Category: podcast

For many people, Trump represents a uniquely dangerous figure in American history. But what if the contemptuous, maximally pessimistic ways many people talk about Trump and Republicans help put more “wind in the sails” of polarized, polarizing leaders like Trump? Similarly, do excessive contempt and overly pessimistic framings from Republicans help create more support for divisive, us-vs-them approaches by Democrats? Is America in a self-reinforcing feedback loop of contempt and anger?

In this talk for Richard Davies’ series How Do We Fix it? (www.howdowefixit.me) Zachary Elwood argues that excessive contempt for each other is the problem underlying all other political discord and democracy-erosion problems. He and Richard discuss how liberal contempt for conservatives can create a feedback loop that empowers highly antagonistic and us-vs-them leaders, why our worst-case caricatures of the other side are so tempting and yet so wrong, and why changing how we talk about the “other side” can make us more persuasive and effective and not, as many people believe, weaker.

If you want to learn more, or if (like many people), you’re skeptical about these ideas, learn more at american-anger.com.

Episode links:

• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts
• YouTube

TRANSCRIPT

(Transcript is automatically generated and contains errors)

my views of Trump have not changed my, how I speak and how I think about, uh, people who have voted for him have changed a lot because I think it’s [00:01:00] the tendency of conflict is for so many people to see the other side as, as this monolith. And so we end up seeing the entire other side as boiling down to the worst people on that side. /end quote

That was a snippet from a talk I had a few weeks ago with Richard Davies, for his show How do we fix it? That series is focused on reporting on the work and actions of Braver Angels— the nation’s largest cross-partisan volunteer-led movement to bridge the partisan divide. You can learn more about the show at https://www.howdowefixit.me. 

This will be a reshare of that talk I had with Richard. One of Richard’s main questions to me is: why did I write a book aimed at liberals about the importance of working to reduce toxic polarization and contempt? In the view of many Democratic-leaning and anti-Trump Americans, the problem is simply Trump and Republicans; the implication that there might be things for them to work on to reduce toxicity and political discord can upset people. But as I argue in my book, anyone who wants to reduce toxic, us-vs-them ways of engaging should be curious to know how we got to this highly polarized moment in time, and not be content to settle for simplistic “it’s all their fault” narratives; they must be brave enough to examine polarizing behaviors and tendencies on quote “their side” of the conflict – even if they think the “other side” is worse. 

I also talk about my own personal journey from someone who used to regularly post insulting, contemptuous posts about Trump voters on social media, to someone who now sees reducing toxic polarization as the most important endeavor of all, not just for America, but for the world. If you dislike highly antagonistic, highly us-vs-them ways of engaging, you must see that contempt is what puts the wind in the sails of highly polarized and polarizing people like Trump. And I talk about how one can do work on depolarization even while pursuing one’s own political goals; and how taking such approaches actually helps, not hinders, one’s political activism.

If you like this talk, check out my Substack on polarization topics, which you can find at defusingamericananger.substack.com. I have more than 1300 subscribers on there. One of my most popular pieces in the last few months was a piece entitled, “8 tips for activists who want to reduce polarization.” You can read some positive reviews my books have gotten at my site american-anger.com. One review I was proud of comes from Dan F. Stone, polarization researcher and author of the book Undue Hate. Dan said, “Elwood is one of the wisest voices on the topic of toxic polarization. His writing is clear, thoughtful, and well-researched… America needs its citizens to listen to Zach.”

Okay here’s my talk with Richard Davies, for his podcast How Do We Fix It? 

Richard: [00:00:00] We’re talking again about political polarization, which I think is a bigger crisis than global warming rapid changes in AI or exploding levels of public debt. Now, why would I say that? Because we have to come together to solve our problems and polarization prevents this from happening. You might have seen a recent poll that says More than 60% of Americans around two thirds now think the country is so politically divided, we can’t solve the nation’s problems.

This compares with half the population who thought that five years ago. Americans know our crisis of division is getting worse. We’re gonna discuss that with Zachary Elwood,

Zach: my views of Trump have not changed my, how I speak and how I think about, uh, people who have voted for him have changed a lot because I think it’s [00:01:00] the tendency of conflict is for so many people to see the other side as, as this monolith. And so we end up seeing the entire other side as boiling down to the worst people on that side.

Richard: Our show is about fixes. Yeah. How to make the world a better place. How do we fix it? How do we fix it? Hi, I am Richard Davies back again, and the author I’m about to speak with. Said this and I quote, we don’t just disagree on issues. We increasingly view our political adversaries as immoral, deluded, and dangerous.

Our fear and contempt affect our stances on issues making us more hardened in our views and less willing to compromise. I’m Richard Davies, and the author I’m about to speak with said that he’s Zachary Elwood, who has written two books on toxic [00:02:00] polarization. The first was Diffusing American Anger. We’re about to discuss his latest, how Contempt destroys Democracy.

Now, this book is not written for all Americans, but instead for liberals and progressives, people who for the most part, loath our president. Did political liberals and progressives play a role in ensuring Donald Trump’s election? We discussed this provocative thought and more, including misperceptions about what conservatives really believe and why it is so hard to criticize our own side.

Here’s our conversation. Zachary Elwood, welcome to How Do We Fix It? Hi Richard. Thanks for having me. So, my first and, and most obvious question, why write this book for liberals for the left and not for everyone? 

Zach: It’s definitely a case of, I think everyone needs to hear these messages, but I also think we [00:03:00] need to put these ideas into, uh, persuasive arguments for specific audiences.

So me being on the more liberal anti-Trump side. I thought I was better suited to 

Richard: write for that audience. I think some liberals may be surprised that you’re targeting this book at them, right? Because they think so many of my friends who are liberals think, uh, that people who support Trump or are ignorant or stupid and that they’re not the problem.

Um, it’s, it’s the other side. 

Zach: Right? And I think that’s, that’s part of the argument I’m making is that I think we have to. Think about how we might be contributing to increasing toxicity, even if we think the quote other side is bad. The nature of conflict is that people on both sides will always, or generally think the other side is, is much worse, and that becomes an excuse to not examine our behavior.

So yeah, my book [00:04:00] was definitely an appeal. To try to get liberal anti-Trump people to see how they might be contributing and, and think about those things. 

Richard: So do you think that liberal anti-Trump people are contributing to the problem of polarization? 

Zach: I do, yes. And I would also point to liberal and progressive people who have made those arguments, including writing entire books about that topic.

And I do like to emphasize. I think because a lot of people will hear that and think, oh, you’re saying both sides are the same? But I think it’s very important for this work for reducing toxicity to point out that you can think the other side is worse, while also acknowledging we’re in a self-reinforcing, uh, cycle that where both sides do contribute and, and help build each other’s narratives of, and 

Richard: you have an interesting backstory because you used to be.

Part of the problem, 

Zach: right? Yeah. I, uh, pre 2, 20 20, I was quite, you know, you could say polarized. Uh, I spent a good amount of [00:05:00] time online on social media lashing out and venting my anger and, uh, disgust at Trump, making, you know, insulting moral judgments about people that had, uh, you know, voted for him and kind of like lumping in the entire other side.

As this overall bad or ignorant or stupid or whatever group. And I think that’s kind of the fundamental driver of, of polarization, of toxic conflict is so many people. Issuing, uh, thinking about and issuing statements about the other side as if they’re this monolithic mass of bad people, which just ramps up the, the divides more.

Richard: So many liberals and progressives, uh, think that, uh, it’s obvious that Trump’s motives are malicious and authoritarian. What are they missing? Maybe not about Trump, but about Trump’s supporters. 

Zach: Yeah, I think it’s very important to separate leaders from the people that vote for them. My views of Trump have not changed my [00:06:00] how I speak and how I think about, uh, people who have voted for him have changed a lot because I think it’s the tendency of conflict is for so many people.

To see the other side as, as this monolith. And so we end up seeing the entire other side as boiling down to the worst people on that side. And, and then you can see examples of this all the time where always so many people are, are picking out like the worst and most rude and, and most antisocial behaviors on the other side and, and applying it to the entire other side.

You know, you can see this with, uh. The, like, the horrible comments about, uh, Charlie Kirk’s murder, for example. You know that this tells us everything about liberals, or you can see it on the liberal side for various things about the right. You know, if you’re someone who, like me, thinks Trump is very bad, it’s very important to see that he is a, uh, his, his election, his support comes from decades of increasing hostility, partisan hostility on both sides.[00:07:00] 

Toxic conflict by its nature creates a more support for, uh, us versus them divisive 

Richard: approaches. One of the strongest points you make is that contempt for the other side is like a feedback loop. They say nasty things about us, we say mean things about them, and the vicious cycle just gets worse and worse.

Mm-hmm. 

Zach: Mm-hmm. Yeah. I think, uh, uh, a lot of. People who study conflict talk about the self-reinforcing cycles, including even in personal interpersonal dynamics of how, you know, we can, we often bring out the worst in other people by. They, they do something bad. Our reaction to it confirms to them that, uh, we are the malicious, aggressive ones.

They, they have a lower opinion of us. They speak in more toxic ways. But if you can start seeing how many people do contribute to the toxicity. And help drive it. I think that’s an important first step for winding it back. 

Richard: One thing I’ve learned [00:08:00] recently, and your book certainly reinforced this, is that by focusing so much outrage on Trump, by liberals.

That that’s actually strengthened him. It’s helped him with his supporters because the more angry one side is at their opponent, the more that the people who voted for Trump go, well, we better rally around our 

Zach: guy. Right? The ways that we can approach conflict can help build support for our enemies. Uh, and I.

I’ve written a good amount about this on my substack also about the interesting ways in which how we respond, uh, to things can actually help create and strengthen the very things we dislike. And I think that’s an very important thing to see about, uh, toxic conflict. Yeah. 

Richard: Okay. So how do our distorted views of the other side ramp [00:09:00] up?

Our divides make 

Zach: things worse. When you see the other side as uniformly bad, when you see their motivations, their goals on so many different topics as uniformly bad or even evil, it becomes very hard to compromise because you’re, there’s multiple pressures internally and externally. Group pressures of even if you wanted to compromise, you have to contend with the very angry people on your side who do not want to compromise and are very angry at you ever.

Compromising. So just to say there’s this buildup of, of incentives where the, that there becomes more and more pressures to take more US versus them and team-based approaches because there’s inner and outer pressures. And even if somebody, uh, wanted to take better approaches, they’re at the whims of the group dynamics.

You know, if, if they took approaches the group didn’t like, they’ll be, they’ll lose power, right. So. We tend to think of the leaders and the media as having all this power, but you have to also factor in, there’s this group [00:10:00] dynamic of they’re, they’re at, they’re, they’re getting affected by all the people around them too.

Right. It’s not, it’s not a simple case of certain people have power and other people don’t. It’s this group dynamic. Yeah. 

Richard: There’s a lot of data that’s been produced, many polls, a lot of research about how polarized we are. One finding that you cite, which is just shocking, is that 72% of Republicans think Democrats are immoral and, uh, not very different.

Uh, 63% of Democrats say the same thing about Republicans. That in other words, you know, and this, this is, might be higher now. Yeah, it may be. This was, this was a Pew research poll taken several years ago. 

Zach: I think the really interesting thing is seeing how those kinds of surveys have grown, you know, the, those that dislike, that hostility, the, the very negative, [00:11:00] pessimistic views of the quote other side.

Seeing how that has ramped up over the past, you know, 20 years. I think noticing or thinking about how we got there and seeing how it’s a long building problem as part of seeing our divides, our toxicity. From kind of a bird’s eye, big picture view because I think so many of us are in the moment about the things that are outraging us to unwind this.

I think more of us need to start taking a step back and being like, how did we get here and how did those, if you can start understanding the factors that led us here, then you’re in a better position to speak in different ways, even as you pursue your goals and these kinds of things. 

Richard: Well, that invites the question, how did we get here?

Zach: Yeah. Well that’s a big, that that’s a big one. Uh, I don’t, I don’t pretend to know all the factors, but Yeah. Well, well, it hasn’t just happened, right? It hasn’t just happened because of Trump. No, definitely. Yeah. I think that’s also, you know, speaking of ways, I mean, there’s all sorts of ways that so many of us, uh, contribute to our divides, but I think.

When you, when we act as if Trump, you know, our divide [00:12:00] started with Trump, you know, there’s, there’s plenty of evidence and data showing that hostility, partisan hostility was, was increasing over the years. I think people that are on the liberal side, the anti-Trump side, if they’re genuinely curious about that, I think they do have to look at the point of view.

That our polarization, our divides did mean that many conservatives felt belittled and mocked and not understood at all by liberal mainstream media. And, and that’s, and liberal mainstream media and entertainment and news and including academia. All these cultural institutions, the way that conservative associated views were treated in those places made them feel, uh, very mocked, very belittled.

And it’s understandable. I mean, you can read. Uh, Erica Edison’s book Beyond Contempt, and she’s a, you know, she’s a progressive liberal person and she talks about this problem 

Richard: well, but liberals would, would counter that by saying, look, who has all the power? [00:13:00] Right? It’s Republicans, they control the, the branches, the main branches of government.

They control the house and the Senate, the White House, but you point out. That when it comes to cultural power, TV networks, many mainstream media outlets mm-hmm. They tend to lean left. Mm-hmm. And so culturally, universities as well. Mm-hmm. Um, many large corporations that had DEI initiatives, liberals still have plenty of cultural power.

Zach: To me, it’s a big idea that I don’t see many people talk about too often, that groups in conflict. We’ll always have different traits, you know, so, so one way to see this is, you can imagine the way that the rage and frustration of a blue, mostly blue collar group will play out much differently than the rage and frustrations of a more highly educated and higher socioeconomic class.

And that’s just to [00:14:00] say we often try to compare the groups as if they’re equal. And we use that to score points. Like, you know, liberals will say. Uh, there’s no democratic equivalent of Trump, you know, and they’ll use that to score points and say, oh, clearly the whole problem is, is Trump and Republicans and Republicans are doing similar things.

They’ll pick out things that are true of Democrats that are not true of Republicans and say, oh, this shows us that this is all they’re fault. But I think it is important to recognize the, the cultural power of, of liberal associated ideas. Dominating, you know, huge swaths of entertainment media, of, of news media, of, of, uh, academia, of even the corporate settings that, that can make conservative people, uh, feel very much under threat, especially when you get into the cancel culture thing that was, you know, very prevalent a few years ago.

But I think, yeah, it’s important to see that regardless of the political power. The cultural [00:15:00] power plays a big role, and I think the argument can be made that liberals have much more power in the, in the sense, in the, in the ways that really mattered in everyday life to, uh, to a lot of people. And it’s a factor that might explain why, uh, Republicans were more okay with a, an, an aggressive figure like Trump.

Richard: A couple of years ago here on how do we fix it? We did a podcast with Kate Carney of More In Common, which is an organization that researches polarization and looks at how to build a more united resilient society, not only in America, but but overseas. More in common found that both liberals and conservatives have major misconceptions about the other side.

Do you have a few examples of that? Where are liberals wrong about 

Zach: conservatives? Yeah, more in common is great. The, um, they did research on what they call the perception gaps, and they have a [00:16:00] great site. Both sides just generally see the other side as, as holding much more extreme views than they do. Uh, I mean, one major one to dig into is, you know, the amount of, uh, racism that, that liberals perceive on the right, and there’s one of the gaps.

Perception gaps was about immigration, where liberals thought that, uh, a cer you know, a, a large percentage of Republicans would disagree with the statement. Immigration can be a valuable asset to society, something like this. But it was a, a large percentage of Republicans did agree that well done immigration can be a good thing, right?

Like, but, but to liberals, that was a very, something that they would perceive as hardly any Republicans saying the, these kinds of gaps. This is, how do We 

Richard: fix it? I’m Richard Davies, and we’re hearing from Zachary Elwood, the author of How Contempt Destroys Democracy. He has a website that’s well worth visiting.

Its [00:17:00] american anger.com. We have a link to it on our podcast show page. The vast majority of Americans know we’re polarized and they believe that the these divisions are destructive. Why is it. This crisis is ignored by both sides and, and often by the media, right? No, 

Zach: it’s that. That is a very interesting thing.

So often you’ll see articles and op-eds about polarization. It’s not really talking about the things you and I have talked about. It’s mainly about just talking about our divides generally, or it’s. Talking about the other side as being the root of the polarization of the divides. When you start to understand how conflict works and why it’s so hard to, uh, get over why it’s so hard to resolve, I think it makes sense that it’s so little talked about because in order to talk about the things you and I have talked about, about how there can be.

[00:18:00] Contributions to the self-reinforcing conflict. In order to talk about that, I think at a mature and helpful level, it requires self-examination. So, uh, group examination of your own side. It’s just very hard to talk about that because you end up getting scared that people, your allies are going to attack you.

So I think it’s a fundamental thing about conflict. That makes it hard to resolve because the conflict makes it hard to even talk about resolving the conflict. I mean, that’s why I got into this work is because I looked around and why aren’t more people in the mainstream media, journalists, pundits, politicians, why aren’t they talking about these things that, uh, polarization and conflict researchers have talked about and, and know about conflict?

Right? So I just saw my role as helping to share some of these ideas that I think. More people should talk about, but it’s just so hard to talk about. As you probably know, it’s, it’s so easy to get. You know, pushback from people and even internally to not want to think about these [00:19:00] things. 

Richard: Yeah. Most of my friends are liberals and it’s hard at say, you know, uh, having dinner with somebody or, or just chatting with somebody to go, yeah.

But. There is a reason why people on the other side think that way. Yeah. That’s 

Zach: really uncomfortable. Yeah. I’ve lost a, I’ve lost a good amount of friends and I’ve been at some uncomfortable dinner parties with, you know, liberal, uh, friends and acquaintances where Yeah. You, you don’t really, it can be very hard to have these conversations 

Richard: if they think you’re the skunk in the room.

Yeah. 

Zach: But, you know. Yeah. And, and similarly that, you know, that that dynamic is happening on the right too, where, you know, there there’s a, there’s less room for having a. Less and less room for having nuanced conversations. You are not asking this to be 

Richard: more moderate, are you? 

Zach: No, I, yeah, I think that’s a, that is a, a common misunderstanding, which I think gets in the way of, of, of this work because.

I, my stance is that you have to separate the dimensions of what we believe. You have to separate [00:20:00] that from how we engage with other people. Right. And so you could view it as moderate in this. I’m advocating for maybe moderately in how you engage with other people, but not in your beliefs. That’s, that’s a very important distinction.

Richard: Most of our recent. Episodes on How Do We Fix it? Have been about the work of Braver Angels, which is a nationwide campaign that brings together liberals and conservatives in the same room and, and I’ve been to some of those, yeah. Organizes, debates and has branches across the country. Why is the work of Braver Angels and other groups in this depolarization space important?

Zach: I think there, there’s several ways it’s important. One is just getting a sense of what people. On the quote other side actually believe, which I think so often is we have distorted ideas about, and then, yeah, there’s various things that, uh, braver Angels does, uh, that I think are helpful exercises. And I actually talked to the co-founder of Braver Angels, [00:21:00] uh, bill Dougherty, who’s a, uh, a couple’s, uh, therapist.

And we talked about some of the, the processes, the exercises they do in Braver Angels. One of them involves. What they call the fishbowl exercise, which is having one political side listen to the other political group criticize themselves about what they are not doing so well and that actually humanizes both sides to each other.

And there’s actually an very interesting study about how that works. ’cause a lot of people’s instinct and conflict is to not criticize their own side, but actually criticizing your own side actually makes your group more human and more, you actually lower. Uh, the toxicity and the pushback on the other side by having more nuance and pushback on your own side, which is completely counterintuitive to how a lot of people think of conflict.

I think so, yeah. There’s many things that, uh. Braver angels and the these groups do that I think are very helpful for seeing the path out of these, these toxic dynamics. So 

Richard: one of [00:22:00] the, uh, leading lights in Braver angels is Monica Guzman, who wrote a book, uh, I think it’s called, uh, I, I never thought of it that way.

And there’s some wonderful tips in that book and from Monica about how to. Listen to and understand your relatives, people who you’re very fond of, who may have completely different political views mm-hmm. Than you have. 

Zach: Mm-hmm. Yes. Monica was a, uh, is a liberal Democrat voter, and her parents were, uh, Hispanic, uh, pro-Trump voters.

So that, yeah, she had some interesting stories in there about, you know, I think that would be relevant for, uh. Good learnings for, uh, liberal audience who, who are interested in depolarization. 

Richard: I think, I think you’ve, you’ve hinted at this, but, but I think that if more liberals and especially more democratic party leaders [00:23:00] examined their own role in toxic polarization, it could make them stronger.

Not weaker. 

Zach: Right. And I do, I do think that is such a, getting back to some of these fundamental instincts that we have that just lead us to ramp up toxic conflict more. I do think there is this instinct that people have, and I, and so often I hear it, people in the depolarization space hear it, that they think, oh, embracing these ideas will make us weaker.

They’ll make us lose more. But I think that’s just a completely. Wrong instinct on these areas. I think it, thinking about these things helps you. Understand who you’re talking to more. You don’t have distorted views of them, you, you’re more able to talk to them. You’re more able to persuade them. You’re more able to even reach compromises that might make more people happy.

Richard: And do you agree with the statement that toxic polarization is really the number one political crisis in America, that it’s holding up progress on so [00:24:00] many things? 

Zach: Yeah, I’m probably an outlier, but I think it’s the number one human problem because I think. This problem has been with us forever. Our inability to deal with toxic conflict.

And unless we’re able, uh, to get some pockets of, of understanding about how we approach this problem, it’s just such a dangerous problem, especially as you know, we’re gonna have increasingly dangerous weapons that are capable of. Wiping out more and more people so that it only takes like a small fight of some sort to be, be increasingly dangerous.

For one example, you might have somebody making a disease in their lab in a few years, right? So the more toxic conflict we have in the world, I, I think these things like AI and, uh, gl uh, global warming, I think pale in comparison to these threats about toxic conflict combined with more and more advanced weaponry of whatever sort.

Richard: Talk a little bit about your personal journey. You’ve clearly [00:25:00] moved towards a view that toxic polarization is a real crisis, and that was not something that you felt, say, 10 years ago. 

Zach: Yeah. Or even, or even, uh, since, yeah, 2019 I was insulting, uh, Trump supporters on online. So yeah, a pretty, a pretty quick journey for me.

Maybe what turned you around? I mean, it was a combination of things. I think I started thinking about how people perceived my words, like I drove away some friends, you know, on uh, social media. I lost some friends by my behavior and I started thinking. These are common ways, uh, uh, conflicts, progress and what they bring out in people.

Richard: Can you think of a specific example of where somebody who was a friend is no longer a friend? What was it that you said? 

Zach: One, one of the things I said, uh, on Facebook, you know, and this was I think a lot of people. Do this, they’re just venting, right? It [00:26:00] doesn’t necessarily reflect what they believe, but, uh, one of the things I said was after Trump had got elected in 2016.

I said something like, uh oh, I hope as, you know, air Force One crashes or something like that. You know, I would say, you know, that’s probably one of the worst thing that, that might be the worst thing I said. But I was often like, venting like this in a very childish way, you know, looking back, uh, so a friend of the family, pretty good friend who, uh, I’d, who had once let me, you know, stay in their house for several weeks when I was in between, uh, moves, uh, moving to Portland, Oregon.

He saw that and he was like, oh, why don’t you go to, you know, Canada? You guys discussed me. You know, they, so, uh, I lost that friendship. 

Richard: What else can we personally do to try and bring us back from the edge here? The 

Zach: cliff edge. I mean, I think one of the only things we [00:27:00] can do is think about our own personal behavior because there’s little else we can control in this.

You know, we’re just individuals, most of us with without much power. Uh, but I do think we have more power than we often think. I think our instincts often in these situations is to think that we don’t have power and that the power is somewhere out there, you know, by these politicians or with this media conglomerates.

But I do think it’s important to see that. How we treat each other, the ways that leaders speak, the, the, the approaches that media companies take. Those are all, they’re driven by the buildup of all these interactions that all of us have every day, right? Like we form the culture every day that by how the millions of us treat each other and what we tolerate.

Richard: Let me end this podcast. The way Ezra Klein ends his podcasts, when he asks guests to recommend three books, they think [00:28:00] will, will, will be, uh, worth reading. So what do you think people should, uh, should, should look at to perhaps change their mind or influence their behavior on this? Well, it’d be a bit.

Maybe too 

Zach: self-promotional to mention book, book, book. It would be, but, but, but that’s, you know, that’s, I would, I 

Richard: would recommend that. Yes. That’s why I wrote it, 

Zach: you know, I was like, I think it’ll, I wanted it to be the, the OneStop shop for especially liberal audiences who are concerned about these things or even skeptical of them.

I’ll give a few of my favorites. Um, I think, um, Taylor Dotson’s book, the Divide. Is very good. And that’s one of the better books on American polarization. And it talks about arrogance, especially in the, the views on both. You can hear these narratives on both sides about how, uh, we are the correct ones and.

Science and evidence shows this, [00:29:00] and they are the diluted ones, and there’s just this arrogance that gets promoted and ramp getting back to that self-reinforcing cycle. And both, both sides have different ways of framing that. Uh, but I thought that he, his, it was a very good examination of that, that aspect.

I’m a big fan of Robert Ali’s book Sustaining Democracy. It was so good that I, it was actually trying to accomplish a lot of the things I was trying to. Do with my book and I, if I had read his book earlier, I might have just not written my book. So I wanted to throw that in there as a nod to him. He has some very good, and he, he’s a, uh.

He, he, he’s at Vanderbilt. He’s like a teacher of political philosophy, something like that. But some very good arguments in there for people who are skeptical about some of the things I’ve said on, in this, in this podcast. Uh, 

Richard: well thank you very much for joining us, Zachary Elwood. Thanks for sure, the real honor to be invited.

And that’s our show. Zachary Ellwood most recent book is How Contempt Destroys Democracy. His website is american [00:30:00] anger.com. I’m Richard Davies, host of How Do We Fix It? The podcast with a question mark at the end of the title. Our producer is the most excellent Miranda Schafer. As always, thanks for listening.

Zach: That was a talk with Richard Davies, which was a reshare of an episode from his series How Do We Fix It? I’m Zach Elwood, author of Defusing American Anger and How Contempt Destroys Democracy. 

If you enjoyed this talk, or even if you’re skeptical about the ideas in it, I’d ask that you check out my work. Toxic political polarization is a hugely important and dangerous problem, and I think you should want to learn about different ways of looking at the problem. Because, let’s face it, the existing ways of thinking about and combating the problem just aren’t working. And I explain in my books why the typical ways of approaching these problems, our instinctual approaches, just don’t work, and why the standard approaches tend to add more fuel to the polarization fire. 

Thanks for listening. 

I talk with journalist Ellen Huet, whose new book Empire of Orgasm digs into the strange origins and evolution of Nicole Daedone and OneTaste, and goes into more detail than the Netflix documentary, which was titled Orgasm Inc. We talk about where OneTaste’s orgasmic meditation practices actually came from, how Daedone built a movement around it, and how that movement shifted into something far more high-control and ultimately criminal. Topics discussed include: What counts as coercion when adults voluntarily join a group they can technically leave at any time? Where’s the line between unconventional lifestyle experimentation and exploitation? We talk about Nicole’s appeal, why people found her so compelling, and why charisma often has more to do with the listener than the speaker. And we discuss the paradox that makes groups like this so powerful: people can experience genuine benefits and connection at the very same time that harmful dynamics are unfolding.

The YouTube video contains timestamps with links to specific topics.

A transcript is below.

Episode links:

• YouTube (includes video)
• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts

Resources related to this talk:

• Ellen Huet’s website
• LA Times review of Ellen’s Empire of Orgasm
• Netflix’s documentary on OneTaste: Orgasm, Inc.

TRANSCRIPT

(Transcript is generated by machine and will contain errors.)

Zach: Hi, I’m Zach Elwood and this is the People Who Read People podcast, a podcast about psychology and behavior. That was a snippet from my talk with Ellen Huet about her book that just came out this week: Empire of Orgasm: Sex, Power, and the Downfall of a Wellness Cult. Her book covers the story of One Taste, the organization created by Nicole Daedone that centered on their practice of Orgasmic Meditation. They were a big deal for a while; Nicole was promoted by people like Theo Von, Tim Ferris, and Gwyneth Paltrow. But then they got in trouble: after an FBI investigation, Nicole and her business partner Rachel Cherwitz were recently found guilty of forced labor conspiracy. 

As you heard, Ellen’s book starts out with a bang, so to speak — absolutely no pun intended. And I think the book is a great read. Even after watching the Netflix documentary about OneTaste, the book really drew me in; it was very interesting getting more information about how Nicole Daedone got her start; the people and organizations that gave her the inspiration to create a wellness organization centered around sex. It’s a wild ride. 

In this talk, I ask Ellen for her thoughts about some psychology-related aspects of Nicole and OneTaste: what Nicole’s personality was like; what helps explain her charisma; what separates more cult- groups from less cult-like groups. Ellen and I also talk about the positive aspects of OneTaste and other alleged cults; what positive teachings are they offering to people that people are responding to? 

Also, I want to say that OneTaste, like many alleged cults, does raise tough questions that often come up in such situations: When adults voluntarily join a group and can technically leave at any time, how do we determine what crosses the line into coercion or illegality? How do we distinguish between unconventional lifestyle choices and exploitation—especially when a group’s belief system reframes discomfort, sacrifice, and even humiliation as spiritual growth? It’s easy for us so-called “normal” people to form quick opinions about what’s too far; and what’s unethical, and what’s illegal; but groups like OneTaste can raise some tough-to-answer questions; they can make us question our assumptions about what’s too far. And I think it’s possible to see the toughness of some of those questions even if you also think OneTaste deserved to be dissolved and their leaders punished. 

Just a note that this episode is on youtube, and I’ll have quick links in the video description to specific questions and topics in the video.  

If you like this episode, learn more about the People Who Read People podcast at behavior-podcast.com. Please hit subscribe on youtube or whatever platform you’re listening on; I’d greatly appreciate it. 

Okay here’s the talk with Ellen Huet, author of Empire of Orgasm. 

Zach: [00:00:00] [00:01:00] Hi Ellen. Thanks for joining me.

Ellen: Hi. Thanks so much for having me.

Zach: Yeah, so your book, um, I just, I actually just started reading it. A few days ago, and it’s, uh, very interesting, like much more interesting than I thought, thought it would be, because I had seen the, I watched the Netflix documentary a few days before that.

Mm-hmm. And I thought I knew what to expect. But you, you delving into the backstory of how Nicole got to, you know, got to be the person she was and the various groups she was involved in. Yeah. It was really hard. That was a hard to put down [00:02:00] book, honestly. I, so I give, and it, the writing was, yeah. I thought the writing was very good.

So

Ellen: thank you so much. I really appreciate that. Yeah. Um, yeah, of course. For those who have seen Orgasm Inc. On Netflix, you’ll recognize my face in there. I’m kind of like the narrator of, um, the film. But yeah, the book, empire of Orgasm really tries to do a comprehensive story, not just of. Nicole and her backstory and how she came to build one taste, but also the intricacies of everything that happened once the company was up and thriving, and then leading all the way up to, um, current day, which, uh, as we know ends with a federal criminal trial and a conviction for Nicole and her second in command, Rachel.

So it’s, it’s the whole sweep.

Zach: Um, real quick, Ellen, uh, or a note that, uh, is it possible for you to turn your, um, mic, uh, setting up a little bit on your side? Like your, um, it’s just a little low. Oh, like

Ellen: the gain? Um,

Zach: yeah. Or, or like the, the basic fundamental setting Yeah. Gain, I guess. Would,

Ellen: that is

Zach: if’s any sort a great

Ellen: question.

Zach: Um, and it might even be in like your [00:03:00] computer settings, like I know there’s a little, sometimes have the slider

Ellen: if you’re able to hear, there’s a little dial at the bottom, which I wonder if that

Zach: it’s either gain or it’s, uh,

Ellen: does that change anything? Is that better?

Zach: I think that might be better. Yeah.

Ellen: How’s this? Now I’m seeing it’s

Zach: either gain or it’s your headphones. Yeah. Um,

Ellen: um, keep

Zach: talking.

Ellen: What’s it? Yeah, it’s, um, so what’s funny is I changed this little, like thing at the bottom and what it actually seemed to do was turn up the volume on your voice to me, but if it’s also helping with the gain

Zach: Oh, I’m not sure if it is.

I, I, I think it might not be, but Okay. Actually, if it’s hard to figure out, it’s not a big deal. ’cause I think it’s, it’s, it’s decent audio. It’s, uh, I can just boost it in post, so it’s not a big deal, but, uh

Ellen: Okay, great.

Zach: If you don’t see an obvious way to adjust it, it’s cool.

Ellen: Um, I gotta say I don’t, but yeah.

Zach: Okay. Cool. We’ll, we’ll keep going.

Ellen: Cool. I’ll

Zach: try to

Ellen: project

Zach: Oh yeah, that’s, that’s cool. I think it’s fine. Yeah. Uh, so I’ll, I’ll start off with the second question. Uh, sure. Where I was gonna keep going there. Um, one second. Lemme just try to remember what I [00:04:00] was talking about. Uh, yeah, the, uh, we were talking about the, yeah.

The, how it got started. Yeah. That was the, uh, watching the documentary, that was the big question that I had, was. You know, where did Nicole come from and what about her backstory was, was true? And, uh, yeah, maybe you could talk a little bit about the, I think, I think that would interest people a lot the, the groups that she was involved in that led up to her learning these, these techniques or getting the ideas for these, these techniques.

And maybe you could, uh, it, it wasn’t clear to me too did she, did she act as if that her ideas were her own and that she hadn’t gotten these ideas from these previous groups? That wasn’t, that part wasn’t clear to me either.

Ellen: Yeah. So, you know, just as a, as a basic overview, you know, Nicole Deone is the founder and creator of, of OneTaste, which was this wellness company that popularized a practice called [00:05:00] Orgasmic Meditation, which is a 15 minute partnered clitoral stroking mindfulness practice.

And it’s true that she learned a very similar clitoral stroking. Meditative practice from two other groups that preceded one taste. I don’t think she would’ve ever outright denied that she got inspiration from these other groups. But of course, for a lot of people who ended up joining One taste or learning about orgasmic meditation, they, they really didn’t know that she had actually studied this somewhere else.

She would often tell this origin story that she went to a party, met a Buddhist monk, and that this monk offered to show her a sexuality practice, which was this stroking practice. And she was then so inspired by the experience that she decided she felt a calling to bring orgasmic meditation to the world.

So what happened in actuality is, um, something kind of similar to that, like she did. Meet a man. Um, he had been a student at one or maybe both of these [00:06:00] predecessor groups. Um, one of them is called Morehouse or More University, which was started in the late sixties in the East Bay, so near San Francisco, but still maybe like an hour away.

And then there was a spinoff group from that called the Welcomed Consensus that also was sort of based in San Francisco, but also had a compound, uh, up north in California near the Oregon border, where they also studied more intensely. And both of these groups called their clitoral stroking practice, deliberate orgasm, and it was a little bit more freewheeling than orgasmic meditation.

So one of the most important things Nicole did, I think she was very savvy for it, was she learned in this practice, decided she wanted to start her own group and her own business, most importantly, in which she was the leader and the, the founder of this and, um, decided to rebrand it. First by calling it orgasmic meditation, uh, which, you know, kind of makes it seem a little bit more like a spiritual practice.

And also with this very convenient acronym, OM or om, which of course [00:07:00] evokes, you know, kind of like an ancient, ancient tradition. And then she also put in these rules and boundaries around the practice, such as it’s 15 minutes. Exactly. Um, you know, people are gonna stay as clothed as possible while doing it.

The man is fully clothed, the woman is only naked from the waist down. Um, people are gonna use gloves and lube, and there’s gonna be all these sort of, um, prescriptions about how the practice is done in an attempt to make it feel as safe and palatable as possible to the average person. So she really was focused on, you know, she took this inspiration from somewhere else and then decided to make it as clean, kind of squeaky clean as possible with her as the leader.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Another interesting detail, uh, that the person who taught her that, that she met, who. The, uh, who I think she kind of referred to sometimes as a Buddhist monk in her telling, uh, I saw that he also has like a, he’s also some sort of, uh, relationship and, uh, sexual coach of some sort

Ellen: of Yes, that’s right.

Yeah. His name is Erwan Davon and he [00:08:00] and his now wife run a sort of sexuality workshop business. Um, and yeah, he had been, so he’s, yeah, he’s still in the business. He was involved with Nicole both, um, as a romantic partner. That’s what I’ve been told. Romantic partner as well as like business partner, um, for a short period of time.

And then they had kind of a split. He went off and did his own thing. But he is apparently, you know, according to my reporting, he is the person who was mm-hmm. Originally introduced Nicole to this practice.

Zach: Yeah. The, um, yeah, it was real, uh, really, really interesting reading about where she came from and got these ideas when I was thinking about how to.

What kind of questions to ask for this talk? I was thinking about focusing on, like, as you say in your book, you know, there’s, there’s no firm line that separates, like a cult from a non cult. It’s a, it’s a spectrum and, you know mm-hmm. Some things are more culty than others. But when I was thinking about, you know, what would make, what, what are the traits that makes, [00:09:00] uh, that would make one taste be seen as a cult?

You know, one of the things is I think that, that cult leaders often have in common, or like faux gurus, they, they try to present ideas as if the ideas are very unique to them, and they’re the source of the, the wisdom. As opposed to saying, you know, if somebody was gonna do a more, uh, you know, open and transparent, uh, attempt to communicate whatever ideas you would say, like, oh, here are the where, where, here’s where I got the ideas from and, uh, here’s, here’s the backstory of where they came from and where I accumulated these ideas as opposed to, as opposed to.

The inclination to be like, I’m the source of all of these things. Mm-hmm. And I am the person that put these together. And I think you see for Nicole, and for a lot of people that might be called more culty, you can see them trying to act as if they have all of the, the wisdom themselves that you have to, to come to, uh, for, for, for the wisdom.

I’m curious if you would you agree that’s one aspect that is a little bit more

Ellen: I [00:10:00] definitely agree that, yeah, that is a char, you know, of course, different cult experts have, have compiled their own lists of what they think make, um, you know, are the characteristics of a cult or a high demand group. Um, it’s true that one of them is the classic, the charismatic leader who promises to have found some special or divine knowledge that gives them access to enlightenment, broadly defined, that then their followers can get access to through them and through following their, their, their work.

And I would say Nicole, you know, she would often make a show of. Picking bits and pieces of wisdom from different, uh, traditions like Kabbalah or Theosophy or Christianity or, or these kinds of things, um, Buddhism frequently. And, um, you know, I think she did, she did at least like, make gestures at this idea that she was pulling from different traditions.

But what she also did, um, was position herself as, you know, uniquely gifted and able to [00:11:00] access, um, this orgasmic energy that one taste was all focused on. So within one taste, they actually redefined the word orgasm to no longer mean the moment of climax, but rather orgasm with a capital. O means this kind of catchall spiritual energy.

Um, I’ve heard people, you know, former one taste members compare it to almost the force from Star Wars or this idea of Qi or this, this kind of life energy, erotic life energy that runs within you. And. You know, through certain, uh, you know, basically Nicole positioned herself implicitly and explicitly as someone who was especially tapped into that source of energy.

And I think that is what people, that is a way in which she mimicked that criterion in which the leader presents himself as having special or divine knowledge.

Zach: Yeah, it’s like the, I mean, some of it’s, some of mentioning the other various religions and spiritualities is kind of like an, an appeal to authority where it’s like I’m tapped into [00:12:00] all these things that all of these various other things are related to.

Uh, but the, you, maybe that’s a good segue into the, what you start your book out with, which is probably like one of the stranger, you know, um, kind of situations where it starts out with her genitals being stroked in front of a room full of, you know, people that she invited, including theoretical investors and such.

And there was, there’s also, you know, so she’s doing that up there in front of the room and. They’re inviting people to talk about their feelings when she is doing that, and

Ellen: mm-hmm.

Zach: They invite people up to touch her as if she’s radiating some special energy. So that, I mean, that, that scene in the, in the documentary, which was my first exposure to this story, when that ca when that scene came up, I was like, whoa, this is a lot more weird than I, than I thought it would be.

Yeah. Because there’s something very narcissistic about, to me about doing this in front of people. Like I can imagine a more, like, if I imagined a more, um, you know, [00:13:00] spiritual aspect to such a group, it wouldn’t, it wouldn’t involve doing this in, in front of people and like, you know, this, this kind of performance.

Uh, and that to me, like stood out as one of the strange things to about it, where it’s like, it’s one thing to do these things and believe it’s worthwhile. It’s another thing to do them in front of people and for, you know, to put on some, basically a show. And I’m curious what you think of that like. That, that to me really communicated like an element of narcissism that she, and especially her doing it for, like bringing people to, to showcase how amazing this was.

It, it, it struck me as quite, uh, exhibitionist, I guess.

Ellen: Hmm. Well, personally, I’ll be careful about using the word narcissist. Like, you know, I’m, I’m not a psychologist, so I’ll, I’ll stay away from that. But I do think, you know, yes, this scene of the demonstration where Nicole is being stroked, um, in front of this kind of VIP crowd, in this beautiful home instance in beach, like this is how the [00:14:00] book opens.

And the reason I chose that is because I think it is one of the most striking images that you can remember about how one taste was operating. And I, I would look at it slightly differently. I think when they do a demo like that, what they’re trying to convey is a few things. First of all, that, like I mentioned earlier, that Nicole does have.

Access to this special power. Like that to me is the unspoken part of why they would bring people up one by one to touch her leg while she’s being stroked. It’s because this idea that like she’s channeling some powerful erotic life force and like, this is how you’re gonna get close to it and witness it.

Um, I think my sense is of course, from an outside perspective, it, it might look totally bananas. Like, like, like if you were not in the realm of thinking about orgasmic meditation and, and all this stuff, you might look at the scene and think like, this is crazy. But [00:15:00] my sense from talking to people who were there from watching videos of this, from talking to people who were really enmeshed in that world is that it felt almost reverent.

This idea that something happening, whatever was happening in that room was very serious and, and very powerful. Um, and so I think, you know, it, it was something. Something really special. And that, that is also what I wanted to con convey that kind of, um, tension between how the outside world would view it as, as opposed to someone who was really enmeshed in that world.

Mm-hmm. Um, and yeah, I think, you know, they believed so strongly in the power of capital O orgasm that they were like, this is the way to show people. And then there’s one more wrinkle to it, which is that, you know, in the book we get into some of the mentorship relationships that Nicole had with, with previous, um, people who had previously led other orgasm focused communities.

One of them is this man named Ray Veder Linein. And what’s so interesting [00:16:00] is in my reporting, I found this document that kinda collects some of the lessons that he tried to show Nicole. And one of them talks about how much of a showstopper it is to have a live demonstration of orgasm. And she’s following that playbook, you know, like, it, it is also a piece of practical advice that she got.

From people who had been in similar positions before, which is that this kind of demonstration blows people away. And so they would consistently, you know, one taste would consistently do live demonstrations of a woman being stroked, you know, receiving some sort of stroking, similar to orgasmic meditation.

They would do that in their introductory classes. They would do that at special events. Um, you know, in 2013 and 2014 when One Taste hosted these enormous orgasm conferences in San Francisco, um, by that point Nicole was more of the stroker rather than the Strokey. But, you know, at the Regency Center, which is this big event space in San Francisco in 2013, they did a big om demonstration on stage.

You know, hundreds of people watching [00:17:00] Nicole stroke, one of her associates. And, uh, I think they know that it’s a powerful experience. And so you see this scene come up again and again throughout the book because it’s.

Zach: Yeah.

Ellen: So shocking. Yeah.

Zach: Yeah. It’s like, it’s a shocking thing. And there, it’s almost like a power move in, in the sense that it’s so, so shocking and to do it so confidently, it kind of messes with people’s minds, right?

Because you’re like, who would do this? And what are they, what, what are they doing and what do they know? You know,

Ellen: they must know something that they,

Zach: that

Ellen: I don’t know. Yeah.

Zach: You might start thinking of that, like, and, and, and just the pure confidence of it, you know, the, uh, it, it, it would blow some people away.

They’d be very affected by that. So I can see how it would be a very affecting, you know, in one way or another, uh, performance.

Ellen: Mm-hmm.

Zach: Uh, yeah. I’m curious too about the, um, when it comes to what One taste and Nicole got in trouble for, my understanding is that it was pretty much solely about the financial exploitation.

Am I, am I right in that? Like if it, my, my rough understanding is if it wasn’t for the [00:18:00] financial exploitation, they, they would be fine right now. Is that accurate?

Ellen: I don’t think that’s accurate. Mm-hmm. Um, you know, if you’re talking specifically about the. Criminal case. Mm-hmm. Then, um, I’ll try to, I’ll try to not get too caught in the weeds, but basically the, in 2023, federal prosecutors charged Nicole and her second in command Rachel Hurwitz with forced labor conspiracy.

That is a federal crime. Um, the short version of the explanation is that, uh, hold on just a second. The short version of the explanation is that conspiracy means more than one person, um, scheming together to commit a crime. And then forced labor has somewhat complicated meaning, but it basically means like obtaining someone’s labor through unlawful means, which might look something like, um, threats of harm or serious harm.

Um, serious harm can be defined as psychological, physical, financial, reputational, [00:19:00] you know, it’s, it’s, it’s quite broadly defined. So in the trial, what they showed, yes, it did include. Prosecutors alleging that Nicole and Rachel had schemed to, um, get their workers to work for low or no pay. But it also included, um, to be clear, it also included the allegations that they had used serious harm in order to do so, and things that fell under serious harm included, like psychological manipulation, um, instances of sexual abuse instances in, in, in which they tried to like, um, get yeah, pressure people to do certain acts, some of which were sexual, some of which were not.

So it’s a little complicated, but mm-hmm. I think suffice to say that the prosecutors alleged that there was both financial harm as well as sexual and other non-financial harm, kind of the whole range. Um, and that they presented that as like enough evidence to charge them with forced labor conspiracy.

Zach: I guess I’m curious though.

It just was really [00:20:00] surprising to me that. Uh, that they would, considering that they seem to be making good amount of money, like what, you know, and, and considering that if they had paid their workers better, that would’ve probably undercut a lot of the charges against them and, you know, treated their, their workers more fairly.

I’m just kind of curious, you know, is it surprising to you that if were, or were maybe, maybe my question is, were they doing as financially well as it seemed, or was it, you know, could they have easily paid their workers more? Is that your understanding?

Ellen: It’s complicated. In the early years of one taste, they were not doing so well financially, and this is actually a key part of what ended up coming at the trial.

But basically in the early years of OneTaste, so this is, you know, the mid two thousands into the like early 2010s, OneTaste was bringing in some money. Their main revenue source was selling courses and intensive workshops to students who wanted to learn both. Orgasmic [00:21:00] meditation and kinda the, the Ohm Life philosophy.

But they were often in the red. You know, they were not, um, they were not turning a profit. They were losing money each month. And the way that they managed to support themselves was by getting financial support and loans, essentially from a man named Reese Jones, who was a venture capitalist in San Francisco, um, who was also Nicole’s boyfriend.

Like he met her through one taste and became her boyfriend. And he had enough money, you know, he had sold a company to Motorola several years in previous for something like $200 million. And so he had some money and he was happy to. Lend money to one taste. Um, this was all discussed in great detail at the trial and also something that’s supported by all of the reporting that I’ve done so far is he would give money to one taste And in exchange he received sexual favors from one taste employees.

So that often looked like [00:22:00] birthday scenes that he received, um, around the time of his birthday or throughout the year where OneTaste employees would put on these elaborate scenes sometimes with BDSM elements or theatrical elements in which, um, they would all come together and kind of do like a performance, like an immersive theater performance for Mr.

Jones. And that did sometimes involve sex. And then, um, he also had a string of handlers, so a series of women who were involved in one taste, who spent various amounts of time, um, being his sort of sexual. Assistant

Zach: liaison. Yeah.

Ellen: Yes. Um, so at times they would live with him in his house. Um, and there are women who testified about being asked to take on this role and being asked to service him sexually every day as part of that role.

They also did housework and would like walk his dog and things like that. Um, and what’s complicated about this is that [00:23:00] it was also seen as a position of honor to be asked to take this role. At least that is what women who had served in this role told me when I interviewed them. And so you can imagine how this is complicated, right?

Like if you are really emotionally all in into the mission of one taste and their mission was to spread orgasmic meditation and spread orgasm to the world, um, then you might be, you might feel like, okay, it’s part of my job to sexually service the investor of this company that is helping keep us afloat.

Correct. Um, and that is often, uh, that to my understanding, again, based on my reporting, that’s my understanding of, of, of what went on. So it was a very complicated situation. Later on, they did actually end up paying back their loans to this man, and then they turned instead to selling more and more courses, um, and more and more expensive courses, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars to their customers in order to keep the business afloat.

Um, they did end up bringing in over the years, you know, tens of millions of dollars in [00:24:00] revenue. But based on my reporting, they were not always, you know, they were often spending a lot on operational expenses. So your main question of like, you know, were they making tons of profit? I think based on my reporting, actually no.

I mean, they were keeping the business afloat. They were profitable starting from around 2013 and onward. Um, but the truth is yes, many people testified and many people told me in my interviews that they were not paid that much for their work. That they were often were expected or socially pressured to.

Give their labor for free

Zach: mm-hmm.

Ellen: As part of the mission.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: And so, um, yeah, it’s not clear to me that they could have just paid people more and fixed this problem makes more,

Zach: it makes it make more sense, I think because yeah, the, that was my initial thought was like, Hey, you could have avoided a lot of trouble probably by just treating people better.

But I think, yeah, it’s not

Ellen: quite that simple. Yeah.

Zach: Yeah. Not quite that. And yeah, there’s incentives to, yeah. That they had obvious incentives to, uh, cut corners in that regard. Yeah. [00:25:00]

Ellen: And look, it’s not, it’s not so different from any startup that was also happening in San Francisco at the time. Of course, there’s some things that were different, but, you know, a lot of startups are struggling to become profitable.

They, you know, they’re trying to

Zach: mm-hmm.

Ellen: Just show growth. Um, and, and that’s what I found so interesting about one taste in the context of San Francisco in the, in the 2010s is like. Of course they were different from a lot of other startups, but there’s also some similarities. It’s like they were really trying to get by.

Mm-hmm. And you know, in my day job at Bloomberg News, I, I covered startups, I covered tech. Like this is very much, that’s my bread and butter. And so like, I loved seeing how this company was the overlap. Yeah. In many ways it was different, but in a lot of ways it, it was actually just kind of like another startup were very, a bit of a strange one were Yeah.

Zach: Sexual entrepreneurs. They, they had a, you know, a new sexual product were basically Yeah. Or sexual slash spiritual or, you know, whatever. Yeah.

Ellen: Wellness, sexual wellness, you know.

Zach: Yeah. Yeah. Um, the, the other thing that, uh, strikes me as, [00:26:00] you know, being on the, on the more cult-like spectrum is, you know, when you’ve got, uh, and I’m sure you know, cult, uh, experts talk about this too, uh, but the idea that, uh, you know, leaders, uh, groups.

Will say, oh, our, our system, our, our set of beliefs is kind of a cure all for any problem you have. Right. And you had in the, in the documentary, and I’m sure in your book, I didn’t finish your book, but, uh, I, I, I saw people, um, I, I’d learned that people would say, like, if they were having problems in the group, uh, depression, anxiety, whatever problems they would be told like, oh, you’re not oming enough.

You just need to own more. You know, and I, I think that’s a, that’s kind of a, a common red flag where the group’s, uh, practices are, are treated as if like, well, you just need to do our practices more. Mm-hmm. That, that’ll solve every problem you have.

Ellen: Yeah, absolutely. A, a and a, a common, I think one of the ways one cult expert framed it is, yeah, it’s like an overarching belief [00:27:00] system.

So this idea that, like this practice orgasmic meditation, which they say will help you tap into, again, your capital O orgasm, your erotic energy, you know, within one taste. I heard. From, you know, both from their own promotional materials as well as from people who spoke to me about their experience. I heard a range of claims, you know, not just the basics, like, oh, it’ll help you improve your sex life and your relationships, give you more intimacy and connection in your life, but also help you tap into your desire.

It’ll give you more physical energy. Like often, you know, there were many former members who told me, you know, they worked such, um, long hours, you know, often from like seven in the morning to like midnight and it’s like running events and stuff for one taste that they often felt sleep deprived, but they were told, Hey, like you should be Ming more.

That’s how you’re gonna get more energy, that this practice is an energy source. Um, and at various points on one Tastes website, they had testimonials where people were saying things like, one taste secured my depression, one taste helped manage my Crohn’s disease. One [00:28:00] taste helped me find God, one taste helped me.

You know, it, it was like it again, similar to maybe some of these other wellness cures, you’re totally right. It, it was positioned as like. The answer to a wide range of things. Um, and you’re totally correct that, uh, that is usually something that should raise, um, suspicions or, or concerns for, for people.

Zach: Right? Yeah. Um, sorry, one second. Lemme look at my notes here.

Ellen: Take your time.

Zach: Oh, do you know, um, I, I was curious, do you know the relationship between what Nicole and the people she learned such things from these, these various, you know, long, uh, genital stroking practices? Mm-hmm.

Ellen: What,

Zach: what is the relationship between those and just tantric sex as a, as a practice? Do you know the relationship there?

Ellen: Yeah, I’ll be, I’m just gonna give a lot of caveats here, which is that tantra is [00:29:00] a very, like, complex and um, uh, just like a very complex world that I just know enough to know that I don’t know it well enough to, to say. Um, and, and, and that in fact, a lot of what my, my understanding is a lot of what people think of as tantra might actually be more accurately described as neo toran, I think within the wor mm-hmm.

There’s a lot of people who, um, would like to make that distinction. In general.

Zach: There’s a lot of complexity, just

Ellen: like, yeah, I would say

Zach: just like Buddhism or any kind

of

Ellen: totally, so

Zach: large school, there’s all these,

Ellen: understandably, and I think that, you know, people who are experts in tantra might feel like that’s a reductive.

So I’m gonna, I’m gonna say I’m sure there are similar, um, principles, but I don’t know them specifically well enough to say. But it is true that like one taste, you know, orgasmic meditation, some of the. Some of the things that are interesting about orgasmic meditation are that the practice is meant to be goalless.

So within those 15 minutes of stroking, the only goal is for both the stroker and the [00:30:00] strokey to feel the sensations in their body. You’re not trying to get anywhere. There is no particular like outcome that you are trying to be held to. And I think that for a lot of people, that’s the first time they’ve ever experienced sexual touch with another person, where there wasn’t this unspoken sense of, I need to perform, I need to get to this place.

I need to make sure that he feels good too. So for a lot of people, you know, I don’t wanna undersell the fact that I think the experience of orgasmic meditation was, um, revelatory for a lot of people who experienced it the first time. For, for women who might have struggled to have, um, climax, which by some studies is 10 to 15% of American women, for men who might feel performance anxiety about certain things during sex, feeling unsure about how to pleasure a woman.

All these things like. I think a reason that orgasmic meditation was so appealing is because those are things that people are worried about or have stress about or, or, or want to find a different way to connect where they don’t need to be concerned about that.

Zach: Right.

Ellen: But it’s hard to [00:31:00] talk about. So when, when this, when this solution comes where they offer like, Hey, here’s this 15 minute thing.

You can do it with a partner, but you could also do it with anyone. And when it’s over, you don’t owe the guy anything. You don’t owe him a handshake, a hug, your phone number, whatever.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: Um, it’s

Zach: empowering and

Ellen: extremely empowering might

Zach: help you deal with some issues and Yeah, a

Ellen: hundred percent. And so in, in that sense, in the sense that it is sexual connection, but with a more mindful and just like a different approach to it, um, I think for a lot of people, yeah, they, they, they might, it just might open doors in their mind where they think like, wow, I could experience something like this.

I didn’t know that that was possible.

Zach: Yeah. I think you’re, you’re getting at something that’s hard to talk about where. So I, once I worked for an NLP trainer for mm-hmm. Like six months, I was never into it, but I took it mainly because I thought it’d be make for some interesting stories. And so I went down the NLP, you know, rabbit hole of learning about what these people were doing.

And, and I’ve talked about it from my podcast where there’s a [00:32:00] lot of exploitative, manipulative, just playing bullshit stuff and even dangerous stuff. But, you know, there, there are elements to it that make sense for why people have positive experiences. And I’ve talked about that on my podcast, where it’s like, you can see how specific people are using it in exploitative and manipulative ways, while also seeing what it is that is helping people with various things and why they do report having, you know, very positive experiences and why they keep coming back and maybe even get exploited financially by these people.

You know? So it’s like you, you can see both. It’s possible to see both sides of, of that coin, that there can be good things in the mix that help people while, yeah,

Ellen: I would go so far as to say that every. Every semis, successsful cult has a lesson at the center of it that’s extremely valuable. Mm-hmm. Good.

Otherwise

Zach: that’s

Ellen: good. Yeah. Why would anyone join? Like it? That’s good point. You know, you probably would never get off the ground. And so, you know, again, I’ll be careful about like labeling anything as [00:33:00] cult or not cult as we talk about in the book. I think they exist on a spectrum. Mm-hmm. But one taste is, is no exception to this.

I think one taste, of course, so many people have told me about harmful experiences that they had in and around the group. And I spoke to many people who were like, it really changed my sex life. It really lit up my relationships. It, it taught me things about myself that I had never understood before. I believe all of these things.

Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: And you know, the structure of orgasmic meditation, I can see, and I’ve seen many examples and been told many times about how it was, um, you know, how it was abused, but the structure of orgasmic meditation, there’s a lot of wisdom in there. And that’s why people, you know, it’s, it’s not rocket science.

It’s like that’s why people were drawn to it because it was offering something that they couldn’t find somewhere else.

Zach: Right. You can imagine a, a healthier, uh, you know, less, less high control environment than, you know, one taste had. You can, you can imagine a different version of it. At least I can that had [00:34:00] different properties.

Yeah. Would, would, would have much fewer people reporting that they were, you know, manipulated and, and coerced and such. Yeah.

Ellen: Yeah. What’s interesting is just orgasmic meditation has up until now not really had a life separate from one taste. Mm-hmm. And so there are former one taste members who have expressed to me this sadness that the practice never really got a chance to maybe be its own thing, separate from this group that where, you know, where they might attribute more, you know, these former members might attribute more harm to the dynamics of the group and less to the practice, but.

For all intents and purposes, because those two were so intertwined, it’s, it’s hard to separate them.

Zach: Yeah. There’s gonna be a branding issue for, um, yeah. For anybody that attempts to follow in the footsteps, um, is, I was curious when you, uh, when you first started writing your article, uh, were you surprised, surprised that, uh, when you, when the [00:35:00] article came out and you finished it, were you surprised that there hadn’t been coverage, negative coverage of the group before that?

Ellen: Yes and no. You know, there had been a lot of coverage of OneTaste. In the past, you know, they, they were actually quite, uh, you know, of course it’s kind of a fringe practice, so it’s, it’s always been a little bit, um, on, on the edges, but it was fairly mainstream. You know, Nicole spoke on stage at a Gwyneth Paltrow Goup Health Conference in 2017.

The practice was basically endorsed by Gwyneth Paltrow. There was a whole chapter on it in Tim Ferriss’s book, the Four Hour Body, even Klo Kardashian talked about how she thinks orgasmic meditation is great. And, um,

Zach: yeah, she went a lot of, she was on a lot of pretty big shows about it and, you know, Theon and all these kind of shows.

Ellen: Yeah. Theo Von has studied orgasmic meditation. That’s my favorite one. Um, favorite. He’s so funny of when he talks about it. He got bit by a dog or something when he went over to Strokes, um, someone at her house. Um, anyway, and [00:36:00]

Zach: Okay.

Ellen: You know, orgasmic meditation was discussed on the Today Show. Like again, it was, you know, um.

You know, and I think Maria Shriver was the, the person who had reported on that. So it, it is just like, it had reached pretty famous people. It had gotten a lot of mainstream coverage. Um, and, and the coverage about it had generally been, you know, every once in a while the stories would mention like, oh, maybe there are some weird things that happen here.

But it was never the focus of a story. And in general, people I think somewhat understandably were just interested in like, what is orgasmic meditation?

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: What are the benefits? How does it work? Like where did it come from? Mm-hmm. There are so many interesting and worthy questions to ask about it that I’m not actually surprised that people didn’t get further and ask like, well, what actually happens inside the company?

Um

Zach: mm-hmm.

Ellen: And the only reason that I ended up writing about them is because, you know, one taste actually reached out to me. To try to pitch me on a story about them. This was back in 2017 again, I was covering startups at the time. They were like, this is a fast-growing [00:37:00] woman-led wellness startup. And I decided to po I had heard about them before I decided to like poke around a little and ended up finding someone who had, had a pretty bad experience with one taste.

And that was the first that I had really heard of this. After talking to that, that person, I was like, okay, I gotta find out more. Found other people, heard their experiences, and it just kind of snowballed from there. But I think I also could have easily just ended up writing kind of a, a story that didn’t touch on that.

You know, it, I think as a reporter, you, you just sometimes happen to ask the right questions and, and, and end up somewhere that you didn’t expect.

Zach: Yeah. And I, I do kind of wonder if I feel like some of the, some of the shady people out there that, uh, specifically like this. Con artists that I talk about on my podcast, chase Hughes.

He gets, he’s been on Joe Rogan and he’s been on these various big shows. Uh, these people don’t seem to be interested in vetting the fact that this [00:38:00] guy has told so many lies about his career, his experiences, what he’s done, that the grandiose claims he makes, that nobody, you know, nobody who’s an expert on psychology behavior, behavior believes are possible like brainwashing and mind controlling people.

But it strikes me that for show hosts, there can be an element of like, this is an exciting thing that will get clicks. Um, I, I want to showcase something that will get clicks for me and get attention. It’s an, it’s an interesting idea. Like regardless of, even if they believe it or not, there can be kind of a pressure to, you know, talk about something that’s pretty edgy.

And I do kind of wonder if that might have played a role in, in her getting so much. Attention these days where it’s like everyone’s competing for attention. It’s like, oh, I’ll have on this, you know, I’ll talk about or have on this person who’s doing this really strange, uh, sexual, you know, meditation practice because I know it’s gonna get clicks.

Like, whether, whether I’m into it or not. It, you know, it, it’s gonna get some attention, right. So [00:39:00] I ju I just wonder if that’s a factor.

Ellen: I think of course one taste in orgasmic meditation got attention for many years because it was such an unusual premise. Um, you know, as a journalist, I think I, I feel a lot of, uh, understanding for someone who.

For, you know, doesn’t have the time or bandwidth to be able to look into every, in, you know, to investigate every person that they have on their show. Like, I also

Zach: recognized that, and there wasn’t, there was no journalism e even out there was, there weren’t, there weren’t articles like yours out there. Yeah.

You have to

Ellen: even

Zach: investigate. Yeah.

Ellen: You know, to be, to be totally fair, it’s like,

Zach: yeah,

Ellen: it took me many, many months to write that first story. Right? Totally. I probably worked on it, it for six months and not everyone has that time and energy. Like, I’m very grateful to my editors, um, at Bloomberg News who were like, sure, you think there’s a story here?

Like, go for it. Um, you can spend time researching it. Like, unless you’re in a situation that can support that kind [00:40:00] of work. I never begrudge someone for not having, you know Yeah. Turned over every rock. That stuff takes time and like Yeah. You know, any investigative journalist can tell you that, like mm-hmm.

That is why hard, you know, like. This, that is why investigative journalism is so expensive. It it, it really is. And I think, you know, we don’t need to get into a soapbox about that, but like, if people want to have that kind of reporting in the world, they need to understand that it takes time, energy, money, and resources.

Zach: There’s a real lack of it these days. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. Yeah. It’s hard. It’s expensive and Yeah. Takes, takes time. And it’s important. Uh, yeah. I was curious, uh, I mean, one thing that stood out to me watching the documentary was, uh, you know, I’m not, as you say I’m not a psychologist either, but talking about Nicole’s backstory, when she was talking about her father who’d been convicted multiple times of, uh, child sexual abuse, she was saying something like, uh, you know, she viewed him at some [00:41:00] point in her life when she was younger, viewed him even knowing he’d done those things.

She viewed him as someone who was sort of. Uh, such a special person that the normal rules didn’t apply to him. So she was like coming up with a, a narrative where like, he wasn’t, he wasn’t just a disgusting, uh, you know, sexual abuser. He was just such an interesting person that, that the normal rules couldn’t apply to him.

That, that he transcended these normal rules. And I, I kind of get an inkling of like how she might, you know, you might be able to apply those same kind of ideas to yourself, you know, if you, uh, if you view yourself as like not a, not, not governed by the usual rules that you’re in possession of, you know, such, such great wisdom that you’re such a special person, you know, in, in, in these typical kind of narcissistic ways you can start, you could make similar excuses for yourself.

And I, I just thought that was an interesting insight into how she was, she seemed like, uh, and also you write about how she, you know, her, part [00:42:00] of her healing from her. Uh, sexual abuse from her, from her father Wa was her saying like, oh, she, she had instigated the sexual abuse. Yeah. She took responsibility for it also.

So that was another interesting element where she was, she was clearly kind of grappling with these, these ideas, um, that seemed to have a lot of influence into how she, how, how, how her philosophy and, and, uh, personality turned out. But I, you know, not to get too, uh, as you, as you said about yourself, I’m not a psychologist either, but I, I found that those, those various things very meaningful about her past, you know, a

Ellen: hundred percent.

I mean, I, I, I think I’ll, I’ll caveat all of this by saying like, this is, of course, I, I think this is maybe the, one of the most sensitive parts of the book was the part where I really wanted to try to get a better understanding of what was Nicole’s relationship to her father, who, as you said, yes, convicted of child sexual abuse.

Um. Uh, once and then was actually, [00:43:00] uh, charged and arrested for it a, a second time, and actually died in custody, uh, pretty soon after that. So he, I wanted to understand what was her relationship with her father, what exactly, I mean, you can never really know, but trying to get more answers about what, what happened between the two of them, and then how had that experience shaped everything in her life that came after, which, you know, she has spoken about in various ways.

Sometimes the story has shifted over the years. I wanted to do my own reporting, and I think the truth is it’s like this is extremely complicated, extremely sensitive territory, and I really tried to treat it with care and responsibility in the book and essentially in other places. Nicole has been very.

Careful about what she said about her father publicly. You know, she has often said that, um, you know, he was convicted of child sexual abuse. She has at various times said that he never behaved inappropriately toward her. Um, she has at times wouldn’t been asked [00:44:00] about the question of what happened between her and her father.

She has side stepped it, um, and of course has, has woven her father’s crimes into her life story regardless of, you know, what happened specifically between them. So she has, you know, the, she has spoken openly about the fact that he’s been convicted of these crimes and that his death kind of sparked her exploration, you know, as she puts it.

She had seen the poisonous side of sexuality through her father’s life and was determined to show that sexuality also had the power to heal in equal measure. And people were often drawn, you know, people who joined one taste were drawn to the fact that she had been so up close with. This, this dark experience.

Um, and, and that they felt, I think, seen by her and, and that that was something that felt reassuring to them. And there were also people I know because they told me, they looked at her and thought, oh, this is someone who has experienced something pretty traumatic potentially. She seems to have figured out her sexuality regardless.

And that’s [00:45:00] inspiring to me. I would like to be like her. Mm-hmm. I would like to do these things that she has said that she’d done because maybe it will make me feel more at peace with my sexual history. A lot of people who had joined one Taste might have experienced trauma or assault in the past, um, or might have just had complicated relationships about sex.

Mm-hmm. So in doing some reporting about her and her relationship to her father, you know, what I found was she had at various times earlier when she was maybe like less in the limelight, told people yes. That she had been, um, sexually abused by her father and also that she told people later on. That she had instigated it, that she had actually wanted it on some level.

And to be clear, the story that she tells is one in which she was very young when this happened, you know, under 10. And if you talk to child sexual abuse experts and researchers, they will say that generally this sometimes happens where [00:46:00] the victims of this type of abuse will in an, in an attempt to feel a sense of agency and control over something really terrible, they will think that it was something that they wanted.

And again, I’m gonna not tread any further because it’s just, it’s really complicated and delicate. But I think understanding that she might have had an, a desire to see her father not as a bad figure, is a really important part of maybe trying to un understand. How she works.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: And she has, of course, as you said, it’s in the book, it’s in the documentary.

She has talked about her father as being not a bad person, but someone who, I won’t get the quote exactly right, but someone who was like, so expansive that he, he didn’t really mesh well with the arbitrary laws of the third dimension, but instead was like, you know, um, you know, he, she saw him as a fourth dimensional being, and of course the fourth dimension is a place where she [00:47:00] kind of talks about the regular rules of the physical plane, like not applying.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Ellen: And of course, what you point out is so true now Nicole is currently in jail in Brooklyn, awaiting sentencing. She could face up to 20 years in prison. She’s been convicted of a very serious federal crime. And it’s really hard not to see the parallel there to, to not see that her father once sat in a very similar spot.

And I think. You know, I just, I think that is just kind of enough to, to point out, um, and, and to see that there has been this pattern that on some level has been repeated. Um, I think mm-hmm. Feels to me like a very complex and poignant aspect of this story.

Zach: Yeah. The, um, ’cause I don’t think, from what I’ve seen, she hasn’t really expressed any regret for things she’s done.

I mean, I think there was even some quote, I can’t remember if it was from [00:48:00] her or Rachel, where it was something like, we’re, we’re gonna be sleeping well in ourselves tonight, unlike the people that put us here who won’t be sleeping well the rest of their life, or something like that. I can’t remember.

That was her, or, yeah,

Ellen: I was total, so that, that was something that comes up actually at the end of a piece in the New Yorker about Nicole and her trial. It is something that, to the best of my recollection, she wrote from. Jail and was then passed on to the reporter who then quoted it at the very end. So for those who are curious, they can go and look at it.

Hmm. That is also how I interpreted the quote. It was a bit, it wasn’t a hundred percent clear to me. And Nicole is a very skilled communicator in the sense that I think she can be, if it’s hard for you to totally understand what she’s saying, I believe that she’s doing that intentionally and that she is like playing with

Zach: Yeah.

Ellen: Your understanding of it. But it is, it is true that I, [00:49:00] to, to my understanding, I don’t think she has made, um, you know, her, her legal team has vowed to appeal, uh, right. The conviction’s.

Zach: She’s not Yeah. She’s not saying she’s sorry for any specific things that I’ve seen. Yeah. Yeah. Um, well, and also they, another, a thing that struck me about her experiences and why she would, you know, it makes sense that with her experiences and her pain, um, from.

Assuming from her father that that happened to her, which seems quite likely, or at least even if he, even if he didn’t do it, it seems like a, probably a, a, a toxic upbringing in some regard. Um, however that happened, um, it seems like her, her dealing with those issues, it, it makes sense that she would be drawn to the power of the sexual empowerment aspects of the, um, you know, the deliberate, uh, orgasm or the orgasmic meditation, whatever you wanna call [00:50:00] it.

It seems like it would make sense to her that she would find a lot of empowerment in those things, or that she would be more prone to find empowerment. And maybe she, you know, she thinks because it’s so powerful to me, it’s gonna be powerful to everybody else. Whereas maybe there’s a function of like, well, there’s specific reasons why it’s so powerful to her.

Right? It’s like, because she had these. These issues she dealt with around sex and, and the, and the potential or probable abuse. And it’s like, there, there are certain people for whom these practices probably are much more empowering or meaningful than, than other people who don’t have those issues. Is, is kind of how that struck me.

Where, you know, it’s, the world’s a complex place. Like what, what works for one, what is meaningful for, for one person isn’t gonna be meaningful for the other other person. They’ll be like, why are you, why are you finding this so, so meaningful? Right. And that’s what struck me about her. It’s like, and, and her experience is describing, [00:51:00] you know, her first experience with that guy she met, who showed her the practice in the early two thousands and was really life changing for her.

Like she was apparently gonna go into the, uh, you know, become a nun or something, and then changed her mind. But it kind of made sense to me that, you know, people that were, that had more issues around that would be more likely to, uh. You know, to find those experiences highly meaningful and, and keep going down the rabbit hole of what they might mean.

Ellen: Yeah. I mean, I think you’re right. And I would also add more to that. Of course, Nicole seems to have had a particular life story that made sexuality be a focus for her, a lens by which she understood herself, a lens by which she understood other people and the, and, and the relationships of people around her.

That being said, part of what I think made one taste so compelling is that sex connection, intimacy. These are things that every human [00:52:00] yearns for on some level. Most everyone, of course, for a complicated species, there’s always exceptions and there are certainly people for whom they’re like, this doesn’t interest me at all.

But I think if, if people are honest with themselves, like, this is a, this is a place in life, like your sexuality is a place in life where. It does tap into a deep part of yourself that you probably have unspoken questions about things that you just feel like, you know, it, it, and, and it’s not just that it’s this deep yearning that many people experience, but also that it’s a place where there aren’t that many places where you can go to get guidance on it.

Like it is not something that people speak about that openly. It can be hard to find a community where people are dedicated to like exploring this or understanding it on some level. So I think you’re right that for various people this like is more or less of a draw,

Zach: especially. Yeah. Yeah.

Ellen: And especially if you’ve had like complex experiences with your sexuality in the past, of course.

Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: But I think, you know,

Zach: [00:53:00] there’s

Ellen: a broad

Zach: draw you’re

Ellen: saying. Yeah. One thing observed in, in talking to one taste is I certainly don’t wanna make it seem like. Everyone who joined had some sort of no Yeah. Complex history. In fact, many people were just normal people Yeah. Who like, wanted to improve their, the sex life of their marriage, or like mm-hmm.

Didn’t really understand how to connect with people, um, of the opposite sex and, and, and wanted to improve that, like mm-hmm. You know, you remember for sure at the time in the two thousands, like pickup artistry was really big, but there were a lot of men who like went to that thinking it would help them, and they were like, I don’t like the vibe of this.

And they ended up at one taste instead. Like, people are looking for connection, sex and relationships is one of our core needs. And so, you know, I would argue that like yeah. People, people were drawn to what the promise was. They may have thought that like yeah, they may have experienced the cla the A class or two and been like, it’s not for me.

But I think what they’re promising to fix is something that actually a lot of people are looking for.

Zach: No, totally. Yeah. I, I, I, I agree with that. Yeah. I wasn’t, I wasn’t saying it was not, I, I agree. It’s a broad appeal mm-hmm. [00:54:00] For various different. Reasons. I mean, especially these days when so many people suffer from loneliness and, and Totally.

You know, the modern world can be quite isolating. Yeah. Uh,

Ellen: well, I think, I think that, you know, however you wanna define a cult, cults are, we’re more vulnerable to them now than ever. I

Zach: agree.

Ellen: Because people are lonely. They don’t know how to connect, they don’t, they, you know, they are being socially isolated.

And I think that people sense that that’s not good for them. And, and, and when, uh, you know, one of the things that Colts often promise and can deliver on is a sense of belonging, community purpose. Like when someone has that void in their life, they are more vulnerable to that. And I think, you know, kind of in a, in a COVID era, we, you know, that is, that is something that’s just happening more and more.

Zach: Are you okay for a few more minutes?

Ellen: Sure.

Zach: Okay. I was curious what you thought of about the, uh, charisma of Nicole, because I’m [00:55:00] curious about what people mean by charisma in general. Because so often when people say like, such and such person is charismatic, I’m like, really? Are they like, I, they’re confident.

Sure. And like, but I’m, I’m kind of curious what often, what people mean by charismatic and I’m, I’m curious, do you have thoughts on, you know, uh, Nicole’s power to, uh, draw people in? Do you see it as just a matter of like stating beliefs confidently? We, we, how do you define the, uh, the charisma element and what draws people in there?

Ellen: Definitely, I, I mean, early on in my reporting process, I had an interesting conversation with, um, Dr. Yya Lalich, who is a cult expert, cult researcher, um, who’s written books on this topic. And she told me something that I’ll always remember, which is that she chooses to see charisma not as a quality inherent to the person, but a quality inherent to the relationship between two people.

So car charisma exists between [00:56:00] charisma exists in a relationship. It is not sense in inherently, like in a person, which helps explain why. Of course, there are people out there who look at such and such person and think, my God, that’s the most charismatic man I’ve ever met. Other people look at ’em and like, what are you talking about?

Zach: What do you care? What,

Ellen: what veil, va, you know, the veil has been lifted. They see right through it. Right. And so that framing really helped me understand.

Zach: That makes sense. Yeah.

Ellen: What it means when someone says she’s so charismatic, what they’re saying is she’s charismatic to me. Mm-hmm. And that is often a reflection of.

What am I, you know, in this example where, let’s say I’m saying that about Nicole because I’ve met her, you know, because this is hypothetical. It’s like, you know, I met her, she really charmed me. That kind of thing. What I’m really saying is what she was saying resonates with me. Mm-hmm. What I’m looking for is something that she is offering.

I’m impressed by her, I admire her. You know, it’s like all those things.

Zach: Her

Ellen: way of

Zach: being, even just her, her

Ellen: way of presenting

Zach: herself, something

Ellen: clicked. It’s like, you know, it’s, it’s like art and the artist, right? Like what really exists is the experience between the two.

Zach: [00:57:00] Yeah.

Ellen: Yeah. And certain things that Nicole did really appealed to certain people.

And so in the book there’s all these examples of people who, who met her and that she just seemed to promise something. You know, there’s this woman, Allison, who describes sitting down next to Nicole and, and locking eyes with her and being like, oh my God, who is this person? I’m so drawn to her, I can’t even explain why.

And Nicole seems to be like beaming her this message, which is like Allison had been sort of this like lonely person and Nicole seemed to be making her feel immediately like, if you come with me, like you are not gonna be lonely anymore. Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: Um, Nicole would also make these promises to people explicitly and implicitly, which is basically that like, if you come with me, you’re gonna have an exciting life.

Zach: Right?

Ellen: Like the guy that she ended up co-founding One Taste with Rob Kendell, um, you know, people have described this scene to me in which Nicole basically lures Rob and his wife away from the welcome consensus one of these previous groups by promising them like, I’m gonna build this amazing [00:58:00] game and you can like be part of it if you come with me and like, I’m gonna offer you a crazy life.

It’s gonna be wild, it’s gonna be exciting. Mm-hmm. And the thing is, people want that. It’s like

adventure.

Ellen: Yeah. They want adventure. Yeah. People want adventure. People want, you know, even many years later, I talked to someone who, who joined one tasting in part, he, he kind of thought it was maybe a cult, but he was also like, I don’t know, it seems exciting.

Like, I wanna do something like that. I wanna test myself. I wanna see what I, what I discover. So, you know, Nicole would make these certain promises, which is like, you’re gonna, like, you’re gonna have fun with me. You’re gonna like explore stuff, you know, I’m gonna make you feel part of something.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: Um, but she also just had, you know, she’s also just good.

She’s good with people. She like knows how to charm and, you know, I won’t give away too much about it, but basically at the end of the book, there’s a scene in which I meet Nicole for the first time in person. And of course by this, by this point, I have spent so many. Hours, days, weeks, months, studying her, spoken to people who knew her, spoken to people [00:59:00] who like studied with her and were married to her and like, did drugs with her.

All these things. Watched, you know, many hours of videos of her lecturing. I just felt like I had this understanding of her. But, um, I meet her for the first time in a courthouse in New York, um, because she had shown up for like a kind of a routine hearing, and she immediately spots me and calls out to me and is like, hi, Ellen.

Smiles and Waves comes. I mean, what a move, right? And comes over to me. Mm-hmm. A very short, yeah, very short conversation. And then, you know, I, of course, when the trial happened, it’s like I would see her every day in the, in the courtroom. You know, we weren’t really talking, but, you know, I would watch her and she’s just, she’s just good at this.

She’s very aware of how people see her. She’s really good at knowing. Someone described once to me that sometimes having a conversation with her, she could come to you and immediately. Find that thing about you that is special to you that most other people don’t notice and like immediately see it. It was as if she like walked into your house, took [01:00:00] a look at your living room, and spotted the one thing on your shelf that was actually most special to you.

That like most people never look at and be like, wow, that’s beautiful. And so people, you know, and of course I think she also probably tried that with people and it didn’t land and that it just doesn’t, you know, it doesn’t work. But for those for whom it does land, I think that is kind of how charisma works is it’s almost stronger if it doesn’t work with everyone.

And Nicole would say, you know, she also enjoyed saying kind of provocative things. Um, you know, making kind of like hot takes about, uh, like men and women’s relationships or sexuality and this kind of thing. And sometimes people would be shocked and maybe if they didn’t like it, it would turn them off from her.

But for those for whom it landed, I think it would draw them closer. ’cause they’d be like, oh, she’s willing to say the brave truths that other people, um.

Zach: Right.

Ellen: Aren’t afraid to say, you know, then, then they would look at her and think she’s bold. Um, she’s got, she’s got a vision that connects with me.

Zach: Yeah.

Reading your book, uh, I mean the, the early part of her, [01:01:00] her career and life where learning about the people around her, and it seemed like so much had to do with this excitement aspect, you know, including in the welcomed community where people would describe, you know, the outside world was boring. You, you know, in, in here.

Even if there were some bad things, it was really exciting. You were on the forefront of something that was unlike, you know, things that so many people, the muggles on the outside were experiencing or whatever. And I, and I think that seems to play a role in so many of these kinds of groups where, you know, it’s the excitement that, uh, you do, whether, whether you don’t know where you’re going, but you know, it’s some exciting thing that nobody or hardly anybody else is experiencing.

And that, that alone can make up for a lot, I think.

Ellen: Yeah. And it also keeps people staying longer than they would otherwise. Right. Like, if you believe that if you’re gonna leave this group, your life outside is gonna be unfulfilling, boring, sad, you’re gonna be back with these people who are like asleep.

Mm-hmm. And don’t see the like [01:02:00] magic in the world. You’re gonna wanna stay, even if you’re like, I don’t know, this is like, this is feeling kind of hard or it’s not working for me. Like, you’ll be scared. You wanna be, yeah. You’ll be scared of leaving. And I think, um, you know, yeah. The truth. Excuse me. Um, yeah, the truth is people, people do wanna lead an exciting life.

And I think for a lot of groups like this, high demand groups or cults, if you wanna call it that, joining does feel exciting ’cause you’ve found these cool new friends and you’ve got a new mission and it’s like you’re part of this community. And I, that’s part of why, you know, one of the takeaways I hope people take away from Empire of Orgasm is this idea that.

Joining a cult. It’s not this thing that only other, you know, it’s not this like other thing, like, only other people would do this. It’s like, well, the desires that are bringing people to that point are desires that you and I all share. It’s like, yeah, we wanna feel adventure, we wanna feel part of something.

We wanna feel purpose, we [01:03:00] wanna be connected to other people.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Ellen: Um, cults offer all of those things. That’s why the, you know, a cult as a concept is actually like a quite, um, steady thing in human history. It’s like, because

Zach: mm-hmm. Yeah. They’re just groups of, of people pursuing something.

Ellen: And what’s interesting is they adapt with a time.

So what a cult look like 50 years ago is gonna be different from what it looks like today. Mm-hmm. And, um, but they, it’s, it’s, it’s almost like this, yeah. This like virus that like adapts and like, continues to stay strong. It’s like, it is, it is something that is a reflection of human nature. So I think mm-hmm.

In many ways, as long as humans are around, they’re, they’re gonna be around too.

Zach: Yeah. And I think I, I do think there’s something, you know, for some people on the more, you know, um, narcissistic side there, it can be hard to distinguish when they’re being deceptive and manipulative versus like, just being true believers, right?

Like, it can be, so sometimes you, you [01:04:00] think, oh, this person’s clearly being deceptive and manipulative, and it’s like, no, maybe in their mind they’re, they really believe that, you know, for whatever variety of reasons that they’re acting in a completely rational way and they’re in their mind like they’re a true believer of X, Y, z, uh, beliefs, or they believe like, in their mind Yeah,

Ellen: I, I would posit that in their mind they think they’re helping people.

Zach: Right.

Ellen: Exactly. So many, yeah, I think that’s,

Zach: I think that’s,

Ellen: yeah. I mean very, you know, of course this has been said before, but I think very few people wake up mm-hmm. And think like, haha can’t wait to do evil today.

Zach: Right.

Ellen: No one thinks that. Um, and, and that doesn’t mean that harm doesn’t get done. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t.

Um, you know, harmful, exploitative, or abusive things that happen. It’s like people, but people don’t think of themselves as hurting other people. They think that they’re helping,

Zach: right? Yeah.

Ellen: They’re doing good or they’re, they’re, they’re pursuing some sort of mission. And so, um,

Zach: yeah.

Ellen: Yeah. That’s why it’s, I think that’s part of it as well.

Zach: That’s why such a, yeah. It’s, it’s a human, just a human gets down to these, these basic human interactions about how we interact with [01:05:00] others. Yeah. Uh, well thank you so much for this, Ellen. I, I love the book and I haven’t finished it. I’m, I’m still reading it. Uh, but do you want to talk about anything else you’re, uh, you’re working on these days before we go?

Ellen: Yeah, I mean, I, I am just, you know, I’m a tech reporter at, at Bloomberg News, so one of my current interests is writing about like, uh, human uh, relationships between humans and AI chatbots. And so like, understanding psychol, like psychol, like, sorry. One of my interests right now is writing about the relationship between humans and AI chatbots and how that’s shaping us psychologically, societally, like that’s an interest of mine.

Um, and surprisingly there are some. Parallels between that and cults and just understanding like what draws people in. What does it mean to be so invested in a relationship with a chat bot that you are isolated from your friends and family, or that you’re drawn away from that

Zach: Mm

Ellen: um, feeling, feeling connected to this thing that is not, maybe doesn’t have your best interests at heart, maybe has no interests at heart because it’s not human.

Um, and [01:06:00] that has been interesting. Um, so, you know, probably by the time this podcast airs, um, there might be a story out from me about that. Um, so keep an eye out for it, but in general, yeah. I think for anyone who’s interested in psychology, cults manipulation, the story of one taste, kind of how sex can get wrapped up in all of this.

Yeah. I highly recommend my, my new book, empire of Orgasm should be out November 18th.

Zach: Okay. Thanks a lot.

Ellen: Thank you so much for having me.

Zach: Alright.

Many people think there are telltale signs of lying — shifty eyes, nervous fidgeting, maybe a quick smile — that can give someone away to trained observers. But according to decades of research, that’s a myth. Still, some scientists push back on that consensus. A recent paper by well-known researcher David Matsumoto (of the company Humintell) argues that combinations of nonverbal cues might actually reveal deception. In this episode, I talk with deception researcher Tim Levine, author of Duped and creator of truth-default theory, about whether that claim holds up — and what the science says about our ability to read lies using behavior.

Below is a transcript and related resources.

Episode links:

• YouTube (includes video)
• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify

Resources related to this talk:

• Previous talks with Tim:
  • First talk: Questioning if body language is useful for detecting deception
  • Second talk: On eye-direction myths
• Matsumato’s paper defending nonverbal behavior as useful for deception detection
• 2014 Hartwig and Bond paper discussing using multiple behaviors to detect deception
• Tim Levine’s 2018 paper reconciling findings on behavioral cues as useful vs what meta-analysis says
• Tim Levine’s recent work on using AI to detect deception in statements
• If you’re curious how I can work on poker tells but be skeptical about the use of nonverbal behavior for deception detection, that is discussed in my first talk with Tim and in this episode, too

TRANSCRIPT

(transcripts contain errors; this one was automatically generated)

Zach Elwood: [00:00:00] Many people think that there exist reliable nonverbal behavioral cues that can help detect deception and tell liars from truth tellers. But as I’ve covered on this podcast several times in the past, there’s no evidence for that. Not when we’re talking about practically useful reads of deception or truth telling in a general population.

And when we’re leaving aside person specific reads. I was scrolling through LinkedIn recently, and I saw a post by David Matsumoto, who’s a well-known behavior researcher and the head of human tell. A company that says that they can help you, quote, master the skills to read behavior, decode, motivation, and lead high stakes conversations, whether you’re hiring, interviewing, negotiating, or managing teams.

End quote. In this LinkedIn post of his, he shared a paper that he’d co-written [00:01:00] titled Behavioral Indicators of Deception and Associated Mental States Scientific Myths and Realities. In that paper, they pushed back on the consensus view that there are no non-verbal behavioral cues useful for detecting deception.

I’ll read from the abstract that paper. We suggest a reconsideration of broad and sweeping claims that research has demonstrated that nonverbal behavior are not indicators of deception. We reexamine several methodological characteristics of a seminal meta-analysis that is often cited as non-evidence and caution the field from drawing over generalized conclusions about the role of nonverbal behavior.

As indicators of deception based on that reexamination. The gist of the paper was that while single nonverbal [00:02:00] behaviors haven’t been showed to be useful, there’s evidence that shows that combinations of multiple nonverbal behaviors may be highly reliable at the end of the paper. They mentioned their conflict of interest saying the authors are employees of human tell.

A company that engages in research and training related to behavioral indicators of mental states and deception. This got me interested in digging into this topic more. Is there actually evidence that combinations of non-verbal behavior are useful for detecting deception? I had not heard that. If so, what were these combinations?

What’s the scientific evidence? I’ve talked to Tim Levi a couple previous times for this podcast. Tim is a highly respected researcher on deception detection. I’ll read a little from his website, which [email protected]. His expertise involves the topics of lying and deception, [00:03:00] truth default theory, interpersonal communication skills, credibility assessment, and enhancement interrogation.

Persuasion slash influence and social scientific research methods. He’s the author of the book, duped Truth Default Theory and the Social Science of Lying and Deception. And my first talk with Tim was about the ideas in that book, focusing on his truth default theory topics Tim and I discuss in this talk include, is it true that combinations of nonverbal behavioral cues can help us detect deception?

The fact that so many papers finding certain behaviors correlated with deception or truth telling have failed to replicate. Are micro expressions a thing? Are they actually useful? If you’re interested in serious researched views on behavior and not, the bullshit takes on behavior that are so popular these days on various YouTube channels, I think you’ll enjoy [00:04:00] this talk.

If you like this talk, I think you’d like the other couple talks that I had with Tim about behavior and deception detection. Also, just wanna say sorry about my noisy audio. I recently moved to New York City and don’t have a great audio set up, so that’s definitely made my audio much worse than it used to be.

Okay, here’s the talk with Tim Levi. Hi Tim. Thanks for joining me again.

Tim Levine: Happy to be here. Nice to see you.

Zach Elwood: Nice to see you again. Uh, so yeah, the reason I had reached out to you was I happened to see this study by David Matsumoto basically kind of defending the idea that, um, you know, pushing back on the idea that nonverbal behavior, uh, is not a.

Useful tool for detecting deception. And I got the gist of it seemed to be that he was saying, some studies seemed to show that uh, maybe using multiple nonverbal behaviors could be more useful than [00:05:00] using, you know, a single nonverbal behavior. Uh, but I’m curious overall, what were your thoughts on that paper and the overall ideas in it?

Tim Levine: Uh, so first, uh, let’s not call it study. Let’s call it a, a paper. A a paper or an essay, or a commentary or, uh, you know, an argument. Um, so it’s, it’s no new data. Uh, but I think you, uh, you framed the, uh, claim, uh, pretty well. Um, maybe. We could give a more generous conclusion to them that, um, maybe the verdict’s not in yet.

Um, so maybe there’s, you know, a lot of findings that, uh, seem to suggest that nonverbal behaviors in particular aren’t very [00:06:00] useful in deception detection. Uh, but it might be that if studies were done differently. Uh, then more supply supportive findings, uh, might emerge. And, uh, while I think that’s counterfactual at this current point in time, uh, it is true.

You never know what the next finding’s gonna, next study’s gonna find or next finding’s gonna find.

Zach Elwood: Right? It was basically just a, basically just saying it’s possible that. If you link together multiple nonverbal behaviors, which, you know, which makes sense, like in theory if, uh, you know, more, more information, more data about someone could theoretically lead you to better conclusions.

Right. But I’m curious. Yeah. What are your, what are your thoughts on that with your knowledge of the field? About what ’cause, because they mentioned some previous studies and meta analysis that. [00:07:00] They said, seemed to show that, you know, there was one that they mentioned, what was it? The, um, Harwick and Bond 2014, I believe.

Yeah. Harwick and Bond. Yeah. What, what are your thoughts on that and their, the idea that, I guess the quote was something, what was the quota? It was like, uh, that the lies can be detected with 70% accuracy. I had a hard time parsing what they meant by that ’cause it seemed kind of theoretical to me.

Tim Levine: Uh, yeah, that is a, uh, that is a true finding and it might actually be a little higher than 72%.

Um, but let me, let me, this is gonna take like

Zach Elwood: a lot of unpack. Yeah. I, I get, I think there’s a lot of unpacking, which is, I found it hard to understand what exactly they were saying with my, you know, not great. Um. Parsing of academic papers and such.

Tim Levine: Yeah, so the um, harwick and bond study was a meta-analysis.

So a meta-analysis is a, uh, study of studies [00:08:00] and they were, um, looking at, um, how diagnostic cues were, so there weren’t any humans in the equation, right? It was if you do statistical modeling based on observed behaviors. How good could your algorithm be? Right? So imagine, uh, we’re on camera right now, so in modern technology, we could, uh, have cameras capturing all our facial movements and mapping those dynamically over time.

Right. And we could use machine learning, um, to map what we’re saying onto our facial expressions, theoretically, right? And then the algorithm could test if your blinking rates are faster when you’re listening than when you’re talking, for example.[00:09:00]

And it might be that in any given segment of communication, these things would appear. Diagnostic of listening versus talking.

Zach Elwood: I guess I’m confused. How could they put a number on it that exactly, that 70% number approximately, that they chose.

Tim Levine: Uh, there is a, uh, statistic called, um, multiple discrim analysis.

And if you’ve ever heard of regression, it’s kind of like regression, but it’s predicting a, a dichotomous outcome. So what you’re doing is you’re putting in enough of a bunch of predictors and then you’re waiting them to maximize predictability, and then what you can do is do a classification. Based on that, it was invented, uh, by my understanding is by, uh, anthropologists, physical anthropologists who were trying to [00:10:00] predict what kind of animals came from a discovered bone.

So if you know, like this characteristic of the bone and this characteristic of the bone and this characteristic of the bone, what probability is it that it’s this dinosaur versus this dinosaur? Um, but, but the plot thickets.

Okay. Uh, and I, I actually, um, I should be able to pull the year off. I actually wrote a paper, uh, based on this ’cause there’s these two apparently really super inconsistent findings. There’s the famous Apollo etal 2003 meta-analysis of qs, which about and analyze cues individually. And that meta-analysis found that most, the vast majority of cues don’t have any diagnostic value.

Uh, the ones that do their diagnostic value is statistically relevant, but practically, um, useless.

Zach Elwood: Right. [00:11:00] Um,

Tim Levine: very low.

Zach Elwood: Like meaning that they’re, they’re statistically significant, but the usefulness, even if, even if that’s true, the usefulness is extremely low

Tim Levine: in, in any given communication. Yeah. This is, they would be useful in classifying large numbers of people.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: At rates better than chance.

Zach Elwood: And also we should, it might be worth mentioning to the 2003 study you mentioned the meta-analysis was a big part of what the paper we started out talking about, the matsu motto. Uh, one was push Yes. Pushing back on that because the 2003, uh, paper was largely what people point to when they say non-verbal behaviors aren’t a good correlation with deception detection.

Yeah.

Tim Levine: And they are right that you can’t, you shouldn’t be looking at nonverbal behaviors individually. Uh, and, you know, my whole work on demeanor points to this, that behaviors, you know, it’s, it’s global impressions that influence judgments and not specific behaviors. So there’s really strong [00:12:00] evidence for problems with looking at QS individually.

So, so in the DePalo study, they looked at individual cues and the effects over studies, right? So if you’re testing. I don’t know, um, how many details there are in a statement. Uh, the finding is that on average, uh, honest people have higher number of details. Honest things tend to have higher number of details than deceptive things, at least given in the type of scenarios that have been tested in the study, right?

So that you test that d that difference in details or in blanks or in eye gaze, study over study. And, um, what the Apollo analysis shows that some studies find one thing and some findings are incredibly mixed. And when you average them out, the more times a given Q has been [00:13:00] studied,

uh, the more it tends to have averaged zero. No diagnosticity.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Right. So even if it

Tim Levine: starts

Zach Elwood: out in the previous study showing like

Tim Levine: something

Zach Elwood: useful about it, it tends to revert down to

Tim Levine: the, yeah, the media. And it doesn’t just get smaller. In order to revert to zero, it has to flip signs, right?

So it has to be diagnostic and then anti diagnostic. And when you average those, it comes to zero, right? So a nonverbal behavior might mean one thing. In a given instance of communication and the exact opposite thing in the next,

Zach Elwood: and when you say it means something, are you saying it could, it was, it was theoretically actually a good predictor within that situation.

But

Tim Levine: not,

Zach Elwood: yes, later.

Tim Levine: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Tim Levine: But the unit of analysis, so to speak, in the DePalo [00:14:00] uh, study was the individual queue that was studied over time.

So in the Harwick and Bond, the unit of analysis was the individual study. So they looked at studies that studied some number of cues, right? And they found that in virtually all Q studies find support. For some kid, it doesn’t mean it’s the same cue, but they find effects for some kid. Because they’re studying, like a lot of these are studying like 10, 20 different things.

And in almost every study one pops, or two pops or three pops. So what they find is there’s really, really big Q effects at the level of the individual study. If you study those same cues over time, you find those effects go away, but you only see that when you [00:15:00] study the same cue. The Harwick and bond study is inq.

Yeah. Right, so, so this creates a paradox. So how is it that individual studies are always finding effects, but those effects never replicate when you follow up on them? Right. So in the bond, uh, heart wing bond. I might have mistakenly said Bond and de Paulo. That’s a different one. Um, the Hartwick and Bond multiple Q study, the one we’re talking about, um, they’re just tracking the biggest effects in individual studies and then averaging those effects, but they’re not tracking which Q was being diagnostic there.

Right? And so when you look at the average diagnostic in studies that study multiple Q, it’s better than 70%. Because all Q studies pretty much find support, [00:16:00] right? And if there’s publication bias in the literature and there’s a bias towards publishing studies to find support, then people are right. So, right.

Presumably they’re, they’re testing all these different variables, right? They’re finding one that pops. And in the heart, we, and Bond, it wasn’t mult. Multiple Qs weren’t that much better than single Qs.

Zach Elwood: Mm, mm-hmm. Right.

Tim Levine: Okay. So the, the, the multiple Q effect was a 0.5. The single Q effect was a 0.4.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: This is in neo correlation. So 80% of the effect is be driven by one q Mm. But we know from the DePalo data that that one Q isn’t reliable across studies.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Tim Levine: Right. So what this means is there’s, if you are, this lets people cherry pick studies. ’cause you can find support for anything, right? And this is why it’s so important to replicate [00:17:00] research and look across studies and look at the pattern,

Zach Elwood: right?

So this, um. This study, the one we’re, we’re talking about the, um, Hartwig and Bond one. Mm-hmm. That, that, um, Matsumoto references the using more than one mm-hmm. Nonverbal behavior. You’re saying They’re basically just using the most rosy, optimistic picture and not factoring in the fact that those results, you know, when you actually do more work on each of those things that pop, those, those things tend to revert to.

Meaningless or near meaningless. So yeah, it’s a distorted view of they’re, they’re taking a very rosy picture of what you can do with that data, and it’s not reflecting the reality of, of, of, of how weak those things actually are. Yeah.

Tim Levine: Yeah. But I think we should be more generous because it’s, it’s easy to see a finding, right.

And go, oh, you know, and especially if that finding [00:18:00] fits, um, what you wish were true. Right. And it is legit. They’re not quoting the study wrong. What they are doing though is they’re leaving context out,

Zach Elwood: right?

Tim Levine: And there’s an even bigger context they’re leaving out here, which is if you dig into the findings deeper.

So, um, it’s Maso and Wilson start out their argument. Um, by using a form of argument I would call, I’ll blame the methods. Right, and the argument goes, if only the studies were done differently and had these different methodological features, then surely the data would support, right? So in the Hartwig and Bond study, they tested what are called moderators or these various methodological culprits.

That are proposed in the Matsumoto and Wilson paper, and what they find is [00:19:00] there’s always large Q facts, whether lies are high stakes or low stakes, or regardless of all of these things. So it doesn’t matter how many cues you’re looking at, it doesn’t matter whether it’s high stakes or low stakes. Q studies, individual cue studies find big effects, right?

So there’s, if you dig into the, into the details of their analysis, right? There’s actually findings in that paper that undercut, uh, their argument.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Can you, can, can you summarize that in like a layman’s terms, uh, for, because I, I think that might be it. It’s, it might be, uh, hard to understand all that you said.

Maybe you could summarize it in a couple languages about how to, how it undercuts it.

Tim Levine: Yeah. So hypothetical example, let’s say we thought that, um, eye blinks were [00:20:00] only diagnostic. In employment interviews and not interpersonal lives.

Okay. And, um, all the studies had been, the argument is all the studies were done in interpersonal lies. So if only you had done them in employment lies, you would’ve seen the effect. But the studies included in bond, uh, hartwig and bond’s meta-analysis include both types. Right. That’s what you’re saying.

And the findings are the same either way.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. So they’re trying to criticize the methods, but yet regardless

Tim Levine: of the

Zach Elwood: methods, there

Tim Levine: are spikes. The studies that they’re later gonna support in support of their claim actually tested that and found that didn’t matter.

Zach Elwood: Right. Right.

Tim Levine: And that undercuts the argument of the paper,

Zach Elwood: which is a, which is an interesting thing about the the stakes thing because some people will say.

If the, if only the stakes were higher and more like real life situations, you’d be catching more. [00:21:00]

Tim Levine: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Correlations or imbalances and such.

Tim Levine: And this is an incredibly plausible

Zach Elwood: mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: Argument.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Tim Levine: It goes back to the original ekman stuff. And, uh, and people believe this, people buy this. Um, you know, but it makes, it makes great intuitive sense.

Zach Elwood: Right. It’s also interesting though, that you can think of another logical thing where it’s like. Theoretically the lower stake situations would be more likely to find imbalances because the liars in the high stakes situations have more incentive to act like the non liars, right? Yeah. So you, you can kind of reason edit both ways, you know,

Tim Levine: or, or maybe there’s even more sophisticated ones.

The type of people who put them in themselves in the situations where there’s high stake cases, right. Are the people who are the better sorts, better bluffers sort. Right, right. Because if I can’t bluff, I don’t play poker.

Zach Elwood: Right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And then there’s, there’s also things like, you know, people have [00:22:00] talked about, oh, are college students good?

Uh, yeah. Examples of general population people, are they the, you know, fitting people to study? So there, yeah, there, there, there is all this

Tim Levine: discussion. There’s a million

Zach Elwood: methodologies. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right,

Tim Levine: right. And it, it always runs into this as I, as I describe it in my book, duped, the circular argument where you didn’t find what.

I think you should have.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Tim Levine: Therefore, you didn’t do your study right.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Tim Levine: I know you didn’t do your study Right. Because you didn’t find what I thought you were gonna find.

Zach Elwood: Right. Which is a problem with so many

Tim Levine: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: Theories and the theory of, you know, firm believers of, of ideas who, yeah.

Tim Levine: And, and of this, for your listeners of this means.

That the conclusions from the research might completely turn around in the next 10 years.

Zach Elwood: Right,

Tim Levine: right. We never know what the next study’s gonna find until we do it. [00:23:00] Right. And there, there might be something that’s been overlooked. Somebody might have been, you know, I’ve made my whole career on finding things other people have overlooked.

Right. And turning over those stones and going, look what we found. Um, so, you know, we, you know, I don’t, I don’t know that the next time I turn over a stone, anything’s gonna be there. Right. And I certainly don’t have any kind of superpower or lock on being the one who

Zach Elwood: mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: You know, uh, can find stuff.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Tim Levine: So

Zach Elwood: you’re just looking at what comes up. Yeah.

Tim Levine: Yeah, yeah. You know. Nature is what nature is, right. How we look at it. Things definitely shape how we understand them. Right? And until we do something we don’t know.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. And, and there, I mean, there’s, with all this AI, machine learning stuff, there are theoretically or things that might be found.

I mean, I, I interviewed someone, I don’t [00:24:00] know if you, you probably saw about this, this, uh, study by Dino Levy and his team that. Uh, use some machine learning stuff to monitor facial muscles and claim to have a 73% deception detection de uh, rate.

Tim Levine: Oh, this is right. I note that this is exactly what Hartwig and Bond will say will happen.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: And it doesn’t matter what you’re looking at. Right. Use the machine learning stuff to look at any package of variables. On average, you’re gonna get 73% accuracy. And it doesn’t matter what the content is, it doesn’t matter what the variables are. Right. It’s, it seems like you always get that.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. And I, when I interviewed him and looked at that study, I, I, I’ll admit I was, I, I didn’t find it very convincing that it, it was gonna be replicatable or anything, you know, and especially, it seemed kind of iffy with what exactly the machine learning was doing, because some of these things are kind of.

A little black boxes. [00:25:00] Like it wasn’t clear to me what the, you know, the algorithm was even detecting. ’cause it seemed, and I, it might, you know, it could theoretically have been him, not me, not understanding it, but it seemed like I had a hard time even understanding what he had said that the, the algorithm had, had even detected.

So, uh, yeah, just to say, I’m like,

Tim Levine: probably

Zach Elwood: like you

Tim Levine: are, I’m skeptical

Zach Elwood: whether a lot of these things would, would replicate. Yeah.

Tim Levine: Yeah. And that there’s a word for that and it’s called cross validation. So let’s take it in a completely different context. Imagine Amazon was trying to model our purchase behavior,

um, and there’s all kinds of things that are going on on the page, right? When we look at something and they know whether we click by or not. Right, so they could have their AI or their machine learning start plotting [00:26:00] out with what features of the page get us to click and what don’t.

Okay, so they get that algorithm. Now, let’s say we took that algorithm and applied it to new customers with new projects. How well does it do in predicting that’s cross validation,

Zach Elwood: right? Right to, to ensure you’re not just getting noise and random randomness spikes.

Tim Levine: Yeah. So here’s another example. When I did my demeanor work, and for the listeners who don’t know this is on how cues aren’t in isolation.

People present things and behaviors all are presented in a package, and these packages are all inter correlated. Uh, so I came up with a set of 11 behaviors that. Um, and impressions that seem to predict really well, uh, whether somebody’s gonna be believed or disbelieved. [00:27:00] Those are completely independent of whether they’re lying, lying or not, right?

But we know who gets believed and who doesn’t, and, and they’re basically being friendly, confident, uh, and outgoing. Right. Whereas people who are anxious or awkward, um, tend not to be believed related to your truth. Default theory. Yeah. Related to truth. Yeah. And, and these things, you know, so I, I documented that these 11 particular behaviors and impressions, um, seem to be the believability quotient.

So I had these, so what I did is I collected a whole different sample. Of truth tellers and liars coded those for these behaviors. Had a whole different sample of participants. Rate them for honesty. Had a whole different sample of people, judge them for these behaviors, and then showed that the judgments of the behaviors [00:28:00] predicted the judgments of honesty with these separate groups of people on a whole new set of communicators.

Right. Right. Cross validation and, and cross validation. And when I did that, then I went, oh, I think I’m onto something. But until I did that, we would never know if the findings were induced syncratic to that particular, you know, samples or coders or method.

Zach Elwood: Right,

Tim Levine: right.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. ’cause some of the, yeah. So is it your view, am I understanding it right, that.

When they, when they get these spikes that, you know, don’t replicate these findings, uh, correlations, do you think in some of these situations they actually were, the things that they found actually were good predictors for that specific situation and set of, set of factors of whatever sort? Like if they had ran that same situation multiple times, even some, [00:29:00] some of the findings might be related to that, that specific.

Situation and the types of people in it or things like this? Or do you think most of it is entirely just kind of random spikes? If that makes sense, if that, if that question

Tim Levine: makes sense. I think all of the above.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. It’s a, it’s a mix. Yeah.

Tim Levine: Um, so I did a study, uh, kind of way, way back, uh, in two, oh, uh, 2 0 5, where I was trying to, um, uh, to train people, um, to read nonverbal behaviors and then see if this would make them more accurate.

And I, of course, predicted that it wouldn’t. Um, but the, the gimmick of the study, uh, was including a, uh, placebo control. So I, I, one group of people were assigned to read that the best met analysis of the time behaviors that was Zuckerman et all in 81, they were trained to do the behaviors that, that were the most diagnostic from that meta-analysis.[00:30:00]

Um, and that kind of got overturned by DePalo in 2003, but I trained him on that. And then I, another group got trained on five behaviors that should have no validity from that meta-analysis. And then the third, the control group didn’t get any training at. And in the first study, what we found is the people who got trained in the nothing cues did the best, and the people who got trained in the valid cues did the worst with the control group in the middle, which is absolutely befuddling.

So then what we did is we went to the particular truth tellers and liars and coded the, the nonverbal cues we were training. And we found that for those particular samples, the things that weren’t diagnostic and meta-analysis actually were diagnostic, and the things that were diagnostic and the research weren’t.[00:31:00]

So then we went back and trained to do things that were person, message, situation specific. And we found when we trained to do that, it made people 2% better. It improved them from 56% to 58%. Um, but in that coding, what I learned is within a situation which was constant, there were big differences between people.

And they’re also within people distances between utterance and utterance. Right. So what might be diagnostic in one snippet might not be in the next, and this is a real complicated combination of person, situation and variability, not only across people, but within people.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: Because [00:32:00] people just aren’t that constant, you know?

Zach Elwood: Right.

Tim Levine: It, you know, if we were coding your number of blinks during this interview, you’re not blinking at a set rate.

Zach Elwood: Right.

Tim Levine: Right. Depending on where we snip the tape.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: We’re gonna find you going. Right. And me going like this.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: Um.

Zach Elwood: We’re very complex. Yeah.

Tim Levine: Yeah. So the way I think about it, so I tend to think Q findings are real in the sense that they are real in the data that showed them, right.

They are not at all robust. That is, they don’t extend very well. Within person to different situations, um, across people, even from moment to moment. Um, so cues are, as I think of them, ephemeral, and this is why it’s easy if I’m selling you on a lie [00:33:00] detecting method, that I can point to cue examples where they work because you can see cues in everyday communication.

Right. And if you pick situations in which they actually, your preferred queue actually works, right? Then you can show great examples on video. But the trouble is those things tend not to extend. They might flip and do the exact opposite thing in the next instance.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Um, so if I had to summarize your view of.

Matsumoto argument. The paper we started talking out, talking about at the beginning. Uh, I, I’d imagine your view is basically like, yeah, theoretically there’s, you know, you, you could, there, there could be some findings in future that, uh, are replicatable and show that more than multiple nonverbal cues might [00:34:00] be highly correlated with deception.

But you just, we haven’t seen anything like that. There’s no. There’s no specific evidence for anything like that.

Tim Levine: A little bit more subtle. There’s lots of evidence for that. There’s not a lot of evidence that holds up across, right. There’s evidence studies in, in very kind of predictable, reliable ways.

Zach Elwood: Gotcha. Okay.

Tim Levine: Um, so at the level of the individual study Yes, absolutely. At the across studies in ways that, um. I am really comfortable relying on, not yet, but I agree with them that the verdicts sh is not, and it shouldn’t be, um, entirely in yet because, you know, if he just, oh, this is a dead end and nobody researches it anymore, we’ll never know if it really should have been a dead end.

Right. So, [00:35:00] I, I, you know, I, I try not to, um. Uh, I think people can test whatever hypotheses they want, and I think it’s good that there’s difference of views and people are pursuing different things. And I think in the long run, this is gonna put us in a lot better scientific position than we would be if there was just one orthodoxy, uh, and everybody had to follow it.

Zach Elwood: Um. Yeah. Yeah, I

Tim Levine: know that’s, that’s not hugely satisfying.

Zach Elwood: Well, just, just from a, uh, like a logical perspective, it seems, you know, when you think about, I mean, humans can control their behavior a lot. So if, if there, if there was some say it came out that there was some. Major combination of behaviors that were known to be, you know, decently tied to deception.

It would just become that most, the word we get around and people would try not to do those things. Sort of like, we know that liars don’t wanna do various things that [00:36:00] they think are tied to deception, right? Like, so there’s, you know, just to say humans are. Very complex. If there’s something we can do to, you know, adjust our behavior to help ourselves, we, we will.

So it makes you think like, if there is, if there are gonna be reliable signs of deception, they would’ve to be things that you couldn’t control, you know? But even in that realm, like, you know. Heartbeat and these kinds of, you know, uh, Galvan skin response and stuff. Even that stuff, you know, we know isn’t reliable because you can get excited for various reasons and get nervous for various reasons.

So just to say, I, you know, there’s various reasons I’m, I’m, um, not to say like you, I’m open-minded that they could find some combination that’s, you know, for general

Tim Levine: populations. Yeah. But I’m, but I’m in clearly camp skeptical.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Clearly

Tim Levine: about the, about the Q thing. And if I was. When I’m investing in what I’m gonna put my time and effort to in my lab, um, [00:37:00] I’m not trying to save, uh, cues.

Um, you know, I’m, I’m investing my, uh, my time and energy, um, in, in different directions. So, you know, I, I, I, I, I think people can invest in whatever they want. Um, um, but, but that’s not. I, I think there’s enough of a, a data story out there to suggest that, um, uh, different paths are gonna be more fruitful.

Zach Elwood: Um, we don’t have to talk about this if you don’t want, but.

Do you, do you have any thoughts on, you know, I mean, Matama is, you know, clearly tied to this company that he is the head of Human Tell, which sells courses on, you know, getting people mm-hmm. Uh, better at reading people and corporate or personal, you know, situations basically. So, you know, and as he says in his study, you know, his, his papers that he puts out.

Tim Levine: Yeah.

Zach Elwood: [00:38:00] Uh, he, you know, that’s a, obviously a conflict of interest, but I’m curious, do you have anything to say about that and understand that’s not, you know, something we need to get into?

Tim Levine: Um, my interactions with, uh, David have been like, super positive. Um, he’s done like some really cool studies, like with blind athletes and stuff.

I, I think he’s done some, uh, really good science. I think, uh, um, the conflict of interests are always a concern, but he, he seems to be very open about disclosing those, um. So, um,

yeah, that, that’s,

Zach Elwood: I noticed Sonas site, the Human Tell site. I was just looking at the Human

Tim Levine: Tell site. Oh. The other thing is, um, you know, he’s a, he’s an Eckman protege, right? I know. State Collaborate. Yeah. There’s some.[00:39:00]

Zach Elwood: We’ve talked about Eckman before on a

Tim Levine: previous episode. Yeah. And, and so in kind of academics, um, a good rule of thumb is don’t speak badly about other people’s advisors, um, or mentors. Uh, ’cause you know. Yeah, just like you wouldn’t wanna say bad things about people’s parents or, you know, favorite, uh, sports stars or, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s okay to, um, to have a viewpoint and, um, yeah,

Zach Elwood: and I, it,

Tim Levine: it’s, it’s, it is good that those things are disclosed.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. And I’ll put it, uh, I’ll probably put in a note about the previous episode of people that are curious about. Our previous discussions about this, but, um, I’m curious while I have you here, I I, I had been thinking about the micro expressions thing recently and I’m, I’m a big skeptic about the, the micro expressions and the usefulness of them.

Do you, do you have a, are, are there, uh, I assume your [00:40:00] would be a pretty big skeptic too, but is there a, a study that you’d point to or a favorite study or two that shows, uh, skepticism why skepticism is warranted about the micro expressions?

Tim Levine: Uh, not ones that I could pull the sites to, uh, off the top of my head.

Zach Elwood: Or do you

Tim Levine: have, maybe

Zach Elwood: just share your thoughts on the, the overall I idea of their practicality, practical use.

Tim Levine: Um, my understanding is, um,

there’s some debate on whether microexpressions are a thing or not, um, but at least some people. Some of the times seem to do micro expressions, um, saying that this, they mean this or they mean that. Um, outside of maybe revealing a particular motion, [00:41:00] I think is probably pretty tricky. Um, I, I think most of the researchers right now.

I’m pretty skeptical about microexpressions. I think now that machine learning’s good enough to do facial recognition and track microexpressions. I think that, um, we’re gonna see a whole bunch of studies, uh, applying that methodology to find just what Hartwig and Bond found about every queue is that, um.

They can, they’re diagnostic of something. Um, whether or not that something holds up over time is a different story.

Zach Elwood: Yeah, I’d say I, I, I’ve thought about them a good amount when I learned about them, and I mean, I’ve, I look for them in poker. Never found any real use for, for them. If anything, I find that.[00:42:00]

The little expressions are the opposite because in a competitive situation, you know mm-hmm. There’s actually an, an instinct for somebody to act the reverse of what they are. Right. So if you see tiny signs of somebody looking uncertain or worried, you know, who’s, who’s made a big bet that that’s actually like highly correlated with them being relaxed and strong.

So just to say and, and, but, but I think that that’s an interesting thing because it kind of maps over to some writing I’ve seen on. Like microexpressions and deception detection and interrogations and such, where I think there’s some study that found that, uh, that truth tellers actually are more likely to have signs of contempt and these kinds of things that most people would associate with liars.

But there’s, there’s, there’s like different ways to look at it because you can, you can make up logical. Reasons why they would be present for liars and truth tellers because truth tellers are more relaxed. So they might be more willing to let their contempt and other negative emotions [00:43:00] show, you know, or you might reason it the other way and say, liars are more likely to, you know, just to say there can be many ways to try to explain findings of, of whatever sort.

Right. So, but I, I’ll say, yeah, I, I’ve long been skeptical about microexpressions ’cause I, you know, if they were something I would’ve expected to. Find, uh, you know, see, see more of them in, in poker basically. But I, I just, I, I don’t, haven’t made use of them basically. So, yeah. Thanks for, thanks for that. Uh,

Tim Levine: you know, a good place to test them, uh, might be in amateur poker.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Yeah, I think the, uh, well, I do think, I, I do think the,

Tim Levine: you know, really novice poker players

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Tim Levine: Maybe might be a fun.

Zach Elwood: Although I, I do, I do think, uh, yeah, we could, we, we could talk about this for a while ’cause you and I have talked about, I’ve, I’ve talked

Tim Levine: about, I’m not saying that they would be diagnostic

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Tim Levine: But you might see a lot more variability. [00:44:00] Um,

Zach Elwood: yeah. The, the interesting thing about the poker and, and other formal kind of competitive game and sit situations is that there’s this assumed. You know, assumed competitive environment. So people are more likely to try to put on, they’re not even, they’re not, they’re not even necessarily trying to, to deceive.

It’s like an instinctual thing to put on the opposite of what they are. Mm-hmm. You know, in a game environment, which to me has no correlation to like interrogations or real world interviews. ’cause there’s not a competitive, directly competitive situation where you’re trying to get somebody to do a specific thing.

Right. So it’s a very, it’s a very, uh, yeah. I think it’s interesting how different this, the, the, the, the areas are between a fully competitive spot versus, you know, a non-competitive real world spot. But yeah. Uh, so do I, I was curious. I’ll, I’ll let you go shortly, but I was curious, do you wanna share any other, uh.

Interesting things. You’re, you’re working on these days projects? [00:45:00]

Tim Levine: Um, no, I think there’s probably a bunch, uh, in the works. Um, but right now they’re, um, sufficiently, uh, underdeveloped, uh, to be ready for, uh, public, uh, broadcast. Although I do have a, uh. A recent paper with, uh, Dave Markowitz outta Michigan State on asking, uh, AI to try to detect deception.

Oh, interesting. Okay. What’s the name of that? And it was, uh, it’s, uh, so it’s published in a Journal of Communication and David Markowitz. You’re asking a dyslexic how to spell. Um, well, what’s

Zach Elwood: the, uh, pap is there if, can they find it online or can I link to it?

Tim Levine: Uh, you probably can or I can send it to you.

Zach Elwood: Okay. I’ll put

Tim Levine: it in the show

Zach Elwood: notes for this. Yeah.

Tim Levine: Uh, but this was a, uh, a video platform, uh, that could, uh, listen to audio and watch video.

Zach Elwood: Okay. Interesting.

Tim Levine: And the finding was it was, uh, more biased, [00:46:00] um, than humans.

Zach Elwood: Hmm. Okay. I wanna read this. Wow. It sounds interesting.

Tim Levine: So it was more context dependent. Um, than humans were, but in, in kind of very stereotypically biased ways.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: Cool. I, I wanna read that. Um, yeah. I’ll have to remember the, uh, uh, send it to you.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Tim Levine: Um, so that’s, um, that’s kind of my big most recently published work. Very cool. Um, that, that I think will get some traction.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. Then I have a feeling there’s gonna be a lot of interesting AI related, uh,

Tim Levine: yeah.

Studies and papers, but we wanna be super careful with the results of that paper because AI technology’s changing daily. Right. So the, you know, findings are very much tied to one particular platform at one particular point in time. That

Zach Elwood: that is true.

Tim Levine: Yeah. Um,

Zach Elwood: uh, yeah. Things are changing so rapidly. Yeah.

Uh. So, uh, for people that are interested in your [00:47:00] work that like this talk, uh, what’s the best way? Is there a book of yours you’d recommend, uh, them getting started with?

Tim Levine: Uh, yeah. I have one book on the topic. It’s called, uh, duped.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: Um, truthful Theory and the Social Science of Lining Deception. Uh, that is, um, it’s an academic press book, so it’s, uh, you know, it’s, it’s a little.

Um, nerdy.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm.

Tim Levine: Um, but it’s nothing, um, you know, that, that people can’t work through.

Zach Elwood: Yeah. I found

Tim Levine: it quite, quite weird. I would, I would tell ’em to read, read the reviews on amazon.com. They’re super informative.

Zach Elwood: Hmm.

Tim Levine: So, you know, all, all the academics say. This is so easy to read. This is right. And, and some of the non-academics are like numbers.

Zach Elwood: I found it, for what it’s worth, I found it quite readable. And I think, you know, for those kind of books, if pe you can always, you can always skim over the really heavy stuff and get to the more [00:48:00] explanatory things if you want

Tim Levine: to read a book like that. And even, and even when there are numbers, I I, there’s text in there that tells you what all the numbers mean.

Zach Elwood: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Uh, well thanks Tim. This has been great. Thanks again

Tim Levine: for, uh oh. It’s always a pleasure, Zach.

Zach Elwood: Yeah.

Tim Levine: Thanks for, uh, thanks for reaching out.

Zach Elwood: Thank you. Yeah,

Tim Levine: and always nice to talk to you. And I, I hadn’t seen the, uh, Matia Moto and Wilson article until you pointed it to me, so

Zach Elwood: Oh,

Tim Levine: nice. Yeah.

Glad I could. I was, that’s always good to keep up on the literature.

Zach Elwood: Nice. Glad I could help a little bit. Okay, thanks a lot. That was a talk with Tim Levine. I am Zach Elwood, and this has been the People Who Read People Podcasts. You can learn more about [email protected]. Thanks for listening. Music by small skies.

You’ve probably heard of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). It’s a popular thing. It’s the foundation for the work of popular life/business coach Tony Robbins, and there are many other popular trainers and “gurus” who have used NLP ideas as the basis for their work. The con artist Chase Hughes (whose many lies and unethical behaviors I’ve examined on this podcast) is one such false guru with NLP origins.

This is a reshare of an episode of Chris Shelton’s “Speaking of Cults” YouTube show, which he invited me on as a guest. Chris and I talk about: the history and origins of NLP and the ideas it contains; the good and the bad in NLP; my own experiences working for 6 months in the NLP industry; how people like Chase Hughes and other obvious charlatans succeed at gaining popularity (e.g., Chase Hughes being promoted by Joe Rogan and Dr. Phil); how Joe Rogan’s and Chase Hughes’ popularity relate to political polarization; and more. 

Episode links:

• YouTube (includes video)
• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts

Related resources:

• The original episode on Chris’s Speaking of Cults show
• Chris Shelton’s book on Scientology

TRANSCRIPT

(transcript is done by voice-to-text program and contains many errors)

Have you heard of Neuro-Linguistic Programming, also known as NLP? Chances are you’ve probably heard about it. It’s a quite popular thing. NLP is the conceptual framework behind Tony Robbins and a slew of other popular people in the motivational seminar world. There’s a chance you may have wondered “What’s the deal with this NLP stuff? Is it legitimate? Or is it bullshit? Are some parts of it legitimate and some not?”

I myself have worked in the NLP world; for six months in 2008 I worked for a fairly well known NLP trainer. I took the job knowing that it would be a strange and interesting experience, and would likely give me some good stories. It did result in me experiencing a lot of strange and interesting and just plain weird things. It also resulted in me going down the rabbithole of what this whole NLP thing was. I wanted to understand this very strange and often downright creepy world I suddenly found myself in.  

I’m Zach Elwood and this is the People Who Read People podcast, a podcast aimed at better understanding the people around us, and better understanding ourselves. A few weeks ago I was invited on Chris Shelton’s podcast, which is called Speaking of Cults. Chris is a former Scientologist; he was actually raised in that world and was in that world for 25 years. Chris has a book titled Scientology: A to Xenu. Now for his podcast he examines cult-like phenomena in various areas of society. 

Chris read and/or watched a few of my episodes exposing the con artist and wannabe guru Chase Hughes: Chase is a rather obvious charlatan who has told many easily disprovable lies and exaggerations about his career and experiences, and made and continues to make comically absurd claims about what’s possible with hypnosis and mind control; I knew Chase was almost certainly a charlatan when I first heard him speak for like a minute on Jordan Harbinger’s podcast. 

And yet Chase has succeeded in getting on some popular shows and podcasts, like Joe Rogan’s, and Diary of a CEO, and Dr. Phil’s online show, and more. He’s been promoted by some big names and gets millions of views. Over the past few months he’s been leaning more into the spiritual, metaphysical, all-knowing guru realm with his content. And from the reports people currently or formerly in his inner circle send me, and based on the fawning adoration you can find from various people online, Chase does seem to be establishing a cult-like following. My personal opinion, based on various reports people have sent me, is that we’ll one day hear in the news some strange and troubling things about Chase Hughes. I don’t think it will end well, is what I’m saying. 

So Chris wanted to talk to me about Chase Hughes, and about Chase’s neuro-linguistic programming origins, and more widely about the NLP world and what NLP is all about, and how Chase’s work ties into other NLP or NLP-adjacent trainers and false gurus. We also talk about the good and bad of NLP: I talk about some of the more positive things I saw in it, which helps explain why people can report genuinely positive experiences about going to those seminars and getting these types of trainings. 

Until Chris did this episode, as far as I know I’ve been the only person to cover the con artistry and lies of Chase Hughes. You would think Dr. Phil and Joe Rogan and the popular Diary of a CEO podcast promoting an obvious liar and charlatan to millions of people would be bigger news, worthy of at least one article somewhere. But I think the fact that no one else has covered this says a lot about where we are as a society; there is just so much bullshit and nonsense around us, and so many people promoting so many dumb ideas and people, that this stuff, as weird and surprising as it is, doesn’t even register. And of course news organizations are in a tough spot these days; there’s less money than ever for investigative journalism, and there’s just so much more important seeming things in the world of politics to cover. Chris and I at the end of our talk get on the topic of political polarization, and how Joe Rogan’s popularity and Chase’s popularity might relate to that topic. 

So this will be a reshare of Chris’s October 11th episode, which was titled 

Speaking of Cults…Chase Hughes and the NLP Grift with Zach Elwood

. If you like this talk, you might like Chris’s podcast; again, it’s on YouTube and titled Speaking of Cults. 

Okay here’s the episode: 

Chris: [00:00:00] The speaking of Cult podcast is presented solely for general informational, educational, and entertainment purposes. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked from it is at the user’s own risk. The views, information, or opinions expressed by the host and guests are solely those of the individuals involved and do not constitute medical or other professional advice.

Have you ever watched a mesmerizing self-help seminar, read a book that promised to unlock the secrets of your mind or seen an online ad for a course in covert persuasion? It’s a multimillion dollar industry built on a single seductive promise that there’s a hidden system to control your life, your success, and even the people around you.

But what are the roots [00:01:00] of that promise? It leads us back to the 1970s in the invention of neurolinguistic programming, NLP by Richard Bandler and John Grindr. They claim to have cracked the code of human excellence, but from the very beginning, it was a theory heavy on anecdote and light on real science.

Despite being consistently debunked as pseudoscience, NLP became a perfect vehicle for entrepreneurs of influence. It created a playbook. A playbook that was masterfully used by Tony Robbins, who trained with the founders, repackaged their ideas into his own system, and built a billion dollar empire on mass seminars and motivational entertainment.

And that same playbook is being used today by a new generation of gurus. They’ve swapped the giant arenas for YouTube channels and online courses, but the core grift is the same. [00:02:00] Selling the illusion of psychological expertise to a world hungry for easy answers. One of these modern figures is Chase Hughes.

He claims to be a bestselling author, but that description is so vague, it doesn’t mean anything. He’s been featured on major media platforms and he sells high price trainings on what he calls behavioral analysis. He uses the slick language of a behavioral psychologist without seeming to have any professional experience or training to back it up.

So when you pull on that thread, the entire tapestry unravels his credentials appear to be manufactured. His past includes ventures into the world of pickup artistry. His so-called science is a remix of those same old debunked NLP principles lacking any of the peer reviewed validation that real psychology demands.

So how does this decades old grift keep evolving? [00:03:00] How do figures like Hughes build their credibility and who is most at risk of being exploited by their claims? Today we’re gonna pull back the curtain on the entire industry. I’m speaking with Zach Elwood, the researcher who has been meticulously investigating Chase Hughes, exposing the lies and tracing them right back to the well-established playbook of Pseudoscientific entrepreneurship.

This is a deep dive into how the legacy of NLP fuels modern manipulation and how we can learn to be more critical consumers. Now, here’s Zach Ellwood. Okay. Hi Zach. Welcome to my show, and thank you very much for agreeing to be here with me today. Hey, Chris, honored to be here. Thank you. Yeah, I, I, I, um, it’s very funny to me how I have sort of dived into this today, be how we’ve arrived here today because [00:04:00] for, for a number of years, people have thrown at me the relationship between the CIA and Scientology.

And there are you, you probably don’t even know or need to know. I mean, there are just so many weird conspiracy theories in the ex cult world about cults that people have been involved in. And they start drawing comparisons between, you know, government and this and that and, you know, various things. And, and Scientology has been the subject of a great deal of conspiracy theories.

And it was always something that I sort of, um, dismiss out of hand because as you point out, uh, in your own videos, and, uh, you know, we both end up quoting Carl Sagan, right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no one ever really brings any real evidence. They just, you know, connect these in dots of insinuation between the CIA and, you know, mind control.

And then, oh, well, groups like Scientology, they do mind control. So it all must be one big [00:05:00] thing, right? Yeah. And. And so this has been thrown at me a number of times, but, but Chase Hughes is somebody out there who made a very specific claim about the connection between the CIA and Scientology, and that’s how he came into my space.

I had never even heard of this guy. And you know, you see videos here and there and stuff like that, but I never really paid a lot of attention. And this claim comes along and I took him at his word that this is a behavioral expert, somebody kind, maybe he, you know, the way he talks, he infers, he maybe worked for the CIA at one point or contracted with them or something.

There’s all these insinuations and I just kind of, he’s on Joe Rogan, he is on, yeah, he’s on Rogan. He gets on these big podcasts. So I figured this is a legit guy and he is just making this really sort of, you know, fantastical claim. And so I took it apart and realized, no, he’s not just somebody who knows what he is talking about, making [00:06:00] one false claim.

He, he’s really lying. Threw his teeth about this connection. Banking on the fact that most people don’t know enough about Scientology to deep on what he just said, but I do. So I was like, wait a minute. And that opened the door to, well, who is this guy? And the more I looked into him, the more I found your work coming up because you have done some championship work debunking this guy, and I watched your videos on this and, and, and, you know, track the links and was like, oh my God, this is a whole other form of grift.

So we’re talking today because I have been skirting around the subject of neurolinguistic programming for years. Without ever really diving into it. And, um, and now I have this opportunity with you, uh, to do so, and now comment on not only Chase Hughes, but this entire sort of semi industry that sort of sits, I, I think [00:07:00] adjacent to the Manosphere really, you know, online and, and sort of sells people this bill of goods about how easy it is to crack the code of human behavior and, and sort of manipulation and covert control of people.

And it all sort of feeds into this basket of I’m just trying to get a leg up by controlling and manipulating other people without them knowing I’m doing that. And that’s, this whole sort of chase is one part of this whole industry of people going back to Tony Robbins and the neurolinguistic programming people.

Uh, and this goes all the way back to the, you know, late seventies and 1980s. Mm-hmm. So ancient history in some people’s minds, but not mine. Yeah. 

Zach: The E the EST. There was the EST, there was transformational seminars. Yes. Various sorts. Yeah. There were, there was all those things started back in the Yeah, the seventies.

Chris: Oh, seventies was a wild time for that stuff. So, um, so, so, so now, uh, maybe [00:08:00] so having introed all of that, right? So let’s start, let’s start off with, uh, just a little bit of who you are and, and how you came into this whole thing. ’cause that’s how I came into this conversation today. What, what’s your general background and, um, approach to how you ended up making videos debunking Chase Hughes?

Zach: Yeah, it’s a twisted long and twisted road, uh, windy road, I guess. Not twisted. Um, sounds bad. Yeah. Twisted a little bit. A twisted road. Yeah. So my, my path to it was I used to play poker for a living. Um, that led to me writing some poker, tells books, uh, how to read people. I’ve always been interested in psychology.

Psychology. That was the one of the reasons I was interested in poker from a young age. Um, but then even apart from that, uh, well, yeah, there’s two paths to it because the poker stuff led to me creating the general [00:09:00] mainstream Psychology and Behavior podcast. So that’s one element of it. But then also back in 2008, uh, back when, you know, the recession hit, I was having a hard time finding work and I went to, I got a job working for this NLP, uh, seminar trainer guy for like six months.

So I got an inside, uh, view of this world, which to me. I just found really fascinating. Uh, I went down the rabbit hole of like, what the heck is this stuff? ’cause I knew I almost didn’t take the job ’cause I knew it was gonna be wacky. Uh, but that’s why I took, that’s why I ended up taking it. I was like, well, you know, I don’t plan on doing it for a long time.

There’s not many jobs out there. I’ll work for this guy for, you know, a few months, and I get some good stories out of it. So, but yeah. And while I was there I did a lot of research about what the heck are the, all these ideas, what’s going on with this stuff? And I always wanted to write something, you know, longer form like an article or maybe even a book about it, but it never got around to it.

But then, so the later [00:10:00] when I had written my poker books and started doing my podcast. Uh, that, that led to me being more aware of this behavior and psychology grift going on, uh, just by studying, you know, what to do for my podcast. I was like, who are all these? What is all this stuff? You know, uh, behavior panel, uh, chase Hughes of various other people, hypnotist kind of people.

Um, so that led to me corresponding with, you know, actual legitimate behavior psychology researchers, including some people I’ve had on my podcast. And so I’ve kept in the loop about, you know, what they’re saying about these guys, and we correspond about them sometimes. And so that, that kind of makes me feel like I’m, you know, even, even though I, I’m just an amateur psychologist myself, you know, self-taught, um, it makes me feel good that I correspond with these people who know more about it and, you know, draw my attention to, to specific things that are completely outlandish and absurd.

So, yeah, that’s a, that’s a, a long story short how I [00:11:00] got into doing this. And specifically for the Chase Hughes, I listened to him on a podcast briefly on Jordan Harbinger, and I immediately, like, heard many red flags within like the first minute where I was like, this is very strange. Like, I don’t, I, I gotta look into the sky.

So then like a few months later, I finally looked into him and it was so much more thrifty and con artisty than I ever imagined. Like, I, I just expected to find like exaggerations like. I didn’t expect to find the, just the abundance of unethical behavior and li and just exaggerations about his, you know, uh, career and his accomplishments on like every, every facet of everything he’d done just full of, you know, exaggeration on lies.

So, uh, that was a doozy. That was really eyeopening, but it was also eyeopening seeing how nobody really pushes back on this stuff. Like in the world that he’s in, like the behavior panel show that he’s in and these various people that he associates with, nobody pushes back. Nobody. Nobody cares that you can look up and find the many things [00:12:00] he’s lied about, you know, see the ridiculous claims he’s made on his website.

Uh, fact check them. You know, nobody seems to be interested in vetting and which explains why it’s kind of a snowball effect. He basically has gotten famous. Internet famous by appearing on podcasts. So he goes from one podcast to another and it ke he keeps leveling up because it eventually gets to where Joe Rogan’s like, oh, he’s been on Diary of a CEO podcast.

He’s been on these other podcasts. They must have vetted him. He must be legitimate. And they just, I think they just invite him on without even vetting him, because you can, you know, you can easily find my work drawing attention to as many lies and ridiculous things. Uh, but I think, you know, that, that helps explain how easy it is to fool people these days.

Because, you know, my, my work is buried under the results of all the podcasts and stuff he’s done. If you look for Chase Hughes, it’s, you know, they, it’s easy to win the, the SEO battles online. And, and if you win the SEO battles, the, the, the, the actual fact checking, you know, especially for more online famous [00:13:00] people, uh, you know, the amount of stuff, interviews he’s done way outweighs like the fact checking stuff, right?

So that’ll help, that helps explain, like even in the internet age, you know, it’s very easy to fool people and create a, a, a false front of. Expertise basically. Yeah, 

Chris: absolutely. It’s, it’s really this, I mean, people have asked me if El Ron Hubbard would be able to pull off Scientology now with the internet.

And I have to say, well, yes, of course he would, because it’s not because of how clever he is. Mm-hmm. And it’s not because the information wouldn’t be there to find, but because people just don’t look mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. They literally just won’t pick up the keyboard and type in the words. And it would take you 60 seconds if you, if you just typed in Chase Hughes debunk.

Mm-hmm. Or you know, neurolinguistic programming debunk or reviews or fact check or anything. Right. You could find this information. It’s not hard to [00:14:00] find Now you went above and beyond because you even pulled out, you know, the way back machine stuff to go back to his earlier websites and really dig up the stuff that he’s been trying to cleanse from the internet, his old pickup artist days and get a woman, you know, all over you in an hour, you know, back when he was, uh, did you ever find out what it was?

Uh, just ’cause, just ’cause I’m curious, did you ever find out what it was he actually did in the military? 

Zach: Oh yeah. Well, yeah. Multiple people have told me that he’s, um, a quarter, he was a quartermaster in the Navy, uh, which is basically like ship operations and maintenance kind of stuff. 

Chris: Right. I knew it was something like that.

I knew it had to be something like that. Yeah. There’s 

Zach: no, no evidence that he’s, and he, and he is very careful these days to be very vague about his wording of it. He wants to imply that he did some intelligence or psychology related thing, right? So you gotta, you really gotta watch the ambiguous language, right?

Like where like, so even including things like I have trained, [00:15:00] uh, Navy Seals that could apply to like literally one Navy seal that came to one of his like, classes, right? That’s like, that’s ambigu. You really gotta watch the ambiguous language, right? 

Chris: That’s right. Oh, completely. And this is, this is exactly how Hubbard G drifted.

I mean it’s the, the con is the con is the con, right? It’s all about telling. It, it what Hubbard even actually documented it in Scientology materials when he said, you tell an acceptable truth. You, you tell the truth. The person is, is willing to accept rather than the actual facts. And so, you know, Hubbard Flunks out of, uh, one of the first classes on atomic and molecular phenomenon school at university, which he flunked out of entirely.

Didn’t even get through university. But then later on. I was a member of the first class on atomic and molecular, you know, fission. Right? And he claims to be a nuclear [00:16:00] physicist, a nuclear engineer in the 1950s when, you know, you’d have to dig up his class records and who’s gonna do that in 1950 to fact check him, right?

Yeah. So, so they count on the laziness and the inability of people to go look and, and back up their claims, right? Yeah. 

Zach: And to your point, to your point too, and we, we will probably, we could talk about this more, but to your point about like, it doesn’t require any special skill. All it requires is the, the, the personality type to make extreme claims and extreme lies.

And really it comes down to just people mainly being gullible and not fact checking, right? Like, it doesn’t, it, there, there’s not many other explanations needed because it really, it just, it is obviously easy to fool people because most people just are, are pretty gullible. A lot of people don’t know about the subject matter.

And then al also add on the top to the cult, you know, kind of aspect too. A lot of people just aren’t doing well emotionally, psychologically, [00:17:00] so they’re, they may be like, e especially desiring these, these things, you know, whether it’s a cult or like mastery of some domain, you know, they, you can easily fall prey to like really wanting to believe these things, which gets into the people that are especially needy and vulnerable.

Who really want to go down, they, they want to go down this rabbit hole. Right. For whatever reason. Yeah. 

Chris: Her, I, I, I could not agree more. I, I, I could not agree with more, with everything you just said. The way I’ve framed it has been for, for a few years now, is I have framed it as, you know, people need to, people are going to fulfill or try to fulfill their emotional needs.

And that’s what’s driving their behavior. It’s not about cognition and thinking the facts through, and I’m gonna line up my facts like Domino’s, and they’re all gonna lead me in this direction. That’s not how we go through life. We, we go through life trying to fulfill emotional needs. And a lot of people right now, um, you know, in the last many decades, we have seen from [00:18:00] the seventies, eighties, nineties, we can, we can almost classify these decades by, um, the amount of desperation that people have felt over individual finances, job insecurity, wage inequality, familial or relationship difficulties.

You know, a a a growing population creating more and more anxiety and depression and, and angst. You know, with, with, uh, with various social factors. It’s, it’s easy to see why people feel more pressure now or feel under the, the weight of, of, of uncertainty and misunderstanding and not, not having, uh, you know, a stability in their life.

Um, you know, jobs are, are, are not exactly a dime a dozen and, and people, uh, need to work. Um, you know, prices going up just up and up and up and up and, and kids and mental instability. I mean, there’s just this laundry list of things that [00:19:00] people feel. Their lives are out of their control. Yeah. Life is stressful.

Yeah. Very stressful. Yeah. And exactly. It all adds up to stress. And so when people like El Ron Hubbard or Tony Robbins or Chase Hughes, you know, or Joe Rogan is a spokesperson for these people, right? Or platformer for these people, puts them up there and says, these people know what they’re talking about.

They have answers, they have solutions. Well, people are hungry for easy answers and quick solutions to very difficult problems they have. And they don’t particularly want to hear. No, it’s hard. No behaviors are, no. Now figuring things out is hard. Yeah. And so it’s easy to see why they reject us. They 

Zach: want confident.

Yeah. They want confident wise men. You know, we want, we want wise men. We’re, we’re lacking in, we are lacking in like people who espouse wisdom and you know, gurus of, uh, real gurus of whatever sort. So we, you know, [00:20:00] people desire that. Yeah. 

Chris: Yeah. They do. They do. And it makes sense why they would go for it.

Right. We don’t have to. Uh, think of them as stupid idiots, you know? Right. Totally. Yeah. It’s, you know, really smart people will fall for this stuff because they have emotions. Yeah, no, for sure. Emotional needs. Right. So I am really curious, I, you know, that work you did, uh, I’ve read, of course, you know, you, you said you were gonna work for this guy who does NLP workshops and seminars and Yeah.

You’re gonna have some stories. And you did, you definitely have some stories. What was, uh, well first off, how would you, from your direct experience and your research and studies since then, how would you describe NLP Neurolinguistic programming? You know, what it is, what it promises, and what, what, what actually is it, what does it, what do people learn when they’re learning?

NLP? 

Zach: Yeah. I think, uh, no matter how I approach summarizing that, I think there’ll be different [00:21:00] legitimate views on it, because it is such a wide area to try to summarize, which is part of the challenge. Like, when people go to, you know, debunk it or, or be skeptical about it, there’s always somebody that, that, that’s like, well, that’s not what MLP is.

You’re, you know, you’re, you’re attacking a part of it that’s not the full picture of NLP. Right. So that’s just to say it, it can be hard to summarize it because it is a sprawling thing. Right. But, you know, by and large, it’s in a, it’s at a collection of, I, I view it as just the collection of ideas and. Uh, thinking that arose around the title of NLP and that’s like a hodgepodge of things.

Like NLP started, as you said, with, uh, Bandler and gr grinder. Grinder, I can’t remember how he says his name, but the two main guys back in the, in the seventies. And, um, it was mainly a way to, well, it started out as a way to like model, uh, exceptional people who had done exceptional, uh, therapy work for one thing, but it was also related to [00:22:00] just like high, high practicality, high uh, efficiency and, and, uh, mastery of various things.

But to some of their main focus was on these, uh, therapists that were known for getting really good results. Like, um, what’s his name? Milton, um, Erickson. The, uh, right person known for, yeah. And they, they, they, they studied his, like hypnotic approaches. Um, there’s a, there’s various other things in the, in the mix too, but it, it, it, it related a lot to, uh, modes of thinking.

Like, you know, there’s, there’s, you know, one of the key ideas is like, some people have modes of thinking more related to tactile things. Some people have modes of thinking more related to, uh, you know, visual or audio. Um, that’s one of the key things. And then that ties into like the eye, uh, eye def direction thing where you can get clues about what someone’s thinking based on where they look.

That’s another area of it. [00:23:00] Uh, these were things, and, you know, these were things that were not meant to be exploitative, at least how they initially framed it. It was related to therapy and, and helping people and such, which is, you know, another reason people do go to these NLP events. It’s not all exploitative people.

It’s people who legitimately, they, they, they are seeking, like, you know, help in their therapy practices or things like this, or teaching or whatever it may be. So there’s two elements to it. It’s like you can have the more educational helping people aspect, or you can have the like, oh, I want to get secrets that help me exploit people.

You know? Um, so there was always, there’s always been, uh, those two sides of it where it’s like, oh, by understanding other people, uh, understanding their patterns and, and reading them and, uh, and being able to influence them because that’s the other side of the coin. So it’s like understanding, you know, how people are thinking based on these kind of ideas about how they use language, where they look their, their modes of thinking.

The, the other side of that is the, is the, how do I [00:24:00] influence people with that knowledge I have? How do I use like, language to influence them based on my knowledge of, of how they’re thinking, right? And it, it includes, uh, and over the years, NLP has grown and changed because, you know, what was there in the beginning, wasn’t there?

Later it shifted, you know, based on how all these different NLP people did their training and their seminars. Uh, but a big part of it came to be, you know, the, the seminars are what, what is called transformational or experiential, what they’ll, they will keep you there many days, right? Like several days in a row and it’s packed, filled that activity, so you get very little sleep.

So it kind of has some, you know, and they do unusual psychology, uh, related exercises in there. Like, you know, one that I was present for was like staring into each other’s eyes for a long time. So it kind of creates these unusual feelings in people, which, uh, makes them theoretically more bonded to the experiment experience, you know, and, uh, makes people have these [00:25:00] unusual experiences.

So there’s a slew of things in there, which is why it’s hard to define or, you know, precisely say what NLP is. Because for example, like sometimes I’ll, you know, if you talk about NLP, uh, the, uh, the claims about reading people based on the eye contact, uh, eye direction stuff, some people, some NLP defenders will say like, no, that wasn’t initially in, you know, Bandler and Grinder’s work.

They talked about, you know, it wasn’t, it was a clue, but wasn’t that meaningful. And it, you know, so they’ll, they’ll defend it by saying like, well, that wasn’t in the original stuff, and that’s just some practitioners who are making grant claims, et cetera, et cetera. So that’s just to give you a sense of like.

But people who try to defend it will often try to like nitpick things about, uh, that, that’s not really NLP or NLP is more nuanced than that. Uh, but by and large, you know, it’s, it’s a, it’s a tough space to define. But to me, you know, when you look at people who have done the work, uh, debunking or studying these [00:26:00] NLP associated ideas, just by and large, uh, you know, none of the NLP associated ideas hold up under scrutiny, uh, in, in scientific study or, uh, and then there’s, I should say there’s also the NLP trainers and practitioners do bring in various real and respected ideas too.

So it’s a right in the, in the context of their training, you know, it can be a hodgepodge of like, could just completely ridiculous ideas that no legitimate, you know, researchers respect at all and you know, other things that are more legitimate. So that, that helps explain why it’s so easy to. Or why it’s, it can be so persuasive be to people because you’re bringing in a lot of good ideas too.

And, and like, that makes it hard to debunk too, because people who take those trainings, they’re like, no, that was legitimate. I looked that up and I’m like, yeah, there’s legitimate things in the mix. But by and large, the NLP things have been thoroughly debunked and there’s no evidence [00:27:00] for them. There’s, you know, evidence against a lot of it.

So just to say for people that are, that really wanna believe it, or for people that have gone down the rabbit hole of like believing these are. Powerful ideas. There’s all sorts of mechanisms that they use to defend it. Uh, and I’ve named a few of them, but, um, I hope that gives a, a sense of the, the sprawl of it and, and what’s involved though.

Chris: Absolutely. Thank you for all of that because it’s, um, it is made complicated. It’s made more complicated than it really is in an effort to disperse attention, I think. And yeah, try to keep the semblance of No, no, there’s something here. Even if this doesn’t quite, or this doesn’t quite, there’s something here, there’s something the right as this idea, and it’s this sort of eternal hope.

I think that we’re trying to crack the code of, you know, some simple this, you know, control panel or lever system or something to be [00:28:00] able to manipulate or control ourselves and other people. Some people are coming into this, you know, looking at trying to solve their own problems too. It’s not just about, you know, you know, twirling their mustaches and 

Zach: Yeah.

And to, to your, to your point, I’ll throw in, you know, it’s the main goal of these people that promote these ideas, like people like. Chase Hughes. I mean, the main goal, whether it’s NLP related or not, their goal is to communicate mastery that you need them to help unlock, right? Like they’ll, they’ll use various tools at their disposal.

It doesn’t have to be NLP, it can be, you know, military intelligence or whatever other things are in the mix for people. But the main goal is to establish a sense that you really need this person’s wisdom and their amazing insights. Right? And, uh, I mean, that explains why, that explains why in the NLP world, all the nl, you know, the NLP trainers will all have their various flavors and even trademark names of this stuff, right?

Like, so, you know, there, there’s a lot of [00:29:00] use of the word neuro because it, you know, there’s neurolinguistic program programming, but it also makes it sound like some sort of scientific thing, right? 

Chris: I 

Zach: have my neuro strategies, my neuro methods, my neuro whatever, it, but, but it also puts a, a, a spin on it, like a, a personal spin.

Like, these are my trademarked ideas you have to come to me for. Right. But, and, and to your point too, it’s, we should recognize that a lot of these people really believe this stuff. Like the, the NLP trainer that I worked for, he really believed that, you know, these were amazing things that he himself, like, had amazing control over, over everybody in his orbit.

Like he really believed that he was helping people. I at least I think he did. Uh, so it’s just to say these, yeah, these aren’t, like you say, these aren’t our, like, aren’t all like villainous people sitting around, like just, uh, thinking about how to. Exploit and manipulate people. A lot of them truly believe, you know, like the NLP trainer I worked for, he would tell this story about like how he didn’t believe he was really anything special until everybody started telling him he was, [00:30:00] and told him how great he was at doing the NLP stuff.

And he was like, oh, I must be a real genius of this stuff, you know? So that was kind of how he went down the. The rabbit hole, like, so just to say, yeah, it, it’s good to recognize, you know, have empathy even when we think people are wrong. Um, and then some people are just clearly much more unethical on the un unethical side.

But it’s a, it’s a mix of people, right? 

Chris: That’s right. That’s exactly right. And it, it’s, yeah, it’s, uh, uh, you know, when I was a Scientologist, it was the same deal. I thought I had my, my hand on the top of this, you know, this mastery of this, of this technology as they called it, that would enable me to be able to help people to a degree that nothing else could.

And, and so. Sure, I’ll sit for hours in a chair and stare at somebody else, or have other people do that to each other. This, this is right outta Scientology stuff, and you produce what’s called the Ganzfeld Effect. You know, you get these hallucinations and, you know, you can have auditory and visual hallucinations, you can have all kinds of trance induction, all kinds of crazy [00:31:00] stuff happen.

Just sit and staring at somebody else in the eyes, and it gets people feeling giddy, and it gets them feeling nervous, and it gets them all a flutter. And, you know, because they’re sitting there having to focus their attention on another person in front of them, which they don’t normally do. And so it’s a new novel effect.

Uh, that’s something I haven’t felt before. So therefore, the feelings I’m feeling must be special and new and different, even though, no, literally, almost everybody’s gonna feel that way. Mm-hmm. Uh, you know, for under understandable, explainable reasons, but because we’re gonna, that, I’ve always said that, that, that, that one of the biggest superpowers, one of the powers that, that these guys have is they’re the first to arrive with an interpretation of this phenomena.

So their interpretation is the one that’s going to win, right? If I tell you, you know, sit in this chair for two hours and stare at somebody else, and don’t blink and don’t fidget, and don’t move around. Don’t, don’t get up. Don’t [00:32:00] laugh. Don’t do anything. Don’t let yourself get triggered. Just sit there and be there and just do it.

The person starts feeling like they’re hallucinating, you know, seeing themselves from outside their body. And I go, yep, you popped outta your body, you’re exterior. That proves you are an immortal spiritual being. Right. I’ve now to a Scientologist. Yeah, yeah. Right. Yeah. With the Ganzfeld effect, uh, it, you know, it’s a psychological principle, but I can, I can, and I don’t even know about it.

Mm-hmm. I just know as a Scientologist, I didn’t know about that till after I left. Right, right. I just knew that if I could do that right here was my interpretation, and it’s the interpretation of this phenomena that has so much power for people. 

Zach: And I, and I will throw in there too, uh, I think an important part of this is, you know, I I, I try to, when I was working for this guy years ago, I, my takeaway was that there are, like I was saying, there are good ideas in the mix and, [00:33:00] uh, for a lot of people that come to those seminars, that can be their first exposure to some of these psychology ideas.

Like, for example, you know, a big, a big thing in the NLP world is reframing the meaning of experiences, right? Mm-hmm. Which is actually a very wise thing because, you know, we, we can, we have, we do have the power to look at experiences in all sorts of different ways and getting over, you know, trauma and psychological emotional pain.

You know, a big part of that is reframing the meaning of that. Right? That’s 

Chris: right. So that, 

Zach: that, that is a meaningful concept. And they, and you know, the guy I worked for and, and NLP people in, in general. Like, uh, Tony Robbins, you know, that’s a big part of what he does. It’s all about the reframing. It’s an important concept.

And a lot of people that do go, that go to these events, even if there’s a lot of bullshit in the mix, they do come away with some ideas that they probably haven’t considered before and could theoretically be life changing. So that’s why I like, I do like to be fair and say some people do get legitimate insights and important takeaways from these [00:34:00] things, and that doesn’t bother me.

I think the, the thing that’s bad is the, is when the per the trainer acts as if they’re the person that you have to go for the, for these things, and then is charging like a ridiculous amount of money to, you know, do these trainings where it’s like you’re not, you know, you’re, you’re not, you’re not taking that much knowledge where, and you know, it’s, it’s the, it’s the putting themselves on a pedestal where they’re the, they’re the guru, right?

Is, is where the problem comes in. It’s not the, you know, and then it’s also throwing in a bunch of hot, you know, bunch of bullshit that’s theoretically harmful to people too. But if it was just like the things that were, you know, like reframing or some of these legitimate things that they will cover in, in their trainings, you know, that part’s all well and good.

And I can, and that’s why I say it’s understandable why you will have people that might be watching this. So he’ll be like, I had a very meaningful, good experience at one of these seminars. And, and, and that’s fine. I think that’s. It’s totally legitimate and, and, uh, I’m not saying that’s not possible, so I just want to throw that in there.

Yeah, [00:35:00] 

Chris: absolutely. Absolutely. It’s the, like I said, it’s the interpretation of the event and, and what you’re walking away with. If you’re walking away, you know, that, that this proves something that it doesn’t really prove. Then, you know, there’s a cognitive and, and real world problem there. You, you’re, you’re walking around living a lie 

Zach: and you might get taken for a lot of money, theoretically.

Exactly. 

Chris: Yeah, exactly. Uh, and that’s Scientology in a nutshell, right there. You know, they, they sell you a lie right from the get go. And if they can get you, if they can get that hook and get that emotional commitment, and then they’ll start working on you and working on you, and it’s this, you know, gradual change over time and all that time, you’re given a money hand over fist and, and you’re being taken for a ride, right?

Because there’s nothing at the end of this road that makes you a different person in any substantial or basic or fundamental way than the person who you were when you started. You, you’re gonna be the same person, you know, [00:36:00] uh, you’re just gonna have been lied to and put through the ringer a number of times and jump through a number of hoops that you really didn’t have to.

And that’s, and that’s where I get a little, that’s where my blood boils, is when people are, are taken advantage of like that. Um, you know, like I was so, it’s, it’s understandable. I think motivated me for a long time to, to dig this stuff up. Um, and yeah, NLP was an interest is interesting. Uh, the one other thing I wanna say about the origin story of it, maybe you can confirm this, I’m not, I don’t know.

Is that, uh, Bandler and Grindr Grinder? Grinder? Uh, yeah. I don’t know how to pronounce those either. I’ve only read the man’s name, but they were trying to do the scientific research, peer review process, do the standard research process back in the seventies with these ideas and they ideas sound so cool.

That you kind of wish [00:37:00] they were true. Wouldn’t it be awesome if every time you were talking to someone and they look down into the left, that means, oh, they’re accessing their visual memory right now. Right. And I can know that about them and that will tell me something about them that can assist me either therapeutically or can assist me to manipulate them or whatever.

Wouldn’t it be cool? Yeah. You know, wouldn’t it be cool if every time you meet somebody who talks like, oh, I see that. Oh, I see what you mean. Oh, I, yeah, I can, I can visualize that. If they’re talking like that, that means they’re a visual thinker. And so if you use visual metaphor back at them, you can subtly manipulate them.

Wouldn’t that be awesome? If it was, wouldn’t that be cool? 

Zach: Right. Totally. No, no, you’re right. It’s like that, that, I think that’s the draw of a lot of bullshit ideas in [00:38:00] general. It’s like, wouldn’t this would be so cool if, if this thing was were true? Right. And that’s the, the big draw. And uh, yeah. The other interesting thing, there’s all sorts of things to say about NLP, but.

You know, going back to the origins of NLP, it came about at a time when there was all this like brain asymmetry and symmetry studies going on, which very much influence how NLP played out and like the eye direction and, you know, modes of thought kind of thing. Which, which is interesting. But, you know, you go back and look at those studies, a lot of that stuff was just, you know, a, it was like a lot of vague studies, a lot of the studies even that, a lot of the studies that even found stuff, you know, couldn’t be reproduced that.

So it was like, but the, there was a lot of interest in, in that stuff back then. And, and I think there was this kind of like the sixties and seventies were, you know, kind of this, a lot of people were thinking like, we’re full, we’re really gonna unlock the secrets of the brain now that we’ve got these tools to study the brain, you know, closely with all the, you know, imaging, uh, things we have.

And I think there was this [00:39:00] kind of excitement about like, we’re really gonna, we’re so close to figuring it out. Like, you know, we’re gonna know that somebody’s using, you know, this part of their brain and it means they’re this kind of personality or whatever, you know, there, I think there was just a lot of excitement.

’cause it helps explain, like when I went back and looked at all the research, there was all this like brain, you know, asymmetry and like, you know what, trying to fi figure out what kind of words people were using that, this kind of stuff. Uh, so there was that excitement, which I think. Clearly didn’t pan out.

Um, you know, from that, from that point, no, that’s exactly 

Chris: right. Is, is people get excited about these ideas and unfortunately, um, to finish the thought, wa was, uh, ’cause because I think you’re absolutely right. I think, I think you’re absolutely right about everything you just said there, because this whole split brain studies and the, you know, all this stuff was really exciting stuff in the seventies and eighties and people really thought they were, you know, getting a grip on some things.

And sure enough, this is the path of progression and discovery that we need, and there are gonna be alleys people go down that don’t develop [00:40:00] into something. But the mistake that band or, and Grinder made and that, and the thing that kind of upset me about those two was they went, okay, well the peer review is showing that this stuff ain’t really flying.

Like this isn’t really universally true stuff. Well, we’re so excited about it and we’re so sure it’s true. If I, if I remember this right, okay, we’re just gonna take this directly to the public and we’re, you know, the whole science thing. Yeah. You know, we’re just gonna go this direction. And so they just kind of shooed the research trail and started doing seminars and workshops and stuff like that because that was the thing to do in the seventies and eighties.

Arenas were being filled up by all kinds of people from Bill Gothard to, you know, Tony Robbins types. Yeah. And. Now it’s online, now, it’s now it’s the online community. You don’t have, you know, you still have conventions and you know, grant Cardone out there who’s also in this space, you know, from a Scientology Grift angle.

Um, you know, they’ll fill up convention centers, but they’re [00:41:00] really, you know, online is where this stuff really, really thrives. Yeah. So, um, so I just sort of see it as this progression of ideas you’re referring and you’re, what you were referring to earlier, I think was the human potential movement that was, um, big through the sixties and seventies.

And, and that’s where, you know, you get asked and, you know, which turns into Landmark Forum and, you know, that’s where NNLP comes in and, and really kind of landed as it kind of landed into this human potential movement. But it was more of a social movement rather than a scientific movement by this point.

And this is where the grift really came into play, I think. Mm-hmm. Um, and so we, and, and so I think that’s the origin story, or at least the fundamental sort of, you know, framework of the origin story of this stuff. So if we go through the greed is good eighties into the, you know, the, the, the grunge of the nineties and the [00:42:00] internet coming into play.

Now we have a whole new field for these people to play in. Right? A whole new sandbox, uh, in the two thousands with social media taking off. And these people able to make a name for themselves, you know, band or, and Grindr are kind of names of the past now, but you know, now we have our Chase Hughes and we still have Tony Robbins crawling around.

What, who else do you see in this space? If we wanna name names or talk about types of people or types of grift, what, what else do you see emerging from what NLP has turned into? 

Zach: Well, it’s a good question. I, I, I actually haven’t studied it that much. Like I went down the Chase Hugs rabbit hole and that led me to see a, you know, see a few other people in that area.

Uh, yeah, I do, I do think there’s, you know, his, you know, his compatriots on the behavior panel, um, right. Those 

Chris: guys who are those people? 

Zach: They’re, I mean, the fact that they, the fact alone that they, uh, chose to [00:43:00] partner with Chase Hughes, I mean, I think tells you a lot about who they are, but according to them, they’re the number one, four, the, the four best behavior experts in the world, you know, but don’t ask them to, uh, come up with any qualifications for that.

That’s just what they call themselves, right? So there, there, there’s all sorts of these guys who, you know, and there is a huge incentive to, you know, there’s a lot of money involved in this stuff. It’s like these guys get millions of views on YouTube and that translates to. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, right?

Chris: Yeah. 

Zach: Big money. Yeah, big money for that. And, uh, so it’s clear there’s an incentive. So it’s like, you know, but you watch these behavior panel shows and it’s like they’re just spouting a lot of, like ambigu, some, some okay. Ideas, some, uh, mostly just bad and ambiguous and things go other way many different ways.

Ideas, like, you know, and I’ve, and I, there, there, I thought about doing a breakdown of like a specific video of theirs to show like just how ambiguous and, uh, kind of meaningless these ideas are. But you watch these shows and you’re like, [00:44:00] okay, they’ve said a lot of things about what could theoretically be, but what does it all mean in the end?

Like it, you know, there, it’s just a lot of kind of wishy-washy ideas. But, and then also, you know, a lot of the, the people that do this kind of work, they’re more likely to have like opinion, uh, really high, uh, really confident opinions. The more clear it is that someone was guilty or lied or whatever it is, right?

So that’s another element of this, like, yeah, it’s very easy after the fact. Like to know that, you know, for example, Chris Watts was a, a very guilty, uh, acted, very guilt guiltily. That was the guy who killed his, you know, wife and, uh, children. A well-known case that people examined his behavior. But that’s just to say there’s.

There gonna be situations where like, you know, you’re not going too far out on a, uh, a, you know, a, a plank, a, a dangerous plank to be confident about somebody’s opinion, uh, somebody’s behaviors. Uh, but there’s, so there’s a lot of these behavior people. Um, there’s, you know, there’s also the hypnotists and [00:45:00] influence kind of people, like the doing studying the Chase Hughes stuff led me to see that there was like NLP and hypnosis associated people that would like, praise Chase Hughes and Chase Hughes would praise them.

Like there was, yeah, it was kind of like this, there’s this whole underworld where they, like, they never pushed back on each other’s obvious flaws. They only just say, these guys are amazing, right? Like, nothing, nothing, uh, untoward to see about this, these people’s, uh, you know, claims of, of expertise. So there’s a whole like, ecosystem where they all drum each other up because it’s, it, it’s to their best interest.

Like, it’s not in the, the, the behavior panel. People know all about Chase Hughes, many lies and exaggerations, and I’ve told them, you know, directly, and they’ll just be like, oh, you’re just jealous. You’re just a hater, blah, blah, blah. They don’t, they don’t care to actually address these things. And like, people that will, will write me being like, I can’t believe that these people won’t address these obvious, you know, lies and unethical behaviors.

And I’m like, well, if they did that, they would have to address many [00:46:00] unethical things that they themselves have done. And why did they partner with Chase, who in the first place? So they have, there’s no incentive for these people who have. You know, in this ecosystem to, to examine these things. But to your question about like specific people, I really, I wish I, I wish I had more time ’cause it is kind of fun to, you know, make videos about these guys.

But yeah, it was kind of random that I went down to chase, use Rabbit Hole. It was just such an egregious case. That was why I made several videos about it, because I think even in this world, like he was a, you know, a very egregious, uh, case about, you know, lying and exaggerating. Um, but yeah, there’s, there is a, there, there’s a large ecosystem and then you have to kind of separate the, you know, we’re just telling you to analyze, you know, we’re, we’re claiming that we can analyze this behavior versus like, we’re gonna get you to influence and manipulate other people.

You know, which Chase straddles both those, those worlds. But it’s a, they can be very separate worlds. Um, and yeah, I think that’s kind of a, I, I don’t, I don’t know too much about the, all the [00:47:00] specific players these days. 

Chris: No, no, that’s fine. I appreciate the, the overview though, and especially the commentary about the ecosystem.

’cause I was gonna bring that up and I’m glad you did. Um, because there is this sort of mutual supportive system that, that goes on in this YouTube space or in this real world space because we are talking about people who are not just making videos on YouTube. They are going out and doing and getting paid quite well to go do business seminars and train recruiters, train negotiators, train, you know, MBA level people in how to do their jobs better.

And these people, as business people are relying on the expertise of Chase Hughes to be who he says he is because they’re taking what he says and they’re applying it in their day to day when they’re doing negotiations and important work that is gonna matter. And if they’re taking nonsense and trying to use it in the real world, you’re gonna [00:48:00] have the same effect or same reason or same.

Consequences as if you were to take Scientology into your business. And what happens when people do that? Businesses collapse. That’s what happens there. Are there, there people lose their jobs over this stuff? There are, there are. This can be disastrous when you’re trying to take, you know, ideas like, oh yes, I’m gonna watch his eyes and I’m gonna watch what direction they go in.

You know? Or I’m gonna use certain language in a certain way and I know I’m going to get this result. And it’s easy in a training, it’s easy in a training to find all the examples of how this is gonna work until you hit the real world where the rubber meets the road and suddenly you’re in front of somebody who ain’t acting the way Chase said they would.

Now what are you gonna do? 

Zach: Yeah. I, I think the, uh, you’re not the in one interesting thing about that is that I think one of the not obvious harms of this stuff is, is, is related to that. [00:49:00] Where a lot of people that watch like the behavior panel or take, you know, chase hugs classes, they start thinking that they really can read people accurately.

And mainly it’s just, it, it just serves as a way to like. Amplify their own biases, because basically what they’ll do is, you know, and, and I can show you, I can show you many examples of this where like, behavior panel fans will be like looking at a video in like the Facebook group, the fan, the fan group of behavior panel, and they’ll be like, I know she’s lying based on this one random, you know, ambiguous thing.

And like, yeah. So basically everyone’s just using these like half-baked ideas they’ll get from these people and, and it’s just another filter for making them feel confident to express what they want to believe anyway. So it’s like, I know she’s a, you know, a horrible person. I, I know that, um, you know, this royalty member’s a piece of shit because I, you know, she did this one small behavior, right?

And then like, you know, like a lot of things, people will forget when they’re wrong about something. And a lot of things are just like personality [00:50:00] things anyway. They’re like things they’ll never know. So they’re like, I, that’s, that tells me she’s being devious. I just don’t like her now, you know, even more.

Uh, so there’s all the, there’s, it just makes people dumber basically because they’ve been, their heads have been filled with all these like confident, like things that are just not possible to do in the real world. Like get confident reads of people, whether they’re lying or withholding information or what their state of mind is when they’re telling you something like.

You know, the, the, these are, it’s just a pipe dream that you can do that confidently all the time. Like sure, sometimes I have reads about stuff that I could back up with, you know, uh, a list of things. But it’s like, that’s a very rare thing to be able to reach that level of confidence. And even, even the things you’re highly confident about will be like, you know, not that confident.

So, um, so it’s just to say, yeah, these things are harmful in, in multiple ways that are, that are not really obvious. And I think that’s, that’s, that’s one of the, the worst things is just putting all these. Bad ideas out there. And I think it even, you know, it, it plays into [00:51:00] the political polarization sphere too, where people are watching like videos that, uh, you know, that the behavior panel is analyzed of political people and they’re like, oh yeah, I know that that person’s a, a piece of shit ’cause they did X, Y, Z and it’s like.

It’s just reinforcing what they wanted to believe anyway about various political figures and various, you know, celebrities. So yeah, it’s kind of an insidious, kind of a dumbing down of things, you know, 

Chris: there, I, I could not agree more. I mean, you bring in confirmation bias and that, and you’re nailing it.

And it’s, and it’s, and it is a lot more of that than people are, are, are able to recognize in themselves. This is, this is why I’m always going on at a mad rate about, you know, look, if you really wanna navigate life, uh, critical thinking and emotional intelligence are the, are the tools you have to have in, in the holsters on you.

You know, that you’re walking around with you. You’ve, you’ve got to take these things to a high level for yourself, which means discipline and practice and using this stuff over and over and over. It’s not just knowing a few logical fallacies [00:52:00] or knowing a little bit about how people are emotionally driven.

It’s really understanding yourself and other people from these core ideas. And that’s, that’s where you’ll understand the nuance and you’ll see how much nuance there is. Like, for example, okay, you, you have written books about poker, uh, tells and, and reading people that way. And I don’t imagine for a second that you have some superpower that you can sit at a table with six strangers you’ve never met and be able to wipe the table with them because you’re such a great person at Poker Tells right.

I imagine that that is, that, that’s the first thing I’m thinking is, no, you’re not, you don’t have a superpower and you’re not gonna do that. And I don’t have that expectation. Right. But there are so many poor schleps out there who do. Yeah. And it, and it would be easy for you to use that expectation and feed that confirmation bias.

Right, right. I imagine it’s not [00:53:00] that way ’cause of the nature of the work you do. So how would you describe that? How 

Zach: do you talk about that? Totally. And that, that, that’s actually what makes me so frustrated about this topic. ’cause it’s like I, I went outta my way to write in such a careful way about poker, and then you, you know, it’s like, it’s a game.

And, uh, then you got these people making grand claims about real world stuff and, you know, and I’m just like, I, that, that bugs me. Yeah. ’cause to your point, it’s like, yes, I, that’s what people have said they liked about my books. It’s one of the reasons they like my work is because I’m being very, I’m not saying I, I, I’m, I’m, I’m actually saying, I very, I say very specifically, even the best reader of tells to my knowledge is only using this maybe like, you know, a few times a session to like, and sometimes it’s just swinging a decision that was, you know, very close and goes one way or the other.

It’s not like you’re highly confident of it. It’s like you might go one way or another based on, you know, it’s the, it’s the only information I have to, to, to act on. Uh, so yeah, I’m very careful to say, thi this is a rare thing you may [00:54:00] rely on, uh. It’s true that like less skilled players will have more obvious tells.

You know, it’s, it’s true that the more skilled you are, the less likely you are to get a tell a read from somebody. Uh, so I, I was always very careful to be very responsible how, how I see it, which is like, plays into why I’m so frustrated with these people. Basically, you know, just saying the most outlandish and extreme things about real world things that could impact real world, uh, scenarios, interrogations or interviews or whatever.

Uh, so yeah, and, and I will say too, like when people ask me, you know, what, what kind of behavior stuff, you know, real world behavior stuff, do you recommend? I do think there’s some very good work about verbal statement analysis, which I think is, you know, if you, if you’re interested in reading, people focus on the verbal stuff because that’s where people are actually trying to communicate to you.

They’re using their words, right? So like, I just do not, I, I, I would much recommend reading books like, um, I know You are lying by, [00:55:00] uh, mark ish who I’ve interviewed for my podcast, which is about analyzing statements because statements contain a lot of meaning, and there’s a lot of ways people will try to misdirect your attention in statements and try to do various things with their statements.

You can get so much more information out of that versus like trying to read nonverbal behavior because nonverbal behavior. Is quite hard to read. Like, other than like some very simple stuff like, oh, this person’s nervous, but okay, what does nervous mean? It could be, you know, for many different reasons.

Right. That’s fine. Uh, so yeah, I’ll throw that in there for people that like, wanna know what I find really valuable. And then, and that’s, I wrote Verbal Poker Towels, which was kind of like my take on. Um, I was inspired by Mark Cher’s book about statement analysis and like real world scenarios. So I wrote a book that was analyzing statements that poker players make.

And that was actually like, I think that’s, I’m not, obviously I’m biased, but I do think it’s like one of the best poker books out there because it, I learned so much, uh, writing the book and researching it over like, you know, I, I worked [00:56:00] full time on it basically for almost eight months. It was like my big project and, uh, I learned a lot doing it.

And then just to say, there’s a lot of information in people’s statements, like people, because that’s where they’re trying to manipulate you. Right. That’s where they’re, that’s where they’re trying to get you to do certain things. Uh, and you can find a lot of like information in there, right? 

Chris: Yeah, absolutely.

I, I love that because I, you know, what drove me crazy? What drove me absolutely mad, I was absolutely fascinated with it at first until I realized the limitations and how people were taking it and running and making such hyperbolic, exaggerated claims with micro expressions. Yeah. Yeah. Oh my God. Oh, I just wanted to start shooting people.

Zach: I want, I want ha I actually have been wanting to do an episode on that because Yeah, I mean that and Ec Paul Eckman in general, like the, there’s a lot of, I’ll just say it’s a lot of BS and exaggeration in the Eckman sphere. Yeah. And I have a, I had a recent podcast where we talked about that. I had a interview with Tim Levi, [00:57:00] who’s a deception, uh, researcher.

And we talked about, you know, a lot, a lot of people know that Ekman’s stuff is like, a lot of, it’s not backed up by, by science, but that kind of relates to the importance of the microexpressions, which yeah, I, I still, I would like to do a deep dive on Microexpressions. ’cause there’s a lot, there’s a lot.

Definitely a lot to say there. Yeah, 

Chris: yeah, absolutely. And it, and it ’cause it, because you gotta, you, you have to, you have got to bring in and appreciate cultural language, geographical, um, ethnic, you know, there, there, there’s so many foundational things that make us who we are and influence how we act and how we see the world.

And you know, one of the things that was most illuminating to me, uh, along, uh, uh, in the path of learning that for myself was learning how multilingual people, um, just to throw this out there as a, as a, as a almost random fact, but it’s so interesting is how [00:58:00] multilingual people actually switch how they think.

When they switch from one language to another. Mm-hmm. It’s not just a matter of saying, of translating the words in your head and then saying them, you actually switch into a different way of thinking. You talk to somebody who’s multilingual and they’ll, they’ll, you can talk about this with them. They’ll, they’ll tell you about it.

You know, uh, I, I, and I first ran into this with bilingual, trilingual people from, you know, Germany or France or, or, uh, Belgium and, and, and ended up having very deep conversations about this. Not just once I, I’ve talked, I’ve talked to a number of people about this because I found it so interesting. Like, what do you mean you think differently?

And they go, oh yeah, no, you, you, you, you’re, you’re, it’s almost like you have to bring in a whole different value system. Not just words, but all these other concepts and ideas and, and significances come into play when you’re switching the language mode. And [00:59:00] I was like, really? And they were like, oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And it, and it, and it really, I was talking to a Canadian who, you know, who speaks Canadian, French Canadian, and he was like, yeah, yeah. It’s hard for me to translate this over into English. ’cause it’s not just words, it’s these other things. Right. You know, and the structure of the language. Yeah. 

Zach: Yeah. And which actually that’s a, that NLP, uh, I think they, they talked a lot about the structure of the language, which, you know, they Yeah.

Just to say, yeah. There, there’s some, there’s some good ideas in the NLP. Uh, yeah, exactly. 

Chris: And, and you, and you talking about how, you know, paying attention to people’s language really tells you a lot more about who you’re talking to. I could not agree more because, but only if you are paying attention to it from the point of view.

As far as I’m as, as my, my take on it is it tells, it informs you how they see things, right. In how they tell you about stuff. 

Zach: Yeah. It’s no more, it’s no more mysterious than like Yeah. They’re, they’re, you’re getting a glimpse of the review [01:00:00] of the world. Right. It’s just communication. It’s just communication at the end of the day.

Yeah. And, and, and there can be exaggerated claims about what you can get from that, and there can be legitimate claims about what you might get from that. But yeah, by and large people are hard to read, I think, and, and, and I would say hard to influence unless they’re like. You know, in certain moments when they’re vulnerable or if they’re emotionally vulnerable.

Right. Like a lot of the, a lot, a lot of the like cult and influence type stuff is like mainly relying on people that might be quite emotionally vulnerable. So it doesn’t actually take that much to influence some people, right? 

Chris: That’s right, that’s right. Well, that’s what cult recruitment is all about, is if they are not in a vulnerable state, getting them into a vulnerable state, they, they can actually be pushed there.

Right? They don’t just walk into the, you know, the Church of Scientology or you know, the, uh, the, you know, the forum workshop and are already like all torn up inside. Right. You can push ’em there. And that’s what that, for example, in Scientology, that’s what that personality [01:01:00] test is designed to do. It confuses you a little bit.

It, it, it, it gets you all stirred up on a bunch of stuff that is really kind of innocuous, weird questions, but they’re not. It, it, it stirs stuff up. And then, and then in that, in that kind of, not necessarily agitated, it’s not even at that level, it’s just, it’s just stirs some things up. 

Zach: It’s, it’s like, it’s like the equivalent of staring in each other’s eyes, but like just a different, different form.

Yeah, 

Chris: that’s right. It’s just a little bit of confusion, a little bit of like, why am I answering these questions? What is this? And then you sit down with somebody who’s now presented to you as an authority figure, and I’m gonna sit here and tell you about your scientific test. That’s all graphed out here, and you are gonna tell me all about yourself.

And now we’re doing a warm reading rather than a full on cold reading like they do with, you know, when you walk into a psychic or something, you get in a cold reading here, it’s warm because you are feeding information to the test evaluator and well, and they’re, and they have a very specific set of goals in mind for that conversation.

[01:02:00] And, and, uh, getting you signed up is always at the end of it. 

Zach: Oh, quick, quick, quick aside. You might find it. Yeah, it’s interesting. Like back in, uh, it was probably like 2006, I was in Vancouver, BC. I think it was when I went to a Scientology place and just did a test for fun. Yeah. You know? Yeah. Yeah. I wasn’t, I, I was just doing it for fun.

I wanted to get the, the experience and then like 15 years later, my parents, they, I, I don’t remember even giving them my information. I don’t think I would’ve written it down. But then like 15 years later, my parents got something from the Church of Scientology addressed to me, and I was like, I don’t, yeah.

So just to say, yeah, they, they keep track of people. Yeah. 

Chris: Oh, they never, uh, let me say this again to the audience out there in case it’s the first time you’re at my channel. Never give Scientology your personal contact information because they will skip, trace you for the rest of your life. They will follow you no matter where you go and send you information and mailings and keep up with that.

It, they, they [01:03:00] got nothing else to do all day. I, I tell you. Uh, it’s wild. Yeah. Never give them your address. I, I don’t know any other organization that is as dedicated to tracking and sending you mailings as the Church of Scientology. 

Zach: Very passionate. 

Chris: Very passionate. Yeah. So, um, okay. Now let’s get back to the, 

Zach: so sorry to dis sorry to distract you.

Chris: No, no, no, no. You’re, you’re, you’re awesome. I’m the one who, who gets all derailed all the time. Um, okay. What else could we say about this? Yeah, I’m calling it, you know, sort of there, there’s an entrepreneurship of influence. I mentioned in the intro there’s, you know, there’s this sort of dark psychology space that is sort of created.

I see it just sort, sort of graphically as, as if you have this kind of, you know, the ecosphere of the internet podcast world or the pod world, uh, or the influencer world, you have different areas or sections of this. And Rogan, of course, is, is a huge [01:04:00] influence in this space, just through sheer numbers and, and, and around him, he’s created this thing that we sort of call this manosphere, right?

And, and, and, and the dark areas of this manosphere involve, you know, the, the, the, the, the men for equal rights people, right? The men’s rights movement, the incel folks. And then you get these influence folks, these people who are, oh yeah, we’re gonna sell you the tricks to not having to be the victim of society and women and your job and women and you know, and your life and women.

And you know, it’s always all about, you know, being victimized by women, right? So, so there’s this whole little space there, and then there’s these people who are grifting on that space. That’s how I see it. That’s how I kind of model it in my head is like, there’s this sphere or section or slice of the internet where these guys kind of live.

How do you see it or how do you think about it? Is that. 

Zach: Yeah. Um, [01:05:00] I think it’s, uh, I mean, it’s hard for me to break it down exactly that clean, but I know, I know you’re just speaking generally too, but Yeah, 

Chris: I 

Zach: think, I think what happens is because I’ve, I’ve done a good amount of work on political polarization too.

Mm-hmm. Um, and the thing that strikes me is there, there is this, you know, for Joe Rogan in this kind of sphere of things, it’s kind of like they’re attracted to anything that’s kind of like anti, you know, liberal mainstream associated, right? Yeah. So it’s like you, even, even cha like if you had somebody that just questioned some major thing that, you know, was some liberal, uh, view associated mainstream thing, they would get invited on the show because it’s attractive to kind of like knock holes in this, uh, the liberal mainstream, you know, uh, network of ideas.

And I, and I see Chase playing, you know, that this is an aspect to Chase Hughes and, and some other people where. Uh, you know, he, one of the things he does is spreads [01:06:00] these ideas that, like the government is running these complex PSYOPs on people. Like he spread these completely nonsense ideas and he, he uses his fake, you know, his fake, uh, military intelligence.

The, the idea that he, uh, the, the perception or the, the implication that he was involved in military intelligence, he helps sell these really paranoid conspiracy theories about like, Hey, I think the government’s doing these, these wacky wild things and, you know, playing psychological games on the public.

Uh, so that’s part of it too, because Joe Rogan’s kind of tied, and, and I don’t, at that level, I don’t even see it necessarily as, um, you know, political related because there is this love of like conspiracy theories in general. You know, conspiracy theories are popular on the right and the left, just different, can be different kinds.

And, you know, regardless of who we think is worse, it’s just a very popular thing. And so you have, Joe Rogan especially, is drawn to these like more conspiracy minded [01:07:00] things like coverups and, you know, that’s one of the reasons he wanted to talk to, uh, chase Hughes. ’cause Chase Hughes did a video. They got really popular about the New Jersey drones being, uh, government PSYOPs, military PSYOPs.

Oh, did he? Yeah. It was just completely nonsense. I made a, I made a video. Of 

Chris: course he did. Yeah, 

Zach: of course. Because you can’t disprove it. Exactly. That’s the great thing about all these conspiracy theories you can spout off about ’em and no one’s ever gonna disprove you. No. And even if they somehow did, like, there’d still be, you know, there’s, there’s plenty of room for, for, for doubt.

Even when you, you, your, your worldview is completely disproven. So that’s the great thing about the conspiracy theories. Right. And Joe Rogan loves a lot of these weird, you know, magical thinking, conspiracy theories, you know? Um, so I think that, you know, the, the, there is this, like, the thing I see too is like political polarization has resulted in a lot of people just viewing it, viewing the act of debunking or skepticism itself as a liberal associated thing, right?

Like, I think that’s a, that’s something I haven’t really seen discussed, [01:08:00] but I’ve experienced this personally when I go into something that’s completely not political related, like, you know, debunking Chase Hughes, for example, examining his lies and exaggerations. I’ve seen people respond as if I’m talking about political things, which I think is a clue to how many people are like, oh, you’re trying to cancel him.

That’s a liberal thing, right? So even the act of criticism itself has become, for some people politically polarized. Yeah. Which, which for, for a lot of people means that their doors are more wide open to absurd beliefs because they, they, they’ve gotten to the point where people trying to tell them that they’re being, you know, lied to.

By somebody with a long history of lies. Like even that in out of a political context, they now associate with political, you know, views. Right? So I think that helps us ex explain why people in like Joe Rogan’s listenership are, they have their minds wide open to absorb a lot of wacky and ridiculous ideas [01:09:00] because the, the methods for, for, uh, adequately debunking them, those people are getting them to be skeptical of them are now themselves in doubt.

So you’ve just, you know, and that’s not to say like, I, I I think we’ve all, you know, many people can behave in team-based ways for their team and such and, and be be more open to ideas than they should be. But I do think like people like Rogan and people in that sphere have really helped, you know, amplify that.

Because like, why wouldn’t Joe Rogan have vetted Chase Hughes? Why didn’t he care that he had this long string of like, easily disprovable claims about his expertise and his unethical, his various unethical behaviors. It’s like to, at some level, Joe Rogan himself thinks like that, like debunking people is like, you know, maybe we gotta give everybody a, a fair listen to.

Right? That’s kind of like a lot of people’s ideas, like, just hear ’em out. It’s like, well, why do you wanna listen to somebody, somebody who’s has a long rep sheet of. Telling obvious lies and exaggerations about [01:10:00] themselves. Like there’s plenty of people to listen to. I’m all, I’m all for being open-minded, but there’s risks and bad things that come when you’re just give everybody a platform.

Right. So That’s right. But yeah, I think that, I think that helps explain why some people are just like, no, you’re trying to cancel him. Canceling is bad. Uh, you know, 

Chris: so, no, you’re, you’re making a great point. You’re so spot on with that. There’s a, there’s a tradition that has actually developed in the United States specifically around the feeding of disinformation to a hungry public.

And it goes back to the eighties with the, uh, the creation of CNN, the 24 hour news cycle and Oprah Winfrey. Um, who, you know, there was the talk show format, the daily talk show format and you know, and I can’t speak to the seventies because the seventies had talk shows and variety shows, but infor, but they became more informational in format in the eighties.

And, you know, [01:11:00] Donahue flips over into Oprah, you know, and she comes out of this tradition and then she platforms people. Just like everything you just said about Joe Rogan applies completely to Oprah, uh, when she platforms Dr. Oz and, you know, Mr. Phil and these other people. Right. I don’t even call him Dr.

Phil. ’cause fuck that guy. And, and Dr. Phil had on chase and promoted him, and of course, exactly right. It’s the continuation of this. Yeah. You know, this ecosphere survives because these grifters grift on each other. Yeah. And feed each other. And, and the, and the lack of, see, for them in their world, the, the lack of vetting is a feature, not a bug, because it allows them to bring in exactly as you described.

Whoa. Let’s just hear him out. Let’s just hear what he has to say. Well, when you’re presenting that information as an irresponsible educator, um, whi, which I use the term very loosely, but it applies when you, when you’re an [01:12:00] irresponsible educator or you have no real moral foundations on whether objective truth is important or not, then you foist that off on millions of people who are not bringing their critical thinking skills.

And you are Oprah or Rogan, who by the sheer fact of having a big audience has created authority for yourself, you are biasing a bunch of people to accept bullshit. You’re not just giving it a fair shake, you are feeding it to people Yeah. With your authority. And this is where Oprah really has so much to answer for and so does Rogan.

Yeah. You know, because of the irresponsibility of their, of their position. 

Zach: Yeah. Um, and I think to so much of this just depends on people that are hungry for content too. It’s like they’re desperate to fill the empty airwaves. Right. So they’re like. How can I continue to get clicks? I have to keep bringing on some kind of sensational people [01:13:00] to keep my audience up and get the clicks going, oh, this, this guy talks about brainwashing and military PSYOPs.

I’ll bring him on it. Who cares if it’s a little, uh, you know, sketchy And maybe he is been debunked. He’s still, you know, let’s hear him out. Maybe he is got some, you know, he’s got some interesting ideas to listen to and, you know, and I’ll get a lot of clicks out of it at the same time. So. 

Chris: Exactly. And before it was clicks, it was Nielsen ratings and views and ad.

It’s all about those advertiser money. Um, it’s sad that we live in a consumer driven world where this is how content is determined. ’cause it’s entirely possible that, you know, and, and of course many, many times to give a fair shake. Oprah and Rogan have brought on completely legitimate people and had very interesting conversations with them and shared all kinds of stuff.

But as you mentioned, you know, controversy is what really sells and, and impacts on people. This, this is not new thinking. I understand, but it’s just part of the conversation. So I kind of have to put [01:14:00] it there. Not to mention I get so jacked about. 

Zach: Yeah, no, it’s just a new, it’s new, it’s new format. It’s new media.

Yeah, it’s, 

Chris: that’s right. 

Zach: And so much media, that’s the thing. It’s, there’s just so much content now. Yeah, 

Chris: that’s right. There were two other things I wanted to, to, to throw your way here, um, that I thought you might have interesting takes on. First is, I think. That there is something that we sort of, um, we talk about reasons and motivations for people accepting pseudoscience and nonsense and running with it.

And they’re all legit, right? You know, the, the, the, the attention economy, give it to me now. Short attention span theater. I, I have these problems. I don’t have a lot of time to research. So, you know, so give it to me quick and hopefully that will, you know, turn my life around or gimme some tools or whatever.

And, and if it’s NLP, great. If it’s Scientology, great, whatever it is, I don’t care. I just want it to work. And so we understand why people [01:15:00] would feed into that. But there’s another thing going on, which you mentioned with the divisiveness, and that is an underlying sentiment of massive levels of distrust in our institutions.

Um, and this has been a generational evolution. I think, uh, and I look at it strictly through an American lens that we, I think the same could be applied. Uh, I think the same, you know, template could be applied to Britain or to Europe, or to China or to any other country. Australia, certainly where the governments let them down.

Over and over and over again. Political figures have taken too much advantage. There have been scandals, there have been this, there’s been that, there have been systemic injustices that have been talked about. Um, you know, this, this whole woke thing is literally comes out of the recognition of [01:16:00] systemic injustice.

That’s where it comes from. And, and the idea that that’s not a true thing is ludicrous to any serious person. But the whole anti woke thing, you know, you bring the culture wars into this to try to fight it, but really what we’re talking about is distrust. And when people distrust educational institutions, academic institutions, government institutions, they go alt, they go looking for answers somewhere else that they can trust.

Mm-hmm. And this grift and this whole grift community, I think exists because of that distrust. What do you think about that? 

Zach: Yeah. Well, um, yeah, and I, and, and I to, not to, uh, promote my book, but if people are interested in what I write about polarization, you can look at my website, american anger.com, because I, yeah.

Distrust and I would say contempt for each other. You know, there’s, I, I, I think there’s a lot of real things to be upset about in society. Yep. And there’s also [01:17:00] just a natural dynamic that happens where, you know, polarization, toxic conflict makes people, you know, hate the other side more than they should, and they.

Not just hate them, but also become more afraid of them, become more pessimistic about what they are doing, you know? Yeah. So I think there’s all these levels of like, yes, there and there, and there’s many real things to build grievances on, because it’s very easy to build all sorts of narratives depending on what you focus on, right?

Like you can build all sorts of narratives. So we, we, we go through this toxic conflict thing where we’re building more and more pessimistic views of each other, which makes us more scared, more, uh, more angry, more contemptuous. We filter everything through those new views, and we find more evidence for our existing contempt and anger.

Uh, so yeah, I, I do think there’s this process by which there’s a fracturing, you know, that happens to any highly polarized nation where there comes to be like two, two, you know, institutions or systems of like, content and, um, [01:18:00] even like, you know, school schools or content creation or schools of thought or, uh, media, you know, obviously media.

But, um, yeah, I do think that the, the fracturing and the, and the distrust and the contempt all lead to, you know, WW when you’re, when you’re more polarized or, or when you’re more angry and, uh, you know, polarized in the sense of political narratives in general, like leaving aside, you know, which side is worse or these kinds of things, that it just becomes more easy when you’re, when you’re in a highly emotional state, you’re concerned, you’re, you’re angry, you’re, you’re scared.

It becomes easier to consume things that. Tie into that angry narrative and lead you down the rabbit hole of getting even angrier and more scared. So I think there’s all these things that work at, at work that relate to these channels of dumb, basically dumb content. Right. And yeah. Um, we’ve been focusing on specific ones, but I think there’s, there’s channels of like, you know, far left [01:19:00] thought I’ll call it, or, you know, liberal associated thought where people can behave in very emotional and, and team-based ways too.

Absolutely. So I think, you know, and regardless of which side, you know, any viewer perceives as at worse, as worse, I think it’s important to see like the human element of that where like emotions lead us to be more, uh, more dumb in, in, in, in some sense, you know, in, in a basic sense of the word to, to go down these rabbit holes where we go through confirmation bias of various sorts and we, we seek out things that align with our, our views, you know?

So, yeah, 

Chris: I don’t know. Absolutely. Absolutely. And, you know, which side is, uh, is always worse. The, the other side. That’s right. That’s right. It’s a hundred percent true. A hundred percent of the time. 

Zach: Yeah. I like to speak very carefully because I, I, I’ve, I’ve written these polarization books and trying to convince every one of the importance of the idea.

So I always like to try to work in, you know, depolarized uh, framings of the problem. Right. So 

Chris: abs and I [01:20:00] appreciate that because I, I want to do the exact same thing. I brought up the, the woke thing as, as an example of where it came from. But believe me when I tell you that, you know, during summer 2020, I was quite irate with the left and a lot of the nonsense going on.

Uh, I was in 

Zach: Portland, so I Yeah. Oh, you 

Chris: were in Portland. Oh, 

Zach: man. Yeah. So I, I lived there at the time, so I Whoa. Yeah. Had a bird’s eye or a close view of things. Yeah. It made me understand, it made me, it gave me a better sense of what conservatives were angry about for one thing. That’s right. 

Chris: That’s right.

I think that distrust thing is something that’s generational. I, I think it’s been around long enough and I, and I, and specifically since, uh, since we have brought up the m the, the, the, um, you know, government conspiracies and stuff that I think it’s worth commenting on this separately, uh, or, or in a little bit more detail, which is that people have.

Very good reasons to have this [01:21:00] distrust. I, I don’t want to paint a picture here that there’s all these delusional people and if they would just put their faith back in the institutions, everything would be great. I really don’t want to paint with such a simplistic brush. And so I want, so I, so I have to use my words here and say, let’s be clear that, you know, from the sixties forward, fifties forward, if we go back to McCarthyism, we have tons of reasons, a laundry list of reasons to, to validly and openly distrust our government.

Mm-hmm. From McCarthyism to, you know, the JFK assassinations to the Martin Luther King investigations and what the FBI was getting up to fighting the Civil Rights Movement in the sixties. The FBI was a fucking little terrorist organization during the sixties when it came to fighting the civil rights movement, let’s just call it what it was.

The j Edgar Hoover was a, was a nut, and he ran this little terrorist group with federal funding and it was horrible. What they, what, what happened [01:22:00] then? The assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The, the cultural revolution, the STA nation 

Zach: MK Ultra stuff, wacky and, and that, 

Chris: and then that, then MK Ultra gets revealed, and that’s of course a hundred percent in my world.

And MK Ultra is a horror show of Civil liberty violations and human rights violations perpetuated. On American soil by an institution, the CIA, that has no mandate to operate in America in any way, shape or form. And yet we’re doing human experimentations on unwitting citizens, uh, in lots of places, in lots of ways.

So many ways we don’t even know because they literally destroyed all the records, rather than fess up to the congressional investigations that revealed all of this. The only reason we know what happened in MK Ultra is ’cause they literally kept the receipts. It’s the invoices and receipts that we have [01:23:00] that tell us what they did.

That’s all we got. Mm-hmm. And that is so scary. And the reveals of it were so scary. And then we have, you know, PS op, um, SI investigations actually carried out. They really did it. They really looked into whether remote viewing was a thing. They, they, they, they experimented on some Scientologists, but they had their, you know, the Ingo Swan, they had his cooperation.

My point is that society has had some points of degradation and the government hasn’t been there. I mean, Nixon, Vietnam, I mean, holy cow, right? All these things. Then the government deregulation in the eighties, neoliberal economic policies, creating wealth inequality. There’s a lot of reasons for that distrust to exist that are 100% valid, right.

Yeah. So that I believe, is what feeds the validity of that. The fact that you can’t argue with those events [01:24:00] feeds the idea, well, shit, if the CIA is willing to engage in human experimentation on American citizens, on American soil, well then surely they might develop mind control techniques using Scientology.

Right, right. You know, it’s like, 

Zach: there, there’s a bad leap of logic there where it’s like, it’s like, I, I see that a lot. We’re, we’re out, we’re, I’ll talk about something and they’re like, we, well, this other thing happens, so like this is plausible. I’m like, sure, theoretically it’s plausible, but what evidence do you have?

Like, I, there’s many things that are plausible, but 

Chris: That’s 

Zach: right. And I do think it’s important. Yeah. It’s like, it’s important to recognize two things can be true. Like there’s many reasons to have, you know, to view the government or, or, or, or to come up with any. Narrative about any human endeavor that’s very negative.

’cause like any human endeavor is, uh, in general, are filled with all sorts of horrible things, right? So it’s very easy to be pessimistic and, uh, [01:25:00] distrustful of all sorts of things, I think. But then you have to recognize too, like, it’s also possible to be like way too pessimistic and distrustful where you’re not, you know, you’re, you’re leaping to conclusions that don’t have, you know, good validity to them.

And I think, I think, I think it’s important, but that’s a very hard line to thread where you can acknowledge both things and see that like, you know, sometimes we’ll be led down. Overly pessimistic and dark things, especially when it comes to like a perceived enemy. Like them, they’re this, this, this shadowy group is behind something, right?

It’s, it’s all, it’s all them. The, these evil people, right? That I think that’s where you get led down these, these very bad, uh. Paths that are, that are dangerous and even self-destructive. Yeah, 

Chris: absolutely. And I, I really, really believe that while we can talk about logical fallacies and good critical thinking and even emotional intelligence and the individual factors that drive people, if we don’t acknowledge that these truths are out there, that, that the government has done horrible things that has, [01:26:00] that has created a massive level of distrust in the citizenry, and they have good reason to be looking for the truth.

And there are things people want to believe, as we’ve talked about, you know, simple answers to complex questions like human behavior or how can I hire the right person at my job? Or how do I negotiate this deal? These are complicated processes and people want the cheat code, they want to get right to the hack and get right to the thing, right?

Mm-hmm. And, and this is where these grifters really find their sweet spot, is in these gray areas where things are a little nebulous, things are a little, well, it’s, it’s a little wishy washy. You have plausible, you know, it’s plausible. It’s pla I mean it’s plausible. The CIA took Hubbard’s material and put it in their interrogation manual.

It, it’s not really, but not until you know all the facts. It, does it become implausible? Right. Right. It’s 

Zach: possible and then 

Chris: possible. Yeah, that’s right. And so [01:27:00] people writing on that. Yeah, that’s right. But I believe it’s that, I believe that that sentiment of distrust is so built in and so strong in our nation now, that it has been the thing that has kind of emotionally opened the door to that to create that gray area that these guys live in.

Yeah. And if it wasn’t that, it would be something else. I mean, if, you know, it’s not like. Con men are not always gonna be around, but it’s just worth talking about it. It’s 

Zach: a self re Yeah. I do see a lot of this stuff is like self-reinforcing cycles. You know, it, um, they, all these things are, are, are related.

They, they, they feed into each other. You know, you, you, you, you start to hate the other side more. You’re more paranoid about them. You’re more likely to be believe conspiracy theories, which in turn makes you more angry and scared of them, et cetera, et cetera. That’s right. You know, it’s like, yeah. 

Chris: Yeah.

’cause once you find out the CIA a has done stuff in America, you’re kinda like, well, shit, they’ll just do anything, won’t they? Yeah. You know, and, and I gotta admit, I I, I got [01:28:00] big chips on my shoulder about that ’cause you know? Yeah, 

Zach: yeah. There’s, like you say, it’s, it’s important to be able to recognize horrible things have happened and then also still try to demand, um, high, high, high bar for believing uh, things currently.

Right? 

Chris: That’s right. Um, 

Zach: yeah, 

Chris: it’s a tough one. It’s a tough one. 

Zach: It’s the, and you, the Epstein stuff definitely didn’t, didn’t, that’s not, that’s not helping any, uh, conspiracy thinking, you know? 

Chris: Not at all. Because, ’cause you understand. And it was actually really quite something for me, even myself, to hit up against that.

’cause of course, I, I, I know the entire history of QAN and, and the four chan roots of it and all of that stuff. And yet, and you go, yeah, that’s all, you know, kids making up stories and it’s nonsense and it’s this and it’s that. But then you realize, no, wait a minute, there there is a stray of pedophiles.

You know, there is something going on here. Yeah. But is it this, you know, government wide thing? Of course. Right? That’s the it’s not, [01:29:00] come on. Yeah. I don’t, 

Zach: that’s a, that’s a perfect example of where people will be like, something bad is going on here. And I’ll use that as a reason to believe like the whole smorgasbord of bad stuff, right?

Chris: That’s right. That’s right. And before they know it, they’re down the flat earth rabbit hole. I mean it, you know, and, and, and at the end of the day, it’s all Lucifer. So, um, which is fascinating, by the way, on Flat Earth. That’s where it all goes to with Satan’s. 

Zach: Oh, I didn’t know that. Yeah. Yeah. 

Chris: It’s, it’s 90%, but about 95% religiously driven.

Zach: Oh, geez. I didn’t even know that. 

Chris: Yeah. Speaking of, um, there was another thing I wanted to bring up that I thought, I almost fell out of my chair when I learned this, and so I had to bring this up with you or to you. Um, chase Hughes suffers from temporal lobe epilepsy.

Um, do you want me to comment on that? Well, the reason I bring it up. Is very specific. And, and I don’t know that you’re gonna be familiar with this, which I think you’re gonna love hearing this. Okay. So temporal lobe epilepsy is the [01:30:00] most common form of epilepsy that’s out there. It’s a complicated subject.

And I am not a medical professional. So I am not commenting on this to say with certainty that this is what’s going on with Chase. But he has admitted openly and made videos and in fact, drifted off the fact that he is got TLE, you know, this brain damage and he makes this whole video and is selling this, you know, some kind of blue supplement or something, um, blue.

Yeah. Which really kind of just, of course he did. But here’s the thing about TLE that I think you might, uh, uh, that I don’t know if you know, we, I’ve done two podcasts in the past with, uh, uh, with a man, Dr. Yuval, who has forwarded a theory that El Ron Hubbard suffered from temporal lobe epilepsy. Hmm. And in fact, it is a, it is a growing.

Thought in the, in, in certain people in the ex cult space, myself, John Atac, um, Yuval and others that TLE, [01:31:00] uh, and epilepsy has for a long, long, long time, way preceding my lifetime, been called the religious disease. There’s a, there’s a religious component of extreme religious belief that tends to accompany certain forms or instances of epilepsy.

And El Ron Hubbard certainly had religious megalomania. Mm-hmm. Uh, as part of his feature set. But there’s a sub thing I wanted to talk to you about, which I didn’t know if you knew about, connected to TLE, which is called Gwan Syndrome. And it’s a group of behavioral phenomena evident in some people with TLE.

Not everybody who has TLE has suffers Gwan syndrome, but it’s an interesting thing to look at when looking for motivation or why would these guys be acting the way they’re acting? Um, because it didn it, it got Gwin [01:32:00] syndrome brings a certain phenomenon in the play that are just interesting. You just go, really?

That could be why he’s that way. Hmm. And it doesn’t justify any. Con it doesn’t make it okay. Right. It’s just interesting. Geen Syndrome brings about certain phenomena, five primary changes. Hypergraphia, which is writing a lot, like a lot, a lot. You, you, you express yourself in a lot of words. Uh, you write a lot.

El Ron Hubbard is one of the most prolific authors to have ever lived. Hypergraph is, is what we call that. I almost fell out of my chair when I downloaded Chase’s ellipsis manual and saw that it was 1400 pages long. I was like, holy shit man. I, I knew you had this book put together, but [01:33:00] Jesus, that’s a big book.

That’s Madam Watsky style writing. That’s huge. That’s El Ron Hubbard style writing. That’s hypergraphia. I went, huh. Right. So when I’m learning as TLE and I see that and I go, oh, that’s interesting. And there’s another aspect of it, which I wanted to ask you about in your deep dives on Chase Hyper religiosity.

Hmm. Some individuals may exhibit hyper religiosity that doesn’t have to be there. But I’m wondering if it is characterized by increased, usually intense religious feelings and philosophical interests and partial epilepsy. Patients experience frequent auras in, uh, and they get these, when they experience a temporal lobe, epilepsy seizure, it doesn’t look like a grand mal seizure.

They’re not flopping around on the ground. They go off [01:34:00] into some other place. It kind of looks like they skipped for a minute or something, but to them they might have gone off to some place and been there for a year. That’s, that’s what he says. Yeah. Yeah. Kind of spiritual or religious experience or a metaphysical, if they’re not religious, they may equate it to a metaphysical kind of experience.

Yeah. I don’t know if Chase has ever discussed anything like that, but it can, it can create extreme atheism as well as extreme religiosity, but it’s, it’s around that area of thinking. There’s grandiose, very exaggerated thinking. Right. 

Zach: Well, yeah, I think he is into that. Like he, he’s doing a lot of, uh, you know, spiritual kind of like, you know, uh, talking about psychedelics and stuff too, uh, talking about spiritual stuff.

But I will say, like I, I haven’t, I haven’t watched a lot of his, you know, content. I, [01:35:00] I, I watch specific things he’s made. I will say too, like the guy has lied so much about so many things. Like, I would have to be shown a respected doctor’s paperwork to believe he has that disease and, you know, got it. He could have that disease.

I’m not saying he does or doesn’t not, I’m just saying when someone has lied about so many things, I, I don’t, uh, and there there’s also is an element of more narcissistic people claiming, uh, thinking, being more, uh, hypochondriac in nature. So, 

Chris: fair enough. 

Zach: I just think, yeah. Yeah. He could, I’m not saying he doesn’t to be clear, uh, you know, uh, I, I’m just saying when somebody has said as many lies as you, as you said, it’s good to take things with a big grain of salt until you can prove it.

Yeah, 

Chris: yeah. Absolutely. Fortunately, you know, he is someone who could get brain scans and we could prove that. Yeah. Uh, I have wondered about Warner Earhart, the, the founder of EST as someone who [01:36:00] may also, you know, suffer from this condition. It’s, once you see it, you start thinking, huh. It’s thought Edgar Gowan Poe may have suffered from this condition.

Certainly John the Baptist is his big, you know, moment on the road, you know, with the light and everything. It’s kinda like, eh, 

Zach: well, maybe, yeah. I mean, it’s possible. Yeah. 

Chris: Yeah. There’s, it certainly is interesting to, to, to have it as a, as a potential explanation for what would cause someone to be this way.

Zach: Yeah. You know? Yeah. It’s, it can be very hard to understand, um, some people’s way of being, because even just on a, you know, even on, just on the level, like, it seems like a very stressful way to live to me. But, uh, you know, that’s a, um, it’s an interesting way, way to, to, to live. And, um, yeah, it’s, it’s very hard for me to understand a lot of people these days.

Chris: It’s [01:37:00] hard. It is hard, and it’s, and it’s hard to get your head around the fact that someone can grift and yet believe in their grift. Yes. You know? Yeah. And yet I’ll put out there that I think my, my, I, I’m thinking, I’m, I, I’m wondering aloud when I say stuff like this is still a forming sort of theory, I guess you could say.

I, if I dare call it that, um. Knowing what I know about my own experience and, and the experience of so many other people in the Church of Scientology and, and other cult, ex cult members that I’ve interviewed over the years, the power of belief and determination to enact those beliefs to make a better world can look so much like narcissism because you’re so determined and you’re so sure you’re right, and you’re, and you’re willing to [01:38:00] adopt and ends justify the means mentality to achieve your goals.

Right. That it can look like a narcissistic, self-centered megalomaniac expression, but you’re really just so much on a crusade, right? You know that from the outside it can look like that. And I’m not, and I’m not, again, this is not an effort on my part to mitigate responsibility. Explain it away. You know, I, I did horrible things when I was in Scientology.

I’m not a narcissist, but I was certainly a determined crusader. 

Zach: Yeah. No, I think that’s an, yeah, no, I think that’s an important distinction. When I interviewed somebody from my podcast about, uh, psychopathy, we got on the topic of how there can be, you know, there, there’s so much simplistic thinking in a lot of these realms where it’s like, yeah, if you’re a true, if you really believe something and you’re a true believer in a crusader, you are gonna act in ways that seem.

You know, that seem or are sociopathic or narcissistic, you know, there can, [01:39:00] there can be many factors involved in bad behavior in general, but yeah, I think there is, there’s too often a tendency to just be like, oh, they’re a narcissist. They’re a sociopath. What? Whatever it is. Yeah, 

Chris: that’s right. And given the different forms of narcissism, I mean, maybe it could be classified as a kind of narcissism.

’cause you do also have benign narcissistic behavior and, you know, there’s various categories and boxes that people are creating for this to try to, and, and at the end of the day, these are just words to try to explain behavior. But yeah, it’s, um, I find it interesting. So I wanted to throw it at you to see what you thought about those things and, and that, that there’s, yeah, that’s interesting.

Yeah. 

Zach: No, I think it’s, yeah, I mean, a big part of my podcast work is examining some things that people approach with two simplistic, you know, a lens and trying to see that there can be many factors at work. And you know, that just because somebody behaves badly doesn’t make them necessarily just, you know, a narcissist or a psychopath or whatever, you know, uh, [01:40:00] see, trying to see the nuance and not just like embracing our simplistic labels because they make us feel good is, I think is, is important and related to what, what we’re talking about too.

Yeah. 

Chris: Yeah. Absolutely. What are you, what are your take? And you know, you’ve written books on this now. You’ve certainly have done some wonderful podcast articles, podcasts and articles. Um, you, you really go outta your way to get it all written out too and stuff, which I really appreciate. It’s, it’s really wonderful diving into your stuff.

Zach: I need, I need, I need to really present the Chase Hughes stuff specifically because I got so many people coming to me being like, Hey, you’re just, you’re just angry. You’re just jealous. So I was like, I need to really put this in a really easy to summarize thing, which I don’t think, I still don’t think it could, isn’t the best form, but hopefully I, I think most people read it and thank me, you know, that’s by and not, you know, 90 plus percent of people, uh, know what’s going on when they read, you know, the summary of, of Chase Hughes.

But I still get people being like, that’s just a bunch of things. That’s just a, he [01:41:00] was just doing a fake it till you make it approach. That’s just normal stuff. I’m like, um, if you think that’s normal, like I just, I I I wouldn’t wanna trust you with any business or personal decisions, but, you know, no accounting for ethics.

Uh, 

Chris: no, no, there isn’t. And it’s really, it’s, it’s the, that distrust factor I think really messes with people’s morality and willingness to compromise morality, you know? 

Zach: Yeah. There’s a, there’s a lot of suspending of judgment if, you know, if somebody is per, if you like somebody or, you know, there’s a lot of like.

You know, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt kind of stuff. Yeah, 

Chris: that’s right. Fundamental attribution, error reign, supreme, uh, you know, that, that I’ll, I’ll give myself a pass where I’ll judge others more harshly, kind of, kind of, uh, fallacy, right? It’s, it’s just lives so large in this, in this space.

Do use, beyond what we’ve discussed is, are there other factors at play, do you think [01:42:00] behind the, the, the motivation of people to, to lift up the, these folks like, like Chase Hughes? 

Zach: Um, I’m sure there are, but I feel like we’ve touched on some of the major ones. You know, the 

Chris: basic stuff. Yeah. 

Zach: I think, I think, uh, you know, distrusting or wanting to knock the establishment or, or some, or some disliked, you know, group or system is, is a big part.

And then you’ve got the wanting to get clicks and attention part of it. Um, yeah, I think those are, those are some of the two major ones. Yeah. Yeah. Two of the, two of the major ones for sure. Yeah. 

Chris: Yeah, I think so too. I, I, I, I, I’ll bring, I’ll throw one other thing into the mix and then maybe we can move toward wrapping up.

I, I, I have, I’ve loved having this talk with you today. It’s been really nice. Thank you. Me too. Yeah. Thank you for doing this. Um, I, I, I was impressed by, uh, a podcast I saw when I was doing, uh, you know, the, the thing in Scientology that they have that bypasses a lot of the need for watching people’s eyes and paying attention [01:43:00] to their body language and stuff, is they have this e-meter.

Right. And this thing is famous, right? Or infamous. And it is really just one third of a lie detector. And, and, and that’s it. That’s all it is. It’s just measuring skin resistance. And I’ve done, in doing all the research that I did, and it took me, uh, way longer than it should have. But I, I really wanted to be thorough, um, to debunk it.

I did a whole video debunking this thing, uh, for, you know, that I hope ex Scientologists at least will watch ’cause they’re the most vested in believing that this thing works. Even after they leave Scientology, they still think it works. And there’s the, the, the, the amount of indoctrination in Scientology around this device and the round of mythic lore surrounding it is incredible.

It’s, it, it’s not a minor part of Scientology. So it bypasses the need for a lot of this, you know, more micro expression tuned psychology, right? Because you [01:44:00] just have the meter and the ni and the needle goes and there it is. And, okay, tell me what you just thought of. ’cause you’re clearly got an answer to this question I just asked you.

’cause it reacted, you know, that’s about the simplicity of how it works there. And I watched a, um, CIA, I think it was a CI or FBI, uh, uh, polygraph operator. Talk on a podcast, she’d been retired, now she does it in the business world or whatever. And she spoke much, much, much more intelligently about the efficacy of this device.

The, the, of the, of the polygraph, not the, she wasn’t talking about the meter, but about the polygraph in general and how you would actually use it in the real world versus what you see on Maury Povich or what you see on, you know, TV or whatever. Uh, with the sensationalistic, you know, we put your fiance on a lie detector and guess what?

You know, you’re fucked. That, that’s, that’s that, that’s never good. I guess I’m bringing this up to demonstrate that, [01:45:00] um, she spoke with so much nuance. Mm. Mm-hmm. You, you get a reaction to something all, you know, there’s a reaction. Mm-hmm. You do not know in any way, shape or form as a polygraph operator why it reacted the way that it did.

And to assume you do would be a mistake. Right. And this is a pro level, did it for decades, person doing that work. Right. And that’s where I think we get a recognition that it’s that, that, that we can move past the pseudoscience a little bit when we have somebody able to talk with nuance that way. With like, Hey, look, it’s not, there are no certain answers here.

This is a window. This is an opportunity for me to get this person to talk. Maybe there’s something to expose or maybe they just had, you know, a stomach ache right now, right? I, I don’t know yet. Mm-hmm. But people just want that [01:46:00] No, it certainty lied. You know, like they just want that fast thing. Right?

That’s where the nuance disappears. Yeah. The desire for certainty. 

Zach: Yeah. I think, um, I, I, I, I, long ago, I, years ago I had an idea for a, a, a book that would just be about how the desire for certainty, you know, is like our core human, uh, weakness and problem, you know, because at lead we, we just, the existential, you know, angst and anxiety of living in an uncertain world where, you know, it’s hard to find meaning, and we doubt the meanings of things, and we are always searching for meaning.

It’s like we’re always looking for things that we can grasp onto that are, that are certain that we know, right? And that’s like, I, I, I just think that’s such a base level, like thing that explains so much bad human behavior. You know, malignant, uh, behavior, malicious psych, psychopathic behavior, narcissistic behavior.

It’s like we really crave the certainty [01:47:00] about ourselves in the world. And so we are drawn to these, grasping onto these things that give us some sense of solidity and. We that we’re, you know, maybe that we’re above other people or that we know better than other people, or that we have the secret that other people don’t, or that we’ve finally latched onto the meaning that will make sense of this crazy world, you know?

So, um, yeah. I do think so much of that comes down to like, we really, we really wanna know things because it is comforting to know things. Yeah, 

Chris: yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Well, after you’ve, after all the stuff you’ve read and studied at this, ’cause you’ve done deep dives just like I have on this stuff for years now.

What’s, what’s your basic takeaway about people reading, if you were going to sort of summarize it or put it into some easy to understand principles? 

Zach: Well, I think, uh, hard to sum up, but I, I think, uh, like I said, the, I think the verbal stuff is so much more, uh, verbal statements, you know, statement [01:48:00] analysis is so much more important than, uh, and meaningful and reliable than, than, uh, studying, uh, nonverbal, you know, body language.

Um, I do think there are things you can pick out. I mean, I, I think the, one of my big things which I have been meaning to make a podcast about is the difference between more formal environments like games and sports and, you know, more open-ended things like real world situations like interrogations or interviews or, you know, that when you get into situations where there’s a more formal thing going on where.

Say, there’s a very clear dynamic where like, you wanna win this poker hand and there’s certain things you must do in the poker hand in the context of that poker hand. And there’s certain feelings that often arise that are very polarized, right? It’s like you’re either you, you know, you’re bluffing or you know you’re gonna win often, you know, um, or near certainly know you’re gonna win.

Uh, so there, there’s very polarized ranges of emotion that, and, and you’re, and you’re doing a very specific [01:49:00] activity that, that does not map over at all to like an interrogation or an interview or real world scenarios where you could be having a range of different motivations, a range of different emotions, and you’re not nearly in this polarized state where you’re like bluffing or not bluffing.

So it’s just to say the, the context matters a lot for these kinds of things, and that’s helps explain why. You know, I wrote books about poker tells, and I believe you can find a lot of information there. And yet I’m extremely skeptical about people that claim you can get all this information out of real world situations, right?

So the context, I think, and, and the environment is very important for figuring out if you can deduce, um, reliable or uh, reliable information from behavior of, of whatever sort. So I think that’s very important. And you know, a lot of people are confused by that. They’re like, oh, you wrote books on poker tells you have to be into all this other stuff that people are, you know, uh, claiming you can get from stuff.

I’m like, no. Like in most real world situations, I [01:50:00] find it very hard to know what people are, are thinking or what their goals are, other than like, a lot of, there’s a lot of obvious stuff that goes on, right? Like, you know, in poker, in any game, just as in the real world, sometimes there’s very bad players, right?

Like, you can, you can sometimes get a sense like watching the interrogation. You can tell, you know, like somebody’s like a very unskilled criminal and they’re giving a lot of information away by how they act or, you know, how they behave or how they speak. Uh, you’re like, this guy’s clearly guilty. Like, there’s clearly like unskilled and skilled practitioners.

But when it comes to like most real world scenarios, it’s very hard to get reliable information about what somebody’s thinking because people are just good at deceiving you, right? They’re, they’re good at, they’re, most people are pretty good at distracting you from what they don’t wanna tell you. Or, uh, you know, most people are pretty good at acting nonchalant when they’re actually nervous.

You know, Mo most people are pretty good at these things. So to, to think that you could easily get, you know, reliable information, like clear cut information about like, [01:51:00] what somebody’s telling you in a interview, uh, or, you know, a political speech or whatever it may be. It’s, it’s quite hard. Uh, you know, o other than the, the, but that is to say that there’s still a lot of information you can get, but most of it’s in like the words that people use, right?

Like a politician is asked a question and they deflect from it and they clearly don’t want to answer it. Why? Why don’t they want to answer? That could be for many reasons, right? We don’t know if it’s because they’re have something to hide or they’re uncomfortable, they wanna talk about something else.

But a lot of the things that we can deduce are like quite surface level things that a lot of people just deduce every day about other people, right? So a, a lot of the most meaningful stuff is just like due to critical thinking about like, what is this person trying to do? And like to delve into all this, like, wishy-washy body language stuff is like missing the abundance of information we have about people.

That’s right there. On the surface that we could be like, well, why didn’t he answer that question when he was asked? Or, or why did he use this language to de why did he use this [01:52:00] ambiguous language to describe something when he could have u used more specific language? Or why did he not directly deny his involvement?

Why did he use ambiguous language to, to, to, to deny it? There’s all this stuff that we could be actually using our intellect to examine that’s much more reliable than, uh, you know, where somebody was looking when they spoke or if they looked a little nervous, you know, like who I, I’m nervous most of the time.

I would get, you know, I get interviewed in any, any situation, like, what does it, what does it mean, you know? Uh, so yeah, that’s kind of my rough summary. 

Chris: Yeah. That actually brings to mind one other thing, um, which was, I’m a little disturbed by this, and maybe you can comment on it more than, more than I know about the proclivity or the, the sort of.

The fact that not only are corporate negotiators or recruiters getting involved in this stuff, but so is law enforcement and has been for quite some time [01:53:00] looking for ways to read people, to understand people, to get answers outta people. I think there are very few people in this world more motivated to try to learn all the hacks and shortcuts to the human mind than law enforcement.

And I’m talking about police, I’m talking about, you know, FBI, all of it, right? And we hear endless stories about behavioral analysis and behavior profiling. Um, which the FBI was incredibly reluctant to get into back in the day because, you know, uh, just, you know, uh, assuming people were evil and the criminal mind as J Edgar Hoover likes to talk about, uh, was a very popular meme back before behavioral analysis and understanding people became a thing.

Um, so now they are readily adopting. Chase you stuff, you know, like they’ll, they’ll go to these seminars and, and workshops and learn this stuff too. What am I, right? Am I off base with this? Uh, this is my [01:54:00] understanding of what’s going on. 

Zach: Well, uh, I don’t really, I think it’s hard to say like, how many people are into this stuff, right?

Like 

Chris: mm-hmm. 

Zach: Because it’s not clear to me like how many people are paying Chase Hughes for his guidance, right? Like, okay. Um, so I think it’s important to, you know, keep in mind that it’s hard to say who’s using this really. Uh, I think one time Chase said, chase said recently, he, he was asked that question about who comes to his, you know, who, who gets his one-on-one training or, or, or in-person training kind of stuff.

And he said something like, I think it was like business people and, uh, therapists or something. It, it, I don’t, I’m, I’m not even sure he mentioned, uh, law enforcement or anything like that. Oh, I thought he had, 

Chris: maybe I’m misread. 

Zach: I mean, he, he, he definitely mentions, he definitely says that they use him.

Mm-hmm. He definitely says that. But when he was asked specifically about who comes to his trainings kind of question. 

Chris: Mm. 

Zach: So it just made me think like, [01:55:00] mm, there’s a, there’s a doubt about who, who exactly is coming and how many of them, right? Like, we don’t have in, we don’t have insight into, into that really.

Uh, but to your point, you know, I do think, uh, law enforcement has become. You know, in, in the sense that they’ve, they’ve had a lot of, there’s been a lot of negative articles about them using, you know, uh, debunked or un untrustworthy process behavior, right. Reading processes. The, so they, some, some departments have faced, uh, pushback for using these kind of like wishy-washy behavior reading, uh, processes.

So I think there, on the plus side, I think there, there can be at least for the, like more, you know, established, reputable kind of places. There’s more, I think there’s more cognizance of like, we, we don’t want to get bad press by like embracing some training. I do, I do think it more often happens that individuals are, are going off and getting the training on their own, right.

Because they’ve, they, they’ve thought like, oh, this, this could be cool. Um, but yeah, as far as like, I haven’t really [01:56:00] seen, you know, evidence recently of, of, of law enforcement embracing these ideas at like a department kind of level. But I could be wrong. I haven’t, I haven’t delved into it. Um, yeah, 

Chris: yeah, no, I haven’t seen it at the departmental level either.

I’ve just been concerned because all the way, going back to the Satanic panic days, the grifters who were pushing satanic cells and cults exist in every town and they’re, they’re hiding in every barn and don’t, you know. Right. And, and I saw so much media. Of sheriffs and county. Yeah. You know, and state and city level troopers all the way back to then.

And I’m not, yeah. I’m not just drawing, connecting those dots, but from that time forward, I’ve seen these, you know, pseudo psychological methodologies you could say, sort of insinuate themselves in and [01:57:00] out of these law enforcement agencies over the years. For sure. And I’ve always kind of bookmarked it a little bit like, oh, that’s, that’s not right.

That’s not good. 

Zach: Yeah. There’s, there’s plenty of, there’s plenty of, yeah, there’s plenty of evidence and write-ups about departments using the NLP kind of ideas, you know? Yeah. Like the, the eye direction and, and these kinds of things. And also, like, there’s, yeah, there’s other, there’s some other behavioral wishy-washy stuff that’s been covered from time to time.

Uh, but yeah, it, it, I think it, it is a problem. I think, uh, I think, I think it’s, I I definitely cannot say how big a problem it is these days. Uh, but I do think, yeah, it’s, I, I think the other nice thing, uh, positive thing too is, and I’ve covered this a little bit in one of my episodes, where it’s like, I, I think as long as like there’s all sorts of theoretical ideas people can learn, right?

Like that, that have, you know, low to high meaning or, or proof. I, I, I think, I think that’s not, [01:58:00] it’s not necessarily a problem for, for officers. If we’re talking about individual officers to go off and learn this stuff, not department level. I, I, I think it, in practice, it’s not as big a problem as it might be because I think a, in practice how it happens is like they’re just compiling a lot of theoretical ideas and in practice it doesn’t actually play out to be meaningful because they really, they still have to like, get evidence for pursuing someone as a suspect.

So like, if it plays a role at all, it’s, it’s, it’s usually in like these minor things, like, like how often do they have a suspect where they, you know, how often are, are cops pursuing a suspect that they don’t have like actual evidence on? Right. So I, I think it, it usually doesn’t play out where they’re like accusing them based on a body language thing and that like, I know you did it.

You know? I, I don’t think it plays out like that. I, I think it’s more just like for the people that embrace it. It’s like, I think it could play out that way, don’t get me wrong, but I think for a lot of people it’s like they’re, they’re just perusing all [01:59:00] these ideas and then like, it, it actually doesn’t really play a role because most of the people who learn that stuff just know it’s like, could be true, it could be reliable, but they don’t have much, you know, it’s not like they have like high confidence and they’re gonna base like some important police decision on it.

So that’s, that’s just to say like, some things could be bad, but I also think the way it plays out in practice, even, even for people that believe a lot of weird stuff, it doesn’t actually play that bigger role when it comes down to the actual procedures they follow. Yeah, 

Chris: fair enough. Fair enough. Well, I wanted to bring it up as a point because it’s, it’s, it’s in, it’s a series of individuals in our country.

There’s only so many thousands of police officers, and yet those people hold an inordinate amount of power in their hands and literally the power of life and death. And so their split second decisions or how they interpret the world matters in a significant way to all of our general health and wellbeing.

And so this is why when stories of cop abuse come up, they’re so incendiary because [02:00:00] we’ve put so much power in those people and they, they’re the ones who get to walk around openly with guns and we don’t even look twice. Right? 

Zach: Yeah. 

Chris: And, and 

Zach: I, I definitely don’t wanna downplay it. It’s like, like I said before, I think that’s the insidious harm of a lot of this stuff because a lot of people will use it to just.

Basically engage in confirmation bias where they’re like, oh, I saw him look this way now. I know, you know, now I know he’s, he’s guilty. So, I mean, I to say, I, I, I do think that that is a danger for a lot of these wishy-washy ideas of various sorts where they’re, some cops may just be like, oh, now I’m extra certain in my read that they’re guilty.

Right. 

Chris: That exa ’cause that’s gonna make them double down on extracting a forced confession, for example. For sure. 

Zach: Yeah. Or abuse. Yeah. A forced confession. Yeah. Various ways. Yeah. Various ways of a, a abusing someone who shouldn’t be like Yeah. Roughly interrogated or, 

Chris: that’s right. That’s right. 

Zach: But yeah, Uhhuh, it’s, it’s a thing.

I, I just, I just think, um, on the plus side, I think, [02:01:00] I think, uh, it, it may not be, it may not play out as often. There might be a reason you don’t often hear about the behavioral stuff playing a role Yeah. In these things. Yeah. 

Chris: Fair enough. No, no, you’re, and you’re absolutely right. And I, and I don’t wanna overstate the case.

I, I really just wanted to bring the subject up because I have concerns and yes, I’m the first to admit that some of those concerns are, um, from ignorance. And I, and I own that. Um, ’cause I don’t know exactly precisely the training programs of, of all the cops. They, they have lots of them. But when these grifters get into those spaces and they do that, that, I have no question about that.

Yeah. They’re not helping the situation at all. Right. And we, and it’s just something that people don’t think about too much. ’cause we talk almost exclusively about the public, the general public who fall or the vulnerable and emotional, vulnerable public or the senior citizens or the religious extremists.

And we kind of categorize these victims as, you know, sort of in these different [02:02:00] groups that, that are not cops. We, we think of the authority figures as kind of above this and, you know, they would never fall for this and Oh no, they’re just as human and please understand that they definitely fall for it.

Zach: Yeah, for sure. 

Chris: You know? 

Zach: No, they, they definitely, uh, yeah, it would be, it would be good to know. I think the one interesting thing about Chase is like, the one official thing I could find him involved in like a depart at a department level was like some small, like, it was like something to do with some like small naval, uh, legal or law enforcement thing.

But that was like the only thing I could find where somebody had embraced him at some department level. And even then, it wasn’t even clear what he did. It was just like somebody mentioned him as if like he had maybe come to some event. So yeah. Just to say it’s, it’s hard to get an insight into like where these people are getting their, their hooks into various places.

Yeah, 

Chris: that’s right. It comes up in weird, surprising ways. And you, and you’re, and you’re, sometimes you’re really shocked at, at, at where stuff happens. I’m, I, I, I [02:03:00] am I just to, just to put the cherry on top of this and we can wrap it up. Um, there was a, um, there was some movie and, and Adam, uh, driver was in it.

It was about the, um, enhanced interrogation techniques that the CIA a or that the military were using at Abu Gabi and Guantanamo and, and various places. And of course, I am rabid against any form of an, of what so-called enhanced interrogation, meaning torture. Um, that, that it is the euphemism. They acknowledge it as such.

This has been as subject to congressional hearings. And in fact, the, the report that some of these congressional, uh, investigators got, they made this movie about, and the, and the, and the, the, the, the, the torture methodology, you could say that they were adopting was coming from a couple private contractors.

It wasn’t even developed internally. It was, they hired out for it and these guys came in and said, oh yeah, here’s what you do, da da da da, and here’s all these. Then they have this [02:04:00] whole array of procedures that were guaranteed to extract information from people and it, and this was torture. And so, um, so even there, you know, these, who are these private contractors?

Well, a couple of idiots. That’s obviously who they were. And, and they sold, you know, this bill of goods that we can extract the goods from people if we hurt them enough in, in enough creative interesting ways. And that’s just not, and we now know that doesn’t work either. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Even down to the, even down to beating on people.

And you still can’t be sure they’re telling you the truth. Right. Which was the classic problem. I, I thought of it because we, when we were talking about the police, the, the third degree used to be official police policy until human rights activists put a stop to it. And then psychological warfare became the way to extract information from criminals or potential criminals.

And that’s why this has so much appeal in that world. I think. So [02:05:00] just like I said, it’s not my main line, but it’s just something I wanna 

Zach: Yeah, no, it’s, yeah. No, it’s good to be, yeah. We, you definitely wanna be skeptical about the ideas that are getting in these institutions and divisions of various sorts.

Yeah. 

Chris: Yeah. Exactly. Now, getting back to you, ’cause I wanna wrap this up and I want to, um, give you a chance to. Talk some more. Okay. Because I’m, I’m dominating this conversation. Oh. Um, what, what other, what other things do you or are you going to be looking into now? You’ve mentioned a few things you wanna do some podcasts on.

Uh, where, where are you going with your work now? ’cause you’re, you, you’re so adjacent to so much of what I do and I’m, I’m just, I’m absolutely, I, I just love your work, so Oh, thanks. Just wanna know. Yeah, I wanna, I wanna connect people with you and what you’re doing. 

Zach: Oh, thank it. It means a lot. I mean, I don’t, I don’t get that many people telling me that, so it definitely means a lot.

Um, yeah, I, uh, well, I, I just recently moved to New York and started a new relationship and a new job, so I, I don’t have that [02:06:00] much free time these days, you know? Uh, a 

Chris: lot more. 

Zach: Yeah. I mean, yeah. And the, and the podcast obviously takes some, some effort. Uh, so I’m kind of struggling with that. Um, I don’t know what’s gonna happen with that ’cause Yeah, it’s, it’s hard to juggle all the things I got going on right now.

Chris: Alright. 

Zach: Uh, but yeah, I don’t have any, I don’t have any firm plans. Um. But if you’re, if you, if you’re curious, you can follow my [email protected] if anyone’s curious about that. But yeah, sorry, I don’t have any specific plans right now. Now it’s just struggling, struggling to get by and, you know, figure out what to do with myself.

Chris: I hear you. I’m in the same boat. Um, this is, this is what I love to do, but it’s hard to do it. Um, so thank you very much for coming on my show, Zach. I really appreciate it. 

Zach: Thanks, Chris. I really appreciate it. It is honored to be asked. 

Chris: Yeah. Uh, you, you, like I said, you do good work. [02:07:00] Uh, behavior podcast.com.

Link is in the description section below folks, so you can check that out down there. Uh, and if you’re listening to this on an audio only podcast version, the link is also in the description section for this podcast today. So, um, you can check out, uh, his podcast and his YouTube channel, and I encourage you to do so.

Um, it’s just the kind of stuff I like watching, you know, a methodical, uh, systematic deep dive into nonsense. And let’s take it apart and thanks. And, and some wonderful look at, you know, like I try to do like deep dives with professionals. Like, let’s really talk about this. Let’s talk about hypnotism, let’s talk about neuroscience.

Let’s my detector, let’s talk about behavioral analysis, right? Yeah. 

Zach: Lie detector. I got a polygraph one on there. Yeah. Ah, 

Chris: yeah. Love it. All this stuff. So, um, it’s [02:08:00] complicated folks. Sorry. Didn’t make the rules. It’s just how it is. It’s, it, it’s not, it’s not easy to understand. Um, but boy is it fun. Okay, on that happy note, thank you very much for coming around and watching us babble on to mad right about all of this.

Very much appreciate your viewership and support out there and, uh, hope that I will see you again next week. Bye-bye.

I recently wrote a piece about political polarization for the site, The Liberal Patriot, titled “It’s all the other side’s fault.” That piece included some ideas I think are very important for understanding toxic conflict, but that are rarely discussed. For example, I think group differences are an important aspect of conflict; groups in conflict will always have various differences, and those differences mean that rage and fear will manifest in very different ways. These differences make it easy for people in both groups to find bad or extreme aspects about the quote “other side” that aren’t present for their own side. This in turn aids people in both groups in finding what seems like compelling, persuasive evidence that the toxic conflict they’re in is “all the other side’s fault.” No matter what your politics are, I think it’s important to understand conflict dynamics; when we lack a good understanding of how conflict works, we’ll tend to act in ways that further inflame and amplify the conflict — ironically, we’ll often act in ways that give more power and strength to our most angry and contemptuous opponents. 

You can find The Liberal Patriot at liberalpatriot.com. This piece of mine was published September 19th 2025. If this topic interests you, you might like checking out that piece because it has quite a few resources linked from it. Here is the episode:

• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify
• YouTube

What if your consciousness, your self-awareness, isn’t unique at all—but the very same “I” that exists in everyone, everywhere? What if you and I—and everyone—are essentially the same person? In this episode, I talk with Joe Kern, author of “The Odds of Existing: On Open Individualism and the Illusion of Death” about Open Individualism: the radical view that there is only a single subject of consciousness, which is shared by all aware beings. Put another way: instead of seeing your odds of existing—your odds of being self-aware at this moment—as being extremely low, it’s a view of your existence as inevitable, because wherever there is a conscious being, your awareness must be present.

Joe and I explore the logic of this idea, how it challenges our assumptions about identity and existence, common objections to the idea, and what it implies about death. Other topics discussed: religion, the idea of souls, free will, and the multiverse. Joe’s website is at applebutterdreams.wordpress.com. 

Episode links:

• YouTube (includes video)
• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify

Resources mentioned in this talk, or related/recommended: 

• Joe Kern’s website, featuring his book The Odds of Existing: On Open Individualism and the Illusion of Death
  • His posts on the TV show Severence
• Wikipedia entry on Open Individualism
• Arnold Zuboff’s paper One Self: The Logic of Experience, and associated reddit thread
  • Zuboff’s Ask-me-anything on Reddit
• Daniel Kolak’s book I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations of Global Ethics
  • A reddit thread about that book
• Derek Parfit’s famous book Reasons and Persons, which contains ideas and thought experiments often referenced in work on consciousness and Open Individualism 
• Iacopo Vettori’s work on Open Individualism
• The site of Mineta Oliver (née Jurášková), a.k.a. Edralis, where she writes about what she calls “Awareness Monism”
• Related concept: Wikipedia entry for the “vertiginous question,” aka, “Why am I me and not someone else?”
  • Reddit thread on the vertiginous question 

An episode of mine: What it’s like to live without a belief in free will

TRANSCRIPT

(All transcripts will contain errors)

Zach Elwood: What if I told you there are some very smart people who believe that every person who exists, who has ever existed, is essentially the same person? If you aren’t already familiar with this concept, your instinct is probably to dismiss this as a crazy idea. That was my reaction when I first heard about the idea. But the more I delved into this idea, and read the logical and philosophical arguments for it, the more I came to see that this wasn’t some kooky New Age type idea. It’s an idea with a lot of logical points supporting it, and it’s an idea that resolves a lot of the perplexing and confusing aspects of consciousness and existence that many thinkers have puzzled over. It also happens to dovetail with ideas about consciousness found in Buddhist thought. 

This idea goes by different names. The most common name for this idea is Open Individualism, coined by Daniel Kolak, who is perhaps the person most well known for this idea. He’s a philosopher and the author of a book titled I Am You: The Metaphysical Foundations for Global Ethics. Another name for this idea is Universalism, coined by Arnold Zuboff, who is also well known for promoting this view. Arnold is known for a 1990 paper on this topic titled “One Self: The Logic of Experience.” He also has a book coming out titled “Finding Myself: BEYOND THE FALSE BOUNDARIES OF PERSONAL IDENTITY.” 

I’ll read from the foreword of that book, written by the well known philosopher Thomas Nagel: 

Zuboff proposes and defends with creative philosophical arguments a radically original conception of the mind, according to which the distinction between selves – between me and you, for example – is an illusion. There is only one subject of consciousness; it is the subject of all consciousness, and it is equivalent to the first-person immediacy shared by all conscious experience. The separate bundles of experience in the lives of distinct conscious organisms do not have separate subjects, but share a universal quality of subjective immediacy, which it is easy for each of us to mistake for a unique individual “I” in our own case. 

End quote 

So that’s a pretty succinct summary of what the idea is about, although of course if this idea is new to you, there will be much more to say before you grasp it. 

Nagel goes on to say: 

Both the conclusion and the argument will certainly seem incredible, even outrageous, to many readers, but the whole is presented with such care and skill that it should be regarded as an important contribution even by those who are not persuaded. The relation of the mind to the world is so mysterious that it is not philosophically reasonable to dismiss any view, however radical, out of hand.  

End quote 

I wanted to start out emphasizing that there are some serious and respected thinkers who explore and believe this idea, to help show that it is far less kooky than you may at first be inclined to suppose. Thinking it’s kooky is entirely natural; paradigm-shifting views will all sound pretty kooky at first; they may even strike us as threatening and angering, too, in various ways.   

In this episode, I’ll talk to Joe Kern, who writes about Open Individualism on his blog, and in his book The Odds of Existing. Joe is not as well known as the philosophers I’ve mentioned, but he has been thinking about these ideas for a long time, and I think he has some strong and I think highly accessible writings on this topic. If you’re a fan of the TV show Severance, you can find some pieces by Joe that tie in Severance to Open Individualism. You can find Joe’s site at https://applebutterdreams.wordpress.com. Also, you can get a free copy of Joe’s book on his site. 

Joe’s work has focused on what I see as a strong angle of attack for demonstrating this idea to people. In the quote ”normal” view of what we are as people, many people see their own existence, their sense of being present in the world, of “being here now,” as something that happened against all odds; as something hugely improbable and unlikely. In this view of things, some unthinkably huge number of factors had to align just right for you — your sense of awareness, your current consciousness — to have existed. Often, this is imagined as maybe the right egg and the right sperm coming together in just the right way at the right time to produce you: the consciousness listening to these words right now. 

But what exactly were the factors that led to producing your current self-consciousness? If it was related to the egg and the sperm combining in just the right way, does this mean that if the egg and the sperm had been completely the same, the same material, but there’d been a slightly different few molecules in the egg or the sperm, you’d be an entirely different you hearing this? A different self? Or if the same egg and sperm were combined, just a little bit later, you’d be a different person? How exactly would all these factors work? And would that view of things mean that there are an infinite number of first-person perspectives waiting in the wings, and if something slightly shifts, an entirely different first-person perspective manifests? 

And, related to this, does this mean if something had gone slightly differently in your past, like your parents moving to another country, that that version of you would still have the same sense of self; that it’d still be you, the person hearing these words now, present in that other version of you? In what way is that other, parallel-universe version of yourself any different than just another person, a person in another body, leading an entirely different life? 

In Joe’s book, he walks through the logic of these things and shows that it doesn’t make sense to think of our inner consciousness as improbable. When you think deeply about it, there are no logical factors to find that could be seen to explain why you would have a sense that “you are here” in this universe but, in a slightly different universe, have an entirely different “I” experience. Instead of seeing our first-person experience as improbable, it makes more sense to see our first-person experience as inevitable: that anywhere there is a conscious entity, that same “I am here” sensation will exist; in other words, you will exist wherever a conscious being exists. And this means that we are all manifestations of the same first-person experience; the same I. 

Now you may be thinking of various objections to this; I know I did. But rest assured that the people thinking about these things have talked about your objections and have made strong responses to them. For example, you may be thinking, “Any sentient creature that arises in the universe, no matter how improbable its existence is, must always develop and have its own sense of self; that is not mysterious at all” Joe and I talk about that in our talk, along with other objections. 

I’ll say that, as far as I know, this is the first recorded conversation about Open Individualism. At least neither Joe nor I were aware of another one. I think it’s extremely hard to talk about these ideas. Our language, which relies on a “normal” paradigm of what people are, isn’t well suited to the rather unusual and counterintuitive ideas we’re discussing. There are all sorts of ways to get confused, whether when talking about these ideas, or hearing them, and especially if you’re new to them. One area of confusion is the difference between the content of someone’s life — someone’s traits and experiences, what’s in their brains — and the first-person, “I am here” sensation; the I feeling, or pure awareness – what Joe will refer to as the empty self. It’s easy for us to conflate and confuse these two dimensions; we’re used to thinking about both concepts when we talk about ourselves and about what it means to be a person. But for the purposes of this talk, you should try to separate the content of people’s lives from what we’re talking about: which is simply the first-person awareness; the sense that “I exist right now.”

I mention the difficulty of talking about these topics so that, if at some point in this talk you think Joe or I aren’t being articulate, I hope you aren’t turned off from considering this idea. ** Joe and I were both worried about this; Joe more than I because he has a book on it, and is afraid of representing Open Individualism badly. I think Joe does a good job, and I think I do an okay job, but I just wanted to emphasize the difficulty of talking about this topic, and I hope if you are a bit intrigued you’ll check out the resources and writings on this. On my website behavior-podcast.com, on the page for this episode, I’ll include links to resources by the people who have written about this concept, and include links to some interesting reddit threads about it. 

Along the way in this talk, Joe and I discuss religion, the idea of souls, fear of death and annihilation, existentialism, free will, Daniel Dennett, Derek Parfitt, and the multiverse.  

Okay here’s the talk with Joe Kern…

Zach: Okay. Hi Joe, thanks for joining me.

Zach: Hi Joe, thanks for joining me.

Joe: Oh, thank you. It’s really great to be here.

Zach: It’s a pleasure to talk to myself about these ideas. You know, talk to… Sorry, that was a really bad attempt at some open individualism humor. Talking to myself. I could have planned that joke out a little bit better. [chuckles]

Joe: Oh yeah yeah. That’s all right. I think everybody that comes to this makes a few of those jokes at the beginning, and then everybody just stops right away. They’re like, “This isn’t going to go any further. That’s good enough.”

Zach: It’s definitely too niche a subject to joke around. Nobody will know what you’re talking about. Maybe we could start with how… I’m curious how you found yourself in such a niche area. How did you find yourself to this area?

Joe: Yeah, it was entirely my own obsession, and not finding the answers in existing philosophy or theories. And so I just kind of found my way to my own answer. The question I was trying to answer was, when I was young, I grew up a Christian. You could call it fundamentalist, evangelical. My family was quite thoughtful and intellectual, so I don’t want to give the impression of the stereotype of those words. But I was a Christian, I believed in heaven and hell, I believed I had a soul or was a soul, and that when I died, that soul was going to go to heaven. And that mostly seemed all well and good to me. Then I went to a Christian college, started out even as a Bible major, intending to go into the ministry like my grandfather did. And then toward the end of my college—uh, took me six years to do undergrad—the last two years, I started to doubt my faith. The first seeds of doubt were really about the social issues like homosexuality and women being allowed to speak and lead in church. I just found myself, after a time, not being able to really accept those teachings anymore. I did it first, but then I was like, “Nah, it doesn’t seem right.”

So, I kind of lost my faith over those issues. Once I realized I could make my own choices about that—I just didn’t believe homosexuality was wrong, and so I made that choice. Whatever the Bible said, I made that choice. Once I made that choice, I realized I was free to choose about everything; what facts I believed and what morality I believed. So, that kind of led to my loss of faith. But along with the loss of faith, I lost the belief in heaven and a soul, and I didn’t like that. I didn’t like the idea of annihilation and death. It just terrified me. I’ve been speaking to people about this for 20 years. A lot of people have different things that they fear in death. So, I understand now that my concern isn’t the only concern that people have, but this was my concern. Just ceasing to exist. Not being anywhere ever, for all eternity. It’s really uncanny. It’s hard to even fathom, in the same way that it’s hard to fathom what it was like not existing before you were born. Right? Both of those things…non-existence is completely hard to fathom and also kind of terrifying. 

I was thinking about this and… Let’s see, what happened next? Yeah, I didn’t like that idea. I was kind of holding on to the idea that I might still be a soul even if I didn’t believe in God, or specifically the Christian God or something that might be like a universal soul or something. I was holding on to that idea. And then I was doing more reading and got more into science. Actually, I was a science education major in college, and I was still kind of doubting evolution. Even after I stopped being a Christian, I still doubted evolution a bit. And I met a friend who turned me on to Richard Dawkins, and he started me on…have you read Dawkins?

Zach: Yeah, and you also quote some Dawkins in your book. Right?

Joe: Yeah, that’s right. Have you read The Selfish Gene?

Zach: I have not. No.

Joe: You have not. Okay. I started out with Climbing Mount Improbable, which is a great underrated book of his. It convinced me evolution was true. And then my friend had me read The Selfish Gene, which I read a few years later. It absolutely devastated me. The Selfish Gene really devastated my worldview. I was still holding on to wanting to believe in a soul, and I read The Selfish Gene and it’s this whole theory about how the replicator molecules are the entire reason that any life exists, you know? It started out as just bare replicator molecules. You read chapter two of The Selfish Gene, which I recommend to everybody; it’s a short mind-blowing chapter. So, just these bare replicator molecules. It’s like an algorithmic thing. Just the fact that the molecule that replicates itself more than the others is more successful. It’s like a tautology. It’s like saying that the person that runs fastest in the race wins the race—gets there first. The molecule that replicates itself more has more copies of itself around. And that process, according to Dawkins, which I agree with—I believe—is the entire reason that life exists, including human beings. He ends that chapter two, you know, he uses this contentious language, “We are the robots. Inside of us are the replicator molecules and we are the robots doing their bidding.”

Zach: We’re the carrier for these things that are…

Joe: Exactly. And so I ended that book just like, “Oh, that’s what my existence is! Evolution, this is my existence. This is why I exist. It’s just because of this.” I was depressed for a couple of days, and I was thinking about it, and then I sort of launched back to a thought. I remember I had this thought when I was five years old. I remember I looked over at my brother sitting in the kitchen as he was talking to my mother, and it just struck me all of a sudden, like, “Why is he him and I am me? Why not the other way around? Why am I not him and him me? Or why was I born as this person and not somebody else?” And I started to think maybe there’s a key in that thought to why this… Even though I totally agree with Dawkins’ theory of evolution—selfish gene theory—that thought grabbed me as something like-

Zach: The mystery.

Joe: Yeah, the mystery. The way I formulated it to myself was, evolution reaches down through the eons and creates this genetic person that becomes you. That explains why the human being Joe Kern exists, but it doesn’t explain why I exist. It doesn’t explain why I-

Zach: The ‘I’. The ‘I’ feeling.

Joe: Yeah. You could have a million or infinite number of copies of this human being with the same DNA that’s not me, and this one’s me. And so the thought I gave myself at the time—because, again, I was worried about annihilation and death, and I wanted to believe I was a soul—was, “how do I know I will cease to exist when I die, when I don’t know what caused me to exist in the first place?” So, I held on to that. Then I started doing research. I started reading about consciousness, I read… First was Chalmers’ The Conscious Mind, and then Dennett, his biggest critic, Consciousness Explained. And then after that came Parfit. I found Parfit through Dennett. He quoted him at the end. I’ve read a bunch of other things since then, but those are still the big three in my mind.

So I spent about five years thinking I was writing a theory about the soul, you know, trying to prove that the soul must exist because of this uncanny, strange thought, like, “Why am I me and not somebody else? Evolution doesn’t explain why I exist.” After reading a lot about consciousness and personal identity, which is what Parfit wrote about, I decided I really can’t believe in the soul anymore, either. That was really depressing, another depressing moment, and yet I still had these same thoughts about…

Zach: There’s still something mysterious and wild going on here.

Joe: Yeah. Why do I exist? Souls, I think, are actually conceptually incoherent. And not everybody who believes in open individualism thinks this. This is my thought. I have specific reasons for thinking that, but I feel like souls are conceptually incoherent, and Dennett and Parfit both were big parts of me just being inundated by the evidence against souls, spirits, and that kind of thing. So I decided I just can’t believe that anymore. And then again, I had a few—I don’t know, it could have been longer than a few days—moments of depression and time of depression, like, “Oh man, not only am I not a soul anymore, but what I’ve been working on for these five years or whatever and so excited about might be nothing.” And then the thought just popped into my head—what I now call open individualism, I hadn’t thought of it before—and I was like, “What if I am not just me, but all people?” I still talk to myself about it this way, and the way I first thought of it was like a materialist reincarnation. Reincarnation without souls; the materialist, physicalist, naturalist universe but my life doesn’t end now. When Joe Kern dies, ‘I’ become other people.

That flooded into my mind and I had a few moments—and this is interesting, other people that have come to open individualism have talked about having the same kind of mystical-almost experience. The thought flooded into my mind, and I had some days of just sitting in a park looking at an ant and just being like, “Oh, I’m that ant.” You know, that kind of thing. I had the thoughts and then I was like, “I can’t think that, that’s ridiculous. I’m a hard-line materialist now. That’s a ridiculous New-Agey kind of thought. I can’t think that thought.” But then I started to think of the kind of arguments that I could make that would be strict materialist analytic philosophy, whatever-you-want-to-call-it, arguments. That’s what the sorites argument in the fourth chapter of the book is. And then I was like, “Oh, wow!” So I talked myself into it, spent a couple of years writing, and convinced myself that, yeah, this is absolutely true.

Now, at the time, I didn’t know anybody else who believed this. I thought it’s surely possible. I hadn’t known anybody else so, but it did feel like a discovery that I had made myself and I’d written my entire argument for it, and only after that did I discover—when I published a first draft of it—I found someone who’s now a friend of mine, Iacopo Vettori, who had also written some of his own ideas about open individualism. He told me that it’s called open individualism, this philosopher named Daniel Kolak has coined this term. He invited me to a Facebook group, and then that’s… So yeah, it started out as me finding it on my own and then I found other people who believed it who came at it from their own different angles.

Zach: I think what drives, in general, the interest in what we are, you know, what drives people like Parfit to write his book, or you to go down that path, that fear or that interest in what we are and what happens to us… I’ll say, too, what drove me to be really interested in this was this fear of not just death, because I feel like that didn’t directly bother me, but I started getting these thoughts about, “Oh, what if I am one of these series people? What if I’m just flashing in and out of existence?” That kind of idea about the self, right? The empty individualism kind of ideas. It felt to me like an advanced fear of death. It was, like, “This is even worse than the fear of death. I’m dying every second, theoretically.” Right? So just to say, I think a lot of us are led down these paths by the interest and the fear of, will we continue existing, or what happens to us in the next moment or when we die, or whatever it is.

Joe: When did you first have that thought? Because you mentioned that before in your notes. That was a big moment for you, that thought of just dying every second. Did you read that in Parfit and that’s what gave you the idea?

Zach: No. Like a lot of these things, it’s hard to know how it came to be. But I remember 10 plus years ago, I was thinking about these things where I’m like—and I can’t remember if I read it. I must have read some consciousness related stuff that led me down that path probably.

Joe: Have you read Dennett or Chalmers?

Zach: Yeah, I’ve read Dennet. I read Dennet 10 plus years ago, so I’m sure one of those things led me down that path. But it just strikes me that when it comes to all this philosophical work, so much of it is about us thinking about what’s going to happen to us and what are we. It comes down to these existential fears about trying to figure this stuff out to set our own minds at ease.

Joe: It is interesting because there’s some people that have argued for open individualism from an ethical standpoint. And I think this is the direction Kolak comes from. And I know there’s some other people… I think Magnus Vinding, I’m remembering the name, he writes a lot about ethics and he takes open individualism as a reason to believe in a certain ethical idea or certain morality.

Zach: Treating others as yourself. Yeah.

Joe: Yeah. And in Kolak, I don’t see anything about… By the way, I told you my whole story, and that should explain why I’m not qualified to talk about anybody else’s ideas about open individualism. I know a bit about it, but I don’t want to speak for anybody because I really know my theory well and I don’t know anybody else’s theories that well. But I can say that I don’t remember seeing anything in Kolak about fear of death or fear of annihilation. He seemed to really be focusing more on, you know… I feel like the ethical consequences of open individualism are pretty obvious. It’s going to make you want to treat everybody as though they’re yourself. You’re just going to treat people better and care more about the wellbeing of all other conscious beings.

Zach: Yeah, you have a pretty good… You’ve been talking about this for a while. I’m curious if you had to give your thirty-second to minute kind of elevator pitch. I think you have a pretty good summary of this on your website, but do you want to talk about… Maybe you can run with that.

Joe: Yeah. So, my brother asked me for an elevator pitch last summer, and I’ve been avoiding talking about this for years because I got tired of hearing myself talk about it. Obviously, we’re recording now so this is a good time to do it again. But yeah, just kind of ruining parties and things, and cornering people. But my brother asked me and I demurred, and then he asked me again and I’m like, “All right.” And I heard myself speaking for like five minutes straight and just talking a big jumble of twisty stuff that I know he didn’t understand, and as it’s going on, I’m thinking, “See, this is why I don’t like talking about it.” Because I don’t know how to explain everything. The point is I don’t know how to explain everything about my argument it quickly. But that conversation made me think, “Okay, he’s right. I should have an elevator pitch.” 

So I think I can come at it from three angles. Number one, you can start with the conclusion. Open individualism is the idea that we are all one self. There’s not a new self created at the birth of a human being or the coming into consciousness of a human being. We’re all the same self. And so I still stick to my original idea about it—materialist reincarnation. When you die, you become other people. You’re eventually all other people. There’s a science fiction story called “The Egg” by Andy Weir, who wrote The Martian. He has this short story that became viral back in 2010; somebody made a comic about it. It’s that same idea and a lot of people might know that. Andy Weir’s idea is that you’re a soul and God is pushing you toward further improvement. You’re a soul that is all conscious beings through time, eventuality. You’re all conscious beings and God is pushing you to perfection. So my version of open individualism: no God, no soul. You are all other people. There’s not the Buddhist idea of karma or anything. It’s just youare all other people.

So that’s the conclusion. I think a lot of people who believe open individualism won’t like the idea of reincarnation, and that’s fair enough. A lot of people want to talk about “You are all people right now. It’s not like you just jump to other people when you die.” And I think that’s fair enough. But for me, I’ve never been able to wrap my head around that idea. I experience myself as traveling through time in one direction, and that’s the only way I can do it. But happy for all the people that can sort of wrap their brain around the idea of you actually just are all people right now. 

Now, that’s the conclusion. For my personal approach to it, there’s two ways I can start with. Number one, I can ask people if they’ve ever had that thought that I had when I was five. You ever wonder, “Why am I me and not somebody else?” There’s a lot more questions you can ask along that same line.

Zach: Like how unlikely it is for me to be here.

Joe: Yeah. The question of, “Why was I even a possibility to exist at the beginning of the universe, rather than not?” Again, the creation of a certain human being with certain DNA from certain parents doesn’t explain that. Because genetically identical people, even if you’re not identical twins split from a zygote, it’s still conceivable that they could exist.

Zach: We should remind people that we’re talking about the ‘I’ feeling. We’re not talking about specific people and traits. We’re talking about the internal feeling of being present and of existing. The ‘I’ feeling. I just wanted to emphasize that.

Joe: Yeah, thanks. I guess there’s another part of this. There’s the perfect doppelgänger thought experiment I do that tries to isolate that ‘I’ feeling, but maybe we can get to that later. So you can start with that question. The thing I find is when I ask people that question, a lot of people have had that thought. And it’s pretty common for young people to have it. I cannot remember who wrote the paper, but there was a book he quoted of… There’s a novel [A High Wind in Jamaica by Richard Hughes] where there’s a little girl named Emily, seven or 10, who has the same realization. One day she’s playing and all of the sudden she looks down and it’s like, “Oh, here I am. And now I’m stuck with this now for the rest of my life. What am I doing here now, here?”

Zach: Why am I here? Yeah.

Joe: Yeah, I’m not being articulate about it, the novel was quite good. Yeah, that’s one way I can… It’s not really a pitch in the idea, but telling people what I’m talking about. And a lot of people recognize that idea, like, “Oh yeah, I’ve had that same thought!” That might be a hook to get people into the way I’m thinking. But a lot of people have never had that thought and don’t understand what it’s about. And again, fair enough. So then the third way I might say it is, have you ever thought about what are the odds of you existing? What are the chances of you having come in to exist? People think about this a lot. What are the chances your parents meeting? That one sperm and that one ovum had to join. If it had been any other sperm, you wouldn’t exist. This combination of DNA had to come into existence. That’s another way into it, and you think, “Yeah, boy, I’m really amazed at how long the odds are that I came into existence, and yet I did. That’s shocking and I feel so lucky.” My point is—in everything I’ve written—is that it doesn’t make any sense. You can’t think about the odds of you existing. You might be able to jump ahead and see how open individualism solves that. If you are all people, then you exist, no matter what consciousnesses exists.

Zach: I think the strength of you focusing on that, specifically it’s like when you start thinking about… Because, as you say, most people imagine there’s some factors in the past. All these factors had to align for my ‘I’ feeling to exist right now. All these factors, whether it was when the sperm and the egg met up, or the ancestors, or whatever it is, but then as you break down in your book, it’s like when you actually think through logically, what was the defining thing that would have led to this ‘I’ feeling now? You’re left with an idea that, “Oh, if I had replaced the smallest amount of the egg with a little bit of different matter, would that have led to a completely different ‘I’? And you start breaking down the sorites argument of why would a slight difference in all these factors have led to a completely different ‘I’? You start realizing, “Oh, maybe the most efficient answer is that the ‘I’ that I’m feeling now was inevitable, and if the ‘I’ that I’m feeling now was inevitable, then I am everyone. That’s the logical steps that you walk through. And I really like that approach because I had come at it from different angles and somehow I had never really even thought about the common thought that, “Oh, it’s really rare for me to exist, and all these factors had to align,” which is interesting, because I think in open individualism, you can arrive at these things from different angles by examining different parts. You know, there’s different Parfit-like thought experiments.

I did like your focus because I think that makes it accessible to a lot of people who are like, “Oh, yeah. When you start thinking about it, yeah, why would this specific combination of factors and all these things have led to my specific feeling of ‘I’? It also gets into questions like, if you had moved somewhere else when you were a kid, would you still be the same ‘I’ feeling you are now? It starts breaking up the idea that your ‘I’ feeling is the product of all these factors. And then you start thinking, “Oh, the much more efficient answer is that I am going to always exist wherever there’s a conscious being.” I did like that approach.

Joe: That idea of would I exist if… If I had been adopted by a family in—I’m in Japan now, let’s say South Korea. If I’d been adopted by a family in South Korea right after I was born, raised in South Korea, speaking Korean, and Joe Kern was still alive there then—this body was still alive there then—would I exist as that person? The content of my life would be completely different, but would I exist as that person? My intuition is that, yeah, I’m going to exist. Once that sperm and egg join in the zygote and then it creates a human being, I’m going to be wherever that object and the things that grew from that object are in the world. I’m going to be there. That’s kind of the hook for me. The longer I think about this and think about my approach to it, I realize that that’s my essential hook. It’s like if you believe that you would be in South Korea right now under those circumstances, you believe you’re a completely different person—content, language, everything about your life is completely different, but you still exist. It’s not the same as if you had died right after you were born—then you’d think, “Oh, I wouldn’t exist anywhere. I’d be nobody nowhere.” If you think you’d be in South Korea right now, then my argument, through many steps, is that then you should also believe that you would be anybody else. Even if a different sperm and egg had joined, then you’d be that person. And that leads to open individualism.

Zach: Right, you’re using the instincts that we have about ourselves in different situations to apply to everybody in different situations.

Joe: Some people do not believe that they would be in South Korea right now if that happened. They think that’s a different person. I wouldn’t exist. Maybe they think they wouldn’t exist in the same way that they wouldn’t exist as if they had died when they were young. I think that belief is kind of like empty individualist, but a lot of people don’t know that term and they wouldn’t call themselves that. But yeah, if you don’t believe you’d be in South Korea right now under those circumstances, then my argument will have much less power for you—

Zach: That instinct might not work, but other parts of the argument may work. There are people listening to this who—almost everybody, this will be new to if they made it this far—there’s so many objections that spring up, right? Like the defenses of the normal way of seeing people. One of the objections would be, “How can we be the same people? We’re in different bodies. I have no knowledge or awareness of things happening to people in these other bodies.” I think that’s one key objection, but I think the main overcoming of that objection is there’s lots of things in your own life that you have no memory of or no direct awareness of. Like, you lived when you were a kid or even a year ago, and there’s experiences you had that aren’t really available to you now. So just to say that the various objections that people will bring up, you and other people have addressed in various ways as ways to overcome… Because it is such an outlandish thing to say… 

Joe: It is outlandish.

Zach: …we’re all the same person. Everyone’s like, “What the hell are you talking about?” But I do like to emphasize, people who are curious about this, there’s many people who have worked through the objections. And at the end of the day, it requires a different way to see what we are. But when you think it through, it’s not like a crazy, magical idea. When you actually think it through, it’s like, “Oh, maybe this is just how the world works.”

Joe: I guess it’s not really a factual claim. It’s certainly not an empirical claim. Because it doesn’t really change anything. You know? You die, you die. But it’s like I look at it now… I think when I first thought of it, I thought I had solved all the problems of the world and was like, “Oh, this is just the facts of the world, I need to tell everybody.” Other people have had this experience too. Physicist Freeman Dyson talks about this in his memoir, which I learned from Kolak’s book. But now I think of it as this is an option of a way to think about yourself. It’s not just like a New Agey kind of dream option. If you fancy yourself the kind of person who really likes rigorous, logical, reductive arguments, this is an option. If you have… I’ll say it from my point of view… If you’ve come along this journey of coming to conclude, due to science and philosophy and whatnot, that maybe you’re an atheist now, there’s no God, there are no souls, and you don’t like the idea of annihilation in death, this is a way to think about existence in a different way that can make you less afraid of death.

Zach: I do think it solves so many of the problems of consciousness and self. I was reading Zuboff’s book that he sent me…

Joe: Which book was that, by the way?

Zach: I think it was Finding Myself. I don’t think it’s published yet, maybe.

Joe: Okay.

Zach: But in the intro, he basically says something like, “I think there’s many arguments in favor of open individualism, and basically none in the other ways of thinking about self and identity. I think he makes a compelling point. It just solves so many of the weird paradoxes when you start thinking through the thought experiments and stuff.

Joe: That question I started out with when I was five—why am I me and not somebody else—there’s a term for that. It’s called the vertiginous question.

Zach: Yeah, I was going to mention that.

Joe: Yeah, there’s a Wikipedia page for it so I think that’s what it’s going to be called. I’m fine with that. There’s a philosopher named—I don’t know how to pronounce his name, I think it’s Benj Hellie who coined the term. He wrote a paper so he coined the term. It’s on Wikipedia. I call them the enigmas of existence, in what I’ve written. It’s a far more pretentious name, but it does fit the fact that they’re enigmas. It seems like something that needs a solution. And I found open individualism solves those enigmas. Empty individualism, which is another kind of belief, also solves them. But I don’t know if we want to go… It’s a bit harder to talk about.

Zach: We can mention that briefly, because I kind of feel like it’s two sides of the same coin. And I will say, when you were talking about Parfit, I read Parfit’s Reasons and Persons and I was left with this sense of, yeah, but you’re not really explaining… It didn’t really explain much to me. It almost just explained away things. But it didn’t really explain… And I was kind of left… I think you mentioned it too, where it was an unsatisfying conclusion I thought he had because he basically was saying, “Oh, well, somebody is myself if they’ve got all my attributes. And if I don’t exist anymore, it’s the same…” He basically wouldn’t mind going through the teleporter or being recreated. But that was kind of unsatisfying, because it’s like, in a way that I think open individualism solves more. Because it’s like, “Oh, well, if we’re all the same, then that solves that riddle of like…” Well, yeah, it’s a very unsatisfying thing to say, “Oh, you can destroy me, but recreate me somewhere else.” I’m probably not explaining it well, but it just seemed like I was left wanting more from why he wouldn’t care about being destroyed and recreated somewhere else with all the same attributes, which I think open individualism solves that paradox.

Joe: I really wrestled with Parfit for a long time. He was one of the first things I read early on, and I had a similar reaction to him as with Dawkins’ Selfish Gene. I just found myself bulldozed into being forced to believe a lot of things I didn’t want to believe. I consider The Selfish Gene and the third part of Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit to be the two most influential things I’ve ever read, and I agree with almost everything Parfit said. It took me a long time to decide that I felt free enough to disagree with some of the things he said because it’s a masterful book, you know? I think I disagree now with Parfit when he says that… Oh, shoot. I feel like this might be a bit too in the weeds but I guess I’ll push forward. So, Parfit says sometimes identity is indeterminate, but I feel like he equivocates identity with existence. And I read that when I first read it, like, “Oh, sometimes whether or not you exist is indeterminate.” And I just thought, yeeah…

Zach: Yeah, it was something based on if there’s another copy of you or something like that.

Joe: Yeah. I felt like I kind of have to accept this. This guy’s such a great… Like, everything else is so airtight, you know? But I lived with that for a long time, and I think that maybe if people talk about personal identity and then they make that equivalent of existence, I try to separate those two ideas. Parfit concludes personal identity is not what matters, and so maybe we come together on this, like it’s not what matters. And then when he gets into the fourth part, he makes his famous non-identity problem about like the actions we perform now are going to affect who exists in the future, and so there’s an extra element to our moral actions now like around global warming or things like that.

So, I feel like Parfit argues for empty individualism in part three and then reverts to closed individualism in part four with the nonidentity problem. This whole thing I talk about with the odds of existing and everything, that presumes a closed individualist idea of existence. That’s kind of the standard idea that most people have. Like, you know, this human being comes into existence—we now know from a sperm and an ovum—a human being comes into existence, you just exist as that person for that duration, and when that human being dies, you cease to exist. A new self is created at that moment—a new empty self is the term I like to use now—is created at that moment and then it dies and then you’re done. You’re gone forever.

Zach: Yeah, I thought so many things that I was left unsatisfied in Parfit’s book are just made complete sense of with open individualism. But so much of his arguments map over to open individualism. It’s like if he had just looked at it a slightly different way, he would be an open individualist.

Joe: Exactly. I’ll say a few things about that that I do know. Daniel Kolak, in his book I Am You, published in 2004, coined the terms open individualism, empty individualism, and closed individualism. Kolak himself also says empty individualism and open individualism are very close together. They’re both basically true and it’s just a matter of how you think about it. Right?

Zach: Right. Glass half full, glass half empty kind of thing.

Joe: Yeah, exactly. I was looking back at Kolak a couple of days ago trying to prepare for this and I discovered I could not find an actual definition of what Kolak means by empty individualism. As far as I understand it, it’s just whatever Parfit argued for in part three of Reasons and Persons. That’s empty individualism. I take it to be the really austere view that consciousness just comes into existence whenever matter of the appropriate organization comes into existence. In our case, probably we can attribute it to our brains. Consciousness comes into existence when matter organizes. If it just popped into existence right now, you’d have a conscious being for a few moments. You know? That’s kind of what I take empty individualism to be at its ground level. It’s just that idea.

Zach: It’s a bunch of disjointed moments of existence. It’s almost like you could view it as consciousness is an illusion because it’s just a bunch of moments of coming into being. Yeah.

Joe: I guess at ground it is the idea that there’s nothing else to that. There’s like no… Parfit calls it a ‘further fact’ in Reasons and Persons. There’s no further fact to it than that. There’s nothing in the universe that would be a self that continues to exist through time. It’s just consciousness exists in this moment because this brain exists.

Zach: It is a very similar view because it’s… To me, it’s very similar. I can see how similar it is because that’s kind of how I view open individualism, except it’s like the glass half full, glass half empty. As you say in your book, even if that’s true, even if we are a series of disjointed moments of selves or whatever, it’s like we still attain everything we want. What more could you want? You couldn’t imagine another world where all these things…that you wouldn’t be getting what you wanted out of. So even if the empty individualism or open individualism of us being a bunch of series of moments, we’re still getting what we want. Right?

Joe: Yeah. Yeah, the thing you want obtains. I came through reading Parfit, again had a period of depression of how austere that is. But at the end of the day, you read his theory and then at the end of the day you think, “Wait, what have I lost? I still have everything that I always thought I had in existence. I still exist now.” I retreat to the Cartesianism of—Descartes—of the one thing I can’t doubt is that I exist right now. I didn’t lose that. I also didn’t lose the fact that, to me, I still existed when I was five. I have memories when I was five. I existed then. I haven’t lost anything. And again, this is how empty individualism and open individualism are basically two ways of looking at the same set of facts. They’re not really in conflict, they’re just a matter of interpretation. 

Oh, one thing I wanted to say is that Kolak’s argument for open individualism, Parfit read the manuscript, and provided a bunch of comments on it. I don’t know what those comments were—

Zach: They’d be cool to see.

Joe: Yeah, yeah. Maybe Parfit thought the same thing. He didn’t tell Kolak to change the whole book, it’s garbage, you know? So maybe Parfit thought the same thing. Like, this is a different way of looking at the same thing that I argue for. I always wonder if Parfit accepted the label empty individualist for himself, or if he just kind of like…

Zach: Mmmm. Like so many of these philosophical things, it’s like life in general, it’s so easy to take the same idea and look at it very depressingly or look at it positively. I feel like that’s true for so many ideas in general, and it’s like in this case, it definitely seems to be the case where it’s like, yeah, you could use it to be an extremely depressing stark view of the world. But as you argue in your book, everything is still there that we want there to be there in terms of our sense of self seeming to continue over time and us having memories and seeming to be a person. So… Oh, go ahead.

Joe: This thing you talked about of being… I learned it from part three of Reasons and Persons, Derek Parfit’s book, which, by the way, anybody can read, I think. It doesn’t require any prior philosophical knowledge. You don’t even have to read the first two parts of the book, which are about ethics, I think. I’ve never read them. Part three, anybody can read that if you’ve read any kind of popular science or something. Anyway, what I want to say is I found that idea that you mentioned earlier about becoming a new person every minute or every second or whatever. I found that in Parfit, and that’s one of the arguments that made me—

Zach: The series person. Yeah.

Joe: Yeah, the series person. That’s one of the arguments that lessened my ability to believe in the soul—kind of dropped my credence for belief in the soul. Because if you think about it all happening once every day when you go to sleep, you might be scared. By the way, did you read chapter five of my book? It’s not included in the main manuscript; it’s an addition. It’s okay if you didn’t. It’s fine.

Zach: I may have, I can’t remember.

Joe: Okay. It’s a separate document.

Zach: I think I might have read that. Yeah.

Joe: Okay, I just reread it. I hadn’t read it in years. I just reread it and didn’t even remember—a great example of this—I didn’t remember writing it. I didn’t remember having these thoughts, and I’m like, “Yeah, yeah, this makes sense.” So if your body’s going to be disillusioned… Disillusioned? Dissolved. No, that’s macabre.

Zach: Destroyed.

Joe: Yeah, destroyed in your sleep and a brand new body that’s the exact same mental content and exactly the same is going to wake up in the morning… You know, you think, “Well, if this body is destroyed, I’m going to die, and it’ll be a different person in the morning,” then you think, “Well, boy, that might be really scary.” But then if you crank the time span down to, what if that’s what happens every second? Or what if me and you—this is back to the thought about my brother, why am I me and not him—what if our empty self—empty self, by the way, is just the raw point of view, not including content like the content of your mind. We have pretty good evidence that the entire content of our minds are physically embodied in our brains. But we still have this idea of an empty self. And so what if our empty selves just swapped every second, would you notice that? If you think it will happen every hour, you might think, “Oh, I’d notice that. I’m going to be over there for that hour. I’m going to be over there where you are for that hour, and you’re going to be over here. And then in another hour, I’m going to come back over here. I’m going to have all to have all the content of your mind. I’m going to think I’m you at that moment. And then when I come back here, I’m going to think I’m me, but I’m going to be here and not there.” But then you think about what if that happened every second, or every 10th of a second, or every microsecond, you would just experience being this human being at that point. If it’s changing that often. And then you realize, “Well…” Yeah. So, what have you lost if you think about… It’s what you were talking about with Parfit: what have you really lost when you accept everything? You still have everything you thought you had in the first place.

Zach: Yeah, I did read that section of your book. Actually, I had pasted a part of that section into something as a good explanation. But I was going to say when I was talking about the fears I had where I was laying awake at 3:00 in the morning, imagining myself flashing in and out of existence every moment and a new self being created, I came to see that when I’m reading more about open individualism and your work too. I came to see that as, “Well, it’s kind of ridiculous to imagine all of these different selves waiting in the wings to be created and a new self coming into existence every moment.” Open individualism makes more sense there because it’s like, well, it’s much more efficient explanation to just have them all be the same self coming into existence. Right? And if that’s true for me in that scenario, then that would be the same self coming into existence for other people. That made a lot more sense of my fears and it put my fears in context of like… Well, a), I always thought your point was true: Regardless of all these fears, everything still attains for me. I still perceive myself as a persistent being over time, I still have these memories, etc, etc. So, worrying too much about it is kind of… No matter what the truth is, too much worry is unproductive. Open individualism did make a lot of sense to me because when it came to the efficiency of just imagining all this string of new selves coming into being is kind of silly when you think about it. It’s related to your points in your work of imagining, like, “Oh, if the sperm had slightly connected in a different way, a new self would have come into being. Where are all these selves coming from?”

Joe: Where are all these selves coming from, yeah.

Zach: Where’s this repository? Some people would be like, “Well, those are the souls waiting to come into existence.” But leaving aside those kind of views, yeah.

Joe: My ultimate knockdown argument, for myself, against… why I couldn’t believe in the soul anymore—this was a big part of it, this series-person thing that’s like, what are all these souls coming into existence? And what difference would it make? But the thing for me was I had this thought—and I’ve told this to people several times over the years, I don’t know if anybody’s ever understood what I’m trying to say, but I still think it’s a good thought—it’s like, if you can imagine God creating souls, and he’s going to create you, he’s going to create Joe Kern, he’s going to create me… What could he be thinking about in order to create a soul that is me rather than someone else? If you take out all the characteristics of me, you know, the genes, the whatever, the content of my mind—

Zach: Just the sense of self.

Joe: Yeah. From an objective standpoint, to somebody outside, what could he think about to create the self that was just me and nobody else? You know? That’s my…

Zach: Yeah, what would it be? There’s nothing distinguishing. It’s just the feeling of ‘I am here.’ Yeah, right.

Joe: And when you talk about an infinite number of possible selves coming into existence, it brings that thought out starkly. There’s no end to the number of ‘I’s. If you believe the closed individualist idea that we’re each separate selves that come into existence and then cease to exist, then there’s no end to the number of those that could be created.

Zach: I think another common objection for people that are new to these ideas and haven’t looked into it much, a common objection to this is basically “you guys are overthinking it. Every creature that comes into existence will necessarily have their own subjective sense of ‘I’, their own sense of self.” I think that’s the most common objection. And I see that when it comes to the vertiginous question threads online, people are like, “You guys don’t get it. There’s no mystery. When there’s an entity that comes into being, it has its own sense of self, and there’s nothing mysterious about it.” I have my own thought and I can tell it, but I’m curious if you want to give a thought about that.

Joe: Yeah, I think that’s the most cogent criticism of my idea of open individualism, and it’s the one I’ve wrestled with the most, kind of led me to a lot of the more in-the-weeds arguments that I’ve made. Chapter three of the book would be that section. I come back to using that idea of, if you had been raised in South Korea, would you be there now? I can’t really reconstruct my argument off the top of my head, but every time I reread it, I become reconvinced. So I think it must be good. [chuckles] Have you seen the TV show Severance?

Zach: Yeah.

Joe: Okay, love that show. Just watched it for the first time two months ago and it’s got me rethinking my whole theory more than anything has in a long time. I still believe my conclusions, but it’s got me rethinking it. And I’ve written some blog posts about my reactions to the show Severance. Anybody who’s seen Severance can read those blog posts, and it’s probably the best introduction I’ve written to the way I think about these issues. 

Zach: I read some of that, yeah.

Joe: If you haven’t seen Severance, you can read them, but I don’t recommend it because I love the show so much and I don’t want to spoil any of it. So just watch the first three episodes of Severance and then you can read the blog post. But yeah, Severance got me thinking about this. This isn’t going to necessarily be a very coherent thought, but just… Derek Parfit talks about what it takes for a person to continue to exist. And this is what the entire study of personal identity is about: what it takes for a person to continue to exist. And this idea that anytime matter forms into the right form, then there’s consciousness. And so there’s consciousness here, there’s consciousness here, and then the only reason that those two consciousnesses think they’re the same person is because there’s a string of memories from one to the other. I think that’s the empty individualism. That’s what Parfit argues for. That’s the empty individualist idea. That’s the most austere, “Those are just the facts. There’s nothing else.” And I think that’s true. Those are the facts. There is nothing else. It’s just memory.

I was rereading Dennett [Consciousness Explained] this past year, and I don’t understand his argument for the pure physicalist explanation of consciousness, but I think he’s right that it is, but I don’t understand exactly why he thinks it is. But I think a big part of his argument is that consciousness is a memory of things that the animal has already done. There’s those studies, like, you think you’re making a choice but actually the choice was made, and then by the time you think you’ve made it, the body already made the choice. And the choice doesn’t become conscious until microseconds later or whatever. That’s like all of consciousness. There’s all this stimulus coming in and it’s all being entered into your nervous system, but you’re only aware of one bit of it at a time, and it’s really external factors or your own mind that triggers you of which part to be aware of. It’s a bit of a tangent. [Chuckles] Consciousness… What was I talking about?

Zach: Well, we started out by saying the objection that, “Hey, you guys are overthinking it.”

Joe: Okay. So, the entire study of personal identity is about what it takes for someone to be the same person through time, right? But nobody ever—

Zach: Yeah, being that persists over time. That’s the normal view of self.

Joe: And nobody else has ever talked about the origins. What I obsess about. I understand it’s a strange thing to be obsessed about for a lifetime, sperm and eggs, but that’s what the belief is, and so that’s what I talk about; the sperm and the ovum joining the origins, what makes a person come into existence in the first place? And I think Parfit walks back a bit on what he concludes in part three, and when he talks in part four about origins. He even says, you know… His phrasing is much better, much more eloquent, much more careful, but basically, that you must believe you would not exist if that sperm and ovum hadn’t joined. Even in a footnote, he says there’s lots of questions we can have about identity through time, but surely no one questions this fact that you wouldn’t exist unless the sperm and ovum joined.

Zach: Open individualism was too much of a crazy thing for him to think of.

Joe: And so to answer, it’s not really a direct answer to that objection that yes, every—I call it the everyone is someone viewpoint—every conscious being is going to be someone. It’s going to have that sense of self. That’s just a basic, easy fact to see. But it doesn’t answer the counterfactual questions of like, “If the world had gone differently, in what situations do I place myself there? Am I there? And in what situations am I not there? What situations do I exist? What situations do I not exist? It’s kind of a roundabout argument against that, but that’s the thought that I return to every time.

Zach: Yeah, I think so many of the objections that people instinctually have are basically manifestations about the normal view… They represent the normal view that we are these things, these beings that have a beginning and an end and then persist over time. So somebody who says something like, “Well, it’s very simple. When a creature comes into existence, it has a point of view. It has a sense of self.” But they don’t realize that that’s just a manifestation of the view that it’s very simple in the sense that there’s this persistent being over time. Because, like you say, you and me or open individualists are not denying that a creature has to have a sense of self, right? An entity has a sense of self. But when you actually dig into the complexity of it and think about it, there’s not the idea that it’s this persistent creature over time. This being over time is what we’re talking about. It’s what we’re debating. And so the objection that an entity has to have a sense of self and it’s very simple, it’s not really solving anything. It’s saying what we also believe. But they believe it’s a good objection because I think they’re seeing it under the hood. It’s like there’s this persistent being over time. So I think their objection is actually representing something under the hood that they’re not even realizing that their objection contains, which is the normal view of closed individualism. Because you and I or anybody espousing these views wouldn’t deny that a creature that comes into existence almost certainly has to have a feeling of ‘I’. We’re not denying that. We’re trying to get at what is that feeling of ‘I’ that is there, right? That’s hard to talk about, but hopefully—

Joe: Yeah, a lot of this is hard to talk about.

Zach: Oh, it’s all extremely hard to talk about. Yeah.

Joe: And I think… What are we? We’re about an hour in now, and I think the whole concept we’re talking about is the empty self idea, right? And we’ve never even talked about what that is. Some people have no idea what that is. Some people are going to kind of have an intuitive idea of it, which is how I came at it. In the first chapter of what I wrote, the perfect doppelgänger thought experiment is this idea of being replaced by an exact copy of me, but that isn’t me. So you can imagine someone sitting next to you right now that is genetically identical to you and as similar as possible to you, but it’s a different person. If you die, you’re gone. That person keeps existing. If they die, you stay here, that person ceases to exist. Their subjective self ceases to exist. And then you can imagine like, okay, so then just make yourself disappear. You never existed. And that person is exactly in your place, atom-for-atom, exactly moving through the universe exactly as you have your entire life and has lived your exact same life the exact same way you have, but is not you. You never existed. That’s how I isolate the idea of the empty self. At first, I framed it as this is what I mean when I say ‘I exist.’ It’s like the thing that exists in this universe but doesn’t exist in the other universe where he replaces me is what I mean when I say ‘I exist.’ If we can, just for the sake of argument, say that everything is atom-for-atom identical in that other universe as in this one, then that’s what I mean when I say ‘I exist.’ And I use that just to talk about what I mean when I’m talking about my existence, to avoid confusion.

Zach: Because there is a lot of confusion. I really like your explanation of drawing out the important distinction between the ‘I’, the feeling of existing, and the traits that we have as humans.

Joe: Yeah, the content.

Zach: The content. Right. Because, like you say, even very smart people… like you start out with Dawkins. And I agree with you, it’s like he seemed to be conflating the two in ways that just don’t make sense, but that represents the normal view that most people have of conflating those kind of ideas.

Joe: Yeah, the empty self and content is how I describe it. The two things people think they’re talking about when they say ‘I exist.’ For the Dawkins quote, it’s from Unweaving the Rainbow, the very first part. He states, more eloquently than anybody, this idea that you wouldn’t exist but for the existence of these gametes joining—the sperm and egg joining. I’ve got to say, it’s the only point I’ve ever disagreed with Dawkins on before, was that one. But I think he states this common belief very eloquently, and that’s the belief that I think is wrong.

Zach: It really gets into this instinctual feeling that it’s such a natural thing to think, because I think we all instinctually know it’s very strange for us to be here. By which I mean it’s very strange for me to be experiencing this. We all sense that instinctually, and so we look for reasons why that strangeness must exist, and we say, “Oh, it must have been the chance encounters of all these things that happened.” Right? It’s understandable why Dawkins and so many people, that that’s the instinctual view. Because we’re looking for an explanation of like, we know that it’s weird for us to to be here. So we’re like, “Oh, it must have been all this…” But getting back to your ideas, it’s like once you start examining, it’s like, “So you’re telling me that everything in the entire universe had to precisely align, and the egg and the sperm had… And all my ancestors had to do all this stuff, and all these things had to line up, and the correct egg and sperm had to meet in exactly the right way for, as you say the empty self, or the feeling of ‘I’ to exist.” When you start examining that idea, it kind of breaks down, which gets you more into the open individualism way of seeing things.

Joe: Yeah, that’s a good summary. That’s good.

Zach: I was going to see what you thought of this. Another way I was thinking of it the other day to try to explain it to someone, I would say, “Another way to see this is I am no more myself in the next moment than I am you in the next moment.” That gets into maybe what you were saying about, it’s hard to imagine ourselves being the same sense of self across the board at the same time. But that’s a way I was thinking of explaining it, where if we were all series people, in a way, it’s like it helps explain how we could all be this communal kind of manifestation of the empty self or the ‘I’ feeling.

Joe: I think it’s similar to a thought I had early on. As I was in the middle of arguing myself into open individualism, I think I had a similar thought. There’s nothing more I can articulate about it than what you said. This is kind of what Parfit does, too, when he talks about if we loosen the connections between myself now and Joe Kern in the past or Joe Kern in the future, if we loosen those connections, then it also takes down the barriers between me and other people. 

Zach: Right.

Joe: And Parfit almost ends with the open individualism conclusion at the end of part three when he talks about—this is one of the most famous passages of that section of the book—about how he used to envision himself as in a tunnel on a journey that was just going to end. And now the walls of that tunnel have fallen away and things are more… When I first read that before I ever thought of open individualism, this was four years before I even thought such an idea was possible, it confused me a bit because it seemed like he had just argued this really—

Zach: Nihilistic view.

Joe: Nihilistic, dismal view about… There’s a better word I’m thinking of, but yeah. 

Zach: Dark.

Joe: The dark view that we are nothing at all. And then he ends with this. Again, I took him at his word that this is how he felt, because I had tremendous respect for him after reading the entire part three. So I took him at his word that this is how he felt, but I had to think a long time about why would you feel that way? After everything you just argued about the self and personal identity and existence, why would that argument make you feel more open to the world and other people and everything? I think I understand it now. I don’t think I can articulate it at all, but I think I understand it.

Zach: Yeah, it gets into the relationship of the so-called empty individualism and the open individualism. Because, yeah, I think he probably did see many of the things we’re talking about. He was just coming at it from a different angle that sounded kind of depressing the way he explained it. But I think he did… If I had to guess, I think he did see many of these points that we’re talking about. It’s like the glass half full, glass half empty kind of thing.

Joe: We’ve got to get Daniel Kolak to release his Derek Parfit notes. I’d love to read them.

Zach: When the world eventually embraces open individualism, that’ll be some of the founding mythology or documents of… [chuckles]

Joe: Yeah, I agree. To be clear, I mean the notes Derek Parfit wrote about Kolak’s manuscript.

Zach: Right, yeah, Kolak’s book. Yeah, totally. That would be really interesting to see. Yeah, that would be foundational. 

Maybe I can pivot over to one of the reasons I’ve always found these kinds of ideas—I’ve been drawn to them, and I would include in there ideas about doubting free will and going down those rabbit holes—I think it’s just because I’ve always had this instinctual, I don’t know, maybe call it low self-esteem in the sense that I see myself as… I think it’s tempting to reach for kind of egotistical ideas of what we are as people, and that we are some persistent entity that has a beginning and end. That we’re this consistent thing. I’ve always been drawn to the views or the ideas where I’m just an unfolding of some processes. I’m just a cog in some machine that I don’t understand. I’m an unfolding of physical or other processes that I don’t understand. So I think I’ve always been drawn to these things because I didn’t think—

Joe: When you say drawn, they’re comforting or depressing?

Zach: No. Well, neither maybe. Maybe depressing. I’ve always struggled with depression and anxiety so I might be drawn to them for a low self-esteem reason. But however I come to them, they make sense to me because I can’t help but see that we tend to overemphasize our amount of control in the world. Like our specialness. We have a tendency to think that we’re special, that we are in control of things, you know? So I’ve always been interested in these things that knock holes in that because it’s like getting back to the… What is it? The Copernicus thing of we would assume that the sun’s orbiting us and it doesn’t come naturally to us too. We tend to think that we’re the center of the world. 

So just to say, I think a lot of these ideas. They can be very counterintuitive, but they can contain a lot of logic and power when you look at them. And then when you start examining them more, they’re not nearly as depressing as they seem at first. 

For example, I would say that about free will too. I think a lot of people are disheartened by the idea that we might not have free will, and I actually think there’s a lot of magic even in that idea, because that means if I don’t have free will, I’m still here experiencing all these things, which is an amazing thing even if I don’t have free will. That means I’m animated by something that is beyond me, right? That’s an amazing idea, too. So just to say, I think a lot of these ideas go against our instincts, but they can be very interesting and non-depressing and even positive to examine.

Joe: Have you ever heard… I think it was Wittgenstein that said it. I don’t know that much about the history of philosophy, but this is just a quote that anybody could have heard. I know it as well as  anybody. It was that people used to think that the Sun orbited the Earth because that’s what it looks like, but they never asked the question, “What would it look like to us if the Earth orbited the Sun?”

Zach: Thinking about how it can manifest the same ways.

Joe: Yeah. Our first impression of how things are, that’s what it looks like. But then you think about what other version of reality would look exactly the same to us from our perspective? I guess that’s the point. 

Okay, so you’re talking about accepting lack of free will, for example. My whole life has been a series of coming to accept things about the universe and myself that I didn’t want to. Number one was Dawkins selfish gene theory.” Number two was Parfit, his tearing down of self, identity, the soul. Number three was eventually the soul, which I think Dennett and a lot of other philosophers really helped. And then the whole thing about the Earth orbiting the Sun, that had already happened before me so I’d already grew up accepting that. But you can see how if you grew up thinking that the Earth was the center of the universe, it can make you depressed. It really messes up your view of your place in the universe and can make you really depressed. And so in my lifetime, I’ve gone through these steps: the selfish gene theory, lack of a soul, and I came through on the other side. Oh, and then lack of free will, that was another big one for me. That can be depressing. I just find that every existential thing that comes up to me like that that makes me really depressed for a short period or a long period, eventually, I just come to accept it from one way or another. Open individualism I came up with in order to deal with the lack of a soul. That’s the only one I ever solved. All the other ones, I just accepted. Lack of free will, I just accepted. And I thought I’d come to all of them. I thought I’d come to every single, “What new fact about reality is going to disturb me next?” I thought I had ended that. I’m like, “Great. I understand reality now and I feel pretty good about it, so life is all right.” And then recently, I finally—

Zach: Oh no. You stumbled across something—

Joe: Another one. I finally became convinced that the quantum multiverse is the correct view of quantum mechanics.

Zach: Oh! I’ve believed that for a long time. We have that in common.

Joe: Did that ever depress you?

Zach: No, no more than the free will. But we should talk about that another time. Maybe we’ll continue that offline. [chuckles]

Joe: Yeah I’ll just tell you real quick my reaction. Yeah, so I read David Deutsch’s first book, Fabric of Reality. Beginning of Infinity is more famous, I like Fabric of Reality better. And I was basically convinced by his argument for about twenty to thirty perc… I was convinced of his argument, but I didn’t feel like I had to think about it too hard. And then I started listening to Sean Carroll’s Mindscape podcast. He’s a big multiverse, Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics guy. After about two straight years listening to him, it just hit me one day. It’s like, “All right, Joe, you can’t ignore this anymore. The quantum multiverse is probably true.” And it just made me so anxious and depressed for a while.

Zach: Oh, we should talk about that.

Joe: I was just thinking about, I don’t know why, but my grandmother came into my mind. My father’s mother. My grandfather passed away in the mid-2000s, and I got to know my grandmother after he passed away. My grandfather was a preacher. Everybody said I’m so much like him my whole life so I always just focused on my grandfather. Maybe it’s kind of like, you know, male-male female-female thing might do it. But then I got to know my grandmother, and I don’t know why, but I just had this thought about—and I really enjoyed my time with her, she’s just an amazing person—I just had this thought like, “So, all that time we’re spending together,” and this could be with anybody you’re thinking about, “it wasn’t just a persistent ‘us’ spending time together, it’s like we branched a thousand times every second. And so I felt like I lost my garden. There’s a lot of different ways there can be multiverses in physics, you know? There can be infinite space. An infinite number of copies of this world exists in infinite space, infinite time, whatever. At least in those cases, I’m still here now, and this is all there is. And I have my garden that I can tend to. And I can make this space as good as I can for myself and for everybody. But the quantum multiverse, if even this space is splitting millions of times or thousands of times every second and I have no access to any other of my selves or any of your other selves, then I’ve lost the garden to tend to, and it’s like, “Well, what’s the point of caring about anything now? I can’t even tend to my own garden.” But somehow…

Zach: I think you’ll get over that.

Joe: I did. Yeah, I did. I had to take a vacation right away. Timing worked out. I went on vacation. “I can’t sit at home and think about this anymore.” And then I finally just kind of accepted it. I still don’t like it. I still hope it’s not true, but I just kind of accepted it. “All right, that’s what reality is…”

Zach: Yeah, we’ll talk more about that later. I was going to end on something… Oh, I wanted to say we should end on the idea that… If anyone’s still listening, they might think these are all very convoluted, complex ideas. Another simple solution to these mysteries is the one that maybe we do have souls. Maybe there is something special to us. Or maybe there’s some mysterious process by which we are these consistent beings over time. I just want to throw in that, like, even though I talk about this and I talk about free will on the podcast, it’s not that I’m certain of all these ideas I talk about. It’s more like, I think when it comes to logically thinking through things, these are valid theories about how things are. But at the end of the day, I find existence so mysterious and strange that even if I found out that there was a God and a soul, it wouldn’t surprise me that much because I do find all this stuff so astoundingly strange. I just wanted to throw that in. I wanted to throw that in there because I think a lot of times when people talk about these kinds of ideas, people think, “Oh, this guy’s a hundred percent believer in this.” I don’t a hundred percent believe in anything. These are ideas that I find really compelling from a logical perspective. But I just want to throw that in there and get your take.

Joe: It’s epistemic humility. That’s something I try to have about everything, and I have it about this. I feel pretty strongly atheistic. I’m pretty strongly an atheist now, and that was after reading The Selfish Gene, which I read before Dawkins had published The God Delusion. So I didn’t become an atheist because of his arguments against religion, it was The Selfish Gene. I’m pretty strongly atheist, I told you I don’t believe in souls or spirits. I have my reasons for that and I mentioned some of them here. But I want to say that open individualism as a whole, some people who argue for it, Arnold Zuboff in particular, is not anti-soul, as far as I understand his view. I have another friend that I speak with a lot, Mineta Jurášková, also goes by Edralis online, she also says she still believes that souls are possible. But they still believe this universal self idea of open individualism. They just think that it’s not necessarily purely materialistic theory. My version of it is, but it isn’t necessarily. Another thing I should say about Zuboff is that he uses his own word for it “universalism.” He doesn’t use the word “open individualism,” that’s Daniel Kolak’s word. But Zuboff and Kolak are both professional philosophers who have published peer-reviewed work on this idea of universalism in Zuboff’s case and open individualism in Kolak’s case.

Zach: Yeah, I was going to put that in the intro, there’s some real heavyweights… Just to convince people, like, “Hey, it’s not just you and me. It’s some other very smart people who have gotten peer-reviewed things out there. Yeah. I’m just curious if you somehow found out that there was a higher power and there were souls, how shocked would you be on a scale of one to ten? [chuckles]

Joe: How shocked would I be?

Zach: Would it be… How atheistic are you?

Joe: I haven’t thought of that. Actually, I don’t know, maybe not so shocked.

Zach: Because you’ve got humility.

Joe: It depends on how recently I read Richard Dawkins. If I’ve just read Richard Dawkins, I might be really shocked, because I find that guy really compelling and convincing. But in the end, I still find… So, I was a Christian, and I’m still nostalgic for those times sometimes, and I still find that comforting, those beliefs. The community was comforting, for sure. I still find the beliefs comforting. So I still think, actually, that would be nice if that was true. I don’t know. I can’t really answer how shocked I would be. Maybe I would be really shocked, but I think I’m kind of open to…

Zach: Yeah, you have the epistemic humility.

Joe: Yeah, epistemic humility. Because I keep discovering new things that I’m either forced to believe or that I am happy to believe, but new beliefs as I go along, it keeps me thinking, “Well, there still must be a lot that I don’t know, and there may be some reasons around the corner that jump out at me to make me believe something different than I believe right now.”

Zach: Well, I think you’re a lot like me because I’ve spent a lot of sleepless nights just laying in bed in the middle of the night thinking through things that really bother me, like, what happens at the edges of the universe? You know, these kinds of ideas that things are you’re never going to get an answer for.

Joe: I remember me and my brother talking about that when I was like six. Like, time. When did time start? What happened before the start of time? What happens on the other side of the edge of the universe?

Zach: Yeah, I think we have that in common. We like to make ourselves uncomfortable.

Joe: Yeah. Do you still experience depression around those big existential kind of questions, or is that something you’ve kind of…

Zach: Interestingly, I think it’s lessened. I still have anxiety and issues about various things, but the big question things, I think, have lessened. And I think that’s related to thinking through some of these things and also reading existential psychology books. My favorite book I recommend to people is Existential Psychotherapy by Irvin Yalom. It’s my favorite book. So I think as time’s gone on, I’ve been less stressed by these big questions. I’m more stressed by more mundane everyday things.

Joe: Yeah, me too.

Zach: Yeah. I think it’s gotten better. How about you? You’ve mainly found peace with it.

Joe: Yeah. Like I said, everything that comes at me, eventually, I find a way to accept it. I didn’t think I was going to ever get comfortable with this quantum multiverse thing, but now I don’t think about it that much anymore.

Zach: Maybe that’s a future episode, and we can talk about that, the psychological implications of dealing with the multiverse.

Joe: Yeah. [chuckles]

Zach: Well, I really appreciate it, Joe. Thanks for taking the time.

Joe: It’s been a blast. I’ve really loved this. Thank you.

The documentary “Bad Vegan” was about Sarma Melngailis’s nightmarish journey from successful New York City restaurant owner to Rikers inmate jailed for stealing millions. How did this happen? Sarma was the victim of a narcissistic con man named Anthony Strangis, who manipulated her into believing (or semi-believing) a number of wild, delusional ideas (like that he might be a non-human being with immense, other-worldly powers). He used this strange hold over her to persuade her to give him large amounts of money (much of which he blew at casinos).

I talk to Sarma about her experiences. We talk about: what led to her being so emotionally vulnerable that someone like Strangis could manipulate her; the factors that can lead someone to believe things that most people see as clearly ridiculous lies; why she dislikes the “Bad Vegan” documentary maker for his editing choices; the huge emotional challenge of trying to rebuild and stay positive after such nightmarish, debilitating events; her new book “The Girl With the Duck Tattoo.”

Episode links:

• YouTube (includes video)
• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify

TRANSCRIPT

(Transcripts are automatic and will contain errors!)

Sarma Melngailis: “Once he got money out of me, which initially was, oh, let me just borrow this money for this crazy emergency, I’ll pay you right back. Once he got that initial chunk of money out of me, then he is got a hook in me. Right. Because I’m always gonna want it back.

So I, I had resolved, I’m not gonna see this guy again. Like he, this is not right. Something’s, you know, not right. He was able to get back in because he’d say, oh, I’m gonna bring you that money back. I got it and cash, I’m gonna –

Zach Elwood: It creates a tie to him.

Sarma: Right. And then he would do his mind sorcery on me and somehow he would maybe give me back some money, but then he’d get more money out of me. And then I’m in deeper and then you’re in deeper. And then it becomes, you know, they get you in a situation, you’re more and more and more compromised and the loss is bigger and bigger and bigger.

“There are people who, if you let them into your life, are capable of targeted and elaborately thought-out cruelty — the kind we’d like to think happens only in psychological horror films. These people are real, and they are out there in droves. They will study you, figure out your worst-case scenario, and turn it into a plan for a nightmare specifically tailored to you. They will then go to great lengths to make this nightmare your reality.
In the end, it will often appear to have been your fault. The wreckage will be yours alone to repair, while they slip away to find their next target.”

That was from the introduction of The Girl with the Duck Tattoo, a memoir by Sarma Melngailis. You may be familiar with her story, because it was the subject of a popular documentary titled Bad Vegan.

Here’s my copy of the book (if you’re watching this on Youtube, you can see it anyway). I recently moved to New York City so I was able to meet up with Sarma and get a signed copy. She wrote to me “To Zach, with you in exposing con artists, scammers, sociopaths.” I appreciate that, Sarma.

If you didn’t see the Bad Vegan movie or otherwise don’t know Sarma’s story, I’ll read from a Netflix article Olivia Harrison that summarized the quite wild and weird events the movie covered:

“The new docuseries “Bad Vegan: Fame. Fraud. Fugitives.” tells the story of Melngailis and the rise and fall of her raw food restaurant, NYC’s Pure Food and Wine. A big part of the narrative is the relationship Melngailis had with Anthony Strangis, a man she met online who told her that he could, among other things, make her precious pup, Leon, immortal.
In the series, Sarma recounts that when she first met Strangis, he quickly recognized how special Leon was to her and realized he could use this attachment to his advantage. Sarma says that this meant that Strangis gradually convinced her that he was not, in fact, a human, but rather existed in an eternal, ethereal realm that could eventually become their shared “happily ever after,” and that Leon could come, too.
According to Sarma’s journal entries from that time, Strangis didn’t just promise immortality to Leon, he also promised her a stake in the power, influence and wealth he had gained as a result of passing all the tests he took to become a higher being. All Sarma needed to do in order to share in the bounty was wire him money to prove her loyalty both to him and the others — “the family” — who could turn Leon immortal.
The kind of intense, psychologically damaging relationship that Melngailis and Strangis had can lead people to believe things that sound, frankly, unbelievable. According to Sarma, this means that she believed her life — and Leon’s — would be in danger if she didn’t send Strangis money. If Sarma didn’t prove herself to Strangis, she stood to lose everything. If she did? She would ascend to what Strangis promised was her fated role as queen, where she’d be accompanied by her beloved dog, forever by her side. Although all this might sound like the most transparent lie in the world to many of us (no matter how much we want our pets to live for decades and decades), in the words of Seinfeld’s George Costanza, “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
End quote

Sarma’s story ended with her being arrested, wracking up millions in debt, her restaurant closing, and her being sued by investors. Her mother was also exploited by Anthony Strangis; her mother ended up having sent $400,000 to Strangis before it was all over.

There was also a big media sensation, which was amplified by the fact that Strangis and her were arrested due to him ordering a pizza. A lot of the media buzz was about a vegan being caught by ordering a non-vegan pizza. But this was false clickbait; Sarma hadn’t ordered or eaten the pizza. Strangis and her were staying in separate rooms and ordered food separately. This is just to say that many people, in the media and just in the general public, reacted in rather mean, unfeeling ways about the story; that is something we will talk about.

Personally, I think it’s quite clear that Sarma was manipulated and going through some very tough times emotionally at that time, which made her vulnerable to exploitation. One point that makes that pretty clear is that she got absolutely nothing out of the money that was stolen; she attained no benefit, there seemed to be no end goal for her; at the end she just seemed to be emotionally burned out and tagging along with Strangis as he roamed the countryside staying in hotels. Sarma was hardly doing anything, while Anthony Strangis, aka Anthony Knight, burned through an amazing amount of money at various casinos, and buying lavish items. He was quite clearly the manipulative pathological liar, and to me, she was quite clearly the one being manipulated. I think watching the documentary makes that pretty clear, too, even as I also think the movie was quite irresponsible and unethical in some areas (something Sarma and I will talk about).

If you’re someone who feels for Sarma’s story, you could show her some support by buying her book and leaving it a review on Amazon. It’s also just a very interesting read, and I do respect Sarma for her transparency and bravery in sharing a story that many people would rather just forget and never want to talk about. I agree with her that it helps to share such things; it may help other people avoid being taken in by narcissistic abuse and toxic con men. The truth is there are a lot of twisted, toxic people around us, even as few of them rise to the extreme level of delusion and manipulation as Anthony Strangis, aka Anthony Knight.

In this interview, Sarma and I discuss: the psychological and emotional issues that led to her vulnerability; we talk about how it is that people can go down such delusional and unwell paths, even as it can seem so obvious from the outside that they are embracing completely crazy and absurd beliefs; we talk about her beef with the Bad Vegan documentary, and why she sees the director as having made some unethical choices; we talk about the difficulty of carrying on with life now now, living with the fact that she has hurt a lot of people, including people close to her, and that she owes an absurd lot of money.

Okay here’s the talk with Sarma Melngailis…

Zach: Hi Sarma. Thanks for joining me.

Sarma: Hi. Really, it’s good to be here.

Zach: Yeah. Thanks for doing this. I know, uh, like we’ve talked about, I know it’s probably hard to talk about, uh, such hard things that have happened to you, so I really appreciate you taking the time and being willing to do that and uh, yeah.

Thanks.

Sarma: Well, this feels easy ’cause I’ve been doing a lot of podcasts, um, for my book lately, but we’ve, um, we’ve spoken before and corresponded a bunch back and forth, so it feels kind of like, I mean, I do, I already know you, so this is easy and fun.

Zach: Yeah. And this is pretty, um, you know, low rent podcasts, so not much pressure, uh, to perform for my small audience.

So that must be a easier, easier feeling to

Sarma: No, I bet. I bet you have. I, I bet you have a, um, I bet you have a very smart audience, which I like. Well,

Zach: thank you th thank you for that. Um, okay, so yeah, maybe we could start with, uh, how we, how we got into contact. Yeah. And, um, I, [00:08:00] I could, yeah, you basically, uh, people who listen to my podcast know I’ve done some work on Chase Hughes, this guy who, um, has.

You know, as a sort of a, a guru of behavior and influence and manipulation. But, um, yeah, that’s how, that’s how you got in contact with me.

Sarma: And I, I was fascinated with Chase Hughes initially, uh, after hearing him on the diary of a CEO podcast and as, as one would logically assume that they had done vetting and whatnot.

But I, I was intrigued because, you know, as you know, there’s a lot of conversation online about how to influence people. Um, and of course without them knowing that that’s what you’re doing, that’s the whole point. And all of this behavior analysis, and I find it fascinating in the context of my own story and what happened to me, which involves this colossal manipulation, which very few people understand because they think, you know, you’re reasonably intelligent.

You went to a good school, worked on Wall Street, yada, yada, how [00:09:00] could you be, be. You know, air quotes brainwashed by some guy, or how could you have believed him? So I’m very fascinated in that whole field of, you know, mind control and mind manipulation and the tactics that are used. And I was interested in him potentially.

Being somebody to comment on a, a new docuseries that I’m working on. And so I started, uh, and actually I was about to reach out to him, but I started doing some digging and I came across your YouTube videos and then went, you know, I watched them all in their entirety. I forget you made some joke that made me like, spit out my beverage laugh.

Zach: Oh, was it the inner circle? Um, you know, his inner circle one about? I think

Sarma: so. I think, I think a butthole was involved in the joke, which of course is gonna make me laugh.

Zach: Yeah. That was a, yeah. Now I have to explain that. Now that I said it, it was, it was, it was about his inner circle of people, but it was in, it was in relation to him, uh, recommending people put, uh, melatonin suppositories, you know, [00:10:00] in their butt.

So that was right there, there was, it made sense either way. You had to be there.

Sarma: Yeah, exactly. Whatever it was, it like made me spit my beverage, which I appreciated. And, um, um, I, I just, I appreciated that you did such a deep dive and did all this really thorough work on that, because what’s fascinating about that situation is that, and this is very common, it happens with cult leaders too, where they almost tell you what they’re doing and then they’re doing the thing right to you at the same time.

Zach: Right.

Sarma: And so then you never suspect that he’s doing it to you because he is teaching you about it. Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Sarma: Right. It just, it’s like, oh, it’s weird. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. And I, I think I recall you did, in one of those videos, you, there was some really good explanation about how people go to. You know, these sort of, um, [00:11:00] you know, when people, I, I don’t know why I’m blanking on like what the word is, these events, right?

Where these people sell tickets to events, maybe transformational,

Zach: experiential, Tony Robbins.

Sarma: Yeah. And, and that people go and they come away and they feel like their life has changed. But there’s something psychological going on where it’s very easy to sort of convince yourself that you feel changed.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Sarma: Because that’s what you would, I don’t know. Anyway, I I really appreciated all of that, um, insight. Yeah. That was the,

Zach: uh, that was the video about the NLP neurolinguistic programming element to Chase, which a lot of these people in these spaces have this NLP background, and it ties into the Tony Robbins seminars and the long multi-day seminars.

And, you know, speaking of that stuff, you know, I think the, as you and I have talked about, the, the good thing about, um, if there’s any good thing to come out of your experience, it’s, uh, being able to try to educate people about, you know, these kinds of manipulations, especially people that. May be, you know, to, to people who may be especially vulnerable and, you know, just [00:12:00] drawing more attention to this kind of like weird delusional narcissistic abuse type scenarios, which are a lot more common than people know.

You know, until you run across people, you know, until you experience or, or know people that experience these kind of things, you don’t really realize how common these kinds of things are. Right.

Sarma: And, and most people aren’t talking about it either because most people are, you know, humiliated. If, if I hadn’t been the, the subject of tabloid articles and then a whole big Netflix special, it’s not like if I met somebody at a party, I would blurt out that like, by the way, I was taken advantage of by this.

Mm-hmm. You know, big slob of a con artist and

Zach: mm-hmm. You

Sarma: know, he made me believe crazy things. Like, you wouldn’t go around saying that. It’s, it’s humiliating. And I’ve heard from, I mean, I, I’ve heard from tons and tons of women who have PhDs, even in clinical psychology, and they’ve been completely manipulated.

And I’ve heard from a lot of men too, who tragically tell me, I’ve, I’ve heard this a number of times, where they tell me that [00:13:00] you’re, you know, aside from the, the people immediately involved, he’s like, you’re the first person I’ve told. You know, they don’t

Zach: mm-hmm.

Sarma: They just don’t talk about it at all because it’s completely humiliating and probably a, a sort of a different, sort of a layer on that for men to mm-hmm.

To be, have been manipulated. Um,

Zach: yeah, I think there’s, and there’s also the, uh. People are afraid of getting sued, like way overly afraid of getting sued too. So I also feel like there’s this element of people being afraid to talk about their experiences for that reason. They’re like, oh, that, you know, which is a, which is a legitimate fear.

’cause some of the same kind of narcissistic people will like do litigation abuse, you know, even at a, even at a self-destructive level where you’re like, you know, so that is a legitimate fear. But I, I think there’s multiple levels why people are, you know, afraid to talk about this stuff. So we don’t get a sense of just how common this kind of stuff is.

Yeah.

Sarma: And, and that it, it happens to very bright people who’ve usually accomplished a lot. And, um, [00:14:00] yeah, it’s, it’s more common than people realize.

Zach: Yeah. I’ve been listening to, um, this podcast, uh, out of crazy Town, about, um, basically people going through, um. Narcissistic, you know, uh, post-separation abuse, you know, post-divorce kind of abuse, and some really interesting stories on there.

Um, yeah, I was gonna say, uh, I, I was gonna switch topics and ask you about, you know, your, your, uh, your book. You just got your, your book out and wanted to say, uh oh. Yeah. And I’ve got it right here for people watching on nice video. The Girl with the, the duck tattoo. Does it, does it feel good? Oh, you have one too.

What a, what a coincidence. No, just kidding. Right? Imagine that. Um, thank, and thank you for that book, by the way. Um, and I was just gonna ask how does it feel good to be done? I, I know how, you know, daunting and, and tiring it is to get a book out there, but especially for your, you know, very personal and, um.

Hard to share things. I imagine it was even more, uh, exhausting.

Sarma: Yeah, it, it feels, I mean, it feels really good. It felt really [00:15:00] good when I, you know, finishing the draft finally. ’cause it it something that I worked on for years and somehow just going over the draft and the proofing and the copy editing and again and again was, it was grueling because the story is kind of harrowing and reliving it is gut wrenching.

Um, but I mean, the, the first half of the book is more fun. You know, I have more fun stories. There’s a chapter about, you know, getting to know Alec Baldwin. There’s chapters about opening the restaurant and growing the business that ultimately was destroyed. But, um, the first half was, was a lot more fun to write.

And, uh, you know, and the second half really takes you through what happened, I think in a very. Uh, you know, because I, I was able to recover a lot of our digital conversations as well as a journal of mine was recovered. So I incorporate a lot of that material and along the [00:16:00] way I am reflecting and analyzing throughout the book and the comment that I get most often from people that really, like, I can’t hear it enough, I love it, is people tell me all the time.

Uh, you know, like, oh, I started reading it and I can’t put it down. Oh my God, I can’t put it down. It’s, I love hearing that and mm-hmm. Also, ’cause it’s a long book, so, but it, the, the chapters are short and it moves quickly and I think it’s easy to read. ’cause I, you know, I tried to keep it moving and, um, and I, as you know, in the beginning I jumped back and forth a bit in time.

So in the opening scene, I’m throwing up a small town, Tennessee jail, having just been arrested and, you know, and then I get extradited to New York, to Rikers and then I, you know, would jump immediately back to sort of the height of the glamorous time at the restaurant and my life and knowing, meeting all these people and mm-hmm.

So I go back and forth. So it kind of keeps it keeps it moving.

Zach: Yeah. That, as somebody who recently moved to New York City, it’s been [00:17:00] interesting reading your book for that reason too. Just seeing some of the New York, you know, era, uh, area stories. I, it’s

Sarma: always fun to read a, a book about any place that you’re very familiar with.

So it’s. I enjoy, like if I give, if given two options of books, novels, or memoirs to read, I’d rather read one that takes place in New York versus one that takes place in say, Chicago, where I’ve, I’ve never spent any time.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Um, yeah. The, uh, the book is, is very interesting. And, um, yeah, I was gonna say, uh, oh, let’s, let’s talk about, uh, sorry, I’m jumping from topic to topic.

Sure. I wanted to ask you about, uh, your major, uh, a lot, a lot of people watching this may have seen the Bad Vegan, uh, documentary. Maybe we can touch briefly on what your major grievance with that documentary was. I know you’ve written a very good, uh, blog post. You had written a very good blog post about your grievance with the documentary, which I found very, uh, persuasive.

You know, I, I think you, you make very good points. Maybe you could talk about the, uh, the thing that really bugged you, which is like the last bit of the documentary.

Sarma: Yeah. I mean, there were a couple of the, you know, there are things along the way that what, what the [00:19:00] director did. Was a sort of evil genius on his part because he, he manipulated the story and he edited things in a way where he kind of along the way has some plausible deniability.

Um, but, you know, there were some things in the middle where the way it was edited, it makes me look not good. Um, for example, when I talk about why I ended up marrying this guy, he kind of completely cuts out the story and makes it seem as if I married him for money when there was all this other stuff that happened in between and that wasn’t it at all.

And so that sort of is another thing that would get the viewer to go, oh, she married the guy for money, you know, so that, that’s sort of setting me up. Um, but the most egregious thing was at the end where they, uh, the series, if somebody hasn’t seen it, the series starts out with me on the phone with this guy, the, the guy who was my, my tormentor.

And I’m clearly. Playing a role. Shane Fox. Yes. Or that’s Mr.

Zach: Fox as we Right. His fake [00:20:00] name. But that’s how you refer to him, his fake name. Yeah. Yeah.

Sarma: And um, and, and then it shows me hanging up the phone, and then I say to the camera that I would never normally ever record somebody without their knowledge.

Um, and I think I say, but that motherfucker fuck him like so clearly, and hopefully it’s okay that I curse, but clearly I’m doing this to try in some way just to, it’s even if it’s in the small way to get back at him in some way. Right. And get, and get

Zach: him to admit something or say something incriminating or something.

And,

Sarma: and I’m of course being a very agreeable, accommodating person. I’m also trying to help the, the, the, you know, quote, documentary get material. And so I, I offered to make, you know, I, we discussed making phone calls. I said, yes, I’ll do it. And there are other phone calls that I made that weren’t on camera, but I was using an app, which the director gave me or told me what, how to use it.

I was using an app, um. To record it and from just a regular cell phone conversation. So I had [00:21:00] I think one or two calls like that, that I’d recorded for the series as well. And at the very end of the, the series, they air a segment of one of those calls, but they do in a way that makes it look like I was caught on a hot mic.

And they air in a very deceptive context. But then on, and then on top of that they moved my words around. So, you know, if he like, basically they take apart where I might have said the like yes somewhere else when I really said no. And they moved the yes over to replace where I said no. Oh

Zach: geez.

Sarma: Um, and I mean, it was bad enough just airing a phone call like that out of context because Yeah, out of context.

Yeah. They have me laughing and they’re not sitting there, there, there’s not something underneath it saying Samra was playing a role here to get, you know, this guy Anthony Strange just to say cuckoo stuff on the phone. Yeah. They air it and then people think that after everything that happened, I’m like joking around and laughing with this guy.

Yeah, no, totally. No, it’s,

Zach: it, it [00:22:00] struck me. I mean, so often when I watch documentaries, I mean, these are the kind of reasons I basically don’t trust any media. I see like a documentary because so often there’s some, they’re trying to create some exciting narrative and you could see the motivation for them to want to end on some kind of like mysterious note of like, is she still being controlled by him?

Does she still love him? You know, they, they wanted to end on this kind of note. I felt like. At the, at the, you know, leaving aside that context is, is hugely irresponsible for, to me, you know, and I thought that even watching it at the time, because I thought, oh, why would she be talking to him? She probably was like talking to him to get information for, you know, some sort of Right.

A lot Get ’em to get ’em to admit something or, you know, that was my thought at the time. And like, but I can see how a lot of people would just be like, oh, you know, the surface level that like, she still is having pleasant conversations with ’em and that’s really irresponsible to me.

Sarma: Well, I mean, but even worse is all the people.

And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard variations of this, you know, I was, I was, I felt bad for you the whole time until I got to the end and realized you were [00:23:00] in on. Yeah. Which logically doesn’t even make sense, but, you know, nowadays people,

Zach: yeah,

Sarma: they’re watching it while they’re doing the dishes or they’re watching it while they’re fiddling on their iPhone and they’re not paying that close attention.

Maybe they watched the first episode a week ago, so they don’t even remember the first part. Either way, it was clearly deliberately misleading and yeah, that’s, there’s a, that’s a problem. There’s a docuseries, I think it was called The Jinx with, uh, Robert Durst, where at the end he’s caught on a hot mic.

And that, I believe, I never saw it, but I was told that, that, uh, when that documentary or docuseries came out, it, it created a huge buzz and everybody was talking about it. So it seems like this director wanted to do the same thing. Yeah. Um, really, I think, yeah, it was

Zach: Irresponsible

Sarma: Revealed himself to be, I think it was more than irresponsible.

I think, you know, I, I think there are certain types of people out there that lack empathy. And there are words for people like that. And I think he’s one of them.

Note: This is just a little note that I added after this episode went out. I wanted to point out that, despite Sarma’s strong dislike of the documentary, I will say that after watching it, I thought Sarma was clearly a victim. And I’d add that two people I watched it with thought the same thing. So I just wanted to point that out, as something in the documentary’s favor. For Sarma, of course this is a hugely serious and personal matter – how her story is depicted. And I think she makes valid points; especially about how audience members who aren’t that savvy about psychology or who are prone to snap judgments can arrive at very distorted views based on choices made by the filmmaker. So I do agree with her that the documentary should have been more careful and responsible and explicit about some things.  But because in this talk with Sarma I largely supported her in her criticism of the documentary, I wanted to add in this note that I think most people did come away thinking that Sarma was the victim. I don’t pretend to know what was in the mind of the documentary filmmaker, so I kind of regret using the word ‘unethical’ at several points in this talk, as I don’t know his side of the story, and its possible he’d be able to defend himself. Okay, back to the talk. 

Zach: I have a friend who, you know, he, he’s told me, he’s like, I don’t, I won’t even watch documentaries even anymore because there’s always some narrative and it’s so hard.

You, you basically have to go afterwards and do the research yourself to even see what happens for a lot of these documents. Yeah. It’s like, it’s like Ken

Sarma: Burns should be on some kind of, like, you need to, you, you ought to, I made the argument in the essay I wrote online that there should be a new category called Docu.

Mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm. Like, don’t

Sarma: call it a documentary. And, and maybe there needs to be somebody, like, some kind of, I don’t know. I just brought up Ken Burns. ’cause he’s like the, the original documentarian that, you know, it’s like somebody should have to go, okay, this is legit.

Zach: Yeah. They do some, some organization rating documentaries, like in

Sarma: order to be called a documentary.

Yeah. You have to qualify and you have to,

Zach: that’s a good idea for a rating. Your fact

Sarma: checking has to pan out.

Zach: Yeah. Yeah. No, I like that. There’s just so much bias in a lot of these shows. Yeah. Looking back now with the, uh, benefit of more hindsight about how you met Mr. Fox and how he was able to manipulate you [00:25:00] and worm his way into your life, what, what do you see as the major, uh, you know, clearly you were emotionally vulnerable at the time, and, and what do you see as the, as the major factors at that time to that, that led you to be so vulnerable that he, he could, you know, get it work his way into your life?

Sarma: Um, I, I think that these people tend to find their targets exactly the way that cults usually find people very often on the other side, you know, at a time of transition. So I think cults are known for very often grabbing kids off college campuses when they’re in a brand new setting. They’re on their own for the first time.

They’re, they’re maybe like, they haven’t attached themselves to any group yet, so they’re, they’re in this somewhat vulnerable state. And for me, I had. Broken up from a, a very healthy, good relationship. I certainly had a dysfunctional one before that, but I’d been in this good relationship. I was heartbroken for the first time.

[00:26:00] And, um, and just feeling overwhelmed and overworked and wanting some kind of relief. And either way, these people are very, very skilled at what they do and, uh, and, and they know how to target people and, you know, get them mm-hmm. Know what things to say, what buttons to push, and how to reel people in and get them.

Zach: Yeah. It struck me that the, you know, the, the, the isolation, the, um, you know, the, the heartbreak, the isolation, the, the loneliness. And then, I mean, correct me if, if I’m off base here, but mm-hmm. Your description of, you know, going through the thing with, um. Matthew Kenny and how stressful that was. And then also like the debt that was involved in the Yeah.

The exploitation. You had already been basically exploited, you know, hugely, already, hugely emotionally and financially by that situation. And, uh, I mean, I I, I just imagine like the [00:27:00] stress of running the businesses, the, the loneliness slash heartbreak, the fact that you had this debt and abuse pre from the previous relationship.

I mean, man, that just, that just seems like a, a recipe for being extremely vulnerable and, um, yeah, I’m, I’m, I’m curious if you agree with all that.

Sarma: Yeah, definitely. And, and I think there’s certain things about me that kind of generally exist that make me a good target, which is that I am by nature, uh.

Introverted, even though, you know, therefore being in the restaurant, having to sort of schmooze with guests and talk to lots of people and be on socially. I mean, it was fun at times, but it was also completely wiped me out in a way that I didn’t even understand at the time. Certain things about me and the way that I’m wired, that that would make me especially exhausted and [00:28:00] drained.

And it was always often very confusing to me back then because I thought, I exercise, I eat the best food. I eat so healthy. I eat so clean. I wasn’t like, I mean back then I, I drank socially, but not a lot. I don’t drink at all hardly. Basically. I don’t drink at all now, but I, you know, I’m taking the supplements, I’m doing all these things right, and yet would be really exhausted and probably had a, probably had.

Most of my life was sort of level of depression too that never really went addressed or not really diagnosed or addressed. And I think when you’re that busy and there’s that much going on, you’re not, you know, I certainly wasn’t meditating and reflecting on my life and thinking about myself and my, my own emotional vulnerabilities or triggers, or I just wasn’t thinking about any of that stuff.

Mm-hmm. Yeah. So, [00:29:00] mm-hmm.

Zach: Yeah, I, I, I do think the, um, I mean my, my view of, you know, when it comes to mental struggles and. Delusions and, you know, unwell pathways we can go down. I do think, you know, the loneliness and isolation is at the root of pretty much all of that is, is my view when it comes to that.

Yeah.

Sarma: Well and and what they do once they get in, you know, once these people get to you is they deliberately isolate you from your close contact. So if you’re already have a tendency to be kind of an introvert, it’s

Zach: compounding. Yeah.

Sarma: It’s that much easier to isolate you. ’cause they’re not, you know, it’s not like I had a gaggle of girlfriends that I hung out with all the time that were all up in my business all the time.

So it was easier. And then, you know, I also wasn’t aware at the time, but I, I subsequently, I mean one of the really interesting, totally unexpected things that happened after Bad Vegan came out, you know, amidst the fire hose of half, um, [00:30:00] you know, this sort of really. Angry, brutal comments coming at me, whether they just yell, like, call, calling me stupid, or, oh my God, you’re a criminal.

You are in on it. You should be ashamed of yourself. You hurt all these people. And, and then also getting a lot of sympathy from people who did, did understand what happened. Uh, there were, there was like also amidst that there was this steady trickle of people telling me that, asking me if I’d ever been evaluated or diagnosed with autism one or Asperger’s.

And they were people telling me that they’d been, this was coming from people that had themselves been diagnosed at some point in their lives, but very often late in life. And recognizing those qualities through the docuseries or the show, I call it the show. I don’t like to call it a documentary. So recognizing those things in me and reaching out to ask me about that.

So many people said that, that I eventually did go for a very [00:31:00] extensive evaluation and then got that diagnosis, which was another factor that was useful in helping me understand how I would be more likely to, I was more easily manipulated, say than I don’t know, the next person over potentially. Mm-hmm.

Just because of that, having that type of wiring, it’s almost as if my, I just, my default setting is to take people at face value. So, you know, I just remember when I was younger and kind of throughout life, sometimes not quite getting people’s jokes or. Sarcasm, which is weird because I employ sarcasm as well as hyperbole.

Liberally, sometimes just, but sometimes not quite. Getting it when people are not, not, and being able to accurately interpret somebody’s intentions and very often getting myself into trouble. Sometimes just a bit of [00:32:00] uncomfortable, harmless trouble where I’m just too open or, you know, somebody would approach me and instead of throwing up a wall and telling somebody to fuck off and go away, I’m, I’m sort of open and nice and I’ll respond, and then maybe I get myself into a bit of trouble.

So, either way, it, it just was another factor that seems to me relevant and I think based on what I’ve learned as about that having, being somebody who would get that diagnosis. And I think a lot of people would, and it’s, you know, a spectrum. That’s why they call it being on the spectrum. But it also turns out that.

Those qualities are qualities that I admire most in other people. And I feel safest with other people who I think have those qualities because there’s a, there’s like a no bullshit thing, you know, somebody might be a little awkwardly blunt or a little bit socially awkward, but there’s no manipulation or bullshit.

You know, there’s no passive aggressiveness, there’s no something else [00:33:00] going on. Um, you know, they’re pretending to be, it’s,

Zach: yeah. Yeah. I can, it’s very

Sarma: reassuring to know that mean, that’s why I feel most comfortable around people like that.

Zach: You know, I think if you have that personality type, it’s, it’s also, you know, it, and you talk about this in your.

In your writing, uh, you know, if you’re very, if you have that personality type, it’s really hard. It puts you more at risk of being exploited because it’s just really hard for you to understand the kind of deceptive, you know, narcissistic mind that will just lie about literally everything. Right. It’s like it becomes that much harder to, uh, wrap your head around that and makes you more, more, more vulnerable a bit.

Um,

Sarma: yeah. Yeah. And, and also interestingly, I mean, it’s interesting that it happened to me with that relationship with Matthew, which I write about in the book.

Zach: That’s a wild story in itself. Yeah,

Sarma: right. I mean, what’s so interesting is at, you know, that that story is even wilder than what I was able to write in the book.

[00:34:00] I tried to cut it down and, and keep it as short as I could. It’s just a couple of short chapters. But after that happened, um, I, I felt like, I think I must have had a feeling like. People don’t get struck by lightning twice. And so it’s not gonna happen to me again. So I wasn’t, I hadn’t, there wasn’t enough written about this stuff.

I didn’t know enough about it. And now I, I really make the point to tell people that if it’s happened to you before, don’t think it’s that now, now you know, it’s not gonna happen to you again. No. You need to really stop and analyze and go forth and be extremely cautious. Extremely cautious. Because I, you know, it’s happened to me multiple times and I’ve heard from a lot of people who’ve reached out to me that it happens to them mm-hmm.

Zach: More than once.

Sarma: Mm-hmm. And sometimes in, not even, uh, like a personal, romantic relationship, but in a, in a business context business. Mm-hmm. Or, you know, it [00:35:00] could be a colleague at work or even a friend that mm-hmm.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Sarma: Takes advantage of you in a certain way.

Zach: So, yeah. The, uh, you, you touched on this briefly, but, uh, I, I wanted to talk about people’s lack of empathy for this, because I do think.

There is this element of the experiences that you’ve gone through are just really hard for pretty much almost everyone to understand because A, I think you’ve got the fact that in general, people just have a really hard time understanding mental struggles and in general, like, you know, yeah. Depression, anxiety, these kinds of things.

So people at a base level are, are generally, you know, unempathetic or lack of understanding these kinds of things. And then on, you’ve got on top of that how combining, you know, anxiety, depression with being in the orbit of somebody who’s a, you know, narcissistic abuser, uh, can really ramp up the craziness and take that to the next level.

So, and, and a lot of, you know, so you’ve got the fact that hardly, you know, most people can be [00:36:00] unempathetic or, or not understanding about the, the depression and anxiety. And then you’ve got the fact that hardly anyone has, you know, very few people have dealt with the kinds of. Abuse and manipulation that you’ve dealt with, and that that adds another level of people just really having a hard time wrapping their, their minds around how your, your mind, your mind can get warped and manipulated in ways that, you know, strike other people who aren’t having those problems or that that manipulation.

It strikes them as like, well, how couldn’t she see this? She, you know, and, and then they’re, they become very judgemental. Uh, so I just think it’s this unfortunate thing where, you know, I, I, I just think the, there’s a really huge lack of, of, of empathy and then. You add in the, the internet, you know, culture we have where people are witnessing this stuff from afar and just making snap judgements about you and about many other people, which leads to the, you know, just a, just a real lack of, uh, empathy for you and mean messages to you and these kinds of things.

And cur curious if you agree with all that. [00:37:00]

Sarma: Yeah, and I mean, another failing of, of bad vegan, I mean, the title itself was

Zach: exploitative. Yeah,

Sarma: yeah. And, and I thought that, of course, I just thought, well, first of all, I just never anticipated they would, that it was gonna be such a betrayal, like could not have imagined, but they, at my urging or I helped.

Get a, you know, the leading psychologist in this field of what’s known as Coercive Control. The man who actually wrote the book on coercive control, this Dr. Evan Stark, who sadly passed away since, but they spent a, an entire day interviewing him. They spent an entire day interviewing this other guy, um, named Hoyt Richards, who’s this really lovely person, a Princeton graduate, was a male model who was sucked into this cult for 10 years.

Totally understands my situation, I understand him. And both of those interviews I was told were really good and really useful, really compelling. And Dr. Evan Stark had said if I had [00:38:00] had any involvement in her case, she never would’ve gone to jail.

Zach: Hmm.

Sarma: And they didn’t use any of that. So there was a zero explanation of what I think is the most fascinating part of these stories.

Yeah. Is how, yeah. How does somebody who, yeah. Whatever has all these credentials and this background and is clearly not a dodo, how does somebody get manipulated like this? I find that fascinating. And they didn’t include any of that, and that’s will be much of the focus of the next docuseries that I’m working on.

I love how we can hear the thunder through my Yeah. Headphones and I can also hear it through you. So it’s like this cool thunder echo is happening. Yeah. This

Zach: is really adding, you know, adding, it’s a good vibe. Yeah. Some good vibes, some good, uh, mood to the, to the interview. Um, um, yeah. But,

Sarma: but I also, I agree it, it’s, it is similar to the way that people who’ve never experienced any struggles with depression, and I frankly, have a hard, you know, like if somebody’s told me they’ve never been depressed at all in their life, or [00:39:00] struggled or questioned reality or, you know, I, I’m like, who are you?

Zach: I have a hard time. How do you even

Sarma: relate to somebody like that? And I, I’ve written a lot of. I probably have snippets of unpublished blog posts and substack posts all over the place. And I’ve written some about depression, but not as boldly as I would want to. But I really, I feel, I really feel for people because I’ve been through a lot of it myself too.

Mm-hmm. But

Zach: it does make you more empathetic. Yeah. That’s, that’s one nice thing about the suffering. Yeah.

Sarma: And, and it’s just, it’s really agonizing and isolating because you might feel like the way that you feel is, and I might’ve written this somewhere, it feels to you like you’re walking around and there’s blood shooting out your eyeballs, and it’s that level of pain that if people knew that, that’s what you felt like they would all rush.

[00:40:00] Oh my God, how can we help you? What can we do? But they can’t see that. And so you’re walking around feeling that level of pain, but nobody sees it and they’re just ignoring it because they don’t know. And if you tried to express it, they’d be like, what? What do you mean? You know? And it’s just very, I find it very painful that it’s so hard for people to talk about.

And so often people are discouraged from expressing it because when you do, it’s seen very often as weakness. Like, oh, just, you know, get it together or get up. Right, right. Go, go do some yoga. Like get your shit together. They don’t understand, um,

Zach: yeah, what

Sarma: an impact it can have.

Zach: Um, that was, that was another, yeah, that was another big failing of the documentary, uh, unethical thing I think of like, they should have had more about how these things happen in there for sure.

Like, yeah. That, that, that really stood out.

Sarma: They, they also, um, you know, now that I know more about the process. I shouldn’t have been thrown in that interview chair for 12 [00:41:00] hours without any support, without anybody who’s informed about these types of things. Without an advocate, without somebody there.

Zach: Yeah. Um,

Sarma: and it was two interviews. They were a year apart, even though I’m back in the same dress. I can tell which part is from which interview, but both days were really long days. And the first very first interview I did, it was a 12 hour day. And it wasn’t until the end of that day that they asked me, there’s a whole really icky sexual abuse component to what happened.

And there’s a rather explicit chapter about it in the latter half of the book. And I was asked about it at the end of that 12 hour day. And of course, that’s when I break down finally and start to cry and, you know, explained and answer the questions about what happened. And I’m thinking, I was told afterwards that it was really compelling and everybody gave me hugs afterwards and.

Uh, you know, it was very, really painful to do that. [00:42:00] And so I was really surprised I was stealing myself to be embarrassed that I was ugly crying on this Netflix show. Right. I’m thinking, oh my God, I’m gonna be like ugly crying and that’s gonna be embarrassing. But then instead, when I saw it for the first time, they just cut it out completely, which cut it out as if it never happened.

And again, if they’d left that in the viewer wouldn’t have then been able to conclude, oh, she was in on it. ’cause at that point they would’ve gone, oh my God, this is horrific.

Zach: Yeah, it’s a good, it’s a good example of how one little choice can cause change the perceptions of the audience in such a big way.

Like, you know, without that, without any crying like that in the movie, you come across as cold and maybe calculating Yes, but with even a little crying, which is changes perceptions completely. Right?

Sarma: Yeah. I mean, I, I, that’s another thing that people have commented as sort of comment to this sort is, um.

You know, it’s a little bit spectrum to come across as unemotional and I, yeah. I [00:43:00] can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard people say, you took no, you, you expressed no remorse in that. You showed no remorse in that show. And I’m like, you have no idea how horrifically bad I feel and felt and what’s going on inside.

But just because I come across as a bit cold and

Zach: Yeah. You

Sarma: know, I’m not showing that much the, the types of emotion that people would expect. Yeah. And, and again, also it was edited, you know, I mean. Probably 20 hours of footage and he’s selectively grabbing what he wants. And there were parts where, I mean, I don’t wanna turn this into a bitch session about Chris Smith, the director, but also, you know, fuck that dude.

Too late for

Zach: that. No,

Sarma: just kidding. Yeah, exactly. No, it’s,

Zach: it’s fine. It’s fine. But,

Sarma: but I mean, it’s, people are

Zach: curious. They’ve seen the movie, they wanna hear, there’s like,

Sarma: there’s very subtle, like I give him credit for being kind of a genius because there’s parts where I can’t prove that [00:44:00] he like the, where I know he moved my words around.

I can prove, because I made the recording, I have the original, I can show that he edited what I really said and what he showed. But the interview that they recorded when I’m, you know, on camera with all the lights in the chairs, um, in the chair, uh, there’s places where, you know, he asks me a question and I say, I don’t remember or.

I’ve worked with another director who’s like, can tell you can tell when something’s edit a certain, my point is I think there’s little subtle things he did, and there are places where I say I don’t remember, which is genuine because anybody, if anybody’s been through a sort of mind bending traumatic thing where you’ve been dissociated in a state of fear and you’re not, you’re, it would be weird if you remembered everything.

Mm-hmm. Like, you’re not gonna remember stuff. You

Zach: were in a bad

Sarma: place. Yeah. So that was a very normal response to say, I don’t remember, but [00:45:00] he, it would be presented in a way that made it look like I was lying, or, or I didn’t wanna say something and then well just the,

Zach: oh, go on.

Sarma: And then there was just one part where, one part where he asks me why I fired a particular person and I don’t wanna say anything negative.

I’m not gonna reveal something. So I, in that moment I was like, um, I don’t really remember. ’cause I, I was put on this, like, I, I didn’t wanna say anything negative about somebody or reveal anything. Um, so anyway, whatever.

Zach: Right. Yeah. Then it made you look like, oh, she, she fired that person for completely unethical reasons.

’cause, or, or she, she’s feigning that she can’t remember. Yeah, she’s, yeah. Uh, that kind of thing. Yeah. Uh, just, you know, just at the base level of like the, the documentary’s name alone tells you what kind of documentary it will be. I mean, bad vegan is a very exploitative choosing of a name to me. I thought that even before watching it, because I was like, this, this name has, you know, the vegan aspect really has nothing to do with your story.

It’s just a, [00:46:00] a way to, to entice people about, there was a bad vegan, vegans are so morally superior. This was a bad vegan. But I’m sure he could, you know, he can justify it in the sense that like. He’s just choosing it to get eyeballs on it. Right. But like to me it’s, to me it’s a, it’s an, it’s another unethical choice.

Sarma: Yeah. Well I also thought, I mean, I didn’t love the title, but I thought, okay, I get it. They wanna entice people to watch it. Yeah. And my thinking was that because the tabloids had been, because the tabloids had made me look really bad.

Zach: All the pizza stuff.

Sarma: That

Zach: false pizza stuff. Yeah.

Sarma: Right, exactly. The tabloids had made me look bad that it, it, my thinking was that, and I think I was even told this, that, you know, the title is gonna be bad vegan, but of course the whole point is you’re not.

And so that’s, that’s the reveal in the story is that I’m not the bad vegan, but the tabloids portrayed me to be. And um, and you know, either way it, it’s, even when I do podcast interviews and I talk about this stuff, [00:47:00] inevitably there’s people in the comments that are like, oh, she’s good at making herself the victim.

She’s not taking your responsibility and. That’s where I just, I can’t force anybody to read my book, but if somebody wants to read my book and then make accusations or come at me for something,

Zach: yeah, I think you,

Sarma: like I can back up everything in my book. I have all the receipts for everything. I mean,

Zach: you’re, you’re, you and I are kind of like, because I think we’re both overs shares like you.

Yes. I feel like you don’t, I think you, you hold no, uh, you know, you’re, you try to be as I do believe you try to be as transparent as you can, even when it, you know, hurts the perception of you. Yeah. Which I, I really respect that. ’cause that’s something I try to do. You know, I’ve talked about my mental struggles and on this podcast, and I want it to do a episode about my, my wife leaving me, which I might get out one of these days.

But just to say I do, I respect your, um, I do sense. When you’re in your previous blog work and your book now, I do feel like you are saying, [00:48:00] trying your best to say, here’s. How it went down and even to your own detriment, you know, like you’re, you’re not, you’re not dodging responsibility, you’re just trying to understand how it happened to you.

Sarma: Yeah. And actually, what, what’s really interesting, and I is still something that I’m sort of fascinated by what the response might be from anybody who really studies this kind of thing. But I include, as I said, a lot of original dialogue between him and me that I was able to recover digitally and in so many places, I’m pushing back at him and insulting him.

And that at least is a part that I think provides some little bits of comic relief for people. ’cause people will tell me that they’re reading it and they’re really stressed out, and then I’ll lob some ridiculous insults back at him. But my point is that a, a friend of mine said, you know, I’m not sure you wanna include all this stuff where you’re, you’re pushing back on him so hard because it doesn’t really make sense.

You know it.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Sarma: It’s hard to reconcile how you were manipulated when you’re calling him. [00:49:00] You know, a liar. And I had to qualify too, like it’s somewhere. I was like, I don’t, I have enormous amounts of sympathy for people who are challenged with their weight. I’ve never found it easy to remain the weight that I am.

And so I have enormous amounts of sympathy for that. But because this guy, while I was with him, gained so much weight and made it seem like he was doing it on purpose for this bizarre series of tests he was putting through the meat suit.

Zach: Yeah.

Sarma: That so many of my insults are like calling him a fat fuck.

And some of them are anyway, so I’m making the, but the point is that it seems you’re willing to put it out there. I don’t, I don’t appear like a person being manipulated when I’m calling him a fat liar or, or making fun of him. And then, but, but what’s so fascinating about that, I, I mean, I included it because it is very fascinating part of the story and

Zach: it’s true.

Yeah. And you’re, you were even at the risk of it changing, you know, not being optimal for your perception, you’re willing to put it out there. And that’s respectable to me because. I wanted to say more about that, [00:50:00] but go ahead.

Sarma: Well, what’s interesting is it really all I could recover is a, is that portion of our digital correspondence.

It would be amazing if somehow miraculously every interaction with him I had is on camera. Which, you know, if Chase and those people are right, and we really are living in the Matrix, maybe there is a camera Oh yeah. Maybe we can download it from, we can download it, it from the

Zach: matrix later. Yeah. We’ll just

Sarma: take DMT and get the red lasers.

Yeah. And we’ll exactly go to see what happened, but Totally. So yeah, so maybe at some point I will get the video footage, um, in which case that would be fascinating to me because that’s where I think. All that mind fucky happened where, ’cause I’m pushing back at him, I’m pushing back at him, and then, and then our conversation ends and based, and then I know that he came home or what, or whatever happened.

He’s either calls me on the phone or he’s in my presence. And then I’ll, according to my records, you know, the following day or a few hours later, I [00:51:00] send him a wire for some obscene amount of money that he was pushing me for. And I had been pushing back on him in writing. But then somehow when he’s in person, when he’s gets to me in person, then the thing that he wanted me to do, he gets me to do.

And I don’t really know how he did that because I don’t remember it. And also, I don’t have that camera footage. Uh, you know, I don’t have that stuff recorded.

Zach: Yeah. I think the, uh, I mean, I think what you’re, some of what you’re saying relates to people’s lack of understanding of how complex these kinds of situations are.

Like for example. Just because you push back on something doesn’t mean that you’re not being manipulated, right? Like there’s a very, even even someone who’s having a full blown delusion, they don’t necessarily fully believe their own delusions. It’s kinda like, is this world true? Is this narrative true?

Is it not true? They’re, they’re testing it, they’re like living part in it and part out of it. So that’s just to say like, you pushing back on things doesn’t, doesn’t take away from the fact that you could be also believing or semi believing in other things. [00:52:00] There’s a complex thing there about delusions and like, weird, magical thinking, right?

Like when you, when you examine like, you know, extremely narcissistic, malignant, narcissistic people, like, you know, the guy I was telling you about in, in, in my, yeah, in my world, it’s like, it’s really hard to, even for an individual to separate, like, do they really believe this stuff? Are they, are they lying or do they not?

Are they not even sure where the lines are drawn? So that’s just to say for you, being manipulated. You’re, you’re like, at any stage, you’re kind of like semi buying into things. You’re buying into some things, questioning others. So just you pushing back does not, you know, it may look bad and it leads to people who are unaware of that complexity to be like, oh, she’s questioning it.

Therefore she must, you know, she, she isn’t a sap. She must have been questioning everything. She didn’t really fall for it. She must be in on it. But that, I think it just gets back to most people’s, you know, unfamiliarity with how complex these psychological manipulation situations are. Yeah. And,

Sarma: and what they do is they, they create, I mean, there’s an intense amount of fear and confusion, [00:53:00] which is, I think confusion is a really important element.

Confusion. Yeah. You’re like, what’s going on? Yeah. Able to manipulate somebody. Yeah. And I, as I write throughout this whole situation, it’s not the Netflix show and some articles that were written. Sort of exploited this idea that he made me believe my dog would live forever and therefore I must be cuckoo.

But, you know, he didn’t make me believe all of these things necessarily. He just kept me in this state of absolute confusion. And also, you know, I am very open-minded, I guess you would say spiritually, right? So I, I, I had this experience adopting my dog that a lot of people will say this. And so it’s not, it doesn’t make me by default D Lulu, but when I got my dog, it.

I, I never felt this before. I’d never felt propelled by some force beyond me. It [00:54:00] was like this dog, I wasn’t trying to get a dog. You know, there’s a short chapter on adopting Leon. And originally I was trying to convince Alec Baldwin to adopt a dog. And that’s why I was looking at dogs. And this one dog struck me and I forwarded it to Alec and I was like, oh, this is the dog.

You have to get this dog. I don’t, this dog. And then he wasn’t interested in getting a dog. And I got obsessed with this one dog. And I, I had not been thinking that in any, there was no scenario where I was thinking of adopting a dog, but this one dog got stuck in my head and I was crying and I had to go see him.

And like, I, it’s hard to explain, but I felt like. I had no choice, no matter how irrational it was for me, being a really busy person running my own business. I lived in my office with other people with tons of inventory, computer cords everywhere. Me adopting a five month old pit bull was not a rational thing to do, but I had no choice.

It was like I had to go get this dog. [00:55:00] And I wrote about that experience very openly on my website in a blog post. And so he knew that, and so he knew how to kind of get in my head using that and all of the other things that I was very open about online. Yeah, like using like,

Zach: uh, indicators of the universe, giving you signs kind of Yes.

Things. Yeah.

Sarma: Yes.

Zach: Yeah. Which I was gonna ask you that too. You, it seems like, uh, in the, in the documentary and, um, you know, sometimes in your, in your book you talked about, uh, sometimes you felt like there were certain signs from the universe adding up, you know, you talked about. Feeling like, uh, Alec Baldwin met his partner at your restaurant, so maybe it was fitting that you might meet your partner through Baldwin, through the Twitter association or a realtor that handled, that seemed to have handled, uh, Mr.

Fox’s stuff also handled Baldwin’s. But I think, uh, you know, one thing thing that stood out to me, and I’m curious if you agree, is, you know, when we’re, when we’re stressed out and like basically existentially stressed out and we’re like looking for meaning to

Sarma: yes.

Zach: Clinging onto that, it can be very tempting to be like, well, I don’t know what I’m [00:56:00] doing, or, you know, what I should be doing and I’m stressed out about that.

And it’s, I think it’s very tempting. ’cause I’ve, I’ve gone through this too. It’s like, uh, you, you start looking for like, well I want, I want someone to tell me what to do. I want the universe to tell me what to do. So you start looking for signs about how should I live my life? Or where should I direct

Sarma: Right.

My attention. Right. And like where you’re looking, you can usually find something and you

Zach: can find something. Yeah. Yeah. And

Sarma: there’s actually a quote in my book. From Andrew Huberman that stood, you know, I, I include it in my book. Something he said on a podcast once that stood out to me and I wrote it down and included where he said, the more, uh, I’m paraphrasing, but the more intense fear.

And I think he says, a human or animal experiences. I don’t know how you would know if an animal was, basically says, the more, the more intense the fear you’re experiencing, the more prone you are to delusional thinking.

Zach: Mm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Um, so it makes sense. Yeah.

Sarma: I’m paraphrasing. I have the exact quote in my book, but that’s also why.

These people will go to great [00:57:00] lengths to keep you in a state of fear, overwhelm, confusion, exhaustion, and, and so it’s just, you’re already completely worn down and then it’s that much easier for them to wear you down and wear you down and wear you down until you go fine.

Zach: Right? Like

Sarma: fine, okay, fine. We will get married.

Like that’s, he just wore me down and convinced me that there was some reason we had to get married and I would be protected and blah. And I was like, ah, fine. Like, right,

Zach: you’re destroying, you’re constantly discerning ’cause creating so much

Sarma: stress that the only what ends up happening is you feel like the only way to relieve this tension that feels increasingly unbearable is to just go, okay, fine, I’ll send you that wire that you’re promising is the last wire ever.

And then I’ll get it all back. Like, okay, fine, I’ll just do it. And then you get relief. Um, but of course you’re just digging your own grave that much deeper.

Zach: Well, the thing that struck me there too was, uh, you know, reading your. Uh, book yesterday, [00:58:00] and you talk about it in a documentary, I think too, uh, there’s this element.

I think the thing that’s hard for people to, another thing that’s hard for people to understand is with these kinds of situations, you know, whether it’s somebody, you know, being delusional on their own or, or being manipulated in such ways, it’s, it’s like there’s, there’s like a compounding thing where you go down these pathways.

Like once you, once you live through or involve yourself with one kind of crazy thing, it changes your perception of yourself. It changes your, you know, you’re, and, and you’re kind of invested in it too. You know, it’s like you, you mentioned being, uh, like having financial investment. I think in, I think it was in the Matthew Kenny thing and how that led to a situation where you felt like you’re investing in it, so you have to keep going.

But there’s also, there can also be like emotional investment, like you’ve gone this far. So it’s like you’re more open to keep going further. And there’s also like a cognitive dis dissonance thing where it’s like. Once you have gone through such things and you have been involved in some crazy things, [00:59:00] it’s like it’s hard to turn that around because that would involve like having to create a narrative where you were so wrong and, and, and, uh, that, that requires a lot of strength because you have to basically be like, oh, everything I’ve done for the past, you know, months or years has been completely false and I’ve been completely misled.

And that’s, so it’s kinda like this compounding thing where you get led on this pathway and you, it’s hard to get out of that pathway once you start going down it, which I think is true for manipulation, but I think it’s just also a true thing about how we can go down like delusional pathways on our own, where we’re like, start being like, well, once we do and think this, we’re more open to this other thing and et cetera, et cetera.

Yeah.

Sarma: Yeah. And, and there’s just the idea that he’s, you know, he, once he got money out of me, which initially was, oh, let me just borrow this money for this crazy emergency, I’ll pay your right back. Once he got that initial. Chunk of money out of me, then he is got a hook in me. Right. Because I’m always gonna want it back.

So I, I had [01:00:00] resolved, I’m not gonna see this guy again. Like he, this is not right. Something’s, you know, but Right. He was able to get back in because he’d say, oh, I’m gonna bring you that money back. I got it and cash, I’m gonna, it creates a tie. Just tie his, it, it creates

Zach: a tie to him. Yeah.

Sarma: Right. And then he would do his mind sorcery on me and somehow he would maybe give me back some money, but then he’d get more money out of me.

And then I’m in deeper and then you’re in deeper. And then it becomes, you know, they get you in a situation, you’re more and more and more compromised and the loss is bigger and bigger and bigger. Right. But they’re promising that it’s all gonna be turned around and then some.

Zach: Yeah.

Sarma: So in order, you know, they set you, they put you in this impossible trap because for you to go, you know what, you must be full of shit.

You’re a con artist, therefore you have to accept that I am a colossal fool. I recklessly gave this guy so much money, which now I’m gonna have to accept that loss. Yeah. I’ll never see it back.

Zach: Yeah. I’ll have to just accept it it off. I’ll never get it back. Yeah.

Sarma: And I don’t [01:01:00] know how to explain it to anybody, so it’s gonna be humiliating.

And I really want what he keeps promising me, and I’m never gonna get answers. So I’m gonna have to live with the fact that he’s gonna claim that I screwed it all up. And if I just stuck out a little bit longer, this magical utopia that he keeps talking about is gonna come to a fruition like that I missed out.

So it’s this combination of wanting the answer and the explanation is what you’re kind of holding out for and the

Zach: happy ending of some sort. Yeah. And

Sarma: and not wanting to, not wanting to accept and face this big humiliating loss. So psychologically, you’re just gonna be inclined to keep. To keep going. And, and every, you know, all along the way, as you, as you’ll see when you get into the second half of the book, it’s like this one more, just this one more wire.

And then it’s all over. It’s all over and all it’s all gonna come back and this is all gonna make sense. And he would say things to me like, you’re gonna feel like a [01:02:00] big giant asshole when, when you, when you see what’s really happening here. Mm-hmm. As if

Zach: mm-hmm.

Sarma: And I’m going, well wait, what does that mean really?

And I don’t understand what that means, and I wa

Zach: Right.

Sarma: So yeah. I mean it’s complex.

Zach: Yeah. It’s, it’s, it’s very complex and mean. And meanwhile, meanwhile, his involvement, your involvement with him is making you more distant from your other support, you know, support system and, and people. And you’re becoming more and more, more isolated.

And they

Sarma: create, they create secrecy. I mean, it’s like, uh, any, you know, it’s like any child molester is gonna say, oh, this, this is our special relationship. You can’t talk to anybody about it. It’s just between you and I. Like, anytime somebody creates, it’s, our secret creates a, a level of, of secrecy. Uh, that’s, you know mm-hmm.

That’s, that’s kind of another red flag.

Zach: Yeah. And the, and the tie in, uh, there’s a tie in there with, makes me think of the, the gambling poker world, which I’m pretty familiar with from being an ex poker player. There’s instances where people will, you know, come out and say, this, this poker player owes me like a million dollars.

Right. And they’ll be [01:03:00] like, and, and, and how could the people will be like, how could you be so stupid to have loaned this guy money? But it’s a similar thing where, where they started out loaning him, you know, some smaller amount and then, you know, it kept compounding like the way you said, where they were, had to face this decision of like, well, if I cut ties with him and call them out, I’m not, I’m never gonna get it.

I’m not gonna get my money back. And, and also there, there, there might be an element of like, I’m an idiot, you know? So it’s like there is this emotional and financial incentive to be like. Oh, maybe if I just, you know, give him a little bit more and we stay in contact, maybe he’ll be good for it. But then it just keeps adding up and eventually it leads to them, you know, telling people publicly and facing that they’re never gonna get the money back and they can out them and everyone’s like you, why were you such an idiot?

What is wrong with you? And these are, you know, these can be very smart people, obviously. Yeah. Uh, so there is some, there’s some similarities that, that map over to just financial debts in general and

Sarma: Yeah. Or, you know, you got, you got

Zach: emotional stuff next year or not selling

Sarma: a declining stock.

Zach: Hmm. Yeah.

Right. Your emotions get involved and you, there is, yeah. There’s a, the thing where you don’t wanna take

Sarma: [01:04:00] the loss, so you just, but it keeps going down.

Zach: They say in poker, yeah, don’t throw good money after bad. But when you’re in that situation, it can be very hard to, you know, you do, you do instinctually feel like, well, I want to keep throwing money at this, at the, at this thing.

Right.

Sarma: You wanna get it back.

Zach: Yeah. Um, so I want, I wanted to ask you, um, you know, uh, obviously the, uh, you ended up owing a lot of. Money, and that’s obviously a really hard thing to deal with. And, um, and you’ve been through a lot of hard things and dealt with some horrible people. Um, how do you, how, how do you, what, what, what brings you hope and, um, do with the, with regards to the financial debt?

I imagine it’s like you just have to view it as like, it’s almost like imaginary in a sense because there’s like, it’s so hard to dig your way out of it, so you just have to accept that that’s, I guess, bankruptcy, uh, helps in, in that sense too. But it’s like, it’s [01:05:00] such a hole. It’s like, I’m curious how you, how you deal with that, that, that, that reality.

I

Sarma: think, and I’m very aware sometimes that a, a level of dissociation is almost necessary.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Sarma: Sometimes. Mm-hmm. And, and I’m also very aware of the stress of everything, including recent events. Making me susceptible to wanting to believe that there’s some greater purpose here, or like I’m being te you know, I’m very, I’m very aware of my own tendency to wanna clinging on to certain beliefs.

Right. Um, you know, I came back here to rebuild my business in the same space, which is available. And a lot of things went a bit sideways in a way that really does feel like, okay, that it, it’s, it hasn’t been the right time yet. And you know, when you get that feeling where something not working out, you feel like you were [01:06:00] protected because if it had worked out, you would’ve gotten stuck into another bad situation.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Sarma: Um, I, I mean, I’m aware I, I feel some of that now, but it’s, it’s stressful because there’s all of the debt from what happened and then. Since moving back here, I’ve just racked up credit card debt. People are like, how do you live in New York? Well, I, I’m, it’s painful. And I would leave if I wasn’t, I mean, I’m at a point where I need to make certain decisions and figure out what’s, whether I’m gonna move forward with certain things or not.

And if not, then I need to get outta here and go live in a cabin somewhere. Um, but it is very stressful. And sometimes a certain level of deliberate dissociation is, is just useful in terms of getting up and continuing to function every day. Because there’s certainly a lot of days where I don’t wanna get up and I don’t wanna function.

[01:07:00] And, um, you know, I, I, I, I think people don’t, I mean, there’s.

I feel like this rainstorm is providing, is providing like a, a, an atmosphere that’s spinning. Sorry. It gets so

Zach: dark,

Sarma: but I literally

Zach: and metaphorically. Yeah.

Sarma: Right. And I, I’m, I don’t know if this is gonna be audible to your audience, but the noise of the rain, I can

Zach: hear it

Sarma: on my end is pretty loud. So maybe it adds, maybe it’s like adding a cool vibe to this whole conversation.

But what I was gonna say is that I think, um,

yeah, I, I mean I feel pretty, I in a lot of pain a lot of the time and a lot of times I do think, I don’t, I don’t want to be here. I’m done. I’m exhausted, but I am always gonna keep up, keep getting up and keep up alive.

Zach: Yeah.

Sarma: Working towards. [01:08:00] If, if the, if I didn’t owe people money, it would almost be more dangerous because then I might be more likely to just be like, yeah, I’m out.

But because I owe people money even more recently. And, um,

one of the qualities, it’s giving you some sort of

Zach: motivation, even if it’s a negative motivation. Yeah.

Sarma: And, and, and one of the qualities that these people exploit very often in cults too, is they want people who work their asses off. They want people who aren’t gonna give up who are very determined. Yeah.

And I’m one of those people, people that’s like, I’m not gonna give up. I’m gonna keep going. I’m gonna keep getting up, I’m gonna keep, you know, I’m always gonna work my butt off at whatever it is, um, that’s in front of me. So, you know, I’m still here for it. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not really painful in the meantime.

And that I don’t sit there and, you know. Think about what if I, you know, had an easy exit? I mean, I, [01:09:00] I think, I think it, it ought to be easier for people to talk about that without Oh yeah. The threat of somebody, you know, coming in white coats to cart me off. Uh, because I, that’s precisely why people don’t talk about feeling that way is ’cause, you know, somebody’s gonna call

Zach: and they’re afraid.

I think people are afraid of sharing such things too, because it makes other people weird in interacting with you. Right? Like, I was gonna, I was gonna share something about my wife leaving me and how I went through some mental turmoil about that for an episode. And, you know, I was gonna talk about how there’s like many incentives to not talk about that, right?

Like, other people can just view you as weird for oversharing and feel weird that you’ve expressed such vulnerability and it can impact how you interact with other people, you know? And so I think there’s multiple levels of why people don’t do things like that. But, um. I did wanna say thank you for, uh, sharing that because I think, I think a lot of people feel that way, you know, for, [01:10:00] for things that have happened to them, including things that are, you know, much less horrible than your, than than what you’ve dealt with.

I think there’s a lot of people struggling with, you know, how do I, how do I make my way in this world when it seems so tough? You know? So, um, yeah.

Sarma: I think another reason why people don’t talk about it so much is very often the, the response, especially with people that you’re very close to, because the response can be so gut wrenchingly devastating when, you know, if you say something around family or whatnot, you’ll get shot down with like, oh, you don’t mean that.

And, and Right, they, they brush it away invalidated, right? Like, oh, you don’t mean that. Don’t say that. Oh, you’d never do that. Or, um, like, oh, you couldn’t. You would dev, think of how many people would be devastated if you did that, which is also hard to hear because it basically implies that you could be in such extreme pain.

The [01:11:00] extreme pain that you’re in doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that you don’t upset everybody else. So you gotta just suck it up and it’s not very helpful pain.

Zach: Yeah. That’s not a very helpful thing. It’s, yeah,

Sarma: it’s like all it does is it’s more painful to hear those things. Right. And so people tend to keep it to themselves.

Zach: No, totally. Yeah. I mean, getting back to the lack of empathy people have about, you know, mental health issues and suicide and stuff. It’s like, you know, people are dealing with very hard, painful things, and that’s, you know. I think there’s just a lack of empathy for how hard life can be to deal with, like you and I, you know, like you were saying, it’s like it’s hard for people that have never dealt with that to understand like people like you and I, it’s hard for you and I to understand people that say they’ve never dealt with those things.

So the, it goes both ways, but yeah, I do, I do think it’s the more, the, the more empathy we can have for just how hard life is to deal with the, the, the better things are. Yeah.

Sarma: Yeah. And it, and it’s, it’s funny because I’m very aware that like [01:12:00] very often I have to, I talk myself into, you know, I think, okay, I’m healthy, I’m, I, you know, I’m, I’m not homeless.

I’m not in a war zone. Mm-hmm. All my limbs are attached.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Sarma: Like, I’m, I’m bright. I, I have support systems. I, there’s all these options. I have a platform I have. A bunch of follower, like, I have all this opportunity and all these good things going for me, and, you know, including being very health, like I’m, I’m healthy.

So I’ll sit there and say like, what, you know, like, what’s wrong with you? Stop feeling so bad. But as everybody who’s felt that, you know, really badly knows it’s not, you know, it’s not about that. Right. Um, or, you know, that only helps so much. And that’s another thing people will say is, oh, you have so much to be grateful for and you should just work on your gratitude lists.

I’m like, yeah. I write the fucking gratitude lists every, every day and still wanna die. Sorry. That only goes, that only

Zach: goes so, [01:13:00] so far. Yeah. That’s, um, I, I mean it’s what, it’s what you must do, but it’s like, it’s still, it’s not easy. All of that stuff, it’s not easy to do helps,

Sarma: but it’s not gonna solve the underlying issue.

And so I think having a lot of, um, you know, taking the time to really look into. Your underlying stuff is, is useful. And, um, kind of digging deep and digging out all that emotional stuff is useful.

Zach: Yeah. I will say, I mean, one thing, I mean, I’ve dealt with a lot of mental struggles in my life. Like, I’ll say, you know, I’ve talked about this in the podcast, like I dropped out of college due to some, you know, basically a nervous breakdown kind of scenario.

And for most, you know, like I’d say like most of my twenties and thirties, I’d say like most of my twenties, part of my thirties, I felt like, you know, if I could push a button to, to kill myself, I, yeah, I would’ve, you know, I, that’s how I felt. Um, I do think there’s something about like, living [01:14:00] through really tough experiences like that, that, um, you know, if you can, if you can get through them, if you can, if you can, uh, process them, it, it makes you more appreciative of things that really matter, I think, and, uh, makes you a real more.

Down to earth person and also a more empathetic person, and it makes you really appre, you know, it makes you appreciative of the, of the things that, that go well in life. There is, there is that side like, but I’m not, but you know, clearly like getting, getting to that point past the pain is like the hard part, right?

I’m not like saying this is good that this happens. I’m just saying like, if once you get through it, I, I think you’ll, you know,

Sarma: I also, I also think there’s a tendency, I mean, I think there’s a strong correlation with, and I’m struggling with like, how to say this without sounding like I’m, I’m, I’m complimenting me and you, but I’m thereby probably also complimenting most of your listeners, which is, I think that, I mean, have you ever seen like a super depressed person who was just also [01:15:00] not bright?

I think that if you, if you have a certain level of thoughtfulness and I, I call it thoughtfulness, but a certain level of thoughtfulness and. Basic intelligence and inquisitiveness about the world, it’s almost inevitable that you’re gonna at some point struggle with depression because kind of how could you not in this strange and confusing, tragic world that we live in, which is also beautiful.

And I mean, it’s why so many creative people have also struggled with depression. But my point is, at least we’re not dodos, but you know what I mean? You know what I’m trying to say? It’s like I think that a lot of very thoughtful people Sure. Struggle with these things. Yeah. And I would at some point in life

Zach: and I would add, yeah, I, I think, um, I mean, I think you’re, you know, I think, I think people in general struggle, but I think it plays out in different ways, right?

Like if you’re a less intelligent person, it might play out in more like [01:16:00] clearly self-destructive ways, whereas like, you know, you might just do something completely. I think it helps explain a lot of like really outlandish or violent or weird things you hear about. For some people where it, it just to say, I think the thing, the things that you’ll struggle with and how you’ll function with it play out and can play out in very different ways.

Whereas like people that are more thoughtful and introspective, it will play out and, you know, also more thoughtful of introspective ways and Yeah.

Sarma: And being, you know, the opposite of the, the sort of sociopathic, malignant narcissist. The more you’re on the other end of that spectrum mm-hmm. Where you’re high in empathy, which is you blame yourself for everything.

Zach: Yeah, yeah.

Sarma: But also when you’re just, you know, all these things are correlated, like getting that diagnosis, being high on the empathy scale, I score super high on the, you know, are you a highly sensitive person? Quizzes, you know, yes. I, I’m not like a most of those questions, I’m a hell [01:17:00] yes. So I think being a, a kind of a sensitive, thoughtful person.

Um, it, it almost makes it inevitable that you’re gonna at least go through some periods or bouts of depression question. Yeah. Because you do more, you do

Zach: more, you do more introspection, more, more aiming at like, what’s wrong with me and you kind of things. Yeah. Feeling

Sarma: right. And also just feeling, feeling the tragedy of things.

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. And, and feeling more sensitive, feeling it deeply. Yeah. So,

Zach: yeah. Yeah. No, for sure. Yeah. Uh, well thank you. Thank you for sharing that. I know, um, it’s hard to talk about, but I do hope that you, uh, find all the positives in life and, you know, see that, um, there’s, uh, you know, there, there, there are good things and um,

Sarma: yeah, there, there, there is that sort of, I mean, it’s a bit cliche and it’s sometimes annoying when people say, you know, the whole, like, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

Zach: Yeah. That’s [01:18:00] such a, that’s such a cliche. It’s a massive, because it might kill you. Massive cliche.

Sarma: Right. But it might, it’s like it’s, but at the same time, there is an element of, of, uh, of like, yeah, I got through some pretty intense stuff,

Zach: right. Sometimes

Sarma: people read my book and they say, I can’t, I don’t understand how you’re still standing.

And they don’t even know what I went through subsequently or what I’m going through now. But there is, you’ve been through a lot of shit of like, of, of, of, you know, I think that I’m the kind of person now that you would want me on your team because I’m, I’m gonna stand up and like, I’m gonna keep getting up.

Zach: Mm-hmm.

Sarma: If you knock down, you’ve through. So I’m gonna keep getting up, I’m gonna keep getting up, I’m gonna keep getting up and, and I, and I think I’m, you know, I certainly know how to handle myself better and better and I’m, and I’m a lot wiser, so, you know, I, ideally I can rebuild with that foundation.

Zach: No, it is, it is really impressive that what you’ve been through and that you’re, you know, you’re still, um.

Maintaining [01:19:00] a, a work ethic and a, and a positive attitude or, and trying to, it’s, you’ve been through a lot. It’s quite, um, it’s, it’s quite sad. And I, I feel for you. Um, do you wanna mention anything else about what you’re working on? Obviously you’ve got your, your book. Do you wanna promote anything else?

Sarma: Um, I’m writing more on Substack now and a combination of, yeah, I mean, very open stuff. And I’m also writing a bit about what’s been going on in the last couple of years. And I’m mostly on Instagram. I do answer all my dms for the most part, unless people are creepy. But, um, yeah, I’m on Instagram and I’m open to connecting to people that way.

And I love hearing from people who are reading my book. It’s, it’s one of the, I mean, the, it’s hard to explain how it feels. It really feels like. I feel honored when people read my book. That’s the only way I know how to [01:20:00] explain it. And, um, and especially, and then also I, I, I didn’t go through a big publisher, which we’ve talked about, and you know all about that.

It’s, it’s a very different story. You’re giving away so much control, but on the flip side, it’s harder to promote the book and there’s a lot of, um, I dunno if stigma’s the right word, but there’s like this assumption, especially among the people who are part of big publishing that. If you didn’t go through a big publisher, that means you tried and you weren’t able to, and it’s like, no, that’s not the case.

You know? Yeah. Um, but, but it is harder to, you know, promote the book initially. And, um, but I, I mean, I’m really glad I did it the way that I did it. I don’t think they would ever have let me include a lot of the stuff that I included, or they would’ve made me shorten it and it, it wouldn’t be the book that it is if I had gone through a big publisher.

But, um, I did make a website for the book where like, if people want a, a signed copy or they wanna get it from the [01:21:00] printer and not Amazon, which also is really much better for me, or if they wanna get it from Amazon, it’s all of those links are there. And, um, what’s the site? And then it’s just the title of the book, the Girl, the duck tattoo to.com.

And, um, and I’m on Instagram and I’m on Substack. And because I’m the only person in the world with my name, I’m easy to find. So,

Zach: yeah. I was gonna say, you’re, yeah, you’re a very good writer and you’ve done a lot of writing on your, um. Your previous, uh, blogs and such. And yeah, you’re very strong writer in my humble opinion.

Sarma: Thank you.

Zach: Okay, well thanks Sarma. This has been great. Uh, I really appreciate you, uh, sharing all these things and uh, yeah, best of luck with everything.

Sarma: Yeah, thanks.

In the summer of 2024, I went on a five-day solo retreat in the mountains of New Mexico. It was the first time I’d ever really committed to meditation, and to my surprise it turned out to be a deeply meaningful and lasting experience. In this episode, I talk about what led me to try it, what those days of fasting, solitude, and meditation were actually like, and the unexpected effects I noticed afterward in my everyday life. I also share some of the doubts and anxieties I carried into the experience, why meditation had always felt out of reach for me, and why this retreat nevertheless managed to shift something fundamental in how I relate to myself and to stress.

Episode links:

• YouTube
• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts

Related resources and recommendations:

• My episode with Brian Koppelman, where he talks about his experiences with transcendental meditation
• Alan Watts’ book The Way of Zen
• A playlist of Alan Watts’ lecture clips
• Sam Harris talks about how meditation helps

TRANSCRIPT

About a year ago, I went on a 5-day solo retreat in the mountains of New Mexico, where I meditated several hours a day. It turned out to be a life changing experience, which was definitely something I did not expect; so I wanted to share about it here. I’ve had a few friends ask me about it and what I did on that trip, and I kept telling people I’d eventually talk about it on a podcast episode, so I’m finally getting around to that. 

That trip was basically the first time I’d really meditated. I’d tried half-heartedly over the years a few times, for a few minutes at a time, but I had never really focused on meditating, and never done it for more than a day in a row. I’d always liked the idea of meditation, and I’ve always been interested in Buddhist philosophies and practices, since I was young. Part of the reason for me having a bit of a mental block for that is due to some experiences I had when I was younger: back when I was struggling with some mental issues and dropped out of college due to those struggles. Part of the manifestation of my mental unwellness back then was me being a bit obsessed with Eastern and Buddhist philosophies; I thought I was possibly reaching some state of transcendence. I was also smoking too much marijuana, which definitely does not help you when you’re depressed and anxious. There are studies showing links between marijuana use and psychotic/delusional types of experiences. I talk more about those experiences in a previous episode. But those experiences were why I had a bit of anxiety when it came to trying to meditate; I would have associations with that unhappy and stressful and strange period of my life, and obviously anxiety like that isn’t really condusive to the relaxing state you want to achieve in meditation. And I’d also add that in general I’ve always been a highly anxious person, so meditation doesn’t come easy to people like that, even subtracting my early experiences. 

There were a few recent factors that led to me wanting to try meditating more seriously. 

The main one was a talk I had for this podcast in February of last year with Brian Koppelman, the creator of the poker movie Rounders, and the show Billions, and other shows and movies. He talked about his life changing experiences with transcendental meditation. His personal story of how meditation had hugely reduced his anxiety got me thinking, “I need to try this.” I’ll play the clip from that episode where Brian talks about this. I debated including the long clip from that episode but in the end I decided to include it because it was what got me down this path, so I figured it might be persuasive to you, too. But if you want to skip ahead to my experiences, just keep skipping until you hear only me and not Brian. 

Zach: Do you mind if I ask you about transcendental meditation?

Brian: I’m totally happy. I love talking about it. Yep.

Zach: I know that you’re a big proponent of that and I was wondering, if you explained it to a lay audience, how would you pitch it? What are the benefits that you get from it?

Brian: Like Tim Ferriss says, I think he said something along these lines– I’m paraphrasing, I’m not quoting him– that it might be the thing that is most in common among the guests that he’s had on his show is that they do some form of meditation. I think I started meditating in 2011. And I want to say this succinctly. For me, the benefit is it reduced the physical manifestations of anxiety by something like 80% or 85%.

Zach: Wow.

Brian: One of the things is that when people want to sell stuff, they’ll say it makes your anxiety disappear. And we as human beings go, “Well, that’s bullshit.” Because nothing can. Because we’re humans and we know we’re mortal, so we have anxiety. But it just made the physical manifestations– the stomach or the heart– suddenly quickly. A month in, that stuff just went… The [line] just went way down on it. And that alone is enough. Then clarity of thought, peacefulness, sense of wellbeing. Look, I’m talking about lifting, but I’ve always been someone who exercises a lot. And part of why I started lifting and stuff is because as you get older, if you let yourself stay out of shape and you still play sports really hard, you can just hurt yourself all the time. And if you’re fat like I was, it’s just bad. So I had to start. Then you throw the cardio piece and you’re like, “Well, I got to do the other thing too.” So exercise has always been meditative, too, for me. I can get to that sort of alpha state that they call it, you know? Meditation is 20 minutes. The way I do it, Translated Meditation TM, there’s a book by David Lynch, the great filmmaker, the book is called “Catching the Big Fish” and he talks about it in a way that I find incredibly compelling. But essentially, you’re repeating a nonsense word to yourself quietly in your brain for 20 minutes twice a day. It’s very easy and it’s very calming. I just feel better doing it. I had a lot of questions going in. I had read all the sort of negative things about TM and I was very aware of it, I had very clear rules for myself about the ways in which I would engage. I would go take these lessons and then that’s the extent of my involvement. And it’s been, by the way, the extent. I’ve never gone on some retreat or thing. It’s just that I find this technique useful. And I’m just always after. It’s hard being a person, and so whatever makes being a person a little bit easier, I’ll take it. It goes back to the thing I said about mortality. We understand people are fragile, that means the people you love are fragile. And that stuff scary sometimes. So, anything that’ll help I’m interested in. Exercise is a huge one. Walking, not just as exercise, but walking is really helpful. Journaling is helpful, I think. And I think translated meditation, for me, is just very useful.

Zach: The form of the meditation, is it always the same? So, it’s 20 minutes of repeating the mantra and it doesn’t vary from that?

Brian: But the thing is, when you learn TM, it’s not rigid. You’re not forcing yourself to say this mantra over and over again. You’re allowing this mantra to surface and you’re kind of engaging with it. And then sometimes your thoughts come in. It’s like other meditation you’ve heard of. Your thoughts come in and then your thoughts move out and the mantra resurfaces. It’s just being in that space. And I’ll say I will not play. I do the morning meditation every single day in my life. I haven’t missed one since 2011. And I’d say I do the one in the afternoon 70% or 80% of the time, depends on the period. Right now I’m in a period of time where I’m doing it every day, but sometimes life makes it hard to the second one. But I will never play poker at night without doing this. Never. It’s a zero for me. Maybe I did it twice. And I just know. Like, I will meditate this afternoon before I go play poker tonight, for sure. And that will be useful. It will reset me in a way. It doesn’t mean I’m going to win, by the way. I could still lose.

Zach: And you said it’s something you say internally, you don’t say it out loud? Is that right?

Brian: Correct. You never say it out loud.

Zach: Is your mantra a secret? Or can you say what it is?

Brian: No, you don’t say what it is. And the reason is, you don’t want to attach anything to it. Really it’s a word sound noise. You don’t want to attach someone’s reaction. You don’t want to attach that moment. It really is just something to break the cycle of the pattern of thoughts.

Zach: You don’t want association.

Brian: No, you don’t want any. And no one knows it. In fact, because it’s like some state secret. It’s not special, it’s just because it keeps it pristine.

Zach: Do you have your own thoughts on what the mechanism is by how it helps you? Is it basically like… Because you said these other thoughts come in and you basically are able to kind of brush them aside, do you think it kind of sets you up to be more easily able to brush aside things?

Brian: Yeah, I don’t know. I was reading a book– this is not translated, this is a way to get to the answer– I was reading a book by Thich Nhat Hanh, he’s this amazing Buddhist. He had this phrase that he said he repeated to himself and he found it very useful. And I’ve done this not as TM, because it’s not TM, but I’ve done this sometimes to go to bed at night if I somehow am not able to fall asleep and my thoughts racing. He says, “I am not my body. I’m not even my mind.” By repeating that to himself, not out loud, it’s a reminder in a way that the thoughts you think aren’t necessarily valid. We all have thought things that we didn’t put into action or that turned out to be wrong, right? So just reminding yourself, yeah, you might feel a twinge in your knee, but you are not the twinge in your knee. It’s useful. Anything to create a tiny bit of separation from the thoughts that kind of own us most of the time and our essential nature, anyway that we can sort of separate those slightly, I think has tremendous benefit. And I think TM, though I don’t know, I really don’t know the answer to this, but what it feels like to me is that there’s probably a cycle of counterproductive thoughts that we all have. Who knows where they’re from? Who knows when we took them on? Whether they’re worries, fears, self-criticism, whatever the thing is, the mantra has a way of like if that thing is a circle that’s just going and going, maybe the mantra just kind of takes us somewhere else away from that and breaks it so that you have a minute to just have some peace.

Zach: Yeah, that makes sense. It’s like breaking the rumination or the ruts that we get into our normal—

Brian: Yeah, exactly right. Ruts. People should look at— I mean, there’s a lot of EEG studies and stuff, brainwave studies, and they’re doing more and more. There’s a lot of science now on this question. I was even reading recently… Recently, I put into two different AI engines a bunch of questions about meditation and the various forms, and about what the science said. And I was really prepared to be told that it’s all been debunked, but it just hasn’t been. The science really stands up for its benefits and you can just find that out. That’s just out there, people looking at the brainwaves and stuff.

Zach: Yeah. And like you said, there’s some understandable mechanisms by which you can see it helping you. And it’s now like some things you hear about you’re like, “That makes no sense.” You can see the logic there. 

As soon as Brian said it had reduced his anxiety by like 80%, I decided I needed to get into it and give it a try. 

** 

Another factor there was that I was going through some hard things in my personal life. When i talked to Brian last year, my wife was in the process of leaving me; she had left once, suddenly, a year earlier, and then had come back a few months later and we were trying to work things out, but it wasn’t looking good, and I did not think it was going to work out. So I was more anxious and emotionally fragile than I’d been for a long time. (And I actually have an episode I’ve written about some of my struggles during that time, with the hopes that it might help other people dealing with similar struggles, but I am still sitting on it to make sure I feel good about sharing it, as it is so personal.)

So a few weeks after the Koppelman talk, on a road trip with my wife, we listened to some of David Lynch’s book Catching the Big Fish. I didn’t really like it and didn’t listen to much of it. I couldn’t relate to Lynch saying he had an immediate feeling of immense joy when trying transcendental meditation. I still can’t relate to that now. Everyone is different, of course, but his description of his experiences made it clear that he and I were very different people, and I didn’t get much out of his descriptions. I mention that just in case it’s interesting for anyone who has listened to that and had a similar reaction, and maybe because of that thought that meditation wasn’t for them. 

In August of last year, I went to a place called the Lama Foundation in the mountains of Taos, New Mexico. I used to live in Albuerquerque, and I’d been there a couple times before. My wife had once had a three day solitary retreat there, what they call a hermitage, and she had enjoyed it. The Lama Foundation’s main claim to fame is that it was where Richard Alpert, aka Ram Dass, wrote the well known book Be Here Now. I’m not a fan of that book; I found it quite silly, to be honest. I’m skeptical of almost all metaphysical and spiritual writings, and that specific book I found to be especially silly. Basically it involves Alpert doing a bunch of psychedelics, and traveling to India, and believing he’s witnessed amazing, magical acts, but he’s also doing so many drugs he’s an extremely unreliable narrator about what’s real and what’s not. But leaving aside any metaphysical or spiritual beliefs, the Lama Foundation is just a great property, and they have these two hermitage cabins there, where you can spend your days uninterrupted, without seeing anyone else if you don’t want to, and they bring you foods you request and leave them in a box where you can get them. The area is just very beautiful and surreal and intense-seeming, also; especially at night when the sun is setting and the light is a bit strange and the old fire-charred snags look other worldly; it does put you in a spiritual frame of mind, I think.  

I’ll just give you a description of some of my decisions I made on that trip, regarding how I approached trying to have a meaningful meditation experience. 

First, I decided to fast for four days. I’d fasted for five days before, years before. I’d also read about the idea that fasting puts you in a state more conducive to spiritual practice and inward focus. I had observed that myself when I fasted before; there was an interesting mental state, where things felt more intense, but calm. It might just be light headedness, I don’t know, but I do think there is something to that. 

I also decided to practice a mix of transcendental meditation, with the mantra repetition, and just breath-mindfulness meditation: breathing and focusing on your breath. I printed out some instructions and tips for both of these kinds of meditations to bring with me. 

Another decision I made was to not have any devices or books with me. The only things I took with me to the cabin were a few articles of clothing, and a pen and some paper. I locked up my computer and phone at the Lama Foundation lodge. 

My general schedule while there was something like this: 

Wake up when the sun rose, which was around 6am. 

Try some meditation for an hour or so

Go for a long walk on the mountain trails or on the long winding roads near the foundation 

Try meditation for another hour around noon or afternoon

Walk around some more

Try meditation again for an hour

I also made the decision to not read much or write much. The first three days I didn’t read or write anything. I was trying to embrace pure experience as much as I could. I broke from that the fourth adn fifth day, writing down some observations I’d had, and reading some books they had in the cabin (including some of Be Here Now). 

One thing I struggled with was my back. I’ve never been very good at sitting in the traditional meditation position. I often just sat in a straight backed chair they had in the cabin, and this was my usual position. As many people will tell you, you can meditate in any position.  I mention this in case anyone thinks that you need to be in a certain position. The important thing is that you’re comfortable. Although you shouldn’t be too comfortable as then you might just end up falling asleep. 

For most of the time there, I felt like I wasn’t meditating correctly, that I wasn’t quote “doing it right.” I was having the often described experience of trying to clear my mind and just observe and be, but constantly having the usual trains of thoughts and random observations and random thoughts about tasks I needed to do, all those things flood my mind. But as I learned from my own experiences and from reading more later, it’s important to embrace the idea that there is no “doing it right.” That one should try to recognize that you are entering the process; that you are trying to observe experience, trying to calm your mind. One should try to not add insult to injury by thinking that one is not doing it right; one should try to embrace the idea that you are just learning about yourself and about your existence. 

And I think once you start having an experience that you are part of the universe, that kind of cliche, it becomes easier to forgive yourself for not “doing it right,” or missteps you seemingly have. 

[Alan Watts clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mimR10eAlPk]

That was a clip of Alan Watts talking about how he views the nature of meditation and its importance. After my meditation experiences, I became a big Alan Watts fan. His book The Way of Zen is great. If you’re curious about more resource recommendations, I’ve put some on the entry for this episode at my podcast site behavior-podcast.com.

So in the first few days of the retreat, I had a few minor positive feelings, moments that felt meaningful. Some of that enjoyment was in the form of just having more time to think, to be free from the usual things, like tasks and phone messages and internet stuff. Some of that was just the ability to let my mind wonder and think of more meaningful, existential things. Some of it was intellectual; logical aspects of Buddhist-related thought, about the fact that I am a part of the universe, and the universe is a part of me, and that I am a part of the universe unfolding. Some of the positive experiences were feelings of peace and connection, even as they were interspersed with feelings of frustration, doubts about what I was doing; skepticism that I was just too desperate to have a meaningful experience, which maybe is self-defeating. 

On the fourth day, I had a highly meaningful feeling after I’d been meditating in the afternoon about an hour. For a few minutes, I felt filled with a glowing, peaceful feeling, a feeling that everything was right with the world and me, that I was tapped into something meaningful. I finally understood what people were talking about when they talked about the peacefulness and joy of meditation. 

A little later that day, and the fifth day, I had less intense but still peaceful and nice iterations of that. It was all enough to make me feel like I’d at least tasted and touched what people mean when they praise meditation. I had had the experiences that would be enough to lead me to want to do it more, and to go down that path.  

But these experiences weren’t life-changing. What I consider life changing was noticing how I felt when I left and got back to my regular life. It felt like a huge weight had lifted from me. It felt like there had been a heavy, anxiety-producing weight on my heart, around my heart, and that now I felt light. Something i wrote a few weeks after the experience was that I felt that my heart had been encased in some protective armor; that the things that usually bothered me and caused me pain were not reaching me now. I’m talking everything from very small things, like loud sounds that might usually make me jumpy and lead to anxious thoughts, to more major things, like the stuff going on with my wife and in my work. 

And this was entirely unexpected. It was surprising enough to me that I’d even had the joyful, intense experiences I’d had a few times during the retreat. I was entirely prepared for the retreat to be just me mainly feeling frustrated, like I wasn’t able to meditate like others were. I definitely didn’t expect such a relatively small set of experiences to translate to such a big change in mood and feeling. And again, it’s possible that the two things weren’t directly connected; it’s possible I could have had the long-lasting effect of the meditation without ever experiencing the joyful, blissful state; I don’t really know. 

And it’s been a quite lasting change. It has faded a bit, especially because I haven’t kept up the meditation, due to a lot of changes in my life, including my wife finally leaving me, me starting a new relationship, my moving to New York City, my starting a new job, and more. So it’s a little hard to track my state of mind across all these recent changes, and what’s due to what, but I do think that that experience changed me in a fundamental, lasting way. 

I should mention that it’s not like all my anxiety is removed. I don’t want to paint a too rosy portrait of my life or what the meditation did for me. I’m still often a quite anxious person, just as I always have been, and that’s something I want to work on more. I want to meditate more, for one thing. But in major ways the anxiety is decreased. So I had a similar experience to Koppelman; I’m not sure if it was 80% like he said, but it was significant. I think the meditation experience built some stronger mental foundations; gave me a better base of calmness from which to operate and to which I can partly return.  

For anyone who wants to try something like this, I’ll now list a few tips and observations I had, which might serve to help you. 

• Again, don’t worry too much about the position you’re in. If a cross-legged or lotus position makes you uncomfortable, get a comfortable straight-backed chair. 
• Try not to beat yourself up with thoughts that you’re not doing it right, or that you’re somehow ill suited to practicing meditation. This is normal. Keep trying to return to what you’re trying to do, depending on your meditation style you’ve chosen. Keep trying to return to observing your breath, or observing your thoughts. It’s entirely natural to have all sorts of intrusive thoughts; I would think that even the best practitioner of meditation would still occasionally have random thoughts. You are there to learn about how your mind works, and to observe it, so as to understand yourself and existence better. 
• If you’re really having trouble just being, and have a lot of intrusive thoughts that are bugging you, i think it’s okay to just let them go like that for a while. If you can’t beat them, let them go on for a while. No one’s grading you; and sometimes letting them go on for a while is what is necessary for you to work them out of your system. I think this is especially true for people new to this way of being. 

I feel that my positive experience was partly just about being free to think my own thoughts and connect with myself again. For me, how I live my life, my daily life is often just a parade of various tasks I’ve set myself to do; things to get through. That often includes even recreational activities, like reading a book or watching a show; even those more recreational things can start to feel like more assignments, a laundry list of things to do. So even apart from my meditation experience, there was something very calming and grounding on that trip in just being able to let my mind wander, to not be activity -focused, to just feel free to sit and do nothing and day dream. And that was also an important learning for me; that I need to make more time for just being, and try not to feel pressured to always fill my time up. 

I also had a sense of my experience fusing different parts of myself, of bringing them more in alignment with each other. Most of us are living such hectic lives, that I think there can be little time to let all your experiences and thoughts meld; there’s not enough time for processing. So I think just sitting and being, meditating or not, ** is time your mind spends compiling and fusing all the various thoughts and motivations and goals you have, and coupling them more tightly. During my trip, I had the sensation of my scattered inner multitude of voices coalescing in a stronger, more stable, more calm configuration. 

Another interesting part of this is just how easy it’s been for me to go from having such an amazing experience and being very excited about meditating, to basically not meditating at all. This is partly because of so many things going on in my life, as I’ve said, but it’s still kind of astounding to me. I haven’t had many experiences that amazed me, and this was one, and yet now I’m back to living as if that amazing experience didn’t happen; you’d think having such an amazing experience, you’d want to continue down that path, keep pursuing it; keep chasing the dragon. I tell myself almost every day: I need to make more time for the meditation, I tell myself, okay, tomorrow, I’ll get up early and do it for a few minutes, and really start doing it every day. But then the next day rolls around and I’m exhausted and just want to sleep or rest a few more minutes before work. Plus there’s the knowledge that it’s not that an immediately exciting endeavor; I will have moments of joy occasionally doing it, but that’s mostly not my experience doing it. It’s a practice I think is valuable, especially with the reduction in anxiety, but the payoffs are more long term. Put another way; I experienced a magical thing, but the magic of it isn’t directly obvious or available to me; I’m still not even sure what factors led to it being a magical experience. So that’s another factor for me failing to keep it up even though I want to keep it up.  

But maybe for now, it’s enough for me to know it happened, that it did help me in some long term way, and that it’s there when I want or need to return to it. 

Have you had an interesting experience with meditation? Feel free to reach out to me at behavior-podcast.com and let me know about it. 

Again, I’ve got some book and other resource recommendations for you on the topic of meditation; you can find those on the entry page for this episode, on my site behavior-podcast.com. 

A 2023 talk with Craig Malkin, author of the book Rethinking Narcissism: The Secret to Recognizing and Coping with Narcissists, in which he explains that narcissism is a spectrum. It’s healthy and normal to have some positive and grandiose illusions about your place in the world, as long as those illusions don’t become pathologically unhealthy and toxic.

Topics discussed: the spectrum of narcissism, ranging from more normal forms of narcissism to pathological, malignant, dangerous forms; common misconceptions about narcissism; existential and psychological factors that can lead to more malignantly narcissistic traits and behaviors; the phenomenon of people overzealously labeling others narcissists; the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (the basis of many people’s understanding of narcissism) and how it works.

For a transcript and other resources about this interview, see the original episode entry.

Episode links:

• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify

Why do we feel so unsettled and agitated when the world doesn’t make sense? In this episode, I talk with psychologist Steven Heine about his Meaning Maintenance Model — a theory that explains how we react when our sense of meaning is threatened. We explore how disruptions to our mental frameworks can lead us to double down on our beliefs, seek comfort in nostalgia, or shift our focus to other sources of meaning. We discuss what this tells us about political polarization, existential crises, and even how psychedelics and surreal art can shake up (and sometimes heal) our sense of reality. If you’ve ever wondered why ambiguity and uncertainty can feel so deeply uncomfortable—and what we might do to avoid it—this episode is for you.

Episode links:

• Apple Podcasts
• Spotify

For more details about this talk, and the transcript, see this page: https://behavior-podcast.com/how-do-we-respond-when-our-sense-of-meaning-is-threatened-with-steven-heine/

Can blockchain tech reinvent journalism—and reduce toxic polarization in the process? In this episode, Zachary Elwood talks with Don Templeman, founder of Aemula, a radically new kind of news platform. Inspired by the decentralization and transparency of cryptocurrency and other blockchain-based technologies, Aemula aims to create a bias-resistant newsroom of the future—one where algorithms are public, incentives reward nuance, and toxic polarization is nudged downward by design. Whether you’re a blockchain skeptic or a media reform enthusiast, this is a conversation about what’s broken in journalism—and one bold idea for fixing it.

Episode links:

• YouTube (includes video)
• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts

Resources related to or mentioned in this talk:

• Aemula’s Substack page: https://aemula.substack.com
• Don Templeman’s LinkedIn account
• Previous episode on systemic change vs cultural change for reducing polarization
• A talk with Tangle News creator on how his approach might reduce polarization

TRANSCRIPT

(Transcripts are automatic and will contain errors.)

Zachary: Hello. This is the People Who Read People Podcast with me, Zach Elwood. This is a podcast about understanding, behavior and psychology. You can learn more about [email protected]. There’s a guy in New York City named Don Templeman working on a news site. That might just be the future of journalism. A complete rethinking about how news should work a new paradigm at the risk of using an overused word.

You might make an analogy to Bitcoin and cryptocurrency just as that is an entirely new way of thinking about money in an attempt to make currency trustless and decentralized. This is doing the same thing for journalism. [00:01:00] I am a little hesitant to use that analogy because so many people have a negative view of cryptocurrency or maybe don’t understand why so many people see it as exciting.

But leaving aside your views on crypto, the important part is that this is a dramatic re-imagining of our news system. Uh, from the ground up, Don Tillman’s project is called Aula, which you can [email protected]. That’s A-E-M-U-L-A. Don thinks it’s possible that he’s creating the newsroom of the future, and after meeting with him and talking to him about the news system, the news ecosystem, and about technology and about politics and polarization dynamics, I think it’s possible he’s right.

I’m impressed with Don and think he’s onto something very big and very important. I think he has a lot of smart ideas. And I think no one else is doing what he’s doing. [00:02:00] Taylor Dotson is the author of The Divide, which I think is one of the best books about American polarization. Taylor also expressed his support for Aula saying, Don Templeman is laying the foundations for a trustworthy informational environment at scale.

The digital newsrooms of the future will look something like annular. I wanted to try to instill in you some of the excitement I had on learning about Don’s work. You’ll like this episode if you’re interested in better ways of doing news and journalism, or if you’re interested in how blockchain technology can be used to create healthier social incentives.

Or if you’re curious to know why people are excited about blockchain technology and why so many see it as a game changer with broad applications in many industries. If you didn’t already know, I’ve written two books on polarization and for the last 1.5 years I’ve been working on that pretty much full time with some [00:03:00] nonprofits and doing my own work.

Like with my Substack and my podcast and various interviews and writings. I myself focus on cultural change as a way to improve things in these areas as opposed to systemic changes. It is not that I don’t think systemic changes have their place, it’s just that I think most systemic changes are unlikely to succeed because we’re so polarized that we’ll never agree on making those systemic changes.

For example, let’s say that we were a hundred percent certain that rank choice voting would lead to less polarization and discord, which is not certain many people would disagree with that. But let’s say we were certain, I don’t think we’d ever see Republicans and Democrats get on the same page to pass something, to change things in that area.

I think toxic polarization leads to us becoming polarized over pretty much everything of significance. So [00:04:00] even if theoretically many people supported something and were in agreement, as soon as a Democrat or a Republican leader becomes associated with that idea will likely become polarized over it.

That’s just what polarization tends to do to us. It makes us fight over stuff in unreasonable ways. As I’ve talked about in a previous episode, we can have a tendency to instinctively think something like, well, if the bad guys are for this thing, we should be against it. So that’s why, that’s one of the reasons I focus on cultural change, trying to arouse the general demand for less contemptuous and toxic ways of engaging.

I have a past episode where I talk with David Foster about cultural change versus systemic change. David has worked on proposing changes to media and news systems, and again, to be clear, I’m not saying that systemic change focus is a bad thing or a [00:05:00] waste of time. I think we need people thinking about all these things.

I just personally think that there’s a lot of low hanging fruit. In the cultural change area, and we need more people working on that. But the interesting thing about Don’s Project Aula, what made it exciting to me is that it was something that was a private sector thing, not something that needed to be mandated by the government or passed via legislation.

And so if Aula became successful and. Became used by millions of people. Eventually, it could really shift incentives and change the culture without anyone ever being able to say this was forced upon us, or that it was associated with one side or the other. All it has to do is what it sets out to do. Be a great news site that people want to use, and it’s other benefits that are about better, less polarized, polarizing incentives and ways of engaging.

Those benefits will unfold indirectly just [00:06:00] as a part of it becoming popular. So, okay. Uh, what is aula? Well, it’s a news platform, but it operates completely unlike other news platforms, it might be easier to walk through some of the ways it works that make it unlike other news platforms. For one, it is decentralized.

You might have heard this word used to describe cryptocurrency. Crypto is a decentralized currency. But what does decentralized mean? It means there is no one actually in charge of it. Don sets up the way the system works, for example, the way that Aula decides to promote submitted articles to readers.

And then Ambula operates on its own. It has its own baked in rules that cannot be changed. Although some rules can be changed by a community of people who vote to change it. Similar to, uh, some other blockchain based. Services. Aula is also [00:07:00] transparent. It’s algorithms, how it works are in full view, visible to all.

There’s nothing hidden. So these two things about Aula, uh, the fact that no one’s in charge of it and the fact that it is transparent, help build trust. Unlike other major sources of news now or in the past, there are no editors deciding what to feature. This means that it takes away perceptions of bias.

It removes the tendency to see, uh, to be angry at the news platform itself, or the editors, or the owners for their bias or their propaganda or their malice or these kinds of things. Now, people may not like the way Alo works and the content it exposes to them, but that’s a different story. They can trust that the algorithm is transparent and public, and if amulet is working properly, people will like the things it surfaces to them and want to keep using it.

And because it’s decentralized and operates on its own, it is infinitely scalable. [00:08:00] Unlike existing traditional newsrooms, ulus billing and money distribution is also entirely automated and transparent. Subscriber money goes into a pool, and then content creators get automatically paid based on how much engagement their articles get.

But wait, you may be saying or thinking there’s no one in charge. That sounds like it would be pure chaos. Wouldn’t it turn into a madhouse? Wouldn’t it be like an out of control four chan or Reddit thread or something like this? But that’s where Ambula is meant to shine. It uses a sophisticated content recommendation protocol that tries to both A, give people what they want based on other articles and writers they’ve liked.

While also B, moving their content recommendations in less polarized, less fringe directions, and more in the direction of ideas and news that have appealed to a broad range of people. Now keep in mind that when I say polarized or [00:09:00] fringe here, we’re talking also about contempt and animosity and uh, just plain obliviousness here.

We’re not talking about ideas. So it’s not just about moving people towards ideas and stances that are moderate or in the middle, so to speak. It’s about moving people towards less contemptuous takes and coverage. Coverage that understands and respects a broad range of views that is not oblivious to the ways that many people see issues and see stances.

Another way to understand this is from the journalist perspective. The view of someone who submits an article to Ambula because of how the algorithm works, that journalist or pundit will have an incentive to try to speak to a broad range of people as opposed to just people on one political side, as opposed to just venting to and speaking to one’s allies.

The algorithm creates the [00:10:00] incentive to try to reach more people and and be more persuasive. I think that’s what’s exciting about Amila. It is meant to create a self-sustaining, infinitely scalable system that has much healthier, more social, less polarized incentives than our current news ecosystem. If it were to become popular, it could create a seismic shift in how people create and consume news.

It would give power to journalists and pundits. Who take more respectful, less polarized, more nuanced approaches, it would lead to less polarized, hateful discourse. It would lead to more nuanced discussions. It would lead to more creative compromises becoming visible. As I said, I don’t often get excited about ideas for changing the system, but I’m excited about Don’s project.

I recommend you sign up to Aula on the main site, which is aula.com. Again, that’s A-E-M-U-L-A. And I recommend that you also sign up for the [00:11:00] Aula Substack, which [email protected]. Okay. Here’s the talk that I had recently with Don Templeman, founder of aula. Hey Don, thanks for joining me.

Don: Yeah, thanks so much for having me on.

Always a pleasure. Oh yeah, my pleasure. Uh, so maybe we can start with. Uh, you know, as, as you, as you and I have both seen, uh, trying to explain this to some people recently, it can be kind of hard to communicate in, in a short form your vision for this thing, which I think speaks to what a kind of paradigm shift it is and how people think about news and journalism.

But, uh, maybe we could start with an analogy or two because, and I’ll, and I’ll give you a rough sense of how I see it. I kind of view it as like, sort of like the constitution, you know, of a, of a country can help set things up to run in ways that are [00:12:00] self-policing and help create good outcomes. Basically, what you’re trying to do is something like that that creates a self-sustaining system with good incentives for a news and journalism platform.

Is that a good analogy? And maybe you can talk about that.

Don: Yeah, exactly. That’s. What we’re trying to do is set up an ecosystem, an incentive structure, with rules that allow writers to go out and produce high quality independent journalism and readers to be able to consume it and know that they can all trust that it’s a credibly neutral platform.

It’s a high trust environment, and with constitutions, that’s essentially when they’re using countries, what the intent of them is. But what you’re relying on with constitutions is for the execution of that vision of those rules and values that you’re setting up from the start. You’re relying on other people to execute that vision.

So like you’re relying on the judiciary process to actually work and make sure that it’s not [00:13:00] corrupted or executive functions, everything like that. Whereas what we’re trying to do is remove that reliance on trusting individual other humans. By building it on decentralized technologies that are inherently trustless.

So you’re not necessarily having to rely on other individuals to make sure that you can trust information you’re getting. You can see that like this is a program that is running, that there isn’t any way to have a malicious act outside influence, try to censor or push specific narratives. Uh, you can just join the ecosystem.

It’s open to everyone and everyone can rest easy That. Everything is running according to the rules that we’ve all, uh, accepted.

Zachary: Yeah, I think that’s where people, uh, especially people who aren’t that familiar with, you know, blockchain or decentralized structures. Some people can struggle with this because I’ve seen, you know, when I was explaining this to some people, I think a lot of people will think like, well, somebody’s gotta be in charge of these, you know, [00:14:00] editorial decisions or pro what we promote or what articles get promoted.

But the, uh, maybe you could talk a little bit about what. The decentralized technology really means, and you know, I guess an analogy for it is sort of like Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies create a self sustaining or self-policing system that works on its own. That’s what you’re trying to do for, for journalism, right?

Don: Absolutely. And I think the Bitcoin analogy is good because it provides like a simple structure that you can use to start to understand. A lot of the mechanisms that we’re using, uh, where we’re building Ethereum or building Aula on Ethereum. And so with Bitcoin it’s a digital currency. And traditionally with currencies throughout human history, what you’re relying on to be able to transact and make sure that no one is kind of creating their own bank balances, no one’s printing their own money.

Is you’re relying on trusted third parties. So these are [00:15:00] institutions like banks or governments or federal reserves that are maintaining the currency system. And what Bitcoin is doing for currency is they’re removing that trusted intermediary and saying that you can trust this digital protocol where everyone is coming together and collectively agreeing on the state of the protocol, essentially like the transactions that are happening, everyone’s bank balances.

So that we can all go and transact freely without having to rely on banks or governments or middlemen. The same thing is happening with Ethereum, and what they’re trying to do is create a world computer, essentially one computer that everyone can come in and work with. Uh, it’s essentially a network. So when you think of traditional corporate internet platforms, when you think of Facebook or Substack.

These companies are running their platforms on their own servers that they fully control. So Facebook has, they control the gates so they can say who has [00:16:00] access to Facebook, they can delete posts on Facebook. They can change the algorithms that Facebook is running and should using to create your feeds for you because they fully control it.

Whereas if we build a protocol on top of Ethereum, no one inherently controls that computer that we’re using to run this program on top of. So no one controls who has access. No one has the ability to remove content or sensor content. Uh, so everyone is able to come and contribute freely and work together to collaborate, uh, with the shared mission, which is essentially the protocol that we’re putting together for aula, specifically, a protocol for producing and distributing independent journalism,

Zachary: right?

So anyone can submit, uh, content to it, the system. Automatically promotes content to people that, uh, it thinks will be interested in that. And maybe we could talk a little bit about, ’cause I think a lot of people hearing that, they’re like, well, nobody’s in charge. It’s just gonna devolve into [00:17:00] madness and chaos and, you know, we, we’ve seen how these things can play out.

So, uh, so maybe you could talk a little bit about, you know, how you’re, how you’re making the, the, how the algorithm is promoting content and how you’re, uh. Trying to reward people that speak to a broader range of people to try to break the usual incentives for kind of like speaking to bubbles and such.

Don: Yeah. I’ll start very high level because I think curation is such an important aspect of news and just interacting with information online in general, because we’re in such a digitally interconnected global society. Where most people feel like they have some pulse on what is going on globally, but when you think about your worldview that you’ve created, you really are only able to create it either based on stuff that you’ve directly experienced in your own life, which is a very small subset of that information and information that has [00:18:00] been reported to you from third parties, and in most cases, this is.

Third parties that are strangers to you. These are news reporters, people in different countries reporting the news, people on social media that are sharing posts. And so a lot of the time you’re relying and trusting these strangers on the internet to provide you information that you’re then using to generate your worldview, that you go out and share with other people and use to form your own basis for your own belief system.

Zachary: Right? We’re all, we’re all products of our surrounding ecosystem. Yeah.

Don: exactly. And historically what we’ve had to do is rely on trusted intermediaries to handle that curation process. So with legacy institutional publications, you’re relying on the credibility of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, because they have such a long track record of generating the high quality professional journalism that I know.

If I subscribe to you. New York Times, I’m trusting that their [00:19:00] editorial board is going to go out, sift through all of the information that’s being generated in the world on a daily basis and condense it and curate it into something that is relevant to me. It’s engaging and is something that I can trust to be able to actually build my own belief system off of that.

A similar process happens on social media, but that is more algorithmic where you’re saying like, I will. Create a Facebook account, I’ll create an X account and I will read the stuff that comes up in their news speed and I’m trusting their algorithms to promote content to me that I will find engaging and I’ll follow people and subscribe to people that align with my beliefs.

And I’ll use that to form, uh, the basis for my belief system. However, you’d need to start to look into the incentive structures of how these different institutions are forming these curation algorithms. So with Facebook with X, they’re all free to use advertiser driven. [00:20:00] And so they’re trying to optimize their algorithms to promote content that captures your attention they can use to sell advertising.

And you’re more of a product in those ecosystems where I’m giving you my user data, I’m giving you my preferences, and they’re using that to sell to advertisers to target you with personalized advertising. The type of content that ends up getting promoted by those algorithms is more of that like click beatty, rage Beatty type stuff, where it’s.

It gets people arguing in the comments, it gets people sharing it with their friends, it gets people talking about it, and that’s kind of that amplification cycle of this inflammatory environment where all of a sudden everything online seems so much more polarized than it is in our actual day-to-day lives of interacting with individuals.

Because if you’re actually just sharing what the vast majority of us actually experience and believe, it’s not really that exciting and not something that gets people like retweeting things on x. [00:21:00] So what we’re trying to do is create a different incentive structure with algorithms that we’re using to curate content, because if we’re not relying on a editorial board to go out and cherry pick articles, we’re gonna have to rely on algorithms just given the vast, vast complexity of all the information going on and being generated on a daily basis.

So the first thing is all of our algorithms, we want to be completely open source, fully transparent. Anyone can come on and see like, why am I seeing the content I’m seeing? Writers can see like, what are the goals I’m trying to hit with how I can receive larger promotion for my content work on the platform.

So everything needs to be completely open source and. For open source, fully transparent algorithms to actually be usable. They need to be human readable and easy to understand. So you can’t rely on machine learning, artificial intelligence, like these black boxes where you don’t really know what’s going on in it.

You just know their goals. So we’re trying to have a very [00:22:00] simple human readable algorithm. But then on top of that, what we’re trying to do, our main goal is to be able to reverse these trends of polarization that we’re seeing in the media. And we can do that by promoting articles that receive a lot of diverse support that are written from a more moderate perspective, that have been, that have gone through a peer-to-peer editorial process that may receive feedback, may have been backed up by more research.

So we can include all of these as inputs into how we’re ranking articles and our system. But what we’re able to do without getting kind of too into the details on this now, is. We don’t need to know. We as aula in this context. We don’t need to know any underlying data about the users. We don’t need to know any underlying content of the articles.

We’re just looking at relationally, how are people interacting with specific articles? How are people react? Interacting with specific authors, [00:23:00] because then we’re able to back out and see. Roughly who agrees with whom on the platform. We don’t necessarily need to know what their perspectives are. We don’t need to know if they’re left leaning or right leaning.

We don’t have to try to put content labels on these types of perspectives, but we can roughly see like where people fall in this general population of platform users. And we can map out like what is the actual central consensus viewpoint on the platform and where are the fringes. And once we have this map, we can say people who are writing.

From this moderate center are likely making better arguments than people that are maybe getting a lot of engagement from a small group of people, but are all on the fringe, and we can look at people who are agreeing with those articles and see if they’re all coming from diverse backgrounds and different pockets of ideologies.

Then whoever’s writing that article is probably making arguments that are based in fact, that are sound arguments, reasonable arguments that are easy to engage with from people of [00:24:00] all sides. Once you are able to promote and rank articles based on that diversity, you’re able to start to create new bridges and, uh, kind of new pathways for people to discover new perspectives because it allows ’em to slowly over time start to become exposed to new perspectives rather than.

Showing someone, uh, argument from the complete opposite side of the aisle where they’ll probably quickly dismiss it and discredit it as, uh, false. Even if it is making strong sound arguments, we can show them something that is kind of adjacent to them or slightly more moderate than their current point of view that they’re likely to agree with.

And then over time you can slowly depolarize the entire ecosystem.

Zachary: So, um, yeah, I think the interesting thing about this, the thing I think a lot about is it, it kind of relates to my experience in poker and thinking about game theory and stuff is I think a lot of people think [00:25:00] that if you made your algorithm, uh, your strategy, so to say public and everyone knows it, that it opens it up to gaming and exploitation.

But I think the, the thing that you’re trying to do and, and other companies try to do with these kind of open source strategies. Is you’re trying to create a strategy that has built-in incentives so that even if someone was trying to game it, that’s a good thing from your perspective, right? It’s like, so if somebody is trying to game this algorithm, they’d be trying to create content that speaks to a wide variety of people and like, you know, so that, that’s a good thing.

So I think you’re, you’re creating the, the very incentive that, that you want to see, even if people try to exploit it, right? Am I understanding that correctly? Exactly. That’s, we want you to

Don: try to gain the system because you’ll see. People posting on X or people posting on Substack, how to growth hack your audience.

What are the games you have to play on the platform to try to gain exposure? And with ambulance, like the incentives we’re putting in place are if you’re [00:26:00] trying to gain the system, if you’re trying to increase your exposure, increase your monetization, earn the financial rewards that we’re trying to put out there, you’ll start to be riding from a depolarized perspective.

Inherently, uh, which we think will benefit people over the long run because we want individuals bringing their own unique perspectives. If you’re relying on humans to generate content, they’re gonna be bringing their own biases no matter where they fall. But we think if the ecosystem has those incentives towards depolarization, then that will happen as a second order effect, and everyone is able to still have the liberty to write and interact freely.

Uh, but it’s just, that’s, if that’s where the money is, that’s what people will start to align their engagement for. And it’s, most of the time people are moving the other way where it’s like they may have a more moderate perspective, but then they’ll try to use more inflammatory language or kind of over like, make everything more over exuberant, [00:27:00] like the Mr.

Beatification of YouTube just to try to get clicks and engagement. Or it’s, we can allow people to actually just share the more moderate point of view and they’ll actually receive more monetization that way.

Zachary: Yeah, and it’s worth throwing in too for people thinking like this is some sort of like, because people hear moderate or centrist and they start thinking like, well you’re, you’re trying to change people’s beliefs towards some moderate or center its beliefs.

But I think the important thing is. A lot of what we’re talking about when, in terms of moderation is the, is the contempt that people have for other views, so it’s like mm-hmm. It’s not necessarily a moderate or in the middle stance that somebody have or that might be popular. It’s somebody might have a view that many people think is extreme even, but if they’re expressing it in a persuasive way and not like.

Demonizing, you know, groups of people that’s, it’s all about how you express it. So I just wanted to make that clarification. ’cause a lot of people will kind of mingle like beliefs and, and, and this level of like engagement and contempt. And I think, you know, it’s important to [00:28:00] to point out like, you know, it, there’s all sorts of views that could be, that could, that could gain purchase, uh, in, in in the audience.

Right, exactly. So, yeah, and I wanted to say too, yeah, I think, I think people, I mean for, for me, I. I think so much about the incentives and the systemic incentives, and that’s why it’s hard for me to get too upset about people’s behavior because I, I just see so many ways that this systemic thing that we’re in, like this, this, this toxic conflict kind of scenario and the various incentives of various structures like media and politics, there’s so many systemic elements to this, which to me is like, and, and so many people I think focus on specific people as being.

Agents and powerful agents, you know, for example, they might say like Fox News or M-S-N-B-C are, are making bad decisions and, and, and polarizing us. But I think it’s important to see that they are part of a system and they are playing by the rules of that system. And they [00:29:00] are, you know, whether they know it or, or not.

There’s various, you know, range of people trying to specifically rile people up or, or they’re just biased or actually believe what they’re doing. But there’s various ways that the systemic sys the, the system. Incentivizes polarizing behaviors. And I think, I think when pe when you see that clearly as I think, I think you and I see that aspect of things clearly, it really shows the importance of creating better incentives and not getting so been outta shape on specific actors.

And it’s like, can we, can we work on these foundational incentives? Right? And that’s what’s so exciting to me about your thing because I, I actually see very few. Systemic things that could actually work because, you know, for example, if it was a government based system, we’re so polarized that it’s very unlikely that we’d ever get on the same page about passing some big systemic change government wise.

And I, that’s why like, I think like rank choice voting is kind of a, a dead end for that reason. ’cause I think it’d be very hard, [00:30:00] you know, we’ll become polarized over that in various ways. Yeah. Uh, so the various things that people might propose, I think are. Are difficult to get past, but I like the organicness of, of, of yours and the fact that it might grow organically and be a real paradigm, uh, shift there.

But yeah, there’s just so many incentives baked into these various systems. Yeah.

Don: Yeah. And that was sort of the genesis of the idea is I was starting to realize that everything I was reading online. Or in the press was seemingly more polarized than my actual like day-to-day experience of speaking with friends, meeting new people, and actually talking about things.

And I may be an optimist in this regard, but I think most people, when you’re interacting directly, you’re able to find some common ground. And if you actually spend the time to have that conversation, it’s typically. Things aren’t as inflammatory as they seem online. And when I started to try to understand [00:31:00] like what is actually driving this, like what are the underlying motives that are driving people to be more polarized, there are a lot of contributing factors, but what seemed to be one of the largest contributors was just the incentive structures of our media, our media systems, because.

Corporate social media platforms, you’re relying on advertising supported free to use platforms. These algorithms that are, uh, incentivizing people to promote more inflammatory clickbait type articles or if institutional publications, you’re running into this audience capture type scenario where. You’re, they’re having to carve out their own market share within their own niche to capture market share within these, uh, kind of media markets and the audiences that they then capture, they’re trying to support with providing them.

Information that aligns with their audience’s beliefs, and then they’re hiring journalists that are able to write from those [00:32:00] perspectives. The editorial, the editors on these editorial boards are selecting information to align with those perspectives. The investors, the entire ecosystem that they’re creating is all aligned to support this niche perspective of their audience.

And so that’s why you start to see this fragmented landscape where it’s so difficult to be a reader of one publication. Then switch and start reading another and you’re like, this seems like in a completely different world over here. It’s you switch between world. Yeah. Fox News and M-S-N-B-C. It’s always completely different

Zachary: narratives.

Yeah,

Don: exactly.

Zachary: Yeah. And I think too, it’s also like just the various incentives, you know, not even intentional. It’s like there’s a lot of true believers that like say you’re, you know, an editor or a journalist at New York Times and. You, you find it really hard to understand the quote, other side’s point of view that can’t help but, you know, leak into the things that go out.

And so there’s, there’s compounding aspects of how we form these two [00:33:00] divergent narratives with true belief or, you know, kind of subpar incentives that work together. And yeah, it’s just a whole stew of, of things, biases and bubbles of information and lack of understanding the better arguments on the other side, et cetera, et cetera.

Um, yeah. So, um, yeah, I wanted to ask you, I mean, I think, I think one thing when people hear about this kind of approach, uh, I’ve seen this in, uh, in, in other digital efforts too, uh, where, where people have a response of like, sort of like they have to ai where they’re like, oh, you’re trying to take all the, the soul and humanity out of, um, you know, news and journalism.

You know, you know, you’re, you’re, you’re destroying the. The traditions and the humanity and the human choices. But I think that’s lacking, uh, not seeing what your vision would be. Maybe you could talk a little bit about what you see that kind of argument is missing.

Don: Um, I’m glad you mentioned AI in that context, because that is what we’re trying to [00:34:00] avoid.

We’re specifically building an ecosystem that is verifiably human and relying on human generated reporting. Because we want to set us up in this new age of AI’s out there. You can get AI summaries on pretty much any news event that’s happening. Uh, if you Google something, the first thing you see now is like Google’s AI generated summary.

We’re moving away from actual human reporting. And if we want to focus on human flourishing and human creativity and humans actually reporting their experiences through the news. We need to have a more human-centric ecosystem than trying to go these AI routes. And so what we’re trying to do is leverage this decentralized technology to support humans in actually generating human created content.

And one of the interesting things that we’re able to do with that is. We can verify someone as a real human. There’s multiple [00:35:00] methods to do this. I think the one that most people may be familiar with is Sam Altman’s World Coin or now just re-branded as world. Uh, but I don’t know if you’ve seen this, the one where you scan your retinas and then you get a proof that you’re a real human.

Uh, a lot of people have issues with scanning their retinas, how that data is used. But, uh, there are multiple different methods that you’re able to. On your own device, prove that you’re a real human, and then use that proof without giving up any underlying personal data to say, this is my account. I’m a real person, I’m not a bot, I’m not an ai.

And we can verify, we can use that proof as verification of our users, that they’re real people. And so what we’re able to do is we’re able to assign a higher reputation to people who have verified, uh, as being real humans and not AI bot. And so as we start to see more and more prevalence of AI agents operating online.

We’re already seeing it on X, where [00:36:00] there’s a bunch of autonomous AI bots that are posting, uh, even on other platforms like forecaster, you’re familiar, people are already complaining about like getting in arguments with someone and then realizing that it’s actually just an AI bot that they’re arguing with.

We can. Start to verify that like we are a fully human-centric ecosystem, so that when our readers log in, they know that like, oh, I’m reading a real news report that was generated by a actual journalist, and I can trust that this is real information and not something that is being spotted by some AI bot.

Zachary: Yeah, that was one of the misunderstandings when I told someone just a about this just yesterday, they were like, oh, it’ll be some AI kind of, uh, parsing of the, you know, they thought, they thought it was using AI to like parse different viewpoints and do something in the middle, but, so yeah. That’s another common Yeah.

Misunderstanding.

Don: It’s actually the, just one quick point. It’s, we’re trying to do the inverse of that. I think a lot of. Companies are trying to skew towards like how can we leverage [00:37:00] AI in our platform because that’s the hot buzzword and kind of like venture capital at the moment. Or if you’re trying to raise money or hire people.

We’re trying to do the opposite because if you look at these AI companies, if you look at these large language models, the information that they’re able to give is based on their training data sets. And for the most part, you can start to see the differences in answers that these LLMs give just based on their training data.

Like for instance, Google’s Gemini is based on Google index sites. You have Perplexity, which is based on, uh, they got that massive scandal with having Index New York Times paywall articles. And so New York Times was suing perplexity for that training data. Uh, open AI has had access to now Microsoft’s like GitHub, so they have all of these code repositories.

So different LLMs have different answers just based on the training data sets, and it’s really just shows that AI are [00:38:00] in their current iteration or just ways to collect data and summarize it for people who are giving these prompts, but for them to be able to fully understand the human world, like stay up to date with current events.

They need some way to determine like what is high quality, relevant information.

Zachary: Yeah.

Don: And so if we’re able to provide, Hey, we have this platform, it’s all content that’s generated by people that we’ve verified as humans. It’s gone through this robust moderation protocol. We understand like the context of this is a more widely considered accepted true belief, whatever this article is.

We can use that to provide it to LLMs as a basis for fundamental training data so that they can actually be better at summarizing and giving us better context in our daily lives. So they’re more powerful tools. So we’re more trying to create a fundamental training data layer for AI systems rather than using AI systems, uh, to help [00:39:00] curate content.

Zachary: Yeah, I mean, if, if you’re successful at this, there’s just all sorts of ways that. You, you could use, you know what the content that’s marked as high value or, or, or persuasive to many people, you could, there’s so many ways you could use that in other ways. Yeah,

Don: absolutely. And the important thing, like, like I mentioned with the New York Times and Perplexity and how Perplexity was using unlicensed articles from the New York Times, what we’re able to do, since we already know the verified owners of all of the content.

And we know that they own the copyright of that content, they can then have the full freedom to say, I want to license my content to LLMs. We can facilitate that for them and then pass through the payments directly to the authors as the owners of the actual underlying content, which is much more difficult to do in a centralized experience.

So like if you’re on Facebook or if you’re on X in your user terms, you’re pretty much signing off that like. [00:40:00] Anything I post on x I’m agreeing to just let be ingested by Grock on X. As its training data, uh, we can say that anything you’re posting to aula, you now have full control to determine if you want this to be licensed.

And if it does get licensed, then you get paid. And so you’re compensated for actually giving this information to be used. Is training data

Zachary: very cool. Uh, the other, the other thing I can imagine. Uh, people objecting to for this, which is just kind of a subset of, of how people object to depolarization and, and bridge building type work is, and there would be different ways this would show up on the left and the right, but it there’d be that objection of like.

You’re trying to control our thought. You’re trying to, you know, bring our, you know, create some system to make us, uh, more moderate, you know, in, in a, in a political, middle, middle, uh, of the road way. But I think I’ll just give my, my reaction to that and you can respond to it. ’cause I, I think that what that misses is [00:41:00] this is trying to create.

A system that brings out the best of humanity. It’s not one way or another we’re gonna be controlled by the things around us. And this is creating a system that’s trying to bring out the best of humanity and to, to prevent us from becoming into these divergent narratives where we’re we, we have so much contempt for each other.

So I think it’s, it’s, and, and it’s not trying to control people, because at the end of the day, you’re gonna react to the things you react to on that platform and be shown. Things that correspond to what you like, even if it recommends some other, you know, things that thinks you might also like, that are a little bit more, you know, depolarized.

So I think it’s, I think the, yeah, the counter argument is like, no, it’s not trying to control you. You can use the system however you want. If you don’t want to use the system, obviously you can go use another system. Uh, it’s still a free world. Uh, but it, you know, the, the goal is that it gives many people what they want, right.

Don: Yeah, yeah, that [00:42:00] we’re trying to, we don’t want to control everyone and like bring their perspectives into the center. What we’re more trying to do is create a more accurate representation of what people’s actual viewpoints are, because I would argue that on corporate social platforms, they’re more doing a worse job of pulling you more towards the fringes.

Like if you just create a new account. On Facebook or X and you go and you start interacting with data or posts, you’ll start to see how you start to get recommended down these pathways towards radicalization. And they’ve actually done studies on this, on TikTok and YouTube. Like how quickly do you get pulled into these more like radical fringe belief systems?

And when you look just overall like. What is like a distribution of people who holds certain beliefs? Like most people will be fairly moderate. There’s small amounts of peoples on, uh, people on the fringes, but if you look at the type of content and the voices that are getting promoted on social [00:43:00] media, you see that there’s a lot of weight given to those small fringe beliefs.

They’re getting an outsized portion of the voice on these social media platforms. Versus all of these people in the moderate center that have expertise on certain areas. They have their posts that should deserve to get engagement, but they’re just not getting the clicks ’cause they don’t drive that sort of ad engagement.

Mm-hmm. So the first thing is like we want people to have a more accurate rep representation of people’s real opinions on certain topics. The other thing is we try to promote and recommend articles to people based on their current individual beliefs. Because we want anyone to be able to sign onto the platform no matter what their perspective is, and we can give them engaging, relevant content.

So if you are someone on the far left or someone on the far right, we can show you stuff that is slightly more mo moderate than your current point of view, but is still on your side of the spectrum. So it’s not just [00:44:00] promoted like moderate, central, central, centrist voices.

Zachary: Mm-hmm.

Don: And through that. You’ll slowly start to see people come more towards the center over time, and we would expect it to start to reflect more what the true underlying population actually believes.

But over the years, if the problem then switches and we feel that people are being kind of sucked too strongly into the center and that we think that there needs to be more diversity of thought, the underlying algorithms are fully community governed, so the community could come together and. We set up these algorithms with the goal of depolarizing the media landscape.

We ne now think that it’s too depolarized and that people need to start exploring new different belief systems so we can then vote to change the underlying incentive structures of the curation algorithms to start to promote people, to explore new viewpoints and promote people that may be speaking up from the fringes.

So it’s. That’s a problem way down the road. Yeah. Like that would be a great problem to have.

Zachary: Right? [00:45:00] It’d be like the cycle, you know, it’s kinda like when in the 19, uh, what was it, 1950s in America when they were like, the political parties need to become more polarized. They’re not different enough. And so, you know, in the, in the utopia that, uh, ambula creates in the future, one day they’ll be like, we, we need to make ambula more, uh, a little bit more polarized and differentiated views more.

And then the, the cycle then can be, begin again. I’m

Don: just kidding. Yeah. Hopefully not go into a cycle of that. But that is, that is the purpose. We’re, we’re not trying to put, we’re not trying to push any narrative. We’re not trying to push any point of view on anyone. We’re trying to let everyone speak freely, speak independently from their own unique perspectives.

People can explore those perspectives freely. And if we have run into issues with how the algorithms promoted content, then people can propose changes. Everyone can vote on it and, uh, accept them. So it’s. Not some corporation trying to put this algorithm on everyone. It’s actually a fully community governed process.

Zachary: Yeah. Even the, uh, I was gonna say, even, [00:46:00] even sites that you wouldn’t think do this can be very, can get you down rabbit holes, like Amazon for example, because I do polarization related research. I was buying a few, uh, books about the conservative Republican views. To for research, and all of a sudden I was getting recommended, like election denial books and like, you know, liberals are garbage humans books, you know, it’s like, uh, just very quickly and it’s like, that’s, uh, interesting.

But it’s, you know, it’s understandable why that works. It’s like, even if they don’t want to do it, that’s just kind of fun naturally how the organic incentives tend to work. Yeah. Uh, but I want to, uh, I wanted to ask you. Yeah, I was kind of. Obviously this is a joke, but I was curious if you thought about do remaining anonymous and being like the, uh, satoshi of, um, you know, blockchain, uh, journalism or something like that.

Don: I, I mean, I will say like I wasn’t never planning to be anonymous, but I will say like there is merit [00:47:00] to the anonymity behind Satoshi No komoto and really like that helped to kind of create more allure and everything about it. Yeah. But there’s also this aspect where it’s. You like with ula, we want it to sort of be a baseless organization because the whole point is we don’t actually have control over what the narrative is.

So it doesn’t matter what my viewpoints are because everything is community governed. Everything’s community moderated. Everyone’s free to join it. We can’t censor anything, so it doesn’t really matter what my beliefs are. So there is some merit to being like, I’ll stay anonymous and Angela can just be this faceless organization.

It can just be a foundation that helps support this without having anyone worry that like my beliefs or biases are affecting the platform. But I think it’s also. Everything’s open source, everything’s fully transparent. So you can also just go in and see that like I verifiably am not able to go in and start to [00:48:00] make changes or sensor the platform.

Uh, once we have fully launched our community governance protocol, uh, I will say we’re very early on in the process that it’s a small kind of like early testing phase of ambulance. So. It is still fairly centralized, just given the size of the community, but we’re building in programmatic breakpoint, so as the community grows and reaches certain diversity metrics.

More and more control gets passed off to the community to a point where I, I no longer have any ability to control sort of how it’s operating.

Zachary: Right. Gotcha. Yeah.

Don: Yeah.

Zachary: Um, yeah, there’s, there’s, there’s trust involved in the, the transparency and the fact that nobody’s pulling the strings. Yeah. Yeah. Um, so may I’m going to, I was gonna switch to more blockchain kind of related questions ’cause they are just some things I’ve wondered on my own and I figure some other people might.

Wonder them. Uh, so I, I’ve always been a little confused about what makes blockchain so special, because I’ve seen some people say like, oh, it’s [00:49:00] just an, just a ledger, an append only ledger where you can only add to it and not edit or subtracted. But, uh, and theoretically that, that, that’s a kind of form of ledger that already exists.

But maybe you could talk a little bit about what is so exciting about blockchain, what I’m missing there.

Don: Yeah, I think it helps to try to stay like fairly abstract in general about it and building an understanding. Uh, but like how I view what the underlying blockchain technology does is it really facilitates coordination among individuals at scale without having to rely on trust of other individual parties.

And that’s done through consensus mechanisms to really what. Blockchain means is it’s a data structure of you have a block of data and everyone through this consensus mechanism agrees that everything in that block is a valid transaction. There’s nothing nefarious going [00:50:00] on. We all agree that we all accept that this is the current state of our ecosystem.

And then once everyone validates that block, it gets added to the chain. And since everything’s chained together, you can’t go back and try to change something in the past. Once it’s added to the chain, then it’s final. And everyone ag, you don’t have to pay any more attention or thought to it because it’s like we’ve all agreed this is a valid block.

We add it to the chain. Now our focus is on validating the next block. If that makes sense. We can speak more to like. Yeah, consensus mechanisms and like how it works in practice. I think I,

Zachary: I guess, and correct me if I’m wrong, but I guess the, the interesting, the exciting thing about this is that it’s, you know, say somebody put in this type of ledger, this append, only if I’m saying that right, append only ledger, say they put it in a server somewhere.

Like the difference is that that would not be trustworthy because somebody, whoever owns that server could go in and change it. Right? Whereas this is creating. A network [00:51:00] based reality, a system that cannot be tampered with because the community agrees on it. Right. Am I understanding that correctly?

Don: Yeah.

Yes. So it’s the network as a whole. So like we’ll use Ethereum and we can use AM in this example as well, but the community as a whole has a universal state. So we’re all working off of the same computer, essentially. Mm-hmm. So we, it’s not like you have some. The state of the network and I have a state of the network and like we can go do our own things.

It’s like we’re all coming to a consensus and agreeing like, this is the current state.

Zachary: It’s almost like a dispersed, uh, server in a way. It’s like a, it’s like a Exactly. Abstract server that’s distributed.

Don: Yes. That, that’s the perfect way to think about it. And like this state, like what we’re all agreeing on is essentially any interaction that you would do on a traditional server.

Like I can go in it, I can write data, I can read data. And what we’re all agreeing on is like no one went outside of [00:52:00] the guidelines of any program that’s running on the system. No one deleted something accidentally. No one is trying to write data that they’re not able to. No one’s able to try to like spend money that they’re, they don’t have.

So we all agree that everything that occurred in this block is a valid interaction and then we can add it to the chain. And now this is added to this universal state that we’re all working off of. But I realize that like transactions, interactions, data, like it’s all kind of abstracted away and it’s difficult to like understand like what is the importance of this?

So in the context of Aula, if you’re a writer writing to Aula and you publish an article, your authorship of that article and that article’s existence is stored in the data of the Ethereum network, that Ethereum virtual machine, that distributed server that everyone’s working off of. And so if we want to be able to verifiably say that you’re the owner of this data and prove that you own that article, we don’t want anyone going [00:53:00] in after the fact and deleting your article off of the server.

We don’t want anyone going in and trying to like sensor your perspectives by saying like, oh, we’re actually gonna take those articles down. So that’s like once you publish an article, everyone agrees that like you are now the owner of the underlying date of that article. And now once it’s added to the chain.

You can rest easy knowing that you have full ownership of your own underlying data.

Zachary: Right? Yeah. And, and, and the exciting thing about all this is that as, as we’ve seen with, um, cryptocurrency, even though it’s in, its, you know, beginning stages, it, it gives an example of how. A wellc created system that catches on can really change incentives and change behaviors, which is what mm-hmm.

You’re, you’re trying to do for journalism, but the, I think the, yeah, the exciting thing that, the thing that excites people is how you can create these systems that have their own life and, and really change incentives and change real life [00:54:00] behaviors and change how people interact. I think, yeah, I think that’s, that is exciting.

Yeah.

Don: Exactly. It’s, it’s everything is self-executing, so you’re not having to rely on trusting a intermediary. And that’s the beauty of it for journalism specifically, is when you look at what creates like a credible, trustworthy, journalistic environment, you need it to be censorship resistant. You need to be able to trust that there’s not outside influence.

You need to make sure that no one’s manipulating the narrative. And you wanna make sure that you can track people’s reputations, that no one’s creating some massive piece in like misinformation campaign and it gets taken down and then they just go and create another account and do it again somewhere else.

We can verify that your real person, your reputation will be tied to whatever you write going forward. If you try to spread misinformation, then that damages your reputation. You now have to work to build a track record of high quality [00:55:00] content to. Work your way out of that. Mm-hmm. And so it just creates this high trust environment where you’re not actually having to rely on people saying like, oh, trust me, I’m gonna work in your best interest.

Because like, while that’s all well and good, it, there’s so many powerful incentives behind controlling and manipulating media narratives that they, any weakness will always be exploited no matter what. Like, we’ve seen this. With the New York Times, like in 2004 when there was the NSA surveillance story, that they were pressured by the government to not post until after the election.

So like we’ve seen that with the New York Times, which you would trust. We’ve seen it with Facebook throughout COVID when they were pressured by the government to suppress stories on COVID lab leak theories and everything. And then it came out after the fact that they were actually being pressured by the government to censor content and.

We’ve seen it with X where Elon buys X and says that he wants to support free speech, [00:56:00] but then immediately gets into a free speech legal battle with Brazil over them trying to censor moderate content. So it’s, and we’ve also seen it with Substack when people were sharing, uh, like Nazi type articles and.

They were not trying to censor it ’cause they said they were supporting free speech. And then everyone says, I think we can all agree that this isn’t something that we want to be sharing here. And so it, anytime there is that point of weakness, it will be pressured. And so what we’re trying to do is remove that point of weakness entirely.

Zachary: Right. And

Don: say we can’t go in and sensor, there is a, I’ll say there’s a moderation protocol. So if someone is sharing Nazi beliefs that are harmful content. It can be taken down and removed by that moderation protocol, but no one can go in and actually sensor underlying narratives. So even if the government wanted to come in and say, we don’t want you posting this story, it’s, you can’t really come to a and ask [00:57:00] that because we don’t have the ability to control that.

Zachary: Mm-hmm. Well, this has been awesome. Yeah. Thanks for joining me, Don. Anything else you’d like to add?

Don: No, I, I, I think this is great. Like I always appreciate any opportunity to talk about Web3 and Web3 and journalism specifically, and no better person to do it with than you just given your experience in the space.

So, uh, I mean, your support and the invitation to come on definitely means a lot.

Zachary: Thanks. Thanks, Don. Okay. Talk to you later. That was a talk with Don Templeman, creator of ula. Sign up for [email protected] or for the substack ula.substack.com. And again, that’s A-E-M-U-L-A. If you enjoyed this talk, I have related episodes in the backlog.

For example, I have a talk with Isaac sa, a creator of Tangle News about polarization in the news and about how he sees tangle news as trying to reduce polarization. You can see episodes and best of compilations for my [00:58:00] [email protected]. You can check out my polarization related books and other [email protected].

Thank you for listening. Music by small skies.

Maybe you’ve heard that you can get clues about whether someone is lying by what direction they look when they talk. The most common form of this idea is that if someone is looking up and to their left, they’re more likely to be accessing real visual memories (associated with truth), and if they’re looking up and to their right, they’re more likely to be constructing visual images (associated with lies). But there is no basis for this; in fact, many studies have found evidence against that claim. This idea and other more broad ideas about eye movement clues were popularized by NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), a school of thought whose core ideas have been debunked time and time again.

In this episode, I talk to Tim Levine, a respected deception detection researcher. We talk about: the eye direction idea; the huge amount of bullshit in the pop behavior analysis space (e.g., shows like the Behavior Panel); reasons why the spreaders of this bullshit are so popular and successful; what the science says about using behavior to detect deception; why it’s so difficult to use behavior to detect deception; the idea that you need to establish “baselines” for people to aid you in reading them; how behavioral patterns in games/sports can differ from more real-world non-game scenarios; confirmation bias in the behavior analysis space, and how even smart researchers can be unreasonably biased in favor of their own ideas; Paul Ekman’s work; and more. 

Episode links:

• YouTube (recommended: includes video and more thoughts in comments)
• Spotify
• Apple Podcasts

Resources related to or mentioned in our talk:

• My previous talk with Tim about the difficulty of using behavior to read deception
• Tim Levine’s website
• Criticisms and debunkings of NLP-associated ideas
• A paper with more debunking of NLP-associated ideas
• “The Eyes Don’t Have It”: Wiseman’s research examining NLP-associated eye direction ideas
• Reddit thread about eye direction and deception ideas
• The Behavior Panel episode on Carole Baskin referenced in this episode
• Unethical behaviors in the pop-behavior-expert space
• Talk with David Zulawski on interrogation strategies
• A talk about aphantasia, which both Tim and I would say describes our lack of visuals in our mental processes
• More links in the transcript below

TRANSCRIPT:

(note that transcripts are rough and will contain errors)

You can find a lot of people who will tell you that you can get clues to what people are thinking, and clues to whether they’re deceiving you, based on where they are looking: for example, whether they’re looking up and to the right, or down and to the right, and so on. 

Here’s one common version of this idea: 

[TikTok video: https://www.tiktok.com/@mandrae/video/7086540364655562030 talking about how you can get clues about whether someone is lying based on where they look. If they look up and to their left, it’s visual memory, meaning it’s likely to be tied to real memories, but if they look up and to their right, it’s imagined visual, meaning that there’s a good chance it’s false and fake.]

These eye-direction ideas come from the world of neuro-linguistic programming, also known as NLP. Here’s an image from an NLP training site where it labels someone looking up and to their left as “Remembering pictures” and looking up and to their right as “Constructing pictures”. https://www.nlpworld.co.uk/nlp-glossary/e/eye-accessing-cues/ 

The upper left and upper right idea is just one specific iteration of the more general claim that you can get reliable information of some sort about what someone is thinking by the direction of their eyes. There are other assorted variations on this; including some more subtle and nuanced-seeming ideas. 

Here’s a clip from the popular YouTube show Behavior Panel talking about using eye direction to gain information. This was from the first Behavior Panel episode in 2020, in which they analyzed the behavior of Carole Baskin. Baskin was featured in the documentary Tiger King; some people suspected she had killed her husband, which is why they were examining her: 

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKpjC8rwZW0: 27:30 

Chase: You don’t see a lot of eye movement going hard right or hard left or hard anywhere they go a little bit to her left but not a whole lot just they’re barely going back and forth. So instead of accessing which would look if my face is it clear here accessing would would look more like this and her eyes were just like this.

Greg: But you can go to different parts of your brain when you’re accessing. 

Here’s another part of that episode, where they’re talking about another moment of Carole Baskin’s interview (21:50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKpjC8rwZW0):

Greg Hartley: If you notice in every other place go watch when she’s describing her father building these cages and she’s accessing and she’s remembering it’s for buy and she’s using data yes he’s recalling her eyes are drifting right she uses that as an illustrator as well she’ll make her points by doing this this is the only time I see her eyes go to her left as she’s describing the number of accidents he had and he was getting dementia if you go back and look at it her eyes deviate from that baseline fairly significantly as well as breaking contact. Chase: I hundred percent agree her baseline has her doing recall of looking up into the corners and when she broke I don’t know if you want to just maybe play this again in the in the final video but when she broke this time her eyes stayed towards the middle they

were still focused on an object that was off-camera.

This idea, that you can get reliable information about what someone is thinking or about their likelihood of deception, is repeated by many people, in a variety of iterations. It’s even been taught in some law enforcement and interrogation trainings.

A 2021 paper titled “Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice” includes information about the use of NLP-associated ideas in investigative work: 

Criminal investigators describe NLP as useful for developing rapport in an interview or Interrogation, where the focus is on the interviewer matching an interviewee’s nonverbal behavior, the manner in which they speak, and their choice of words. More often, NLP has been proposed as a way of helping an interrogator discern truth telling from lying in criminal interviews and interrogations. Here the focus is on an alleged relationship between eye movement and thought: for example, if right-handed people are visualizing an imagined event (i.e., something they are lying about), they are likely to look up to their right; if they are visualizing a remembered event (i.e., presumably something that they are not lying about), they are likely to look up and to their left. 

One example of this: a 2012 paper by the interrogation and interviewing consulting firm Wicklander-Zulawski was titled “Misconceptions about Eye Movements: Part 2.” https://www.w-z.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Column-LPM0312-Interviewing.pdf  In it, they described how noting person-specific patterns about which eye direction was linked to accessing memory can lead to hugely reliable deductions about someone deceiving or not. They describe an interrogation where a subject’s eye movement patterns allowed them to conclude she was lying about denying using drugs on the job. They concluded that example by writing: “The subject’s eye movements during this exchange helped in gaining an admission.”

Because these ideas are so common, it’s understandable that many lay people think there’s validity here. Many people will conclude, “So many people are talking about this idea; there has to be some valid information there, right? It must be that eye direction gives us valuable clues to what people are thinking and whether they’re making stuff up, right?”

And yet, no, there is no evidence that one can use someone’s eye direction to get useful information about what they’re thinking about, or deduce whether they’re telling a lie or not. There’s actually good evidence against that claim, as numerous studies have found no useful correlations. Now, to be clear, this is not to say there are not person-specific tells; people can have all sorts of idiosyncratic tells and patterns when it comes to behavior, and we’re not talking about that. We’re talking here about the idea that these eye-direction ideas can be used for the general population; that there are common types of patterns that can be found amongst the general population that help us read them and get clues as to whether they’re likely to be telling the truth. And again, there is no evidence for that idea. (If you disagree with me on this, I invite you to send me a message, as I will be doing a deeper dive on this topic in the future.)

Now many people who spread these ideas are, I think, major bullshitters; many of them are on the highly deceptive, unethical end of the spectrum; for example, you’ve got people like Chase Hughes, who claims to be an expert at behavior and influence and whose immense amounts of deceptions and unethical behaviors I’ve examined in other episodes. Other people who spread these bad ideas I think are true believers of various sorts; I would count Greg Hartley, also of the Behavior Panel, in the true believer group; he and Chase’s ideas on behavior are heavily influenced by NLP, and these ideas are commonly held by those who embrace NLP trainings, even though NLP ideas have been thoroughly debunked. 

Some people, like the Wicklander-Zulawski organization I referenced, I think have done good work on interrogation patterns and strategies in other contexts; I actually interviewed David Zulawksi when I first started this podcast https://behavior-podcast.com/tips-on-interrogating-people-for-information-and-confessions-with-david-zulawski/ and I found it an interesting conversation and it was one of my more popular episodes. I think they’ve just made the mistake, as many in law enforcement and interrogation work have, of defending some old, outdated, but common ideas that have no basis in evidence. 

This is just to say; my criticizing these ideas is not meant to imply that I think everyone who spreads the various forms of these ideas is purposefully lying or being unethical; it’s a spectrum, as with everything. But the behavior analysis space, especially the more pop-behavior-analysis space where people like the Behavior Panel make claims of frequently getting reliable information from assorted interviews and speeches, is full of bad information; the people in this space, and in NLP, have incentives to exaggerate what’s possible with interpreting behavior. They even have internal incentives to persuade themselves of some of these ideas — and it’s easy to persuade ourselves of faulty ideas, especially when it involves an ambiguous and high-variance information source. 

Later I want to do a much deeper dive into this topic, as I’ve done a lot of research into it and it makes for an interesting history of how these ideas came to prominence back in the 70s and how NLP was involved in that, and why these ideas are still so popular, and the various iterations of these ideas from the more easily debunked to the harder to debunk. And I’ve not seen anything like that deep dive elsewhere, that delves into these ideas in such depth. If you’d like me to spend time working on that deeper dive, please let me know in the comments and send me a message, as the more encouragement I get, the more likely I’ll work on it. But this episode will not be a deep dive in that way; it will be a talk with deception detection researcher Tim Levine; Tim and I talk about the eye direction idea, and we talk about the huge amount of bullshit in the pop behavior analysis space, and some of the reasons the spreaders of that bullshit are so popular and successful. We talk about what the science says about using behavior to detect deception. We talk about why it’s so difficult to use behavioral information to detect deception. We talk about the frequently heard idea that you need to establish “baselines” for people and that this will help you read them. 

We talk about poker tells and how behavioral patterns in games can differ from more real-world non-game scenarios. 

We talk about confirmation bias in the behavior analysis space, and how even very smart researchers can fall pray to the mistake of being biased in favor of their own ideas. We talk about Paul Ekman and whether some of his teachings about behavior have gone awry due to his burning desire to prove his own theories. 

If you’re interested in behavior, or you just like debunking bullshit, you’ll like this episode. This is actually my second talk with Tim Levine and if you like this one you should go back and listen to that one; in the first episode with Tim we talk about his truth default theory; basically the idea that we will tend to believe people unless something triggers us and gives us a reason to not believe them; this helps explain why we can be so gullible about so many things; why it’s so easy for us to fall pray to scammers and con artists – which, by the way, include some of the same people out there who make grandiose claims about being able to teach you how to read and influence and manipulate people.  

You can learn more about Tim Levine at https://timothy-levine.squarespace.com/. I’ll read a little bit from his bio on his site: Levine has published more than 160 refereed journal articles reporting original research related to communication and he is an internationally recognized leader in deception research.  He is the author or co-author of Information Manipulation Theory, Truth-Default Theory, the Veracity Effect, the Probing Effect, and the Park-Levine Probability Model.  His research on deception has been funded by the National Science Foundation, U.S. Department of Defense, and the FBI.  His current research focuses on what makes some people more believable than others, the prevalence of lying, and on effective interrogation strategies. Levine’s book, Duped, describes his program of research on deception relevant to Truth-Default Theory.

In this talk with Tim Levine, we focus mostly on the most extreme and easily debunked form of this idea; the idea that someone looking up and to their left is associated with real visual memory; and the idea that looking up and to one’s right is associated with visual construction. That is still a common idea despite being so clearly false and debunked. But our talk also pertains to the more quote “sophisticated” version of these ideas; and I put sophisticated in quotes here; the idea that people will tend to have one of two patterns; looking one way for recall and the other for construction, and that you just have to figure out what their pattern is; I call that the more “sophisticated” version because it’s harder to debunk and can come across like a more advanced, sophisticated version of the old, more clearly false idea, but again, there’s just no evidence for any of it. There are no studies supporting these ideas, even as so many speak as if they are extremely reliable. And that should be a red flag, as Tim and I talk about; when people act as if a behavior pattern is highly reliable and contains a lot of information, and yet nothing has been found in studies despite people looking for it, and actual behavior researchers don’t think it’s legitimate, these are all red flags there’s likely some bullshit involved. 

Okay here’s the talk with Tim Levine…

Zach: [00:00:00] Hi, Tim. Thanks for joining me again. 

Oh, you’re welcome. Happy to be here. 

Yeah. Good to see you. Uh, so yeah, uh, maybe we can start with, you know, you’ve been in the deception research field for quite a while. I’m wondering if you can maybe give a synopsis of, of how, uh, what your views are. On the whole like neuro linguistic programming associated idea of what quadrant you look in upper left, upper right, that those things can be tied to.

You know, somebody accessing their recall, making it more likely to be truth or accessing their more creative side, making it more likely to be made up in a lie. You know, we see these ideas a lot. So I’m wondering if you have a A rough summary of how you view those ideas in your many years in the field.

Tim: Uh, so, uh, were [00:01:00] you intentionally looking up while you were talking to me? 

Zach (2): No, I 

Tim: wasn’t trying 

Zach (2): to 

Tim: do. What should I infer from that? 

Zach (2): I’m going to be thinking about this too much now. Oh, sorry to do that to you. Got to throw it in there. 

Tim: So I’m not in any way, an expert. on eye behavior as it relates to what people are thinking about.

My area of expertise is all in, uh, deception. And, uh, to the extent that, uh, the neuro linguistic stuff and eye behavior is linked with truth and deception, uh, then I can say with pretty good confidence that there doesn’t seem to be any relationship at all between eye behavior of any sorts and whether or not people are honest or not.[00:02:00] 

Zach: So, yeah, the surprising thing to me is, I mean, that’s my understanding. I’ve looked at a good amount of research on this. debunking it. You know, there was the well known one from 2012, Richard Wiseman debunking it and some, some others. Uh, and I just keep seeing the idea, and it, it is really surprising to me because I, I hear people saying it quite confidently, like, you know, for example, this guy on the behavior panel, uh, Greg Hartley, will say, like, it’s very tied to, you know, uh, recall and, and, uh, or very, very tied to, to, uh, deception, highly correlated, and it just kind of surprises me because I’m like, you would think if something was so highly correlated, they would have found something A little something in the research, but you know, it’s so, it sounds like, yeah, you, you have not heard of any.

research that stood out saying like there’s something there in those terms. 

Tim: Uh, no, and I have, um, so [00:03:00] as part of my deception detection work, I’ve, uh, been collecting these, uh, uh, videotapes of people. Uh, I, I bring participants into lab, you, you know, of this work, uh, and give them, uh, a reason to lie. They, uh, they’re playing a trivia game and they get an opportunity to cheat.

And it’s up to them whether or not they cheat or not. Um, but if they do, they might be in trouble because it’s a university setting. And then we interview them about this. And I have 485 tapes. And, um, out of that, uh, there’s one liar. With the sort of 

up, 

Tim: right? So there might be people who do this. Um, but it wouldn’t ever show up in social science because most people don’t.

And, and even that one, uh, was an international student, uh, who [00:04:00] was, uh, obviously speaking in second language. And so it might’ve had nothing to do with the fact that she cheated and lying. And, uh, it might be that. you know, the communication task was quite difficult for her. And, and I have met individuals who do eye things when they’re thinking.

Um, my wife does, um, my wife has a visual memory and, um, when she is recalling things, her eyes go up, um, and, but this isn’t. You know, this is a thing that’s unique to her. Right. And, and people have particular kind of eye behaviors and eye patterns, but I know of no evidence that those sorts of claims are general across people.

Zach: Right. I [00:05:00] think that’s an important nuance because it’s like. Yeah, I mean, to tie it to my Pokertel’s work, it’s like, there are Pokertels that you can use that A, are pretty valuable and are not studied, like there’s no formal studies, so it wouldn’t be surprising to me to learn that there were patterns that just haven’t been studied or haven’t been studied well, but then, and then there’s also player specific patterns, right, like that you wouldn’t find in a general, like that you wouldn’t find in a general.

Population, but yeah, for that first case, like it wouldn’t shock me to learn that there was some kind of upper left upper right. It’s a general pattern, but like for the people that speak as if it’s like a really highly correlated pattern. That’s what gets me. It’s like, it’s, it, it kind of clearly can’t be that, uh, highly correlated a pattern if you, if all these studies, multiple studies have not found anything and, and for, you know, so I think, I think, I think that to me is the important part because like, yeah, sure.

There [00:06:00] could theoretically be something there, but if someone’s talking as if like, this is a very highly reliable, Yeah. Clue to something related to deception. Like that’s to me where you get into like, you should really red flag should really be waving. Cause that’s, there’s nothing supporting that. And if it was such a highly correlated thing, somebody would have found something by now.

So that’s kind of where I stand on it. It’s like, it’s not that I’m like skeptical of everything out there that somebody says, but I think it really, when, when some of these people speak in the really highly confident ways. That’s what really bugs me because I’m like, there’s no way it can be, you know, highly correlated like that for a general population, but yeah.

Tim: You know, I’m a pretty experienced researcher and when things are highly correlated, if you’ve seen lots and lots and lots of data, it probably only takes about 20 people to see the pattern. 

Zach: Right. Highly correlated. Yeah. Right. And 

Tim: if I’ve [00:07:00] done 400 something and I’m not seeing the pattern. Right? Then there’s either, it’s a tiny correlation that might be real, but you only need big data to see it.

Zach: Right. 

Tim: Um, or it’s not there. And either way, it’s not going to be at all practically useful in any way. 

Tim (2): Right. 

Tim: Right? So I, I think we can really, really confide. at least as related to deception, rule out the idea that there’s a strong correlation there. I think, you know, just, just the way statistics work and, um, you know, if strong correlation was there, it would, it would show up in data and it would show up across data sets.

And it’s very clear it doesn’t. 

Zach: Yeah, so that’s and I think that’s a real important point to a general point. I mean a lot of these behaviors Studies that you find or just maybe just research in [00:08:00] general. They’ll find a correlation, but it will be very weak, right? So it’s like even if there is a correlation there the chances of it being like Practically useful even if it even if it is there which sometimes is in a doubt if it’s a really small, you know small correlation Sometimes the research papers make it, like, just if you read the research papers, it makes it sound like there’s something that could be meaningful there.

But a lot of the stuff, and I’m not even talking about deception, because that’s, you know, that’s a specific area too, but, it just seems to me like sometimes the, the, the papers, and then the way the media reports on it, will make it sound like there’s this, like, large correlation there, but you actually read the paper and it’s like, Oh, it was like, you know, a few percent more likely in this one scenario, but I’m curious if you have thoughts on that, like, do you see that often happening in, uh, like science reporting for behavior?

Related things where it exaggerates how much correlation is there? 

Tim: Uh, [00:09:00] yes, absolutely. And I was writing about that, uh, just before we got on together. Uh, so one of the, one of the problems is that researchers rely on something called significance tests. And the way they’re most often used is what they’re being used to statistically rule out.

the idea that there’s nothing there. And it’s real easy, even if there’s something there, right? If you can rule out nothing there,

that means there’s something there. But that there’s something there doesn’t mean that there’s much there. So when I’m teaching to this, my students, if I have a dime in my pocket, It means I’m not broke. I don’t have zero money, right? But that dime’s not going to take me very far. It’s not going to buy me a cup of coffee or a beer or even a candy bar, right?

And there’s a big, big, [00:10:00] big difference between having a dime and being a millionaire. Um, so ruling out broke doesn’t necessarily tell us much. In the context of deception, uh, the latest data is that the best tell to deception. Uh, has to do with the number of details in an account. And on average, honest people provide more detailed accounts than people who are deceiving or lying.

And this effect is somewhere between, uh, one third of a standard deviation and half a standard deviation. Um, so let’s, let’s think about what that means. So if somebody gives a detailed account, does that mean that they’re honest? No, of course not, right? And if somebody [00:11:00] doesn’t provide much details, but if you really wanted to use this in an instance, you would need to know what I would call a cut point.

So how many details does it take before it proves that somebody’s honest? Right? And the second you start to think about this, you realize how absolutely silly it is to take a statistical finding that occurs, you know, across a large number of people in very tightly controlled situation with all other things being equal and try to apply it outside of that.

For example, uh, I don’t have a visual memory. I mentioned earlier that my wife has an incredible, she’s probably like one in a thousand, one in 10, 000 visual memory people. Right. You’ve got the 

Zach: aphantasia thing, which is, you know, which is how I would describe my own. And 

Tim: yeah. But I have no visual memory.

So, uh, [00:12:00] I, I can’t pull up. So if you’re asking me to describe something visual, I’m not going to be able to provide, I give you gist, but I can’t give you any details. Uh, this doesn’t mean I’m lying, 

Tim (2): right, right, right, 

Tim: you know. Now, if you want to give me, if you want me to give you details about, you know, my latest study, then I can give you all kinds of details, right, right, right.

Um, and I’m, and if you’re talking to me, I can give you a lot more details about like the last study I read than the average professor can about the last study they read. Yeah. Um, but I can’t like tell you. The people, the faces of the people in my classroom, 

Zach: right? The level of detail, it might have a correlation, but it’s not practical for all, for all intents and purposes.

It’s not practically useful for, for practical. Yeah. Yeah. 

Tim: Cause what that correlation means [00:13:00] is right. All things being equal in a carefully controlled environment across large numbers of people and just all bets are off in particular situations when there’s other factors at play. 

Zach: Mm hmm. Mm hmm. But I can, can you still hear me?

Yeah. Um, yeah, the, um, though to play devil’s advocate, I can imagine like if you, if you were in a police interrogation scenario, I imagine outside of the lab, if it’s like a consistent thing where somebody is not able to give you like pertinent details and when they’re giving a report, I can imagine scenarios where you’re like, You know, okay, well, this seems to make it significantly more likely based on this specific scenario that this person’s, you know, um, making stuff up or, or telling a lie, but then I think the pertinent question, even if you think that is like, what do you do about it?

Because, and usually I think in interrogations, that’s not going to be the only clue, right? [00:14:00] Like you’re not, I don’t think it often happens where they’re like basing a big decision based on like, You know this guy left out some pertinent details. I think that’s what gets left out is like, you know, investigators may have a feeling one way or the other, but like rarely is that like making up a, you know, a decision point of where they spend their time.

Usually there’s going to be some like other evidence involved or some reason to go down a path, right? They’re not just like, right. He left out some details or other some other behavior thing and they’re gonna they’re gonna like go down this path based on that and I think that often gets Left out. It’s like in the case in the big picture of things all these things are can be pretty minor Even if you think they are A factor, at least that’s how I view it.

Tim: Exactly. And let’s, let’s think about your particular example. So we got the detective is interviewing a suspect and listening for details. It probably matters a whole lot how long ago the thing was, right? So I’m going to have [00:15:00] a, I’m going to have a lot better memory of a recent event than a distant, and that’s going to affect how detailed things are.

It’s going to matter how smart I am. If you’re, you know, Interviewing somebody who’s two standard deviations above average versus somebody who’s two standard deviations below average, you’re going to get very, very different degrees of specificity. 

Zach: There’s all sorts of context. Yeah. There’s all sorts of things in the mix of like.

Whether somebody would judge this was abnormal or, or not. 

Tim: Yeah. Was this a typical thing or something that was really memorable? 

Zach: Right. 

Tim: Right. What was their emotional state when this was going on? Right. There’s so much in there that’s going to affect how detailed you are or where your eyes are moving than just the fact that you’re lying or telling them.

Zach: Yeah. Well, let me, we’ll get back to the general behavior things, but I, to get back to the eye direction. [00:16:00] Do you have a sense of where those ideas come from because I, I get this, I get this rough sense that, you know, I think there is some evidence that looking up people generally like to look up when they’re recalling things because basically because it’s like a clear field of vision and it’s like a place that’s not distracting.

So you generally, people will naturally sometimes look up because it just is somewhere to look. I mean, so I can understand that part of it. And then I kind of understand where they, the NLP people got the left and right idea because of the left and right hemispheres, one being tied to more, you know, concrete things and one being tied to more creative things.

So I got it, I kind of get back to, and then there’s also these things where they’re like, if you’re looking in the middle sphere, it’s more auditory. And they also have this thing, if you’re looking down. It’s more, um, sense related, like, uh, tactile, which kind of makes sense because you’d be thinking about, like, your hands touching something.

So I could, you know, just to say, I can see where they got the ideas, at [00:17:00] least that’s my rough understanding, but I’m curious if you Have your own thoughts on where those ideas might have come from or originated from. 

Tim: Uh, I think a lot of ideas come from legitimate observations of people, uh, where we don’t realize how idiosyncratic the observations are.

Right? So we notice certain trends, and we really notice them. Right. But then what we do is we over, over extrapolate. Yeah. Yeah. Over extrapolate, overgeneralize. Right. Uh, I don’t think people appreciate just how, how different people are person to person. This is a huge problem in, let’s say like brain scanning, right?

Because not everybody’s brain works the same way. . 

Zach: Mm-hmm . [00:18:00] Yeah. No, it makes sense. And the, the, um, the, the, uh, bias to, once you start thinking something is a, is a clue, you’re more likely to notice it. And, uh, I mean, I can see how that’s, especially if you’re not a, a scientist and you, you start having a theory about something and you’re like, oh, it really seems to hold up.

You know, but you’re, you’re just biased and you’re remembering, you know, like we all do for various things. We’re just remembering the times it worked and the. And forgetting the times it didn’t work, de emphasizing the times it didn’t work. But I can kind of see how that played into the NLP neuro linguistic programming where those guys kind of thought they were geniuses, which I think the narcissistic element of some of this stuff, you know, kind of plays into like, Oh, I have this theory that is going to make me.

You know, show, show my genius. And I’m, they’re really motivated to like find the evidence for it. And then they start, they really start believing like, Oh, this is, this is so important, you know? Um, [00:19:00] So 

Tim: I have these different categories of researchers. Um, I think there’s, there’s some researchers who are really all about the science, right.

And they’re trying to learn stuff. And, um, for them, it’s, it doesn’t matter about being right yourself. Right? It’s about trying to, um, find 

Zach: the truth. 

Tim: And if you’re wrong, hey, you know, then, you know, you learn something too, right? And there’s no, no difference between whether you’re right or wrong, as long as you learn something, right?

And even if you know, you don’t know, it’s also important. thing of knowledge. Uh, then there’s, uh, researchers out there that are just playing a publication game to, uh, get tenure and get a job and to be good in the race pool. And, um, [00:20:00] uh, for them, it’s, it’s just kind of a thing. It’s a, it’s a grind. 

Zach: Yeah. Yeah.

Tim: Um, and then there’s a third kind of people, which I call the crusaders. Or the true believers. And, uh, some of them are very, uh, intent on being the genius and being right. Others of them have a particular cause, right? And they don’t want to let data stand in the way of either their brilliance or their cause.

And so there’s all kinds of, uh, tricks that researchers can play out of view, uh, to make their findings, um, look supportive when they present them. And when somebody else tries to do the study, um, it doesn’t come out. Um, and then they have, and then they have to like 

Zach: search for reasons why it didn’t come out because they’re really [00:21:00] invested in the idea behind it, right?

Tim: Yeah. And they get into this, uh, uh, circular logic that goes something like this, um, I’m right. If you find something that doesn’t agree with me, it’s because you didn’t do your study right. I know you didn’t do your study right because you didn’t find what I know is right. 

Zach: Right. Yeah, this almost seems like a good idea for a study, studying researchers for the different types of, um, you know, motivations and separating the, um, ideology or, or something from the, the true, the, the, the true questers for, uh, truth and such.

Um, do you have, do you have thoughts? Are you willing to share, like, you know, how that maps over to some researchers, specific researchers in the behavior space? I mean, cause I’ve heard like, Let’s take Paul Ekman, for example. Obviously, he’s done some good work, but I [00:22:00] also have seen, you know, criticisms that he is a bit too, you know, uh, set in these, some of these ideas, and that even when they turn out to not be true, they still, you know, him and his, I think it’s the Ekman Foundation or Institute or something, they still promote some of these ideas that are, uh, that seem to be, I’m curious if you have any thoughts, whether it’s on Ekman or anybody else, would you like to share thoughts about the behavior and or deception sphere at all?

Tim: I’m, uh, very likely to, um, get into particular names, but I can say with. Uh, that I’ve only kind of met him, seen him talk once in person. And, uh, when he did his presentation, uh, he was very explicit, um, that what he was trying to do was [00:23:00] stick to his guns, no matter what. And so I don’t have any problem calling him out on this because if I heard him correctly, this was self, a self classification in that camp.

Um, 

Zach: And I’ve heard that criticism from other people. Yeah. So it’s. That doesn’t surprise me. Like he, yeah, I was kind of shocked 

Tim: that he would say it aloud. Um, I thought, I thought that probably took a whole nother level of arrogance. And maybe I can get 

Zach: the exact, is it, was that a recorded thing or just something you, you heard?

It might’ve 

Tim: been, it was at, uh, the second Decepticon at Stanford. 

Zach: Hmm. Okay. Well, I can probably find something equivalent if I can’t find that one. Cause I think that’s, I’ve heard people make that criticism. So, um, but maybe we, yeah, maybe we can. pivot to the, you know, when it comes to the general, uh, behavior for use for deception, do you want to [00:24:00] share any of your general thoughts about, you know, how, how useful that is, or anything bugging you in that space that you’ve seen recently, anything like that?

Tim: I don’t know so much recently, but there’s this longstanding belief in the deception literature, uh, that there are these cues or tells to deception. And my reading of the whole literature, as this has pretty clearly been debunked, I think there are ways And that’s what you and I 

Zach: talked about the first time I interviewed you.

Yeah, 

Tim: and there absolutely are ways to detect deception, but it’s not by reading people’s cues. It’s not by listening for details. So details are a great example. So the Q people all want to count up details. And if you’re giving me a really detailed account, um, then you’re probably honest. And if you’re, seem to be avoiding [00:25:00] details or can’t bring them up, then you’re probably lying.

In my view, what you want to do is you want to listen for what the details are and see if you can fact check them. Right? So if you’re giving me details that don’t align with the truth as I know it. 

Zach: Right. The actual evidence. Yeah. 

Tim: Yeah. 

Zach: Yeah. 

Tim: So, so. The point in the deeper point is usually in deception detection.

We’re not interested if somebody’s lying or not, we want to know what the truth is. Um, and then the question is if what they’re saying Once we know that it’s not truthful, then we can ask ourselves, are they lying to us, or are they just misguided? Um, I, I wondered some of this with modern politics. How much, you know, when, when people are, when politicians are saying things, uh, that are truly false.

And obviously false, and easily fact checkable and provable false. Uh, are they believing their own bullshit? [00:26:00] Or, right? Or, or are they, uh, you know, and being sincere in this falsehood? Or are they just, uh, duping people? And, and of course it might be a mix of both. Right. Right. But, but I think usually what we want to do is we want to know what’s true.

And, um, you know, it’s only if I really have a relationship with you that I care. Are you being honest with me? Uh, otherwise it’s good enough for me to know what’s true or not. 

Zach: Yeah. And you bring up an enter a good point there because I mean, people can fool themselves into, you know, people’s people often say things that they really believe that are clearly untrue.

And I, and I actually. When it comes to, I mean, there’s studies showing that, that narcissists, people with more narcissistic personalities, especially, can convince themselves of things that are clearly not true, or, you know, things that most people would say, like, that’s not true. So, it opens up [00:27:00] this space where it’s like, yeah, it’s, sometimes it’s even hard to tell if someone is knowingly telling a lie, even when you know that they’re Telling something, saying something that’s not true.

So, um, yeah. And I, so I wanted to ask too, I think, cause I think the, uh, I think the devil’s advocate response or the people in the behavior, the pop behavior kind of space who I often criticize, they, you know, they often do this thing where they’re like, Well, you need to get the baseline, and if you have the baseline, you know, then you can tell deviations.

So they might say, like, well, yeah, maybe it’s not that valuable, but, uh, maybe, you know, once you study them for a while in the, in the context of an interrogation or something. But to me, you know, I think this is often just, uh, just covering up for bullshit. Because what, what they’re really trying to do is have it both ways.

They’re trying to acknowledge. that a lot of this, the behavioral cues stuff isn’t that useful, right? So they’re saying like, well, you gotta check the baseline. But in any practical, you know, sense, like if you’re studying some [00:28:00] interrogation footage or some speech of somebody every time, like, you would have to rack up such a huge amount of baseline to like, judge things like small behaviors or things like small verbal things.

Like, you would have to rack up, you know, for all these things that happen pretty infrequently. Like, but the, but the way they talk about it in these kind of like pop behavior videos, they’ll act as, they’ll speak as if it’s highly reliable, but then they’ll occasionally be like, well you gotta check the baseline.

But it’s like, that’s just, to me it’s just a way to wave away the fact that these things are, are, are barely reliable, if they are reliable even, like, because a lot of things they say are just like the eye direction thing, it’s like, that’s kind of clearly bullshit, and like, Yeah, so I’m curious what you think of all that, this whole, like, you got to get the baseline 

Tim: stuff, 

Zach: you know.

Tim: So the baseline has been researched way more than the I stuff. I mean, there’s a lot of research on this dating back, uh, to one of my former [00:29:00] professors, Jerry Miller, um, in the 1980s. And it is clear. Uh, baseline doesn’t help much. Mm. I mean, best case scenario, it might move you from like 54% to 58%. Mm-hmm

Mm-hmm . Um mm-hmm . But, but that’s, I mean, that’s best case, right? Um, it’s, it baselining doesn’t help much. Mm-hmm . Uh, the argument I’ve heard, uh, against kind of the, uh, go with evidence and go with facts is, uh, well, sometimes evidence and facts aren’t there, and at least in a. Criminal Context. My answer to that is, what do you do when interviewing people going in cold with no facts, right?

It’s not like police pulling random people for no reason, right? Yeah, exactly. I don’t want 

Zach (2): to go out in the street and know nothing about them. I got to go only on his [00:30:00] vibes, you know. Yeah, 

Tim: I can just see like the seals. You know, randomly, um, going in and snatching up random people from, like Yeah, I mean, I think that’s the, I mean, 

Zach: I think that’s the, that’s the really important part.

Cause like, it’s like, in most, in almost any interrogation interview kind of setting, you’re gonna have, like, there’s a reason you’re doing that, and you’re looking for actual evidence. You’re not just going in blind, being like He looked a certain way or did this thing and therefore I’m going to change the direction of my investigation based on this little, little thing he did, you know, like it just, it’s kind of, it’s kind of, uh, leaving aside how these things actually work in the real world.

Uh, oh yeah. So, but the, yeah, to, to think of, to, to mention a specific thing, like I was, I’m remembering the behavior panel. You know, one of their first ones, actually their first one was, uh, analyzing, um, the Tiger King. And so they were analyzing Carol [00:31:00] Baskin’s, you know, behavior, how she spoke and where she looked and, you know, this is like a common thing.

They’ll them and other people in this space will be like. Oh, you know, she deviated from her baseline there when she was answering, answering that question. She looked, she looked, uh, a different way and she talked faster or whatever the thing is they say. But it’s like, yeah, to, to reiterate that point, it’s like, there’s all sorts of reasons why she could be doing that.

Like it’s a slightly more emotional thing. She’s, her emotions change. It’s uncomfortable. She’s thinking about whatever, like there’s, A bird flies by. Yeah, there’s, there’s, there’s literally so many things. And for, and for, And to say, like, that that ever could be meaningful, you would literally have to put Carol Baskin in and study her for, like, you know, a hundred hours or more to, you know, get a sense of, like, what actually are her patterns and when does she deviate?

And then that would even imply that you could even That can easily link like, lies to, you know, which, which is itself hard to [00:32:00] do, like we said, like it’s hard to tell lies from something someone has fooled themselves to believe. All these things. So there’s just so much massive complexity, but that all gets waved away and these Pop Behavior analysis people’s things where they’re like, Well, you got to get the baseline, but still all speak as if this thing is highly valuable and it’s like, well, when is it valuable.

If you just said you had to get the baseline and how are you going to get that baseline? You know So this is just why I mean, I’m, I’m trying to emphasize, like, there’s just so much bullshit in this space. It’s wild to me. It’s, it’s wild. 

Tim: But there’s a market for bullshit. There really always has been. 

Zach: Yeah, there really is.

Right? 

Tim: This is, this is all through human history. 

Zach: Yeah. Right? 

Tim: There’s been bullshit and there’s been market for bullshit. 

Zach: Yeah. What do you think explains the market, the demand for the behavior stuff specifically? 

Tim: Um, wishful thinking, mostly. 

Zach: Do you think it’s, um, But wouldn’t [00:33:00] it be cool 

Tim: if it was true? I mean, what, what all of this almost always has in common is wouldn’t it be cool if it was true?

Zach: Do you think, uh, It’d be really 

Tim: helpful. 

Zach: Do you think there’s a I mean the way the way I think of it is it’s almost like people want to have a special ability like they’re questing after like I’m one of the special ones that can recognize this stuff. And I mean, I see that I see that in this, uh, like the behavior panel Facebook page where the fans are like posting a video.

And they’re like, saying all this bullshit about what they think happened in this video. And it’s just like, it’s just their biases and their dislike of people coming out. And so they’re, they, they might hate some royalty, member of the British royalty. So all their dislike, you know, they’re, they’re filtering all these behaviors through their dislike of these people.

And so they’re just like, she moved her head that way. It shows she’s a, you know, a filthy liar, blah, blah, blah. They’re just, they’re just, and, but they’re, they like to embrace the idea that they’ve learned some interesting or powerful [00:34:00] Tool that is amongst the special set of people, but that’s how it strikes me as why the demand for that is there 

Tim: Well in their defense now i’ll play devil’s advocate.

Okay. I like that. Um, I think I have some special knowledge right and um I think it’s kind of cool that I do, you know, and because I have the special knowledge, you know, you’ll invite me onto this podcast and, and there’s, there’s like good stuff that happens when you have special knowledge. So I, I can understand why people, I think that, that feels psychologically good.

And there’s, you know, some advantages in life. If you can convince other people that you have it,

right? Nobody [00:35:00] wants to go see the, uh, the doctor who really doesn’t know what they’re doing, you know, but if they think you, you know, you’re the, the specialist who really is going to cure my cancer, um, you know, there’s a lot of people willing to pay big bucks for that. 

Zach: Yeah. And I guess that’s. I guess we would say how you approach the quest for special knowledge is important.

You need to be hyper, hyper skeptical and not fall prey to the, uh, desire to have special knowledge quickly, basically, I would say. Um, yeah. 

Tim: Yeah. And you have to kind of. A, work hard to get it and B, be willing to have it to independent tests,

right? You know, so if my ideas and my findings don’t hold up on other labs, look at them, you know, then, uh, [00:36:00] 

Zach: Yeah. Uh, I don’t know if you want to, uh, get into this, but I think some people, and I talked about this in my last interview with you, but I don’t know if you listened to it cause I just added a note.

But I was trying to tie in because I think a lot of people would be just surprised at me who I’ve worked on. You know, I was a former poker player. I wrote books on poker tells a lot of people would be surprised that I agree with you, that deception detection is like very hard with behavior, if not mostly impossible, but the clarification there is.

I think that I think poker tells the ones that are useful are not really about deception because people didn’t think like bluffing is deception. But what usually happens, we’re just talking about patterns that, you know, for example, there’s different categories, but one category is people are just much more relaxed when they have a strong hand.

I mean, that’s one category, and that has nothing to do with deception, right? Like somebody. Making a big bet in poker and they’re very relaxed. They just do things that a [00:37:00] buffer wouldn’t do a buffer’s more You know more tied down and like so a lot of the more relaxed behaviors from bettors are tied to very highly correlated to You know, having good hands, and that’s one example, and then there’s other examples of attention, like, you know, somebody, like, uh, staring at their cards, for example, they, they, people tend to not look at their strong cards long, because they like to hide their They’re, they’re, they’re power or their treasure, right?

Which means that somebody that looks at their cards for a while tends to equal a weaker hand that they’re just not that interested in. And that has nothing to do with deception detection either. It’s just kind of an attentional thing or like a, a desire to hide value when we have something good. So just to say there’s these classes of tells that are quite valuable.

Uh, and, and I’m not the only one who thinks this. Experience poker players who think these things but these things have nothing to do with deception detection, right? So I think that’s I just want to throw that in there because I think people would be surprised that I agree with you on the [00:38:00] on the behavior and the deception front But I don’t know if you have any thoughts on that or if you anything comes to mind about uh, the different You know, these other categories of attention and so on.

Tim: Um, no, I think, you know, there are behavioral things. You know, we’re more likely to smile when we’re happy. Um, you know. 

Zach: Yeah, and a real smile that, like, affects our eyes. Yeah. These kinds 

Zach (2): of things. There’s all these, yeah, there are all these patterns, yeah. 

Tim: Right, and when you’re engaged, you know, the fact that we’re having a good time talking to each other will be Evident to anybody who watches this, right?

Cause we’re doing all this, like engaged communication stuff. Yeah. Um, that’s. This is, this is a real thing and this is, this is how people act when they’re, uh, into it. We’re not hating this. You can get the read that we’re not, we’re not hating 

Zach: this interview. 

Tim: No, no, no, no. This is, this is like a good back and forth and, and this is communicated, [00:39:00] uh, in part non verbally.

So, you know, non, non verbal stuff is pretty good at, uh, conveying emotions. People can seek to hide those, but, but generally speaking, um, you know, things like how engaged you are in the conversation, and, uh, do you like somebody or dislike them, or what are your major emotional states, um, are you tired, are you energized, uh, these things, these things come off.

And they’re, they’re Real things it, it, you just got to be really, really careful in reading them to use your poker example. And you would know much more about this to me, but my guess is the elite players know this stuff and that these things are going to be much more useful on less elite players than more elite players.

Exactly. 

Zach: Yeah. Yeah, exactly. [00:40:00] Um, yeah, that’s, uh, Do you have anything else you want to fit in here while we’re on the call? Do you think we’ve, we’ve, I know we’ve covered the things I want to cover. I don’t know if you want to say anything else about the iDirection things that, that we haven’t talked about anything else.

Tim: Um, no, I was just, uh. It was just a blast. Oh, it was fun talking to you again. It’s been a while. How long ago was it? 

Zach: Oh, that was like a couple years. Yeah. Yeah, it was a while back. But yeah, I want to yeah Anybody listening go check out the first interview because that that was I don’t know if I ever told you that was one of the

It’s just a term that people search deception and things like that, but yeah, I think people really like that. 

Tim: Well, cool. Yeah. Well, it’s nice to be on with you again. Thank you for inviting me. 

Zach: Thanks Tim. I’m 

Tim: reaching out. 

Zach: All right. Bye bye. See 

Tim: ya. All 

Zach: right. I’m going to.