What Would Change Your Mind? The Psychology of Political Certainty

David: There's a difference between being certain you're right and being incapable of discovering you're wrong. That's a distinction we don't make very often anymore. Because changing your mind looks weak. Politicians get called flip-floppers. Online admitting you were wrong means somebody gets a screenshot. So we've created an environment where defending yesterday's conclusion can be safer than acknowledging today's evidence. This week, Robbie I ask a pretty simple question, what would change your mind? And if your answer is nothing, that's probably more interesting than whatever you believe. This is shrink the nation. Let's go. All right, hey, this is David. Welcome back. I am a board certified psychiatrist. I have over twenty years in the military. And today I am sharing a drink with my good friend Rob. We are sitting Robby: Cheers. David: in the same room. This is awesome. I think it's gonna be a nightmare to edit the sound, but I'm still looking forward to it. I'm gonna let Rob introduce himself and then we're gonna talk about bourbon because Robby: Yeah. David: that seems to be the right way to do this today. yeah, hey guys, it's Rob, thirty years military experience, twenty six, more than twenty seven. Robby: yeah, hey guys, it's Rob, thirty years military experience, twenty six, going on twenty seven years in psychiatry and board certified. and if you haven't picked it up, David and I are actually sitting in the same room for once, David: Same room for once. Robby: with a frightening, frightening number of bourbons. David: Yeah, very much. Lots bourbon. this is actually the second time we sat in the same room, but this is the first time I think we're gonna do it with this much bourbon. And we have a selection. So I'm just gonna just announce them as we go because I think that's the easiest way. Now typically I just pour. I don't measure, I don't do anything other than just throwing in the glass and see what happens. we're gonna do A shot of each of these as we go along so at least we can keep track and the medical examiner will have some audio of what ended up happening to these two. I appreciate you calling. Robby: I appreciate your caution. you're absolutely right. Let's be scientific about this. David: let's be scientific about it. That's what we're gonna do. we're starting today with Puncher's Chance, the undisputed single barrel Kentucky Straight Bourbon whiskey. This one I just got today as a gift before we recorded. So that was really nice, thank you. it's a hundred and eight proof. It is apparently a blend of five and six year old bourbons from a high rye mash bill. So my first Taste of it so far is it's quite nice. It does Robby: Mm-hmm. David: clean. So it's definitely rye. spicy. It's got some spice to it. usually I work on meat. and just has been sitting in a glass with a ice cube for a bit, so Robby: So it's definitely rye. spicy. It's got some spice to it. usually I do bourbon neat. and this has been sitting in a glass with a ice cube for a bit. So the one hundred and eight proof doesn't jump out at me as it probably would if it was neat. however it's a good bourbon. don't have to get you anymore and get you a nice David: we don't have to get you any more, I get you a nice Robby: we have a proper round cube that's lovely. no, no. For our purposes I think this is probably smarter than David: Yeah. I'm pouring it into a shot glass and just dividing it up appropriately so we're each getting a shot we'll see how it goes. to our tens of listeners, cheers. I'm using the shrink responsibly rock's glass. Rob's got the old fashioned values rocks glass there. Exactly. I'm anti Nazi, anti. Robby: Exactly. I'm anti Nazi, anti rape, and anti murder. Call me old fashioned. David: That's the message, but you can pick those up on our website at ShrinkThenation.com. since we're just sitting here, you and I, we're riffing, I I had this idea for an episode after listening to another podcast that I really like. And it was an interview with the Senator Fetterman. ninety percent of the way that the man votes is with the Democratic Party. whatever. what got this going wasn't about his politics as much as his perspective on Israel. And what I found kind of frustrating to listen to as he was talking is just the fact that when presented with facts or at least alternative perspectives to his belief structure, he refused to back down from his stance. And I just I found that fascinating for a guy who is in the position that he's in to be unwilling to give any ground whatsoever on that perspective. That's where I thought, hey, let's take this episode today. Yeah. that there's a temptation I you're faced with something which has to hold what's in the facts and think that they're televisional but you know also have to factor in that Robby: Yeah. so there's a temptation when you're faced with someone who just will not listen to facts to think that they're delusional, but we also have to factor in that he may have been lying, he may have sincerely disagreed, he may have such a constituency David: Such a constituency. Robby: that he believes that's what they wanna hear. he may have other ideas about the stability or the security situation in the Middle East that causes him to go that direction. But it is David: stability in the security situation in the Middle East that causes him to go that direction. But it is Robby: interesting to watch facts bounce off without any adjustment in stance David: Interesting to watch facts bounce off without any adjustment in stance. Robby: or fundamentally An adjustment even in the way they're presenting their stance, which Is interesting. David: interesting. what really strikes me with him in particular is that for backstory for our tens of listeners, Senator Fetterman is from Pennsylvania and he is a Democrat. But he gets a lot of flack for voting in ways that really benefit MAGA. particularly on topics related to Israel. he is very much a supporter of Israel. I think it would be difficult to call him anything but. What I find fascinating about his stance is that he's very aware in his communities that his stance on Israel is likely to cost him in the next election the big problem that he has right now is that he does vote with Democrats so much because he's a Democrat that he's gonna have a hard time running as anything but a Democrat, but he's really pissed off the Democrats because he's given so much power to MAGA And Trump in the way that he votes. But his hardline stance is that, and I'm gonna paraphrase because I'm gonna get fact checked on this later, if you don't support Israel, you are being anti-Semitic. If you are supporting Palestine in any way, shape, or form, you are supporting Hamas. And that's it. when faced with somebody saying, Well, I support Palestine, I don't support Hamas, I support Jews. I'm okay with most of the people in Israel. What I don't support is perpetuating a genocide against the Palestinian people. I think Israel has the right to defend themselves against Hamas, certainly, but I don't think they have the right to attack Palestinians, and there are Israeli settlers who are attacking Palestinians in their home. Just this last week, there were fourteen people in three different households, one of them owned by an American, that the US had to step in because they were blockading them in their homes. Robby: people in three different households, one of them bought American, that the USS stepped in because they were blockading them in their halls. David: That's not okay. We should be able to call them out. And he can separate Israel from the settlers, but he can't separate Palestine from Hamas. it's political suicide on his part to s take that stance and yet he continues to do it. So Robby: So I guess it makes me think about certainty. So the opposite of certainty isn't necessarily uncertainty. it's maybe more revisability. David: I guess it makes me think about certainty. So the opposite of certainty isn't necessary uncertainty. It's more revisability. Robby: so like, I can be ninety eight eight percent certain of something and still maintain a certain intellectual honesty David: certain something can still maintain a certain lifelong honesty. Robby: knowing that there would be something that would reduce my certainty. David: Something that would reduce my certainty. There might be a fact that comes into my knowledge that would reduce me to say 80% certainty. You could also be 70% certainty. Robby: There might be a fact that comes into my knowledge that would reduce me to say 80% certainty. You could also be 70% certain of the factual information that you have, but be 100% David: Sad. Robby: unable to revise your stance. So David: to revise your stance. Robby: you're of the position that there is no conceivable evidence that can be presented that would make you revise. David: And I guess that's what you're seeing there, and without us t digging Robby: And I guess that's what you're seeing there. the argument you just made, I concur with. it's kind of like saying, if I criticize Italy, I'm anti-Catholic, bottom line is is you can question a country's actions without necessarily criticizing the religious makeup of that. country. however, right now in particular, it is tightly bound. And it's particularly tightly bound, I think, in a the younger demographic of the Democratic Party. it seems to be a particularly salient issue and the reason I know this is from talking to my boys. Apparently this is a big thing David: Particularly salient issue. And the reason I know this is from talking to our boys. Apparently, this is a big thing. Robby: on TikTok. David: Where go to all my news too, TikTok. Well, that's where they get a lot of their information and Robby: Well, that's where they get a lot of their information and they have very firmly held negative perspectives on Israel, but in talking to them they speak in terms of the religion and so these are conversations they and I have had that, slow your roll there boys. David: Mm-hmm. Robby: We're not talking Jewish people. We're talking Netanyahu's administration of Israel as a country. so it's out there and you do make a good point. earlier I said maybe it's his constituency. No, this is not benefiting him from an electoral standpoint. Does make me question maybe he doesn't want to do the job anymore. He seems to be very reluctant senator, interestingly enough. David: when you listen to him talk he tries to frame it from the perspective of anybody who supports Palestine supports Hamas. Anybody who is not for this war with Iran wants them to have a nuclear weapon. Robby: yeah. David: And when somebody can say, No, I don't want them to have a nuclear weapon, but I don't think this is the way to go about doing that, he really shuts down from there. I think Robby: I think David: he is filling a hole that was left when Manchin and Cinema left the Senate in that Robby: Cinema left the Senate in that name ten other Democratic senators at this point. I don't know that most people could. David: name ten other Democratic senators at this point. I don't know that most people could. I don't know that I could. So this is probably helpful to raise his profile in some way, even if it isn't helpful to get him reelected. Although he might get reelected. they might very much like him. we see that all the time. Lindsey Graham was all over the place, even with Trump, and yet he kept getting reelected. Hill his sister Robby: So this is probably helpful to raise his profile in some way, even if it isn't helpful to get him reelected. Although he might get reelected, but they might very much like it. we see on top of Lindsay Grant was all over the place, even with Trump. And yet he kept getting reelected. Tell his sister David: having served zero in the Senate, maybe zero point one at this point, she's probably gonna get elected to his seat. recognitional one. Yeah. Robby: having served zero in the Senate, maybe zero point one at this point, she's probably gonna get reelected to his seat. Name recognition alone. Yeah. David: maybe that plays a bigger role. I'm not sure. Robby: maybe that plays a bigger role. I'm not sure. David: but it's frustrating and it's fascinating. It's like how does somebody operate this way? I don't Robby: Well David: have the answer to it. Robby: I guess fundamentally what we like to believe is that we are all rational players. that we come into this with a certain intellectual honesty, and we have some sense of what it would require. For us to conclude that we're wrong and that we would revise our opinion. But what we consistently see, if you scroll back into our prior episodes, we've touched on this in so many different ways. but there is a certain resistance to falsifiability that we see across the board in politics in general, and that you know, that makes sense, we've talked about it from different angles. their guy is accused of a sex scandal. And it's they're the worst. They're supporting this horrible human. there's no excuse for it. And then the next week comes along and my guy gets accused of that. Now all of a sudden I'm like, well, you know, people lie and all the evidence isn't in yet. so this fluctuating level of evidence required for falsifiability is something we see quite frequently. what we're arguing across the board is that in order to be intellectually honest, it's okay to be confident in your opinion, to have confidence that you're correct, but to be intellectually honest, you do have to hold back that there is something out there that would falsify your opinion and you would revise it potentially. David: and I wonder how much of it is because that person's opinion cannot be changed, just because they're not able to change it. Like I just believe this so much, to such a deep level that no matter what you say, it can't be changed. Or in the case of like a senator, you're playing that media perspective so well that I'm not gonna get caught saying something on camera some hot take that can be used against me later to say that I'm either flip flopping Robby: that can be used against me later to sit on your foot flop. David: or that I'm liar or or whatever. Like how much of Robby: Right. David: and I wonder how much of that plays a role because I think when you're talking about somebody whose deeply held beliefs cannot be changed. and I'm not going to suggest delusion, which is Psychiatric thing, but for Robby: Yeah. David: somebody who just believes this to their core, to the point where there is nothing that can be said that's different. But for somebody who just says, I know that my stance cannot be anything but this because I have to say face, or I have to maintain this position because that's what I ran on, or Robby: Because I have to see the face or I have to maintain this position because that's what I ran on, or David: that's what I'm going to run on, I feel like There probably is and I think that's where that's that comes into the intellectual dishonesty category. Robby: Potentially. what we're also hitting on is that there are a lot of forces on these individuals in terms of their opinion. So I'm gonna throw myself under the bus here as an example drifting into being maybe immovable in an opinion. so many moons ago I walked into a command position and I knew I was gonna be faced with some difficult decisions. So my goal was to be internally consistent. and that led me to kind of come up with, basically some of my initial command decisions. I developed a heuristic on how I was going to make these calls. And I would say my first few calls were really good. The problem is is that as time passed, I had developed this decisional heuristic. And problems tend to only loosely resemble one another. They get more complex and they don't always fit. they don't they don't necessarily sit in the same places. But because I was so dead set on being consistent, I drifted into maybe being immovable at a certain point. And thankfully I had good people around me who in a very command appropriate way devil's advocate so it could be that too, that you start off, you're running for a political office, your goal is to just be honest and be internally consistent, but over time the facts change, but what you have already established, you're hesitant to drift away from. So that's possible. they also have the force of their political party their constituency the camera that's acting on them in a different way. So all those things are going to affect them. And, as a politician, being a flip flopper is is a dirty word. So with Vetterman specifically, I'm not sure which one of those things are at play. and maybe all the above. I don't know enough about him. So I have to say I'm right now I'm sitting here highly accepting that I can be falsified very easily. But I don't know if he started off his political path being David: those things are and maybe all the above. All the above. That, you know, ran. And I don't I'm sitting here highly f accepting that I can be falsified very easily. know if he started off his political path being you know a dihog. Supporter of Israel Robby: a diehard supporter of Israel. David: and he just can't away from it. Robby: And he just can't back away from it. David: Yeah, know that you and I can answer that question give a clear diagnosis of whatever is going on with John. What I actually would be really interested in is if any of our tensive listeners have had experiences with other people or themselves like you just described where you went into something with a set perspective and then either caught yourself sticking to it when maybe you shouldn't have or actually being willing to adjust modify your your viewpoint. If they can identify that in themselves because you and I have seen this to our careers is that whenever a patient tells me a story about a perspective I go into it thinking they have half the perspective. they're half right. And so I and i Robby: Mm-hmm. David: I think that protects me as a therapist from jumping too much on their side. I do care about them, I am supportive of them, but I also know that whatever they're telling me is just one piece of the story. that's an interesting angle actually, because w Robby: You know, that's an interesting angle actually because in our line of work and we sit with patients. one of the things we're called upon to do is to develop a model for this patient's personality structure, their psychodynamics, what drives them. And I know certainly in my career, David: personality structure, their psychodynamics, what drives them. And I'm I'm I'm I'm Robby: which now extends out to closing in on three decades, there have been many instances in which I have developed a model to help this individual, you know, their childhood experiences, how it impacts them, how it plays into their decision making, the recurrence of say certain relational patterns, etc. And then something will happen. And, I believe very firmly that my model is correct and it's played out over and over again over time. David: decision making, recurrence of say certain relational patterns, etc. then something will happen. you believe very firmly that my model is correct and it's played out over and over again over time. And Robby: You know, you see a patient two, three, four, five years, over time it has played out. And then something happens that is a complete outlier. And it just doesn't fit with the model. David: you see a patient two, three, four, five years, over time it has played out. And then something happens that is a complete outlier. And just doesn't fit with the model. My gut instinct is to go the pseudoscience route and do some ad hoc explanation account for it so that my model has not been falsified. Robby: My gut instinct is to go the pseudoscience route and do some ad hoc explanation to account for it so that my model has not been falsified. and I have gone down that road in some cases and then usually something else happens and something else happens David: I have gone down that road some cases, and then usually something else happens, and something else happens, and I'm Robby: and I realize okay the model was just it was shit to begin with. it worked up to a point and now it doesn't work anymore. so maintaining that falsifiability. Hey everyone out in the audience, prepare to drink, because I do have a quote because I just David: shit to begin with. worked up to a point and now it doesn't work anymore. you maintaining that falsifiability. Hey everyone out in the audience, prepare to drink, because I do have a quote 'cause I just Robby: thought of a quote one of my favorites David: Of favorites, Robby: and this is by Oliver Cromwell. the short quote that you might hear occasionally is think it possible you may be mistaken. that basically saying, hey, you should always remind David: this is by Oliver Cromwell. short quote that you might hear occasionally is think it possible you may be mistaken. basically saying, hey, you should always remember. Robby: yourself you can be wrong. All right. Now, the long quote is so much better. he was marching an army into Scotland when he said this, but he said, I beseech you. David: Now, the long quote is so much better. was marching an army into Scotland when he said this, but he said, beseech you, in the bows of Christ, think it possible you might be mistaken. visceral right there. So I think that earns two drinks, actually. Robby: In the bowels of Christ. Think it possible you might be mistaken. That's visceral right there. So I think that earns two drinks, actually. David: I agree. I like the quote. in the bowels of Christ. Robby: In the bowels of Christ. that might be my new curse that I I just toss out so when my boys do something stupid. David: So if you always do Yeah. Actually I I'm gonna start using that, I think. I I feel like I should. All right, so second pour. because we're doing this together, I just poured a Woodford Reserve double oaked. it's forty five point two percent alcohol, Robby: circus in that I think I I feel like I should. So Singapore, because we're doing this together, we just bored a wood for reserve double hooked highest forty five point two percent alcohol David: so ninety point four proof Kentucky Strip bourbon whiskey. Finished in a second oak barrel. Robby: So in theory, it should give it more character. There should be more hints of vanilla and whatever chocolate sometimes people will say, which always cracks me up 'cause it seems like both ends of the spectrum. David: Sometimes people will say Jones cracks me up 'cause it seems like both ends needs Robby: You can smell it. smell. It has a David: Smell. it almost has a maple smell. Robby: almost has a maple smell. There's a difference. David: That's the that's striking. What always weird to me out about Woodford Reserve is that it's Robby: Reserve is that it's David: one of the options that you can get on American Airlines in a small bottle. And so I've had so much Woodford Reserve on airplanes that it feels low brow. Robby: feel slow drive. David: when you're riding on American Airlines Robby: Then you get an upgrade to say whatever the random upgrade and you're and you get a couple of bottles of these. You don't you don't feel one fancy. Aren't they adorable though? They really are. And that's forty five the vest my wood for research are rarely actually bottled 'cause it's so expensive compared to other bourbons and frankly I just David: And you get an upgrade to see whatever the random upgrade and there and you get a couple of bottles of these. You don't you aren't feeling fancy. Aren't they adorable? They really are. And that's where I've had the vast majority of my Woodford Reserve, so I rarely actually have a bottle because it's so expensive compared to other bourbons. And I frankly, I've just I've got enough other bourbon to drink that I don't need to buy a sixty dollar bottle. I did not purchase this bottle. this was a gift as well. So I'm trying to go through the bottles that are gifts. Robby: This bottle. this was a gift as well. So I'll try to go through the bottles that are gifts. Okay. Which I think most of them are at this point. two extensive listeners, but it means hand. Or distilleries. David: which I think most of are at this point. to our tens of listeners, by all means, send us bottles of bourbon. I'm happy to Or distilleries. yeah, we'll happily do it. It's nice. it finishes better than a typical Woodford. Robby: It's nice that it finishes better than typical woofer. David: I do like the double oaked. I'm not gonna lie. I hate it when I like bourbons that are really expensive though. That pisses me off. can't Jim Beam put out some like eight dollar bottle of just top notch? Come on guys. it's not that expensive to make this shit. Well, material wise, no. Robby: I hate it when I like herbids that are really expensive though. I know. can't you have been put a possible like eight dollar bottle of just top notch? not that expensive to make this. And I guess the flavor, David: Companies have about the same amount of cost that you're buying for the prestige, and I guess the flavor, but this Robby: but David: definitely. Robby: this one definitely, for our tens of listeners, if you're interested in bourbons, this one definitely has David: this one definitely has Robby: a lot of other flavor points. I'm gonna say it's much more oaky, but that doesn't say David: But that didn't say. Robby: much because it's double oaked. I'm an expert David: I'm an expert. Robby: taster apparently, but it does have a little more character. it's technically a rye, but it's not really David: Technically a rod and a snuff. Robby: a high rye. so you don't have as much spiciness, so there's a little bit more smoothness on the back end. David: So you don't have as much spiciness, so there's a little bit more smoothness on the back end. I'd hate to say it's almost cleaner than the other one that we had so far. Okay. Robby: You know? Okay. David: but it's nice. It it finishes really nice. that's a lovely bourbon. I think I'll come back to this when it's unborn. All right. There was a another story that came out this week that just happened to work beautifully into this topic. basically Trump ordered the Navy through an executive order to do a lot of things. I don't wanna simplify the executive order down to just this one thing. But this was in there and it was important. But essentially come up with a plan to change on future Ford class carriers the emol system, Robby: Yeah. David: electromagnetic aircraft launch system to change from that back to a steam-based catapult system. So this was Reuters that brought this up. And I think maybe the New York Times this isn't something that was just made up But there was an executive order with a lot of demands of the Navy, or the I guess the DOD or the DOW, whatever. Robby: Ha ha ha. David: Now the reason that this jumped out at me, other than my time in the Navy, my time in the Air Force, was that the Ford class carriers were actually designed and again, I'm gonna get fact checked for sure. Go to our website, strengthenation.com, go to fact-checked. I'm certain I will be fact-checked on this. There will be some nuance to what I just said that's wrong. But these carriers were designed around eliminating the steam catapult systems because there's a lot of problems with them. they are reliable, they've been battle tested, they've been around since the 70s. so we know they work. we have a supply chain that can fix them. There are obviously still carriers in existence that use these systems. it's not that they're bad per se. It's that they design these aircraft carriers around eliminating the problems that exist with that and moving towards a future. And it's not just this Robby: It's not just mess. David: digital future of catapults. It's not like, well, it's electric, therefore it's better. No, there is some reasons. that you would want an electromagnetic system because you're not launching the same aircraft off of these carriers. You're launching a lot of unmanned aircraft that don't require that much power. And so there's a lot of wear and tear that goes onto an aircraft when you use a launching system. I personally have never launched off an aircraft carrier and I've never landed on an aircraft carrier. But the gist of it, and in fact check the shit out of me, stupid AI, is that you have your aircraft sitting there, you basically power up as much as possible, and the thing launches you forward to create Robby: is the you you see you basement power rope as much is post and the thing launches you for different David: enough drag and lift that you can with your thrusters fully going get in the air. Well, different sized aircraft, Robby: can with your thrusters fully going get dare. Well different sized aircraft, it have different requirements. But a steam system is it'll basically want you the same or similar each time. And that creates some of the stress on the aircraft. when you're using a lot more gun band aircraft that just don't have as much weight that's a lot of potential damage to it. So having an electromagnetic system allows you to David: have different requirements, but a steam system is gonna basically launch you the same or similar each time. And that creates just so much stress on the aircraft. So when you're using a lot more unmanned aircraft that just don't have as much weight, that's a lot of potential damage to them. So having an electromagnetic system allows you to modify the speed and thrust Robby: Speed and thrust. David: and power, all the stuff that you would need. to get different aircraft into the air. So it actually expands what you can put on the aircraft carrier and changes what the aircraft carrier can do in different situations. Trump has a point. I'm not gonna say he doesn't, because the EMOL system has had a lot of problems over the last decade. but if we go back to 2017 when he first started complaining about this and wanting steam, his position hasn't really changed, even though the emol system now has tens of thousands of sorties. That it's been used for. And so it is not perfect. In fact, it is deeply flawed, but it has improved over the last decade and that's where we get to is his stance hasn't changed in spite of the fact that emols has. Robby: In David: mind. they just don't have the things that other aircraft carriers have that can support a steam system. you need steam lines. fresh water systems to create the steam. You can't just heat up seawater you have a lot of salt and shit and welcome in there. Like you gotta be able to Robby: you need steam lines, fresh water systems to create the steam. You can't just eat up seawater have a lot of salt shit and welcome and they're like you got ideal time. David: heat up the water to be able to create the steam. Like there's just a lot that goes into building steam system. to redesign these new carriers with old systems in place is gonna cost a lot. It's gonna be very expensive and it's gonna create major redesigns. Not to mention they are very personnel intensive. So there's just a lot that goes into this. That's discussion for a different podcast, But Rob, looking at this, for a psychiatrist, why is it so fascinating that Donald Trump is holding on to a position that's nine years old? Why does it fascinate me? Robby: Why does it fascinate me? Well, one I'm not asking to be fact-checks on this because I am purely speculating, David: Because I'm Robby: but I am going to bet that Ronnie Jackson. who probably also was never launched or landed on a carrier, but was a Navy guy when he was the White House physician, was complaining about the EMOL system and that somehow seeped into Donald David: That's not Robby: Trump's consciousness. And, what we were just talking about, the certainty versus revisability. Our POTUS is interesting in the fact that once he locks in to certain opinions, whether it be I don't know, windmills or David: That is so that's exactly what I thought of when I saw this. That was one hundred percent where my mind went was his weird distaste and mistrust of wind power. Him railing on wind power and then talking about steam. I'll be honest. That's not the direction that we probably should go in because it's kind of a non sequitur to this conversation. But at the same time, our tens Robby: It's kind of non sequitur to this conversation. But at the same time it David: of listeners I'd be Robby: I think. David: fucking shocked if they weren't also thinking, Yeah, the guy fucking hates wind power for some reason too. Like vaccination is that Well that's new though. Come on, that's new. The vaccination Robby: Or or vaccinations now. Well that's new though. David: thing is new. Like that's not That's not old. Because Robby: That's not well. 'Cause David: people of his generation like lined up to get injected with shit because they knew it was going to save them. So that's new. I don't know. Those aren't the same. Robby: But it's an example of a low information stimulus that ends up creating a level of certainty in him that is also then non revisable. You cannot talk him out of these things now. There's no amount of evidence that would render this falsifiable. and that's what's funny. I find it interesting. Yeah. David: Yeah. Robby: I mean, why is this an executive order to begin with? that seems interesting to David: Yeah. Robby: me or or fascinating to me because there are lots of internal processes that United States Navy, Army, Air Force, et cetera, this is an internal issue with among them. you solve things at the level that you have the capability of solving. And if they can't solve it, then they say, All right, we can't solve this and then you go to hire. there's been like forty thousand emails launches and since David: Right. Right. Robby: by March of this year, there were like forty thousand launches. It's not like it's a Wasted system and you're absolutely right. These ships were built around it. There's a reason why they were built around it. It's the future. it's supposed to come in less being. David: Yeah, say the maintenance costs it com less man you know, personnel manning. I mean I Well, I I can just tell you when I was in the Navy, you'd hear these horror stories about having a leak in one of the steam valves and it just like cutting people in half and shit. I don't know if Robby: Absolutely. David: that was real, but it scared the shit out of me enough that I like, I don't want to be on the carrier. Robby: Yeah. David: you know, I went on the USS Kitty Hawk a handful of times to kind of help them out with their comms. But I was like, Yeah, get me off this thing. I mean this that was That was an old ass, old ass bird. Yeah, I was like, yeah, Robby: Where's the steam line? David: I'm gonna help you set up your comms, and then I'm getting the fuck out, right? And but so Robby: Yeah right. Pop smoke, I'm out. David: as a sailor, I don't look at steam catapults and go, yes, that's the Robby: Yes, that's the David: way to go. But he does. And it really just drives you to this question of so Did the evidence produce the conclusion or did the conclusion come first and then the evidence got recruited afterward? And I think the evidence here supports more of the latter than the former. And just the fact he's been whining about this since twenty seventeen. And even then he was whining about Robby: Since twenty seventeen and even then he was winding up David: it, apparently, fact check me if I need to be, th before he even got briefed on the new email system. So I agree with you. I think somebody was just like Robby: Right. They weren't wrong. They weren't wrong. Well was traction David: this new system. Right. It's trash. And they weren't wrong. They weren't wrong. It was trash at that time. And those but it's gotten better. Those of us that have spent any time in the military knows that there's one thing a military member is really good at and that is bitching and Robby: at the time. And those of us those of us that spent any time in the military knows that there's one thing a military member is really good at and that is bitching and moaning and complaining. We're good at it. About change. David: We're good at about change. About particularly about change. I think that's the one constant in the military is that there will be change. Right. The only other constant is that people will whine about the change, even if they were whining for the change before that. There will always be somebody who just wants to Robby: Right. The only other constant is that people will whine about the change even if they were whining for the change. Before that, there will always be some David: keep it the way it was. One of the best lessons I Robby: So one of the best lessons I was ever taught was by an old sergeant major and I was a lieutenant at the time and I was flummoxed because of the situation that I was in, we were having a difficulty pleasing the soldiers and he said David: It's the wrist action. You gotta get the right wrist action, Robbie. If you wanna please the soldiers, I mean I you gotta you gotta you know at any rate he said sir. Robby: Right. Yeah. At any rate, he's he said, Sir When a soldier stops bitching, David: Soldier stops back. Robby: he's dead. David: it actually is reasonably positive for morale that's sort of what allows to know that. So yeah, I mean my sense is is that someone was just boning about this. Robby: it actually is reasonably positive for morale to sort of allow a certain amount of that. So yeah, I mean my sense is is that someone was just moaning about this, complaining about it, probably low information complaining. N David: Yeah. Robby: this wasn't a technical brief. This wasn't an expert. that somehow seeped into the consciousness of our David: wasn't an expert. that somehow seeped into the consciousness of our our stamp and it just became one of his things like wind power. Robby: and it just became one of his things like wind power or whatever that David: It it has that same feeling to me not just with wind power but when he decided that he wanted to reopen Alcatraz. it seems to come to him these ideas or, you know, the past was so much better and we gotta bring it back and he just goes with it. I wish as an Air Force guy somebody would whine to him about them replacing the A ten. and honestly as a soldier, I feel like you probably should sit in that same category because nobody loves the A ten as much as yeah. Love the same. I've got a great A ten story but I'm not gonna share. Robby: Love to see him, man. Love to see him. I've got a great A 10 story, but I'm not gonna share it. any rate, David: rate. Robby: once it's there, because ultimately, and truthfully, you run the numbers on this, and we're not catapult experts, folks. We're not pretending to be David: We're not pretending to be. Robby: but I'm gonna challenge you to go do your research, do Google search this like we did, David: searched Google Home search this and like we did Robby: And what it really shows is that it is a system that has a rationale for its purpose. it has now a record of David: shows is that it is a system that has a rationale for its purpose. it has a now a record of Robby: near forty thousand launches. it is progressively improving. David: near 40,000 launches. it is progressively improving. the cost of reversing course, going back to a older technology that has its limits and is probably not going to grow into the future with us, given what David had talked about with different types of aircraft, different sizes and weights, and unmanned aircraft, et cetera, et cetera. There really is not a ton of solid evidence to go backwards on this. Robby: the cost of reversing course going back to a older technology that has its limits and is probably not going to grow into the future with us, given what David had talked about with different types of aircraft, different sizes and weights and unmanned aircraft, et cetera, et cetera. there really is not a ton of solid evidence to go backwards on this. However, David: However, challenge somebody to present this evidence to lose and see if backs off 'cause he says it low probability that Robby: challenge somebody to present this evidence to POTUS and see if he backs off 'cause my sense low probability. David: I agree. What I really love to see is him push for an executive order to fix the damn system. look for ways to improve it to make it more operationally compatible than try to find ways to make steam seem like a better system. Yeah, let's take all the money that they're gonna invest and transitioning back to steam last time. Robby: Yeah, let's take all the money that they're gonna invest in transitioning back to steam, invest it in improving the emall system. And that's probably a better executive David: And that's probably a better example. Robby: order. Although executive orders that get down into the weeds like that, I'm still David: Well you said better, not great. if we're trying to polish a turd here, I would rather see a push to improve a system that has already been invested heavily in that is being used than trying to just backtrack on something that's gonna cost billions of dollars. Robby: I concur. Now, speaking of evidence and uncertainty, let's chat about Iran shooting Air Force One out of the sky. So David: He flew his Qatari bribe jet to Turkey with the brand new paint scheme. With all the new Robby: W with the brand new paint schem scheme. David: and then I remember that they had said, we're gonna switch back to the old Air Force one and fly to was it like Loch and Heath? No, they were gonna fly the new one to Lock and Heath to Robby: No, they were gonna fly the new one to Lockinheath to show it to the soldiers. David: Right, right, right. Okay, okay. So we're flying the the Qatari bribe jet to Relock and Heath to show the shoulder. he fly all the way home? I believe he flew. Robby: And he flew home. I believe he flew home in in the original Air Force One. David: Well original. We were told that he flew home, and it was like, Robby: Yeah. David: okay, whatever, but it was for quote on old time sake, flying the old one. Right. Robby: Right. David: But the new Qatari Bribe Jet, which is what I will call it, went to Lockenheath so that the airmen there could see it. they were excited about Robby: Because they were excited about it. David: it. I mean, I I know I'd be in line to see the Qatari bribe jet. hundreds of millions, billion dollars to me. Robby: And no, it's a billion. David: but now we find out this week that Trump did not fly on the new Air Force One. He walked on board so everyone could see him. He then got into a food cart or like a catering cart or something. And he Taylor Swift's ass over into a military, was it like a C seventeen or some military plane? He then flew with Papa Hegseth. So I assume I I don't know, and fact check me, please, but I assume Hag Seth was hanging out with him in the cart. They must have been eating Doritos or something. Got onto the C 17 secretly, flew to the United States. Robby: It was red hot Cheetos. David: Red Hot Cheetos. yeah. See, this is why you're the Colonel and I'm not. and then after they landed, moved him back onto the old Air Force One so that he could then walk off the plane. And he's the president of the United States. So if you have a credible threat towards the president of the States, you have to take measures. And this did happen in some regard to Clinton in two thousand. He had to switch planes too. it should not surprise anybody at this point the difference because in two thousand the press pool the head of the press pool at that point or the head of whatever somebody was actually made aware of the fact that Clinton would not be on that plane because there was a credible threat. But this Robby: This David: time, nobody told the press that they were riding on a plane that could potentially be missiled out of the sky, with his cabinet members who were also there. Robby: So there the same power except the four David: With the exception of Papa Hegsef, the brave fucking manly man machismo guy that he is. that's the difference, was that they hid and didn't tell anybody. And I guess if that plane had been shot out of the sky, we'd be having a completely different conversation right now, right? Robby: y yeah, so you've captured it. bottom line, they're sitting in Turkey, they've got the Qatari bribe plane, they've got the old Air Force One, they've got another smaller craft. there was credible evidence that there was a risk. Now, I'm actually not even remotely criticizing the fact that they took steps to protect the president. It's their gig. David: No, not at all. Robby: And you know, we have a risk assessment matrix in the Army. And the way we look at it is we look at the probability of an event and the level of mission impact. And even if it is a low probability David: Air Force does that shit too. Robby: a low probability threat, there is but if it is David: You guys probably learned it from us. Robby: if it is a catastrophic outcome Then we take it seriously. So I would not even remotely, I mean, in the context of this, we're talking about evidence, we're talking about changing one's opinion, et cetera, et cetera. I think they did the right thing. There was a possible threat. it would have been in the grand scheme a catastrophic outcome. So they took steps. Now, where it gets funny, and actually quite funny, is The level of misdirection in the misdirection, I'm not criticizing that. It's the fact that the obvious lies from start to finish when nothing needed to be said. Nothing had to actually be said. Didn't have to come up with a lie that it was going to be flown to England in order to let the troops see it, which didn't happen, by the way. No troops. witnessed this. They didn't go for that, so that was a lie. all the lies that were generated by our post were unnecessary lies, which opens you up to the funniness of him having to be smuggled into a catering van, driven over to the other plane and smuggled in underneath the I don't know what they were serving, chicken catchatori or whatever hot meals, you know. and the fact that there was a select few. Now, interestingly, Marco Rubio was left on the original Air Force One. He was told. He knew. No, was told. He wasn't he he was fully re No, he was fully he was fully read in. And he he he stayed. David: he was told? okay, because I I I heard he wasn't. Okay. So Marco Rubio is aware. I that actually in some i it in some ways I feel like that that gives me like fuck Marco in all fairness, because fuck that guy. But at the same time, I have slightly more respect for Marco Rubio than Pete Hagseth at this point. Cause I mean, you know Pete Hagseth was like the first person to shoot his hand Robby: And David: up. to not be on the targeted plane. Right. Robby: Right. we're in a war. Wait, you're saying that it's not a war every day of your life. but no, now it's a war and it's really important that I survive because you know, I'm so critical. and if given the opportunity, had he been able to describe what he would have done, he would have said, I would have climbed out on the wing and caught a missile coming at us and redirected it by sheer strength that I get. From my testosterone supplementation. David: That's what I was g yeah, yeah. My testosterone will redirect. Yeah. Robby: And doing my poor form chin ups. David: well I guess when you go through life with a buzz, you know, you gotta give it some credit Robby: God knows we can attest. David: Alright. do you have a prescription this week, Robbie? and by the way, I did just pour a larceny small batch weeded bourbon ninety two proof. So we're gonna try this as we as we close out. Everybody in the room gets a bit of larceny small batch. Except for that person. Robby: Alright, yeah, I do have a prescription. David: Yeah. Robby: So first off, I want everyone to remember that Oliver Cromwell quote and use it at least once this week in some random place just to freak the people you're without. but secondly, Americans must stop treating never changing your mind as evidence of strength. Before asking what would change someone else's mind, we should be able to name what would change our own. If the answer is nothing, your brain is no longer serving as a jury, it's join the defense team. David: Yeah, you totally stole mine, jackass. So I'm gonna have to come up with a new one. But Robby: good. David: I got one. Robby: You know what? I haven't had a weeded bourbon in so long, I forgot what they tasted like. Not bad. Not bad at all. David: It tastes fucking delicious and wonderful. That's what they taste like. Ambrosia. Robby: That's what it is. Not bad. Ambrosia. Ambrosia. David: Bros, yeah. All right. So this week's prescription for me, because I had to change mine, was pick one belief you're absolutely certain about and try to prove yourself wrong. If you can't bring yourself to try, congratulations. You found the problem. all right, that's it. So Robbie and other onlookers for our show. We have studio audiences. We have a studio audience this time. Robby: We had a studio audience this David: Very exciting. Thank you so much for sticking around. Shrinkthenation.com. Hit up our merch, hit up our kick ass arcade drink along with us, but more importantly, shoot us an email about The question I asked earlier, and if you don't remember the question, rewind. Listen to it again because you will certainly have a reason to send us an email. Hey. Robby: Hey, to our tens of listeners, I don't remember the question, so I understand to totally that you don't. David: But you're on your third chat of bourbon, so I forgive. Anyway, that's it. Thank you so much. I'm gonna cue up that music. we are out.