Posted November 20th, 2016
Michael Adam Ferguson joins Jake and Glenn to talk about the moral mind. And tastebuds. Can’t we all just get along?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | RSS
Great discussion, guys. Couple of comments:
1-Michael Adam Ferguson is my favorite person in the world because he knows how to pronounce the word “processes.”
2-Glen, it’s “ear reading” and “eye reading” rather than “listening to” and “reading.” Check your neuroprivilege, dude-bro. 😉
Anyhow, keep up the great work!
Shit. Now I have to go back and listen for the word “processes.”
The final “e” is a schwa, rather that long e.
I didn’t vote for a presidential candidate (just left that one blank as my ineffective form of protest against both candidates). On election night I was disappointed that somebody with Trump’s moral character could be elected. As a father of young girls I hoped that Trump’s victory wasn’t a general repudiation of women in leadership positions. On the other side, I was glad that we won’t have a Clinton in government anymore. And I was beyond elated to see the liberal media to go from smugness to defeat in a matter of hours.
Most of the podcasts I listen to lean liberal and I’m somewhat surprised at the discourse that has occurred after the election. Kudos to the infants for holding probably the most balanced assessment of what occurred.
There were many in the prepper movement who thought Obama was going to destroy civilization and finally give them opportunities to break open those thousand pound bags of M&Ms. I think those people are nuts. I feel the same way about people in the far left who think that electing Trump means that all civil rights are going to be put on hold for 4 years. The president of the U.S. is not a dictator. Trump is not going to repeal gay marriage (he can’t, it’s been decided by the courts). Trump isn’t going to enact poll taxes to prevent poor people from voting.
I’m sure this is going to be a great discussion, but I’m at minute 40 and you guys are still trying to define what you want the conversation to be! That is quite the lead up!
I too could not follow the conversation or thread of thoughts. I did “vote” that they hold more of these podcasts on different philosophies and thought processes…but this one just left me at a loss. You know that when Glenn has to spend the first 20+ minutes attempting to describe what the podcast is going to be about…well, I don’t think they knew either what the podcast presentation, argument and conclusion would be (note: I tried to use the 3 pattern for Glenn’s amusement/irritation). I mean there’s so much more to discuss-politics? Bannon liked that there’s power in darkness and approved, compared himself to Cheney, Darth Vader and Satan. A SL tribune editorial got mainstreamed because the author asked, “Should those Mormons who voted for Trump, lose their temple recommends”? Isn’t it true that Pence, Bannon have made comments that are definitely anti-Mormon. Trump won Utah overwhelmingly; so this tells us that most members did not listen to their Prophets and Apostles. Do they no longer believe Jesus leads the church? Romney meeting with Trump for possible cabinet position? Romney was so anti-Trump and had many speeches and direct points on Trumps words, action and inability to govern… so isn’t Romney the real hypocrite and denier of inspiration????
I just put the book upon the hold list at the local libary. It sounds very interesting. Reminds me somewhat of Peter Boghossian’s “Manual for Creating Atheists.” I often find devout card-carrying professional Atheists (with a capital A) insufferably stuffy and dogmatic and I’m not sure I’d want the blame for making any more of them, but one point Boghossian makes that rings true to me is that Believers (of whatever) don’t have any reasons for believing what they believe and don’t want any. What they spout, labeled as reasons, are justifications after the fact. It sounds like Jonathan Haidt goes even further into that and I really want to hear/read/earate/eye-gobble what he has to say.
Something I find helpful in understanding the political scene is to be careful not to confuse Republicans with conservatives. A true conservative is not stupid. Or ignorant. Or loud. Or dishonest. Or irresponsible. Or reckless. Or lazy. Or mindlessly selfish. Republicans, on the other hand, can be any or all of those things. George Will, David Brooks and William F. Buckley are a few actual conservatives I can think of. The Donald, on the other hand may just be the quintessential Republican—that’s why he was being abandoned in droves by anyone with a few surviving shreds of conservative sensibility.
I’m gonna read the book and re-listen.
That was the most condescending, morally superior, arrogant discussion of the outcome of the election I’ve heard yet. Yes, the only reason I voted trump is because I’m just a stupid, racist, homophobic, misogynistic, christian. jesus H christ! I voted for obama twice. You guys have bought into your own horse shit to the extent that all you are is a big circle jerk. You guys are doing the same thing as exmos that we all did as tbm’s. Being wrong isn’t possible. When I stopped going to church the stake president (a good friend) wanted to get together and discuss the issues. Right away I understood he was not interested in real discussion of real issues. I told him the only way we could proceed is if we were both willing to be wrong. He could not go on with the discussion. You can’t even fathom the possibility there might be some rational thought that went into the decision to vote trump. Don’t forget, a significant number of minorities saw through all the bull shit and voted trump. The reason you were all so wrong is because you’re sitting in a big libtard echo chamber and you were so happy to believe the liberal media which is so biased.
Now, on another note ….
Thank you so much for all the work and effort you do for this podcast. This is such an important work, in spite of your liberal bias ! I appreciate all of you, even the girl! Ok especially the girl! I admit I was mad when you let her into the club …. until I googled her pic, and went on to realize she has more cerebral horse power than probably 75% of you. Just kidding you’re all pretty OK. Thanks
I’m sorry you took it that way, Todd. The main point of this episode — which I wish now I would have made more clear — is that Jonathan Haidt in “The Righteous Mind” has suggested that people who do things (i.e. voted for Trump or voted for Hilary – but it could really be anything) are NOT acting out of stupidity. They are acting based on their moral tastebuds. Some awareness comes into our brains — like something entering our mouths that tough our tongues — and the tastebuds on our tongue (or the moral tastebuds in our brains) that tell us whether or not we are going to swallow what we are encountering. Haidt does a much better job explaining this in his book than we do on this podcast. And Haidt most likely practices what he preaches, whereas I certainly recognize my own struggles in “respecting” people who do stupid things like voting for Donald Trump – like you admittedly did. But I’m hoping an approach like Haidt suggests will help me be less physically sickened by people like you who (with good intentions yada yada) helped put an obvious lying criminal conman in the oval office — because I know that it isn’t right of me to be physically sickened by your stupid choice to vote for Trump. And I want to be better. But so far, I am not. Because… dude… Trump? Really????
But anyway… I put a shit ton of work into this particular episode because what Jonathan Haidt has to say in “The Righteous Mind” has been very important to me in trying to understand people on the other side of sensitive issues without giving in to my dismissive instincts (that I want to change) – because I don’t want to be the condescending, arrogant, morally superior person that I am and have been for so much of my life. But I don’t blame you for not understanding what I was trying to communicate with this episode. I blame myself for not conveying that message in a better way.
But dude – what did I say about different people with different tastes and how I like spicy Indian curry? How do you get “morally superior” from that? I’ll interpret your response as an expression of your emotionally wounded elephant choosing fight over flight and charging in when your fairness moral tastebuds called FOUL!!!! Because how dare we think we are better than you (you voted for Obama twice, after all – shouldn’t you get some liberal credit for that? Not fair!)
Finally, I think one of the biggest challenges with this episode is that Jake and I had both recently read “The Righteous Mind” and were/are still grappling with what it means and how to use the information. Michael, on the other hand, is an expert well past “The Righteous Mind” who sees that as one of many helpful theories out there. And we were trying to apply this conversation to the recent election, but we were using ideas and concepts that our audience (unlike Jake and me) had not just finished reading. Anyway… a lot of moving parts that made this one pretty challenging.
I’ve been wondering when ole Glenn is going to resurface from his shelter in place hideout with an amazingly enlightening new episode and here we are! Now based on your comment I’m reluctant to listen.
To keep it simple: Self identified “liberals” are not good. They are very much misguided when it comes to understanding the source of their supposed political motivations. In the past, liberals at least had at least one good leg to stand on (opposing mass slaughter of young men in a senseless WAR, don’t even try to pull that police action bullsh!t on me. )
The new phase of leftist zeolots (new term “progressive” 1984’s Orwell pointed out this trick of replacing words) are even more incomprehensible when it comes to garnering publuc support. Support Hillary and the further mass slaughter of brown prople (muslims) and the further geopolitical destabilization of foreign lands in an endless war global conquest… No thank you.
I’ll be intetested to hear what you think about the discussion, but I feel like we sorta addressed that. Liberals act from gut emotional responses just like everyone does. It’s how we all evolved. I’m trying to understand that better.
I’m listening right now! I like how you got the pre interview setup arranged. I decided to cleanup my place and listrn to the show VS go out a buy a new DJ effect pad with money I don’t have.
I need to give her another listen so I can give you a heartfelt (liberal) as well as a well thought logical (conservative) response. Hahah just joshin’ ya. I know you put a lot of work into these shows and especially this one. My major feedback at this time would be why not have one more person in the discussion that actually fairly represents the “them” side of things. I know you are very conscious of realizing there is another side to the story yet the discussions often tip very far to one side thus creating the very “echo-chamber” phenomenon you have mentioned recently. I’m definitely offering my viewpoint and services because iOT needs a working class blue collar “randy type” douche to balance out how aristrocratic you guys often sound.
I **hate** how the term progressive is used in political discussion. It infers that one side wants to improve and the other is stuck in their ways. It immediately puts a divide between parties imo. It feels very elitest.
“Feels” — a nice illustration of Haidt’s point about emotional elephants and moral tastebuds. But I’m prepared to agree with you on this. All groups have “us vs. them” components to them, and they typically trigger my “fairness” moral tastebud as well.
Can you think of some politically conservative positions that ought to be considered progressive?
I think that’s the wrong discussion. Are you suggesting that conservatives only fight to keep things the way they are or were? Take medical insurance, for example. Sure, Obamacare is drastically different from what we have had in the past. But I know conservatives are advocating for change as well, like allowing for greater competition across state lines which theoretically would drive down costs for all Americans. Both sides are advocating for change and want the same goal, yet liberals like to claim that their ideas are “progressive” and conservatives are not.
But to go along with the goal of this episode, the term progressive, like you said, triggers the fairness tastebud, which immediately puts a barrier between the 2 ideologies and is not a good word to facilitate bi-partisan understanding.
The discussion repeatedly and explicitly states that people who voted for Trump are NOT all motivated by racism, sexism, and the sordid -phobias. This is stated over and over. So it leaves me genuinely confused how in the world this is the take home that someone got unless they are simply NOT listening to the content of what is said in the discussion. If you are going to criticize the content, at least criticize what was ACTUALLY said. Otherwise you just reinforce the paradigm that Trump supporters are in states of high emotion and low reasoning.
The discussion repeatedly and explicitly states that people who voted for Trump are NOT all motivated by racism and sexism. This is stated over and over. So it leaves me genuinely confused how in the world someone’s take home message from the discussion is that Trump supporters voted based on racism and sexism when that statement is dismantled over and over in the discussuon. I can only suppose that the person claiming that the discussion states racism and sexism motivated Trump supporters was emotionally aroused and NOT listening for content. If you are going to criticize the content, at least criticize what was actually said.
When I left mormonism, one of the most eye opening things of all was just how condescending the religion was to, basically, everyone else on the planet. These podcasts have that same feeling. The attempt to understand others in mormonism is simply a thinly veiled practice to see where everyone else went wrong and why they can’t see the truth. But a mormon has a hard time seeing that is what they are doing. It’s the difficulty of going into a real effort of understanding those that don’t see things the same when you already know you are right. It’s often just a futile exercise where a person maintains their superiority throughout the investigation, much like a scientist dissecting a monkey to see why it’s brain just can’t process like his/hers. I paused while writing this and saw Todd’s post just below where I am typing. Yep. Circle jerk.
(Are you the Ryan Lee I knew from Bloomington?)
You are not totally wrong here, Ryan. We don’t claim to be perfect, or balanced, or some arbitrary third word here that synergies both perfect and balanced, but for me at least, the attempt to understand is much much more than a thinly veiled… anything. And if you can’t hear that we (or at least me — I’ll speak most confidently for myself here) constantly acknowledge our limitations and vulnerably put ourselves out there to try to learn how to be better, then maybe there is jerking going on in your own circle that is gumming up your ears with Boyd K Packer’s life giving substance (or maybe it’s just that I did a crappy job of trying to say what I really wanted to say — probably more of that).
Either way, your scientist dissecting a monkey brain analogy is ridiculous (but I like it — maybe because I like to smugly and superiorly ridicule). But dude… OF COURSE a scientist is going to approach monkey brain direction from a position of superiority to that MONKEY. #DUH! What are you suggesting… that the scientist should be more humble and monkey-like and just start picking bugs from the monkey’s furry back and throw his own feces against a wall instead of using his superior intellect to study the monkey’s brain and try to understand brain function better? What are you trying to say? And in this analogy, you do realize you made me the scientist, and you the monkey, right? Ryan…. buddy…. please don’t delete this comment. It is golden.
I did not make myself a monkey, nor you. The analogy was not who is who, but the approach. I can see that missed the mark. The approach someone that feels elite may make, is to see the other as a monkey. It does not make them a monkey Glenn. It makes the person doing the study an ahole. I think its funny you took that and ran with it though. Nice. For the record, I don’t really have a circle. Just some guy commenting on your post about how it feels to him. I dont even know anyone else that listens to you. So my circle jerk is pretty non circular. Also, I am not a conservative or liberal, but it seems you made the assumption i was, since you inferred yourself the scientist and me the monkey. Since i know where you stand, i will give you the same benefit. I am libertarian. I really just want to smoke weed and drink alcohol.
Oh, and no. I am not from bloomington and I have never met you.
What do you call the arrogant scientist who dissects his own brain?
By virtue of having a positivist belief in a truth claim or a moral claim, yes, it means you believe others have their facts, reasoning, or conclusions wrong. The only alternative is to never have a positivist belief about truth or morality.
When you say positivist belief, are you referring to the school of philosphy of positivism, or simply meaning having a positive, or complete assurance of something? In the latter case, I would say I agree for sure. If you are of the type of personality that comes to a conclusion and determines once they reach that conclusion, it is the only way, the truth, then of course it always leads to everyone else being wrong. Which is all I meant. In that system, when you go to “investigate” any one else’s philosophy of beliefs, it will most likely fall short of sincere if you are already “right”. So yeah, completely agree, there is no way to get around that if you have to be right.
I would definitely fall into the camp that does not like to concrete any of my beliefs. Probably gun shy. If there was a time you thought you were certain, like you were when you were 100% mormon, and you can completely flip your view on that, maybe even over correct the pendelum swing too far the other way, you have to conclude you were once completely capable of being wrong about many of the most fundamental aspects of life. And if that is the case, that you can be that wrong, despite having been so sure, it would insanity to repeat the error to me. If my current beliefs are sound, then they will survive my own scrutiny and they will hold up to considering they are wrong, or allowing someone else to be right. And if they don’t hold up, then maybe i wasnt as attached to them as i thought. I am always up for some new ways of seeing the world, because at times, things continue to surprise me. It seems to be working for me for now.
I was really excited when you started the episode intending to discuss these issues through the lens of Jonathan Haidt’s “The Righteous Mind” . . . and then . . . it quickly devolved into three Clinton supporters doing a circle jerk in an echo chamber.
Oh Infants, I love you. How often I would have gathered you under my wings like a hen gathereth her chicks, but ye would not. When will you learn that you shouldn’t do political episodes where all the participants share the same political views? It’s so, so boring and so, so the opposite of what you seem to have set out to do: try to understand your political opponents better.
Here’s a mind bomb from way out of left field: next time you want to understand Trump supporters, or anyone else, maybe . . . oh I don’t know . . . invite one or two of them onto the show and talk to them? Is that a crazy idea? To get it from the horse’s mouth; to hear what they have to say in their own words–instead of doing what you did here: make insulting and condescending assumptions about Trump supporters and then try to psychologically dissect the straw men you’ve created?
I still love you, but honestly, I probably won’t ever listen to one of your political episodes again unless you have guests representing diverse views–because otherwise it’s just a circle jerk in an echo chamber, and I can already get that on Fox News or CNN.
Circkle jerk. What an original and illuminating criticism. Talk about boring. Yawn.
It’s interesting to play around with Haidt’s polarities. What if, instead of Loyalty/Betrayal, we called it Parochialism/Cosmopolitanism? Or we renamed Authority/Subversion as Capitulation/Independence? Or turned Sanctity/Degradation into Closed-Mindedness/Open-Mindedness? Same neurological apparatus, completely different moral picture.
Fascinating. That sounds like a 400-level graduate course I’d love to sit in on once I get well out of this 101 Intro phase.
Well, Haidt already tested them: they are the same modalities as his, just using words which invert the slant his naming gives them.
Although I think I can safely assume that none of you voted for Trump, I don’t pretend to know how you guys ultimately used your vote. I know I saw posts from some of the infants at different points of the election process that spoke out pretty strongly against Hillary. I was a Bernie guy myself, and when he was ousted (which, putting on my tin foil hat, I also believe was very influenced by the democratic party itself resulting in an unfair primary) I decided to use my vote by abstaining entirely. My point is, there were a lot of reasons not to vote for Hillary. And many of the same triggers you guys recognized in Trump voters were also present in Clinton voters and non-voters and it would have been interesting for a more in depth and introspective dive into those view points as well.
Also, Glenn, great job on the production. I’m a huge Righteous Mind fan, so I admit that I was pretty crushed when the Jonathan Haidt interview was not a real interview, but that whole intro was a very informative and entertaining set up. Keep up the good work!
For some reason the outcome of the Utah, Idaho and even Arizona vote filled me with great grief. Not because Trump won, but how he won. I don’t know why I suddenly was so disappointed, sad and angry at my Mormon family, friends and members that I thought I knew. I know it’s silly, but when I was Mormon, I truly believed the Prophet and Apostles had meetings with Jesus in the “Upper Rooms” of the SLC temple. I knew that Jesus led the church and through revelation and confirmation I too knew that what ever the Presidency and Q12 told me to do I had to do it. Whether it was years supply, donating time or labor for special projects, or voting or not voting for certain candidates.
Now, I find out that the “active” members don’t listen, pray and obey like I would or how I believe my family would have. So here it is: I’m shocked, confused and depressed. When I saw Romney going to meet with Trump, I told my sister that I had this great respect for him and Orrin Hatch and the leaders for being so outspoken. So what will I feel if Romney accepts a position in the Trump cabinet and/or administration??? Will the leaders call the members to repentance??? Isn’t this what the Zoramites and Rameumpton story talked about and warned about? Isn’t this how the Nephites acted & reacted to Samuel the Lamanite preaching on the walls?
I now feel it my own personal mission to point out to my fellow man (Mormon or Not) that the Mormons have always taught and believed that the Elders of the Church will fight and protect the U.S. Constitution; that they will save it. Now I’m afraid and have knowledge that they along with the Evangelicals have made a deal with a mad man. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/video-shows-alt-right-group-using-nazi-style-salute-to-hail-president-elect-trump/vp-AAkBaNQ
I had a respect for Mormons on how staunch they were on their morals and standards and now they approve and actually will follow someone who says he thinks Darkness has power. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/18/steve_bannon_compares_himself_favorably_to_dick_cheney_darth_vader_satan.html
This might be a helpful addition to thinking about this (from the great You Are Not So Smart Podcast on cognitive biases): https://youarenotsosmart.com/2016/11/04/yanss-088-how-to-bridge-the-political-divide-with-better-moral-arguments/
Wait, wait, wait…
(Loved the conversation!!)
I was hoping that Michael could find a way to approach abortion through a tribal approach and a long-time brain tendency to see a need to keep offspring alive. Is there anything there?
From my feminist perspective, I see that daughters are much like cattle. You can get a good bride price for a virgin daughter, but once she has “lost” her purity, what good is she? You can’t be proud of that product! She must be sold for a servant or stoned in some cultures because of her promiscuity, shame and loss (to the family income). (Trio of reasons). And why would anyone reduce their offspring through family planning/birth control (not to mention abortion) when children, as cattle, can bring more financial stability to the family through work and marriage. Meanwhile, in Turkey this week they tried to pass a law that would give mercy to rapists if they marry their victims! https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/23/turkish-child-bride-turkey-child-rapists-marry-victims
Many Mormons and Christians resist the opportunity to give their children adequate sex education, including birth control, with the ridiculous notion that an STD or pregnancy would be an appropriate punishment. Many Mormons appear to be oblivious to real stories of real women. They even seem to think that if a woman chooses to get an abortion, then she must have been sleeping around with everyone and uses abortion as a regular, go-to method to escape the consequences of her evil sexual desires.
I think abortion could be reasoned as cheating over fairness, wherein a woman gets to avoid the natural consequences of her evil behaviors. Abortion could be seen as a subversion to authority. Under laws of the state or church, fornication is illegal and forbidden and to use abortion in the Mormon mind would most likely be used under those illicit conditions and would further subvert the natural consequences of not obeying the law. Therefore, children are a punishment. And it is perfectly fine for children to suffer a parent or parents who weren’t ready or didn’t want them in the first place.
I think you miss a whole lots of point on politics because you fetishize individual process of thoughts and have no understanding whatsoever of the material conditions of pretty much the rest of humanity. I suspect this is in part due to your (white, christian, middle-upper class) particular points of view, in part from your Mormon upbringing (where everything is about personal responsibility and emotions) and in part from you enrolling ont he Sam Harris Debate School for White Dudes, where uncomfortable arguments are blatantly ignored in favour or simple, apparently logic explanations that in fact no more that the performance of intelligent debate for the elation that it brings to your egos.
The consequences of this were most evident in your Hillary Clinton podcast, but here they show in all their brilliance. Yes, you had already missed big on the election pronostics, as well as in your pre-electoral debate analysis – where everyone who considered third-party choices was quickly labeled irrational and somehow stupid.
Now you further elucidate us on how this is the case. They were in fact irrational, because decisions about politics are not made in any rational way than but it’s all about receptors in the brain.
There are so many levels of wrong with this, not only because the whole theory is based on assumptions which have no definitive foundation in neuro-science (in fact, we still don’t know what consciousness or mind is, but also because this argument is only valuable if a) you’re privileged and b) you think that politics and ‘conversation’ are the same things, which they aren’t.
So people who are victim of racist violence and bigotry, or lgtb people who are killed, kicked out of their homes, or workers who have lost any resemblance to a decent salary and care, or pretty much whoever takes a political position, only does so because of chemicals in their brain. This is exactly the reason why Hillary Clinton lost the election: the conflation that liberal voters make between ‘conversation’ and politics, which resorts to the fetishization of the first and the annihilation of the second. Trump did not win because people were calling out racists. He won because liberals bought the lie that racism is a ‘ point of view’ , just like any other, and it can be defeated by ‘conversation’ (the totally laughable ‘marketplace of ideas’ that you guys seem to love), and not a structural condition of the American economic and social order. You bought the lie that sexism and homophobia is ‘wrong’ because they offend people, while they played a major role in protecting privilege for certain classes. Trump when because liberals have no commitment to economic re-distribution, but are skewed towards an economically liberal identity politics that left poor, white people, disenfranchised and feeling like their interest where represented by no one in the political elite. But of course, according to your podcast all this has nothing to do with elections which is all about how brains work.
In short, it may do you some good to shift your attention from your personal perception, disappointments and mental trips to the study of some political economy and sociology. You will find that once you actually get some information on the real world, politics becomes much more understandable. And this ‘crazy’ people who voted for Trump were actually born out of the politics of self-styled leftist, which in the US means right-wing people who dislike racism and like gay people.
To be honest, if I need naval-gazing and self-centered analysis, Dan Wotherspoon already does the job brilliantly.
I appreciate Todd taking the time to say what others – many others – gather from this site a lot of the time but don’t shout out. He went on to add his recognition that it ain’t all bad up in here even if it may all be in bad taste. My two cents on this as on most contrarian enterprises regarding anything: most privately held convictions face one, overriding obstacle from some many strident voices not sharing their…thing, their otherness. The bleating herd be they political sheep, religious or sciencetific lightweights or just some guy pounding his keyboard in his mother’s basement hate the idea others may know something they don’t…can’t…won’t ever know/get because they just aren’t plumbed for it. Sorry TJ, it’s a nice idea but all men are NOT created equal. (‘n fer the ladies…them neither)
The great irony of this entire conversation is that all the reasons you attribute to trump voters making their choice are all things you guys are actively doing the entire episode.
Nearly Every reason and criticism to not vote for trump with the exception of environmentalism are just as glaringly present in Hillary Clinton so stop with the bullshit virtue signalling of how horrific trump is when the alternative is as bad and worse 8n many respects.
There were so many other issues like censorship, corruption, being the candidate bought by the banks, bribery, rigging, etc. At play here. It’s telling how much of an echo chamber you guys have backed yourselves in when I can name 40 liberal friends who either voted for trump over Hillary or didn’t vote at all and can think of 20 or more republicans who didn’t even vote.
Want to know what the common thread is in all the liberals that refused to vote for Hillary? They were all anti censorship, anti war, pro transparency, and familiar with the positions Hillary has held on all those issues. Those that went as far as voting for trump only did so based off the dnc leaks and podestas emails. In other words they developed their decision based off of the rational truth as they saw it… something that apparently can’t be done given what I just listened to. I’m only half way through so maybe I’m wrong
While your reasoning works with the traditional repubs vs democrats it’s sorely out of touch with a lot of people that refused to vote Hillary or voted trump who normally would never vote Republican. If you guys can’t figure those reasons it’s hopeless for you to try to continue these kinds of conversations on the podcast. See the forest through the trees or don’t bother.
aaaaahhhh!! I’ve been consumed with political discourse and not particularly drawn to post-Mormon conversation for the better part of the last year, so I missed this discussion. I was just listening to you all yell at each other about the Russian dossier and saw you mention Jonathan Haidt’s book in the comments and had to come find this discussion. You know I was very dedicated to the task because typing in his name in the search bar brought up no search results and yet here I am. 🙂 I actually emailed you guys about this book back in October when I had just finished listening to it, so I’m really looking forward to this podcast!
Man, I wanted to jump in at so many points during that conversation. Too many things to add here, but it was a good listen. That book has really made a significant difference for me, realizing that we (liberals vs. conservatives) just see the world in fundamentally different ways and helping me to phrase my messaging in ways that strengthen my own tribe as well as attempting common ground with conservatives. I found (continue to find) the 2016 election cycle to be fascinating, especially the Trump phenomenon. So many thoughts…
Good time to tune in again. Jake, Heather and I recorded another “Righteous Mind” discussion last night. Look for it soon. We aren’t finished exploring these ideas by a long shot.
© 2016 Infants on Thrones. All Rights Reserved.
RSS: Entries | Comments
Design by Craig Keeling