Speaker 1: From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
Speaker 1: riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
Speaker 1: learn the stuff they don't want you to know. A
Speaker 1: production of I Heart Rating. Hello, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 1: My name is Matt, my name is Noel. They called
Speaker 1: me Ben. We're joined as always with our super producer Paul,
Speaker 1: Mission controlled dec and most importantly, you are you. You
Speaker 1: are here that makes this the stuff they don't want
Speaker 1: you to know. Uh, folks, we're so glad you joined
Speaker 1: us today because, frankly, part of this episode is gonna
Speaker 1: be us asking you for insight and advice. Uh. This
Speaker 1: is part two of a continuing series, and it's something
Speaker 1: that a lot of our fellow listeners had asked us
Speaker 1: about after they heard part one of How to Be
Speaker 1: a Skeptic. I'm thinking, guys, maybe we start by painting
Speaker 1: the scene. Okay, you're at dinner, maybe with your extended
Speaker 1: family or maybe with your partner's family. You're just like
Speaker 1: hanging out with an old friend you haven't seen in
Speaker 1: a while. Conversations pleasant, Oh, how's your mom and them?
Speaker 1: Et cetera. And then there's a plot twist. It might
Speaker 1: be a crazy hot take in extreme political realms, or
Speaker 1: it could be a weird red flag statement like well,
Speaker 1: you know how they are, and they could be anyone. Honestly,
Speaker 1: has this happened to you, guys? Oh god? Yes, I
Speaker 1: mean when I was married, my ex's uh family was
Speaker 1: quite large and quite politically opposed to me, and so
Speaker 1: I kind of had to put on a happy face
Speaker 1: and uh and play nice most of the time. But
Speaker 1: you know, family holidays, the booze starts to flow and
Speaker 1: sometimes a little harder to to bite your tongue. I
Speaker 1: think that's sort of what we're talking about here, is
Speaker 1: how to maybe bite your tongue a little better, or
Speaker 1: at least be a little more constructive and uh and
Speaker 1: positive in the rhetoric around these kinds of tricky situations. Yes,
Speaker 1: I would just say I've encountered a lot of people
Speaker 1: that have different views than me, and I think maybe
Speaker 1: that's why, at least internally, I feel like I have
Speaker 1: a well rounded perspective on things because through this show,
Speaker 1: really and through several highly influential people in my life,
Speaker 1: I've learned some of the things we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about today. Those highly influential people, by the way, are
Speaker 1: not null nor me hopefully mostly mostly. Yeah, we'll get
Speaker 1: in that club one day. So in this earlier episode
Speaker 1: How to Be a Skeptic, Part One, we talked about
Speaker 1: the importance of critical thinking and how we, as consumers
Speaker 1: of not just media but any kind of information, can
Speaker 1: use some pretty simple tactics to make sure we're doing
Speaker 1: our best to think objectively even when our brains don't
Speaker 1: want us to because your brain hates this stuff. It's
Speaker 1: like making someone eat vegetables, uh, if they're not a vegetarian,
Speaker 1: in which are delicious. They're great. I love man roast
Speaker 1: some Brussels sprouts, you know what I mean. I want, Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're fabulous. And maybe not even a vegetarian, just someone
Speaker 1: who has either decided or is cognitively opposed in some way,
Speaker 1: shape or form to the taste or texture of vegetables,
Speaker 1: like my fourteen year old. It's never gonna happen. Guys,
Speaker 1: it's never gonna happen. I gotta hide that stuff inside
Speaker 1: spaghetti sauce. Well still it still works. Uh. And that's
Speaker 1: what that's kind of what we're talking about. That's a
Speaker 1: surprisingly good comparison to what we're talking about. The idea
Speaker 1: of sort of hiding the nutritional stuff in the fun stuff. Uh.
Speaker 1: Today's episode is gonna have us tackling something a little
Speaker 1: more difficult than applying critical thinking to your own thoughts,
Speaker 1: but just as important. How do we talk our loved
Speaker 1: ones off the cognitive ledge of wild or dangerous beliefs?
Speaker 1: How do we help them think objectively? Uh? Here are
Speaker 1: the facts? Start with some bad news. This is becoming
Speaker 1: increasingly common and increasingly important, especially in US society today.
Speaker 1: I think the if you look at partisanship by almost
Speaker 1: any metric, it is skyrocketed, meaning that people are less
Speaker 1: and less likely to view themselves as um maybe party
Speaker 1: agnostic or politically independent. There people are less and less
Speaker 1: likely to pick policies or stances that they like, and
Speaker 1: they're more and more likely to say, my fund this
Speaker 1: party is my fundamental identity. So if I see you
Speaker 1: know and are on a ballot, there's no way I'm
Speaker 1: voting for If I see a D on a ballot,
Speaker 1: there's no way I'm voting for him. And if they're
Speaker 1: an independent, well I don't trust it. Well, and I
Speaker 1: mean there there may be used to be days we've
Speaker 1: talked about the history of political parties and and politics
Speaker 1: where the two parties may be shared more things in
Speaker 1: terms of like ideology, or had more things somewhat in common,
Speaker 1: and the differences were a little more nuanced today unfortunately
Speaker 1: whichever side you fall, and that's just not the case. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's by design, um, even if there are some
Speaker 1: things buried within those policies, you know, of opposing political parties,
Speaker 1: the rhetoric could not be more opposed to one another.
Speaker 1: And and it is designed to create that divide that
Speaker 1: we're talking about. Yeah, And and what's weird about that too,
Speaker 1: is if you if you follow the money, a lot
Speaker 1: of people who are um career politicians who are ideologically opposed,
Speaker 1: the same companies are giving both of those folks money.
Speaker 1: That's just like part of the business practice and stacking
Speaker 1: the deck. And uh, you know, we know that sometimes
Speaker 1: politics can be a third rail here, but what we're
Speaker 1: really talking about it's not so much political episode. This
Speaker 1: is an episode using that as a lens uh to
Speaker 1: explore critical thought because we've seen it, Uh, we've seen
Speaker 1: this be kind of the the fulcrum for a lot
Speaker 1: of these conversations right now. If you look around the
Speaker 1: United States, you'll see that about half of the American
Speaker 1: population agrees with at least one thing you could call
Speaker 1: a conspiracy, and a big chunk of the population, be honest,
Speaker 1: your your faithful correspondent included, have a strong what's called
Speaker 1: dispositional inclination towards believing that unseen and intentional forces exist,
Speaker 1: you know, alls, uh dirty money stuff like that. This
Speaker 1: comes from a University of Chicago's study by Jay Eric
Speaker 1: Oliver and Thomas J. Wood. And I mean, come on, right,
Speaker 1: there are secret groups, there, there is dirty money like
Speaker 1: there are, there are hidden hands at play and acknowledging.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make you crazy. I don't think it's even
Speaker 1: inherently bad to say you agree with at least a
Speaker 1: few things that are not the official narrative. I think
Speaker 1: it's probably uh somewhat good and healthy, you know, to
Speaker 1: just at least temper what you're being sold by politicians
Speaker 1: and pundits and the news, you know, and just give
Speaker 1: it a little bit of an extra think before diving
Speaker 1: in wholeheartedly and saying, yes, this is the truth. Well,
Speaker 1: I think that's what some people get wrong maybe about skepticism.
Speaker 1: If you're truly being skeptical, you're analyzing all information, no
Speaker 1: matter what the sources, even if that's a source that
Speaker 1: you generally agree with or trust, you take that information
Speaker 1: in and you analyze it the same way you would
Speaker 1: just a random person walking on the street that gave
Speaker 1: you similar or the same information, Right, I mean, that's
Speaker 1: I think that's how we have to think about it
Speaker 1: in our daily lives. So you've got to be skeptical
Speaker 1: of the official story as well as the TikTok post.
Speaker 1: Trust you what? Uh? Yeah, you know that these are
Speaker 1: all shades right of just doing a little extra homework. Yeah, right,
Speaker 1: because that's what people love, is having to do more stuff. Uh.
Speaker 1: That's It's also strange because if you look at the
Speaker 1: US in particular and you look at it objectively, US
Speaker 1: history is shock full. It's rife with proven conspiracies and
Speaker 1: cover ups and corruption. There's nothing wrong, there's nothing logical
Speaker 1: about seeing those precedents and saying something similar could be
Speaker 1: going down now or in the future, because the majority
Speaker 1: of US history is all about how people didn't have
Speaker 1: a problem doing that in the past. Uh, and a
Speaker 1: lot of times escape consequences. But that same, like, that
Speaker 1: same very reasonable assumption can be dangerous because you know,
Speaker 1: like like you're saying with homework, it can make you
Speaker 1: avoid looking at primary sources or questioning stuff that we
Speaker 1: should question, or looking at a like you said, Matt,
Speaker 1: a TikTok video or a breathless headline and saying let
Speaker 1: me learn more about that. Folks love being right. They
Speaker 1: hate being wrong. If you contradict a strongly held belief,
Speaker 1: sometimes the people it can feel like a personal attack.
Speaker 1: That's why it's so crazy difficult. It's pretty much impossible
Speaker 1: to win an argument online. But I have a strong
Speaker 1: emotional reaction. You're not telling you know, you're not sharing
Speaker 1: with me NASA data that proves anything about the shape
Speaker 1: of the planet. You're attacking me as a person, and
Speaker 1: you're a jerk. And now I know you're not in
Speaker 1: my tribe. Well, yeah, you think about it the individual person,
Speaker 1: with all the things you just described, Ben, I believe this,
Speaker 1: and I'm not a dumb person. So you're telling me
Speaker 1: it's not right, but I believe it. So that equates
Speaker 1: to me being a dumb person, right, or at least
Speaker 1: that's the feeling. That's the internalized feeling, and totally makes sense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because most people obviously are quite intelligent when again given
Speaker 1: the access to information and a safe place to kind
Speaker 1: of pour over that stuff. There are two big factors
Speaker 1: to this, two reasons that, uh, sometimes people may bucket
Speaker 1: you when you're when you're disagreeing with them. Uh. And
Speaker 1: Julie Beck, writing for The Atlantic, put it perfectly talking
Speaker 1: about cognitive dissonance and some cost fallacy. So this is
Speaker 1: what Julie has to say writing for The Atlantic. UH. Quote.
Speaker 1: The theory of cognitive dissonance, the extreme discomfort of simultaneously
Speaker 1: holding two thoughts that are in conflict, was developed by
Speaker 1: the social psychologist Leon Festinger in the nineteen fifties. Uh.
Speaker 1: The quote goes on um. In a famous study, Festinger
Speaker 1: and his colleagues embedded themselves with a doomsday prophet named
Speaker 1: Dorothy Martin, which is very pleasant and innocuous name for
Speaker 1: a doomsday prophet. I don't know why. I think the
Speaker 1: doomsday promis have to have some sort of like spectacular name,
Speaker 1: but Dorothey Martin just seems like just a sweetie. Uh. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I continue Dorothy Martin and her cult of followers who
Speaker 1: believed that spacemen called the Guardians were coming to collect
Speaker 1: them in flying saucers to save them from a coming flood,
Speaker 1: as is often the case um with doomsday prophecies, This
Speaker 1: did not transpire. Neither spacemen nor flo had ever graced
Speaker 1: this planet. Uh that we know for that they were
Speaker 1: aware of. Perhaps they were in the wrong place and
Speaker 1: they landed elsewhere and they just got the math wrong. Anyway,
Speaker 1: the quote goes on, but Martin just kept revising her
Speaker 1: predictions again, something that we know doomsday profits often do. Uh. Sure,
Speaker 1: the spaceman didn't show today, but hey, they were sure
Speaker 1: to come tomorrow, and so on and so on. The
Speaker 1: researchers watched with fascination as the believers kept on believing.
Speaker 1: It was what believers do. Yeah, don't stop believing unless
Speaker 1: you know it's literally harmful to you and those around you.
Speaker 1: Than maybe it's time to rethink those beliefs. Despite all
Speaker 1: the evidence that they were wrong, these folks kept on
Speaker 1: keeping on. They kept on trucking, and Uh, this was
Speaker 1: so interesting to these scientists who conducted this that they
Speaker 1: wrote a book about it back in nineteen fifty seven,
Speaker 1: I think, called When Prophecy Fails, And they summed it
Speaker 1: up like this, We've said it before, But they were
Speaker 1: in the trenches on the research. They said, quote, a
Speaker 1: man with conviction is a hard man to change. Tell
Speaker 1: him you disagree, and he turns away, showing facts or figures,
Speaker 1: and he questions your sources, appeal to logic, and he
Speaker 1: fails to see your point. Suppose he is presented with evidence,
Speaker 1: unequivocable and undeniable evidence that his belief is wrong. What
Speaker 1: will happen? The individual will frequently emerge not only unshaken,
Speaker 1: but even more convinced with the truth of his beliefs
Speaker 1: than ever before. I don't know why he got increasingly
Speaker 1: excited in British there. That's not a faithful rendition. But
Speaker 1: we've talked about this, right, like you double down sometimes
Speaker 1: when you're presented with stuff that would make you question
Speaker 1: your previous assumptions. We found a fancy name for this,
Speaker 1: too motivated reasoning, which sounds a little bit more scientific
Speaker 1: than cherry picking. Right. It's kind of a fancy way
Speaker 1: of describing a bias. Right. Yeah, like you stuff that's
Speaker 1: already floating around in your you know, consciousness, that shapes
Speaker 1: the way you take in other information. And again we
Speaker 1: talk about that brain always kind of wanting to maintain
Speaker 1: that base level. A K. A. Ben taught me something
Speaker 1: that bias, you know, the same as on a guitar amp.
Speaker 1: You want to have that base level be dialed in,
Speaker 1: and the machinery wants to maintain that base level, as
Speaker 1: does the machinery in us, in our heads, our brains,
Speaker 1: So that's what the brain is gonna do. Imagine you're
Speaker 1: looking at a large screen, like a computer screen, and
Speaker 1: on that screen there are tiny little articles, but you
Speaker 1: can read the headlines. Imagine that screen is filled with
Speaker 1: headlines that agree with whatever position you have, and then
Speaker 1: that disagree with whatever position you have. If you have
Speaker 1: a really hardline belief like this, and you have that
Speaker 1: motivated reasoning, your brain, your eyes, and your brain are
Speaker 1: going to hone in on the ones that agree with
Speaker 1: what you're saying, and the other ones you're either going
Speaker 1: to ignore and pretend like they're not there, or even
Speaker 1: if your brain scans them and reads them, you're way
Speaker 1: more likely to just forget those and throw them out
Speaker 1: of your your whole system and then remember, like be
Speaker 1: able to quote to your friends the ones that agree
Speaker 1: with what you think. It's weird, yeah, even if they're
Speaker 1: from the same publication. Right, the Wall Street Journal up
Speaker 1: ed that you like is probably going to be the
Speaker 1: one that makes you feel like you were correct. And
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter if it's fully contradicted in the next
Speaker 1: one that's there not at all. Uh And we found
Speaker 1: this this is a that's a beautiful picture there, Matt
Speaker 1: And and it's something a lot of people have experienced, right. Uh.
Speaker 1: We know that this applies on such a fundamental, unconscious level,
Speaker 1: like where it's not hyperbolic to say, your eye as
Speaker 1: will naturally hone in on the stuff you agree with.
Speaker 1: You might not be thinking about it, it's just what
Speaker 1: your brain does now in uh these there was a
Speaker 1: study where these researchers had undergrad college students from a
Speaker 1: couple of different demographics listened to prerecorded speeches. And this
Speaker 1: was clever because the speeches were purposely not good audio.
Speaker 1: They had a bunch of static writing through them. And
Speaker 1: if you were in the study while you're listening to
Speaker 1: the speech, you could push a button that would just
Speaker 1: for a few seconds, it would lower the static and
Speaker 1: you could hear better. Uh. So these speeches were about
Speaker 1: two things. I think they were oppositional views about smoking
Speaker 1: tobacco and sometimes there were speeches attacking uh, the concept
Speaker 1: of Christianity overall. If you're a student who was smoking
Speaker 1: as N seven, so you know there are a lot
Speaker 1: of chimneys walking around, uh, then you would turn. You
Speaker 1: would be much more likely to reduce the static, so
Speaker 1: you could hear a speech that said cigarettes might not
Speaker 1: cause cancer. And if you were a non smoker, then
Speaker 1: you would listen during the you would lower the static
Speaker 1: and the anti smoking speech. If you went to church,
Speaker 1: you would just let the static ride on that anti
Speaker 1: Christianity thing and you would sit there and say, you know,
Speaker 1: give me my honorarium or whatever. And then if you
Speaker 1: you know, if you're less religious, then you would listen
Speaker 1: more often. That's interesting. I really wish I could have
Speaker 1: heard the original you know, like the original recordings they're like,
Speaker 1: just to know how much static there was and how
Speaker 1: well you could actually pick things out. Man, that's really good.
Speaker 1: Also the fact that they were they were using big
Speaker 1: tobacco propaganda and probably the only useful way that stuff
Speaker 1: could ever bear out research. But look, just with this information,
Speaker 1: there's a high level thing, uh, we can already sere
Speaker 1: as an uphill battle. Now that is the most important part.
Speaker 1: Knowing all this, is it possible to talk a loved
Speaker 1: one back from one of those legends of thought to
Speaker 1: help widen their information bubble, give them access to stuff
Speaker 1: they may not have been able to access before. Is
Speaker 1: there an effective empathetic way to help people back from
Speaker 1: the brink? It's a question we're going to attempt to
Speaker 1: answer after a word from our sponsors. Here's where it
Speaker 1: gets crazy. We don't get to say this often. There
Speaker 1: is kind of good news kind of yeah, yeah, kind of.
Speaker 1: I kind of just point out it's not just about
Speaker 1: your loved ones. It's also about those who you don't know,
Speaker 1: and about yourself. So this is a universal message we're
Speaker 1: sending out into the ether them the ethosphere. I just
Speaker 1: made that one up. Okay, trademark no Brown January. The
Speaker 1: first thing you have to do is, uh question everything,
Speaker 1: even your assumptions about information itself. Oh yeah, that's the
Speaker 1: tricky one. Uh. This is one I've I've been guilty
Speaker 1: of often for a long time. Information is treated increasingly
Speaker 1: as identity. Uh this has always been the case, but
Speaker 1: it's it's much more apparent now. There's a lot of research.
Speaker 1: You bear it out. It's information, the information that you
Speaker 1: prize or trust has become in many ways like a
Speaker 1: tribal marker. Like you go to a football game you support,
Speaker 1: you know, Atlanta United or Manchester or whatever. Uh, and
Speaker 1: you were wearing the colors of your team because you
Speaker 1: identify with it what people like sports. It might you Sorry,
Speaker 1: it's that Kyle Moony sketch that like a jacket on
Speaker 1: with his different sports balls all over it, and he's
Speaker 1: talking to his roommate about how much he loves sports,
Speaker 1: but he can't be specific about which sport. He's just
Speaker 1: pointing randomly at all these That's kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: that's sort of what this is. Some ways we can't
Speaker 1: quite decide which sport we're supporting. Yeah, And so this
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that people who believe stuff might think is
Speaker 1: whackadoo are unintelligent. Really, what it means is that they
Speaker 1: have probably been worn down by a bunch of feedback loops,
Speaker 1: by a cavalcade of honestly algorithmically targeted information that just
Speaker 1: solidifies and reinforces their beliefs and likely tries to push
Speaker 1: them towards other beliefs. And this happened, This is insidious.
Speaker 1: This happens very subtly over time, and a lot of
Speaker 1: very intelligent people have gone over to the to the
Speaker 1: dark side of manipulating belief, and they're very very good
Speaker 1: at it. Like it's kind of evil, but just objectively,
Speaker 1: you know, you gotta admire it. You gotta admire the hustle. Uh,
Speaker 1: and everyone is a target, so it's it's nuts to me.
Speaker 1: I was doing some more reading on this and camera
Speaker 1: where this point out. But you might run into someone
Speaker 1: who says, I don't believe in evolution, but if you
Speaker 1: ask them what the theory of evolution is, they can
Speaker 1: probably explain it pretty well. They can explain the high
Speaker 1: level basics. They're like, yeah, I know what it is, dude,
Speaker 1: I did some research. I don't believe in it because
Speaker 1: it contradicts another belief that I held, and that information
Speaker 1: is identity to me. So I'm gonna stay with what
Speaker 1: feels comfortable and known and stable. And oftentimes that belief
Speaker 1: in this type of situation is something that relies more
Speaker 1: on faith than it does on provable bits, you know,
Speaker 1: are things that you can actually cross reference, And that's
Speaker 1: sort of the difficulty with religion is that it's not
Speaker 1: provable and it does rely on faith and different Folks
Speaker 1: from different backgrounds that have grown up with different belief
Speaker 1: systems are going to have different faith based systems in
Speaker 1: place that are very hard to shake. A faith based
Speaker 1: argument cannot be proven or discriminable, right, yeah, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: And and you know we always say on this show
Speaker 1: that your faith is your own right. It's definitely. It's
Speaker 1: a personal choice. It's a choice about identity. So it's
Speaker 1: not really in our remit to try to convince you otherwise.
Speaker 1: We we want to be very respectful of that. Uh.
Speaker 1: It's the only time that changes is if there is
Speaker 1: an ideology that advocates harm to self or ears. And
Speaker 1: you know, our brains don't like the question beliefs, right,
Speaker 1: especially if you are raised in a rigorous set of beliefs.
Speaker 1: Any almost anyone who has left a strict religious movement,
Speaker 1: by the way, they start with a common pattern. There's
Speaker 1: like one aspect, one thing that doesn't make sense. Right.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's the leader says do that, don't do this,
Speaker 1: but the leader does this all the time. Right. Uh.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's like, well we said this and this about
Speaker 1: the dangers of money, but look what you know, Kraflo
Speaker 1: Dollar is out here buying another jet right, what does
Speaker 1: that mean to us? What does that mean about my faith?
Speaker 1: And then that becomes a sparker, the first domino. Something
Speaker 1: doesn't feel right, and soon enough there's a feedback loop,
Speaker 1: a good one of further objective thought. But this can
Speaker 1: go in other directions too, because those same feedback loops
Speaker 1: can be weaponized to make someone go from saying you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know, like, uh, I don't like insert politician here,
Speaker 1: all the way to it's time to attack the pizza spot.
Speaker 1: It really can happen. Well, yeah, and I think it's
Speaker 1: an as above, so below situation where it works the
Speaker 1: exact opposite. With a strict religious group, if someone can
Speaker 1: get you to believe that first pillar, right, that first
Speaker 1: innocuous pillar of whatever the belief system is, it's way
Speaker 1: more likely that you'll be into getting the next two
Speaker 1: that are immediately below it, right. And then if you
Speaker 1: get those two, it's just it's kind of increasing that
Speaker 1: you're going to go down that rabbit hole or the
Speaker 1: inverted pyramid. Uh. Then if you don't take up that
Speaker 1: first pillar, yeah, well put man, Because like I think
Speaker 1: this is where we see sunk post fallacy come in too,
Speaker 1: because what's worse than your brain learning it's wrong learning
Speaker 1: it's been wrong for a while, you know. That's why
Speaker 1: one thing that a lot of cultic organizations do is
Speaker 1: level out the information you are access you have access to, right,
Speaker 1: you have to be initiated, You have to progress, usually
Speaker 1: through the expenditure of time and money. Uh. You have
Speaker 1: to earn the knowledge, pay for the knowledge, and some
Speaker 1: sort of transaction. And by the time you get to
Speaker 1: the really wild stuff, you have spent thousands of hours
Speaker 1: and thousands of dollars on This is mission critical to
Speaker 1: your brain for this stuff to be legit. It's also
Speaker 1: like you know, boiling of a lobster, right, you do
Speaker 1: it kind of low and slow while the lobster still alive,
Speaker 1: and you know, I'm sure it's horribly painful, but it's
Speaker 1: also not as horribly painful as if they were dropping
Speaker 1: it into the fully boiling pot right at once. So
Speaker 1: by the time you get to the part where you're
Speaker 1: in danger, um, it's a too late, and be you've
Speaker 1: kind of been acclimated a little by little by little
Speaker 1: to get to that and points so it seems less
Speaker 1: crazy because up to that point you've had little bits
Speaker 1: of things preparing you for that that big reveal. Right,
Speaker 1: and so we're going to talk about how you can
Speaker 1: use those same phenomena and those same tactics to maybe
Speaker 1: do a little bit of good. And this is we
Speaker 1: are not professional psychologists, nor psychiatrists psychiatrists. Excuse me, that's
Speaker 1: how not professional, uh we are when it comes to psychiatry.
Speaker 1: We're also not therapists, were not doctors. But these are
Speaker 1: just some basic tactics that we hope you find helpful. Um,
Speaker 1: big important note disclaimer, whatever you talk about this sort
Speaker 1: of stuff, if someone you know is being radicalized into violence,
Speaker 1: self harm, or crime, then it's your responsibility to do
Speaker 1: your best to ensure their safety and the safety of others.
Speaker 1: So all of the stuff we're about to talk about
Speaker 1: assumes that you have reached out to a loft wind
Speaker 1: or a person you know, to Matt's point, before they
Speaker 1: hit that threshold, before there are gunshots at the pizza place. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and before they ordered four crates of essential oil. Right, sorry, right, sorry, anybody,
Speaker 1: I'm just joking. I mean, I love the name because
Speaker 1: it implies the existence of just you know, worthless oil
Speaker 1: like none. You don't need it oil. There's optional oil. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's more referring to the SMS. But I
Speaker 1: just you know, I will say too, I love essential oils.
Speaker 1: They go in my little atomizer thing, you know, that
Speaker 1: makes my house smell likelyptus. Do I necessarily believe that
Speaker 1: it's curing me of of potential cancer, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: cleansing my chakras? No, but I do think it's nice.
Speaker 1: And I think they're nice to have, and I think
Speaker 1: they have a place and a lot of people's lives
Speaker 1: outside of the more maybe woo woo aspects of them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you know, maybe maybe we just don't have our
Speaker 1: quantum vibrations calibrated correctly. Vibes, vibes before you dump your
Speaker 1: life savings into thieves oil. You know, there's I like
Speaker 1: that that sounds like it sounds like a scy Skyrim
Speaker 1: level accusation or crime, you know, like the Guard and
Speaker 1: White Run says, Wait, I know you You've been accused
Speaker 1: of selling thieves oil. Yeah. So, with with this idea
Speaker 1: of kind of stopping possibly out of control train of
Speaker 1: thought and re routing it, right, it's a tall milkshake,
Speaker 1: how do we inspire the change? Well, first, we know
Speaker 1: the truth about how information is processed. Information is not
Speaker 1: information to the human brain. Information is identity. So with that,
Speaker 1: you have to realize that we shouldn't confront people immediately
Speaker 1: off the jump. No one I feel like I think
Speaker 1: I feel like we can say this confidently. No one
Speaker 1: throughout history has had has heard somebody say what you
Speaker 1: believe is stupid and bullshit and immediately gone, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: good point. Yeah, I mean tell me more, but you
Speaker 1: got me, you're happy like that doesn't work. You gotta
Speaker 1: do the way of the open hands. We gotta shout
Speaker 1: out every body, Socrates. It might work if it falls
Speaker 1: in line with some of those preconceived ideas that our
Speaker 1: brains are already kind of glommed onto. We certainly might
Speaker 1: be much more willing to see somebody speaking our language. Uh,
Speaker 1: and something that's sort of recognizable and recognizably a canvas,
Speaker 1: and then we already believe and then without doing that
Speaker 1: extra homework, be like, yo, yes, definitely that And that's
Speaker 1: its own problem. I thought of one situation, ben where
Speaker 1: it might work. The thing we're saying won't ever happen,
Speaker 1: and I don't want to contradict, but I think there's one,
Speaker 1: And I think it's during a um an interrogation after
Speaker 1: someone has been caught doing something terribly wrong, where where
Speaker 1: the person interrogating is just like you just got it
Speaker 1: all wrong, pal, and like breaking that person down after
Speaker 1: they're already incredibly I don't know, I think it might
Speaker 1: work there. No, that's a really good point, and we
Speaker 1: hope that you don't run into that situation, folks, because
Speaker 1: those are never fun rooms. Uh they're they're never really
Speaker 1: fun rooms. But uh but yeah, no, that's that's a
Speaker 1: perfect example. And what you see us doing here cooking
Speaker 1: live is we're we're throwing these ideas back and forth
Speaker 1: with each other, and we're playing with them to see
Speaker 1: what sticks and what what breaks off. This is why
Speaker 1: when you when you talk with people, people love talking
Speaker 1: about themselves. People also love be listened to, because it's
Speaker 1: kind of a rare thing. Right, So I'm sorry, wet right,
Speaker 1: So ask questions right, and and know that you can't
Speaker 1: um I know that you shouldn't be ideally communicating via
Speaker 1: devices because the majority of any conversation you have in
Speaker 1: person uses nonverbal communication like six, So you want to
Speaker 1: talk to him in person, don't get best. We can
Speaker 1: to add some of those back into non verbal communication,
Speaker 1: like with m O G S or a little little
Speaker 1: signpost to let you know kind of what tone you
Speaker 1: should be reading this thing in by you know, adding
Speaker 1: a little extra sarcasm or little extra words that that
Speaker 1: that that communicate your intention, or even like putting something
Speaker 1: in bold or all caps. You know, it kind of
Speaker 1: lets people know how you might have spoken it out loud.
Speaker 1: But still it is miles away from the micro signals
Speaker 1: that we can tune into, and we're actually talking to
Speaker 1: someone looking them in the eye, hearing the timbre of
Speaker 1: their voice. Not to mention the ability to be able
Speaker 1: to tell whether someone is lying to you or not.
Speaker 1: Just to be ultra clear, because I didn't get it
Speaker 1: at first. I thought you made like language devices at first.
Speaker 1: Been but like we're talking phones and computers and technology. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: read it, you know what I mean? Uh? And everybody,
Speaker 1: you know, you probably have someone in your life who
Speaker 1: is kind of a late adopter of some common communication technology.
Speaker 1: So just like maybe it's someone older in your life.
Speaker 1: Remember how bad they are senday text? Right? You probably
Speaker 1: remember the moment they discovered amoji or bitmoji. That's a
Speaker 1: game changer. Now you're like, oh you are laughing. Okay,
Speaker 1: all right, I get it. So you can avoid a
Speaker 1: lot of that by being in person, because what we're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about is all about building repport, because that's
Speaker 1: what people are reacting to. If information is I then ay,
Speaker 1: then information is also there for community, and that's that's
Speaker 1: what we're hacking. Just a little bit, uh socratic method.
Speaker 1: Ask questions, right, Ask open ended questions. Stay away from
Speaker 1: the yes no answers like, well, you know, we can
Speaker 1: go with politics, but frankly, it doesn't matter what the
Speaker 1: subject is. Uh, we're at a we're at a family event.
Speaker 1: What is it? Give me Thanksgiving? It's our annual arbor
Speaker 1: Daid dance arts tournament, Shaman under the Sea. Wait, did
Speaker 1: you say a sharks tournament? Annual charts tournament? Is that
Speaker 1: like darts art tournament? All right, don't have been outlawed,
Speaker 1: my good man. So this is gonna have to be
Speaker 1: a fight club kind of underground even better, Yeah, because
Speaker 1: now we're on the fringe of mainstream arts. Underd are
Speaker 1: literally underground charts competition. A family member or a friend
Speaker 1: who has you know, Jarton with us and says yeah,
Speaker 1: it says the uh like hey myself, Yeah, but I
Speaker 1: really didn't think Matt said Shark caused. Uh, someone who
Speaker 1: has convinced the election any election again, it really doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: They say, hey, you know what, the election was stolen.
Speaker 1: You do not immediately say that's bill, look at the facts.
Speaker 1: What you're telling that person is that you are not
Speaker 1: part of their community and they have chosen violence, and
Speaker 1: they will react as if you have done something violent instead.
Speaker 1: I remember their person to you're talking to someone's very intelligent.
Speaker 1: People always like to say they're they like to think
Speaker 1: they're basing their opinion on facts. Very few people are
Speaker 1: going to have a strongly held belief and tell you
Speaker 1: they have no reason for that belief or they never
Speaker 1: researched it. Right, They're gonna say I believe in this
Speaker 1: because X y Z. So like if you take the
Speaker 1: specifics out of it, especially if you're very emotionally invested
Speaker 1: in oppositional viewpoint, think of it like someone went on
Speaker 1: a road trip. You're asking about the road trip. So
Speaker 1: just be very baseline, say okay, election, I mean I know,
Speaker 1: let's say I knew nothing about this, or someone over
Speaker 1: there on the other side of the charts field knows
Speaker 1: nothing about it. How would you describe this idea of
Speaker 1: a stolen election, like in a few sentences, Like if
Speaker 1: you just had to tell someone who is completely new
Speaker 1: to this concept, what would you say. This is the
Speaker 1: equivalent of asking someone, oh, okay, tell me about your
Speaker 1: road trip and getting an answer. I decided to drive
Speaker 1: to Vegas or you know, banker main or something that's
Speaker 1: non confrontational and people want to communicate what they believe.
Speaker 1: So you got that information, what's the next step. So
Speaker 1: then once you have that information, Uh, then it's time
Speaker 1: still still not ready to rest on your your laurels,
Speaker 1: then it's time to start asking more questions and getting
Speaker 1: a little more specific and remember to pepper in some
Speaker 1: of your own reference points that you may have. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is not an interrogation, you know, as you said,
Speaker 1: this is a conversation. This is an attempt not even
Speaker 1: to like educate. We're not we're not even like here
Speaker 1: to try to, you know, force views down people's throats.
Speaker 1: But it's about exposing people to views and not making
Speaker 1: it come off as a lecture or as trying to
Speaker 1: you know, um talk down to somebody, you know, because
Speaker 1: ultimately we're never trying to do that if our heart's
Speaker 1: in the right place. Nobody likes to be talked down to.
Speaker 1: And if you're the kind of person that's constantly talking
Speaker 1: down to people, then you're probably kind of a jerk. Um.
Speaker 1: So remember to phrase what you're hearing back from your
Speaker 1: friend in your own words. And again, don't think of
Speaker 1: this as a rhetorical device. It's just honestly an effort
Speaker 1: to let them know that you've heard them and that
Speaker 1: you understand them, and that you are processing what they
Speaker 1: said and not just waiting for your turn to talk. So, okay,
Speaker 1: so what I'm hearing is you believe the election was
Speaker 1: stolen because X, Y, Z, and And it doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be formal, it doesn't have to be any kind
Speaker 1: of exact form. It's literally just listen to what they're
Speaker 1: saying and then ask them questions about it. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: the idea of rephrasing what someone is saying in your
Speaker 1: own words does, like to your point, know, it shows
Speaker 1: that you are getting the information right. And if you
Speaker 1: include when you're peppering facts that might contradict a belief
Speaker 1: or an aspect of it, you can also avoid conflict
Speaker 1: by referring to these in a non confrontational way. Third
Speaker 1: person kind of stuff is very easy here. Like our
Speaker 1: sorry third party introduced a third party, you wouldn't say, well,
Speaker 1: screw you, buddy, I think the election was legit. Instead
Speaker 1: you could say, well, you know, it's interesting. Fox News
Speaker 1: and CNN aren't usually on the same side of stuff,
Speaker 1: and they seem to on on this one narrative about
Speaker 1: the election. So what do I mean, what do you
Speaker 1: think about that? It's not wholly different from the way
Speaker 1: couples therapists try to teach us to talk to our
Speaker 1: partners in order to find common ground. Rather than coming
Speaker 1: at somebody saying you suck because you do this and
Speaker 1: therefore you're dumb and wrong and I hate you. Instead
Speaker 1: you say when you do this, it makes me feel
Speaker 1: this way. Um, how can we, you know, talk about
Speaker 1: that and talk about maybe what's actually functionally going on here?
Speaker 1: This is a little bit more of a personal version
Speaker 1: between you know, partners, people that are very very close.
Speaker 1: But it's not entirely dissimilar. What do you think, Matt,
Speaker 1: I think it's very similar. Actually, Um, did you say
Speaker 1: couples therapy couples therapy? Yeah? Or even just like you know,
Speaker 1: if you have a therapist. They can teach you how
Speaker 1: to get what you want. Um, you know, out of
Speaker 1: relationships by not being confrontational. But it's not like you're
Speaker 1: tricking somebody. You're you're genuinely just trying to get to
Speaker 1: a commonplace where you understand. When you do this, it
Speaker 1: makes me feel bad, Um, but it's not just necessarily mean.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying. Maybe there's something that
Speaker 1: I can do to help you know better the situation.
Speaker 1: So it's not putting it all on the other person
Speaker 1: and saying, you big dumb idiot, you've got it all wrong,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna tell you why and why you're wrong,
Speaker 1: because that's never gonna work for anybody. Know, you're right,
Speaker 1: and it should be known that you could take this
Speaker 1: example and you know, flip it over a little bit.
Speaker 1: Maybe you've got a friend that thinks, you know, the
Speaker 1: other party has never done anything wrong, right, and you
Speaker 1: are like, I always vote for this party because they're
Speaker 1: just better for X reasons. This whole thing around, right,
Speaker 1: and you know, you just do the same exact things
Speaker 1: we're talking about. Yeah, Like if we go back to
Speaker 1: that that thing we're saying, well, you are two sources.
Speaker 1: It's interesting that they seem to agree. You've got to
Speaker 1: be ready for those sources to be called into question.
Speaker 1: And this example is interesting because it touches on media, right,
Speaker 1: So don't escalate. Your move now is to find points
Speaker 1: of agreement. So literally use phrases with respectful intonation, like
Speaker 1: we can agree that blank and say we agree. Use
Speaker 1: that inclusive language because when someone is a little tricky.
Speaker 1: But here's the scoop, folks, When someone here's you saying
Speaker 1: we agree in a casual manner repeatedly, don't overuse it,
Speaker 1: but repeatedly, then on an unconscious level, their brain begins
Speaker 1: to accept that agreement as a base reality. You're building
Speaker 1: that rapport. I know, I know. It's all manipulative unless
Speaker 1: you're a really smart person and you see it. So
Speaker 1: it's like if this is where you gotta be careful
Speaker 1: with because some of these techniques we're talking about can
Speaker 1: become transparent very quickly. I think that's what why I
Speaker 1: keep popping in saying like, it doesn't have to be
Speaker 1: a technique, you know what I mean, Yes, these are
Speaker 1: you can understand them as what they are. But also
Speaker 1: if you're truly coming at it from an empathetic place,
Speaker 1: which I always try to do. Then you're actually not
Speaker 1: bullshitting somebody or trying to trick them. You're genuinely having
Speaker 1: a conversation um and and asking, and you're I'm interested.
Speaker 1: I don't think you're an idiot. Obviously, maybe I do,
Speaker 1: but usually in these situations, you're not coming at a
Speaker 1: at a person where you think they're complete fool. You
Speaker 1: think there must be a reason that you think this,
Speaker 1: and I'm interested in finding out what that is, right,
Speaker 1: So that's like we're all in agreement there. What I'm
Speaker 1: saying is like the end of what I'm saying here
Speaker 1: is that because this runs the danger of being manipulative,
Speaker 1: and I'm not doing a bit there, but because it runs,
Speaker 1: because it runs the danger of being that way, you
Speaker 1: should only say this stuff if you sincerely do agree people.
Speaker 1: Is disrespectful because it is assuming that or it contains
Speaker 1: within it the assumption that they are somehow intellectually inferior
Speaker 1: to you, which is almost never the case. People are
Speaker 1: very intelligent and should be spoken to as such. It's
Speaker 1: just a matter of respect. So, like you, we can
Speaker 1: also agree with a statement without accepting it. You know,
Speaker 1: you can say, okay, well, yeah, I'm with you there.
Speaker 1: Mass media has a lot of problems. Just a few
Speaker 1: companies own a ton of outlets. A lot of those
Speaker 1: companies depend on advertisers. That's just that's messed up, and
Speaker 1: they'll probably agree with you because that it is true. Well,
Speaker 1: it's also interesting to where you, like, let's say someone
Speaker 1: is in support of a movement that has very vocal
Speaker 1: supporters that are maybe members of pretty universally panned uh subculture,
Speaker 1: like white supremacists. So you might say, how can you
Speaker 1: support something that is supported by white supremacists, to which
Speaker 1: they might say, well, they're not really white supremacists, to
Speaker 1: which they might say, they're not what you're saying they are.
Speaker 1: But that also does identify a common ground in that
Speaker 1: like we we do agree that white supremacy is bad,
Speaker 1: Nazis are bad. So then at this point the conversation
Speaker 1: becomes around, well what are these people if not that?
Speaker 1: And how are they misunderstood? The whole good people on
Speaker 1: both sides argument Again, it's the idea of like, now
Speaker 1: we are in a space where we are learning together, right,
Speaker 1: this is where we move to, This is where we
Speaker 1: moved to advice. People don't just like feeling correct. People
Speaker 1: also like teaching. People like to be credible authority figures. Right,
Speaker 1: there's something to the myth of Prometheus that made it
Speaker 1: stick around so much. Folks like to bring the fire
Speaker 1: to others and or the fire of knowledge. Excuse me. So,
Speaker 1: you know, if you ask someone in a respectful and
Speaker 1: please sincere way, just be curious, you know, like Ted
Speaker 1: Lasso says, just be curious. Uh, ask these folks what
Speaker 1: sources they might recommend, Like hey, when, okay, so if
Speaker 1: CNN and Fox and insert whomever here, if they're not
Speaker 1: a good source, like where, what would you recommend? Like
Speaker 1: what sources do you follow? You know, who do you
Speaker 1: in whom do you put your trust? Because I I
Speaker 1: want to learn more? Right, and only say it if
Speaker 1: you meet it and be ready to look into it.
Speaker 1: I mean they'll tell you. Don't worry again. People have
Speaker 1: reasons and for believing what they do, and you can
Speaker 1: narrow the scope to you can say, can you recommend
Speaker 1: some specific things? Right? What is that? Like what's an
Speaker 1: episode of that thing? What's an article from this thing?
Speaker 1: What should I read? Watch or whatever? Don't say whatever?
Speaker 1: But like you know what stood out to you in
Speaker 1: particular about this, or maybe what do you wish more
Speaker 1: people knew about this? Right? Uh, this is where if
Speaker 1: you are not being condescending, you're still being very human.
Speaker 1: This is where you're getting to a really cool place
Speaker 1: just in any conversation. It doesn't matter what the conversation is.
Speaker 1: Maybe we take a break for a word from our sponsors,
Speaker 1: and then we'll talk a little bit about just the
Speaker 1: nature of rapport and our interactions. All right, we're back. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's assume it's going to plan. Right, what have we done.
Speaker 1: We've engaged, we're talking. We're practicing empathy. Yes, yeah, we
Speaker 1: took that on right, and we're doing it sincerely. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we're also being the most beautiful part of a
Speaker 1: conversation everybody dreams of this dancing partner, the active listener.
Speaker 1: You're referencing yourself in a supportive, honest way. You're giving
Speaker 1: your conversation partner the ability to feel like a source
Speaker 1: of information to be listened to and not judged. And
Speaker 1: now you can start sussing out some spece sifics. Right,
Speaker 1: you've earned that. Now, if there is a conspiracy off,
Speaker 1: what who's responsible? Like and why what do they want? Ultimately?
Speaker 1: What's their end game? Uh? And then you could maybe
Speaker 1: do some thought experiments like, Okay, I'm learning a lot.
Speaker 1: Let's look at it on the other side. For people
Speaker 1: who don't believe this, what what is there version of
Speaker 1: the thing right for? For people who believe For people
Speaker 1: who believe there was absolutely nothing weird about the JFK assassination.
Speaker 1: Why not? That's a that's a very popular one. What
Speaker 1: what leads them to that conclusion? Let's try to put
Speaker 1: ourselves in their heads, you know, see what they think
Speaker 1: about it. That part might get dismissed, that might get
Speaker 1: totally just swatted away. That's fine, and just nod and
Speaker 1: leave it there. You know. The key is that you
Speaker 1: are showing you remain open and objectively interested in learning more. Yeah,
Speaker 1: And I would say it's also place to just continue
Speaker 1: asking questions. I mean, you can there can be some
Speaker 1: really interesting conversation right there if you talk about the
Speaker 1: opposing viewpoint. I feel like there's some great avenues you
Speaker 1: could take that conversation down to. But yeah, I agreed.
Speaker 1: I mean, here's what you're doing at this point is
Speaker 1: only partially effect finding mission. The bigger goal isn't to
Speaker 1: present your version of events yet, you know, not in
Speaker 1: a declarative statement. It's it's to build that sense of rapport,
Speaker 1: that sense of communion. People are more receptive to ideas
Speaker 1: when they feel like they have a personal and positive
Speaker 1: connection to the source of those ideas. That's a huge
Speaker 1: piece of this. That's why you hear people complaining and saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, this person in my life only watches this
Speaker 1: one channel, right, that's where they get everything, and they'll
Speaker 1: dismiss stuff if it comes from another source. It's because
Speaker 1: humans often base their conclusions not on the content the message,
Speaker 1: but on how they feel about that their relationship to
Speaker 1: the source of the information. Kimmer the poet who said, Um,
Speaker 1: people will forget what you said to them, but they'll
Speaker 1: always remember how you made them feel. Oh that's good,
Speaker 1: my angelo, I want to say. Yeah, certainly sounds like
Speaker 1: something she might say. It's very thoughtful observation. People will
Speaker 1: remember how they felt about you saying that, Ben, but
Speaker 1: they won't remember what you said. That's so weird to
Speaker 1: think about. It's kind of true, right, Um, Well, because
Speaker 1: if they make you feel bad, then you're probably going
Speaker 1: to immediately dismiss what they're saying and put it out
Speaker 1: of your head. Um, which means about what they're saying here,
Speaker 1: it is I've learned that people will forget what you said,
Speaker 1: people will forget what you did, but people will never
Speaker 1: forget how you made them feel. It's powerful. I think
Speaker 1: it might be a bit of a broad right because
Speaker 1: we do remember things that other other living things do. Um.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so you're finding this sense of rapport. So
Speaker 1: now we've established ourselves, hopefully as a genuine, friendly and
Speaker 1: curious sounding board. No one's yelled, no one has committed
Speaker 1: to anything they don't believe right to try to manipulate
Speaker 1: a conversation not being condescending. If anything, the main risk
Speaker 1: you have here is being like one of those annoying
Speaker 1: kids playing the Y game. You guys know the Y game, right.
Speaker 1: It's like when when a kid figures out the word why,
Speaker 1: and every answer leads to another why, until eventually you
Speaker 1: find yourself in a ridiculous, surreal situation trying to explain
Speaker 1: stuff that you never really thought about. Yeah, or like
Speaker 1: a Homer and Bart Simpson choking scenario, and then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden you're doing a bud Dry commercial. Why
Speaker 1: ask why just get drunk the race that race at
Speaker 1: all from your memory? But dry lee but dry uh so.
Speaker 1: Uh so now you've kind of now we've earned the
Speaker 1: right to pose questions that might touch on, you know,
Speaker 1: the contradictions right the orwelly and double think of something.
Speaker 1: It's really cool to not start replies with negative or
Speaker 1: oppositional phrases. Someone tells you something, they're trusting you to
Speaker 1: tell them, hopping in and saying but what about that?
Speaker 1: Ha got you that that's gonna ruin this um, this
Speaker 1: interaction you've been building, and you can say, okay, well,
Speaker 1: what what do we think about this blah blah blah thing? Right? Like,
Speaker 1: okay Earth, Uh, you're right, most people are not astronauts.
Speaker 1: I've never seen the planet from space in person? So
Speaker 1: what what will we say about this following thing? Because
Speaker 1: that kind of what about is I'm you're talking about
Speaker 1: is is a very transparent tactic. It's often used by
Speaker 1: politicians when they're asked straight questions they don't want to answer.
Speaker 1: They'll just kind of deflect it by talking about this
Speaker 1: other thing you know that like either is is antithetical
Speaker 1: to what they're being asked or is an example of
Speaker 1: something else that is related to the question, but it
Speaker 1: allows them to avoid actually having to give an answer. Um,
Speaker 1: and it is is very transparent and very frustrating. Well,
Speaker 1: I hear you, but I'm just to clarify an apologies
Speaker 1: if I wasn't coming off correct there. I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about what about is um as the rhetorical tactic. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about bringing in, like, now that we have a
Speaker 1: base understanding this belief, what do we think about the
Speaker 1: other the the other side really like the you know,
Speaker 1: the earth flat The flat earth thing is probably not
Speaker 1: the best example, but we could say, well, what about
Speaker 1: the folks who maintain it is round? What do we
Speaker 1: know about them? How do we react? I see, but
Speaker 1: this at some point, you know, the person you're talking
Speaker 1: to may shut down. It might not even be a
Speaker 1: big deal. You're just having a conversation. The conversations go
Speaker 1: to other topics all the time, you know what I mean?
Speaker 1: Someone belches loudly at the Thanksgiving table. Uh, there's a
Speaker 1: new round of charts. You know, there's other stuff. Uh.
Speaker 1: You don't want to be the person who like is
Speaker 1: coming off as some weird investigative reporter on a mission
Speaker 1: to prove Bigfoot exists or doesn't whatever. Um, you just
Speaker 1: it sounds simple, but I mean you're really we're right,
Speaker 1: there is a sort of uh it's sort of the
Speaker 1: best practice to keep it cash, you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: Like keep it in the realm of like a conversation
Speaker 1: rather than a debate, you know, rather than getting really heated,
Speaker 1: because then it starts to feel adversarial, and then a
Speaker 1: lot of these kind of kinder, gentler methods of of
Speaker 1: of getting the stuff sussed out sort of go out
Speaker 1: the window, especially again when alcohol is involved. Have you
Speaker 1: had conspiracy conspiratorial like arguments? Maybe not arguments, but I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're talking with someone that just really
Speaker 1: has a completely you know, opposing view to something that
Speaker 1: I believe, and I already think that it's kind of
Speaker 1: just absolutely disproven and really hard to have a conversation
Speaker 1: with that person about it, it can very quickly become
Speaker 1: a a pping contest where you're literally just you know,
Speaker 1: trying to shut that person down as they're trying to
Speaker 1: shut you down, and it's just like beating your head
Speaker 1: against the wall or banging two bricks together. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's only going to result in negativity that's going
Speaker 1: to outflow outward, you know, to everyone else. And then
Speaker 1: it's it's basically like a like a weird boxing match.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not a conversation at all at that point. Um.
Speaker 1: But that again requires both sides to to approach the
Speaker 1: stuff gently, and you can't always depend on that happening.
Speaker 1: A lot of times, your Uncle Steve is gonna come
Speaker 1: hard at you right from the start. So it's your
Speaker 1: job to sort of mellow it out and diffuse it
Speaker 1: a little bit, you know, and not meet that energy,
Speaker 1: you know, instead dial it back a little bit. And
Speaker 1: then maybe Uncle Steve will dial it back a little
Speaker 1: bit too. I hope he does. With the citation of alcohol,
Speaker 1: and there a couple of times I'm now for being
Speaker 1: a picture in my head of of some Uncle Steve
Speaker 1: who was like totally reasonable. But then you know, the
Speaker 1: guy's had six beers and he's like and another thing,
Speaker 1: and he's arts in his hand. He's got jarts. God forbid,
Speaker 1: charts are involved. First of all, those should be outdoor
Speaker 1: activities only. Do not even bring those hand to the
Speaker 1: to the to the dinner table room. Oh man, guys,
Speaker 1: I just quickly I had a conversation not long ago
Speaker 1: with someone who was adamant that there was, in fact
Speaker 1: a firmament above where we were standing when we were
Speaker 1: having the conversation that there was, you know, a biblical
Speaker 1: concept like a dome above us. But I found that
Speaker 1: it was a fascinating conversation because I knew so very
Speaker 1: little about specific belief structures within UM. I guess that
Speaker 1: system when you you know, and and this person as
Speaker 1: an individual, they have their own beliefs, but what they
Speaker 1: believed was there and how it functioned. And I found
Speaker 1: that I was learning a ton just by having this conversation.
Speaker 1: And there was no reason for me to try and
Speaker 1: change this person's beliefs. It was just it was this
Speaker 1: kind of exact situation that we're describing here. But it
Speaker 1: can also be an enriching thing that you can do
Speaker 1: for yourself. I just want to put that out there.
Speaker 1: I love that man, and you know, uh, We've always
Speaker 1: pointed out you especially met the need to recognize the
Speaker 1: humanity and others. That's the key thing. UM thinking a
Speaker 1: lot about this. Really, one of the big takeaways is
Speaker 1: leave the door open. Don't don't force people to do
Speaker 1: stuff you're you may be entering in a situation where
Speaker 1: information is bubbled, and you have to be aware that
Speaker 1: you probably live in an information bubble yourself. This is
Speaker 1: like the key thing that keeps sticking with me. We
Speaker 1: have to remember that this person, if you're talking to them,
Speaker 1: they're probably important to you. And you may not vibe
Speaker 1: on things like ghost or elections or the shape of
Speaker 1: the planet or whatever. But the truth is, when you
Speaker 1: think about it, you probably do agree on the majority
Speaker 1: of all the other stuff you've experienced. You agree so
Speaker 1: much that you never talk about it because you're that
Speaker 1: on the same page. So this one to two percent
Speaker 1: difference in overall opinion about life, it is far outweighed
Speaker 1: by the sheer amount of stuff that you and and
Speaker 1: probably the rest of humanity connect on. You know, and
Speaker 1: it's easy to forget that, but it's important to remember it.
Speaker 1: You could also just not everything has to be like
Speaker 1: some Frost Nixon conversation. You could just say, hey, do
Speaker 1: you want to go bowling? Right? Do you want to go, like,
Speaker 1: I don't know, go tubing. If you're lucky enough to
Speaker 1: live near a water source, just go hang somewhere. You
Speaker 1: have to talk about this because every time you're hanging.
Speaker 1: You're becoming an established alternative viewpoint, and you are you
Speaker 1: are helping expand I don't want to say break expand
Speaker 1: that information horizon just a bit tubings for lips man. Man,
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding. Yeah, I'm joking. But it's also, like
Speaker 1: you know it, you'd be surprised at how many people
Speaker 1: could turn the most innocuous topics back around to these adversarial,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of two bricks pounding together situations. I
Speaker 1: am speaking from experience, like specifically with with my mom,
Speaker 1: Like it was just I had to do everything in
Speaker 1: my power to not have those conversations because it was
Speaker 1: just never gonna be good. But she's such a stubborn
Speaker 1: person that she always find a way to reel it
Speaker 1: back to those uncomfortable topics to which point, at which
Speaker 1: point I would have to just kind of walk away,
Speaker 1: which is also an option that is also an option
Speaker 1: for for all those out there you don't have to
Speaker 1: engage if things get a little too heated, Uh, sometimes
Speaker 1: it is best to walk away. Yeah, and and give
Speaker 1: everybody some time and remember the big important thing again
Speaker 1: is that this person probably has your back. The vast
Speaker 1: majority of stuff you agree on and so much so
Speaker 1: again you don't talk about it, but this the cool
Speaker 1: thing is, and maybe we hit this to the cool
Speaker 1: thing is that along the way, if you're sincere and
Speaker 1: you're spending extended amounts of time, not just one conversation,
Speaker 1: uh with someone that disagrees with youth, and you're going
Speaker 1: to learn new information yourself along the way, and that's
Speaker 1: that's invaluable. Uh. And with that, I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: this stuff is tough. It's one of those things that
Speaker 1: it's very easy to say or suggest some ideas about
Speaker 1: how to approach these things, but actually doing it it
Speaker 1: can be really challenging. It can be uphill. So I
Speaker 1: don't know about you guys, but I think would be
Speaker 1: great to hear some stories from our fellow conspiracy realist
Speaker 1: who might have had similar experiences. I'm on the other
Speaker 1: side sometimes I'm like, I think the JFK assassination was
Speaker 1: a cover up, you know, oh a million. But that's
Speaker 1: where I'm coming from. You know, let me hear me out.
Speaker 1: We all have our own our own, our own stories,
Speaker 1: our own you know, everything that led us to where
Speaker 1: we are now. And I think a lot of this
Speaker 1: truly is about kind of being more connected to people
Speaker 1: and figuring out what it is about them that led
Speaker 1: them to have that opinion, not necessarily to shut down
Speaker 1: set opinion, to let us know. What are some methods
Speaker 1: that you employ? You know, in these kind of uncomfortable exchanges,
Speaker 1: you can get to us in the usual Internet spots
Speaker 1: of note, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube where we're conspiracy stuff,
Speaker 1: conspiracy stuff show on TikTok and Instagram. Hey, speaking of
Speaker 1: those last two, why don't we do something a little
Speaker 1: different with this one. If you've had a situation like
Speaker 1: this that you want to tell us about, why don't
Speaker 1: you make a video on Instagram or TikTok and let
Speaker 1: us know about it. I do it? Do they add us? Guys?
Speaker 1: I don't know how it works. Yeah, I think you can.
Speaker 1: You can tag us in the video and then we
Speaker 1: can do a video response. We started toying with that
Speaker 1: recently with some of the Instagram stories and and reels
Speaker 1: and stuff we've been doing, so I think that's really fun.
Speaker 1: We have been figuring trying to figure out more interactive
Speaker 1: ways to do these kinds of to have these kinds
Speaker 1: of conversation, So give it a try. Part of this
Speaker 1: experiment are we gonna do that live thing in Atlanta.
Speaker 1: We're gonna try to hang out at our at our
Speaker 1: local chickens. Definitely set it on the books. And also
Speaker 1: we've been toying with the idea of doing some more
Speaker 1: maybe Instagram lives as well, So let us know that's
Speaker 1: something you'd be interested in, um, because we have a
Speaker 1: good time doing and we'd we'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Another way you can get in touch with us is
Speaker 1: with a telephone call. Yes, our number is one eight
Speaker 1: three three st d w y t K. When you
Speaker 1: call in, you've got three minutes to leave a voicemail.
Speaker 1: The clock is ticking. Give yourself a cool nickname and
Speaker 1: say whatever you want. Stories are great, really like seriously,
Speaker 1: stories are probably the best, especially if we can just
Speaker 1: listen to it together on the air. Send us your stories.
Speaker 1: We also love episodes, suggestions, or just your thoughts, whatever
Speaker 1: you're feeling about this episode or another one. Please do
Speaker 1: include if we can use your name and voice on
Speaker 1: one of our listener mail episodes or elsewhere on the show.
Speaker 1: And that's it. Hey, if you've got more to say
Speaker 1: than can fit in that message, why not instead to
Speaker 1: send us a good old fashioned email. We are conspiracy
Speaker 1: at i heeart radio dot com. Yah. Stuff they don't
Speaker 1: want you to know. Is a production of I heart Radio.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from my heart Radio, visit the i
Speaker 1: heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to
Speaker 1: your favorite shows.