Speaker 1: One person is labeled the perpetrator. In one person or
Speaker 1: side is the victim. Everyone wants to be the victim
Speaker 1: instead of the perpetrator.
Speaker 2: Today. It's great to have doctor Kurt Gray on the podcast.
Speaker 2: Doctor Gray is a psychology professor of the University of
Speaker 2: North Carolina an author of the new book called Outraged,
Speaker 2: Why we Fight about morality and politics and How to
Speaker 2: Find Common Ground. Wow. What a timely book and timely episode.
Speaker 2: In this discussion, we discuss why people seem so divided
Speaker 2: today and why everyone seems to be filled with outrage
Speaker 2: for the other side. We also discuss the psychology of
Speaker 2: righteous indignation and doctor Gray's views on moral psychology and
Speaker 2: his argument that deep down we all have the same
Speaker 2: harm based moral mind. We also discuss how we can
Speaker 2: bridge moral divides. I'm a longtime admirer of Kurt's seminal
Speaker 2: research on morality and his theory of moral typecasting, where
Speaker 2: we treat victims as angels and perpetrators as pure evil.
Speaker 2: I learned a lot from this discussion, and I'm sure
Speaker 2: you will too, So without further ado, I bring you
Speaker 2: Doctor Kurt Gray. Professor Kurt Gray, Welcome to the Psychology Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for having me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I've been really looking forward this chat for a
Speaker 2: long time, and it couldn't be more relevant.
Speaker 1: It's a contentious time, it is.
Speaker 2: Your book is called Outraged.
Speaker 1: That's right. Why we fight about morality and politics and
Speaker 1: how to find common ground.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I really want to know the answer to all
Speaker 2: those questions. Yeah, all the questions you're asking your book.
Speaker 2: Now you're you got a PhD in social psychology from Harvard, right,
Speaker 2: was it relating to morality?
Speaker 1: That's right. It was with Dan Wegner, and so he
Speaker 1: studied all sorts of weird and wonderful philosophical things like
Speaker 1: free will and thought suppression. He didn't study morality, but
Speaker 1: he studied how we perceived the minds of others, and
Speaker 1: it turns out that's really closely related to our moral judgments.
Speaker 2: Yeah, definitely. He's famous for the don't think of a
Speaker 2: white bear phenomenon, where all you do is think of
Speaker 2: a white bear if you try not to. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 2: So what was your dissertation on My dissertation was on
Speaker 2: how the feeling of pain and a little bit pleasure
Speaker 2: but mostly pain changes on the intention of the person
Speaker 2: who's giving it to you.
Speaker 1: So if you think someone's hurting you maliciously, giving you
Speaker 1: an electric shock, I did a lot of shocking of
Speaker 1: Harvard undergraduates. If you think you're getting shocked intentionally and maliciously,
Speaker 1: it physically hurts more than if you think you're getting
Speaker 1: shocked accidentally or benevolently. Hard to imagine getting shocked benevolently,
Speaker 1: but we figured out how to make that happen.
Speaker 2: So you direct the Deepest Belief Lab and the Center
Speaker 2: for the Science of Moral Understanding at the University of
Speaker 2: North Carolina. How and you you have a child, right,
Speaker 2: the two kids?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Now, how do you manage two laboratories. I've never heard
Speaker 2: of anyone having two laboratories at a universe. I've never
Speaker 2: heard of this and have a family, and I mean,
Speaker 2: how you do it all? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I ignore the cat. So that's that's how you got
Speaker 1: to cut corner somewhere. And I spend less attention with
Speaker 1: the cat. But well, you know, one's the lab that's
Speaker 1: about running studies, and then the Center is a little broader.
Speaker 1: It's kind of more you know, international collaborations, funding scholars
Speaker 1: things like that, so they're kind of connect with each other.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's busy for sure.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you say. Quote my job is to make sense
Speaker 2: of moral disagreement and find ways to help people in
Speaker 2: conflict understand each other. Is that still roughly what you do?
Speaker 1: Yes, you bet. Increasingly my research focuses on how to
Speaker 1: understand moral divides and how to bridge those divides.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just so poor. I mean, what as a
Speaker 2: social psychologist watching this political collection, do you are you
Speaker 2: in bewilderment? Uh? Or you kind of get it? Maybe
Speaker 2: you just you get it, you like understand what's going on.
Speaker 2: You're like, I get this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, you know, all humans, the human condition
Speaker 1: is bewilderment, I feel. But as far as the chaos
Speaker 1: of elections, I think folks like me who study intergroup
Speaker 1: conflict and our perceptions, it kind of makes sense.
Speaker 2: Okay, well we're gonna well not to me, so let's
Speaker 2: make something.
Speaker 1: Let's dig into it.
Speaker 2: That's why we're doing this podcast exactly who or you know?
Speaker 2: Righteous indignation is just something so interesting. It's not something
Speaker 2: so it's it's it's it's it's a powerful, deep seated
Speaker 2: human something. I don't know what it is. Righteous indignation
Speaker 2: what we call it? Is it a need of humans.
Speaker 2: I mean, it feels like a great Yeah, it's a
Speaker 2: great question. Right, No one keep I'm thinking like, no
Speaker 2: one wakes up in the morning left right. You know,
Speaker 2: whether you're a politician or a pundit on either side,
Speaker 2: no one wakes up in the morning thinking I'm a monster,
Speaker 2: I'm evil.
Speaker 1: Right. Everyone thinks they've got the best intentions and they're
Speaker 1: doing the right things, or you know, maybe the ends
Speaker 1: justify the means. Maybe doing some bad things, but ultimately
Speaker 1: for good. And so I think each one of us
Speaker 1: feels righteous and that we're doing good. And so when
Speaker 1: someone argues against us, or does something different or believes
Speaker 1: something different, then that's where the indignation and outrage come in, right,
Speaker 1: Because if I'm moral and you're different, well then you
Speaker 1: must be a moral Yeah.
Speaker 2: That's so true. I mean, people really are. It feels
Speaker 2: like more divided right now than pre twenty sixteen. Is there?
Speaker 2: Do you have any data that that's true? It just
Speaker 2: feels that way.
Speaker 1: There, Yeah, great question, there is data on this. So increasingly,
Speaker 1: not only have policy positions moved apart as much as
Speaker 1: really any kind of average person you know is really
Speaker 1: focused on policy. It's usually kind of focused on our
Speaker 1: group identity, but policy positions have moved apart. It's also
Speaker 1: the case that your dislike of the other party has
Speaker 1: gone up and up every year. So even if you
Speaker 1: don't like your party, then you really dislike the other party. Right,
Speaker 1: You're like, I just don't want them to get into
Speaker 1: the White House. So it's less about us and more
Speaker 1: about not them.
Speaker 2: Is this Trump's fault?
Speaker 1: Well, it's probably complicated, but I think, you know, some
Speaker 1: policy didn't help more than others, right, kind of capitalize
Speaker 1: on concerns and fears and catalyze as kind of like
Speaker 1: feelings of us versus them. So certainly, you know there's
Speaker 1: a market increase in kind of like animosity that around
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm trying to just take a step back
Speaker 2: here and think if if that's what it is. It
Speaker 2: feels like, you know, I'm a personality psychologist, so I
Speaker 2: come at it with like, you know, individual differences are
Speaker 2: gravitated to different messages, and you know, it feels like
Speaker 2: there are a lot of people who find standard politics
Speaker 2: as usual boring, and I feel like Trump is like,
Speaker 2: for the first time in the history of politics brought
Speaker 2: entertainment like WWF style entertainment to politics, and a lot
Speaker 2: of people it's suddenly like I feel like it took us.
Speaker 2: I think if I feel like in twenty sixteen, we
Speaker 2: like we left the political domain and went into some
Speaker 2: other universe and the traditional politicians and way of talking
Speaker 2: and everything suddenly became like, oh, that's old news, that's boring.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a good point, right. I think over the decades,
Speaker 1: it's been increasingly about entertainment, right, So the first televised
Speaker 1: debate where Kennedy looks so much better than Nixon, for instance,
Speaker 1: and then we get to now right where I mean
Speaker 1: Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor. Yeah, right, even Reagan you know,
Speaker 1: was president in the eighties. And so I think it's
Speaker 1: increasingly become about you know, who you trust, what kind
Speaker 1: of personality you know, talk about personality, what kind of
Speaker 1: personality do you trust to kind of protect you and
Speaker 1: your interests? And I think the rise of populism recently
Speaker 1: has been really about, like, let's put our faith in
Speaker 1: strong personalities. Who you know, people don't necessarily think that
Speaker 1: Trump is you know, moral and the kind of classic
Speaker 1: ways we might think about it. But I think those
Speaker 1: who are voting for and things will stand up right
Speaker 1: for their rights and protect them. And I think that's
Speaker 1: ultimately what our votes and our moral judgments are about.
Speaker 1: Right concerns about protecting ourselves and our family.
Speaker 2: Yes, you say, deep in our minds, every fight about
Speaker 2: morality comes down to one thing, competing perceptions of harm.
Speaker 2: We get outraged at people when they deny our asumptions
Speaker 2: about what causes suffering, and when they reject our views
Speaker 2: of victimhood. Well, this is just this is right up
Speaker 2: my alley. It almost feels like people don't leave space
Speaker 2: for there to be multiple victims at the same time.
Speaker 2: It's like people can't wrap their head around that, Like
Speaker 2: everyone's so self absorbed. Am I wrong?
Speaker 1: No, you're right, You're right for sure. You know. I
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about this about how our perceptions
Speaker 1: of victimhood and who's a perpetrator like one hundred to
Speaker 1: zero right, And it's totally fair to think that your side,
Speaker 1: your preferred side, is maybe a little bit more the
Speaker 1: victim right. So like, take immigration right, if you're kind
Speaker 1: of promegration, maybe you think the victim are families fleeing
Speaker 1: violence at the border. And if you're more anti immigration,
Speaker 1: you think the victims are citizens harmed by you know,
Speaker 1: undocumented or legal immigrants, and so you know, our moral
Speaker 1: judgments are tied to those perceptions. But in addition to
Speaker 1: like the fact that like, well, if I'm pro immigran,
Speaker 1: I like only think of people who are fleeing violence
Speaker 1: at the border and not citizens who might get harmed.
Speaker 1: I think that there's like zero percent victims right of
Speaker 1: American citizens, and and those like zero versus one hundred
Speaker 1: perceptions make it really hard to have conversation. It's like
Speaker 1: black and white.
Speaker 2: It's so black and white, and and so much of
Speaker 2: it relates to your brilliant, brilliant research, which I have
Speaker 2: really uh adopted and uh and has has really brought
Speaker 2: me a lot of quarity from my own book and
Speaker 2: my own work. So thank you and your work specific
Speaker 2: on moral typecasting is what I'm talking about. It is
Speaker 2: It's genius, Kurt, It really is genius. And it's and
Speaker 2: I don't even know if you fully realize how relevant
Speaker 2: it is to the moment when it's so I feel
Speaker 2: like we're living in the age of competitive victimhood. Absolutely
Speaker 2: is the way I put it in my book, and
Speaker 2: and and and I think moral typecasting perfectly explains it,
Speaker 2: because everyone it's a very coveted spot to be if
Speaker 2: you're viewed as the victim. Yeah, it's a coveted it's coveted.
Speaker 2: It's a coveted, coveted special status where.
Speaker 1: Then you can do no wrong, right, And no one
Speaker 1: wants to be victimized, right right?
Speaker 2: Right? But that's great, right yeah, great distinction, great distinction.
Speaker 1: Right. So no one wants to like suffer. But if
Speaker 1: there's a conflict and one person is a labeled the
Speaker 1: perpetrator and one person or side is the victim, everyone
Speaker 1: wants to be the victim instead of the perpetrator.
Speaker 2: Yeah, who wants to be the perpetrator?
Speaker 1: Yeah right, no, right again, because we all think of
Speaker 1: ourselves as good people. No one's like, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm the one who's like victimizing people here.
Speaker 2: I remember, I just I'll never forget. Like O. J.
Speaker 2: Simpson on like in his second trial, you know, and
Speaker 2: he was trying to defend himself. He's like he's like, oh,
Speaker 2: everyone's against me, you know, Like it's just it's funny
Speaker 2: to see like kind of people with a victim mindset.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, I mean everyone, I mean even in you know,
Speaker 1: make this point too, Like, you know who who like
Speaker 1: type casts themselves as a as a victim or a perpetrator.
Speaker 1: I mean everyone type casts themselves as a victim, and
Speaker 1: it's especially when people are about to blame you, right,
Speaker 1: Like I feel like that's the crux of type casting,
Speaker 1: Like when when someone's trying to show you as a
Speaker 1: victim or sorry, when someone's trying to show that you're
Speaker 1: a perpetrator, like Harvey Weinstein, right, he comes into court
Speaker 1: like shuffling with a cane. He's like, I'm like old
Speaker 1: and infirm, like no, you're you're a serial rapist, you know, sir? Yes,
Speaker 1: And so we you know, sometimes these disagreements are genuine,
Speaker 1: and sometimes people are using them to shape our moral
Speaker 1: judgments in a kind of sneaky way. And so I
Speaker 1: think we need to maybe distinguish when people, you know,
Speaker 1: people feel aggrieved versus people are like I'm going to
Speaker 1: try to trick others with my victimhood.
Speaker 2: Yeah for sure. I mean I there's some really interesting
Speaker 2: research showing a correlation between virtuous victimhood signaling and the
Speaker 2: dark triad personality traits.
Speaker 1: Oh interesting, And so.
Speaker 2: There's definitely, you know, a correlation there between those who
Speaker 2: at every turn they feel the need to signal that
Speaker 2: they're the virtuous victim.
Speaker 1: Yeah you're you know, you're the expert on personality. I
Speaker 1: feel like we cite a little bit of stuff in
Speaker 1: one chapter on people who who have like a victimhood mindset,
Speaker 1: and it's connected to two things like narcissism, but also
Speaker 1: to bad attachment. You know that you like, you use
Speaker 1: victimhood as a way to get attention and to and
Speaker 1: to feel like you might connect with others. But of
Speaker 1: course ultimately this backfires.
Speaker 2: It does. I have a section in my book recognize
Speaker 2: your own capacity to be the perpetrator. I just think
Speaker 2: that's huge. Yeah, you know, and there's something in psychology.
Speaker 2: I promise I'll interview you, but I'm excited. I'm trying
Speaker 2: to have a back and forth here. So there's this
Speaker 2: really interest sting hypothesis called the Copone hypothesis that has
Speaker 2: has come out and you know, named after al Scarface Copone.
Speaker 2: Despite many of his victims regarding him as quote pure evil,
Speaker 2: he views himself as follows quote I've spent the best
Speaker 2: years of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping
Speaker 2: them have a good time, and all I get is
Speaker 2: abuse the existence of a hunted man.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Wow, psychologists have called that the copone hypothesis.
Speaker 1: That's amazing. I mean, Harvey Weinstein as well has this
Speaker 1: quote about how he was the front runner of helping
Speaker 1: women in the movie business. He's like, I was, I
Speaker 1: had women in my film before anyone, and no one
Speaker 1: talks about the good that I've done. And so just
Speaker 1: the fact that you know someone who's done so much evil,
Speaker 1: maybe because they've done so much evil, right, they're compelled
Speaker 1: to see themselves as especially a victim to escape Blaine.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's exactly right. So okay, let's let's let's talk
Speaker 2: more about the excellent arguments in your book. You know,
Speaker 2: it's inter because you do make the case that we
Speaker 2: have a harm based moral mind. Is that always the case?
Speaker 2: Are there instances of moral thinking that don't involve harm.
Speaker 1: That's a great question, and it's something that the field
Speaker 1: has been debating for some time. My research, you know,
Speaker 1: and it's controversial in the field, but a lot of
Speaker 1: my research suggests that it's always about perceptions of harm,
Speaker 1: and the fact that one side might not see the
Speaker 1: harms that you see really sets the stage for moral disagreement, right,
Speaker 1: Like we all agree that child abuse being against child
Speaker 1: abuse is about harm, but something like your stance on
Speaker 1: voter fraud, your stance on immigration or drugs. Right, that
Speaker 1: one side's like I'm trying to protect kids from harm
Speaker 1: and you're just trying to let everyone use drugs. Right,
Speaker 1: But both sides are legitimately grounding their moral judgments in harm, right,
Speaker 1: Like maybe someone uses marijuana to help with their glaucoma
Speaker 1: or there are right, So it's always about it's always
Speaker 1: about harm.
Speaker 2: That's so like my gut tells me like, oh, there's
Speaker 2: got to be an example I can think of that
Speaker 2: that that dispels that, but I can't. Oh, you're right,
Speaker 2: Like I'm trying, because you know, I'm trying to be
Speaker 2: a good psychologist, right, I'm trying to be a good
Speaker 2: critical thinker. But you're right. I think of things like
Speaker 2: a lot of us feel like some things are moral.
Speaker 2: I'm thinking like Jonathan Height's research, you know, like some
Speaker 2: of the examples he gives, like there isn't actually harm
Speaker 2: being done, but people still say it's a moral. But
Speaker 2: because you're right, because they perceive harm, So you're still right.
Speaker 2: But I was trying to think, do you know what
Speaker 2: I'm saying. I'm trying to think of examples he gives
Speaker 2: of just disgust response, which is not actually causing anyone
Speaker 2: harm in some of his classic vignettes. But your point is, well,
Speaker 2: the whole reason why they find it immral is because
Speaker 2: they're perceiving.
Speaker 1: Harm exactly, and and harm is not like a binary, right,
Speaker 1: you could see less harm in some of the examples
Speaker 1: he uses. And I guess to zoom out right. So
Speaker 1: you know, I'm one of John's biggest critics when it
Speaker 1: comes to his theory of like, you know, there's morality
Speaker 1: beyond harm, and he's he's one of my biggest critics.
Speaker 1: And this is why I try to be so careful
Speaker 1: and comprehensive with the studies that I run. And so
Speaker 1: what I do in my studies is I take the
Speaker 1: examples that he's come up with, Okay that you know,
Speaker 1: if you're not a moral psychologist, they're pretty they're pretty
Speaker 1: out there, right, like consensual incest or having sex with
Speaker 1: the frozen chicken and then eating it right, like it's disgusting.
Speaker 1: People are like, well, maybe it's wrong, but you know,
Speaker 1: but but it doesn't seem harmful, but it does seem disgusting.
Speaker 1: But so we run careful studies where we, you know,
Speaker 1: really look at people's intuitive reactions to these these scenarios,
Speaker 1: and what we find is that people's moral judgments are
Speaker 1: driven by their intuitive, automatic kind of like visceral feelings
Speaker 1: of harm. And it can't be just discussed because there's
Speaker 1: so many disgusting things out there that are not seen
Speaker 1: as wrong, And so what distinguish it, Like, you know,
Speaker 1: if you're a parent, you get covered in poop when
Speaker 1: you change a diept Like that's gross, but no one's
Speaker 1: like you monster, you know, And so what distinguishes the
Speaker 1: kind of immoral or immoral discussing things from non immral
Speaker 1: discussing things is like really the presence of harm according
Speaker 1: to you, yeah, I mean you could you know, you
Speaker 1: can even just think about it, right, I'm trying to,
Speaker 1: Like a height has an example of like rolling around
Speaker 1: and urine for performance are or using some of these examples.
Speaker 1: You know, again I didn't come up with them, like
Speaker 1: letting a kit and rub itself on your genitals to
Speaker 1: be aroused, Like these seem so wrong, I think because
Speaker 1: you're like, well, think of the harm to these poor
Speaker 1: animals or to people or you know, and I think
Speaker 1: it was just disgusting, like someone stepped on some gross poop. Well,
Speaker 1: then that's disgusting, but it's not immoral because it's not harmful.
Speaker 2: Just talking about politics for a second, like or I
Speaker 2: should say, returning to politics, because it's just on everyone's
Speaker 2: mind right now. You made a really cool point, you said.
Speaker 2: But while someone on the left might emphasize the threats
Speaker 2: of growing inequality between rich and poor, systemic racism, and
Speaker 2: the destruction of the environment, someone on the right might
Speaker 2: emphasize the threats of banning firearms, restricting religious freedoms, and
Speaker 2: destroying sacred national symbols. Okay, So whenever I try to
Speaker 2: make such an argument to some of my extremely like
Speaker 2: left committed psychology colleagues, they go berserk and say, you
Speaker 2: can't both sidism this. The Republicans are the true evil.
Speaker 2: Now I get I get this all the time, you know,
Speaker 2: all the time, are there are these Our field of
Speaker 2: psychology is full of like left committed biased psychologists. It's
Speaker 2: the truth. And but and so they get so mad
Speaker 2: when I say that because I like to think like that,
Speaker 2: like like that sentence, I just read of yours is like,
Speaker 2: is how I like to think. I really like that
Speaker 2: kind of balance there. I want to understand what's in
Speaker 2: front of me and make some decisions based on what
Speaker 2: we currently have. And so I love that way of thinking.
Speaker 2: But but do you understand that? So there are a
Speaker 2: lot of people who would really balk at that based
Speaker 2: on their own commitments and say, you can't both side this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I think folks on the you know,
Speaker 1: speaking of both sidism, right, like folks on the left
Speaker 1: and the right think that any willingness to try to
Speaker 1: understand the other side is betrayal. They do, you're right,
Speaker 1: and so but you know, as a cetal psychologist, you know,
Speaker 1: I feel like we have to understand the minds of everyone.
Speaker 1: And that's including folks who might vote or think differently
Speaker 1: than us, but it doesn't mean their minds are different.
Speaker 1: And I think this is the big is the big
Speaker 1: worry with some theories out there that's like one side
Speaker 1: is you know, authentically moral and the other side is not.
Speaker 1: And you know, there are theories out there that say,
Speaker 1: like what, it's really liberals or it's really conservatives who
Speaker 1: are the good people? But I think at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, you know, we all have the same hardware,
Speaker 1: we all have the same desire to protect ourselves, and
Speaker 1: so you need to take those facts as a given
Speaker 1: when you look at the mind and try to figure out, well,
Speaker 1: what drives moral disagreement, And that sentence you read suggests
Speaker 1: that it's different concerns about protecting ourselves and different kind
Speaker 1: of basic assumptions about what causes harm.
Speaker 2: Yes, and it's terribly a conversation here. I think there's
Speaker 2: there's something else going on that I've noticed where I
Speaker 2: think that if transgressions are happening on your in group,
Speaker 2: much more likely to just excuse it and just overlook it.
Speaker 2: If you're committed to that group, then the other side
Speaker 2: is to let it go, you know. And I saw
Speaker 2: this in the most recent Trump rally in Madison Square Garden.
Speaker 2: You know, I wrote a tweet like I didn't feel
Speaker 2: like the tone was very humanistic and kind. It was.
Speaker 2: There were a lot of things that I felt were
Speaker 2: objectively rude to like the people Puerto Rico, for instance,
Speaker 2: And to me, it boggles my mind that that's not
Speaker 2: just an objective truth, that that's rude. So the way
Speaker 2: people responded were, Oh, Scott, you're so caught up on
Speaker 2: the left that you you don't understand that this is
Speaker 2: the stuff subjective? And I guess I just don't get it.
Speaker 2: Like if I say to you, fuck you, Kurt, I
Speaker 2: hope you die, how could someone say, oh, Scott, that's subjective,
Speaker 2: that's you're you're being biased because of your own lens.
Speaker 2: So do you see my point? I don't understand why
Speaker 2: there aren't certain things that are so obviously rude to
Speaker 2: everyone that we can't at least all admit that's rude.
Speaker 2: I guess I don't get it. Can you explain this
Speaker 2: to me? And you want to you share my confusion
Speaker 2: at all.
Speaker 1: It's kind of funny, right, because we were just talking
Speaker 1: about how these perceptions of harm vary from group to group, right,
Speaker 1: And I think that this is another example, right, Like,
Speaker 1: this is an example that you know, on one side,
Speaker 1: you're like, look, this is so like calling what an
Speaker 1: island of garbage that comedian said, right, that seems so
Speaker 1: obviously wrong and harmful to many people, right, to both
Speaker 1: of us, I think, But for folks on the other side,
Speaker 1: they're like, look, it's just a joke. And in fact,
Speaker 1: you know, we we're doing some research now about these
Speaker 1: perceptions of comedy, right, and seems to be like, hey,
Speaker 1: just lighten up. It's just a joke. It's just poking
Speaker 1: fun at our you know, at our convictions. And so
Speaker 1: I think as many folks on the right as well,
Speaker 1: argued like Mark Rubio, right, he was like, that's not
Speaker 1: a very funny joke, if you call it a joke
Speaker 1: at all. So I think there are folks on both
Speaker 1: sides who think that. But the whole point of of
Speaker 1: our perceptions is that they do vary. They do vary,
Speaker 1: and so maybe some people say, well, you know, the
Speaker 1: real harm we should be considering ish policies or you know, like,
Speaker 1: so it.
Speaker 2: All comes down to a hierarchy or ranking of perceived harms,
Speaker 2: not just not not whether or not something in isolation
Speaker 2: is good or not, because people, if they see a
Speaker 2: greater harm on the other side, then there'll be more
Speaker 2: likely to forgive the harm on their side.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Actually, yeah, So I appreciate you bringing that up,
Speaker 1: because all these contentious moral issues are ultimately trade offs, right,
Speaker 1: They're trade offs about like when it comes to abortion,
Speaker 1: no one's like I just want to hurt women if
Speaker 1: you're on the right, you say, or you're you know,
Speaker 1: pro life, you say, well, I really want to protect fetuses,
Speaker 1: and I just know that, you know, I acknowledge that
Speaker 1: there might be some suffering caused. Likewise, pro choice folks
Speaker 1: are like, well, I just want to protect women's reproductive rights,
Speaker 1: and I understand right that there might be some harm
Speaker 1: cost of fetuses. So I think these are trade offs.
Speaker 1: But when you're in those positions, you only emphasize the
Speaker 1: kind of dominance of the harm you're concerned about.
Speaker 2: I get it. That's that's really really elucidating, Kurt. Thank you.
Speaker 2: I've got to ask at this point, why does harm
Speaker 2: drive our moral minds? Like, what about the course of
Speaker 2: human evolution made that be the case?
Speaker 1: Yeah, great question, And I think ultimately it comes down
Speaker 1: to our nature, and that's a nature I think we've
Speaker 1: misunderstood for a long time. So if you think about
Speaker 1: you know who we are deep down, who we evolved
Speaker 1: as you look at museum dioramas, right, let's say the
Speaker 1: Museum Natural History, and there's like pictures of cave men
Speaker 1: and women with spears hunting mammoths, and I think that's
Speaker 1: that's mostly not true. Not in the mist of evolution.
Speaker 1: So to hunt a mammoth or any big animal, right,
Speaker 1: you need stone tip spears, You need a lot of coordination.
Speaker 1: We didn't have stone tip spears for a long time.
Speaker 1: We just had sharpened sticks. And we were a lot
Speaker 1: smaller back in the day than we are now. So
Speaker 1: we were a little, you know, furry, ultimately terrified apes
Speaker 1: that spend most of our time hiding from predators and
Speaker 1: not hunting them. And I think if you look back
Speaker 1: in the record, you'll find that that mostly we were prey.
Speaker 1: We were terrifying our you know, kids were picked off
Speaker 1: by eagles, we slept in the night, and our children
Speaker 1: got eaten by cougars. Right, So our entire psychology is
Speaker 1: built around concern about getting harmed and protecting ourselves. And
Speaker 1: and you can draw kind of almost a straight line
Speaker 1: from millions of years ago of being afraid to being
Speaker 1: afraid today, not of animal predators but of moral predators.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's that's a great, great kind of tree that
Speaker 2: the evolution of this. So it is something really deeply
Speaker 2: ingrained in us. Earlier, I was trying to say, what
Speaker 2: is it?
Speaker 1: Is it a need?
Speaker 2: Is it it's it's a module. It's like you know
Speaker 2: it's an evolutionary module in a way.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I'm a little that module is a
Speaker 1: is a powerful word. But I think I don't think
Speaker 1: you need to say it's like that, you know, encapsulated
Speaker 1: in our mind as much as just like underlying a
Speaker 1: lot of things, right, like just the history that's kind
Speaker 1: of like baked into all sorts of places in it
Speaker 1: in our brain.
Speaker 2: You're such a social psychologist, I know clearly there's a
Speaker 2: I mean, if it's evolutionary, you just made the argument,
Speaker 2: you're definitely there is. Definitely it's in our genes. That's
Speaker 2: that's that that would be a logical outgrowth of the
Speaker 2: evolution that you just described.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree, I agree that you know definitely it's
Speaker 1: in our genes. And then the question is like where
Speaker 1: is in our brain? I don't know.
Speaker 2: Sure.
Speaker 1: To me, it's a black box. It just cools the blood.
Speaker 1: As far as I you know, as far as I know,
Speaker 1: I love it.
Speaker 2: I love this. I love this whole conversation. Oh boy. So,
Speaker 2: and and then how does harm fuel morality? How does
Speaker 2: the process work? Can you guys go a little bit
Speaker 2: deeper into what you've observed?
Speaker 1: You bet so? As I mentioned, right, It's all about
Speaker 1: a matter of perception. And so maybe this is a
Speaker 1: little more kind of like in the science than than
Speaker 1: is in the book. But we have a kind of
Speaker 1: template in our minds. So here's an example of a template.
Speaker 1: Let's say I say, like, what's it like to go
Speaker 1: to a restaurant? And then your template is like, while
Speaker 1: I sit down and someone comes and takes my order
Speaker 1: and then brings me food, right Like, and if something
Speaker 1: was that was exactly you know, you sit down, you
Speaker 1: take your take your order, bring your food, you pay
Speaker 1: for it. You're like, well, that's a restaurant. And when
Speaker 1: it comes to morality, our template for something that's immoral,
Speaker 1: for something we should get outraged about, is harm, and
Speaker 1: in particular victimization to someone vulnerable. Right, So if you're like, look,
Speaker 1: this act victimizes someone vulnerable, like child abuse, You're like,
Speaker 1: that's obviously immoral. And then and then the more it
Speaker 1: kind of resembles that kind of thing, the more you
Speaker 1: think your mind kind of detects something in the world
Speaker 1: as immoral. Right. And so if if you're like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I kick something out in the woods and
Speaker 1: I'm like, okay, well I'm assuming it's a tree, so
Speaker 1: it's probably all right. And then you're like, well it
Speaker 1: turned out to be a puppy. I'm like, oh, wow,
Speaker 1: Now I know that's moral because there's like this vulnerable
Speaker 1: victimization and so ultimately our mind is like a vulnerable
Speaker 1: victimization detector when it comes to morality, and the more
Speaker 1: there's that, the more a moral sense is triggered.
Speaker 2: There's a lot there because it feels like there's a
Speaker 2: difference between the left and the right in there focus
Speaker 2: on quote, vulnerable populations, but that's only at first Blush.
Speaker 2: You're giving additional nuance here, suggesting that while that may
Speaker 2: be an explicit thing, you know, with the left using
Speaker 2: that phrase, you know, we care about vulnera publishing and
Speaker 2: the right caring more about other issues. In reality, it
Speaker 2: sounds like you're saying, like even the right, a lot
Speaker 2: of it comes down to what they view as the
Speaker 2: vulnerable populations to protect. Is that a fair statement.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's absolutely fair. But I think you do hit
Speaker 1: on a nuance that. Well, I'll go through the data.
Speaker 1: So we asked, you know, thousands of liberals and conservatives
Speaker 1: to tell us who they think is especially vulnerable to
Speaker 1: victimization and by how much. And what we find is
Speaker 1: that conservatives, you know, we're talking like committed conservatives seven
Speaker 1: out of seven on a conservative scale, they think that
Speaker 1: all people are round about equally vulnerable to suffering. So
Speaker 1: whether you're white or black, right, whether you're an immigrant
Speaker 1: or a citizen, whether you're a Muslim or Christian, you're
Speaker 1: roughly the same. And this kind of like really mirrors
Speaker 1: ideas of like America as a collection of individuals an
Speaker 1: individual agency. And so they would still base you know,
Speaker 1: committed conservatives would still base their moral judgments on vulnerability.
Speaker 1: But they see everyone as kind of equally vulnerable. Whether
Speaker 1: you're a CEO or you know, a worker and a company,
Speaker 1: you can still bleed if you're cut right, you're still
Speaker 1: disappointed if your goals aren't met. On the other hands,
Speaker 1: committed liberals like a one out of seven on conservatism.
Speaker 1: They see really big differences in who's especially vulnerable to victimization.
Speaker 1: They see folks like Muslims, undocumented immigrant, right, maybe poor
Speaker 1: African Americans as exceptionally vulnerable to harm. And then folks
Speaker 1: that you know, belong to groups that are maybe you
Speaker 1: could argue, or less marginalized right, especially in progressive circles
Speaker 1: those billionaires, Yeah, billionaires exactly, cops right, Progressive see those
Speaker 1: folks as basically almost impervious to harm. And so you've
Speaker 1: got this really powerful tension now between liberals who are like, look,
Speaker 1: there's two groups of people in the world, oppressors and
Speaker 1: the oppressed, the vulnerable and the invulnerable, and then conservatives
Speaker 1: who are like, look, everyone is basically equally vulnerable to suffering.
Speaker 1: And those are hugely different narratives, right, Like Conservers are like, well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter to what group you belong you can
Speaker 1: still suffer, and liberals are like, well, it matters vastly
Speaker 1: what group you belong to, and that dictates whether you
Speaker 1: can suffer or not. And I think think we could,
Speaker 1: you know, we could agree that folks on the far
Speaker 1: ends of the spectrum are not typical. Right, that's the
Speaker 1: whole point. But but it's interesting how they disagree. It's
Speaker 1: ultimately about vulnerability, but they see it really differently. What
Speaker 1: do you think, Well, you know, that's a it's a
Speaker 1: good question.
Speaker 2: What's the truth?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the truth is hard to ferret
Speaker 1: out because we see the world so imperfectly, and there's
Speaker 1: so much room for wiggle. But I think there's a
Speaker 1: grain of truth in both, not to you know, again
Speaker 1: to kind of like see the humanity in both sides.
Speaker 1: But I think it is the case that there are
Speaker 1: systemic differences in vulnerability based on your group identity. Right,
Speaker 1: It's just and I think even conservatives, you know, all
Speaker 1: but the kind of most most extreme conservatives, do believe this.
Speaker 1: So we do find differences. Right, It is the case
Speaker 1: that if you grew up extremely poor, you are generally
Speaker 1: more vulnerable to being mistreated, right, and then someone who
Speaker 1: grows up rich. At the same time, I think we
Speaker 1: should also understand that, you know, individuals have some agency
Speaker 1: and have some choice, and you know, and even if
Speaker 1: you are a richer person, you still suffer. You know,
Speaker 1: if your child is injured, if your child is killed, Right,
Speaker 1: that's still sad. And so it's a tension between kind
Speaker 1: of this idea of like a victim as an individual
Speaker 1: versus a victim of someone belonging to a group.
Speaker 2: Oh, well, that's that, you nailed it. You nailed it.
Speaker 2: That's it individualism versus yeah, group based harm. Well, yeah,
Speaker 2: that really helped to help me really see that within
Speaker 2: that framework. Thank you. Look, let's just spend the rest
Speaker 2: of the time talking about what we can do to
Speaker 2: bridge divides.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's tricky, it's hard, but you've thought about it.
Speaker 1: I can tell you one thing that you shouldn't do.
Speaker 1: That that my research kind of reveals, kind of surprised us.
Speaker 1: So if you ask people what's going to take for
Speaker 1: you to respect someone on the other side, the majority
Speaker 1: of people and we've done this, they tell you, just
Speaker 1: give me the facts.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: If I'm talking to someone on the other side, I
Speaker 1: want them to give me the facts and then we
Speaker 1: can agree on what the truth is and then take
Speaker 1: it from there. And we say, great, great, let's test
Speaker 1: a conversation now, and here are some facts. Well, it
Speaker 1: turns out people they say, those aren't the real facts.
Speaker 1: Give me the real those are fake facts. Right. And
Speaker 1: so the problem with kind of political conversations now is
Speaker 1: we have such different facts that we can't find common
Speaker 1: ground when it comes to statistics or you know data. Instead,
Speaker 1: what our data show is that the best way to
Speaker 1: bridge devise is through stories, you know, personal experiences, where
Speaker 1: you talk about the harms you suffer, where you talk
Speaker 1: about the vulnerabilities that you fear might get exploited, and
Speaker 1: those are the ways to better bridge divides.
Speaker 2: Do you see good examples of that happening anywhere?
Speaker 1: I mean absolutely, I mean, you know, we any kind
Speaker 1: of media source you look at, you'll find some differences.
Speaker 1: So in one study, we looked at YouTube videos about abortion,
Speaker 1: and we looked at the comments of those videos. And
Speaker 1: the comments of YouTube videos are not known to be
Speaker 1: especially supportive or kind, so it's kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: a challenging way to test our hypothesis. And some videos
Speaker 1: are about people's abortion stories. You know, this is my abortion,
Speaker 1: or this is my decision not to have an abortion,
Speaker 1: or some of those videos are about statistics right here,
Speaker 1: how many abortions happen in America today. Here's how easy
Speaker 1: or hard it is to have an abortion. And when
Speaker 1: we looked at those video comments, we found that the
Speaker 1: videos where people talked about their stories, the comments were
Speaker 1: much kinder and much not only more positive, but also
Speaker 1: like socially affiliated. These people wanted to be like, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, I want to be your friend. Basically, we
Speaker 1: find it in you know, shows on Fox News on CNN,
Speaker 1: hosts are more generous with their guests when they emphasize
Speaker 1: personal stories and facts and we find in conversations too.
Speaker 1: And I think you know listeners today, well you know
Speaker 1: you just tried at Thanksgiving or Christmas whatever, you know,
Speaker 1: any holidays where there's potential for division, and it works
Speaker 1: a lot better. And I'm happy to talk about more
Speaker 1: more tips as well, please, So you know, one of
Speaker 1: the best tips I'll say is to when you're having
Speaker 1: a conversation, try for understanding. Yeah, not for winning. And
Speaker 1: this is why started that, I know, right, don't we
Speaker 1: all want to win? Is that where we're here on
Speaker 1: this earth to dominate the other side with right, Like
Speaker 1: you look at social media, you're like, I just own
Speaker 1: this person and that's the video you want to click.
Speaker 1: You know, I can't wait to see my side own
Speaker 1: the other side. But like, no one comes away from that,
Speaker 1: you know in the end, like happier, no one changes
Speaker 1: their mind based on fact. Like no one's like, oh,
Speaker 1: you know what, I believe this about abortion or immigration,
Speaker 1: but then this person gave me the statistic and like, boy,
Speaker 1: now I change my Like never, that never happens, right, Instead,
Speaker 1: if you want to be like, oh I had a
Speaker 1: good conversation and now I see the humanity on the
Speaker 1: other side a little more. Yeah, that comes from like, oh,
Speaker 1: they were trying to understand me, and I was trying
Speaker 1: to understand them, and they were telling me about their
Speaker 1: personal experiences and I was trying to learn about not
Speaker 1: when learn about them. You know, I have this like
Speaker 1: uber ride with a Christian nationalist some time ago. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm like, I studied morality and politics, and folks are
Speaker 1: usually like, will hold my beer, you know, like, here's
Speaker 1: my story. Yeah, and you know, I don't know if
Speaker 1: you know many Christian nationalists. I don't, but there's potential
Speaker 1: for me to be like, well, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know about that idea. But at first I was like, well,
Speaker 1: tell me how how you think about this idea? Right,
Speaker 1: tell me why with the roots of your belief and
Speaker 1: like what stories about yourself led you to this belief.
Speaker 1: And that conversation went when much better than it could
Speaker 1: have because he felt like I was trying to understand
Speaker 1: and not win. So it can work even in kind
Speaker 1: of extreme cases.
Speaker 2: Yeah, people really just want to have their voices heard.
Speaker 2: They want to feel like they matter, and they want
Speaker 2: to feel like yeah, they get it. They want to
Speaker 2: get it out. Yeah, it's interesting. I mean I always
Speaker 2: find it interesting, like these examples of these, like people
Speaker 2: who kind of infiltrate the Kokook's Klan, you know, kind
Speaker 2: of befriend them and then eventually change their minds. You know,
Speaker 2: like there are real good examples of that. But I
Speaker 2: think it's a certain kind of person to do that.
Speaker 2: To put the outrage to the side is not easy
Speaker 2: when your own self is threatened. Absolutely right, It's easier
Speaker 2: to just intellectually put the outrage to the side when
Speaker 2: it's not something self relevant.
Speaker 1: But yeah, right again, Like you know, if our minds
Speaker 1: are motivated by victimhood as as you know, we both argue, right,
Speaker 1: if you're in a situation where you feel threatened, where
Speaker 1: you feel like someone's the clear perpetrator, and not only
Speaker 1: are they victimizing others, but also you like in this
Speaker 1: case of Darryl Davis, the black man and blues musician
Speaker 1: who befriended hundreds of Kika k members and got them
Speaker 1: to hang up their robes. Like absolutely, that takes a
Speaker 1: special persons who's willing to over you know, like you're
Speaker 1: gonna sit down with someone who thinks that you're less
Speaker 1: than human. Wow, that takes a ton of fortitude and
Speaker 1: compassion and patience, and there are people out there who
Speaker 1: willing to do it and and bridge divides. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying people shouldn't have to do that, but it's it's
Speaker 1: good for humanity that there are people who are willing
Speaker 1: to do that.
Speaker 2: But it's it's just it's just interesting, like people are funny,
Speaker 2: like even with their beliefs, Like they don't have those beliefs,
Speaker 2: they don't hold those beliefs all the time, and the
Speaker 2: humanity can crack through, I think with even with anyone.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, like at the end of the day, you know,
Speaker 1: we can interact as as fellow and equal human beings.
Speaker 2: So you say that facts don't bridge divides? Why why
Speaker 2: is that? Why? Why why is science so under attack
Speaker 2: these days?
Speaker 1: Yeah? I mean, I think there are lots of reasons
Speaker 1: why facts don't bridge divides today. Right, we have different
Speaker 1: media environments on the left and the right, social media bubbles.
Speaker 1: But I think you know, if we go back to evolution, right,
Speaker 1: our genes and our brains, we've never really been well
Speaker 1: equipped to deal with statistics, to deal with you know,
Speaker 1: these kind of distributed facts that we're we're talking about today, Right,
Speaker 1: if you're sitting around the campfire. It's night. You know,
Speaker 1: you've got your family and friends around you, you're camping.
Speaker 1: The things you're going to talk about, the things that
Speaker 1: are going to resonate with other people, are stories, right,
Speaker 1: like this thing happened. I heard this thing happened, there
Speaker 1: was a bear attack. Whatever. You're not like sixty seven
Speaker 1: percent of people right like that. That is not a
Speaker 1: good campfire story because our minds had not evolved to
Speaker 1: process statistics. And so when you're in conversations, especially when
Speaker 1: you feel threatened, right, You're not going to really think
Speaker 1: about the truth of statistics. You're going to You're going
Speaker 1: to kind of anchor onto these stories, especially these stories
Speaker 1: of threat And so this is why I think facts,
Speaker 1: you know, aren't great. And when it comes to morality,
Speaker 1: facts just seem like not the right currency. Ir yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: you know, they're.
Speaker 2: Not the right Actually a shame though, because like what
Speaker 2: didn't whatdn't I logical like Stephen Pinker. Stephen Pinker would
Speaker 2: be like, oh, I want to know the probabilities and
Speaker 2: the exact evidence that this is causing harm before I
Speaker 2: make my conclusion. But you're saying most people don't think
Speaker 2: like Stephen Pinker, don't you know what I'm saying. Stave
Speaker 2: Picker would think.
Speaker 1: Like that, Come on, I like, I like your Pinker voice.
Speaker 1: It's very erudite, so you know. Yeah, Steve Pinker asked
Speaker 1: me a question actually when I was a second year
Speaker 1: grad student about, uh, you have a presentation about moral
Speaker 1: exemplars like Mother Teresa. And his question was basically like, ah,
Speaker 1: I know you'd think that, you know, you have in
Speaker 1: your study that Mother Teresa is a hero, but like,
Speaker 1: wasn't she actually kind of cruel and callous she took
Speaker 1: care of so obviously I still remember that, you know, twenty.
Speaker 2: Years later, Tony, No, I mean, wouldn't do you see
Speaker 2: what I'm saying? What in a really logical rational mind
Speaker 2: want the facts.
Speaker 1: Yes, I think that's true, and I think everyone wants
Speaker 1: facts when it's about like what blender should I be?
Speaker 1: You know, which which model car should I buy? But
Speaker 1: when it comes to morality, we just think that those
Speaker 1: facts are not the right facts, right, that there must
Speaker 1: be facts out there that support my idea. So you
Speaker 1: still want facts, but you want the facts that support you, right,
Speaker 1: Like if I'm like, look this, many people suffer at
Speaker 1: the border, there's many immigrants, you know, innocent immigrants like fleeing,
Speaker 1: I don't know, sectarian violence in Central America. And then
Speaker 1: you're like, if you're anti immigration, you're like, well, sure,
Speaker 1: but the real when they come into the country, you know,
Speaker 1: they cause crime and take jobs, and so the real
Speaker 1: facts we should be considering are experiences, yeah, being killed,
Speaker 1: you know, how many citizens or jobs are taken or
Speaker 1: being killed by you know, gangs of immigrants. Right, So,
Speaker 1: like I think you're just like, look that that's not relevant.
Speaker 1: And I want to say, facts do matter once you
Speaker 1: kind of like establish these stories, right, but when you're
Speaker 1: so entrenched in your moral view, you only consider facts
Speaker 1: that are are consistent with those beliefs.
Speaker 2: Yeah, my mind just keeps thinking about the oh they're
Speaker 2: eating our dogs, you know, like that's a story, not a.
Speaker 1: Fact, exactly exactly right. And so then you get into
Speaker 1: the and this is maxed you know, too too huge
Speaker 1: a question for any you know, one podcast of like
Speaker 1: well what does it mean to be true? Like aren't
Speaker 1: facts collection of stories? And is in the story of
Speaker 1: particular fact? And it gets it gets kind of like
Speaker 1: head spinny real fast. But I think we're just used
Speaker 1: to dealing with like one person's experience. And this is
Speaker 1: why when people lie, like the that news anchor who
Speaker 1: who lied about being in a helicopter crash. Yeah, I'm blank,
Speaker 1: and we're like so felt so betrayed because we're like,
Speaker 1: wait a second, you can't lie about stories because you
Speaker 1: know what happens to you.
Speaker 2: You know, I hear Steven Thinker's license my head. Do
Speaker 2: you know what what he's saying? Do you know what
Speaker 2: he's saying? In my head? He's saying, court datum is
Speaker 2: not data. True.
Speaker 1: I feel like that's the first time I've heard the
Speaker 1: word datum in a long time. Very very erudite. Again,
Speaker 1: but again, you can you know, we're confronted with so
Speaker 1: many studies where we're like, well, those data aren't the
Speaker 1: right data. They weren't collected or modernist. It's true, right,
Speaker 1: but like lived experiences, you know, do matter. And even yeah,
Speaker 1: even if you think about folks like Pinker, and even
Speaker 1: if you think about folks like Height right, who often
Speaker 1: a similar claims. Right, those folks will say, well, here's
Speaker 1: this experience I had on Twitter, Here's this experience I
Speaker 1: had teaching in my classes. Even those folks will anchor
Speaker 1: on their own experiences then and then martial facts that
Speaker 1: kind of support those those feelings. So all of us
Speaker 1: in a sense are kind of powerless in the face
Speaker 1: of our own lived experience because we're human beings, you know,
Speaker 1: and that's the lens we see the world through.
Speaker 2: Yeah, good point. Why is hope and humility important for
Speaker 2: helping us?
Speaker 1: Bridge divides well, at the end of the day, whether
Speaker 1: you you know, live in a community or a city
Speaker 1: or a country. You know, we might vote for different
Speaker 1: people or believe different things, but ultimately we need to
Speaker 1: come together to achieve greater things. We need to have
Speaker 1: conversations to figure out the right way forward. And those
Speaker 1: compromises and conversations require us to see each other as
Speaker 1: human and work together. And I think that's why humility
Speaker 1: is necessary, and I think hope is warranted because at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, no one we talk about this,
Speaker 1: you know a little bit. I talk about this in
Speaker 1: the book, Like, no one is out there trying to
Speaker 1: destroy the world. No one's a super villain who just
Speaker 1: like wants to burn it all down for the sake
Speaker 1: of it, Right, We're all trying to just build something better.
Speaker 1: Altimate Lee and I think recognizing that core human motivation,
Speaker 1: I think can give us hope to have those conversations,
Speaker 1: to bridge those divides into work together.
Speaker 2: As my grandmother would say, from your mouth and God's ears, Kurt,
Speaker 2: I can't impress upon you enough how important I find
Speaker 2: your research and how it's influenced me in my own work.
Speaker 2: And I really truly wish you all the best with
Speaker 2: your book tour, and thank you for chatting with me today.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks very much for having me on