January 19, 2021 • 50 mins
How do we confront radicalization in the internet, and then on the street?
On This Back Story with Dana Lewis, two experts on de-radicalization and confronting disinformation.
Arie kruglanski is currently a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the University of Maryland and is the co author of the three pillars of radicalization. Needs, narratives, networks.
Ira E. Hyman, Jr.,Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Western Washington University.
And the philosophy of public discourse, with Dr. Todd Mei, Professor of Philosophy.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Then narrative tells you how to do it, do it by
fighting the deep state,fighting the Jews, fighting the
Muslims, fighting the refugees.
And there's a network thatsupports it, including high
powered people like leaders, thecountry, like the president of
our country.
Then you have a social movementand that becomes very dangerous.
(00:24):
And you've seen the culminationof that kind of process in the
assault on the Capitol onJanuary 6th.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
[inaudible] hi everyone.
And welcome to backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
The attack on the Capitol wasevidence of organized radical
groups, threatening the state,make no mistake about it.
There was nothing spontaneousabout the attack it had been
talked about on the web forweeks.
The groups include dangerouswhite supremacists with
international leaks, driven bywhat some of them consider to be
(01:15):
their spiritual leader of theoutgoing American president.
Donald Trump.
Think about that.
I mean, it's beyond bizarre tome, an American president
holding radicals to Washington,to storm the Capitol and lynched
the vice-president and killedother lawmakers because he
didn't like the outcome of theelection.
He lost, he didn't openly callfor a lynching, but he pointed
(01:38):
those groups to the Capitolafter firing them up and telling
them they had to fight.
He called them to Washington inthe first place.
And he knows those groups byname.
Trump has given them a narrativebreeding, their hate for
immigrants, minorities, and thegovernment.
They believe cuddles them at theexpense of what they falsely
(02:02):
believed to be true.
Americans.
There were police in their ranksand firemen and army vets
wearing body armor and carryingbear spray and firearms and pipe
balls.
The fact is police and somemilitary are deeply infiltrated
by white supremacists and theFBI knows.
(02:24):
And some of those whitesupremacist groups organize
internationally.
For example, in September overtwo dozen police officers who
were suspended in Germany afterthe discovery of 126 violent Neo
Nazi images in WhatsApp chatgroups, there's been a
resurgence of white supremacy inthat country's military and law
(02:46):
enforcement groups and aresurgence of civilian
supporters over recent years,the North Rhine Westphalia
officer's shared images of getthis swastikas
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Refugees in gas, chambers, and reportedly an
image of a black man being shot.
This is a country that led usinto a world war and America
fought the Nazis.
So what on earth are we doingtolerating these groups within
the America of today?
What is wrong with people whoindulge in this hatred?
(03:22):
Well, the fact is if America wasa psychiatric patient, I suspect
it would be deep in therapyright now.
So on this backstory, twopsychology professors on the
topic of radicalization anddisinformation, and we talked to
a philosopher on publicdiscourse and just how ugly
(03:44):
that's become.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Eric Kruger, Lansky, uh, is a distinguished professor
of psychology at the universityof Maryland.
And is the co-author of threepillars of radicalization
hiring.
Hello, good to be with you.
Thank you.
I don't want to give away thethree pillars, but they are in
the title, which are the firstone is, needs the need.
(04:10):
The second one is the narrativeand the third one is the
network.
Let's start with needs theneeds, the need that underlies
much of social activism and aviolent extremism in particular
is the quest for significance.
It's the human quest for dignityand respect.
(04:31):
It's a universal need can beaccomplished in many different
ways.
All people have it.
Uh, the way it is accomplishedis determined by the two
remaining ends of the three andtriumvirate then narrative and
the network.
The narrative basically tellsyou how to satisfy the need.
(04:53):
What do you need to do?
Uh, do you need to, uh, embarkon a constructive career?
Do you need to fight for yourrace for your country against
the enemies that are taking over, uh, that are promoting
injustice to your group?
And the third end is thenetwork, the importance of the
network, it's the socialmovement.
(05:15):
Uh, and then the it's importanceis that it validates the
narrative.
We are social beings.
We need validation by people whowe respect and whose good
opinion we seek.
Uh, so th the importance of thenetwork it's leaders, uh, people
who we admire and who want to beadmired in return is very
(05:40):
important.
So the three ends once they cometogether, once the need is
aroused by humiliation oropportunity for glory, and then
narrative tells you how to doit, do it by fighting the deep
state, fighting the Jews,fighting the Muslims, fighting
the refugees.
And there is a network thatsupports it, including high
(06:04):
powered people like leaders, uh,of the country, like the
president of our country.
Then you have a social movementthat becomes very dangerous.
And you've seen the culminationof that kind of process in the
assault on the Capitol onJanuary six,
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Was president Trump, the author of the narrative, or
did he simply pick up on it andunderstand what he was feeding?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
He was not the author of the narrative.
The narrative existed for manyyears before the white
supremacists, the Neo Nazimovement, the conspiracy
theories have been thrivingthroughout the decade.
There has been a huge uptick ina far right plots by 320% on
(06:54):
recent count, but he acceleratedthat process by legitimizing it
who, if not the highest person,uh, in the realm, uh, the most
powerful, uh, leader in theworld, uh, is credible as an
endorser of a narrative.
(07:14):
And so he joined the narrative.
He, uh, encouraged, uh, itssupporters.
And, uh, the rest is history.
The rest we've seen theacceleration of the movement
over the last four years.
And in the last phase, followingthe elections that it entered
the new, highly acceleratedphase that finally led to the
(07:36):
events of January.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
You draw some parallels with history like
Adolf Hitler, who, um, you know,went back in 1918, that Germany
was in fact, he said was winningworld war II.
Uh, and then he startedbetraying, uh, you're only to be
betrayed by Jews and socialistsand et cetera.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Yes.
Uh, you know, Dana, it's alwaysa dangerous draw, historical
analogies.
However, uh, the leader is notto party it's dangerous not to,
and there is a goodjustification to do it because
even though the circumstances,historical circumstances are
(08:22):
always very different.
They fundamental human naturedoes not change since the
homosapiens appeared on thescenes.
We have been pretty much, uh,uh, endowed with the same
nature.
And that nature is vulnerablesusceptible to a process that
culminates in extremism.
(08:42):
And w what, what particularly,uh, troubles me is that, uh, a
fringe group, like the Nazis inGermany, uh, that started as a
small group of stags, uh, youknow, embracing the idea that
there was a knife in the back ofthe German nation, by the Jews
(09:03):
and socialists.
Uh, then over time, graduallycrept into the mainstream,
through the pooch in Bavaria, inMunich, uh, on November 8th,
1923, slowly, it gained momentumfailure, Bavaria.
(09:24):
Yes.
Finally it gained momentum tothe extent that it overpowered
the entire German nation.
And we have seen the outcome ofthat, the second world war, the
Holocaust and the rest of it.
So, you know, what troubles meabout the current events in the
United States is that thisfringe movement and now
(09:44):
commanded a large chunk of theAmerican population, 74 people
voted for Trump.
Many believed that, that in theconspiracy theories, that the
elections were stolen, uh,clearly that narrative, that the
conspiracy theory, uh, creptinto the Republican party, a
(10:08):
large chunk of the Republicanparty still insist that there
were problems with the electionand it was legitimate.
So, you know, whereas noteverybody in that crowd was
violent and some people are,we're just protesting the fact
that over 60 million peoplesupported this stop, the still
(10:32):
narrative, uh, creates a hugerecruitment pool.
They shared with, with, uh, themost violent, uh, demonstrators,
uh, the idea that there was aninjustice done to the American
people, that there was, uh, aplot against America.
So this creates a recruitmentpool.
(10:53):
These events are glorified in asane as, as a great achievement.
Uh, so, you know, th th theprocess of creeping into the
mainstream is probablyintensified by these events.
How do you counter that?
You just shut their network downand, and drive them underground,
or how do you reach out to thesepeople?
(11:14):
Do you need to reach out tothem?
You need to reach out, you needto, uh, to, uh, first of all,
cool down the rhetoric, uh,reduce the vindictiveness on the
one hand, you need to holdpeople accountable.
On the other hand, it should notoccupy the center stage, and you
should, uh, put together, put inplace a process to[inaudible]
(11:42):
the, the American population.
Uh, it has to start in schools,communities, churches, uh, the
police, uh, a large initiativeneeds to be taken a place, uh,
in which the whole society isinvolved.
It's going to be a verydifficult process to put that
genie back into the battle.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Mary, there really isn't a call for that.
There is a call for justice.
There is a call for makingpeople pay and putting them in
jail and arresting them there.
Isn't a call for that dialogue.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Yes.
Well, at least it's a minoritycall.
What is encouraging is that thepresident elect by then seems to
be of that mindset of, ofreducing the, the heat of the
rhetoric, inducing thevindictiveness and eh, becoming
pragmatic about the problem isthe beset, the country
(12:35):
pragmatism, as opposed to, eh,ideology, uh, dealing with, uh,
with the vaccination, with thecoronavirus, dealing with the
economy, uh, and hopefully, youknow, he will need in that
enterprise, eh, co cooperationof the Republican party who
alone can maybe put a stop or atleast slow down the process.
(12:58):
We haven't seen much evidencefor that.
There is some, but perhaps, youknow, with Biden, Biden is by
the way is a, uh, a very goodchoice this time and age,
because he's a pragmatist.
He has plenty of experience.
Uh, he knows everybody, uh, andhe knows the ropes, uh, with
(13:19):
these experience, uh, in theCongress and in the white house.
And he's a very likable person.
Unlike Hillary Clinton thatsomehow, uh, was, was perceived
in negative way by many people,it's very difficult to dislike
Joe Biden.
So I think all of these elementsbode well for the possibility of
(13:40):
cooling it down and the back topragmatics and cutting down the
ideological heat that has beenovertaking America.
Are you a fan of
Speaker 3 (13:51):
The fact that some of these social networks were
pulled down and other people,including the president were
banned and lost their accountsor had them suspended?
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Well, you know, it's a, it's a moral
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Dilemma.
Do you revoke
Speaker 1 (14:06):
People's freedom of speech, uh, is, uh, the, the,
the speech that is beingpropagated, uh, in the category
of hate speech, uh, this isalways a very soon line.
Uh, so I think that banningTrump for speaking from speaking
is a good thing at the end ofthe day, especially at, at this
(14:27):
moment, especially at thismoment, but one has to be very
careful, uh, with, you know, notbeing too much of a sensor, uh,
of, of, uh, expressing opinionsin the United States.
They
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Recruit Glenn Stuckey.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Thank you very much, Dana.
It's been a pleasure.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
All right.
IRA Hyman is a doctor, aprofessor of psychology at
Western Washington university.
Hi IRA.
Good morning, Dana.
You wrote a lot of adisinformation campaigns, and it
seems like you are living, um,in, in, uh, in that movie right
now because the American public,um, has been, you know, their
(15:13):
head spun around by presidentTrump talking about false
elections and cheated boats, andpeople don't know what to
believe.
A lot of them would you agree?
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Yes.
To a certain extent, right.
I think that what happens is weget into an information
ecosystem and within thatinformation ecosystem, things
hang together.
There's a coherent and constantset of information, uh, that
people come to believe and theytend to, uh, rely on certain
(15:45):
news sources.
So sane people thinks peopledon't know what to believe.
Most people have made up theirmind.
Um, and it has to do with, uh,the environment in which they
have found themselves.
So it's not that they'recomparing alternatives to these
sorts of things.
Uh, if they're stuck in theinformation bubble that tells
them that the election has beenstolen, they're not seeing the
(16:07):
other information so thatthey're not being exposed to it.
And when, and when they are,it's, it's only if it's
dismissed.
So it's, um, uh, I think thattheir critical thinking works
against them here in an odd waywhen they're in that
environment.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Well, I guess they, they need to have their head
spun around maybe, and be alittle more open to being a
better news consumer.
But at this point, you know,people follow presidents and,
uh, for instance, I mean, uh,convinced of, of false
information from president Trumpin terms of not, not wearing
masks and, uh, that, that wasdangerous as was, you know, that
(16:46):
your vote has been stolen andMarch on the Capitol.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yeah.
I mean, the, um, the, theelection, uh, disinformation
stuff about, uh, the, the votesnot being right and about there
being fraud and all of this wasa disinformation campaign with
the political goal, and it hasconsequences.
The COVID misinformation anddisinformation campaigns are
(17:09):
killing people.
Um, I think we can just bluntlysay that, uh, because what we've
done is, or what some peoplehave done, and Trump has been
the single most, uh, responsibleindividual for sharing
misinformation about COVID iswe've given people wrong
information.
We've told them it's not thatdangerous.
It's not communicated in thisfashion.
(17:30):
And then maybe you don't need towear masks.
Um, and, and all of these thingsare incorrect and they, they
lead people to behave in such afashion once they're in that
environment.
And that same information theyhear that increases the spread
that puts themselves and peoplethey care about at risk.
So it has, uh, been responsiblefor not all 400,000 deaths in
(17:54):
the U S but a large proportionof them.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
You wrote the people have been swimming in a sea of
lies.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Okay.
Yes.
Um, I think that's a good way tophrase it.
And so, you know, your comment afew moments ago about maybe
people need to be betterconsumers of information.
Yes.
However, um, there's thisphenomena in psychology referred
to as the fundamentalattribution error, where when we
(18:20):
look at, uh, a situation wheresomebody makes a decision or
behaves in a certain way, wecould say it's because of who
they are and the way they are,and the way in this case, they
approached news and information.
But we can also reflect on thefact that it's, it's about the
context about the environment,about the system in which
they're working.
And in this case, for many ofthese people, the system in
(18:42):
which they're working is what'sreally driving this because
they're constantly exposed tomisinformation and misleading
information, and they rarely getexposed to accurate information.
And in that environment, I mean,you can look at people and say,
well, they shouldn't be there,but everybody that they know is
in that environment.
(19:02):
And they they've shut themselvesoff from other sorts of things,
but it's because thatenvironment hangs together.
And so, um, yes, people aresomewhat responsible, but
they're in a world that is moreresponsible.
It's the people promoting thedisinformation campaigns that we
need to focus on.
Um, it's the, the, the peoplespreading the misinformation
(19:24):
that we need to focus on.
It's on disrupting that flow ofdisinformation that we need to
focus on disrupting thedisruption.
But yeah,
Speaker 3 (19:32):
The immediate environment in which false
beliefs are repeated, um, isbecause of these algorithms.
So if you express an opinionthat that algorithm will likely
bring you more of your ownopinion in your online peers,
who you've never met andprobably will never will your
online peers who would agreewith you, they are
Speaker 4 (19:57):
It.
Then that is a big part of thecycle, right?
Is that once you, you start downthis pathway, the algorithms
that the, that pretty much everyinternet company is using it is
going to continue to feed youmore of the stuff you like.
And to keep you engaged moreextreme versions of some of the
stuff you like.
I know that some of thecompanies are working on this,
right.
And they're, they're trying to,uh, to tweak their algorithms to
(20:21):
a certain extent, but, but let'sbe clear, it's this isn't, uh, I
think you mentioned free speechbefore this, isn't an issue of
free speech because thealgorithms are already choosing
for you though.
We're already picking andchoosing from amongst all the
stuff out there, what to presentto you.
And so for that reason, youknow, you talk about just
tweaking the algorithms a littlebit.
(20:41):
It would tone down, uh, you know, uh, the disinformation
campaigns and increase youraccess and your exposure to more
accurate information.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
I'm sure people, look, I tend to agree with you,
but I think people who woulddisagree with us, I would say
it's, it's censorship.
Um, and at, at a certain point,it becomes dangerous programming
.
It means first you ban apresident from a platform and
then who is next and what isnext.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
So, um, due to re look, I'm not a constitutional
scholar.
And so, um, I'm not going toplay cause you don't have to be
so sorry.
I'm not gonna, I'm not going toplay one.
Uh, but I think that you have torecognize that the internet
companies are already pickingand choosing what to show you,
because we're not going to showyou everything.
(21:30):
Um, and so in that sense, it's aquestion of what, what you want
that algorithm to be based on.
And to what extent you want, uh,accuracy and reliability to play
into that outcome.
Um, the second part of yourcomment about if, if you, you
know, deep platform, some peoplemove them off of the platforms,
um, you don't just do it to, toanybody and everybody.
(21:53):
And actually the data, you know,that I've been looking at.
There's some really nice work byKate Starbird and her team down
at the university of Washington.
A lot of the misinformation anddisinformation campaigns go
through just a few narrow nodeson that internet.
Right?
Uh, uh,
Speaker 3 (22:12):
I love this because, I mean, I, I've kind of been
overwhelmed doing stories aboutQ Anon and right.
People who, you know, are, arefinding some pretty wild cult,
like things to follow on theinternet and your, you, you have
said and written that you and,and quoting her.
I think that you think it comesdown to like the mob that moves
(22:36):
down the street.
That's probably a central coreof people that really drive the
trouble and that would be ahundred people.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
So when we're looking at, I mean, there's two aspects
of that.
It seems to me, one is trying tostop the wide spread of
disinformation on the internet.
And that wide spread ofdisinformation starts with a few
people who post something.
And then it gets shared widelyfrom those few people.
And they may not share that manythings, although Trump chaired a
(23:10):
lot personally, but it's thefact that they are both the
people who share a lot ofmisinformation and conspiracy
theories, and they have a widesphere of influence so that they
touch on a lot of other people.
So are a few really just remove,uh, you know, a couple of
handfuls worth of people.
You can see pretty meaningfuleffects, uh, in terms of
(23:33):
disrupting that, that sort ofstarting point for a lot of the
misinformation campaigns now, inresponse to your other point
about, yeah, there are some,some places on the internet
where conspiracy anddisinformation is, is the, the
main part of what happens inthose discussion groups, but
they're not, um, they're not themain platforms that the
(23:56):
internet.
And so in order to get to thoseplaces, you actually have to go
looking for them.
Um, and as you noted,
Speaker 3 (24:03):
Which brings us to another question, but which
would be, is it better to havethese huge companies that you
can then pressure and try to getthem to police, or do you break
them up, which a lot of peopleare calling for.
And then you have, you know,some real outliers in terms of,
you know, who they're going toappeal to and how bizarre that
(24:23):
that forum may get.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Uh, I, I, I'm not going to answer, I'm not going
to touch that question because,you know, I'm thinking about
those
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Questions and breaking up the big tech.
All right.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
Yeah.
I mean, um, you know, I, I knowmy areas of expertise.
I know a lot about the spread ofdisinformation and how people
adopt it and the fact that ithas consequences.
I do know that disrupting thespread of that can be effective
and, you know, leading to abetter set of information that
people are relying upon, um, theactual pathways in terms of
(24:56):
legislation about, you know, howit fits in with constitutional
structures in any given place.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Um, after the, the assault on the Capitol, do you
think that people who didn'twant to pressure companies and
didn't want to go down this roadof first amendment debate now
say, if we don't do it, we'renot going to have a country.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
Um, you know, I think that maybe we've been coming to
this, and it's hard to, to knowfor sure if you turned the
corner, I, you know, I've seennumbers on the internet, uh, you
know, reports of some studiesthat people have done in the
last week that showed that therewas a 73% drop in misinformation
at related to the election after, uh, the social media companies
(25:39):
removed, not just Trump, but afew, few other people and some
of the Q and on conspiracygroups.
Um, I mean, it's, it's, it'shard to attribute it directly to
their actions, but it, it seemsthat it's part of, uh,
decreasing the spread of themisinformation.
The reason I say it's hard isbecause, you know, things were
kind of clear that everythingabout the election of certified,
(26:01):
so maybe we would expect anyway,a drop off of conversations
about that.
Um, but I mean, I am hopeful,you know, I, um, and it feels a
little bit hopeful to me for thefirst time in a while that maybe
, um, the success of some ofthat, and the willingness to
recognize that, uh, not everyoneis a good faith actor and when
(26:29):
they're not good faith thatthere's, maybe they shouldn't be
treated as good faith actors,uh, so that if they're
constantly spreadingdisinformation and they have a
wide appeal, we need to, toaddress those sorts of things.
America was your,
Speaker 3 (26:44):
Um, from a psychological point of view,
would you say that you have a,you have a pretty ill, uh,
patient right now,
Speaker 4 (26:52):
Um, in terms of, uh, the sort of adoption of
misinformation.
I think that we have a problemwith, with misinformation,
disinformation campaigns broadlyin the U S yes.
Um, and it's not just theelection, it's not just, COVID,
it's the issue of, uh, whetheror not there's climate change,
(27:13):
uh, and, and how to addressthose sorts of things.
And, and one of the featureshere is that the people who
spread one set of disinformationand misinformation spread the
other ones as well, and thepeople who adopted one get
exposed to all the other ones aswell, so that it it's a, um, a
nasty information environmentright now in the,
Speaker 3 (27:37):
As a media person.
When I said, be a good newsconsumer, I should tell you, you
brought up, um, global warming.
As an example, I can tell youthat there was a long debate
about it here, and the BBCdecided they are no longer going
to treat the debate as two sidesanymore.
That 99.99% of scientists aroundthe world, believe there's no
(28:01):
question that there's globalwarming, and they're not going
to give equal time to the peoplewho say there's not.
And so media has had to mature alot.
The old, you know, when I wentto journalism, journalism school
was just giving two sides allthe time and then let the public
figure it out.
Unfortunately, we've beenpressured to kind of go beyond,
Speaker 4 (28:18):
Well, I was duty.
The question is whether bothsides are acting in good faith,
um, whether or not both sidesare relying on the actual state
of the world and presenting theactual state of the world.
What's the, what's the bit thatif you're a journalist and
you've got one person who saythat it's a beautiful day
outside, and the other personsay that it's pouring down rain,
your job isn't necessarily togive them both equal time, but
(28:40):
they'll look out the window,right.
And to prioritize the one who'sgiven you accurate information,
perhaps.
Um, I mean the other way tothink about it.
And I saw this last week with,uh, uh, the attack on the United
States, Capitol news companieshad a choice about which voices
to feature at that moment.
(29:00):
Um, and then again, in thedebate, uh, uh, about whether or
not to impeach president Trumpagain, so many congresspeople
spoke, the news companies have achoice about which voices to
present.
Um, so which one should youprioritize?
You're not going to show all ofthem, you know, if you're, if
(29:20):
you're
Speaker 3 (29:21):
To show some of the dissenting
Speaker 4 (29:23):
Voice yes.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Equal time with those who are overwhelmingly voting to
impeach
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Well, or, or even when you're presenting the
dissenting votes, should you,should you present someone who
is, uh, a fountain of lies thateverything that they say is
misinformation, or should youpresent someone who says, you
know, other reasons for doingthis, that aren't based on, uh,
spreading further disinformationtheories?
(29:51):
I mean, it's, uh, it's, what areyour ethical obligations as a
journalist?
Um, I think that that is acritical question that
journalism has to, to address inthis moment.
Um, the, the, the treating bothsides equally is reasonable when
both sides are, um, equally goodfaith actors.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
Last question to you.
I think the last paragraph of anarticle I wrote was kind of
inspiring in a sense that yeah,people are, you know, locked
down and going through a lotright now.
And you said your suggestionwould be change your information
feed for the next month.
And,
Speaker 4 (30:33):
And this is particularly for people who, who
thought that everything that Iwrote in that was wrong, right.
That
Speaker 3 (30:42):
Those comments, I will note, because you thought
that some people would be not.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
Yeah, no, really receptive, right.
Not receptive.
And so the, and I, I generallyleave comments open on things I
write, and I'm usually willingto, to, to reply to people and I
will respond to people.
Um, and, and in part it'sbecause as a white man, I don't
get attacked as much as someother people do.
(31:06):
Um, but here, I don't need to,to give a platform to people who
just want to spew moreinformation.
And so if you're that angry atme for saying that, no, the
election wasn't stolen.
Yes.
COVID is dangerous.
Yes.
There's climate change.
Then maybe what you should do isswitch your information feed for
awhile, because, and this issomething that worries me deeply
(31:27):
when we're talking about this.
Many of the people who have gonedown these pathways have lost
touch with friends and family.
Um, and I think that we need torecognize that human component
of it as well, that they havenow found a group where they
feel comfortable, but it's agroup that shares these beliefs
that are not consistent with thestate of the world.
(31:49):
And because of that, they, theyno longer necessarily in touch
with friends are no longer intouch with families.
They've, they've lost some ofthe other connections.
Um, and maybe because they dropthem, maybe because their
friends and family really justgave up, uh, and talking to
them.
And I've, I've heard storieslike this.
I've seen it to happen to peoplewho I know on social media.
(32:10):
Um, and so, you know, wouldn'tit be lovely if changing their,
their information flow forawhile, led them back, uh, to
some connection with reality andallow them to reconnect with
friends and family.
Um, you're not going to break asingle individual.
You Dana, you're not going tobreak through that environment
(32:32):
for one person who's completelyinundated in it flooded by that
tidal wave, but disinformation,it's going to take more than
that, um, to do that.
And so they're going to have tomove back out of that, uh, flood
of disinformation.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Yeah.
I mean, I come from a familywhere people were political
views were a blood sport at thedinner table, you know, but I
think in general, you still had,we still taught each other to be
generally respectful, not alwaysgenerally respectful of other
people's views at the table.
And they actually tried tolisten to them.
Right.
Because otherwise, why are youholding the conversation at all?
If you just go on the internetto give your opinion, then, uh,
(33:11):
you know, you're, you're reallynot engaging with anybody you're
just engaging with you.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
Yep.
I would hope people would beable to do that again in the
future.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Yeah.
Well, great advice from you tochange your information for a
month and re re-engage withpeople that maybe you don't
agree with.
Right.
See how you feel at the end ofthe month or six months or
wherever it takes you.
Right.
So I would
Speaker 4 (33:34):
Hope that we might see some progress that way.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
IRA Hyman, a professor of psychology at
Western Washington university.
It's really important to talkabout where we are within
information and to get people tothink and just reopen
themselves.
I think so.
It's great to hear you.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (33:50):
It's a pleasure talking with you.
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
Todd may joins us now from Nevada.
Uh, and he is a former professorof philosophy here in the UK.
He was at Kent university wherehe was a professor and he's now
living in America and he hasphilosophy to you, philosophical
counseling, facilitation, andcoaching in meaningful work and
business ethics.
Hi Todd, I Dana pleasure to behere.
(34:18):
Your head must be spinning,right?
Because you left the UK inSeptember and you've landed now
in the middle of what was anelection campaign.
And America's just been spinningon its head ever since.
Speaker 5 (34:33):
Yes, it's been sort of crazy.
Um, and obviously a lot ofthings have changed for both the
us and the UK since September.
And I think what stood outmostly, uh, when we first got
back, it varied state to statejust the different practices and
guidelines and policies thatwere in place for social
distancing and being safe.
And to give you an example,we're not in place or not in
(34:55):
place and on the law.
On that point, we had to troublethrough Utah, one point by car,
and we stopped off in a smalltown.
I won't say which one, butnobody was wearing a mask.
We, uh, my wife and I were theonly two people wearing a mask.
And when we went in, uh, to arestaurant to get some food, to
take out, uh, we, we got stairsprobably for various reasons,
but no doubt because we werewearing masks and it felt very
(35:18):
unsafe.
And just going across the borderto Colorado, we had to stay in a
hotel and then it was entirelydifferent.
There were signs up, um, youknow, make, making sure that
people were social distancingand wearing masks.
So very different cultures andclimates, depending on what
state you go to.
And, um, my own point of view,uh, anecdotally is I often
wonder outside of large cities,why there's such a problem in
(35:40):
the United States, becauseunlike most European countries,
there is so much geographicalspace.
And it seems like it's so easyto social distance and keep to
oneself, uh, because of, of, ofthe way in which, um, one's
houses are located, the amountof property you have outside of
big cities, it just seems likethere should not be a problem
with social distancing, but, um,that's obviously not the case,
(36:02):
given the infection rates in theUnited States,
Speaker 3 (36:04):
Philosophically, since you were the philosopher.
I mean, this was generated by apresident who saw mask wearing,
um, as some great infringementon people's rights or at least
he sold it, believing that thatwould bring him more votes.
Speaker 5 (36:26):
Yes.
And I suppose the problem frommy own perspective is that
there's a real lack ofunderstanding and awareness of
what philosophers like to callpublic reasoning public debate.
And it's exacerbated by the factthat social media is most of the
social media companies are awareof this kind of thing.
In fact, I, I emailed one of the, um, legal officers of Facebook
(36:48):
at one point, um, trying to, um,ask him whether I forgotten his
name.
Now I've asked them aboutwhether they had Facebook had an
interest in this idea of publicreasoning and how it, what it
meant practically for somethinglike Facebook is that there
would be clear rules of how thepeople on Facebook would engage
with one another.
There's a, in a simple sense,there's etiquette, uh, there's
(37:08):
ways in which you respond inways in which you, you speak or,
or write to one another on thesekinds of things.
Very basic rules of engagementin conversation that many
generations prior to ours areprobably very much aware of.
Um, and there's just no intereston that.
On from social media companies
Speaker 3 (37:25):
There might be now taught, right?
Because I mean, for a long time,it was first, well, you know
what I think first amendment wasan excuse, but before first
amendment freedom of speechissues, it was simply Facebook
didn't want to police thisstuff.
Um, and neither did Twitter andthey didn't want to bring in the
manpower and the women power to,to go through all these horrible
(37:47):
, uh, you know, messages andmessaging and, and groups of
people.
Um, and now suddenly they'vereally been brought to the
precipice.
Right.
I mean, would you agree now thatprobably you should be calling
them back?
Speaker 5 (38:00):
Yeah.
Maybe I'll try that after, afterthe podcast.
Cause, cause like, yeah.
So I think, um, there is somekind of social corporate
responsibility that has to takeplace and they really have to
focus on that.
But there's also the other side.
It's not just the companiesbecause you hear a lot of blame
about company, social mediabeing a problem, and it is
problematic.
And I have to admit I'm a littlecynical on that side, but it's
(38:20):
also the responsibility ofcitizens and the idea of public
reasoning and in public debateis that you're very much aware
of the kinds of claims you'remaking in the public sphere.
A lot of people today, whenthey're out on social media or
they're out in public, they liketo express their convictions
very strongly, either way, youknow, it can be right or left
and foster is, are interested inthe way in which a lot of our
(38:43):
beliefs and attitudes don't havethe kind of grounding and
certainty that we often thinkthey do.
So we often teach philosophystudents about what's
technically called forms ofskepticism, but it's not
skepticism where you just throwyour hands up and you say, well,
there's nothing I can, I can sayor do because it's very
difficult for me to provesomething rather than the role
(39:03):
of, of skepticism as it comesfrom ancient Greek and
Hellenistic philosophy is thatyou're very much aware of the
weaknesses and fallibility ofyour reasoning.
So you can't just go out thereand say, this is, this is true,
no matter what that's fake news,or this is a violation of my
rights.
Mass scoring is a violation ofmy rights.
Now there's always a kind ofawareness of you might be
(39:23):
speaking from a certain point ofview.
And when you, when you engagewith another person, they're
speaking from a certain point ofview, and it's the idea that
knowing comes from an in cordialor certain, um, point of view
that has some kind of access toirrefutable knowledge, but what
you get a lot in the publicsphere is the lack of that lack
of awareness of what knowledgeis and how to justify beliefs.
(39:47):
And so what replaces that are alot of emotive comments are a
lot of emotive reactions, uh,and that tends to galvanize
people.
And I'm not against emotions.
I think emotions have a veryimportant role in our, in
understanding others.
But when you have too much ofthat, you get what we have
today, not just to,
Speaker 3 (40:04):
How do you go about teaching, you know, humility and
respect for other people'sopinion, um, in, in the climate
that the political climate inAmerica, right?
Speaker 5 (40:17):
Yeah.
There's gotta be a lot ofapproaches.
I'm always a big fan of aliberal arts education.
Um, but, and I don't, and theproblem with that is that
Speaker 3 (40:25):
You said the liberal arts, liberal arts liberal word,
Oh my God,
Speaker 5 (40:30):
Well, it's, it's, it's very different.
It's not political.
So it means, uh, technically ororiginally liberal arts is the
liberating arts.
So you engage in these forms of,um, academic disciplines, like
philosophy history and theimaginative arts, uh, literature
and so forth.
And it's the combination of allthose, um, exposure to that that
actually liberates your mind.
It makes you more capable ofengaging with one another.
(40:52):
And what we have today is thelack of that capability of
people to engage with oneanother.
It's just people throwing upwalls, um, being angry, um,
condemning people for, forholding a point of view, or you
see someone and you have thisreaction of, Oh, that person
must be a socialist or thatperson must be a right-wing
fanatic, that kind of thing.
And there's, there's, it's just,it's too reactive.
(41:14):
And so the role of, of reasoninghelps to space things out a bit
now.
So there's, there's the liberalarts education, but a lot of
people don't have access tothat.
And so that I don't want that tobe a kind of isolating or
alienating view.
I mean, it'd be great ifeducation were universal in that
sense, but there are otherthings that people can do just
on a daily practical basis.
(41:35):
And it's, um, making sure thatwhen you engage with someone you
hold off on any quick reactionsand you try to understand the
point of view, um, from whichsomeone else is speaking.
And there are certain kinds ofquestions and phrases that can
help facilitate that.
And simply asking, I don't quiteunderstand what your view is.
Um, in, in here are some simplequestions and in turn, instead
(41:56):
of antagonistic questions, theycan be open-ended questions.
Um, and the other thing I'venoticed in conversations with
people who hold different viewsis there, there tends to be a
lack of patience in space.
And so I think the other thingis identifying those kinds of
conversations where thatpatient's is simply not there
and just removing oneself fromthat.
And that, that happens a lot onsocial.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
It was the whole digital world, but that, I mean,
it's interesting some of theanalysis where, where people
talk about the fact that, youknow, in the end, you used to
interact with your neighborhood.
So your neighborhood, now youprobably close the door,
especially in a pandemic, butwe've closed the door to a lot
of our neighbors and more kindof human interaction.
(42:39):
And now we're in these chatrooms and, and digitally, and
there's something about thatenvironment that gets people not
to listen, but to expressopinion,
Speaker 5 (42:50):
Yes, very problematic.
And, um, it, it comes down toself restraint and discipline
and, and understanding how to bevirtuous on social media, which
is very difficult, uh, very hardnot to react.
And then again, excuse me, itcomes back to the social media
companies and they have to ch Imean, at the very least, I don't
know too much about the techside, but they've got to change
(43:11):
the algorithms by which the onlythings that appear are things
that seem to be your peers.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
I hate Trump.
I'm not saying that personally,but that will bring you a lot of
people who hate Trump or I, youknow, I hate Biden that will
bring you a lot of people whoare in that echo chamber of, of,
of the technology to keep youengaged.
And they try to keep you engagedby bringing you opinion that
they think will, you know, agreewith yours.
(43:37):
And there's lots of things thatare dangerous about it in a
bigger scope in terms ofdemocracy.
Um, do you think that we'reentering this period of kind of
like mob rule in democracy that,that Plato talked about, and
maybe you can, he wasn't, fromwhat I could understand, the
Play-Doh, you, you spend alifetime studying this stuff.
He didn't seem to be a huge fanof democracy in the sense that
(44:02):
he felt that it would degenerateinto anarchy.
Speaker 5 (44:05):
Yeah.
So the, the comments ondemocracy, uh, often are taken
from the Republic, which is avery interesting text and, um,
got a lot of different ways.
You can understand what's goingon there.
Um, Plato, let me just say Platois very egalitarian in many
ways.
I mean, it seems to advocate aform of feminism or
protofeminism, um, depending onhow you read them and then the,
the public philosopher, MarthaNussbaum comments on that, but
(44:28):
it played a, had two worriesabout democracy.
And I don't want to pigeonholemiss saying, he's just out now,
antidemocratic, uh, someone likeKarl popper might say, but it's
two concerns are one, is thatthe amount of freedom that
occurs in a democracy can whileit's a strength, can actually be
its weakness.
Now I'll come back to that in amoment.
(44:48):
And the other weakness that, uh,played a worried about was that
there could be the dominance ofthe emotions and the lack of
what I spoke about earlier, thelack of public reasoning to help
balance that out.
So going back to the first oneabout having too much freedom,
so it's the best way to capturethat is this idea that everyone
seems to want more choice, andyou often hear people, if I can
(45:10):
say proponents of neo-liberalismsaying that choice is good, the
more choice, the better.
And, um, it sounds on the faceof it.
That sounds really nice, butwhat it presupposes or what it
presumes is that the people whohave the choice have some kind
of either perfect rationality oraccess to perfect information,
or that they themselves arecapable to reason about the
(45:31):
choices.
And that's not always the case.
I mean, you can just, when yougo to buy a used or new car, you
might have a lot of information,but you don't have all the
information to make the bestchoice possible.
So the choice can often be, um,uh, can often cause a lot of
problems and we might make thewrong decisions.
And, um, also what, uh, Hannahrent comments that what you have
(45:52):
in these kinds of situations isthere tends to be a lack of
concern for the common good andfor concern for others.
And what tends to replace it isthis form of just following the
freedoms that arise in society,whether they're brought about by
companies or whatever it mightbe.
And so Hannah rents is whatreplaces this concern for the
common good is a form ofconsumerism or behaviorism that
(46:16):
just simply follows the choices.
And so we're not verydiscriminating in the things
that are presented to us.
And so going back to play towhat happens is you have, uh, an
erosion of the civil society.
That's no longer focused on whatis authentically or genuinely
good for everyone or for, forthe city state, but just simply
panders to our appetites.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
And it doesn't help if you're making choices based
on false information, such asthe president telling you that
the choice you made in anelection didn't count or was
cheated.
Um, so do you rolldisinformation in there?
And, and, uh, chaos becomessupercharged.
Speaker 5 (46:55):
Yes.
And we need, um, not justinstitutions, but individual
citizens need to know the waysin which they can vet
information that's coming acrosstheir computers or the TV
screens and, um, your, your, thejournalists and media.
And, um, one of the bigdifferences I've noticed between
the United States and the UK isthat, um, in the UK, whether
you're listening to the BBC orsky, for example, which tend to
(47:16):
be both left and right, um, justleft and right of center, you
can listen to either of them andthey tend not to yell at you, or
they tend to let in a lot of the, the major programs will often,
it's an op-ed piece.
They'll let the new speak foritself.
They won't comment, comment onit and try to sway the audience.
When were the other back in theStates
Speaker 3 (47:37):
Watching I was watching Pierce Morgan this
week.
So I'm not sure you're right.
Speaker 5 (47:41):
Yeah.
Well, I, I, I suppose, um, youknow, there's exceptions
everywhere.
I, maybe I can, if I cangeneralize, it seems on the
whole, um, the bit morecivilized, a little bit more
civilized, whereas here, I justfeel like you can turn on
anything from Fox to CNN, andthey're just yelling at you
constantly
Speaker 3 (47:56):
Question to you, Todd .
I mean, if you reach deep inyour philosophical soul and
roots, and you look at what'shappening at the Capitol, um,
and where America is headed, uh,what do you draw on to be
positive or to be negative?
Speaker 5 (48:12):
I think, um, uh, and I think it's reflected in some
of the comments you've made onsocial media is that we have to
find a way to stop this divideof, of just thinking that's
either us or them and that's it.
And, um, there are differentphilosophical tools that we can
use to, to help initiate that.
But let me just end on apractical note, and this is not
my idea.
I wish I could take credit forit, but I was speaking with a
(48:33):
former senior officer who weused to work for the FDA here in
the United States.
And he recognized that look, thereason why this is happening, um
, is largely due to thesocioeconomic divide.
And we have to find a way tobring different citizens of
different classes, socioeconomicclasses, and races together.
And he thought that the idea ofmandatory national service,
(48:55):
which could either be militaryor civil with bring the
different classes together andwork together and do different
projects.
And I thought that was awonderful idea.
And it was in view of somethingcalled, you know, your, your
nation, whether it's UnitedStates or not.
And it's those kinds ofexperiences that can open many
doors and can expose people tothings they'd never been exposed
to before.
It can bring people together,
Speaker 3 (49:15):
Tough sell, tough sell America, but Todd may, um,
thank you so much.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you, Dana.
Thank you for having me in there.
Speaker 2 (49:23):
That's our backstory on radicalization in America,
the guardian newspaper here inthe UK reported that as many as
two thirds of us adults betweenthe ages of 18 and 39 didn't
know that 6 million Jews werekilled during the Holocaust.
Another 23% of respondents saidthey believed the Holocaust was
(49:44):
either a myth or had beenexaggerated, or we're unsure
time to roll out a reality checkfor those with radical views or
people that just don't knowanyway, keep your sense of
humor.
And look forward this week,Trump was out of the white house
and the pounding of the drum ofdivision and disinformation has
(50:08):
been replaced to some extent bysome normalcy in Washington.
I mean, with the suspension ofhis Twitter account, it feels
less stressful, but online,online, we have to snuff out
hatred.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening.
Please share our podcast andI'll talk to you again soon.
Then narrative tells you how to do it, do it by
fighting the deep state,fighting the Jews, fighting the
Muslims, fighting the refugees.
And there's a network thatsupports it, including high
powered people like leaders, thecountry, like the president of
our country.
Then you have a social movementand that becomes very dangerous.
(00:24):
And you've seen the culminationof that kind of process in the
assault on the Capitol onJanuary 6th.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
[inaudible] hi everyone.
And welcome to backstory.
I'm Dana Lewis.
The attack on the Capitol wasevidence of organized radical
groups, threatening the state,make no mistake about it.
There was nothing spontaneousabout the attack it had been
talked about on the web forweeks.
The groups include dangerouswhite supremacists with
international leaks, driven bywhat some of them consider to be
(01:15):
their spiritual leader of theoutgoing American president.
Donald Trump.
Think about that.
I mean, it's beyond bizarre tome, an American president
holding radicals to Washington,to storm the Capitol and lynched
the vice-president and killedother lawmakers because he
didn't like the outcome of theelection.
He lost, he didn't openly callfor a lynching, but he pointed
(01:38):
those groups to the Capitolafter firing them up and telling
them they had to fight.
He called them to Washington inthe first place.
And he knows those groups byname.
Trump has given them a narrativebreeding, their hate for
immigrants, minorities, and thegovernment.
They believe cuddles them at theexpense of what they falsely
(02:02):
believed to be true.
Americans.
There were police in their ranksand firemen and army vets
wearing body armor and carryingbear spray and firearms and pipe
balls.
The fact is police and somemilitary are deeply infiltrated
by white supremacists and theFBI knows.
(02:24):
And some of those whitesupremacist groups organize
internationally.
For example, in September overtwo dozen police officers who
were suspended in Germany afterthe discovery of 126 violent Neo
Nazi images in WhatsApp chatgroups, there's been a
resurgence of white supremacy inthat country's military and law
(02:46):
enforcement groups and aresurgence of civilian
supporters over recent years,the North Rhine Westphalia
officer's shared images of getthis swastikas
Speaker 3 (03:00):
Refugees in gas, chambers, and reportedly an
image of a black man being shot.
This is a country that led usinto a world war and America
fought the Nazis.
So what on earth are we doingtolerating these groups within
the America of today?
What is wrong with people whoindulge in this hatred?
(03:22):
Well, the fact is if America wasa psychiatric patient, I suspect
it would be deep in therapyright now.
So on this backstory, twopsychology professors on the
topic of radicalization anddisinformation, and we talked to
a philosopher on publicdiscourse and just how ugly
(03:44):
that's become.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Eric Kruger, Lansky, uh, is a distinguished professor
of psychology at the universityof Maryland.
And is the co-author of threepillars of radicalization
hiring.
Hello, good to be with you.
Thank you.
I don't want to give away thethree pillars, but they are in
the title, which are the firstone is, needs the need.
(04:10):
The second one is the narrativeand the third one is the
network.
Let's start with needs theneeds, the need that underlies
much of social activism and aviolent extremism in particular
is the quest for significance.
It's the human quest for dignityand respect.
(04:31):
It's a universal need can beaccomplished in many different
ways.
All people have it.
Uh, the way it is accomplishedis determined by the two
remaining ends of the three andtriumvirate then narrative and
the network.
The narrative basically tellsyou how to satisfy the need.
(04:53):
What do you need to do?
Uh, do you need to, uh, embarkon a constructive career?
Do you need to fight for yourrace for your country against
the enemies that are taking over, uh, that are promoting
injustice to your group?
And the third end is thenetwork, the importance of the
network, it's the socialmovement.
(05:15):
Uh, and then the it's importanceis that it validates the
narrative.
We are social beings.
We need validation by people whowe respect and whose good
opinion we seek.
Uh, so th the importance of thenetwork it's leaders, uh, people
who we admire and who want to beadmired in return is very
(05:40):
important.
So the three ends once they cometogether, once the need is
aroused by humiliation oropportunity for glory, and then
narrative tells you how to doit, do it by fighting the deep
state, fighting the Jews,fighting the Muslims, fighting
the refugees.
And there is a network thatsupports it, including high
(06:04):
powered people like leaders, uh,of the country, like the
president of our country.
Then you have a social movementthat becomes very dangerous.
And you've seen the culminationof that kind of process in the
assault on the Capitol onJanuary six,
Speaker 3 (06:24):
Was president Trump, the author of the narrative, or
did he simply pick up on it andunderstand what he was feeding?
Speaker 1 (06:32):
He was not the author of the narrative.
The narrative existed for manyyears before the white
supremacists, the Neo Nazimovement, the conspiracy
theories have been thrivingthroughout the decade.
There has been a huge uptick ina far right plots by 320% on
(06:54):
recent count, but he acceleratedthat process by legitimizing it
who, if not the highest person,uh, in the realm, uh, the most
powerful, uh, leader in theworld, uh, is credible as an
endorser of a narrative.
(07:14):
And so he joined the narrative.
He, uh, encouraged, uh, itssupporters.
And, uh, the rest is history.
The rest we've seen theacceleration of the movement
over the last four years.
And in the last phase, followingthe elections that it entered
the new, highly acceleratedphase that finally led to the
(07:36):
events of January.
Speaker 3 (07:38):
You draw some parallels with history like
Adolf Hitler, who, um, you know,went back in 1918, that Germany
was in fact, he said was winningworld war II.
Uh, and then he startedbetraying, uh, you're only to be
betrayed by Jews and socialistsand et cetera.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
Yes.
Uh, you know, Dana, it's alwaysa dangerous draw, historical
analogies.
However, uh, the leader is notto party it's dangerous not to,
and there is a goodjustification to do it because
even though the circumstances,historical circumstances are
(08:22):
always very different.
They fundamental human naturedoes not change since the
homosapiens appeared on thescenes.
We have been pretty much, uh,uh, endowed with the same
nature.
And that nature is vulnerablesusceptible to a process that
culminates in extremism.
(08:42):
And w what, what particularly,uh, troubles me is that, uh, a
fringe group, like the Nazis inGermany, uh, that started as a
small group of stags, uh, youknow, embracing the idea that
there was a knife in the back ofthe German nation, by the Jews
(09:03):
and socialists.
Uh, then over time, graduallycrept into the mainstream,
through the pooch in Bavaria, inMunich, uh, on November 8th,
1923, slowly, it gained momentumfailure, Bavaria.
(09:24):
Yes.
Finally it gained momentum tothe extent that it overpowered
the entire German nation.
And we have seen the outcome ofthat, the second world war, the
Holocaust and the rest of it.
So, you know, what troubles meabout the current events in the
United States is that thisfringe movement and now
(09:44):
commanded a large chunk of theAmerican population, 74 people
voted for Trump.
Many believed that, that in theconspiracy theories, that the
elections were stolen, uh,clearly that narrative, that the
conspiracy theory, uh, creptinto the Republican party, a
(10:08):
large chunk of the Republicanparty still insist that there
were problems with the electionand it was legitimate.
So, you know, whereas noteverybody in that crowd was
violent and some people are,we're just protesting the fact
that over 60 million peoplesupported this stop, the still
(10:32):
narrative, uh, creates a hugerecruitment pool.
They shared with, with, uh, themost violent, uh, demonstrators,
uh, the idea that there was aninjustice done to the American
people, that there was, uh, aplot against America.
So this creates a recruitmentpool.
(10:53):
These events are glorified in asane as, as a great achievement.
Uh, so, you know, th th theprocess of creeping into the
mainstream is probablyintensified by these events.
How do you counter that?
You just shut their network downand, and drive them underground,
or how do you reach out to thesepeople?
(11:14):
Do you need to reach out tothem?
You need to reach out, you needto, uh, to, uh, first of all,
cool down the rhetoric, uh,reduce the vindictiveness on the
one hand, you need to holdpeople accountable.
On the other hand, it should notoccupy the center stage, and you
should, uh, put together, put inplace a process to[inaudible]
(11:42):
the, the American population.
Uh, it has to start in schools,communities, churches, uh, the
police, uh, a large initiativeneeds to be taken a place, uh,
in which the whole society isinvolved.
It's going to be a verydifficult process to put that
genie back into the battle.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
Mary, there really isn't a call for that.
There is a call for justice.
There is a call for makingpeople pay and putting them in
jail and arresting them there.
Isn't a call for that dialogue.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
Yes.
Well, at least it's a minoritycall.
What is encouraging is that thepresident elect by then seems to
be of that mindset of, ofreducing the, the heat of the
rhetoric, inducing thevindictiveness and eh, becoming
pragmatic about the problem isthe beset, the country
(12:35):
pragmatism, as opposed to, eh,ideology, uh, dealing with, uh,
with the vaccination, with thecoronavirus, dealing with the
economy, uh, and hopefully, youknow, he will need in that
enterprise, eh, co cooperationof the Republican party who
alone can maybe put a stop or atleast slow down the process.
(12:58):
We haven't seen much evidencefor that.
There is some, but perhaps, youknow, with Biden, Biden is by
the way is a, uh, a very goodchoice this time and age,
because he's a pragmatist.
He has plenty of experience.
Uh, he knows everybody, uh, andhe knows the ropes, uh, with
(13:19):
these experience, uh, in theCongress and in the white house.
And he's a very likable person.
Unlike Hillary Clinton thatsomehow, uh, was, was perceived
in negative way by many people,it's very difficult to dislike
Joe Biden.
So I think all of these elementsbode well for the possibility of
(13:40):
cooling it down and the back topragmatics and cutting down the
ideological heat that has beenovertaking America.
Are you a fan of
Speaker 3 (13:51):
The fact that some of these social networks were
pulled down and other people,including the president were
banned and lost their accountsor had them suspended?
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Well, you know, it's a, it's a moral
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Dilemma.
Do you revoke
Speaker 1 (14:06):
People's freedom of speech, uh, is, uh, the, the,
the speech that is beingpropagated, uh, in the category
of hate speech, uh, this isalways a very soon line.
Uh, so I think that banningTrump for speaking from speaking
is a good thing at the end ofthe day, especially at, at this
(14:27):
moment, especially at thismoment, but one has to be very
careful, uh, with, you know, notbeing too much of a sensor, uh,
of, of, uh, expressing opinionsin the United States.
They
Speaker 3 (14:41):
Recruit Glenn Stuckey.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Thank you very much, Dana.
It's been a pleasure.
Speaker 3 (14:51):
All right.
IRA Hyman is a doctor, aprofessor of psychology at
Western Washington university.
Hi IRA.
Good morning, Dana.
You wrote a lot of adisinformation campaigns, and it
seems like you are living, um,in, in, uh, in that movie right
now because the American public,um, has been, you know, their
(15:13):
head spun around by presidentTrump talking about false
elections and cheated boats, andpeople don't know what to
believe.
A lot of them would you agree?
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Yes.
To a certain extent, right.
I think that what happens is weget into an information
ecosystem and within thatinformation ecosystem, things
hang together.
There's a coherent and constantset of information, uh, that
people come to believe and theytend to, uh, rely on certain
(15:45):
news sources.
So sane people thinks peopledon't know what to believe.
Most people have made up theirmind.
Um, and it has to do with, uh,the environment in which they
have found themselves.
So it's not that they'recomparing alternatives to these
sorts of things.
Uh, if they're stuck in theinformation bubble that tells
them that the election has beenstolen, they're not seeing the
(16:07):
other information so thatthey're not being exposed to it.
And when, and when they are,it's, it's only if it's
dismissed.
So it's, um, uh, I think thattheir critical thinking works
against them here in an odd waywhen they're in that
environment.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Well, I guess they, they need to have their head
spun around maybe, and be alittle more open to being a
better news consumer.
But at this point, you know,people follow presidents and,
uh, for instance, I mean, uh,convinced of, of false
information from president Trumpin terms of not, not wearing
masks and, uh, that, that wasdangerous as was, you know, that
(16:46):
your vote has been stolen andMarch on the Capitol.
Speaker 4 (16:49):
Yeah.
I mean, the, um, the, theelection, uh, disinformation
stuff about, uh, the, the votesnot being right and about there
being fraud and all of this wasa disinformation campaign with
the political goal, and it hasconsequences.
The COVID misinformation anddisinformation campaigns are
(17:09):
killing people.
Um, I think we can just bluntlysay that, uh, because what we've
done is, or what some peoplehave done, and Trump has been
the single most, uh, responsibleindividual for sharing
misinformation about COVID iswe've given people wrong
information.
We've told them it's not thatdangerous.
It's not communicated in thisfashion.
(17:30):
And then maybe you don't need towear masks.
Um, and, and all of these thingsare incorrect and they, they
lead people to behave in such afashion once they're in that
environment.
And that same information theyhear that increases the spread
that puts themselves and peoplethey care about at risk.
So it has, uh, been responsiblefor not all 400,000 deaths in
(17:54):
the U S but a large proportionof them.
Speaker 3 (17:56):
You wrote the people have been swimming in a sea of
lies.
Speaker 4 (17:59):
Okay.
Yes.
Um, I think that's a good way tophrase it.
And so, you know, your comment afew moments ago about maybe
people need to be betterconsumers of information.
Yes.
However, um, there's thisphenomena in psychology referred
to as the fundamentalattribution error, where when we
(18:20):
look at, uh, a situation wheresomebody makes a decision or
behaves in a certain way, wecould say it's because of who
they are and the way they are,and the way in this case, they
approached news and information.
But we can also reflect on thefact that it's, it's about the
context about the environment,about the system in which
they're working.
And in this case, for many ofthese people, the system in
(18:42):
which they're working is what'sreally driving this because
they're constantly exposed tomisinformation and misleading
information, and they rarely getexposed to accurate information.
And in that environment, I mean,you can look at people and say,
well, they shouldn't be there,but everybody that they know is
in that environment.
(19:02):
And they they've shut themselvesoff from other sorts of things,
but it's because thatenvironment hangs together.
And so, um, yes, people aresomewhat responsible, but
they're in a world that is moreresponsible.
It's the people promoting thedisinformation campaigns that we
need to focus on.
Um, it's the, the, the peoplespreading the misinformation
(19:24):
that we need to focus on.
It's on disrupting that flow ofdisinformation that we need to
focus on disrupting thedisruption.
But yeah,
Speaker 3 (19:32):
The immediate environment in which false
beliefs are repeated, um, isbecause of these algorithms.
So if you express an opinionthat that algorithm will likely
bring you more of your ownopinion in your online peers,
who you've never met andprobably will never will your
online peers who would agreewith you, they are
Speaker 4 (19:57):
It.
Then that is a big part of thecycle, right?
Is that once you, you start downthis pathway, the algorithms
that the, that pretty much everyinternet company is using it is
going to continue to feed youmore of the stuff you like.
And to keep you engaged moreextreme versions of some of the
stuff you like.
I know that some of thecompanies are working on this,
right.
And they're, they're trying to,uh, to tweak their algorithms to
(20:21):
a certain extent, but, but let'sbe clear, it's this isn't, uh, I
think you mentioned free speechbefore this, isn't an issue of
free speech because thealgorithms are already choosing
for you though.
We're already picking andchoosing from amongst all the
stuff out there, what to presentto you.
And so for that reason, youknow, you talk about just
tweaking the algorithms a littlebit.
(20:41):
It would tone down, uh, you know, uh, the disinformation
campaigns and increase youraccess and your exposure to more
accurate information.
Speaker 3 (20:51):
I'm sure people, look, I tend to agree with you,
but I think people who woulddisagree with us, I would say
it's, it's censorship.
Um, and at, at a certain point,it becomes dangerous programming
.
It means first you ban apresident from a platform and
then who is next and what isnext.
Speaker 4 (21:10):
So, um, due to re look, I'm not a constitutional
scholar.
And so, um, I'm not going toplay cause you don't have to be
so sorry.
I'm not gonna, I'm not going toplay one.
Uh, but I think that you have torecognize that the internet
companies are already pickingand choosing what to show you,
because we're not going to showyou everything.
(21:30):
Um, and so in that sense, it's aquestion of what, what you want
that algorithm to be based on.
And to what extent you want, uh,accuracy and reliability to play
into that outcome.
Um, the second part of yourcomment about if, if you, you
know, deep platform, some peoplemove them off of the platforms,
um, you don't just do it to, toanybody and everybody.
(21:53):
And actually the data, you know,that I've been looking at.
There's some really nice work byKate Starbird and her team down
at the university of Washington.
A lot of the misinformation anddisinformation campaigns go
through just a few narrow nodeson that internet.
Right?
Uh, uh,
Speaker 3 (22:12):
I love this because, I mean, I, I've kind of been
overwhelmed doing stories aboutQ Anon and right.
People who, you know, are, arefinding some pretty wild cult,
like things to follow on theinternet and your, you, you have
said and written that you and,and quoting her.
I think that you think it comesdown to like the mob that moves
(22:36):
down the street.
That's probably a central coreof people that really drive the
trouble and that would be ahundred people.
Speaker 4 (22:46):
So when we're looking at, I mean, there's two aspects
of that.
It seems to me, one is trying tostop the wide spread of
disinformation on the internet.
And that wide spread ofdisinformation starts with a few
people who post something.
And then it gets shared widelyfrom those few people.
And they may not share that manythings, although Trump chaired a
(23:10):
lot personally, but it's thefact that they are both the
people who share a lot ofmisinformation and conspiracy
theories, and they have a widesphere of influence so that they
touch on a lot of other people.
So are a few really just remove,uh, you know, a couple of
handfuls worth of people.
You can see pretty meaningfuleffects, uh, in terms of
(23:33):
disrupting that, that sort ofstarting point for a lot of the
misinformation campaigns now, inresponse to your other point
about, yeah, there are some,some places on the internet
where conspiracy anddisinformation is, is the, the
main part of what happens inthose discussion groups, but
they're not, um, they're not themain platforms that the
(23:56):
internet.
And so in order to get to thoseplaces, you actually have to go
looking for them.
Um, and as you noted,
Speaker 3 (24:03):
Which brings us to another question, but which
would be, is it better to havethese huge companies that you
can then pressure and try to getthem to police, or do you break
them up, which a lot of peopleare calling for.
And then you have, you know,some real outliers in terms of,
you know, who they're going toappeal to and how bizarre that
(24:23):
that forum may get.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Uh, I, I, I'm not going to answer, I'm not going
to touch that question because,you know, I'm thinking about
those
Speaker 3 (24:32):
Questions and breaking up the big tech.
All right.
Speaker 4 (24:34):
Yeah.
I mean, um, you know, I, I knowmy areas of expertise.
I know a lot about the spread ofdisinformation and how people
adopt it and the fact that ithas consequences.
I do know that disrupting thespread of that can be effective
and, you know, leading to abetter set of information that
people are relying upon, um, theactual pathways in terms of
(24:56):
legislation about, you know, howit fits in with constitutional
structures in any given place.
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Um, after the, the assault on the Capitol, do you
think that people who didn'twant to pressure companies and
didn't want to go down this roadof first amendment debate now
say, if we don't do it, we'renot going to have a country.
Speaker 4 (25:18):
Um, you know, I think that maybe we've been coming to
this, and it's hard to, to knowfor sure if you turned the
corner, I, you know, I've seennumbers on the internet, uh, you
know, reports of some studiesthat people have done in the
last week that showed that therewas a 73% drop in misinformation
at related to the election after, uh, the social media companies
(25:39):
removed, not just Trump, but afew, few other people and some
of the Q and on conspiracygroups.
Um, I mean, it's, it's, it'shard to attribute it directly to
their actions, but it, it seemsthat it's part of, uh,
decreasing the spread of themisinformation.
The reason I say it's hard isbecause, you know, things were
kind of clear that everythingabout the election of certified,
(26:01):
so maybe we would expect anyway,a drop off of conversations
about that.
Um, but I mean, I am hopeful,you know, I, um, and it feels a
little bit hopeful to me for thefirst time in a while that maybe
, um, the success of some ofthat, and the willingness to
recognize that, uh, not everyoneis a good faith actor and when
(26:29):
they're not good faith thatthere's, maybe they shouldn't be
treated as good faith actors,uh, so that if they're
constantly spreadingdisinformation and they have a
wide appeal, we need to, toaddress those sorts of things.
America was your,
Speaker 3 (26:44):
Um, from a psychological point of view,
would you say that you have a,you have a pretty ill, uh,
patient right now,
Speaker 4 (26:52):
Um, in terms of, uh, the sort of adoption of
misinformation.
I think that we have a problemwith, with misinformation,
disinformation campaigns broadlyin the U S yes.
Um, and it's not just theelection, it's not just, COVID,
it's the issue of, uh, whetheror not there's climate change,
(27:13):
uh, and, and how to addressthose sorts of things.
And, and one of the featureshere is that the people who
spread one set of disinformationand misinformation spread the
other ones as well, and thepeople who adopted one get
exposed to all the other ones aswell, so that it it's a, um, a
nasty information environmentright now in the,
Speaker 3 (27:37):
As a media person.
When I said, be a good newsconsumer, I should tell you, you
brought up, um, global warming.
As an example, I can tell youthat there was a long debate
about it here, and the BBCdecided they are no longer going
to treat the debate as two sidesanymore.
That 99.99% of scientists aroundthe world, believe there's no
(28:01):
question that there's globalwarming, and they're not going
to give equal time to the peoplewho say there's not.
And so media has had to mature alot.
The old, you know, when I wentto journalism, journalism school
was just giving two sides allthe time and then let the public
figure it out.
Unfortunately, we've beenpressured to kind of go beyond,
Speaker 4 (28:18):
Well, I was duty.
The question is whether bothsides are acting in good faith,
um, whether or not both sidesare relying on the actual state
of the world and presenting theactual state of the world.
What's the, what's the bit thatif you're a journalist and
you've got one person who saythat it's a beautiful day
outside, and the other personsay that it's pouring down rain,
your job isn't necessarily togive them both equal time, but
(28:40):
they'll look out the window,right.
And to prioritize the one who'sgiven you accurate information,
perhaps.
Um, I mean the other way tothink about it.
And I saw this last week with,uh, uh, the attack on the United
States, Capitol news companieshad a choice about which voices
to feature at that moment.
(29:00):
Um, and then again, in thedebate, uh, uh, about whether or
not to impeach president Trumpagain, so many congresspeople
spoke, the news companies have achoice about which voices to
present.
Um, so which one should youprioritize?
You're not going to show all ofthem, you know, if you're, if
(29:20):
you're
Speaker 3 (29:21):
To show some of the dissenting
Speaker 4 (29:23):
Voice yes.
Speaker 3 (29:25):
Equal time with those who are overwhelmingly voting to
impeach
Speaker 4 (29:30):
Well, or, or even when you're presenting the
dissenting votes, should you,should you present someone who
is, uh, a fountain of lies thateverything that they say is
misinformation, or should youpresent someone who says, you
know, other reasons for doingthis, that aren't based on, uh,
spreading further disinformationtheories?
(29:51):
I mean, it's, uh, it's, what areyour ethical obligations as a
journalist?
Um, I think that that is acritical question that
journalism has to, to address inthis moment.
Um, the, the, the treating bothsides equally is reasonable when
both sides are, um, equally goodfaith actors.
Speaker 3 (30:11):
Last question to you.
I think the last paragraph of anarticle I wrote was kind of
inspiring in a sense that yeah,people are, you know, locked
down and going through a lotright now.
And you said your suggestionwould be change your information
feed for the next month.
And,
Speaker 4 (30:33):
And this is particularly for people who, who
thought that everything that Iwrote in that was wrong, right.
That
Speaker 3 (30:42):
Those comments, I will note, because you thought
that some people would be not.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
Yeah, no, really receptive, right.
Not receptive.
And so the, and I, I generallyleave comments open on things I
write, and I'm usually willingto, to, to reply to people and I
will respond to people.
Um, and, and in part it'sbecause as a white man, I don't
get attacked as much as someother people do.
(31:06):
Um, but here, I don't need to,to give a platform to people who
just want to spew moreinformation.
And so if you're that angry atme for saying that, no, the
election wasn't stolen.
Yes.
COVID is dangerous.
Yes.
There's climate change.
Then maybe what you should do isswitch your information feed for
awhile, because, and this issomething that worries me deeply
(31:27):
when we're talking about this.
Many of the people who have gonedown these pathways have lost
touch with friends and family.
Um, and I think that we need torecognize that human component
of it as well, that they havenow found a group where they
feel comfortable, but it's agroup that shares these beliefs
that are not consistent with thestate of the world.
(31:49):
And because of that, they, theyno longer necessarily in touch
with friends are no longer intouch with families.
They've, they've lost some ofthe other connections.
Um, and maybe because they dropthem, maybe because their
friends and family really justgave up, uh, and talking to
them.
And I've, I've heard storieslike this.
I've seen it to happen to peoplewho I know on social media.
(32:10):
Um, and so, you know, wouldn'tit be lovely if changing their,
their information flow forawhile, led them back, uh, to
some connection with reality andallow them to reconnect with
friends and family.
Um, you're not going to break asingle individual.
You Dana, you're not going tobreak through that environment
(32:32):
for one person who's completelyinundated in it flooded by that
tidal wave, but disinformation,it's going to take more than
that, um, to do that.
And so they're going to have tomove back out of that, uh, flood
of disinformation.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Yeah.
I mean, I come from a familywhere people were political
views were a blood sport at thedinner table, you know, but I
think in general, you still had,we still taught each other to be
generally respectful, not alwaysgenerally respectful of other
people's views at the table.
And they actually tried tolisten to them.
Right.
Because otherwise, why are youholding the conversation at all?
If you just go on the internetto give your opinion, then, uh,
(33:11):
you know, you're, you're reallynot engaging with anybody you're
just engaging with you.
Speaker 4 (33:16):
Yep.
I would hope people would beable to do that again in the
future.
Speaker 3 (33:20):
Yeah.
Well, great advice from you tochange your information for a
month and re re-engage withpeople that maybe you don't
agree with.
Right.
See how you feel at the end ofthe month or six months or
wherever it takes you.
Right.
So I would
Speaker 4 (33:34):
Hope that we might see some progress that way.
Speaker 3 (33:36):
IRA Hyman, a professor of psychology at
Western Washington university.
It's really important to talkabout where we are within
information and to get people tothink and just reopen
themselves.
I think so.
It's great to hear you.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (33:50):
It's a pleasure talking with you.
Thank you.
Speaker 3 (33:55):
Todd may joins us now from Nevada.
Uh, and he is a former professorof philosophy here in the UK.
He was at Kent university wherehe was a professor and he's now
living in America and he hasphilosophy to you, philosophical
counseling, facilitation, andcoaching in meaningful work and
business ethics.
Hi Todd, I Dana pleasure to behere.
(34:18):
Your head must be spinning,right?
Because you left the UK inSeptember and you've landed now
in the middle of what was anelection campaign.
And America's just been spinningon its head ever since.
Speaker 5 (34:33):
Yes, it's been sort of crazy.
Um, and obviously a lot ofthings have changed for both the
us and the UK since September.
And I think what stood outmostly, uh, when we first got
back, it varied state to statejust the different practices and
guidelines and policies thatwere in place for social
distancing and being safe.
And to give you an example,we're not in place or not in
(34:55):
place and on the law.
On that point, we had to troublethrough Utah, one point by car,
and we stopped off in a smalltown.
I won't say which one, butnobody was wearing a mask.
We, uh, my wife and I were theonly two people wearing a mask.
And when we went in, uh, to arestaurant to get some food, to
take out, uh, we, we got stairsprobably for various reasons,
but no doubt because we werewearing masks and it felt very
(35:18):
unsafe.
And just going across the borderto Colorado, we had to stay in a
hotel and then it was entirelydifferent.
There were signs up, um, youknow, make, making sure that
people were social distancingand wearing masks.
So very different cultures andclimates, depending on what
state you go to.
And, um, my own point of view,uh, anecdotally is I often
wonder outside of large cities,why there's such a problem in
(35:40):
the United States, becauseunlike most European countries,
there is so much geographicalspace.
And it seems like it's so easyto social distance and keep to
oneself, uh, because of, of, ofthe way in which, um, one's
houses are located, the amountof property you have outside of
big cities, it just seems likethere should not be a problem
with social distancing, but, um,that's obviously not the case,
(36:02):
given the infection rates in theUnited States,
Speaker 3 (36:04):
Philosophically, since you were the philosopher.
I mean, this was generated by apresident who saw mask wearing,
um, as some great infringementon people's rights or at least
he sold it, believing that thatwould bring him more votes.
Speaker 5 (36:26):
Yes.
And I suppose the problem frommy own perspective is that
there's a real lack ofunderstanding and awareness of
what philosophers like to callpublic reasoning public debate.
And it's exacerbated by the factthat social media is most of the
social media companies are awareof this kind of thing.
In fact, I, I emailed one of the, um, legal officers of Facebook
(36:48):
at one point, um, trying to, um,ask him whether I forgotten his
name.
Now I've asked them aboutwhether they had Facebook had an
interest in this idea of publicreasoning and how it, what it
meant practically for somethinglike Facebook is that there
would be clear rules of how thepeople on Facebook would engage
with one another.
There's a, in a simple sense,there's etiquette, uh, there's
(37:08):
ways in which you respond inways in which you, you speak or,
or write to one another on thesekinds of things.
Very basic rules of engagementin conversation that many
generations prior to ours areprobably very much aware of.
Um, and there's just no intereston that.
On from social media companies
Speaker 3 (37:25):
There might be now taught, right?
Because I mean, for a long time,it was first, well, you know
what I think first amendment wasan excuse, but before first
amendment freedom of speechissues, it was simply Facebook
didn't want to police thisstuff.
Um, and neither did Twitter andthey didn't want to bring in the
manpower and the women power to,to go through all these horrible
(37:47):
, uh, you know, messages andmessaging and, and groups of
people.
Um, and now suddenly they'vereally been brought to the
precipice.
Right.
I mean, would you agree now thatprobably you should be calling
them back?
Speaker 5 (38:00):
Yeah.
Maybe I'll try that after, afterthe podcast.
Cause, cause like, yeah.
So I think, um, there is somekind of social corporate
responsibility that has to takeplace and they really have to
focus on that.
But there's also the other side.
It's not just the companiesbecause you hear a lot of blame
about company, social mediabeing a problem, and it is
problematic.
And I have to admit I'm a littlecynical on that side, but it's
(38:20):
also the responsibility ofcitizens and the idea of public
reasoning and in public debateis that you're very much aware
of the kinds of claims you'remaking in the public sphere.
A lot of people today, whenthey're out on social media or
they're out in public, they liketo express their convictions
very strongly, either way, youknow, it can be right or left
and foster is, are interested inthe way in which a lot of our
(38:43):
beliefs and attitudes don't havethe kind of grounding and
certainty that we often thinkthey do.
So we often teach philosophystudents about what's
technically called forms ofskepticism, but it's not
skepticism where you just throwyour hands up and you say, well,
there's nothing I can, I can sayor do because it's very
difficult for me to provesomething rather than the role
(39:03):
of, of skepticism as it comesfrom ancient Greek and
Hellenistic philosophy is thatyou're very much aware of the
weaknesses and fallibility ofyour reasoning.
So you can't just go out thereand say, this is, this is true,
no matter what that's fake news,or this is a violation of my
rights.
Mass scoring is a violation ofmy rights.
Now there's always a kind ofawareness of you might be
(39:23):
speaking from a certain point ofview.
And when you, when you engagewith another person, they're
speaking from a certain point ofview, and it's the idea that
knowing comes from an in cordialor certain, um, point of view
that has some kind of access toirrefutable knowledge, but what
you get a lot in the publicsphere is the lack of that lack
of awareness of what knowledgeis and how to justify beliefs.
(39:47):
And so what replaces that are alot of emotive comments are a
lot of emotive reactions, uh,and that tends to galvanize
people.
And I'm not against emotions.
I think emotions have a veryimportant role in our, in
understanding others.
But when you have too much ofthat, you get what we have
today, not just to,
Speaker 3 (40:04):
How do you go about teaching, you know, humility and
respect for other people'sopinion, um, in, in the climate
that the political climate inAmerica, right?
Speaker 5 (40:17):
Yeah.
There's gotta be a lot ofapproaches.
I'm always a big fan of aliberal arts education.
Um, but, and I don't, and theproblem with that is that
Speaker 3 (40:25):
You said the liberal arts, liberal arts liberal word,
Oh my God,
Speaker 5 (40:30):
Well, it's, it's, it's very different.
It's not political.
So it means, uh, technically ororiginally liberal arts is the
liberating arts.
So you engage in these forms of,um, academic disciplines, like
philosophy history and theimaginative arts, uh, literature
and so forth.
And it's the combination of allthose, um, exposure to that that
actually liberates your mind.
It makes you more capable ofengaging with one another.
(40:52):
And what we have today is thelack of that capability of
people to engage with oneanother.
It's just people throwing upwalls, um, being angry, um,
condemning people for, forholding a point of view, or you
see someone and you have thisreaction of, Oh, that person
must be a socialist or thatperson must be a right-wing
fanatic, that kind of thing.
And there's, there's, it's just,it's too reactive.
(41:14):
And so the role of, of reasoninghelps to space things out a bit
now.
So there's, there's the liberalarts education, but a lot of
people don't have access tothat.
And so that I don't want that tobe a kind of isolating or
alienating view.
I mean, it'd be great ifeducation were universal in that
sense, but there are otherthings that people can do just
on a daily practical basis.
(41:35):
And it's, um, making sure thatwhen you engage with someone you
hold off on any quick reactionsand you try to understand the
point of view, um, from whichsomeone else is speaking.
And there are certain kinds ofquestions and phrases that can
help facilitate that.
And simply asking, I don't quiteunderstand what your view is.
Um, in, in here are some simplequestions and in turn, instead
(41:56):
of antagonistic questions, theycan be open-ended questions.
Um, and the other thing I'venoticed in conversations with
people who hold different viewsis there, there tends to be a
lack of patience in space.
And so I think the other thingis identifying those kinds of
conversations where thatpatient's is simply not there
and just removing oneself fromthat.
And that, that happens a lot onsocial.
Speaker 3 (42:18):
It was the whole digital world, but that, I mean,
it's interesting some of theanalysis where, where people
talk about the fact that, youknow, in the end, you used to
interact with your neighborhood.
So your neighborhood, now youprobably close the door,
especially in a pandemic, butwe've closed the door to a lot
of our neighbors and more kindof human interaction.
(42:39):
And now we're in these chatrooms and, and digitally, and
there's something about thatenvironment that gets people not
to listen, but to expressopinion,
Speaker 5 (42:50):
Yes, very problematic.
And, um, it, it comes down toself restraint and discipline
and, and understanding how to bevirtuous on social media, which
is very difficult, uh, very hardnot to react.
And then again, excuse me, itcomes back to the social media
companies and they have to ch Imean, at the very least, I don't
know too much about the techside, but they've got to change
(43:11):
the algorithms by which the onlythings that appear are things
that seem to be your peers.
Speaker 3 (43:17):
I hate Trump.
I'm not saying that personally,but that will bring you a lot of
people who hate Trump or I, youknow, I hate Biden that will
bring you a lot of people whoare in that echo chamber of, of,
of the technology to keep youengaged.
And they try to keep you engagedby bringing you opinion that
they think will, you know, agreewith yours.
(43:37):
And there's lots of things thatare dangerous about it in a
bigger scope in terms ofdemocracy.
Um, do you think that we'reentering this period of kind of
like mob rule in democracy that,that Plato talked about, and
maybe you can, he wasn't, fromwhat I could understand, the
Play-Doh, you, you spend alifetime studying this stuff.
He didn't seem to be a huge fanof democracy in the sense that
(44:02):
he felt that it would degenerateinto anarchy.
Speaker 5 (44:05):
Yeah.
So the, the comments ondemocracy, uh, often are taken
from the Republic, which is avery interesting text and, um,
got a lot of different ways.
You can understand what's goingon there.
Um, Plato, let me just say Platois very egalitarian in many
ways.
I mean, it seems to advocate aform of feminism or
protofeminism, um, depending onhow you read them and then the,
the public philosopher, MarthaNussbaum comments on that, but
(44:28):
it played a, had two worriesabout democracy.
And I don't want to pigeonholemiss saying, he's just out now,
antidemocratic, uh, someone likeKarl popper might say, but it's
two concerns are one, is thatthe amount of freedom that
occurs in a democracy can whileit's a strength, can actually be
its weakness.
Now I'll come back to that in amoment.
(44:48):
And the other weakness that, uh,played a worried about was that
there could be the dominance ofthe emotions and the lack of
what I spoke about earlier, thelack of public reasoning to help
balance that out.
So going back to the first oneabout having too much freedom,
so it's the best way to capturethat is this idea that everyone
seems to want more choice, andyou often hear people, if I can
(45:10):
say proponents of neo-liberalismsaying that choice is good, the
more choice, the better.
And, um, it sounds on the faceof it.
That sounds really nice, butwhat it presupposes or what it
presumes is that the people whohave the choice have some kind
of either perfect rationality oraccess to perfect information,
or that they themselves arecapable to reason about the
(45:31):
choices.
And that's not always the case.
I mean, you can just, when yougo to buy a used or new car, you
might have a lot of information,but you don't have all the
information to make the bestchoice possible.
So the choice can often be, um,uh, can often cause a lot of
problems and we might make thewrong decisions.
And, um, also what, uh, Hannahrent comments that what you have
(45:52):
in these kinds of situations isthere tends to be a lack of
concern for the common good andfor concern for others.
And what tends to replace it isthis form of just following the
freedoms that arise in society,whether they're brought about by
companies or whatever it mightbe.
And so Hannah rents is whatreplaces this concern for the
common good is a form ofconsumerism or behaviorism that
(46:16):
just simply follows the choices.
And so we're not verydiscriminating in the things
that are presented to us.
And so going back to play towhat happens is you have, uh, an
erosion of the civil society.
That's no longer focused on whatis authentically or genuinely
good for everyone or for, forthe city state, but just simply
panders to our appetites.
Speaker 3 (46:37):
And it doesn't help if you're making choices based
on false information, such asthe president telling you that
the choice you made in anelection didn't count or was
cheated.
Um, so do you rolldisinformation in there?
And, and, uh, chaos becomessupercharged.
Speaker 5 (46:55):
Yes.
And we need, um, not justinstitutions, but individual
citizens need to know the waysin which they can vet
information that's coming acrosstheir computers or the TV
screens and, um, your, your, thejournalists and media.
And, um, one of the bigdifferences I've noticed between
the United States and the UK isthat, um, in the UK, whether
you're listening to the BBC orsky, for example, which tend to
(47:16):
be both left and right, um, justleft and right of center, you
can listen to either of them andthey tend not to yell at you, or
they tend to let in a lot of the, the major programs will often,
it's an op-ed piece.
They'll let the new speak foritself.
They won't comment, comment onit and try to sway the audience.
When were the other back in theStates
Speaker 3 (47:37):
Watching I was watching Pierce Morgan this
week.
So I'm not sure you're right.
Speaker 5 (47:41):
Yeah.
Well, I, I, I suppose, um, youknow, there's exceptions
everywhere.
I, maybe I can, if I cangeneralize, it seems on the
whole, um, the bit morecivilized, a little bit more
civilized, whereas here, I justfeel like you can turn on
anything from Fox to CNN, andthey're just yelling at you
constantly
Speaker 3 (47:56):
Question to you, Todd .
I mean, if you reach deep inyour philosophical soul and
roots, and you look at what'shappening at the Capitol, um,
and where America is headed, uh,what do you draw on to be
positive or to be negative?
Speaker 5 (48:12):
I think, um, uh, and I think it's reflected in some
of the comments you've made onsocial media is that we have to
find a way to stop this divideof, of just thinking that's
either us or them and that's it.
And, um, there are differentphilosophical tools that we can
use to, to help initiate that.
But let me just end on apractical note, and this is not
my idea.
I wish I could take credit forit, but I was speaking with a
(48:33):
former senior officer who weused to work for the FDA here in
the United States.
And he recognized that look, thereason why this is happening, um
, is largely due to thesocioeconomic divide.
And we have to find a way tobring different citizens of
different classes, socioeconomicclasses, and races together.
And he thought that the idea ofmandatory national service,
(48:55):
which could either be militaryor civil with bring the
different classes together andwork together and do different
projects.
And I thought that was awonderful idea.
And it was in view of somethingcalled, you know, your, your
nation, whether it's UnitedStates or not.
And it's those kinds ofexperiences that can open many
doors and can expose people tothings they'd never been exposed
to before.
It can bring people together,
Speaker 3 (49:15):
Tough sell, tough sell America, but Todd may, um,
thank you so much.
Good to talk to you.
Thank you, Dana.
Thank you for having me in there.
Speaker 2 (49:23):
That's our backstory on radicalization in America,
the guardian newspaper here inthe UK reported that as many as
two thirds of us adults betweenthe ages of 18 and 39 didn't
know that 6 million Jews werekilled during the Holocaust.
Another 23% of respondents saidthey believed the Holocaust was
(49:44):
either a myth or had beenexaggerated, or we're unsure
time to roll out a reality checkfor those with radical views or
people that just don't knowanyway, keep your sense of
humor.
And look forward this week,Trump was out of the white house
and the pounding of the drum ofdivision and disinformation has
(50:08):
been replaced to some extent bysome normalcy in Washington.
I mean, with the suspension ofhis Twitter account, it feels
less stressful, but online,online, we have to snuff out
hatred.
I'm Dana Lewis.
Thanks for listening.
Please share our podcast andI'll talk to you again soon.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
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. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com