Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Your voice. I drive around and talk to a lot
of people your vote, trying to do my part to
get Donald J. Trump reelected.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
On fifty five KR the talk station at oh five
fifty five KRC Detalk Station. Brian Thomas wishing everyone a
very happy Wednesday, looking forward to the bottom of the
hour as I always do on Wednesdays with judg Ena Paulitano,
and really looking forward to dive on into this study
done by my next guests, among other researchers, Hillary Shulman, PhD,
(00:28):
Associate Professor in the School of Communication at the Ohio
State University. Her work examines on how communication can be
used to stimulate engagement in the areas of politics, health
and science, and that's of course the focus of the
study we'll be talking about today. Caption Predicting vote choice
and election outcomes from ballot wording, the role of processing
fluency in low information direct democracy elections. Welcome to the program,
(00:52):
Hillary Schulman. It's a real pleasure to have you on today.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Now in your study and I and I dove into it,
and you know, it's a lot, it's well, it's a
well written study. All of the research is documented. You
do give credit where credit is due, so no plagiarism here.
Lots of citations and other previous studies you relied on.
I had to clear the error on that one right out.
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
I appreciate you're reading that whole thing.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yes, you talk about low information voters, and this is
a concept that I am an admitted weed dweller. This
is what I do for a living. I'm reading politics
twenty four to seven basically, so I kind of feel
like I'm kind of at a higher level of understanding
when it comes to a lot of matters, including ballid initiatives.
But so many people, as you know, and I think
(01:41):
most people will acknowledge, don't pay a lot of attention
to politics, and the more obscure an issue, the less
likely they're going to have any knowledge about it. And
as you note in your study that well, sometimes when
people show up at the polling booth, it's the first
time they've ever been even exposed to the issue that
they're voting on.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Yeah, that's true. I mean there are definitely some issues
that gain a lot of exposure, and that campaigns rely
heavily on the fact that people aren't going to read
the language, so they just send you a mailer and
say vote yes or vote no, and people just go okay,
and they never actually read the language. But for these
like more obscure, like you're talking about political issues, things
(02:24):
like millages, things like amendments to you know, esoteric laws,
people might not know those are up for election and
walk into the voting booths on election day and see
those for the first time.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Well in issue one, and I don't know where you
are on and it's immature for the purposes of our discussion.
But you know, I'll predicate this statement or this this question,
or this point by acknowledging that, yes, I am a
weed dweller, but I'm also a lawyer at seven years
of college tall it wasted or not practice for sixteen years,
and the self deprecating comment I always raise my MENSA
(02:57):
membership because to me, it doesn't mean any thing. It
doesn't mean you're smart on any given issue. Now, with
all that I read Issue one, it's lengthy and it
is bloody confusing, even to someone who understands, you know,
maybe more than the average voter. I mean, it's it's crazy.
So how is someone how is someone to walk into
(03:19):
the poll as a low information voter to have any
any understanding of how this is actually going to play
out in practice. Who doesn't walk through hypothetical scenarios like, well,
what if one of these independent committee members happens to
be a felon, or you know what if they do
something untoward or illegal. As I understand it, there's no
way for the average person to go after them, to
(03:40):
sue them, to litigate whatever to get them off. They
have to be voted out by their own membership. I
find a problem with that. But you aren't going to
even grasp that small component if you're standing there for
the first time looking at it in the ballot box.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Nope, And here's what you're gonna do. You're going to
read that for the first time in the ballot box,
and you are going to vote no on Issue one accordingly,
because you're going to be like, I don't like this,
and I use the word in my title, which you
know is a jargon y term, so forgive me. But
this idea of processing fluency, and that's the idea of
how much effort we feel like we're spending on reading something,
(04:19):
And in the case of Issue one, that perception of
effort is going to be really high and really hard,
and we don't like things that kind of challenge us
when we're not anticipating that challenge, and what we do
is we usually oppose it in that case. So, well,
then who just walks into the voting booth. They're probably
going to vote no if they're just relying on the
language and I'm just relying on kind of their gut instinct,
(04:41):
and I.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Suppose your research demonstrates it. Well, I know what I'm
what I'm living with now and may not be perfect,
but since I'm confused by what I'm staring at, I'd
rather just stick with the status quo because I'm at
least familiar with and it isn't impacting my life directly.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Basically, Yeah, yeah, there is evidence of that. It's called
the statf that is quo biased, and that is indeed
true that people will tend to vote for the thing
that's already existing, especially if they don't feel like they
did their due diligence and their you know, information searching
on the topic, and like you said, a lot of
people sure don't. We might. I read the news every day.
(05:16):
I enjoy listening to all sorts of programs and whatnot.
But I recognize that I am an audity compared to
the average voter, and so absolutely, well.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
You got some company anyway.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Well, the research does show that you and I, even
if we're in totally different ends of the political spectrum,
have a lot more in common with each other than
somebody who's less engaged.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Okay, now, how what impact? And again I'll just rely
on Issue one as an illustration of how this happens
generally speaking, because you didn't focus on that issues, focused
on these ballid issues generally. But then the money that
flows in and in that in particular Issue one, we
got a lot of out of state money. We have,
(06:00):
I guess the guy from Switzerland who's pumped in millions
and millions of dollars for reasons beyond my understanding, but
I think I understand it's for political reasons. Does the
money and the the the just sort of the boiled down,
boilerplate language politicians evil? This takes politicians out of the equation.
Does that have an impact on people who otherwise are
(06:20):
low information voters and not inclined to read through all
this and the complexities to.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Go with it. I mean, yeah, so the study you
read at the beginning actually focused on issues that get
no money, right, so that there's no outside interests, there's
no bank account from Switzerland funding an Ohio election ballot.
But so in these cases ballot language matters. But in
the instances you're talking about, right, the ballot or the
(06:48):
funding for these ballot initiatives can work a lot like
an R or a D on a kind of on
local election, right where people just use it as a heuristic.
My going yet, I'm going yes. If my team's going no,
I'm going no. And I'm probably likely to never read
that ballot language and just rely on these heuristics for
(07:10):
these cues, like we do it a lot of kind
of down ballot races just to say, I vote for
my team and I vote against my opposing team, and
that's that.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Whatever the pink sheet of blue sheet states.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Exactly whatever the fly or tells me that a person
whom I like, you know, endorsements matter for these things too.
You know, if I the senator that I like is
endorsing this, then I'm likely to just say yes or
and vice versa.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Well, in the underlying issue itself tends to matter in
terms of people's awareness of it. I think your research
found out or other research cited in your study, finds
out that social and moral issues have a higher awareness
rate than something non social like jerrymandering, I would imagine
is a non social issue.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Yes, it's a non social issue, but they both are
likely to receive fun. But the thing is about social
and moral issues. You know, we had the constitutional amendment
in August right about putting abortion rights in the state constitution.
Regardless of how that ballot's written, people sort of know
where they stand on that, and all they have to
(08:17):
do is look up whether or not where they stand
aligned with the guests or now.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Yeah and then.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
So so for those people are more readily able to
access you know, what their vote means and what they
care about versus you know, millages and you know, more right,
more complicated in the weeds types of initiatives.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
But going back to something when I when I recall
the vote to legalize gambling, that ballot initiative that was
in or amendment that was in. People didn't think the
government should say you're not allowed to gamble. I think
it was you know, everybody, for the majority of us,
we don't find any problem with gambling. There are problem gamblers,
but that's a subset. But in terms of me being
(08:58):
able to go out in place a bed, nobody cares.
So when Kevin an opportunity, it is like, oh, this
legalizes gambling, you get my yes vote. But they didn't
pay attention to the fact that it created a monopoly
for specific individuals and casinos, which was enshrined in the constitution,
which I find absolutely I voted no just because of
that reason, same reason I voted no on the original
(09:20):
marijuana cartel establishment. It was the mechanism that was wrong,
not the general issue. I don't care if you want
to smoke weed, but as sure as I wasn't going
to put in the hands of John Bayner in hand
select couple of other people.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Sure, well, this was really interesting, and you're raising the
question of whether direct democracy is a good thing, and
whether or not citizens are capable of kind of reading
legislation of this kind and understanding all the repercussions and
the ramifications of a certain initiative. And there are definitely
people out there who would consider themselves, you know, pro
democracy and really care about what the people think. But
(09:56):
they still say, like direct democracy could be problematic because
these decisions are potentially too complicated or multicaceted to put
in the hands of the people. And so you know,
these can be instances and again depending on how these
are written, and not all of us have law degrees,
whether we use them or not, you know, it could
(10:17):
be problematic for sure. And there are definitely people who
are opposed to kind of ballot initiatives and direct democracy
in general for these reasons. They think it could be manipulated.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Clearly they can. Now now in terms of you deal
a lot within your study, which is fascinating. I'll encourage
my listeners to take a look at it. My producer
will put it on my blog page fifty five cars
dot com. The language that you use and the word difficulty,
the complexity of the language. So yeah, boiled down. I
(10:47):
got to figure based upon what you've explained to me,
and of course I read it. The more difficult the
languages to understand, the again, the less likely is someone
who's going to is someone who's going to embrace it
like scratch my head, I don't get it. I'm going
to go with no.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Exactly exactly, so well, you know that's but you know
some of this too, is that this varies by state,
like and some of these ballots, and again this goes
into the challenges of direct democracy, is that some of
these ballots can be written, you know, with they have
more flexibility with how they're written, and politicians can write
(11:20):
them to kind of appeal to or try to explain
or make more accessible the ideas there is. But some
of these ballot propositions in certain states go directly into law,
so they necessarily have to be written in this legally
sort of fashion, and that, one could argue, makes voters
even less prepared to vote their preferences on that matter.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
So, in terms of using your study as a guide
for those who are proponents of or opponents of any
given legislation, does your study help, you know, facilitate an
opportunity to create a broaden understanding of issues. Does it
suggest you know that you can market or buy ads
(12:04):
sufficient enough to sway the vote one way or another,
or really does it come down to securing the endorsement
of one party or the other.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Well, there are cynical and stimistic views of this research.
But what I will say is, and this is like
a thesis of all of my work, is I am
just an advocate for I think people should better understand
and be engaged with kind of the political process. They
(12:35):
should know what they're voting for, and they should be
able to kind of understand and when we use certain
kind of language tricks to potentially impair that understanding, whether
again for a bad intention or you know, just something
you're not even thinking about reasons, whatever those reasons are,
I think, you know, it should cause us to reflect
a little bit about how we can make the public.
(12:58):
You know, we need to meet the public where they are,
because you know, politics is in the service of us,
and language is one way to do that.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Yes, and I just wish it was higher on people's
you know to do list, paying attentions to matters political
because it impacts every single one of us. Hillary Schulman, PhD,
Associate Professor in the School of Communication at de Ohigh
State University. Check out the study if you care too
at fifty five krc dot com. Hillary, has been a
real pleasure having you on the program today. I enjoyed
our discussion me as well. Thanks for having me, It's
(13:28):
been a real pleasure. Take care of yourself eight eighteen,
fifty five KRCD Talk Station more coming up, including, of
course Bottom of the Hour judge and An Apolitano, who
you can stick around right here at fifty five krc
DE talk station.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Men, if you're
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Suffering from a rectitle dysfunction or pe proactive Men's Medical Center,
we'll get your sex life back in just
Your voice. I drive around and talk to a lot
of people your vote, trying to do my part to
get Donald J. Trump reelected.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
On fifty five KR the talk station at oh five
fifty five KRC Detalk Station. Brian Thomas wishing everyone a
very happy Wednesday, looking forward to the bottom of the
hour as I always do on Wednesdays with judg Ena Paulitano,
and really looking forward to dive on into this study
done by my next guests, among other researchers, Hillary Shulman, PhD,
(00:28):
Associate Professor in the School of Communication at the Ohio
State University. Her work examines on how communication can be
used to stimulate engagement in the areas of politics, health
and science, and that's of course the focus of the
study we'll be talking about today. Caption Predicting vote choice
and election outcomes from ballot wording, the role of processing
fluency in low information direct democracy elections. Welcome to the program,
(00:52):
Hillary Schulman. It's a real pleasure to have you on today.
Speaker 1 (00:56):
Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Now in your study and I and I dove into it,
and you know, it's a lot, it's well, it's a
well written study. All of the research is documented. You
do give credit where credit is due, so no plagiarism here.
Lots of citations and other previous studies you relied on.
I had to clear the error on that one right out.
You're welcome.
Speaker 1 (01:18):
I appreciate you're reading that whole thing.
Speaker 2 (01:20):
Yes, you talk about low information voters, and this is
a concept that I am an admitted weed dweller. This
is what I do for a living. I'm reading politics
twenty four to seven basically, so I kind of feel
like I'm kind of at a higher level of understanding
when it comes to a lot of matters, including ballid initiatives.
But so many people, as you know, and I think
(01:41):
most people will acknowledge, don't pay a lot of attention
to politics, and the more obscure an issue, the less
likely they're going to have any knowledge about it. And
as you note in your study that well, sometimes when
people show up at the polling booth, it's the first
time they've ever been even exposed to the issue that
they're voting on.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Yeah, that's true. I mean there are definitely some issues
that gain a lot of exposure, and that campaigns rely
heavily on the fact that people aren't going to read
the language, so they just send you a mailer and
say vote yes or vote no, and people just go okay,
and they never actually read the language. But for these
like more obscure, like you're talking about political issues, things
(02:24):
like millages, things like amendments to you know, esoteric laws,
people might not know those are up for election and
walk into the voting booths on election day and see
those for the first time.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
Well in issue one, and I don't know where you
are on and it's immature for the purposes of our discussion.
But you know, I'll predicate this statement or this this question,
or this point by acknowledging that, yes, I am a
weed dweller, but I'm also a lawyer at seven years
of college tall it wasted or not practice for sixteen years,
and the self deprecating comment I always raise my MENSA
(02:57):
membership because to me, it doesn't mean any thing. It
doesn't mean you're smart on any given issue. Now, with
all that I read Issue one, it's lengthy and it
is bloody confusing, even to someone who understands, you know,
maybe more than the average voter. I mean, it's it's crazy.
So how is someone how is someone to walk into
(03:19):
the poll as a low information voter to have any
any understanding of how this is actually going to play
out in practice. Who doesn't walk through hypothetical scenarios like, well,
what if one of these independent committee members happens to
be a felon, or you know what if they do
something untoward or illegal. As I understand it, there's no
way for the average person to go after them, to
(03:40):
sue them, to litigate whatever to get them off. They
have to be voted out by their own membership. I
find a problem with that. But you aren't going to
even grasp that small component if you're standing there for
the first time looking at it in the ballot box.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
Nope, And here's what you're gonna do. You're going to
read that for the first time in the ballot box,
and you are going to vote no on Issue one accordingly,
because you're going to be like, I don't like this,
and I use the word in my title, which you
know is a jargon y term, so forgive me. But
this idea of processing fluency, and that's the idea of
how much effort we feel like we're spending on reading something,
(04:19):
And in the case of Issue one, that perception of
effort is going to be really high and really hard,
and we don't like things that kind of challenge us
when we're not anticipating that challenge, and what we do
is we usually oppose it in that case. So, well,
then who just walks into the voting booth. They're probably
going to vote no if they're just relying on the
language and I'm just relying on kind of their gut instinct,
(04:41):
and I.
Speaker 2 (04:41):
Suppose your research demonstrates it. Well, I know what I'm
what I'm living with now and may not be perfect,
but since I'm confused by what I'm staring at, I'd
rather just stick with the status quo because I'm at
least familiar with and it isn't impacting my life directly.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Basically, Yeah, yeah, there is evidence of that. It's called
the statf that is quo biased, and that is indeed
true that people will tend to vote for the thing
that's already existing, especially if they don't feel like they
did their due diligence and their you know, information searching
on the topic, and like you said, a lot of
people sure don't. We might. I read the news every day.
(05:16):
I enjoy listening to all sorts of programs and whatnot.
But I recognize that I am an audity compared to
the average voter, and so absolutely, well.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
You got some company anyway.
Speaker 1 (05:30):
Well, the research does show that you and I, even
if we're in totally different ends of the political spectrum,
have a lot more in common with each other than
somebody who's less engaged.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Okay, now, how what impact? And again I'll just rely
on Issue one as an illustration of how this happens
generally speaking, because you didn't focus on that issues, focused
on these ballid issues generally. But then the money that
flows in and in that in particular Issue one, we
got a lot of out of state money. We have,
(06:00):
I guess the guy from Switzerland who's pumped in millions
and millions of dollars for reasons beyond my understanding, but
I think I understand it's for political reasons. Does the
money and the the the just sort of the boiled down,
boilerplate language politicians evil? This takes politicians out of the equation.
Does that have an impact on people who otherwise are
(06:20):
low information voters and not inclined to read through all
this and the complexities to.
Speaker 1 (06:25):
Go with it. I mean, yeah, so the study you
read at the beginning actually focused on issues that get
no money, right, so that there's no outside interests, there's
no bank account from Switzerland funding an Ohio election ballot.
But so in these cases ballot language matters. But in
the instances you're talking about, right, the ballot or the
(06:48):
funding for these ballot initiatives can work a lot like
an R or a D on a kind of on
local election, right where people just use it as a heuristic.
My going yet, I'm going yes. If my team's going no,
I'm going no. And I'm probably likely to never read
that ballot language and just rely on these heuristics for
(07:10):
these cues, like we do it a lot of kind
of down ballot races just to say, I vote for
my team and I vote against my opposing team, and
that's that.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
Whatever the pink sheet of blue sheet states.
Speaker 1 (07:21):
Exactly whatever the fly or tells me that a person
whom I like, you know, endorsements matter for these things too.
You know, if I the senator that I like is
endorsing this, then I'm likely to just say yes or
and vice versa.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
Well, in the underlying issue itself tends to matter in
terms of people's awareness of it. I think your research
found out or other research cited in your study, finds
out that social and moral issues have a higher awareness
rate than something non social like jerrymandering, I would imagine
is a non social issue.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Yes, it's a non social issue, but they both are
likely to receive fun. But the thing is about social
and moral issues. You know, we had the constitutional amendment
in August right about putting abortion rights in the state constitution.
Regardless of how that ballot's written, people sort of know
where they stand on that, and all they have to
(08:17):
do is look up whether or not where they stand
aligned with the guests or now.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
Yeah and then.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
So so for those people are more readily able to
access you know, what their vote means and what they
care about versus you know, millages and you know, more right,
more complicated in the weeds types of initiatives.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
But going back to something when I when I recall
the vote to legalize gambling, that ballot initiative that was
in or amendment that was in. People didn't think the
government should say you're not allowed to gamble. I think
it was you know, everybody, for the majority of us,
we don't find any problem with gambling. There are problem gamblers,
but that's a subset. But in terms of me being
(08:58):
able to go out in place a bed, nobody cares.
So when Kevin an opportunity, it is like, oh, this
legalizes gambling, you get my yes vote. But they didn't
pay attention to the fact that it created a monopoly
for specific individuals and casinos, which was enshrined in the constitution,
which I find absolutely I voted no just because of
that reason, same reason I voted no on the original
(09:20):
marijuana cartel establishment. It was the mechanism that was wrong,
not the general issue. I don't care if you want
to smoke weed, but as sure as I wasn't going
to put in the hands of John Bayner in hand
select couple of other people.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Sure, well, this was really interesting, and you're raising the
question of whether direct democracy is a good thing, and
whether or not citizens are capable of kind of reading
legislation of this kind and understanding all the repercussions and
the ramifications of a certain initiative. And there are definitely
people out there who would consider themselves, you know, pro
democracy and really care about what the people think. But
(09:56):
they still say, like direct democracy could be problematic because
these decisions are potentially too complicated or multicaceted to put
in the hands of the people. And so you know,
these can be instances and again depending on how these
are written, and not all of us have law degrees,
whether we use them or not, you know, it could
(10:17):
be problematic for sure. And there are definitely people who
are opposed to kind of ballot initiatives and direct democracy
in general for these reasons. They think it could be manipulated.
Speaker 2 (10:27):
Clearly they can. Now now in terms of you deal
a lot within your study, which is fascinating. I'll encourage
my listeners to take a look at it. My producer
will put it on my blog page fifty five cars
dot com. The language that you use and the word difficulty,
the complexity of the language. So yeah, boiled down. I
(10:47):
got to figure based upon what you've explained to me,
and of course I read it. The more difficult the
languages to understand, the again, the less likely is someone
who's going to is someone who's going to embrace it
like scratch my head, I don't get it. I'm going
to go with no.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
Exactly exactly, so well, you know that's but you know
some of this too, is that this varies by state,
like and some of these ballots, and again this goes
into the challenges of direct democracy, is that some of
these ballots can be written, you know, with they have
more flexibility with how they're written, and politicians can write
(11:20):
them to kind of appeal to or try to explain
or make more accessible the ideas there is. But some
of these ballot propositions in certain states go directly into law,
so they necessarily have to be written in this legally
sort of fashion, and that, one could argue, makes voters
even less prepared to vote their preferences on that matter.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
So, in terms of using your study as a guide
for those who are proponents of or opponents of any
given legislation, does your study help, you know, facilitate an
opportunity to create a broaden understanding of issues. Does it
suggest you know that you can market or buy ads
(12:04):
sufficient enough to sway the vote one way or another,
or really does it come down to securing the endorsement
of one party or the other.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Well, there are cynical and stimistic views of this research.
But what I will say is, and this is like
a thesis of all of my work, is I am
just an advocate for I think people should better understand
and be engaged with kind of the political process. They
(12:35):
should know what they're voting for, and they should be
able to kind of understand and when we use certain
kind of language tricks to potentially impair that understanding, whether
again for a bad intention or you know, just something
you're not even thinking about reasons, whatever those reasons are,
I think, you know, it should cause us to reflect
a little bit about how we can make the public.
(12:58):
You know, we need to meet the public where they are,
because you know, politics is in the service of us,
and language is one way to do that.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Yes, and I just wish it was higher on people's
you know to do list, paying attentions to matters political
because it impacts every single one of us. Hillary Schulman, PhD,
Associate Professor in the School of Communication at de Ohigh
State University. Check out the study if you care too
at fifty five krc dot com. Hillary, has been a
real pleasure having you on the program today. I enjoyed
our discussion me as well. Thanks for having me, It's
(13:28):
been a real pleasure. Take care of yourself eight eighteen,
fifty five KRCD Talk Station more coming up, including, of
course Bottom of the Hour judge and An Apolitano, who
you can stick around right here at fifty five krc
DE talk station.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
Men, if you're
Speaker 2 (13:40):
Suffering from a rectitle dysfunction or pe proactive Men's Medical Center,
we'll get your sex life back in just
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!