The Outrage Economy

David (00:00) What if the biggest fight in American politics isn't over taxes or immigration or even health care? What if it's over your attention? Every day, politicians, influencers, cable news hosts, and social media algorithms Compete to tell you what deserves your outrage, who deserves your sympathy, and who's beyond redemption. This week we're asking a different question. Who benefits when your emotions become someone else's strategy? This is Shrink the Nation. Let's go. David (01:06) All right, hey, I am David. I am a board certified psychiatrist with over twenty years in the military. And today, because it is just too early for bourbon, unfortunately, Robbie, I have what I am going to generously call coffee. I'm not at any of my regular recording locations and so what I have access to is Keurig and man it's not great. This is the Evan Williams equivalent of what I'm used to, which is, freshly ground Americano or espresso or something Rob (01:34) Ha ha. David (01:41) I'm gonna give all tens of our listeners a little wonderful life hack. If you put a couple of shots of espresso into a chocolate pre mixed protein shake, it is Just delightful. I'm hoping this has caffeine in it because that's all I'm really deriving from it. Otherwise it's just brown water, slightly flavored like coffee. Rob (02:01) an interesting setup that kind of reminded me of like, I'm sitting here eating corn mush and then tell a story about how if you put ice cream in something it tastes good. David (02:11) Yeah. I'll tell you the connection is that I'm currently longing for espresso or good coffee And lately because it's been hot out, I've been mixing it ice and protein shake. It's just been good. and it looks really good in the shrink the nation glass that we have Rob (02:15) Mm. I get it. yeah. David (02:28) It looks cool when you put the espresso in and ice and then you pour in the protein shake. it just looks cool the way that it mixes. So I'm missing that right now. Rob (02:30) Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. it's Rob board certified psychiatrist, lot of experience in the military, coming to you in a full fledged civilian capacity. I am also drinking coffee this morning because while it's not quite as early as it is for David, we already established that if you put bourbon in your coffee that was called alcoholism. So we're not doing that. and I'm having my standard black rifle coffee, which is not espresso, but it's good coffee. David (03:05) Yeah, I take any coffee right now. any real coffee. Freeze, dried, whatever the hell that is. negative. Basically, yeah, that's what it feels like. right. today's episode is brought to you by Robbie's Colonel Concierge. Have you ever wanted to feel like a Fulberg Colonel? Rob (03:10) Sanka. You're at grandma's house drinking Sanka. David (03:22) Without all the promotions, deployments, and responsibility, now you can. With Robbie's Colonel Concierge, we'll create the authentic senior officer experience right in your own home. Our concierge package includes someone carrying your coffee while calling you sir, a retired lieutenant colonel nodding enthusiastically every time you speak, three PowerPoint presentations you don't have to read, a reserve parking sign for your driveway, and an assistant whose sole responsibility is saying. Great point, sir, every seven minutes. Upgrade to the executive Robbie experience and we'll even schedule fake meetings on your calendar so your spouse thinks you're busy. For an additional fee, we'll teach you how to answer every question with that's a second order effect. Or let's take that offline. Or finally, we'll form a working group. Robbie's colonel concierge, because nothing says leadership like having someone else do absolutely everything. Rob (04:08) Yeah. yeah, you know, it is funny how becoming a senior officer, at least when you're in the command role, makes you stupider, in a lot of ways, 'cause once you stop having everyone do stuff for you, you realize you've forgotten how to do like administrative stuff, because someone was doing it for you. I'll tell you the thing you're missing out on. Someone needs to call the room to attention every time you step in the door. we need to add that Yeah. So David (04:31) That in. You gotta add that to the package. But that'll be it. Rob (04:35) you know, the first time that happens you feel like, that was that was kinda cool. And you know, about the fifth time it happens, it's just a hassle. All right, as you were. At ease. David (04:43) Don't Don't yeah, but don't don't fucking lie. You know, you know that when they don't do it, you're like motherfuckers. You're the guy who's like, nah, nah, come on, that's not necessary. And then when they stop, you're like, These fuckers. Rob (04:53) That's not true. That's not true. I had a standing rule. We're gonna do it one time, one time, in a day, and then we're done because it's David (05:03) But if they and if they didn't do it, you're like you sons of bitches. sons of bitches. hallways not rooms now? Rob (05:07) All right. Right. Maybe may maybe a little a little, yeah. So. David (05:12) No, you know it's true because whenever you walk into a room, if you're not getting called to attention, they just stand up. Anybody who you outrank is supposed to just at least stand up. And if you don't do it, you know, you might, yeah, you you're like, okay. No, no, no, sit down, sit down, sit down before they can even stand up. But if they don't do it, you're like, You fuck. You fuck. No decorum here. There's no decorum. You know that's true. We've all experienced it. Rob (05:34) I'd I'd tell I'd tell stories about when I was a young soldier. Yeah. David (05:38) Anyway. All right. Rob (05:39) the military. David (05:40) Good times. so when we started planning this episode, we were gonna do it about sex scandals. We had Grant Platiner, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Clinton, Trump, Franken, Katie Hill. and we wanted to dig down as to why some accusations end careers while others just barely slow anyone down. But the more that we talked about it, more obvious it became that sex scandals were only like one version of the same larger problem. Charlie Kirk became untouchable after his assassination, and then not even a year later became a meme in a punchline. but then Trump keeps dragging the national attention back to him, we're trying to do an episode that's not about him. so what not even twelve hours after we discussed talking sex scandals, he demanded Greenland again, while NATO was simultaneously announcing billions in arms deals to flex. That actually happened. So right now, it's not this common denominator of sex scandal anymore. it's moral attention, Robbie. so that's what we're gonna talk about today, Rob (06:38) Yeah. it does end up being a more fascinating topic. sex scandals are common and you know, I go back through my life, the only thing that's changed about them is not so much the frequency, it's the impact. I think of Gary Hart and his failed run for the presidency over having an affair. and now that doesn't even necessarily register on anyone's moral outrage scale. so yeah, moral attention. So how does America decide what moral emergency we're having this week? and we kind of approach it like news agencies approach coverage of missing airplanes. it's like wall-to-wall coverage until some other tragedy happens, that's how we do it. part of it's the news cycle. It moves so quickly, and we move on to the next moral outrage thing. But it does end up being an interesting psychologic topic. David (07:27) why is it that we care so much? when we're talking about somebody else's sex life or just any of these scandals that are occurring, what is it that gets us so attached to them that it becomes that big thing? Rob (07:40) at least my sense of it. usually when I'm thinking about these things, I usually start with evolutionary psychology. when I'm building some kind of mental model for something, I start there. we're really designed for at best small tribe living. And yeah, we're far removed from small tribe living. but our development as a species was established for small tribe living and in small tribe living survival requires something different so we really are built to notice betrayal sexual misconduct hypocrisy Children in danger, tribal disloyalty, abuses of power, because these were the things inside that small tribe that really impacted the dynamic of the tribe and put the tribe at risk. so these are the things that we are sensitive to. The challenge, where we sit in time and space right now. is that the scope of that has changed and what once was adaptive now there is so much moral attention seeking that it challenges us. so our nervous systems evolved for like village level threat detection. The internet gave our nervous systems a national security clearance with TikTok. it's so much information, so much moral outrage, so many things that would have historically grabbed our attention that it has again become more challenging to sort through what's actually morally outraging and what's actually relevant to us. much of these things aren't actually terribly relevant to us. David (09:10) Yeah, that makes sense, What you're saying is the issues that we're seeing now is kind of based upon the fact that we are designed to notice these particular things when they occur, but typically when those things would occur was in such a small group and they were infrequent, but we still respond to them in the same kind of over the top way, at least internally, that we would have. If these had occurred ten thousand years ago. and what we're getting with modern media, the internet, and everything else is an amplification of these signals because we're not living in a group of five hundred people. the internet basically creates this group of millions upon millions of people. Where these things can literally happen all of the time, Rob (09:53) Yeah, absolutely. the interesting thing about these moral issues is that moral attention isn't just noticing something. we notice like there's a heat wave. We notice that. the distinction is that It's fused with judgment. So not only does it draw attention, but it causes some immediate judgment, like, hey, this is disgusting or that's unforgivable. that proves who they are. this has to be condemned, whatever. there's a judgment attached with it. And I think one of the more at least interesting things to me, and has been this progression, that you know, so many things we don't get the warno on. In other words, no one tells us the world is changing, it just changes and we notice it retrospectively. there was a time and and you know, politics has always David (10:30) Mm-hmm. Rob (10:35) included a certain level of moral attention. But there was a time where in my lifetime, I remember when most of the arguments in politics were about policy. the argument was, this is my stance on the economy. This is my stance on whatever. where we have come, and it started with probably twenty four hour news cycles. it progressed with social media, it's even escalated more with the nature of like TikTok and reels. that politics is no longer really a fight over policy. it's a fight to determine what deserves moral attention. and so much of what you see on say cable news are these talking heads. that come out, represent their side, and they're basically telling us what thing deserves moral attention and judgment. And it's actually a more effective voting strategy. So to get people to vote, morally, outrage them. David (11:30) modern politics, modern media, it taps into this thing that we all have because we're just designed to have it, which is that ability to not just see something and go, okay, I noticed that, but you have a visceral response to it. as if it is personally affecting you even when it isn't. and that's not to say, okay, well it's fine. just it taps into this thing that we all have that we're prone to have some kind of reaction, whether that's for or against. But it does, it gets you much more engaged in that thing. Well when you think about politics, when you think about media, internet, what's their bread and butter? it's getting people to look at it to get that attention in some way. And so tapping into moral attention is just a stronger way to get your attention fixated on that particular subject. and it's incredibly powerful because it's so hard not to have some kind of reaction because we're just designed to have a reaction. just now it's amplified we're hearing about things that in the past we never would have heard about. And getting into details about things that we never would have so it's a great, method of getting people to like you said, vote or stop scrolling long enough to get your eyes on a screen so that you can get your advertisement revenue. Rob (12:42) the other element to this, I understand why that developed, how that came to be. it's effective. getting people's moral attention is actually more effective than getting their intellectual attention. talking the pros and cons of a certain economic policy, it's a yawn. David (13:01) it's quicker too, use the word sex and all of a sudden you're just like, Wait, what? You you talk about a bill costing five million dollars. Nobody cares. There's nuance to that. there's nothing exciting about that. There's nothing interesting about that. Rob (13:00) I'm not gonna pay attention to that. absolutely. Instantaneous. David (13:16) You start talking about somebody had sex with somebody else and all of a it's like, Wait, what? I wanna hear. Rob (13:21) Yeah. absolutely. so I get why we're here. And then I also get the fact that there's been an incredible growth in mechanisms that allow this moral attention to be cast out into the world. what I find actually really interesting is the change in our moral gatekeepers. so historically societies have always had moral gatekeepers. We've always had, village elders or priests or courts to tell us what is right and what is wrong. There were, social mores that we adhered to and we had a I'm gonna reference it as a priesthood, but we basically had a group that arbitrated what is the sacred, what is moral, what is good. and what is the opposite, what is wrong, and there was some consistency there. we now have basically influencers, podcasters like us, cable hosts, anonymous meme accounts. we have a whole different set of gatekeepers that are telling us what morality is. what's right, what's wrong. And when we think about like sex scandals, like think about say the sex scandals that Donald Trump has had. You know, he's slept with a porn star. He David (14:33) God I don't please don't make me think about the sex that Donald Trump has had. Rob (14:36) Donald Trump. I yeah, yeah. David (14:39) I gotta wash my brain out real quick. Hold on. Rob (14:41) Yeah. Yeah. Use some of that Cloroxy advised we all inject in ourselves to kill COVID. it'll scrub your brain too. it'll kill COVID, scrub your brain and kill you. So you know, it's a it you know. David (14:52) That does effectively get rid of the COVID though. Rob (14:54) Yep. Killing two birds with one stone. and COVID absolutely will die if you're dead. So yeah, it's you know, it's a success criteria. so but you take his scandals, and if we just took his name off of it and we just said, you know, here's the scandal. David (15:00) That's what I'm saying, yeah. Gets rid of it. Problem solved. Rob (15:12) Married man slept with a porn star while his wife was pregnant with their child. a man assaults a woman in a clothing store dressing room. no name, just the story. a man sexts another woman while he's married. a man shows up drunk at a girlfriend's house and forcibly has sex with her. here's the stories. Which ones are gonna gain our attention and why and it's clearly not just the details it's not just the act. There's another element to it in which our politicians, our influencers, our podcasts, our cable hosts end up shaping it in such a way that one catches, one ends a career, and one's barely a road bump. David (15:55) that's a really good point because if you strip out the names, who it is and you just hear the words, I mean, I can't flip going through my mind is like, Yep, yeah, that definitely has happened, probably all the time. Might be happening right now. And it really doesn't trigger much. Not to say that you're like, I'm okay with that, because if it was somebody that you knew, all of a sudden you're interested, right? If it's your best friend Steve who is sexting another woman while married, you're like, man, that's not great. But if you just hear it otherwise as a married man sex a woman, you're like, okay, that's probably happening all the time. why do I care? Rob (16:22) Yeah. Right. If it's Steve, you call Steve and you say, Steve, what the fuck, man? David (16:32) What the f the fuck, Steve? Come on, man. You could you you're Rob (16:34) Cindy's a great girl. What the what the hell's going on? David (16:37) You're better than this, Steve. you're better than that. Come on. That is. But Rob (16:40) Bush league, Steve. This is fucking bush league. So you're absolutely right. and sociologists would end up calling this new class, this new priesthood, if you will, this new group who have taken on the responsibility. I use responsibility with a massive smile on my face because you know there was a time when say being part of the priesthood was a responsibility and deeming what is moral, what is immoral, also came with a responsibility to be moral. you could not be a priest, you could, but you couldn't be a priest, particularly in a small tribal environment, a small group, you could not be a priest that told people what was moral and then act contrary to that. In today's world, You can be well yeah, it David (17:24) History is history is littered, absolutely littered with not that. And I don't even well, and I don't even mean in today's world. I mean throughout history, medicine men, the clergy of groups, the spiritual healers were famously, famously doing things that would be considered immoral. There's a lot of examples. Rob (17:28) Hypocrisy. Yeah. Yeah. absolutely. Well, there's examples. David (17:48) go go read go read Robin Wright's The Evolution of God and the examples are rife. It is a lovely book, but Rob (17:48) There are a lot of examples. But but hold on. I that's a lovely book. Yeah, yeah. No, no. I absolutely agree. There's lots of examples of abuse of power. But as it turns out, abuse of power is another thing that we're sensitive to. So it does usually catch up with these people eventually. there is a difference now though. and I would argue that by the numbers, by the raw percentages. these individuals who were tasked with or who took on the responsibility to be the moral gatekeepers, by and large, probably were not hypocrites, There are famous examples of hypocrisy, but by and large, they had to walk the walk in order to maintain their role. and they did. but in today's world, we have moral entrepreneurs. they're really not. taking on the responsibility of gatekeeping morality, they are profiting from it. and they are also in a position in which they are not held accountable to the same standards that they're setting. so it is unique. It is different. When you are sitting at home posting anonymous memes that basically are establishing what our morality is That's radically different than when you are the priest who gives the sermon saying this is right, this is wrong, and then through the rest of the week you have to live that. David (19:08) No, you're right. And there is something to be said about the fact that moral entrepreneurs do identify real harms. they can, but they can also sometimes exploit the real harms. And in politics, oftentimes it's both. especially if you're a partisan moral entrepreneur. The goal being to weaponize moral harm when it is found within the out group and then to protect the in group when moral harm has been identified. Rob (19:36) that's the question, when does public outrage clarify a moral boundary versus when does it merely identify the tribe? David (19:44) Usually when it's the other guy. and that's not new per se. It's just become a lot easier in the last couple of decades because of the news cycle, because of the way that media is able to bring information so quickly, media is so self-selecting for the things that you want to hear. And so the stories that people might have heard in the past, they were national headlines. Everybody got the same story, or at least a very similar version of that same story. And now it's like stories are being spun to the people that it's going to appeal to, and you're only going to hear the part of it that you want to hear. Rob (20:22) yeah, so the emotional signal has become more rewarding than the careful moral reasoning that would drive this. and here's a great example. Graham Platner. he's been a bit of a moral lightning rod since he entered the scene. we could probably do an entire show on the psychological profile of the guy, things such as some of his behaviors, some of the things that he said in his life, his Nazi tattoo, all those things, particularly in the context of a man who also served his nation honorably in combat as a Marine. who speaks quite eloquently and intelligently, is very well read has intellectual underpinning for his populist beliefs, and he can talk to it. he is an utter expert on like FDR. It's stunning, the things that he can pull from history that supports his populist view. So he creates an incredibly complex moral picture. However, he ended up crossing a line. and that line is rape. I'm anti-Nazi, anti-rape, and anti-murder. so he crossed that line and maybe he crossed it twice because he's got a Nazi tattoo and engaged in rape, two out of three ain't bad. Meatloaf taught us that. David (21:36) Let's be clear that he got a pass on the Nazi tattoo. And and if anything, you find yourself going, Well, he's you know, he was just a kid. he was, you know, is the other Marines were getting the same tattoo. He probably didn't know what it meant. He got the tat he apologized. He said, I'm embarrassed by it. I assume he got it removed. We're good with the Nazi tattoo. Rob (21:40) He did. He did. Kid kid. Right. David (22:01) But then we turn around at the same time and go, Well, Pete Hegsith has this Nazi tattoo and he's not apologizing for it and he isn't covering it up or getting it removed and fuck that guy. Rob (22:12) therein lies the thing I was actually driving at. You just nailed it. So what I have watched in this process is that the moral outrage that the MAGA tribe, was trying to gin up about this guy. if you're just listening to them, it was so clear cut. it was such a black and white moral issue. Except for the fact that on their side we've got Pete Hegseth's white power tattoos, we've got Donald Trump's sex scandals that are equal, if not slightly worse in some ways, although we're getting to that point where you're like, How do you balance bad shits bad? but with a straight face. They would condemn Platiner. and when those questions were posed to them about the others, they would deflect and not touch it. So that the soundbite was just a condemnation of Platinum. And then the internet takes over from there, off it goes. And what you hear about is, Platinum's a rapist that has Nazi tattoos. Now, I'm not defending Platinum by any means. in my mind, I think this guy knew his own history. and I am questioning him stepping into the ring to begin with. and I think there was a little bit of hubris that was driving him. now, you know, could he have done good things? Who knows? But there is a bar you have to get over in order to get there. The way we are communicating it and the way these moral entrepreneurs are capitalizing on it really for more emotional ends and for political gains is very questionable and what's absolutely lacking is moral reasoning. We're not actually engaging in the moral reasoning of the bigger picture. David (23:49) when I think about Graham Platiner and you look what his obvious flaws are they're still ongoing, at this point he's completely dropped out of that race. But what I can't help but go back to is the initial reaction that I think a lot of people on the left would have had, or at the very least, people who were not pro-Trump. it doesn't have to be the left. this could be right of center all the way to the left. But the response I think initially was what can we blame on her? she must be a Trump supporter. Maybe she's making this up. you go through the stages of grief. right like, how do I blame her for this? How do I make this not the issue? And when you think about, but that's not the response that you had. When you found out about Trump stuff, we're not doing this from the perspective of something moral. And I think that's what you're getting at. It's not coming from this place where you're like, well, I'm morally superior, or I'm even viewing this as a moral thing. You're looking at it from the lens of how does this affect me and my tribe? And the morality it's merely path towards a solution internally. it's not the driving factor, it's just the route that I'm using to get there resolution in my own mind. So I sense this problem. my guy's in trouble, or their guy's in trouble. Rob (25:11) Well it's not If their guy's in trouble it's yes. Yes they're David (25:13) No no No it's no exactly it's it's you know it's a it's a positive but it's it's either my guys in trouble or their guys in trouble. Now, how do I protect against it or how do I capitalize on it? And moral outrage is the mechanism by which I want to get to that solution if I can, And so Rob (25:16) Yeah. David (25:33) if it's a sex scandal and it's my guy, now I'm trying to figure out how is this planted? What moral outrage can I use to protect against their moral outrage? They're outraged that there's a sex scandal. I'm outraged that somebody is accusing my guy of something that didn't actually happen. and both are powerful emotions because it's a real emotion. I think that's the key. I don't want to come across as saying that it's not real, because it is a real emotion. But it does become performative. And it doesn't mean that it's always fake. Part of it might be I might be utilizing it as a means to an end. But that doesn't mean it's not at least based on reality. it's a social signal, It communicates what team I'm on, who the enemy is. that we understand there's this sacred boundary that exists, and we are willing to punish the person who's violating it. But the way that I'm gonna frame this in my own mind is based upon which team I'm fighting for. Rob (26:28) to our much beloved and blessed tens of listeners, yeah, I will challenge them to engage in a mindfulness exercise. the next time that some moral outrage is cast out over the airwaves or over TikTok or over cable news. I think all of our tens of listeners can identify with this experience that you've just said. I know I've had it in my mind that if it's the out tribe, I'm immediately just outraged at the behavior. If it is my in group, my mind actually doesn't go straight to moral outrage. It goes to justification and excuse making. So, we're starting from tribal loyalty and then adjusting our moral stance based on that, which is fundamentally hypocrisy. that I'm a hypocrite. I mean, and it's not that I want to be a hypocrite. It truly is the automatic pathway, the automatic thought that happens in my brain before I reason. We're talking like mid-brain level thinking at that point because it's automatic. it's this is my in-group, this is the out group, defend the in-group, castigate the out group. It happens before I think. the challenge is you let that roll through you, and then you have to engage your frontal lobes and you have to engage in some legit moral reasoning. General Hartling is a retired three star he often makes the point that everyone needs to set their core values. what are your core values? and he rarely reveals what his core values are he says they're his but I think that's a reasonable exercise for all of us. Establish what your core values are. mine actually follow the Army's core values. the army has five core values. I think they track really well with a well-lived life. but when these things happen, you have to engage those frontal lobes, you have to reflect on what your core values are, and you have to apply it with some consistency. But it's not easy and it does take an extra thought step because the automatic thought is not that. David (28:33) what's really prevalent now is that in order to take those extra thought steps, you generally need more information, or at the very least I think it makes it a lot easier to engage the frontal lobe when you start to build a a more solid picture of whatever's going on. we can say if your core values are I am morally outraged no matter what by this particular thing, great, that's your core value. but if you're somebody who needs to hear a more nuanced perspective of it to fully understand the scope I don't know that everyone does. But for myself, I've spent enough time with you understand the value of the devil's advocate position and most things, and to understand that there are generally two sides to every story, if not more. I personally like to hear Both sides, because what I find is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of that. before I want to fully engage moral outrage. Now, that's not to say that I don't have my initial reaction. and I'm human like anybody else who might be listening to this, I hope, or you know, the dogs that are sitting in somebody's apartment as this is just playing in the background as noise. Rob (29:37) I'm sure. that's at least fives of our tens of listeners is is background noise for their pets. David (29:41) Exactly. But once you hear the details now you have a more clear picture. But what I think is more prevalent today is that you never actually get to hear both sides because of the news cycle, because of the way media works, because of our own echo chambers within social media, is that we only hear the one perspective. And so that engages that moral outrage so quickly with the perspective that's there, you don't get that nuanced viewpoint. And not everyone wants it. Not everyone wants to think through or even look at their own internal self when they go, man, I really want to protect this person, but I can't. I just cannot come up with a reason or just struggle with the fact that you want to. Because that is a difficult thing to have to admit to yourself gosh, I really don't want this to be true. And if it is, I just cannot support this person. But that's not something that people want to do. and it's uncomfortable. to sit there and go back and have to think. Man, I excuse the Nazi tattoos. oof. I w yeah, no, not a big deal. Just a kid. Rob (30:44) Yeah. Blew it off immediately. well so what what I'll suggest is that we all need to apply is the code blue rule. so in medicine, a code blue usually implies a cardiac event, a medical emergency, someone's dying. And the rule that I learned in medical school, the first few engagements in code blues, that some wise ER doc told me was he took a deep breath. David (31:11) Don't fucking lie. You know it was it was Noah Wiley. Rob (31:13) It was Noah Wiley. Yeah, it was. I was either in Chicago in ER or I was in Pittsburgh in the pit. So same show, different cities. but the adrenaline rush in that first true code blue. the patient is coding. There they are. David (31:22) Wiser ER doc now. Rob (31:30) They're dying right in front of you. the adrenaline rush was kind of overwhelming as a, you know, twenty gosh, twenty-three, twenty-four year old kid. And, I looked to the leader who's a N E R doc, and he was standing there, he took a really deep breath, he looked at me, and he said, In code blues, you check your own pulse first. And he was completely as calm as you could be. And then he stepped up and he checked the patient's pulse. and that's kind of what we need to do in these moral outrage scenarios is that the emotion comes fast. but what you have to do in order to actually engage in moral reasoning is you gotta check your own pulse first. you take that breath, you don't go straight to the amygdala. you let your frontal lobes engage and then you're gonna make a more reasoned decision. and you're absolutely right. you need to let the data come in before opinions form. It's funny how quickly we form opinions, and then once you form that opinion, the downstream effects of that actually ends up being finding ways to support your initial opinion rather than refute it. You're justifying, you're intellectualizing, you're figuring out that way to support that gut instinct level opinion that you made, usually until there's some bit of data or whatever where it just overwhelms and you're like, all right, I gotta change. But my encouragement would be don't form that initial opinion. Check your own pulse, take a breath, think about the front part of your brain maybe getting involved. David (32:55) the only challenge I would have to that is I don't know that it's possible not to form the initial opinion. that's just going to happen. I mean, unless you're very well practiced at calming the situation in your own mind and saying, Okay, I'm just gonna wait until we have more information, which is honestly what good leaders do. when there's a tragedy or something, hey, we're gonna wait until we have more information. We can only provide what's there. Obviously, people want data. they want the information the media's asking for. Hey, what's going on? What's happening? Yeah. Rob (33:23) I always had a rule when people would bring crises to me. my rule was there is no crisis that's so time sensitive that I can't let time try to solve this first. and now that's not entirely true. there are combat situations, there are life through that you really have to act quickly. But it was the running joke that I had with my staff. in order to just give us a beat. let's think this through before we immediately respond. Let's be thoughtful. and it slowed things down the other long running gag I had is when I'd ask one of my staff officers a question and they'd launch into some ridiculously complex explanation that you had to you know completely be versed in their world in order to understand is tell them I do not need to know how the clock is made. I just need to know the time. So David (34:14) Well yeah. And unfortunately I think in especially my younger career, I was super guilty of trying to explain everything when the question was asked. I I'm a nuanced person. I w no, I wasn't that was when I was a young seaman. when I was a petty officer, but yeah, it would it would they'd be Rob (34:22) Young officers always are. Yeah, yeah. Wait a minute. When you were a young seaman, you you weren't even conceived yet. David (34:33) Yeah, that's funny. Ha never heard that before. no, but guilty as charged. I've had, you know, more than one officer tell me they don't need to hear everything. Just tell me yes or no. is it working or not? Don't need don't care why it is or isn't. Is it working? No. Can you get it working? end of question list. But Rob (34:35) Ha ha Yeah, yeah. David (34:51) I'm an explainer. Anybody who knows me knows I will explain to you how to build the clock every time. one of the important things we have to realize about ourselves though is that when you come up with that initial reaction, it is a completely normal thing. but the next step should be, okay, now pause, hold on, wait a minute, Let me dig into this a little bit deeper. And being able to get to the point where you understand my initial reaction doesn't mean that's my only reaction. That's my only available reaction. And my initial reaction is going to be based at the more central parts of the brain that are more instinctual. And that doesn't make you a bad person. If your initial reaction doesn't eventually line up with reality, now an unwillingness to change your position. does that make you a bad person? that's for somebody else to decide. But if you're unwilling to change your initial reaction with more data, then I do think that's a problem. However what we see more of now is that because of the way that we get our news, the way that we source our information, it's harder and harder to get more data that doesn't support your initial reaction. that's where it's healthier to be willing to listen to all sides of an argument. to then formulate an opinion, even if your initial reaction is more supportive of one way or the other. Rob (35:59) we're talking on the individual level and we're sort of speaking in terms of being a psychiatrist and the kinds of things that we might end up posing in a therapy room to help someone reason through an issue, a problem. moral outrage exists well outside of politics. I've never sat With an individual who didn't come to me at some point with some moral outrage about their spouse, significant other, family member, whatever. so these are the things we might engage in on an individual level. We're clearly making some recommendations to our beloved and blessed tens of listeners. thank you. Thank you for listening to us. it's hard some days. but I want your take on more of a group. effect. So let's talk about Charlie Kirk, which, ten months ago, we could we could we we absolutely could not have conversed about Charlie Kirk. we had to be very cautious about it. So let's talk about David (36:44) We are cholik. Rob (36:55) the sacred boundaries that shifted with him. David (36:59) an interesting phenomena is that you have these things that are off limits, they start out as being just totally not okay to talk about to the point where is with Charlie Kirk If you said anything about Charlie Kirk that wasn't just a glowing recommendation of him, you were going to get canceled immediately after. And it was just completely taboo to talk about him in any other way. And so most people just didn't. mocking a murder victim is pretty forbidden. Rob (37:30) It's a bad look. It it's just David (37:32) Well yeah, it's one of those things that as a society we tend to understand, hey, don't speak ill of a murder victim. but with time that's really shifted. the internet culture there's starting to go after not his death. And I think maybe that's the difference. They're not going after Charlie Kirk's murder. what they're doing now is mocking his political brand now that that mourning period has lapsed. Rob (38:01) a slightly different take on that actually because what I what I think they're mocking is the enforced reverence. and yes it's coming through as his brand but there was a death there was a sacred boundary that was established. That sacred boundary then had this enforced reverence I mean to an extreme like if you posted on social media anything David (38:04) please do, yeah. Rob (38:24) other than some, tribute to his memory. like nine hundred people lost their jobs So there was this enforced reverence. And what usually comes from enforced reverence is resentment. That resentment started to build and then there was the decay of the taboo to talk about him. And then via memes, basically desecration. I kind of watched this play out with my kids. did my kids know who Charlie Kirk was? vaguely. they'd seen some like internet clips of him, destroying some 19 year old college kid in a debate because he was very well practiced and this 19 year old kid wasn't. they were all emotionally worked up and he had Done that so many times that he completely was calm, cool. He had his talking points that he could always go to. he was really skilled at rhetoric. I'm not saying he was right, I'm not saying he was always wrong. I'm just saying he was really good at forming an argument and walking people into a cul-de-sac that they had no capability to get out of, even if their stance was not wrong. so they knew that, but where he really entered their consciousness was in the months after, all of a sudden, face started being pasted onto well-known memes. So rather than the original meme, it was the meme with Charlie Kirk's face and that became more and more and more and more and more common. that's where the taboo became decay via memes. The memes desecrated the taboo. And I don't think necessarily they care about his brand. I'm just talking from what I've heard from my kids and talking to my kids, they don't give a damn about the brand. well My older one does. he likes to debate politics, but there was a resentment that we had to treat this as sacred. And that's where we ended up. And it's fascinating. It's fascinating. And nobody gives a shit now. there's no moral outrage about it. David (40:19) part of it is the force reverence, where it's all of a sudden no matter what your political stance is, no matter what your beliefs were, if you were to say anything about him, then you were wrong, you were bad, even if it wasn't a denigration of him. But a denigration of his beliefs and the things that he said. people were getting canceled for just putting his own quotes into a post and nothing else. And that was seen as being hateful of him. And you're like, well, these are his words. and nothing else. This is what Charlie Kirk said. And so when you're forcing that reverence of somebody that you find distasteful, that you don't. agree with it does build up a resentment. But then that turns into, well, wait, are you protecting him or are you protecting the power that he had, which he had quite a bit? he was quite popular with a younger movement. but we have to look at the frame at which he was popular within that group. And again, going back to the way that we digest our information, people a lot of times weren't aware of everything that he was saying. They weren't aware of his stance on everything. I could get behind his stance on free speech. The guy was very pro free speech. that's One of the core reasons why I find it so tragic that he was murdered is that nobody should be killed for their speech. And so a lot of people were backing him from that perspective. But then once they started getting into his more misogynistic viewpoints, some of the things that he would say about people of color, they didn't like that. And so when they're being forced to then all of a sudden support Turning point as if that is the greatest organization ever when they don't agree with that, then they start to see it as protecting power. And that's where it starts to weaken. and that's where the internet tends to not be kind when people start to feel like they're being used. it's no longer. Rob (42:06) Yeah. David (42:13) protective. Now it's you're using me. Fuck you. And here's a silly meme that's going to really drive that home. Rob (42:20) Right. absolutely. taboos tend to be strongest when they're protecting human dignity. they weaken when people start to believe it's protecting power. And that's what happens. So the argument really wasn't what happened. The argument is what are we allowed to feel about it? And when the sense was we're just not allowed to feel anything other than what power is telling us we have to feel, then the memes come out. and You know, they're ridiculous. And that's maybe one of the strengths of the internet, maybe one of its weaknesses. One of the things that actually boggles my mind is that these internet things rarely have any kind of intellectual sense. They're ridiculous. There's some internal logic that my kids understand. I don't. I don't get it more often than not. I can't tell you how many times they show something to me and they are cracking up and I'm like, well I don't get it. I don't what's funny? And and then they have to tell me eight other eight other memes that this is a a meme that is paying homage to eight other memes and somehow that makes it funny. And I'm like, all right, I missed the plot. I just missed it. David (43:12) Get that. yeah, that is a ridiculously relatable thing you just said. my brother in law is all of nineteen years old and he does the same thing to me all the time. And I'm like, I have no idea, man. Can't you just show me like a video of somebody getting kicked in the nuts or something? I mean, that's that's what my generation liked. Just America's funniest home videos. Just yeah, just show me somebody, Rob (43:38) Exactly. Epic fails. Can we just yeah. David (43:44) dropping off their skateboard onto a pipe that's the funny I get. Rob (43:46) Right. David (43:48) So the thing that I think kind of ties us all together, because I don't know that it's just about sex scandals, it's not just about assassinations, it's that politics it starts to feel really existential. And why is it that it's totally fine for Donald Trump to have all of these sex scandals, but it's so not okay for Graham Platner to have his sex scandal. And i it's not a well, because Democrats are morally superior to Republicans or Republicans are morally superior to Democrats, it's not that because it goes back and forth. We could give examples from both sides over the last 30 years. I think it does maybe shift a little bit in which side is willing to tolerate, but that has, I think, more to do with something else than who is morally superior. Rob (44:33) Well, and ironically, Donald Trump's sex scandals are what makes Graham Platner's sex scandals utterly unacceptable. And what I mean by that is they have featured so prominently in this recurrent narrative on one tribe about his moral failings that they have established a stance in which they really can't look at themselves in the mirror and not take graham platinum seriously. and this is the moral relativity here. it it's not that we're comparing these scandals. What we're comparing is the tribe's stance and this was for political reasons, where they have set their moral stance and then they have to be internally consistent. Now, interestingly, there's always and there's always gonna be that process in which we're not necessarily defending the candidate, we're defending what we believe the candidate stands between us and losing. So that's really what they were defending. They don't wanna lose, they want the Senate back or whatever. but they had established such a strong stance against Trump's behaviors and in this case, I mean, morally, we're speaking about the moral grounds, they're on the side of right. we're anti-rape. here at shrink the nation, we're gonna take the strong, brave. personal courage really is coming into play here. we're gonna take the stance that we're anti-rape, anti-Nazi, and anti-murder. that is going to be our stance. And if somebody who we support turns out to be a Nazi, a rapist, or a murderer, gosh, we can't. We've got the t-shirts. We can't support them now. so the Nazis, the rapists, and the murderers have now hemmed us in. And we have to apply that. David (46:13) Well, we might have held ourselves in, but you can get the I'm anti-Nazi, anti-rape, anti-murder, call me old-fashioned shirt at our website, shrinkthenation.com slash merch. I highly encourage you to. I'm wearing one right now. I love this shirt. And you do get some funny looks, but honestly, I'm waiting for somebody say something beyond just let me read that. But my my response whenever somebody does is Rob (46:21) You can. Y he is. I'm sure. David (46:36) Yes, I I have a lot of personal courage here. I'm really going out on a limb. that's this piece that sometimes it's important to be able to separate oneself from is gosh, am I defending this because I support this thing or am I defending it because of something beyond that, because of Rob (46:40) Mm-hmm. David (46:53) the politics. And I think with Graham Platiner, especially when it initially was announced, the initial defense internally would have been, gosh, this can't be true because we need to win that Senate seat. I hope it's not true. I imagine that a part of what makes it a lot easier is that There's enough time to something about it, and to have a new candidate in there. and while we were really trying not to make this a Donald Trump episode, it's interesting to think about when the Access Hollywood tape came out in twenty fifteen, it was right before the election. Right? I mean it was it was right before. There was no chance, no chance that the Republican Party Could have replaced Donald Trump on the ticket after that came out. And weirdly enough, I think the timing of that release was incredibly protective of Donald Trump. Because had that come out six months or a year earlier, I don't know that we get Donald Trump. I don't know that he is as Teflon as he has been made to become by the fact that. His scandals have been frequent. They have been massive. And that by the time that occurred, it was at a point that there was no way they could have done anything about it. And so people were in a position to just protect the tribe Rather than oust him. I don't know if that's makes sense, but that's kind of what I'm thinking at this point think about if this came out a week before the election and Graham Platner was the Democratic candidate in the Senate midterm, do you think he still wins? I think he does. I think he does. Yeah. Rob (48:23) Yeah, if it was a week out, absolutely. There did there was just not enough time. So and again, moral relativism at that moment, what's best for the team would have ended up prevailing. when this happened, it dropped perfectly timed for him to be on the ballot. I think they chose their moment well. and I don't believe for a second that this hasn't been, in someone's back pocket and they've been waiting. They wanted to get through the primary. They wanted him to win the primary and then they wanted to drop this at this point because they knew if they waited once he was on the ballot, once they got closer to the election, there was a different force that was gonna be at play and the moral outrage would have been different. David (49:04) unfortunately I think that just brings it a more question of like, well, is he being pulled because of more moral reasons or other they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Like I do think that there's obvious moral outrage. I think what he has done is obviously unacceptable and it's been that way. we can't argue otherwise. he's not the right candidate. but because I I also believe that if this were to have happened right before the election, he'd probably still be the candidate. He would still probably win. I do think there's opportunism that has occurred and I don't know that I would say just the timing of it because I don't think there's like some conspiracy that somebody planned, we're gonna drop this so that we can have him out and we can I don't know that that's the case, but I do think there is probably some relief at the fact that this was released when it did rather than waiting for it to happen and it have no real effect. Rob (49:54) I think it was a tactic. I do. I think, Susan Collins or the Republican National Committee, whatever. I think this was thought through. So David (50:02) the timing of it I would say makes it less likely to me that it would be the Republicans that would have dropped this because as a strategy, doing it when there's enough time to replace him isn't the best, right? Because they could just replace him. Doing it when there's not enough time to replace him, but there's enough time to damage him to the point where he maybe couldn't win, I think that'd be a totally different story. Rob (50:23) But I think the point where he was irreplaceable, that's when the damage doesn't count quite as much. that's my stake. But at any rate. David (50:30) Well that's an yeah. No, I know it's a it's it's a mind fuck. I don't know. my stance will just be, yeah, the dude is right now being accused pretty convincingly of doing something that's reprehensible and I'm not okay with it. So regardless of who released that information or or their timing of it, would it have been nice to have heard it earlier? Rob (50:34) Yeah. David (50:49) Probably. Should they have vetted him a lot better? Yeah, definitely. who's at fault? Well he is. he knew what happened. he should not have run. And perhaps that's a lesson for a lot of people and maybe a lot of reasons why people don't want to get into politics in the first place is because man, your s your skeletons are coming out of the closet, my friend. Rob (51:04) absolutely. David (51:07) So good luck. Rob (51:07) I lived a moderately clean life, but there is no way I would put myself up for that kind of scrutiny. no way. David (51:14) All right. Rob (51:14) All right. I have a prescription. We must develop the habit of moral reversal. whenever we encounter a politically outrageous act Accusations, scandal, or statement, we must pause before joining the stampede and ask, if this were my side's person, would I still be this certain? Then ask the harder question, which is if this were the other side's person, would I suddenly require less evidence, less context, and no due process whatsoever? If the answer changes with the jersey, we're not applying a principle, we're protecting a tribe. David (51:47) So my prescription is for everyone to be suspicious of anyone who tells you exactly who you're supposed to hate this week, especially if they make a living doing it. All right, so I think we pretty much covered this topic as much as we're going to at this point, Robbie. But just want to throw a little shout out. So if you've ever listened to an episode and thought, okay, now what? Well we've got an answer. So head over to shrinkthenation.com and check out our new Civic Desk. it'll help you find your elected representatives and even draft thoughtful issue specific letters you can edit and send yourself. There's no spam. No form letters. It's just a little bit easier to participate in the civic process. So while you're there, you can also join our tens of listeners completely free. create an account with just your email. And what you'll end up doing is you'll unlock expanded episode notes, our entire archive of Dr. Bojangles and RSTN Webcomic. and you'll get access to the tools like the Civic Desk, which helps you draft those letters. So if you actually want emails from us, you can also sign up separately for our newsletter. Comes out every Friday. Totally optional. it's not gonna emotionally manipulate you into opening it. you just have that option. So if you want to be one of our tens of listeners, head to strengthenation.com. Click on sign up. But turns out democracy works a little bit better when people do more than just yell into their phones. Rob (52:58) Or into a podcast. David (52:59) All right. Rob (52:59) Check yourself before you wreck yourself. I got it. David (53:02) Exactly. All right. Well, I think that's it for this week. go ahead, subscribe, like, share with a friend, go to our website, check it out, and that's it. So I'm gonna queue up this music, and we are out.