescriptions on foreign policy.

Excellent discussion!

Basically Dr. Tellis ripped a new one of the book. 1:23:09 Exactly on-point and devastatingly correct.

The sage , JJ Mearsheimer.

Every complex human system has an establishment. This forms from the people who understand how to benefit from the system disproportionately. Their strong alignment is not organized but self organizes around the ability to gain extra utility from the system. However once establishments deviate from the realities of the embedding global system, their behavior becomes less, and less optimized in the sense of long term utility gain. And that also lies with the rather short term view of establishments. So the more the US Hegemon shuts out information from the global system the more it will diverge from an ideal rational maximum utility behavior without noticing it. It simply lacks enough information to stay aligned and act utile to itself.

John J. Mearsheimer is absolutely essential to understanding foreign affairs.

Excellent.

Simply one of the best minds in IR theory and practice ❤

After all the analysis is done, big decisions are made on emotion and heuristics.

As for the the decision process, whether collective or not, it think taht it's a false problem which comes out from the superfluoius distinguishing betweeen internal (individual) resources and external (collective) resoureces. They are both resources and it doesn't matter if an advice comes from another individual, from a re-elaboration of the issue or from a new set of information. A resource is a resource. I think this is the correct approach to the decision making process when analizing the decision active subject(s).

John starts talking at 8:17

Does the book discuss the financial implications such as foreign deposits being part of the reason for wars

I think that, theory doesn’t mean that the authors have the exclusive power for explaining all that we’ll want to hear. However, it’s not about the truth or false, it’s just a study, a specific field with different argumentation. Theory it’s one of the ways we use our knowledge in scientific context for saying what we found out, by demonstrating the final result. For example, we’ll know that the same theory has taken different arguments so that science became more attractive for those who wants to understand the world.

good work

I'm going to go read the book now. It would be great if states actually applied credible theories as a pre-requisite to policymaking. What else do we have unless we have a crystal ball of the future or at least be able to associate objective probabilities to desired outcomes?

The less contact you have with another system the less you know about them and the less you can predict them or even just design your own proper behaviour.

The notion of nation state survival suggests an evolutionary model where replication is the goal of the objective function.

I prefer the philosophical distinction of rationality versus empiricism.

The Key To Figuring Out Whether States Are Rational Solely Depends On During Deliberations When Decisions Are Made By A Handful Of People In The Room, Do They Have Credible Theories Or Do They Suppress Dissenting Theories. Great Work By John Mearsheimer.

Thats what theories are for... Tellis ji.

Id like ti hear mire about the Madeline Allbright story.

The man can talk.

Manionggor: This prof is true tom. Tommy: Yes he is true, but what can he do? Manionggor: Nothing. Tommy: Lah ya

" they found out, people never act rationally" ı laughed hard, thank you🤣🤣🤣 ....unfortunately, it is true and took my 33 years to admit it to myself

John J. break the leak. Piia from Finland.

Rationality is defined on the terms of the actor being studied and not from the perspective the actor that is doing the study. US history, both from the policy perspective and from the intelligence perspective, is littered with the wreckage of actors (from the US) presuming that their version of what is or is not rational is the calculus within which someone else is operating. The concept of 'states' being rational is dubious due to the anthropomorphic fallacy. Yes, it is probably used a lazy semantic and heuristic description of 'specific individuals within government,' but both uses tend to concretize the fallacy as being patent.

If you enter a room, you close the door and suddenly you notice there is a tiger in the room. What heuristic do you use to makena decision?

I don't think that installing democracies was ever a real goal. It was just something to say to persuade the public to accept the invasions of other countries.

Knowledge about the human brain and how it works leads to a quick dismissal of rational choice theory.

When I look at the world, I understand why it is in a bad shape. The second speaker reminds me of why we have irrational leaders.

26:19 "...only one credible theory..."

Who picked the trip hop? 😂

This was on Oct 3, 2023

Deomcracy is all about what the people think which is usually emotionally bias. Therefore politician have to follow the emotion of the people in order to get elected.

The idea of determining the rationality of the decision making based on the results of the decision is absurd because the outcome is not certain. You could make the same decision 10 times and get 10 different outcomes. Getting a positive outcome doesn't necessarily mean the decision was rational and vice versa

If two chess players make the most rational moves, the game would most probably end in a draw. As both are presumably aspiring for a win, more risks or irrationality should be expected. As they are both super grandmasters, even the irrationality would be calculated.

How States Think by Mearsheimer

Why is this institute named after inspector Clouseau s Chinese assistant

You can't establish rationality if you can't establish a universal set of interests that are the foundation for all actors actions. People like to assume that states behave in the interest of maximizing utility for the largest possible number of its constituents which is just fundamentally not true. States act rationally but to what end??

Whatever outcome has a good result is the rational idea. There is no definite only one way, like western liberal democracy, to resolve the problem.

Hello Gary however got ?

GOD BLESS YOU HAUT NEVEL POLICY INSTITUE GOOD JOB GOOD WORKING GOD BLESS ALL AMÉN AMÉN AMÉN

Is the US rational? Does the US need foreign policy? “We are the most powerful country in the world!”

John was fired from Chicago university ? Because of what he said about Isreal

I am in awe of Mearsheimer's eloquence and realism. I came across his lectures before the Ukraine War broke out, and between him and Col. Macgregor, and my previous attitudes about the bankrupt values of our foreign policy "experts," I knew there was nothing good about our adventures in being the "indispensable nation." I was a little disappointed though, that when they were talking about goals of foreign policy, they never mentioned peace that I heard. They never mentioned prosperity. They never mentioned saving the planet from global warming or climate change. All this crap we are fed doesn't seem to be a part of the strategy in the halls of power. Now that Hamas has kicked off a full scale war, which Israel will deal with, and which may draw us and Iran in as well, we see little rational decision making, except I do think it's rational for Israel to want to eliminate Hamas. Whether they can accomplish that is another question.

@idk-lz4nl Maersheimer has interesting insights to offer in the workings of politics and leadership. But the very unfortunate thing is that lately in a lot of video's I have seen he makes statements about events that are not within his expertise and then applies his theoretical framework on that. The worst example of this is that I heard him say Putin had no intention of conquering Kiev and all Putin was ever interested in is Eastern Ukraine. He made his mistake even worse by claiming there "was no evidence whatsoever" that Putin had such ambitions. This goes against common sense, and what I heard pretty much any other military analyst say, Western or otherwise. I understand Maersheimer is not a defence expert. So perhaps on this we shouldn't judge the man too hard. But if I then hear him build an entire argument on top of his faulty assumption my fists clench, why? There are more examples but this is the worst instance I remember. He appears to want to change the facts so his theory still fits reality. . This is sad because it disqualifies him for a lot of people to comment on Russia's unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. While he may otherwise have interesting insights to offer.

You grossly missed it based on the ultimate einsteinian Theory k. I. S. S.

9:37 The assumption of rationality presumes a level of education inconsistent with the dialog present in the following video, expressing confusion over the difference between a 2-player game and a 3-player game, and how it changes the definition of the word deterrance ukposts.info_aNMOEQ0248?si=jd4k_JaiN54eJDr8&t=8417

I need this book

Why would one choose willful blindness and assume rationality? That’s lazy

Dastigitotir karamatar🎉😊

Hegemonic foreign policy will not stand ! It is totally deplorable that the US spent a disproportionate amount of time on foreign policy rather than domestic policy.

39:55 Survival of state being a measure of rationality? That sounds especially fallacious. While rationality deals with purely mental process, survival depends on much more hence, there are confounding variables. You may choose option with 10% potential to kill you over one of 90%, quite rationally, but that doesn't mean you survive. I also vehemently disagree with this post hoc success definition of rationality, because if you want to ever use the theory in real world, the subject has no post hoc view as you do. Only the theories and information known to him at the time of decision making. John's way lets you assume subjects decision making as long as you study what are his theories and knowledge/premises at the time of decision-making. Even Mises's rationality (as defined in Human Action) including incredible theories would suffice, given you are aware of them. For the successful outcome, we do not need to use term "rational decision", but a "right decision". Where I later agree - It is indeed hard to justify exclusive interpretations in this field - I believe we can only make better or worse argument that are more or less logical and contradicting to some of the observations. There is no exclusive right interpretation unless you have all the necessary information which we never have and from what I saw prof. Mearshaimer is acutely aware of that.

I don't think dr. Tellis interpretation of Kant's categories is correct. I think Kant is in a way a neoplatonist in that he thinks you cannot know the world as it is not 'form' it through categories. But that doesn' t mean that every subject 'forms' different 'things'. Or that all ' facts' are subjective and thus different for each human.

Page 116 Shah-|ban-dar = Harbour Master

Is a US president or any US actor allowed to think freely and deeply - 19:03 even if he/she is capable of doing so?😅

Tommy: Hah, now how you watch the WWE or SmackDown that's what's happening here in this world. 😂🤣😂🤣. Just kidding. 🏈🏈🏈

Insightful analysis was made .Though difficult and crical questions were posed but the author responded with deeply concerning analysis. Thank you .

Professor Mearsheimer is really in his element when expressing his expertise. Such an impressive individual. ….But just give me a summary!

no theory in IR has ever come close to 30% of the correct predictions of realism. newtonian physics is not correct either. it is demonstrably false, but a useful appproximation

Rationality and policy should not even exist in the same sentence these days. Rational is an opinion. Policy is a set of rules or guidelines. Basically it's a joke.

States don't think. Only individuals do. If Cato was truly Austrian, it would have known that fundamental principle of economic theory.

JM talks at length about "rational theories" but grounds them in few if any empirical facts. Henry Kissinger, shortly before his death wrote that he thought, regretfully, that the West should support Ukraine militarily against Russia. I

Mu taku anuchi

QUE DIEU REIGNE SUR LES GENIES EN POLICY UNHCR UNITED NATIONS UNIVERSITY EN POLICY GOD BLESS ALL AMÉN AMÉN AMÉN

41:33

🖐🙏✍

Hi hello

Emotions always can overrule rationality, simply because emotions are more basic, powerful and survival founded. Emotionalizing reality and rationality neutralizes them and enables to steer people into making irrational decisions. Ideologies are the instrument to emotionalize behavior and decision making and thus the instrument to drive people to behave irrational, i.e. self- damaging or self-destructive. Those , however who instigate emotionalization and create ideologies mostly are rational realists who seek very realistic utility increases= profits. So the military industrial complex behaves very rationally, while the Ukrainians acting on their rational behalf behave completely emotionalized, irrational and ideologically, as what is profit or Boeing is loss of life for the Ukrainians. What is gain of farmland for BlackRock is loss of land for the Galicians. What is gain of brain for Europe is brain drain for the Ukraine. What is LNG profits for the Hegemon is energy cost inflation for Europe. So, what is rational for one party in a system can be very irrational for another. Usually the winner of utility acts rationally while the loser of utility acts ideologically or irrationally.

Mu meet re going on

Asheley ...has a larger view🙂

...

Be problem solfer don't be problem creator NATO waxey Liqday Shacab dhan FALASTIN 🇵🇸 America iyo xulufadisu waxey si axmaqnimo leh utageren yahuda waxeyna siwadajir ah ulaayen Shacab dhan qeybihisa kaladuwan caruur hawen wayeel isbitalo askulo waxey booben dhulkii dahirnaa e Eebe siiyey rer FALASTIN 🇵🇸 tasi ma ahan banii Adamnimo e wajariimo weyn o mudan in la iskula xisaabtamo tariqdina weyqoreysaa Idaha ariga geela iyo looda anfac bey uleyihin bani Adamaha Caano & hilib baa Laga cuna Laga cabaa dadkana madilaan America iyo Israel maxey anfac leyihiin o aduunka ey kuso kordhiyeen waa o% Afghanistan Iraq Syria Libya Yaa burburiyen ? Shaydaan ka qarnigaan waa America iyo Israel/yahuuda don't lecture me.

there is an arbitration at stake with the rationalism/ontic argument in this schema. the interlocutor couldn't manage the question of the nature of material dialectics, internal politics aside, whether there was a determinative trajectory at the point of denial of our ethical positivism in the federal government. moral superiority of the nascent gender theory arisen after 9/11 rectified its normative mass dynamism. the most ruthless of our technological apartheids involves the phone repulsion that mirrors this very normativity.

colonial terrorism AKA foreign policy

how can the high quality of this content fail to register with a sentient observer?

A PRESENTVJE RESTE CROIRE EN DIEU AU COUR DE CETTE SEMAINE POUR JE RECEVERAI MES DOCUMENTS POUR LAISSER CHILE PAS ENCORE RECEVOIR AUCUNE DOCUMENT MAIS JE CROIS QUE DIEU PEUT LE FAIRE POUR MOI JE VOUS ATTEND TOUS QUI ON PREND ENGAGENENT POUR M,AIDER DE TROUVER MES DOCUMENT POUR LAISSER CHILE JE VOUS AIMES BEAUCOUP TOUS MES AUTORITES AMÉN AMÉN 🤙🤙🙏

JE CROIS QUE IMMIGRATION PRENDRE CONSCIENCE AIDE MOI OIM UNHCR KENYA AIDE MOI AVEC LES IMMIGRANTION POUR TROUVER MES DOCUMENT SVP

Tellis is an Asian. He is more concerned with ENDs rather than means.

Bush felt jealousy towards the intellect of Saddam Husein, ever since he has worked for him. And such states of mind remain trough incarnations. Bush was a driving force for American war on Irak. But not as the idea first occurred in his brain. We would have been able to prevent it if the influence of countries were not determent by its brut force but imagination of its people. However regarding Afganistan he was pushed into it. By that I mean not as much to go into Afganistan but to go as to stay. Paradoxically our dear dictator Tito has planed a voyage to Iran and Irak as to prevent the war between them, and this was in the last months of his life. War on Irak has happened as to erase the memory on the war between Irak and Iran. Putting that reason aside we would be able to eliminate war on Irak and after that that preceding war also. But western Europe and Amerika do not allow us to have a play ground. Also Croatia was immobilized by Tito. And although he is dead for a long time our leaders didn't get rid of his influence. People stil do their utmost as to present Balkan countries as objects and not as subjects of History. Situation with Nagorno-Karabakh is almost insignificant in its importance compared with what has happened with Armenians at the beginning of twentieth century. And that should not be forgotten and we should try to eliminate that event. Unknown unknown in this decision is that time reversal happened from time to time and that's because it is possible and because we have become confident in our knowledge as to how to change a course of events, or at least made them work overtime. That case that there is an enclave inside of other country shouldn't have happened. The reason is to remind us on bad fate Armenians have already suffered and to make Russian either to overreact or to feel guilty or weak or guilty and weak.

Slava ukraini slava Bandera

Finish this liberal democracy on holy world. All country will be free and happy whithout USA obesssion. Live freedom decline (World Economic Forum). Piia from Finland.

Mearsheimer claims he's a Realist, but ignores reality while opining from his ivory tower loft. He's never had any position of real responsibility in international relations. Tellis is the real deal, but he's too polite to call BS on his former teacher. Mearsheimer just makes things up and talks in circles. He's always so pleased with himself, however.

Brain washing discussion.

Mearsheimer is unfortunately wrong, and arrogant.