July 23, 2025 • 22 mins
This is a reboardcast from Feb. 14, 2021
In this thought-provoking episode, we explore how open debate fuels both psychological growth and a truly free society. We dive into the principles of civil discourse, cognitive bias, and how psychological defense mechanisms often shut down meaningful conversation. By examining real-world examples—from political polarization to online cancel culture—we reveal why open dialogue isn’t just a libertarian ideal, but a psychological necessity. Tune in to discover how freedom of speech and mental resilience go hand in hand, and why fostering debate is the only path toward clarity, growth, and liberty.
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Follow Us:
YouTube
Twitter
Facebook
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
In this thought-provoking episode, we explore how open debate fuels both psychological growth and a truly free society. We dive into the principles of civil discourse, cognitive bias, and how psychological defense mechanisms often shut down meaningful conversation. By examining real-world examples—from political polarization to online cancel culture—we reveal why open dialogue isn’t just a libertarian ideal, but a psychological necessity. Tune in to discover how freedom of speech and mental resilience go hand in hand, and why fostering debate is the only path toward clarity, growth, and liberty.
Follow Us:
YouTube
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Follow Us:
YouTube
Bluesky
All audio & videos edited by: Jay Prescott Videography
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This is a rebroadcast of an earlier episode. You're listening
to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Julie Libertarians Talk Psychology.
This is current commentary from an NBA businessman and a
PhD psychologist.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
So, in thinking about the country, my view of it
is we're in a feminine principle dominates right now. I
was talking to somebody about when we were in the
masculine principle, and I thought, I think we were talking
about this. But one of the reasons I think Donald
Trump was so projected to is because he's like uber masculine.
(00:39):
You know, he's got it in spades, what they call
narcissism and egotism, egoism. You know, it's just a lot
of masculine bs. But you know, it's like that doesn't
bother me. But anyway, what we are in is in
a feminine cycle. The collective is in a feminine cycle.
So I saw the Gallup pole, eighty eight percent of
(01:00):
the population of this of the United States. Things suck
the countries. I don't know what they ask I didn't
see what the questions were, but eighty eight percent. In psychology,
anything in social psychology that gets to eighty eight percent
is like a monstrosity number.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Was like, oh my god, definitely significant, definitely.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
So what you got is you got the largest majority
of both sides think everything is catastrophic. So thinking about this,
I thought about what I wanted to throw out today
for us to talk about is the feminine. When an
organization or a company, or a group or a country
is led by the feminine, what you get is a
suppression of conflict, because the feminine is where you put
(01:47):
a characteristic like conflict avoidant. Did your mother ever say
if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
Did you ever hear that?
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Oh, I've heard it. I don't remember my.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Mother used to say it. It's like, I guess it
really worked for her. It actually did not work for her.
It actually does not work. But it is coming from
the feminine principle that harmony is more important than debate.
So you get this feminine principle, and I think it's
also you know, my hypothesis is also like Jack Dorsey,
he's gone over the top now with you. The Twitter
(02:20):
CEO also read where all the billionaires are making out
like thieves from the pandemic. Oh yeah, like Jack Dorsey's
net worth went up like twenty five billion dollars. You know,
that's another thing we can talk about, is what it
means for these billionaires to profit from the suffering of others.
I don't know, you'd think that that would be on
(02:42):
someone's mind, but in any case, he's doubling down on
his censorship. Here's the idea from psychology, and this has
been around a long time. One study that I like
to cite. I don't even know what year this is,
but this this way back where they studied well.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
I just wanted to ask if you're going to get
into the positive and negative feminine and positive and negative masculine, because.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
That's that's something you're interested in.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Well, especially the way you're couching this.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, you know we can Yeah, I'm gonna throw this out.
I'm gonna throw these two studies out, which I think
are fascinating and do relate to this, and then we
can talk about cultures. This is a study on conflict cultures.
Let me just make this short because I tend to
go on and on when I get into this research.
They measured people's feelings and behavior and across the boards.
(03:35):
It wasn't an individual variable. It was an organizational variable.
So they were looking at it from the organizational level,
collaborative dominating and avoidant conflict. And they studied a number
of characteristics. But the bottom line is the collaborative culture
(03:55):
much much better on all measures of validity, safety climate,
distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, learning orientation, and performance orientation. Actually,
the performance orientation, I mean, this is very interesting, was
a lot less. But learning was correlated at point sixty four,
(04:20):
which is kind of off the chart kind of correlation.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
But you're not just saying correlation, are you're saying the
quality of the decision making.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Well, that's not a variable. Quality of the decision making
is not a variable they studied, but you could certainly
relate it to learning. A learning orientation absolutely relates to
quality of decision making. They didn't study quality of decision
making particularly, they studied performance orientation climate. So I don't
(04:49):
want to dig too deeply into all of this. I mean,
you can read the study at Jefflin, Leslie Keller, and
Doug Drew. It's in Journal of Applied Psychology. I don't
really have that right now, Okay, But to not belabor this,
the dominating culture safety negative point five seven correlation. In
(05:13):
other words, dominating cultures don't really work except a little
bit on performance. So that's the authoritarian style. That's the
dominating authoritarian no talking about anything. But what's interesting is
the conflict. Avoidant cultures also had negative correlations to validity data.
(05:34):
The validity meaning the characteristics we want to see in
a organization with good teamwork. We want to see a
safety climate, we want to see a justice climate, we
want to see a learning orientation. Well, they found negative
relationship to safety, justice, and this is avoidant. So this
is censorship, the no talk rule. Let's don't discuss it,
(05:58):
let's don't debate it. Learning orientation was the highest negative correlation, So.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
It's not about.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
A learning a learning orientation climate. So the avoidant culture.
You'd think avoidant culture would not impact learning, but it
does impact learning. You're frowning, So.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Well, I just have to ask. I'm confused about the study.
It sounds like this correlation is somehow some measure of
how well each of these styles works.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Okay, you correlate the predictor variable to the validity criterion. Okay,
so and so shows you the relationship between the two.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Yeah, okay, so it's some measure of how well these
things work. And so my big question is how do
they measure when you have cooperation? I mean I can
see dominance and I can see avoidance, but how.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Do they You're questioning what their measures were.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
I'm curious for myself, if I were to get a
group of people, how would we ever know that we
have a decision that is collaborative collaborative.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Well that's a very good point because, for instance, I've
been in groups. I mean, you're kind of a collaborative
manager in your style. I've been told that I'm extremely collaborative,
and I measured it with one I measured myself with
one instrument conflicts style measurement and found out, yeah, I
(07:28):
am collaborative. And then my next style is if someone's
not collaborating with me, I'm competitive. I'm going to make
this available somehow to people to because everyone that's in management,
or in a leadership role or in life needs to
know their style. This is a blind spot people have.
But I found out I didn't do any avoiding. You
(07:48):
remember this in the results, said you need to use
avoiding more. I mean, avoiding is an important style to
use with conflicts sometimes just avoid it. And I thought, oh, okay,
that gets into overfunctioning under functioning. So we have a
lot of psychology here. I don't know if I'm answering
your question, but let me tell you one more study
(08:09):
before we go on. And this is a cute report
in the Heath's book, Chip and Dan Heath's book. So
they reported where Nancy Lowry and David Johnson studied a
bunch of kids and they were looking at conflict styles. Basically,
they had two groups and they facilitated one to seek
agreement and harmony, and they facilitated the other to debate
(08:33):
and have conflict. And so they found that the kids
that were facilitated to debate were much more interested in
the topic, and that the ones that were in agreement
were less interested and less likely to visit the library
to get additional information. But here's the fun thing, here's
(08:54):
the most telling thing. Then they asked the kids if
they wanted to forego their recess and come watch a
film about what the topic that they had worked on.
Only eighteen percent of the agreement kids left their recess
to come see the film, while forty five nearly half
of all the kids in the debate group sacrificed their
(09:17):
own recess time to come watch a film about the topic.
So it's extremely motivating and people are curious when they
get into this learning mode. And this study was across
the board on the learning environment zero point six y'
four relationship with the collaborative conflict solution climates a negative
(09:39):
point five seven to the dominating and a negative point
three to two to the avoidant. So what you get
with this censorship and this avoiding debate?
Speaker 3 (09:51):
I'm sorry, but the collaborative and debate are really the
same thing.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Yes, okay, So yes, in a dominating culture, there's no debate,
there's the king decides.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Yeah, and those in avoiding there's no debate, So debate
you get collaboration. Yeah, okay. I think that helps answer
my question from before about how do I know I
have a collaborative discussion? And the answer is.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Get in a lively debate. When you get in a
lively debate. So the point here is we're in and
we can go back to feminine masculine here, but we're
in a culture right now and the censorship is coming
from the left political group is to shut down the
debate That's what it looks to me like the censorship
is for is to shut down all disagreement. Well, when
(10:43):
you do that, you severely restrict your learning culture. But
with eighty eight percent of the population being dissatisfied, I
think to the degree of being totally royally pissed off
with both sides, I mean, I'll get eighty eight percent
of a sample without having both sides royally pissed off.
(11:05):
That that's actually a good thing if we have debate,
if we have logical, reasoned analysis and debate. So it's
not so bad that eighty eight percent are upset. It's
a good thing because as a country, we learn through suffering.
We're suffering, and we're all engaged like these kids, We're
(11:28):
watching every source of information. We're curious as to how
this is supposed to work out.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
I even so, what you're saying is that dissatisfaction may
trigger debate, Well.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
It will trigger debate. It's there's some stuff going on
like this guy, my pillow fellow Lindell is being censored
and attacked. This is interesting. This made back to the
masculine and feminine topic that you want to bring up.
Isaac came up with this years ago, he said very clearly,
and I kind of believe most of what Isaac found
(12:01):
out is like one of the most intelligent psychologists that
ever lived. And he said, there's no difference in aggression
between the two political groups, none at all. There's just
you know, the style style the Progressives the liberals. It's
not liberal. I don't want to use the term liberal
because I don't think the progressives are still liberal. I'm
(12:22):
with h they have totally. They are not accepting enough
to be considered liberal. The Libertarians are liberal. We're liberal.
We accept everybody if they're not violating the rights of
somebody else. But the progressives do not. Let me tell you,
I'm in a nest of progressives and they are totally intolerant.
(12:43):
But Isaac said that the left is absolutely as aggressive
as the right, except they are indirect. And you see
that now you know the cancel culture, which is killed
the messenger. That's an attack on an individual because of
their beliefs. I mean, I hope people get that that's
an attack economically, physically, whatever, on an individual because they
(13:08):
believe differently than you. I was thinking, are we in
America still with that shit? And people tolerating that shit
and participating in it. Now, I have boycotted some actors' films,
so I am probably a little bit prone to it.
Like everybody else.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
It affects me.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
I get affected.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
But then I think, if these people get really outspoken,
I mean really outspoken, extreme, I can't think of an
extreme conservative, but I'm sure knowing them personally, when extreme
conservative turns me.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Off to well, I can't excuse my own boycotting. Here's
how the learning environment works. When I see him boycott
a guy like mich Lindell, who that guy has one
life story that's amazing. I mean, he was like a
skid row. He's like a marketing genius. But I have
to say I bought his pillows. Those are some fine
(14:07):
pillows and they come in the cute little they're rolled
up and you can wash them and put them in
your dry I mean, that guy is a genius entrepreneur. Okay,
So he's like pro Trump because he's like a Christian
and he follows God, and I believe he says that
God and Christ saved him from his life. And you
(14:29):
know he's come from the pits. He's an American story,
and they like boycotting him. I'm thinking, well, number one,
if you want to boycott him, you haven't tried his pillow.
Pill It's fabulous. It's the best pillow I've ever owned.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
I'm conflicted about well, actors who use their platform to
express their opinion. But even Lindell, who's using his platform,
his advertising platform, press his political opinion, I'm conflicted about that.
I think these people are outside of their role. You know,
they're in a business. They're in a business, and they
(15:09):
are acting outside of their business when they.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I don't know how I feel about it.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
No, that's free speech, and I don't.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
It is free speech, and I don't. It may not
be wise of them to do that, but we don't
make any rules in this country that you have a
certain role you're not allowed to speak freely about something.
And I would never Oh.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
And I'm not suy to do own such a I'm
not saying that. But I really admire Dolly Parton. She's
got it straet. She does not express her politically.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
I see your point.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
You know, she has her business model straight. She's an
actress and a singer and entertainer, and she does not
deviate from that, and I admire it.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Yeah, And it's exceptional. You know, you don't seen too
many people who are in fact. Right now, you and
I are deviating, aren't we sort of we're using our
credentials to say that we know something other people don't know,
and the people should be listening to us.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
I Guesse. You could argue that, but neither of us
is famous. Don't you can talk for him.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
We could talk forever about you know, what's appropriate and
what's inappropriate. You know, like LPA, the psychologist in Louisiana,
they made a statement during the Black Lives Matter protest
in the murder of George Floyd. You know, my own
view of that was that was negligent homicide. But I
haven't seen the facts, but I'm thinking that wasn't homicide.
(16:34):
That was negligent homicide. That guy was an idiot to
put his knee on that man's neck that long.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
He was like a fool.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
But anyway, that's my own personal opinion, and it's not
it's an opinion. It's not based on any particular facts
except the video that I saw. All through those protests,
LPA put out a statement and said we object to
racism in any form, and blah blah, blah and understand
the feelings of the protesters. Well, LPA didn't put out
(17:04):
any support for the protesters for the election, which they
considered fraud and also a crime. I mean not as
a dig as that, but you know, groups and individuals
take stands, they take stands, and.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I would say that LPA should have been sticking with
their overall Absolutely professionals.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Advanced psychology as a science and as a profession. I mean,
there you go, I agree with you on that. Likely
how does that advance psychology as a science and a profession.
That's a political statement, that's right.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
So I really disagree with lpaight and making a political statement.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Now, I, on the other hand, put out a I
meaning the Psychology Times part of me put out an
article on could police psychology help? My thought is this
is a matter of select testing. That guy should not
have been allowed the power of being a policeman. That's
the hugest responsibility of power. And he had some complaints
(18:10):
against him already. And he also should have been trained
because I think George Floyd might have been mentally incapacitated.
There were some problems with the gentleman, you know, that
they should know about and I know police psychologists who
work in this area who have tremendous skill to apply
(18:30):
to this. And by the way, that department in that article,
that department had cut their selection testing.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
But your point is there was a role for ycology
confession on that issue, but it was not to make
a feel good political statement. It was to make a scientific.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Well yeah, that's their mission. But as many human groups do,
they forget their mission and they de fault to their religion.
And your religion is your belief and your worldviews, like
what's good, what's bad, what's good, what's evil, what's you know,
that's the religious aspect, which is kind of chaotic right
(19:14):
now in our country. People don't have a good religion.
A lot of people don't have a good religion, so
they have a political religion. But anyway, so wrapping up, so, yes,
this has to do with being directed more by the
feminine principle.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
The specifically the negative feminine.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Well no, I'm not saying that, but let me just
say that, you know, the collective unconscious would be where
the negative expresses itself. If you use the analogy of
the individual, you know the shadow is in the unconscious,
So it does appear to me that the feminine principle
is kind of directing the country, and the awareness to
(19:54):
the shadow is gone. Right now, you can't get as
much to an individual as we just had for four
years without having a shadow element, to the collective.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Unconscious and tell us what you mean by shadow.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
The dark side, the unconscious, the unconscious, the unknown, the
split off. What I find with a lot of the
progressive is they split off their aggressive side and deny it.
And when you do that, then you are vulnerable to
projecting it somebody else.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Oh okay, you're assuming the other person is the one
who's being.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yeah, you see it. It becomes activated at the unconscious level.
It's very interesting phenomena, which is proven by the way
there's you think like that's a bunch of psychobabble, it's
actually not psycho babble. It's actually proven that you split
it off and suppress it into the unconscious. This is
how it works to individual level. You suppress it into
(20:53):
the unconscious, and it's actually activated at the unconscious level.
And so because it's activated, you tend to see it
in others. Because you can't see it in yourself, then
you see it in others. And therefore that's how projection works. Well,
some of these friends of mine spit nails just hearing
(21:14):
are seeing an image of Donald Trump. It's almost like
beyond you know, it is very psychological. I mean, it's
not reasonable. It's not reasonable. They're hatred for a person
they don't even know. They don't even know, they only
know the persona. He has an interesting persona, and you know,
I have to indn'mit that and you could definitely dislike
(21:36):
some of his characteristics.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Okay, so how would you like to conclude this topic.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Let's just say that we're in a learning situation and
eighty eight percent of us are disgruntled and disappointed and
open minded to information, and so more information flow. It'd
be a good thing.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
You're saying eighty eight percent is inviting debate, that that's
what that really means.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Well, I don't know if they're inviting debate. That's more complicated.
But I think it's a great poet that said it
is God's rule that he who learns must suffer. So
we're suffering and we're learning. We are learning. I don't
know about everybody else, but I'm learning time.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
This was a rebroadcast of an earlier episode
This is a rebroadcast of an earlier episode. You're listening
to the podcast Coffee with Mike and Julie Libertarians Talk Psychology.
This is current commentary from an NBA businessman and a
PhD psychologist.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
So, in thinking about the country, my view of it
is we're in a feminine principle dominates right now. I
was talking to somebody about when we were in the
masculine principle, and I thought, I think we were talking
about this. But one of the reasons I think Donald
Trump was so projected to is because he's like uber masculine.
(00:39):
You know, he's got it in spades, what they call
narcissism and egotism, egoism. You know, it's just a lot
of masculine bs. But you know, it's like that doesn't
bother me. But anyway, what we are in is in
a feminine cycle. The collective is in a feminine cycle.
So I saw the Gallup pole, eighty eight percent of
(01:00):
the population of this of the United States. Things suck
the countries. I don't know what they ask I didn't
see what the questions were, but eighty eight percent. In psychology,
anything in social psychology that gets to eighty eight percent
is like a monstrosity number.
Speaker 3 (01:18):
Was like, oh my god, definitely significant, definitely.
Speaker 2 (01:22):
So what you got is you got the largest majority
of both sides think everything is catastrophic. So thinking about this,
I thought about what I wanted to throw out today
for us to talk about is the feminine. When an
organization or a company, or a group or a country
is led by the feminine, what you get is a
suppression of conflict, because the feminine is where you put
(01:47):
a characteristic like conflict avoidant. Did your mother ever say
if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.
Did you ever hear that?
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Oh, I've heard it. I don't remember my.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
Mother used to say it. It's like, I guess it
really worked for her. It actually did not work for her.
It actually does not work. But it is coming from
the feminine principle that harmony is more important than debate.
So you get this feminine principle, and I think it's
also you know, my hypothesis is also like Jack Dorsey,
he's gone over the top now with you. The Twitter
(02:20):
CEO also read where all the billionaires are making out
like thieves from the pandemic. Oh yeah, like Jack Dorsey's
net worth went up like twenty five billion dollars. You know,
that's another thing we can talk about, is what it
means for these billionaires to profit from the suffering of others.
I don't know, you'd think that that would be on
(02:42):
someone's mind, but in any case, he's doubling down on
his censorship. Here's the idea from psychology, and this has
been around a long time. One study that I like
to cite. I don't even know what year this is,
but this this way back where they studied well.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
I just wanted to ask if you're going to get
into the positive and negative feminine and positive and negative masculine, because.
Speaker 2 (03:05):
That's that's something you're interested in.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Well, especially the way you're couching this.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Well, you know we can Yeah, I'm gonna throw this out.
I'm gonna throw these two studies out, which I think
are fascinating and do relate to this, and then we
can talk about cultures. This is a study on conflict cultures.
Let me just make this short because I tend to
go on and on when I get into this research.
They measured people's feelings and behavior and across the boards.
(03:35):
It wasn't an individual variable. It was an organizational variable.
So they were looking at it from the organizational level,
collaborative dominating and avoidant conflict. And they studied a number
of characteristics. But the bottom line is the collaborative culture
(03:55):
much much better on all measures of validity, safety climate,
distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, learning orientation, and performance orientation. Actually,
the performance orientation, I mean, this is very interesting, was
a lot less. But learning was correlated at point sixty four,
(04:20):
which is kind of off the chart kind of correlation.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
But you're not just saying correlation, are you're saying the
quality of the decision making.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
Well, that's not a variable. Quality of the decision making
is not a variable they studied, but you could certainly
relate it to learning. A learning orientation absolutely relates to
quality of decision making. They didn't study quality of decision
making particularly, they studied performance orientation climate. So I don't
(04:49):
want to dig too deeply into all of this. I mean,
you can read the study at Jefflin, Leslie Keller, and
Doug Drew. It's in Journal of Applied Psychology. I don't
really have that right now, Okay, But to not belabor this,
the dominating culture safety negative point five seven correlation. In
(05:13):
other words, dominating cultures don't really work except a little
bit on performance. So that's the authoritarian style. That's the
dominating authoritarian no talking about anything. But what's interesting is
the conflict. Avoidant cultures also had negative correlations to validity data.
(05:34):
The validity meaning the characteristics we want to see in
a organization with good teamwork. We want to see a
safety climate, we want to see a justice climate, we
want to see a learning orientation. Well, they found negative
relationship to safety, justice, and this is avoidant. So this
is censorship, the no talk rule. Let's don't discuss it,
(05:58):
let's don't debate it. Learning orientation was the highest negative correlation, So.
Speaker 3 (06:04):
It's not about.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
A learning a learning orientation climate. So the avoidant culture.
You'd think avoidant culture would not impact learning, but it
does impact learning. You're frowning, So.
Speaker 3 (06:20):
Well, I just have to ask. I'm confused about the study.
It sounds like this correlation is somehow some measure of
how well each of these styles works.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
Okay, you correlate the predictor variable to the validity criterion. Okay,
so and so shows you the relationship between the two.
Speaker 3 (06:41):
Yeah, okay, so it's some measure of how well these
things work. And so my big question is how do
they measure when you have cooperation? I mean I can
see dominance and I can see avoidance, but how.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Do they You're questioning what their measures were.
Speaker 3 (06:57):
I'm curious for myself, if I were to get a
group of people, how would we ever know that we
have a decision that is collaborative collaborative.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Well that's a very good point because, for instance, I've
been in groups. I mean, you're kind of a collaborative
manager in your style. I've been told that I'm extremely collaborative,
and I measured it with one I measured myself with
one instrument conflicts style measurement and found out, yeah, I
(07:28):
am collaborative. And then my next style is if someone's
not collaborating with me, I'm competitive. I'm going to make
this available somehow to people to because everyone that's in management,
or in a leadership role or in life needs to
know their style. This is a blind spot people have.
But I found out I didn't do any avoiding. You
(07:48):
remember this in the results, said you need to use
avoiding more. I mean, avoiding is an important style to
use with conflicts sometimes just avoid it. And I thought, oh, okay,
that gets into overfunctioning under functioning. So we have a
lot of psychology here. I don't know if I'm answering
your question, but let me tell you one more study
(08:09):
before we go on. And this is a cute report
in the Heath's book, Chip and Dan Heath's book. So
they reported where Nancy Lowry and David Johnson studied a
bunch of kids and they were looking at conflict styles. Basically,
they had two groups and they facilitated one to seek
agreement and harmony, and they facilitated the other to debate
(08:33):
and have conflict. And so they found that the kids
that were facilitated to debate were much more interested in
the topic, and that the ones that were in agreement
were less interested and less likely to visit the library
to get additional information. But here's the fun thing, here's
(08:54):
the most telling thing. Then they asked the kids if
they wanted to forego their recess and come watch a
film about what the topic that they had worked on.
Only eighteen percent of the agreement kids left their recess
to come see the film, while forty five nearly half
of all the kids in the debate group sacrificed their
(09:17):
own recess time to come watch a film about the topic.
So it's extremely motivating and people are curious when they
get into this learning mode. And this study was across
the board on the learning environment zero point six y'
four relationship with the collaborative conflict solution climates a negative
(09:39):
point five seven to the dominating and a negative point
three to two to the avoidant. So what you get
with this censorship and this avoiding debate?
Speaker 3 (09:51):
I'm sorry, but the collaborative and debate are really the
same thing.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
Yes, okay, So yes, in a dominating culture, there's no debate,
there's the king decides.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
Yeah, and those in avoiding there's no debate, So debate
you get collaboration. Yeah, okay. I think that helps answer
my question from before about how do I know I
have a collaborative discussion? And the answer is.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
Get in a lively debate. When you get in a
lively debate. So the point here is we're in and
we can go back to feminine masculine here, but we're
in a culture right now and the censorship is coming
from the left political group is to shut down the
debate That's what it looks to me like the censorship
is for is to shut down all disagreement. Well, when
(10:43):
you do that, you severely restrict your learning culture. But
with eighty eight percent of the population being dissatisfied, I
think to the degree of being totally royally pissed off
with both sides, I mean, I'll get eighty eight percent
of a sample without having both sides royally pissed off.
(11:05):
That that's actually a good thing if we have debate,
if we have logical, reasoned analysis and debate. So it's
not so bad that eighty eight percent are upset. It's
a good thing because as a country, we learn through suffering.
We're suffering, and we're all engaged like these kids, We're
(11:28):
watching every source of information. We're curious as to how
this is supposed to work out.
Speaker 3 (11:33):
I even so, what you're saying is that dissatisfaction may
trigger debate, Well.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
It will trigger debate. It's there's some stuff going on
like this guy, my pillow fellow Lindell is being censored
and attacked. This is interesting. This made back to the
masculine and feminine topic that you want to bring up.
Isaac came up with this years ago, he said very clearly,
and I kind of believe most of what Isaac found
(12:01):
out is like one of the most intelligent psychologists that
ever lived. And he said, there's no difference in aggression
between the two political groups, none at all. There's just
you know, the style style the Progressives the liberals. It's
not liberal. I don't want to use the term liberal
because I don't think the progressives are still liberal. I'm
(12:22):
with h they have totally. They are not accepting enough
to be considered liberal. The Libertarians are liberal. We're liberal.
We accept everybody if they're not violating the rights of
somebody else. But the progressives do not. Let me tell you,
I'm in a nest of progressives and they are totally intolerant.
(12:43):
But Isaac said that the left is absolutely as aggressive
as the right, except they are indirect. And you see
that now you know the cancel culture, which is killed
the messenger. That's an attack on an individual because of
their beliefs. I mean, I hope people get that that's
an attack economically, physically, whatever, on an individual because they
(13:08):
believe differently than you. I was thinking, are we in
America still with that shit? And people tolerating that shit
and participating in it. Now, I have boycotted some actors' films,
so I am probably a little bit prone to it.
Like everybody else.
Speaker 3 (13:28):
It affects me.
Speaker 2 (13:30):
I get affected.
Speaker 3 (13:31):
But then I think, if these people get really outspoken,
I mean really outspoken, extreme, I can't think of an
extreme conservative, but I'm sure knowing them personally, when extreme
conservative turns me.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
Off to well, I can't excuse my own boycotting. Here's
how the learning environment works. When I see him boycott
a guy like mich Lindell, who that guy has one
life story that's amazing. I mean, he was like a
skid row. He's like a marketing genius. But I have
to say I bought his pillows. Those are some fine
(14:07):
pillows and they come in the cute little they're rolled
up and you can wash them and put them in
your dry I mean, that guy is a genius entrepreneur. Okay,
So he's like pro Trump because he's like a Christian
and he follows God, and I believe he says that
God and Christ saved him from his life. And you
(14:29):
know he's come from the pits. He's an American story,
and they like boycotting him. I'm thinking, well, number one,
if you want to boycott him, you haven't tried his pillow.
Pill It's fabulous. It's the best pillow I've ever owned.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
I'm conflicted about well, actors who use their platform to
express their opinion. But even Lindell, who's using his platform,
his advertising platform, press his political opinion, I'm conflicted about that.
I think these people are outside of their role. You know,
they're in a business. They're in a business, and they
(15:09):
are acting outside of their business when they.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
I don't know how I feel about it.
Speaker 3 (15:14):
No, that's free speech, and I don't.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
It is free speech, and I don't. It may not
be wise of them to do that, but we don't
make any rules in this country that you have a
certain role you're not allowed to speak freely about something.
And I would never Oh.
Speaker 3 (15:29):
And I'm not suy to do own such a I'm
not saying that. But I really admire Dolly Parton. She's
got it straet. She does not express her politically.
Speaker 2 (15:38):
I see your point.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
You know, she has her business model straight. She's an
actress and a singer and entertainer, and she does not
deviate from that, and I admire it.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Yeah, And it's exceptional. You know, you don't seen too
many people who are in fact. Right now, you and
I are deviating, aren't we sort of we're using our
credentials to say that we know something other people don't know,
and the people should be listening to us.
Speaker 3 (16:05):
I Guesse. You could argue that, but neither of us
is famous. Don't you can talk for him.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
We could talk forever about you know, what's appropriate and
what's inappropriate. You know, like LPA, the psychologist in Louisiana,
they made a statement during the Black Lives Matter protest
in the murder of George Floyd. You know, my own
view of that was that was negligent homicide. But I
haven't seen the facts, but I'm thinking that wasn't homicide.
(16:34):
That was negligent homicide. That guy was an idiot to
put his knee on that man's neck that long.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
He was like a fool.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
But anyway, that's my own personal opinion, and it's not
it's an opinion. It's not based on any particular facts
except the video that I saw. All through those protests,
LPA put out a statement and said we object to
racism in any form, and blah blah, blah and understand
the feelings of the protesters. Well, LPA didn't put out
(17:04):
any support for the protesters for the election, which they
considered fraud and also a crime. I mean not as
a dig as that, but you know, groups and individuals
take stands, they take stands, and.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
I would say that LPA should have been sticking with
their overall Absolutely professionals.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
Advanced psychology as a science and as a profession. I mean,
there you go, I agree with you on that. Likely
how does that advance psychology as a science and a profession.
That's a political statement, that's right.
Speaker 3 (17:42):
So I really disagree with lpaight and making a political statement.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
Now, I, on the other hand, put out a I
meaning the Psychology Times part of me put out an
article on could police psychology help? My thought is this
is a matter of select testing. That guy should not
have been allowed the power of being a policeman. That's
the hugest responsibility of power. And he had some complaints
(18:10):
against him already. And he also should have been trained
because I think George Floyd might have been mentally incapacitated.
There were some problems with the gentleman, you know, that
they should know about and I know police psychologists who
work in this area who have tremendous skill to apply
(18:30):
to this. And by the way, that department in that article,
that department had cut their selection testing.
Speaker 3 (18:39):
But your point is there was a role for ycology
confession on that issue, but it was not to make
a feel good political statement. It was to make a scientific.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
Well yeah, that's their mission. But as many human groups do,
they forget their mission and they de fault to their religion.
And your religion is your belief and your worldviews, like
what's good, what's bad, what's good, what's evil, what's you know,
that's the religious aspect, which is kind of chaotic right
(19:14):
now in our country. People don't have a good religion.
A lot of people don't have a good religion, so
they have a political religion. But anyway, so wrapping up, so, yes,
this has to do with being directed more by the
feminine principle.
Speaker 3 (19:28):
The specifically the negative feminine.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Well no, I'm not saying that, but let me just
say that, you know, the collective unconscious would be where
the negative expresses itself. If you use the analogy of
the individual, you know the shadow is in the unconscious,
So it does appear to me that the feminine principle
is kind of directing the country, and the awareness to
(19:54):
the shadow is gone. Right now, you can't get as
much to an individual as we just had for four
years without having a shadow element, to the collective.
Speaker 3 (20:08):
Unconscious and tell us what you mean by shadow.
Speaker 2 (20:10):
The dark side, the unconscious, the unconscious, the unknown, the
split off. What I find with a lot of the
progressive is they split off their aggressive side and deny it.
And when you do that, then you are vulnerable to
projecting it somebody else.
Speaker 3 (20:28):
Oh okay, you're assuming the other person is the one
who's being.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
Yeah, you see it. It becomes activated at the unconscious level.
It's very interesting phenomena, which is proven by the way
there's you think like that's a bunch of psychobabble, it's
actually not psycho babble. It's actually proven that you split
it off and suppress it into the unconscious. This is
how it works to individual level. You suppress it into
(20:53):
the unconscious, and it's actually activated at the unconscious level.
And so because it's activated, you tend to see it
in others. Because you can't see it in yourself, then
you see it in others. And therefore that's how projection works. Well,
some of these friends of mine spit nails just hearing
(21:14):
are seeing an image of Donald Trump. It's almost like
beyond you know, it is very psychological. I mean, it's
not reasonable. It's not reasonable. They're hatred for a person
they don't even know. They don't even know, they only
know the persona. He has an interesting persona, and you know,
I have to indn'mit that and you could definitely dislike
(21:36):
some of his characteristics.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Okay, so how would you like to conclude this topic.
Speaker 2 (21:40):
Let's just say that we're in a learning situation and
eighty eight percent of us are disgruntled and disappointed and
open minded to information, and so more information flow. It'd
be a good thing.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
You're saying eighty eight percent is inviting debate, that that's
what that really means.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Well, I don't know if they're inviting debate. That's more complicated.
But I think it's a great poet that said it
is God's rule that he who learns must suffer. So
we're suffering and we're learning. We are learning. I don't
know about everybody else, but I'm learning time.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
This was a rebroadcast of an earlier episode
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
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