0:01

I am very much in favor of

0:03

healthy disagreement. But I think to

0:05

borrow the phrase of a really

0:07

good initiative in the United States,

0:10

we need to know how to

0:12

disagree better. We need to know

0:14

how to disagree well again. Welcome

0:16

to Point of Relations with

0:18

Thomas Hubel, a podcast that

0:20

illuminates the path to collective

0:23

healing at the intersection of

0:25

science and mysticism. This is

0:27

the point of relation.

0:37

The following interview was recorded during

0:39

a previous collective healing conference.

0:41

A free online gathering convened

0:43

annually by Thomas Eubel to

0:46

explore insights and share practices

0:48

for worldwide healing and change.

0:50

Mathieu Nefev is the co-founder

0:52

and CEO of More in

0:54

Common. A non-profit working to

0:57

understand the forces driving us

0:59

apart, find common ground, and

1:01

bring people together to tackle

1:03

shared challenges. He was previously

1:06

a co-founder of Make.org, one

1:08

of the largest civic tech companies

1:10

in Europe, and led a think

1:12

tank on the future of global

1:14

cities. Machu also served as a

1:17

political officer in the United Nations

1:19

Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Welcome

1:24

back to the collective feeling

1:26

conference. My name is Thomas

1:28

Hibble and I am the

1:30

convener of the conference and

1:32

I'm very happy to be

1:34

sitting here with Matthew Lefev.

1:36

Matthew, one, welcome to our

1:38

conference. Thank you. As we

1:40

already talked a little bit

1:42

in our pre-conversation about that

1:45

I think there we share

1:47

some some mutual interests and

1:49

and maybe let's start a

1:51

little bit with your current interest

1:53

and then we'll dive deeper into your

1:55

work, but I find it always exciting

1:58

to talk about where is our most

2:01

live, you know, right now?

2:03

Where do we feel? That's

2:05

my leading edge. Even if

2:07

I do what I do

2:09

25 years, there is something

2:11

where I feel really that

2:13

captures my creativity and or

2:15

my agency and maybe you'll

2:17

share with us a little

2:19

bit. What's that for you

2:22

right now in your work?

2:24

Sure, sure, absolutely. Yeah, and

2:26

very happy to be here,

2:28

Thomas, and thank you for

2:30

the invitation. I'm looking forward

2:32

to a good conversation. My

2:34

leading edge and my passion

2:36

right now is very close

2:38

to the core of the

2:40

work that we do, which

2:42

we'll be talking about, which

2:44

is that I observe the

2:46

world around me like all

2:48

of the, like you and

2:50

all of the people who

2:52

are listening to us, and

2:54

it looks like a field

2:57

of ruins, really, our ability

2:59

to come together to solve

3:01

shared challenges has been really

3:03

damaged by years of of

3:05

of of of polarization and

3:07

division. We work mainly in

3:09

Europe and in the United

3:11

States. So I'll speak only

3:13

about those two places. But

3:15

it just seems that polarization

3:17

and division is growing stronger.

3:19

So a bleak picture really.

3:21

But where my passion is

3:23

is to is to show

3:25

that people are actually better

3:27

than that. They are better

3:29

than the image we see

3:32

in the mirror. It's like

3:34

a distorting mirror, like in

3:36

a hall of mirrors in

3:38

an amusement park. The image

3:40

that we see on social

3:42

media on TV is much

3:44

uglier and more violent and

3:46

more divided than what we

3:48

really are. So very much

3:50

my passion at this moment

3:52

is to show that there

3:54

is this gap between reality

3:56

and the perception and the

3:58

image we are seeing of

4:00

ourselves. I think people are

4:02

kinder. more compassionate, more ready

4:04

to embrace, embrace nuance and

4:07

complexity, then you would think

4:09

if you were an alien.

4:11

on planet Earth and you

4:13

looked at social media or

4:15

cable news television, we're better

4:17

than that image. And so

4:19

my passion is very much

4:21

about proving that, about showing

4:23

that actually people are much

4:25

better than the image we're

4:27

giving off of ourselves. Well,

4:29

fantastic. So let's say two

4:31

things. I'm interested, you said

4:33

two things that kind of

4:35

create a little bit like

4:37

a... split. Like you said,

4:39

on the one hand, we

4:42

are drifting apart more and

4:44

more, but actually we are

4:46

better than that. And I'm

4:48

curious, what's the root cause

4:50

for both? Like, what makes

4:52

you think that we are

4:54

better than that? Like, what

4:56

do you, because that sounds

4:58

right, it sounds amazing. And

5:00

then, why do you think

5:02

we are drifting more and

5:04

more apart? Why does polarization

5:06

get stronger? I mean, what

5:08

are the root causes in

5:10

your understanding that create that

5:12

phenomenon? that we are seeing

5:14

over. Yeah. So let's let's

5:16

take the two parts one

5:19

after the other. So the

5:21

first one is, you know,

5:23

why does it appear at

5:25

least that we are drifting

5:27

apart and we're more polarized?

5:29

I mean, in some way,

5:31

that the answer to that

5:33

question is obvious to anyone

5:35

who lives. whether in Europe

5:37

right now or in the

5:39

United States, but also in

5:41

India and Brazil. I mean,

5:43

we appear to be divided

5:45

on every issue. We're speaking

5:47

just less than 48 hours

5:49

after an assassination attempt on

5:51

former President Donald Trump, and

5:54

that's a symptom of the

5:56

violence of the division in

5:58

the United States, but the

6:00

same is true in many

6:02

other places. It appears that

6:04

we are more polarized and

6:06

more divided than ever before

6:08

on every possible topic. If

6:10

you think back to COVID,

6:12

know, COVID was a global

6:14

pandemic that for a brief

6:16

moment, people like me probably

6:18

naively thought it would unite

6:20

us. There is a theory

6:22

that said that all we

6:24

needed to be united was

6:26

a common enemy. Well, we

6:29

were given one brilliant common

6:31

enemy, a disease. Well, even

6:33

that became very divisive, wearing

6:35

a mask, getting a vaccine,

6:37

became a source of tension

6:39

and division. Whatever your views

6:41

are on that, it's just

6:43

a fact that we have

6:45

a capacity to be divided

6:47

on almost anything. The war

6:49

in Gaza divides us, climate

6:51

policy increasingly divides us when

6:53

we thought for a short

6:55

bit that it was going

6:57

to be a great uniter.

6:59

you know, views on religion

7:01

seem to divide us. And

7:04

so on the surface at

7:06

least there seems to be

7:08

growing, growing division. Worse than

7:10

that, there's what scientists call,

7:12

social scientists call, effective polarization.

7:14

Effective polarization is a kind

7:16

of tribal phenomenon where winning

7:18

for your team. becomes more

7:20

important than the subject of

7:22

whatever you're discussing. It doesn't

7:24

matter what you're discussing, what

7:26

matters is to win for

7:28

your team and to be

7:30

to the other side, like

7:32

a sports team. Doesn't matter

7:34

if you're playing well or

7:36

if you're doing something terribly

7:39

wrong, what matters is to

7:41

win and that's effective polarization.

7:43

And I think the reason

7:45

why we're seeming seem to

7:47

be caught in a trap

7:49

of polarization is this effective

7:51

nature. you're either on my

7:53

side or you're against me.

7:55

And there's nothing in between.

7:57

So it just seems on

7:59

the surface that we are

8:01

increasingly polarized and divided and

8:03

that any topic falls victim

8:05

to this phenomenon of polarization

8:07

and division. So that's the

8:09

bad news. On the one

8:11

hand, we seem to be

8:14

more and more polarized. But

8:16

the good news is that

8:18

partly that's not true. Partly

8:20

that's a staged polarization. It's

8:22

given to us to be

8:24

seen as a show. So

8:26

the organization that I co-founded

8:28

eight years ago now is

8:30

called More in Common. And

8:32

what we do is we

8:34

do very large-scale opinion surveys

8:36

of people. And we've surveyed

8:38

hundreds of thousands of people

8:40

at this stage in surveys

8:42

and focus groups and different

8:44

interview techniques. And across a

8:46

wide number of topics, what

8:49

we see is that people

8:51

actually have a lot more

8:53

in common than what you

8:55

think. That's obviously the name

8:57

of the organization that I

8:59

founded, but we have data

9:01

to prove it. I'll give

9:03

you two quick examples. One

9:05

is the war between Israel

9:07

and Hamas, which has been

9:09

a hugely divisive issue all

9:11

over the world. If you

9:13

look at the news or

9:15

cable TV or social media,

9:17

you would think that there

9:19

are two sides. to this

9:21

battle. You would think that

9:23

there is one side that

9:26

is, you know, entirely pro-Israel

9:28

and one side that is

9:30

entirely pro- Palestine and Palestinians.

9:32

But in fact, when we

9:34

do surveys, we see that

9:36

that's not true. We did

9:38

a survey recently in France

9:40

and of the, you know,

9:42

70% of people who say

9:44

that they are very worried

9:46

about Israeli civilians in the

9:48

conflict. the overwhelming majority is

9:50

also worried about Palestinian civilians,

9:52

which is both obvious and

9:54

human to do and also

9:56

not what you see on

9:58

the news. And I'll give

10:01

you a second example very

10:03

quickly on police brutality in

10:05

the United States and in

10:07

Europe. We're also told that

10:09

there's a pro-police camp and

10:11

there's a pro-minority youth camp.

10:13

And those two things are

10:15

in opposition. The reality is

10:17

that most people who are

10:19

concerned about the treatment of

10:21

minorities by the police in

10:23

places like the United States.

10:25

also think the police have

10:27

an important role to play.

10:29

It's not either or. And

10:31

so in fact, on so

10:33

many topics, we see that

10:36

actually people refuse that binary

10:38

nature of polarization. But the

10:40

problem is that that nuance

10:42

and that complexity just doesn't

10:44

make for very good TV

10:46

or doesn't really work with

10:48

social media algorithms. So both

10:50

of those things are true.

10:52

We appear to be more

10:54

polarized. and we actually are

10:56

much less polarized than we

10:58

appear. That true requires nuance

11:00

and complexity to understand that

11:02

both of those things are

11:04

true. But of course, and

11:06

we can talk about this

11:08

if you'd like, the danger

11:11

is that fiction often becomes

11:13

reality. If you start believing

11:15

the fiction that we are

11:17

very divided and polarized, that

11:19

can become reality, and that

11:21

can be very, very dangerous.

11:23

Yeah, I would love to

11:25

talk about this. So what

11:27

I hear you say is

11:29

actually just for me to

11:31

reflect that a little bit

11:33

back. So what I hear

11:35

you say is that yes,

11:37

we become more and more

11:39

divisive, but actually like a

11:41

bigger part of the divisiveness

11:43

is a result of social

11:46

media media and all kinds

11:48

of news outlets that actually

11:50

display that much more than

11:52

what you find in your

11:54

surveys. That's basically what you

11:56

think. That's correct. Yeah, I

11:58

mean, there's something about know,

12:00

polarization and division is

12:02

not new. Since our human

12:04

adventure started, people have experienced

12:06

division and polarization. So, you

12:09

know, arguably, there's a case

12:11

to be made to say

12:13

that there's nothing new happening

12:15

here. What is new is

12:17

the impact of social media.

12:20

I think that is the

12:22

defining factor. Social media is

12:24

designed in a way to

12:26

pull you into more and

12:28

more extreme views. So it

12:30

sort of pulls, pulls apart

12:33

further and further and makes

12:35

it much harder to listen

12:37

and to understand the

12:39

other part of the argument.

12:41

And it creates something

12:44

that we've studied in

12:46

the United States, which

12:48

we've called perception gaps.

12:50

So perception gaps essentially,

12:52

and we've published a

12:54

series of reports called

12:56

perception gaps, and perception

12:58

gaps essentially measure the

13:01

difference between our perception

13:03

of the views of our so-called

13:05

opponents and the reality of their

13:07

views. So for example, in a

13:10

two-party context, you might ask

13:12

party A, what do you

13:14

think supporters of party B

13:16

think about immigration? And then

13:18

you measure that perception with

13:20

the reality. And what we

13:22

find is that there's enormous

13:24

perception gaps. We tend to

13:26

exaggerate the extremity of the

13:28

views of our so-called opponents.

13:30

So it's good news. That

13:33

means that we, you know, our views

13:35

are by and large more similar. to

13:37

those of our opponents than we think.

13:39

And so then we did another layer

13:42

of analysis was to try to understand,

13:44

well, why are there so many perception

13:46

gaps? And the more you're active on

13:49

social media, the bigger your perception gap,

13:51

the bigger your misunderstanding of the other

13:53

side is. So I think there is

13:56

some, I mean, I'm not saying anything

13:58

that's not, you know, obvious. to

14:00

people, to you and to

14:02

people listening to us, but

14:05

it is very true that

14:07

social media exacerbates polarization in

14:09

a very dangerous way. And

14:12

did you, I'm curious now,

14:14

my research, mine, is like,

14:17

did you make any, any

14:19

service, like how, what's the

14:21

effect of people? consuming more

14:24

social media on their like

14:26

how it changes their views

14:28

or how resilient let's say

14:31

or steady this less polarized

14:33

view is even under the

14:35

influence of social media. So

14:38

I mean the research is

14:40

is not definitive and not

14:43

very clear on this point

14:45

on the net impact of

14:47

social media. on social life

14:50

and general perceptions. However, we

14:52

have showed that people who

14:54

post what we call political

14:57

content, which isn't about politics,

14:59

it's just about sort of

15:01

marginally political content, it's not

15:04

partisan content, it's political in

15:06

nature. People who tend to

15:09

post that kind of content

15:11

on social media, they feed.

15:13

the algorithm with a point

15:16

of data that means that

15:18

they will get more content

15:20

like that. And generally if

15:23

they have a marginally formed

15:25

view on one thing it

15:27

will feed them something that

15:30

reinforces that view. And our

15:32

research shows that people who

15:35

post that kind of content,

15:37

they tend to have a

15:39

bigger perception gap. than people

15:42

who don't. So if you

15:44

consume social media particularly to

15:46

talk about politics, then the

15:49

distortion mechanism that I was

15:51

talking. about the distorted mirror

15:53

in the amusement park becomes

15:56

more distorted than people who

15:58

don't do that. Now, there

16:01

are also behaviors that reduce.

16:03

perception gaps and polarization. For

16:05

example, people who consume local

16:08

news and local newspapers, they

16:10

tend to have a more

16:12

accurate description of the views

16:15

of the other side. So

16:17

there's perceptions that extend the

16:19

gap and perceptions and behaviors

16:22

that reduce the gap. So

16:24

what what do you feel

16:27

is or what do you

16:29

think is your is now

16:31

the impact of that research

16:34

so you said you you

16:36

serve it hundreds of thousands

16:38

of people so that's already

16:41

and I assume that it's

16:43

that it's through all kinds

16:45

of demographic layers or societal

16:48

layers so it's it's a

16:50

pretty comprehensive understanding of society

16:53

at least in the locations

16:55

you did it in and

16:57

now what do you people

17:00

think is the impact that

17:02

can have or what's the

17:04

feedback mechanism into media and

17:07

social media landscapes? Because you

17:09

created some meaning here, which

17:11

is very beautiful. I mean,

17:14

you came up with something

17:16

that I think is a

17:19

great message for us to

17:21

hear. So how does this

17:23

feedback into the media social

17:26

media landscape like it's it's

17:28

kind of a like a

17:30

feedback mechanism that could create

17:33

now some correction functions and

17:35

say listen the polarization is

17:37

more unhealthy for society and

17:40

public health and the feedback

17:42

back into the social media

17:45

system is actually a corrective

17:47

function like in the body

17:49

you know if you have

17:52

a hormone that goes up

17:54

and you have a so

17:56

it keeps it in balance

17:59

and how do you How

18:01

do you see that process?

18:03

I think one can start

18:06

to take your image of

18:08

the body. One can start

18:11

to develop antibodies just as

18:13

the fever is still rising.

18:15

And I think I hope

18:18

that we're there. I hope

18:20

that slowly we are realizing,

18:22

not so slowly actually, we're

18:25

realizing that we're realizing that

18:28

This is not these behaviors,

18:30

whether it's social media consumption,

18:32

the way we think of

18:34

other people, the way we've

18:36

stopped listening to one another,

18:38

are very unhealthy for our

18:40

social body, our general body.

18:42

But the polarization and the

18:45

division is continuing to rise.

18:47

Both of those things will

18:49

happen at once. The question

18:51

is, you know, can we

18:53

accelerate the development of our

18:55

antibodies? And here, you know,

18:57

there is good news. In

18:59

the United States in More

19:02

and Commons work, we've talked

19:04

about a group called the

19:06

exhausted majority. And the exhausted

19:08

majority is somewhere between a

19:10

very progressive activist segment and

19:12

a very conservative and closed

19:14

segments. Both of those segments

19:16

are opposed politically, but they're

19:18

very active. They dominate the

19:21

conversation. But together they represent

19:23

really a minority of Americans,

19:25

you know. So the vast

19:27

majority is in the middle

19:29

between these two polls and

19:31

There are many differences between

19:33

different groups in those in

19:35

that middle, but one thing

19:37

they have in common is

19:40

that they are exhausted by

19:42

the polarization. That's why we

19:44

call them the exhausted majority,

19:46

which is a term that

19:48

has since gone viral and

19:50

been used by many people

19:52

in the United States, including

19:54

politicians who invariably start to

19:57

say that they are fighting

19:59

for the exhausted majority. The

20:01

thing they have in common

20:03

is a realization that this

20:05

polarization in this division is

20:07

bad for them, bad for

20:09

their families, bad for the

20:11

country. And so realizing that

20:13

this is bad for us,

20:16

realizing that we misunderstand the

20:18

other side, all of those

20:20

things I think are really

20:22

important starting point for the

20:24

production of the antibodies. But

20:26

I'm also under no illusion

20:28

that You know,

20:30

we are faced with sizable

20:33

economic and political powers who

20:35

have an interest in polarization

20:37

to name just two. One

20:39

is, you know, social media

20:42

platforms, they have developed, you

20:44

know, they are profiteers of

20:46

polarization, some of them, not

20:48

all of them, they profit

20:51

from this polarization. So that's

20:53

their business model, you know,

20:55

their whole. business model is

20:57

based on this on this

20:59

generation of content of that

21:02

you really want to see

21:04

etc. So they are Goliath

21:06

and we are a tiny

21:08

tiny little David. And then

21:11

of course there are you

21:13

know foreign powers who can

21:15

seek to use this polarization

21:17

to destabilize another country. You

21:20

don't need to persuade them

21:22

that you're right. All you

21:24

need to do is just

21:26

destabilize them, you know, confuse

21:29

them, make them doubt about

21:31

everything. So I'm hopeful that

21:33

the realization is growing, but

21:35

I'm also not naive about

21:38

the size of the size

21:40

of the size of the

21:42

political geopolitical economic interests on

21:44

the other side. Yeah I

21:47

was going to say that

21:49

that on the one hand

21:51

all these factors and there

21:53

maybe some more that want

21:55

that polarization to continue actually

21:58

need that polarization to continue.

22:00

I'm wondering if you look

22:02

in society into life and

22:04

you see that if something

22:07

happens in life, there's always

22:09

like a reason for it

22:11

to happen. But what in

22:13

your understanding when you studied

22:16

this a lot like what

22:18

do you feel is is

22:20

the function of polarization in

22:22

society? Like is it? Is

22:25

it something entirely detrimental or

22:27

do this polls like out

22:29

of some reason polarization emerged

22:31

and like it's here and

22:34

it's part of humanity's history

22:36

for a long time? So

22:38

is there any intelligence in

22:40

polarizing? Does this does this

22:42

serve anything in the society

22:45

or is it just like

22:47

a symptom we want to

22:49

get rid of? Yeah, it's

22:51

a great question. I mean,

22:54

I think polarization is a

22:56

little bit like cholesterol, you

22:58

know. There's good polarization and

23:00

there's bad polarization, like there's

23:03

good and bad cholesterol, you

23:05

know. I am not here

23:07

to argue that we absolutely

23:09

all have to get along

23:12

and agree about everything. Absolutely

23:14

not, you know, division, a

23:16

strong opposition of views. All

23:18

of that is very healthy.

23:21

in whatever political system you

23:23

you operate in, but particularly

23:25

in democracy, a democracy is

23:27

based on, you know, forms

23:30

of divisions and disagreement. That

23:32

is not at all what

23:34

I'm saying. What I'm also

23:36

not saying is that it's

23:38

urgent to sort of come

23:41

to some weak compromise or

23:43

lowest common denominator about everything

23:45

from immigration to taxation. Not

23:47

at all. I am very

23:50

much in favor of healthy

23:52

disagreement. But I think to

23:54

borrow the phrase of a

23:56

really good initiative in the

23:59

United States. we need

24:01

to know how to disagree

24:03

better. We need to know

24:05

how to disagree well again,

24:07

because there is also bad

24:09

polarization. There's that effective polarization,

24:11

which is just essentially tribal

24:13

in essence of like, I

24:15

want to win against you

24:17

at all cost. It doesn't

24:20

matter what you say or

24:22

what you think, I just

24:24

want to beat you. And

24:26

there's something in that effective

24:28

polarization that is genuinely bad

24:30

and I think really really

24:32

destructive. I'll give you two

24:34

examples of why I think

24:36

that is. The first one

24:38

is that, you know, I

24:40

started my career before we

24:42

started more in common. I

24:44

worked in the Department of

24:46

Peacekeeping Operations of the UN.

24:49

I worked with the Blue

24:51

Helmets for five years and

24:53

I lived in Afghanistan for

24:55

three years. I lived, I

24:57

was the head of the

24:59

office of the UN in

25:01

the tribal area on the

25:03

border between Afghanistan and Pakistan,

25:05

which is really Taliban heartland.

25:07

I worked in Syria and

25:09

I saw Syria descend into

25:11

the civil war. And I

25:13

kind of experience what it

25:15

means to see a country

25:18

descend into civil conflict. And

25:20

that is the product. No

25:22

civil war has ever. been

25:24

sparked or extended without that

25:26

that fuel of effective polarization

25:28

of just making a large

25:30

group of people persuade that

25:32

they are better than the

25:34

other side so much so

25:36

that the other side has

25:38

to be exterminated. So the

25:40

bad kind of polarization is

25:42

quite bad. Now I'm not

25:45

here to say that you

25:47

know Western Europe is about

25:49

to become a lepo or

25:51

Damascus. That that is not

25:53

what I'm saying, but we

25:55

are taking a path that

25:57

can if you your thinking

25:59

out a few years could

26:01

lead us down the path

26:03

of social conflict. So that's

26:05

one reason why there's a

26:07

bad polarization is to avoid

26:09

war really is what we're

26:11

talking about. And it's interesting

26:14

that, you know, I don't

26:16

know if you saw the

26:18

movie Civil War, which was,

26:20

you know, had a big,

26:22

was a big hit in

26:24

the. in the global box

26:26

office. I think last time

26:28

I checked it was like

26:30

number 12 on the global

26:32

box office this year. It's

26:34

on my list. I didn't

26:36

have time yet. It's really

26:38

good. I highly recommended, but

26:40

it's also terrifying that like

26:43

it's so close to reality

26:45

that that there's it's not

26:47

for nothing that people are

26:49

going to see films about

26:51

a civil war in places

26:53

like the United States. So

26:55

that's one reason why there's

26:57

some bad polarization. But then

26:59

another reason which is even

27:01

more existential important is that,

27:03

you know, humankind, the women

27:05

and men and children who

27:07

make up humankind, are faced

27:09

with challenges that are perhaps

27:12

on a scale that's not

27:14

comparable to any other time

27:16

in human history. The climate

27:18

emergency is first and foremost,

27:20

but there are others, you

27:22

know, the threat. the opportunities

27:24

but also the threat posed

27:26

by artificial intelligence and so

27:28

on. There are many others.

27:30

We're simply not going to

27:32

be able to solve these

27:34

problems if we are so

27:36

divided and we can't agree

27:38

on anything. And I think

27:41

that's where the bad kind

27:43

of division and disagreement, the

27:45

bad kind of polarization can

27:47

really lead us to ruin.

27:50

Bailit back for a moment and

27:52

then we go to what you

27:54

just mentioned like climate change for

27:56

example but when I'm curious how

27:58

you see where is the good

28:01

polarization turning into

28:03

bad polarization? So

28:05

what's actually, how can

28:08

we define certain qualities

28:10

that would say like

28:12

this part of polarization

28:14

is actually a healthy dynamism

28:17

in a society that keeps

28:19

the societal evolution going? And

28:21

then there is a fault

28:23

line and then when we

28:26

cross that fault line like

28:28

then it actually becomes destructive

28:30

somehow would do you have

28:33

some parameters that would indicate

28:35

okay this is polarization that

28:37

is actually more healthy and

28:39

it's a dynamic process between

28:41

people what would what are

28:43

qualities that you would give

28:45

that kind of polarization so

28:47

that we can see oh

28:49

we can learn to this.

28:52

distinguish this two and say

28:54

okay this is one and

28:56

this is the other what

28:58

how would you say that well

29:00

I think that that

29:02

probably depends on each

29:05

sort of cultural context

29:07

but there seems to

29:09

be one one sort

29:11

of attribute that I

29:14

think is worrying is

29:16

sort of what's called

29:18

intergroup contact so

29:21

Intergroup contact basically

29:23

describes how many people do

29:26

you know or are you

29:28

in contact with that are

29:30

not part of your group,

29:32

not part of your in-group.

29:34

So, you know, social scientists

29:36

refer to in groups and

29:39

outgroups. And when there's very

29:41

little intergroup contact, then

29:43

I think that's quite worrying.

29:45

because it suggests that sort

29:47

of hardened groups have formed. And

29:50

that leads you down the path

29:52

of what I was describing earlier,

29:54

which is this tribal version of

29:56

polarization. Doesn't matter what we think

29:59

or what. do, the most

30:01

important thing is to beat

30:03

the other team. So societies

30:05

that have more intergroup contact,

30:07

whether it's through school or

30:09

housing or the organization of

30:11

housing or social clubs or

30:13

sports teams or, you know,

30:16

Robert Putnam, the great American

30:18

scholar, had published this very

30:20

important book called Bowling Alone,

30:22

when you know, when when

30:24

people start to not really

30:26

have that much group interactions

30:28

with people who are different

30:30

from them, but also when

30:32

people start to have fewer

30:34

and fewer interactions. I think

30:36

this is also linked to

30:38

crisis of loneliness, which is

30:40

happening all around the world.

30:43

But I think when there's

30:45

less intergroup contact, that's quite

30:47

worrying. That tells me you're

30:49

drifting from one kind of,

30:51

well, from sort of healthy

30:53

disagreement into that. The other

30:55

thing is, and this is

30:57

hard to measure, but I

30:59

think it's close to the

31:01

work that you do, which

31:03

is it's really about listening.

31:05

I very often tell the

31:07

story that in our research

31:09

we conduct focus groups on

31:12

a variety of topics all

31:14

over Europe and the US.

31:16

And as is common practice,

31:18

we pay participants a little

31:20

bit of money to join

31:22

a two-hour focus group to

31:24

talk about climate change or

31:26

the cost of living crisis

31:28

or the elections or whatever.

31:30

And very often what happens

31:32

at the end, so a

31:34

focus group is for people

31:36

who don't know is generally

31:39

eight people and you talk

31:41

about the wide range of

31:43

topics for two hours. These

31:45

are people who don't know

31:47

one another. And what very

31:49

happens at the end of

31:51

these focus groups is that

31:53

people say, you know, that

31:55

felt really good. Like I

31:57

haven't really spent two hours

31:59

talking to people I don't

32:01

know about stuff. in decades.

32:03

And so what very often

32:05

very often almost all the

32:08

time they say thank you

32:10

You know they say really

32:12

thank you for for doing

32:14

this it feels good to

32:16

talk about stuff and then

32:18

it happened to us just

32:20

last week Participants sometimes say

32:22

can I please come back

32:24

tomorrow, but you don't need

32:26

to pay me. I'll come

32:28

back for free. I just

32:30

liked the experience and so

32:32

I think there's also kind

32:34

of a crisis of loneliness,

32:37

but also listening like the

32:39

quality of of people's ability

32:41

to listen when that quality

32:43

goes down and when people

32:45

don't feel heard or listened

32:47

to, then that's an indicator

32:49

that you're going to a

32:51

dangerous place. No, this sounds

32:53

very lovely and I mean

32:55

it resonates very much with

32:57

the work that we are

32:59

doing, that's right. And also

33:01

what I hear you say

33:04

is that actively looking for

33:06

diverse... diversity in all kinds

33:08

of forms again that we

33:10

as citizens are really interested

33:12

in diversity and it's not

33:14

just being served to us

33:16

that we are actively looking

33:18

for you know opposing opinions

33:20

and see how they feel

33:22

and listen to people and

33:24

being curious that's actually a

33:26

healthy social immune system that

33:28

that creates those antibodies that

33:30

you I think you talked

33:33

about. One of the problems

33:35

is that there are bigger

33:37

sort of socio-economic dynamics that

33:39

are preventing that diverse contact.

33:41

It's a great book written

33:43

called The Big Sort, which

33:45

explains how in the United

33:47

States over the last few

33:49

decades, people have started to

33:51

move from mixed neighborhoods to

33:53

very homogeneous neighborhood socio economically

33:55

in terms of income levels

33:57

and education levels and so

34:00

that has created a sort

34:02

of You know a blue

34:04

America in a red America

34:06

or and so the problem

34:08

with that is that even

34:10

if you would, if you

34:12

want to meet people who

34:14

are different from you, it

34:16

just so happens that you

34:18

wake up one morning and

34:20

all of your neighbors are

34:22

kind of like you. And

34:24

so you think, well, I

34:26

don't know where all the

34:29

other people have gone, but

34:31

they're not here. And so

34:33

that's where things like school

34:35

districts and housing policy are

34:37

really, really important. Yeah, beautiful.

34:39

Lovely. So it's it's kind

34:41

of a personal and the

34:43

systemic or structural. Yeah, you

34:45

need to think about how

34:47

to how to enhance this

34:49

immune system that you're talking

34:51

about, these antibodies that keep

34:53

the democratic process or society

34:55

more healthy. Yes. Yes. I

34:58

mean, I think there's there's

35:00

really things that each of

35:02

us can do to fight

35:04

these dynamics. Look for you

35:06

know, people who are different

35:08

from you in your company

35:10

in your gym in your

35:12

sports club in your school,

35:14

you know, like that that

35:16

intergroup contact can happen everywhere.

35:18

I mean, getting off our

35:20

phones is a good start.

35:22

Social media is not good

35:25

for us, but also the

35:27

phone is just absorbs us

35:29

and cuts us off from

35:31

other people. So there's lots

35:33

of things people can actually

35:35

do. Yeah, right, right, very

35:37

much so. So what I

35:39

hear you say, on the

35:41

one hand, actively engage, there's

35:43

there are many things you

35:45

can do to kind of,

35:47

I also feel that when

35:49

I listen to you, when

35:51

you talk, and I feel

35:54

like it creates immediately more

35:56

oxygen, it's kind of feels

35:58

fresh and the air feels

36:00

fresher and it feels interesting

36:02

because it sparks our curiosity

36:04

and also learning, I think.

36:06

And we all know that

36:08

social media media and our

36:10

phones create this kind of

36:12

suits, you know, the suits

36:14

of homogenate here, like sameness.

36:16

And so getting off that

36:18

is very helpful. And then

36:21

curious now because to me

36:23

it seems whenever and you

36:25

said it before because we're

36:27

like what you're bringing and

36:29

I think it's very interesting

36:31

to get this more out

36:33

like all the things that

36:35

you found through your service

36:37

that actually contradict a bit

36:39

the main information. I'm curious

36:41

now because to me it

36:43

seems whenever and you said

36:45

it before because we assumed

36:47

that COVID would maybe create

36:50

more to get in us

36:52

but it didn't. So On

36:54

the other hand, we could

36:56

say every time there's a

36:58

bigger collective stress factor that

37:00

touches the collective like the

37:02

society, the societal body, it

37:04

might reinforce this kind of

37:06

fragmentation. And I'm wondering now

37:08

how you look at it.

37:10

Let's say climate change, you

37:12

mentioned it before and there

37:14

are others, but let's say

37:17

with one for a moment.

37:19

to make it more simple

37:21

when there is a stress

37:23

factor coming that is kind

37:25

of continuously turning up literally

37:27

and metaphorically the heat in

37:29

the system. So basically that

37:31

the resilience that we have

37:33

is going to be challenged

37:35

more and more. So isn't

37:37

that a natural way into

37:39

into a deeper and deeper

37:41

fragmentation. And isn't that the

37:43

natural way, segue into like

37:46

what you mentioned before with

37:48

the movie, The Civil War?

37:50

Like you said, okay, we

37:52

are not in Aleppo and

37:54

at the same time, it's

37:56

not so far out. And

37:58

there is a very concrete

38:00

stress factor that is gonna

38:02

turn up the heat and

38:04

like we are turning up

38:06

the heat in our own

38:08

water. Isn't that naturally going

38:10

there? And if so, maybe

38:12

not. I'm curious what you're

38:15

saying. And if so, what

38:17

do we actually have to

38:19

learn or evolve? into or

38:21

express in a new way,

38:23

not to go there, even

38:25

if that stress factor is

38:27

there. So I'm curious about

38:29

your take on that. Yeah,

38:31

yeah. Well, you know, I'm

38:33

an optimist, but sometimes it's

38:35

hard to be an optimist.

38:37

So there is no doubt

38:39

that the stress placed by

38:42

the growing threat. of that

38:44

climate change poses to our

38:46

societies, to our livelihoods, to

38:48

our food, to it's massive

38:50

and it's so multi-dimensional. Perhaps

38:52

a problem with that threat

38:54

is that it's so it's

38:56

it still feels very distant

38:58

for for so many people.

39:00

So making it present is

39:02

a real challenge. And I

39:04

think a mistake that has

39:06

been made for too long

39:08

is to describe global goals

39:11

1.5 degrees at the 2050

39:13

horizon, which is both scientifically

39:15

enormously important. feels so far

39:17

removed from the lives of

39:19

so many people who say,

39:21

I don't know when 1.5

39:23

degrees means. Doesn't sound like

39:25

a lot. 2050 is like

39:27

I, you know, most people

39:29

have difficulty making ends meet

39:31

at the end of the

39:33

month. So 2050 really sounds

39:35

like I have no idea.

39:38

So I think the climate

39:40

movement has done a much

39:42

better job at making things

39:44

a bit more. closer to

39:46

talk about food and to

39:48

talk about people's livelihoods, etc.

39:50

So that's helped. But certainly

39:52

it presents a challenge to

39:54

us. like never before. So,

39:56

but I still think that

39:58

we can have the capacity

40:00

to come together to solve

40:02

those challenges, but there will

40:04

still be tension and disagreements

40:07

and about how we deal

40:09

with this and there still

40:11

will be sort of winners

40:13

or losers from these transitions.

40:15

But I think there's just

40:17

a way to lower the

40:19

temperature. on the sort of

40:21

social temperature, not the temperature

40:23

of the earth, but lower

40:25

the temperature and polarization on

40:27

so many of the other

40:29

issues that frankly, we shouldn't

40:31

be arguing about. I mean,

40:34

arguing about COVID vaccines or

40:36

masks sounds to me at

40:38

least, that's just my opinion,

40:40

that was not necessary. That

40:42

was entirely avoidable kind of

40:44

disagreement. We should be focusing

40:46

on other things that are

40:48

really existential and really, you

40:50

know, sources of disagreement. But

40:52

I agree with you that

40:54

that's why there's urgency to

40:56

this work. Because as I

40:58

was saying earlier, I really

41:00

fundamentally believe that we will

41:03

not be able to tackle

41:05

the shared challenge of climate

41:07

change. if we continue to

41:09

be this divided, we just

41:11

won't make it. So it's

41:13

very urgent. I completely agree

41:15

with you. And that's why

41:17

I find it very interesting

41:19

to look with you because

41:21

if if if migration or

41:23

forced migration through climate like

41:25

it's going to get more

41:27

and more hot on all

41:29

levels and And I think

41:32

if we are that divided

41:34

and we don't make it

41:36

into a new level of

41:38

global collaboration, local and global

41:40

collaboration, I agree, then that's,

41:42

so there is something that

41:44

asks for some kind of

41:46

evolution. some kind of development

41:48

or maturation that I think

41:50

is needed. I really do

41:52

think that, you know, the

41:54

kind of techniques and framing

41:56

and thinking that you bring

41:59

through the understanding of trauma

42:01

is very helpful and is

42:03

very relevant here. And, you

42:05

know, my own wish is

42:07

that it moves into institutions,

42:09

it's brought down to people

42:11

because I think just like

42:13

listening is very much a

42:15

skill we need to develop.

42:17

I am in favor of

42:19

like learning how to listen,

42:21

teaching kids how to listen

42:23

in school, but I'm also

42:25

very much in favor of

42:28

bringing the kinds of tools

42:30

that you've developed. into everyday

42:32

life because they're very important.

42:34

They're not just some sort

42:36

of fringe thing. They are

42:38

very important to institutions, to

42:40

government officials, to companies, to

42:42

all of that. I think

42:44

there is a part of

42:46

the answer is there. Yeah,

42:48

I do think so too.

42:50

And that trauma informedness doesn't

42:52

mean that everybody needs to

42:55

become a specialist or an

42:57

expert. We can create collective

42:59

competence that can take care

43:01

of some of the principles

43:03

that we, like a collective

43:05

can take care of. Right,

43:07

I agree. I agree. totally

43:09

and I we've seen in

43:11

our work how you know

43:13

crises that are unaddressed they

43:15

sort of avalanche into the

43:17

next problem and the next

43:19

problem and what we've what

43:21

everybody feels is that over

43:24

the last you know five

43:26

to ten years they've just

43:28

been an acceleration of crises

43:30

you know we've had you

43:32

know COVID and and political

43:34

uprisings and traumatic elections and

43:36

then wars and you know

43:38

the return of the threat

43:40

of nuclear war in Europe

43:42

and cost of living crisis,

43:44

which was very traumatic for

43:46

so many, and they just

43:48

keep coming so, so close.

43:50

So it's really interesting because,

43:53

you know, for example, if

43:55

you think about the financial

43:57

crisis of, you know, 2008,

43:59

2007, that left so many

44:01

people traumatized. They lost their

44:03

houses, etc. And that was

44:05

never addressed, and that then

44:07

festered into the wave of

44:09

populism that we saw in

44:11

the late 2010s. in Europe

44:13

and in the United States.

44:15

And that is going to

44:17

create the next thing. So

44:20

at least becoming aware of

44:22

that is really, it's really

44:24

important. Yeah, I totally agree.

44:26

And I think we are

44:28

not good as societies yet

44:30

in making spaces, creating spaces

44:32

where we can digest those

44:34

crises. and integrate their impact.

44:36

If we had a system,

44:38

you know, if something happens

44:40

to you and then you

44:42

have a space that you

44:44

yourself or somebody listens to

44:46

you deeply and you share,

44:49

whatever, you start moving that

44:51

pain or whatever it is

44:53

and it can develop, it

44:55

can change and be digested.

44:57

But the digestion like society

44:59

is like eating, eating, eating,

45:01

eating, eating, without digesting. And

45:03

then we wonder like how

45:05

many... COVID integration spaces did

45:07

we have? How many did

45:09

you see? I didn't see

45:11

many spaces where people come

45:13

together and said, we had

45:16

a global pandemic, we had

45:18

a crisis, we were very

45:20

divided. Let's stop for a

45:22

moment and create a space

45:24

where we just listen, what

45:26

you did in the focus

45:28

groups, like just to listen

45:30

to each other and create

45:32

a space and that would

45:34

help us to digest it.

45:36

And so it would not

45:38

linger around so long because

45:40

it would, you know, become

45:42

an integrated. part of our

45:45

experience. And so I think

45:47

these spaces are very important.

45:49

And as you said, you

45:51

said it beautifully, we are

45:53

accumulating more and more stuff

45:55

and then it becomes an

45:57

avalanche that keeps coming down.

45:59

mountain, you know, it's more

46:01

and more destructive. I agree.

46:03

I agree. We also need

46:05

to kind of change the

46:07

culture where it's not valued

46:09

to sort of stop and

46:12

take stock and listen to

46:14

one another. You know, we're

46:16

still in a different, you

46:18

know, different kind of culture,

46:20

which is why I think

46:22

also a part of a

46:24

big part of the solution

46:26

is It's just to

46:28

value different things in one another,

46:31

but also in leaders. I think,

46:33

you know, valuing, creating those spaces

46:35

is not currently valued in our

46:37

leadership model, which is still very

46:40

kind of old school, it feels

46:42

like, which puts a premium on

46:44

doing stuff and yeah, just do

46:46

more stuff. And I think that

46:49

needs to that needs to change

46:51

too. Yeah, I completely agree with

46:53

you. And also, like the more

46:56

we learn about the nervous system

46:58

and it says, okay, if we

47:00

can live in a more regulated

47:02

state, our social engagement system, like

47:05

the part where I can listen

47:07

to you and you can listen

47:09

to me, I feel you feeling

47:12

me, and there is a relational

47:14

resonance in the data flow, like

47:16

that that part gets more and

47:18

more shut down, the higher is

47:21

our stress level. And if we

47:23

go into more fight and flight

47:25

states, so that that that will

47:28

operate less and less. So then

47:30

I hear you less. and less

47:32

and I need to defend myself

47:34

more and more fight against you

47:37

or leave the room and and

47:39

so if we can that's why

47:41

I think that that education that

47:43

you said that collective education of

47:46

simple things could already change the

47:48

dialogue and and have more mutual

47:50

spaces being created and I'm I'm

47:53

wondering you said something before they

47:55

caught my attention and maybe you

47:57

can speak a little bit to

47:59

that like you saw Syria. Okay.

48:02

more and more moving into like

48:04

a civil unrest, a civil war.

48:06

Like when you saw that

48:08

did you see any like

48:10

was there an inevitability

48:13

to that process

48:15

or do you feel that something

48:18

what can change once

48:20

that process is in

48:22

motion did you see

48:24

any Any loophole where you

48:26

could say, okay, here is

48:29

a potential for change or

48:31

once that's beyond like a

48:33

point of no return, it's

48:36

it's going to cascade into

48:38

into what you take. And

48:40

then, since you were there

48:42

and you experienced it yourself.

48:45

There was a lot of

48:47

talk about. red lines being

48:50

crossed at some point in

48:52

the Syrian conflict. And I

48:54

think certainly some of those

48:57

red lines were crossed. So

48:59

having some sort of ability

49:02

either within the country, within

49:04

traditional systems like tribal systems

49:07

or religious groups, etc, to

49:09

rein in leaders who

49:11

have become conflict entrepreneurs.

49:13

There's a moment,

49:16

I think, at which

49:18

you can see a

49:20

leader shift from wanting

49:23

the best for

49:25

his or her group

49:27

to wanting. chaos

49:29

and conflict to benefit

49:31

from it. And so

49:33

any system, whether it's

49:35

an international system or internal

49:38

system, to rein in

49:40

leaders who make that

49:42

switch, who are on

49:44

that journey to sort

49:46

of authoritarianism, I think that

49:48

needs to happen fairly early.

49:50

But I think coming back

49:52

to what I was saying

49:54

earlier, whether it's in Syria

49:56

or in Afghanistan or in

49:58

Congo and rule. Wanda or

50:00

in Bosnia, you see that

50:02

there's a, there's a demonization

50:04

of the other side, as

50:07

if the other side was,

50:09

became sort of subhuman, you

50:11

know, and there's inevitably surfacing

50:13

a very violent language to

50:15

describe this other team that

50:17

must be eradicated. You know.

50:19

Sometimes there's language that compares

50:21

the other side to animals,

50:23

to insects, which is very,

50:25

very frequent. Certainly when you

50:27

see that, that kind of

50:29

language appears. It's kind of

50:32

genocidal language really is what

50:34

it is. It's probably too

50:36

late. You've let the formation

50:38

of these in-group dynamics that

50:40

are so strong and so

50:42

riled up that it's probably

50:44

too late. So working back

50:46

from that to the formation

50:48

of these... very strong in-group

50:50

dynamics and preventing those from

50:52

being calcified, I think is

50:54

part of the solution. And

50:56

then of course there's an

50:59

institutional response to it, which

51:01

is that when institutions, whether

51:03

it's religious institutions or school

51:05

institutions or social care institutions,

51:07

stop uniting people but become

51:09

fragmented, then that's a very

51:11

bad sign because you're not

51:13

united by, I think the

51:15

role of institutions in keeping

51:17

us together is really, really,

51:19

really important. You see that,

51:21

you know, many terrorist organizations

51:24

where have been all over

51:26

the world have been very

51:28

effective in providing social care

51:30

to take people away from

51:32

very poorly functioning social care

51:34

institutions at national level and

51:36

to say no come come

51:38

with us we have a

51:40

Hezbollah schooling system or Hezbollah

51:42

housing system or, you know,

51:44

Hamas social care provision, that's

51:46

also very worrying because it's

51:49

a sort of institutional failure.

51:51

So those are some of

51:53

the signs to, I think,

51:55

to look out for. But

51:57

so often, you notice these

51:59

things when it's too late,

52:01

and those mechanisms are already

52:03

in play and there's a

52:05

sort of inevitability to those

52:07

conflicts. Yeah, I find it

52:09

deeply interesting and most probably

52:11

many of our listeners too

52:13

that Just listening to your

52:16

experience because I think it's

52:18

different than when we theorize

52:20

about something that happened somewhere

52:22

in the world or if

52:24

you haven't embodied experience like

52:26

you were on the ground

52:28

in Afghanistan you were on

52:30

the ground in Syria and

52:32

And I think being in

52:34

a in a zone that

52:36

or in a war zone

52:38

is a different there is

52:41

something to that experience that

52:43

when just as you reflected

52:45

now I found it interesting

52:47

to see what I actually

52:49

the because to me it

52:51

feels like there's a certain

52:53

moment when the I would

52:55

call the social coherent starts

52:57

disintegrating and the more it

52:59

disintegrates it goes into more

53:01

primal and earlier evolutionary functions

53:03

that become more and more

53:05

polarized. And then you said

53:08

it like when the leader

53:10

turns from wanting the best

53:12

for the country or anybody,

53:14

a local leader to okay,

53:16

how can I, what's the

53:18

best for me? Like that's

53:20

that's already a red alarm,

53:22

like a truly a red

53:24

alarm. And so are there

53:26

signs when we see that

53:28

the cascading process starts to

53:30

happen? What would actually be

53:33

the immune response? And I

53:35

think that's a, I mean,

53:37

that's not for now because

53:39

we're at the end of

53:41

our time, but for me

53:43

that sounds like a very

53:45

interesting conversation how to harvest

53:47

yours and maybe knowledge to

53:49

look at, okay, what can

53:51

be done actually to bolster

53:53

the immune system so that

53:55

you have immunotherapy for societies.

53:57

Yeah. There are some excellent

54:00

books that have been written

54:02

recently that describe the sort

54:04

of stages that you're in.

54:06

You know, are you in

54:08

stage one or stage five,

54:10

kind of like a disease?

54:12

They're really, really excellent books.

54:14

And what's really worrying is

54:16

that you know if you

54:18

look at places like France

54:20

where I live now or

54:22

the United States or you

54:25

know Brazil arguably were fairly

54:27

advanced on those stages if

54:29

you look at the objective

54:31

metrics of it's quite worrying

54:33

yeah I so there are

54:35

checklists to say you know

54:37

Do we still have a

54:39

media that kind of unites

54:41

people or has media become

54:43

totally fragmented? Are there, is

54:45

there violent language being used

54:47

on the radio or on

54:49

TV to describe the other

54:52

side? All of those things

54:54

are kind of part of

54:56

a checklist that tells you

54:58

which stage you're in. Very

55:00

good, very useful books. Yeah,

55:02

I'm sure. I'm sure. Matthew,

55:04

this is fantastic. This is

55:06

a great conversation. I would

55:08

love to continue, but I

55:10

know we have this defined

55:12

time. So thank you so

55:14

much. This was really very

55:17

enlightening. It's very interesting to

55:19

me. And I learned a

55:21

lot from you. So thank

55:23

you so much for being

55:25

here. And I bless you

55:27

for your work. You're doing

55:29

great work. And so thank

55:31

you for doing what you're

55:33

doing. Thank you very much.

55:35

Thanks for the invitation and

55:37

I too really really appreciated

55:39

the conversation and also congratulations

55:41

to you for all the

55:44

work you're doing because it's

55:46

a big part of the

55:48

solution I think. Yeah, thank

55:50

you. Thank you and hopefully

55:52

we can continue this somewhere

55:54

else. Yeah, it was a

55:56

pleasure. visit

56:00

collective .com to listen to

56:02

featured talks from our

56:04

most recent conference most

56:06

sign up to be

56:08

the first to know

56:10

when the next conference

56:12

is announced. know when the next conference

56:15

is announced. Thanks for listening to Point a

56:17

Relation with Thomas Hubble. Stay connected and get

56:19

updates about new episodes by visiting our website.

56:21

Point a Relation Podcast.com and by subscribing to

56:23

the Thomas Hubble YouTube channel. If you enjoyed

56:25

this video, please like it share

56:27

about us with your

56:29

community on social media. on

56:32

Thank you. Thank We

56:34

appreciate your support. support.