Episode 8: The Echo Chamber Effect: Navigating Polarization

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome to the Daily Edge where we bring you the
latest insights, opinions andthought-provoking conversations
to give you that competitiveedge in life, business and
beyond.
Let's go, episode 8 of theDaily Edge.
I'm here with my brothers, tjDaly, todd Daly, and today's

(00:27):
going to be an interesting topic.
We're going to talk a littlebit about echo chambers and I
think in society today, withsocial media and algorithms and
feeding you stuff that you wantto hear, it's gotten even worse
and probably made differentsides of the aisle and politics

(00:47):
more polarizing, but just lifemore polarizing in general.
So, todd, I'm going to kick itover to you and why don't you
get us started?

Speaker 2 (00:57):
Yeah, I would say over probably the past decade,
this has probably been one ofthe most frustrating things.
As you guys know, and otherslistening may know, I'm pretty
cognitively oriented and I'mthinking about things all the
time and for me, as I unpackthings and try and look at
things from different people'sperspective, I find it to be
everything from religion topolitics to just general

(01:21):
perspectives on things to bevery, very complex because it's
all based on our lens, what ouraim is, where we're coming from.
There's so many differentupsides and downsides and pros
and cons when you lift under thecovers.
But what's been so frustratingfor me is so many people
perceive it to be so simple andobvious, and it's like everyone

(01:45):
on the right is like this is soobviously the correct answer.
I can't believe the Democratsdon't get it.
Like how stupid can you be?
And the Democrats, similarly,are like I cannot believe you
guys would vote for Trump.
I mean, this guy is like theworst human being possible.
Like how could 70 millionpeople do this?
Like this is unbelievable.

(02:07):
Like you see these, these postsand and the same thing on
religion.
It's like, whether it's withinChristianity or across these
different religions, likeclearly this is so obviously the
right thing.
How could you not be doing this?
And I've just like, I feel likesociety and you mentioned the
algorithms has perpetuated this,because we're continuing to get

(02:28):
fed the stuff that we allconfirmation bias right, it's
this concept that we're notalready going to naturally latch
on to something more that wealready believe and that
reinforces our belief?
But now that's all we're gettingfed from our Facebook circles,
right?
A lot of us, you.
But now that's all we'regetting fed from our Facebook
circles, right, a lot of us.
You find somebody that'sposting this crazy stuff out

(02:50):
there on Facebook.
What do you do?
You unfollow them, right?
It's like I just can't takethis anymore, so let me just
narrow this.
So, some of it's even us, right, it's not even the algorithm.
But we're surrounding ourselvesand then we show up at
Thanksgiving or Christmas andyou've got these people on on
that are so far been polarizedto like the ends of the earth on

(03:12):
all these topics and you havethese explosions.
And it's just been.
I'd be interested in your guys'thoughts, but it's been
infinitely frustrating for me tothink through these things and
seemingly grasp what I seem tobe the complexity of it, but so
many people think it's so simple.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
You know the Super Bowl commercial with Tom Brady
and Snoop Dogg and they said Ihate you because I hate you,
because I think the sad partabout all this and we'll get
into the dynamics of it is justit has created so much hate.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
Do you know that was the most hated Superbowl
commercial.
I saw that this morning.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
Really yeah, and I mean, but I think it's there is.
There is so much hate amongstpeople and it is.
It's so polarizing and I knowI've heard it's it's people,
people's family members don'ttalk, like somebody will now not
talk to brother, sister, mother, father because of a political
belief or religious belief.

(04:08):
And I think to your point,people are so convinced that
their perspective and whatthey've internalized is correct
that they're not willing tolisten to another point of view.
And so one of the challenges is, if you want to seek a
different point of view, yougotta go find it right.
Like, help me understand whythis person is thinking this way

(04:29):
.
That's something that I don'tbelieve we do a lot of.
But just, I wanted to clarifyone thing.
In echo chamber for those of youthat don't know, is it's a term
where we get fed content thatyou know.
So, like, let's say, I'm aRepublican and I'm liking
Republican things and now all ofa sudden, uh, that's all I'm

(04:50):
getting sent.
I'm getting sent of the thingsthat that I have liked or that I
stop in my scroll on.
So now I get more of that stuffand it makes it just reinforces
that even more and, before youknow it.
Everything in my feed istelling me exactly what I want
it to tell me exactly what Ibelieve, and now that's creating
a certainty in my life.
To where I'm so certain aboutit I'm willing to go put that on

(05:14):
Facebook or blast somebody forit that doesn't see it that way.

Speaker 2 (05:17):
And you're watching Fox News and just to give the
entities a little bit of a breakhere, they're doing it because
of what we're clicking on rightLike.
Fox News is feedingconservative content because
that's what gets people fired upand they love it and they want
to watch more.
So they're doing it justbecause there's a monetary value
at the end of it.
But it's a horrible downwardspiral.

Speaker 3 (05:38):
Yeah, I think there's a couple things, a couple ways
we can go.
I think number one a lot ofthis is the result of
assumptions and I think it goesback to the simplicity
commentary there, right, Becauseyou hear a lot of these
conversations.
So you know, when we wereyounger, we used to get into
especially Todd and I a lot ofpolitical arguments on social
media.

(05:59):
One of my best friends sits ona particular side of the aisle,
Todd sits on the opposite and Iremember a Twitter argument in
probably 2014 that resulted in areal rift.
Said person followed Todd and Iand it was a real big deal.
So we used to really kind ofengage in that a lot and, over

(06:20):
the years, less and less andless and less, because there's
no desire to be right anymorenecessarily in those regards,
because it is somewhere in themiddle.
It is somewhat nuanced, butrecently I did have a
conversation with somebody thatresponded kind of aggressively
to something that I put outthere, and the culmination of
that conversation back and forth, which was civil, was that we

(06:40):
had the exact same perspectives,and you hear that so often.
When you're talking aboutpolitics or whatever is that you
hear people make the commentthat I think most people would,
or the common person would,example a particular person
chooses a particular type oflifestyle, whatever that is.
I think collectively mostpeople cool, like, do whatever

(07:08):
you want to do, it doesn'tnecessarily affect me If it is
impeding my family in a veryparticular manner that is
causing some type of harm orsomething like that.
We'll have a discussion aboutit.
But where the assumption comesinto is people assume that
because you are of a particular,you follow particular people on
social media and they're likeoh, look who he follows.

(07:29):
He's got to believe thatsomebody who chooses this
lifestyle is less than or iswhatever.
And I think people assignpeople stereotypes without ever
diving into it.
Diving into it and it's crazy.
Because now this is what's soscary is that what used to
require community engagement forthe last 40,000 years doesn't

(07:55):
anymore.
You don't have to talk tosomebody to get reinforcement or
disagreement with yourbehaviors.
You can get your behaviorsreinforced by going on YouTube
and watching 10 hours ofsomebody who is not old, like
because it's cathartic to forwhatever reason, and we can talk
about psychological things orphysiological wiring, but it's

(08:15):
cathartic at times to like, feellike you're right and to get it
out there in the mostaggressive manner.
But we placate that now withpeople who and that's why you
know, we've got a friend who'sgot a you know six figure, six
figures of followers on one ofthese platforms and I've talked
to the guy in person very calm,very chill, but on social media

(08:36):
super polarizing, says stuffthat he knows is going to get
people riled up, but I thinkthat's crazy.
You don't have to haveconversations anymore to build
your confidence or reinforceyour confidence and I'd kind of
like to hear you guys talk alittle bit about your
perspectives on how that'saffected things and maybe how

(08:56):
you've seen that play out.

Speaker 1 (08:59):
I would say one of the things is not having these
face-to-face interactions isit's so much easier to post
hateful, polarizing things onsocial media, like some of the
things that are said and put outthere I don't believe would be
said in person.
And so we've created this areato where someone sees a post or

(09:22):
shares or just decides toforward something or see
something, and they havecontinued to.
I think it's made it easier,for it's easier to send
something in a text message thanmake a phone call, right, and
so when you these environmentsthat have been created I think
ultimately for good and forcommunity and a lot of good can

(09:43):
come from social mediaenvironments it's created a
place to where you can kind ofsay stuff and hide behind it,
and I don't think those thingswould be, as I don't think a lot
of those things would be saidin person and I don't think they
would be reinforced in themanner that you're discussing.

Speaker 3 (10:00):
Do you?
I mean, I want to jump in realquick and pose this question
again Do you guys think thatthere are?
I'm seeing this and again thissounds somewhat self-serving Do
you think there are certainsegments of the population that
are less equipped to deal withthis?
Like meaning our parents?
They didn't grow up like we did, right, we've had internet and
computers.
I think you know we gotinternet here when I was 13 and

(10:21):
so they didn't have that.
And then our children theydidn't have the forced
interaction that our parents did.
So when you see a lot of thislike radical, like people
screaming at each other onfacebook, a lot of times it's an
older generation that hasn'tdealt with that type of
communication.
And then this younger side, youknow you see them gravitate
towards like I mean, you knowhow many and I'm sorry for going

(10:44):
on this a little bit of tangent, but you know how many times
have we questioned over the lastdecade why do our kids watch
unboxing videos?
It's so strange, like they'rewatching somebody open something
, but then you do it and thenyou're like, oh, I want to see
this person's excitement, and sothey're getting it here Again.
Both sides are missing this keyelement to developing this
perspective.

Speaker 2 (11:03):
Again, I'm not trying to say we're better than
anybody else.
I just also want to throw thatout there while I'm thinking
about it.
For me, I find that peopledrastically underestimate how
much a shared set of facts canbe distorted for influential
purposes.
I remember we have a Wednesdaymorning meeting at IMG.

(11:25):
One time uh, we have thatWednesday morning and one time I
remember sharing two differentversions of the same story of my
time so far at IMG and I and Istarted.
This first story is like thiswas such a horrible career move
for me.
You know I was working, youknow, 35 to 40 hours a week at a
corporate job.

(11:46):
It was good and like I wasdealing with.
The types of problems I wasdealing with were technical
problems and you know it wasjust.
And then I switched toinsurance management group.
I was driving back and forth anhour a day.
My workday was getting longer,I was dealing with arguably more
petty things, having moreadministrative oversight of more

(12:09):
people, and just how itimpacted the quality of my and I
just portrayed this negativeimage.
And then I took that same setof shared facts and was talking
about how this was the greatestmove of my life because that
drive time forced me to havebasically an hour each way of

(12:30):
downtime and how I used that tolisten to audiobooks and do
personal growth that I neverwould have done.
And here I had all thisexperience in this depth of a
Fortune 100 company and I got tosupplement that with all of
this breadth of different typeof experience and I went on to
kind of explain how this hasbeen one of the best moves in my

(12:51):
life.
And I think people underestimateyour ability to do that.
Not only and I've done thatseveral times with a given day
right, I could take a given dayand I could tell you why this is
the worst day ever and why it'sthe best day ever.
But I think people findthemselves falling into the trap
of people do that with certaintopics and positions and angles.
Right, why, the conservativeposition is obviously the best

(13:15):
position and I can't believeanyone would ever possibly be
liberal or Democrat or whatever.
And then the same thing on theother side and the really good
debaters on both sides.
You can watch them and you findyourself agreeing with them.
And I think that's the challengeis, people underestimate
someone's ability to take ashared set of facts, leave out

(13:39):
certain truths, to create a verycompelling position to where,
when you hear them, you thinknaturally your natural instinct
is there can't even be anotherside to this story Like this is
so obviously correct.
And then if you open your mindto it and you actually hear the
other side of the story, it'slike Ooh, okay, like, and that's
where I feel like we've the artof the debate has been lost.

(14:01):
And that's, to me, is what's sofrustrating about this is you
can't people come in, so farapart you can't have a
discussion.
I remember there was timeswhere I was going through my
faith formation where I watcheddebates between archbishops and
atheists or agnostics and thatwas so helpful for me to like
see both sides right there.

(14:22):
And even presidential debates,unfortunately, have completely
lost like their ability.
Debates unfortunately havecompletely lost like their
ability to, because people havegotten so masterful at
distorting facts and you knowyou don't really or leaving out
truths or certain things, thefact checking.
It's just gotten crazy.
But I've just I've reallystruggled with that and I think
that's a really important partof this is because we've gotten

(14:44):
so far apart, we can't havethese discussions.
I want to talk about two.

Speaker 1 (14:49):
I think there's the fact side of it, and then I
think there's a bias topositivity and negativity.
From your guys' experience, wehave the people in our lives
that everything's negative andno matter what, and then you
have the people thateverything's positive.
What do you think is at thebottom of the formation of that

(15:13):
Like?

Speaker 3 (15:14):
yeah, no, I want to impact that, unpack that,
because I've been thinking aboutthat a lot lately, like why is
there?
I'll give you a particularexample.
You said in a prior podcast youwere talking about impact and
that's like your focus and thatthat aim is typically aligned
with.
I'm going to do what I can tomake the world a better place.
I'm going to influence thosepeople around me to make the

(15:35):
world a better place.
Versus the other perspectiveand they're multiple, right, but
another one is this is sounfair and I don't mean to say
that with a negative tone andeverything is unfair and instead
of focusing on myself and whatI can do and what I can
contribute and how I can helpthose around me in my sphere of

(15:58):
influence contribute better, myfocus is how can I try to lift
up maybe those outside of myinfluence, maybe be more
philanthropic or you know thesepeople are and I was very
interested.
You know I have some.
I definitely have both sides onsocial media, just so everyone

(16:18):
knows.
I spent a decade of my lifeliving in one of the most
liberal cities, if not the mostliberal city in the country, in
Seattle, and then I've spent therest of my 30 plus years in
Indiana, which was purple at onepoint I think I voted for Obama
, but for the most part it'spretty red.
So my social media, especiallybecause I was exposed to way
more people when I was inSeattle, is pretty half and half
.
And I had somebody I followedthat made a comment.

(16:41):
It was really interestingbecause it made the assumption
that the people that she wastalking about supporting it made
the.
It made the assumption thatthey wanted it.
It was like and so I was tryingto understand what life
experiences led you to believethat these people I we're pretty

(17:06):
good with our language on thispodcast but want you to blow
smoke up their ass.
You know I'm going to patronizeso and so.
Yeah, I'm going to patronize soand so and so and so because
they're good at it.
Right, you know I'm going towork with this person because I
like the product, not because ofwhatever, whatever you know,
whatever lifestyle they chooseor whatever they you know.
And so I'm wondering, likehaving been fortunate enough to

(17:31):
grow up in a place like Marionwhere we get to experience all
of it, like, what kind of again,I'm not trying to say this with
negative connotation, but whatlifestyle leads you to believe
or maybe it's when you grew up.
It's just such a complex thingbut what leads you to believe

(17:51):
that that particular group ofpeople want your patronage,
based solely on what they are?
I just would pose that questionwhat do you guys think?
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
I don't know either.
I think a lot of people, whatthey are, is a product of the
environment that they grew up inand the experiences that they
like.
What do you guys think I don'tknow?
Yeah, I mean, I don't knoweither.
I mean I think a lot of people,what they are, is a product of
the environment that they grewup in and the experiences that
they've had which gets into awhole other podcast of are you
self-made or are you a productof your experiences and things
God's done in your life?
But I think that's naturally.
I think a lot of people who havethat disposition probably grew

(18:23):
up in a home that had adisposition like that and it was
again, no right or wrongnecessarily.
I mean, certainly we've allchosen what's right or wrong for
us.
Now I think that gets a littletrickier when you get into
religion.
We can we can tackle thatanother day, but yeah, I mean, I
think that's the most for me,the most reasonable explanation.

(18:45):
It's just a comment.
You know people are a productof the environment that they
grew up in.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
It would be interesting to think or to see
if somebody could change rightno-transcript and it seems to be
consistent and I think it alsowill probably add to the fact,

(19:17):
regardless of side of the aislethat you're on, how polarizing.
Your statements are right andso I think when you can lead
into any conversation withopenness and positivity, it
leads to opportunities to haveyour mind changed.
One of the greatest things Ilove about Joe Rogan's podcast
he's like you have to be willingto admit when you're wrong,

(19:40):
like if I got on here and I saidsomething, and I made a comment
or a fact or a statement and itwasn't right, I gotta be able
to eat that instead of goingdown the rabbit hole.
He did that.
Wesley Huff did that uh podcastum with the other yeah, yeah,
billy Carson, and he saidhonestly he he should have come
out and just said, hey, you know, I I misspoke on this, this and

(20:05):
this and instead tried to keepgoing down the rabbit hole
because he was worried aboutimage or because he was an
expert in this field and kind ofgot caught.
And so I know I think at timesthere've been times in my life
where I didn't want to be wrong.
I'm very cautious about makingany like concrete statements,

(20:25):
partly because I have a brothernamed Todd Daly who will make
sure to let you know if you saysomething that you shouldn't.
But you know, our dad's anexample of someone who probably
on the other end will you know,I think there was a.
There was a decade in time andprobably when social media I
would say maybe it's five to 10years ago when there was a lot
more just sharing posts.

(20:47):
I don't think people do that asmuch now because I think kids
are calling out their parents,but it was like gosh if I saw
this on the daily Catholicdevotional, I'm sharing it or
whatever, and sometimes it wouldbe pretty polarizing.
So we don't see that as much,but I still think it does exist
and I do think people believeeverything they see.
I think that's another thing.
It's like well, my iPad said itwas true, so it's true.

Speaker 2 (21:11):
Copy and paste this into your Facebook status to
never get cancer.

Speaker 1 (21:15):
Yeah, how do you educate individuals or talk
about that in general, becausethere is so much misinformation
out there.

Speaker 3 (21:26):
You know it's really tough because you said it, you
have to go search for it, um,and you know, maybe, maybe you
can look at the general wave ofthings and which way things are
shifting.
So I noticed something somebodyposted the other day.
Uh, you know, one thing thatI've noticed and again, this is
potentially because of myalgorithm, but there seems to be

(21:49):
a shift from people in, let'scall it, new media, but we're
all in traditional media at somepoint You're Rogans of the
world, you're Russell Brands ofthe world they're shifting
perspectives on things prettysignificantly.
Still, you know and I think alot of people share this
approach to let we'll call itpolitics is they're a little

(22:10):
more socially liberal because wehave more.
You know, growing up in marion,prior to the internet, we
didn't know anybody, or very fewpeople, that would have, um,
chosen particular lifestyles.
We weren't exposed to that, andso it was potentially taboo
just based on lack of exposure.
Now I think, the more thatwe're all exposed to things and
we see what's harmful and what'snot harmful, that we have a

(22:32):
little more understanding ofthat and so maybe a little more
socially liberal and fiscallyconservative or whatever.
But you're seeing this kind oftrend shift, and so this
particular person sharedsomething, and it was a vlog
from a creator with over 3million followers talking about

(22:52):
the illegality of some of thethings that are happening via
executive orders, and it wasobviously conveyed in a way that
was meant to appeal to the leftside of the aisle, talking
about how this is illegal, thiscan't be done, yada, yada, yada,
it's a violation of theConstitution.
Then, later in the day andagain, you're right.

(23:16):
You have to be somewhat beingconscious of it.
I saw a pretty reasonable whatI thought was a real clip and I
still think it is, if I'm wrong,I'll admit it of Jon Stewart,
who is typically staunchly onthe left side of things.
He doesn't waver.
There's a couple guys that don'twaver.
He's one of them Talking abouthow we as a people, collectively

(23:41):
and even addressing his base,have given the executive branch
the power that it has over timeand have created this vacuum
within which the Republican sidehas secured the judiciary, the
Congress and the executivebranch.
He was speaking to his, so itwas interesting to me that on

(24:05):
one side, you have somebodysaying that it's all it's, it's
illegal and how can they do this?
And and on the other side youhave somebody who has always
been, you know, as critical ofthis.
You know the right as possibleactually being like no, this is
our fault.
And so seeing the shift in thatmanner, you know is, may lead

(24:30):
you to believe that people arestarting to self-educate.
With sites like Ground News,you guys have heard of coming
out which is kind of supposed tobe this.
You know, and I've used it alittle bit, I don't know how
much you guys have, but it's,you know, underneath each
article it has a white, red andblue uh slider and it shows you
kind of which way the particulararticle is leaning.

Speaker 1 (24:51):
Really.
Yeah, it's great.
It's called ground news, um,but it's really, it's really
really hard.

Speaker 3 (24:58):
You know, one of the things we're dealing with right
now I'd love your opinion on is,you know, um, and and this, and
in this I won't go down thispath, but it reminds me of so
yesterday, um, my kids had takena video game console of mine
and played it and it was notworking correctly.
After they played it andthey're like well, dad, we
didn't do anything.
And like, well, you lackplausible deniability because

(25:19):
you touched it.
If you'd have never touched it,then I couldn't accuse you of
anything.
And I think we're seeing thiswith this whole USAID situation,
right, like.
I read the New York Timesassessment of what's being
stated about these USAIDexpenditures and every single
one was exaggerated, misleading,right.
But you would make theassumption, based on the

(25:39):
vilification of the standardmedia from the right side, that
it's not, that it's biased, andso it's like well, here's the
thing.
At the end of the day and thisis more of a statement than a
question if you had never doneany of it, then the people that

(26:00):
are looking for those problemscouldn't identify them and point
the figure.
But I guess, back to your pointabout education.
I would recommend somethinglike a Ground News.
I would recommend one of myfriends.
What he'll do is he'll sign outof social media and search
specific things without youraccount, so that you're
definitely getting differentperspectives.

Speaker 1 (26:22):
How do you know?
I listened or read somethingsomewhere like chat GPT, for
example, if it is like 0.001%off, like the trajectory of data
, of how misleading that couldbe, so like even things that are
trying not to like, how do youknow?
How do you guys?

Speaker 2 (26:43):
I don't think you can .
You just got to remain an openmind.
I think that's what's sodifficult about this is you have
it's had how people approach itand what their mindset is.
It's like a seek to understandthat's a value at img.
And just to specify, imginsurance management group,
that's a independent insuranceagency in the north central
indiana area that um trent and Ium both work at and seek to

(27:06):
understand is a value there.
Uh, for that reason, becauseit's challenging people to
change their orientation rightwhen you see something, instead
of immediately seeing it,getting fired up about it and
going on a rampage to spread it,seek to understand the other
side of the story.
I had someone come in my officethe other day and just lay into
me about a situation that theywere very tangentially involved

(27:29):
in, had had some interactionswith one person on one side of
the scenario and we had atwo-hour I'll say politely
throwdown.
It was a very enjoyableinteraction that ended very well
, but we were challenging eachother on what the actual truth
of the situation was and I justcontinue to never be surprised

(27:51):
at different just as humans notme or anyone else in particular
humans' ability to take whatthey hear about a situation and
formulate a storyline or have itfulfill the lens that they're
looking through.
It is incredible how far apartpeople can be, and I think until
, as a society, we either havethe platforms that do this for

(28:14):
us or which is probably going tobe more likely, the solution
than just everyone beginning toseek to understand and not
following their human instinctsto take something and run with
it, I think it's a realchallenge.
I would say, in my estimation,this is as much as an epidemic
as we've had in the last.
I mean, even compared to COVIDor anything else.

(28:35):
We are just really strugglingto communicate.

Speaker 3 (28:38):
I think there's two big things there.
One that's really important isrecognizing what's entertainment
.
If you can separate that outand realize, yes, I'm watching
this because it feels good, butI know that this isn't right.
Or I mean there's things youcan do, like I know a lot of
people do this and I'll do thisat times I'll search for the
opposite, like I'll try to.

(28:59):
But one of the other things andthis is crazy is that stay
humble.
Yes, what do you learn early inlife in sports, when you're that
kid or when you're that fanthat's in everybody's grill
about?
I mean, like none of us smacktalk anymore, like very rarely.
You know fantasy sports.

(29:19):
I mean you just because youknow what the result is when you
get in somebody's face aboutsomething that has any potential
or any probability to not cometrue.
You know, and I think that'sthe thing when you approach
somebody with an opinion that'sso strong, stay humble, because
there is a chance that you'rewrong.

(29:41):
Regardless, and this opens upan even bigger can of worms,
because for the first time ever,we're starting to see things
that were steadfast, right, witha foundation of our existence
questioned and it may still beclose to as fact as possible.

(30:03):
But now there's that little bit, like you talked about Rogan,
did you ever watch the guy geton there and talk about the moon
landing?
Never in our lives did youthink that there was even a 0.1%
chance that the moon landingdidn't happen.
But I'll tell you what if youwere 13 years old and you hadn't
studied that in school, or youdidn't grow up when we did, and

(30:24):
you listened to that guy, youwould 100% believe that the moon
landing never happened.
Right?
Same thing with some of theseother perspectives is that now
we're finally, you know, againback to being humble, right?
Like, if you're not like evenagain, do I believe that?
Right?
Like, if you're not like evenagain, do I believe that the

(30:44):
earth is flat?
No, but there is a .0001%chance, like people have posited
some like concepts.
Same thing with creationism,right?
People, you know, I was talkingto somebody the other day who
has a friend who believes thatGod put dinosaur bones in the
earth.
There weren't ever dinosaurs,because that you know.

(31:09):
But again, like you would neverhave thought like what you're
going to.
You're on unraveling everyscientific discipline out, but
again, yeah, sorry.

Speaker 2 (31:14):
And you can, I think, interpret that one of two ways.
One is yes, and I would agreewith you 1000% never, always be
humble and always be open to apiece of information that you
don't have, don't the second youget so sure that there is no
other.
Like is the second, you putyourself in a really bad
position, or it ain't?
I just say, and you can alsolook at that in that, again,

(31:35):
it's another exemplification ofhow someone could take something
that is what most peoplebelieve is very common knowledge
and accepted, and find a way toput together some pieces and
some data and a picture thatcreates doubt and or, you know,
prove something that isseemingly preposterous from an
understanding perspective.

(31:56):
I mean, there's some peoplethat will say that the holocaust
didn't happen right and it andit's like I think most people
would accept, that it absolutelydid and that I think.
But there are people that,again, I think people
underestimate other people'sability to create a convincing
position.
You think, if you hear aconvincing position, that it's

(32:17):
oh well.
You know it's a lot easier thanpeople think to create a
convincing position on aparticular topic.

Speaker 1 (32:24):
You said seek to understand, which I love, but
that's a mindset right, gettingyourself in the right mindset.
Do you believe that there is anability to ever change?
Because I think the last leg ofthat is we kind of want to
fulfill what we're searching forright.
Like we all have this humanintuition of like I really like

(32:45):
to end up here.
Give me the data to get me fromhere to here.
So, as I think about being seekto understand, there's been
times in my life where I willseek to understand the situation
and I'll, but at the end it'slike I've kind of already got
the golden nugget figured out,like tell me the story to get
there and then I want to debunkthe other story.
Do you believe that'll everchange, or is that just part of
how we're wired innately?

Speaker 3 (33:07):
I think it comes through failure.
I think when you have.
I was listening to RussellBrand the other day, and Russell
Brand most of you are maybefamiliar with him.
He was an actor and at onepoint in his life was about as I
mean I think he'd say it asevil as it comes right.
Like I remember, a couple daysafter 9-11, he showed up to an

(33:28):
MTV set dressed as Osama binLaden, like just high as a kite
and they recently asked him whatand he was an atheist, and I
mean all the things.
He had access to everything inHollywood, tons of money.
And the question was it wasactually with Wesley Huff on
Apologetics Canada's page butasked him why, why did you?

(33:50):
And his comment was I triedeverything else.
I saw that, being famous,having all the money, doing all
the drugs, being adored by fans,having access to women, all of
these things it didn't.
I failed every single time andI finally figured out that, oh
wait, there is this set ofstories, right, there's this

(34:16):
faith based on these set ofstories in this book that
provide a pretty damn good pathforward.
And so I think, with all of thisstuff, it comes through failure
.
It comes through losing andbeing wrong and being like okay,
because bigger thanreinforcement of a belief is
fear.
And if you are afraid thatyou're gonna look like an idiot

(34:39):
because you've gotten into somany of those conversations, I
think that comes.
I used to be, I was asheadstrong and you are the same
way as headstrong as they come.
Everything was very matter offact and I was overzealous about
it all, and I'm 100% right, youknow and the more you fail we
were at Christmas and your sonwas talking about the college

(35:02):
football playoff and who was inthe college football playoff?
He's 10.
I know better than he does andI was like you're wrong, noah,
noah's right.
And that's one more piece ofinformation in my brain that
when I hear somebody make astatement about whatever it is,

(35:24):
I go back and I'm like I betterlook at the other side or I
better research that becauseI've been proven wrong by a
10-year-old in the last month, Ibetter make sure that.
So I think it happens throughfailure.

Speaker 2 (35:36):
Yeah, I think it's really hard to change your
mindset, and that's what I wassaying earlier.
I think, more likely, thechanges is platforms and or some
entity that's going to dosomething other than other than
maximize their revenue, which iswhat everyone's doing.
That's resulting in themproducing content.
That's going to get the mostclicks and it's going to get the
most activity, something like aground news or some other

(35:58):
transparency, I think it's.
It's going to have to be acollection of things, because
it's really hard and I think,certainly through experiences,
and it gets harder because yousaid, failure, a lot of people.
They don't have to have thoseface-to-face interactions where
they fail anymore, and sothere's a lot more safe spaces
for people to stay in thesechambers and just continue to
get more and more fired up aboutit.
But I'll give you an examplewhere you know for me, I think,

(36:22):
just putting yourself inpositions where you can see two
sides of the story, like I'vefollowed obviously a lot of the
hot topic right now is a lot ofthe immigration stuff and half
the country is like, oh my gosh.
You know it's about damn timeyou know all these resources
that could be going to our owncitizens or going to these other
citizens.
Then you have the other half ofthe country.
That's like my goodness, likethese are actual human beings,
just because they're not UnitedStates citizens, like gosh, like

(36:45):
you're, these are actual humanbeings that you're, you know,
shipping back to wherever andwho knows what's going to happen
, and da-da-da-da-da-da-da.
And I mean again, it's complex,right?
So you could make the argumentthat, well, we're a country, if
we're a country, we're a countryand we're going to have borders
and this is going to be thething and that's a logical
argument, right.
The same point it's like,especially when you get into

(37:06):
there's other aspects of this,where you know, just from a and
even not even get into thereligious aspects, if there's a
humanitarian aspect to it ofhumans aside from nationality,
of, like, the dignity of a humanbeing, right, I can tell you in
the Catholic circles thatthere's a little bit of rub
there.
You've got part of them talkingabout that's a big thing for
Catholicism is the dignity ofthe human being, or human

(37:28):
dignity versus, you know, someof these other governmental or
legal situations.
So, yeah, I think it's a supercomplex problem to solve and
it's going to take some time.
But I was going to say.
The last thing I was going tosay is we had an au pair who is
from Colombia and she was withus for two years and she is

(37:51):
trying to come back and see us,maybe for the summers, but she
needs a visa to do that.
She had a working visa throughthe cultural care was the
provider we used and she wasjust we were just together in
Dominican because she can go toDominican.
We met there, we weresupporting the nonprofit there
and she was telling us like yeah, I just got my appointment
moved up to August 2026.
And then, while we were there,she got it moved up to July of

(38:14):
2026.
And she's trying to move up theappointments because the
appointments are so stacked upto go through an actual process
to get a legitimate visa to getto America.
Well, two weeks later she sendsJen an email and says all the
appointments have been canceledbecause Trump shut down these.
You know, the executive ordersshut down the ability for legal
immigrants or for people Cause Ithink the Biden administration

(38:37):
had set these up maybe to helppeople legally come over right
and as to discourage some of theillegal activity.
And so now I'm in a positionwhere, like we would love to
have Louisa come for the summer,but right now that's completely
off the table.
And again, just seeking tounderstand, I could immediately
react to that and say this ishorrible, like Trump's doing
this and he's just shutting.
You know he shuts this down andnow it's screwing me.

(38:59):
And you got good people likethis, good loving people who are
trying to do it the right way,and now they can't do it.
But it's more complex than that.
It's not that simple.
I don't know enough about these.
My understanding is maybe thesewere set up more recently and
someone more informed on thetopic can help me.
But I think that's the type ofthing that someone can get a
hold of, react to and freak outabout, you know, on both sides,

(39:20):
without kind of seeking tounderstand.
But I think too I guess I wasalso kind of alluding to more
experiences you have on bothsides will help, but I don't
think that's happening as muchbecause people are living in
these chambers and not gettingto experience both sides of the
aisle.

Speaker 3 (39:36):
So I think there's two things.
Number one, you know, I thinkkind of back to your question on
education.
I think one thing that peoplecould start to implement is try
to have as many of theseconversations in person as you
can.
You know, I thought today aboutif we were going to do
something like this topic ofconversation having somebody
else that shared that aparticular perspective, here on
the couch with us having threeof us already.

(39:57):
It would probably be fairlydifficult, but, like you know, I
would much.
You know, I have a friend whoshares differing perspectives
and the last time I was in a carwith them for eight hours,
that's most of what we talkedabout, just trying to understand
.
So I think, having as many ofthe conversations in person as
you can.
And I think the other thing isand I'd ask you both and then
maybe I'll comment on it, butlike the ultimate sphere of

(40:18):
influence for us as our familiesand our kids, how are we laying
the foundation for them to havethe perspectives that would
foster that curiosity and or thelevel of humbleness necessary
to seek out the full truth andnot necessarily confirming
biases?

Speaker 2 (40:37):
I think the challenge for me on that is doing that
without destroyingself-confidence.
Right, because when you talkabout humility, it's putting
people in their place and likehelping to continue to like,
challenge them of like thatcould be wrong, or here's what's
wrong about that, or this isn'twhat's right about this, or
whatever.
And so I think the challenge isdoing that in a way that
preserves self-confidence andhelps them get to appreciate.

(40:58):
And I don't know, trent, whatare your immediate thoughts on
that?

Speaker 1 (41:01):
Well, I'm just laughing, cause I think there
was a point in time where, likeangel, my, my wife wouldn't talk
to Todd for a few years, causeevery time she said something
she felt like it wasoveranalyzed.
So Todd has a very curious mindand so you, naturally, are
wired to like investigate, andwhen someone spits something out
, you challenge it, which Ithink is great, and and I laugh

(41:22):
about it now, that was probablya decade ago, but it it.
It is something that I think isimportant, and I've seen you
with your kids several times asthey would say something you'd
be like you, you would continueto say that.
And I think with with my kidsis when I hear them say
something that I know is nottrue or I think it's on the line
, is just kind of calling it out.
Or, more importantly, is, likethe lens you view a situation

(41:46):
from.
Like what are you looking atthe situation?
From a positive or negative lens, or could it be this, or do you
understand this, like when wetalk about immigration and one
of the things I had brought up,because in our circle our
friends have family members thatcould be impacted, like it
could?
There's a a a large Hispanicpopulation and in this area and

(42:08):
their potentials that it couldyou know, and so it's very
sensitive and there these areclose people that we care about,
that have been friends of ourkids and so forth and so on.
So when you look at from thatlens, we're talking about that
and how I was talking to mydaughter about that and and it
is the humanitarian side of it.
But there's some of these townswhere you know if you they've

(42:28):
doubled the population almostthrough illegals, and you know
if you put an extra 10,000people in Marion what that would
do to the healthcare systemsand the school systems, and so,
as you try to navigate thisconversation, you said it's
complex and I think one thingthat we've always tried to do is
not put a stake in the ground.
We're not saying that this isthe way it should be, we're not

(42:49):
saying that this is how itshould be, but just trying to
understand that it is a complexsituation and that we're willing
to listen to other people andnever forget the humanitarian
side of it, because ultimatelywe all are people, but there has
to be some structure or it'scomplete chaos why do we
perceive it that way?

Speaker 3 (43:07):
that's that's.
That's a big question for me,kind of goes back to I mentioned
earlier the person thatcommented on social media and
about patronizing a particulargroup of people, and I I'm very
curious.
I don't know if it's our mother, I don't know.
Know if it's the city we grewup in, because Marion is a very
good representation.
I think at one point it was thecity that was the most direct
representation of the nationalpopulation as a whole.

(43:27):
The way that this particulararea is divided up from a
demographic perspective, is itwhat we got to experience as
kids?
I don't know.
And so I guess I pose thatquestion to you is what
experiences do you think haveled us to be the types of people
and not that we're better againthat don't plant a flag and
that are willing to, you know,explore both sides, or how to

(43:53):
get to a resolution, or what thereal truth is.
And again, like you want to,you know, you want to unpack
with the real truth, like I mean, that's that much more complex.
But let me stop and just askthat first question.

Speaker 1 (44:05):
I think for me, some of it's my experience in
leadership.
It's just throughout the last10 years dealing with hundreds
of different people.
I mean, I started in sales,right, so it's, you have a lot
of different people.
But then when you're leadingpeople and you're leading teams,
you realize everyone's cutdifferently.
We're all cut from a differentcloth and that's not a bad thing

(44:26):
.
This is not a good, better best.
This is just.
God made us all so different andthen we're all so different.
Then we all grow up in alldifferent environments and we
have different experiences.
And then you have to navigatethese situations.
So when you're navigating asituation and you're seeking to
understand and you make aconnection with someone and you
feel that I've talked about this, I'm a feeler, so I'm feeling

(44:51):
different things and differentemotions and seeing different
perspectives.
And I think it's exposure, themore that I can see through my
lens and I can see it throughother people's lens.
Now, all of a sudden, I havecompassion for that, I want to
understand that better and itjust gives me a different
perspective on life.

Speaker 3 (45:09):
So then, conversely, you would say that it is lack of
exposure, like if somebodynever spent any time around this
particular demographic, and sothey're making assumptions that
this is probably what they want,right?

Speaker 1 (45:20):
Well, I wouldn't even say it's a yeah, demographic.
This is is economical, social.
I mean this goes across alldifferent you know boards.
It's like, if you have to, ifyou want to build a company, you
have to motivate, inspire andpull people together right, and
so you cannot build a large,successful company if you can't

(45:42):
get a group of people to uniteon on the same vision and want
to carry forward.
So that is something that youultimately have to do, and so
that skill set is going torequire you to dig in and to try
to understand people better andand and appreciate everyone for
who, who they are yeah, I thinkit's 100% exposure To your

(46:03):
point.

Speaker 2 (46:03):
I don't think we always grew up like this.
I think we've put ourselves ina position where we've been
exposed.
You lived in Seattle for 10years.
I married someone who leaned alittle more left and I think
through different communitieswe've been willing to engage in,
over time, even fitnesscommunities.
We've exposed ourselves todifferent walks of life,

(46:26):
different perspectives, and thatexposure, I think, has.
Now I've talked about right orwrong.
Let me add that this can havepros and cons, because there
have been times where I've feltlike I am so Switzerland and so
neutral that I'm unable, orunable or hesitate to take a
strong position that's actuallygoing to drive meaningful change

(46:49):
.
Like in some of my spiritualcircles, there are people that
are just so intense and this isthe way 100%.
And what's cool about that is,I've seen at times again, world
needs all kinds of differentpeople.
I've seen that inspire othersto adopt a similar thing.
That's been a very good thingfor them, whereas I am kind of

(47:11):
like, eh, you know, and that Ithink for others that are maybe
looking to grow, it's less of aninspirational disposition if
you're trying to move people ina certain direction.
So, again to reiterate the factthat this isn't necessarily
right or wrong.
Certainly there are pros tobeing exposed to more seeing,
more failing, more being wrong,more understanding different

(47:33):
sets of perspectives.
I also think it can at timeswater down your ability to take
a firm stand on something andfight for it.

Speaker 3 (47:41):
Do we think that you know, when we grew up, we were
exposed to just not everythingbut quite a bit, and but it was.
It was where those things wereduring our lifetimes.
What I mean by that is like oneof the greatest experiences.
You know, we grew up in aparticular part of town Um, this
is the basement we grew up in.

(48:02):
I think we mentioned that lastepisode.
40 years ago we moved into thishouse.
We don't still live here That'dbe strange but it was sports
and going down to the boys cluband playing basketball.
And I just had thisconversation last week with one
of our friends.
We were out for Todd justturned 40 a couple of days ago.
So we were one of our friends.
We were out for Todd justturned 40 a couple days ago, so

(48:23):
we were out for his birthday.
We were talking about thisexperience and we went down and
the boys' club in Marion wasthis hotbed of like crazy
talented basketball players andwe all played.
Trent was pretty talented andgifted back then, and so we kind
of rode his coattails and wentdown there and play basketball
and we were exposed to somethingthat we'd never been exposed to

(48:44):
, but it became fairlycommonplace after a period of
time, and so we developed a veryunique perspective on people
from all walks of life, becausewhile we got drove down there by
our parents to play basketball,trent had a guy who played on
his team, who was 12, who drovehimself to practice one time,
you know, which is crazy, youknow, but like that was.
That was something that we wereexposed to.

(49:04):
And I wonder and we were so wewere exposed to that in the late
80s, late 80s, early 90s,versus today.
Um, you know, there was.
There's this perception thatthere was a period of time maybe
it's millennial, maybe end ofmillennial, early gen z where
parents were focused oneliminating challenges, right,
and you get what you want andmedals for everything, and yada,

(49:26):
yada, yada.
We interacted with differentpeople who didn't have that, but
like if you were placed in asituation again where there's
not a lot of struggle, there'snot a lot of push, there's not a
lot of friction there and thenin the next stage, so, as you
and I'm sorry that this is alittle convoluted, but I'm

(49:47):
thinking about the evolution ofthis person from okay, I'm in
sports and I win a medal everytime, and then I get to this
next level and I've never beentold no.
And so you know, I, I, the way Iget what I want is through
complaining or through, um,argument, argumentativeness.
And then I get to this nextlevel, and maybe that's
university, and we've seen thiswhere, okay, now I've got these

(50:09):
initiatives right, wrong orindifferent, we're not
criticizing initiatives, we'll,we'll, we'll start the term DEI
right when now I've got a set oftools that allow me to continue
to maintain this status.
And so then you think aboutpeople that are exposed to

(50:34):
people who have been given thosetools and maybe their
perception is okay, you know.
And so I guess where I'm goingwith that is, we see potentially
the evolution of thatparticular person.
And then you, as somebodyoutside of that demographic or
demographic or exposed tosomebody who is now at a
position or at a point where, um, their identity or their status

(50:56):
is tied up in utilizing thetools provided to them to
maintain the status that theywant to maintain.
I wonder if if that's kind of apremise for some of this or if
I just yeah.

Speaker 1 (51:07):
I, I, yeah, I don't know.
Um, I don't know the answer tothat.
Uh, one of the things that Ikeep thinking about, though, is,
like this is kind of like apandemic.
Like this is kind of like apandemic.
This is destroying families.
It's destroying communities.
Our inability to communicatewith one another and try to
understand the truth is reallyreally hard, especially because

(51:31):
we all have a bias.
One of the things I would liketo talk about is the way we get
our media used to be televisionand radio right, and I would
like your opinion.
I have an opinion, but do youbelieve that Main Street
television and radio back in theday was controlled to influence

(51:54):
in a particular way?
Do you believe I would go backas far as like the 80s, 90s, and
then how it's kind oftransitioned over time?

Speaker 2 (52:02):
obviously, we have different media sources now, but
I'm curious what your thoughtsare on mainstream media back in
the day I think, um, what hasn'tchanged is mainstream media for
the most part, I think, as anatural business, business
entity would was looking tomaximize earnings.
They always have been.
I have seen, I would suggest,my uninformed perspective on

(52:25):
this is that over time theseentities have learned that if
they play to a specific audienceright, a lot of what's happened
in marketing in the last 20years is more persona specific
who is our target audience?
What do they want to hear?
And business entities who havefollowed that model have found a
lot of success, and so myunderstanding is Fox News, msnbc

(52:48):
, whatever those primarychannels are, have found a way
to identify that persona andthey've started to tailor the
content specifically for them,which naturally, I believe, has
left those media outlets more onone side or the other than
maybe they.
Is there some underground cabal, right?

Speaker 3 (53:21):
that has this particular long-term power grab
in mind and are doing things ina particular way to lead to an
end.
I think what's happened.
I think the erosion of media isnow you said it earlier about
specificity around what you know.
Now there's so many contentcreators out there that each one
can be hyper specific and sothat right wing person who had

(53:45):
to watch Fox news in the past,now they can watch this very
specific creator.
That's like hyper sensitive totheir particular perspective and
biases on things.
So that's why the you know, andwe've seen it and you're seeing
it in the numbers thattraditional media is losing a
little bit of steam.
Because, number one, I thinkthere are people that believe

(54:06):
that on top of the strive forprofitability, there's also this
like power dynamic underneathyou.
You get commentary around thegeorge soros's of the world or
you know people that areaffiliated with Trump in that
whole aspect.
But that's kind of my take onit.

Speaker 1 (54:25):
The reason why I ask is I have a good friend that's
in the music industry and hebasically said the way to get
your song on the top 10 radiostation is you just pay.
They find these people thatlook a certain way and the big
corporations, they sign acontract and they pay and so,
like the main street, even musicthat you would have

(54:47):
traditionally kind of beforespotify, where it would have
been the radio or it would havebeen um, sirius xm, they they
were putting on this stuff onthere that they wanted us to
hear.
It wasn't necessarily what wasthe best and obviously best is
different depending on theperson but there was a lot of

(55:08):
control.
There's the perception of a lotof control.
Again, we're not going to put astake in the ground on anything
, but there's the perceptionthere was a lot of control in
the music industry about whatgot popular and what didn't, and
that's one thing.
That's going around right nowis the same with the media that
the, the legacy media.
There there was an agenda, um,and there's channels that had

(55:30):
each agenda.
Right.
If you were, if you'reconservative, you're watching
fox news and you're taking thatto the grave, and cnn, if you're
a liberal, or msnbc, andthey're again back to this
polarization.
They're trying to, I think, getpeople to tune in and they're
trying to make it more extreme,and so I'm just curious, that's

(55:50):
how we were fed and so some ofthat had influence on how we
develop.
Well, now we're in a differentera.
We're in an era where contentis coming at you from a lot of
different ways and there's a lotof information out there, and
so now the tougher part is likewhat's true, right, and what
lens am I looking at it through?
So let's talk about some of thebig ones.

(56:11):
X is a big one right now.
Twitter now it's called X.
So X is like we're just goingto give you information, we're
going to tell you the truth.
You could argue that X maybe hasa bias.
Now Elon has said it doesn't,and he's been one of the best, I
think, to implement somethinglike community notes, which I

(56:31):
think Facebook announced a monthago that they are looking at a
similar thing, where it's likesomething is posted, someone can
go in and add community notes,which is facts, and he lets a
lot of different people and ithas different people with
different opinions and then,based on how many people have
supporting facts.
It kind of says, ok, well, thisis probably the most common
fact of kind of similar to thatground news across the board.

(56:53):
So trying to balance to try toget accurate information out
there.
How should people consume theircontent?

Speaker 3 (56:59):
accurate information out there.
How should people consume theircontent?
I think that people, assomebody who consumes an
enormous amount of content, Ithink that people have to first
of all remove their identityfrom their.
They have to remove theirpersonal identity from their
beliefs and that's verydifficult to do because you can
run away.
Man, like you know, x is thetown hall, but as soon as he is,
you know, again there's theperception that he is a

(57:20):
particular type of person,whether he is or isn't.
Everybody went to was blue sky,which is the other like micro
news social media site, becauseso much of their identity is
tied up in their beliefs andthey're, like you know again,
echo chamber.
They just get away from it.
You know, I'm going to run tothis other platform that is very
similar, uh, or threads, right,i'm'm going to get away and I'm
going to go to threads becauseI don't want to hear this,

(57:41):
because I believe that this isdriving this particular thing.
So, you know, I would say, fromthe way you consume content, it
goes back to try to remove youridentity.
But you know, again, sign outfrom your accounts and look at
what the and search a particularterm you're interested in and

(58:02):
look at what comes back.
That's a way to do it Again.
Leverage of the sites We'vetalked about a number of times
now.
Try to stay off of blue sky,try to stay off of truth social,
you know, like rumble, right.
Rumble may be a little more inthe middle, but it's still going
to lean a little bit right.
Rumble, right.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
You know rumble may be a little more in the middle,
but it's still going to lean alittle bit right.
What's the best way to factcheck something Like say, say
you, you, you see it, you seesomething in your feed.
I don't care what platform itis.
You see something in your feedand you're like, or you're like,
yeah, that aligns exactly withwho I am.
How, how would you go aboutthat?
Well, again, I don't know ordoes it differs on platform?

(58:43):
Would you google it?
Would you ask chat gpt like howwould you validate something?
You see and you're like this isreally good.
I think it's true because italigns with what I think.
But no, you know what I want togo?

Speaker 3 (58:57):
I always google the counterpoint.

Speaker 1 (59:00):
So like give, give me an input, what, what, what you
would?

Speaker 2 (59:03):
I don't think it's so much like truth, true or false,
because it's also lives in thegray area.
If I see something that's likesuper convincing convicting I
will google a counterpoint.
So if you were to, give me whythis is yeah, or I would you
know.
If someone you know, if someonesays you know they just
discovered that they you knowJesus, you know they found

(59:25):
scientific evidence that Jesuswas crucified and this factual
was correct, right, then I mightgo and if that was something I
really wanted to explorehonestly, naturally I'd probably
like flock to that and be like,yes, you know they, you know,
they proved it.
But I think in terms of a seekto seek to understand
perspective.
I think it would be Googling acounterpoint or a different, a

(59:46):
more inquisitive question ofthat, and I think it's it's
multiple data points.
I think that would be.
For me, the underlying thinghere is don't just look at one
thing is and that's part of itis just approaching it with an
open mind is check multipledifferent sources and
information and try to go out ofyour way to get whether that's

(01:00:09):
logging out of your accounts orGoogling a counterpoint, because
depending on how you Googlesomething, the results will come
back strikingly different,right, and even AI can give
different flavors of things.
So I don't know that.
The answer is there's this oneplace is the best place, and
that's why I think it's soimportant that you Stay curious.

(01:00:29):
Stay curious, Stay curious man.

Speaker 3 (01:00:32):
Look for those types of things and try to discern and
over time you'll get better atit Discerning what's
entertainment versus what islike A lot of this stuff that's
happening right now.
I think one of the things thatDonald Trump has been extremely
experienced in is media andbeing like on TV shows and how
to appeal to people.
So, like the other dayyesterday was it that he

(01:00:54):
declared the Golf of America Day?

Speaker 1 (01:00:57):
Like most of that, most of that, most of that's, it
was a month or something ago.

Speaker 3 (01:01:00):
Well, no, yesterday, on the flight to the Super Bowl,
he declared February 9th Golfof America Day.
A lot of that's theater, youknow, and it's going to upset
some people because they thinkit's you know, for whatever
reason.
But you know, for me I look atsome of that stuff as
entertainment, like you know.
I look at some of that stuff asentertainment, like you know,

(01:01:23):
and not letting myself getcaptured by that and infuriated
by that, because at the end ofthe day, mexico will recognize
the Gulf of Mexico how they wantto.
The US will recognize it howthey want to.
If you as a person don't agreewith that and you want it to be
the Gulf of Mexico, then it'sthe Gulf of Mexico to you, it's,
you know.
So I think that's peace.
That's.
A piece of the puzzle too isdon't get captured by, by those

(01:01:46):
types of things.

Speaker 1 (01:01:46):
Try to would that be as like?
Just don't care as much Like it.
I had a good friend that saidyou know, if you focused on the
people around you and theirlives, you'd have much greater
impact than worrying about.

Speaker 3 (01:02:01):
I agree.

Speaker 1 (01:02:02):
And so if we could all focus on the 10 to 15 people
that are directly in our livesand we could raise them up, that
we're going to change the worldfrom the bottom up and not from
the top down.
So what I kind of heard you saythere is like don't care so
deeply about everything Is that,would you?

Speaker 2 (01:02:20):
align with that?
I'd align with that 100%.
Honestly, I get my news from aplace called the New Paper.
I get a text message once a day.
That's got the eight seeminglyfactual news.
I think you guys use the samething and that's the only news
that I watch.
I think largely a lot of thisis a waste of time, and you and
I had a conversation over theholidays about this.
I think a lot of it's a wasteof time because we can't control

(01:02:40):
it, and I feel like for me,I've always kind of used the
premise that I've got a hundredunits of energy today and every
unit of energy I spend worryingor thinking about something that
I have no control over is acomplete waste of opportunity to
have a positive impact onsomething closer around me.
We don't, I think, appreciatethe fact enough that we have
finite energy, so I agree withthat, but.

Speaker 1 (01:03:01):
I want to push back on you a little bit.

Speaker 2 (01:03:03):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:03:04):
So let's say you live in a house and over 50 years,
this house is deteriorating.
Things aren't being done, thevents aren't being cleaned,
things are cracking, stuff likethat let's call the United
States government, the house orsomething.
So there's big things happeningand one of the topics and you

(01:03:27):
guys might not want to talkabout this if you don't feel
versed enough in, but one of thehuge things is the debt right,
$36 trillion, I believe.
The budget's around $7 trillion, $7.3 trillion trillion, and
the revenue is like 5.5.
So there is this massive hole.
Now, when you compare that toother countries other, there are

(01:03:49):
other countries worse off thanus, but, like when you, there
was an example where someonebrought it down to like the
household level and it was.
It was insane.
It was like you, you know youmake 30 000 a year and you have
like three million dollars indebt and you can't make.
So it's clearly upside down,there's clearly problems and
there's the Department ofGovernmental Efficiency that's
involved, and this is a topicthat's I mean you could, I mean

(01:04:12):
people are angry and hateful.
And then there's this part oflike, do you balance your family
budget?
Do you just run up credit cardsand then just keep, and so,
like there's this, I would loveto navigate one of these more
difficult problems with you.
Guys Talk about both sides, solike maybe the audience can even
unpack some of these thingsthat are super complex.

Speaker 2 (01:04:32):
The bubble will pop at some point.
The bubble will pop just likeit did on the housing market,
and it will all feel it andwe'll do our best to recover
from it market and it will allfeel it and we'll do our best to
recover from it.
But until then, like to me, thethe house analogy doesn't hold
because it's a perception ofdeterioration.
People have been screamingabout the debt for 30 years and
oh it's, it's the highest everand highest ever, and highest
ever and highest ever.
Certainly it's getting closerand closer to that and as more

(01:04:54):
people disregard it, like theydid the housing stuff when
people were just doing whateverto get things pushed through, to
make money, to make money.
This, to me, why systems, theway systems are set up, is so
important, because a lot of whatis driven the corruption is is
is greed in the system forfinancial gain.
When people have financial gain,they will do some pretty wild
things.
And I'm not saying thefinancial debt is not, you know,

(01:05:17):
and the debt is not aconcerning thing.
I think it certainly is, but Ialso think there is enough.
There is enough people thinkingabout that on a day-to-day
basis that, whether or not I'mthinking about it and I don't
want to.
You know whether or not I'mthinking about it is, if you
look at the opportunity cost ofmy energy and me spending my

(01:05:38):
energy there versus where Icould be spending my energy, I
think there is a much higheropportunity cost of my energy
and me spending my energy thereversus where I could be spending
my energy, I think there is amuch higher opportunity cost.
If I'm thinking about that Notthat it's not a real problem,
not that it's not something thatis like I'm not saying it's
fine, everything's going to befine, nothing's ever going to go
wrong.
But that's my take.

Speaker 3 (01:05:55):
Yeah, and I think it's funny because there's
another issue that you couldview in a particular lens from
the other side of the aisle.
So when we look at the Doge andwe look at Doge and we look at
the national debt, typically theright is like got it all.
Look at all this crazy spending.

(01:06:16):
We spent $20 million on a I dondon't know an opera in some
foreign country to foster somesocial perspective.
Uh, and that liberals are like,again, wrong writer and
different.
This is the stereotype.
We need our money, we need tokeep our money.
We have all this money comingin.
You're not touching it.
We're gonna storm, you know,the department of education

(01:06:37):
building and prevent these guysfrom looking at the records and
this is illegal, all of thisthing.
The funny thing is, on theother side you have the
environmental discussion, whereone side is, eh, you know, and
the other side is like we needto do stuff now, we're all gonna
die.
I go back to Todd's point and Ialign with it.
Is that somebody's thinkingabout this?
You know, we are a veryresilient species.

(01:07:03):
We're very.
When our backs are against thewall, we perform best, and I
think that with systems and thepeople in play.
We have people way smarter thanI am addressing these
particular issues and they'llget us to the right point.
With Doge specifically, there'sbeen a when you say Doge

(01:07:24):
department of governmentefficiency specifically, there
have been, there's been somevillainization of the kids that
are you know, have been selectedto investigate some of this
potential fraudulent spending oroverspending or whatever, and
they're too young and these kidsare teenagers and they
shouldn't have access to.

(01:07:45):
You know, one of the kids I wasexplaining, I think, to Todd
the other day, and I don't knowif you've seen this one of the
kids received, I believe, agrant or some type of an award
for decoding scrolls that wereburied in the Mount Vesuvius
eruption.

Speaker 2 (01:08:07):
Like no one's been able to do this, and this kid is
like 19 and was smart enough touse AI to like decode.
These kids are brilliant.
Let them do this.
You know what I mean.
So I think it's again to goback to how much of an issue is
national debt and what's goingto be the gain for us worrying
about it, stressing about it,thinking about it, and I think
it's important to be educatedabout this stuff, Because I
think what what I don't want toget misinterpreted is like eh,
don't even think about politics,Don't vote, Don't, whatever.

(01:08:28):
It's a waste of time, wasteenergy.
I'm not necessarily going thatfar, but I will say I think
exponentially more energy isspent worrying and thinking and
and arguing about politics thanwhat the opportunity costs of
that energy could be spent.

Speaker 3 (01:08:43):
You know it is.
I will say it is relieving to apoint because I think
ultimately and again, we mayhave different values, I may
have different values from youguys or whatever but it's nice
to see an effort, regardless ofwhat side it's coming from, to
reduce corruption.

(01:09:03):
I think that that is, I like,the way that feels, regardless
of how egregious it actually is.
There may be some debate there,but it is nice to see that okay
, like because I mean, you know,in business I'm sure you could
attest to this, it'stransparency, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:09:21):
I think the transparency has been great.
I liked some of the things I'vetalked about is, before a bill
gets voted on or passed, thatthe public has access to it.
I mean, ultimately it's publicfunding and I think the more
transparency we can have to helpeducate, to help understand in
the public, because before, like, we don't have any idea what's

(01:09:41):
in those bills.
And, to your point, maybe youdon't want to spend any time on
it, maybe you want to spend sometime, but I know that with the
debt, the only way to pay debtis to print money generally,
which is drives inflation.
So there's different ways totry to combat that and I think
it does have a an impact on us.
When, when will it peak?
When will it not?
Should you sit around worryingabout it all the time?

(01:10:02):
Probably not.
Should you understand it?
Probably, especially if you owna business, and it could be
impactful.
I mean everything with thesetariffs.
Again, this is impactful.
It's going to really impacttrading between other countries,
and I'm not saying that's agood or bad thing.
So, sitting here, it's likethere's pros and cons to both of
those, and I think one of theinteresting thing about Trump is

(01:10:22):
most people don't like him as aperson because he seems to come
off as arrogant.
He's very demeaning, he makesvery un-presidential comments
and people that just make themsick to their stomach, and so if
he approached things in adifferent way, a lot of his
policies are pro-America, butagain, from a humanitarian

(01:10:45):
standpoint they do challenge.
From a Christianity standpointthey definitely challenge there,
and so I understand why peopleare up in arms and upset.
But we let it take to the levelof passion that we have or we
let it go to.
But we've let it take to thethe the level of passion that we
have or we let it go to, andhow we let it destroy
relationships.

(01:11:05):
Like I still think back.
I know people that are nottalking to family members and
for what?
And it's like you're not talkingto a mom, a dad, a sibling, an
aunt and uncle because you're soupset and it was just because
they voted for a person.
That was different.
I don't care who you voted for.
You voted for Kamala, you votedfor Trump, but you voted for X

(01:11:26):
person.
I even saw this meme.
It's like you voted for thisdictator.
Now you get this and this iswhat you you know, and it was
like wow, like back to yourpoint, like I think everybody
wants the same thing.
I think you said this when westarted everyone wants people
taking care of.
When you look at our, ourbudget, I think 60% of it is

(01:11:48):
social security and Medicare andsome of those services that
take care of our population.
That's super important.
People want to take care ofpeople.
Generally speaking, how we goabout it and how we do it, it is
different.

Speaker 3 (01:11:59):
Well, I think the fine line there is this might be
unpopular, you're right.
How we go about it and how wedo it is different, and I think
that the line between, in a lotof instances between the two
sides is how much do we wantpeople to help themselves?
Because on one extreme side itis get off my lawn, get off the

(01:12:19):
street corner, get a job loser,and on the extreme side it is,
you know, get off my lawn, getoff the street corner, get a job
loser.
And on the other side it is letme give you everything you
potentially need.
And again, I think it'ssomewhere in the middle.
You know, we're probably bestserved utilizing our direct
impact to help someone get onthe path towards success, in
whatever capacity we can do that.
In whatever capacity we can dothat being a reference on a job

(01:12:41):
application, whatever it lookslike, versus having a wife whose
mother was a severe addict anddied from drug addiction.
Unfortunately.
We did our best to help, butwhat I think a lot of people
lose perspective on that maybehaven't experienced something
like that directly.

(01:13:02):
There's only so much you can do.
And fretting and worrying andgetting all worked up about the
fact that her mom was born inthe poorest part of South
Carolina you can be born in andshe was exposed to things that a
girl her age should never havebeen exposed to, meaning her
mother and went through somehorrific things.
That sucks, and I wanted hermom to be like you know I would

(01:13:24):
have wanted to see her mom here.
Tara, having experienced thatfirsthand, realized that she
could only take it so far.
You know.
I remember suggesting, hey,let's have her come here and
live with us.
And she's like she'll steal ourpills.
She'll, you know.
And so you get to a point whereyou're like look, I'm doing my
best I'm an influence of peoplearound me to be the better
people and make a bigger impactand not get so tied up in um

(01:13:46):
trying to evil even the playingfield for um.
You know people that you can'tpotentially influence or don't
have a close enough connectionto.

Speaker 2 (01:13:54):
It's complex, right, it goes back to to that it's
complex and I think that is afoundational difference, I think
in a lot of cases, between aright wing and a left wing
approach as a humanitarianversus a systematic right.
So you could look at someone'ssituation who's struggling,
right, and you say I'm not goingto give them anything because
if I give it to them thenthey're not incentivized to go

(01:14:15):
maybe try and figure it outthemselves.
On the other side, as a personwho believes that people are
very much part of who theybecome as a product of the
experiences that they've hadthroughout their life, you could
very much make a valid argumentfor the fact that that person
was 100% disadvantaged, was 100%climbing out of a hole, of the

(01:14:35):
examples that were set by thosearound them, the educational
opportunities that they had,because being down in the
Dominican, I know a lot of thesekids can't get educated just
because their basic needs aren'tmet.
You look at Maslow's hierarchyof needs right, a pyramid.
If your basic needs aren't met,who gives a shit about
education?
And like these spiritual, youknow becoming the most of

(01:14:56):
yourself, like that's the leastof people's concerns, and so
it's like from a humanitarianperspective, there's a valid
argument to be made, like that'snot their fault, like that's
not their fault, like how can wesupport them and help them
through that without creatingthis system where people just
sit back and take, take, take,take because it's being laid out
in front of them.

(01:15:16):
So I think that's the balance inthe art of this is like nobody
like again, they're both veryvalid perspectives, but it gets
complex because the more yousupport, the more you
incentivize a lack of action,right, but at the same time, a
lack of action or the less yousupport, you know it's going to.

(01:15:40):
It is a very unlevel playingfield and generational poverty
and things like that continue toperpetuate themselves and the
middle class gap continues towiden.
So at the end of the day, mypoint is it's just very, very
complex and if we could talkmore and communicate more and
debate more, we could find thatfine line of balance between

(01:16:04):
that's my favorite charities andorganizations to invest in are
the ones that are investing inpeople in ways that allow them
to have sustained successthereafter.
And don't get me wrong, thereare some charities.
You just need to have a foodpantry and they just need to
give food, because there arealways going to be people that
are in having some sort of foodchallenges in their life.

(01:16:26):
There are also organizationsthat I really love.
They're so thoughtful about howthey're spending the money
because they're investing inways that's going to have a
long-term ROI.
They're supporting people ingetting them job skills or
resume or other kind ofmentorship or coaching or things
that will allow them to get ontheir feet and then be able to
take the actions on their own.
But again, it's just supercomplex.

Speaker 3 (01:16:47):
Yeah, but you're taking the right.
I mean, it's taking the rightapproach.
It's not getting on X or BlueSky or whatever and just
complaining about it.
It's hey, I'm gonna go down tothe Dominican once a year, I'm
going to make an impact withthis and then, for those that
are around me, I'm going to askthem to help me in some capacity
whether that's financialdonations going down there with
me or whatever and helping tobuild the structures or the

(01:17:09):
foundations in your smallercommunity that can again put
people that are lower onMaslow's hierarchy of needs in a
position to succeed.
And that's you know.

Speaker 2 (01:17:22):
I think that's kind of the whole crux of this.
It's a.
It's a big.
I'm going to go off on a littlebit of a rant here, but it's a
big pet peeve of mine.
I'd be interested in your guys'take on this.
I think within our community inparticular, I think it's very
popular to believe.
So I'm going to I'm going totake a strong stance on this for
a change.
It's very popular to think thatI'm self-made.

(01:17:43):
I was the one who made thisdecision.
I was the one who created thesuccess.
I was the one who did this.
I was the one who got in thereand really worked hard, and I
tend to look at things a littlebit differently.
I tend to think that people area product of their experiences
and the examples that theyeither saw, lived out, people

(01:18:06):
that they interact with, therewas people, someone along the
way that poured into you at theright time in the right way,
collectively compounded.
That incentivized you to makethat decision, to focus on your
grades and get good grades.
That allowed you to orincentivized you to work hard at
this sort of thing, whetherthat was a value instilled in

(01:18:26):
you as a kid or something thatcame around later in life.
I tend to believe a lot ofpeople who have made it struggle
to give the success that is dueto those around them for the
different ways that they havehad micro influences at the
right times.
I'd be interested in your guys'perspective on that because I

(01:18:46):
think, again, amongst a certainpopulation that has achieved
some sort of you know level ofdesired outcomes in life, they
like to think that they did it.

Speaker 3 (01:18:59):
Yeah, I couldn't be more aligned with you.
If you think it's all you,you're out of your mind.
I would say that from myperspective, in wealth as a
measurement that's used a lot,most of it's luck.
Most of the people I know inthese crazy, they're all
outliers, right, but they are.

(01:19:22):
They share a very similar levelof intellect.
I'm not saying everybody.
They share a very similarappetite, some appetite for
certain things like risk.
So there are somecharacteristics but, like I know
a hundred people like that, youknow and we know billionaires
and millionaires and you knowand we know billionaires and
millionaires and you know peopleworth 50 grand and a lot of

(01:19:43):
that is you know, I mean we, youknow.
There is the I wouldn't call ita cliche, but there's the.
You know luck is the amount oftimes you put, you put yourself
out there and eventuallysomething's going to hit.
But I would say I know peoplethat make 50 grand, a hundred
grand, 200 grand, 500, a milliona year, whatever more, that
share the exact samecharacteristics.
They did the right thing withright place, right time.

(01:20:05):
But right place, right timeplayed into it and whether
that's the influence that waslaid upon them at a young age or
a particular mentor they met.
I had a kid that I knew inSeattle who ran who, who, uh,
whose friends were friends witha guy who was at a time where he
needed an assistant to kind ofhelp him and he mentored this

(01:20:25):
particular person and threeyears into that relationship
this guy was driving um exoticcars and had these crazy houses
because, lucky for him, hisparents knew a guy who was
extremely wealthy and um in thesteel industry and he got to be
his assistant for a couple yearsuntil he you know he wasn't
excessively brilliant but he wasright place, right time and

(01:20:47):
good for him.
So I agree.

Speaker 1 (01:20:50):
I want to go a little spiritual on you.
I had to look up a Bible verse,but I think so.
James 2, 14 is where it starts.
What good is it, my brothers,if someone says he has faith but
does not have works?
Can that faith save him?
If a brother or sister ispoorly clothed or lacking in
daily food and one of you saysto them go in peace, be warmed

(01:21:12):
and filled, without giving themthe things they needed for the
body, what good is that?
So also faith by itself, body,what good is that?
So also faith by itself, if itdoes not have works is dead.
So I think it's a both hand.
It's one of those situationswhere even Jesus, they're saying
you got to help clothe and feedand do those things.
But the fact that we're here andI know that we all believe as

(01:21:35):
Christians just like God'sintervention in our lives and
the people he's put in my lifeand in your lives, and God has
put people around you and he hasequipped you in some way, shape
or form, and that may lookdifferent.
Again, defining success justdepends on the lens that you're
looking through and what you'reaiming at.
But I believe God has his handin everything we do, and we're

(01:21:56):
there by happenstance, we haveto take action.
And we're there by happenstance, we have to take action.
That's the part where, when youhave that moment where you're
like you got the lazy brain orthe go-get-it brain, you have
got to be willing to putyourself out there.
You've got to be willing tofail.
There is a level of when themoment gets put in front of you
that you take action.

Speaker 3 (01:22:15):
Real action.

Speaker 1 (01:22:16):
Yeah, real action.
And so that's where I think itis both.
But I don't think too manypeople are self-made.
I mean, you think about thestory of Walt Disney, right,
walt Disney had this dream andthis vision.
He went to over 300 banks.
He was how many people would goto 300 banks and hear the word

(01:22:38):
no?
I mean, 30 banks seems like alot to me, 10 banks seems like a
lot to me.
He was so certain of what thiswas gonna be.
He saw the future, he was so,his certainty was so high.
He went to over 300 banks andheard the word no before he
finally heard the word yes.
And I think that level ofcertainty and that level of

(01:23:00):
dedication are the things thatwe do lack.
But he had a vision and youcould say God gave him the
vision, and so forth and so on.
But there is a component ofthat is when you get absolute
certainty about something, youlock in and you have to work at
it.

Speaker 2 (01:23:15):
Yeah, I would agree and I think I'm glad you brought
up the spiritual elementbecause I think, depending on
your spiritual disposition, Ithink absolutely God is involved
in this and I think it could beothers as well.
But the question would be wheredid Walt get that level of
determination?
And no normal person is goingto go ask 300.

(01:23:36):
And I think there are a lot ofpeople out there who have maybe
gone through something similarthat said, that was me, I had
that determination, I did that,and I think that's the part for
me that can be frustrating isjust the overplaying of their

(01:23:58):
own involvement in where theyturned out, because I think even
on the right-hand side, that'sthe connotation of some of the
underprivileged.
It's like, well, get off yourlazy ass and go do something
right, and I think that's maybean aggressive stereotype of it,

(01:24:18):
but I think that's what a lot ofconservatives would suggest for
people who are on welfare orother.
Not that there are exceptions,extenuating circumstances they
would be empathetic towards, butto me it's a very frustrating
position because I do thinkthere are people that are very
disadvantaged, not just from aresources perspective, but also

(01:24:40):
because of the examples aroundthem and the experiences they've
had, not just from a resourcesperspective, but also because of
the examples around them andexperiences they've had, even
the characteristics, the values,the morals.
There are a lot of absentthings that you know some of us
else have had, you know wereborn on second or third.

Speaker 3 (01:24:55):
Yeah, I don't disagree with that at all.

Speaker 1 (01:24:59):
Well, this was a really fun topic today.
Obviously, there was probablymore emotion and intensity than
normal, but if I could leave youwith anything, it's focus on
the people around you.
Don't let your echo chamber orwhat you believe keep you from

(01:25:19):
relationships in your life,whether that's a family member
or who they voted for.
We're all in this together.
We all want the same thing.
We want to exist.
We all want to coexist.
I hope one thing you learnedtoday is we're not standing firm
on either side on anything.
We're open to learn.
Be open, seek to understand,try to really understand those

(01:25:40):
around you, because that angerand that hatred isn't going to
lead any place.
So that's our encouragement forthis week.
I look forward to seeing younext time.
Thanks,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Episode 8: The Echo Chamber Effect: Navigating Polarization

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

Episode 8: The Echo Chamber Effect: Navigating Polarization

24/7 News: The Latest