Speaker 1: Yeah. You enter a crowded elevator, you walk down the street,
Speaker 1: or you navigate a busy airport, passing by a blur
Speaker 1: of faces, sometimes hundreds and mere seconds. You scan the crowd,
Speaker 1: and the subconscious borders go up, pushing against the tide
Speaker 1: of humanity. You might see traces of anxiety, anger, or sadness,
Speaker 1: but you blot out these recognitions. You have your own
Speaker 1: emotions to deal with, You have places to go. You
Speaker 1: are you and they are they. If you could scan
Speaker 1: the contours of your life, all the places where people intersect,
Speaker 1: whether you know them or not, who or what would
Speaker 1: be outside of your empathetic borders and why? This is
Speaker 1: the stuff of life? And I'm your host Julie Douglas.
Speaker 1: In this episode, we look at how to grow empathy
Speaker 1: through simple acts like reading fiction. You get involved with
Speaker 1: the story and suddenly you're living this other life, um
Speaker 1: from this other person's point of view, the main point
Speaker 1: of view, character's life is happening sort of inside your head.
Speaker 1: And we turned to a psychologist to help us understand
Speaker 1: the tricky business of empathy. You say, you put yourself
Speaker 1: in someone else's shoes, feel what they're feeling, but it's
Speaker 1: sometimes that's almost impossible. But first we'll ponder the place
Speaker 1: where empathy begins in kids. Some people will not change,
Speaker 1: but if we give us a better education, I think
Speaker 1: people who have a wided range of thinking an empathy
Speaker 1: will be the majority. That's Aisha, a retired neurologist originally
Speaker 1: from Turkey who has lived in the United States for
Speaker 1: the past forty years. We met her at the Women's
Speaker 1: March in Washington, d C. The sign she held said
Speaker 1: nasty Muslim woman. I am getting overwhelming reaction to this sign,
Speaker 1: which made me cry. People come and hug me. I
Speaker 1: shall echoed a common concern about the uptake and acts
Speaker 1: of anger and aggression towards immigrants and schools. From day one,
Speaker 1: we have to teach our kids about empathy, about debate,
Speaker 1: about arguing in a positive way, discussing, learning that there
Speaker 1: are many different approaches looks. The PS twenty two Chorus
Speaker 1: is an elementary school chorus from Public School twenty two
Speaker 1: in Graniteville, Staten Island. Here they sing alternate routes, nothing more.
Speaker 1: It's also the school song for Oakhurst Elementary Indicator, Georgia.
Speaker 1: Yeah Yeah, In fact, the line we are how we
Speaker 1: treat each other and nothing more. Underscores one of the
Speaker 1: key design principles empathy and caring, something Oakhurst Elementary School
Speaker 1: counselor Laura Demming is acutely aware of given recent politics.
Speaker 1: I think there are two things that made me the
Speaker 1: most sad about the results of the election. Number one
Speaker 1: was just the message that that women, Muslim Americans, Latin Americans,
Speaker 1: African Americans um not just the message that they may
Speaker 1: have gotten, but but the sort of the carte blanche
Speaker 1: for people to treat them as unequal. And then, for me,
Speaker 1: even more powerful than that was the message that kids
Speaker 1: could be getting. This video of seventh guader's chanting build
Speaker 1: a Wall of catapulted Royal Oaks Middle School into the
Speaker 1: national spotlight the day after Donald Trump won the election.
Speaker 1: Kids can be as cruel or as kind as we
Speaker 1: encourage them to be. They have an appetite for both,
Speaker 1: so it's up to us to cultivate kindness in them.
Speaker 1: The kids are really eat up any lessons or games
Speaker 1: or opportunities to um to understand empathy. I used to
Speaker 1: think that, well, you really can't teach children what empathy
Speaker 1: is until they're seven or eight or so because they're
Speaker 1: so ecocentric. You know, young young kids are really just
Speaker 1: all about taking care of their own needs. But I
Speaker 1: don't feel that way so much anymore. Um. I think
Speaker 1: that all people, unless they've had like a really rough
Speaker 1: couple of first years, we are we are programmed to connect.
Speaker 1: Our neurons and synapses all get strengthened and fired up
Speaker 1: and excited by connecting with other people. If the youngest
Speaker 1: of kids aren't quite ready to perspective take, then the
Speaker 1: concept of empathy is simply broken down as I care
Speaker 1: for others. Oakurst Elementary also has a school wide agreement
Speaker 1: which is be kind and be respectful. And this sort
Speaker 1: of messaging is deeply important because without at school, the
Speaker 1: place where kids spend the majority of their time, can
Speaker 1: become a place of misery. You know, kids not being
Speaker 1: ready to learn because they're worrying about is it going
Speaker 1: to be safe for me in my classroom today? Is
Speaker 1: that person is going to mistreat me again? Who can
Speaker 1: I turn to? What what should I do? And I
Speaker 1: really when I talked to classes classrooms about bullying, I
Speaker 1: try to emphasize the power of the bystander, and we
Speaker 1: talk about how can you safely turn from a bystander
Speaker 1: to an upstander. How can you either, um, you know,
Speaker 1: speak directly to the person who's being a bully. If
Speaker 1: you feel like that's safe, um, ask an adult and
Speaker 1: you know, go get an adult to help. Or most
Speaker 1: powerful of all, and this is where empathy comes in,
Speaker 1: just being a friend to the person who's being targeted.
Speaker 1: Demming has her own first hand experience with the power
Speaker 1: of empathy. She was a shy kid whose father was
Speaker 1: in the Air Force, with the family frequently moving and
Speaker 1: Deming attending several schools early on and sixth grade, I
Speaker 1: moved to a new school again, and every girl in
Speaker 1: my class followed the lead of this one popular girl,
Speaker 1: and in retrospect, must have had some pretty serious problems herself.
Speaker 1: But they she decided she didn't want anyone else to
Speaker 1: be my friend, and they all followed along. And it
Speaker 1: was miserable, miserable year. And there was one girl who
Speaker 1: decided she was not going to follow along, and she
Speaker 1: was going to befriend me and literally in this may
Speaker 1: sound overly dramatic, but I feel like she kind of
Speaker 1: saved my life, or she saved me from many more
Speaker 1: years of misery. That was a huge act of kindness
Speaker 1: and and I think showed a lot of empathy because
Speaker 1: she could have just as easily gone along and really
Speaker 1: had an easier time herself. Um, but she decided to
Speaker 1: be brave and caring and reach out to me, And
Speaker 1: it was that was an epiphany, that was a it's
Speaker 1: very significant thing. These kinds of epiphanies can usher in bold,
Speaker 1: lifelong changes. But empathy works on other subconscious levels, especially
Speaker 1: when it comes to not exercising it. For instance, the
Speaker 1: two thousand and one study The Girl who Cried Pain
Speaker 1: shows that doctors tend to treat complaints of pain from
Speaker 1: men with medication and complaints of pain and women with sedatives.
Speaker 1: You could say that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of
Speaker 1: hormones and psychology. You could say that women are expected
Speaker 1: to endure pain given the conditions of childbirth and menstruation.
Speaker 1: But you could also say that the physicians are short
Speaker 1: circuiting their empathy in favor of convenient stereotypes, which brings
Speaker 1: us to the problem of perspective taking, cutting through the
Speaker 1: subconscious layers that make up our ideas about people. If
Speaker 1: you're completely opposite of someone else in circumstances, gender, geographic location.
Speaker 1: How do you bridge the distance? How do you connect?
Speaker 1: You pick up a book, give any other form of
Speaker 1: culture of the art where you are able to stand
Speaker 1: in somebody else's choose so completely. A bibliotherapist is someone
Speaker 1: who uses specific text to help heal. Susan Elderkin is
Speaker 1: a writer am bibliotherapist who co wrote a novel Cure
Speaker 1: in a to Z of literary Remedies. Many of these
Speaker 1: remedies were drawn from her work with the School of Life,
Speaker 1: which seeks to instruct through philosophy and art. The School
Speaker 1: of Life was set up in two thousands and eight
Speaker 1: by the British philosopher Alan Botton, and the idea behind
Speaker 1: it was that, unlike regular universities, which teach you academic
Speaker 1: subjects and prepare you for a life of work, I
Speaker 1: guess um, the School of of Life was about learning
Speaker 1: how to live a happy and productive life. Bibliotherapy isn't
Speaker 1: a new fangled approach to therapy. The term was coined
Speaker 1: in nineteen six by Unitarian minister and essays Daniel McCord Crowthers,
Speaker 1: and the idea itself has been around since the Greeks.
Speaker 1: The word itself obviously comes from the Greek for healing
Speaker 1: and the Greek for books, and the concept very much
Speaker 1: does go back, I think to the ancient Greek says.
Speaker 1: I've wrote about a library and ancient dvs where the
Speaker 1: inscription over the door was healing plays for the souls,
Speaker 1: So I think the Greeks had that mission, that books
Speaker 1: were there to help our souls, help us spiritually. Bibliotherapy
Speaker 1: was even used after the Second World War. Some veterans
Speaker 1: returning with shell shock were given Jane Austen to read,
Speaker 1: which makes a lot of sense to me. There's a
Speaker 1: calmness and um an order about Jane Austen's pro style,
Speaker 1: which I find very calming to read. The thing about
Speaker 1: reading is that it does something to you on a
Speaker 1: subconscious level. When it comes to empathy. Psychologists Raymond mar
Speaker 1: Rights researchers have repeatedly found that reader attitudes shift to
Speaker 1: become more congruent with the ideas expressed in a fictional narrative.
Speaker 1: Suddenly you see through the eyes of someone who is
Speaker 1: thousands of miles away from you geographically and socio economically.
Speaker 1: You get to its taste the things they're tasting, and
Speaker 1: see the things they're seeing and hear the things they're hearing,
Speaker 1: and have the emotional response and be there for their
Speaker 1: emotional response. So it is an extraordinary way to live
Speaker 1: vicariously and to experience what it's like being another human being,
Speaker 1: could be of a different gender, could be somebody who
Speaker 1: lives in the country you can never get to, or
Speaker 1: we'll never get to somebody who lived two years ago,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, that's it. It allows you to
Speaker 1: travel in time and in place, uh and in gender
Speaker 1: in a way that normal life can never enable us
Speaker 1: to do. In the preface of The Portrait of a Lady,
Speaker 1: Henry James writes, the house of fiction has, in short,
Speaker 1: not one window, but a million, a number of possible
Speaker 1: windows not to be reckoned. Rather, every one of which
Speaker 1: has been pierced or is still pierceable in its vast
Speaker 1: front by the need of the individual vision and by
Speaker 1: the pressure of the individual will. These apertures of dissimilar
Speaker 1: shape and size hang so all together over the human
Speaker 1: scene that we might have expected of them a greater
Speaker 1: sameness of report than we find. They are but windows
Speaker 1: at the best mirror, holes in a dead wall, disconnected,
Speaker 1: perched aloft. They are not hinged doors opening straight upon life.
Speaker 1: But they have this mark of their own that at
Speaker 1: each of them stands a figure with a pair of eyes,
Speaker 1: or at least with a field glass which warms again
Speaker 1: and again for observation, a unique instrument, ensuring to the
Speaker 1: person making use of it, an impression distinct from every other.
Speaker 1: What Henry James describes requires not just concentration but intense scrutiny.
Speaker 1: And I recall my English professor once saying that the
Speaker 1: number of people James observed outside of his window during
Speaker 1: his entire nineteenth century life is but a fraction of
Speaker 1: the people we passed by on a day to day basis.
Speaker 1: The catch, then, is who do we pay attention to
Speaker 1: and why empathy requires attention. We have to focus on
Speaker 1: other people, you know, what's going on with them. So
Speaker 1: when that attention is divided between online interactions and realized situations,
Speaker 1: empathy naturally suffers. My name is Christine Rosacrantz. My research
Speaker 1: is in the Communication department at Stanford and it focuses
Speaker 1: on media psychology, specifically human computer interaction or h CI.
Speaker 1: So we've probably all been to a lunch where most
Speaker 1: of the people at the table are on their phones,
Speaker 1: surfing social media, not paying attention to the other people
Speaker 1: at the table, And this used to be rude, but
Speaker 1: now it's kind of commonplace. And one of the reasons
Speaker 1: being is we don't think it's that harmful, but it
Speaker 1: is because we used to get a lot of emotional
Speaker 1: information about how people's lives were just from talking with
Speaker 1: them over lunch or having these social outings. But now
Speaker 1: if we're instead focusing on how many legs we've got
Speaker 1: on our social media site, ironically, empathy is suffering both
Speaker 1: online and in person. So this fragmentation is something that
Speaker 1: we see, especially with these high level media multitaskers, um
Speaker 1: they're always thinking about something else. With smartphones and computers,
Speaker 1: the number of windows we can peer out of our endless,
Speaker 1: except that these windows typically act as mirrors, further separating
Speaker 1: ourselves from the people in front of us. People are
Speaker 1: going to be using these technologies, how can they do
Speaker 1: it in a responsible way and how can they afford
Speaker 1: empathy three these interactions? So it might just be that
Speaker 1: empathy is evolving. We might not be able necessarily to
Speaker 1: have face to face interactions that would be rich enough
Speaker 1: to afford empathy, but maybe these social media networks are
Speaker 1: going to develop their levels of richness where they can
Speaker 1: engender empathy and compassion for these especially for people who
Speaker 1: aren't already in your social circle. But before we can
Speaker 1: try to solve the empathetic distance that technology places between us,
Speaker 1: Rosacrans urges us to figure out what empathy means to
Speaker 1: us in the first place, how do we engage with it,
Speaker 1: and how does compassion fit in. So I've been studying
Speaker 1: components of both compassion empathy for about the last ten years,
Speaker 1: and I think of compassion especially in terms of society
Speaker 1: simply meaning groups of people being kind to each other
Speaker 1: despite their differences. In more specific terms, this often relies
Speaker 1: on recognizing that someone else's suffering and then wanting to
Speaker 1: help them in some way. And empathy is usually thought
Speaker 1: of as either um feeling what someone else is feeling,
Speaker 1: and we call this aspective or emotional empathy, or understanding
Speaker 1: someone else's thoughts and their particular situation, which is called
Speaker 1: cognitive empathy. So compassion is often thought of as a
Speaker 1: kind of tool for action when inspired by empathy, but
Speaker 1: that all depends on what kind of empathy were exercising.
Speaker 1: If effective or emotional, it can be biased, meaning we
Speaker 1: feel empathy for those who we connect with or we
Speaker 1: just have similarities with, and this doesn't always lead to
Speaker 1: rational acts or thoughts, but cognitive empathy can give us
Speaker 1: more clarity, perhaps even more integrity. Paul Bloom just put
Speaker 1: out a book called Against Empathy that I would recommend
Speaker 1: everyone read, and it argues that logic might be a
Speaker 1: more effective way of ensuring truly moral actions and judgments,
Speaker 1: whereas empathy can sometimes be used for negative outcomes. Seems counterintuitive, right,
Speaker 1: Seems like if you're more emotionally compelled to take someone's perspective,
Speaker 1: you'd be in the empathetic striking zone. And this may
Speaker 1: be because we're drawing on old ideas of perspective taking.
Speaker 1: So in older laboratory studies that they did in psychology specifically,
Speaker 1: they were able to use a specific individual that was
Speaker 1: sort of this idealized person and they would say, here,
Speaker 1: you empathize with Katie, and they would put people in
Speaker 1: the high empathy group or you know, people in the
Speaker 1: don't empathize with Katie group, And they found people in
Speaker 1: the high empathy group would give more money to Katie.
Speaker 1: And it seems like it's a very natural thing but
Speaker 1: if we try to force this on people in outside
Speaker 1: the laboratory conditions, we can end up kind of skewing
Speaker 1: our view of reality. So, for example, on social media,
Speaker 1: if the highlight of the day is um, you know,
Speaker 1: black Lives Matter, we might see that people support Black
Speaker 1: Lives Matter, but then they end up hating other groups
Speaker 1: who they see as being against that group. So then
Speaker 1: you put people in two categories. It's like Black Lives
Speaker 1: Matter supportive versus police supporters, and that's sort of a
Speaker 1: it's it ends up being a really emotional distinction that
Speaker 1: people are making as opposed to relying on rationale and
Speaker 1: reading statistics and coming up with their conclusions leased on that.
Speaker 1: This is one of the reasons why social media is
Speaker 1: so polarizing, and in this way, the road to hell
Speaker 1: is paved with good intentions. Taking things personally, while it
Speaker 1: sounds so colloquial, is actually one of the most detrimental
Speaker 1: things that we can do in these online spaces. And
Speaker 1: the problem with the online spaces is it's it's highly personal.
Speaker 1: It's hyper personal. So we go through and then everything
Speaker 1: is all about us, and it's it's a combination of
Speaker 1: us society expectations that are drawn from that and the
Speaker 1: computer itself and the the way that the system is designed.
Speaker 1: We want to be They want us to be focused
Speaker 1: solely on these you know, bright light and stuff that
Speaker 1: are coming through um. Kind of like the same mechanisms
Speaker 1: that you would use in a video game to get
Speaker 1: someone to keep playing. Those things are in there, and
Speaker 1: we get little rewards, so we get little serotonin boosts
Speaker 1: when we get alike, and that keeps us coming back
Speaker 1: from more and dopamine boosts. So it's it's kind of
Speaker 1: it's it's like anti compassion anti compassionate Buddhism training. When
Speaker 1: you're going online and using a device, it's so easy
Speaker 1: for us to see social media these avatars of ourselves
Speaker 1: as extensions of us and our devices like extra limbs.
Speaker 1: The problem is an outsized image of ourselves that can
Speaker 1: arise a kind of narcissism that blots out anything that
Speaker 1: doesn't prop us up. We're not getting the social cues
Speaker 1: from other people that normally stop us from being overly narcissistic.
Speaker 1: So we can imagine if we were face to face
Speaker 1: with someone else, how if we were talking about ourselves
Speaker 1: too much, they might roll their eyes or leave the room.
Speaker 1: But online that's not even a possibility. People might un
Speaker 1: follow you, but you would probably never know. This doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that you have narcissistic personality disorder. It could just
Speaker 1: be that you're a high level multimedium multitasker, which is
Speaker 1: fine unless you become so entrenched in your digital life
Speaker 1: that you barely leave it. There's a book out called
Speaker 1: Otaku which is about this group of shut ins in
Speaker 1: Japan and they're, you know, gamers online and they like
Speaker 1: to read comic books, but they're basically just living through
Speaker 1: that medium and they very rarely go outside, so it's
Speaker 1: actually causing a decrease in their birth rate and over time.
Speaker 1: You can imagine this would be a huge problem in Japan,
Speaker 1: but it's something that could happen here. We have people
Speaker 1: who are shut ins and rely on this medium to
Speaker 1: connect with people, and that, in and of itself, I
Speaker 1: would say is detrimental to both empathy and compassion and
Speaker 1: making those people active members of a civil discourse society.
Speaker 1: And speaking of civil discourse, social media is not really
Speaker 1: a place that is supportive of having a civil discourse
Speaker 1: because you can scream at someone and run away. If
Speaker 1: someone has a really extreme point of view, we find
Speaker 1: it easier to just un follow them or or block
Speaker 1: them instead of engaging in a conversation. That's difficult, so
Speaker 1: it ends up creating these information silos that are just
Speaker 1: feeding back into itself. Rosa Crance gives an example with
Speaker 1: Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, of how empathy is
Speaker 1: playing out between Republicans and Democrats. Zuckerberg was quoted and
Speaker 1: I think it was a New York Times op ed
Speaker 1: saying that the movieson that liberals were so surprised by
Speaker 1: the election result was that they had little empathy for conservatives.
Speaker 1: For all the Facebook users clamoring for a dislike button,
Speaker 1: know that Mark Zuckerberg and his team have been working
Speaker 1: on a solution. According to the Social media Magnate, the
Speaker 1: new feature will not specifically be a dislike button, but
Speaker 1: instead another wording that will allow users to show empathy
Speaker 1: towards one another. So you can take this a couple
Speaker 1: of different ways. Um the fact that you have to
Speaker 1: work towards having empathy for a group is seen as
Speaker 1: emotional labor, and some people don't find that the group
Speaker 1: that you disagree with deserve that amount of work, so
Speaker 1: that's why they don't want to empathize with that group.
Speaker 1: In that way, empathy can be seen as being a
Speaker 1: divisive issue. You're making me put away my own belief
Speaker 1: so I can expand my heart out to people I
Speaker 1: don't even like. Why would I do that? Do you
Speaker 1: feel like it's hard to find political common ground? It's
Speaker 1: not just you. A Pew study finds any one percent
Speaker 1: of voters say they cannot agree with the other side
Speaker 1: on basic facts. Now consider that, in addition to the
Speaker 1: emotional labor needed to perspective take, your social media feed
Speaker 1: could be limiting your worldview and what you're exposed to.
Speaker 1: UM it's something that it's one of these unintended consequences
Speaker 1: of their system. But basically, the algorithms used in most
Speaker 1: social media platforms support a homogeneous network be networked with
Speaker 1: the people who are already like us, with similar beliefs
Speaker 1: and perspectives, and usually they start us as friends or coworkers.
Speaker 1: What happens is the things that we um like or
Speaker 1: comment on tell the social media algorithm what we want
Speaker 1: to And it's not only Spacebook, it's also Google. So
Speaker 1: Google does this thing where when you look up articles
Speaker 1: and if all you read our the New York Times
Speaker 1: and um, you know you go online to CNN, that's
Speaker 1: the type of media you're going to see and they
Speaker 1: know that. So if I look for certain information, it's
Speaker 1: gonna get weight in that direction. If someone else who
Speaker 1: has more conservative looks for the city, if they put
Speaker 1: the same exact search, termin they'll get different search results.
Speaker 1: For all these reasons, empathy turns out to be hard
Speaker 1: to recognize and negotiate in our digital existence. So could
Speaker 1: you have a world without empathy? Empathy like when that's
Speaker 1: a society that's maybe less an empathy than it would
Speaker 1: be optimal. I think it could exist, and it's sort
Speaker 1: of this dystopian version of the future. But there's other
Speaker 1: options to empathy, which is kind of, uh, something that
Speaker 1: we're sort of rediscovering from certain Enlightenment scholars. One of
Speaker 1: those being solidarity. Solidarity is not necessarily something where you
Speaker 1: need to feel empathy. It's this recognition of a common humanity,
Speaker 1: and while empathy would help that out, you can sort
Speaker 1: of use logic and other humanistic values too. Have that
Speaker 1: as your baseline where we're just going to treat people
Speaker 1: like people because that's the right thing to do, instead
Speaker 1: of necessarily being able to put yourself in the shoes
Speaker 1: of another person. If you think about it, it's a
Speaker 1: little like what oak Hurst Elementary tries to do with
Speaker 1: the youngest of their students, who can't quite perspective take yet.
Speaker 1: It's that simple idea of I care for others. It's
Speaker 1: the cognitive logical version of empathy. And it takes me
Speaker 1: back to Aisha who we met at the Women's March.
Speaker 1: This is what life is all about, This is what
Speaker 1: religion is all about, This is what God is all about. Love.
Speaker 1: There's nothing else that I can do. You enter a
Speaker 1: crowded elevator, you walk down the street, or you navigate
Speaker 1: a busy airport, pass them by a blur of faces,
Speaker 1: sometimes hundreds in year seconds, you scan the crowd, and
Speaker 1: the subconscious borders of yourself bleed into the tide of
Speaker 1: humanity before you. You recognize traces of anxiety, anger, or sadness.
Speaker 1: You have your own emotions to deal with, you have
Speaker 1: places to go, But you are they and they are you.
Speaker 1: We'd like to thank Susan Elderkin of the School of
Speaker 1: Life for taking us through a literary journey of empathy.
Speaker 1: You can find out more about her work at the
Speaker 1: School of Life dot com. Thank you to Laura Demming
Speaker 1: at Oakhurst Elementary for doing what you do and sharing
Speaker 1: your story. And thank you to Christine Rotakranz for helping
Speaker 1: us better understand the limits and potential for empathy. The
Speaker 1: Stuff of Life is written and executive produced by me
Speaker 1: Julie Douglas and co produced by Noel Brown. Original music
Speaker 1: is by Noel Brown, and editorial oversight is provided by
Speaker 1: contributing producer Dylan Fagan and Head of Production Jerry Roland.
Speaker 1: This episode also featured music by Dylan Fagan, Tristan McNeil,
Speaker 1: Aaron Grubbs, and Josh Boardman. You can find more of
Speaker 1: Josh's music at battle tapes band dot com. If you
Speaker 1: have a story you'd like to share with us, you
Speaker 1: can call into our podcast line at one eight four
Speaker 1: four hs W Stuff s t U f F. We'll
Speaker 1: be doing a wrap up, Episo said at the end
Speaker 1: of the season, and we want to hear your voice
Speaker 1: in it, so leave us a message. You can find
Speaker 1: this Stuff of Life on Facebook and Twitter, and you
Speaker 1: can email us at the Stuff of Life at how
Speaker 1: stuff works dot com. Yeah,