L.O.G. 167 Self Inflicted Cognitive Dissonance

Alright, well, good morning, Greg. For this week's episode, we're going to talk about something we talk about a lot, but we haven't really used the term "cognitive dissonance" much. We talk about everything that has to do with it, but we're going to get into it. I'm going to define it a little bit and give some examples and talk about perception and how it changes things. There's a whole bunch of different issues we're going to jump in, all surrounding this theme. So, you know, we talk about sensemaking and problem-solving. Well, we've got to understand the capabilities and limitations of how that works, literally at a physiological level with our eye and brain sometimes, and then what that means for how we approach different subjects.

The idea, real quick, I'll kind of give a quick definition of some of this stuff. Cognitive dissonance is, basically, just when any of your beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by some new information. So, it could be your beliefs or assumptions, your values suddenly get contradicted by something else that you learn, and then that creates some physiological and psychological arousal. You kind of have a little unease, a little tension, "Wait a minute!"

So, what you'll do to kind of get rid of that feeling is you might reject some of that information, you might explain it away or avoid that information, or kind of persuade yourself that, "Hey, there really is no conflict. We can reconcile those differences." And so, you see that a lot with different ideological beliefs, Greg, right? So, like your political beliefs, your religious, your social, whatever those are, we can become very entrenched in these beliefs, and then when we get something that kind of contradicts it, we want to explain that away. "Well, that doesn't really fit in here." Right? We have to justify it.

And so, there are different reasons, too, that this cognitive dissonance will happen. And there are some big ones, and I'll hit kind of the textbook sort of... I forgot the guy's name who kind of pioneered some of this research back in the '50s. But, you know, they talk about when you anytime you have new information coming in, is one, obviously, alright, that contradicts your beliefs. When you have some sort of what's called like "forced compliance," where you have to comply in a situation – for what it could be for work or for school, some social situation – you have to wear a uniform, you have to do this, you have to wear a mask, right? You have forced compliance that will create cognitive dissonance. And then, of course, what we talk about a lot is anything having to do with any decision, whether that's a small decision or a large decision, when we're faced with similar choices, we get that little turbidity, we get that dissonance going like, "Wait a minute here, these are kind of similar. Which one should I do?" This is getting uncomfortable, so it creates that tension.

And then some of the biggest influences to this, or what can create it, is one: how attached you are psychologically or emotionally to this belief or to this decision, right? Because, you know, the more attached you are to a belief, the more you don't like that dissonance, right? And you don't want to deal with it. It's easy to reject new and incoming information because you're very set in your ways and your beliefs. That's normal. And then the other thing that influences, sort of, I guess you'd say, the amount or number of those dissonant beliefs, right? So, the more clashing you have with that is the greater that strength of that dissonance is going to be, right? So, it starts to impact it.

So, that's sort of the general definition of what we're talking about. You can add to that. I'll throw it to you in a second here, Greg, but because of that, that so heavily influences our perception, our perspective, how we make decisions, how we rationalize things, and our behavior in general. So, I kind of wanted to get those definitions kind of upfront, Greg. I'm going to pass it to you and then you can add to that or immediately jump in if you'd like.

Yeah, and I appreciate that. The problem with dealing with a yellow pad is when we start this early in the morning and I don't get a new sheet. So, now I've got arrows going everywhere. This is the only time I don't do so, in order to stay organized, Brian. So, yeah, listen, I've got my yellow pad over here with normal note stuff, but I have to do a different white pad for The Human Behavior Podcast because anything when we're on The Human Behavior Podcast goes on the white pad. So, what you just did is you just did your opening, and folks, we're unscripted, and things are in progress. So, as Brian is talking, I'm going, "That's a good point, that's a good point. Let me go back and try to dig through the good points of the stuff that you made."

So, I want to remind everybody that cognitive dissonance can be just a feeling in your mind when something is different. Don't think that cognitive dissonance has to be a set of empirical data, right, lined up, that doesn't have to be specifically codified or defined. For example, Gestalt phenomenon (also known as Gestalt psychology), that we use sometimes in classic the Dallenbach cow (Dallenbach Reification) to show how perspective and your perspective can be pulled, a focus can be pulled. So, if you look at something and it's confusing to your brain, that momentary turmoil or turbidity inside of your brain is dissonance, it's a cognitive dissonance. Your brain is trying to account for it, and it doesn't have a very clean account, and so therefore, it starts creating. So, treating it so specifically today, that Gestalt theory and reification is a big one, where that's the Dallenbach cow. If anyone's familiar with that, but you know, you will establish a pattern, and where it's a bunch of black and white on a paper, you will eventually see a cow standing there in a field when really it's not. But your brain has to make order out of chaos. So, there's too much dissonance there, so we don't like this. Start connecting the dots. Too much order or too much chaos will bring out cognitive dissonance. Does that make sense?

That's a great way to put it.

You get what I'm trying to say? Both sides of that coin I'll hit on. So, this is what I wrote down, too. Even memories will bring that up. I wrote down, you use the term "sensemake." Folks, look, we're very old and very Greek. When we go back to the beginnings of Arcadia, the underpinnings... Let's go back all the way to Aristotle. Aristotle, in my own notes here, Aristotle was about empiricism. Why? Because he thought sense memories were the most important ways to compare things in your environment. So, we get our sensemake from the very oldest and very Greek. And when Aristotle was around, they brought up the theory of Tabula Rasa. What does that mean? That means you've got to come from a clean slate. So, in other words, when we talk in class about, "Imagine a semi-truck wrapped in Tyvek, so it's completely white, and there's your palette. Now, start painting in what you see." We mean to sensemake it, to use your senses, your individual senses. Now, I can have other people on OP (Observation Post), Brian, with brushes and palettes and paint to help me paint in, right? But they're going to have to stand by and be the dozen for their addition because I can't see the world through your eyes, do you see what I'm saying? So, Tabula Rasa means that I have to go back literally to the clean slate, to the white. And I like to use the quote, not that I'm a fan of Ben & Jerry's politics, but I'm a fan of their fat grams. When they were asking about how long they tried to get in the market and how hard their research was, and they say, "What's the most important flavor?" And they always go back to vanilla. Why do they go back to vanilla? Because it's Tabula Rasa. If you can build a good vanilla, then anything you add to that vanilla is going to be concrete, it's going to be wonderful.

So, what you're talking about, and I love the uniformity thing, because, listen, the greatest cultures on the face of the planet Tabula Rasa their decision-making. For example, prayer mats. Okay, prayer mats. It can't be individual and beaded and have all this wonderful stuff on them. Why? Because you're there to pray. You get what I'm saying? You're there for your relationship with Allah. You're not there for all this other stuff. Same thing, living a life of piety, living a life where you don't have a lot of stuff. And we look at nuns or Benedictine orders or whatever. Why are they pushing that stuff out of the way? Because they're saying there's something more important: the rule of law, the rule of religion. Our giving these things up helps me see these things. But Brian, isn't that exactly what we teach the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines on the OP? Listen, take all of this other stuff and create a baseline. Why do we create a baseline, Brian? Because the baseline of vanilla, a baseline is what's normal for an area without turbidity when the dust settles. So, therefore, an anomaly will stick. It'll rise above or it'll fall below. You get where I'm going with that? So, the idea is that we don't want to under- or over-categorize an observation because different perceptions can make me choose something that's nothing. So, in order to have that, here's the issue, and here's why I think we're talking about cognitive dissonance: is getting that baseline, getting that pure vanilla, that's the most important part. That's the most important thing for all comparisons.

But that's where cognitive dissonance comes in, right? Meaning, my own beliefs and thoughts and attitudes and everything I've learned in my life influences how I see that baseline. What that – it influences what vanilla tastes like to me. Because, Greg, you know, a really, really creamy, rich vanilla is different than like a French vanilla bean, right? They're both vanilla, though, right? But they have their differences. And I like that analogy because one, it's ice cream, and we're going to have to eat after the--

Yeah, exactly. And just for people, fact-based data, the difference between fat and fat... fat-based, okay. Both. Yeah, that's hilarious. But the difference is, French vanilla has an egg in it. So, listen, to account for that, and the eggshell is white, Brian. We can— and the mic drop — but we can account for that by saying this: Look, cognitive biases do not help your case. So, I go back to the law. The law has been around forever, okay? When Jesus was walking the face of the planet, when Muhammad, Hammurabi's Code was, okay, there was a lot of – there was – and you know why we have law? Because law levels the playing field. If you're playing on a pool table and the pool table is off, the balls are going to go in the wrong direction and somebody ended up--

You're saying "law," but I mean, really, you're meaning "rules." Because it could be a game, it could be law, science, math. There has to be – there has to be something codified from which we base everything off of. And the more secure that is, the better your law is going to be, and the better your observation and the better your comparison is going to be. And there are deep historical roots, I mean, throughout.

So, people say, "You're exactly right." And people say, "Hey, listen, you know, the law was written by old white people and this and that." No, you've updated the law. We've updated the law every chance that we've gotten, just like we've updated the rule of math and science. Why, folks? Because math gets really screwy when you go way, way, way, way, way out away from gravity and the solar system. Science, Brian, science and specifically physics bends a little bit when it gets way out there. But you know what? It's so consistent right now. It's more consistent than anything else that we have. We can use Mohs scale of hardness to determine different rocks and wares. We can use the periodic table of elements. That's what I'm talking about. I'm talking we have to have something that's codified for comparison.

And that's why, like, for example, the whole start, I think, of this podcast was a debate and argument that I brought up because somebody said, "Well, why can't I wear this in class? Why? You know, why? Why is it distracting to other people? Does it make it harder for me to learn?" And the answer is, "Yes, yes, and no. No, you can't wear whatever you want," okay? Because when you do that, you're distracting yourself from the main mission. The second part and the third part is, you do not have the right to go off script when it's going to impact my gameplay. Do you see what I'm trying to say? So, that's all. It's a simple, simple argument.

No, no. And it's kind of what we're getting into now. And the idea is, because of things like that, you know, this is where heuristics and stereotypes and things come into play. So, if I have – if we can't agree on a set of rules, if we can't agree on some decorum, right? Whatever it is that we've decided here that is going to be how we operate in this environment. If you go off script from that, your own message is going to get – it's going to get missed, right? And the idea is, you go back to, you always give the examples, people always talk about, you know, people used to always wear suits back in the day, and it's like, "Well, they kind of still do." I know we, you know, anything we've ever done for business, I've always had to wear maybe not a tie, but a sport coat and dress pants and a button-down shirt. And what someone will say is, they'll come in and go, "Yeah, but like Greg has an orange shirt on and Brian has a white shirt on, and that guy has a black shirt on him, that guy over there has a gray blazer and yours is navy blue." You know, yeah, but to your brain, it's the exact same thing. So, it's cognitively close enough that we're all wearing this – we're wearing the suit, right? Because of the context, we all decided to dress up and look professional so that, you know, because it's different than having you and I having a conversation on this podcast.

Yep.

Now, the reason, what often gets forgotten about that is, take, you know, I can individualize it, right? Like, I'll do like the little, maybe someone will have like a fancy little pocket square in theirs, or a nice watch, or like, you know, one of those little gold things that go around your tie or something like that. And that's to show your little individualism and show your style, but you're still complying to these social norms for that situation. And part of the reason that's done is so that we can focus on the matter at hand, right? So, now I'm focusing on what you're saying, Greg, not what you're wearing, not your hairstyle, not this.

Now, there's – there's this, you know, always a, "Well, what about individual expression? And what about this?" Yeah, trust me, I'm all for it. I'll – I'm sure I'll share some stories on here the way I used to act and dress in the Marine Corps, which often got me in trouble because I didn't like those norms, right? But the idea is, is there's a purpose and a reason behind it. So, if I have a little bit of cognitive dissonance there, and you're coming at me with some beliefs that I don't really necessarily agree with or I'm not sure about, Greg, or you're challenging my assumptions, I'm fucking lazy, just like every human being on the face of the earth. So, one, I want to – I want to stick to what I know, alright? I'm going to cling to those beliefs I've had my whole life because I know them to be true. It's like, you know, I know that every day, whether I've seen it or not, Greg, every single day of my life the sun has come up and the sun has set. So, that's something that I will cling to as the most important or the most consistent thing, right? So, think about that from a thought structure as well.

Now, if you're challenging me, Greg, and now I don't know how to really respond back, and it's not possible, I will fall back, I will get lazy, and I'll go, "Okay, look at you and your stupid fucking t-shirt, and your hair is a mess, and you didn't take the time to clean up, and you're probably..." So, what I'll start doing is this creep from what you're saying to what you're wearing, and then I'll just throw that into whatever stereotype because it – because maybe – maybe your Slayer t-shirt is a heuristic for me and I don't like that because I got beat up by someone wearing a Slayer t-shirt when I was 14 years old, right? The idea is, is now I get – now I throw you into this category where I now don't even listen to what you say. So, I'm not even actually taking in the information, but I'm – I'm now I have this cognitive dissonance which caused me to make unreasonable assumptions about you, and then that throws everything off course.

But why? Why? Okay, so it's out there. So, let's go back to science for a second. And not that you weren't in science, but let's go back to laser-focused science for a second. One number one rule for you folks out there to understand cognitive biases is that we fear what we don't understand. And fear is a chemical reaction, and fear, the chemical reaction in our brain, changes how we perceive others. Now, if you want to talk about unconscious biases, this is where they start. So, let's talk about bringing one out into the sunlight.

So, Brian and I frequently travel to Saudi Arabia and deal with Saudi Arabia on a weekly basis, okay? One of the things in Saudi Arabia is, everybody dresses exactly alike. Why? So, they can stay on mission. So, nobody's above or below or next to anybody else. That's their way of taking a look at it, and I'm oversimplifying it, folks, right? Understand this: if they want to have specific identity points, they don't have it in your uniform, their clothing, they don't have it in their prayer mat. And they can do whatever they want when they're at home, but the idea is, in public, you level the playing field. So, the one thing that they do differently, Brian, you talked about a pocket square in the United States or in France, for example, if you're a very, you know, ritzy-dressed kind of person – "ritzy," I use that word, I'm so old! – but in KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), what they would do is a pen. You would – you would distinguish yourself from yourself by the pen that was in your pocket. Why? Because it's meaningless to anybody else but an internal, a down-and-in thing. You look and you go, "God, that guy's got a really nice Cross pen." Do you see what I'm trying to say? So, you did the same thing. You said, "We're all wearing the same thing."

Look, I like to stimulate the endorphins in your brain and emote a response by wearing bright colors. It does two things. It does something for me, gives me a dopamine rush when I put on the clothing, and it does something for me when I walk into a room. It displaces the baseline and says, "The boys are back in town. I'm here," okay, Brian? I do that as a choice. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I do that to change my environment willingly and knowingly.

So, I want you to think of stuff like Hoyle (Hoyle's Rules for card games). There are rules in cards that you can't violate or you lose, okay? Especially at a place like Vegas. But also, you know, when you're playing like a Euchre tournament. But there are also things known as "house rules." Everybody right now knows a house rule: "Hey, take your shoes off before you go in." House rule. Or, "Hey, listen, every time you pass by this thing, you kiss your hand and touch the plane before you go." That's a house rule, okay?

The second thing is, I want you to think about a third, actually: hockey and baseball. I've played baseball on a sandlot in Detroit, you know, we used it, you know, where the house was torn down and it was just a construction area. I played hockey on the street, car came on, okay, Brian? What was different from those games than an NHL game on the ice? Well, those differences because of the distance from the blue line, how big the goal crease is. Why do we do that? We do that because it gives everybody the same advantage. That's what the law does. That's what rules do, and that's what vanilla does.

So, whenever I hear somebody try to pipe up like – like, for example, we hear this all the time, folks – and I don't watch television. I watch some movies, not the same type you probably watch, and I certainly don't watch mainstream news, right? I seek out the articles that I need to take a look at, and I balance my opinions based on those articles, and I certainly don't use a cognitive bias and only go to one source, right? And then when I do it, I do my research, research on it. Why do I want to do that? Because I want to make sure that when I go in, I have a knowledge of the topic even if I'm not knowledgeable on that topic. Why? Because somebody pipes up and goes, "Well, that's not fair, this and that." Yeah, well, it's been a law for 217 years. If this is why that law was instituted, Brian, if you don't know what you tend to do is, you tend to challenge all assumptions. I'm not saying, "Don't challenge," right? I'm saying, "Don't challenge all of them." Just like you said, the sun comes up. We stipulate that in the law. If I was in a court, I wouldn't have to say, "Your Honor, it's May 14th and it's 2:30 in the afternoon. We know that because of the Gregorian calendar." Yeah, those things, Brian, that everybody agrees to, we stipulate to, and it allows progress in society.

No, and this is kind of what we're getting into, because, what you just said, you hit a good point right there where you said about questioning the assumption. The question is, "But where are you coming from this?" Yep. So, if you're giving a talk on something, Greg, and you've been studying or doing that for a very long time, I – if I don't – I'm not on an equal playing field with you if I'm in the audience, right? So, if you're the one with the microphone and I'm the one in the audience, we're not on an equal playing field.

I absolutely agree with that. It's a great assessment.

I can – I can ask you questions and I can challenge those things, but I'm not coming from the same place. So, I have to remember that, meaning I'm going, "Okay, well, could you explain what you mean further because I thought this meant that?" That's very different than saying, "Well, you can't say that," or, "That's not true." I just saw one, too, on LinkedIn that I got tagged in on a post where someone says, "Yeah, this whole, you know, 93% of communication is non-verbal. I think that's a bunch of junk." I think it's – it's like, "Okay, well, that number might not be accurate, but it's close, but yes, it is. That's research." But what they – that's the thing is, so that person took the research that someone else did, and not just one person, like a lot of people over decades, and went for decades, "You know what? I don't agree with that. Here's what I think is important. So, therefore, we're on equal part--"

That's the fucking of your sentence, Brian. You understand that? If I'm sniping with you and I disagree with your point of view, even if I haven't researched it, that means we're on a level playing field. That's not true.

That is not true. And it was my response to the person who tagged me, I literally just said, because his second paragraph was actually great because it said, you know, "You should try to, you know, the words what you're saying should match up with what you're acting on your body," which is, "Yeah, absolutely. You want congruence." So, I said, "I agree with the second paragraph because congruence is very important in communication, but pretty much everything we know about human communication counters what this person said in their first paragraph." So, yes, you get to say whatever you want, but I think we do this now because of social media, too, is we just come across as, "Well, I don't agree with that." It's like, "Well, you don't have to. You don't... I don't know, go, and you're go sit back in your corner, play with yourself. The Flat Earth." It's like, "What are you? Worse than that," you know what I'm saying? It's like, "Well, I don't think that's how it is." It's like, "Well, let me try that. Let me address that specific point."

How many times do we know from fact-based data and evidence and artifacts – you know, there's a new term now and I don't remember it where it's "evidence-based policing" or something. Listen, that's always been done. Shut up, you know? Don't start a new thing. Don't create a new word and then find out that it's been around forever, okay? But listen, Brian, in these instances where I hear this, "My daughter could never have killed her own baby. My father could not have killed his entire family," okay? So, what that is, Brian, is that is the electrochemical neurotransmitters in your brain telling you, "I have to cope with this for a longer time than you do because this is a much closer issue." Yes. So, therefore, I'm going to stem the emotional tide by saying, "It's impossible. And there has to be another person. There has to be a Sasquatch or a UFO, Brian. There has to be a bearded ninja that snuck in and killed them. The cops are in on it." So, so those are common responses, but people turn those common responses into a conspiracy theory. How do they say that? Right? "Well, I've heard other people say the same thing. Yeah, well, it must be true, so it must be true." Okay? So, so just the weight of evidence can't – can make that pool table lean to the left and give you an advantage. So, what we do is, we say artifacts and evidence, and then, Brian, guess what? There are rules of evidence. For example, you don't take hearsay. Do you see what I'm trying to say? "Well, I heard that Jim said that Tom was in the right." Okay, that's not evidence. Yeah, you see what I'm saying? And a witness has to be a no-bullshit eyeball witness. He had to feel it, touch it, see it, smell it, and the person's got to have an intellectual accident where their opinion matters.

Well, okay, that's a good point on a number of levels. And as we always say, even if you're an eyeball witness, something – nope, it's horrible, right? But – but here, you bring up a good point to where, let's say, okay, we're in court right now, Greg, and you're testifying on the stand as a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in human rights. And you've been admitted by the court as a – you've been declared a subject matter expert in this. Now, it doesn't matter who calls you, prosecution or defense. You can call in another expert, right? To argue. But if I'm cross-examining you after you say you're – you're testifying for the prosecution, they ask you a bunch of questions, you lay out exactly what it is. I'm the defense attorney. I can come in and say I can object to what you're saying in the line of questioning, not on your expertise. I can't object to that. I can object to, "How is this relevant to this specific case?" So, so I can sit there and say, "Yeah, that's great. That might be everything coming out of your mouth is true, but here's why that doesn't pertain to this." Now, that's codified in a court of law. There are rules and procedures on what you can and cannot do. It's very different than just public discourse. It's very different than an open discussion where I can say, "Well, no, I don't agree with that," and you're going, "Well, but this is inherently true," or, "This is subjectively true," which is – you could get into a whole, you know, discussion on the meaning of what that is. But the idea about questioning that is, I can say, "That's great. How does this pertain to situation A or B?" But I have to take you on the merits of what you say, you get what I'm saying? So, that's a – that's very different than what we see in a place that has no rules or it's an open forum.

Here again, you just illustrated the essence of what we're talking about. So, a police officer, his testimony is taken no more than the testimony of anybody else in that courtroom, right? That's huge because that says we don't have our thumb on the scale just because I'm carrying a badge. Because even the law understands that there are good and bad 7-Eleven clerks, there are good and bad librarians, there are good and bad cops, okay? A Subject Matter Expert. It's not like voir dire, Brian, where we're picking a juror. You bring in a Subject Matter Expert, everything that person's done and where he's gone and everything else is brought before the court. And you don't have to stipulate to him. If you're a prosecution SME, the defense can tear you apart on the stand, and then the judge has to be the arbiter of fact and go, "Yeah, okay, we'll swear him in as a Subject Matter Expert." And guess what, Brian? For every court, guess what we have? We have an appellate court where we can appeal the decision all the way up to what? The Supreme Court of the United States. Our legal system has a series of checks and balances to make sure that the law was equally applied in your case. But we still get people that say, "Listen, the fix was in from the beginning," right? "Because of my religion, the color of my skin, the shirt that I wore, this and then the other," and they will have you believe that, Brian, there is the only case that matters, and everybody else throughout history planned to screw them so that when their case came up, do you get what I'm trying to say? Everything's aligned against them. Come on.

Yeah. Is that likely? That's my thing, you know, I deal in likelihood. Is it more likely that the law is there to protect you and even the playing field, or is it more likely that the law is there to keep this secret triumvirate, Brian, in power, in power, control Wall Street?

Yeah, and anyone who's been around anyone in any position of power should just immediately come to the realization, it's like, "Wow, these are just a bunch of fucking people trying to figure fucking out too, huh?"

They're wearing 16-ounce gloves in the dark.

But I don't believe in the Stonecutters.

Yeah, of course. Yeah, exactly, exactly. So, so you brought up a couple things. One, you said, you know, "We fear what we don't understand." We talk about that all the time. And I think that is such a deep psychological and sociological imperative, right? Meaning, it's so hardwired in us to fear and be wary of things that we don't fully understand because that's a survival mechanism. That's why if we weren't that way, there would be no more human beings, right? Someone would have gone, "Wow, that snake looks friendly, let's go pet it," and they would have died, right?

The idea, "Or I don't believe that you tell me that snake venom is dangerous, so I'm going to go prove it for myself." You're exactly right.

But this comes back to the kind of like the ultimate question, and I guess the ultimate, but my ultimate goal in life or path, which there really is no, it's not an achievable or attainable one, but you can get close, is, "How do we get the most pure vanilla?" Meaning, how do – how do that – and this is a – this is a discussion. This isn't a specific answer. But the whole point of this is, we're talking about establishing a baseline or figuring out what's going on. I have to start somewhere, and where I start is the most important place because I need the purest signal there. Because if I – if I focus solely on what that pure signal is, that pure vanilla, like the Ben & Jerry's, I want to make the greatest tasting vanilla ever because whatever I add on top of that is just going to complement it, it's going to go well, and it's going to be there. So, yeah, I have this base. So, that's the whole concept of what we talk about is, "How do I figure out that?" Because then any anomalies, anything that stands outside of that, will be so glaringly obvious because I have this pure signal. But we often start with anomalies. We start, "Well, that's weird." "Why is that weird?" "Well, I think it's because of this." It's like, "Whoa, hang on, Hannah. How do we get back to painting that – that picture? How do we get that clear Tabula Rasa? What do I have to clear off of that in order to bring this painting?"

So, I would say this. I would say, first, grab your yellow pad, turn it on a rectangle. Draw a line through the center that's sort of like a left to right, like we would do for left a bang, right a bang, and end bang. Okay? So, now you have a continuum. Let's call it. I would also say that to the right side of that, put a little check box and put, "You are here." So, Brian, what you're asking us to challenge in our assumptions today is to put our finger along that line and move to the left from that "You are here" point, and say, "We agree with blank information all the way up to this point, but at this point, things become suspect." So, I'm going to re-do that math problem until I get it right. I'm going to try to see the evidence for myself. That's great because that's the scientific method.

So, let's give you just two examples. One, a local one here, Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Folks, if you ever want to come to the most beautiful place on Earth, come to Colorado, come to the Western Slope, come to Gunnison and play around. Everything in an hour in a circle that you draw around here is the most amazing thing you've ever seen. So, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, huge, deep, beautiful canyon, filled with wildlife and fish and everything else, started as a drop of water, Brian. The drop of water turned into a stream. The stream cut for millions of years until it created this beautiful anomaly. It's an anomaly, nonetheless. It's rarer in the world, but it has precedent: Royal Gorge, Black Canyon of the Gunnison, gosh darn, what's the one that people go to all the time in Arizona? The Grand Canyon. Okay, things like that, right? So, now that we have those, we have sort of a base as we're going left. But now, take a look with the Black Canyon of the Gunnison exposed, Brian, and what you'll see is these striations, and each one of those like the rings on a tree or years or decades or hundreds of years or thousands of years. Now, as you go through that, Brian, it looks like layers of paper. They're all even. Every single one of them is uniform.

Yeah, pretty.

Yeah, until what? Until you get to something that's anomalous. And now, Brian, if you separate those sheets of paper and peer inside like a geologist, now you see there was a huge storm or an asteroid hit the earth or comets or earthquakes, fire, or something. Yeah, so, Brian, I'm saying that for every inch that you go left on this continuum, you have to understand that there are anomalies that come above and below normal. Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Right. And so you're telling me, and I'm paraphrasing, Brian, folks, you're telling me to question those assumptions where the anomalous behavior is so outlandish or so outside what would be expected. Okay, and that's where your starting point is. I completely agree. Some people have done the work for us, so we go back to that point and we take a look at it.

Here's where I get weird statistics. You can buy statistics or manipulate them to show whatever else you want. Yes. But when it's something like your point, and I didn't see it on LinkedIn, but when you talk about the person saying, "Most language is non-verbal." Well, first of all, the simplest argument for that person is that babies can't talk, so babies must be using something they can't tell their mom, "I'm hungry." Okay? So, so there's – and there's probably a couple babies born every year, Brian. Yeah, so I would assume, you get what I'm trying to say? Now, if you're going to talk to me about those statistics, I will – what? I will stipulate to that. But if you're putting your finger on the scale, or if you're manipulating data in any way, I cast the doubt and I say, "Go to Tabula Rasa and start over."

So, anytime that we've got a situation where it's a political appointee to a judge's position, I get skeptical. Why? Because, Brian, are you telling me that you're not paying back, "You gave me the Ambassador to Turkey, and I'm not going to pay you back?" So, that's where I call bullshit. And you don't – you don't see that--

That's a great example, the appointment of judges, because it's just – it's part of our legal system and how it works, right? And so what's great is like, you know, you see these, obviously like Supreme Court decisions that fall along ideological lines, right? But not on all of them. What I love is when you see a Supreme Court decision where it's unanimous. Why? Because they can go, "Okay, well, in here, this is so glaringly obvious that no matter where you're sitting, this violates the Constitution or this upholds whatever, whichever way it is." Those are great. But then when it gets to that little bit of cognitive dissonance comes in there, Greg, and we start doing, "Oh, wait, this is challenging. This is really challenging what my beliefs are of this court system." And then the other justice or judge is going, "Well, this is challenging," and you have two different opinions on the same case.

Well, that's – that's everything in a nutshell. I mean, that's human life.

It is. That's – that's emotion and how we process information, and there's no such thing as being purely logical. Even a mathematician is illogical. But the idea is that that's – that's where the kind of – that's where, well, I – I call, that's where the beauty lies in human – in the human condition, right? That's where we get everything from. That's where art comes from.

We're not saying, "Being a robot, being at home," right? But we're not saying that everybody in the world has to be vanilla. We're saying that when we come to a discussion point, when we come to a debate, when we come to making a decision on buying a used car or who I might date or who I might not, if we go back to Tabula Rasa and we yellow-pad it, we're likely to come up with the right decision. Now, what I mean by that is, we've got to weigh things equally. For example, if we start taking a look and saying, "I'm rich, you're poor," okay, now we're in Hollywood and we're trying to make a movie script. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Because what are they going to say? Do you remember the hooker with the heart of gold that was a cop for 30 years? They never saw the hooker with the heart of gold. I saw the hooker with the, you know, scabies and the crabs, and she was cross-addicted and codependent. So, my thing is, let's deal in fact-based data, do you get what I'm trying to say? And not muddy the water with ridiculous other crap. So, when people come in and they say, "My brother, sister, uncle couldn't have done this," or when they say, "That's not fair to this specific group of people," look, the law and the rules were drafted to be equal to everybody. And therefore, your obligation is to be that everybody when you come in. So, well, the mind--

Right. So, when you're listening – so, that's it's like the same thing when we talk about body language, one of the things I always tell people is, you know, "Start becoming more aware of your own, and you'll get really good at reading others." And I think this is a great example of two of what we talk about. So, you know, that cognitive dissonance, Greg, if I have a message or I have something I want to send, I want to send the purest signal possible because I don't want that muddied. I don't want you to take it the wrong way. It's why I don't post a lot on social media because I'm more cautious or careful because I don't want it to fall off the rails. I want that – that – I want to be clear. I want my intent to be clear, what I'm saying to be clear. So, I always tell people is to reduce or attempt to reduce sort of that – that cognitive dissonance is – is you have to do it for yourself first, right? Meaning, "How do I make sure that what I'm going to do and say is heard in the manner and understood in the manner for which I say it?" Now, there's always going to be someone in the room that's like, "Well, you meant that shit to that person." And don't pay attention. We've got to stop paying attention to those people, and we've got to – we've got to just kick him out of society.

But there's your social media. There's your, "Right. Everyone gets the noise." The problem with when everyone gets a say is that nobody gets a say.

Well, this is – this goes into the next thing of, you know, "What barriers to entry are not a bad thing." They can be a really good--

Absolutely.

--if they're – if those barriers are constructed with the right intent and for the right reason. So, you know, disqualifying you to get into this program makes this program better because we have criteria that must be met, and you didn't meet that criteria, so you're going to slow down.

As long as that criteria is what, Brian? Based on merit, logical, and reasonable, and scientific merit. You gotta be able to lift 60 pounds like, because there are certain things, look, if you can't lift 60 pounds, you can't be in the club.

No, and what I'm trying – there are certain ones, and what happens is when we – now those can be used – so a perfect example are military units. Like, I'll – yeah, I will. My general opinion is, any unit, any military unit, anyone, I don't care what it is, what their job is, that has some sort of selection process, whatever, that's like a physical thing over days or weeks, whether that's, "I'm just going to review your past and decide." Anyone with a selection process is likely going to be a higher functioning unit with better people. And that's just across the board. And so, the problem with creating barriers for entry is, they can be used incorrectly. They can be used to keep people out that you don't want based on some ideological perspective, not – not based on what their performance is. I always see that when someone goes like, "Oh, they're not a real Marine." I go, "Did they fucking pass boot camp? They're a fucking Marine. Shut up!" Like, "They met the standard. Did they meet or exceed the standard?" Then, "Sorry, if you don't like that, go change the standard," right? Or, "They're not a real, you know, whatever." "They're not," because now you've created a new standard that they fall short of. That's not allowed. That's fucking, you know what I mean? "They're not a real American." Like, "What the fuck does that mean, you fucking?" Like, "What the hell?" So, so the idea is, is we – that that can get used incorrectly, but those are necessary for a reason, right? They're necessary to – to – we need categories for people, right? We need to fit into certain elements so that--

Boy, you're going to try not to be nice here.

Well, they're – they're necessary.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Yeah, I'm saying you're absolutely right, but you know why you're treading on thin ice? Because you're going to hurt some people's sensibilities that approach this emotion-based rather than logic-based.

Yeah, no, no. And that – that's true, which everything is, morning. You have everything is to a certain point, some more than others, based with emotion as well. But, you know, we have to understand where we fit in, and that's – that's difficult sometimes, too. I've had the door slammed in my face before. I said, "Dude, you don't – you don't need to be here. You've got to get out of the room." Okay, it's kind of a shitty feeling where you're like, "Jeez, I thought it was..." "No, man, like, you're not there yet. Sorry." That sucks. But then you go, "Yeah, you know what? You're right. I really wasn't there." Or, "You know what? Yeah, you – you made the rules so I don't get to come in." I – and I think if it's the – the point of some of this is, when we get into different types of expression and criticism and opinions, we all get to do it, we all get to have it. That doesn't mean it's worth a damn. And you see this so – so many times, you know, it's like anything. I – I would listen to Elon Musk's thoughts on space exploration and electric vehicle manufacturing. Well, why? Because, well, that's what he's been doing for a really long time. I don't give a damn about what his opinion on what he thinks free speech is because, you know, like, it's not really. I – I would rather talk to a--

Are you talking confirmation--

--well, I would rather talk to someone who studies and teaches constitutional law than – than – than him. But we don't do that. We have those fundamental attribution errors. "I like what he says, so therefore he must be good." This is where it gets into it. And hold on, let me throw one at you, Brian. So, to be suspect, folks, don't gloss over what Brian just said. He said he goes to Elon Musk for Elon Musk's strong suit. He doesn't go to Elon Musk and go, "What brand of shoe do you wear?" Because that has a bearing on your decision.

Yeah, exactly.

Second thing is, be suspect immediately if anybody throws the Dunning-Kruger Effect down. The idea is two things: one, they're over-using it or misapplying it, and two, they don't – that's the pop psychology one. Now, there's a new one, but it'll change in six months. The idea, and look, we're not trying to insult you, we're trying to insult your intellect. The idea is, you have to take a minute. You just came out and explicitly stated what you have to do is, you have to back up for a minute and you have to go back. That's one of the experiments you have to do.

Brian, for example, what you were talking about. How many times have we seen the Feds in any manifestation go back to a burglar or a serial killer or a master lock picker and say, "Hey, we need to – to know how it's done." Brian, first of all, that's rare as hen's teeth because it almost never pays dividends. I'll tell you one caper out of all the times that I've been studying, folks, and I'm not – I'm nobody, but I got a 50-year advantage on many people on research. One thing was the guy, I don't even remember his name, that was played by Leo DiCaprio.

Yeah.

That's it, in the film, Frank Abagnale Jr. (from Catch Me If You Can), that did all the passport forgeries and all that other stuff. That's a perfect example because that guy was so full of shit. Yes. And he got caught over and over and over and over again. Do you understand what I'm saying? But you take a look at like when they talked to (the) Green River (Killer) and they said, "Hey, you know, can you tell us how you chose the victims and everything?" Brian, when it comes to pathology and when it comes to psychopathy, there are groups of things, and once you identify that this is a precursor, it's like any other thing in the world, then you like heart disease, Brian. There are different forms of heart disease, first of all, that most people don't understand that it's not all just one. So, like congestive heart failure is different from some other issues. So, they all meet categories. So, when you come in and you go, "Oh, Dunning-Kruger, like Dunning-Kruger means you don't know the shit you're talking about, so you're confused by somebody else's point." What I'm trying to say is, do even the most basic points of research, and then you can come into the room and sit down and have a logical discussion. If you bring your emotions, "This doesn't feel right. This is wrong because it disenfranchises me and I'm different than everybody else in the room," then – then, you know what, Brian, you've got to take a step back. That's my thing.

I just get – I when I feel like – like you said it about the mic, go a little deeper with that mic thing. We teach a lot, and we run into snipers once in a while. And this – the sniper doesn't like the fact that we're teaching the course, and it's like, "Okay, so you're disagreeing with my science?" And it's like, "Well, no, okay. So, you're disagreeing with that I'm younger than you and I've got further in life than you?" Yes. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Right? So, kiss my ass. And I can prove that. What's the number one question that we get, comment-wise? We always get, "Well, I want to be you. How do I get to be you?" "Because it looks like you've got the world solved." Well, you know what? We don't have the world--

No.

--No, we've got a laser focus on three questions that we can answer with a great deal out of the 8 billion questions that linger out there in the world. We know three of them.

You know, no, and then there's a difference between what we're talking about on here and what we do in class or what we teach your class. And teach is, it's very, very, very, very laser-focused and specific, minute after minute, day after day. And we don't – we don't step outside of that without saying something to that effect of, "Okay, you're getting into an area, we can have that discussion after class, maybe if we have time, but we teach it from this way and this is why," and I don't because we're experts in this one--

Well, yeah, and yeah, "Hey, you're getting to the limit of something, and we're going to stay over here. We'll talk later." Which is different than what we do in The Human Behavior Podcast because right now, obviously, we just get on and go, "Hey, you ready?"

Yeah, but let's see, that's what people expect from us on a podcast.

Ryan, listen, when we talk, we talk topical. When we laser focus, we warn people that we're going to deep dive. You know, I'll give you a perfect example of that. There was a horrific school shooting overnight. We're not ready to talk about it.

Yeah, we have to--

Because the idea is that we don't know enough to render an opinion. So, anybody right now that's rendering opinion on that doesn't – I mean, even if you were catastrophically at the scene and avoided death or injury or something and saw a part of it, you don't know enough to start commenting about it. Brian, it takes time, and the gift of time and distance allows us to change our opinion when science comes in and demonstrates that the artifacts and evidence weigh more here, meaning they're weighted more, not by sheer weight, but by their, you know, "Hey, this person was an expert that was at the scene that calculated these things." We stipulate to it. So, let's not go into knee-jerk reactions and gut feelings on things. Let's take an extra day or week, right, and educate ourselves and then say, "Okay, we know this, we'll be willing to speak on those topics." So, when somebody comes up and goes, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" "Okay, I just told you what I fucking really think. I – I think we need to wait it out." So, so the topics that we're talking about are sometimes people coming to the table and throwing their belly up against the bar, Brian, and chipping in their two cents when they weren't wanted, when they weren't warranted, and when their two cents don't value as much as your two cents. It's like a Colombian Peso to a U.S. Dollar.

Yeah, and then there are all of these different factors that we've discussed that kind of go into – you know, go into corrupting the way we look at the situation. And, you know, it was about kind of what we first started talking about is – is that there are societal norms that maybe aren't rules, but they're somewhat expected. And the problem with that is that that could be a gray area. And so, if we're in here, I – I there are a couple examples that – that came to mind. One was the – there's a guy, I forget his name (Chris Smalls, Amazon union leader). He's trying to start a union for Amazon employees. And like, I read something that he wrote and I listened to him interviewed one time, and I'm like, "Man, this guy's – he's – this guy's – this guy's good, man." Like, "Holy cow!" Like, he – he's very – what he wanted to do and the points he was trying to make were very well articulated to even someone like me who knew nothing about the work conditions at Amazon, very little about labor laws or anything. I went, "Okay, this guy's making a compelling argument." And then he – I think he got called to testify, and then he went testifying (in) Congress or DC somewhere, I don't remember what the specific if it was a committee or wherever. And he didn't put on like a suit and tie, like he was just wearing like a ball cap and t-shirt. And people kind of got in this discussion, which I think, rightly so, it's like, and people were like, "Hey, my man, dude, what are you doing, man? Like, you've got to look the part. You've got to do this because that's what's normal for there. Someone's going to throw you into this – this stereotype that you don't belong in, and simply by the way you're dressed." And that's it's – it's powerful because it's important. Powerful because we all do that. I mean, that goes back to even – you know, it's like, you can go back when – when Nixon and Kennedy were debating, and everyone who listened to the debate over the radio said, "Wow, Nixon mopped the floor with Kennedy." Anyone who watched it, everyone went, "That was Kennedy," because he was so comfortable, and he looked good, and he was eloquent. And like, you know, Nixon's pouring sweat and just, you know, having a hard time because he's – he's so in the moment. But like, those two perspectives are huge, and I think those are – those are important to have. If you're going to throw out any type of societal or social norm in those situations, then you are opening yourself to that criticism. You are – you are muddying the waters of your message. And so, it's your responsibility. And does that take a little bit extra time and effort? Yeah, it does. It's called attention to detail.

Like, so, so let me throw something in to counterpoint what you just said, and it'll be based on my personal worldview. So, the two crimes that I think are the most reprehensible, worst crimes in the world, are burglary and contempt of court. After burglary would be rape. And the reason is, for the burglary is your house is your castle, it's your home, it's your protected area, and nobody should come in without you alone. And to do that – and the same thing with your womb, or your – if you're a male or female that's been raped, I get it. But burglary. Now, why contempt of court? Because the court is a special thing. When you come before the court, the reason there's a bar between you and the judge, the reason that there's a table between the attorneys and the bar, before the jury is because we must respect the judge, the law, the jury, and the process. And so, if our intent is to disrupt that in any manner, it should be quashed, it should be destroyed. And so, it's the same thing with if there's anything that says that you can come into my house without a warrant, or people say, "Yeah, but they stopped your car." Car's a different thing, man. Car's a mobile thing. You've got a course of rules, don't even start with me, okay? So, so the same thing. If you're sitting at your park bench at the park eating barbecue with your family, you don't enjoy the same rights. So, so don't – don't get me if I hooked on that. But I think what we're saying is, those areas are things that we've stipulated to that are different than other areas. So, I don't care where you live, and I think that if you live in a box under a freeway, that's your house, and you've got this protection. It's been ruled – it's been ruled out in New York City. There was a case where someone was living on the street in a box, and then, I can't remember what happened, but that was violated. They considered it that person's domicile.

Moved their home for less food.

But they had to establish it too, Brian. Do you see what I'm trying to say? It wasn't just the thing that, "Hey, listen, the cops are chasing me, so I see a Maytag washer box, I'm going to jump in." Yeah, exactly. But the idea there, Brian, is the same. The idea is that, listen, kids play better ball when you buy them uniforms. Martial artists perform better, even at white belts, when you buy them--

Yeah.

--because there's an identity, and whether that's a physiological or a sociological identity, it comes with that. So, so the idea of being civil, and the idea of not speaking over time. It's different again on a podcast. We're opinionated, we know we only got an hour. We're both apex predators, so we're constantly vying for that. We don't do it because of ego. The ego never enters into our discussions, and that's a really good thing because what do we do, Brian? We even have rules for conduct.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That allows us to get to the central point of the fucking argument. And whether they're explicit or implicit, you know, I mean, there's certain – there are, you know, rules to – to that, to debate, to, not just debate, but actually conversation, right? You have to be willing – I – if we're going to have an honest conversation, you have to accept the fact that I may say something that will offend you or that I'm wrong about, or that I'm just curious and it may be inappropriate, but otherwise we can't have an honest conversation.

But you know this, we can't make progress on that conversation. That – that, too, is the second point. That's what dropped. Because we can't go forward in society. We can't get past these rough patches unless we agree to stipulate to certain things that, "Look, mistakes were made." If I stipulate to that, "Hey, look, and in civil rights, mistakes were made," okay? And I mean that for all civil rights, okay? So, in religious persecution, mistakes were made. When we were in World War II, we treated Japanese Americans poorly, Brian. Let's stipulate to that because without stipulating to that and moving forward, we're never going to make progress. If we continue to go back every time like this is a dichotomous relationship, people go back and they go, "The argument you're using is from 1858," unless that argument helps you, and then you start quoting it, right? When it comes to these legal, at least, ruled discussions, then we have to have some – well, there's a (Marquess of) Queensberry Rules, how you box, how you drive, yeah, rules in everything they do.

Well, and and especially that, and there's historical, you know, foundations in a lot of what we do that we just forget or people don't know where that came from. And it's like we want to throw it out. But, you know, you – you – you did mention ego getting in the way, and we talk about that in the sense of, you know, all humans, we have your descriptions always, it's a fragile ego system, right? We all do, some more than others, but every single person does in some way. And, you know, that – that's a big one. It reminds me of the – talk about everything that we've talked about this episode, reminds me of, do you remember being out at the Infantry Immersive Trainer on Camp Pendleton when Dr. Tony Tether, the then-head of DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), came out? Big smart guy.

He's still with DARPA, is he? Oh, yeah. But he's just in a different division now. I saw his name the other day looking through some stuff, and it's amazing.

But absolutely. So, he was that – I think he was kind of head of the event at the time. He was the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, which is, you just look them up, they've done every cool thing that the United States or the military or anything is invented, started with a project at them. They fund research and they build stuff. Everything from satellites, the GPS stuff, that was all DARPA. That was all stuff. The internet was basically created by them originally. But the – the idea is, you know, so you've got this guy comes out to Camp Pendleton, and you fat scientist guy, brilliant guy, you know what I mean? And he wears – he puts on the Marine Desert Digi-camouflage uniform. And there were a lot of Marines getting all butt-hurt and pissed off going, "He doesn't have the right to wear those! What is he? He looks like a slob! He's not a Marine! You can't wear that!" And they just completely missed the point of what he was doing. What he was literally trying to do was take that perspective. Okay, "If I'm going to be a Marine, and I'm going to go through this thing, and I'm going to look at it through the lenses of DARPA and what we're trying to do, how do I do that?" He didn't say this out loud, but that's what he did. He said, "Alright, I'm going to put that on, and I'm going to go through and I want to feel these senses and I want to see what that Marine sees." It was literally him trying to get as much perspective as he possibly could because those little things, like, he's going to find out, "Well, this uniform gets really annoying after a while," or, "It chafes here." "Now I understand why this affects me." Like, that's all part of taking that perspective. And it was – the point was very much missed by a lot of people, but I thought it was a brilliant thing because something so simple and almost goofy-looking because of how he was--

So, let me propose you – first of all, he's lost a lot of weight. Brilliant guy, I totally agree with you. And at first, it was a stark reminder of how geniuses think.

Oh, yeah.

He's brilliant. Do me a comparison. So, why would you protect Dr. Tony Tether, a genius and his decision, and why would you vilify somebody that did the – the, you know, wearing the – the false, you know, Purple Heart? Again, stolen valor. That's the term that I was searching for. What – what was the difference there, Brian? How – how do you see that intent different?

Well, the intent was different. Yeah, that's the key.

So, the key is that if your intention is to come and disrupt the way we think by carrying a sign, a name in your band like, like the anti-Putin Pussy Riot, my favorite band. Yeah, go for it. You've been fans?

I have been. Yeah, you know that.

And so, every time they poke Putin in the eye, I – I absolutely go crazy over them because that – and they were willing to do the jail time. Oh, yeah. They were evocative and provocative. Why? Because they wanted to make a difference. And so, I give them all the leeway in the world, absolutely. I'm sitting on a bus next to a person that's got the purple mohawk and the chain face, and I look and I smile, I go, "Hey, can I have my picture taken with you?" Why? "Because I – I need to, you know, talk about this in class." "Why?" "Man, I'm just showing how different I am." I go, "Different from that guy, that guy, and that guy. They're all on the same bus." You know, Brian, sometimes people want to be – they want to create cognitive confusion because that's the only way that they can get your attention, but that doesn't mean they have a perspective that's more valid than somebody else. I'm telling you, I would look at Tether's choice and go, "I get it." Do you see what I'm trying to say?

Oh, big. And I love that you chose intent is the difference, because, you know, and that's what I always tell people on here, too, about the social media stuff, is because there's so much communication out there, you know, we – you almost feel compelled to say something about everything that's fucking going on, and you don't have to, right? But everyone said, "Well, I just want to say that," you know, "People have been asking me." It's like – like, people kept asking us about the Buffalo shooter. I said, "I don't want to talk about it." And then I ended up on the last episode because I was angry that kept coming out. But the – the idea is, you know, is – is, "What – what is your intent?" And I think that gets lost because I don't think people – because we're just mimicking each other and getting involved in these things that everyone else is doing, so we're commenting on social media, we're sharing this and doing that. We don't even realize how far off we've gotten with some of the things that we're doing. We don't even know why we're on transmit anymore. Like, people I've – I have people that have commented some stupid comment on a social media post, making like, "Hey, what was your intent with this comment?" And they can't fucking answer why, because it was just shouting out in the void.

And everyone gets – well, every once in a while, you get someone who's honest. I said, one guy was like, "Ah, look, man, normally I love your content. I'm just a troll." He's like, "I'm just bored at home. It's the middle of the night, and you know what? I'm sorry." I was like, "Oh, okay. I can – I can deal with you. I like you."

How many of you built their platform on a platitude of somebody else's work or word mostly? Stop that for a minute, okay? Every once in a while, I evoke or invoke something that I like that somebody else said. It's rare as hen's teeth, okay? And it's probably something really, really old that you're misattributing to the person that you think said it. So, so for example, the – the Australian general, Brian, "The standard that you walk by is the standard that you accept." I'll never forget that. I'll use that all the time because that's amazing. But I didn't build my life and my career on somebody else's words, and I didn't try to say, "Well, that is close enough for me that I'm going to plug it in."

The – the guy that came up to us, the Special Forces guy with the vintage Jesus that was chasing me down the street waving that book at me because I said Allah and Vishnu and Islam and many of the Abrahamic religions are virtually identical when you pull back some of the things and how they dress. And he lost his fucking mind because there was what? Cognitive dissonance, right? Where we started. It challenged his assumptions, and he was unwilling, Brian, to accept that things might happen. We have a good friend that's unwilling to accept certain things because they have a strong set of opinions and values. Let's not let that get in between our friendship. You know what I'm trying to say? That doesn't mean I – I raise my kids differently. Doesn't mean it's wrong. I dress differently. Doesn't mean it's wrong. You see what I'm trying to say? But that's not where we're coming from. We're coming from is if your intent is disruptive, yeah, okay, then, well, I'm the wrong--

I think there are a lot of people that never even put any thought into what their intent was. They're just simply going through their life reacting to everything, and everything's an outrage or a moral outrage or a fire.

Eight billion chances of it every time somebody writes something on social media. Yeah, I don't know. I think not a lot – not a lot of thought has been put into it. The problem is that it has an actual effect, it has a net effect after all. But not the Dunning-Kruger Effect that you want to invoke at every instance.

No, but think about that, that is true, right? Listen, words matter. So, you go on social media and you're one eight-billionth of the world, and you wrote two sentences, but what you don't understand is, you just crushed somebody to their soul, intentionally or unintentionally. And if your intent was that you did it because it made you feel better, then you're a fucking human and you've got to reign it in. Do you get what I'm trying to say? So, so I just have a real hard time. That's why I don't do social media, Brian, because I've got enough things. Look at the size of my fucking head. Do you get what I'm trying to say? I'm an overlarge person. I have no fashion sense, all that other stuff. So, people could tear me up. But you want something? Come get some. Come sit with me at a table and discuss an issue. Do you see what I'm saying, Brian?

Yeah.

And why do I say that? Because I want to equalize it. That's why some people like to listen to a podcast, and some people like to still see us.

Yeah, no, it's – it's a – it's a good point. Kind of not fun – not fun to think of all the time. We talked about a lot. It's always hard wrapping up some of the stuff because we kind of – we jumped around between the perception and orientation and stereotypes and individual expression and cognitive dissonance and barriers to entry and a whole bunch of--

400 more hours outside those topics.

Yeah, it is. And I just think it's one of those, you know, I – I try to be – I – I try to be as – as open or – or accepting or lenient about what people say as – as possible. Now, that changes when it comes to what people do, right? That's it. That's a clear line. Like, I – I if I were to compare myself to the average person, whatever that means, I feel like I'm – I'm very much open to more ideas, thoughts, or what your words are. Like, I'm not easily offended. But – but when it – if I were to compare myself to that average person about someone's behavior, what they do, I – I guarantee there's I'm very less forgiving on that because there's--

I could testify to that. I travel with you.

Well, right. It's it – like, you could say whatever you want, but when it comes down to what you're going to do, that's it's clear guidelines of what's acceptable and what isn't. And I'm not going to tolerate that. And I think that it's a good distinction, too, with – with how much lives are done virtually over social media. I guess I don't know, sometimes I think sometimes I think of just those sites like went down for a week, you know, I – I think we'd have like everyone would realize that they'd be – they're – they're probably a lot better off than they were missing anything. Yeah, I don't know, though. But, yeah, any – any other kind of – kind of final thoughts that we – we – we did cover a lot, and I – I think we'll probably jump into a few more of these things for the – on the Patreon side and folks.

Yeah, yeah, I agree. We have some video breakdown stuff we do on our Patreon site. We have other kind of stuff that we don't talk about on here that's – more examples kind of on that side. You can always check the link. And we want you to pay something, you know, it helps us so we don't have – for free, so we don't have to – to get any sponsorship. We don't have to – we don't have to stop every five minutes, "Go, brought to you by Volvo," or whatever, whatever, whatever.

Greg would get us sponsored by, it would be something like, something that has to do with my butt cream, if you know what I'm trying to say.

Yeah, so – so right now, it's Metamucil. Can you imagine that? Oh, I swear to God. I – I can show you the bottle of Metamucil, and it's a powdered form. Yeah, it's like hideous. And they say, "Yeah, you can't tell you if you want to know what it's like taking Metamucil, take a bite of beach sand and try to wash it down with room-temperature water." So, but I need it, Brian. Sounds amazing.

It's amazing. I've got that to look forward to when I get off this call. Perfect. None of that Ben & Jerry's waiting in the freezer for you. Any – yeah, any – any final things, Greg, you want to wrap with? I'll throw to you.

No, no, I – I tell you what, we started with cognitive dissonance, we started with perspective, and I would tell everybody the gift of time and distance doesn't just mean distance from a mine or a bomb or a sniper. The gift of time and distance means that my opinion might be better 45 minutes from now or tomorrow. So, that knee-jerk reaction that I do when I hit Instagram or YouWho – yeah, whatever that crap is – maybe I should reign that in once in a while. Because, yeah, you have the absolute right to say it under the First Amendment, but now it's going to be recorded and played back at your trial. And just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Yeah, I absolutely agree. Great point. So, thanks everyone for tuning in. Please reach out to us with any questions, The Human Behavior Podcast@gmail.com, or any other ideas for episodes or topics you want us to cover. Please send us that stuff. We – I respond to everyone. If we get real busy, it might take me a few days, but I eventually get back to everyone. So, thank you so much for tuning in. We – we hope you appreciate the show, and if you did, please, please share it with your friends. And don't forget that training changes behavior.