0:00

An interesting conversation

0:02

today with author academic Kurt

0:04

Gray from the University of

0:06

North Carolina. Our topic is

0:09

his new book, Outraged. Why

0:11

we fight about morality and

0:13

politics and how to find

0:15

common ground. This is a

0:17

tough conversation for me because

0:19

it's tough for me to

0:22

find common ground. And maybe

0:24

I really don't want to

0:26

find common ground with... some

0:28

issues of morality that violate

0:30

my morality. So that can

0:33

make a conversation like this

0:35

with a gentleman like Kurt

0:37

who is trying to keep

0:39

things somewhat down the middle.

0:41

I probably made it a

0:43

little bit difficult for him.

0:46

But it's up to you,

0:48

the audience, to give it

0:50

a listen and let me

0:52

know what you think. Without

0:54

any further delay, let's jump

0:56

right into my conversation with

0:59

Kurt. Gray. I hope you

1:01

enjoy. You open your book

1:03

with this line. You open

1:05

your book with this line,

1:07

People Today are Divided. And

1:09

of course, with a little

1:12

setup I just gave you,

1:14

you might be thinking, well,

1:16

like I might be thinking

1:18

already, who are these people.

1:20

I think for America, you're

1:22

probably going to be going

1:25

to left and right, Democrat,

1:27

Republican, but let me let

1:29

you define, people are divided.

1:31

That's an interesting way to

1:33

start a book. You're right,

1:35

that it's left and right.

1:38

You're right that I'm thinking

1:40

of America, but I think

1:42

many people have less empathy

1:44

and less kind of compassion

1:46

for folks who disagree with

1:48

them when it comes to

1:51

politics. I think part of

1:53

that is because people have

1:55

been pushed, not only ideologically

1:57

ideologically, towards some extremes, but

1:59

also that effectively our feelings or

2:02

emotions are much colder towards people

2:04

who disagree with us. We even

2:06

see those who disagree with us

2:08

less. We interact with them less. We

2:10

don't see them at little league games,

2:12

right? And restaurants, and we don't

2:14

date them. And so increasingly we're

2:16

kind of clustered into these echo

2:18

chambers, as the word been used,

2:21

but really kind of neighborhoods in

2:23

our minds that are pushed far

2:25

away from those who think something

2:27

different than us. If we are talking left

2:29

and right in America, can you define

2:32

for me left and right in America

2:34

today? Whenever anyone has kind of

2:36

like some polyside background, they're

2:38

thinking about like ideology and

2:40

like what does it mean to

2:42

be liberal or conservative or progressive?

2:45

When I think of left and right

2:47

in America, I don't think

2:49

that those ideological positions are

2:51

necessarily well defined or traditionally

2:54

defined. I think it basically comes down

2:56

to red versus blue. to who you voted

2:58

for. It's more of a kind of

3:00

like cultural identification. Are you

3:03

a Prius driver or a truck

3:05

driver with an American flag with a

3:07

black stripe out of it? It's like

3:09

those kind of like ethos is in

3:12

a sense that were divided about not

3:14

strict kind of ideology. You've

3:16

obviously put a lot of time

3:18

into thinking about these issues.

3:20

I feel comfortable pushing you and

3:23

pressing you, going through your book,

3:25

from my perspective, attempted

3:27

to... keep things balanced. I think most

3:29

people if they were going through your

3:31

work, they'd feel like, well, I feel like

3:34

this author is talking to both sides. But

3:36

I guess the reason I wanted to start

3:38

with this left and right, and I

3:40

was actually speaking of the

3:42

ideology, I was speaking who, specifically,

3:44

who are left and right in

3:46

America today? Because I find there

3:48

are very different groups of people,

3:51

very different groups of culture, very

3:53

different races. And I find sometimes

3:55

if we just keep saying left and

3:58

right, we obscure the fact that... we're

4:00

just talking about very different groups

4:02

of people. Whereas, I happen to

4:04

be in a country right now

4:06

where, yes, there are some different

4:08

racial groups in Vietnam that are

4:10

on the perimeter, but by and

4:12

large, everyone in Vietnam is Vietnamese,

4:14

everyone in Thailand is Thai, everyone

4:16

in Japan is Japanese. It's a

4:18

very homogenous part of the world

4:20

right now, so America is not

4:22

homogenous. You're right that the left

4:24

versus right fault line is consistent

4:26

with lots of other fault lines

4:28

that you mentioned. Although gender is

4:30

fairly evenly distributed across this divide,

4:33

if you dig down deeper, there's

4:35

much more similarity, right? Kind of

4:37

like superficial disagreement, and as you

4:39

say, I try to be balanced,

4:41

and I try to be an

4:43

optimist when I look at kind

4:45

of what's in common between people

4:47

in America who maybe vote differently.

4:49

Most of the things that we

4:51

really care about we have in

4:53

common, and so I try to

4:55

focus on that deeper kind of

4:57

psychological... similarity between everyone rather than

4:59

saying, right, like, Democrats have more

5:01

black people than Republicans. But at

5:03

the end of the day, we're

5:05

all kind of concerned about the

5:07

same thing, and so the book's

5:10

in attempt to get at what

5:12

are we concerned about. In my

5:14

life, the red versus blue, I

5:16

have friends and family who are

5:18

bows. They're mostly white people, my

5:20

progressive college professor friends. But you

5:22

could call them liberal elites, coastal

5:24

elites sometimes, derisibly called that in

5:26

the media. But then I've got

5:28

family from Nebraska in the kind

5:30

of heartland of America. They vote

5:32

very differently. At the same time,

5:34

it's very easy to hang out

5:36

with all of them, and they

5:38

all care about much, much more

5:40

than politics. My cousin Nebraska just

5:42

got a refinished old Corvette. He

5:44

drove around in it. But he's

5:46

like 20-something. He's trying to figure

5:49

out his career, right? Republicans in

5:51

America. And likewise, I've got friends

5:53

who are progressive here that don't

5:55

follow the tropes as well. So

5:57

I think we need to see

5:59

kind of maybe beyond those tropes

6:01

of left right and think about.

6:03

about the kind of people who

6:05

are trying to understand the other

6:07

side. Do you think that's what

6:09

people are trying to do today?

6:11

Trying to understand the other side?

6:13

I think many people are trying

6:15

to understand the other side. There

6:17

are people who are not trying

6:19

to understand. The book is written

6:21

for people who are trying to

6:23

understand. For people who are maybe

6:26

exhausted with all the rhetoric, upset

6:28

with the conflict entrepreneurs, this term

6:30

from Amanda Ripley that I really

6:32

like. people in the elite in

6:34

the media and politicians who can

6:36

profit off of stoking division. When

6:38

I give talks, when I meet

6:40

with folks, they are trying to

6:42

reestablish relationships with people who voted

6:44

differently in their family, or just

6:46

trying to understand how America can

6:48

come back together. So not everyone

6:50

is trying to bridge and to

6:52

connect, but I think many are,

6:54

and this is for them. It's

6:56

really important at this outset because

6:58

ultimately I know where we're going

7:00

to end up having a conversation

7:02

about morality right and wrong in

7:05

people's different perceptions of morality and

7:07

how that perception of harm can

7:09

be terribly important. But I guess

7:11

for me, it's quite interesting here.

7:13

I'm talking to you, a professor

7:15

at UNC. I have a nephew

7:17

at UVA, so I have some

7:19

experience with just understanding a little

7:21

bit about the ACC and growing

7:23

up in that area. And I

7:25

would guess that the vast majority

7:27

of universities today are populated, whether

7:29

it's professor or administration, by generally

7:31

one side. Is that a fair

7:33

assessment? I think it's a fair

7:35

assessment. If you look at probably

7:37

who votes in a lot of

7:39

universities on the East Coast, many

7:42

of those folks are relatively more

7:44

progressive. If you think of like

7:46

New England and you're like, oh,

7:48

those like Ivy elites are generally

7:50

progressive, well, New England is generally

7:52

progressive. So I. I think the

7:54

trend is not as extreme as

7:56

the media often makes it out

7:58

to be. And I think there

8:00

are lots of folks within, let's

8:02

say, University of North Carolina, who

8:04

are centrist or even conservative. And

8:06

I'm on email list with folks

8:08

that think more broadly. It is

8:10

probably fair to say, though, that

8:12

there is a notable bias in

8:14

education. For example, if we were

8:16

to discuss something like a DEA

8:18

program, that's going to be very...

8:21

well installed across universities and colleges

8:23

across America. And that would definitely

8:25

be something that would be that

8:27

one side of this debate would

8:29

be like, if I'm going to

8:31

listen to the good professors that

8:33

have done all the homework and

8:35

done all the research, that you

8:37

sometimes want to feel like, well,

8:39

hold on. Are we on a

8:41

neutral playing field? Progressive states with

8:43

big universities, things like DEA are

8:45

well installed. UNC, like no longer

8:47

really has DEA, because we have

8:49

a Republican legislature and board of

8:51

kind of governors. I think the

8:53

picture is more nuanced, but I

8:55

think it is true that students

8:58

at universities typically are more progressive

9:00

than perhaps their parents, especially if

9:02

they draw from the broader state.

9:04

I'm in my mid-fifties, and there

9:06

was the conversations and the politics

9:08

that gets discussed today, and this

9:10

ultimately gets into this notion of

9:12

morality and different perceptions and morality.

9:14

What to me feels like has

9:16

been introduced in the last, let's

9:18

say decade especially? feels like a

9:20

whole new morality, a whole new

9:22

debate in argument to be had,

9:24

which makes this whole conversation even

9:26

more interesting because if there was

9:28

a left-right morality conversation, let's say

9:30

in the 80s, even somewhere in

9:32

the 90s, it probably be very

9:34

different than today, don't you think?

9:37

Yeah, it's changing for sure, right?

9:39

The point I made earlier, it's

9:41

not clear whether there are these

9:43

lasting ideologies between the left and

9:45

the right. like Trump being elected

9:47

with this idea of tariffs, right?

9:49

That kind of protectionist economic stance

9:51

is very different. from NAFTA back

9:53

in the day. Abortion still the

9:55

same debate from the 80s. So

9:57

that's still relevant. I think law

9:59

and order, crime, I think that's

10:01

still relevant in immigration. So I

10:03

think a lot of the issues

10:05

have remained the same over the

10:07

past few decades, even if the

10:09

kind of populist bent is maybe

10:11

something new. We use the word

10:14

gender. Gender is definitely new as

10:16

a debate. Yeah, although feminist debates

10:18

were certainly pretty big deal back

10:20

in the day. I think like

10:22

Dolly Parton working nine to five,

10:24

right? This is maybe the echo

10:26

of that, but I think the

10:28

kind of maybe second way of

10:30

feminist back when in the 80s

10:32

were certainly like pushing boundaries and

10:34

like women should be in these

10:36

clubs and there shouldn't be these

10:38

male only things. I don't know

10:40

if there's anything new under the

10:42

sun in some sense, right? It's

10:44

kind of like this general. argument

10:46

or navigation of kind of like

10:48

power and equality in society, we

10:50

can talk about these kind of

10:53

perceptions of harm, right? I think

10:55

that's what underlies the kind of

10:57

left-right difference that we're talking about.

10:59

Like how much are these kind

11:01

of disadvantaged or marginalized or relatively

11:03

less powerful communities kind of like

11:05

gaining on these more powerful demographics?

11:07

I mean that varies by perception

11:09

and by the group you're in

11:11

and how much should they be

11:13

gaining on those demographics, right? There's

11:15

still the same kind of through

11:17

lines running through society as there

11:19

has been for maybe hundreds of

11:21

years. Where do you perceive morality

11:23

comes from for the left and

11:25

the right in America today? I

11:27

think morality comes from the same

11:30

place for everyone or kind of

11:32

moral intuitions and those who've been

11:34

given by evolution for the past

11:36

millions of years. and fine-tuned by

11:38

our societies. Clearly liberals at conservatives

11:40

disagree about a number of specific

11:42

issues. I think I want to

11:44

make sure we don't overestimate how

11:46

much we disagree. If you opened

11:48

up a book of law, we

11:50

would agree left and right on

11:52

basically. 99% of every law. Where

11:54

we're disagreeing are really fine trade-offs

11:56

where it's legitimate to argue on

11:58

each side of these issues. Each

12:00

side would argue that their side

12:02

is more legitimate, that's fine, that's

12:04

what morality is all about, you

12:06

should feel convicted about your own

12:09

side, you should feel strong. If

12:11

you've got people into a room

12:13

and calm them down, they would

12:15

be willing to say, well, folks

12:17

on the other side of that

12:19

position... There's something to that, I

12:21

can understand that. We're actually not

12:23

as divided as you think, and

12:25

the research plays that out, right?

12:27

We way overestimate how much we

12:29

actually disagree and how much we're

12:31

actually divided than we are, especially

12:33

psychologically in terms of like our

12:35

core moral beliefs. Those elections are

12:37

pretty telling, though. The voting is

12:39

pretty telling it. But at the

12:41

end of the day, it does

12:43

say something when America elects, for

12:46

example, a president or a particular

12:48

senator for their state or whatnot.

12:50

It does say something, especially at

12:52

the presidential level. To me, it

12:54

speaks to a tremendous divide. As

12:56

you say, there's certainly this like

12:58

cultural divide that there's a different

13:00

perception of the world. Should America

13:02

be moving forward? Should it be

13:04

making it great again? But that's

13:06

baked into the very idea of

13:08

conservatism, which is looking to the

13:10

past in a sense in our

13:12

traditions, and progressivism, which is kind

13:14

of looking to the future and

13:16

kind of like leaving some of

13:18

those things behind. There is a

13:20

divide, but I think in terms

13:22

of everyday people, I'm not sure

13:25

how coherent those ideologies necessarily are,

13:27

as much as we each got

13:29

conscripted into our own teams. I

13:31

often think about basketball. UNC has

13:33

a very strong basketball team. You

13:35

can get evenly matched basketball teams,

13:37

like North Carolina and Duke, and

13:39

they'll play for the length of

13:41

a game. The score will be

13:43

up very high. But it'll come

13:45

down to a razor's edge almost

13:47

every time in the final minute.

13:49

I think of elections a little

13:51

bit like that. We're kind of

13:53

evenly divided. It could go either

13:55

way every time. But I think

13:57

a lot of our division some

13:59

of it is grounded in kind

14:02

of like ideology But I think

14:04

a lot of it is just

14:06

like who your family is who

14:08

you voted for in the past

14:10

and there are these kind of

14:12

through lines So I think we

14:14

shouldn't necessarily overestimate the kind of

14:16

like strength of our ideological roots

14:18

as much as our cultural identification

14:20

our social identity maybe and then

14:22

these kind of competing perceptions of

14:24

harm that I highlight in the

14:26

book When I asked where does

14:28

the left and the right morality

14:30

come from, my mind takes me

14:32

back to trying to look at

14:34

the big picture here in terms

14:36

of how people get information, how

14:38

people learn, how do they take

14:41

in anything. This is actually kind

14:43

of paraphrasing from a post that

14:45

I saw. I don't think there's

14:47

anything too controversial about this, but

14:49

the left in America generally would

14:51

have much greater control. of journalism,

14:53

television, advertising, universities, entertainment, social media,

14:55

medicine, NGOs, education, and government. I

14:57

don't think it's such a controversial

14:59

thing to say. It's two different

15:01

sides of morality, each getting their

15:03

morality from different places. You see,

15:05

well, the conservative side is more

15:07

traditional. I guess people could watch

15:09

Fox News, plenty of them do,

15:11

but that's kind of a rarity

15:13

in the overall situation. Do you

15:15

take what I just read is

15:18

too controversial? I don't see much

15:20

controversy in it in terms of

15:22

the left control of these institutions,

15:24

which ultimately leads to a certain

15:26

messaging. We need to separate where

15:28

our morals come from, and I

15:30

think that's like psychological question, a

15:32

more ultimate question of our minds,

15:34

and then we can maybe talk

15:36

about the ecosystems that reinforce certain

15:38

narratives. Yes, Hollywood is generally more

15:40

left leaning. Social media, I'm not

15:42

sure. I mean, X, Twitter, Twitter.

15:44

I think that leans very far

15:46

right these days. Just to clarify,

15:48

they're really quick though. Yeah, it

15:50

changed. Absolutely changed. once Musk bought

15:52

it, prior to Musk buying it.

15:54

They were banning people left and

15:57

right, and so was Facebook. One

15:59

of the most interesting conversations, I

16:01

didn't listen to it all, but

16:03

that came out this week, was

16:05

Mark Zuckerberg saying that under duress

16:07

from the government, he was censoring

16:09

stuff that should otherwise not have

16:11

been censored. I don't think there's

16:13

any doubt that everybody can look

16:15

up who owns LinkedIn, who owns

16:17

Google, who owns Google, Musk is

16:19

out there with X, but generally

16:21

over the last 10 years, it's

16:23

been a 100% monopoly. on social

16:25

media. I'm not sure that it's

16:27

a 100% monopoly given that social

16:29

media content is created by users.

16:31

There's been a massive censorship campaign.

16:34

What I'm trying to get at

16:36

ultimately here is I enjoy the

16:38

conversation of saying, hey, we've got

16:40

a left and a right, we

16:42

have two different moralities, but I

16:44

think it's terribly important to establish

16:46

or at least talk about where

16:48

those moralities are ultimately coming from.

16:50

I don't just think it's people

16:52

just wake up and have... some

16:54

understanding. It's either family, friends, research,

16:56

school, media. I don't know if

16:58

it's all just intuitive. Certainly, I

17:00

think we're born with the capacity

17:02

to make moral judgments and to

17:04

have a sense of morality. I

17:06

think it comes from your family

17:08

in a very powerful way. Thinking

17:10

of my own kids, growing them

17:13

a moral sense. It's powerfully constructed

17:15

by your family and the institutions

17:17

that you're exposed to as a

17:19

young person. That could be your

17:21

church. which I think is an

17:23

institution that is very powerfully right

17:25

leaning typically, that I think was

17:27

left out of the previous conversation.

17:29

There's media, especially as a teenager,

17:31

you're like thinking of music and

17:33

then there's universities as you go

17:35

out there, but there's also workplaces

17:37

that's a powerful culture that I

17:39

think also bears mentioning that really

17:41

shapes the morality of young adults

17:43

to older adults. There are these

17:45

institutions, but looking at families. and

17:47

churches and workplaces I think is

17:50

also really important when it comes

17:52

to making sense of, I think

17:54

not where morality comes from necessarily,

17:56

but the places that kind of

17:58

selectively reinforce certain tuitions. that makes

18:00

sense. I don't think people watch

18:02

Fox News and just say like,

18:04

oh, thanks Fox News, I was

18:06

a blank slate and now I

18:08

believe this, or people tune into

18:10

MS NBC and be like, oh,

18:12

now I'm super progressive. I think

18:14

these are things that shape and

18:16

tune the morality that we get

18:18

from our parents, but I do

18:20

think that the media and social

18:22

media are kind of pushing us

18:24

further apart in a way that

18:26

we wouldn't get that if it

18:29

was just about the morality of

18:31

our parents and our churches and

18:33

our sports leagues and our sports

18:35

leagues. and our workplaces. Let me

18:37

bring up an example that obviously

18:39

paints me to one side. I

18:41

appreciate what you are attempting to

18:43

do with your work in trying

18:45

to stay in the middle and

18:47

see both sides as different sides

18:49

that perhaps have different moralities for

18:51

different reasons. For example, I can

18:53

think back to not too long

18:55

ago, perhaps five, six years ago.

18:57

The idea of walking into a

18:59

local CVS and having everything behind

19:01

locked plexiglass was not a thing.

19:03

Now maybe it was in New

19:06

York City, it probably was for

19:08

a long time, but not everywhere.

19:10

And now it's become an everywhere

19:12

thing. And so I think what's

19:14

interesting about your perspective is that

19:16

the right side of America is

19:18

not in any way shape or

19:20

form on board with that. They're

19:22

not at all. It's like, hold

19:24

on, why can we not enforce

19:26

the laws? Why can we not

19:28

stop crime? For me, there's a

19:30

vacuum on the other side. It's

19:32

like, well, hold on. The idea

19:34

that we've got these two moral

19:36

compasses, and they're actually a lot

19:38

closer, when I look at an

19:40

example like that, I'm not seeing

19:42

the closeness. I'm seeing... something that

19:45

looks like a massive tunnel, this

19:47

massive bridge separating the sides. Because

19:49

I know the conservative side would

19:51

be like just to force the

19:53

laws. to have everything locked up

19:55

in a store. This is a

19:57

new thing. Why are we doing

19:59

this? I'm a little confused. I

20:01

don't think progressives are pro kind

20:03

of taking all the things from

20:05

CVS either. I have a hard

20:07

time seeing how that's like a

20:09

partisan issue. We know, for example,

20:11

in California, in other, for example,

20:13

in California and other locations, I

20:15

think they've repealed some of these,

20:17

or something like that. I have

20:19

a hard time imagining that if

20:22

we've got these two moral... pieces,

20:24

and ultimately this gets to the

20:26

big picture I think is where

20:28

you go in your work, is

20:30

the whole idea of a democracy,

20:32

of a Western-style democracy, that if

20:34

you have these kinds of divisions

20:36

of morality, it's very very difficult

20:38

to keep it together, isn't it?

20:40

Folks on both sides are navigating

20:42

these kind of trade-off. California's a

20:44

good example, right? They used to

20:46

have three strikes law as well.

20:48

That was celebrated as like, look,

20:50

we're tough on crime now, but

20:52

then you get someone who messed

20:54

up three times in a relatively

20:56

minor way, behind bars for the

20:58

rest of their life. Many people

21:01

would not be comfortable with that

21:03

policy either, because it's kind of

21:05

draconian. Many progressives would think, yeah,

21:07

you shouldn't steal from a CVS.

21:09

You should follow the laws. We

21:11

all teach our kids not to

21:13

steal and not to shoplift. The

21:15

question is, is there additional harms?

21:17

Because America's a special place, especially

21:19

when it comes to guns, that

21:21

you're risking more harm. stopping these

21:23

folks than you might be otherwise.

21:25

At the end of the day,

21:27

it all comes down to these

21:29

competing perceptions of how do we

21:31

safeguard the most good innocent people

21:33

from harm in a way that

21:35

we can all live with. And

21:38

on either side of these issues,

21:40

there's mistakes and there's things that

21:42

we think are regrettable, but I

21:44

think the important point to recognize,

21:46

and I talk about this in

21:48

the book, is that on the

21:50

other side, they do think that

21:52

those miscarriages of justice are regrettable.

21:54

If it comes to, let's say,

21:56

abortion law, if a strict abortion

21:58

law means that a 13-year-old who

22:00

was raped by her stepfather has

22:02

to take a pregnancy to term,

22:04

there's There's no Republican, even if

22:06

they support generally kind of protecting

22:08

fetal rights. There's no Republican who

22:10

think that's a great situation. That

22:12

is a regrettable situation. And Republicans

22:14

think that that is bad. But

22:17

many progressives are like, no Republicans

22:19

want this to happen. That is

22:21

not true. But I think the

22:23

opposite is also true. There's no

22:25

progressive that's like, yeah. Let's have

22:27

pandemonium in big cities when it

22:29

comes to multinational corporations and people

22:31

stealing from them. No progressives like

22:33

this makes a lot of expense.

22:35

it's important to understand both sides

22:37

is like trying to protect. How

22:39

did we get to a place

22:41

though? For example, I mentioned earlier

22:43

that I'm in Asia and I've

22:45

spent a lot of time in

22:47

Asia and sure there could be

22:49

crime, there can be problems, but

22:51

I don't see anything in Asia

22:54

that looks like what I see

22:56

in America at all. I don't

22:58

see crime, I don't see violence.

23:00

And so ultimately those are right

23:02

there in the issue of... morality.

23:04

Some stage of the game I

23:06

start to say, well, are there

23:08

some moral perspectives in America that

23:10

say a certain amount of crime

23:12

is okay? A certain amount of

23:14

violence is okay. No amount of

23:16

crime or immorality seems like it

23:18

should be acceptable in our minds,

23:20

but I think at the end

23:22

of the day we're always dealing

23:24

with these tradeoffs. Should people have

23:26

access to legal marijuana or should

23:28

people go to jail for kind

23:30

of harder drugs? These are things

23:33

that societies need to navigate. as

23:35

they move forward what seems like

23:37

a moral and what isn't are

23:39

things that we all kind of

23:41

like figure out collectively. Does that

23:43

make sense? You bring up a

23:45

great point though with for example

23:47

marijuana. So I probably would have

23:49

for sure, in fact I was,

23:51

I guarantee at some stage in

23:53

this podcast, I gave the marijuana

23:55

libertarian argument. And here we are

23:57

now a couple decades into this

23:59

experiment and it's literally vape shops

24:01

on every corner. a massage parlor

24:03

down the corner like almost every

24:05

place in America now. And basically

24:07

people meandering around our cities, they're

24:10

messed up. There is that morality,

24:12

the idea that, hey, let's let

24:14

people make their choices, as long

24:16

as they don't harm anyone else.

24:18

That was always my perspective. But

24:20

I think we've now pushed past

24:22

that, where if we're getting everybody

24:24

gacked up on marijuana, that's probably

24:26

not a societal good. And that

24:28

was a morality that we regulated.

24:30

I guess I keep coming back

24:32

to the idea that you see

24:34

things more similar, or similar, or

24:36

differences. If you look through time,

24:38

society in general has evolved to

24:40

be much safer, much less dangerous,

24:42

much kinder, much more compassionate, that's

24:44

a good thing. We have still

24:46

many kind of problems in our

24:49

society, but at the day, I

24:51

think addressing those additional problems require

24:53

us to work together. across divides,

24:55

across ideological spectrums to compromise and

24:57

past policies to make our society

24:59

better. And so part of this

25:01

book is to think, well, how

25:03

can we see eye to eye

25:05

with the other side? How can

25:07

we reestablish relationships with the friends

25:09

and family who we might disagree

25:11

with on some issues and then

25:13

like come back together? This is

25:15

one of the reasons I was

25:17

trying to establish some definitions in

25:19

the beginning. If you have a

25:21

morality that has been practiced for

25:23

a very long time, let's say...

25:26

We don't want to see the

25:28

violence, we don't want to see

25:30

the theft. Now, okay, the progressive

25:32

side doesn't want to see that,

25:34

but I know what the theft

25:36

and violence statistics are in America,

25:38

and I know what's concentrated. Why

25:40

compromise? If there's one side that

25:42

has a certain morality that says

25:44

we're comfortable with this morality, I

25:46

could run off the whole litany

25:48

of things that the right would

25:50

not like for the last 10

25:52

years. We don't need these advances.

25:54

The word compromise doesn't feel like

25:56

it's coming down the middle, it

25:58

feels like it's asking the right

26:00

side to lessen up and go

26:02

ahead and allow some of these

26:05

changes in morality. I'm not sure

26:07

I agree. All right, going back

26:09

and forth, the left is always

26:11

the group that is pushing towards

26:13

particular kind of progress. It's inherent

26:15

in the word progressive. The right

26:17

is inherently trying to think about

26:19

tradition and maintain those traditions. There

26:21

is a conflict and it's inherent

26:23

in just identifying as progressive or

26:25

conservative. I do think America in

26:27

particular, why America has these divides

26:29

and has such an exciting political

26:31

scene is in part because it's

26:33

a pluralistic democracy founded on huge

26:35

amounts of immigration, founded on diversity

26:37

of perspectives, a diversity of race,

26:39

a diversity of ethnicity. This is

26:42

why there's more violent crime in

26:44

the US instead of Vietnam, but

26:46

if you think about GDP, you

26:48

think about the world's biggest tech

26:50

firms, you think about the movies

26:52

that are consumed around the world.

26:54

I'm not American originally. One reason

26:56

that I'm here is because it's

26:58

a place where... Science is just

27:00

on fire all the time. It's

27:02

exciting, right? There is something special

27:04

about pluralistic democracies in a particular

27:06

America. It stands out as a

27:08

pretty remarkable place. And that mixing

27:10

of perspectives includes left and right.

27:12

We all need to come together

27:14

to navigate this complexity of society.

27:16

And I think we've done a

27:19

pretty good job since the founding

27:21

fathers kind of created the Constitution,

27:23

but it's messy and it's hard.

27:25

You have to admit in some

27:27

sense defeat. From your side, if

27:29

you don't want to take away

27:31

a dictatorship, you're like, well, we're

27:33

going to have to live with

27:35

the left if you're on the

27:37

right, and we're going to have

27:39

to live with the right, if

27:41

you're on the left. But that

27:43

kind of compromise helps us navigate

27:45

a path through the middle and

27:47

a path forward that's actually better

27:49

than either side on its own

27:51

would create. That perspective, I don't

27:53

know anybody on the right, or

27:55

wrongly. And that is a full-on

27:58

coming for the guns, coming for

28:00

the kids, whatever. That's a full-on

28:02

attack. I think that's what people

28:04

would see it. I think there

28:06

are folks on the left as

28:08

well who would see that as

28:10

a capitulation, as a surrender to

28:12

values they disagree with. But again,

28:14

you're thinking of people who are

28:16

really strongly yelling on social media,

28:18

and this report came out by

28:20

more uncommon, this organization that tries

28:22

to bridge divides in America, and

28:24

it suggests that 65% of Americans

28:26

are part of a group called

28:28

the Exhaustive Majority. These are folks

28:30

who are not particularly ideological. and

28:32

they just want their country to

28:35

do the best it can when

28:37

it comes to making life better

28:39

for themselves. We're here really overstating

28:41

how much people are kind of

28:43

like ideologically committed versus just want

28:45

cheaper gas prices. They just want

28:47

to be able to afford milk.

28:49

I don't think people are as

28:51

left and right as we think

28:53

they are as talking heads. I've

28:55

watched the polls for the 2016

28:57

and the... most recent presidential election

28:59

in both times. Nate Silver, who's

29:01

a well-respected pollster, not by me

29:03

because I find his methodology doesn't

29:05

work. It's not a partisan issue.

29:07

I just find it doesn't work.

29:09

But it doesn't seem like anyone

29:11

has been able to poll Trump

29:14

voters for both of those elections.

29:16

You just mentioned science a second

29:18

ago after coming out of COVID.

29:20

I'm not even sure where we

29:22

are on the scientific method anymore.

29:24

But I hear... you say something

29:26

about essentially polling people. I'm skeptic.

29:28

I'm the Gen X skeptic who

29:30

just keeps saying, well, hold on.

29:32

We don't seem to get a

29:34

lot of these things right in

29:36

terms of the polling. You're saying,

29:38

hey, people are not so die-hard

29:40

ideological. Maybe they're not on the

29:42

left. But I tell you what,

29:44

on the right, I have a

29:46

hard time imagining that. to certain

29:48

perspectives and certain views and there's

29:51

conversations being had there that I'm

29:53

not seeing in my adult. lifetime.

29:55

Some absolutely good, strong, some probably

29:57

in the conspiracy weeds, that's just

29:59

competing with the likes of it.

30:01

You miss NBC and CNN, which

30:03

has been having their own versions

30:05

of conspiracies for the last 20

30:07

years. It's interesting to hear you

30:09

lay out the scenarios and I

30:11

just keep trying to push back

30:13

on you. The point about science,

30:15

I'm going to stand up for

30:17

the scientific method and for the

30:19

accuracy of a lot of behavioral

30:21

science. In particular, my own work

30:23

and that of my colleagues, I

30:25

think polling is so brutal one

30:27

because people don't want to necessarily

30:30

express their views, but I think

30:32

more importantly, the response rate for

30:34

polling is just abysmal. I think

30:36

it's like 1% of people who

30:38

respond back to polls about politics,

30:40

then your conclusions are going to

30:42

be not great. They're going to

30:44

be trash because you're not actually

30:46

polling the people that you're trying

30:48

to make inferences about. It would

30:50

behavioral science is much better. So

30:52

when we poll people. response rate

30:54

is like 90% not 1%. When

30:56

it comes to things like how

30:58

people overestimate the severity of views

31:00

on either side or how much

31:02

we dislike each other, I think

31:04

there's very strong evidence for that.

31:07

You can definitely point to specific

31:09

examples of people being very divided,

31:11

but they can everyday life if

31:13

you prime the pump. So if

31:15

you do what you're doing now

31:17

and you're really trying to galvanize

31:19

people by pointing to hot button

31:21

issues and pointing to the threats

31:23

out there and my work suggests

31:25

that our morality is all about

31:27

these feelings of threats. Then you

31:29

get people to partisan knee-jerk reactions.

31:31

If you're just trying to talk

31:33

to them about their life, you're

31:35

just trying to talk to them

31:37

about their hopes and dreams for

31:39

their kids, those are conversations that

31:41

don't really dig into politics in

31:43

an intrinsic way, although you can

31:46

connect them obviously. That's what I

31:48

want to understand with people, what

31:50

it means to be human, beyond

31:52

just the shirt you wear. Threat

31:54

is interesting in terms of people's

31:56

perception of threat, a lot of

31:58

where your work goes the perception

32:00

of harm, perception of threat. As

32:02

I've tried to lay out in

32:04

this conversation, I just think it's

32:06

the playing field is a little

32:08

unequal in terms of how the

32:10

sides are treated. I've only been

32:12

censored by one party, right? Even

32:14

on a social media platform, but

32:16

it's controlled by one party. And

32:18

the censorship has generally gone by

32:20

one party in the last, I

32:23

guess, before COVID, actually. When it's

32:25

not a level playing field, like,

32:27

for example, I would love to

32:29

know that everybody in your world,

32:31

that there was an ideological divide

32:33

that where everyone participating was, each

32:35

side was represented. If you're going

32:37

to go into your work and

32:39

you're going to dig into this

32:41

particular topic and looking at morality

32:43

on both sides and considering how

32:45

people get to their morality and

32:47

how they get to their perception

32:49

of harm, that if you're going

32:51

to go down this path, that

32:53

there's a representation of both sides.

32:55

It's a tough topic because... when

32:57

I look at society, I see

32:59

one side controlling so many of

33:02

the levers. And I think that

33:04

definitely makes the right more skeptical

33:06

and definitely makes the right less

33:08

trustworthy of all of these institutions.

33:10

The trust has gone out the

33:12

window from the last 10 years.

33:14

If New York City can pass

33:16

laws saying that there are 31

33:18

genders, then the right just says,

33:20

my hands are up, I'm out,

33:22

and that's an issue of morality

33:24

right there, right. I get it

33:26

from your perspective. You're saying, well,

33:28

hold on, Mike. You're focusing on

33:30

some hot button issues. The hot

33:32

button issues are important to people.

33:34

These are terribly important to people.

33:36

I think focusing on these clickbady

33:39

things does a disservice to people's

33:41

psychologies. At the end of the

33:43

day, let's say with gender, like

33:45

most progressives are not into 31

33:47

genders. You can find examples on

33:49

the right where folks on the

33:51

left are like, look, people want

33:53

child marriage marriage, it's two sexes,

33:55

that's it. The right has more

33:57

complexity than that as well. many

33:59

progressives are like, well, conservatives are

34:01

only concerned about what's written in

34:03

the Bible. I think that does

34:05

a disservice to the many thoughtful

34:07

evangelicals on the right who are

34:09

thinking of like navigating their moral

34:11

world when it comes to religion

34:13

and politics. We can keep having

34:15

these arguments about, well, the left

34:18

likes this or the right likes

34:20

this, but it doesn't move us

34:22

anywhere to keep on harping on

34:24

these devices. examples that you can

34:26

think about coming from the most

34:28

progressive or most conservative places. How

34:30

can most Americans come together and

34:32

have better conversations on planes in

34:34

Uber rides? We do have to

34:36

come together. You're perhaps not super

34:38

interested in coming together. If I

34:40

have to have one arm tied

34:42

behind my back, yes, I'm not

34:44

interesting coming together. That's the part

34:46

that drives people on the right

34:48

nuts. Is that you have to

34:50

have one arm tied behind your

34:52

back? It depends on the sphere

34:55

business, I think is... largely conservative

34:57

and church as well. These are

34:59

huge parts of America that we're

35:01

neglecting to talk about here that

35:03

are really more conservative leaning. The

35:05

billionaires out there are typically voting

35:07

for more free enterprise, lower taxes,

35:09

and also creating narratives that I

35:11

think help the conservative ideas that

35:13

are in the government. Some of

35:15

our most famous billionaires right now

35:17

from George Soros to Mark Zuckerberg,

35:19

Jeff Basos to the Google guys,

35:21

to the LinkedIn guys, the billionaires

35:23

seem to be all over the

35:25

map on the partisan holes these

35:27

days. Right, but I think businesses

35:29

itself kind of inherently a more

35:31

conservative enterprise in the sense that

35:34

it's trying to lower taxes for

35:36

itself. There's anything like conspiracy about

35:38

this, thinking of classical liberal ideas

35:40

and visible hand and so forth.

35:42

We can keep talking about the

35:44

left versus the right, but it

35:46

misses the core of the book,

35:48

which is like trying to understand

35:50

the everyday people who are just

35:52

trying to navigate their lives, like

35:54

when I take an Uber ride.

35:56

with a guy who tells me

35:58

he's a Christian nationalist, right? I

36:00

think that's interesting and I want

36:02

to understand what that means for

36:04

him. And then we start having

36:06

a conversation about abortion, how you

36:08

can navigate that conversation. If you

36:11

don't want to have conversations with

36:13

people who disagree with you, and

36:15

if you don't understand their common

36:17

humanity, then I think I can't

36:19

help in a sense, because there

36:21

has to be some motivation there

36:23

to understand. And if you think

36:25

you want to write off half

36:27

the country, then... and it's hard

36:29

for me to convince you not

36:31

to. Do you think that's what

36:33

both sides are doing right now?

36:35

There are people on both sides

36:37

who are writing off the other

36:39

side, especially I think folks who

36:41

are grounded in social media or

36:43

partisan news. They're still underlying this

36:45

deep urge where people want to

36:47

connect. I want to think about

36:50

people's everyday lives. We could talk

36:52

about policies. municipal policies in cities

36:54

or universities or churches. At the

36:56

end of the day, I want

36:58

to think about, look, here's someone

37:00

who's coming to Thanksgiving and their

37:02

uncle, their cousin, their niece, voted

37:04

differently than they did. Everyone's getting

37:06

ready for a fight because that's

37:08

what we've come to expect. But

37:10

I want at the end of

37:12

that Thanksgiving dinner to have people

37:14

say, I had a good conversation

37:16

with my uncle or with my

37:18

niece. And now I understand them

37:20

a little better. And I think

37:22

next time we see each other

37:24

at Christmas time, Easter dinner, I

37:27

think it's going to be better.

37:29

And I think I'm better for

37:31

having that conversation than I am

37:33

for just sticking to the same

37:35

partisan talking points that make us

37:37

yell at each other. I just

37:39

want to find ways to help

37:41

people understand each other. And I

37:43

think there is that motivation. There's

37:45

certain nobility in that. I'm not

37:47

going to disagree in that sense.

37:49

I just find it interesting that

37:51

if you have. two groups in

37:53

America that have their perspectives and

37:55

morality. These groups are made up

37:57

of very different organization. I remember

37:59

seeing the statistic for the Biden

38:01

Trump election, that if it would have

38:04

been all women voting, Biden would have got

38:06

like 400 plus electoral votes, it would have

38:08

been all men voting. It would have been

38:10

less, but Trump would have won if it

38:12

was all men voting. So I think the

38:14

interesting thing about the morality issue too

38:17

is that I started the conversation going

38:19

down this path, is that if we just keep it

38:21

at the idea of like, hey, we're all Americans,

38:23

we're all the same, without looking at the

38:25

particular groups and seeing who makes up the

38:28

groups. in terms of race and sex,

38:30

I think that's a disservice as

38:32

well too. That seems to be the way

38:34

that America in a way disguises

38:36

its problems because you're not

38:38

allowed to talk about that. You're

38:41

not allowed to talk about the

38:43

real differences in people and that

38:45

the real differences are showing up

38:47

in morality and ultimately showing up

38:50

at the polls. I maybe disagree

38:52

in that I think all we're doing right

38:54

now is thinking about the differences.

38:57

That's all that... cable news does.

38:59

And so I think we really do need

39:01

a way to think about our similarities

39:03

and to kind of move forward

39:05

with policy, especially after an

39:07

election, right, where it is really us

39:09

versus them. We want to come together

39:11

and have these conversations. The knives are

39:14

going to be out for Trump and

39:16

all that other kind of stuff and

39:18

the conflict will start again and the

39:20

cycle will start again. And I appreciate

39:22

that you want to see a common

39:25

ground and you want to see people

39:27

come together. Let me ask you this

39:29

kind of like a final type question. I'll

39:31

let you take the floor. Let's imagine

39:33

these two different groups, different

39:35

sexes, different sexes,

39:37

different ideological perspectives,

39:39

different moralities. They come

39:41

together. They got to put all that stuff

39:43

to the side and not talk about that stuff.

39:46

And then they're going to keep their

39:48

conversation on more, you might say these

39:50

are not narrow topics, but on something that's

39:53

more narrow that doesn't let those hot

39:55

button issues get in. The question I

39:57

have is. How long is it that if you

39:59

bring those two sides together. How

40:01

long is it until the hot

40:04

button issues are not right back

40:06

to the forefront? This is a

40:08

question facing so many workplaces today.

40:10

I was just on a panel

40:12

with the Sponsored by the Society

40:15

for Human Resource Management and politics

40:17

are coming up in so many

40:19

work teams today that people have

40:21

common goals to achieve the goal

40:24

of their workplace, of their organization,

40:26

but maybe they voted differently. I'll

40:28

take the middle road here as

40:30

I always like to do. You

40:32

can talk about how you have

40:35

convictions, but I think you don't

40:37

need to make it that's like

40:39

all you are. I think it's

40:41

so flattening if someone just identifies

40:44

as only as a member of

40:46

a political group. How de-individualizing? What

40:48

if they don't identify as a

40:50

member of the political group? And

40:52

what if they just say, I

40:55

like to have the right to

40:57

have a gun? Or I don't

40:59

like you to have the right

41:01

to have a gun? Or... I

41:04

don't really care about if there's

41:06

some theft from the CVS or

41:08

the other person says, I do

41:10

care if there's theft from the

41:12

CVS. That'd be a great actually

41:15

way to start it. And then

41:17

the question is, well, what do

41:19

you do when someone says that?

41:21

A lot of the book is

41:23

about how you can have these

41:26

conversations. So if someone says this

41:28

Christian National site took the Uber

41:30

to the airport with, he says,

41:32

like, I want the right to

41:35

have a gun, I think then

41:37

the question is interesting. committed to

41:39

that. We talk about the science

41:41

in the book. We should talk

41:43

about kind of personal stories here

41:46

instead of just like spouting off

41:48

facts because spouting off facts don't

41:50

seem true. Everyone knows you just

41:52

hold the facts from the partisan

41:55

news that you're listening to. Crime

41:57

statistics are facts, though. You can't

41:59

find this in the FBI. That's

42:01

right. But what statistics are the

42:03

most relevant is always up for

42:06

grabs. When you tell a personal

42:08

story of like, look, I once

42:10

used to gun to defend my

42:12

family from a home invader That's

42:15

a story because it's based on.

42:17

a real experience of harm that

42:19

people on both sides can really

42:21

see eye to eye with. I

42:23

work with this organization called narrative

42:26

four, and they try to bridge

42:28

some of the worst divides out

42:30

there. You talk about, so they

42:32

have this man who runs a

42:35

gun sales website, he has a

42:37

disability, he has to work from

42:39

his house before COVID, and he's

42:41

really committed to second amendment rights,

42:43

and he has a conversation with

42:46

a woman whose daughter was killed.

42:48

in a mass shooting by semi-automatic

42:50

weapon with a big magazine. They're

42:52

very divided on gun rights, but

42:55

they have this conversation where they

42:57

share their personal perspectives and have

42:59

much more empathy than you can

43:01

imagine at the beginning. But it's

43:03

possible to have these conversations against

43:06

huge divides. Certainly you can have

43:08

them at work if you come

43:10

with the right willingness. But there

43:12

has to be some willingness. Kurt.

43:14

Great stuff. I'm looking at your

43:17

title right here, and I want

43:19

people to check out the book.

43:21

Outraged. Why we fight about morality

43:23

and politics and how to find

43:26

common ground. I love the title.

43:28

Titles great. I don't think you

43:30

want me to be that outraged

43:32

this conversation. You want me to

43:34

be more calm. Your title and

43:37

your perspective makes me think about

43:39

an entirely different perspective. And I

43:41

don't know who would win. I

43:43

give you out on the ledge,

43:46

so to speak. You are taking

43:48

a chance. You are trying to

43:50

find a... a new way to

43:52

bridge the gap. I think this

43:54

is a fair assessment, right? That's

43:57

right. I can feel from you

43:59

that your perspective would be a

44:01

little less dogmatic and a little

44:03

less fact-based than I might be.

44:06

But that would be an interesting

44:08

comp. Who would win? Who would

44:10

win, ultimately, if we actually didn't

44:12

have to hold one arm behind

44:14

our back, if we didn't have

44:17

to bite our lip? if we

44:19

didn't have to pretend that there

44:21

aren't these big divides. that we

44:23

might actually get to common ground.

44:26

I feel like the common ground

44:28

that we are not finding is

44:30

because we're all lying to each

44:32

other. And it's coming from every

44:34

which way to Sunday, media at

44:37

the biggest forefront. And I feel

44:39

like if we could get to

44:41

a place where we were just

44:43

damn open and honest about everything,

44:46

maybe we could find common ground,

44:48

especially from the right when you

44:50

see so much effort at obscuring

44:52

things. Again, the right doesn't really

44:54

control. most of the mainstream media.

44:57

I appreciate where you're trying to

44:59

go, and you're saying, hey, let's

45:01

try to find common ground, and

45:03

let's keep some of our hot

45:05

button understandings under wrap, that maybe

45:08

the exact opposite would get us

45:10

there ultimately. We don't really have

45:12

proof yet. You might be saying

45:14

to yourself immediately, well, Mike, you

45:17

know, I've studied psychology and neuroscience

45:19

for a hell of a lot

45:21

longer than you have, and I

45:23

generally think that we're not. nuanced

45:25

here. It is good to be

45:28

honest with each other. You can't

45:30

be honest and unkind in a

45:32

conversation. So let's say think about

45:34

the division between the left and

45:37

the right is like two people

45:39

who are married together and they

45:41

have to stay married for the

45:43

kids who are, I don't know,

45:45

the American electorate and the future

45:48

of our nation. I think with

45:50

that perspective, you need to think

45:52

about, yeah, well, I need to

45:54

be honest, but I need to

45:57

have some sense that the other

45:59

person is not just... out to

46:01

get me. There's some good ideas

46:03

on both sides moving forward. We

46:05

can acknowledge that there's some differences,

46:08

and that's inherent in even just

46:10

the term liberal and conservative, and

46:12

in the book I try to

46:14

point to what those specific differences

46:17

are when it comes to the

46:19

science of morality. But I do

46:21

think that we have been focused

46:23

more on our differences than our

46:25

similarities, especially of late, and the

46:28

research does suggest that focusing on

46:30

what we share. even if we

46:32

acknowledge that there are differences can

46:34

help move us forward. I'll add

46:37

one more nugget for a future

46:39

UNC research project. I have absolutely,

46:41

and I never planned to be

46:43

in Asia, I never planned to

46:45

live in Asia. I have absolutely

46:48

loved beyond loved and enjoyed more

46:50

than I can ever imagine and

46:52

learned more than I can ever

46:54

imagine living in a homogenous culture,

46:56

which for Americans is completely foreign.

46:59

Interesting. That is a difference between

47:01

folks on the left and right

47:03

as well that you highlight. There

47:05

is a general commitment in America

47:08

to pluralism. Folks on the left

47:10

are relatively more culturally pluralistic, even

47:12

if folks on the right still

47:14

endorse some kind of ideological pluralism

47:16

or religious pluralism at times. But

47:19

I think it is. A big

47:21

question that we've touched on is

47:23

like, well, how much should there

47:25

be pluralism in the world in

47:28

particular nations? Maybe the left is

47:30

more generally in flavor of pluralism.

47:32

Oftentimes, and perhaps those on the

47:34

right, even folks on the right

47:36

at the founding of America were

47:39

really committed to pluralism. I want

47:41

to hold up that example as

47:43

something that makes sense and end.

47:45

something that makes me excited about

47:48

being here, kind of different perspectives,

47:50

different ethnicities, including kind of disagreement

47:52

across politics. It was and still

47:54

is the great experiment because most

47:56

all the other countries around the

47:59

world are tribes, essentially. And so

48:01

America is the great experiment. It

48:03

will be interesting to see how

48:05

everything plays out. If it continues

48:08

to be a success, we probably

48:10

won't know. There was a movie

48:12

last year called Civil War. I

48:14

don't perceive those kinds of things

48:16

happening. But I do think that

48:19

some of the issues that we've

48:21

touched on today are pretty divisive,

48:23

and so it's going to be

48:25

interesting. to see over the course

48:27

of history, the American experiment goes

48:30

forward. Yeah. Hey, Kurt, where can

48:32

we send people to? Where's the

48:34

best website for them to check

48:36

you out? You can come to

48:39

outragedbook.com. There you can get reader

48:41

resources about the book. The book's

48:43

available on Amazon. Kurt J. Gray.com

48:45

is my personal website. And if

48:47

you want to learn more about

48:50

my thoughts on morality, I have

48:52

a sub stack, moral understanding newsletter

48:54

newsletter. The book once again outraged

48:56

why we fight about morality and

48:59

politics and how to find common

49:01

ground. Kurt, thank you very much.

49:03

Thanks for having me. A footnote

49:05

to that conversation. I have now

49:07

listened to that interview three times

49:10

and some thoughts. First, there are

49:12

two sides on that conversation. Even

49:14

though, during the conversation, I gave

49:16

my guest the benefit of the

49:19

doubt and stated that he was

49:21

trying to be down the middle

49:23

after listening to that conversation for

49:25

three times. I think it's clear

49:27

my guest was coming from a

49:30

progressive perspective. Why is that important?

49:32

It speaks to the idea that

49:34

if you're going to go down

49:36

the path. of attempting to define

49:39

two moralities and somehow or another

49:41

bring them together, then there needs

49:43

to be an equal playing field.

49:45

And there's not. Second, I brought

49:47

up several factual points during that

49:50

conversation. They were either corrected or

49:52

ignored. I generally

49:54

don't like that type

49:56

of situation on my

49:58

podcast. and I

50:01

will do my level-headed

50:03

best to make sure

50:05

in the future that

50:07

the truth is out

50:09

there, where the conversation

50:11

doesn't happen, where the

50:13

conversation stops. Again, thank

50:15

you for sticking with

50:17

me, and I promise,

50:19

I always promise, that

50:22

I will search for

50:24

the truth. will understand

50:26

how to make money

50:28

up, down, and surprise

50:30

markets. Whether new trader

50:32

or experienced, college student

50:34

or financial advisor, protecting

50:36

against a crash or

50:38

just trying to make

50:40

a lot of money,

50:42

trendfiling offers everyone an

50:45

answer in uncertain times.

50:47

To get started immediately,

50:49

send me an email.

50:51

I will send you

50:53

the right trend following

50:55

steps to take along

50:57

with my free video.

50:59

But if you want

51:01

to buy and hold,

51:03

trust the government and

51:06

trust Wall Street. This

51:08

is absolutely not for

51:10

you.