Speaker 1: Right now, if you accept the left right economy, then
Speaker 1: we're in for goodlog polarization, strife, violence, worse, and arguing
Speaker 1: from that perspective will just drive us all crazy over time.
Speaker 1: Hey everyone, and welcome to the Psychology Podcast. In this episode,
Speaker 1: I talked to Forward Parties founder Andrew Yang about the
Speaker 1: future of American democracy. Andrew shares the insights he's learned
Speaker 1: from his presidential and mayorial campaigns. His major realization is
Speaker 1: that America's two party systems designed for polarization and dysfunction,
Speaker 1: with the media and the Internet further inciting division. Polarization
Speaker 1: may eventually escalate into violence. In order to shift towards
Speaker 1: a human centered economy, Andrew believes we need to change
Speaker 1: our political dynamics and incentives. We also touched on the
Speaker 1: topics of tribalism, rationality, automation, education, leadership, and governance. It's
Speaker 1: a really rich conversation with some and I hugely respect
Speaker 1: so that further Ado, I bring you Andrew Yang. Hi, Andrew,
Speaker 1: I'm really looking forward to chatting with you again. Our
Speaker 1: last chat was was pretty awesome. I thought so too, Scott.
Speaker 1: How are you, my friend? I'm good, I'm good, You're
Speaker 1: a busy guy these days. Huh, I guess I am busy.
Speaker 1: I've had a few things cooking. But it feels good.
Speaker 1: I feel like we're doing the right things in the
Speaker 1: nick of time. Awesome, Well, let's have you know last time.
Speaker 1: Let's kind of pick up that baton of that human element,
Speaker 1: you know, our human conversation. I really loved your new book,
Speaker 1: which I have prominently displayed behind me, and I thought
Speaker 1: it was really cool. You talked about your childhood, You
Speaker 1: talked about growing up and something we have in common.
Speaker 1: Another thing to add to the list of something about
Speaker 1: in calm is that we're both bulloyed as kids and
Speaker 1: kind of felt maybe a little bit like an outsider. Right.
Speaker 1: Did you you feel quite like an outsider growing up? Oh? Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: I was the only Asian kid in my class, maybe
Speaker 1: one of the only ones my grade, and child of
Speaker 1: immigrants had skipped a grade, so I was extra scrawny
Speaker 1: and small, and I would get mocked for all sorts
Speaker 1: of things, being Asian, most most prominent among them. You know,
Speaker 1: I got called goog and chink and a bunch of
Speaker 1: other things fairly often. You said, I spent a lot
Speaker 1: of my childhood shy, angry and trying to do anything
Speaker 1: possible to avoid being a nerd. Were you in gifted
Speaker 1: education grown up? I was in all of the accelerated
Speaker 1: and advanced classes. Yes, yeah, yeah. And it's not like
Speaker 1: when you were growing up you dreamt of being in politics. Right.
Speaker 1: That wasn't your grandiose dream as a kid, right, like
Speaker 1: I'm gonna run for president someday, Like a lot of
Speaker 1: presents when they were children, I think they dreamt that.
Speaker 1: But that wasn't one of your dreams, was it growing up? No? No,
Speaker 1: My dreams were to be a judge and a secret
Speaker 1: agent and then a business person. So I had a
Speaker 1: few different dreams. And then you've had some fastening jobs
Speaker 1: before you went into politics. You were a night club promoter, right,
Speaker 1: do you tell me attle about Ignition NYC. I was
Speaker 1: a nightclub promoter. So my first startup had just failed.
Speaker 1: I was approximately twenty six twenty seven years old. I
Speaker 1: think it was my twenty seventh birthday where I had
Speaker 1: a birthday party and all these people showed up that
Speaker 1: I did not know, a lot of them were Asian.
Speaker 1: They drank a lot, and so I looked and said,
Speaker 1: you know, I think I could throw a party and
Speaker 1: have a bunch of people show up. That seems like
Speaker 1: it would have some value. So I got a couple
Speaker 1: of business partners and we lined up a venue and
Speaker 1: had a party and was a really good party, I'm
Speaker 1: proud to say. And so at that point the people
Speaker 1: I was with were like, Hey, let's do this again.
Speaker 1: So Ignition NYC was born. We had a mailing list.
Speaker 1: We would just go and throw parties in venues, primarily
Speaker 1: in Tribeca downtown. This was a year or so after
Speaker 1: nine to eleven, and so southern Manhattan was empty ish.
Speaker 1: So if I went to a downtown venue or a
Speaker 1: bar club and said I can bring whatever the number is,
Speaker 1: two hundred three hundred plus people, Can I have the
Speaker 1: venue that night and to share the bar? They would
Speaker 1: say yes, and then it was up to me whether
Speaker 1: I wanted to charge cover. I generally did not, which
Speaker 1: made it a really compelling value for people because then
Speaker 1: you know, they would just show up with their friends
Speaker 1: and have a good party, and we'd make money. Not
Speaker 1: big money, but modest money. Our high point was a
Speaker 1: New Year's Eve party at a lounge called Scopa, which
Speaker 1: no longer exists on Madison Avenue and because of New
Speaker 1: Year's Eve. New Year's even New York City is a
Speaker 1: real time of price gouging, where New Year's Eve parties
Speaker 1: were routinely seventy eighty bucks or more. You got some
Speaker 1: booze out of it, but people were always like, oh
Speaker 1: freaking hate it, and half the time you won't even
Speaker 1: have a good time. So we got a venue scope
Speaker 1: and blew it out. And that was maybe the hype.
Speaker 1: That was the high point of my time as a
Speaker 1: nightclub promoter. That New Year's You party. I love hearing
Speaker 1: about that. So I love hearing about that side of you.
Speaker 1: I love hearing about that, that sort of what would
Speaker 1: you call that side of you? It's not it's I
Speaker 1: don't want to just reduce to the party side, but
Speaker 1: kind of like the bringing people together to have fun side.
Speaker 1: I mean, how would you describe that? It was funny, Scott,
Speaker 1: I was reflecting a little bit of my younger years,
Speaker 1: and after my first startup died, I was a bit wounded,
Speaker 1: and so throwing these parties seemed like a way to
Speaker 1: solve a bunch of problems. It actually was originating. I
Speaker 1: should give credit to a friend of mine who said, hey,
Speaker 1: how do we become cool in our twenties because we
Speaker 1: can't afford a big apartment, which I could not. I
Speaker 1: had a roommate, and so I said, you just throw
Speaker 1: a party, and it's not your apartment, it's in a lounge.
Speaker 1: And so from that I start throwing these parties. But
Speaker 1: I wasn't a really big partier, like I would often
Speaker 1: not even drink at these parties, or maybe I'd nurse
Speaker 1: one drink the whole night, and I would play host
Speaker 1: and troubleshooter and whatnot. So it was a business for me.
Speaker 1: It was a fun business. It was good to be
Speaker 1: able to combine a business in your social life and
Speaker 1: you have something to do and you make people happy.
Speaker 1: And I have to say that throwing events is phenomenal
Speaker 1: training for business generally, because it actually takes a real
Speaker 1: thick skin to plant the flag and say, hey party,
Speaker 1: everyone come, and the fact is of no one comes
Speaker 1: and it sucks. But if everyone comes and it's happy,
Speaker 1: so that there is like a little bit of courage
Speaker 1: and deliverables involved. Where I would look up sometimes be
Speaker 1: a Friday night, and I would talk to my team
Speaker 1: and I'd be like, hey, what was the RSVP list
Speaker 1: looks like and let's say it was light. Let's say
Speaker 1: that you know, like one hundred people at rsvp' and
Speaker 1: you assume only half of them show up. And so
Speaker 1: I looked at that and said, well, that's unacceptable. And
Speaker 1: then I would do a bunch of last minute things
Speaker 1: to try and move the needle and lo and behold.
Speaker 1: When I was running a company years later, I would
Speaker 1: do the same sort of thing. I'd be like, Hey,
Speaker 1: what's going on. Then you'd be like, well, we have
Speaker 1: to do something about this. Or when you run a
Speaker 1: nonprofit it's the same thing. So we're a political campaign
Speaker 1: where you were looking at trying to move people in
Speaker 1: a particular way. Event to expertise and experience is fantastic training.
Speaker 1: So don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If you decide
Speaker 1: to dabble into space, and anyone can do it. The
Speaker 1: costs are so low. Anyone can do it if you
Speaker 1: just have you know, an email list, including a friends
Speaker 1: like it doesn't need to be grandiose. You could get
Speaker 1: ten people together for a barbecue or something like that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I love that space. That's awesome. That's awesome. This is
Speaker 1: something I don't think you talk about that much. So
Speaker 1: it's cool to hear your kind of insane thing. Yeah,
Speaker 1: time is past, man, but it used to be a
Speaker 1: big part of my identity. I was also mostly single
Speaker 1: during these years. That that is relevant information for sure,
Speaker 1: Like I would go home after the party, also single,
Speaker 1: Like it's not like you know there was after the part. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I very much remember that. Well, hopefully not every night,
Speaker 1: but okay, Look, what I really really love about your
Speaker 1: work kind of the global the global sort of thread
Speaker 1: that runs through so much of what you do is
Speaker 1: this kind of human centered aspect to it and want
Speaker 1: to kind of humanize everything, and of course the economy,
Speaker 1: but there are other aspects as well. At what point
Speaker 1: did you decide that you wanted to run for president
Speaker 1: and that and that the humanizing of the economy was
Speaker 1: Was it a really really important issue. I had spent
Speaker 1: six years or so running a nonprofit that i'd started,
Speaker 1: ad Venture for America, and over those years I became
Speaker 1: concerned and convinced that there were big changes of foot
Speaker 1: in the US that were making things worse for a
Speaker 1: lot of people. And because I'd been trained in a
Speaker 1: certain way, my thesis was, look, we just need to
Speaker 1: have our smart people, our human capital, our energy doing
Speaker 1: different things in different places, and all should be well.
Speaker 1: And my thesis was if you get the small army
Speaker 1: of people that are heading to Goldman, Sachs and McKenzie
Speaker 1: and the like, heading to startups in Detroit and New
Speaker 1: Orleans and Saint Louis, then that would fix things. It
Speaker 1: was inspired by a guy named Charlie Crole I met
Speaker 1: who had started a company in Providence, Rhode Island that
Speaker 1: had one hundred twenty employees, and I thought, wow, like that,
Speaker 1: that's what we need. You have innovation in different places
Speaker 1: and one hundred twenty jobs and prominence a big deal.
Speaker 1: All of this. I came to doubt whether my vision
Speaker 1: would work around twenty sixteen, and then Donald Trump became
Speaker 1: president in twenty sixteen, and then I thought, well, someone
Speaker 1: should try and raise the alarm over what I saw
Speaker 1: as progressive transformation and automation of the economy. And I'd
Speaker 1: been around a bunch of our elected representatives over the
Speaker 1: preceding several years, so I was confident no one would
Speaker 1: do anything. And it was foolhardy Scott, but it also
Speaker 1: seemed necessary, and I thought, well, what's the downside? I
Speaker 1: spent three years toiling in obscurity, no one cares. People
Speaker 1: laugh at me, and then I go home like, well
Speaker 1: I tried. I mean I could live with that. But
Speaker 1: then the upside was accelerate the end of poverty and
Speaker 1: improve the human condition, and so I thought, well that's
Speaker 1: a pretty good trade off. Yeah, I say, I'd say
Speaker 1: it was harder than I thought I was going to be.
Speaker 1: I think you probably gathered about that from the book.
Speaker 1: Did you gather that from the book? Oh? Yeah, I did.
Speaker 1: It sounded like a zoo from you know, bringing the
Speaker 1: book sounds like the whole thing you said it was
Speaker 1: like a reality show that needed you to assume a
Speaker 1: role in order to survive. Is that not what you expected? Like?
Speaker 1: Did you like? What did you expect going into it?
Speaker 1: My expectations were that people would be excited about it
Speaker 1: because of the intellectual case I was making. And the
Speaker 1: thing I missed that I probably should have realized was
Speaker 1: that they need a human being to get connected to that.
Speaker 1: You need to try and build that interest in yourself.
Speaker 1: Andrew Yang the human and you saw from the book.
Speaker 1: I originally entitled the Campaign UBI twenty twenty because it
Speaker 1: was just universal based game comment so obvious. Everyone does
Speaker 1: just get this is GA with a thousand bucks a month,
Speaker 1: and it became Yang twenty twenty because my team was
Speaker 1: like UBI twenty twenty, like no one's gonna give a shit,
Speaker 1: and they were correct. Now going into it, I didn't
Speaker 1: think that anyone would care about Andrew Yang either, and
Speaker 1: so that my thought was that if I brought people
Speaker 1: the facts, then they would figure it out. And the
Speaker 1: reality was that facts our secondary or tertiary now in
Speaker 1: American life, and what people care about is characters. And
Speaker 1: so in order for us to contend at all, I
Speaker 1: needed to become a character. Hey, eyan, I'm excited to
Speaker 1: announce that the eight week online Trendscend course is back.
Speaker 1: Become certified in learning the latest science of human potential
Speaker 1: and learn how to live a more fulfilling, meaningful, creative,
Speaker 1: and self actualized life. The course starts on March thirteenth
Speaker 1: and will include more than ten hours of recorded extras,
Speaker 1: four live group q and A sessions with me for
Speaker 1: small group sessions with our world class faculty, a plethora
Speaker 1: of resources and articles to support your learning, and an
Speaker 1: exclusive workbook of growth challenges that will help you overcome
Speaker 1: your deepest fears and grow as a whole person. Some
Speaker 1: personalized self actuisation coaching spots with me available as an
Speaker 1: add on. Save your spot today and get fifty percent
Speaker 1: off the normal price by going to Transcend course dot com.
Speaker 1: Sign up for the early bird today and get fifty
Speaker 1: percent off at transcendcourse dot com. We have so much
Speaker 1: fun in this course and I look forward to welcoming
Speaker 1: you to be a part of the transcender community. Okay,
Speaker 1: now back to the show. I'm truly interested in the
Speaker 1: psychology of that whole experience, and I'm familiar with the
Speaker 1: whole literature of the psychology literature on power and how
Speaker 1: power affects our psychology and our empathy levels. How did
Speaker 1: you kind of start to see your own psychology change
Speaker 1: when you got to the point where people were telling
Speaker 1: you how to dress, how to walk, and everywhere you
Speaker 1: went you were the center of attention at certain point.
Speaker 1: How did that kind of Well you talk a little
Speaker 1: bit ab how it screws with your mind in the book,
Speaker 1: So I'd love to hear a little bit about that.
Speaker 1: My primary struggle, Scott, was that I'm not that extroverted
Speaker 1: a person. And so after a day of campaigning, I
Speaker 1: would just shut down, like a crash test dummy or
Speaker 1: a puppet whose strings have been caught, where I'd just
Speaker 1: be like, oh, I mean. And in the hottest days
Speaker 1: of the presidential I had advanced staff advancing my room,
Speaker 1: so I'd get there and like my you know, toiletries
Speaker 1: would be out or my suitcase, and there'd be some
Speaker 1: stuff like people would try and make it so that
Speaker 1: it was habitable, and all of the things that you'd
Speaker 1: expect a normal person to do when they come back
Speaker 1: their room, which would be get changed, call their family,
Speaker 1: you know, just like behave like a normal person when
Speaker 1: you get home. Some of the time I didn't have
Speaker 1: the energy to do even really basic things, and my
Speaker 1: wife started to understand this about me too. So the
Speaker 1: strain I had was that I felt like I was
Speaker 1: an instrument and I would get up and play, play, play,
Speaker 1: and then get put in my case at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, and then repeat and do it the
Speaker 1: next day. And over time, the problem was that it
Speaker 1: started to really drain me and also make me feel
Speaker 1: not just depleted, but just kind of inhuman, like like
Speaker 1: I was an automaton, and so I would be doing
Speaker 1: all these things to try and prevent myself from feeling
Speaker 1: that way. And it's an interesting tension because if your
Speaker 1: staff then and you're around a person, and so some
Speaker 1: of the people that knew me well started to get
Speaker 1: what makes me tick and we're like, okay, I get it.
Speaker 1: Like if I let Yang wander off and go into
Speaker 1: a random coffee shop and whatnot, that's like a better
Speaker 1: thing to do than being like, hey, hey, next thing.
Speaker 1: Next thing is because like the way you think of
Speaker 1: a productivity on a campaign is output. It's like, if
Speaker 1: Yang has a spare five minutes, then I should try
Speaker 1: and get him to call someone or do this or
Speaker 1: do that, and that that would be productive. But at
Speaker 1: the extreme end that ended up becoming counterproductive because then
Speaker 1: I would just do things worse or or become negative,
Speaker 1: you know. So it was that that kind of struggle.
Speaker 1: I mean, what sort of anxiety management techniques do you have?
Speaker 1: And not just anxiety management, but you seem to have
Speaker 1: this great ability to constantly renew the energy, but you
Speaker 1: do it in an authentic way. And this is something
Speaker 1: I like about you. Every time I talk to you,
Speaker 1: it feels like not like I'm talking to a politician,
Speaker 1: but I'm talking to well, dare I say, a friend,
Speaker 1: you know, or just like a human, but you're also
Speaker 1: you're an authentic Like we started off today, before we
Speaker 1: even started recording, I said like, how are you? And
Speaker 1: You're like, I'm okay. And I was like, wow, what
Speaker 1: a what an honest answer? You know? Like you I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a very subtle thing to just say I'm okay.
Speaker 1: But you know, someone who is trying to put on
Speaker 1: a show and kind of not and be it, you know,
Speaker 1: be something that they're not feeling, would be like I'm great,
Speaker 1: you know, and how are you? You know? And I
Speaker 1: really like your authenticity in that way. So how do
Speaker 1: you balance your authenticity with that feeling or that need
Speaker 1: to keep renewing this kind of interest in people when
Speaker 1: you're talking to someone, when you're talking to people so
Speaker 1: long and over, you know, like you said, you're an interests.
Speaker 1: I totally resonate with that. Well, now it's easier because
Speaker 1: I've got a more sustainable pace or Running for president
Speaker 1: at its height was extraordinarily demanding. On that side, running
Speaker 1: for mayor was extraordinarily demanding in the same way even
Speaker 1: more extreme. Actually running for mayor I found to be harder,
Speaker 1: in part because when you're running for president, there's just
Speaker 1: some natural distance baked in between events where you'd be
Speaker 1: in a rental vehicle for an hour, whereas in a
Speaker 1: place like New York City, you know you could be
Speaker 1: in front of people for a higher percentage of the day.
Speaker 1: So now it's a little easier for me to maintain
Speaker 1: like a healthy level of energy. I try and exercise,
Speaker 1: I try and get outside, I try and do basic things,
Speaker 1: and I also try and remind myself how fortunate I am,
Speaker 1: because you know, I've got a great life. You know,
Speaker 1: I've got a family that has no idea what I'm
Speaker 1: doing most days, which is great. There are people who
Speaker 1: look to me for a sense of positivity or perspective,
Speaker 1: so no, it's it's good. One of the things I
Speaker 1: also remind myself, Scott, is that there will be a
Speaker 1: day at some point, inevitably when no one cares about
Speaker 1: anything I'm doing. So if people care now, then you know,
Speaker 1: I should just be grateful. Thanks for having me on,
Speaker 1: Scott as an example. You're a great guy and a
Speaker 1: great thinker, and you know decide to have me on
Speaker 1: your podcast. It's very nice. Well, thank you so much. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean it goes both ways, the gratefulness aspect to it.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, having a conversation it's no easy
Speaker 1: task kind of conversation of the future of American democracy.
Speaker 1: And so it's sort of like you identify some really
Speaker 1: tangible problems though, which I really do appreciate. One is
Speaker 1: changing the incentive structures. So relating to the presidential campaign,
Speaker 1: you know, you talked about the media incentive structures and
Speaker 1: other incentive structures that may not be getting us to
Speaker 1: be moving in the healthiest direction politically. Can you kind
Speaker 1: of talk a little about what is wrong with some
Speaker 1: of those incentives. Yeah, it's really bad, Scott, and I
Speaker 1: think most people recognize the problem even more now. It's funny,
Speaker 1: as I wrote the book right before January sixth, and
Speaker 1: then January sixth happened, and now people are waking up
Speaker 1: in many ways to the magnitude of the challenge. But
Speaker 1: you have media organizations that very much reinforce your ideological beliefs,
Speaker 1: and so we all know, I mean, on one side
Speaker 1: it's New York Times and MSNBC and The Gang, and
Speaker 1: then on the other side it's Fox and all the
Speaker 1: conservative voices. Then there are folks like you and I
Speaker 1: like to put myself in this camp and that we're
Speaker 1: kind of independent thinkers. You're hyperrational. I like to think
Speaker 1: I'm lucid most of the time. And these things don't
Speaker 1: fit neatly into an ideology called bucket. They don't fit
Speaker 1: into a partisan bucket. So the media landscape right now
Speaker 1: is separating us into warring ideological tribes, and that's getting
Speaker 1: compounded by social media. And by the way, we have
Speaker 1: a two party system, so you have political warfare going
Speaker 1: on in a given day, and so this is going
Speaker 1: to get worse, not better progressively. The dangers are asymmetrical.
Speaker 1: People will say like, hey, you have you know, excesses
Speaker 1: on both sides, which I agree with. But the threat
Speaker 1: of violence very much emanates from the far right and
Speaker 1: people who see violence against the government as almost they're
Speaker 1: not just that like a right or responsibility, but you know,
Speaker 1: like an act of patriotism. So in that context, you're
Speaker 1: unfortunately going to be prone to increasing polarization and worse
Speaker 1: over time. So there are three layers of incentives. I
Speaker 1: like to say number one of the political incentives that
Speaker 1: if you have a job in office, you're keeping your
Speaker 1: job is based on whether you play caiden please the
Speaker 1: ten to fifteen percent most extreme partisans in your party
Speaker 1: in your district. This is even more true now that
Speaker 1: ninety percent or so of seats are safe seats, so
Speaker 1: you're not going to be contested in the general. Then
Speaker 1: you have the media organization's incentives, and then you have
Speaker 1: social media pouring gasoline on the whole thing. So in
Speaker 1: that environment, you can see why we're living in two
Speaker 1: versions of the same country, or really maybe limitless versions
Speaker 1: of the same country, where people have different facts that
Speaker 1: they can turn to. Yeah, yeah, I clearly see the
Speaker 1: problem with the duopoly as it's called. You know, right
Speaker 1: now ten percent of American voters elect essentially eighty three
Speaker 1: percent of the representatives. So does seem like where the
Speaker 1: parties putical candidates have to appease the extremes versus the
Speaker 1: incentives to appease the majority. And you see that as
Speaker 1: a problem, correct, Oh yeah, how could you think that
Speaker 1: it's not a problem. Okay, but some people don't see
Speaker 1: that as a problem, so not everyone, so that those
Speaker 1: are who are that extreme don't see that as a problem.
Speaker 1: And so I'm all about trying to figure out different
Speaker 1: perspective taking and to figure out how we can get
Speaker 1: everyone on board, right, get one hundred percent on board
Speaker 1: with this idea. And those who are in the extreme
Speaker 1: would argue, those who are far left extreme for instance,
Speaker 1: would argue that there are some really really significant changes
Speaker 1: that have to be made. They can only be made
Speaker 1: in a radical sort of way. And the people in
Speaker 1: the far right feel the same exact way as well,
Speaker 1: right about what they're trying to do. So psychologically, how
Speaker 1: can you convince people with that mindset that they can
Speaker 1: have the changes that they want to see in the
Speaker 1: world by being more moderate politically? Do you see what
Speaker 1: I'm saying? Oh? See it? And one of the things
Speaker 1: I do want to say is that I too believe
Speaker 1: that we need very dramatic, fundamental changes. I campaigned on
Speaker 1: one thousand bucks a month forever and to destroy a
Speaker 1: lot of people. It's very dramatic. And so the first
Speaker 1: thing is you have to try to extricate yourself from
Speaker 1: this entire left right spectrum, which is very hard to
Speaker 1: do when you talk about politics. The second thing is
Speaker 1: that to the extent that there are problems in the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, I think they are very different than the
Speaker 1: problems in the Republican Party, whereas in the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: you have a bit of a conflicts or tension between
Speaker 1: what people call the progressives, which are folks who want
Speaker 1: very big changes, many of those changes I'm totally aligned with,
Speaker 1: and then the more quote unquote moderate wing of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, which most people would regard as what Joe
Speaker 1: Biden represented. Coming in on the Republican side is different,
Speaker 1: where the people in the far right are very conservative
Speaker 1: trumpers who have a different take on twenty twenty vote
Speaker 1: totals and a bunch of other things. So I often say,
Speaker 1: look like we're now, we're rewarding the extremes on both sides,
Speaker 1: and then people on the left are like, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: like casting us as the problem isn't correct. The problem
Speaker 1: is the bought and sold, corrupt part of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: and that there are elements of that that like I
Speaker 1: agree with in the sense that like I am for
Speaker 1: some very big goals. The thing that I've concluded, though, Scott,
Speaker 1: is that the model that people have in terms of
Speaker 1: how they think we're going to accomplish any of these
Speaker 1: goals is, in my mind, due for an evolution where
Speaker 1: if you were to start from the far left and
Speaker 1: say my goal is to transform the Democratic Party and
Speaker 1: then pass all these big changes and whatnot. If you
Speaker 1: looked at the numbers, you'd see that that is going
Speaker 1: to be very difficult, maybe impossible in the current constitutional order,
Speaker 1: as certain states let's call them Wyoming or Montana or whomever,
Speaker 1: are very overrepresented in the Senate and in the electoral College.
Speaker 1: And so if you want big, sweeping changes, you're unlikely
Speaker 1: to get them by just, for example, flipping the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party and then making these changes happen. Now, some people
Speaker 1: will then look at it and say, well, then you
Speaker 1: know I'm in a constitution make it so that you know,
Speaker 1: Wyoming doesn't have as many senators California and whatnot. And
Speaker 1: then I respond to that that that is virtually impossible.
Speaker 1: There's no way to make those changes. And so right now,
Speaker 1: if you accept the left right dichotomy, then we're in
Speaker 1: for gridlock, polarization, strife, violence, worse, and arguing from that
Speaker 1: perspective will just drive us all crazy over time, and
Speaker 1: that the real need is to change the political dynamic
Speaker 1: so that you don't have just two sides, you don't
Speaker 1: have sides that are being controlled by the hyperpartisans in
Speaker 1: those parties. If you were to get the average Republican
Speaker 1: voter to sit down and say, how do you feel
Speaker 1: about the drug companies? You want to stick it to
Speaker 1: them and be like yeah, you know, Like the problem
Speaker 1: right now is that that's not the true nature of
Speaker 1: the choice. You know, that person's interests aren't being reflected
Speaker 1: by what the representative is going to do. So that
Speaker 1: that's the set of changes you need to make. That
Speaker 1: the duopoly itself is actually very much designed for stasis
Speaker 1: and in action and dysfunction and polarization. So with that
Speaker 1: as your understanding, then you think, Okay, the real problem
Speaker 1: is the nature of these institutions. Can you change them
Speaker 1: so that they're more genuinely representative? Can In my ideal
Speaker 1: world right now we would have five political parties. And
Speaker 1: if you had that, then someone like Trump running would
Speaker 1: not be as much of an existential threat as it,
Speaker 1: in my opinion is for democracy, And would the chances
Speaker 1: of having something like universal basic income pass then go
Speaker 1: way up? In my opinion, Yes, So, so that that's
Speaker 1: what I'm focused on right now with the Forward Party.
Speaker 1: That was a bit long winded, Sorry about that, Scott, Well,
Speaker 1: not at all no, no, no no. I love that response.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm all for this idea, but I also
Speaker 1: like to look at it, as you understand, from the
Speaker 1: perspective of even even the minority majority. They're the minority, madarty,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, right, like the extreme minority,
Speaker 1: but they're actually have the most power in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways in our political system. Well right right now,
Speaker 1: a lot of people Scott have what I call negative power,
Speaker 1: which is interesting, which is I can't do anything, but
Speaker 1: I can keep you from doing anything, which then drives
Speaker 1: everyone crazy. Francis Fukuyama called it the vitocracy, like we
Speaker 1: live in a vitocracy now. And the separation too, is
Speaker 1: that if you have a campaid who runs on big
Speaker 1: promises and then they get there and be like, well,
Speaker 1: can't do any of these things, then people get very frustrated.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah, well I'm going to quote you here.
Speaker 1: You say, the Dwopoli is going to kill us. The
Speaker 1: two sides of the Dwopoli don't really care about getting
Speaker 1: it right. They just care about eking out the next win.
Speaker 1: And you know, even what I said right there in
Speaker 1: that book, I might not even have been right there,
Speaker 1: and that sometimes they don't even care about eating out
Speaker 1: the next win for sure, for sure. But the getting
Speaker 1: it right part, so in your eyes, is getting it right?
Speaker 1: Is that being aligned with the truth, is that that's
Speaker 1: a whole buffet of things right, the getting it right
Speaker 1: part right? Can you unpack that a little bit more
Speaker 1: for me? And this is one reason why we should
Speaker 1: be so concerned, Scott, is getting it right would be
Speaker 1: improving people's way of life. Getting it right would be
Speaker 1: longer life spans, better educational outcomes, more job satisfaction, better
Speaker 1: drinking water and clear air, like you know, you name
Speaker 1: a bunch of things and be like, yeah, that that's
Speaker 1: pretty good, better mental health. But right now, no one
Speaker 1: actually is rewarded for improving any of those things. It's irrelevant.
Speaker 1: They're politically irrelevant. And that has to be the change
Speaker 1: in the transformation. You can see it now with this
Speaker 1: child tax credit, which I'm very pro it lifted several
Speaker 1: million American kids out of poverty, which I think most
Speaker 1: peop would agree is a good thing. Its future is
Speaker 1: now in jeopardy. And you look at that and say, well,
Speaker 1: if four hundred and forty two economists say we should
Speaker 1: continue this forever, what is the hold up, and you
Speaker 1: know it's right now in jeopardy because of the deadlock
Speaker 1: in Congress, So that to me would be getting it right.
Speaker 1: Is that if you hit on a policy that actually
Speaker 1: delivers value for the American people, then we should lean
Speaker 1: into that. And right now we don't have a sense
Speaker 1: as to what policies are good or bad, because even
Speaker 1: our view of reality has become partisan. Very true, one
Speaker 1: of my favorite psychologist, Abraham as well as you know
Speaker 1: he's one of their psychologists, he said, we need a
Speaker 1: society where virtue pays. And one of your principles of
Speaker 1: the Forward Party is grace intolerance. Loved that, by the way,
Speaker 1: I loved it, and wondering how in the world can
Speaker 1: we change the incentive structure of political campaigning so that
Speaker 1: grace intolerance pays politically. The biggest change we can make
Speaker 1: would be to shift to non parties and open primaries
Speaker 1: and ranked choice voting, so that if I was like
Speaker 1: a forgiving sort, I was graceful and tolerant, then maybe
Speaker 1: there'd be a subset of people that became very you know,
Speaker 1: enamored with a particular candidate who's a little bit more
Speaker 1: of a bomb thrower or whatnot. But that person didn't
Speaker 1: enjoy majority appeal. And if you had a ranked choice
Speaker 1: voting system, then the person who gets fifty one percent
Speaker 1: of people to say yeah, I'm cool with that person
Speaker 1: would then win. You would reward positive campaigning and punish
Speaker 1: negative care painting to a higher degree. So a lot
Speaker 1: of it is in the process itself. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans want more grace intolerance. The problem is
Speaker 1: it's now rewarded politically or in the media or via
Speaker 1: social media right now with the incentives as they stand,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. That's for sure. I mean that's all
Speaker 1: tied together with the being rewarded for the extremity and
Speaker 1: the vitriol. I mean, I know that I'll probably get
Speaker 1: more likes if I say something incredibly divisive. My tweets
Speaker 1: that say like look, everyone, we just need more love
Speaker 1: don't get as many likes. That's when I say something
Speaker 1: that's like everyone can kind of take a stand on,
Speaker 1: oh give me something. They got rewarded a lot. Scott,
Speaker 1: what did you say that? It's like, oh, that one
Speaker 1: hit the chord. Hey, you know what, Actually, I almost
Speaker 1: want to take back when I said, because I did
Speaker 1: have this tweet where I were very much aligned in
Speaker 1: what you're talking about. That did do pretty well. It said, oh,
Speaker 1: of course, I can't find it right now, but said
Speaker 1: we need a society basically where instead of everyone fighting
Speaker 1: everyone coming from their ideas, from their own ideologies, we
Speaker 1: all have a shared commitment to the truth and we
Speaker 1: were like committed to the same shared reality. Now, that
Speaker 1: did very well. It's interesting because you can have some
Speaker 1: of these kinds of statements that can it feels like
Speaker 1: it can unite people from very different camps before you
Speaker 1: start getting to the specifics of it. But I like
Speaker 1: these kind of general statements where you can get on
Speaker 1: board people who would normally not talk to each other
Speaker 1: and then kind of get at least get them in
Speaker 1: the same room they're all in, like scottbrig Golvin's with
Speaker 1: our page, for instance, and then we can be like, okay,
Speaker 1: now let's like kind of talk specifics. So I do
Speaker 1: notice there are some real grace love kind of truth
Speaker 1: seeking tweets that do well, but they kind of do
Speaker 1: well for individuals for different reasons. Does that make sense?
Speaker 1: It doesn't. And Scott, I love that message. What it
Speaker 1: made me think of is this conservative statement that I
Speaker 1: see often is the fact that don't care about your feelings.
Speaker 1: And it's funny that that's a sertive sentiment because it's
Speaker 1: something that I actually can get behind. In large part,
Speaker 1: it's like, yeah, that you know some things are factual.
Speaker 1: Bill Maher just put out a video about how Democrats
Speaker 1: wildly overestimate the chances of being hospitalized if you contract COVID.
Speaker 1: I think seventy percent of Democrats had it at twenty
Speaker 1: percent or higher. If you get COVID you go to
Speaker 1: the hospital, which, by the way, I mean that would
Speaker 1: be a horrifyingly high level. I mean the real number
Speaker 1: is like one to five percent. And so one of
Speaker 1: the issues we're having is that when you talk about
Speaker 1: various facts, they have become politicized in various ways, and
Speaker 1: then if you question it, then you're questioning a team
Speaker 1: or a tribe. So I couldn't agree more with your
Speaker 1: sentiment that we have to settle on a few facts
Speaker 1: and a certain objective view of the world the extent
Speaker 1: we can measure it and say, Okay, these are the baselines,
Speaker 1: let's agree on them, and then let's go from there.
Speaker 1: That's actually the essence of the message of the forward
Speaker 1: party is that, Look, just give me your baseline, give
Speaker 1: me what you want to achieve, and then let's compete
Speaker 1: on that. But no one really is competing on policy anymore.
Speaker 1: I talk to a guy today who's one of my
Speaker 1: new heroes. I'd like and admire you a lot, Scott,
Speaker 1: I like and admire this. This gentleman named Jason Saul.
Speaker 1: He started something called the Impact Genome Project and I
Speaker 1: think it's incomegenome dot org. But what he does is
Speaker 1: he says, look, instead of buying activities, we should buy outcomes.
Speaker 1: So if I'm a foundation and I want a thousand
Speaker 1: kids to learn better, I just say I want a
Speaker 1: thousand kids to learn better. And then organizations then bid
Speaker 1: on that and say, like, you know, like what's that
Speaker 1: You're gonna give me a thousand bucks a kid Like
Speaker 1: I can do that, give me a million dollars. I
Speaker 1: can do that, and then they audit it, and you
Speaker 1: can then have organizations that can deliver results then get
Speaker 1: the resources to do that. And Ja previously had worked
Speaker 1: in government, and he said that the government is often
Speaker 1: doing none of this. Foundations struggle with it. Where a
Speaker 1: government will put millions of dollars into a program, Did
Speaker 1: the program deliver results? Unclear, like no one really knows,
Speaker 1: like the money got spent anyway. And then by the
Speaker 1: time that happens, then the government has its own interest
Speaker 1: in saying, well, of course it worked because by the
Speaker 1: way we spent the money and you know, I proved
Speaker 1: it and the rest of it, so that there's like
Speaker 1: a you know, a circularity. So what Jason's trying to
Speaker 1: do is say, look like, let's just try and figure
Speaker 1: out what the results you want are and then we
Speaker 1: can have a nonprofit deliver it maybe, or the government maybe,
Speaker 1: or a company maybe. And I love this approach because
Speaker 1: it lines up with this fact based governance governance that
Speaker 1: you want, you know, and now, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: one of the problems is that your political incentives are
Speaker 1: not around this version of efficiency. And it's one of
Speaker 1: the frustrations we have is that you can tell your
Speaker 1: money into dysfunctional bureaucracies and systems, you don't get results
Speaker 1: and then you get mad. Or then the Republican attitude
Speaker 1: is like cut it, cut it, cut it, and you're like, well,
Speaker 1: that's not really what I want. And then Democrats are like,
Speaker 1: you know, like to attack it is to attack you know,
Speaker 1: democracy itself or or something, and you could be like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I can want these outcomes. It turns out
Speaker 1: that Democrats and Republicans all want the same outcomes, you know,
Speaker 1: in slightly different orders. But those outcomes are jobs, schools, healthcare,
Speaker 1: public safety, slash, low crime, decent environment, and like those
Speaker 1: are the big ones. Now they get reshuffled a little
Speaker 1: bit if you're talking to Democrats or Republicans, but they're
Speaker 1: essentially the same, you know, they just have a couple
Speaker 1: of positions flipped. So if you could actually get to
Speaker 1: a point where you're competing on who's delivering on these things,
Speaker 1: that would be the game changer. But that's a very
Speaker 1: very long distance from where we are now. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I love but I love that idea. So you started
Speaker 1: kind of going through like Maslow's hierarchy of needs there
Speaker 1: about the kind of needs that all humans want. And
Speaker 1: I've never heard anyone say that Republicans only want this
Speaker 1: subset of Maslow's needs and Democrats only want this subset
Speaker 1: of maslow needs. You know, I would add to the
Speaker 1: list of the things you mentioned, like connections, like personal connections,
Speaker 1: like relationships, people that care about you, some sort of
Speaker 1: level of self esteem or some sort of healthy sense
Speaker 1: that you're reaching your goals. And a lot of those
Speaker 1: lower needs that you just mentioned are absolutely essential for
Speaker 1: being able to reach higher needs of self actualization. For sure.
Speaker 1: What I loved about one of the things I love
Speaker 1: about your book is you have this whole section new
Speaker 1: measure for a New Economy, And I was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you should see my notes in this. Yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: because what gets measured gets counted or counts in some ways. Right,
Speaker 1: So if you say we're actually going to track pre
Speaker 1: and post test and interventions and political because when people
Speaker 1: are politicians are on the campaign trail, they say all
Speaker 1: sorts of things and no one holds them accountable for
Speaker 1: those things, right in a fact based way, in like
Speaker 1: a like like who's like, how come? How come when
Speaker 1: people get elected to office, the first thing they hire
Speaker 1: isn't like a like a data scientist who like keeps
Speaker 1: them honest and tracks them starting from day one today
Speaker 1: to make sure that there are like all these measures
Speaker 1: are are statistically and significantly statistically significantly growing and practically
Speaker 1: growing with high effects sizes. How come we don't we
Speaker 1: don't put the mouth where the you know, put the
Speaker 1: money where the mouth is there. Well, I confess I
Speaker 1: run for office and a data scientist was not the
Speaker 1: first person we hired. Is that like a two nerdy
Speaker 1: to nerdy of a suggestion. No, I mean we eventually
Speaker 1: hired one of the presidential for sure, but in the
Speaker 1: beginning you don't necessarily have the resource or the data,
Speaker 1: but you get there. Certainly for governments you would want one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I see the the need for more effective use
Speaker 1: of data at the public level for sure, like we
Speaker 1: should be hiring squadrons of data scientists at the municipal level.
Speaker 1: M And so, you know, one thing that the people
Speaker 1: in the FO pop psychology have argued about is instead
Speaker 1: of looking at economic outcomes around the world, to look
Speaker 1: at life satisfaction outcomes. So that's that's one big call,
Speaker 1: you know, within the within the field of posycology. And
Speaker 1: I went to like a UN meeting about that where
Speaker 1: they released a report to them where some countries are
Speaker 1: actually significantly changing those metrics and of what matters you know,
Speaker 1: and what they're kind of counting. What are some what
Speaker 1: are some of the major sort of new measures you
Speaker 1: think we could implement that that would really help with
Speaker 1: well being and psychological health in America, freedom from addiction
Speaker 1: would be very high sense of public optimism. Right now,
Speaker 1: the American dream is dying. People feel like their kids
Speaker 1: have worse futures than they did, and in that environment,
Speaker 1: some very very terrible things will happen. Sad, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I feel like you just said. I feel like you
Speaker 1: just said that. I want to cry. That's like, so,
Speaker 1: sad is dying? Scott? Do you do you have kids yourself?
Speaker 1: Not yet? I didn't think so. So you know, it's
Speaker 1: why didn't you think so? Well? I mean I remember
Speaker 1: from a previous conversation, I thank Scott, Scott, is you know,
Speaker 1: become a dad yet? Yeah? It was not an is
Speaker 1: not not a knock God your I'm joking. I know,
Speaker 1: I'm joking. Yeah, I'm sure in future father. So as
Speaker 1: as a parent, I mean, you you look and you
Speaker 1: see your kids and you kind of know that they're
Speaker 1: coming into a rock your world, and my kids will
Speaker 1: have a lot of advantages that a lot of kids,
Speaker 1: other kids won't. I mean, you saw in my last book,
Speaker 1: I talked about how forty percent plus of American kids
Speaker 1: are born to single moms and other numbers where like
Speaker 1: you can just sense that there are all of these
Speaker 1: struggles baked in. A lot of kids don't really have
Speaker 1: a meaningful shot. In the old days, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: you don't need a college education to live a good life,
Speaker 1: but it's become increasingly difficult for folks who are the
Speaker 1: lower end of the educational spectrum. And so you know,
Speaker 1: like that these are realities for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: A lot of this stuff opened my eyes when I
Speaker 1: was traveling the country as the CEO of Venture for America,
Speaker 1: because I went to Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama, Ohio, Michigan, like
Speaker 1: a bunch of plays I hadn't spent much time in before, frankly,
Speaker 1: and when you're get in these environments, you're like, oh, like,
Speaker 1: I'm starting to get a better sense of it. And
Speaker 1: you know, so when Trump won in sixteen, I saw
Speaker 1: it as like a cry for help really in many ways. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: A lot of people have a thankfully noticed that, but
Speaker 1: not enough. And I do. I do agree that a
Speaker 1: big part of the problem is the polarization of cable news.
Speaker 1: It's just it's nice to see you every now and
Speaker 1: then when I turn on CNN, I see you. Commentary
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, that's good. I'm glad they got they
Speaker 1: got him on there. But it does feel like there's
Speaker 1: two different you know, when I flip through CNN and
Speaker 1: Fox News, I feel like I'm watching two completely different
Speaker 1: humans set, you know, with like worldviews and belief systems.
Speaker 1: And you know what's wild, Scott is, I've now been
Speaker 1: on all the networks and there's really like a different
Speaker 1: energy or vibe, you know, like when you talk about
Speaker 1: like different even I feel like I'm visiting parallel dimensions,
Speaker 1: like I'm in like the Fox universe and then you know,
Speaker 1: I'm in like the CNN universe and like it is
Speaker 1: a little wild, and then even I see myself on
Speaker 1: the clips and like there's kind of a different vibe.
Speaker 1: But it's also like it's like the same person Andrew
Speaker 1: Yang with like Fox TIRN and then like Ceing in Cairo.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like it's different. It's kind of interesting. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that there's a broader point there about there's
Speaker 1: different vibes with different subcommunities. So I don't get a
Speaker 1: politician vibe from you, and I hope that you take
Speaker 1: that as a compliment. I feel like I can present
Speaker 1: you with data, I can we can talk through the
Speaker 1: implications of certain facts and think through various policies, and
Speaker 1: that you're not necessarily leading from an ideology that you're
Speaker 1: committed to no matter what. So that's kind of a
Speaker 1: different vibe. And again I mean that in oh, I
Speaker 1: take it as a compliment, a high compliment from you, Scott.
Speaker 1: You know, so much of politics seems to be about
Speaker 1: appealing to voters selfish instincts or or most immediate needs
Speaker 1: is probably a better way of putting it than selfish
Speaker 1: most immediate needs. How in the world can we change
Speaker 1: the incentive structure so we can get people caring about
Speaker 1: deep existential risks that are so far in the future.
Speaker 1: So there's two things. One is, how do we get
Speaker 1: people to care about other people as much as they
Speaker 1: care about their own needs, you know, like making decisions
Speaker 1: and choices that may not necessarily affect their own satisfaction needs,
Speaker 1: but will help those who are really needy. And then
Speaker 1: the second is, how can we care about future gender
Speaker 1: people that we've never been met, that they aren't even
Speaker 1: alive yet, you know, like saving the planets, Let's look
Speaker 1: out for them. So I have some encouragement on this,
Speaker 1: which isn't right now. It's not that people are self
Speaker 1: serving on a policy level right now, they're indulgent on
Speaker 1: a tribal level, where it could because they're going to
Speaker 1: be inflamed in that way. So you have the different
Speaker 1: media channels trying to ginu up and get you super
Speaker 1: mad about the outage on the other side. And so
Speaker 1: when you talk about the immediate need that's being met,
Speaker 1: it's really an emotional need or a tribal need, or
Speaker 1: a sense of belonging. And so our challenge then is
Speaker 1: to build a tribe that cares about long term existential problems,
Speaker 1: that cares about the well being of the general public,
Speaker 1: that cares about solving problems in a meaningful and measurable way.
Speaker 1: And one reason I'm excited to have this conversation with
Speaker 1: you is I have a feeling that just about everyone
Speaker 1: that listens to you naturally kind of hearkens toward that tribe.
Speaker 1: And you don't need fifty one percent of Americans to
Speaker 1: be part of that tribe. I'm saying you need ten percent.
Speaker 1: And I actually have a feeling that if you built
Speaker 1: a really strong five percent, you'd be in great shape.
Speaker 1: So that's so One of the insights from my book
Speaker 1: that I've taken probably too much to heart is that
Speaker 1: politics is tribal, and so when you are trying to
Speaker 1: create a new dynamic, then what you're doing is you're
Speaker 1: raising a banner and saying, hey, I've got a new tribe.
Speaker 1: It's the forward tribe. And we're graceful and tolerant, and
Speaker 1: we like facts and we want to measure things, and
Speaker 1: we think tribalism is going to destroy us all. We
Speaker 1: think that it's the underlying system and that if you
Speaker 1: engage in this back and forth battle, no one's going
Speaker 1: to win, and it's going to make us all insane,
Speaker 1: and let's have intelligent conversations and maybe we can start
Speaker 1: a channel around that. So so that's the tribe. Man.
Speaker 1: That's one reason why I'm joyful to be here with you,
Speaker 1: because I feel like you're one of the chieftains of
Speaker 1: this tribe without even knowing it. You know, it's like
Speaker 1: you know, you just you're just Scott. You you know,
Speaker 1: do the best work that you can every day. But
Speaker 1: that that is the hope I would give you, which
Speaker 1: is that if this stuff is all tribal, which it is,
Speaker 1: can we create our own tribe of people who are
Speaker 1: looking out into the horizon. I love that, you know,
Speaker 1: because we are tribal humans. And I think that those
Speaker 1: who claim that, you know, there are people that are like,
Speaker 1: I'm not in any tribe. I'm I'm a political you know,
Speaker 1: I think are fooling them, deceiving themselves. I don't hate it,
Speaker 1: but it is funny Scott, where it's like, we have
Speaker 1: to build a tribe of non joiners because of the
Speaker 1: people who, let let's describe someone who's hyper rational. If
Speaker 1: you're hyper rational, it is irrational to get involved in politics.
Speaker 1: You know, like let that sink in for just a
Speaker 1: moment where it's like, let's see I get involved, fifty
Speaker 1: percent of people will throw rocks at me. The odds
Speaker 1: of my actually pushing through one of these big changes
Speaker 1: like a little bit on the lowesst side. You know,
Speaker 1: I could invest my time in a new book and
Speaker 1: like the latest show and like, you know, like anything
Speaker 1: might spark joy. And then if someone starts talking politics
Speaker 1: to me, I can just like recede and being like
Speaker 1: you do you and you know, like I will like
Speaker 1: what I just described is a perfectly rational approach. And
Speaker 1: so the challenge for one, and I'm proud that I
Speaker 1: played a role in this so at least some people
Speaker 1: is to say, look, you're being rational, thumbs up, It's awesome.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of us, so we can become
Speaker 1: the tribe of rationality. And then when someone makes the
Speaker 1: tribal appeal, you can be like, you know what, I
Speaker 1: understand why you're so animated about that, but you know,
Speaker 1: like let's talk through, like you know what we could
Speaker 1: actually do to like improve that problem, Like you know,
Speaker 1: and if you want to vilify that entire crew of
Speaker 1: tens of millions of people, it's like, well, I'm sure
Speaker 1: there are some excellent people within any group of tens
Speaker 1: of millions of humans. No, I hear it. I totally
Speaker 1: hear brother. Let's just think this through for a second, though,
Speaker 1: because I think that I take maybe a little bit
Speaker 1: different view in that I'm all about finding a universalism
Speaker 1: tribe that includes as many people as possibleunder it, I
Speaker 1: would almost prefer the rationality tribe seems too limiting to me.
Speaker 1: I would I would prefer like a humanistic tribe, or
Speaker 1: like some sort of tribe where everyone rallies around. How
Speaker 1: can we help everyone in the society have fulfilled the
Speaker 1: same basic needs that we all care about as humans,
Speaker 1: sort of like a there are just certain human basic
Speaker 1: things that we all can rally around, because with the
Speaker 1: rationality one, you're going to have so much of society
Speaker 1: not rallying around that. I'm saying, Oh, those those academic elites,
Speaker 1: you know, thinking smart, they probably think I'm stupid, you know,
Speaker 1: And that doesn't as long as you don't think anyone
Speaker 1: is stupid, which I happen not to, like I think,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, but I do. But but
Speaker 1: you're a humanistic tribe too, You're in that tribe too,
Speaker 1: like that exactly, Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's one
Speaker 1: of the that's one of the things too that I
Speaker 1: was so proud of Scott on the presidential campaign where
Speaker 1: we attracted people that weren't political and weren't we're from
Speaker 1: every point in the socio economic spectrum. And I think
Speaker 1: it's because of the vibe. Like a lot of very
Speaker 1: regular people saw Yang and we're like, I think he's
Speaker 1: a regular person and he does not seem to look
Speaker 1: down or talk down to me or anyone. And I
Speaker 1: like it. I'm into it, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: Like I remember one thing that actually really did irk
Speaker 1: me is that when I was on the Democratic debate stage,
Speaker 1: they asked like, hey, have you made a friend that
Speaker 1: you would be surprising? And I said, well, I've made
Speaker 1: friends with this truck driver supported Trump, but now he's
Speaker 1: supporting me. And then the press was like, that's impossible,
Speaker 1: that's like a made up political thing, and then they
Speaker 1: had to find him and he was like, it's true.
Speaker 1: He was like this the rest of it, because because
Speaker 1: in many ways the media wants to divide us into
Speaker 1: these like weird camps, and it's like, hey, like, no way,
Speaker 1: the educated Asian dude could be friends with a Trump
Speaker 1: supporting truck driver. It's like, I actually really like Fred.
Speaker 1: He's like a good dude. And you know, like, I'm
Speaker 1: sure if you lined up, frankly like a hunter Trump
Speaker 1: supporting truck drivers, I probably like more than one of them.
Speaker 1: It's so true. It's so true. I think like likability
Speaker 1: is underrated and the need to the need to divide
Speaker 1: is overrated, you know, because you know, some people say
Speaker 1: to me things like you're too nice, Scott, like you
Speaker 1: should like you. This person believes in this you should
Speaker 1: just be mean to them, And it's like I don't know,
Speaker 1: Like I feel like I could go to I could
Speaker 1: go to a Trump rally. I'm pretty convinced that if
Speaker 1: I went to one, I would make a lot of
Speaker 1: friends there without before even talking about politics at all,
Speaker 1: you know, just like like, hey, what are you all
Speaker 1: up to this weekend? Just treating just talking human to
Speaker 1: human right, And I think that there's something to be said.
Speaker 1: I'm going to stand by this, either something to be
Speaker 1: said by leading with what am I trying to lead with?
Speaker 1: Leading with grace and inclusion, eating with like the universal
Speaker 1: human attributes that we all share in common, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. Yeah, it's a lot of it is
Speaker 1: the media, man. I mean like, if you take the
Speaker 1: media out of the equation, would be in better shape. Agreed,
Speaker 1: Absolutely agreed. So why should we tax robots because they
Speaker 1: can't vote? No, I'm just kidding, because they're gonna do
Speaker 1: more and more work and if we don't capture some
Speaker 1: of that value, then we're gonna be a trouble. We're
Speaker 1: entering a very strange economic zone anyway right now. Man,
Speaker 1: I mean people talk about this, but yeah, taxiing robot
Speaker 1: would help a lot. And AI, Yeah, you can throw
Speaker 1: AI you can in their robots tax them too, Yang
Speaker 1: the Ai. Yang's cool with Ai, but we should really
Speaker 1: tax it. I have one of my I don't tell
Speaker 1: many people. That's one of my majors undergraduate degrees is
Speaker 1: in human computer interaction at the card Gmail and the
Speaker 1: human computer interaction computers. That's pretty nerdy, Scott, Yeah, I know,
Speaker 1: it's pretty nice. Why I don't tell too many people.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's great potential. There is also, you know,
Speaker 1: good and bad potential for how that can all turn out.
Speaker 1: So I really do like the idea of taxing that.
Speaker 1: And I like how you've pointed out throughout your whole campaign,
Speaker 1: for all your campaigns, the psychological effects of automatization and
Speaker 1: for a lot of people that's starting to feel useless
Speaker 1: in society. I mean the need to matter, man, that
Speaker 1: is that's the big one, right. How do we get
Speaker 1: everyone in the society feeling a need that that need
Speaker 1: is fulfilled? Yes, the need to matter, the need to
Speaker 1: be valued. So I'm gonna run something byu you real quick, Scotts.
Speaker 1: I had a conversation with Zach, my colleague, about this,
Speaker 1: and when you talk about the failure of mattering, there's
Speaker 1: like a phenomenon right now that I was trying to
Speaker 1: rest when I ran for president, and I talk about
Speaker 1: my last book that a lot of communities have gone
Speaker 1: blasted away economically, and a lot of them are rural
Speaker 1: and white, and so there's like a loss of meeting
Speaker 1: and purpose and they feel undervalued, and then Trump comes
Speaker 1: engines them up. And then on the other side you
Speaker 1: have like a like a bit of a lack of sympathy,
Speaker 1: shall I say. And you know the Democrats, they tend
Speaker 1: to be in more educated, prosperous, urban, densely populated zones,
Speaker 1: and so that this challenge of having people find meaning,
Speaker 1: I think is the fundamental one. And then you have
Speaker 1: more and more people losing that sense of hope and
Speaker 1: optimism and fulfillment and feeling like you're in a world
Speaker 1: where you matter, and then some very very awful things
Speaker 1: can transpire pretty quickly. I completely agree, so in many
Speaker 1: ways that the road has to be about a restoration
Speaker 1: of meaning. Now, I mean is that something a government
Speaker 1: can provide. I mean, it's debatable. The government, I think
Speaker 1: can help, but the challenges run very very deep. I mean,
Speaker 1: even just having leaders and politicians that through their rhetoric
Speaker 1: inspires and unites is really underrated. Just that you know,
Speaker 1: even if like these things don't even turn into real
Speaker 1: policy changes, I mean that would of course be wonderful
Speaker 1: and nice. But so much of hope is practical and
Speaker 1: we need to make those policy changes, but a lot
Speaker 1: of it is psychological, and I just think there needs
Speaker 1: to be more of that messaging among politicians, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean? Yeah, oh you know, I do know.
Speaker 1: And that is the level. That's the level we have
Speaker 1: to get to, my friend, like the personal psychological level.
Speaker 1: This is something that occasionally people turn to me for
Speaker 1: and it's something that I have not delved in do
Speaker 1: or focused on. I mean, I've gone through some things
Speaker 1: and done some work myself, but a lot of the
Speaker 1: solutions that I advocate are very macro, like I'm not
Speaker 1: really like you know what I mean. I have some
Speaker 1: basic things that I do that I'm like, hey, make
Speaker 1: a list of things you're grateful for, get outside, do
Speaker 1: some exercise, call your mom, like you know, like I
Speaker 1: do say things like that an awful lot, which by
Speaker 1: the way, I totally endorse, and I do those things.
Speaker 1: But anyway, like you know, I had dinner with Marian
Speaker 1: Williamson the other night, and now she's like elevated at
Speaker 1: this self development. You know what I mean. She's a
Speaker 1: self help grow which makes sense. And one of our
Speaker 1: proposals was like, hey, the country could kind of use
Speaker 1: a self help help grow right now. And I don't disagree.
Speaker 1: I'm like, yeah, Mary Hanna, they could use you a
Speaker 1: science based self help guru. Though you know something that's
Speaker 1: I'm into it. I'm into it. Yeah. So you've already
Speaker 1: talked an extensive in other areas and venues about your
Speaker 1: human centered capitalism, that humanity is more important than money,
Speaker 1: that the unit of economy is each person nights dollar,
Speaker 1: and that markets exist a server common goals and interests.
Speaker 1: Love it. I was curious, how come in your six
Speaker 1: principles of the Forward Party you didn't add like if
Speaker 1: you ever add a number seven when you think about
Speaker 1: adding human centered education? How come education kind of gets
Speaker 1: left off in a lot of these kinds of party
Speaker 1: principal initiatives. I'm into human centered education. I love what
Speaker 1: you're about. I know this is what you do, and
Speaker 1: I mean it heart It's heartbreaking what's happening in schools
Speaker 1: around the country right now. You know. I mean, you
Speaker 1: lived a version of a failing education system. We've got
Speaker 1: a lot of kids right now, they're getting traumatized, and yeah,
Speaker 1: I would love to deinstitutionalize it and humanize it. Do
Speaker 1: you think what do you see of the role of
Speaker 1: the government in doing that or do you think it's
Speaker 1: more up to individual states and individual Yeah, like what
Speaker 1: do you think about like that that toggle between governmental
Speaker 1: versus state role in education. I would like to see
Speaker 1: the resources that are heading to schools be channel more effectively.
Speaker 1: The most impressive schools I've been a part of really
Speaker 1: had a strong culture and leadership. Some of them were
Speaker 1: based in communities and whatnot. I think it's very hard
Speaker 1: to legislate that culture, you know what I mean? And
Speaker 1: we should be trying to reward measurements like if a
Speaker 1: school's producing, then you get behind it and you know,
Speaker 1: you rev it up put resources to work because they
Speaker 1: have a culture and a leadership and a bunch of
Speaker 1: other things that are working. A good school should be
Speaker 1: treated like magic, be like how do we you know,
Speaker 1: expand the magic that reminds me of my just I
Speaker 1: don't know if you ever met Andrew Mangino at the
Speaker 1: Future Project I don't know anything. Anyway, he likes to
Speaker 1: put the magic into the education systems. That just made
Speaker 1: me think of that, and I hope you meet him
Speaker 1: some day. But anyway, I'm going to leave today on
Speaker 1: two quotes of yours that I'm hoping just inspires everyone
Speaker 1: listening to this podcast, regardless of your political party. Our
Speaker 1: institutions are hanging by a thread. The challenge is to
Speaker 1: rebuild them as quickly as possible, to address the true
Speaker 1: needs of our time. If we actually want to rise
Speaker 1: to this challenge, we have no time to waste. Let's
Speaker 1: solve the real problems together. No one else is coming,
Speaker 1: There is no cavalry. It's only us. Let's move this
Speaker 1: country of ours, the one we love, and we'll leave
Speaker 1: to our children forward. Man, I can't thank you enough
Speaker 1: Andrew for being on my podcast. But just for the
Speaker 1: energy and the goodness and goodwill and honesty and truth
Speaker 1: and integrity and grace that you put into this world.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Andrew. Thank you, Scott proudly consider
Speaker 1: you a friend. And yeah, like, let's take your vision,
Speaker 1: make it a reality as quickly as we can while
Speaker 1: we have this time. Man, before your kids arrive, get
Speaker 1: it done. It might be some time though, but thank
Speaker 1: you thanks for listening to this episode of the Psychology Podcast.
Speaker 1: If you'd like to react in some way to something
Speaker 1: you heard, I encourage you to join in the discussion
Speaker 1: at thusycology podcast dot com or on our YouTube page
Speaker 1: thus Ecology Podcast. We also put up some videos of
Speaker 1: some episodes on our YouTube page as well, so you'll
Speaker 1: want to check that out. Thanks for being such a
Speaker 1: great supporter of the show, and tune in next time
Speaker 1: for more on the mind, brain, behavior, and creativity.