But Why is Politics so Messy? | Part 2: The Myth of the Rational Voter (with Keegan Tatum)

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign. [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. We with just enough existential dread to keep it interesting. I'm Dr. Kristen. [00:00:31] Speaker A: And I'm Dr. Laura. Let's dive into the myth. Let's do it. Yes. So sorry. [00:00:37] Speaker B: That was such a creepy. Yes. [00:00:38] Speaker A: So today. Today we are really excited to be joined by Keegan Tatum, who makes fantastic videos about psychology of politics and how emotion, personality, and even neurology influence the left right divide. So, hi, Keegan. It's lovely to have you. [00:00:55] Speaker C: Hello. I'm really happy to be on. Thanks for having me. [00:00:56] Speaker B: I'm so excited for this because, I mean, it's probably no surprise to anyone listening that I like some psychology and I like some politics, and Laura is getting into politics a lot more. And a lot of the education I've been able to provide is just me sending your videos constantly to Laura on repeat. Like, it's this, this, this, this. This is how I love that you're. [00:01:18] Speaker A: Like my political education provider. Like, that's the role you've taken on. [00:01:23] Speaker C: It's very complimentary that my videos are the ones you're sending. Sending her, so I appreciate that. [00:01:27] Speaker B: I wouldn't choose anyone else. I think it's like, they're so well done and nuanced and just to let everyone know we're all autistic here, guys, you're gonna get a lot of nuanced hot takes that might make sense, but will definitely be fun. And, yeah, I think you provide so much nuance that makes it really easy to digest but also really interesting from a psych point of view, because I think that you're picking up on a lot of stuff that people don't recognize. Like, for example, what we're going to be talking about today is the fact that people are making decisions, like, in their politics for rational reasons and how the system really hijacks our brains to think that it's normal and rational, but really it's not. So I just love that approach of it. [00:02:10] Speaker C: Emotional intelligence, man. We're going to get into it. It's so hugely important. And how your emotions drive you as well. [00:02:17] Speaker A: Yeah, I almost find it, like, funny that, like, because I am just not. I know. I. Tristan's taught me that everything's about, everything's politics, so you can't say you're not political. So I don't mean necessarily I'm not political, but I mean, I don't think I've always had a very good awareness of it. So being a psychologist, how we are always talking about emotions, I guess what drives us, what influences us, triggers us, like in the world. Right. But then completely like for me, probably like five years ago, completely ignoring like the systems that we live in and how they have such an impact on us and how, yeah, if we don't have emotional intelligence, how we can be so easily manipulated by those systems that we live in. So I'm very glad to be learning more and I guess getting a bit angrier about these things. [00:03:08] Speaker B: Yes. It's an easy time to get really. [00:03:10] Speaker C: Pissed about politics, by the way, before we get super into this. So it should be noted up front that, you know, you two are coming at this from a psychology background and I come at this from a political science background and I happen to have done a great deal of study into political psychology. So we got some different angles going. [00:03:27] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:03:27] Speaker B: Oh, I love that. Yeah. And so I did my undergrad in political science and psychology because I wasn't sure if I was going law or psychology. So I'm obsessed that we have somebody else who has that political science background as well. And so, yeah, I think we've got some really cool, unique angles to take things. And definitely jump in with the more political science Y bits too because I like, I lean more on the psychology. I'm so excited to see where we go. Just a quick not update but like intro into what we discussed for last week's episode. So I've identified probably not the first person to do it, but just reflecting on what's going on, a few various different groups right now that are keeping us very stuck right where we are. And so. So last episode was very much about where we are in a society especially with individuals and where they are in their psychology, in their inability to act or engage in positive change. So we went through four different types, types of stuckness or something like that. Yeah, I think we use the words politically stuck. [00:04:31] Speaker A: Political stuckness. Yes. [00:04:33] Speaker B: Yeah. And so the first one I went through was the entrenched, right. So they are the magas. They are the fully kind of Cult Logic 101. They have like a need for certainty and control and like very terror management theory based. And so that's almost like the least complicated one because we all can see it, right. We then have the people who are in denial. So they. It's almost like this isn't us. I can't believe this is happening. It's, it's a lot of cognitive dissonance. It's like identity maintenance. It's kind of like allowing things to be both sided or a debate. And it's just a. Either. Like you've got that liberal centrist denial, right. So the both sides, but then you've also got the Republican more conservative denial. So it's like just the denial of facts or pretending like January 6th wasn't as violent as it was that. The thing that I see a lot pop up in my social media is oh, these guys that are commenting on your. Your posts with really horrific shit. They're just the crazy ones of maga. They're the outliers. [00:05:46] Speaker A: Right. [00:05:46] Speaker B: And it's just that denial of what's really happening. We then have the ambivalent. And so that's almost how did I conceptualize that? Like I don't do politics. Right. So like this. [00:05:56] Speaker A: Yeah, like sitting on the fence sort of. [00:05:59] Speaker C: Those people maybe piss me off the most. [00:06:02] Speaker B: I totally agree. Because it's like your self preservation is through neutrality, but it's at everyone else's expense. All of these rely on so much privilege. [00:06:15] Speaker A: Right. And you see it a lot from celebrities, don't you? Because they're trying to keep face, keep up a certain image and actually them speaking up politically doesn't do their image any good. Right. But actually how much power they have if they do speak out, it's interesting. [00:06:32] Speaker C: If I'm correct, you kind of see it from a people pleasing perspective that this is their way of not being disliked. And the way I see it is they just don't give enough of a shit about other people. They were too lazy to put in the work to actually know a thing or two about politics. They were too uncaring of other people to get over their own apathy and they were too careless to take a stand. [00:07:01] Speaker A: That's so interesting. I always go for the like, I don't know that maybe the nicer version but actually that's not reality trying to. Do you know what I mean? [00:07:14] Speaker B: You have a very positive interpretation of human behavior. I think more so than I certainly do. Yeah. [00:07:22] Speaker A: It's not right most of the time. Yeah. [00:07:26] Speaker C: And see my default is people are disappointing and frustrating. [00:07:30] Speaker B: Yeah. Same together. [00:07:33] Speaker A: We'll find a balance. Yeah. [00:07:38] Speaker B: It'S just like because it is, it's like it's risk management for that person. And so that needs so much privilege and that just means that you're just completely disengaging for your own self protection. It's just complete Ambivalence, you know, and. [00:07:53] Speaker C: I go to lazy and selfish. [00:07:55] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:07:57] Speaker C: And you're going with fear and self preservation survival. Yeah, it's probably all of it. [00:08:02] Speaker B: Yeah, it is, and it's all of it, but at different, like layers and capacities for each person. But the line through this that we ended the episode on last time is it doesn't matter what the reason for you personally is. It has the exact same impact. And it's you not doing anything about what's going on. [00:08:21] Speaker C: It's about the outcome. [00:08:23] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's what I write about a lot. So I'm very pedantic. And as Laura knows, it's actually like probably very annoying to people, especially in a profession that involves writing and being very specific. And a lot of people say to me all the time, like, I didn't intend to write this in like a harmful way. So, like, for example, I write about neurodivergence a lot and people will claim to be neuroaffirmative, but then you use deficit based terminology and, and I say that's compounding harm. That is really horrible to do because actually you're giving us normalization rhetoric, deficit rhetoric under the light of inclusion. Right. And it's actually making it so neurodivergent people can't identify their experiences. They have nowhere to go to even understand what's happening, things like that. And people are like, oh, well, I didn't mean to do that. I'm like, okay, well you are publishing academic papers. It doesn't matter what you mean to do. It matters what the impact is of this because you're continuing this tradition of what we're trying to stop in academia and medicine with neurodivergence. Right. So it's all about the impact. I don't give a shit what your intentions are. If you're causing harm. That's what we're seeing. [00:09:33] Speaker A: Totally. And I think a step almost like after that is like sometimes you can tell people or tell them that this is causing harm, but then still nothing changes or still no efforts are made on their behalf. You know what I mean? And I think for me that's when it's like a line is drawn, like, I'm all for giving people a chance with stuff, but then if they're not even willing to kind of try change. But then I suppose you think about, which I guess is what we're gonna do today, like psychologically what stops people from making that change. So it's not as, I guess, easy, perhaps as we make it sound, is. [00:10:12] Speaker C: It ironic that as focused as we are on what's in people's heads, that we really just care about the outcome. [00:10:18] Speaker B: That is such a good point. [00:10:20] Speaker C: I feel that so often when I'm making my videos, I'm like, there's this part of me that's like, I don't give a shit what's in your head. It's about your actions. [00:10:26] Speaker A: Yeah. Oh, my God. [00:10:28] Speaker C: Well, actually, my whole life is about what's in people's heads. Actually, that's my whole professional life. So maybe I shouldn't say that. [00:10:33] Speaker B: That is such a good point because, like, as a practitioner and researcher and academic and educator, and like you said, somebody who are our entire lives around the why, but the what is really what matters. Now we're using the why. I mean, I know a lot of autistic people because we need context. We crave context. We're always about wondering about the why, but we've also seen the harms of the what. So I think that's such an interesting point that you've brought up. And now it's going to be in my head constantly. [00:11:05] Speaker C: When it comes to politics. I mean, there's so many people that are great at identifying what the problem is, but we're all fascinated with but why do we have that? What? [00:11:16] Speaker B: And that's why we named our podcast this, even though it's, like, really annoying for findability online. Because that's the only thing we could constantly think is, but why is this happening? But why? [00:11:26] Speaker C: You need to put, like, seven whys so that then it's a unique thing. Yeah. [00:11:31] Speaker B: And that probably. That probably reflects it better. Like, but why is this happening? That probably reflects it so much better. [00:11:40] Speaker C: And then there's the emoji that expresses frustration. [00:11:43] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:11:44] Speaker C: Or confusion. [00:11:45] Speaker B: Yep. Or just like the face melting one. [00:11:48] Speaker C: That one. Yes. [00:11:50] Speaker B: Yeah. Okay. The last one that is like, the stuckness is the people who are shocked. And these are the ones that made me realize that there are these distinct groups. It's because I see a lot of performative shock. You know what I mean? It feels like people that feel like there's some kind of awakening happening, but it just recenters their surprise. And the thing that bothers me is because, okay, there's going to be this moment of shock when you come to realize what the hell is going on. Right. But this lasts for forever. Right. It's like I'm learning compared to, like, I'm changing or I'm, like, doing something Right. And it's still putting all that emotional cognitive labor on Other people, right? They have no skin in the game. It's just literally like, oh my God, this is horrible. And then that's it. So those are the four kind of like stuckness, because we also have people who are quite engaged and doing positive change. And I won't get into all that because that's not the point of this episode. But really that's kind of setting the stage for what we're going to talk about today. Like why people prefer to lose their rights rather than lose certainty over themselves. Or this perception of control and why logic doesn't seem to matter. Which I think is going to be the driving thing through line for today, which we got to after like 20 minutes. We did it. The first thing I want to talk about that I think will bring us into the conversation really well is you did a video that I saw over the weekend. I was like, yes, this. And it was the video about how and why the right is really demonizing autism, which obviously us three can relate to very personally. And it's this idea of like parents rejecting the idea of having autistic kid, which is pissed. Pisses me off. Like the broader right wing fear of difference and how they leverage disgust in this. And I talk about this a lot. This like weaponizing of natural human emotions, like disgust that served an evolutionary purpose, right? I'm not saying it didn't. However, it's just not as useful, I suppose, in our daily lives right now. Just like a lot of reactions that we have and it's just being weaponized by the system. So I thought it might be good to kind of kick off our discussion talking about this with all of us having very personal, I guess, attachment or experiences with it because it pisses me off. [00:14:12] Speaker C: I think there's just a lot of parents out there who are maybe not the best suited to be parents because we did not evolve in a nuclear family model. I mean, this is a very new concept. It's a very modern post World War II kind of thing. In specifically industrialized societies, we grew up in tribes, we grew up in big groups. Not all people are going to be good at being parents. Should be parents. Child raising, just not in everyone's. I almost said DNA, but maybe that's not the best way of putting it. And so there's just a lot of parents who are lazy. They don't want to adjust and do all the emotional labor of understanding somebody that's different and then adjusting to somebody that's different and then taking the mental and emotional effort to be what I call Considerate. So that's a big one. But this, the weaponization of disgust and, and the in group, out group preference. So you were talking, Kristen and Laura, I remember you were talking about how part of alienating some people is strengthening your group bonds a hundred percent. [00:15:16] Speaker B: And it's. That's, you know what, that's where it comes from. Right. Like evolutionarily. And that. That's fine. It serves a purpose. Also, just to touch on your last point about parenting, because we're stuck in this kind of like the nuclear family approach to life, that that's the only acceptable way of existing. We miss out on what we evolved to do, which. Where, where child care was a group effort. Right. It's not just like on the mom, really. It's not like on the mom and dad, but really like in this approach it's about. It's on one person. And so I think that's another example of that weaponization. [00:15:51] Speaker A: I was actually thinking, Keegan, your response then almost like reflected what we were talking about at the beginning as well. Like you were very much saying, well, actually, yeah, people are. I don't say being lazy or whatever it is. And I think I automatically went to. They didn't. That parents almost like don't want to stigmatize, like label and cause like damage. And I know that's completely the like incorrect view. [00:16:22] Speaker C: It's correct for some people, I'm sure. [00:16:24] Speaker A: I think it's. I think it's like you say. Yeah, I think when I say kind of incorrect, I mean more like it shouldn't be that way. Like, I guess it's not that it's incorrect, it's that it's, I guess, kind of sad and frustrating that these. It is still stigmatized. And some parents will avoid, say like a diagnosis in trying to protect. And like you say sometimes, perhaps that is the right things sometimes. And from what I've. I've seen and heard from, I guess, kind of autistic people I know is that it's. It's actually really freeing and, and helpful to have that diagnosis. [00:17:02] Speaker C: It's a shortcut to understanding. [00:17:04] Speaker B: Yeah, a hundred percent. [00:17:06] Speaker A: Totally. [00:17:06] Speaker C: I, I think that, that, that what I would be curious about is when you say that parents don't want to stigmatize, is it because they don't want to stigmatize for the sake of the child, where it's like, I don't want this label to mentally and emotionally limit them. They put themselves in the box versus what I think is more common, which is the parent doesn't Want the stigma of. I have an autistic child. And we live in a society that does in many ways say like, oh, if there's a flaw in you, there's something like innate about you, almost like this genetic, like a remnant of eugenics almost where it's like if you have an autistic child, there's something wrong with your genetics and your DNA. And I think that this is where shame comes in and that I think a lot of the, the desire to avoid stigma is a selfish, insecure kind of a thing. [00:18:00] Speaker B: And like, like we were talking about, both probably happen. They have the same outcome. You have undiagnosed autistic kids. Because I can, I can totally see, you know, even like because a lot of this won't be conscious. So people might think they're doing it for their child's best interest. Like in the classroom. They won't be made fun of. Well no, a 4 year old or a 7 year old girl can identify another autistic person like that. It's not going to matter if they have the diagnosis or not, right? They're going to be is they're going to know, they're not going to know why they're different, but they're going to know that they're different and that's going to be picked up on. But I think there is this sense of, especially with certain generations, like parental blame and needing to protect the image of your nuclear family over the individuals within it. And you see this in with other things like telling people to suppress their sexuality, telling people to suppress any mental health challenges or mental illness, symptomology or disorder, whatever it is. Any different is. And like I said, this can be conscious or not conscious, but it's still happening. You know what I mean? [00:19:06] Speaker C: I have two things. So first off, one of the big misunderstandings about people on the right versus people on the left is. Well, people on the left are more collectivist, you know, they care more about the group. And the, actually the irony is that this research on this shows that people on the left think in a more individualistic way. And so it's just that we want all individuals to have certain rights, certain liberties, health care, you know, a certain standard of living. But it's, it's not a. Well that's the collective good. It's that it's good for every individual. And the right actually thinks in a more, more collectivist way where what you're talking about here is we don't want the family unit to be shamed. We don't Want our in group to suffer this superficial stigma. And then the other thing is, what you're talking about is also so key in politics, where people are driven by emotions in terms of their views. And then the rational thinking is not. Well, the facts and data indicate that if America adopted Medicare for all, we would have 70,000 fewer excess deaths every year, minimum, according to a Yale study, and we would avoid so many bank. It's like, no, no, no. The rational thinking actually comes in to justify where your feelings are taking you. And this is what you're talking about with the autistic, the parents of autistic kids, where it's the emotions first, rationalizing your emotions second. [00:20:30] Speaker B: This confirmation bias that we see across so many different, like, spectrums of human behavior. It's everywhere. And that's another thing is like, we're evolved for this. Right? Do you know what I mean? It wasn't always like, it. It served an evolutionary purpose. Confirmation bias. Like, if you think it's a. Like, I don't know, lion or whatever it is in the wood, like, but you don't have that much evidence to support that. But you're like, okay, well, for sure is. I'm just gonna run off. You're either. You're just wasting some energy. You're not dying. So it's literally ingrained into us as like, okay, it's better to act on what I think I know and confirm that than actually explore it. And also, down to obviously allistic versus autistic thinking is that hierarchical need for allistic brains to kind of fit things into hierarchies that already exist in their brain, whereas the autistic brain needs a bit more. We bottom up. We're building information from context. Bottom up. And that's why it takes longer in heavy quotes. But it's more because we're doing the building blocks each time we get information. And that's another reason I think that they don't like us, because it's just a different way of looking at the world that it's much harder to hijack. [00:21:47] Speaker C: And if you think differently, you're just going to make certain people feel uncomfortable. Because we also have conformity. As you know, obviously, there's a spectrum of how enticed you are to want to conform. And certain people just are not comfortable with people that are different. [00:22:04] Speaker A: Mm. [00:22:05] Speaker B: I want to pick up on what you said. I don't think any of us on this podcast have ever made anyone feel uncomfortable. [00:22:10] Speaker A: I don't. [00:22:11] Speaker B: You know, just like, I also wanted to say that I really like your Republican voice. Oh, yes. [00:22:19] Speaker A: I was so engrossed. [00:22:23] Speaker C: I feel like we have the magical gift of these voice boxes. You gotta have fun with them. [00:22:26] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. You gotta. And I think, I think that like that segues us in really well. I think you've actually taken me exactly where I wanted to go next, Keegan. It's like, that's why we wanted to talk about this myth of the rational voter. Because what we're seeing isn't like a disagreement that comes from reason. It's literally just our emotional makeup of our brain. And so like the thing that people think that politics is so driven by logic, they literally think like, because politics sells it that itself that way it sells itself as a logical kind of like debate style or like facts, Facts and notions. Facts, not feelings. It's kind of situation and trying to. [00:23:09] Speaker C: Appeal to people's rational self interest. [00:23:13] Speaker B: Yeah, exactly. Like, oh, it's about grocery prices. Oh, is it? Because. Okay, yeah, I won't get into that right now. But it's just like the emotion, like you said, leads and then after that comes reason. But it's all motivated reasoning. It's literally motivated reasoning 101. It's. It's so. I think that's where we want to start. So Laura, did you have any questions to ask? [00:23:35] Speaker A: Yeah, I guess. Keegan, it's like, why do you think like people are so attached to this idea of rational politics when actually like behaviors just show the complete opposite, I suppose, and it just doesn't actually seem rational. [00:23:51] Speaker C: I can think of a few things, like right off the top of my head, first off, emotional intelligence, or lack thereof, we don't exactly live in a society that incentivizes emotional intelligence. We don't teach it in our schools. And men especially are trained to suppress their emotions, to not be in touch with their emotions, to pretend like they don't have emotions. And if that's the culture you grow up in, you're probably not going to understand your emotions, you're probably not going to understand your motivations very well. And so there's this baseline, like we don't incentivize emotional intelligence. That's one reason. Another reason is culturally there's a lot of people that associate emotions with femininity and there's a lot of deep, deep insecurity, deep male insecurity, that if they show emotions they'll be seen as feminine and they'll be seen as weak. And then therefore there's all sorts of threat oriented consequences to being seen as weak. Right. That, that people are not even conscious of. And so obviously there's a lot of, like, hatred of femininity, sexism. There's obviously a lot of that stuff. [00:24:53] Speaker B: So I don't know if you're aware of this, but one of Laura and I's main. So Laura and I do a lot of research together. We're at different universities, but we collaborate a lot. We did our doctorate at the same university, and most our biggest collaborations are on gendered experiences and sexism. And you just see this everywhere. And like, back to your point is, why do you think they only want men involved in politics? I'm posing this question to the audience. Like, this is something you have to think about. If women are taught to have better emotional intelligence, more developed reflective insights and. And understanding of empathy and sympathy and all that whole range of human skills, because that's what they are the skills. And men are taught to suppress that and only look at what's happening, even though that's obviously not what's happening. Of course they don't want women involved in politics. Of course they don't want people to be able to make decisions and vote that have the ability to go, well, actually, I'm not sure if I'm thinking through this right. Or, you know, and this isn't. Like we said, we always have to specify this. Not all men. And also, like, we're not saying that men don't have the capacity, like you said, Keegan. This is socialized into people. [00:26:06] Speaker C: I feel like you don't even really have to say not all men. Like, if you're. If you feel called out, that's a sign. That's a red flag. Like, I don't feel called out. [00:26:15] Speaker B: Thank you, Keegan. That is literally it. Exactly it. [00:26:19] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:26:20] Speaker B: Yeah. That's what we always try to explain to people. Like, if you feel. And we say this in sessions with clients, if you feel like this defensiveness coming in, coming up, because people also aren't taught to be reflective or reflexive in any way. If you feel this disgust or you feel this defensiveness, why is that happening? And it's normal. That's okay. You can feel that. But let's identify the. But why? [00:26:42] Speaker C: Yes. So, I mean, another reason why these more conservative dudes don't want women around also is that so much of conservative morality is based on. Are you in the. In group? Like, think about how many Christian conservatives think that they're good because they're on Team Christian. And if you have these caring, thoughtful people around you, that is going to undermine your false sense of moral superiority. [00:27:10] Speaker B: And then you get insecurity involved, the moralizing. And the moralizing is always hypocritical, but obviously it's weaponized. And I don't know, have you seen the research? You might have done a video on it about morality on the left versus the right and how the right claims to care more about morals, but in practice it doesn't actually happen. I forget what the study was. I need to think about what study it is. But it's like claiming that they care about morals, but actually in practice it never actually ends up happening. So, like, for example, protect the children. Well, that's not happening if you have this, like, moral, I don't know, love of protecting women. Right. Are you protecting women by doing what you're doing? You know, so it's like the propaganda. [00:27:54] Speaker C: In Saudi Arabia is that, oh, the segregation, it's to protect women because men are disgusting animals. And it's like, well, first off, if you have that default assumption about men, then that's going to incentivize men to actually behave that way more. But it's like, I'm sorry, being covered head to toe. I don't know. I don't know if that's protecting women. [00:28:14] Speaker B: And it's like the force. It's the lack of choice and removing of education and everything like that. And also, this is the motivated, reasoning situation. If you think men are so horrible as human beings, why do you want them to be the leaders in this situation? [00:28:29] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:28:30] Speaker B: Laura, I feel like you had something. Yeah. [00:28:32] Speaker A: Stuff that people feel is rational. Is that what we're saying? Like, people come to this place through feeling like that makes sense, like their behaviors, their actions, their views. But then, as I suppose we've spoken here, it just all like, falls down so quickly when you start to just think about it even a little bit. [00:28:54] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:28:55] Speaker C: By the way, I don't want to make it seem like, oh, it's just people on the right. It's just them. That they're driven by their fears and their disgust. Like, I'm driven by my emotions, too. Like, all of my politics are based in. I care about other people and I want positive outcomes for as many people as possible. Now, you can dig into the data and find views that are backed up by history and literally all data that bring about those outcomes, but the outcomes that I desire fundamentally are based in emotions. [00:29:28] Speaker B: That is such a good point because. Yeah, right. Like, I think that that is a really important thing to note because all of us are driven by emotions to different extents. We all have very different emotional intelligence and relationship with our emotions. And that's not something that is taught necessarily. Like, a lot of parents aren't aware of how to teach that to their kids because they weren't taught that and so on. But we are all, we all have emotions for reasons. Right? And so it drives all of our, all of our, all of our politics. And it takes, we talk about this a lot in practice is that extra step, that extra step of silence in like a session with a client that either makes you or your client think a bit more, just like that, forcing yourself to slow down and question. But we are taught, we're taught that it's important to know it all straight away. Right? And we're also taught with like, emotional detachment is some kind of virtue, which I think is a massive issue with neoliberalism. It's literally like, okay, well, like, calm means correct. And that's how we get the policing of like black women in workplaces and all this other stuff. It's like, if you can't basically mask, if you can't demonstrate emblematizing this calm, supposedly rational person, then you don't deserve to be listened to. [00:30:51] Speaker C: So I, I wanted to. One thing I'm really interested in is changing the way that we frame things. Because I think that if you change the way you talk about something, you can change the people think about something. And so people want to pretend that they're rational or they want to. They are motivated to tell themselves that they're rational because it culturally makes them feel like, well, my views are actually grounded in something. They're not just grounded in those damn liberals, the bleeding heart. Right. And for me, like, one of the things that we should start framing in terms of, like, women are more emotionally intelligent. Yeah. Women are smarter in this way. Women are smarter in this way. And one of the things that I would like us to start framing right wing views as being based in fear. Yes, they're based in disgust. Yes, they're based in intolerance for uncertainty and a desire to cope with that. And yes, they're based in hierarchy. But above all, what underlies so much of all those things is fear. And if you can associate the right wing with fear, you associate it with weakness. And fundamentally, I think that that is, that that's their mindset. Their mindset is fear and weakness. [00:32:05] Speaker B: Well, you're right. Especially in the sense that when you're talking about all these different things. Like what? I should have just written this down, but I was too busy listening to you. What you were saying of like the things that they love is like hierarchy and all these other things that need for hierarchy. Like you said, the data says it is rooted in fear. So if you actually look at the very, very bot 100% it's fear. It's this fear of different that gives us the disgust, the fear of lack of control which makes them crave hierarchy. And I think that's like a huge aspect of difference. And I think it's a really easy marketing thing that the left or even like liberals or centrists like fail to capitalize on because literally you can pinpoint it from day one. Like you're so scared that you need to walk around with a gun all the time. Oh, you're so scared that you have to have control over women's bodies. What are you scared of? Oh, you're afraid of a trans person. Why? It's not because they're harming anyone, it's because you're afraid of them. Why are you spending so much time preoccupied with whatever topic it is? If you're either not like obsessed with it or you are suppressing that side of yourself or you're afraid of it, those are two of the options. [00:33:18] Speaker C: And on top of that, these fears are making you unhappy. Like your conservative views are keeping you in this cycle of grievance and fear. This is making you less happy. [00:33:30] Speaker B: This is so it. Yes. Like when we're looking at like mental health or like at least like positive mental health and not even mental illness. Like your well being is so compromised when your cortisol is just imagine the cortisol levels of just being entrenched in such a fear based worldview. People like you said, they're just so unhappy and the links to mental illness are there in the data. [00:33:51] Speaker A: I think that so much what we're talking about, right, is so like it's such a cognitive side I guess of psychology or of understanding emotions or of like rationalizing. I think, I think society now, and I am totally like. What's the word? Like guilty of doing this myself, but like over intellectualizing everything, trying to like figure everything out, have like an answer to everything. And I do think that just humans now in general, we struggle with not to have an answer. We struggle not to rationalize things, we struggle not to have the certainty. And we also struggle to connect with our body is like somatic. So Kristen, as I've been doing some more like somatic work with the therapist recently and it's insane, like the difference it makes to think about emotions and I suppose emotional Intelligence in a sense, from like a somatic point of view and felt sense in the body rather than as getting stuck so cognitively. And I think that when we're talking about things around like fear around dis, I think that a lot of the, I don't know, or some of the reasons perhaps why it's so hard to change is because we are so disconnected and defensive about actually feeling, just feeling our feelings. Right. [00:35:02] Speaker C: Sitting with them in ambiguity and maybe not understanding why right now. Just sitting with it. As you were saying with what you need to do with some clients earlier. [00:35:12] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, it's actually that's a good point. And I think Jack has put my. My husband has pointed out that like, he likes when I make people feel uncomfortable by sitting there. Like, because I'll do it in every social situation if I'm around somebody who said something problematic. I love just letting them think on that in real time. And I think that is a really powerful tool for people to learn as well. If they're talking to people like this is is word. We're definitely not taught to do this because it's uncomfortable. And we're taught to avoid anything that is uncomfortable, even at the expense of growth or positive change. Right. But yeah, highly recommend making people like bigots or whatever feel uncomfortable by sitting in the silence because it's super, super, super powerful. People feel the need to fill that silence and that's how you get the, the questions out. And also you made me think, Keegan, like people are so driven by this fear, right, but they're so unaware of it. And so again, you get back to that motivated reasoning. It's like, I've got to justify why I feel this fear all the time, or I'm not aware that I'm afraid, but I just know something's not right. This inability to access your own emotion, like fear or even like the physical, like you said, the somatic side, Laura, like the physical responses to fear, the tight muscles and your cortisol and all this kind of stuff. It just does not, like you said, Keegan, make for a happy life. [00:36:38] Speaker C: I'm just thinking about, like when you sit in silence, it reminds me of the therapy scenes in this documentary series called the Sopranos. And she'll just sit there and just let Tony just do in the dumb crap that he just said. One of the things about a lot of these right wing bigot type people, they just want to feel the power of I caused you to have an emotional reaction. You know, they so often are stewing in their own Negativity and their grievance and their probably trauma from being neglected and under loved as a children. As children. And if they can get that reaction out of you, well, then they won. They had the power. I really like to think of most people on an emotional level as like they're still in middle school or high school. The older I get, the more I realize people have not evolved on an emotional level beyond adolescence. And if you can have that kind of default assumption, boy, does it ever make some of these people a lot more. It makes them make more sense. [00:37:39] Speaker B: It does. And that is like so much of a reason why school is so important, is because it often teaches, teaches so many things that parents don't have the capacities for. But, and going back to what you said, it made me just think like, okay, well, power equals safety to these people, right? So if, if they're afraid, if they're fearful, even subconsciously, and if that for the other person that they want to make that feel, feel like, or at least express an emotion, emotion equals bad. So making other person feel emotion equals safety for them in whatever weird, warped way. And I think that is such a good identification, Keegan, of what just happens on repeat constantly, like online, in the algorithm. And it just makes people feel so powerful because they just feel like they've done something. [00:38:27] Speaker C: I got that reaction out of another person. I did that. And I think part of this, this is for almost all of human history, 99% of the population has had functionally no power. And it's. We see it so easily, these people who have power and wealth, which of course is power, and them exercising that wealth, you know, it's on every for you page. And one's powerlessness, I feel like, is in a way more in our face than it was maybe a couple decades ago. And so this desire to compensate, especially with the level of income and wealth inequality that we have in both of the countries that we reside in, is really terrible. And with that comes a feeling of powerlessness. And perhaps this is why people who are middle aged are especially prone to this, is that they're on the other half towards death. And that's something we're certainly powerless against. So it's a desire to compensate. [00:39:25] Speaker B: Effy, that is such a good point. Yeah, I mean, I feel like I could go two directions with that, because that existential dread that you have no preparedness for, because you've not necessarily done that work on your, excuse me, emotional intelligence. And then I also think like this, especially more old school. Well, it was getting a Little bit better. And now, I don't know, it's still going in that direction. But this, this neoliberal, just general society needs, societal needs to blame the individual. So obviously, like you said on social media and what we can see of the world, our inequalities and the shit shows that are happening are more visible than ever. [00:40:01] Speaker C: You don't think we're doing great? [00:40:03] Speaker B: I mean, I thought we were doing great until we started. [00:40:06] Speaker C: Lucky you're not in America. We'll deport you for that. [00:40:08] Speaker B: Yeah. Oh, I'm. I can't. I'm scared to even try and come back to the country at this point. Like, I've got too many JD Vance memes on my phone. [00:40:17] Speaker C: There's an interesting connection between hierarchical views and blaming the individual. And that is that it is a more mentally lazy way of understanding the world because it takes courage to question the system, to question, in a way, something similar psychologically to the in group. And it takes mental effort. It takes you some research and some time to actually understand how complicated society is and to understand that it's these systems that have an effect on us than it is just that person's fault. Yeah, their fault. They're too lazy. And of course, there's also an ego boosting thing to this too. So if you're like, I don't know, hypothetically a white boomer in this country and you had life set on easy mode. Well, there's an ego boosting thing in like. Well, this person's. These millennials are failing because they're not trying hard enough. Of course, the data all shows that we're working way more hours and we're more educated and all these things. But think about the ego boost. I succeeded because of my own volition. [00:41:20] Speaker B: The mental laziness involved in not questioning the systems. I 100% agree that it's like, easier. It's a cognitive shortcut. It's easier. You don't have to thread in your own identity or your own group's identity to be like, it's you, it's your, you're too lazy or whatever. Like the welfare queen myth that's happens, or collective narcissism. [00:41:39] Speaker C: You don't have to challenge collective narcissism either. [00:41:41] Speaker B: True. Yes, exactly. And admitting that, that you're a part of that. And I also think, ooh, that's a good one. [00:41:48] Speaker C: Yes. The moral implications of I am part of this. That's a good one. [00:41:52] Speaker B: Exact. And, and I think it's like, firstly, once that light bulb moment happens and you Notice that there's the system. There's this like, sense of like, oh, shit, I have to unlearn everything. I've been socialized to understand my entire life. There's probably some sense of like, being tricked or some sense of loss. That can definitely fuel some serious avoidance tactics here. [00:42:16] Speaker C: Yeah, because emotionally you don't want to acknowledge that you got tricked. You don't want to acknowledge that was I one of the dummies and by extension my parents got tricked. They're not actually the authority figures that I thought they were. Were they fooled or were they lying to me? Was my pastor lying to me? Were they manipulating me? Was I manipulated? And all of the. I think about, on average, people on the right seem to just not be as good about admitting they're wrong. And you'll notice this, we're leftists here. Even if we're talking with liberals, they seem to struggle with it more than people who are very progressive. Bernie Sanders kind of supporting or leftist people. And I think a lot of it is because people on the right think more in terms of the past. I don't really feel like I have to show 85 studies. I think we kind of all know this, right? And people on the right are incentivized on an emotional level to not admit that their past self was wrong. And the further left you go, I think we are like, well, I don't want my future self to be wrong. So we'll correct our behavior now. I'll take the ego hit now as long as I don't sound like a fucking idiot in the future. [00:43:26] Speaker B: That is so true. I have such a fear of like, something I'm doing now in like 20 years time with. Because. Because doing the research that we do, it's like, okay, well, I could be saying something that's going to be looked at in 20 years as insensitive or completely wrong or just like, oh my go whole thing to say and worry about it all the time. [00:43:46] Speaker C: I think about this all the time. Like the, the being on the wrong side of history. Like, how do you boomers not get. Like, there's the. There's those like 10% of boomers that really get it and are really in anguish. So, like, you know, not all boomers, but it's like, how do you not understand, like, when the history is written, when you're dead, it's going to be written in a world ravaged by climate change and people are going to hate you for all, all of human history. So long as climate change affects us, it's like, how do you not get that? How do you not. How do you not get that? Conservatives have always been on the wrong side of history, God damn it. But we don't teach it. We don't teach that. [00:44:24] Speaker B: But the thing is, is, like, we've provided. I don't like, obviously, Laura, you were educated in England, being educated in the US and you probably had a similar experience. Keegan is like, things like World War II and America's like, amazing, like, you know, deeds and that were shoved on our throats, like, every other year in history class, Right. It should be very easy to use any form of pattern recognition or any form of, like, understanding of even light authoritarianism. Right? So it's insane to me that we're in this position, and it's just so frustrating because you're like, okay, well, the writing has been on the walls for us. You know, America's pretty much always been an authoritarian country, Right. But now, God, I think I'm just winding myself up. [00:45:13] Speaker C: It depends on your perspective, right? Because, like, I mean, certainly if you were a slave, America is one of the most authoritarian societies that's ever existed. You know, there's this distinguished, called, like, a slave society, where, like, the very fabric of your society is intertwined with slavery, like the culture, the economy, the identity. And there's only like, five of them. You know, ancient Rome, ancient Greece, Caribbean, Brazil in the 19th century, and the American South. So if you were part of that group, yeah, America was the most horrible, backward place you could possibly be. And for other people, America was the most free place you could be. And I'm not just talking about rich people, but I mean, it might be hard to understand, but it used to actually be easy to have a small business in this country. And if you were one of those kinds of people, because we live in a bourgeois society, this was the most free society that had ever existed to that point. So I, I, I very much hesitate to call America authoritarian, especially now, because I think it underrates how terrible a truly authoritarian society is. I think that it's, it underrates just how oppressive daily life can be. We are, we are at least able. Well, most of us are, without being deported, bias, to speak freely. And I think that we're a little spoiled by that. And I think we overrate the level of authoritarianism. We shouldn't overrate the possibility of our slide into fascism. But as we are right now, or at least as we were as of a year ago. [00:46:46] Speaker A: Yeah. [00:46:47] Speaker C: Don't want to overrate the authoritarianism, because it does. It does dismiss the suffering of like a military junta that just hunts down its opponents, for example. [00:46:56] Speaker B: Yeah, I think, like, because again, loving, like the nuance of these conversations is like, authoritarian light will probably, from my point of view, reflect most of American history. Because unless. Yes, but when, when we've got segments of the population that cannot engage in any free speech or like, you know, as we know until the, the 1950s, most people didn't have even close to equal rights. Now, that doesn't mean it's fascist. That doesn't mean it's like, as horrific as it can be, but because we are foundationally a white supremacist country, that it needs to be like, without that we are and especially the. Just trying to. I don't know, I don't necessarily think it diminishes the power of the word if we're just saying, like, okay, well, it wasn't fascism and it's not like where we are now in authoritarianism, but it was like, for sure, authoritarianism, light and heavy authoritarianism for some people. [00:47:55] Speaker C: And if you were disabled, America just stripped away your entire life. And of course, you know, on top of being a white supremacist society, on top of being a patriarchal society, we are a business owner supremacist society above all else. We believe in the supremacy of the business owner. And if you live in 1896 and you're spending 14 hours a day in an authoritarian dynamic, aka the factory, you're not really experiencing democracy just because you're able to go, well, I want that flavor versus that flavor of politician that will still support the economic ruling class. [00:48:30] Speaker B: Yes, the illusion of choice. That's like, that sums up America so well. It's just that illusion of choice, whether it's your groceries or which public figure you would want to vote for. [00:48:42] Speaker A: Yeah, I was right. I was thinking about something from something you spoke about a few minutes ago around, like, education and how you're saying, you know, we are, I guess, taught at school about, you know, the wars and whatever. Like, why don't we see kind of the links into now? And I, and I was thinking how, like, I would probably see myself as one of those people who didn't see the links maybe until, I don't know, a year or so ago. And I'm like, how do we make that better? Like, how do we help people to see through again again? It's like seeing the system, seeing the pattern, seeing what's happening. I mean, it makes me think around, I guess, your critical thinking stuff. But then, Kristen, you Said they literally take that out of education. So people then aren't even able to think about things critically. So it makes me think, you know, we're teaching people so young and then making I suppose an assumption that they're then going to be able to go on and see the links. But how, how do we, how do we make it better? Okay, good. [00:49:49] Speaker C: Can I try to answer that? So please, I'd love to tell you that you just like throw facts at them and then they'll get it. And the reality is you need to have something that emotionally connects. And frankly, one thing about humans is that we will go with stories over science, literally. So I think that what you need to do is appeal to somebody's emotions through stories. And that's different for different people. Sometimes you can appeal to like a kind of nationalistic or patriotic sense of like America's great. When we insert appeal to liberal values, you know, or to other people. It's, it's, it's going to be like an economic self interest and like there's just so many different, you know, America needs to strive for something. We were best when we were striving for something or something like that, you know. Yeah, but you need to, you need to connect with a story. And one of the stories is America was at its peak when we were the most pro science back. I'm Talking about the 1960s, when we had the lowest degree of income and wealth inequality, when we had the highest regulations on the banks and the health insurance industry, when we had the most socialism. Whether that's the Medicare program which cut senior poverty by two thirds in one decade. The war on poverty was at its peak in the 1960s with the great Society, the welfare state. You know, the only time in human history in which most of the population wasn't living a horrible below subsistence life is when we had a welfare state. And it's, you got, you got to appeal to these broad stories rather than. Well, it was actually best when the tax rate on the upper 1% was above 70%. That is when we maximized our ability. Like. No, no, no, no, no. Yeah, Stories, stories are so powerful because of. And I remember you, as you were saying in a previous podcast, it's this appeal to symbolism I think connects to this like desire for stories. [00:51:49] Speaker B: Yeah, I think the human cognition is based on shared language and shared discourse. And so we put more than people realize so much importance on the discourse, on the story, on the narrative. And so appealing to that can be way more important than facts. Even though one of the Narratives people are convinced of is that facts matter more. That is absolutely not true. And I think for years, your experience, specifically, Laura, when you started to recognize what was going on, because I was constantly ranting about it. And also, you don't. Constant exposure, a constant, like, literally. I think you have a lot of the things that Keegan is telling us is so important. High emotional intelligence, like reflexivity and the ability to reflect. You didn't immediately get defensive about your worldview being questioned. And I think that was probably a big factor of you going, like, oh, I've recognized it. Okay, now what? Do you know what I mean? [00:52:51] Speaker C: And that also indicates a low level of insecurity, because defensiveness is just like this. You could probably speak better to this because you guys do individual psychology. But it's like, doesn't it just create, like, a sense of threat? So you have to be defensive in reaction to that. Right. And if you didn't have that, that shows a certain level of confidence and security. [00:53:09] Speaker A: Totally. I could just see, like, a readiness to change almost as well. Like, some people are just not. Not saying that. That's, I don't know, like an okay thing. But sometimes that's it. You find people at the wrong place in time. You know, maybe like, Kristen, I don't know, like 10, 10 years ago, you exposed me to this stuff, and I go, whatever, but do you know what I mean? Like, sometimes it's about, like, readiness to change and engage in something. [00:53:39] Speaker B: I'm having a hard time picturing that. But we'll. For the sake of. I know, the conversation. [00:53:45] Speaker A: You see what I mean? [00:53:46] Speaker C: Can we talk about the psychology of changing minds? [00:53:49] Speaker B: Yes, let's do it. [00:53:50] Speaker C: And why people suck at it. [00:53:54] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:53:54] Speaker C: I think part of it is the, you know, not wanting your past self to be wrong and all the ego bullshit that goes with that. Part of it is, you know, I don't want the people in my. To have been wrong or for me to be manipulated. All the stuff we were talking about earlier. But there's also cognitive rigidity. Some people just. They just really struggle to change their mind. Does anyone in the audience want to guess what the correlation is? Right versus left? Who's more cognitively rigid? Okay. We all know this is. [00:54:19] Speaker B: This is literally something we had on the list to chat with you about because it's so important and it's so frustrating. Yeah, I think there's. [00:54:29] Speaker C: There's also, like, the social implications. Again, stories and narratives matter more than facts. And if there is, if you start questioning and if you start going against what is likely your in group? Because let's get real. Like we, we are, I think, more than ever segregated on political views than we've ever been like in human history. And part of that is like, we don't have union gatherings. It's not that everyone goes to church anymore. So you'd have your progressive people at the church and you have your conservative. No, it's like church is like a conservative dominant arena. And so if you are somebody who starts questioning, you're not. You're risking the social alienation of. Well, now I'm different amongst the group. And there's a, there's such a selfishness in my view, in this because you're choosing to be liked by what are possibly not very good people. But it's that I want the social acceptance more than I want to not harm others. I want to, to be mentally lazy more than I want other people to live a better life. [00:55:40] Speaker B: And that always, that all just comes down to that fear, like you said. Yes, it's like this evolutionary fear we have of if we're excluded by our in group, that could literally mean death. And so, yeah, if you can see, you can see why we've got it. However, we've got the tools to be aware enough to know that, okay, well, if I'm taking this stand and my community or whatever it is decides to shun me, I'm not gonna die. Well, I mean, you can't say that's the case for everyone because people operate with various different levels of privilege. Like, could you imagine being like disabled and needing the support? But the only people you know is like your MAGA family, stuff like that. So obviously we're, you know, taught, taught there's, there is a nuance level to this, but most people have the resources to engage in effortful approaches towards their life. And I think this, this kind of like cognitive, cognitive lack of flexibility. The cognitive fusion that you brought up is a really important aspect. I know Laura, Laura works in act, so for the audience that's acceptance and commitment therapy. And that's like one of your main kind of approaches to practice. And isn't cognitive fusion a massive, massive aspect in that? [00:56:53] Speaker A: Yeah, that's basically what you're trying to support people to do is to be able to unhook from, I guess, thoughts, feelings, like sensations which are, I guess, pushing them around and taking them away from a meaningful life and what's important to them and so on. But it's not pursuing happiness, it's pursuing like meaning and purpose. So it's Also recognizing that actually if, I don't know, change my mind and start behaving in a different way, that might actually be uncomfortable for me, but I'm moving towards something that's important a lot of. But yeah, overall with act, you are looking to help someone improve their psychological flexibility. [00:57:37] Speaker C: People form group identities because group identities help with group cohesion, which helps us survive. Now I, I'm sorry, Trigger warning to our libertarian audience member individual that, that one individual, if that exists, if we don't survive, if we, we are a group collectivist species, we can't survive individually. You know what I mean? [00:58:01] Speaker B: No, yeah. [00:58:02] Speaker C: I'm sorry, you live in a country where society, society doesn't exist. I'm sorry, I forgot about Margaret Thatcher. [00:58:08] Speaker A: Yep. [00:58:09] Speaker B: Besties with Reagan besties. [00:58:10] Speaker A: Yes, besties. [00:58:11] Speaker C: Just wonderful people. [00:58:13] Speaker B: Yeah, they're the ones who got rid of all the fun socialism stuff we were talking about a few minutes ago. So exciting, I think. Laura, do you know what a libertarian is? [00:58:25] Speaker A: Not like totally. [00:58:26] Speaker C: Okay, so if you just imagine somebody who's like somewhat open minded but zero empathy. [00:58:31] Speaker A: Are they the people who are on the fence, like in the middle of things? [00:58:34] Speaker C: Is that a libertarian? Oh yeah. This is like a very American thing. Right. So a libertarian might just be a. [00:58:40] Speaker A: Me not knowing anything. [00:58:42] Speaker C: That's all right. On paper, a libertarian is somebody. I believe in freedom. I believe that we should have no regulations on anything. Like, you can be gay, that's fine. But also I don't want you regulating my small business. But in practice it is a business owner supremacist ideology. It says that business owners are a superior breed of human. It's very ayn Randy. And that they should be the ones that dominate society. That effectively democratic governance should be whittled down to the bone because the true superior being is the entrepreneur, the brilliant Elon Musk. And these types of people. [00:59:26] Speaker B: My buddy, my best friend. [00:59:28] Speaker A: So it's people like Musk who would be under this category? [00:59:32] Speaker C: Yes. The most common are also business owners. [00:59:36] Speaker B: So and it's this idea and it's. This also for me reflects a lot of privilege and you know, maybe, maybe laziness is like, okay, well I'll be fine if there's no regulations because I can invest in this and I can do this with my business. They don't need protections such as like, so for example, they wouldn't want to waste money on healthcare. They wouldn't want to waste money on benefits for disabled people. They wouldn't any entitlement that you. They want low taxes, they can Spend how their money however they want, and. [01:00:06] Speaker A: It'S all about them. [01:00:07] Speaker B: I get it. Yeah, it's. It's a. Yeah, it's. It's a very, like, individualist approach to it. [01:00:13] Speaker C: I'm just gonna say, like, I think it's psychopathic tendencies. Very low opinion of it, frankly. [01:00:20] Speaker B: I would be very interested to see if there was research linking those, like some correlational research. Very interesting. [01:00:25] Speaker C: Well, what's, what's interesting is, you know, there. There is. There is a correlation between certainly low emotional intelligence, but also limited cognitive abilities and conservative views, particularly as you go far right, like, if you have an authoritarian personality, there's a strong correlation between lower cognitive abilities. Libertarians don't have this. They have the lowest amount of compassion, but they're. In general, they rate as higher on a. What we classically think of as. As intelligence. And it's just. They just don't give a shit about other people. [01:00:56] Speaker A: That's. [01:00:56] Speaker C: So it just breaks down too. [01:00:58] Speaker B: I did not know that. I'd not seen that research. That's. That's very interesting. So then it's more of, like an active choice to. [01:01:04] Speaker C: Sure. I think also low emotional intelligence, though, too. I mean, it's true if you're not compassionate, you're just not very emotionally intelligent, in my view. If you're unable to understand a different person's perspective, how one's different, experience has affected them differently. We're. I mean, we're talking theory of mind here, right? And if you are just unable to do that stuff and you're so stuck in your own selfish mind. And to me, this indicates low intelligence, to me. But cognitive abilities are not always seen as that. [01:01:31] Speaker A: And is this kind of why then that I guess, say, people on the right don't see almost strength in things like, I guess, emotional intelligence or emotions in general or things we were saying before around curiosity or a willingness to change acceptance. Because to me, all these things we've been talking about, I'm like, these are all so important. And is that one of the reasons why, I guess people on the right don't see that as important is something to do with like, lower cognitive emotional intelligence? What do we think? Or is it my own, say, privilege or background in psychology that makes me think these things are important? [01:02:19] Speaker C: I don't know if there's a lot of conscious thinking emotional intelligence is stupid. I don't think that there's that thought process going on. Yeah, I think it's just the grug brain of, like, emotions are feminine. Feminine is weak because that's what the culture told me. And I'm a dumb grug brain, so I'm just gonna go with that. [01:02:40] Speaker B: Yeah, it. I think it's all socialization. I think this actually leads us. We could briefly touch on it. So I'm not taking up too much of your time, even though I'm having a really fun talking about this is. Is like, socialized into people. And this fuses, like, we've talked a lot about that personal psychology. [01:02:58] Speaker A: Right. [01:02:59] Speaker B: But like, this socialization fuels or fuses to, like, your sense of identity, your sense of self. And so challenging that in group, challenging that, like, idea that you're part of the rational mind or whatever feels like a survival threat. It's all linked back to that fear. And so I really do think it's, like, probably more linked to identity protective cognition and, like, approaches to life than it is, like, emotions are bad because I think they're bad. It's like, I need to protect my identity as part of this group. [01:03:31] Speaker C: There could also be some justification going on subconsciously where it's like, this is maybe giving people too much credit, but perhaps on a. On a deep level that they don't recognize. They maybe realize that they don't have a lot of emotional intelligence, and so they don't want to value something that they're lacking proficiency in. So there's this kind of justification for that. [01:03:55] Speaker A: I get you. Yeah. [01:03:56] Speaker B: I can see that I'm not very good at certain things, like basketball. And so I'm like, yeah, I was. [01:04:02] Speaker A: Like, I'm not good at running. So actually, who needs to run? [01:04:05] Speaker C: So running is stupid. [01:04:07] Speaker A: Yeah, ridiculous. [01:04:09] Speaker C: I mean, I really think that a big reason why the people on the right are anti science is they just don't get it. It's too complicated. They're too lazy. They weren't taught it properly. They just can't wrap their mind around it. Which, to be fair, I can't wrap my mind around a lot of it too. You know, if you put me in a quantum physics room, I'd be like, but people, there's just. I think there's a. There's a part of all of us that fears and dislikes what we don't understand. The question is, do we have the emotional intelligence? Do we have the emotional regulation to deal with that? [01:04:42] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:04:43] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:04:44] Speaker C: I really want to emphasize, by the way, I'm sorry to cut you off, but, like, no, go for it. I think there is a right winger in all of us. I think we all have all of the tendencies that lead someone to be Right wing. They're in every damn one of us. And if you put us under the right circumstances, a lot of us would succumb to those beliefs and views as backwards as they are. And it's just a matter of, do we succumb? Are we corrupted by them? Do we succumb to them them? [01:05:06] Speaker B: Like, are we big run by our amygdala or are we letting our prefrontal cortex engage? It's like it's. Your brain is like a muscle. And so if you're not using these aspects of your humanity, really, that it's not going to be practice. And, and I, I really like what you were saying about like this fear of science, almost like this fear of the unknown. I've come across a lot of right wingers who are terrified of scientific language because they don't like not understanding things because it, it's again, this kind of like power thing. Right. If you know more than me, you're more powerful. Do you know what I mean? So I just, I really think there's a real defensiveness that comes with it. [01:05:48] Speaker C: And hierarchy, because if you think in a very hierarchical way and somebody else gets something that you don't, they're higher on the totem pole than you are, and that's a threat as well. [01:05:59] Speaker B: So. True. Yeah, it's just, I mean, it keeps circling back to that. It's all like fear and hierarchy and so identity driven. And like our first episode of this podcast was on identity and sense of self and how we separate those and they're so central to our experiences as human beings. So I guess that might be a good way to move on that kind of, like, how do we bridge this gap without excusing this behavior? Because like, like, if our divides really, in theory are very identity based for various different psychological, cognitive reasons, societal reasons, how do we bridge this gap without excusing shitty behavior and shitty worldviews? [01:06:40] Speaker C: Well, I think that really depends on, and I frame this, admittedly, this is my bias in terms of trying to convince people, trying to persuade. And if your goal is to persuade you, it depends on like your context. Right. So if you're in media, you're gonna have a, have to have a different approach than if it's somebody in your personal life. Because frankly, the best way to convince someone over to your views is to be nice to them, is to be good vibes, to be someone they can trust. [01:07:09] Speaker B: Me, Laura, I can see Kristen's lighting. [01:07:12] Speaker A: I can't do it. [01:07:13] Speaker C: Am I wrong? Laura? Did Kristin help? Because she's Good vibes. Right. She helped got you over to the left and more politically aware for this reason. Right. And if people can trust you in their personal life, they'll trust your views. [01:07:26] Speaker B: True. [01:07:27] Speaker C: So, so, and, and then that's where empathy is going to be more valuable because God, I would love for there to be more research on this because, I mean, just, just anecdotally, a lot of right wing people are right wing because they weren't shown enough love as a kid. Maybe they were neglected, maybe they had a narcissist parent, maybe they had an authoritarian parent who did not show love, they just showed dis. Discipline. Follow me, do what I say, because that's what I said. And that's gotta be scarring, man. Not being shown love, that's got to be scarring. And if they think, well, the world didn't love me, so why should I care about the world? Why should I care about other people if people haven't shown me care? To people like that, empathy is going to be hugely valuable. I remember hearing a white supremacist guy, neo Nazi, I think the scientific term is piece of shit, talk about how he went from being that to being like a more mentally healthy person because, you know, he was neglected as a kid, he was socially alienated in high school, he didn't, if you can imagine, have a girlfriend. Well, you can imagine this type of person somebody did want to put up with sexually. Frustrating. Yeah, yeah, it's very weird, isn't it? People had standards, apparently. And, and literally what broke him out of his racist spiral is a black guy janitor was just nice to him and that's all it took to help break him out of, out of all the stereotyping and the bigotry. Now then there's the media, people like us. And my approach is like, I can't get someone who watches my videos to just trust me. Right. And so for all of us, we're trying to plant a seed because you're not going to be able to convince someone overnight. How many times have you had a conversation with a right wing person and, and you get them to agree on some facts if they're not totally insane. And, and then they go back right into their echo chamber and it's like, God, we made progress. I helped you think for a moment we had two of your neurons touch and you had a thought and, and we were making progress. And I've had this with liberals, by the way, when I was trying to convince them away from Hillary Clinton and over to Bernie Sanders. And then they go right back into the echo chamber and it's like all the progress you made, it's like a wave on the beach, right? The wave comes up, up, and for a moment it was a little higher and then it goes right back into the ocean and that. And that's what it feels like for so much. So all we can hope for is to plant a seed. And for me as a media person, it's more about, I mean, in a way, stigmatizing conservative views and associating them accurately with fear. And hopefully that taps into a sense of shame because people on the right are more shame prone, whereas people on the left are more guilt prone. Interesting dynamic. I'm sure you two could probably describe why that is better, but it's about associating conservatives with negative emotional stuff and changing the narrative that way. [01:10:16] Speaker B: This feeds in really well to something we talked about. I can't remember what the top. I think it was the alt right pipeline for women, those episodes. And I was explaining to Laura from my perspective in psychology, because shame is such a powerful human emotion. It's so powerful. And it's like all this other stuff we're talking about evolutionary, it's adaptive and it's not like something that we as psychologists weaponize with our clients. We're not saying that. [01:10:43] Speaker C: However, I believe those are called ethical problems. [01:10:46] Speaker B: If you go down that road exactly like that is that I just want to be very clear that that's not what I'm saying. [01:10:52] Speaker C: That's the benefit of me not having to do individual stuff is I could be as judgy as I want. [01:10:57] Speaker B: Yeah, right, exactly. But I think there is an amount that we can and should use this really useful emotion to evoke a feeling of just like, like you said, planting that seed. So like, for example, for our non psychologist listeners, I know of several people who have cut off their MAGA family because so they're using like shame as a barrier. Like I refuse to engage with what you're doing. And their families have felt so shame that this happened that they've started to like maybe see the light. And I think that you're so right. Is plant some of planting that seed. Is planting an uncomfortable human emotion that does serve the purpose of bringing you back into the social group because that's what shame started out as. [01:11:47] Speaker A: I find this topic like, I find it so interesting. I talked to Kristen about this quite a lot in terms of like, say, talking with friends and like challenging their views, but then also the weight that comes along with being the person who's trying to challenge who's trying to change people's views, who's trying to do it sensitively, but also getting really pissed off when people just don't get it. And then yeah, sometimes upsetting people, upsetting friends and they think that, you know, I'm like this crazy person talking about whatever and I. [01:12:29] Speaker C: God, this person that gives a shit. Aren't they so annoying? God, they make me feel guilt because of my moral inferiority bullshit. [01:12:37] Speaker A: Yeah. But I think it's. I don't. I think as someone who isn't, you know, as active as you guys in trying to like, you know, produce content media to try and change people's opinions or not even change, challenge people, get people to think, kind of inform people, like even me, just trying to talk to friends about it. It's tiring and it's. [01:12:59] Speaker C: Yeah, it's a lot of emotional labor. [01:13:03] Speaker A: It is. And I'm not saying that it shouldn't then happen. I think I'm more just pointing it out. [01:13:09] Speaker C: It is like the one ring sometimes quite a weight to carry. [01:13:13] Speaker A: It is. We must share the load. [01:13:19] Speaker B: Yes. Sorry. Go. [01:13:21] Speaker C: I just think some people are just driven towards like I'm just driven to want to persuade. So like I don't really mind doing the emotional labor. Like for me it's fun. [01:13:30] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:13:30] Speaker C: And I don't. You gotta have like low expectations of your ability to convince people because I mean, frankly, maybe that's my problem. [01:13:38] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:13:39] Speaker C: I mean think about how easy it would be for a right winger to convince us to their side. Not very. Yeah. It's a lot of us are just stuck in our ways and there's so many ego based reasons, social reasons that people just are not going to be convinced over to your side. Lack of caring reasons as well. Think about how much you have to care to overcome the hurdle of I was wrong, people around me were wrong. I might have to change my social setting like some big hurdles. [01:14:10] Speaker B: And I think that there's a lot of reflection that needs to go on. It's like whose responsibility is it to design these non threatening conversations that are going to make people feel good enough enough or safe enough to move in to our side? We do that in sessions with clients, but those sessions also take hours of prep plus the hour. Right. And we're very actively working with that one person. And there's also that activism fatigue that you can get. And there's also like from my point of view, it takes a shit ton of cognitive and emotional labor to do all of this stuff. And at certain Points like, right now I'm in a pre autistic burnout phase that I'm trying to be very mindful of and not engage in too, too much. But equally, I stress out all the time because I operate in this world with a shit ton of privilege. You know, like you were saying about the white supremacist who the black janitor was nice to. And that's so lucky that that happened. But we also can't rely on people who operate in the world with much less privilege than I do. And so I always go in these, like, circles. But. And this is what I got really excited about is when you were saying, like, we need to, to. To share the load. And so one of the groups that I talked about last episode was the engaged, the politically engaged. But too many people are stuck in these more stuck groups, the ambivalent groups, the shocked, blah, blah. We need to share the load more. We need more activists. We need more people talking about this. The small things, like calling out their friends for saying problematic shit, having a social repercussion like that, like shame, which is probably what's happening when people get defensive with you when they. When this happens, is really important and it plants that seed. And so we need to share the load, get more people on our side through those small things, rely on each other on the left for action. Does that make sense? Because I might have gotten too excited to actually make sense of my thoughts there. [01:16:00] Speaker A: Makes sense. [01:16:01] Speaker B: Cool. [01:16:01] Speaker A: And I think as well, you know what else I think? If as someone who I think tries to speak up in social groups, if I hear something that doesn't quite sit right, I think that I often know for a fact there are other people within, say, a social group that agree with me but are afraid to speak out. And I get that. I get that there is fear there. And I also would like those people to recognize how powerful it is if they are a second voice in that conversation. Because then it's not just one person banging on about something, but it's two people who have a much stronger, almost like viewpoint then and can have a dialogue about it. And I just think that's so powerful if you're ever sitting there in a conversation and not speaking up because you're fearful, one. Okay, yeah, check if you are in a safe place. But if you feel like, you know, you can have maybe the confidence to say something or even just agree, then that's so powerful. [01:17:08] Speaker C: And if somebody else is doing it around, you back them up. Because there's going to be a lot of Psychological repercussions, too. It's not just the one person. [01:17:17] Speaker A: Yeah. [01:17:18] Speaker B: And we could probably do a whole episode on that alone. Like the power of just like that, that support. Because what the right wing has is that it's, it's all these ideas. All of these things are built off of social connection. And they met, they mess with it, they co opt that very well. But actually we can use that as well. We can do the same thing. We can support our friends doing this. We can support the people calling it out. And yeah, like, like you said, Keegan, there's a lot of psychological mechanisms that will be happening within that group if that's happening. [01:17:50] Speaker C: And you know what? It also means something to the people like us. Like, it's just nice to not be on the island sometimes. [01:17:57] Speaker B: 100%, I'll be on the island. [01:18:00] Speaker C: But it's a little like, come on, just somebody else. [01:18:03] Speaker B: Yeah, I'll be there. But it's getting a little lonely. Like, I don't know, should we like, share? [01:18:08] Speaker C: I will stubbornly stick to calling people out on their bullshit, you know? [01:18:12] Speaker B: Yeah. [01:18:12] Speaker C: Kristen, you have, you have a lot of discipline to just sit there and ice them out. I don't have that discipline. I'm like going to verbally hit them with a baseball bat. [01:18:22] Speaker B: I go back and forth on this a lot because I tell you, as somebody who is initially training to be a lawyer and loves a good argument and has a lot of rage, it's hard. But yeah, I think we really need people like you, Keegan, who are going to be like, no, you gotta. No, absolutely not. You need to be corrected. Not just like shunned, but corrected. [01:18:48] Speaker C: I think we need to be less nice. I think we let our empathy and compassion get to us sometimes and it's not always effective. If you can, you know, you could verbally smack some right winger around and just show off, like, I know more than you. I'm correct on the facts. You're dumb and you're an asshole and you're afraid. [01:19:06] Speaker A: That's why I've so often felt like I need a good hard fact just to throw it. There was a point where I would literally, in my notes on my phone had a list of facts that I could. [01:19:16] Speaker B: I remember you doing that and say. [01:19:18] Speaker A: To people, if we were talking about sexism or whatever it might be, and I was trying to challenge their viewpoint, be like, right, let me get my list of facts out for you. And you're so right that these people, they're so focused on being right that, yeah, they Need a good heart, but nothing else. But sometimes, sometimes the facts don't even work, do they? [01:19:38] Speaker C: I've found a pretty good tool in terms of interpersonal. Like how do you communicate? How do you convince people? First off, you actually shouldn't be thinking about convincing the person you're arguing against. You should be be thinking about convincing the people that are watching you. And one of the best things you can do is detach yourself a little bit to kind of like not be superior, not be above it all, but to just kind of laugh at it in a way and to have that positivity. You really want to have that positivity because if you're just like angry and grumpy, people are just on an emotional level not going to be as swayed by what you're about to say. But one of the good weapons, like I think about a social group that I'm part of that actually leans quite conservative. It's friggin all dudes. And, and one thing is just like this dude's against abortion. It's like, yeah, whatever dude. It's because you're not getting laid. And then you walk away and it's like you're just pissed at women because you're sexually frustrated. Walk away. [01:20:34] Speaker B: That is, and that's such a good. [01:20:35] Speaker C: Like undercuts their argument and everything because we all know it's true. [01:20:39] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, you're just saying the quiet part out loud. [01:20:42] Speaker C: Yep. [01:20:43] Speaker A: I need them, need those one liners. [01:20:46] Speaker B: It's like I sent you a meme, Laura, like months and months ago and it's that like, like autistic need to give people facts and then they will definitely listen to what you're saying. No, that does not exist. It's things like what Keegan just said. It's calling them out because again, like. [01:21:01] Speaker A: Yeah, you use the facts, but then it just gets rationalized out of it. You know, kind of back to what we were talking about before. Again, it's about how are you making that person feel? [01:21:12] Speaker C: In a sense, yes, yes. If you can make them feel good, you're more likely to convince them them. Or at least plant a seed. [01:21:20] Speaker B: Plant the seed. Maybe make them associate a positive emotion with that seed. It depends on how much cognitive capacity you have, your context in that situation and things like that. But even the little stuff helps, guys, like supporting the person in the room who's doing more of the emotional cognitive labor. That's huge. Engage how you can. I don't think people understand how much the small moments can have an impact. And we've taken up way too much of your time, Keegan. I feel horrible. I feel awful. This has been awesome. It was so cool to have you on. I had such a fun discussion covering all of this and I'm so excited to go back and edit this episode and see all the tangents we went on, but that were also super valuable and useful in this conversation. [01:22:05] Speaker C: I think it was very tangenty. Yeah, it was fine by me. [01:22:10] Speaker B: Yeah. As is our way, I think people have come to expect a certain level of chaos. [01:22:15] Speaker A: Yeah. Yes. [01:22:16] Speaker B: So, guys, episode one, we talked about where people get stuck and what the landscape kind of looks like. And then today we talked about why that's happening with our awesome guest who's super knowledgeable about the topic. And so we talked about like safety and group belonging and disgust and shame. We ended on shame. And like, especially, and this is what you guys need to keep in mind is how rationality is often just like. Like a. I don't know, like a cloak you're putting it on. It's not. It's really just like it's emotions underneath. It's just the idea of rationality is like a shield when really what's happening is it's all the emotions driving things underneath. So watch out for confirmation bias. Watch out for motivated reasoning in yourself and other people. So thank you again so much, Keegan, for coming on. I had such a good time. Please make. Make sure to follow Keegan at keegantatum on TikTok and Instagram and his YouTube is under his name as well. If you want some more long form content, I will stick all of the links to that in the show notes for this. So just remember, people don't believe things because they're true. [01:23:22] Speaker A: They. [01:23:22] Speaker B: They believe them because it feels safer and they want to. Thank you guys so much for listening. And as always, we probably left you with more questions than answers. But that's kind of the point. We love digging into the messy undercurrents of. Of why do we think we're so rational in politics? Do you guys have thoughts, questions? Do you have any rage? We would love to hear it. Drop a comment, message us. And please actually avoid shouting into the void because tagging us is super effective in our discoverability. If there's a topic that you want us to dig into next, we're always up for a new rabbit hole. So please don't forget to like, follow rate and scream from the rooftop about our podcast. You can find all of our links on the but why Instagram page. Head into the bio for everything. And remember, the first step to understanding is asking, but why? [01:24:06] Speaker A: Yay.