Speaker 1: Hello, champions. I hope you well. It's dawned on me
Speaker 1: lately that I'm becoming more of a fence sitter. In fact,
Speaker 1: I was talking with somebody yesterday. I'm recording this eleven
Speaker 1: twenty nine am on a Sunday, Sunday, the second of March,
Speaker 1: And yesterday somebody asked me something about Donald Trump. I
Speaker 1: don't I'm not a political person, so just saying, isn't
Speaker 1: it funny when you say two words donald Trump. Almost
Speaker 1: everybody has a reaction between some kind of opinion and
Speaker 1: some physiological visceral reaction. Right, everybody's or not everybody, but
Speaker 1: most people are have a side. And they asked me
Speaker 1: what I thought about some particular things. It doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: and this is not do I like him, do I
Speaker 1: hate him? What do I think his policies? Blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: It was just like with a particular thing. I said, look,
Speaker 1: this is what I think, but I could be wrong,
Speaker 1: but I really don't know. And now like, get off
Speaker 1: the fence, Get off the fence. And I said why,
Speaker 1: like in other words, pick aside, I'm like, nah, pick aside. No,
Speaker 1: I don't want to pick aside. I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't have all the data. I don't have all the evidence.
Speaker 1: I don't know, and what I do know is not
Speaker 1: nearly enough. But by the way, what I know is
Speaker 1: what I've learned through the media. How much of the
Speaker 1: media is accurate. How much of what I'm seeing or
Speaker 1: think I'm seeing is evidence or data? How much of
Speaker 1: it is manufactured bullshit? How much of it is rhetoric?
Speaker 1: How much of it is a form of marketing or
Speaker 1: branding or you know, virtual manipulation or whatever. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but it it just it dawned on
Speaker 1: me this idea that we very much inhabit a cognitive
Speaker 1: and emotional and cultural and sociological landscape most of us,
Speaker 1: where we are encouraged. No, we're coerced. We're coerced to
Speaker 1: pick a team, to pick a side, to pick a group.
Speaker 1: And I was thinking that, you know what, sometimes I
Speaker 1: really like being on the fence, not for the sake
Speaker 1: of being a fence sitter, but because it's for me.
Speaker 1: I think it's the best fit. If I don't know,
Speaker 1: If I don't know, or I don't have absolute clarity
Speaker 1: or certainty, why do I need Let's you know, when
Speaker 1: we talk about, you know, choosing a side. We're literally
Speaker 1: talking about picking a group of thought, like a thought bubble,
Speaker 1: or a way of being or thinking or behaving, a culture,
Speaker 1: a religion, Pick a side, get off the fence. You
Speaker 1: need to belong, You need to belong to a team
Speaker 1: or a side or a group. Here's what I think. No,
Speaker 1: we don't know, we don't Why do I need to
Speaker 1: climb down from a vantage point that gives me a
Speaker 1: perspective and a level of awareness, an understanding, and perhaps
Speaker 1: vision on my fence where I can see both sides.
Speaker 1: I don't have to choose, I don't have to align.
Speaker 1: And maybe sometimes I will climb down from my fence
Speaker 1: and I will join a particular ideology or philosophy because
Speaker 1: I truly believe that, and I think that, and I
Speaker 1: have what I think is good evidence. But maybe, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe we don't have to absolutely know. Maybe we can say,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'm not sure? And I just wrote
Speaker 1: down what is it? One, two, three, four, five things
Speaker 1: I just typed them a little peuty before we went
Speaker 1: live here that I've spoken about in the last three weeks,
Speaker 1: that I've essentially said to people I don't know. And
Speaker 1: it bothers people when I don't pick a side, but
Speaker 1: I feel that in twenty twenty five, so I use
Speaker 1: that term very fucking loosely. And I don't even know
Speaker 1: if I'm an expert. I think I have a bit
Speaker 1: of knowledge about a few things, but I wouldn't really
Speaker 1: call myself an expert. But experts or people who call
Speaker 1: themselves experts, feel compelled or coerced to have an absolute,
Speaker 1: categoric opinion, idea perspective on everything, and that's their stance,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that they really never have all the
Speaker 1: evidence or data or knowledge. Everyone feels compelled to pick
Speaker 1: a side because if you're not on this side, well
Speaker 1: then you're clearly on the other side. By the way,
Speaker 1: if you don't hate Trump, then you must love Trump.
Speaker 1: How about this? How about I don't give a fuck?
Speaker 1: How about how about I don't know if intimittent fasting
Speaker 1: is brilliant or not brilliant. You know, these are the
Speaker 1: things that I've I've had this a similar conversation about
Speaker 1: in the last five weeks. So Donald Trump, fasting, God
Speaker 1: supplements as in, you know, bodybuilding and nutritional supplements and
Speaker 1: AI and in the context of each of those situations
Speaker 1: and conversations I said to people, I don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't have a strong opinion on that,
Speaker 1: or but you know, there might be some things, some supplements,
Speaker 1: like do I think creatine monohydrate is good? Well, I
Speaker 1: can tell you from my experience it seems to work
Speaker 1: for me. Now that's not very hard science, is it.
Speaker 1: It seems to work for me. So I'd rather not
Speaker 1: say anything categoric about creatine monohydrate or protein powders or
Speaker 1: trimethyl glycine TMG or fucking any of them, right, because
Speaker 1: I don't I don't, I don't know, I don't have
Speaker 1: absolute knowledge, So I don't want to go I don't
Speaker 1: want to be in the yes this is good or no,
Speaker 1: this is bad camp. So I'm going to go. Look,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's an unequivocal categoric answer to that
Speaker 1: for all people. So I'm going to tell you what
Speaker 1: I think, which is not to be confused with what
Speaker 1: I globally know. I can tell you what I've experienced personally, which, again,
Speaker 1: which is why I'm always saying this, This is not
Speaker 1: a recommendation for the majority. This is an experience of
Speaker 1: a very small minority, I E. Me same with AI,
Speaker 1: Like there are some things about AI that are I
Speaker 1: think brilliant. Are there some things that for me are
Speaker 1: potentially down the track maybe problematic or fucking terrifying. Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: But again that's just my thinking. That's not data, that's
Speaker 1: not that's not fact, that's not universal truth. So this
Speaker 1: whole idea that sitting on a fence, that not having
Speaker 1: a categoric, absolute stance or opinion, that that is some
Speaker 1: kind of flaw or problem or weakness. I think fence
Speaker 1: sitting could actually be a strength. I think it could
Speaker 1: actually be wisdom. And in a world that's increasingly divided
Speaker 1: into polarized camps, I think the metaphorical fensitter often faces
Speaker 1: criticism from both sides. So there's the profound question worth exploring,
Speaker 1: and that is sitting on the fence truly a position
Speaker 1: of weakness? Or maybe is it sometimes a vantage point
Speaker 1: or a perspective of wisdom. From the fence, we can
Speaker 1: gain a unique perspective unavailable to those who aren't sitting
Speaker 1: up on the fence with us. Let's not say everyone
Speaker 1: needs to be up on the fence, but for those
Speaker 1: who have firmly planted on one side of the fence
Speaker 1: or other. They can't see what we can see. Now,
Speaker 1: having said that, am I ever on a side? Of
Speaker 1: course I am? Of course I am. And I don't
Speaker 1: think being on a side is bad, of course, But
Speaker 1: neither do I think that being on neither side is
Speaker 1: bad either Necessarily. Kind of like an observer on a
Speaker 1: hill overlooking a battlefield, a fence citter can see the
Speaker 1: patterns and similarities and blind spots that combatants miss in
Speaker 1: the heat of engagement. So this elevated perspective of being
Speaker 1: in a place that the majority are not, which is
Speaker 1: I'm not in group A or group B, I'm not
Speaker 1: in a group, or I might be in a third group,
Speaker 1: which is the I don't know group, and it's okay.
Speaker 1: Like this allows me from my fence. It allows me
Speaker 1: to recognize patterns across supposedly opposing viewpoints, to identify common
Speaker 1: ground that opposing sides or partisans might not see, and
Speaker 1: to see also how like both sides use similar tactics
Speaker 1: and similar tricks and similar manipulation. And also it allows
Speaker 1: me to see how tribal psychology shapes perception on both sides.
Speaker 1: We're living in that echo chamber of thought that echo,
Speaker 1: and each side has their own echo chamber, their own
Speaker 1: confirmation bias, their own way of thinking and belonging and
Speaker 1: being and interacting. And by the way, if you want
Speaker 1: to be in our group, in our thought cult, on
Speaker 1: our side of the fence, then you need to agree
Speaker 1: with everything. But this is problematic because when we are
Speaker 1: on when we're on one side of the fence, we
Speaker 1: automatically believe that what we think and our ideology, our philosophy,
Speaker 1: our practices, our habits, our rituals, our rules, we automatically
Speaker 1: think that we're right, which keeps us shut down from
Speaker 1: the possibility that the group on the other side of
Speaker 1: the fence might actually be right with some things. So
Speaker 1: the moment that I think I'm unequivocally right, or I
Speaker 1: unequivocally know, or my truth is the objective universal, there
Speaker 1: is no argument truth, then I also think, and I've
Speaker 1: said this many times before, that everyone who doesn't agree
Speaker 1: with my group or my thinking, or my rituals, or
Speaker 1: my perspective or my religion or my ideas, I automatically
Speaker 1: think that they're wrong. And that's a really precarious position.
Speaker 1: Think about, you know, think about how many times you've
Speaker 1: been wrong about stuff in your life. How many times
Speaker 1: you got And I'm not talking about Oh I trusted
Speaker 1: Diane and she fucked me over. No, it's not about Diane.
Speaker 1: It's about you. It's about how many times you did
Speaker 1: something and you got it wrong. You thought a certain thing,
Speaker 1: you took a certain path, and it was wrong. And
Speaker 1: this is not This is not that you're bad or flawed,
Speaker 1: or I'm bad or flawed. This is that you and
Speaker 1: me are humans. We do shit that is dumb. We
Speaker 1: do shit that is flawed. We get things wrong. Now,
Speaker 1: when we join a group, when we get down from
Speaker 1: the fence, and then we go into our new group,
Speaker 1: we pick a side that is cool as long as
Speaker 1: there's a door between the fences, that I can maybe
Speaker 1: put my left knee through the fence and go well
Speaker 1: on this particular topic, on this idea, regarding this issue,
Speaker 1: I'm not in. The problem with being in a group
Speaker 1: is that you need to conform to the group. You
Speaker 1: need to think like the group. You need to be
Speaker 1: fully committed to be able to belong, which means you
Speaker 1: are fully discouraged from disagreeing, from not aligning, from not conforming,
Speaker 1: from not being in the thought cult that is pervasive
Speaker 1: on each side of the fence, and it happens on
Speaker 1: both sides of the fence, doesn't it both sides of
Speaker 1: the fence. So the problem with this is package deal thinking.
Speaker 1: So choosing a side means accepting an entire ideology wholesale.
Speaker 1: You're expected to embrace not just one position, but all
Speaker 1: the positions, an entire constellation of beliefs, many of which
Speaker 1: may or may not logically connect. And this bundling of beliefs,
Speaker 1: this grouping of thoughts and ideas and ideologies, restricts your
Speaker 1: own intellectual freedom, and it stops us from honest self
Speaker 1: inquiry and reflection because we're more interested in belonging, because
Speaker 1: belonging meets an emotional need. We want to belong, And
Speaker 1: when I belong, I feel safe, and I feel included,
Speaker 1: and I feel seen, and I feel valued, and all
Speaker 1: of these internal kind of awarenesses that I have about
Speaker 1: some of these things that actually I believe a bullshit.
Speaker 1: I'll just bite my tongue because I'm more interested in
Speaker 1: belonging than thinking critically and letting them know what I think.
Speaker 1: Once we choose a side, that choice often becomes intertwined
Speaker 1: with our identity and our position is no longer just
Speaker 1: what we think. It literally becomes who we are. I am.
Speaker 1: It's one of those I am statements. I am a
Speaker 1: fill in the blank, I do this, I am in
Speaker 1: this group. And this makes it psychologically costly to chain
Speaker 1: in our minds, and it makes it socially costly, and
Speaker 1: it makes it emotionally difficult. It makes it and once
Speaker 1: we're really intertwined with a side or a group, once
Speaker 1: our sense of self and self worth and identity and
Speaker 1: our who I am this becomes intertwined with being on
Speaker 1: a particular side of the fence, then we the people
Speaker 1: who say we want to be open minded and objective,
Speaker 1: we lose all of that capacity regarding that particular ideology. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Like there's never I've never met walked into a room,
Speaker 1: which I've done this many times and said, put up
Speaker 1: your hand if you if you don't want to be
Speaker 1: open minded or objective, and the hands go up, because
Speaker 1: everybody in the room wants to be open minded and
Speaker 1: objective except when it comes to their beliefs. Except that
Speaker 1: comes when it comes to the things that they think
Speaker 1: they know for sure. So choosing a side, which I'll
Speaker 1: say again, it's not a bad it's not a bad thing.
Speaker 1: It's not a bad thing. But side taking can activate
Speaker 1: and amplify numerous cognitive biases. So confirmation bias, which we've
Speaker 1: spoken about many times on the show, we seek out
Speaker 1: information or ideas or behavior that confirms what we already believed.
Speaker 1: Disconfirmation bias we don't talk about much, but it's the opposite.
Speaker 1: It's when we hear anything, or read anything, or are
Speaker 1: exposed to any idea or thought or ideology or philosophy
Speaker 1: or theology for that matter that doesn't align with ours.
Speaker 1: We either scrutinize it way more harshly or we don't
Speaker 1: even consider it. And I think, like, this is a
Speaker 1: really I'm thinking of about this in relation to me, right,
Speaker 1: this is a hard lesson. This is a hard you know,
Speaker 1: I'm all about personal development. I'm all about helping you develop,
Speaker 1: you know, self and self awareness and physically, mentally, emotionally,
Speaker 1: spiritually whatever that means. But this is a hard thing
Speaker 1: to do, is to recognize your own bias and to
Speaker 1: acknowledge your bias, and to acknowledge that when it comes
Speaker 1: to this or that I am not open minded, I
Speaker 1: am closed minded because I know, I know, and it's
Speaker 1: just it's just not true. Sometimes the truth is the
Speaker 1: uncomfortable truth is that we don't always know. Sometimes we
Speaker 1: absolutely know, sometimes we absolutely know, but there are times
Speaker 1: where what we think is the objective, overwhelming, categoric truth
Speaker 1: is just a story that we fully believe. All right,
Speaker 1: let's talk about why fence sitting gets such a bad rap.
Speaker 1: But it is culturally and socially very maligned. We want
Speaker 1: to know where people stand, and the shoulder shrugging I'm
Speaker 1: not sure, or I don't have a strong opinion, or
Speaker 1: I still need to think, or I need more evidence
Speaker 1: or more information or more data. That doesn't go down
Speaker 1: well often. So I think sometimes fence sitting gets misinterpreted
Speaker 1: as apathy. It gets conflated with not caring, when in reality,
Speaker 1: I think many fence sitters care deeply, but refuse simplistic
Speaker 1: solutions to complex problems. It's not always A or B.
Speaker 1: And sometimes we're literally presented with two schools of thought
Speaker 1: and maybe we're not even thinking about other possibilities. So
Speaker 1: we get emotionally and socially and intellectually corralled into this
Speaker 1: place where people want us to choose this option or
Speaker 1: that option. But when you say is there a third option,
Speaker 1: they haven't even thought about that and the idea that look,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to choose either option. Like I said,
Speaker 1: some people, they see that as not caring, They see
Speaker 1: that as apathy, they see that as ignorance. For me,
Speaker 1: I actually think sometimes I think it's a I think
Speaker 1: it's an act of courage because it's much easier to
Speaker 1: just agree with someone, isn't it. And I don't like
Speaker 1: disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. But you know, it's
Speaker 1: so easy to just keep that social lubricant that is
Speaker 1: agreement happening. It's so easy to do that. But what
Speaker 1: happens when we just say yes to things that we
Speaker 1: actually don't really believe, or we just align or we
Speaker 1: just conform. I think in the middle of all of
Speaker 1: that agreement and all of that choosing a team, I
Speaker 1: think we lose ourselves. Like I am so passionate about
Speaker 1: I'm happy to belong to well, I don't really want
Speaker 1: to belong to a group. I just think how I think.
Speaker 1: And if there are other people that think like I do,
Speaker 1: or belong or what's the word behave, or have similar
Speaker 1: values or ideas that's cool, But I would really hope
Speaker 1: those people don't align with me on everything, because then
Speaker 1: I feel like, well, now we've created our home cults
Speaker 1: by trying not to be in a thought cult. Now
Speaker 1: we've created one. We're all so good. Of Course we're
Speaker 1: going to diverge. Of Course we're not going to agree
Speaker 1: on everything. Of Course there's going to be you know,
Speaker 1: there's going to be disagreement. But I think this idea
Speaker 1: that we all need to somehow live in echo chambers
Speaker 1: or groups where we essentially are the same and think
Speaker 1: the same and behave the same and periodically vote the
Speaker 1: same or worship the same or eat the same or
Speaker 1: whatever it is. I don't see that as being you
Speaker 1: or me being the best version of ourselves. I think
Speaker 1: it's also true and completely understandable that we have we
Speaker 1: have an action bias. Like we are, we really like
Speaker 1: people to take action, be decisive, don't sit on the fence.
Speaker 1: We have a real psychological preference for action over inaction,
Speaker 1: and the fence sitters fen sitting or the fence sitter's
Speaker 1: deliberation or thoughtfulness or consideration can be taken for paralysis
Speaker 1: analysis paralysis rather than being recognized as something of social, emotional, psychological,
Speaker 1: and cognitive value where I'm actually really thinking deeply, and
Speaker 1: I know that it doesn't suit you, and I know
Speaker 1: that it's not convenient for your group. I know that
Speaker 1: it's not convenient for you right now in this conversation.
Speaker 1: But the truth is I don't have an opinion just yet.
Speaker 1: I don't. And maybe you'll see me in a week
Speaker 1: or a month or a year and I still won't know.
Speaker 1: And I don't. It's like, like I have this really
Speaker 1: interesting thing because you guys know that I grew up
Speaker 1: in a very much a God paradigm, in a very churchy,
Speaker 1: very very theologically strong environment, with certain beliefs and certain
Speaker 1: values and certain unequivocal rules. And this is how it is.
Speaker 1: This is how, This is how religion works, Craig, This
Speaker 1: is how Catholicism works. And then later on that I
Speaker 1: was in another church, which was a fundamental Christian church,
Speaker 1: and this is how it works here. And this is
Speaker 1: the Bible, and this is true and God said this,
Speaker 1: and so you need to do these things. You need
Speaker 1: to stop doing those things. More of this, less of that,
Speaker 1: and if you don't do this, then this is the price.
Speaker 1: And if you do do this. This is the reward,
Speaker 1: and so are you on board. And by the way,
Speaker 1: in order to have this mystical, magical, beautiful outcome, you
Speaker 1: need to basically sign on this metaphoric dotted line so
Speaker 1: you can join our team. And if you join our team,
Speaker 1: you're in the right team. All the other four thousand
Speaker 1: or so religions are wrong, but we're right, and we've
Speaker 1: got the one true hotline to God. And thank God
Speaker 1: you found us, literally because here you are and now
Speaker 1: you're in the group. Now, the problem with that is
Speaker 1: one of the problems, one of the intellectual problems with that.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not saying there is or isn't a God,
Speaker 1: so don't judge me. I'm saying I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know. I don't absolutely have absolute knowledge.
Speaker 1: And that bothers lots of people because like we very
Speaker 1: much live in a culture where people not everyone. There's
Speaker 1: agnosticism where people are kind of not sure I know,
Speaker 1: and there's atheism, and there's right down the old theological
Speaker 1: rabbit hole fully committed. And again this is not judgment
Speaker 1: or criticism of any of those particular operating systems that
Speaker 1: people choose, but when people say to me things like
Speaker 1: which I get asked pretty regularly, what do you believe?
Speaker 1: And I'm not even sure what I believe anymore? Do
Speaker 1: I hope that there's loving, compassionate God that cares about
Speaker 1: you and me, and blah blah blah all that kind
Speaker 1: of I maybe believe it less than I used to,
Speaker 1: and I feel guilty about that. And then I'm like, well,
Speaker 1: do I feel guilty because that's God? Or do I
Speaker 1: feel guilty because I have this historical intertwined relationship with
Speaker 1: this culture and this theology in this church and this
Speaker 1: sociology that operates around this certain way of being. Like,
Speaker 1: this is difficult, and this is where thinking critically can
Speaker 1: be scary, thinking for yourself and being okay with saying, look,
Speaker 1: maybe there's a God, maybe there is an I don't know,
Speaker 1: and I think if we're all truthful again, I could
Speaker 1: be wrong, but we'd all have to say I don't know.
Speaker 1: Saying I don't know is not the same as saying
Speaker 1: I don't believe. Knock yourself out with your belief. I
Speaker 1: believe lots of things that I can't prove. So if
Speaker 1: you said to me, do you know? I would say no,
Speaker 1: I don't know. But what I do is I believe
Speaker 1: or I have perhaps I have faith. I can have
Speaker 1: faith is literally believing something that I don't have data
Speaker 1: or evidence or science for. And so but people don't
Speaker 1: want you to be offensive when it comes to things
Speaker 1: like this, these big ticket items. Of course they don't,
Speaker 1: but maybe maybe for some of us saying look, I
Speaker 1: believe certain things that I want this to be true,
Speaker 1: and there are certain things I believe and I want
Speaker 1: to be true. But when I'm being brave, when I'm
Speaker 1: being the most authentic, or I think I'm being the
Speaker 1: most authentic version of me, I have to say, look,
Speaker 1: this is what I want to be true, this is
Speaker 1: what I think. But I could be wrong. And the
Speaker 1: reason that I have to say that is one, I
Speaker 1: don't actually know. I don't actually know, I don't have absolute,
Speaker 1: unequivocal knowledge. And two I have to say that because
Speaker 1: I have been so wrong so many times. In fact,
Speaker 1: choosing aside has probably been more disadvantageous than helpful over
Speaker 1: the years where I feel, oh, fuck, I've got to
Speaker 1: I've got to join one of these teams, because you
Speaker 1: can't not be on a team, I'm telling you. Sometimes
Speaker 1: fuck the team. Sometimes do a deep dive yourself. Listen
Speaker 1: to that in a wisdom, listen to that subconscious mind
Speaker 1: of yours. What do you know? What do you believe?
Speaker 1: Or what do you think? And there will be still
Speaker 1: things that you still have conflict and confusion around, And
Speaker 1: that's okay. How about this? We just live with some
Speaker 1: of the conflict and confusion and the inner turmoil. Why
Speaker 1: do we need to know everything? Why do we need
Speaker 1: to have everything sorted? Why do we need to know?
Speaker 1: Why do we need to have a strong opinion on
Speaker 1: fucking everything? Why do we criticize people who aren't in
Speaker 1: a group? Why do we do that? Why do why
Speaker 1: do we go get off the fence? You're getting splinters
Speaker 1: in your ass? Why do we do that? We do
Speaker 1: that because we're in a group and they want them
Speaker 1: to be in our group. That's why we do it.
Speaker 1: Fuck that. That is the opposite of independent critical thinking.
Speaker 1: To me, that is the height of being a fucking
Speaker 1: social sheep. You might do a full kind of audit
Speaker 1: and inventory and deep dive into what you think and
Speaker 1: where that came from, and what you believe and how
Speaker 1: and why you believe it, and they're all good things.
Speaker 1: And you might eventually find that, oh wow, all of
Speaker 1: that stuff actually just naturally puts me on this side
Speaker 1: of the fence. And if that's the case, I think
Speaker 1: that's great. But I think being coerced and conjoled cajoled
Speaker 1: is that a word? I think it is to pick
Speaker 1: a side. I don't see that in any way as
Speaker 1: being helpful to you or me as individuals. Oh, I
Speaker 1: don't know if any of this is making sense. It
Speaker 1: makes sense to me anyway. So maybe what's the middle path.
Speaker 1: What's the middle path? Is it being the active fence sitter.
Speaker 1: Perhaps what we need isn't to glorify fence sitting definitely
Speaker 1: or side taking per se, but maybe it is too
Speaker 1: m Maybe it's to reimagine what principled neutrality looks like.
Speaker 1: Oh I like that principled neutrality. So I've written a
Speaker 1: couple of things that I think are maybe a stepping
Speaker 1: off point, and number one is to commit to principles
Speaker 1: over tribes, over groups, over echo chambers. For me, the
Speaker 1: wise fence sitter commits to consistent principles rather than groupthink,
Speaker 1: or consistent principles rather than consistent tribes. They apply the
Speaker 1: same standards of evidence and ethics regardless of which side
Speaker 1: an idea comes from. I'm going to say that again
Speaker 1: because I think that's really powerful and worth remembering and
Speaker 1: worth operationalizing. So the idea is to commit to principles
Speaker 1: over tribes. The wise fensit it commits to consistent principles
Speaker 1: rather than consistent tribes. They apply the same standards of
Speaker 1: evidence and ethics regardless of where that idea came from.
Speaker 1: In other words, which side that idea or construct or
Speaker 1: theory came from. Number two on maybe choosing the middle
Speaker 1: path of being an active fendsitter is intellectual humility as strength,
Speaker 1: recognizing that the limitations of our knowledge are not weakness
Speaker 1: but perhaps wisdom. It's not weakness to recognize that you
Speaker 1: don't know, or that you don't have an opinion, or
Speaker 1: that you don't fit into a group. That's not weakness,
Speaker 1: that's wisdom, that's courage. The fence sitters I don't know
Speaker 1: yet is actually a position of strength and independence and authenticity,
Speaker 1: not indecision. Two more, Number three strategic neutrality. Some issues
Speaker 1: genuinely require taking a clear position. The wise fence sitter
Speaker 1: knows when to descend from the fence and when stay
Speaker 1: up there when to maintain perspective like the interesting thing
Speaker 1: is like in reality. Think about this. When I was
Speaker 1: thinking about before I started recording, I was literally thinking
Speaker 1: of sitting up on a fence with a group. Let's say,
Speaker 1: say I'm up on a big fence, like a two
Speaker 1: meter high fence, if you're in the States, six and
Speaker 1: a half feet I'm up on a two meter fence,
Speaker 1: and there's a thousand people to the left of me
Speaker 1: and a thousand people to the right of me, and
Speaker 1: they can't see each other. They can all see me,
Speaker 1: and I can all see them, but none of them
Speaker 1: can see each other. And if you can't talk to
Speaker 1: anyone on the other side, because you're on a side
Speaker 1: you can't talk to or listen to, or consider or
Speaker 1: perhaps gain wisdom or insight or understanding from anyone on
Speaker 1: the other side, how the fuck can you possibly be
Speaker 1: open minded because you already believe that everyone, every thousand,
Speaker 1: every one of those thousand on the other side are wrong,
Speaker 1: and every one of the thousand on your side all right.
Speaker 1: And this is problematic. The wise fenceitter knows when to
Speaker 1: get down from the fence and when to maintain their perspective.
Speaker 1: I just think that sometimes sometimes being up in that
Speaker 1: position where you don't need to align with a group,
Speaker 1: you know, it's like and this will probably shatter some
Speaker 1: of you. Sometimes I think Donald Trump's a fucking idiot.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I think, oh, my goodness, like some of the shit,
Speaker 1: some of the and sometimes every now and then I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: that seems to be a good idea. Now do I
Speaker 1: think he's categorically this or that? No, I don't, well
Speaker 1: that you know, am I on a particular side of
Speaker 1: the fence. No, I'm not, and I actually don't want
Speaker 1: to be. That's the other thing I think when you
Speaker 1: identify I am pro this person or anti this person,
Speaker 1: or I think I think, you know, eating this way
Speaker 1: is good and eating that way is bad. I think
Speaker 1: that this kind of workout is the best kind of workout.
Speaker 1: That kind of workout is dangerous. Blah blah blah. Now,
Speaker 1: unless all of these thoughts are really based in some
Speaker 1: kind of objective science or wisdom, then I don't see
Speaker 1: any real advantage in having to jump into either one
Speaker 1: of those psychological, sociological, cognitive melting pots. So I think
Speaker 1: I think sometimes from their vantage point, fence sitters can
Speaker 1: serve as translators between opposing camps, cognitive camps, helping each
Speaker 1: side if those sides will allow them to understand the
Speaker 1: legitimate concerns of the other. And this is one of
Speaker 1: the challenges because around all of these things, all of
Speaker 1: these ideologies, all of these philosophies, all of these issues,
Speaker 1: and just have a look at the world. I don't
Speaker 1: say this often, and I'm not lying awake sleepless every night,
Speaker 1: but I'm pretty concerned. I'm pretty concerned with the world.
Speaker 1: And I think while humans are allegedly the smartest species,
Speaker 1: I would say I don't. It depends how we measure smart, right,
Speaker 1: what are the metrics that we're using for intelligence? If
Speaker 1: we're talking about, you know, being able to build roads
Speaker 1: and cars and flight of space and build comp Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, of course, if they're the measurements, we win.
Speaker 1: But when you also look at the absolutely devastating mindless
Speaker 1: stupidity that have happens, the hate, the division, the pick
Speaker 1: a side of the fenceness, the divergence, not the convergence,
Speaker 1: the separation that you don't think like me, you're my enemy,
Speaker 1: thinking I just I worry. I worry. So maybe sitting
Speaker 1: on the fence isn't a failure of courage, but actually
Speaker 1: an act of intellectual integrity and bravery. And a culture
Speaker 1: that rewards rapid judgment and tribal loyalty, the decision to
Speaker 1: maintain perspective, to sit on the fence when it's appropriate
Speaker 1: might be exactly the counterbalance we need right now