Episode Transcript
[00:00:16] Speaker B: Welcome to but why? Real Talk on Messy Minds and Messier Systems, the podcast where two psychologists overanalyze everything so you don't have to. We're here to unpack the weird, the worrying and the wildly unjust with just enough existential dread to keep it interesting. I'm Dr. Kristen.
[00:00:32] Speaker A: And I'm Dr. Laura. Let's dive into the mess.
[00:00:35] Speaker B: So, just to preface you guys, we have been going for 10 minutes and did not press record. So on the positive side, I've gotten a really intense political rant out of my system.
Yeah.
[00:00:52] Speaker A: You guys are going to get a really nice, refined, shiny version of what we just rambled about for 10 minutes.
[00:00:58] Speaker B: We're just gonna be so professional and polished as we usually are. I don't know what you're talking about, Laura.
[00:01:04] Speaker A: Such polish. That's me.
[00:01:08] Speaker B: So, guys, this is the first episode in our new series that is very much focused on where we are right now politically, and I would almost say ideologically, especially in the States. Now we're specifically talking about the States, but I will say that it does reflect to a hugest extent what's happening in the UK right now as well, which we will do episodes on.
But there's just something that started to. Well, not started to. It's been about a decade now, but, like, I finally put my finger on it from, like, a psychological identity focused point of view. It's this idea that people are stuck and not an excuse. Right. I'm identifying a problem. People are stuck in various different categories, I suppose. So, like, some people I've seen double down on cruelty and ideology and call it, like, conviction.
Some people I'm seeing being very neutral and treating that like some kind of, like, participation trophy of being a good citizen, which I'll get into the notion of that. Some people I'm seeing like, acting super surprised of what's going on right now. Some people are looking away because identifying what's happening would break that identity, that story they're telling themselves about themselves and society. And all of these have the same outcome of being stuck or moving backwards because the system that's in power right now is taking us where it wants to go. And if we're not, if we're stuck, that means we're going backwards because that's what they're trying to do. So that's kind of. I don't know if I've articulated that very well, but that's kind of why where I want to go with this episode today. And the whole series is going to address kind of the psychology of politics. We have a really cool guest on next week, which I'll tell you all about at the end of this episode. But I want to first start, as usual with our new series structure, kind of like where we are now.
[00:03:13] Speaker A: And this is obviously guys, a topic which. Politics is not my forte, so to speak, but I try and listen and be aware of stuff more than I used to. But I think a lot of what you say.
I'm interested to hear more about these categories and I think see where I fall into because I do think that that like, surprise part resonates with me somewhat. But I also recognize why we shouldn't be surprised. Do you know what I mean? So like I can get like, you then say, you know, people getting kidnapped off the streets. I'm like, whoa. Like that is like, what the hell? Like, do you know what I mean? It's almost like that should not be happening like in.
I guess it just feels like it shouldn't be happening in terms of like rules of society. But I suppose when you look that's very like surface level. Like then when you look deeper into it, it's like, well, look at all this other crap which is going on that's being allowed to go on in society. And I suppose like me maybe only seeing these things more recently, like in the last year or like two years. Ye, probably because I just haven't had to think about it before. Like I know you've mentioned before, like, you know, when we are privileged, we don't necessarily see the thing. We don't need to think about certain things. And I think that, yeah, it totally reflects that like on. On my part. And I think that once you do start noticing and I don't know, just like, I suppose engaging with this stuff more, it's so hard to unsee. And yeah, it's. It almost like sucks that it makes so much sense.
[00:04:51] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:04:51] Speaker A: Do you get what I'm. Do you get what I mean? Absolutely.
[00:04:54] Speaker B: So I think that might be one that we add into this that I hadn't identified because it's like a middle ground area. I was gonna touch on it, but I hadn't identified it as a major thing. But I think there are probably quite a few people here of like, okay, the shock factor. So for me there's a difference between.
This is shocking that it's happening. I don't like every time I'm not confused why this is happening. I'm not surprised, but I'm shocked to see it in terms of my emotional state is just More horrified.
But it's not like I'm not shocked that it's happening. I'm shocked to see it happening from a horrified. But then I think there's this middle ground that we should probably touch on of people that aren't maybe in these four categories of stuckness of. That's like almost like a denial of humanity or their views or whatever. It's like an inter.
I might, yeah, I need to conceptualize this more. But in between stage of like, okay, I've noticed what's going on. I'm aware. What do I do about it?
What do we do about this situation? And I think that's what we really want to cover in the third episode as well, is looking at that as like, what now?
Because there's a reason people stay in these various different categories which we'll run through.
And I do think that that in between category does kind of still fit into one of them. It's just taking a next step to kind of remove yourself out of it is a big step. That's really important.
[00:06:29] Speaker A: Definitely. I even think I almost see like, I think like near the beginning of say, the election and so on, I think there were a lot of people, I think, who were, say, more outspok and frustrated and like, wanting things to change and so on. And I do think the more time goes on, just naturally people fall back into like their day to day rhythms. And if something isn't necessarily like directly having an impact on them, then this stuckness kind of comes back as well. And it's not necessarily that people don't, you know, don't see, see what's happening. But I think there's also a sense of just complete, like, helplessness and like, what. What can you do? So it'd be interesting to go into that, like, later down the line.
[00:07:14] Speaker B: Yeah, sounds good.
All right, Are you ready, Laura, to learn about what pisses me off?
[00:07:21] Speaker A: Yes, please.
[00:07:22] Speaker B: So we'll start with the most infuriating group. And sorry, if you are part of this group and if you are part of this group, I'm surprised you're still listening to this podcast. To be fair.
[00:07:36] Speaker A: Maybe they're going through a process of change.
[00:07:38] Speaker B: Yeah.
So the first group I want to talk about is those entrenched and right wing, right? Because there's this weird argument that, right, like the extreme right and extreme left are the same thing. The extreme left wants free healthcare for everyone, everyone to have a house, everyone to have basic food, stuff like that.
Far right wants to oppress people. Right. So I'm going to focus on the far right for this because that's what the conversation is about. We've talked a little bit about conservative psychology and conservative ideology and our expert will run us through it a lot more next week. But what I'm seeing in action in my comments is people so ideologically and psychologically rigidly ingrained that they can't see what's happening or they're happy about what's happening. So they either deny facts even when like the facts are that they are being harmed by the system, because they like whether that's the culture wars that are happening. They need the hierarchy of the identity politics. You know, we've talked about that narrow hierarchical approach and something I see driving this a lot is terror management theory. So like they re like the people who, very entrenched in right wing politics really feel, if they feel their worldview is under threat, they completely kind of can't cope, can't regulate emotions, things like that. They need authority, authoritarian dominance. A lot of the time that's a lot of this hierarchical stuff. And we've talked a lot before, like in our right wing pipeline episodes about how like this sensitivity to disgust allows people to function in the world through some kind of moral purity. Right. And so what I'm seeing in this is like, like I want to like talk about the stuff that's happening on the ground because there is this sense of people to say like, well, those entrenched people, they're not like the usual ones, they're like just the crazy ones. Right. I get that a lot in my comments from maga. So I would say overwhelmingly the entrenched are the MAGA crowd. Do you know what MAGA is?
[00:09:53] Speaker A: Make America Great again?
[00:09:56] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, it's like the Trump ideologues, the MAGA people. Like, when do we want to make it? What are we comparing America to?
[00:10:04] Speaker A: Right?
[00:10:05] Speaker B: When was America great? Was it when we were oppressing most of the population? Things like that.
[00:10:11] Speaker A: And is this, is this like even.
I'm like, so I, in my head I'm seeing almost a group of people who are basically just like all, like, all in, like on board with like all of the kind of MAGA stuff, all of like Trump stuff. Is it even so people who, I think you actually said this before, but it's, Is it also the people who are like ignoring.
Yeah. Like the negative things? Because I guess there's one group in my head who like see all of the negative stuff but actually agree with it and accept it and are like, yeah, that's Fine. But then there's another group who like agree with some surface stuff, but like, I think you mentioned, like almost in denial of certain things or policies that directly impact them. So would those people also be in this entrenched group?
[00:11:04] Speaker B: Yeah, I think they are.
Like, I feel like, you know, it's probably not like a super binary situation between these different levels. I feel like there is a bit of interconnectedness and it depends on, are we talking about immigrate? Like, I have people, I've had people say to me, well, I don't agree with what he's doing with women's rights, but I'm all for the immigration policy, like literally kidnapping people off the streets. And I'm like, I don't like that lack of self awareness and stuff like that. I think that this is something I will also discuss in the denial section because I think it's selective denial can still be in this entrenched aspect.
I would say, like, maybe selective denial is a subcategory of entrenched. But maybe I'll change my mind when we're discussing the denial subsection. I'm not sure.
[00:11:57] Speaker A: Okay. Yes. I love that we're like building like a model as we go in my.
[00:12:02] Speaker B: Mind, proper, like psychology. Like, oh, should we do some research on this?
[00:12:06] Speaker A: Like, I guarantee it's in different levels, subsections.
[00:12:11] Speaker B: Where are the arrows going? Where are they pointing to? Oh my gosh.
What's the interrelatedness? This is our issue is we talk about too many things and now we've had to start a. Well, slash. Laura has had to start a spreadsheet with all of our various different projects.
[00:12:26] Speaker A: Fantastic.
[00:12:27] Speaker B: So a lot of this is, you know, ground in terror management theory and, you know, worldview threats. Some of the stuff I'm seeing on the ground is like Project 2025. So this is literally like the mass politicization of the workforce, consolidating executive power, dismantling any regulatory capacities, anything like even just Trump knocking down the White House he just fired yesterday.
[00:13:00] Speaker A: Why?
[00:13:01] Speaker B: Well, he's knocking down the east wing. Okay. He's knocking down the east. Yeah. Ballroom, fancy dancing room. As somebody that I listened to, John Idearola on the damage report likes to call it his fancy dancing room whilst Americans are about to lose their food stamp benefits.
[00:13:18] Speaker A: Wow.
[00:13:19] Speaker B: Because the government, the government has been in shut down for over a month because the Republicans want to cover up the Epstein files.
[00:13:26] Speaker A: It's like the, even the like visual of a ballroom feels like I'm being taken back in time. Do you Know what I mean? It gives me. It makes me think about, like, you know, the Handmaid's Tales stuff when they're all.
What do you call them?
I can't remember the names, but.
[00:13:44] Speaker B: The handmaidens.
[00:13:45] Speaker A: No, the Men in Control.
[00:13:47] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
[00:13:48] Speaker A: The God. Not God. Anyways, whatever they're called, how they're all in their fancy houses and having these fancy events and I feel like he's just creating more of that.
[00:13:59] Speaker B: Oh, yeah. I mean, he's used taxpayer dollars to cover the.
COVID the Oval Office in gold. So that's exciting. But one of the things he's done. So, like, obviously he brought in Elon Musk to completely dismantle any government oversight with this fancy dancing room he literally fired yesterday. This, the whole regulatory, external body that you would have to run these things by, right? So any kind of watchdog, they're rolling back women's rights, LGBTQ rights, all these kinds of things, and people are happy to see it, or they're very like, well, some of the stuff benefits me and some doesn't.
[00:14:36] Speaker A: Blah, blah.
[00:14:36] Speaker B: I've had people tell me that are very maga, but Trump has nothing to do with it. And they're so entrenched in their worldview that even when presented with evidence.
Because he said that at the very beginning, but then he very much said, yeah, I know them, like, I'm part of. I'm. Yeah. And he's hired all of them into his cabinet or other aspects of the government. It's very obvious that this is his thing. We've got things like anti trans governance, anti DEI or edi if you're in the UK infrastructure. So literally putting this into law, like, we've seen the stuff going on with the military. We have reproductive control. There are abortion bans, 40 plus states with gestational limits now completely targeting people who identify as left or Democrat, as extremist right. And the people that are really entrenched in this, they feel like they're part of something, right? It is literally cult logic. And this conviction to these ideologies feels like a virtue when they don't have to live with the cost. So a lot of what I'll be talking about today does have to do with privilege. Even though these people will be material impacted by things like the cutting of benefits, the reorganization and complete gutting of federal entitlements and regulatory bodies, the reproductive control, if they're not, if they can't see how they're going to be impacted, even when they're presented with facts, they're not going to give a shit. And so entrenchment isn't necessarily a belief in the sense. It's more of like a strategy to manage anxiety and kind of feel like they have some sense of control.
[00:16:22] Speaker A: It's like it's. Yeah. Holding together the, I suppose, picture or like you said, I think before, almost like the story that they're telling themselves about the world and like the place they live in and how things work and so on. It's like that if that belief system gets disrupted or broken, then that's, I guess, scary. That is uncertain. That's then like, what is truth?
So you can see, I suppose, psychologically, like why people hold onto these things so strongly and don't see, I suppose, the other side or don't see. Yeah, the, the reality of it.
[00:17:02] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, it's. Reality is so subjective, especially in this group. I think it's.
I won't have the exact numbers. Right. But it's there, thereabouts. And have you seen how the government has just been bombing Venezuelan. Venezuelan fishermen and speedboats?
[00:17:18] Speaker A: No.
[00:17:20] Speaker B: They've literally just like, oh, they're. They've got drugs and they're coming for America, which literally these boats can't even reach America with the drugs. They're using it as like, I would say, like a testing ground to see how far they can push because they want regime change in Venezuela. And so they've killed a number of just fishermen. Like this one lady was like, my husband went out to go fishing and she's not returning. And they eventually found out that his boat was one of the ones that was bombed. Trump outright came out and says, we're just gonna kill him. I don't think we need any oversight. And when taken out to the.
[00:17:50] Speaker A: She like publicly said this.
[00:17:52] Speaker B: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. He just, he said, we'll just kill him. They'll be dead. Like, literally he said those words. It's like, no. Yeah. And the. When you take this to the American people, like, if Biden did this, they should rightfully so be outraged. Anyone should be outraged at any president doing this unilaterally, illegally kind of shit for a lot of the stuff he's doing. Right. But when you take this out to the people and you're looking at approval ratings, when you say, and I'm like 99% sure it's for the bombing, it could be for the White House fancy dancing room. It's for one of the. When you say that it's the government did this, the approval rating is like 30%. When you say the Trump administration did this. It goes up by like 15, 16%.
[00:18:40] Speaker A: So when the approval rating. What do you mean?
[00:18:42] Speaker B: Like, the amount of people who were surveyed who approve of this action.
Right. And so it just demonstrates the reality. When you slightly change the terminology to be just from government to Trump administration, their perspective of reality just completely changes.
[00:18:59] Speaker A: Wow. And in favor, like, they approve more of what Trump.
[00:19:03] Speaker B: Of violence.
[00:19:04] Speaker A: The government.
[00:19:06] Speaker B: Yeah.
Because that's the cult of personality. That's where they're getting all these. And so. And I think we're going to discuss it a lot next week, so I don't want to get into it too much, but they're the party that say facts don't care about your feelings. But it's. There's so much evidence that none of this is driven by facts. It's driven by ideology and fear and not rational behavior.
So that's the most frustrating and difficult to overcome group because they're very entrenched and rigid in this. And it's not like you can override it with facts.
[00:19:43] Speaker A: Right, Totally. And it makes me think, like. Well, because obviously I do a lot of. A lot of the.
What informs my practice is around, like, psychological flexibility. And we literally use these terms. So we use the term like rigidness, like stuckness. Like, we literally do that. Like you're feeling stuck in your life. Like, how can we build more psychological flexibility in. To help them actually live a life that is what they believe in and what they care about. And I think it's.
Yeah, it's interesting. I think that the terms like you're using in this situation, yeah, there is.
[00:20:18] Speaker B: A significant lack of psychological flexibility, emotional intelligence, there's high levels of fear that they're definitely not aware of. And a lot of this is a result of attacks on our education system, lack of provision from our government, the fact that we grew up in a white supremacist nation. Like, we have colonized ideas of what makes people human that's ranging from race to gender.
And, you know, that's why these people exist in such high numbers. The good news is they're not half. I mean, I would say all of us are unpacking white supremacy and things like that, but this entrenched version isn't even half the country. So that's a positive. There's too many for my comfort, but there's too many for my comfort. On my comment section.
And another thing I want to say is I wonder if they fit in this.
I hear a lot from people is especially conservative women is like, I'LL put like the quote from a very aggressive, entrenched person, usually a guy on my Instagram and they'll say, you can't listen to those. Those are the crazies in our party.
They're not one of us. Like no, that is the, that is, there's this sense of denial. And so that's why I'm like, there's this crossover between entrenchment and denial which we'll go into next.
Because I think denial as a, it's like a significant self protection mechanism. Right? It's not ignorance, it's identity maintenance.
So what you see a lot is like you're converting other people's suffering into like a debate. Like is Alligator Alcatraz okay?
Like, like what? And this is what I have a lot of the comments like, oh, the people celebrating Alligator Alcatraz or like the ICE deportations. They're not one of us. And they don't, they refuse to accept that. That is a significant, first significant portion of the party and it's what it's founded on.
And this isn't exclusive to right or left. I want to say, I think, I think it's important to note that we can like see a few psychological reasons for this which, because we're talking more about what's happening. I don't want to go into mo that much, but we have like motivated reasoning so people like to confirm their own biases. There's. You can find reasons for almost anything system justification. So we have to justify our existence within these systems. A lot of cognitive dissonance and avoidance and a sense of identity grief. So I want to start with the liberal and centrist denial. And because I'm a leftist, I don't identify as a liberal and I'm not a centrist. I think those are damaging because we live in white supremacy, because we live in patriarchy. Both sidesing. This kind of stuff is one of the many reasons we are, where we are treating like people like Charlie Kirk and these harmful conservative influencers, like having a conversation about women having bodily autonomy is even worth debate is why we're here. Right?
[00:23:23] Speaker A: It's mad, isn't it?
[00:23:25] Speaker B: It's crazy. And this happens in the mainstream media as well.
So the entrenched and the leaders like to say, oh, the media is super liberal. It's actually more far right and right and kind of centrist than anything else.
They both sides everything in the journalism and they treat, they like to treat authoritarianism like a difference. Right. Do you know what I mean? It's like they're really trying to cling to the sense of balance in their reporting and not name it for what it is.
[00:23:58] Speaker A: Yeah. Almost like sanitization of.
[00:24:01] Speaker B: Oh, yeah.
[00:24:01] Speaker A: Like language of events and whatever.
[00:24:05] Speaker B: It's very, very, very much sanitization. And it takes a lot of privilege and ignorance to do this. It makes people feel safe. Right.
That's all these people that are saying, this isn't who we are as America. Like, well, no, we. We were founded as a white supremacist country. That doesn't mean you're inherently a terrible person. But that just means we have a lot to unpack and change. Right. The founding fathers had slaves. They didn't want women involved in government. Like, we have to acknowledge that stuff. Right. That this isn't who we are. Rhetoric keeps us, like, pretending like we have to entertain that kind of stuff.
Maybe a better way to phrase it if you are in this phase, is this is not who we want to be. I get that. That's very different than this is not who we are. Yeah.
[00:24:56] Speaker A: It's almost like learning to see it not. I don't know, not as like a personal attack, but actually, like, almost. It's almost like an opportunity to change things for the better.
It's. Do you know what I mean? And I think that's the thing, is that people feel like they are being personally targeted for this, you know, whatever it is like racism for sexism, for whatever. And it's like, well, if you.
If you're just gonna almost like, turn away from it and be in denial of it, then you're just as bad as it always, like, has been. But actually, if you recognize it, notice it, and not necessarily try and change, but at least try and change how you turn up in conversations, then that's a kind of step forward. But it's interesting, isn't it, how our minds work that mean that we just shut off to these things when it feels slightly uncomfortable.
Yeah.
[00:25:59] Speaker B: And that's that psychosocial bit as well, because we're socialized into doing that, especially those of us with privilege.
[00:26:07] Speaker A: Right. We.
[00:26:07] Speaker B: We can shut that off. And that is one of the active mechanisms of white supremacy's socialization of our psychology, is to, like, erase things politely because it does a lot, just a lot of heavy lifting for maintaining the status quo. Yeah. So it just, like, is one of those things that more subtly hijacks our psychology, but it's still very, very powerful.
[00:26:35] Speaker A: Almost like makes it feel more dangerous, doesn't it? Like, when you say. What did you say? Like, erases it like, politely.
It's like that, like, subtleness, which is so easy to miss. You know, if something is like, really scary and like in your face and very obvious, it's almost like not saying it is better. But like, in a way it has its positives because you can see it. You clearly know what it is. You can call it out. But this stuff that's like, really, it's like benevolent sexism.
[00:27:04] Speaker B: Right.
[00:27:05] Speaker A: It's like that stuff that is more subtle and that is difficult sometimes to see ends up being some of the stuff that causes the most damage or can actually be like the most persistent thing, you know?
[00:27:20] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's is more active than we realize as well. It's a defense mechanism. It's a defense of the status quo. So if you're comfortable, that's fine. Like, for example, I'll get critiques anytime I talk about autism because I don't look like what people think of an autistic person. Right. It's one of the most memorable ones I got was my advocacy is because I have privilege and I have capacity.
[00:27:43] Speaker A: Right.
[00:27:44] Speaker B: And I get so many comments that are like, this isn't about you. This isn't. This isn't for you. What they're trying to do isn't about you. And I'm like, I'm sorry, excuse me. So I can't participate. So, like, this denial that this exists, this, like, defense of the system because of seeing somebody be like, taking a side on it that they don't agree with is just so frustrating. Wow.
[00:28:07] Speaker A: I wonder what those people's like, background, like, what their context to comment, something like that. Like, do you know what I mean? Like, I wonder if it's that, I don't know, maybe they just have a completely different view and experience of autism and then almost feel like it's something's not fair or. I don't know, it's usually.
[00:28:29] Speaker B: Usually alt. Right. Autism moms, is it who send. Who send their kids to ABA or other behavioral therapies. Think autism is purely just like a disorder, Think it's a learning disability.
Think that, you know, you know how you had that imposter syndrome when you started thinking about getting your. This is why. It's because people try to close off this space for a certain kind of person.
I literally talked to somebody yesterday. My hairdresser just got diagnosed as autistic. And she has a friend. She has a friend who. Her child was diagnosed as autistic, also with a learning disability. And her. The way that the friend who ended up. She had told her. And the friend was really nice in the end because the friend was talking about how people are getting over diagnosed and manipulating the system to get a diagnosis. She was too afraid to tell her.
[00:29:21] Speaker A: Why would she? Why really? That's. See that seems sad, isn't it?
[00:29:25] Speaker B: Because. Because she was experiencing systemic issues getting her daughter diagnosed.
She was putting it on other people and not the system. And that's what also what the system trains us to do. Yeah.
And so that made that really hard for her to tell her best friend. And so it was just small things like that that keep that system going, right?
[00:29:45] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, definitely. I just find it so hard to believe. Why, why would somebody get a diagnosis? Because they're trying to manipulate something or manipulate a system. Like surely there's more like stigma attached to it if you have a diagnosis than if you like. Do you know what I mean? I just find it, especially with autism, that's where people's mind like instantly goes to, is like say over diagnosis, like misusing system or like whatever misusing the labels. And it's like why?
[00:30:18] Speaker B: Yeah, well there's probably a lot of reasons but there's a couple things that I can think of is first, there are people that always abuse the system, right? Whether it's like paying taxes, getting welfare, nhs, whatever. However, our systems aren't set up to provide, provide accurate care. And because we live as I'll always say a neoliberal hellscape, the focus is so much on individual rather than systemic care. So the first people think, people think is people are having over diagnoses to make life easier for them. They're cheating, do you know what I mean? They're going to get support that I don't get, you know what I mean? It's the same thing happening in the states right now with SNAP benefits. So that's like welfare and food stamps and stuff like that being taken away.
All these people saying like well you shouldn't have. The people don't deserve food stamps, they don't deserve to buy soda with food, like things like that. And it's this focus on like problematizing the individual rather than like what our government is doing to them. I think we've got on a bit of a tangent so I'm going to bring us back into denial.
[00:31:24] Speaker A: Like autism. We're just going to.
[00:31:26] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly, exactly. No, you're good. It was good examples though. I want to talk about the Republican aspect of denial and while the liberal and centrist one is like you say like that polite erasure, it's harder to recognize, and it's almost kind of like more insidious. This is almost like, dressed up as loyalty. But it's a complete denial to want to acknowledge what's going on. There are words that I will avoid using for that that are in my brain.
[00:31:56] Speaker A: I want to know what they are now anyway.
[00:32:00] Speaker B: For example, it's like you have an awareness of what's happening, but then it's active. Again, denial of it. Right. It's not like I'm not aware of it. It's. This isn't happening. Right. It's like kind of a cracked mirror where you're kind of seeing the fracture or, like, the lines. So whether that's like racism, authoritarianism, cruelty, but you kind of like, work to kind of like, put the pieces back together because actually, like, seeing what's actually happening, like shattering it completely, shattering that mirror would shatter your identity, your sense of self. So it's like an active reconstructing of reality to remain in denial. So, like, for example, January 6th, this was a huge one. I was around Republicans on that day, and I've talked to him in the months following who said, never again.
Never again will I vote for this person. Only to a few months later be like, we need him back. We need him back. And be his most ardent supporters this election. Right. It's so frustrating because, like, reconstructing that identity that you've built for yourself is difficult. Right. And then we've had years of arrests and convictions establishing what happened. We have it on film. Right. We've had the reality only for. In 2025, Trump to do these mass pardons and reframe this kind of, like, violent offense as complete loyalty. So we have all these proud boys, we have these white supremacists and Nazi, neo Nazis completely released. Like, just saying it's like a few bad actors. Trump saying the FBI did it and then turn around. A lot of these people have been arrested since then for violent and sexual violence.
It's like, again, this thing where it's like, oh, it's just the fringe. It's just the outliers. It's that kind of same thing that drives everything else. Right. And it's that.
[00:33:53] Speaker A: It's.
[00:33:53] Speaker B: It's the saying they're the outliers. It, like, drives the ability for the entrenched to exist.
You know what I mean? It's like they care more about making sure their individual identity is safe than anything else.
[00:34:06] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:34:06] Speaker B: So it's not like a confusion. It's complicity in these situations.
[00:34:10] Speaker A: Yeah.
It's like. It's interesting because I think, as you, when you were first almost, like, describing this one, we almost, like, felt a sense of, like, sadness for them. Like, in a way, I don't know. I probably shouldn't feel sadness, but it was the sense that, like. Like you say they've almost tried to, like, perfectly, like, craft this identity of, like, who they are, and then that gets shattered. It, like, seems almost, like, quite desperate in a way and, like, sad in that sense in that you're trying to hold on to something that is.
You almost, like, want to be the truth. Because maybe, again, what you're in denial of, kind of the reality of things is not how you'd want. I feel like there's almost a sadness in, like, grief and, like.
Yeah, almost like that to it. And, no, I'm not saying it makes it okay, but it's.
[00:35:03] Speaker B: But that's what they're avoiding. They're actively. A lot of this goes back to emotional intelligence or capacity to handle negative emotions is, like, an act of avoidance for these negative emotions is a big part of maintaining this.
I want being a Elf and living in Rivendell to be a massive part of my identity. I'm very sad that it's not an option. However, I'm not gonna destroy society.
[00:35:29] Speaker A: I know I might. I might destroy society if I could live in Hobbiton. But I'll.
I'll think about it.
[00:35:37] Speaker B: I'll think about it. I'm just trying to picture you doing anything to destroy society. That's just.
[00:35:43] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:35:44] Speaker B: Can you imagine, as a wannabe Hobbit? I don't think I'm really gonna.
[00:35:49] Speaker A: I might, like, plan it out and then be like, no, I can't.
[00:35:53] Speaker B: No, can't do that, actually.
[00:35:55] Speaker A: No, it's fine.
[00:35:58] Speaker B: So the next one is talking about, like, ambivalence. And I think it took me a while to try to figure out, okay, these are different groups being in denial and being ambivalent. How do I distinguish them? Because it makes sense in my head. I want to distinguish with them, between them before I get into the ambivalent people. So, like, the people in denial can't face what's happening because it actively threatens who they think they are. Right. So it's an active defense mechanism. It's not always conscious, but it's still active.
The people in ambivalence can see what's happening. They just don't necessarily want to get uncomfortable about it. So while denial is, like emotional projection, ambivalence is more of, like, an emotional Convenience denial is like that active wall built to block up like into like truths that you don't like. Right. Like I said, it's fueled by fear or guilt, identity threat. And they kind of like still believe that story. Right? It's all about story and, and discourse about their own goodness and morality, their own group's moral goodness. And so they literally distort that reality to protect that. Right. So like, oh, I don't believe the media. Right.
It's just political theater. The reason we Trump so trust Trump so much is because, no, he never tells the truth. It's like literally a thing like we never know, like all that kind of stuff. Whereas ambivalence is dressing up avoidance as some kind of balance. So it's like they're kind of a step away from reality rather than avoiding it. Right. So intellectualizing both sidesing arguments, never having to commit to a risk in the situation. It's also very white supremacy vibes. So it's the people that are like, I'm not political, which is inherently a political statement.
Right.
So I'll just stay out of politics because it's really stressful. Like, yes, you are, you are correct. And this is a disengagement for morality. It tries to like diffuse responsibility.
It's this like fear of conflict in their relationships. Right. There's a lot of people, especially on the left, who have completely cut off people that they disagree with on this stuff because it's foundation to their, foundational to their morality. These ambivalent people would prefer to preserve their comfort and status in society. Does that make sense?
[00:38:18] Speaker A: Yeah, it makes me think like, I wouldn't. Is this somewhere that like I may be used to, Because I used to very much be like.
Well, I still will say, like, I don't really feel like I know that much about politics and I used to and still do to a degree, like actively avoid kind of like watching say the news on TV because I do find it quite uncomfortable.
But then I, but then I wouldn't say it's not because I don't think it's important and I don't want to know about it. But then I also recognize that I could be engaging with stuff more. So do you know what I mean? I also know other people who are like, oh, actually I've stopped watching the news because it's distressful.
And so what's the balance between like, almost like protecting your own well being in a sense. And I know that there's a lot of privilege that then sits within that sort of state. You Know, I'm not watching it because I'm trying to look after myself. And it's still that individual side of it. But when does that.
When is that okay? And when is that, like, not okay? Do you know what I mean? Or is it just never okay?
[00:39:30] Speaker B: I feel like that's a very individual thing to reflect on.
I think of, like, one of the biggest issues I see is this idea of wanting to be, like, objective or depoliticize things. And so I think, firstly, being aware of what's happening is really important, and we need to be doing that. That doesn't mean you have to have the news on all day, every day, but just, like, a general awareness of what's going on and listening to people, especially marginalized groups. But then I also think the way to not be ambivalent is pick a lane, right? Not everyone can do everything. Not everyone can be like. And. And I think once you pick a lane, they start to expand as well. Like, I used to think, okay, well, maybe my lane. Maybe the only way people will listen to me is through my research, because I hadn't built that confidence yet. Whereas now I'm doing stuff online and all that kind of stuff.
And I think that's maybe if we write that down as like, a really interesting thing to dig into on the last episode after we've talked about this more and after we've talked about things with. With our special guest, who I'm not going to name yet because I think it's something I'd like to reflect on more.
[00:40:42] Speaker A: Yeah, I think that would be useful because I think that there might be quite a lot of people sitting in that. Whether we call it. I don't know, though, because I think, like you say, it's not necessarily that there's ambivalence towards a side or picking a lane. For example, I would know, you know, if someone was to talk to me about something, I would not be sitting on the fence. I'd be quite clear about, you know, which side of an argument, like, I agreed with. But it doesn't mean that I am, what's the word? Consuming a lot of, like, news.
Do you know what I mean? So maybe there's a slight. Maybe there's another subcategory on our model. But I think, yeah, that would be cool, I think, to flesh out a bit more.
[00:41:27] Speaker B: I think it would be really cool to flesh out a bit more when, like, we have, like, the time to do it. Because another thing that popped into my head is urgency. Because obviously those of us who have A shit ton of privilege can choose when to pop in and out. However, the situation is urgent. We've, we're on a running time clock for certain political, economic, environmental things that don't have the time for us to protect our peace. Other people are living in areas that are negatively impacted by environmental change or AI systems are ruining the water in their cities. People are getting kidnapped. Like I just saw some idiot online saying he so far called ICE about 24 people and 16 of them and their families have all been deported. Like this is happening on the ground. And so I think like ambivalence just takes too much time, do you know what I mean? Or like this, this subcategory that we're talking about, you know, it's, there's a reason that it's like just kind of like the background noise of privilege, do you know what I mean? It's just kind of like there.
[00:42:36] Speaker A: So it's still, it still allows that stickness to continue, you know?
[00:42:44] Speaker B: Yeah, and I think there is something to be said about how do we, how do we engage in, you know, being politically active and aware and helpful to society without completely destroying our mental and physical health. Because something I tell to a lot of the activists I talk with online is you have to stay here long term, which means you can't burn out. Right. We all are going to be in a burnout stage of one or another, but equally the people with privilege are going to take longer to burn out than other people. We have more resource sources and things like that. And so it's like this balance that I've not, definitely not figured out because I, I mean, I was saying to Laura this morning, I'm in very clear stages of pre autistic burnout because of firstly all the stuff we're trying to do with work, but a lot of the stuff we're trying to do with work is very equity driven. And I'm one of those people that sees issues, sees patterns and wants to address them on all fronts. And that's not necessarily healthy. So I'm going to have to reevaluate some stuff. But how to do that I have no idea yet. So maybe let's think that through. But like as long as it's not ambivalence.
[00:43:52] Speaker A: Right, Just what you're saying, like with this stuff, I guess with what we do in work as well, you can see like the urgency, like the stuff we want to do, like within like neurodiversity and so on, we see an urgency to that. Right.
[00:44:06] Speaker B: And yeah, and our world doesn't work in urgency. Like we're both applying for research grants that we won't find out about until like February and then we can't start our research until May, you know what I mean? If we get these grants and then it takes so long to do the research and then publish the research and then the active change. So there's so many. But then we're trying to do more on the ground stuff to like preempt the research because we know how long that takes. So it's, it's a. I think everyone needs to reflect on where they are and what their life looks like and even small, like places they can start. Like, is it going to be like, oh, can I donate to Planned Parenthood or on the ground resources that are helping people with their SNAP benefits or things like that? Can I fund a creator who is fired because of opinions on Charlie Kirk or Trump? Or can I help defend families who are like at risk for being deported? Stuff like that.
[00:45:02] Speaker A: Yes, I would love a list, A list of stuff we could like do. And I think it'd be interesting as well, like from your perspective as someone who is extremely active in this space, like what's important for people like you to help you kind of with your well being.
[00:45:19] Speaker B: Yeah, good question.
Well, it's one of those, it's one of those things. Have a lie down maybe. Yeah, just go sleep.
It's one of those things I try to help people with that I talk to and then don't always apply that to myself.
As I'm reminded by Jack quite often.
One of the things to look out for from the ambivalent side, just to finalize this is like kind of that corporate slash elite brand safety stuff that we see a lot. And this is why I value brands like, you know, the Ben and Jerry stuff, who are very active and very overt about where they are. So like they stay like, I don't know, very corporate vibes and very neutral. A lot of it we see in academia, a lot of the stuff we're supposed to do is claim or pose as objective. Where that drives me nuts. When I'm teaching research methods or critical thinking, I explain to the students, even when we're doing quantitative work, we are not being objective. We are choosing the population, we're choosing the research methods, we're choosing how to apply those, we're choosing analysis things, what shortcuts we're taking, what ethics we're using.
There's no such thing as objectivity. If anyone is trying to make you claim to Be objective. This is an attempt to maintain ambivalence and the status quo. Right. An example of this is like the getting rid of DEI stuff as well. Like, it's, oh, we're neutral. It's just about, what's the word they use?
I don't know. What's the word they use? Like, how good you are at it, you know, whatever. So, yeah, so that's ambivalence. That's kind of how it seems like. So does that make sense, the difference between ambivalence and whatchamacallit? Ambivalence and denial?
[00:47:05] Speaker A: Yeah, definitely.
[00:47:06] Speaker B: So the next one is what I've kind of. The one that kind of most recently came into my head is the shocked. Right. So the people. It's almost performative to me. Firstly, it's the people that are shocked, as in, like, who could have seen this coming? And also this performative online shock that I see a lot of. Because, like, if shock feels like it's kind of some awakening for you, it's recentering you as surprise.
I'm learning, oh, my God, I'm seeing all this stuff happen completely replaces like, I'm changing or I'm making positive change or I'm taking steps. Right. So this is some serious cognitive dissonance that happens. Right. It's just wanting to see him as like a really good person sometimes. But really, you don't know that you're doing this. Right. Some people can genuinely be like, oh, I feel shocked, even though they've been told that this is going to be happening. Right.
So some on the ground examples of this are like, these news cycles that happened after a crisis, which is like every day in America right now, where the newly alarmed people post a headline or post a reaction video and then just move on.
And so, like, educators and activists are usually unpaid bury this emotional labor of bringing these people up to speed again and again and again. And these people don't actively do anything. These people who are like, shocked as some kind of like, expression of sympathy without empathy, they don't have skin in the game. It's another reflection of privilege. It's like, I.
I recognize what's happening to you. I don't necessarily want to get involved, but it's. I'm still shocked. Do you know what I mean?
[00:48:40] Speaker A: Yeah, I get you. There's like a degree of separation, but there's still the human part, I suppose, recognizes how terrible something is, but there. It's not. Yeah, that there's space. It isn't directly impacting them. Probably in most Cases.
[00:48:57] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think there is, like we said this difference between being horrified and being shocked and surprised because this, like, oh my God, this is happening. I couldn't have seen this coming. Just means you've not been paying attention. You've been in either denial or complacency or ambivalence. Right?
[00:49:14] Speaker A: Yeah. It gives me the.
It makes me think of like this shocked kind of character, if you like, is very like, short term, short lived.
Whereas maybe people who see it as more like, it's horrific. It's like, you know, it feels a bit more. It feels like there's more like, meaning in that one. Like it's more.
Maybe it's carried more.
Do you know what I mean? Whereas shocked is like short term shocked. Oh, no. Like, this is bad. I'm gonna say one thing about it and then I'm gonna move on and just keep going with my life, you know?
[00:49:53] Speaker B: Yeah, it's easy to transition in and out of. It's not like something that grips you emotionally. And also it just means you've not been paying attention, you know, you've been, you know, actively or subtly ignoring it. And so that's, that's a group of people that I think I'm starting to see more of online as well. Especially every day is a new shocking thing. So I think more and more people are getting shocked. What I'm hoping is that leads to something. Not sure. I've not thought that aspect through psychologically yet. Maybe we'll, you know, that'll be something we can look at in the third episode is how do we get people to transition through these.
[00:50:27] Speaker A: Or it's just the things that they're shocked about just progressively become like, well, like worse and worse. Do you know what I mean? And then the things that they were shocked about to start with, they're not shocked about anymore. But there's still. Do you know? Do you know what I mean? So I feel like it's gonna continue, but perhaps the level of horrificness I feel like might just go up.
[00:50:51] Speaker B: Because the Overton window. So the Overton window is what's acceptable in a society. And this administration's whole idea is to keep moving that, to normalize. It's like a lobster in a pot situation. Right? And so if you keep things more normal is more normalized. Like right now, at first it was Alligator, Alcatraz. Now people are getting kidnapped off the street. People were okay with it happening to migrants. Now it's happening to American citizens. It's happening to mothers of American citizens. It's happening to, oh, no white people. Do you know what I mean? There was videos of, like, priests getting shot in the face with rubber bullets and stuff like that. Like, horrible, horrible stuff that is shocking. I don't know if people would have been aggressively shocked about it in January, but, like, they keep moving it. And the things I want to kind of sum up with on the, the shocked, the ambivalent and the denial is. The statement we have from the Holocaust is the nice people made the best Nazis because they didn't want to make a fuss. They didn't want to report their neighbors going missing. They didn't want to do politics. They didn't want to get involved. Right? Whether that's because they wanted to keep some sense of identity or because they were too scared or they were shocked, but just didn't do anything.
It's all the same outcome, right? People that are marginalized get harmed first, and eventually it escalates. And so people get really offended about that kind of stuff. But I. I'm fully over. I've never really been for it, but I don't have any patience. Yeah, I don't. I don't have any patience for, like, I'm not political. Well, that's a political statement.
No, sorry.
[00:52:31] Speaker A: If.
[00:52:32] Speaker B: If you don't give a shit, that tells me something about you as a person. And I mean, you have to give a shit about the stuff that's going on. You can't cherry pick. Well, I, I'm sad about, you know, what he's doing with immigration rights, but I'm okay with the reproductive stuff or vice versa. Do you know what I mean?
I guess that almost brings me into the last group, which I won't spend loads of time on. But I think it is important to contrast. It is like, the engaged set of the population who see accountability as kind of like a burden, right? And so it's the people that do see it. They're awake, they're informed, they're trying really hard. They're organizing because that's a big thing that's missing, especially from the shocked group is organizing. They're marching, they're teaching, they're donating, they're speaking up. And these are the things that make change, right? Especially the organization, because the shocked are the people. A lot of people you see at, like, the no Kings demonstration, right? What's happening after that? What's like, what's the organization? What's the point? Right?
[00:53:34] Speaker A: You.
[00:53:34] Speaker B: You used your voice, and it was enough to obviously piss Trump off enough that he weird did some Weird like AI video about taking a shit all over the American people, which is super normal. And one of the guys who look.
[00:53:47] Speaker A: Like that, we got that.
[00:53:48] Speaker B: I know, right? I'm so happy. And one of them actually looks like a, like a creator that I follow online. Like what on earth is. Yeah. And so I think a lot of these people are stuck in overwhelm. But like the engaged can range from people who have been engaged their entire life to the people who are more newly engaged.
But these people know too much to look away.
[00:54:14] Speaker A: Right.
[00:54:15] Speaker B: But there's not enough people in this category, I suppose for this group to rest at all. And so I think that kind of answers a little bit. The question we were talking about before is like how do we look after yourselves if you're in this group? Well, we need more people. We need to activate and organize more people. Which is why the no kings thing was good. Because hopefully a lot of these kind of activated engaged groups that can organized were there trying to recruit. We need more people so that there is capacity, so that there is ability to rest.
You see a lot of you say you're in.
I have identified a specific group. I would say I'm in this group. Yes. Because I'm actively involved. I don't know an hour of the day that I'm not thinking about it. I wake up thinking about it.
[00:55:03] Speaker A: Well, I'm like, you're the leader of this group.
[00:55:06] Speaker B: Absolutely not. I. Absolutely not. There are so many amazing leaders. I'm like, I'm a very, very small voice, just trying to do what I can. And I know probably a lot of the impact I'm going to be having is a lot very invisible, like through research and practice and that kind of stuff. And I'm fine with that. I don't care totally. But it still results in this kind of like empathetic fatigue which we learn about as being psychologists. Like we ex. We experience this with clients with the systems we work in. But like this chronic exposure to people's suffering without relief is really difficult to manage.
And also so is knowing what's right but being feeling powerless to make it happen. Right. So my hair is like attacking my face, hitting myself. And like then you kind of start to become hypervigilant. So like this like muscle of belief and morality just never unclenches. Maybe that's why my back hurts so much.
And they're the ones which I've experienced being called angry or too political or like, don't ruin the situation by talking about politics and all that kind of stuff. And their exhaustion and commitment, it gets used against them. And the system is counting on the burnout of these people. And I see all these creators online. What I'm seeing a lot as well is this is where we have to take up the capacity. So I'm seeing like a lot of black and brown creators who are like their entire lives have been this, right? They've experienced it since day one. And a lot of them are like, I'm so frickin burnt out right now.
It's not my job for you to overcome your white supremacy. You need to do overcome your white supremacist thing. So like we need to be able to take up that mantle. It's our job to dismantle this shit show, right? Even though it's not necessarily our fault. But it's getting more people in to do this so people can rest.
Like we, we know black women have driven, as far as I know, every major political progress, at least in the States.
[00:57:08] Speaker A: I think it's like, it's. I think this is one of the reasons why.
And I think I'm probably thinking about my own experiences here, almost like moving from say, I don't know, something that was maybe looked a little bit more ambivalent or not in like engaging with like news and things.
It's partially, I think, because it felt overwhelming that there was so, like there's so many things that you've got to be aware of. Do you know what I mean? Like, I think to me it felt like, wow, like politics is like this big thing and it's, you know, like it's its own.
I don't know, in my head, like separate degree, do you know what I mean? And I think for me, I think part of how I used to rationalize it to myself was like, this is.
There's so much to learn and I don't feel competent to like learn it.
I think that was a completely like, you know, almost like irrational way of thinking and probably something that was keeping again keeping me stuck if like so to speak. I think that when you are able to almost like learn almost like learn how to like teach yourself, learn where to look, things like that, I think that helped me, I think obviously you've helped me with the things that you post and then finding similar people who post about these things, that is almost in a way like a lower energy way for me to be learning.
Whereas I think I used to think I needed to be really purposeful and active in my learning. Obviously that's one way of doing it, but I think what helped me was to almost aid that transition in having content that was easily accessible and that I understood. Like, I say stuff like you do, and then I think that almost helps to bring you into like this maybe like more engaged category, where maybe again, there's a spectrum within that with some people who are engaged, but perhaps like not doing as much as say, like content creators, like you will kind of be doing, but still doing something.
Does that make sense?
[00:59:24] Speaker B: Yeah, I think everyone has different capacities and different strengths and everyone should be doing what they have the capacity and the strength for at that time. Do you know what I mean? So that will change and evolve over time and there's obviously an entryway into that as well. And I think the system makes us think that it's too complex to approach, that is systemic, that is on purpose, that's by design.
But when it comes to progress and society, we all have, we're supposed to have smaller individual roles where we can use our strengths, use our neurotypes, use our life experiences to make change from local government, like even just like small things, Like a lot of the creators I talk to that are activists say, like, just bring cookies to your, like local government officials on the weekend or whatever, through to actually running for office.
Doing content online, there's so many different ways to be engaged and be active. And the thing is, balancing that with real life is, you know, a different thing. But I think it's like, because there's not enough people in this group, people in this more engaged group are less like stuck but more like feel trapped because, like, what do we do? However, we do have enough people. If everyone at the no Kings protest was in the engaged section, so it was in the engaged category, we would be in a very different place right now. Very different place. I think that ties well into our last little section which wants to talk about, like, this is a product of the system as by design. Right? Because outrage and conviction are monetized, especially online, while empathy is super costly. Like it can cost us promotions if we're political or see not to be objective. Right. Platforms in partisan media reward certainty, purity in heavy quotes and conflicts. And as I say online all the time, nuance is dead. That's, that's one of the reasons I have a hard time growing my page is because I, firstly from a, like, personal point of view, but also a work point of view, want to provide the nuance. I'm not just going to say black and white, this is happening. It's like, harder to interact with. Do you know what I mean, so the nuance is just completely suppressed by social structures. And those least protected spend the most emotional currency and, like, empathy, care. Explaining things. You know, we talk about, like, the labor of marginalized groups a lot in our research and try to find ways to undo that in sport settings a lot. While at the same time, the kind of, like, entrenched. Entrenched and ambivalent people are kind of, like, subsidized by society's design that it's like, it carries them on. Right. So it's just really frustrating.
[01:02:21] Speaker A: Yeah.
So, yeah, the system in that sense, that keeps it going. And then it was like, if you look at, like, the number of groups we've spoken about, there are, like, one, I guess two, probably, like at least. At least three, if not four of them that are keeping the system as it is and stuck, and only really, that one, which is really actively, like, pushing towards change.
So then if you just look at that in terms of. With our model, if we calculate how this works. I don't know, but like you said before, like, all of the energy and so few people that are in this last kind of box, if you, like, who are in, like, this engaged space, no wonder that, like, they're getting burnt out.
No wonder that change seems so slow.
[01:03:16] Speaker B: Yeah. Because it's still going backwards. There is. There isn't. Like, we had a period of positive change, I think the 2010s. I mean, we know that the situation with Trump is a reaction by a white supremacist country to having a black president. Right. Obama wasn't perfect, but this is still the reaction to him existing as a black man in the White House.
But outside of that, the 2010s saw some really great landmark progress, you know, for LGBTQ rights, like marriage, for the Me Too movement, for women.
And now we're seeing all of that going backwards because people are stuck in these categories. And a horrific administration that wants to oppress people so that it can give money to the oligarchs, the donors, all that kind of stuff, and the wealthy 1% is. Is running us into the ground.
And that's kind of like. That's what I see of where we are right now. Does that make sense? Does that give you a better idea of our system?
[01:04:18] Speaker A: I love, love it. Love the new model. Love, love everything.
[01:04:21] Speaker B: Love our new model. We're gonna have to come up with one on Canva.
[01:04:25] Speaker A: Yes, totally do that. But no, I think it's been so interesting, I think, for me, because I can see myself in, like, a few of Them and I can see my own movement, like, throughout them. And I kind of think, you know, if I'd had this awareness of this fabulous model, like, I guess these categories and I guess the strengths and weaknesses and, you know, those psychological elements about why we stay stuck in certain ones, I think it does make it easier to move. I do think that that that awareness piece and as human beings, as being able to categorize and also see in, like, clean, you know, boxes, it does help, I think, for us to be like, okay, maybe, you know, some people who are listening, maybe they are in the shock category. Maybe they are moving towards engaged, but maybe not quite there. Like, perhaps this kind of helps to create some sort of movement. So I think that the way that. Yeah, you've kind of categorized them in this way. And it has been really helpful for me, for sure.
[01:05:33] Speaker B: So that's good to know. I was like, is this gonna actually make sense?
[01:05:37] Speaker A: No, I love it. I like it.
[01:05:38] Speaker B: But, yeah, I also think you could use it for, like, smaller aspects. Like, you could use it for racism, misogyny, and to see where people are. You could break it down so much more that apply the model to. We're calling it a model now, guys. We haven't named it yet, but it's our model.
[01:05:56] Speaker A: Maybe that's what the series is called.
[01:05:58] Speaker B: It's just the model. Yeah, that'll definitely tell people what it is.
[01:06:04] Speaker A: Exactly.
[01:06:05] Speaker B: Everybody loves a model.
[01:06:06] Speaker A: It's gonna bring so many new viewers.
[01:06:09] Speaker B: Different kinds of models. I feel like people might interpret as like, a scientific model.
[01:06:16] Speaker A: Yeah, maybe that gets a bit messy, actually.
[01:06:18] Speaker B: Well, we could attract new viewers.
[01:06:22] Speaker A: Who knows? Spread the word.
[01:06:24] Speaker B: So I guess to summarize, this episode has kind of talked about what's happening, I guess, emotional. Different layers we're moving through. So whether it's like outrage, denial, paralysis.
Next time we're going to go into, like, the. But why we're going to go deeper. So we're going to have on an exciting guest, so political psychologist Keegan Tatum, who you can find on Instagram. I'll stick his link in our bio so you can kind of prepare for when he comes on if you want. So he's going to join us to look at the system underneath it, the real psychology of it, how these beliefs get built, how it's all engineered to feel rational and natural, and why certain people double down even more when evidence is brought right in front of them, which I think he does a really good job of talking about.
And one of the things that he's going to talk about is the myth of the rational mind.
And you know how fear and belonging and safety, or at least the promise of that are. They're gonna drive a lot of people much more than rationality in politics, because people don't necessarily believe things because they're true. It's like what I said with that statistic earlier on. They believe them because it feels safer to believe them or act within it.
[01:07:38] Speaker A: Survival.
[01:07:39] Speaker B: That's what we're gonna get into next time. What do you think of that, Laura?
[01:07:43] Speaker A: So excited. Can't wait. We'll learn so much.
[01:07:47] Speaker B: Amazing.
So thank you guys so much for listening. As always, we probably left you with more questions than answers. That's kind of the point. We love digging into the musty undercurrents of. I guess we'll call it political stuckness, Societal stuckness. Uh, do you have any thoughts or questions? Maybe some rage. Maybe some rage at the way I've decided to describe this phenomenon. Maybe we want to hear it. Maybe not. Drop Drop us a comment or message us. Shout into the void depending on what your context is. If there is a topic that you want us to dig into next, please get in touch because we love a rabbit hole. If you liked this episode, please don't forget to like follow rate and tell your friends whatever your platform allow.
You can find all of our links on the but why Instagram page. Please head to the bio for everything. And remember, the first step to understanding is asking but why?
[01:08:34] Speaker A: Yay.
