September 18, 2024 • 15 mins
First, Jack is curious about the latest IOS update.
Next--what the what? Joe talks about an article regarding a Harvard study involving prevalence-induced concept change in human judgment.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Yeah, I thought it was probably prevalent S induced concept
change in human judgment. It's one more thing, I'm getty.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
One more thing before we get to that.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
I think we're all iPhone users here. Has anybody downloaded
the iOS eighteen yet? Came out Monday? It's supposed to
be the biggest update in iPhone update history, and I
haven't done it yet. I just read about it. Uh
so I guess I'll do that tonight. See how it goes.
Oh wow, I do have an update available. I didn't
know that. Yeah, I didn't either. And like I said that,
(00:35):
they call it the biggest update in iPhone history. So
changes all kinds of different things, often in ways I
don't like. Regularly they too often for me. Things get
changed with all tech. It just seems like to make
it fresh and new, as opposed to it being an upgrade.
It's just different. And I'm always like this used to
be over here, and now it's over here. What's the difference? Well,
(00:56):
why when you just leave what?
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Yeah? What?
Speaker 3 (00:59):
It's eight Yeah?
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Wow, it's I've got automatic updates on and it's telling
me I can update to seventeen point seven if that's.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
What mine saying, right, it's right below that, Joe. If
you scroll down a little bit, it says also available.
So I'll just read here this New York Coers story.
Apple users already fed up with iOS eighteen for being
a cheaters paradise and making them want to throw up.
There's something about the new camera thing that said makes
people nauseous.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
I don't know. It sounds like one of these things
that's a way to get the It's an ad. We
always talk about this in the movie industry. They do
this all the time. A lot of complaints about the
new Harry Potter movie, making people with epilepsy want to
throw up. To mention that there's a new Harry Potter
movie out right, it.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Was so scary. Man had a heart attack.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Yeah, but this, of course, sometimes you're a guinea pig
with these downloads, right, That might be the case here.
The cheating aspect of the iOS eighteen is that and
you live such a debauched lifestyle if this is a
problem anyway, I mean you're looking at each other's phones
and trying to figure out if you're cheating. You're already
way down a road, a bad road, I think. But
(02:07):
it's got ways to hide apps and stuff that never
existed before on your phone. So if somebody looks at
your phone, they don't know where, they wouldn't see all
the stuff that you have. Oh, which is to protect
you in case somebody looks at your phone like now
that it's not supposed to but from a you're looking
(02:27):
at your husband's phone or vice versa, or boyfriend's or
I don't know, they don't You don't want them to know.
You're on match dot com or something. I guess, but
you already got significant problems if you're looking through each
other's phones trying to find I would.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Say, deceit, you're here. Ah, you're probably gonna find it.
So I have been sitting on this email waiting to
bring it up on the show and just haven't gotten
to it, which is too bad because I think it's
so interesting. It's from the fambulous Paolo, who writes us
pretty regularly, he said in a paywalled article I heard
(03:02):
about this twenty eighteen Harvard study Prevalence induced concept change
in Human judgment. Reading from Pellow's email, it may explain
why we appear to be becoming far more sensitive to
the same stimuli than we used to be for one example,
we try to eliminate anything offensive, we lower our threshold
(03:24):
for what's offensive offensive, as if we're trying to keep
the number of offensive things constant in a changing world.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Okay, you're gonna have to give me an example of
this or talk me through this.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Let me read that sentence again. When, for example, we
try to eliminate anything offensive, we lower our threshold for
what's offensive, as if we're trying to keep the number
of offensive things constant in a changing world. Meaning we
have to be this level of mad about five things,
and if there aren't five things that merit that level
(03:59):
of mad, things below it get promoted.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
I get that, and I've got a good example of
that in other world. But I'm trying to think of something.
Are the offenses that we've eliminated that then allow stupid
or offensives to bubble up onto the list.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Let me plunge into this and it'll clarify itself, and
or it won't. We can discuss in an example relevant today,
if we do our best to eliminate racism, we should
expect that we will expand our definition of what it
is in order to keep its incidents constant. Ironic huh.
Makes it a lot harder to deal with social problems
when some part of our brain wants to keep the
number of them constant. Here is the abstract of the study.
(04:40):
Why do some social problems seem so intractable? In a
series of experiments, we show that people often respond to
decreases in the prevalence of stimulus by expanding their concept
of it. When blue dots become rare, participants began to
see purple dots as blue. When threatening faces became rare,
(05:02):
participants began to see neutral faces as threatening gotcha. And
when unethical requests became rare, participants became to see innocuous
began to see innocuous requests as unethical. This prevalence induced
concept change occurred even when the participants were forwarned about it,
(05:22):
and even when they were instructed and paid to resist it.
Social problems may seem intractable in part because reductions in
their prevalence lead people to see more of them.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
So my example that I've been aware of before I
even heard of this study. Having lived lots of different
places and lots of different climates, people have a certain
level of being worried about driving in weather no matter
where you are. And I've lived in places where driving
in the weather was actually really dicey, like super icy,
super snow. I couldn't see the road.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
If you car got stuck, it's forty below zero, you're
gonna die howling winds.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
But they weren't more concerned about driving in bad weather
than in places where it's seventy five degrees in kind
of rainy. You raise your level of concern about it
to the same level both places. So that's the same
thing as this. We just have a set point for
being offended or worried or whatever, and we fill in
the blanks to get there, I guess.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Right, And anybody who's read people bitching online, for instance,
about the smallest of inconvenience, right, I think that's what's
going on.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
There could be.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
And you know, from an anthropological point of view, this
makes sense because the threat level, well, I mean it
changed place to place, and like season a season, maybe
in a particular part of the world, but for millions
of years, humanoids had to be at this level, you know,
at Defcon one essentially all the time. And so now
(06:59):
that our our lives are so vastly safer than they were,
we got to find something to put in the why
am I at def Con one list?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Right? Right?
Speaker 1 (07:10):
So we worry and it's not saber toothed tigers chewing
on my kid. It's you know whatever, you Republicans or
your kid's going to be abducted even though they're not,
but you worry about it, right at the same level. Yeah,
So more on the And this is thirty five pages long,
and I don't think I got Heywald, we'll post this
(07:32):
at armstrong and Getty dot com as soon as we're done. Uh,
sometimes something is so interesting I'll actually go ahead and
pay for it. But the deformation of a solid underload
is known as creep, but in the past few years,
that term is crept beyond material science and has come
to describe almost any kind of unintended expansion of a boundary.
(07:53):
Software software developers worry about feature creep, the unintended expansion
of a product's function of time, project managers worry about
scope creep, the unintended expansion of a team's mandate over time.
And military commanders worry about mission creep, which is something
I think we've all heard. The unintended expansion of a
campaign's uh objectives over time, As it turns out, abstract
(08:19):
concepts can creep too. For example, in nineteen sixty Webster's
Dictionary defined aggression as quote an unprovoked attack or invasion,
but today that concept can include behaviors such as making
insufficient eye contact or asking people where they are from. Wow,
not an unprovoked attack. Raining blows upon your head, but
(08:43):
asking you where you're from, that's a microaggression.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Wow any plunge on.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Many Other concepts, such as abuse, bullying, mental disorder, trauma, addiction,
and prejudice have expanded of late as well.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
We've used the example of sexual harassment a lot three
year when they kept changing the definition from you know,
a physical grope, maybe a rape to g your hair
looks nice. Or a perfect example would be the whole
hunger thing. What's hunger now? It's you might not know
(09:19):
where your meal is coming from in the next year,
and you count it with the same level of concern
is when people.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Somebody right, yeah, yeah. One final point from again This
is thirty five pages long, but the opening part of
it the abstract. Some take these expansions as signs of
political correctness, and other signs of others as signs of
social awakening. We take no position on whether these expansions
are good or bad.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
It's the first.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Rather, yeah, Rather we seek to understand what makes them happen.
Why do concepts creep?
Speaker 3 (09:52):
That's super interesting and clearly true.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Okay, here's a question for you. And I wish I
thought about this in advance because I don't want to.
I don't want to have like a huge blind spot.
I don't think individualists and conservatives are as prone to this.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
I think you're right, right, yeah, I mean, unless you're
a fire breather.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
I don't think like Nancy Pelosi is a serious threat
to the democracy. I think she's a absolutely Macavelian realist
who advocates policies I think are stupid and I would
like to fight against. Now, there are people like the
neo Marxists who I think absolutely are but I can
(10:42):
absolutely make that case. I mean, they've stayed in themselves.
They're bent on destroying Western civilization rebuilding it as a
Marxist utopia. I wonder if there is, and perhaps they
study this in the study. I wonder if they're as
a variance in this across various personality types.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I don't know, but if you dropped somebody from the
rural prairie eighteen hundreds into modern life, they would think
this is so easy. I got nothing to worry about. Yeah,
no highway robbers are going to come in and murder
me and my family. And there ain't no Indians over
the hill, and wow, this is fantastic. You go to
work every day, I come home, nothing happens. Yeah. I.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Meanwhile, they're easily offended or thinking the world's ending if
you say, you know, the wrong pronoun or something of
that nature.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Not enough eye contact.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
Right, there's a tangent on a tangent. But I wonder
if that weirdly time traveling pioneer would after a while
adapt to his new surroundings.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Probably, right, seems to be human nature, which is weird.
We should fight that, Yeah, And like you said, I
think people on the right tend to fight it. People
on the left tend to embrace it or enjoy it.
Being scared as a weapon, use it as a weapon.
Very good.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
I wonder if pathologizing, and if you're not familiar with this,
Greg Lukianov and Jonathan hat have done some absolutely fantastic
work on this, The pathologizing of normal emotional life where
if you're sad, you say you're depressed. If you are nervous,
you say you have anxiety. And both depression and anxiety
(12:22):
have a self reinforcing nature to them, because you can
become anxious about being anxious, You can anticipate a situation
where you will become very anxious, and that will make
you anxious, and then when you're in that situation at
snowballs and depression. As anybody who's ever dealt with any
(12:44):
level depression knows, it is so inward looking and self perpetuating.
The best thing you can do for depression is to
get out of the house, expose yourself to other people
in their lives and their concerns and their joys, and
all of a sudden, you're utter, inward focused whatever it
is goes away much more effectively. But to the don't
(13:06):
ruminate is one of the things the experts say these days,
like some of the modern therapy, where you're constantly, constantly
talking about your problems and thinking about them is the
worst thing you can do.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
But to the one crowd fights this tendency and the
other crowd embraces it. I was talking to a person
of the right the other night, and we agreed we
have never used the phrases triggered or overwhelmed in our lives,
and we never would regardless of the situation. I would
never say out loud, especially to another adult, I'm overwhelmed,
(13:38):
No way, I'm just not going to do it. But
there is a certain crowd that wants to use that
word all the time, constantly anxious, telling people how are
anxious they are and how overwhelmed they are, because it's
like a badge of honor or something like that. I
don't know what that is.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
It gets them attention and love.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Yeah, how triggered they are, how they're being gas lit.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Right, yeah, Whereas I would never want to say that
out loud, even if I was feeling it.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
I've had coworkers say that here, triggered.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm good for you.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Yeah. I don't know why. Michael came in for a kick,
and I thought that was a lovely contribution. Is I
realized talking about the people who are triggered? Oh, I
say so again, I'm reminded of wonderful saying we heard
the other day. What was the context? Oh, it was
the uh uh what's his name?
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Jim Carter, the British Committee, and who was one of
the things he threw into his interesting stew of thoughts
was a gentleman is never rude accidentally, and I don't
want to be rude accidentally. There are plenty of people
on the right who do answer to the paranoid up
in our angry about stuff that is not the least
(14:49):
bit realistic.
Speaker 3 (14:50):
Abso freaking lutely see prepper stuff.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Right, it's nowhere near one hundred percent correlation between conservatism
and real life, although there are a lot of things
that are called conservatism right now that are not conservatism
in the sense that that term has been used for
the last seventy five years, so I don't know exactly
what to call it. Anyway. Humans are crazy. God gave
(15:17):
us too big a brain, less thinking about anxiety, more
grunting and running around looking to mate. We're not even
mating anymore. We don't know when to stop eating. Time
to give back the frontal lobe we had the trial
period didn't work. Let's get on all fours again.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Huh, what are you? Sean combs?
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Back to the past, that's what I want. No, no, no,
don't try to paint me, the PERV you sickos.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
That conversation triggers me, Well, I guess that's it.
Yeah, I thought it was probably prevalent S induced concept
change in human judgment. It's one more thing, I'm getty.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
One more thing before we get to that.
Speaker 3 (00:12):
I think we're all iPhone users here. Has anybody downloaded
the iOS eighteen yet? Came out Monday? It's supposed to
be the biggest update in iPhone update history, and I
haven't done it yet. I just read about it. Uh
so I guess I'll do that tonight. See how it goes.
Oh wow, I do have an update available. I didn't
know that. Yeah, I didn't either. And like I said that,
(00:35):
they call it the biggest update in iPhone history. So
changes all kinds of different things, often in ways I
don't like. Regularly they too often for me. Things get
changed with all tech. It just seems like to make
it fresh and new, as opposed to it being an upgrade.
It's just different. And I'm always like this used to
be over here, and now it's over here. What's the difference? Well,
(00:56):
why when you just leave what?
Speaker 1 (00:58):
Yeah? What?
Speaker 3 (00:59):
It's eight Yeah?
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Wow, it's I've got automatic updates on and it's telling
me I can update to seventeen point seven if that's.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
What mine saying, right, it's right below that, Joe. If
you scroll down a little bit, it says also available.
So I'll just read here this New York Coers story.
Apple users already fed up with iOS eighteen for being
a cheaters paradise and making them want to throw up.
There's something about the new camera thing that said makes
people nauseous.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
I don't know. It sounds like one of these things
that's a way to get the It's an ad. We
always talk about this in the movie industry. They do
this all the time. A lot of complaints about the
new Harry Potter movie, making people with epilepsy want to
throw up. To mention that there's a new Harry Potter
movie out right, it.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Was so scary. Man had a heart attack.
Speaker 3 (01:46):
Yeah, but this, of course, sometimes you're a guinea pig
with these downloads, right, That might be the case here.
The cheating aspect of the iOS eighteen is that and
you live such a debauched lifestyle if this is a
problem anyway, I mean you're looking at each other's phones
and trying to figure out if you're cheating. You're already
way down a road, a bad road, I think. But
(02:07):
it's got ways to hide apps and stuff that never
existed before on your phone. So if somebody looks at
your phone, they don't know where, they wouldn't see all
the stuff that you have. Oh, which is to protect
you in case somebody looks at your phone like now
that it's not supposed to but from a you're looking
(02:27):
at your husband's phone or vice versa, or boyfriend's or
I don't know, they don't You don't want them to know.
You're on match dot com or something. I guess, but
you already got significant problems if you're looking through each
other's phones trying to find I would.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Say, deceit, you're here. Ah, you're probably gonna find it.
So I have been sitting on this email waiting to
bring it up on the show and just haven't gotten
to it, which is too bad because I think it's
so interesting. It's from the fambulous Paolo, who writes us
pretty regularly, he said in a paywalled article I heard
(03:02):
about this twenty eighteen Harvard study Prevalence induced concept change
in Human judgment. Reading from Pellow's email, it may explain
why we appear to be becoming far more sensitive to
the same stimuli than we used to be for one example,
we try to eliminate anything offensive, we lower our threshold
(03:24):
for what's offensive offensive, as if we're trying to keep
the number of offensive things constant in a changing world.
Speaker 3 (03:31):
Okay, you're gonna have to give me an example of
this or talk me through this.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Let me read that sentence again. When, for example, we
try to eliminate anything offensive, we lower our threshold for
what's offensive, as if we're trying to keep the number
of offensive things constant in a changing world. Meaning we
have to be this level of mad about five things,
and if there aren't five things that merit that level
(03:59):
of mad, things below it get promoted.
Speaker 3 (04:03):
I get that, and I've got a good example of
that in other world. But I'm trying to think of something.
Are the offenses that we've eliminated that then allow stupid
or offensives to bubble up onto the list.
Speaker 1 (04:14):
Let me plunge into this and it'll clarify itself, and
or it won't. We can discuss in an example relevant today,
if we do our best to eliminate racism, we should
expect that we will expand our definition of what it
is in order to keep its incidents constant. Ironic huh.
Makes it a lot harder to deal with social problems
when some part of our brain wants to keep the
number of them constant. Here is the abstract of the study.
(04:40):
Why do some social problems seem so intractable? In a
series of experiments, we show that people often respond to
decreases in the prevalence of stimulus by expanding their concept
of it. When blue dots become rare, participants began to
see purple dots as blue. When threatening faces became rare,
(05:02):
participants began to see neutral faces as threatening gotcha. And
when unethical requests became rare, participants became to see innocuous
began to see innocuous requests as unethical. This prevalence induced
concept change occurred even when the participants were forwarned about it,
(05:22):
and even when they were instructed and paid to resist it.
Social problems may seem intractable in part because reductions in
their prevalence lead people to see more of them.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
So my example that I've been aware of before I
even heard of this study. Having lived lots of different
places and lots of different climates, people have a certain
level of being worried about driving in weather no matter
where you are. And I've lived in places where driving
in the weather was actually really dicey, like super icy,
super snow. I couldn't see the road.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
If you car got stuck, it's forty below zero, you're
gonna die howling winds.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
But they weren't more concerned about driving in bad weather
than in places where it's seventy five degrees in kind
of rainy. You raise your level of concern about it
to the same level both places. So that's the same
thing as this. We just have a set point for
being offended or worried or whatever, and we fill in
the blanks to get there, I guess.
Speaker 1 (06:21):
Right, And anybody who's read people bitching online, for instance,
about the smallest of inconvenience, right, I think that's what's
going on.
Speaker 3 (06:32):
There could be.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
And you know, from an anthropological point of view, this
makes sense because the threat level, well, I mean it
changed place to place, and like season a season, maybe
in a particular part of the world, but for millions
of years, humanoids had to be at this level, you know,
at Defcon one essentially all the time. And so now
(06:59):
that our our lives are so vastly safer than they were,
we got to find something to put in the why
am I at def Con one list?
Speaker 3 (07:09):
Right? Right?
Speaker 1 (07:10):
So we worry and it's not saber toothed tigers chewing
on my kid. It's you know whatever, you Republicans or
your kid's going to be abducted even though they're not,
but you worry about it, right at the same level. Yeah,
So more on the And this is thirty five pages long,
and I don't think I got Heywald, we'll post this
(07:32):
at armstrong and Getty dot com as soon as we're done. Uh,
sometimes something is so interesting I'll actually go ahead and
pay for it. But the deformation of a solid underload
is known as creep, but in the past few years,
that term is crept beyond material science and has come
to describe almost any kind of unintended expansion of a boundary.
(07:53):
Software software developers worry about feature creep, the unintended expansion
of a product's function of time, project managers worry about
scope creep, the unintended expansion of a team's mandate over time.
And military commanders worry about mission creep, which is something
I think we've all heard. The unintended expansion of a
campaign's uh objectives over time, As it turns out, abstract
(08:19):
concepts can creep too. For example, in nineteen sixty Webster's
Dictionary defined aggression as quote an unprovoked attack or invasion,
but today that concept can include behaviors such as making
insufficient eye contact or asking people where they are from. Wow,
not an unprovoked attack. Raining blows upon your head, but
(08:43):
asking you where you're from, that's a microaggression.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
Wow any plunge on.
Speaker 1 (08:49):
Many Other concepts, such as abuse, bullying, mental disorder, trauma, addiction,
and prejudice have expanded of late as well.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
We've used the example of sexual harassment a lot three
year when they kept changing the definition from you know,
a physical grope, maybe a rape to g your hair
looks nice. Or a perfect example would be the whole
hunger thing. What's hunger now? It's you might not know
(09:19):
where your meal is coming from in the next year,
and you count it with the same level of concern
is when people.
Speaker 1 (09:24):
Somebody right, yeah, yeah. One final point from again This
is thirty five pages long, but the opening part of
it the abstract. Some take these expansions as signs of
political correctness, and other signs of others as signs of
social awakening. We take no position on whether these expansions
are good or bad.
Speaker 3 (09:44):
It's the first.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Rather, yeah, Rather we seek to understand what makes them happen.
Why do concepts creep?
Speaker 3 (09:52):
That's super interesting and clearly true.
Speaker 1 (09:57):
Okay, here's a question for you. And I wish I
thought about this in advance because I don't want to.
I don't want to have like a huge blind spot.
I don't think individualists and conservatives are as prone to this.
Speaker 3 (10:14):
I think you're right, right, yeah, I mean, unless you're
a fire breather.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
I don't think like Nancy Pelosi is a serious threat
to the democracy. I think she's a absolutely Macavelian realist
who advocates policies I think are stupid and I would
like to fight against. Now, there are people like the
neo Marxists who I think absolutely are but I can
(10:42):
absolutely make that case. I mean, they've stayed in themselves.
They're bent on destroying Western civilization rebuilding it as a
Marxist utopia. I wonder if there is, and perhaps they
study this in the study. I wonder if they're as
a variance in this across various personality types.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
I don't know, but if you dropped somebody from the
rural prairie eighteen hundreds into modern life, they would think
this is so easy. I got nothing to worry about. Yeah,
no highway robbers are going to come in and murder
me and my family. And there ain't no Indians over
the hill, and wow, this is fantastic. You go to
work every day, I come home, nothing happens. Yeah. I.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
Meanwhile, they're easily offended or thinking the world's ending if
you say, you know, the wrong pronoun or something of
that nature.
Speaker 3 (11:28):
Not enough eye contact.
Speaker 1 (11:29):
Right, there's a tangent on a tangent. But I wonder
if that weirdly time traveling pioneer would after a while
adapt to his new surroundings.
Speaker 3 (11:40):
Probably, right, seems to be human nature, which is weird.
We should fight that, Yeah, And like you said, I
think people on the right tend to fight it. People
on the left tend to embrace it or enjoy it.
Being scared as a weapon, use it as a weapon.
Very good.
Speaker 1 (11:59):
I wonder if pathologizing, and if you're not familiar with this,
Greg Lukianov and Jonathan hat have done some absolutely fantastic
work on this, The pathologizing of normal emotional life where
if you're sad, you say you're depressed. If you are nervous,
you say you have anxiety. And both depression and anxiety
(12:22):
have a self reinforcing nature to them, because you can
become anxious about being anxious, You can anticipate a situation
where you will become very anxious, and that will make
you anxious, and then when you're in that situation at
snowballs and depression. As anybody who's ever dealt with any
(12:44):
level depression knows, it is so inward looking and self perpetuating.
The best thing you can do for depression is to
get out of the house, expose yourself to other people
in their lives and their concerns and their joys, and
all of a sudden, you're utter, inward focused whatever it
is goes away much more effectively. But to the don't
(13:06):
ruminate is one of the things the experts say these days,
like some of the modern therapy, where you're constantly, constantly
talking about your problems and thinking about them is the
worst thing you can do.
Speaker 3 (13:17):
But to the one crowd fights this tendency and the
other crowd embraces it. I was talking to a person
of the right the other night, and we agreed we
have never used the phrases triggered or overwhelmed in our lives,
and we never would regardless of the situation. I would
never say out loud, especially to another adult, I'm overwhelmed,
(13:38):
No way, I'm just not going to do it. But
there is a certain crowd that wants to use that
word all the time, constantly anxious, telling people how are
anxious they are and how overwhelmed they are, because it's
like a badge of honor or something like that. I
don't know what that is.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
It gets them attention and love.
Speaker 2 (13:54):
Yeah, how triggered they are, how they're being gas lit.
Speaker 3 (13:57):
Right, yeah, Whereas I would never want to say that
out loud, even if I was feeling it.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
I've had coworkers say that here, triggered.
Speaker 3 (14:04):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm good for you.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Yeah. I don't know why. Michael came in for a kick,
and I thought that was a lovely contribution. Is I
realized talking about the people who are triggered? Oh, I
say so again, I'm reminded of wonderful saying we heard
the other day. What was the context? Oh, it was
the uh uh what's his name?
Speaker 2 (14:28):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (14:28):
Jim Carter, the British Committee, and who was one of
the things he threw into his interesting stew of thoughts
was a gentleman is never rude accidentally, and I don't
want to be rude accidentally. There are plenty of people
on the right who do answer to the paranoid up
in our angry about stuff that is not the least
(14:49):
bit realistic.
Speaker 3 (14:50):
Abso freaking lutely see prepper stuff.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Right, it's nowhere near one hundred percent correlation between conservatism
and real life, although there are a lot of things
that are called conservatism right now that are not conservatism
in the sense that that term has been used for
the last seventy five years, so I don't know exactly
what to call it. Anyway. Humans are crazy. God gave
(15:17):
us too big a brain, less thinking about anxiety, more
grunting and running around looking to mate. We're not even
mating anymore. We don't know when to stop eating. Time
to give back the frontal lobe we had the trial
period didn't work. Let's get on all fours again.
Speaker 3 (15:36):
Huh, what are you? Sean combs?
Speaker 1 (15:41):
Back to the past, that's what I want. No, no, no,
don't try to paint me, the PERV you sickos.
Speaker 2 (15:50):
That conversation triggers me, Well, I guess that's it.
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
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