1
00:00:03,040 --> 00:00:06,760
Speaker 1: Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind production of iHeartRadio.

2
00:00:12,640 --> 00:00:14,760
Speaker 2: Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name

3
00:00:14,800 --> 00:00:15,720
Speaker 2: is Robert Lamb.

4
00:00:15,920 --> 00:00:18,840
Speaker 1: And I am Joe McCormick. And today we are returning

5
00:00:18,840 --> 00:00:23,040
Speaker 1: with Part three in our series on cynicism, the tendency

6
00:00:23,079 --> 00:00:27,880
Speaker 1: to believe that other people are selfish, untrustworthy, and immoral.

7
00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:31,600
Speaker 1: In part one of the series, we defined cynicism in

8
00:00:31,640 --> 00:00:34,239
Speaker 1: its modern usage along the lines I just said, and

9
00:00:34,360 --> 00:00:38,880
Speaker 1: we distinguished it from other concepts like pessimism, and from

10
00:00:39,000 --> 00:00:42,640
Speaker 1: the cynic school of philosophy founded in ancient Greece, which

11
00:00:42,720 --> 00:00:45,640
Speaker 1: was not defined by thinking about other people as morally

12
00:00:45,680 --> 00:00:49,240
Speaker 1: bad and undeserving of trust, but instead by the idea

13
00:00:49,320 --> 00:00:53,880
Speaker 1: that people should strive for self sufficiency and moral integrity

14
00:00:54,160 --> 00:00:57,280
Speaker 1: based on living according to our nature, sort of throwing

15
00:00:57,320 --> 00:01:01,680
Speaker 1: off the hypocrisies that are mandated culture. And I think

16
00:01:01,720 --> 00:01:05,520
Speaker 1: this goal of exposing hypocrisy is one of the few

17
00:01:05,640 --> 00:01:10,360
Speaker 1: threads you might find between modern cynicism and ancient cynic philosophy,

18
00:01:10,360 --> 00:01:13,520
Speaker 1: though it's still with some differences. It's not quite this simple.

19
00:01:13,880 --> 00:01:15,920
Speaker 1: But I was thinking the other day about it. I

20
00:01:15,920 --> 00:01:19,360
Speaker 1: think you could say cynic philosophy was like hypocrisy is

21
00:01:19,440 --> 00:01:21,720
Speaker 1: bad and I'm going to try to get rid of it,

22
00:01:22,000 --> 00:01:25,600
Speaker 1: whereas modern cynicism is more like everybody's a hypocrite, you

23
00:01:25,640 --> 00:01:29,160
Speaker 1: can't trust them, so a decay from what was once

24
00:01:29,200 --> 00:01:32,440
Speaker 1: a positive mission for truth into a kind of surrender

25
00:01:32,480 --> 00:01:35,760
Speaker 1: to the idea that we're all living a lie. In

26
00:01:35,800 --> 00:01:38,919
Speaker 1: Part one, we also talked about research into the correlates

27
00:01:38,959 --> 00:01:42,240
Speaker 1: of modern cynicism, So like, if I am highly cynical,

28
00:01:42,360 --> 00:01:45,000
Speaker 1: what are the effects of that on my life? It

29
00:01:45,040 --> 00:01:47,160
Speaker 1: turns out there's a lot of research on this question,

30
00:01:47,200 --> 00:01:51,560
Speaker 1: and the answer is the effects are overwhelmingly negative. Cynicism

31
00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:56,160
Speaker 1: appears to be bad for health outcomes, leading to things

32
00:01:56,160 --> 00:02:01,440
Speaker 1: like cardiovascular disease, depression, substance abuse, and early death. It

33
00:02:01,480 --> 00:02:05,560
Speaker 1: is correlated with lower quality relationships, a decreased tendency to

34
00:02:05,600 --> 00:02:09,160
Speaker 1: pursue certain types of goals, and even contrary to the

35
00:02:09,280 --> 00:02:13,160
Speaker 1: very familiar image of the cynical Machiavelian elite power player,

36
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:16,120
Speaker 1: and of course we can think of individual examples of

37
00:02:16,160 --> 00:02:20,280
Speaker 1: this from the real world, on average, cynicism actually makes

38
00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:24,800
Speaker 1: it harder for regular people to achieve even cynically coded

39
00:02:24,840 --> 00:02:28,880
Speaker 1: material goals like money and positions of power. Probably because

40
00:02:28,919 --> 00:02:32,280
Speaker 1: in part, cynicism makes people less likely to cooperate with

41
00:02:32,360 --> 00:02:35,799
Speaker 1: others and thus less likely to benefit from relationships of

42
00:02:35,880 --> 00:02:39,519
Speaker 1: mutual trust. In Part two, we followed up on a

43
00:02:39,600 --> 00:02:41,880
Speaker 1: number of tangents from the first episode, and we also

44
00:02:41,919 --> 00:02:44,000
Speaker 1: took a detailed look at a paper on the so

45
00:02:44,080 --> 00:02:49,399
Speaker 1: called cynical genius illusion. The short version of this is

46
00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:53,840
Speaker 1: that while people don't necessarily like cynics, we do tend

47
00:02:53,840 --> 00:02:58,000
Speaker 1: to believe, on average that cinics are more intelligent and

48
00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:02,600
Speaker 1: more cognitively competent the non cynics. For example, people are

49
00:03:02,680 --> 00:03:05,480
Speaker 1: more likely to assign a cynical person jobs like doing

50
00:03:05,520 --> 00:03:10,240
Speaker 1: mathematical calculations or reviewing charts of scientific results, and this

51
00:03:10,360 --> 00:03:12,600
Speaker 1: is in line with the long running archetype and fiction

52
00:03:12,720 --> 00:03:16,880
Speaker 1: of the cynical genius, like Sherlock Holmes, someone who withholds

53
00:03:16,919 --> 00:03:19,799
Speaker 1: trust and has a very low opinion of human nature,

54
00:03:20,080 --> 00:03:24,120
Speaker 1: but also has superior knowledge, memory, and powers of reasoning.

55
00:03:25,000 --> 00:03:26,640
Speaker 2: One thing that I neglected to bring up when we

56
00:03:26,639 --> 00:03:32,400
Speaker 2: were talking about the Sherlock Holmes trope is that you know,

57
00:03:32,440 --> 00:03:39,119
Speaker 2: there is a distinction to be made between skepticism and cynicism. Yes, now,

58
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:42,320
Speaker 2: you can imagine where the line begins to blur at

59
00:03:42,360 --> 00:03:45,120
Speaker 2: some points, and certainly, as we've been discussing, you know,

60
00:03:45,200 --> 00:03:49,400
Speaker 2: your cynicism level may not be constant throughout your life.

61
00:03:49,520 --> 00:03:51,760
Speaker 2: You may drift back and forth, and so you can

62
00:03:51,800 --> 00:03:55,200
Speaker 2: imagine a scenario where one is essentially a skeptic, but

63
00:03:55,320 --> 00:03:58,560
Speaker 2: then that may sort of stray into cynical territory.

64
00:03:59,560 --> 00:04:03,560
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, absolutely, I was thinking about the distinction there also.

65
00:04:03,920 --> 00:04:05,880
Speaker 1: I was in fact talking about this with Rachel and

66
00:04:05,920 --> 00:04:07,960
Speaker 1: I guess we never got into this in the previous parts,

67
00:04:07,960 --> 00:04:10,480
Speaker 1: but I think there is a big difference between how

68
00:04:10,520 --> 00:04:14,760
Speaker 1: I use the word cynicism and skepticism. For me, skepticism

69
00:04:15,040 --> 00:04:19,440
Speaker 1: is an attempt to dole out your trust according to

70
00:04:19,560 --> 00:04:23,160
Speaker 1: how trustworthy something is based on the evidence. It's essentially

71
00:04:23,200 --> 00:04:28,000
Speaker 1: trying to overcome your natural biases to be more trusting

72
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:31,440
Speaker 1: or less trusting than the situation actually deserves. It's just

73
00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:34,400
Speaker 1: trying to be as rational as you can. What reasons

74
00:04:34,480 --> 00:04:37,680
Speaker 1: do I have to trust or distrust? Whereas cynicism is

75
00:04:37,839 --> 00:04:39,920
Speaker 1: just a bias toward distrust.

76
00:04:40,600 --> 00:04:42,000
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it.

77
00:04:43,320 --> 00:04:46,360
Speaker 2: One of the interesting things, though, is that someone who

78
00:04:46,440 --> 00:04:50,640
Speaker 2: is truly cynical about a given topic may self label

79
00:04:50,880 --> 00:04:53,880
Speaker 2: as skeptical, and that can lead to a fair amount

80
00:04:53,880 --> 00:04:54,440
Speaker 2: of confusion.

81
00:04:54,640 --> 00:04:58,880
Speaker 1: Right well, of course, if skepticism is defined as being

82
00:04:58,920 --> 00:05:02,840
Speaker 1: as reasonable as you can with trust, the cynic always

83
00:05:02,880 --> 00:05:06,680
Speaker 1: thinks they're being reasonable, or usually probably thinks they're being reasonable.

84
00:05:06,680 --> 00:05:09,640
Speaker 1: They just think it is reasonable to have very low

85
00:05:09,680 --> 00:05:11,919
Speaker 1: trust and think everyone's going to stab them in the back,

86
00:05:12,839 --> 00:05:15,000
Speaker 1: And in fact, that brings us back, coming back to

87
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:18,719
Speaker 1: the recap of the cynical genius illusion, The question is

88
00:05:18,920 --> 00:05:21,240
Speaker 1: are they correct in thinking that is the cynic in

89
00:05:21,320 --> 00:05:26,320
Speaker 1: fact being reasonable and having correct insights that non cynics lack.

90
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:29,640
Speaker 1: The other half of the finding in that paper was

91
00:05:29,680 --> 00:05:33,239
Speaker 1: that the cynical genius illusion is actually an illusion. Highly

92
00:05:33,279 --> 00:05:37,479
Speaker 1: cynical people are not smarter or more knowledgeable on average.

93
00:05:37,520 --> 00:05:41,760
Speaker 1: In fact, in the majority of scenarios tested, the association

94
00:05:41,880 --> 00:05:45,960
Speaker 1: runs the other way, with education and intelligence being correlated

95
00:05:46,000 --> 00:05:49,479
Speaker 1: with a greater tendency to trust. The big caveat here,

96
00:05:49,560 --> 00:05:53,880
Speaker 1: of course, is that cynicism is warranted in some situations,

97
00:05:53,920 --> 00:05:58,800
Speaker 1: in particularly corrupt situations and scenarios. So it seems like

98
00:05:58,839 --> 00:06:02,560
Speaker 1: a common pattern the researchers found is that knowledgeable and

99
00:06:02,640 --> 00:06:06,960
Speaker 1: intelligent people might be might be more trusting by default,

100
00:06:07,360 --> 00:06:11,200
Speaker 1: but shift into cynical mode when they recognize that they

101
00:06:11,200 --> 00:06:15,040
Speaker 1: are dealing with a corrupt and untrustworthy situation or environment.

102
00:06:15,880 --> 00:06:17,600
Speaker 1: And in fact, that would sort of line up with

103
00:06:17,760 --> 00:06:19,920
Speaker 1: how I just defined skepticism, right. It's sort of like

104
00:06:20,760 --> 00:06:25,479
Speaker 1: detecting reliable signals from your environment, essentially paying attention to

105
00:06:25,600 --> 00:06:30,720
Speaker 1: evidence of how trustworthy the situation you're in is. But anyway,

106
00:06:30,960 --> 00:06:34,160
Speaker 1: this study and some studies cited by it helped us

107
00:06:34,279 --> 00:06:37,400
Speaker 1: answer some questions we raised in Part one. First of all,

108
00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:40,800
Speaker 1: do cynics or nonsnics have a more accurate model of

109
00:06:40,800 --> 00:06:43,760
Speaker 1: the world. Of course, it's hard to answer that question

110
00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:47,400
Speaker 1: in a way that averages out all environments in all situations.

111
00:06:47,560 --> 00:06:50,600
Speaker 1: It's kind of hard to say, like who's more correct overall,

112
00:06:50,640 --> 00:06:55,000
Speaker 1: but at least in a bunch of experimental scenarios like

113
00:06:55,240 --> 00:06:58,840
Speaker 1: random strangers are much more trustworthy than we tend to

114
00:06:58,839 --> 00:07:02,039
Speaker 1: give them credit. For example of this was that trust

115
00:07:02,120 --> 00:07:06,080
Speaker 1: based investing game we talked about where researchers give you

116
00:07:06,120 --> 00:07:09,120
Speaker 1: an initial reward of money. So they give you five dollars,

117
00:07:09,600 --> 00:07:11,640
Speaker 1: and then you have the option to either just keep

118
00:07:11,680 --> 00:07:15,440
Speaker 1: the five or hand that money to a stranger, which

119
00:07:15,520 --> 00:07:19,120
Speaker 1: quadruples the initial sum, turning five dollars into twenty dollars.

120
00:07:19,480 --> 00:07:22,560
Speaker 1: And then the stranger has the option to either keep

121
00:07:22,600 --> 00:07:24,720
Speaker 1: all the money or give you back half of the

122
00:07:24,760 --> 00:07:28,360
Speaker 1: total sum, doubling your initial investment. So you started with five,

123
00:07:28,440 --> 00:07:30,400
Speaker 1: you end up with ten if the stranger gives you

124
00:07:30,440 --> 00:07:33,720
Speaker 1: the money back. And in these types of experiments, strangers

125
00:07:33,760 --> 00:07:37,239
Speaker 1: tended to be cooperative and trustworthy. In the overwhelming number

126
00:07:37,240 --> 00:07:41,200
Speaker 1: of cases people doubted them way too often. So again,

127
00:07:41,240 --> 00:07:43,560
Speaker 1: that doesn't tell you about every situation in life, but

128
00:07:43,640 --> 00:07:46,760
Speaker 1: it is a piece of evidence that people on average

129
00:07:46,800 --> 00:07:51,400
Speaker 1: tend to overestimate other people's selfishness, and thus the highly

130
00:07:51,440 --> 00:07:54,400
Speaker 1: cynical person is probably going to miss out on lots

131
00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:58,880
Speaker 1: of opportunities to trust and to benefit from cooperation. But

132
00:07:59,040 --> 00:08:02,160
Speaker 1: the other question that's study shed some light on for

133
00:08:02,240 --> 00:08:07,280
Speaker 1: us was, since generalized cynicism has so many horrible downsides,

134
00:08:07,320 --> 00:08:09,640
Speaker 1: it's like, really bad for you in so many ways,

135
00:08:10,520 --> 00:08:12,720
Speaker 1: not just for the people around the cynic, but for

136
00:08:12,840 --> 00:08:16,200
Speaker 1: the cynic themselves, what are its upsides if any? And

137
00:08:16,240 --> 00:08:19,360
Speaker 1: there were a few answers here. If you are not

138
00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:23,240
Speaker 1: good at being able to recognize the difference between a

139
00:08:23,280 --> 00:08:27,880
Speaker 1: corrupt situation and a trustworthy one. Generalized cynicism may help

140
00:08:27,920 --> 00:08:32,480
Speaker 1: you avoid catastrophic outcomes from misplacing your trust, but again

141
00:08:32,520 --> 00:08:34,760
Speaker 1: this comes at great cost. It's sort of, you know,

142
00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:37,080
Speaker 1: we have to destroy the town in order to save it.

143
00:08:37,760 --> 00:08:42,360
Speaker 2: Yeah. Or you can imagine, like a biological analogy would

144
00:08:42,360 --> 00:08:44,719
Speaker 2: be some sort of an organism that has had to

145
00:08:45,080 --> 00:08:48,080
Speaker 2: extend a great deal of energy into evolving some sort

146
00:08:48,080 --> 00:08:51,240
Speaker 2: of like highly protective shell that also slows it down

147
00:08:51,880 --> 00:08:54,960
Speaker 2: and restricts it restricts its range or something to that

148
00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:56,040
Speaker 2: effect exactly.

149
00:08:56,080 --> 00:08:58,920
Speaker 1: I think that's a great analogy. And then the other

150
00:08:59,000 --> 00:09:02,920
Speaker 1: thing being that cynicism may have, according to the cynical

151
00:09:02,960 --> 00:09:07,439
Speaker 1: genius effect, the socially desirable effect of making you appear

152
00:09:07,600 --> 00:09:10,839
Speaker 1: smarter and more competent to others. Again, this comes at

153
00:09:10,880 --> 00:09:14,120
Speaker 1: great cost. Like Sherlock Holmes is cool, you might want

154
00:09:14,120 --> 00:09:18,000
Speaker 1: to seem smart like Sherlock Holmes, but given all the downsides,

155
00:09:18,080 --> 00:09:20,680
Speaker 1: the Sherlock gambit is probably not worth it, at least

156
00:09:20,679 --> 00:09:24,040
Speaker 1: in my opinion. Anyway, we're back today to talk about more.

157
00:09:24,360 --> 00:09:26,480
Speaker 2: Yeah, and in this episode we're going to get a

158
00:09:26,480 --> 00:09:30,120
Speaker 2: little bit into social media and politics, which shouldn't come

159
00:09:30,120 --> 00:09:34,360
Speaker 2: as a surprise, right, Cynicism, social media, politics, these are

160
00:09:34,400 --> 00:09:37,400
Speaker 2: all I think expected waters.

161
00:09:37,280 --> 00:09:39,080
Speaker 1: Wait, did you mean to sound cynical when you were

162
00:09:39,080 --> 00:09:40,240
Speaker 1: saying that? Was that the joke?

163
00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:45,280
Speaker 2: Probably? Probably? Yeah, I mean it's easy to feel cynical

164
00:09:45,320 --> 00:09:47,760
Speaker 2: about all of this sort of thing, right, So just

165
00:09:47,840 --> 00:09:51,120
Speaker 2: looking considering just say, cynicism and social media like this

166
00:09:51,240 --> 00:09:55,480
Speaker 2: alone is a really big area to get into, and likewise,

167
00:09:55,559 --> 00:09:59,280
Speaker 2: political cynicism is another huge topic. Both of these have

168
00:09:59,320 --> 00:10:02,920
Speaker 2: been topics of discussion and analysis for years and years

169
00:10:02,960 --> 00:10:03,400
Speaker 2: and years.

170
00:10:03,960 --> 00:10:07,240
Speaker 1: Yes, and I would say, of course the relationship between

171
00:10:07,400 --> 00:10:13,439
Speaker 1: cynicism and politics is especially important to understand within democracies,

172
00:10:13,600 --> 00:10:17,640
Speaker 1: you know, within places of popular political participation, and like

173
00:10:17,679 --> 00:10:21,520
Speaker 1: civil liberties and freedoms. You know, whether you are cynical

174
00:10:21,640 --> 00:10:25,800
Speaker 1: about the political structures you live under matters a lot

175
00:10:25,880 --> 00:10:28,800
Speaker 1: less if you are like a peasant in medieval France

176
00:10:28,920 --> 00:10:32,200
Speaker 1: than it does if you are somebody who is free

177
00:10:32,240 --> 00:10:34,680
Speaker 1: to act within a democracy, free to vote and run

178
00:10:34,720 --> 00:10:37,120
Speaker 1: for office yourself and engage in political rhetoric.

179
00:10:37,640 --> 00:10:41,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, because it means coming to believe that the

180
00:10:41,720 --> 00:10:44,599
Speaker 2: thing that you can do that matters doesn't matter. And

181
00:10:46,080 --> 00:10:48,600
Speaker 2: then it's like the old saying by doing nothing. You know,

182
00:10:48,720 --> 00:10:52,840
Speaker 2: all problems are solved. So one of the books that

183
00:10:52,920 --> 00:10:57,160
Speaker 2: I referenced in the first episode is the MIT Press

184
00:10:57,280 --> 00:11:01,360
Speaker 2: book on Cynicism by Anscar Allen and Alan digs into

185
00:11:01,360 --> 00:11:03,120
Speaker 2: this topic a lot, and I won't attempt to cover

186
00:11:03,200 --> 00:11:05,000
Speaker 2: every point that he makes and every point that he

187
00:11:05,000 --> 00:11:06,719
Speaker 2: brings up on the matter, but there's some really good

188
00:11:06,800 --> 00:11:10,480
Speaker 2: nuggets of wisdom and observation in here related to the

189
00:11:10,679 --> 00:11:13,840
Speaker 2: level of high energy, negative and critical rhetoric that you

190
00:11:14,080 --> 00:11:16,160
Speaker 2: tend to find on the Internet and on social media,

191
00:11:17,240 --> 00:11:22,320
Speaker 2: very much encouraged for profit by service providers and social

192
00:11:22,360 --> 00:11:25,880
Speaker 2: media companies, as we've discussed in the past. Yeah, so

193
00:11:26,720 --> 00:11:30,439
Speaker 2: I've long been a fan of the LA based artist

194
00:11:30,559 --> 00:11:34,559
Speaker 2: collective known as Everything Is Terrible, Joe. I know you're

195
00:11:34,600 --> 00:11:37,640
Speaker 2: familiar with them as well. Oh yeah. Their slogan is

196
00:11:37,800 --> 00:11:40,480
Speaker 2: if everything is terrible, then nothing.

197
00:11:40,240 --> 00:11:42,920
Speaker 1: Is that's great. I think that statement is meant with

198
00:11:42,960 --> 00:11:47,560
Speaker 1: a dash of irony, but yeah, everything is terrible is great.

199
00:11:47,679 --> 00:11:50,760
Speaker 1: You know, you may have seen videos of theirs, even

200
00:11:50,760 --> 00:11:53,959
Speaker 1: if you're not familiar with the name of like super

201
00:11:54,040 --> 00:11:59,240
Speaker 1: cuts of weird moments from old found media. One of

202
00:11:59,280 --> 00:12:01,880
Speaker 1: my favorites of all times. I think everything is terrible.

203
00:12:01,920 --> 00:12:05,760
Speaker 1: Did the video of it? Was just moments from a

204
00:12:05,880 --> 00:12:09,839
Speaker 1: video cassette that accompanied a Star Trek board game where

205
00:12:10,280 --> 00:12:12,760
Speaker 1: there's a like a kling on guy who keeps like

206
00:12:12,920 --> 00:12:16,439
Speaker 1: screaming at you to punish you. It was one of

207
00:12:16,480 --> 00:12:17,839
Speaker 1: the one of those things where they were trying to

208
00:12:17,880 --> 00:12:19,800
Speaker 1: do like mixed media board games I think in the

209
00:12:19,840 --> 00:12:23,400
Speaker 1: late eighties or early nineties, where like, I don't know,

210
00:12:23,600 --> 00:12:25,280
Speaker 1: you'd put the tape in and then you'd have to

211
00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:28,199
Speaker 1: roll stuff and anyway, this guy keeps Suddenly there's a

212
00:12:28,240 --> 00:12:31,360
Speaker 1: klingon popping on the TV saying, like you the one

213
00:12:31,400 --> 00:12:33,520
Speaker 1: who is moving now punishment.

214
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:38,760
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. They several different individuals involved with that over

215
00:12:38,760 --> 00:12:42,560
Speaker 2: the years, and you know, the resurrect different bits of

216
00:12:42,600 --> 00:12:45,480
Speaker 2: old media, and it often super cut them into some

217
00:12:45,520 --> 00:12:47,319
Speaker 2: sort of a presentation. If you ever get to get

218
00:12:47,360 --> 00:12:50,160
Speaker 2: the chance to see them live, it's it's well worth it.

219
00:12:51,000 --> 00:12:54,560
Speaker 2: So if everything is terrible, then nothing is. Alan brings

220
00:12:54,640 --> 00:12:58,800
Speaker 2: up this exact point amid contemplations on the possible death

221
00:12:58,800 --> 00:13:02,960
Speaker 2: of philosophy in modern times, citing German philosopher and social

222
00:13:03,000 --> 00:13:09,200
Speaker 2: critic Peter Slaughterdyke, who frequently cites ancient cynic Diogenes is

223
00:13:09,480 --> 00:13:13,520
Speaker 2: pooping in public in his evaluation of modern cynicism as well,

224
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:18,640
Speaker 2: So Alan now I should clarify though, Alan, in discussing

225
00:13:18,880 --> 00:13:25,120
Speaker 2: Slaughterdyke's ideas, he sees them as an overstatement. But Slaughterodyke

226
00:13:25,200 --> 00:13:29,480
Speaker 2: says that quote, because everything has become problematic, everything is

227
00:13:29,520 --> 00:13:31,559
Speaker 2: also now a matter of indifference.

228
00:13:33,080 --> 00:13:35,800
Speaker 1: So I'm not sure I understand the context of that, right.

229
00:13:35,800 --> 00:13:37,920
Speaker 1: But the way I guess i'd interpret that at face

230
00:13:38,000 --> 00:13:43,400
Speaker 1: value is like, because of our increasing sort of critical

231
00:13:43,480 --> 00:13:48,000
Speaker 1: consciousness and awareness of the world, you can sort of

232
00:13:48,280 --> 00:13:52,000
Speaker 1: find that there are flaws in literally everything, and thus

233
00:13:52,000 --> 00:13:55,120
Speaker 1: if there are flaws in literally everything, nothing matters.

234
00:13:55,640 --> 00:13:59,320
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, and especially if you are just hyper aware

235
00:13:59,480 --> 00:14:02,920
Speaker 2: of all of the negative stories, you know, and this

236
00:14:02,960 --> 00:14:04,959
Speaker 2: has been this has been the case for a while.

237
00:14:05,000 --> 00:14:07,080
Speaker 2: I mean it comes back to some of the you know,

238
00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:09,640
Speaker 2: the very ancient ideas of how do you survive in

239
00:14:09,679 --> 00:14:12,200
Speaker 2: the world by maybe focusing a little more on the

240
00:14:12,240 --> 00:14:15,440
Speaker 2: dangers certainly, you know, if it bleeds, it leads, and

241
00:14:15,480 --> 00:14:19,520
Speaker 2: so forth. But the social media age, as we've discussed

242
00:14:19,520 --> 00:14:21,920
Speaker 2: on the show before, you know, various social media algorithms

243
00:14:21,960 --> 00:14:25,680
Speaker 2: have long favorite engagement over everything else, and engagement can

244
00:14:25,720 --> 00:14:28,400
Speaker 2: certainly mean things like love and excitement like look a

245
00:14:28,440 --> 00:14:31,840
Speaker 2: cute cat or look there's a new John Carpenter blu ray,

246
00:14:32,120 --> 00:14:34,680
Speaker 2: but it can also just mean hate, anger, and disgust.

247
00:14:35,880 --> 00:14:41,000
Speaker 1: Yes, where your emotions become a tech company's business model

248
00:14:41,040 --> 00:14:44,480
Speaker 1: because your emotions are correlated to behavior on the app

249
00:14:44,520 --> 00:14:47,200
Speaker 1: and your susceptibility. You know how long you stay on

250
00:14:47,320 --> 00:14:50,680
Speaker 1: the app, how long you scroll, you know whether you're

251
00:14:50,800 --> 00:14:53,880
Speaker 1: likely to click on ads and things like that. And

252
00:14:54,000 --> 00:14:57,520
Speaker 1: it turns out that certain emotions, I think positive and

253
00:14:57,640 --> 00:15:01,520
Speaker 1: negative emotions, when manipulated in certain ways, have been found

254
00:15:01,560 --> 00:15:05,400
Speaker 1: to increase people's engagement. But the negative emotions, it seems

255
00:15:05,440 --> 00:15:08,680
Speaker 1: like those are really easy. That's an easy button to push.

256
00:15:08,920 --> 00:15:11,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And you know, it can often feel like

257
00:15:11,880 --> 00:15:15,000
Speaker 2: you're just being bombarded by all of this. And I mean,

258
00:15:15,000 --> 00:15:16,720
Speaker 2: there's a strong case to be made that this is

259
00:15:17,000 --> 00:15:20,080
Speaker 2: weaponized to a certain extent by various players. Right, if

260
00:15:20,080 --> 00:15:22,320
Speaker 2: there's just enough bad news coming at you, if there's

261
00:15:22,440 --> 00:15:26,600
Speaker 2: enough controversy, then you know, what are you going to

262
00:15:26,640 --> 00:15:28,520
Speaker 2: respond to? You can't possibly respond to all of it,

263
00:15:28,640 --> 00:15:30,560
Speaker 2: and maybe you end up responding to nothing at all.

264
00:15:30,680 --> 00:15:33,160
Speaker 1: But you have to keep scrolling because what if there's

265
00:15:33,200 --> 00:15:34,520
Speaker 1: something you don't know about yet.

266
00:15:34,840 --> 00:15:39,320
Speaker 2: Now, Alan cites that all of this is an overstatement because,

267
00:15:39,360 --> 00:15:42,920
Speaker 2: according to him, for individuals to truly feel this way,

268
00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:47,400
Speaker 2: their cynicism would have to be complete. And this reminds

269
00:15:47,440 --> 00:15:50,160
Speaker 2: me a bit in theme of something that's come up

270
00:15:50,200 --> 00:15:52,680
Speaker 2: on the show before. The author R. Scott Baker had

271
00:15:52,720 --> 00:15:56,720
Speaker 2: this idea of something he called the somatic apocalypse, in

272
00:15:56,760 --> 00:16:00,440
Speaker 2: which quote, all the shoulds of a meaningful life are

273
00:16:00,480 --> 00:16:04,200
Speaker 2: either individual or subcultural. As a result, the only universal

274
00:16:04,240 --> 00:16:06,800
Speaker 2: imperatives that remain are those arising out of our shared

275
00:16:06,840 --> 00:16:10,160
Speaker 2: biology are fears and hungers. So everything else just kind

276
00:16:10,160 --> 00:16:15,280
Speaker 2: of shuts down, descends into chaos or entropy. So absolute

277
00:16:15,520 --> 00:16:20,160
Speaker 2: widespread cynicism would, to paraphrase the words of Slaughterdyke, be

278
00:16:20,200 --> 00:16:24,760
Speaker 2: a situation where everything is poop in the street and

279
00:16:24,840 --> 00:16:29,480
Speaker 2: people are nauseated all the time. Okay, sounds bad, Yeah

280
00:16:29,600 --> 00:16:31,880
Speaker 2: yeah my understanding, as we would be talking about a

281
00:16:31,880 --> 00:16:34,880
Speaker 2: world in which cynicism concerning the human experience at large

282
00:16:34,960 --> 00:16:41,040
Speaker 2: becomes more absolute. But basically we withdraw into individual and

283
00:16:41,080 --> 00:16:45,360
Speaker 2: localized efforts. But Allan's counter argument here is that most

284
00:16:45,360 --> 00:16:50,200
Speaker 2: people are not so absolutely cynical he contends, quote modern

285
00:16:50,240 --> 00:16:55,720
Speaker 2: cynicism is driven not by generalized apathy, but by incomplete disenchantment.

286
00:16:56,000 --> 00:16:58,720
Speaker 2: In other words, his argument here is that modern cynics

287
00:16:58,720 --> 00:17:03,160
Speaker 2: have not entirely so admitted themselves to cynicism. They never

288
00:17:03,280 --> 00:17:05,520
Speaker 2: hit rock bottom, the point at which they might be

289
00:17:05,680 --> 00:17:09,600
Speaker 2: forced to confront their own cynicism. And so he mentions, how,

290
00:17:09,960 --> 00:17:13,080
Speaker 2: you know, coming back to the idea of diogenies, you know, again,

291
00:17:13,640 --> 00:17:16,800
Speaker 2: living in the streets among dogs, and you know, and

292
00:17:16,960 --> 00:17:22,800
Speaker 2: rags and shrouds, pooping in the streets. He brings up

293
00:17:22,840 --> 00:17:26,240
Speaker 2: this public defecation as a shock tactic that's meant to

294
00:17:26,320 --> 00:17:28,879
Speaker 2: make a point quote how funny is it that you

295
00:17:28,920 --> 00:17:32,000
Speaker 2: find this upsetting? And the modern cynic is just not

296
00:17:32,240 --> 00:17:35,480
Speaker 2: nauseated enough by the reality they're faced with to the

297
00:17:35,480 --> 00:17:39,040
Speaker 2: point where they make that big sea cynic shift toward

298
00:17:39,080 --> 00:17:43,240
Speaker 2: the pursuit of virtue. M okay, So almost as if

299
00:17:43,280 --> 00:17:46,720
Speaker 2: we're forever weightless in our cynicism, free falling toward a

300
00:17:46,760 --> 00:17:50,520
Speaker 2: point a forced self recognition and revelation we never quite reach,

301
00:17:51,000 --> 00:17:54,159
Speaker 2: Like an imagined space vessel, inching ever closer to the

302
00:17:54,200 --> 00:17:59,080
Speaker 2: speed of light, but unable to actually touch it. Or

303
00:17:59,160 --> 00:18:02,359
Speaker 2: to quote Allan again, he refers to it as quote

304
00:18:02,840 --> 00:18:07,000
Speaker 2: unembedded but is yet underdeveloped negativity interesting.

305
00:18:07,080 --> 00:18:10,400
Speaker 1: Okay, wait, so am I interpreting this right? Then? Essentially

306
00:18:10,440 --> 00:18:14,960
Speaker 1: that Allan is suggesting that maybe if cynicism were more

307
00:18:15,280 --> 00:18:18,800
Speaker 1: intense and more total, that would actually lead to a

308
00:18:18,880 --> 00:18:23,440
Speaker 1: kind of horseshoe boomerang into seeing value and virtue.

309
00:18:23,080 --> 00:18:26,120
Speaker 2: Again exactly, Yeah, that is exactly the point I believe

310
00:18:26,119 --> 00:18:29,680
Speaker 2: he's making is that, Yeah, we're just with this incomplete

311
00:18:30,800 --> 00:18:34,520
Speaker 2: disenchantment with the world, like we think things were bad.

312
00:18:34,680 --> 00:18:38,920
Speaker 2: We've lost trust and establishments, but we haven't completely bottomed out,

313
00:18:39,240 --> 00:18:41,760
Speaker 2: like to the point where we actually like look up

314
00:18:42,000 --> 00:18:46,080
Speaker 2: and potentially begin scaling back up this ladder of virtue.

315
00:18:46,440 --> 00:18:49,399
Speaker 1: Hmm, I wonder I wonder about that. I don't know

316
00:18:49,440 --> 00:18:51,919
Speaker 1: if it really works that way, but I'm interested in

317
00:18:51,960 --> 00:18:52,439
Speaker 1: the idea.

318
00:18:53,320 --> 00:18:56,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, Yeah, it's an interesting concept. And the idea here

319
00:18:56,880 --> 00:18:59,400
Speaker 2: is that social media would be part of that equation,

320
00:19:00,119 --> 00:19:02,640
Speaker 2: and writes that quote, the visceral discomfort of a live

321
00:19:02,760 --> 00:19:07,960
Speaker 2: audience gathered before the defecating cynic that's a capital cynic,

322
00:19:08,000 --> 00:19:11,280
Speaker 2: as in the philosopher, has been replaced by a virtual

323
00:19:11,320 --> 00:19:16,560
Speaker 2: audience that turns indignation into profit. So an Internet ecosystem

324
00:19:16,640 --> 00:19:20,639
Speaker 2: that thrives on bad sentiments and becomes characterized by just

325
00:19:20,760 --> 00:19:23,159
Speaker 2: non stop righteous indignation.

326
00:19:23,080 --> 00:19:26,920
Speaker 1: But one that is discouraged from actually going anywhere positive rights,

327
00:19:27,320 --> 00:19:29,359
Speaker 1: just kind of festering negative emotion.

328
00:19:30,080 --> 00:19:34,159
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now this made me think about past discussions of

329
00:19:34,400 --> 00:19:38,399
Speaker 2: the ideas of Jaron Lanier, And I don't know that

330
00:19:38,480 --> 00:19:42,520
Speaker 2: he ever directly invoked cynicism in any of his works,

331
00:19:42,600 --> 00:19:45,040
Speaker 2: or not the ones I'm familiar with, but one of

332
00:19:45,080 --> 00:19:49,439
Speaker 2: his basic observations was that social media companies reduce us

333
00:19:49,520 --> 00:19:53,320
Speaker 2: to data and to a product that's sold to advertisers,

334
00:19:53,880 --> 00:19:56,720
Speaker 2: and you know, there's an inherent modern cynicism to that

335
00:19:56,960 --> 00:19:59,439
Speaker 2: view of people, like the people are the product and

336
00:19:59,480 --> 00:20:02,920
Speaker 2: people are while at the same time realizing this can

337
00:20:02,920 --> 00:20:06,639
Speaker 2: fuel individual cynicism towards the entire social media endeavor to

338
00:20:06,680 --> 00:20:09,080
Speaker 2: the point that it's really hard to trust even you know,

339
00:20:09,200 --> 00:20:13,760
Speaker 2: alternate decentralized social media alternatives, or at least that's how

340
00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:15,560
Speaker 2: it seems to me. Now, there have been a number

341
00:20:15,600 --> 00:20:17,880
Speaker 2: of papers about this over the years. Have been some studies.

342
00:20:18,440 --> 00:20:20,760
Speaker 2: A recent study published in the International Journal of Press

343
00:20:20,800 --> 00:20:24,600
Speaker 2: Politics by Hassel at All digs into this a little bit,

344
00:20:25,400 --> 00:20:27,840
Speaker 2: and also there have been some past papers by the

345
00:20:28,400 --> 00:20:33,639
Speaker 2: lead author here, Ariel Hassel. The basic idea that I

346
00:20:33,680 --> 00:20:37,840
Speaker 2: was reading about from this author is that in political

347
00:20:38,320 --> 00:20:41,360
Speaker 2: is that political cynicism is on the rise in democracies

348
00:20:41,400 --> 00:20:44,679
Speaker 2: around the world, as people increasingly use social media to

349
00:20:44,840 --> 00:20:48,760
Speaker 2: access their news as well as additional political information, much

350
00:20:48,760 --> 00:20:52,800
Speaker 2: of which is hostile and lacking in civility. This should

351
00:20:52,800 --> 00:20:55,320
Speaker 2: come as no surprise you. If you are not aware

352
00:20:55,320 --> 00:20:58,960
Speaker 2: of this phenomena, then God bless you because you have

353
00:20:59,040 --> 00:21:02,480
Speaker 2: stayed out of the mud of all of this over

354
00:21:02,520 --> 00:21:03,320
Speaker 2: the past decade.

355
00:21:04,080 --> 00:21:06,560
Speaker 1: I think this is broadly what's found by research in general,

356
00:21:06,560 --> 00:21:09,360
Speaker 1: but Rob, maybe you can let me know what you've

357
00:21:09,359 --> 00:21:13,440
Speaker 1: come across here. At least in myself, I've noticed that

358
00:21:13,840 --> 00:21:17,040
Speaker 1: if I there is a huge difference in how I

359
00:21:17,080 --> 00:21:21,600
Speaker 1: feel about the same news in when I'm getting it

360
00:21:21,640 --> 00:21:25,359
Speaker 1: from like reading articles in a newspaper or online newspaper

361
00:21:25,720 --> 00:21:30,879
Speaker 1: versus seeing it by scrolling social media. Gigantic difference in

362
00:21:30,880 --> 00:21:34,719
Speaker 1: how I process that, you know, even very bad and

363
00:21:34,760 --> 00:21:39,639
Speaker 1: distressing news. When I'm reading about it in you know,

364
00:21:39,720 --> 00:21:42,919
Speaker 1: in news articles, I feel like my response to it

365
00:21:42,960 --> 00:21:46,119
Speaker 1: is more measured and productive my mind tends to go

366
00:21:46,320 --> 00:21:49,600
Speaker 1: to what would be things that could be done to

367
00:21:49,640 --> 00:21:52,280
Speaker 1: fix this situation, well, you know that sort of thing.

368
00:21:52,760 --> 00:21:57,400
Speaker 1: Whereas when I consume basically the same news events by

369
00:21:57,520 --> 00:22:00,840
Speaker 1: like say, scrolling on a social media I tend to

370
00:22:00,880 --> 00:22:03,240
Speaker 1: not do this these days, but you know I can

371
00:22:03,280 --> 00:22:04,960
Speaker 1: remember from other times, and I have done it a

372
00:22:04,960 --> 00:22:09,600
Speaker 1: few times recently. Profoundly different emotional experience, one that is

373
00:22:09,720 --> 00:22:14,480
Speaker 1: much more distressing, and it just creates a feeling of

374
00:22:14,520 --> 00:22:19,000
Speaker 1: despair and helplessness. Like I do not have a productive

375
00:22:19,160 --> 00:22:22,439
Speaker 1: response to it, like thinking about things that could be

376
00:22:22,520 --> 00:22:25,080
Speaker 1: done to make the situation better. It's more just like

377
00:22:25,240 --> 00:22:29,160
Speaker 1: I want to surrender and curl up in a ball.

378
00:22:29,320 --> 00:22:29,560
Speaker 2: You know.

379
00:22:29,880 --> 00:22:32,480
Speaker 1: It's much more disempowering and horrifying.

380
00:22:32,880 --> 00:22:45,160
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I think that's not an uncommon experience. Now,

381
00:22:45,359 --> 00:22:48,879
Speaker 2: coming back to this study from the International Journal of

382
00:22:48,880 --> 00:22:52,879
Speaker 2: Press Politics, this is basically what they found out based

383
00:22:52,920 --> 00:22:57,080
Speaker 2: on a panel survey of eighteen hundred American American adults

384
00:22:57,160 --> 00:23:00,520
Speaker 2: during the twenty twenty election. They found that the more

385
00:23:00,560 --> 00:23:04,080
Speaker 2: a person was exposed to political attacks on social media,

386
00:23:04,280 --> 00:23:06,280
Speaker 2: the more politically cynical they became.

387
00:23:07,200 --> 00:23:09,600
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, exposure led.

388
00:23:09,359 --> 00:23:13,520
Speaker 2: To anger with increased political cynicism. Thus it became this

389
00:23:13,600 --> 00:23:17,800
Speaker 2: kind of like rodent wheel of exposure, anger, rising cynicism,

390
00:23:17,960 --> 00:23:22,040
Speaker 2: then more exposure, more anger, more rising cynicism. And to

391
00:23:22,119 --> 00:23:24,800
Speaker 2: be clear, they characterize this not as a kind of

392
00:23:24,920 --> 00:23:28,840
Speaker 2: healthy cynicism in response to corruption or failure, which they acknowledge.

393
00:23:28,840 --> 00:23:32,000
Speaker 2: You know, if you know, when when the system is corrupt,

394
00:23:32,040 --> 00:23:34,680
Speaker 2: when they are failures, it's right to have like some

395
00:23:34,800 --> 00:23:37,919
Speaker 2: response of cynicism. But this is the sort of cynicism

396
00:23:37,960 --> 00:23:41,480
Speaker 2: that is much more dangerous, and it can ultimately lead

397
00:23:41,520 --> 00:23:45,040
Speaker 2: to the delegitimization of democratic process.

398
00:23:45,480 --> 00:23:47,800
Speaker 1: I might make the distinction we talked about earlier between

399
00:23:47,840 --> 00:23:50,520
Speaker 1: skepticism and cynicism, like that it can be very health

400
00:23:50,760 --> 00:23:54,080
Speaker 1: healthy to be skeptical of politics, to not just take

401
00:23:54,160 --> 00:23:56,880
Speaker 1: politician's word for it, you know, to look for evidence

402
00:23:56,880 --> 00:24:00,800
Speaker 1: of claims and things like that, versus cynicism where you

403
00:24:01,000 --> 00:24:04,800
Speaker 1: just have a bias toward negative emotion and low opinions

404
00:24:04,800 --> 00:24:05,720
Speaker 1: of moral character.

405
00:24:06,560 --> 00:24:09,560
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, And what's interesting here too is that it

406
00:24:09,640 --> 00:24:12,960
Speaker 2: ultimately goes beyond the sort of like you could frame

407
00:24:13,000 --> 00:24:16,960
Speaker 2: it as positive political fear mongering or you know, the

408
00:24:17,000 --> 00:24:20,760
Speaker 2: sort of anxiety fueling messaging that does get people to

409
00:24:20,840 --> 00:24:25,399
Speaker 2: the polls. That does inspire some sort of action, but

410
00:24:25,560 --> 00:24:27,760
Speaker 2: instead we're getting to like the level where it can

411
00:24:27,800 --> 00:24:31,760
Speaker 2: result in cynical inaction, where it's not like, well, I'm

412
00:24:31,960 --> 00:24:33,840
Speaker 2: revved up, I'm going to go do something about it.

413
00:24:34,280 --> 00:24:36,320
Speaker 2: I'm revved up, but I can do nothing about it

414
00:24:36,359 --> 00:24:38,960
Speaker 2: because thus is the world now. To go back to

415
00:24:39,000 --> 00:24:43,440
Speaker 2: that discussion of cynical poop in the streets again, it's

416
00:24:43,480 --> 00:24:46,080
Speaker 2: not that you're fed up with all the poop and

417
00:24:46,119 --> 00:24:49,600
Speaker 2: wants to do something about it or in response to it. Rather,

418
00:24:49,680 --> 00:24:52,359
Speaker 2: you're just generally nauseated by all the poop you see,

419
00:24:52,400 --> 00:24:54,560
Speaker 2: and you just engage from seeing it all together.

420
00:24:55,560 --> 00:24:58,440
Speaker 1: So that is one type of response to political cynicism.

421
00:24:58,640 --> 00:25:01,240
Speaker 1: I came across the paper talking talking about it a

422
00:25:01,280 --> 00:25:03,920
Speaker 1: little bit differently that I think has some interesting insights here.

423
00:25:03,920 --> 00:25:07,600
Speaker 1: So I was looking for research that studied the particular

424
00:25:07,720 --> 00:25:13,240
Speaker 1: characteristics of how cynicism is expressed in political behavior, and

425
00:25:13,320 --> 00:25:15,320
Speaker 1: it turns out there's a decent amount of research on

426
00:25:15,359 --> 00:25:17,840
Speaker 1: this going back many years. Actually, there's a long running

427
00:25:17,880 --> 00:25:23,480
Speaker 1: link in the literature between high cynicism and a preference

428
00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:28,560
Speaker 1: for authoritarian rhetoric and governance. Authoritarianism being the concentration of

429
00:25:28,600 --> 00:25:32,000
Speaker 1: power under a central authority, under a figure or structure,

430
00:25:32,040 --> 00:25:36,080
Speaker 1: often a single person, and the repression of individual freedoms,

431
00:25:36,280 --> 00:25:40,960
Speaker 1: especially the forceful suppression of dissent. So I wanted to

432
00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:44,400
Speaker 1: look at one pretty highly cited paper on the subject

433
00:25:44,400 --> 00:25:47,000
Speaker 1: of cynicism and politics, and this was published in the

434
00:25:47,119 --> 00:25:50,960
Speaker 1: year twenty twelve in the European Journal of Personality by

435
00:25:51,000 --> 00:25:55,480
Speaker 1: Svin Patten, Elaine van Heil, Christoff Daunt and Emma Onrit

436
00:25:55,840 --> 00:26:00,160
Speaker 1: and it's called Stripping the Political cynic A psychological exploration

437
00:26:00,240 --> 00:26:04,920
Speaker 1: of the concept of political cynicism. Now, this was a

438
00:26:04,960 --> 00:26:10,480
Speaker 1: study of how cynicism manifests in politics in multiple samples,

439
00:26:10,520 --> 00:26:13,840
Speaker 1: specifically from Western Europe, and the authors note multiple times

440
00:26:14,280 --> 00:26:18,199
Speaker 1: that some of these results could be culture specific, and

441
00:26:18,240 --> 00:26:22,679
Speaker 1: so cynicism could manifest differently in one culture than it

442
00:26:22,720 --> 00:26:25,640
Speaker 1: does in another, or differently in one type of political

443
00:26:25,680 --> 00:26:28,960
Speaker 1: system than it does in another. But at least looking

444
00:26:29,000 --> 00:26:32,399
Speaker 1: at these samples in Belgium and the Netherlands, they found

445
00:26:32,400 --> 00:26:34,520
Speaker 1: some interesting results. And now I'm not going to be

446
00:26:34,560 --> 00:26:36,520
Speaker 1: able to get into everything the study found, but a

447
00:26:36,560 --> 00:26:39,680
Speaker 1: few bullets that stood out to me. The authors were

448
00:26:39,840 --> 00:26:44,960
Speaker 1: able to detect political cynicism as its own variable, which

449
00:26:45,040 --> 00:26:49,119
Speaker 1: was distinct from just generalized social cynicism, which we've been

450
00:26:49,119 --> 00:26:53,719
Speaker 1: talking about throughout this series, and from a somewhat distinct

451
00:26:53,800 --> 00:26:57,159
Speaker 1: from what they call political distrust. Now, what would be

452
00:26:57,240 --> 00:27:02,480
Speaker 1: the difference there. Political cynicism is cynicism applied specifically to

453
00:27:02,920 --> 00:27:07,040
Speaker 1: politics and politicians. So if general cynicism is the belief

454
00:27:07,080 --> 00:27:10,240
Speaker 1: that people are bad, people are selfish, and morals are fake,

455
00:27:10,760 --> 00:27:14,960
Speaker 1: political cynicism is the belief that politics and politicians are bad,

456
00:27:15,280 --> 00:27:19,560
Speaker 1: they're motivated by self interest and are unbound by professed morals.

457
00:27:20,280 --> 00:27:25,040
Speaker 1: Political cynicism is also differentiated here from simple distrust of

458
00:27:25,240 --> 00:27:29,120
Speaker 1: politicians and of politics. And I think a simple way

459
00:27:29,119 --> 00:27:33,680
Speaker 1: of explaining this slight difference is, if I have political distrust,

460
00:27:34,000 --> 00:27:38,880
Speaker 1: I am cautious about believing politicians and what they say.

461
00:27:38,960 --> 00:27:42,439
Speaker 1: I think that politicians and political institutions may in some

462
00:27:42,480 --> 00:27:45,359
Speaker 1: cases have incentives to lie or to make promises they

463
00:27:45,359 --> 00:27:48,800
Speaker 1: can't keep, So I am skeptical of what they say

464
00:27:48,840 --> 00:27:51,560
Speaker 1: and I try, You know, I am withholding some trust.

465
00:27:51,840 --> 00:27:54,919
Speaker 1: So there is this withholding trust element. But if I

466
00:27:55,000 --> 00:27:59,960
Speaker 1: have high political cynicism, I not only treat their claims

467
00:28:00,000 --> 00:28:03,560
Speaker 1: skeptically and withhold trust. But I also think politicians and

468
00:28:03,600 --> 00:28:09,400
Speaker 1: political institutions are bad, corrupt, and in it exclusively for themselves.

469
00:28:09,800 --> 00:28:13,959
Speaker 1: So it's like more of a negative emotional and moral

470
00:28:14,080 --> 00:28:18,159
Speaker 1: judgment against politics, not just caution or skepticism about the

471
00:28:18,200 --> 00:28:21,320
Speaker 1: claims emanating from it. Does that distinction makes sense? Yes,

472
00:28:22,080 --> 00:28:24,720
Speaker 1: So in this study, the authors found evidence that political

473
00:28:24,760 --> 00:28:29,120
Speaker 1: cynicism was its own thing, and while related to general

474
00:28:29,200 --> 00:28:33,120
Speaker 1: social cynicism and political distrust, it had its own distinct

475
00:28:33,160 --> 00:28:38,600
Speaker 1: predictive characteristics separate from those other two categories. Political cynicism,

476
00:28:38,600 --> 00:28:40,680
Speaker 1: in particular, was a predictor of a bunch of other

477
00:28:40,760 --> 00:28:43,920
Speaker 1: variables in a person. It tended to be related to

478
00:28:44,520 --> 00:28:49,520
Speaker 1: feelings of political powerlessness and political normlessness, so kind of

479
00:28:49,640 --> 00:28:52,400
Speaker 1: there's nothing I can do, and also there is no

480
00:28:52,520 --> 00:28:56,520
Speaker 1: right or wrong in politics, just power. The authors also

481
00:28:56,640 --> 00:29:00,840
Speaker 1: find that people high in political cynicism do not always

482
00:29:01,040 --> 00:29:04,200
Speaker 1: just sit out of politics. And we've talked about, or

483
00:29:04,240 --> 00:29:06,600
Speaker 1: we mentioned at least in previous parts some other studies

484
00:29:06,640 --> 00:29:11,120
Speaker 1: finding that people high in general cynicism were less likely

485
00:29:11,200 --> 00:29:14,840
Speaker 1: to vote, less likely to be involved in the political process,

486
00:29:15,240 --> 00:29:18,600
Speaker 1: But in this study they did not find that political

487
00:29:18,600 --> 00:29:21,880
Speaker 1: cynics were always sitting things out. At least within the

488
00:29:21,920 --> 00:29:26,400
Speaker 1: context of the samples from Belgium and the Netherlands, the

489
00:29:26,480 --> 00:29:29,680
Speaker 1: rate of voting among political cynics is not very different

490
00:29:29,760 --> 00:29:33,000
Speaker 1: from that of less cynical people, but people high in

491
00:29:33,000 --> 00:29:36,719
Speaker 1: political cynicism tended to view their vote more as a

492
00:29:36,840 --> 00:29:40,320
Speaker 1: protest or as a rebuke of the political system, rather

493
00:29:40,400 --> 00:29:44,200
Speaker 1: than a means of advancing a specific policy agenda. Quote.

494
00:29:44,240 --> 00:29:49,080
Speaker 1: Political cynics boost parties not for their ideological program per se,

495
00:29:49,440 --> 00:29:54,320
Speaker 1: but rather because of their supposed integrity. So it's like,

496
00:29:54,520 --> 00:29:57,120
Speaker 1: it's not so much about the policies that the party

497
00:29:57,160 --> 00:30:00,400
Speaker 1: they're supporting is proposing, but more often about like, this

498
00:30:00,560 --> 00:30:02,719
Speaker 1: is the only party that really tells it like it is.

499
00:30:03,840 --> 00:30:07,120
Speaker 1: The authors say political cynicism can be found all across

500
00:30:07,160 --> 00:30:10,320
Speaker 1: the political spectrum, but in this context, in these Western

501
00:30:10,360 --> 00:30:14,160
Speaker 1: European democracies, it tended to manifest most in support of

502
00:30:14,280 --> 00:30:18,400
Speaker 1: extreme right wing protest parties that use anti establishment rhetoric,

503
00:30:18,960 --> 00:30:21,120
Speaker 1: and the author say it's possible that this link is

504
00:30:21,200 --> 00:30:24,920
Speaker 1: specific to Belgium and the Netherlands at this time the

505
00:30:25,000 --> 00:30:28,080
Speaker 1: study was from twenty twelve, and it's possible that in

506
00:30:28,120 --> 00:30:31,520
Speaker 1: a different political environment, cynicism could be more left wing

507
00:30:31,600 --> 00:30:34,480
Speaker 1: coded or maybe even centrist. More research would be needed

508
00:30:34,480 --> 00:30:38,400
Speaker 1: on that. However, another dimension is that the authors here

509
00:30:38,440 --> 00:30:42,440
Speaker 1: also found a link between high political cynicism, racial prejudice,

510
00:30:42,480 --> 00:30:45,760
Speaker 1: and intolerance. This is in line with previous findings in

511
00:30:45,800 --> 00:30:50,360
Speaker 1: political psychology, and the research was only able to establish

512
00:30:50,400 --> 00:30:53,760
Speaker 1: a correlation, not to determine if there was a causal

513
00:30:53,760 --> 00:30:57,360
Speaker 1: effect between these variables, and so it invites the question,

514
00:30:57,440 --> 00:30:59,880
Speaker 1: if there is an effect, which way does the effect goes.

515
00:31:00,200 --> 00:31:04,200
Speaker 1: Racial prejudice tend to cause people to become politically cynical,

516
00:31:04,600 --> 00:31:07,480
Speaker 1: or does political cynicism tend to cause people to become

517
00:31:07,480 --> 00:31:10,320
Speaker 1: more racist. It could be thought, of course, that political

518
00:31:10,320 --> 00:31:14,120
Speaker 1: cynicism serves to support racist assumptions if the racist believes

519
00:31:14,120 --> 00:31:17,280
Speaker 1: the political system is working to the benefit of racial

520
00:31:17,320 --> 00:31:20,680
Speaker 1: groups they dislike. But it also could be that racial

521
00:31:20,720 --> 00:31:25,240
Speaker 1: prejudice itself is maybe a particular variety or expression of

522
00:31:25,360 --> 00:31:31,120
Speaker 1: underlying cynicism. So ultimately, political cynicism, it seems, is certainly

523
00:31:31,200 --> 00:31:34,080
Speaker 1: a thing that is distinct in itself. It's related to,

524
00:31:34,320 --> 00:31:39,760
Speaker 1: but distinct from, general social cynicism, and its expression is

525
00:31:39,800 --> 00:31:43,360
Speaker 1: a very important factor in understanding how democracies work. So

526
00:31:43,360 --> 00:31:46,600
Speaker 1: if you're involved in political science or political psychology, and

527
00:31:46,720 --> 00:31:49,880
Speaker 1: you want to understand and be able to model and

528
00:31:49,360 --> 00:31:53,440
Speaker 1: predict democracies, you need to understand political cynicism. It is

529
00:31:53,520 --> 00:31:56,400
Speaker 1: a factor. But another way I was thinking about the

530
00:31:56,520 --> 00:32:00,840
Speaker 1: expression of political cynicism is actually really to what we

531
00:32:00,920 --> 00:32:04,960
Speaker 1: talked about last time, to the cynical genius illusion. The

532
00:32:05,000 --> 00:32:09,040
Speaker 1: cynical genius illusion study found that while people don't necessarily

533
00:32:09,320 --> 00:32:12,960
Speaker 1: love cynics or think that they are the best at everything, remember,

534
00:32:13,000 --> 00:32:16,320
Speaker 1: people were less likely to trust cynics with, say a

535
00:32:16,400 --> 00:32:19,440
Speaker 1: social task like cheering up a depressed friend or taking

536
00:32:19,480 --> 00:32:22,080
Speaker 1: care of a stray animal or something like that. It

537
00:32:22,240 --> 00:32:24,720
Speaker 1: found that, you know, so we don't love cynics for everything,

538
00:32:24,800 --> 00:32:28,680
Speaker 1: we do tend on average to assume highly cynical people

539
00:32:28,760 --> 00:32:33,400
Speaker 1: are smarter and more cognitively competent, and you know who

540
00:32:33,400 --> 00:32:36,440
Speaker 1: doesn't want to be seen as smart. So specifically, I

541
00:32:36,520 --> 00:32:41,600
Speaker 1: was thinking about how this applies to conversations about politics,

542
00:32:42,280 --> 00:32:44,960
Speaker 1: where I've had this thought for a while that I

543
00:32:45,000 --> 00:32:52,000
Speaker 1: think people often selectively deploy cynical rhetoric in political conversations,

544
00:32:52,080 --> 00:32:54,800
Speaker 1: whether or not they really believe it all that strongly,

545
00:32:55,720 --> 00:32:58,320
Speaker 1: in order to look like they know what they're talking

546
00:32:58,360 --> 00:33:02,200
Speaker 1: about without having to get in to specifics, so like

547
00:33:02,640 --> 00:33:06,360
Speaker 1: broad sweeping statements of political cynicism. I think last time

548
00:33:06,400 --> 00:33:08,920
Speaker 1: we mentioned the example in all politicians they're all the same,

549
00:33:09,040 --> 00:33:12,320
Speaker 1: you know, it's just they're all liars, they're all the same.

550
00:33:13,240 --> 00:33:15,400
Speaker 1: It allows you to sound like you know what you're

551
00:33:15,400 --> 00:33:18,480
Speaker 1: talking about and sit up on a high horse about

552
00:33:18,520 --> 00:33:22,400
Speaker 1: the subject without having to know anything, or read anything

553
00:33:22,640 --> 00:33:26,880
Speaker 1: or follow the news. You can loftily condemn others without

554
00:33:26,920 --> 00:33:28,600
Speaker 1: having to do any homework.

555
00:33:29,080 --> 00:33:32,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, and yeah. I think we've seen some very

556
00:33:32,880 --> 00:33:37,080
Speaker 2: strong examples of this over the past ten years, and

557
00:33:37,400 --> 00:33:44,320
Speaker 2: sometimes sadly you see it puppeted in say comedy, in

558
00:33:44,400 --> 00:33:48,880
Speaker 2: mainstream rhetoric. One of the main examples being in any

559
00:33:48,880 --> 00:33:51,680
Speaker 2: case where someone is just talking about a given election

560
00:33:51,800 --> 00:33:54,440
Speaker 2: and saying it's just a choice between two bad choices.

561
00:33:54,480 --> 00:33:56,480
Speaker 2: You know, it was like both of the choices are

562
00:33:56,520 --> 00:33:58,560
Speaker 2: just as bad. I mean, that's just like, I mean,

563
00:33:58,560 --> 00:34:03,440
Speaker 2: that's a great example of lowercase the cynicism, where it's

564
00:34:03,520 --> 00:34:05,800
Speaker 2: like it doesn't matter, everything's just as bad. It doesn't

565
00:34:05,840 --> 00:34:07,480
Speaker 2: it doesn't matter if I vote for one or the other.

566
00:34:07,760 --> 00:34:09,919
Speaker 2: But it also means you don't have to get into

567
00:34:09,960 --> 00:34:13,200
Speaker 2: actually comparing the two its assume they're all just as bad,

568
00:34:13,280 --> 00:34:15,839
Speaker 2: which I mean, is there ever a case where two

569
00:34:15,920 --> 00:34:19,000
Speaker 2: bad choices are exactly as bad? Yeah? I mean, if

570
00:34:19,040 --> 00:34:22,040
Speaker 2: you're you're given a choice between two different toxic mushrooms,

571
00:34:22,920 --> 00:34:25,440
Speaker 2: there are going to be different symptoms, there are different

572
00:34:25,520 --> 00:34:28,600
Speaker 2: dosages and so forth, Like, they're not exactly the same.

573
00:34:28,760 --> 00:34:32,759
Speaker 2: Even if yes, in this one cherry picked example, the

574
00:34:33,000 --> 00:34:35,440
Speaker 2: end result is the same for you, the consumer of

575
00:34:35,520 --> 00:34:36,400
Speaker 2: the toxic mushroom.

576
00:34:36,600 --> 00:34:38,640
Speaker 1: I think that's a great analogy, and it's not to

577
00:34:38,719 --> 00:34:41,279
Speaker 1: say it is illegitimate to say in a you know,

578
00:34:41,400 --> 00:34:44,520
Speaker 1: in a two party democracy, to dislike both major parties

579
00:34:44,600 --> 00:34:47,279
Speaker 1: or dates, and you know that's fair, but like, yeah,

580
00:34:47,360 --> 00:34:50,200
Speaker 1: the statements like they're all the same, Like if you

581
00:34:50,520 --> 00:34:52,880
Speaker 1: if you really meant that, that would be absurd. It

582
00:34:53,040 --> 00:34:56,480
Speaker 1: couldn't be all exactly the same. Maybe neither as to

583
00:34:56,600 --> 00:34:59,359
Speaker 1: your liking. But but if you phrased it that way,

584
00:35:00,080 --> 00:35:02,600
Speaker 1: that might invite people to ask follow up questions like

585
00:35:02,719 --> 00:35:04,080
Speaker 1: well in what way you know?

586
00:35:04,160 --> 00:35:06,480
Speaker 2: Yeah, like like what's your scoring method and is it

587
00:35:06,560 --> 00:35:08,839
Speaker 2: a scoring method where yeah, you reach an absolute zero,

588
00:35:08,920 --> 00:35:10,640
Speaker 2: but you can't get underneath the zero, so you can

589
00:35:10,760 --> 00:35:13,879
Speaker 2: just have have them bottomed out an equal I I guess,

590
00:35:13,960 --> 00:35:16,000
Speaker 2: but that doesn't sound like a great scoring mechanism.

591
00:35:16,640 --> 00:35:18,880
Speaker 1: And you know what I want to say also that

592
00:35:19,000 --> 00:35:21,719
Speaker 1: I think there is a more innoxious version of this

593
00:35:21,880 --> 00:35:23,680
Speaker 1: exact thing. I mean, I've been framing it in a

594
00:35:23,760 --> 00:35:26,640
Speaker 1: kind of like I'm framing this hypothetical person in a

595
00:35:26,760 --> 00:35:29,800
Speaker 1: kind of unfriendly way, like they're trying to seem smart

596
00:35:29,840 --> 00:35:32,600
Speaker 1: without doing any homework. But there's also a more common,

597
00:35:33,680 --> 00:35:36,439
Speaker 1: you know, you might say, at least seemingly benign version

598
00:35:36,520 --> 00:35:38,960
Speaker 1: of it, where you're just trying to like sort of

599
00:35:39,239 --> 00:35:42,759
Speaker 1: get through a tense moment in a conversation, or like

600
00:35:43,000 --> 00:35:47,560
Speaker 1: get through something quickly I don't know, with a relative

601
00:35:47,680 --> 00:35:50,400
Speaker 1: or something like that, just by making a kind of

602
00:35:51,000 --> 00:35:54,320
Speaker 1: quick sweep it all under the rug conversation, you know,

603
00:35:54,440 --> 00:35:58,320
Speaker 1: statement about politics, just to like avoid having a difficult conversation.

604
00:35:58,560 --> 00:36:00,480
Speaker 1: Go on, do you know what I'm talking about?

605
00:36:01,080 --> 00:36:04,680
Speaker 2: Yeah? Yeah, just as an escape hatch for an unpleasant conversation,

606
00:36:04,800 --> 00:36:05,279
Speaker 2: that sort of thing.

607
00:36:05,560 --> 00:36:08,000
Speaker 1: I think people do that sort of thing all the time,

608
00:36:08,120 --> 00:36:10,920
Speaker 1: even if they're not like trying to look like a

609
00:36:11,000 --> 00:36:14,879
Speaker 1: cynical genius. And to an extent, that functions the same

610
00:36:15,000 --> 00:36:17,960
Speaker 1: kind of way. It's just like it's a defense mechanism.

611
00:36:18,120 --> 00:36:23,680
Speaker 1: It's a way of using cynicism to avoid uncomfortable specifics,

612
00:36:23,719 --> 00:36:26,680
Speaker 1: whether that's like revealing that you don't have as much

613
00:36:26,800 --> 00:36:29,520
Speaker 1: knowledge as you would like to appear to have, or

614
00:36:30,840 --> 00:36:34,320
Speaker 1: revealing sort of uncomfortable tensions and differences between people.

615
00:36:34,880 --> 00:36:37,560
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think also we have to acknowledge that

616
00:36:37,680 --> 00:36:41,120
Speaker 2: this sort of cynicism can arise and certainly in response

617
00:36:41,200 --> 00:36:43,319
Speaker 2: to the very sort of social media bombardment so we've

618
00:36:43,320 --> 00:36:46,320
Speaker 2: been talking about, but also as a direct result of

619
00:36:47,239 --> 00:36:52,479
Speaker 2: manipulation and disinformation that can force you into this mode.

620
00:36:52,920 --> 00:36:55,920
Speaker 2: So I want to be not to completely forgive cynicism

621
00:36:56,719 --> 00:36:59,320
Speaker 2: as it nanifests, but we have to acknowledge like the

622
00:36:59,440 --> 00:37:02,520
Speaker 2: complexity of its manifestation in a given person as a

623
00:37:02,560 --> 00:37:08,480
Speaker 2: response to streams of information and their overall media, political,

624
00:37:08,640 --> 00:37:09,440
Speaker 2: social environment.

625
00:37:09,800 --> 00:37:12,319
Speaker 1: So in this series, I think at several points it's

626
00:37:12,320 --> 00:37:16,080
Speaker 1: clear I'm coming down somewhat normatively against cynicism in a

627
00:37:16,120 --> 00:37:19,840
Speaker 1: lot of scenarios. But I also think it's very important

628
00:37:19,920 --> 00:37:23,960
Speaker 1: to understand and be sympathetic to the pressures that give

629
00:37:24,080 --> 00:37:28,000
Speaker 1: rise to cynicism and to understand how we're all susceptible

630
00:37:28,040 --> 00:37:30,040
Speaker 1: to it. Even people who are not high in cynicism,

631
00:37:30,160 --> 00:37:32,719
Speaker 1: like you've talked about, we have cynical moments, and we

632
00:37:32,840 --> 00:37:35,399
Speaker 1: might well become more cynical over time if we sort

633
00:37:35,400 --> 00:37:38,480
Speaker 1: of water those little cynical instincts and let them grow.

634
00:37:39,000 --> 00:37:39,200
Speaker 2: Yeah.

635
00:37:39,680 --> 00:37:41,879
Speaker 1: But anyway, coming back to that idea raised of trying

636
00:37:41,920 --> 00:37:46,200
Speaker 1: to leverage expressions of cynicism to make yourself look better

637
00:37:46,360 --> 00:37:49,399
Speaker 1: or to come off more favorably in conversation. I did

638
00:37:49,560 --> 00:37:51,880
Speaker 1: find a study on this, so it wasn't just a hunch.

639
00:37:52,080 --> 00:37:55,000
Speaker 1: There's a study in the journal Public Opinion Quarterly in

640
00:37:55,120 --> 00:37:59,560
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four by Hillary K's style called Impression Management

641
00:37:59,680 --> 00:38:04,120
Speaker 1: and Expectations of Political Cynicism, and this found that cynicism,

642
00:38:04,239 --> 00:38:08,200
Speaker 1: specifically with reference to politics, was a means that people

643
00:38:08,480 --> 00:38:12,759
Speaker 1: use to try to control how others perceive them to

644
00:38:12,840 --> 00:38:15,840
Speaker 1: read from the abstract quote. In three studies, I demonstrate

645
00:38:15,920 --> 00:38:19,480
Speaker 1: that people report they are cynical in order to avoid

646
00:38:19,680 --> 00:38:23,000
Speaker 1: giving the impression they do not know much about politics.

647
00:38:23,719 --> 00:38:29,360
Speaker 1: Political cynicism is not a socially desirable characteristic. People do

648
00:38:29,480 --> 00:38:33,680
Speaker 1: not believe cynicism is normatively good. At the same time,

649
00:38:33,840 --> 00:38:37,439
Speaker 1: many see value to cynicism in politics, a finding which

650
00:38:37,480 --> 00:38:42,000
Speaker 1: carries broad implications for the relationship between cynicism and perceived

651
00:38:42,160 --> 00:38:46,440
Speaker 1: knowledge in political discourse. And so I think that's important too,

652
00:38:46,680 --> 00:38:50,920
Speaker 1: like recognizing that you might not be overall a highly

653
00:38:51,040 --> 00:38:56,120
Speaker 1: cynical person, and yet you might still deploy cynicism specifically

654
00:38:56,239 --> 00:38:59,600
Speaker 1: with reference to politics, maybe because of a response to

655
00:38:59,719 --> 00:39:02,480
Speaker 1: how you perceive politics. You know, maybe you think you're

656
00:39:02,600 --> 00:39:07,800
Speaker 1: just rationally responding to politics being very corrupt and something

657
00:39:07,880 --> 00:39:10,439
Speaker 1: that is not worthy of trust, or investing the time

658
00:39:10,520 --> 00:39:13,719
Speaker 1: and energy to figure out who is worth trusting within politics,

659
00:39:14,440 --> 00:39:17,359
Speaker 1: or maybe you're trying to manage the impressions you make

660
00:39:17,400 --> 00:39:21,120
Speaker 1: on other people, which, again, despite the kind of unfriendly

661
00:39:21,200 --> 00:39:22,960
Speaker 1: way I was phrasing it earlier, I mean that's something

662
00:39:23,200 --> 00:39:25,560
Speaker 1: we're all always trying to do. I mean, let's be real,

663
00:39:25,600 --> 00:39:28,200
Speaker 1: I mean, everybody's always to some extent, even if you're

664
00:39:28,239 --> 00:39:31,080
Speaker 1: a very authentic person or you think you are, you're

665
00:39:31,160 --> 00:39:33,560
Speaker 1: somewhat trying to control how other people think about you.

666
00:39:34,160 --> 00:39:37,439
Speaker 1: And it seems that people often think cynicism is one

667
00:39:37,600 --> 00:39:42,160
Speaker 1: way of avoiding coming off as dumb or not knowing

668
00:39:42,200 --> 00:39:44,080
Speaker 1: anything about politics.

669
00:39:44,080 --> 00:39:47,880
Speaker 2: Right right, and perhaps a way to express neutrality, but

670
00:39:48,160 --> 00:39:51,759
Speaker 2: kind of like a hard edge neutrality that keeps people

671
00:39:51,800 --> 00:39:55,400
Speaker 2: from poking at you. Because if you're just like, you know,

672
00:39:55,440 --> 00:39:57,040
Speaker 2: I don't know yet, I'm just kind of in a

673
00:39:57,360 --> 00:39:59,920
Speaker 2: fact finding area right now, then the people might want

674
00:40:00,120 --> 00:40:03,359
Speaker 2: to understandably help you with your fact finding. But if

675
00:40:03,400 --> 00:40:05,279
Speaker 2: you're like, no, I've already figured it all out and

676
00:40:05,400 --> 00:40:09,319
Speaker 2: everything is horrible, then that kind of pushes people away

677
00:40:09,360 --> 00:40:10,600
Speaker 2: and they'll be like, okay, fair enough.

678
00:40:11,360 --> 00:40:13,880
Speaker 1: But though, another thing that is interesting, going back to

679
00:40:13,960 --> 00:40:16,960
Speaker 1: the previous study is you might assume at first glance

680
00:40:17,040 --> 00:40:22,280
Speaker 1: that if you express generalized political cynicism that is politically neutral,

681
00:40:22,360 --> 00:40:24,600
Speaker 1: but it turns out that is not the case. In fact,

682
00:40:25,200 --> 00:40:29,640
Speaker 1: people who express generalized political cynicism were often fans of

683
00:40:29,960 --> 00:40:34,920
Speaker 1: extreme parties. There actually were supporters of people within the

684
00:40:34,960 --> 00:40:38,080
Speaker 1: political system, very often what are considered by most people

685
00:40:38,200 --> 00:40:41,879
Speaker 1: the extreme wings of the political spectrum, especially at least

686
00:40:41,920 --> 00:40:45,560
Speaker 1: within the Western European sample here the extreme right wing

687
00:40:46,320 --> 00:40:49,839
Speaker 1: anti establishment parties. But also coming back to the idea

688
00:40:49,880 --> 00:40:54,040
Speaker 1: of impression management and these little moments in conversation where

689
00:40:54,120 --> 00:40:57,560
Speaker 1: we might use cynicism to paper over something or try

690
00:40:57,600 --> 00:40:59,239
Speaker 1: to come off a certain way to kind of get

691
00:40:59,280 --> 00:41:01,880
Speaker 1: through a tough spot. But I had to wonder to

692
00:41:02,160 --> 00:41:07,279
Speaker 1: what extent these little acts of performative political cynicism, which

693
00:41:07,320 --> 00:41:09,840
Speaker 1: again may seem harmless enough because you're just trying to

694
00:41:09,920 --> 00:41:12,560
Speaker 1: get through a conversation without you know, revealing you don't

695
00:41:12,600 --> 00:41:15,400
Speaker 1: know much, or trying to get through some tension, to

696
00:41:15,520 --> 00:41:21,120
Speaker 1: what extent these actually contribute over time to genuine generalized

697
00:41:21,200 --> 00:41:25,719
Speaker 1: political cynicism, which is sometimes linked to these toxic attitudes

698
00:41:25,800 --> 00:41:30,439
Speaker 1: like racism and intolerance, which can erode the legitimacy of democracies,

699
00:41:30,600 --> 00:41:34,480
Speaker 1: can lead people toward authoritarianism or make them submit to

700
00:41:34,560 --> 00:41:37,640
Speaker 1: it more easily, even if they don't love it. You know,

701
00:41:37,719 --> 00:41:40,480
Speaker 1: I think most people listening will probably agree these are

702
00:41:40,520 --> 00:41:44,279
Speaker 1: like bad outcomes. And I don't have a way of

703
00:41:44,440 --> 00:41:48,800
Speaker 1: proving that these little, more harmless seeming moments contribute to

704
00:41:48,920 --> 00:41:52,520
Speaker 1: that snowball effect overall, but I have to suspect that

705
00:41:52,640 --> 00:41:55,960
Speaker 1: they do. And it makes me think that I, at

706
00:41:56,040 --> 00:41:59,680
Speaker 1: least personally want to be more careful about having these

707
00:41:59,719 --> 00:42:03,480
Speaker 1: little harmless seeming moments of cynicism, even even in passing,

708
00:42:03,640 --> 00:42:06,200
Speaker 1: because I think they do kind of add up when

709
00:42:06,200 --> 00:42:07,799
Speaker 1: you hear things like that over and over.

710
00:42:08,040 --> 00:42:10,680
Speaker 2: Yeah, because I feel like on a personal level, you're just, yeah,

711
00:42:10,719 --> 00:42:12,919
Speaker 2: you're just kind of going into that cynical mindset more

712
00:42:13,200 --> 00:42:16,440
Speaker 2: and potentially going into at the very least that area

713
00:42:16,719 --> 00:42:20,759
Speaker 2: of no hope and no action. But then perhaps in

714
00:42:20,840 --> 00:42:23,560
Speaker 2: our social interactions you're kind of like greasing the shoot

715
00:42:24,080 --> 00:42:27,560
Speaker 2: of cynicism for everyone else. Like everyone if someone has

716
00:42:27,640 --> 00:42:30,279
Speaker 2: like a cynical trajectory going on in the way they're

717
00:42:30,320 --> 00:42:32,680
Speaker 2: viewing the world and interacting with others, if they come,

718
00:42:33,120 --> 00:42:35,160
Speaker 2: if they interact with you, and you're just kind of like,

719
00:42:35,280 --> 00:42:38,359
Speaker 2: carry on, let me actually speed you up a little

720
00:42:38,400 --> 00:42:40,520
Speaker 2: bit as you head down that hut, Like, obviously that's

721
00:42:40,640 --> 00:42:42,839
Speaker 2: that's not helping anyone, and we don't want to find

722
00:42:42,840 --> 00:42:55,359
Speaker 2: it out. What is it the end of that shoot? Yeah, Now,

723
00:42:55,400 --> 00:42:58,759
Speaker 2: at this point I wanted to turn our attention not

724
00:42:58,880 --> 00:43:02,000
Speaker 2: completely away from this topic because it's actually rather related

725
00:43:02,040 --> 00:43:05,719
Speaker 2: to it, and that is to the interactions between cynicism

726
00:43:06,200 --> 00:43:08,799
Speaker 2: and conspiracy theories and conspiracy thought.

727
00:43:09,480 --> 00:43:11,000
Speaker 1: Ah, yeah, I think this is going to be some

728
00:43:11,120 --> 00:43:11,760
Speaker 1: fertile ground.

729
00:43:12,360 --> 00:43:14,960
Speaker 2: Yeah. We of course, we've talked about conspiracy theories quite

730
00:43:14,960 --> 00:43:18,960
Speaker 2: a bit on the show before, generally and often discussing

731
00:43:19,120 --> 00:43:23,200
Speaker 2: the dangers of following their siren song to easy wonder,

732
00:43:23,800 --> 00:43:28,640
Speaker 2: to prejudice, endorsement, and more harmful worldviews. And studies have

733
00:43:28,800 --> 00:43:32,320
Speaker 2: indeed linked belief in conspiracy theories to not only distrust

734
00:43:32,400 --> 00:43:36,160
Speaker 2: of authority, but also general political cynicism and just general

735
00:43:36,239 --> 00:43:39,880
Speaker 2: cynicism as well. One paper I was looking at on

736
00:43:40,040 --> 00:43:44,960
Speaker 2: this topic is from twenty thirteen by Einstein and Glick

737
00:43:45,320 --> 00:43:49,360
Speaker 2: titled Scandals, Conspiracies, and the Vicious Cycle of Cynicism, and

738
00:43:49,480 --> 00:43:52,040
Speaker 2: this is from the annual meeting of the American Political

739
00:43:52,080 --> 00:43:56,160
Speaker 2: Science Association, and the authors here describe a cycle of

740
00:43:56,239 --> 00:44:00,160
Speaker 2: cynicism that goes as follows, quote political scandals, dominion is

741
00:44:00,239 --> 00:44:04,440
Speaker 2: trust in government. This lower confidence, in turn, spurs higher

742
00:44:04,560 --> 00:44:10,080
Speaker 2: levels of conspiracy belief, even in claims unrelated to ongoing scandals.

743
00:44:10,520 --> 00:44:12,520
Speaker 2: So the idea of being you know, I think we

744
00:44:12,600 --> 00:44:15,320
Speaker 2: can all sort of imagine the scenario here. There's some

745
00:44:15,440 --> 00:44:18,960
Speaker 2: sort of you know, sex scandal here that you're hearing about,

746
00:44:19,120 --> 00:44:23,239
Speaker 2: some sort of you know, money scandal here with other politicians,

747
00:44:23,560 --> 00:44:26,600
Speaker 2: and it kind of like, in your viewpoint, like muddies,

748
00:44:26,680 --> 00:44:31,200
Speaker 2: the water makes them for a cynical political environment, and

749
00:44:31,440 --> 00:44:35,040
Speaker 2: in that cynical political environment, it seems more likely that

750
00:44:35,160 --> 00:44:38,000
Speaker 2: they're perhaps covering up UFOs or what have you.

751
00:44:38,320 --> 00:44:41,000
Speaker 1: I was just thinking about this and about how this

752
00:44:41,200 --> 00:44:43,880
Speaker 1: type of thinking I think benefits from what to use

753
00:44:43,960 --> 00:44:46,960
Speaker 1: mathematical terms, might be sort of like the transitive property

754
00:44:47,560 --> 00:44:53,320
Speaker 1: of distrust, where it's like if if one politician or

755
00:44:53,360 --> 00:44:57,439
Speaker 1: political institution, government, or whatever has done something to earn

756
00:44:57,480 --> 00:45:01,600
Speaker 1: your distrust, that therefore is evidence against all of them

757
00:45:01,800 --> 00:45:04,920
Speaker 1: or all objects of that class. So it's like, you know,

758
00:45:05,080 --> 00:45:09,560
Speaker 1: a politician A lied, therefore we know politician B is lying.

759
00:45:10,280 --> 00:45:13,200
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah, And my own tendency here is also to

760
00:45:13,239 --> 00:45:16,799
Speaker 2: think about, you know, the desire for we've talked about

761
00:45:16,800 --> 00:45:21,040
Speaker 2: the desire for for there to be aliens, for there

762
00:45:21,040 --> 00:45:23,920
Speaker 2: to be UFO visitations, and you know, and this this

763
00:45:24,120 --> 00:45:26,800
Speaker 2: is a pretty you know, rich area as well. You know,

764
00:45:27,640 --> 00:45:30,160
Speaker 2: in some levels, perhaps it's most pure form. There is

765
00:45:30,239 --> 00:45:32,839
Speaker 2: the idea of like, I want aliens to be real

766
00:45:32,880 --> 00:45:35,160
Speaker 2: because I want them to come here and solve our problems.

767
00:45:35,360 --> 00:45:38,600
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, or you know, or it's somehow you drop

768
00:45:38,640 --> 00:45:40,920
Speaker 2: aliens into all of this and everything makes sense. It's

769
00:45:41,040 --> 00:45:44,000
Speaker 2: it's going to be a way to understand a confusing world,

770
00:45:44,440 --> 00:45:47,480
Speaker 2: a confusing and troubling world. But if you want to

771
00:45:47,560 --> 00:45:52,680
Speaker 2: believe strongly enough, and the scientific world is saying there's

772
00:45:52,719 --> 00:45:55,960
Speaker 2: no evidence for this, and the government or various government

773
00:45:56,000 --> 00:45:58,600
Speaker 2: agencies and different governments are saying there's no evidence for this,

774
00:45:59,280 --> 00:46:01,680
Speaker 2: then one was response, One way to keep the dream

775
00:46:01,760 --> 00:46:05,160
Speaker 2: alive is to just assume that all of these voices

776
00:46:05,200 --> 00:46:07,440
Speaker 2: that are telling you no are doing so because they

777
00:46:07,520 --> 00:46:08,560
Speaker 2: are covering something up.

778
00:46:08,920 --> 00:46:12,759
Speaker 1: Yeah, they must all be evil, otherwise why would they lie. Now.

779
00:46:12,840 --> 00:46:15,280
Speaker 2: Of course, this is not to say that a government

780
00:46:15,640 --> 00:46:20,320
Speaker 2: or some sort of governmental body wouldn't have reason to

781
00:46:20,600 --> 00:46:26,080
Speaker 2: keep the discovery of alien technology or alien existence secret exactly.

782
00:46:26,200 --> 00:46:30,480
Speaker 1: But you know, hypothetical incentive to lie is not evidence

783
00:46:30,560 --> 00:46:33,520
Speaker 1: for the underlying premise. It's like how I could say,

784
00:46:33,800 --> 00:46:36,759
Speaker 1: if my wife had actually been replaced by the thing

785
00:46:37,080 --> 00:46:39,840
Speaker 1: from John Carpenter's The Thing, it would make sense for

786
00:46:39,920 --> 00:46:41,759
Speaker 1: her to lie and say she was not the thing

787
00:46:41,840 --> 00:46:44,320
Speaker 1: and was in fact still a human. But that is

788
00:46:44,400 --> 00:46:46,600
Speaker 1: not evidence that she has in fact been cloned by

789
00:46:46,600 --> 00:46:47,080
Speaker 1: an alien.

790
00:46:48,200 --> 00:46:50,239
Speaker 2: That's a good point. That's a good point. So I

791
00:46:50,640 --> 00:46:53,640
Speaker 2: was looking around for some additional thoughts in all of this,

792
00:46:53,800 --> 00:46:57,080
Speaker 2: and I found a twenty twenty four article for Proceedings

793
00:46:57,120 --> 00:47:00,920
Speaker 2: of the International Astronomical Union from philosoph for Tony Milligan.

794
00:47:01,480 --> 00:47:04,440
Speaker 2: And this is interesting because Milligan argues that belief in

795
00:47:04,640 --> 00:47:08,640
Speaker 2: UFO visitation may well at this point constitute a true

796
00:47:08,719 --> 00:47:13,200
Speaker 2: societal problem. And while he contends that certainly low level

797
00:47:13,239 --> 00:47:17,040
Speaker 2: belief and stuff like this and fringe belief and enthusiasm

798
00:47:17,080 --> 00:47:18,640
Speaker 2: for stuff like this is nothing to get bent out

799
00:47:18,680 --> 00:47:21,760
Speaker 2: of shape about, his point is that as it edges

800
00:47:21,840 --> 00:47:27,759
Speaker 2: closer to like mainstream belief, three major problems emerge, one

801
00:47:27,800 --> 00:47:29,800
Speaker 2: of which is central to our discussion here, and the

802
00:47:29,840 --> 00:47:31,920
Speaker 2: other two I think are also interesting in their own right.

803
00:47:32,280 --> 00:47:37,000
Speaker 2: One of them is that UFO narratives can sometimes infringe

804
00:47:37,080 --> 00:47:42,279
Speaker 2: upon and even overwrite indigenous storytelling. I found this interesting because,

805
00:47:42,280 --> 00:47:45,440
Speaker 2: of course, we see examples of this in popular conspiracy theories,

806
00:47:45,960 --> 00:47:50,560
Speaker 2: where they link indigenous beliefs and stories to UFOs and

807
00:47:50,640 --> 00:47:55,920
Speaker 2: cryptids and so forth, reinterpreting those traditional stories as a

808
00:47:56,000 --> 00:48:00,200
Speaker 2: kind of proof and potentially corrupting those stories in the process.

809
00:48:00,280 --> 00:48:03,680
Speaker 1: And not letting those stories just be what they actually are, right.

810
00:48:04,480 --> 00:48:06,520
Speaker 2: And you know, it's you know, you can note that

811
00:48:06,719 --> 00:48:09,439
Speaker 2: we do see this with all aspects of history, myth,

812
00:48:09,480 --> 00:48:11,880
Speaker 2: and religion. But I think the kicker here is the

813
00:48:12,200 --> 00:48:17,640
Speaker 2: power imbalance and the appropriation involved. Milligan also says that

814
00:48:18,200 --> 00:48:21,799
Speaker 2: it all generates noise that distracts from genuine science quote

815
00:48:21,840 --> 00:48:25,839
Speaker 2: background noise which impedes science communication. So you know, we've

816
00:48:25,840 --> 00:48:28,440
Speaker 2: talked about this before, like putting scientists on the defensive

817
00:48:28,960 --> 00:48:33,200
Speaker 2: regarding something like the UFOs and so forth, instead of

818
00:48:33,719 --> 00:48:39,600
Speaker 2: you know, actually highlighting legitimate scientific efforts that can improve

819
00:48:39,840 --> 00:48:40,320
Speaker 2: our world.

820
00:48:40,680 --> 00:48:43,719
Speaker 1: Well, right, because the kind of UFO conspiracy ideation we're

821
00:48:43,760 --> 00:48:47,440
Speaker 1: talking about is always engaging in motivated reasoning. I mean,

822
00:48:47,480 --> 00:48:52,360
Speaker 1: we can you can hypothetically imagine a you know, just

823
00:48:52,480 --> 00:48:57,200
Speaker 1: a sort of a maximally unbiased, skeptical UFO researcher who's like,

824
00:48:57,239 --> 00:48:59,200
Speaker 1: I'm just going to look into these claims and see

825
00:48:59,239 --> 00:49:01,640
Speaker 1: what I find. But there are people like that, and

826
00:49:02,120 --> 00:49:04,239
Speaker 1: in my experience, they always find that, like, yeah, there's

827
00:49:04,239 --> 00:49:06,560
Speaker 1: no good reason to believe any of these stories, right

828
00:49:06,680 --> 00:49:09,320
Speaker 1: and so and so, what you're left with among the

829
00:49:09,440 --> 00:49:12,560
Speaker 1: UFO believers is people who are highly for a variety

830
00:49:12,600 --> 00:49:17,080
Speaker 1: of reasons, motivated to believe already that yes, UFOs are real,

831
00:49:17,239 --> 00:49:19,960
Speaker 1: yes they're being hidden. And thus the fact that you

832
00:49:20,160 --> 00:49:23,080
Speaker 1: do not agree with me is evidence that you are

833
00:49:23,640 --> 00:49:27,000
Speaker 1: at best, you know, woefully naive, and at worst you're

834
00:49:27,040 --> 00:49:28,040
Speaker 1: part of the conspiracy.

835
00:49:28,560 --> 00:49:32,840
Speaker 2: Yeah, but the number one point that Milligan makes is

836
00:49:32,920 --> 00:49:35,480
Speaker 2: that it can lead to erosion of trust in governments

837
00:49:35,520 --> 00:49:39,839
Speaker 2: and institutions, because again, if you want to believe, if

838
00:49:39,880 --> 00:49:43,400
Speaker 2: this is your like core belief, then you just assume

839
00:49:43,440 --> 00:49:46,800
Speaker 2: that everyone else is covering the aliens up. So of

840
00:49:46,880 --> 00:49:48,640
Speaker 2: course you're not going to trust governments, you're not going

841
00:49:48,680 --> 00:49:52,200
Speaker 2: to trust institutions, you're not going to trust experts, and

842
00:49:53,400 --> 00:49:55,680
Speaker 2: you know, yeah, if you're a true believer. It seems

843
00:49:55,719 --> 00:49:57,839
Speaker 2: to me one of the problems here is you'd never

844
00:49:57,960 --> 00:50:01,799
Speaker 2: be able to one hundred percent show off the cynicism.

845
00:50:02,000 --> 00:50:05,600
Speaker 2: You know, like if the government or institution said tomorrow, okay,

846
00:50:05,800 --> 00:50:09,960
Speaker 2: you got this alien life exists, but they say, here's

847
00:50:10,000 --> 00:50:13,840
Speaker 2: the kicker though it's only microbial or it, you know,

848
00:50:14,719 --> 00:50:17,560
Speaker 2: or even if they were just to go even further

849
00:50:17,680 --> 00:50:19,480
Speaker 2: than that and say, all right, here's the deal. Gray

850
00:50:19,600 --> 00:50:24,719
Speaker 2: aliens absolutely real, but like Nordic aliens, green aliens and

851
00:50:24,760 --> 00:50:28,040
Speaker 2: reptilians are totally not real. Would that that would not

852
00:50:28,160 --> 00:50:30,759
Speaker 2: please everyone. There's no way you could please everyone, Like

853
00:50:31,120 --> 00:50:35,719
Speaker 2: there's i'm you know, I'm certainly willing to admit that

854
00:50:35,800 --> 00:50:39,360
Speaker 2: it's possible that some of what's out there in the

855
00:50:39,520 --> 00:50:43,480
Speaker 2: ufology world is real, but is all of it one

856
00:50:44,320 --> 00:50:47,319
Speaker 2: absolutely not, There's no way it could be. So you're

857
00:50:47,520 --> 00:50:52,000
Speaker 2: always going to have like some level of conspiracy thinking

858
00:50:52,480 --> 00:50:55,880
Speaker 2: and no matter what could conceivably be revealed.

859
00:50:56,920 --> 00:50:59,080
Speaker 1: I think this is actually a good point that in

860
00:50:59,200 --> 00:51:02,160
Speaker 1: some cases could get through to people who are fond

861
00:51:02,239 --> 00:51:05,680
Speaker 1: of this type of conspiracy ideation, because I think a

862
00:51:05,760 --> 00:51:09,840
Speaker 1: lot of people in that situation and I'm trying to

863
00:51:09,880 --> 00:51:12,279
Speaker 1: be sympathetic to people with whom I disagree about a

864
00:51:12,320 --> 00:51:14,440
Speaker 1: lot of things, but I think a lot of them

865
00:51:14,480 --> 00:51:17,120
Speaker 1: would recognize if you bring it up that there really

866
00:51:17,480 --> 00:51:21,399
Speaker 1: isn't a plausible scenario. They could imagine where they would

867
00:51:21,400 --> 00:51:27,279
Speaker 1: be satisfied, right, Well, Like, what, okay, imagine you know

868
00:51:27,640 --> 00:51:32,280
Speaker 1: to them that actually we had not been visited by aliens.

869
00:51:32,320 --> 00:51:34,080
Speaker 1: I no, that's not what you think. But imagine it

870
00:51:34,200 --> 00:51:37,239
Speaker 1: turns out you're wrong and that is the case. What

871
00:51:37,960 --> 00:51:42,120
Speaker 1: what would satisfy you of that fact? What piece of evidence?

872
00:51:42,200 --> 00:51:42,239
Speaker 2: What?

873
00:51:42,680 --> 00:51:46,399
Speaker 1: Like? How would you be like, Okay, I'm convinced now, Well.

874
00:51:46,320 --> 00:51:48,400
Speaker 2: I mean it's it's like it's it is it becomes

875
00:51:48,440 --> 00:51:51,799
Speaker 2: a worldview, right, I mean, and the conspiracy is part

876
00:51:51,880 --> 00:51:54,320
Speaker 2: of the worldview, so you would have to like, it

877
00:51:54,480 --> 00:51:58,160
Speaker 2: would completely turn everything on its head if you were

878
00:51:58,360 --> 00:52:01,800
Speaker 2: able to do that. So instead, it just seems like

879
00:52:01,880 --> 00:52:04,160
Speaker 2: it would be a case where you would have this revelation,

880
00:52:05,040 --> 00:52:07,840
Speaker 2: but it wouldn't please everyone, and so everyone would just

881
00:52:07,880 --> 00:52:11,399
Speaker 2: assume some greater revelation is possible and that some cover

882
00:52:11,560 --> 00:52:13,440
Speaker 2: up is still in place, like, Okay, they told us

883
00:52:13,440 --> 00:52:15,200
Speaker 2: about the grace, Why are they not telling us about

884
00:52:15,239 --> 00:52:15,720
Speaker 2: the Greens?

885
00:52:16,160 --> 00:52:18,400
Speaker 1: Yeah, And coming back to your point about the erosion

886
00:52:18,480 --> 00:52:22,520
Speaker 1: of trust, I mean, one problem with this sort of

887
00:52:22,719 --> 00:52:27,680
Speaker 1: the fondness for conspiracy narratives is really it makes trust impossible.

888
00:52:27,840 --> 00:52:31,560
Speaker 1: No matter how trustworthy you know, an institution has a

889
00:52:31,640 --> 00:52:36,040
Speaker 1: track record of being, institutions are actually of variable trustworthiness.

890
00:52:36,160 --> 00:52:38,520
Speaker 1: Some lie more than others, some I think of, you know,

891
00:52:38,680 --> 00:52:42,560
Speaker 1: overall or quite trustworthy institutions, others are not very trustworthy.

892
00:52:43,239 --> 00:52:45,480
Speaker 1: And so like a skeptical person as opposed to a

893
00:52:45,520 --> 00:52:49,360
Speaker 1: cynical person, would try to evaluate the track record of

894
00:52:50,120 --> 00:52:52,920
Speaker 1: an institution or of an individual spokesperson and say, like,

895
00:52:53,120 --> 00:52:55,279
Speaker 1: you know, what, do we have reason to trust them

896
00:52:55,360 --> 00:52:58,520
Speaker 1: or not? But if you take a sort of a

897
00:52:58,640 --> 00:53:01,520
Speaker 1: conspiracy cover up as a starting point, and you start

898
00:53:01,600 --> 00:53:05,160
Speaker 1: with that conclusion, you will always have evidence that anybody

899
00:53:05,200 --> 00:53:08,320
Speaker 1: who doesn't agree with you has already violated your trust,

900
00:53:08,800 --> 00:53:12,200
Speaker 1: they've already lied to you. So you're taking instead of

901
00:53:12,400 --> 00:53:14,080
Speaker 1: the thing we talked about earlier with the kind of

902
00:53:15,520 --> 00:53:20,239
Speaker 1: applying a you know, a distrust inducing incident from one

903
00:53:20,320 --> 00:53:24,000
Speaker 1: politician to another. What in that example, we use something

904
00:53:24,040 --> 00:53:27,120
Speaker 1: that really happened, like so and so politician lied about something,

905
00:53:27,280 --> 00:53:30,279
Speaker 1: you know, assuming that lie was real. Now I can't

906
00:53:30,280 --> 00:53:33,880
Speaker 1: trust politician B because politician A lied. What if the

907
00:53:34,000 --> 00:53:36,239
Speaker 1: initial thing was not even actually a lie. It's just

908
00:53:36,320 --> 00:53:39,319
Speaker 1: something where you're assuming they're not telling you the truth

909
00:53:39,400 --> 00:53:42,120
Speaker 1: because they don't agree with you, that we're hiding an

910
00:53:42,120 --> 00:53:43,520
Speaker 1: alien spacecraft somewhere.

911
00:53:43,840 --> 00:53:47,600
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's this like imagined original sin that prevents any

912
00:53:47,680 --> 00:53:51,799
Speaker 2: kind of legitimate trust to ever take place. Another thing

913
00:53:51,840 --> 00:53:53,480
Speaker 2: I was thinking about in all of this. You know,

914
00:53:53,520 --> 00:53:55,759
Speaker 2: we've talked a good bit in over the past year

915
00:53:55,840 --> 00:53:59,640
Speaker 2: or so about low res ambiguous data. Yeah, it's like

916
00:54:00,320 --> 00:54:02,040
Speaker 2: it could be visual, it could be some other kind

917
00:54:02,040 --> 00:54:05,520
Speaker 2: of information, and certainly we can get even get out

918
00:54:05,560 --> 00:54:09,400
Speaker 2: of the realm of recorded information and into just sightings

919
00:54:09,520 --> 00:54:14,360
Speaker 2: and observations. You know, cases where you can make a

920
00:54:14,440 --> 00:54:16,440
Speaker 2: case for it. It's blurry, it could be a UFO

921
00:54:16,600 --> 00:54:19,160
Speaker 2: it's blurry, or you know, or we don't know exactly

922
00:54:19,239 --> 00:54:21,000
Speaker 2: what we're looking at. It could be an antennae on

923
00:54:21,040 --> 00:54:26,120
Speaker 2: the bottom of the ocean floor. And this is interesting

924
00:54:26,160 --> 00:54:28,719
Speaker 2: because I was looking back and there were various headlines

925
00:54:29,080 --> 00:54:32,360
Speaker 2: several years ago talking about an end of UFO ology

926
00:54:33,120 --> 00:54:36,080
Speaker 2: that arguing that, Okay, we're getting in this information age

927
00:54:36,560 --> 00:54:40,680
Speaker 2: full of ubiquitous visual data gathering. You know, we're just

928
00:54:40,800 --> 00:54:42,600
Speaker 2: we're just going to see this stuff dry up and

929
00:54:42,680 --> 00:54:45,719
Speaker 2: go away. But don't I don't see that happening, Like

930
00:54:45,760 --> 00:54:48,359
Speaker 2: there's always going to be low res ambiguous data.

931
00:54:48,719 --> 00:54:50,719
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, that's right. I mean one thing you might

932
00:54:50,760 --> 00:54:53,120
Speaker 1: have assumed that as like everybody's got a camera in

933
00:54:53,160 --> 00:54:55,560
Speaker 1: their pocket, and the cameras have become sharper and they

934
00:54:55,600 --> 00:54:58,040
Speaker 1: get clearer images and stuff, You're not going to see

935
00:54:58,160 --> 00:55:00,279
Speaker 1: all these like blurry kind of like what is that

936
00:55:00,400 --> 00:55:02,560
Speaker 1: in the sky. No, it turns out like as the

937
00:55:02,680 --> 00:55:05,560
Speaker 1: resolution gets better and these images, in fact, they'll just

938
00:55:06,200 --> 00:55:11,959
Speaker 1: capture things that are further away or they're like still ambiguous,

939
00:55:12,120 --> 00:55:15,239
Speaker 1: just like what's that dot? And you know, in some

940
00:55:15,400 --> 00:55:18,160
Speaker 1: cases people actually can figure out like oh, you know,

941
00:55:18,680 --> 00:55:21,640
Speaker 1: that's a star, you know, or that is a mylar

942
00:55:21,719 --> 00:55:24,520
Speaker 1: balloon or something like that. In other cases, like you

943
00:55:24,600 --> 00:55:26,600
Speaker 1: can't figure it out. There's just a dot on your

944
00:55:26,640 --> 00:55:28,360
Speaker 1: image of the sky and you don't know what it is.

945
00:55:29,000 --> 00:55:31,960
Speaker 1: And it's in those situations where it's low resolution and

946
00:55:32,040 --> 00:55:35,040
Speaker 1: there's not enough image, there's not enough information to really

947
00:55:35,080 --> 00:55:38,680
Speaker 1: reach a solid conclusion, where this kind of these thoughts

948
00:55:38,719 --> 00:55:41,359
Speaker 1: can always bloom. There's always still the possibility you don't

949
00:55:41,440 --> 00:55:43,800
Speaker 1: know what it is, so why isn't it aliens?

950
00:55:44,000 --> 00:55:47,080
Speaker 2: Or it's just the information is complex and you don't

951
00:55:47,520 --> 00:55:50,239
Speaker 2: have the background to understand it, or you don't have

952
00:55:50,280 --> 00:55:54,680
Speaker 2: the additional insight and layers to understand it. And therefore

953
00:55:55,440 --> 00:55:59,879
Speaker 2: it allows you to apply the script of the parent

954
00:56:00,040 --> 00:56:03,440
Speaker 2: normal to it in order to interpret it, the script

955
00:56:03,480 --> 00:56:07,440
Speaker 2: that is very malleable that can be shifted and applied

956
00:56:07,480 --> 00:56:11,160
Speaker 2: to any ambiguous data to produce the desired result.

957
00:56:11,480 --> 00:56:15,120
Speaker 1: But it's funny even in this area of vieufology, I mean,

958
00:56:15,160 --> 00:56:17,520
Speaker 1: this is something I read about sometimes. I mean, cynicism

959
00:56:17,600 --> 00:56:20,319
Speaker 1: plays in here too, because often people will be able

960
00:56:20,360 --> 00:56:23,000
Speaker 1: to come in and say, oh, you know this image

961
00:56:23,080 --> 00:56:25,719
Speaker 1: that you were very excited about of like a thing

962
00:56:25,840 --> 00:56:30,000
Speaker 1: moving in the sky, I was able to calculate that

963
00:56:30,239 --> 00:56:34,719
Speaker 1: this is actually an artifact created by the camera system used,

964
00:56:34,760 --> 00:56:36,640
Speaker 1: and I can show you how Like, you know, a

965
00:56:36,680 --> 00:56:38,799
Speaker 1: lot of times people just be like, you know, why

966
00:56:38,840 --> 00:56:40,920
Speaker 1: would I believe you. You've been part of the UFO

967
00:56:41,040 --> 00:56:43,360
Speaker 1: cover up for years, You've been posting articles like that,

968
00:56:43,480 --> 00:56:46,080
Speaker 1: and so like, there is a kind of cynicism that

969
00:56:46,280 --> 00:56:49,600
Speaker 1: just prevents you from accepting what looks to me like

970
00:56:49,680 --> 00:56:52,960
Speaker 1: a pretty good explanation of a weird looking image. Yeah,

971
00:56:53,400 --> 00:56:55,320
Speaker 1: what this is really getting into, I think is that

972
00:56:55,640 --> 00:56:57,640
Speaker 1: we've just sort of, for a few minutes now been

973
00:56:57,719 --> 00:57:00,600
Speaker 1: dancing around this. But I think another big thing about

974
00:57:00,640 --> 00:57:06,680
Speaker 1: cynicism is that it functions as an excuse. Cynicism functions

975
00:57:06,840 --> 00:57:13,080
Speaker 1: as an excuse to excuse bad behavior on your own part.

976
00:57:13,200 --> 00:57:15,480
Speaker 1: For one thing, we've been mentioning this less but I

977
00:57:15,600 --> 00:57:19,240
Speaker 1: think this is absolutely true that if you get caught

978
00:57:19,480 --> 00:57:23,000
Speaker 1: doing something wrong that you really know is wrong, you

979
00:57:23,080 --> 00:57:24,800
Speaker 1: can't really make a defense of what you did. What

980
00:57:25,240 --> 00:57:28,160
Speaker 1: do people say? They say, everybody does it? Yeah, Yeah,

981
00:57:28,560 --> 00:57:33,280
Speaker 1: cynicism is just like projecting cynicism onto others excuses your

982
00:57:33,560 --> 00:57:37,960
Speaker 1: undeniable bad behavior because it's just what everybody does. Everybody's

983
00:57:38,160 --> 00:57:40,920
Speaker 1: like this. This of course in the realm of politics,

984
00:57:41,000 --> 00:57:44,080
Speaker 1: this happens all the time. When somebody's favorite politician, it's

985
00:57:44,160 --> 00:57:46,960
Speaker 1: really undeniable. You know, they get caught on camera doing

986
00:57:47,040 --> 00:57:50,480
Speaker 1: something really bad. If they can't deny it. What people say,

987
00:57:50,800 --> 00:57:53,400
Speaker 1: everybody does it. They're all, you're so naive, you think

988
00:57:53,440 --> 00:57:57,360
Speaker 1: the other ones are better than this, So it excuses

989
00:57:57,440 --> 00:58:00,440
Speaker 1: bad behavior. But then the other way it's an excuse

990
00:58:00,600 --> 00:58:05,120
Speaker 1: is that it excuses poor epistemic practices. When you don't

991
00:58:05,240 --> 00:58:07,880
Speaker 1: have you want to believe something and you don't have

992
00:58:08,520 --> 00:58:11,320
Speaker 1: good reasons too, and in fact people are giving you

993
00:58:11,560 --> 00:58:13,920
Speaker 1: very good reasons not to believe the thing you believe,

994
00:58:14,280 --> 00:58:16,600
Speaker 1: you can resort to cynicism so that you don't have

995
00:58:16,760 --> 00:58:18,640
Speaker 1: to pay attention to that. It's like, well, you're just

996
00:58:18,680 --> 00:58:20,800
Speaker 1: all part of it. You're all just all lying. Why

997
00:58:20,840 --> 00:58:22,160
Speaker 1: should I believe anything you say?

998
00:58:22,480 --> 00:58:24,960
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's like it lowers the horizon of like the

999
00:58:25,040 --> 00:58:28,360
Speaker 2: moral universe around us, to the level of the of

1000
00:58:28,480 --> 00:58:30,360
Speaker 2: whatever fallen star we're looking at.

1001
00:58:30,760 --> 00:58:33,920
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, we have gotten into a lot of dark

1002
00:58:34,040 --> 00:58:36,680
Speaker 1: territory today, but next time we do want to focus

1003
00:58:36,760 --> 00:58:39,280
Speaker 1: on the topic of how to avoid in combat cynicism.

1004
00:58:40,480 --> 00:58:43,480
Speaker 1: So I think coming a little bit back into the light.

1005
00:58:44,080 --> 00:58:47,640
Speaker 2: All right, so join us on Thursday for that. Just

1006
00:58:47,680 --> 00:58:49,720
Speaker 2: a reminder to everyone out there that Stuff to Blow

1007
00:58:49,720 --> 00:58:51,880
Speaker 2: Your Mind is primarily a science and culture podcast, with

1008
00:58:51,920 --> 00:58:55,240
Speaker 2: core episodes on Tuesdays and Thursdays, short form episode on

1009
00:58:55,280 --> 00:58:57,880
Speaker 2: Wednesdays and on Fridays. We set aside most serious concerns

1010
00:58:57,960 --> 00:58:59,760
Speaker 2: to just talk about a weird film on weird House.

1011
00:59:00,560 --> 00:59:04,160
Speaker 1: Huge thanks as always to our excellent audio producer JJ Posway.

1012
00:59:04,480 --> 00:59:06,000
Speaker 1: If you would like to get in touch with us

1013
00:59:06,040 --> 00:59:08,320
Speaker 1: with feedback on this episode or any other, to suggest

1014
00:59:08,360 --> 00:59:10,360
Speaker 1: a topic for the future, or just to say hello,

1015
00:59:10,520 --> 00:59:13,000
Speaker 1: you can email us at contact at stuff to Blow

1016
00:59:13,040 --> 00:59:22,880
Speaker 1: your Mind dot com. Stuff to Blow Your Mind is

1017
00:59:22,960 --> 00:59:26,640
Speaker 1: production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the

1018
00:59:26,680 --> 00:59:29,800
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you're listening to your

1019
00:59:29,800 --> 00:59:30,480
Speaker 1: favorite shows.