Categories
podcast

Mirror selfies, duck faces, and party pics: On signals in online dating profiles

I talk to Dr. Jess Snitko, who has researched online dating and other online communication, about the signals and messages we send, intentionally and unintentionally, with dating app profiles and pictures. Jess earned her Ph.D. in Media, Technology, and Society from Purdue University in 2020. Topics discussed: Factors in pictures and profiles that cause people to swipe right or swipe left; the so-called “duck-face” expression some girls make in photos; men’s shirtless photos; men who post pictures of holding a fish or posing with dead animals; bathroom mirror selfies; pictures of partying and drinking; group photos and problems with those; cropped photos where an ex is being removed from the picture; how first impressions can be prone to errors; and more.

Episode links:

Resources related to or mentioned in this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

Zach Elwood: Hi there. This is the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. This is a podcast aimed at better understanding other people and better understanding ourselves. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com. 

This episode is about online dating: specifically it’s about the signals we can send, intentionally or unintentionally with our pictures and profile copy on dating apps. I talk to Jess Snitko, who has researched online dating and online communication. Topics we discuss include: women who use pictures with the so-called “duck face” expression; guys who use shirtless pictures of themselves; people who use selfies of themselves taken in the bathroom mirror; guys who post pictures of themselves holding a fish or posing with other dead animals; pictures that can give the impression of being a big partier; and more. We talk about what makes people swipe left or swipe right; what they find attractive and unattractive. 

Whether you use dating apps or are just interested in the conclusions we reach about each other and the signals we send, I think you’ll like this one. I have a couple past episodes that are also about online dating, so if you like this episode, you might like those. I’ll include links to those in the entry for this episode on my site behavior-podcast.com.  

A little more about my guest: Jessica Snitko conducts research about computer-mediated-communication and the reciprocal relationship between online interaction and public perception. She’s interested in the online development and maintenance of romantic relationships and how mobile dating apps impact modern dating culture. She also owns Snitko Communication Consulting, which specializes in trial consulting, strategic communication, and brand management. I’ll put a link to her LinkedIn in the entry for this episode. https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-snitko-welch52291/ 

Okay here’s the talk with Jess Snitko.

Zachary Elwood: Hi Jess, thanks for joining me on the show.
Dr. Jess Snitko: Thanks so much for having me.
Zach: Maybe we could start with how we got to talking to each other. What interested you about it? Because you reached out to me, maybe you could mention what interested you about my work.
Jess: Yeah, absolutely. I recently started doing jury consulting a little under a year ago. When I was doing research for that, I was looking up different resources and one of those was podcasts about jury consulting and trial consulting, and one of your episodes was one of the first ones that came up. So I listened to that, but then it was all of these different episodes about conversational analysis, psychology, all things that are relevant to my work and things that I’m interested in. That kind of just led me to listening to a bunch of your shows. And I think that some of the work I do might be interesting on this show, so I reached out and thought maybe you’d want to interview me as well.
Zach: Awesome. Yeah, and thank you for that. I wanted to mention that too, just to say to anybody listening or watching, if you do have interesting ideas for a show or an interview, do let me know because I’m always open to those ideas. And the interview you mentioned, Christina Marinakis who’s a jury consultant, that was one of my favorite interviews. So, people interested in jury and trial consulting should check that out. Yeah, maybe we can talk a little bit about your dating research.
Jess: Yeah, absolutely. I became interested in researching mobile dating apps… Actually, the interest started way back when I was an undergrad. I think this was probably 2011 or something, and I was in an introductory communication theory course, and I remember hearing about Dr Joseph Walther’s hyper-personal model of communication. That’s what really got me interested. The overview of that model is basically that the communication that people have on the computer-so, computer-mediated communication-is actually more intimate and more intense than the communication that often happens face to face. I remember being really interested in that and I thought it was really surprising. There’s a couple of reasons that that happens that I’ll go into because it is directly related to dating apps.
A few major reasons that this happens is, first of all, you have the sender. Let’s say that it’s two people communicating in an online platform, and I’m the sender. Because of the way that it’s situated, I am able to present myself in the way that I want to, right? It’s called selective self-presentation. That means that I can hide any of my undesirable qualities, but that I can emphasize or display any of my desirable qualities. That happens a lot in online dating, right? You want people to see the good things about you, but you’re hiding the things that, you know, maybe you’re terrified of spiders or something. You’re not going to advertise that. You’re going to advertise other qualities.
Zach: I guess the extreme version of that is like catfishing, where you’re completely misrepresenting.
Jess: Right. There’s a lot of research that goes into that, too. It’s like there’s this line between, yes, you want to present yourself in a positive way, but you still want it to be authentic. Right? So when we’re talking about the hyper-personal model, you’re still being authentic to who you are, but you’re highlighting the best parts about you. Similar to how you would in a job interview.
Zach: Right. Because most people know they might actually get to know somebody, so they want to be realistic. They just want to present the best… Yeah.
Jess: Exactly. Because for most people-well, for a lot of people on dating apps who are using them for their intended purpose-the end goal is to meet face to face. So you don’t want to say like, “Oh, I’m an astronaut and I’m 6’5″,” if you’re not. Right?
Zach: Yeah, few people are lying to those extreme degrees. Yeah.
Jess: Right. And those are mostly the people that are just kind of on there for ‘it’s a form of entertainment.’ They’re not really using it for its intended purpose. So, that’s the one component of the hyper-personal model, it’s that I can present myself in positive ways. The other thing is that receivers, if they have a favorable first impression of you-for example, this goes back to dating apps as well-if I have a favorable first impression of someone, then in the process of getting to know them, there are all these blanks that I need to fill in because I don’t know a lot about them yet. If my first impression was good, I tend to fill in those blanks with more favorable things. So in the hyper-personal model, when you’re first starting to get to know someone online, you’re only getting the best information or their best presentation of themselves. Then you’re filling in the blanks with more favorable information, and then they’re actually exaggerating the ways in which you are similar and downplaying the ways in which you are different. Because as humans, we’re just more comfortable talking to people who are similar to us and who agree with us about things. And that just leads to more positive interactions, right? So it’s in our best interest to do that. It makes sense that we do that.
The other thing about the hyper-personal model is that because of the channel, so it’s asynchronous communication, meaning that it’s not happening simultaneously, it means that you can spend a lot more time crafting your messages. If you and I were sitting and having a conversation, I couldn’t pause for five minutes to craft a really good response to give back to you if we’re talking in person. That would be awkward. But it happens all the time when you’re getting to know someone through texting or dating apps, that there’s a five-minute delay between your responses. That’s just normal. During that time, sure, someone could be busy, but they could also be writing a response and editing it and deleting it and asking their friends for feedback. And so the actual quality of communication that you’re having is a lot better. You’re also not having to worry about things like interrupting each other during face-to-face conversation. Like the first date, that beginning conversation can always be a little bit awkward, even if people do come with good intentions and are fairly socially adept. There will be things like interruptions, there will be lulls in conversation, maybe there will be weird things like having to think about eye contact and having to think about what you’re doing with your hands. Versus when you’re just talking online, you’re only focused on the quality of the words that you’re saying. So that leads to better conversation that happens online. And I was just really interested in that.
Zach: To rephrase it, these are all things that lead to the study that you found about extremely quick bonding that can happen in online communication.
Jess: Yeah, so this is what really sparked my interest in it. Learning about this hyper-personal model is what inspired me to go to grad school and start studying dating apps. And I actually caught it at the perfect time. So, Tinder came out in like 2012. I started grad school in 2014. And there’s a couple of year delay when things first launch. It really didn’t start getting popular until 2014 or so it’s when people were really on dating apps. And so it was kind of the perfect timing of I’ve been interested in online dating, but now there was this brand new thing of mobile dating apps that was perfect for me to research for my master’s thesis and then for articles beyond that. So, what really got me interested is that there were thousands of people using dating apps and they had become really popular, but very few of those people were actually meeting face to face. They were using them, but they weren’t using them for their intended purposes. That led to my research of, okay, they’re having all these great conversations like the hyper-personal model says, they’re using the apps, but they’re not meeting. So, why are they using the apps?
Zach: Right, what’s the point? Yeah. You had written about how some of that was about validation and almost like a game-like approach entertainment to using the dating apps. Maybe you could talk a little bit about those motivations for using the dating apps.
Jess: Yeah, definitely. For my master’s thesis, I looked at the reasons that people are using dating apps. So, they use the Gratification Theory that says that every media that we use, we are using it to gratify some need. The reason that we watch TV at night, a lot of people watch TV just for entertainment, some people will watch the news to get information, but you’re not going to use a form of media unless it is satisfying some type of need for you. So, if people are using dating apps, that means it’s satisfying a need. So my master’s thesis looked at why people were using them, and I found four primary reasons. Like you said, one is validation. People are using dating apps because it makes them feel good about themselves. Women are more likely to use it for this one because women get on dating apps, they upload pictures, and all of a sudden they’re bombarded with messages about how pretty they are. Right? So validation is a big reason for using them.
Zach: Yeah, I’d like that. Yeah.
Jess: Yeah, right? It’s like, okay, you’re having a down day, let’s have some strangers online tell me how pretty I am. Right? Another reason is entertainment. This is often used in social settings. Maybe people are just with their friends and they decide to open Tinder, and they’re swiping left or right but together. Like, the whole group is deciding, “Oh, swipe right on him. Swipe left on him.” It can be a group activity, right? Or it can be something instead of doom scrolling while you’re waiting for something to happen or if you’re in line at the grocery store, instead of doom scrolling online, maybe you’re swiping on a dating app. In those instances, they’re still on it, but it’s more so just like something to do. It’s like in place of playing a video game, it’s in place of being on Instagram. Those are two reasons, and those are the main ones that my research found that women use them. That being said, that research is about 10 years old, so I think the users have evolved since then. I did find that there’s two main reasons that men use them, which are different. Men are specifically using dating apps for relationships. Those could be serious relationships or just friendships, and they’re using them for hookups or casual sex. It differs a little bit based on gender of why people use them, but I did create this scale. It’s a 17-item scale. Think of it as a BuzzFeed quiz. You could take it, and your score would indicate what your main reasons are for using dating apps.
Zach: Oh, interesting. Is that something people can take online? Have you put that online?
Jess: Yeah, it’s on Google Scholar. I could send you a briefer version of it if you wanted to post it on your website or something.
Zach: Yeah, that’d be cool.
Jess: It’s just 17 items, like, “Agree or Disagree with all of these questions,” and then that will give you the reasons that you’re using dating apps.
Zach: Oh, you should turn it into a Facebook quiz, you know, one of those button-clicking kind of… You know? People love that stuff.
Jess: People love stuff like that. Yeah, I really should.
Zach: When it comes to the more validation entertainment things, you said that was more significant amongst women. How much more significant was it? Was it a really small percentage of men who do that kind of thing?
Jess: Yeah, a really small percentage. A lot of that has to do with the ways that dating apps are being used. A lot of men aren’t getting much validation from dating apps. There are significantly more men that are using them, and so just from those numbers alone, there’s a much wider pool of men to compliment women. And we’re talking specifically about heterosexual cisgender people right now. There’s a much wider pool of men to compliment women than vice versa. So a lot of men actually struggle with lower self-esteem when using dating apps because they’re not getting a lot of that validation. They’re sending out messages that aren’t getting responded to.
Zach: Like reverse validation.
Jess: Right. I’m sure that there are some who use it for entertainment, like in groups with their friends like women do, but if people aren’t responding, then it’s less entertaining. Women, the reason they can use it so well for entertainment, is they’re getting bombarded with all these messages. They can respond to them without putting a lot of thought in, if they don’t really care, just to see how the guy’s going to answer back. Versus with guys, if you’re just sending out silly messages and most of them don’t get responded to, that’s not as entertaining.
Zach: Did you get the sense that that would explain that during COVID when people were talking and not meeting up, did you get the sense that men were wanting to meet up but women were just not as willing to, and that helped explain why there was still so much activity on dating apps?
Jess: I haven’t looked at a lot of research of it during COVID. I would say that’s probably part of it. But also, people just needed social interaction during COVID.
Zach: And the hope of meeting up even if they wouldn’t do it immediately.
Jess: Right, maybe eventually meeting up. I know some people that would do virtual dates. They would meet on a dating app, and then their first couple of dates were over Zoom. I do think that probably men were still more wanting to meet up than women were during COVID because that’s pretty like standard for the case. But I do think that a big part of it, too, was just needing that social interaction. There was probably an increase in the number of people using dating apps. I downloaded TikTok because of COVID.
Zach: Something to do online. Yeah.
Jess: It’s just something you do because you’re stuck in your living room. Yeah.
Zach: To your point about it being a group fun activity, I actually heard there was an entertainment show in Portland-it might have been a traveling thing, I’m not sure, but a woman basically does an examination of guys that she’s seen on dating apps, and they all as a group, they all mock the guys and what they said and how their interactions went. Which struck me as kind of cruel, you know? But then again, they were defending it because they were like, “Well, these guys were really bad to us, or said really bad things.” It reminded me of using those things for entertainment, all crowding around and being like, “Let’s go through this together.” Yeah, it’s just kind of an interesting thing that stood out to me.
Jess: I was going to say I think that is a tricky thing because, on the one hand, yes, sometimes men are sending crazy stuff to women on dating apps. But then you also fall into this area of cyber bullying and public shaming. I don’t think either one is really right.
Zach: Yeah, there’s some gray areas I feel like where it’s like, “Was that really that bad what that guy?” There’s those gray areas where it could be debated, like, did he deserve all this?
Jess: Did he deserve that?
Zach: Maybe he was even having some… A lot of the public outrage things, I think some of them boil down to mental health things too, where it’s like, I don’t think that person is mentally well. The things that they’re sending people, should we really pile on publicly? You know, some of those things get in that area too.
Jess: And we’ve all said dumb stuff in conversations with strangers, so now that it can be so amplified-especially those Tiktok influencers with hundreds of thousands of followers, if they were to get on and say this one guy said this one rude thing to me, I don’t know if necessarily the outcome or backlash always matches what was happening. Yeah, there’s a lot of gray areas and a lot of different variables there.
Zach: Definitely room for debate on some of the instances.
Jess: Yeah.
Zach: I’m curious, do you want to talk about what you found most interesting in your research? For example, we had talked about discussing what causes people to swipe left or right. That that’s one topic. But I want to leave it open to anything that came to mind that was most interesting in what you’d researched.
Jess: Yeah, definitely. I can talk a little bit about the swiping right and left article. That’s one that people find really interesting. It’s one I teach in college, it’s one that I share with my college students because it has these really cool graphs and people think it’s interesting.
Zach: And it’s most practically useful for people using dating apps.
Jess: Yeah, people can look at it and use it as a guide of what to or not to include on their dating app profile. Right? For anyone who’s not familiar with dating apps, swiping right means that you are interested in someone, swiping left means that you’re not interested. Historically, we found differences in what men and women prioritize when looking for romantic partners. And so I was interested if that held true on dating apps as well. Just because it is more modern times, maybe people’s priorities are shifting. Also, when using dating apps, you’re not necessarily looking for a long term partner and so the things you’re interested in or care about might be different. So I asked one thousand college students, basically, what makes them swipe left or right, and I created- It’s called a semantic network analysis, but basically, I summarized all of their responses. When it comes to swiping right, it’s no surprise, both men and women, their top priority is attractiveness. If they find someone physically attractive, they’re more likely to swipe right on them or indicate interest.
I think that people will often see that result and say, “Oh, people are so shallow now.” Well, partially, maybe yes. But also, you have to think about the interface of dating apps and the information that is available. Most dating apps, the main thing that you can see is pictures. Right? Sometimes there’ll be maybe a couple little prompts with their responses to them, maybe a short bio of 200 words tops, but the main thing you have access to is pictures. And so if that’s all the information you have to go off of, of course it’s going to come down to physical attraction.
Zach: And haven’t people always been shallow in that regard? I mean…
Jess: Yeah. Sometimes people just make the argument that technology or social media has made people more shallow. I always go back to, you know, wealthy men used to pay people to paint pictures of them in front of their desks, and then they’d hang those paintings on their wall in their office.
Zach: Yeah, the appreciation of attractiveness has always been a human thing. But to your point, it is the one clear signal we get from the dating apps. Yeah.
Jess: Right. We can see what they look like, and that’s sometimes all the information we have to go off of. So physical attractiveness was a big thing, but men and women both also value people who have shared interests and hobbies with them. Those were big indicators of whether they were going to swipe right. I thought that some of the things for swiping left were more interesting. So, what people are saying like, “Oh no, that’s an automatic no.” For both men and women, things like smoking and drug use, they were swiping left on, which I thought that makes sense. But also things like bad spelling and grammar, people were really swiping left on bad spelling and grammar.
Zach: That’s interesting. Yeah.
Jess: Yeah. And the reasons for that, I think we can get more into the psychology of that in a little bit, but I think there’s reasons behind that that explain it more. People also really don’t like group photos. So, when people post a picture of a big group of them and their friends, they don’t like it. The reason for that is that you don’t know which person is the person you’re swiping right on.
Zach: Oh, interesting. You need like an arrow in there. [chuckles]
Jess: Right, you need an arrow or a circle or something. Because people don’t like having to play detective and figuring out which one in the picture you are.
Zach: That’s funny.
Jess: Yeah. Political affiliation also came into my results. Men were likely to swipe left on women who they described as super liberal. Women would slay left on anyone who had pictures of Confederate flags. Women also didn’t like people who seemed like party animals, and they also didn’t like… They described it as dead animals. But a lot of men will post pictures of the deer they shot or the fish they caught, and the pictures of the fish is the-
Zach: Yeah, the fish. That’s a cliche. They’re holding up the fish, right? I’ve heard that is a cliche.
Jess: Yes. That’s a real thing that happens, and women do not like it. So any men who have pictures of dead animals on their profile, I think they do it to show that they’re outdoorsy and they have these different hobbies. For whatever reason, most women do not like that.
Zach: They’re a provider.
Jess: Right. They’re a provider. We can take care of you. We can go kill our own food. We’re outdoorsy. But yeah, women don’t… Yeah.
Zach: There’s probably a scale of badness from like an oyster up to trophy game hunting for badness perception. It’s like the fish is probably better than “I killed this lion in Africa.”
Jess: Right, I would say so. I think that women would probably be more accepting of a fish from a fishing trip, versus, “Oh, I went on a safari and killed a zebra.” [chuckles]
Zach: Just put it out there to clarify the scale that we’re working with.
Jess: Yeah, I would definitely think there’s a difference between those two.
Zach: I harvested this oyster. It’s probably the least offensive on the scale of providing, if you want the providing photos. Yeah. Anyway, carry on with the…
Jess: There were other things. Men didn’t like a lot of excessive piercings or tattoos, which I thought was interesting. I thought that was also a symptom of where I collected the data. When I talked to college students, they were all in sort of rural parts of Indiana in the US, and I think that their responses may have differed if we were in like LA, for example.
Zach: Portland, for sure.
Jess: Yeah. I think the thing with the piercings and tattoos, that really depends on the sample of the population that you’re talking to. Men also didn’t like duck faces.
Zach: Yeah, I was going to ask you about that. That’s an interesting one. Because I get the sense a lot of women think that’s an attractive pose, but…
Jess: Not for guys. And I think it’s because when women make that face, it makes their face look slimmer, and so they think that it’s a more flattering angle because it makes your cheekbones stand out more and so it makes your face look slimmer. That’s a lot of the editing they do in beauty magazines that’s kind of seen as a standard of pretty, and so making that duck face makes your lips look bigger, which big lips are seen as pretty, and pronounced cheekbones are pretty according to just Western beauty standards.
Zach: Do you feel like there’s a scale there, too, where there’s probably better forms of the duck face, but too exaggerated? Is there some art to the duck face, basically?
Jess: I would say there’s definitely an art to a duck face. [both chuckle]
Zach: We need to research this.
Jess: Yeah, we should research the art to a duck face. Because I do think that the duck face is really just a pronounced pout, where a pouty lip look can kind of be seductive. And still is doing that same shape with your face. Duck face, I think, maybe came out of people over exaggerating that or maybe making fun of it.
Zach: Yeah, they’re doing an exaggerated Zoolander kind of pose or something.
Jess: Right, like this Blue Steel or whatever it was.
Zach: Yeah. I try to emulate that, but I can’t remember what it was.
Jess: Yeah, I don’t remember what it looks like. So I do think there’s an art to it, but yeah, guys are not a fan of the duck faces.
Zach: Yeah, interesting.
Jess: Women tend to also be pretty picky about the types of photos that men are posting. Not only are they not fans of group pictures, they don’t like low quality photos like things that are blurry. They don’t really like a lot of mirror selfies like standing taking your picture in front of the mirror. Shirtless selfies were also on there. I think that that depends on the context. It seems that women don’t like… They don’t like shirtless pictures if you’re only shirtless just to be shirtless. If you’re on the beach and you look good shirtless and it makes sense for the context, that’s okay. But if it’s like you’re in your bathroom and you just pop your top off and take a picture, they seem less receptive to that.
Zach: Yeah, I want to ask you about this. Maybe it relates to these unintentional signals we send, kind of thing. But for the mirror selfies, the thing that strikes me there why people might not like that is it signals you’re trying too hard. Maybe it signals you don’t have real photos to use, maybe you don’t have friends or a social life or something and maybe you have to resort to taking selfies in your bathroom. I don’t know if that’s maybe a signal that it sends, or what do you think people don’t like those?
Jess: Yeah, I would definitely agree with it. I think that’s part of it, especially if that’s all your photos. If all your photos are either you and your bathroom or your car, it’s like, okay, this is a person that doesn’t go places or doesn’t hang out with groups of people. Maybe they seem like a loner or maybe they seem like a homebody. I think it also signals vanity.
Zach: Yeah, like you’re sitting around taking photos in your bathroom, and that’s…
Jess: Like, “Oh, look at me in the mirror. Look at me in the mirror.” And I think that one thing that we do unfairly, but this is just like a psychological thing that everyone does, is with signaling theory or over attribution theory. So if we’re if we only have access to small amounts of information, we emphasize the significance that that information has. Everyone looks in the mirror every day, right? But if I have a picture of myself looking in a mirror, that may be subconsciously signaling to people like, oh, that person is vain. Right? Because they posted a picture of themselves in a mirror, and that just seems vain. The same thing as if, okay, we all get in our car every day and could potentially take pictures of ourselves in it, but if all your pictures in your profile are just pictures of you in your car, it’s like, oh, this person seems boring or they’re not going anywhere interesting.
Zach: Right. When you say it’s the same, I imagine it’s the same for a lot of these things. Like the shirtless photos from men, it signals a similar kind of like you’re trying… If there’s not a context for it, or even theoretically, if there was a context for it, the fact that you would post it kind of signals a vanity trying-too-hard-to-impress kind of signal. Do you agree with that?
Jess: Yeah, I would definitely agree with that. I think that it’s also attached to men who are just looking for casual sex, rather than more long-term things. Because if people are… The women they are are trying to attract with that, I think that subconsciously, people are thinking, “Oh, if you’re just going to post a bunch of shirtless pictures, it seems like you’re after something very specific.”
Zach: Right, which could be sophisticated on their part. They know what they’re trying to do, so they’re only attracting the people they want kind of thing.
Jess: Right. Yeah, and if that works, then great.
Zach: If it works, it works. Yeah.
Jess: Right. But then maybe women who are interested in something more serious aren’t going to slip right on that, because that signals to them that the man isn’t interested in something serious.
Zach: Yeah. And I think to your point, we can be prone to reading things wrongly, like putting too much emphasis on certain signals, like you said. Because there’s only so many signals we get. I think that accounts for some of the people being too picky in some cases where they’re like, “Oh, I read this thing as communicating something.” Let’s say the grammatical errors or something. Like, “I read these signals as communicating something significant about this person,” when in reality, it might not be that significant. The grammatical errors could be due the fact that they’re ESL and they’re actually writing English and speaking English at a very high level compared to, you know, they’re doing well on that front but we could be misinterpreting it. Or they could just be posting a picture at the beach because they thought it was a good photo to use and it doesn’t indicate that they’re vain or seeking a physical-only relationship. Just to say we can be prone to misinterpreting those signals. I’m not sure if that’s something that you’ve thought about or worked on in the signal theory dating areas.
Jess: Yeah, absolutely. I do teach, actually, my own intro to Communication Theory class now, and this is something that we talk about. It’s that a lot of times, what you think you’re signaling about yourself maybe isn’t what other people are receiving. So I think going back to the grammar and typos thing, how a lot of people said that they would swipe left on that, well, that’s because people value intelligence. Right? Or especially because these were college students, they value education. And so because we’re over-attributing just this one typo, now we’re saying, “Oh, this person’s dumb.” Well, it could have literally just been a typo. I’ve sent typos in emails all the time. I’ve spelled my own last name wrong in emails. And so it doesn’t mean… But because we only have such a small amount of information, that’s what we have to go off of. Same thing with just pictures of the beach. Maybe you’re like, “Oh, this was a really fun vacation and I thought the beach was really pretty behind me, I happen to be in a bathing suit because I’m at the beach and I’m going to upload it. But maybe people are interpreting that differently.
So I do think that one common mistake people make when they’re creating profiles is if they’re not getting as many matches or as much interest on their profiles as they expected or would like to, the first thing I always tell them is to go back and really pay attention to the messages you think that you’re sending because that might not be how people are receiving them.
Zach: Right. Yeah. And you’ve done some consulting for people that want to improve their getting profiles. Is that true?
Jess: Yes. And it all just started with some of my friends that I would see at coffee shops and stuff, and we would just be having casual conversations or someone would be like, “Oh my gosh, people never message me back.” And I’d be like, “Well, what first messages are you sending me?” And they’re like, “Oh, I just sent hey.” And it’s like, “Well, that’s why.” Right? So, yeah, I actually do some consulting work and I’ll have people give me like 25 bucks and I’ll look over their profile, and I guarantee results. If you don’t see an increase in the matches that you’re getting or in the messages that you’re getting back, I’ll give you your 25 bucks back. It’s just a fun little side hustle that I’m doing.
Zach: No, yeah. And it’s must be fun too.
Jess: It’s really fun.
Zach: And based on what I’ve seen, I actually interviewed a couple of people a couple years ago about their dating app experiences and I was talking about this one anecdote from an acquaintance-a woman I know-who was describing this guy who her and her friends knew and she just happened to see him on the dating apps. We were talking about his bio or his profile, and it was just so bad. It was like he was so clueless in how he came across. He came across as really bitter. I think he was trying to be funny, but he came across as just really bitter. It was almost like he was trying to be sarcastic about his bad experiences or something but it just came across very clueless and you’re like the chances of somebody being interested based on this profile of content that he wrote would be so slim. But yeah, to your point, it’s like there’s clearly a lot of people that could really benefit from looking at their profile from an outside perspective and thinking about those things. Because getting back to the incorrect perceptions we have, it’s like some of these things that we think indicate something really bad about people are just superficial, and if we actually hung out with them in person, they a lot of times might be much better than we assume.
Maybe that’s a way to segue into… I wanted to ask you about this ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ idea. I read some research on [00:36:11] Michael Norton had done some research on this and how it related to social media, which I think relates to dating apps too, where it’s like we can- Kind of the opposite of what you were talking about how we can bond really quickly when we start interacting, I think what can happen at the surface level on social media or dating apps is we see one thing that turns us off, and then we kind of write those people off too much, whereas if we actually got to know them, we’d see much more positive things and even the things we dislike might be perceived in a more positive form. That was the gist of that ‘familiarity breeding contempt’ research was that we can be prone to alienating ourselves from other people. I think it applies to the political polarization sphere too, in how we wrongly perceive acquaintances from one thing as being completely against us in all these different ways, or whether it’s just for personal relationships too, like how it impacts our personal and romantic relationships and such. But I wanted to ask if you thought much about those aspects and how maybe dating apps are doing similar things in the social media sphere of driving us away from each other a little bit too much.
Jess: Yeah, there is this problem of… One of the side effects of dating apps is that we are overwhelmed by choice. You can just get on your phone and swipe through hundreds of people in a matter of minutes. It’s led to what they’re calling ‘throwaway culture’ where maybe I go on one date with somebody and the first date goes well, but maybe I said one thing that I didn’t like. And because I’ve got fifty other matches on my phone, then I’m automatically dismissing that person. It also can lead to people being overly picky on dating profiles, where it’s because they have so many choices available to them that maybe because someone’s religious feelings don’t completely align with theirs, they’re going to automatically just swipe left on them. Whereas it used to be if you had fewer choices, maybe that’s something that you could compromise about, right? Or maybe that’s something that you could work through. But on dating apps, because we have so many options…
There’s a the psychological phenomenon in communication where you are less civil. You’re more likely to be in civil online than you are face-to-face. And we have all seen people saying crazy stuff in comment sections online that they would never say if you were together in Target. And so it also has that effect that happens on dating apps as well, where we’re more likely to just dismiss people because of small things because of this throwaway culture. And we’re more likely to be really rude about it because we have this distance between us. We’re protected by a screen, so we’re not seeing direct consequences of our actions. If we were face to face and I said something really rude to someone, I would have to see what that did to them in their body language or them just turning and walking away. But when you’re protected by a screen, you don’t have to see the consequences of that.
Zach: I’ve seen some of that in some of those viral things that they share where people are rude to each other in the dating apps. Some of those have the sense of escalation, where it’s like one person says something that’s not really that bad, and the other person kind of ramps it up a bit and the other person ramps it up. I have a feeling that must be happening. Just like in the political spheres, there’s this escalation cycle where we take the other person’s statement in the worst possible way, especially because we’re distant from each other, and then it just goes haywire from there.
Jess: Yeah, absolutely. I have actually done some research in political discussions on different social media platforms, and what you’re describing is an incivility spiral where one person will say something that’s maybe just a slight disagreement, but then it will spiral into name-calling and threats and all these crazy things. That can happen on dating apps as well because, like you said, people are interpreting things potentially in the most negative way possible. When it comes to text, the actual words we write are communicating very little of our message. So [00:40:38] Media Richness theory tells us that just like sending emails back and forth or sending texts back and forth is not a very rich form of communication, meaning there aren’t a lot of signs or signals that are getting sent besides just the words. So going back to your point about how some people are trying to be funny or sarcastic on profiles, sometimes that can come across as really jaded or rude, because humor is just difficult to- [crosstalk]
Yeah, it’s hard to get without tone. Right? I think that’s another reason that incivility spirals happen so much online. Maybe people are joking around or being sarcastic or being kind of tongue-in-cheek about it, but we’re interpreting it as literal and offensive. That can quickly spiral out of control.
Zach: Yeah, there’s just so many ways to misunderstand people when it’s only text. I actually keep a Google Doc of examples of colleague or work-related misunderstandings based on saying something completely innocuous and the other person taking offense of it. Because I think that’s very interesting, and it’s much more prone to happen when it’s text only.
Jess: Yeah, absolutely.
Zach: Do you want to talk… I don’t know if we exhausted all your points about things that really bothered people in the dating profiles. Did anything else stand out as surprising things to you?
Jess: Um, let’s see one thing. I guess this wasn’t surprising, but I feel like there’s more to talk about with this one. So, women would say that men who seemed like they were party animals, they would tend to swipe left on. They weren’t interested in party animals. And I think it’s interesting that you could identify someone as a party animal just based on four pictures and maybe responses to a couple questions. And I think again, that goes back to over attribution of you only have so much to go off of. I even do this. When I used to be on dating apps-I don’t drink alcohol, so if someone had more than one picture of them holding an alcoholic beverage, I’d swipe left. And I know that’s not fair. I know it’s not fair. Because it could just be they like the picture of them. It doesn’t necessarily mean that like drinking is important to them. But because they only have so few pictures, I’m like, “Oh, if one quarter of your pictures is you holding a cocktail…” And I was doing it too, knowing that I was doing it.
Zach: Right, which I think gets into… I mean, for better or for worse, there can be value to using stereotypes even if we know that they’re not accurate. Because if you only have limited time on a dating app, it’s like, sure some of those people that you categorize as a party animal might not be. But you only have limited time yourself, so using some sort of algorithm to deduce things is an understandable approach. Which gets into the importance of why it is important to think about the signals you send.
Jess: Yeah, it’s narrow information processing, which means that we don’t have time to study every aspect of your profile. Especially on dating apps, I think it’s like within two to three seconds of looking at the profile, most people make up their mind about whether they’re swiping right or left. I think I used to take a little bit longer than that, but on average it’s two to three seconds. So we’re relying on all of these cognitive shortcuts to decide whether we’re interested or not, and sometimes it can just come down to, “Oh, does this person give a…” A lot of times it comes down to vibes. People be like, “Oh, do they give a creepy vibe? Do they give a party vibe?” So I do think it’s useful to have someone look at your profile and give feedback and say, “Hey, did you mean to sound this way right here?” Or, “Oh, the fact that you have only pictures of you in your living room, why would you not post something from your trip to Paris last year?” Sometimes I think it just takes an outside perspective.
Zach: Yeah, it’s almost like if you see a red solo cup and a ping pong ball, you make some deductions about that person’s lifestyle.
Jess: Right, and often unfairly. It could just be them and their best friend in the picture.
Zach: They just went to a cool party.
Jess: Right, they love their shirts in that picture.
Zach: Yeah, they like their face.
Jess: Yeah.
Zach: What about photos? How many people post photos where it crops really hard, like they cut their ex out of the picture? Does that come into play? [chuckles]
Jess: That’s a thing. I find that men do that a lot more than women do, and I think that’s mostly just because men take fewer pictures.
Zach: Yeah, exactly. I was going to say it. Because I can relate to that, where it’s like I don’t have that many good pictures because I take very few pictures, so I’m reduced to thinking about, “Can I crop people out?”
Jess: Right. You’ll see where clearly they had gone to a wedding together, and then oops! And it’s cut and that’s the end of it.
Zach: Hard crop.
Jess: Right, hard crop. And I think that cropping them out is better than leaving them in. Women are more likely to swipe left if there are both genders. Both groups are more likely to swipe left if there’s someone of the other gender in their pictures.
Zach: Yeah, because you’re like is it just a baggage thing of there might be some hang-ups if they’re using that photo or something?
Jess: Right. Or maybe this is their best friend, and maybe you don’t want them to have a hot blonde as their best friend.
Zach: It’s some sort of obstacle of some sort. Yeah.
Jess: Right, it sends some type of signal and there could be a lot of reasons for it. But a lot of times, I think that it’s a sister or an aunt or something, and if they don’t specifically say that, then you’re getting swiped left on because they think it’s like, “Oh, he hangs out with all of these women, that seems interesting.” [chuckles] But yeah, I do think that it’s very common for men to have really close crafts, or I see even them put just an emoji over the girl’s face. And it’s just because they’re not taking as many pictures of themselves, a lot of those times, those pictures are the ones where they were the most dressed up and think they look the best.
Zach: Right, makes sense. Yeah.
Jess: So maybe if you are on dating apps, make more of an effort to just take some pictures of just you. I think that all men could benefit from just taking more pictures of themselves.
Zach: But not necessarily in the mirror in the bathroom.
Jess: Yeah, not necessarily topless in the mirror.
Zach: Yeah, topless in the bathroom. That’s the worst combo. Holding a fish in the bathroom is even worse.
Jess: [laughs] Fish in the bathroom. Yeah, we don’t want that. That’s a bad combination.
Zach: I was going to ask… Oh, yeah, it made me think that you could probably create a pretty cool algorithmic… Sorry, there’s a loud bird. I don’t know if you can hear that. You could probably create a pretty cool algorithm using visual identification or picture identification algorithms, where it’s parsing people’s profiles for liquor bottles, red solo cups, a hard crop, all these kinds of things we’ve talked about that would automatically analyze and reduce it to some sort of stereotype, which is kind of like emulating what people are doing on their own. But it just made me think there’s probably some interesting algorithm where you could analyze somebody’s lifestyle just from the pictures and run it through some app.
Jess: Yeah. No, you definitely could. There are.. Which one is it? Hinge, I believe will go… If you give it permission to go through your Camera Roll, it will select your best photos for you.
Zach: Oh, wow, interesting.
Jess: But it’s not a super smart algorithm. Sometimes it doesn’t realize who is you and if that’s a really pretty picture of your sister. So you do have to double-check it.
Zach: But it’s helping you. Because it knows what works. The apps know what kind of pictures work and get the-
Jess: Yeah, the apps know what’s working and so it can go through and be like, “Oh yeah, these four are your pictures that are most likely to get good responses.”
Zach: Yeah, that’s interesting. Anything else you want to mention that we haven’t covered that you find really interesting in these areas?
Jess: Um, let’s see. Is there anything else? I don’t think so. We’ve talked about… I have some notes here I’m going through.
Zach: I think we covered a good amount.
Jess: I think we did too.
Zach: Do you want to mention… You’re doing some jury trial consulting? Is that the same? I was wondering, is jury consulting the same as trial consulting?
Jess: Sometimes people use them interchangeably. Jury consulting is like a subcategory. So, trial consulting is like every process of the trial you can be a consultant for. Jury consulting is specifically related to aspects of the jury. That could be the jury selection process, it could be looking at mock trials to see how the jury responds, it could be prepping witnesses specifically to talk to specific jury members. But yeah, jury consulting is just a little bit more specific than trial consulting. Trial consulting could be the whole grand scheme of the trial.
Zach: Were you doing the jury consulting?
Jess: Yeah, I was doing specific jury consulting. My first case that I was brought on for was just one year, and then a little bit of witness prep in terms of we helped select the jury and then came up with kind of some of the best techniques of how witnesses could explain their side of the story in a way that was going to resonate the most with the jurors. Yeah. It also helps to once you know who the jury is, there are certain things that attorneys can do too that are going to relate to that jury more. So I think very often the attorneys think, “Well, we’ll just give them the facts of the case.” Facts sound a little bit different and are interpreted differently based on who you’re giving the facts to. If you have someone who has a lot of experience maybe in healthcare, and you’re doing a medical malpractice case, and one of your jurors works in healthcare, you’re going to want to approach that in a certain way. So some of what we do is looking at who the jury is, coming up with some of their demographics and their characteristics, how they’re likely to believe or how they’re likely to feel about certain things, and coaching the attorneys on the best way to present the facts. And really, what about the story to emphasize that is going to resonate with the jurors most?
Zach: Yeah, that stuff is very interesting. I was remembering the interview I did of Christina Marinakis, the jury consultant, and that stuff is very interesting.
Jess: It’s so interesting.
Zach: Well, maybe we can talk about that one day in the future, your work on that front.
Jess: Yeah.
Zach: Yeah. Well, this has been great. Anything else you want to add before we sign off, Jess?
Jess: No. Just, if anyone is interested in consulting, whether that’s trial consulting or they would just want some quick feedback on their dating profile, you can just message me on LinkedIn.
Zach: Okay, thank you.
Jess: Thank you so much.
Zach: That was a talk with Jess Snitko. You can get a link to her LinkedIn at the entry for this episode on my site, behavior-podcast.com, and that entry will have links to other things that we talked about in this episode. I’m Zach Elwood, thanks for your interest in this podcast and for watching it. Okay, bye-bye. Music by small skies.

Categories
podcast

Is the left-right spectrum concept a Matrix-like illusion?

Is the idea of a left-right political spectrum an illusion? Is there actually no consistent idea of “left” and no consistent idea of “right”? My guest is Hyrum Lewis, co-author of “The Myth of Left and Right: How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America.” He argues the left-right spectrum idea is a simplistic, faulty one and that, similar to embracing a faulty medical idea (like the theory of there being four humors), embracing a faulty political theory has hurt us in major ways. For one thing, it creates a perception that instead of there being many different issues, there is just a single issue (left versus right) and that choosing the right “team” gains you access to all the right ideas. Embracing that concept in turn amplifies conflict and anger, by making our divides seem like a war between two set and essential ideologies. It makes it easier to embrace a good-versus-bad way of seeing our political divides.

Topics include: why Hyrum believes the left-right spectrum is an illusion; common objections to their idea; how persuasive political thinkers have found their idea; the ways in which language and foundational concepts can amplify divides; the horseshoe theory; ways we might speak and write in better ways about our political disagreements, and more.  

Episode links:

Related resources:

TRANSCRIPT

Edited clip from The Matrix: “The left-right spectrum is a system, Neo… You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged.”

Zach Elwood: That was a scene from The Matrix; it might have been edited slightly, I’m not entirely sure. 

This is the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zach Elwood. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com, and get various episode compilations there. 

On this episode, as you may have gathered, we’ll be talking about the left-right spectrum: the idea that political thoughts and ideologies can be placed on one grand spectrum from the so-called “left” to the so-called “right.” So much of our political discourse is based on this concept; every day we see political leaders and pundits talk about who’s conservative or liberal; we hear our divides, and the divides in other countries, as being about some battle between the “left” and the “right”. We hear people talk about political parties and policies moving quote “to the right” or “to the left.” You may even view yourself as being on some spectrum of left-right; where you identity yourself on that spectrum as “on the left” or “on the right.”

But what if it’s all a massive illusion? What if it’s like the simulation in the Matrix; something that feels real to us but is just a communal delusion that we’ve embraced? What if embracing that delusion hurts us in serious ways, by setting us up to think we’re engaged in some grand one-side-versus-the-other battle. 

If you’re anything like me, you may sometimes have felt confusion about how people use these terms. I’ve often been confused as it seems like people can describe totally different ideas as quote “left” or “right” or “liberal” or “conservative”, depending on the context. They can classify very different combinations of views and very different types of people as left or right. As someone who’s been thinking about politics and polarization seriously for 7 or so years now, and of course longer on and off before that, it’s been a bit mystifying to me to understand how people are using those terms. And then you throw in our political divides, and how quickly the party stances can seem to shift. Toxic polarization makes it so we reside in turbulent waters; for example, Trump has shifted the Republican parties in various ways, like embracing views on economic protectionism that were previously more associated with Democrat policies. It’s easy to see how Trump has the capability to massively shift the Republican party, just as other people have massively shifted political groups and parties in the past, which begs the question: what is essentially “left” or essentially “right” in these areas. 

I’m going to talk to Hyrum Lewis, the co-author, along with his brother Verlan, of The Myth of Left and Right, which has the subtitle “How the Political Spectrum Misleads and Harms America.” They argue that the idea of the quote “left and right” or a grand liberal-conservative spectrum doesn’t refer to any so-called essential properties, but that it is just about tribes; the specific beliefs and ideas people have referred to under the bundle of left or right change over time, and theoretically could entire reverse. What changes is the stories people tell, the narratives they tell, about those bundles of beliefs. Because you could take any random bundle of stances on issues – say mixing up various stances on guns, on abortion, on welfare, on immigration – and you could tell a coherent story, if you tried, about any combination of stances. This is an idea I’ve previously examined on this podcast with my talk with Michael Macy, who studied so-called “opinion cascades,” or how influential people can determine the direction and stances of a political group. Chance and chaos play a role in these things, too. The future stances of any political party are indeterminant and unpredictable; that was what Michael Macy’s work and other work has pointed to.  

Another major point of Hyrum and Verlan’s book is that this illusion is massively harming us by amplifying our divides. By amplifying the sense that we are engaged in some largescale war between left and right, when what we’re really doing, they argue, is just fighting over a bunch of different ideas that have little connection. 

Now you may be skeptical about this. Many people I expect will be. If you are, I’d recommend getting their book The Myth of Left and Right or, if you prefer, finding one of the few great articles they’ve written that explains this in short form. I recommend taking this idea seriously and looking into it. My interview with Hyrum does explain some of the concepts along the way but this talk was also a chance for me to ask Hyrum some questions that I’ve been wondering about his work, as opposed to just asking him to walk me through the whole theory from start to finish. 

You owe it to yourself to read their work and listen to their ideas; it may even result in you being less stressed out in your personal lives; in how you think about and process politics. I will say that even if you aren’t entirely persuaded by their ideas and still walk away thinking “I still think there’s some meaning to ‘left’ and ‘right’,’ you’ll be in a much better position to see some of the ways people are clearly using these terms in ways that don’t make sense and that also just amplify divides and anger. You’ll be in a much better place to understand the political landscape and to be more careful and accurate in your own language. I’ll say that I myself am not entirely certain about their ideas: I’ve seen enough smart people disagree with them to be aware that maybe there’s something I’m missing in these areas. I don’t value certainty that highly; but I do think their ideas have a lot of clear and obvious value, regardless if there’s something they may be missing. While I’m not 100% certain that they’re entirely correct, I am near certain that they have many good and clearly valuable points. 

And I have a practical interest in their work; as someone who works on reducing toxic polarization it is very important to think about how my and others’ words may be unintentionally amplifying conflict and anger. We rarely examine that aspect of how our language and underlying concepts influence our political behavior but I think it’s a huge contributor, and agree with the Lewis’ brothers on that. 

In this episode, we discuss why the left-right spectrum is an illusion; we discuss common objections to this idea; we talk about how people who’ve read and reviewed their book have received the idea and how persuasive they’ve found it; we talk about the ways in which language and underlying concepts can amplify divides; we talk about the horseshoe theory and how that relates to the left-right spectrum criticism; we talk about better ways to talk about our political disagreements, and more.  

My guest Hyrum Lewis is a professor of history at Brigham Young University-Idaho and was previously a visiting scholar at Stanford University. Okay, so let’s jump into the talk with Hyrum, author of The Myth of Left and Right.  

Zachary Elwood: Hi Hyrum, thanks for joining me.

Hyrum Lewis: Zach, it’s great to be with you.

Zach: Maybe I could start with… I’ll say when I first read your book, it actually made so much sense to me because it was a sense of confusion that I was feeling for years thinking about politics and thinking about the polarization work specifically. I often had so much confusion about the Liberal and Conservative language—the Left and the Right language that people often used—and especially, with the stances of the parties seeming to change so rapidly in recent times. And to be honest, I thought there was something kind of wrong with me because I thought I was missing something. I kept reading about the Left-Right thing and trying to understand what I might be missing and I thought I was just not well-read enough. That’s where your book came in and made a lot of sense to me in terms of the confusion I was feeling of trying to make sense of those words. So just to say, that’s my way into it from a practical perspective of trying to make sense of these things because I talk about them and write about them a good amount in the last few years. So just to say, you and your brother’s work made so much sense of that to me. I also want to ask, did you have a similar experience of coming to that kind of conclusion about the language people were using? Maybe you could talk a little bit about how your past reading and learning about these things led you to that work.

Hyrum: Oh, sure. Maybe I didn’t have quite the ‘aha moment’ that people might hope for. There was never a light bulb over the head. But gradually, I remember just being a kid and it never made sense to me. I’d go to school and the teachers would invariably, when they taught civics or history or government, draw a spectrum on the board and say, “Over here on the far Right, you have Hitler. Over here on the far Left, you got Stalin. The Republican Party is here on the center Right, the Democratic Party’s here on the center Left.” And they say, “The Republicans are fine, but if they go too far to the Right, then they become Hitler,” and I’m just thinking, “That’s strange. My parents always talk about freedom, how freedom is their highest value, and how they believe in free markets and free speech. And yet Hitler didn’t believe in free markets or free speech. It didn’t really fit.” And so I had the same confusion as you did. But it’s when I got to my doctoral program—I’m a historian by training—and my advisor said, “You know, a hot topic right now is conservatism, so I want you to write about conservatism.” So I started doing the research and there was just a complete inability to ever define my terms. The dictionary definition of a Conservative is somebody wants to conserve, and yet there was all these ideas about radical Conservatives radically changing things. You know, Ronald Reagan brought this Reagan revolution, and I’m just thinking this whole idea of a conservative being someone who doesn’t like to change things simply isn’t adequate to the facts on the ground. And so, you know, slow development from those seeds to developing a full theory about ideology and what’s wrong with our conceptions of it.

Zach: I know you go into this a bit in the book, but are there certain other thinkers and writers that stood out to you as being fundamental in your thoughts there, like people that have critiqued the same things in the same way or a similar way?

Hyrum: The closest thing to it, and the problem with them is they just did it kind of incidentally to a different argument they’re making. But Weeden and Kurzban wrote a book called The Hidden Agenda of the Political Mind, and their thesis in that book is basically we tell ourselves stories to justify our interests, and interest explains political outlooks better than what we tell ourselves; these stories of noble principles and things like that. They have a lot of data to back that thesis up. But the more important thesis that I saw was kind of reading between the lines, and they had a lot of information that suggested that the positions we associate with Liberal or Conservative don’t naturally aggregate. And they disaggregated them and showed them that they disaggregate depending upon the interests of the holders of those positions.

Zach: That was another thing I really liked about your book, is the focus on the narrative, the storytelling aspect of what we do. I think that just is such a fundamental thing about humans in general. It’s like we’re storytellers and we confabulate and we make up things to fit. I really like that section in your book where you try to get people to imagine taking a random assemblage of issue stances and building a narrative around it. Because you can easily do that. When you try to do that, you can easily do that. And it relates to so much, I think, of not just politics but how we just experience the world as narratives about ourselves, or narratives about people or things in our lives. There’s just so much that the narrative aspect of what we do as people plays into it. Yeah, I really like that part of your book. Not really a question there, but I just want to say that.

Moving on, I was going to say one thing I was majorly curious about with your work is how persuasive you found your points to be to people. Because I’ve read some of the reviews from people that you’ve done interviews with, or people that read your work who were skeptical a bit but who, largely from what I read, seemed to be mostly largely agreeing that you had very good points to make, even if they quibbled with, like, “Hey, maybe it’s still useful in these regards.” It made me wonder, from your perspective, how much good pushback have you seen or how much pushback, in general, how much have people absorbed your your views, that kind of thing?

Hyrum: Usually, we have pretty good success convincing people. Because people who invite us on their shows and things like that are usually open-minded people like yourself, and those are the people open to being persuaded. Or when we give talks around the country, we’re not usually invited by some very Blue or very Red organization. We’re usually invited by an organization like the one you’re affiliated with that’s saying, “Gee, how can we get past the vitriol? How can we make political discourse more productive?” And people in those spaces, people who don’t have strong tribal commitments, are very open to our argument. We also find quite a bit of success among Never Trump Republicans like Jonah Goldberg. He is not completely sold on what we said, but I think by the end of our interview, he was with us, more or less. That’s the good news. 

We usually persuade people who are willing to listen and don’t have strong entrenched interests and strong entrenched investment in a bad model. Because some people do have investments in that model, right? I mean, if you’re Sean Hannity, your entire livelihood depends upon this model. And if he is subscribed to our theory, he would lose his audience and lose his position. So we don’t expect people like him to agree with what we say. But among people who don’t have those strong entrenched interests, the good news is we’ve had very good success in convincing people that were correct. The bad news is even the people that we convince, we find them reverting to the language of Left and Right. Like—oh, what’s his name? He does Tangle.

Zach: Yeah, Isaac Saul.

Hyrum: Yeah, thank you. Terrific guy, and he was totally sold by what we said. But I listen to his podcast sometimes and he’s still just Left-Right. And I think just the language is so entrenched that you can hardly have a political conversation without it, and so he’s just stuck in the world that he’s been delivered, even if the conversation around that world is incorrect.

Zach: Yeah, I want to get back to the language part, because that’s a question I have for you about the practical aspect as somebody who writes about this a lot and often struggles with how do we even… You know? We’ll come back to that. But I do think it’s a tough thing for for a few reasons. Now, I could be wrong on this but I was curious, based on my sense of things these days, whether it’s your work, your ideas, or whether it’s more depolarization bridge-building ideas. I get the sense a lot of times. People will have a reaction like, “Well, those are nice ideas but we got more important things to worry about right now,” which, to me, are very important ideas because they’re like the underlying foundation of so much of our divides. As you write about, your work helps explain why the foundational illusions we have about the Left-Right divide can amplify conflict. Right? So whether it’s your work or the work I do related to that about reducing divides, I’m curious if you get that sense too, where some people are like, “Yeah, that’s all well and good, and you got some good points, but we’re over here trying to fight a serious battle, and don’t bother us with these ideas right now.”

Hyrum: Yeah, the most common pushback we get is, “Well, fine, whatever. But we need something.” That’s what my colleagues all give me. “We have to have something. You’re saying we shouldn’t have something. We’re not saying that at all. We are saying we should have something, just not a bad something.” That’s like a doctor in the 19th Century saying, “Well, I’m going to adhere to the four humors theory of disease because we need something.” That’s not a good argument. If the something that you think we need is killing people, then a nothing is better than a something – one. And two, we are proposing to replace the something we have with a better something; a more granular approach to politics. So, people who say, “Well, this is fine and dandy, but we’ve got to put out fires,” it’s like a doctor in the 19th Century saying, “Well, this is fine and dandy about germ theory of disease, but right now I’ve got to go bleed my patients to get them better.” It’s the work you think you have to do that is itself the problem. And if you’re operating under bad assumptions and under a bad model, you’re doing more harm than good. And so putting aside the idea of whether or not your fundamental model is rotten from the get go is not a good idea, getting that right is requisite for getting the other things right.

Zach: Yeah, maybe that’s a good spot to segue into the language challenges that I see. As somebody who tries to write about these things and in a nuanced way, I’m often struggling with, like, “Well, how do I in a shorthand way talk about this divide? Even if a lot of the parts of it are illusory and based on illusory understandings, there’s still this, let’s say in a lot of ways, it’s the anti-Trump pro-Trump divide right now. Right? Sometimes I found myself even just saying anti-Trump and pro-Trump because I think it’s a more accurate definition of the rough categories. But do you have tips—and I realize this is a broad question because it really does come down to granularity, I think you would say, but do you have tips about like, “Well, how do we refer to these rough tribes in ways that are not unnecessarily divisive or too simplistic?” Because one thing that I’ve often thought about is you could use Liberal and Conservative… I more often use Republican-Democrat because they’re more accurate tribal labels. But even if you could kind of defend using Liberal and Conservative, if you kind of defined it as, “Well, that’s loosely what Liberal means to people now, and that’s loosely what Conservative means to people now,” you can kind of defend that, too. But I’m curious, with all that said, do you have ways that you think are the best ways to refer to these rough tribes?

Hyrum: Sure. I wish we would have been more explicit about this in the book because when people say it’s useful to talk about Left and Right, we have to realize that when people talk Left and Right or Liberal and Conservative, they’re basically referring to one of three things. The first thing, as you mentioned, is a tribe. Sometimes you say, “Oh, he’s on the Left,” you just said, “Well, he belongs to this particular tribe.” Or, “He’s on the Right, he belongs to this particular tribe that opposes that particular tribe.” The other thing you might be doing is talking about one individual policy. So maybe you’re talking about the minimum wage and somebody says, “Well, I support a higher minimum wage,” and somebody will respond, “Well, I guess I’m a little more conservative than you. I want a lower minimum wage.” You’re talking about one policy. The third way that people use the term Left and Right is what we’re talking about as the error in the book is talking about a worldview. “Oh, I’m a Liberal. I have the liberal worldview, I’m on the Left.” And this is the monism. This is the fallacy.

Zach: The essentialism. Yeah.

Hyrum: The essentialism. The monism that there’s one issue that policy takes; if like change, you’re on the left, or if you don’t like change, you’re on the right. The problem is those are three separate things; tribe, single policy, and worldview. And yet we use the terms interchangeably as if they’re the same thing. So sometimes I do find people using the term Left or Right profitably. If they keep it within the bounds to talk about tribe, that works. The problem is we lapse into talking about those three things as if they’re the same. So we’re saying we’ve got this mistaken framework that politics is about one thing—Left wing, Right wing, and where are you on the political spectrum? That’s false. That’s a bad idea. And the problem is that we use the language associated with that bad idea to refer to real things like tribes or individual policies. So, what we’re saying is it would be more helpful if instead of using it to refer to an individual policy in terms of Left and Right, or to talk about tribes in terms of Left and Right, find better terms that indicate that we’re just talking about an individual policy. So if you’re talking about somebody’s tribe instead of saying Left and Right and conjuring up images of this spectrum with a worldview or a single issue, you could just talk about—like you do—Republicans and Democrats. That refers to something real. Or if maybe you say, “Well, they don’t belong to the Republican Party, how do we refer to them?” Maybe just say Red and Blue. Because if we talk Red and Blue, we’re not conjuring up images of, “Oh, this person has a philosophy or worldview,” they’re just associated with the Red tribe or the Blue tribe.

Zach: Which is what Braver Angels does, for example, in their language. Yeah.

Hyrum: That’s absolutely correct. We 100% support that. Or if you’re talking about an individual policy, just talk about that policy without invoking Left and Right. So if you’re talking about the minimum wage, don’t say, “I’m more to the Right or I’m more to the Left.” You don’t have a different worldview, you just disagree on this one policy. Just say, “Oh, I believe in a higher minimum wage. Oh, I believe in a lower.” Or, “I believe in more immigration. Oh, I believe in less immigration.”

Zach: Right, be really granular. Yeah. Well, that’s really helpful actually because that’s something I’ve struggled with, and what you’ve described is largely what I try to do. I’m really careful about, “Well, what exactly am I trying to say here,” and using different words in different situations depending on the context, but trying to avoid that essentialism kind of framing of this thing is more conservative or this thing is more liberal or whatever. Yeah.

Hyrum: Well, yeah. And it causes all kinds of confusion and bad feelings because it creates guilt by association. So, here you are having a conversation with somebody and you say,

“Oh, you’re in favor of raising the minimum wage?”

“Yeah, I think it should probably be a little lower.”

“Oh, you’re a Conservative, therefore you’re a racist and you supported the Iraq war.”

You know, they start making all kinds of assumptions about you based on what you say on one policy. That’s why, again, keeping these three things distinct—tribe, policy, essential worldview—keep those distinct and we won’t fall into those problems and we won’t make assumptions about people that are incorrect. Because that is a very common problem, and that’s where so much of the hostility comes from. You find out somebody’s view on one thing, “Oh my gosh!” They think we had a prayer in public school, “Well, they’re fascists and they want to kill illegal immigrants.” You know? They start making all kinds of assumptions.

Zach: Yeah, they extrapolate from this essentialist kind of framing. Yeah.

Hyrum: If you have one policy that agrees with this tribe, then you must have all the policies because that tribe is defined by our worldview. That’s the mistaken assumption. And those are the leaps we make based on this bad framework.

Zach: I don’t know if you saw this one study that was interesting to me, where it basically found that the necessary or seemingly necessary shorthand that we reach for when we use language can be a factor in amplifying polarization. It’s like say you found out Democrats and Republicans are mostly the same on this one policy, like, say, Democrats are just slightly more likely to support raising taxes or something. By shorthand, you’ll find yourself the necessary… The shortening of language you’ll reach for can be like, “Oh, Democrats are more pro-tax on that.” Even if in reality they’re pretty much the same, but to try to differentiate them with language, you’ll try to shorthand say that they’re more something or less something. And that kind of leads to perceptions of like, “Oh, Democrats are for this and Republicans are for this,” and then it plays into the tribalism of like, “Oh, that’s what we’re about. We’re for these things, and they’re for these things.” So it’s like these compounding conceptual issues, which I really liked that part of your book towards the end, talking about how the language and the concepts we use play out in all these major ways. And you say it quite clearly in the intro. It’s like we’re living in an illusion, basically, and that has major effects on us. Yeah.

Hyrum: Again, we keep bringing up the four humors theory because it’s just such a good analogy, right? You know, you’re talking about how all these associations… We’re not against categories. We are not against shorthands. Our minds work necessarily through shorthands and through categorizations and through lumping like things together into categories. We just are simply against bad categorizations. In the 19th Century, the four humors theory was all rampant, and if I was a doctor back then saying,

“Look, this is a bad way to look at things. A balance of humors does not make people healthy,”

And people backlashed and said,

“Oh, you want to get rid of categories?”

“No, just bad categories.”

And the category of sanguine saying that somebody who is cheerful also has too much blood and therefore is giving them fevers, those things don’t naturally go together. And this category of sanguine, which assumes they does, causes people to slice open patients and bleed them to cure them from a fever. So it’s bad categorizations where, again, it’s not bad shorthands. Not shorthands at all. Because we all need shorthands. And I would say there’s a lot of good political shorthands. For instance, the idea of free markets. You’re in favor of free markets. I’d say that’s a good shorthand. Even if there are nuances and there are differences there and somebody might be more free market in one area and less than another, I think putting on a scale of more free market versus more socialistic, I would say that’s a useful shorthand, even if it is reductive. But the Left-Right shorthand that boils all politics down to one thing is a non-useful shorthand.

Zach: Yeah, that’s really helpful. Yeah. I was curious, when it comes to objections and criticisms people have made of your work, do you think there are good objections there? Have you seen people make objections where you’re like, “Oh, as far as the objections go, that’s the best one.” Anything stand out like that?

Hyrum: Well, yeah. So, the objection—and I think we solved it with breaking those things down, you know, because the objection that Left and Right, placing people on a spectrum—political scientists do it to try to understand coalitions and alliances. They say, “Well, look, this is useful to talk about the coalitions and alliances,” and we’re saying, “Well, good. The problem is the assumption that the coalitions and alliances are formed around a world view.” There’s a mixing of concepts there, right? If you want to place somebody on a spectrum of more Republican, and he agrees with the Republicans more than the Democrats, that’s a big pushback. You say, “Hey, this is a useful thing. This person is a little more Republican than they are Democrat. So by center Right, we’re saying more Republican than Democrat.” Great. The problem is, people will jump in and say, “Oh, since he is more Republican than Democrat, he is more conservative than liberal, and he has a slightly more conservative worldview than the average person. Therefore, he doesn’t like change, and therefore, this, that, and the other.” So, the jumping through. I think that is a useful objection that using a spectrum to categorize how people relate to our different coalitions can be useful. The problem is, again, when people use the language of Left and Right, we’re assuming world view. We’re assuming political monism when the political monism isn’t there.

Zach: I think one of the probably pretty common objections people will have is—and this is just what I imagine people I know on the so-called liberal side of things—I think a lot of people would have the sense that like… And you address this in your book, but I’m just talking about common objections. People would think this liberal thing is associated with leaving apart the economic stuff too, because I think that’s much more easier to overcome those objections. I think many people would say, “Well, liberal things are about like moving to more socially permissive things like transgender things or racism-related things like moving away from what it was in the past.” I’m curious, do you have a shorthand way to overcome that specific way of people’s thinking about ‘This is what Liberal is, this is what Conservative is’ on these kinds of social topics?

Hyrum: Yeah, every time somebody tries to claim an essence for one side or the other, they always cherry-pick. You noticed a moment ago, you know, gay marriage, social permissiveness… See, Liberals like to change. They don’t like tradition. But notice they left out environmentalism. Why is it that it’s the Liberals who like to conserve the environment and don’t want to change the environment? Or you think of the, “Oh, well, they want to throw out traditional values. They want new values. Enough with the tradition. That’s Right-wing, that’s Conservative. Conservatives want to conserve things.” Give me a break. The most traditional value in the history of the world without question, is caring for the poor and needy. That is without question the oldest value. You look in every sacred text, every philosophy going back thousands of years to the Code of Hammurabi, you find this idea that morality requires care for the poor and needy. So if liberalism really was about transvaluating values, as Nietzsche said, and throwing out old values, they would be saying, “Enough with the care for the poor and needy. That’s so Right-wing. That’s so Christian. That’s so old-fashioned. Let’s move on. Let’s become more socially Darwinist. Let’s let the poor die out. This is the future. This is progress.” Right? But no, they cling to this traditional value of helping the poor. Social justice… My goodness, Plato was talking about social justice, what? 2500 years ago. And so they say, “No, we’re in favor of new value.” Give me a break. Social justice is the oldest value in the book. So the idea that one side is in favor of old values and the other side wants to replace those old values with new values simply doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. It can only work when you cherry-pick certain values, which is what all essentialists do. And it sounds like you’re running into some of that yourself.

Zach: Yeah. The interesting thing about the abortion issue, too, is I relatively recently—well, a few years ago now—learned that there was a school of thought that the abortion issue in America could have gone either way. And it happened that an abortion writer or scholar, Dan Williams, I think his name is—sorry, I can’t remember his name—but he and other people have said, “Oh, the Republicans purposely went down that path and that previously more pro-life stances were associated with Catholics who were more associated with Democrats,” you know? So just to say, when you start reading about some of those things, it’s easy to see how some of these things can… And Michael Macy, you mentioned Michael Macy’s work in your work, the opinion cascades things of like the leaders of our time—like Trump, for example—can easily shift which direction some of these things go. Like if Trump stakes out some issue position, a very good chance the party is going to go that direction. That explains how these things can change so rapidly and then we’ll create narratives about why it goes that way.

Hyrum: Well, abortion is a great example, right? I mean, I’m glad you brought that one up because when you talk to people in the Blue tribe, they will say, “The essence of liberalism and the essence of progressivism and the essence of the Left is caring for the least fortunate and the most vulnerable. That’s what defines us. Every time there’s vulnerable and disadvantaged populations at risk, you will find the Left rushing to help.”

“Really? What about unborn children? What about unborn children?”

Oh, those don’t count suddenly. You know?

Zach: And that was the narrative before Republicans went down that. That was the narrative amongst people that would be called progressive. And people have drawn attention to that language being part of the so-called progressive mindset back then. Yeah.

Hyrum: Right, so you’ll just repurpose the same narrative to justify opposite policies as the tribe evolves. So had being anti-abortion gotten associated through an opinion cascade with the Blue tribe, they would of course be talking about, “Hey, this is social justice to protect these vulnerable populations and these unborn children.” And then, of course, the Red tribe would be talking about, “We stand for freedom. We stand for individual rights. You should be able to do what you want to do with your own property, with your own body. Individualism. Individualism. Rights, rights, rights!” They would be using the same Lockean language that they use for economics to justify abortion permissiveness. So you can see how the stories will persist even as the policies change because we can wrap any set of policies up with any story.

Zach: And in my understanding, a lot of people are surprised to learn, but my understanding is the so-called Right winger conservative stances in many other countries are just much more libertarian in, like, ‘Keep government out of my life, including about abortion.’ But some people are surprised to learn that. But it makes sense if you think about how we build our narratives in very different ways depending on how things go. Yeah.

Hyrum: Absolutely.

Zach: I’m curious if you agree with this. My general synopsis or diagnosis of our main problem when it comes to these kinds of… Or maybe the main human problem is our tendency to be extremely certain about ideologies or beliefs and really just go down this path of saying, “I’m completely right and society must do this thing I believe,” and that helps explain, no matter if you call it Right wing or Left wing or whatever, these instances of people doing horrible things to other people in the name of this highly certain ideology that they believe is 100% right. And I do think we don’t often separate that dimension of things. We talk too much about these, in my opinion and I agree with you, these illusory categories of Left and Right or whatever. And we don’t talk enough about, well, maybe it’s just like enforcing a highly certain ideology on society. That’s kind of like the method of engagement aspect is much more important than any kind of labels you want to give to things. But I’m curious, do you have any thoughts on that?

Hyrum: Yeah. That’s another thing. You talked about critiques that are valid. I think, again, a lot of the critiques come because people misunderstood what we were saying. They thought the social theory of ideology said that nobody has any principles, that everybody is tribal, and that nobody believes anything for any reason. It’s simply not true. I mean, somebody who is pro-life and pro-life to the core won’t change that. We’re not saying they only believe that because they’re tribal right now, they anchor and adopt the other views of the tribe. You know, they might favor tax cuts because they anchored into the Red tribe because of their abortion stance. So, we have to clarify what we’re saying here.

Zach: Yeah. I made this clear in my work, too. Nobody’s saying you’re stupid or unreasonable for your views, we’re just saying that there might be ways that these things play out in ways that you might not be-

Hyrum: Yeah, let us separate the views from the holders of those views. The holders of the views are not stupid. Paul Krugman is not a stupid man. He’s very smart. He won a Nobel Prize, and in my opinion, he deserved it and I think he’s very smart. But in his commentary, it is very hampered and limited, and his analysis is weakened substantially because he is a smart man with a dumb model. And the dumb model brings him down. So he says a lot of dumb things in his columns, not because he’s dumb, but because he has a dumb model. The same way that Benjamin Rush was not an idiot. This guy was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was a genius in my opinion as best I can tell, and yet he was bleeding patients and killing them to the end of his life because he had a bad model, right? Bad models can make good people and smart people do bad and dumb things. And that’s true of this model, too. So, you talked about it as a tool of certainty. Yeah, we wish we would have explained in our book more clearly. In fact, we should have replaced essentialist and social with monist and pluralist. The only thing we’re against is political monism; the idea that politics is about one thing. Because a political spectrum assumes that politics is about just one thing, and clearly it’s not.

So, why do we oppose political monism? It’s not a harmless delusion. It’s very problematic. Because if somebody believes politics is about one thing, then you only got to get that one thing right and then you’re correct about everything. No wonder people are so certain in their political views. No wonder they think they have omniscience about the minimum wage, about this or that foreign policy, about COVID policy. Everything. They’re certain that they know it all because our political paradigm is monist and it says you only have to get one thing right because politics is about one thing. So you’re either on the Left and one of the good guys who believe in social justice, or you’re on the Right and you’re one of the bad people who hate social justice and is a racist, blah, blah, blah, blah. This is what all my colleagues in history believe, by the way. They all believe once I’ve got that one thing right, now I know I’m omniscient. I’m God. I know exactly what abortion policy should be, I know exactly what the tax rate should be, I know exactly what we should do about race issues… Because it’s easy to be right about one thing, but it’s not easy to be right about a lot of things. And so the reality of monism makes us much humbler. It says, “Oh my gosh, there are hundreds and hundreds of very difficult policies out there.”

Let’s just take abortion for an example. This is not an easy issue. You are weighing an unquestionable moral reality that a woman has rights and has to be able to do what she wants with her own body. This is a very important right that our society believes in rightly. A woman clipping her fingernails should not have somebody coming in telling her how she should clip them, or how she should do her hair, or whether or not she should cut her hair, or whether or not she should lose weight or gain weight. This is her individual choice. So, the right of a woman’s bodily autonomy is a very important and sacred value. But then you’ve got the value of unborn children. What do we do about that, and at what point does an unborn child become a person? These are difficult questions. And if an unborn child is a person, then that has rights too. And yet we’re not thinking about it in complicated ways. Because we say it’s a simple matter of either believing in progress towards social justice Left-wing, or evil Right-wing fascist patriarchal trying to stop that. It kills all nuance. It kills all humility. So on a difficult issue like abortion, we should be talking to each other and trying to come up with compromises on a very complicated issue. But political monism says it’s not complicated, it’s simple because politics is simple. You’re either on the good side or you’re on the bad side. And if you’re on the good side, adopt everything that that side believes in, because it all grows out of the one good value of social justice. And if you believe in social justice, you will have these 500 other positions that grow out of your belief in social change. It turns people into dogmatic ideologues who do not think because they think the thinking has been done as soon as they chose the good side. This is where all my historical colleagues are, and it’s a tragedy to go to meetings with the American Historical Society and see so many smart people all agreeing very lemming-like on their politics and on what they choose to pursue in their historical research. It has killed their ability to think critically and it’s a tragedy.

Zach: Yeah. And I would add too, even if you’re 100% sure you are right on whatever issue, avoiding this kind of Left-Right good guys-bad guys perspective allows you to have more empathy for people that have reached a completely different conclusion and prioritize different things. Regardless if you think you’re 100% percent right, I think it just is an empathy-understanding thing too, because that’s really what this is about. It’s so much of, “I’m right and I really think you’re a bad person for this whole bundle of things that you believe.”

Hyrum: You’re saying it kills empathy as well as humility, and I completely agree.

Zach: Yeah, so many aspects of it. I’m curious, I was actually thinking about your work recently because I saw some people talking about horseshoe theory, which occasionally people will bring up in this space. I’m curious, as someone who’s done the work you’ve done, what do you think about the horseshoe theory concept when people bring that up?

Hyrum: I think they don’t know what they’re talking about. [laughs] It’s the idea that if you go too far to the Left or go too far to the Right, you wind up in the same place. Nobody knows what they’re talking about. Look, what do you mean when we say Right and Left? When we’re going towards Stalin, what’s this treasured value that Stalin holds that makes him the exact opposite of Hitler? Okay, now you’re saying it circles around and joins each other. Well, wait a minute, what’s the up and down you’ve added now? You say they go up to become the same thing. What’s the up? And nobody knows what they’re talking about. If we just recognize the reality of there’s many values in politics, and one of those values is authoritarianism, then there’s no puzzle to solve. There’s no horseshoe. You just say Stalin was a socialist totalitarian dictator, Hitler was a socialist totalitarian dictator, We don’t have to draw magic lines. We just recognize these two people as having the same values. And trying to place them on a spectrum, “Oh, they’re opposite in some ways, but they come together because they took things too far,” is really preposterous. So, I don’t know. I do have some respect for those models of politics which instead of having one line, they have two lines and have an X axis. Because that’s political dualism, right? What we’re against is monism, one issue, one spectrum. And they say, “No, political dualism.”

Zach: It’s getting a little bit better.

Hyrum: It’s better! It’s getting closer, but it’s still not the reality.

Zach: Yeah, it’s still very simplistic and probably bad in various ways.

Hyrum: Oh, yeah. Because there’s not one issue in politics, there’s not two issues in politics, but at least two is closer to the real number of issues in politics than one is. So it’s at least an improvement upon the political spectrum.

Zach: Yeah, the more dimensions, the better. Yeah. But to the horseshoe thing, the reason I brought it up is I’ve seen people… This gets into what I was saying about the inability to differentiate beliefs from how we engage with people or how authoritarian we are is another way to put that. Because it’s like what some of these people are really trying to say is the things that the horseshoe theory or the thing they’re trying to point to is like these are just very authoritarian, highly control-oriented ways of enforcing whatever ideology or whatever belief. Right? Which is getting into your point. It’s like, don’t try to put some kind of spectrum or linear thing to it. It doesn’t matter. Any kind of belief structure could theoretically be authoritarian and high control, right? So I think that’s what they’re trying to get at. But I think the inability to differentiate that dimension of things is causing them to reach for the spectrum idea, which everyone has embraced, obviously. But I think we need to do more talking about that. It’s like the thing we don’t like about the far Left or the far Right, as we call them, is that they are often much too authoritarian-seeming in the way they want to control other people.

Hyrum: Yeah. If you’re going to give credit to the horseshoe theory, I guess, at its best, it’s adding another dimension and a meaningful dimension. So if you conceive of, “Okay, Hitler was radically inegalitarian. He believed in racial hierarchy, for instance. And then Stalin was radically egalitarian. He believed working men of the world unite, everybody’s the same, we’re going to abolish all hierarchy.” Okay, so there you have a dimension; egalitarianism versus hierarchy. That’s a real dimension. Okay, then you’ve got another dimension of government control; we’re going enforce this by control. And so both Hitler and Stalin wanted to enforce their egalitarianism, or inegalitarianism as it be, using the force of the state. Now, we have government control as a second dimension. All right, but there’s other dimensions beyond those two dimensions. Right? The one that they left out, obviously, is change versus preservation. So you have somebody like Ed Glaeser at Harvard. He’s in favor of change, he’s in favor of egalitarianism, and he’s in favor of less government control. He’s a believer in free markets, right? I mean, those are three distinct dimensions. And you can’t put Ed Glaser on a spectrum anywhere, even though people try to put him on the right because I think they’re trying to discredit his free-market views by associating them with fascism, which I think is one of the many reasons we need to get rid of the political spectrum.

Zach: Well, that reminds me too—and cut me off if you think we’re going too long—but the thing I’ve also seen people push back about, “Well, no, liberalism is always about egalitarianism in some form or another,” but to your point about creating narratives, it’s like you can easily create a narrative that if too strict or perceived authoritarian measures to enforce egalitarianism are enacted, then you can easily create the narrative that those things are now not egalitarian. Like, we need freedom from that and egalitarianism from those things that are trying to enforce egalitarianism. Just to your point about the ease with which we can create narratives. I’m curious if you have any thoughts on that.

Hyrum: Yeah. Well, the point is pluralism lets us see these distinctions. Right? It allows us to say, “Oh, here’s somebody who wants egalitarianism through more government control. Two different dimensions; government control, and egalitarianism. Here’s somebody who wants to create egalitarianism through less government control. Two dimensions. That’s profitable when we break these dimensions out. But when you say, “No, more government control and egalitarianism go together,” now you’re pretending that two things are one thing, when in fact, they’re not. So it’s always better to disaggregate in political conversation. It’s always better to talk about the individual value and the individual policy under consideration, rather than pretending that they all coalesce into one which they clearly don’t.

Zach: I think that it’s possible, in my mind, that your book is maybe the most important book about political divides, at least in the West. But I’m curious, do you believe that is true? Obviously, you’re biased, but I’m curious if you think of the future history, do you see your book as people look back on it and be like, “That was a really important book.” Is that how you see it?

Hyrum: [laughs] Well, I think every academic at least holds out that hope. But look, I don’t establish any special importance to what we’re doing. To us, it’s the emperor has no clothes. It’s just everybody’s going along with this. It’s not because we have any special brilliance, it’s just we look and see that this is very obvious. It’s obvious to any child. If you were to sit down a child before they had been corrupted by Left-Right nonsense and said,

“Do you think there’s lots of issues in politics or just one?”

They would say, “Well, there’s lots.”

“Good, Tommy. Good. You got it.”

I mean, this is very obvious to a little kid. So to say that there’s more than one issue in politics that doesn’t require any great insight or any penetrating analysis, it just requires us to step out of popular prejudices for a moment. Unfortunately, this prejudice and the Left-Right spectrum, as absurd as it is, has so taken over our society that that’s strangely very hard to do. So, yeah, I think getting rid of the political spectrum is very important. I would say politically, concepts have consequences. Ideas have consequences. And this bad idea is having huge consequences, so yes, I do believe that this won’t solve all of our problems in fixing our concepts. There are real disagreements. If tomorrow people stop talking about Left and Right liberal conservatives and started debating issues granularly, there would still be a very heated debate over abortion. Probably not as heated and in probably more good faith, and you wouldn’t be calling people who disagree with you a fascist or whatever. It’d be more in good faith. But it would still be heated, and it would probably be unproductive in many situations, but we think it would improve things. That’s really all we can ask for. And so yes, I do think that what we’re saying is of utmost importance. I doubt that people 100 years from now will look back at our book as some big landmark or something like that, no matter how much we might hope it, but we are glad it’s having influence on the margins with good important people like you and the important work you’re doing. And so if we can have that kind of influence on the grassroots level on open-minded people like yourself, we’re content with that. It doesn’t have to be the most important book of political science.

Zach: Sure. Yeah, I was merely just curious if you had high hopes for it because I often think about how important the concept is. One thing I want to end with is something that just occurred to me which is I think part of the thing that explains why these things are so attractive is because there is a real existential anxiety around having to think through all these various issues. Right? And I’ve heard this talking to people when it comes to our divides, where they’ll be like, “Oh, now that you’ve gotten me to see some of these things, now that people have gotten me to think more about these things, it’s actually a lot more stressful because I can’t just embrace a view that answers the questions on all these things for me, and I have to do my own work and think about the nuance.” I think that does help explain why some of these things are so attractive in terms of just stress and the existential stress of trying to process meaning and find meaning and our place in this world and what’s right and wrong and how we should live our lives. But I’m curious, do you see that more existential anxiety thing as playing a role in liking these simplistic categories?

Hyrum: Yeah. Obviously, the desire for simplicity is attractive in and of itself. I mean, we like simple models. You know, the monism of pre-Socratic times was very attractive when people looked at the world. “Oh, it’s all water. It’s all fire,” says Heraclitus. Monism has always been attractive in whatever realm we talk about it simply because simplicity is attractive. I get it. We like simple things. But we think the attraction goes beyond that. And I think in this case, what we’re really dealing with is epistemic closure. Humans have the need to consider things closed. We don’t like to be uncertain. We don’t like to be unsettled. It’s not a good space for us to be as far as day-to-day. It’s good for us, obviously. Epistemic openness is better for society, and it’s better for us as human beings long term. But the kind of dopamine hits we get by feeling things are settled is very attractive. Now, I say this as a religious person. Religion did that for people all throughout history. “Oh, I sign up for the religion, I was born into this religion or that religion, I adopt its tenets, I don’t have to think anymore about the nature of the universe. I don’t have to think about where the animals came from. I don’t have to think about the stars or the earth or why I’m here or what’s right and wrong. It’s all been handed to me. It’s closed.” That is such a relief. That’s such a burden off your back. And as our society is secularized, I think that’s one of the reasons partisan politics has gotten so nasty. Because the desire for epistemic closure is as strong as it was a thousand years ago, and yet we don’t have religion as much to provide that epistemic closure. So we need it in other things, and the political spectrum is a tool of epistemic closure. Political monism is so attractive because it just says, “Ah, it’s over. I’ve chosen the good side, I have all the answers, I don’t have to think anymore.” Episteme being open, though, being a scout rather than a soldier, is the right place to be, and long term, it’s better for all of us and it’s better for us as far as being charitable and being open-minded and humble and all these things. But it’s harder, and it means we always have to be doing our Bayesian Updating. It means we always have to be looking at gathering new evidence, and we don’t get that very satisfying sense of epistemic closure. But what’s more satisfying for us as humans long term is getting at the truth, and that requires epistemic openness and I hope more people will be epistemically open, no matter how good it feels to be epistemically closed.

Zach: Yeah, I think that need for closure stuff is really important and relevant. Well, this has been great, Hyrum. I appreciate your time, and thanks for coming on and talking to me.

Hyrum: Happy to do it, Zach, thanks for inviting me.

Zach: That was a talk with Hyrum Lewis, co-author of “The Myth of Left and Right.”

Categories
podcast

Does Trader Joe’s pressure employees to talk to customers?

Every time I go in Trader Joe’s, the checkout person asks me a question of some sort. I used to think everyone there was just happy and friendly, but then I heard reports that it was more of a rule or strong encouragement that employees talk to customers. I read conflicting reports about this online and wanted to talk to someone who’d worked at Trader Joe’s, to see if she could shed some light on this. I talk to Twiggy, who has a YouTube channel and who makes custom dolls (www.twiggysdollhospital.com).

Episode links:

Related resources:

Categories
podcast

Charlatan Chase Hughes fools Joe Rogan, “Diary of a CEO,” and Patrick Bet-David

Chase Hughes, whose major lies and unethical behaviors I’ve examined in past episodes (first episode and its text summary) continues to succeed in getting popular podcasts with large audiences to interview and promote him. Chase recently appeared on the podcast Joe Rogan Experience, The Diary of a CEO with host Steven Bartlett; he also appeared on Patrick Bet-David’s podcast (PBD podcast). He’s also been on Dr. Phil’s show, and on Leon Hendrix’s podcast DRVN. I examine some clips from Chase’s appearances on two of these shows, as a public service announcement to the millions of people who might be at risk of becoming Chase Hughes’ fans. I recap some of the absurd claims Chase has made. I talk about why I think these podcasts keep interviewing him, and what it tells us about the internet information ecosystem. I examine an early podcast interview where the host told me for Chase’s bio he just wrote what Chase said and didn’t vet it, which is what many of these podcasts have done. More podcast appearances; more seeming legitimacy.

Episode links:

Resources related to this episode:

TRANSCRIPT 

Note: This transcript is rough; it doesn’t include various off-the-cuff discussions I went into, but contains the main points. 

This is the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zach Elwood. This is a podcast about psychology and behavior; about understanding the things people say and do. You can learn more about it behavior-podcast.com. 

This is a PSA about Chase Hughes, because he’s continued being successful getting on popular podcasts despite his many, many lies and unethical behaviors. If you learned about Chase Hughes through the popular podcasts Diary of a CEO or Patrick Bet David’s podcast, or somewhere else, you should know that Chase Hughes is a fraud, a serial liar; someone who cannot be trusted. 

I do not use these words lightly at all; I use those words knowing that if I used them wrongly I might be sued by Chase for defamation. But it is just quite obvious that Chase Hughes has lied about all manner of things in his past, in ways that rise to the pathological and maybe even criminal – depending on if people who paid him under false pretenses wanted to pursue legal action. I call Chase a serial liar and a fraud because I know that if it ever came to a trial, I know any jury or judge looking at all this stuff, the evidence I’ve presented and also the many pieces of evidence that would be waiting to be presented — for example, from people who know and who have worked with Chase personally who have contacted me to tell me assorted details about his life – I know that any reasonable and fair person in a legal setting would come to the conclusion “yes, you are right to call Chase Hughes a serial liar and a fraud.” For that reason I’m confident that Chase will never sue me, nor would he be likely to even talk publicly about the things I’ve discussed here because they are so incredibly damning to him and he knows that. Same reason why his Behavior Panel friends will avoid these things as much as they are able. I mean, a lot of people have skeletons in their closet; Chase’s closet is like an industrial sized mausoleum. 

This is why Chase will never be on a mainstream serious program that requires any real vetting; he will be restrained to these various podcasts which, although they may be popular, obviously don’t much care about who their guests are and that seem to not give a shit about the stuff they put in front of their audience. 

To give you an example of what I mean when I say people are being duped in bad ways: someone contacted me thanking me for my first video on Chase Hughes because they had been drawn into Chase’s web and were considering paying Chase $20,000 for his so-called “graduate course.” I’ve been told 

Every few days I get emails from people thanking me for my work on this because they were starting to go down the Chase Hughes rabbithole. One person recently wrote me that they were worried about their child, who’d been drawn into Chase’s web alongside other magical thinking stuff, like the Law of Attraction, and despite not having much money their kid was considering spending a large amount for one of Chase’s products. 

Just to say: there is ongoing, real world harm being done so this is why I will keep doing this stuff. Maybe some of the people who pay Chase Hughes large sums of money are aware of the things I’ve brought to light, but I would hazard that at least some of them are not and would be surprised to know some of these things. 

Trust me when I say: I have much more interesting things I’d rather be working on. Probably much more important things, considering I have a lot of projects I’m trying to get to in the political polarization space. Even for the podcast, I have other things I want to focus on; I have a long list of guest and topics ideas. I’m honestly pretty frustrated that no one else has covered this and things have gotten this far. It shouldn’t have come to me to do this stuff. But that’s where we’re at; that’s the current state of the online content and information ecosystem, basically. So until some news outlet or someone with a large audience covers this Chase Hughes thing, and I think they will eventually, I’ll keep doing this; if you know of a show or journalist who might be interested in the fact that a fraud keeps getting attention from people like Dr. Phil and these popular podcasts, have them reach out; or just encourage them to cover it. I don’t want to be covering this but I feel like someone needs to; please, someone else help me out here. Chase isn’t real-world famous and is just internet famous but I think it’s still an interesting and newsworthy story, and may continue to get weirder and more interesting. 

If you want to learn more about Chase’s lies, or if you’re maybe skeptical about my claims, go check out the investigation I did into Chase’s past; https://behavior-podcast.com/debunking-chase-hughes-examining-the-bullshit-of-the-self-titled-1-expert-in-behavior-influence/ you can find a video about that on youtube but that’s a rather long video that goes into detail about the ways that I investigated him; my goal was to help people do their own research when they suspect they’ve run into a charlatan. If you want the summary, see the first episode about Chase on my website and it has a written summary. 

But long story short, to see the absurdity of it in a nutshell, Chase went from writing a childish pick-up artist book in 2007; here’s his pic and bio from his pick-up artist book – looks like he was doing some big things in the military at that time, don’t you think?  To then hawking his own shady and bullshit vitamin supplements online in 2008, making all sorts of grand claims about how they were used by all branches of the military and such. And then only five years after that he set up his website where he claimed to be a behavior expert. https://web.archive.org/web/20120923030135/http://www.chasehughes.com/lesson-outlines.html where he could teach you all sorts of things, like

Top mistakes Law Enforcement Officers Make 

Advanced Detection of Microexpressions

Foundation of Non-Verbal Behavior 

Absolute Importance of Pupillary Dilation and Nostrils

Setting up Human Behavior Baselines

Class Exercise to Commit Knowledge to Memory

Reading Body Parts 

And so on. 

Only two years after that, he claimed to be an internationally renowned expert in behavior analysis, in jury consulting, in all sorts of things. https://web.archive.org/web/20141013072122/http://www.chasehughes.com/bio.html  He writes that he:

has been involved with nonverbal research and innovation for nearly 12 years. The author of three books and reference volumes and over 13 articles covering topics from cult brainwashing to the use of clandestine hypnosis techniques in interrogations. 

Currently on active duty in the United States Navy; he has been teaching, researching and coaching in body language, nonverbal communication and deception detection during his entire career. His published works on cult victim deprogramming and neurology-based hypnosis have changed the way many forensic and psychiatric practitioners conduct business. 

Chase now lives in Little Creek, Virginia and has worked with  training and coaching interrogators, HR teams and law enforcement. His behavioral analysis of political debates and televised crime testimonies have become the new benchmark for over 29 United States media outlets. 

The Weaponized Communication Manual has gained a lot of media attention. The new manual, to be released in early 2015, contains the most advanced and comprehensive training and reference system in the world. The book focuses on the use of advanced psychology tactics, interrogation methods, profiling and exploiting human weakness and using neurology-based hypnosis to engineer human behavior.

As a recognized jury consultant, Chase has become a specialist in training legal teams to recognize and analyze body signals; from the way a shoe is laced to the inadvertent parting of the lips during questioning. 

You get the idea. He made all these grandiose claims despite nothing on the internet about Chase at that time or for almost all of the 2010s. Again, it doesn’t take advanced research experience or knowledge to see the patterns of immense deception and exaggerations in Chase’s life. The only really surprising thing about it is how many people he’s gotten to just go along with this stuff and turn a blind eye to it. The irony is that the Behavior Panel itself, which claims to help people spot deception and avoid narcissists and antisocial personalities and such, they’ve been instrumental in helping promote Chase’s bullshit and lies to many, many people. I believe they themselves were taken off guard by all this and now can’t easily turn back. 

Again, the main point of me doing this video is to raise awareness. If you’ve watched this video thus far, I’ve already done my job as you are I think much less likely to pay Chase Hughes money under false pretenses – and I hope you also may be more skeptical of pretty much anyline you see online, because Chase is a good example of what you can accomplish if you have no qualms about lying in order to quote “succeed” – and he’s also a good example of how little these popular shows seem to care about vetting guests. If Chase had approached me about doing an interview before I knew him, I would have taken five minutes and came to the conclusion that he was full of shit; there are just so many obvious red flags for anyone who cares to do a simple vetting. But so much of this boils down to perceptions; getting on a smaller podcast leads to getting on a medium-sized podcast; getting on a medium-sized podcast leads to getting on a larger podcast, and so on. Some of these popular podcast creators really do think only as far “Hey, another podcast that seems legit said he was legit; all these people interviewing him can’t be wrong, can they?” But yes, many people can be wrong; the simple fact is that people aren’t good at *** dealing with people who lie as much as Chase. Who lie at such an extreme and pathological level; we trust too much. And then people are afraid to call him out, even when they see these things, because they thnk “Maybe I’m missing something; all these big podcasts are having him on, right? He’s on the popular Behavior Panel show, right? Maybe I’m missing something.” The only thing you’re missing is how easy it is to fool people. 

So let’s look at Chase’s appearances on these shows. 

He was on the Diary of a CEO podcast a few weeks ago. I wasn’t familiar with this one but apparently it’s one of the more popular ones. This one has 1.4 million views and was released 3 weeks ago. And you have to remember; that’s just youtube; I would guess across all platforms and such there are at least another million views for this, probably more. Steven Bartlett, the host of this podcast, is really helping Chase find new fans. Steven Bartlett is a huge promoter of Chase Hughes, let the record show. 

Let’s watch a little of the intro where Steven asks Chase about his credentials. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvjR9GM2kX8 4:17

Again, there is no evidence that Chase Hughes has done anything impressive from a psychological perspective as part of his work in the military. From what people who know Chase have told me, he worked mainly on ships; he ended up being a Quarter Master, which is a military officer who manages logistics, supplies, and equipment. 

I’d ask anyone to present me evidence that Chase has done any training for any large military branch or department. I don’t think that can be done. Now I think it’s possible that Chase’s success in the last few years with the Behavior Panel and his various podcast interviews, may have led to some success in these areas; have given him experiences that he can then speak subjectively and deceptively about to imply that those things had some connection with his time in the military. 

For example, I noticed that this National Maritime Law Enforcement Academy (NMLEA) place shared some work by Chase Hughes on their site a while back. https://www.nmlea.org/post/2018/03/27/tactical-behavior-science-skills-changing-the-law-enforcement-landscape-and-preventing-vi In 2018, Chase and a guy named Mark Dupont https://www.linkedin.com/in/markrdupont/,  who is the Executive Director of NMLEA, apparently collaborated on an article. My guess is that Chase persuaded some people there that he was legit, or maybe he had a friend there, and they went along with him helping them. My guess is that they now regret this; when I emailed Mark directly and the organization asking about the nature of Chase’s involvement and pointing them to his many lies, they didn’t reply. 

I also think it’s possible some individuals in the military approach him for personal coaching and such. That would be likely actually, given Chase’s fame. That would then give Chase the ability to say “I’ve trained Navy SEALs” and this kind of thing.

This is just to say: Chase has become popular in the last few years; things actually come up now when you google his name, unlike in the many years prior! He’s got SEO! His recent upswing in fame means he can present a surface level case that he’s legitimate; he has clients; he has done trainings! But he will use ambiguous and vague language to obscure that such things have nothing to do with his military service. Another way to put this is that I would bet a large sum of money that Chase has never done anything impressive in terms of largescale training on psychological or psy-ops or brainwashing or interrogation or anything related to such things – of a major government department or office, as I think any serious department would vet him. This has been what people who know Chase personally and people who’ve worked with him, have told me, and it is what seems to be the case based on perusing online evidence. 

Again, Chase has many podcast interviews but he doesn’t even have a Wikipedia. Nor would he be able to have a Wikipedia because it would just be references to podcast interviews; having a Wikipedia would be the last thing Chase wants. Actually, if anyone watching this wants to create a wikipedia for this guy and reference my work, I think you’d be doing the world a service. It would be a harm-reducing contribution. 

We don’t need to watch more of the Diary of a CEO video; you get the idea. Once you understand that Chase has no compunction lying and using vague language about all sorts of things, a lot of it is just that. 

Let’s watch a couple clips from this Patrick Bet David podcast, aka the PBD podcast. This is another podcast that is popular that I’d never heard of. 

Note the paranoid approach to the title: “The Government Manipulates YOU!” – Chase Hughes UNCOVERS CIA Tactics & PSYOPs Truths”

This video has more than 350,000 views, but this is just one of many videos this podcast has released on Chase and it’s just one platform. They released a slew of shorter clips on specific topics, really doing their best to promote Chase. Patrick Bet David is a huge promoter of Chase Hughes, let the record show. This one 20 minute segment on Chase’s supposed ability to spot psychopaths instantly has 1.2 million views (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzIlhZbHL38). Again, this podcast was released just a week ago. 

The description here of Patrick’s video reads “Chase Hughes, a world-renowned expert in behavioral profiling and military intelligence.” Again, no, there is no evidence for that other than claiming to be so and getting other people to believe it is so. All these podcast descriptions say something different about Chase, too, kind of funny; it’s like a game of telephone. 

This kind of thing helps explain why people like having Chase Hughes on. Words like ‘psy ops’ and ‘government’ and ‘manipulate’ and ‘interrogation’ and ‘CIA’ and ‘brainwashing’ and ‘psycopath’ these kinds of things are exciting; people love drama, they love dirty underhanded deeds; they love conspiracy-minded thinking; these things get clicks; the algorithm treats them nicely I think. This helps explain why people like Steven Bartlett and Patrick Bet David have some incentives to not ask questions about people like Chase; he’s selling something exciting, something that will get clicks; and he’s been on other shows. There is just such an insatiable demand for constant content that will get clicks; this is part of the problem of the media system at large, and how it can derange and divide us. We need to fill space, so what kind of half-baked sensationalist, emotional bullshit are we going to put out there? 

Let’s watch a couple minutes. I’ve seen like the first minute but after that this is the first time I’m watching it. We’ll just watch a little. 

[PLAY VIDEO]

Starts out with a bang: “We’re always involved in psy-ops, all the time. MK Ultra was the beginning of a psychological arms race.” Just really leading with the highest-bullshit. Again, what I’m telling you is that Chase is in no position to tell you about psy-ops; he’s in no position to know if the government is using psy-ops or not; he will just imply that he has that experience. I’ve actually been trying to find someone to come on to the show who has actual knowledge of psy-ops and MK Ultra stuff; I’ve been in contact with people who’ve worked in those areas privately who know Chase is full of shit on such things but it’s just a matter of not having the bandwidth, or not wanting to get involved in the drama. But just to say: there’s a reason you won’t find people with actual military intelligence credentials talking the way Chase talks. I’ll talk more about highly paranoid views about psy-ops and such a little later. 

Note on Psychopath: This gets into why some of this behavior bullshit that Chase and others spread can be so bad in real world terms: I see so many people using halfbaked and ambiguous concepts they’ve learned on the Behavior Panel and other places to make really bad, stupid reads of people. When I looked at the Behavior Panel fan group, it was full of people hating on various celebrities and politicians based on some random ambiguous and in my opinion meaningless piece of behavior. But that’s what all this bullshit information about behavior and psychology does: the high confidence bullshit like Chase peddles in results in many people believing “I can do that!” and believing they can take minor, meaningless, high variance behaviors and use those to reach firm deductions, so they’re just using bad information and noise to bolster their prejudices and biases, while thinking they’re smart. 

Just a heads up: when you see people claiming they can teach you to do anything quickly and easily, whether it’s reading signs of a psychopath or whatever it is, making money easily; your alarm bells should go up. 

Jury consultant: Is Chase a trial consultant? He’s been claiming he was a “recognized jury consultant” since at least 2014. I know a pretty well known jury consultant and I sent her a message asking her what she thought about Chase’s claims. She wrote me back:

That’s bizarre.  I’ve never heard of the guy.  There’s no state licensing or regulatory body for trial consultants – anyone can call themselves one.  I guess the only way to debunk it would be to ask what cases he worked on, and then check with the lawyers who handled the matter.   He definitely isn’t “well respected” in the field.  The American Society of Trial Consultants (ASTC) is the biggest professional organization for our field and everyone who is anyone is involved.  I don’t see that he’s a member.

Again, stay skeptical, folks. Anyone can claim to be anything. And often, if they claim it long enough, people will start to believe it. If you’ve hired Chase Hughes as a jury consultant, you may be entitled to compensation. Contact the law offices of Zachary Elwood: I’ve been a respected prosecutor since 2012: the amazing thing is I’ve never lost a case! Not many people can say that.  

Maybe an interesting aside, I was reaching out to some of the podcasts Chase appeared on several years ago, when he was still quite unknown. Basically these were the podcasts that Chase could then use to bolster perceptions that he was an expert. There’s a podcast called Tactical Behavioral Science, hosted by Steve Kuhn. This was an early example of someone just trusting that Chase was an expert. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTS8VBax6PM The description for that video reads in part: 

“The leading military and intelligence behavior expert with 20 years of creating the most advanced behavior skills courses and tactics available worldwide: Chase Hughes is a leading behavior expert in the United States and the #1 bestselling author of two books on tactical behavior skills. He is the author of the worldwide #1 bestselling book on advanced persuasion, influence and behavior profiling. Chase teaches elite groups, government agencies, and police in behavior science skills including behavior profiling, nonverbal analysis, deception detection, interrogation, and advanced behavioral investigation. His Tactical Behavior Science course is a critical, life-saving course designed for law enforcement, and his Human Tradecraft course is specifically designed for intelligence operations personnel who depend heavily on serious human behavior skills. Chase developed the groundbreaking, world-first interrogation behavior analysis tool and the T.F.C.A. cycle that revolutionized law enforcement training in the U.S. He is also the creator of the Pre-Violence Indicators Index, designed to alert personnel to pre-attack behaviors and save lives.”

When I emailed Steve about this and showed him my findings about Chase’s many lies, he wrote me back the following:

I met Chase while he was in the military, I advised him on marketing and getting himself out there and ge attributed his Entrepreneur magazine cover to my advisory.

I never met him personally and did all of our sessions on zoom.

I took his word at face value and cannot confirm nor refute any claims.

That opened up another interesting thing. What Entrepreneur magazine cover was he talking about? This was a reference to a program that Entrepreneur magazine once had called Oracles, where they would write things that seemed like real articles but that were paid and promotional. Here’s Chase’s from 2019: 

https://www.entrepreneur.com/leadership/behavior-science-expert-chase-hughes-trains-real-world/342717. This is just one of many things Chase did to make it seem, at a quick google search, that he had legitimate and impressive credentials. I go into detail on more of those things in the first video. There are plenty of pay to be featured websites, basically.   

In 2019, Chase posted this image to his Facebook https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2175292245904349&id=666955706738018&set=a.667786449988277&locale=sv_SE. It’s not clear to me if that is a graphic Entrepreneur made or something Chase made, but long story short, there is no Entrepreneur magazine cover story with Chase Hughes, as Steve Kuhn seemed to think.  

I think this gets to the heart of so much of this stuff. People are just trusting. The psychology researcher Tim Levine has a theory called Truth Default Theory and writes about deception and how we fall for deception. We just assume people are telling the truth, for the most part; and this is a pretty good approach in most cases. It mainly fails when we run into people like Chase who tell so many lies and when our reasons to doubt them aren’t tripped. We trust that a big podcast like Diary of a CEO would do some vetting; we trust that they wouldn’t have on a serial liar onto their show. I interviewed him about this a couple years ago; it was one of the more interesting and practically useful episodes I think I’ve done. If you’re interested in deception and in understanding behavior, I think you’d like it. https://behavior-podcast.com/questioning-if-body-language-is-useful-for-detecting-lies-with-tim-levine/

Let’s get back to Patrick Bet David’s video, the one titled “”The Government Manipulates YOU!” – Chase Hughes UNCOVERS CIA Tactics & PSYOPs Truths.” This is aligning with the conspiracy-minded thinking that Chase spread recently; where he spread the idea that the New Jersey drones were maybe a government psy-op, with the government purposefully fucking with us for some mysterious, creepy reason. That video has gotten about 3 million views on youtube at this point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTpQq1a9zhI. In that video, Chase used his pretend credentials to drum up fear, as he does in this Patrick Bet David video. He references all sorts of things from the past to create this fear; he references old stupid plots hatched by people during MK Ultra times; covert op ideas that had reached a peak of absurdity in the highly emotional Cold War times after WW 2. Nevermind that the things Chase brings up don’t seem to have any bearing on anything recently. 

Nevermind that Chase can’t point to anything recently that would resemble anything like a government trying to fuck with its citizens in such a silly way. It’s part of Chase’s brand to make you think extremely crazy and creepy and dark things are happening all around us; if he can make you believe that, his claims about all the amazing and dark and weird things he’s done will seem more credible to you.  

I’d say: if you’re curious about some of the MK Ultra things Chase likes to exaggerate and make seem like big amazing deals, go read a respected book on MK Ultra. The Search for the Manchurian Candidate. https://www.amazon.com/Search-Manchurian-Candidate-Behavioral-Sciences/dp/0393307948. Don’t listen to Chase about it. The truth is, similar to the UFO world, there are just so many people willing to exaggerate about what’s possible when it comes to hypnotizing people, or brainwashing and influencing people, or military psy-ops or other kinds of scary stuff. 

You should stay skeptical, for your own mental wellbeing and also because these are things that can distort your view of the world. If you’d like to read something I wrote for my book on political polarization on the topic of conspiracy theories, and how unlikely big hidden plots are, check out https://www.american-anger.com/post/conspiracy-theories. I think it’s important to be skeptical about such things and to view them realistically, because there are many paranoid, overly pessimistic narratives on the left and right, across political beliefs, and these things then can amplify our fear of each other and hatred of each other in ways that are completely unreasonable and make all sorts of things worse. Too many people are just way too paranoid about too many things lately; you owe it to yourself to question if you’re falling pray to overly pessimistic and paranoid thinking. You’re the only one who can enquire about such things and reach that conclusion; I’m just proposing that it’s good to ask if you’re maybe letting your biases and fears and things you think are true influence what you believe, which then feeds back in to support the things you already believe, in a self-reinforcing cycle. Try to apply Occam’s Razor; often the simplest explanations will make the most sense and will suffice. If you don’t have good reason to believe something, don’t believe it, even if you think it could be true, or if you think “that makes sense that would be true.” So many people are using their various angers and suspicions of various sorts to justify believing in all sorts of things; but I’m just suggesting that your emotions and fears can make you prone to believing bullshit, and even believing stuff that’s self-destructive to you and your relationships and ability to succeed in the world. The lower your bar gets for believing and indulging and sharing such information and beliefs, the worse off you’ll be. I’m just trying to help you and to try to work against the people like Chase Hughes who want to indulge your temptations to filter for pessimistic and dark and paranoid interpretations; again, Chase Hughes is not an expert; you should not listen to him. 

A common objection I get from Chase Hughes fans who write me goes basically like: But I’ve learned a lot from Chase; he shares some good information. If you’d like a longer rebuttal to that, check out my video about Chase Hughes and NLP, which goes into why so many people will leave good reviews for Chase and other people who share bad information and are exploitative. https://behavior-podcast.com/chase-hughes-and-how-he-put-a-military-top-secret-spin-on-nlp-hypnosis-seminar-ideas/ 

But long story short: Yes, Chase shares some good information. Anyone can read Wikipedia and share some interesting tidbits; Chase talks about the Milgram Experiment in that talk with Patrick Bet David; but the things he shared anyone could share after reading a bit about the experiment. The truth is that Charles Manson could give you some interesting tidbits and you’d learned some stuff. If Charles Manson hosted a podcast, we could learn a lot from him. Please on’t take that last sentence out of context, by the way. What I’m saying is that learning stuff from people is a really low bar. The much more important question is what completely bad and misleading and even harmful information might you be consuming from that person? Will you be able to spot the bad information and tell where the good information ends and the bad, harmful information begins? For someone like Chase who has told so many lies and done so many unethical things, the important question is: why would you even want to listen to someone like that? Go read a respected resource; or even just read Wikipedia; the standards for truth are clearly much higher on Wikipedia than they are in Chase’s brain. 

The other important question is: Will you be able to resist the exploitation when it comes? Will you be able to spot the exploitation? When Charles Manson is teaching you about MK Ultra and you’re learning a lot, and he says “well, sign up for my free course to learn a little more” will you be able to resist entering the funnel? Will you know when the funnel gets weird and dangerous? Or maybe just very expensive considering the weak and bad information you’ll be getting. 

No matter how educational Charles Manson’s podcast may be, there’s a chance he may have an ulterior motive. 

Now to be clear, I’m not saying Chase Hughes is like Charles Manson; I don’t know of anyone in his inner circle Chase has instructed to kill, for one thing. I’m just making a point about learning stuff being a completely trivial and low bar. I’m saying that it’s important to have a sense that where you get your information from is at least trying to respect you and respect the truth. Everyone makes mistakes, but few people tell massive lies about their experiences and credentials. 

Those are the important questions. 

Another objection I get from Chase Hughes’ fans or people who really want to believe his psy-ops claims because it aligns with their fears and views: they will say “Who are you? What’s your credentials?” My credentials aren’t important. I’m not the one making extraordinary claims about my expertise and and about what’s going on in the world. I’m the one just showing you why you need to ask more questions and be more skeptical. I’m just the one doing some very basic research that anyone could do to show you why you shouldn’t trust Chase Hughes and why you should in general avoid trusting people who make extraordinary, amazing claims. I’m the one arguing for more skepticism and doubt; my credentials aren’t important.

If I’ve gotten you to be a bit more skeptical about smooth talking people who make exceptional claims like Chase, I’ve done you a service, regardless if you agree with all my stances or not.  

All right, good luck out there. If Joe Rogan or Oprah Winfrey or the Today Show interviews Chase, I guess I’ll make another one of these but hopefully Chase has hit the peak of his scam curve and it starts trending a little downhill from here on out. 

This has been the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zach Elwood. Thanks for listening. 

Learn more

For a summary of information about Chase Hughes, see whoischasehughes.com.

Categories
podcast

Elon Musk’s polarization: Examining his contemptuous approaches to political disagreement

In June of 2024, I got an op-ed published in TheHill.com about Elon Musk’s polarization — specifically his affective polarization, which refers to how he perceives and treats his political opponents. Like many people in our highly polarized, angry society, Elon Musk treats the “other side” with much contempt and disdain. You can often find him insulting and demeaning people on his social media platform, as well as claiming to know with high certainty the hidden, malicious motives in his opponents’ minds. This episode includes a reading of my op-ed and some additional content. Topics discussed include: How conflict leads more and more people to behave in high-contempt ways; how high-contempt approaches amplify the conflict; why high-contempt approaches are self-defeating for one’s own goals and activism; how we can criticize “our side” to encourage better ways of engaging.

To learn more about my polarization work, see american-anger.com or sign up for my newsletter here.

A transcript is below.

Episode links:

Resources mentioned or related to this episode:

TRANSCRIPT

Welcome to the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zachary Elwood. This is a podcast aimed at better understanding the people around us: the things they do, the things they say. Their psychology and behavior. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com. As you might already know, I often focus on topics related to conflict and polarization; I’m the author of a couple books aimed at helping people understand and reduce toxic polarization – and these days I work full-time on the problem, between my own work and working with a non-profit organization. 

Since Trump’s election in November of 2024, Elon Musk has been getting a lot of attention so I thought it’d be worth sharing some thoughts about Elon’s polarization — specifically his affective polarization; that’s affective, spelled ‘affect’, which is not referring to swings in beliefs or stances, but referring to how people view the quote “other side”. When people talk about the problem of polarization, they’re largely talking about the highly contemptuous and pessimistic ways in which Elon and others view their political opponents and the contemptuous ways they engage with those they see as their political opponents. 

For quite a while, you can often find Mr. Elon Musk sharing very emotional and contemptuous takes on Twitter about all manner of incidents and events. For example, he often speaks as if it’s a certainty that Democrats want lax immigration laws to win elections; as if he can read minds; and that’s what people often do in conflict; you can find similar mind-readers on the left about Trump and other Republicans; about their dastardly, evil, hidden motivations for all sorts of stances. This is how you wind up with people expressing the utmost certitude that Laura Ingraham definitely performed a Nazi salute at the Republican convention despite there being no good evidence of that and even fact-checking sites saying that was unlikely (https://apokerplayer.medium.com/an-examination-of-extreme-polarized-liberal-side-political-rhetoric-from-a-r-95b7107a609b). We just know what’s in their hearts, after all. With great conflict comes great mind reading abilities. 

You can also find Elon regularly being factchecked by his own platforms community notes. Here’s a recent one where he shared a tweet by an account titled “Anti-left Memes” that read “I’m extremely worried about Germany” and referenced a headline that read “Pro-pedophile activist group celebrates as Germany decriminalizes child porn possession.” The community correction noted that “This is incorrect. The minimum sentences were reduced to allow courts flexibility. Before the change parents or teachers who reported child pornography would still have to be charged with posession and faced jailtime, which made no sense.” End quote. 

You can often find Elon behaving in these emotionally motivated ways; so much emotion. He also doesn’t seem to care about correcting mistakes; the ends, after all, justify the means when you view yourself as in a serious life and death battle. You won’t find him, for example, following up to that tweet of his saying “Oh, sorry, I got that wrong; here’s some more nuance about it.” No, to admit one was wrong or got carried away is weakness; you must always be waging the good vs evil, highly righteous fight. To hell with whoever criticizes such highly emotional and unreasonable approaches to our political battles; those people clearly don’t fucking get it; they must be clueless, or be enemies themselves.

Elon: “Go fuck yourselves” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_M_uvDChJQ). 

In June of 2024 I got an op-ed about Elon Musk’s polarization published in The Hill.com. My motivation to get that op-ed out was related to some frustration about how little people talk about how conflict and polarization play out in society; there is often, for people like Musk or other well known people engaged in the political and cultural wars, a tendency for us to focus on beliefs, and not on the much more important dimension, in my opinion, of how they engage with those they disagree with. 

Clearly Musk isn’t the only person who engages with high contempt with people he disagrees with; that is unfortunately par for the course these days for many; that is what conflict leads many of us to do. 

As I mention in this op-ed I’ll read to you, when I or others criticize Musk for such things, there will be a reaction from people who agree with Musk that I am attacking his beliefs. This is because we, as a society, simply lack a good language for not separating how we engage from what we believe. We conflate them. This, among other reasons, is why I think we, as a culture and as a species, are just fundamentally, deeply ignorant about conflict dynamics. We too often conflate beliefs with how we engage; we fail to see that how we engage, how we disagree, is an entirely different dimension from our disagreements over issues — in my opinion, it’s a much more important dimension. Because we’ll just always disagree about all sorts of morally charged questions; that’s a given. 

One way to see what I mean: recently someone who largely agrees with Elon Musk’s stances wrote to me on Twitter, basically saying “Elon’s driven himself crazy; It surprises me that more people don’t talk about that.” This person talked about how we should be able to agree with people’s stances while seeing that their minds have been addled by conflict and us vs them thinking and contempt. I wish that were the case, but the truth is that we have a really hard time distinguishing such things; we’ll make excuses for people on “our side” or tell ourselves the battle is too important to level criticisms at people on “our side,” these kinds of things. Or we’ll just be too anxious to level such criticisms. 

Elon Musk would probably take offense to these criticisms. But the interesting thing is that I think these are criticisms that would help him be more effective. I think the high-contempt approaches Elon takes are self-defeating, just as all contemptuous approaches generally are. They help create the very pushback that bothers them. That’s what conflict leads us to do. We may even know or suspect that our high-contempt 

There is a tendency to think that the contemptuous, aggressive ways are helpful. That that is how “we win.” Elon and Trump and others may see Trump’s election, no matter it being very close, as proof that aggressive, contemptuous ways are necessary; that such approaches win. But the election was close: Harris got 48.3% of popular vote, Trump got 49.8%; that’s what I’m seeing now. And it’s easy to imagine if the Democrat candidate were more popular Trump would have lost. These are close numbers. It’s like 2 million people. It may be a decisive victory but it’s not in my opinion or in many other people’s view a landslide. If you think it’s a landslide, I’d ask you to consider how you’d feel about it if the winner was reversed; would you still feel it was a landslide? Or wuld you look for other framings to downplay how significant a loss it was? My only point is to say it was quite close, as most of our elections have been recently, no matter the winner. 

If Trump had lost, would Elon and Trump and others think “huh, maybe we should try a different, less contemptuous approach?” No, because that is seldom how people feel when they feel they’re engaged in a serious battle. Many would reach the conclusion; we’ve got to fight harder, more aggressively; we need to persuade others of how horrible our opponents are at heart; how malicious their motivations are. That is the conclusions many Democrats and anti-Trump people reaach; we have to be more like Trump, many say; we have to be more vicious. And you can find Republicans saying the same thing: we have to be more ruthless, more like Democrats. Conflict always leads us to find justifications to ramp up the contempt and aggression. 

Let’s say Republicans lose in 2028, and many of their policies are rolled back. Do you think that’d be an occasion that would lead Republicans to think: maybe if we weren’t so contemptuous, we’d be more persuasive and actually win more? Is it possible Trump’s aggressive, contemtpuous style of politics is actually hurting us? Could we actually win more votes with more persuasive, respectful dialogue? No, many would simply think “We’ve got to fight harder, and be more ruthless.” 

People on both sides fail to see how their high-contempt approaches are often self-defeating. They fail to see that they catch more flies with honey than with hate. They fail to see that such approaches end up creating pushback to your stances, making the quote “other side” more extreme and committed — and also, it can mean that, if and when you lose power (as you often will) you’ll find that the animosity and pushback in society that you’ve helped create then results in many of your wins being shortlived, with the seesaw fluctuating the other way.  

When I interviewed psychologist Matthew Hornsey, who’s studied group psychology and persuasion across group boundaries, something he said stuck with me. He said, and I quote:

That’s another thing I’ve had to let go of, is that I always thought that when people were arguing about ideas, they were trying to persuade the other group. And then it took me a while to realize that actually that’s not true either. Because if they actually thought they were trying to persuade the group, they’d do it differently. I think often what they’re doing is that they’re just enjoying the tribalism and they’re enjoying marinating in their own kind of virtuousness and they’re enjoying signaling to their own side their credentials as an in-group member.

End quote. 

Okay next I’ll read you the op-ed I wrote for The Hill. The op-ed has various links to resources to back up and reference some of my points, so if you want to see the op-ed for that reason, I’ll put a link to it on my site in the entry for this episode. Along with some other related resources. 

The op-ed was titled “Elon Musk is making political debate more toxic — here’s how to change course.” For what it’s worth, I actually didn’t like that title; that was chosen by the editors. Sometimes you have to choose your battles. Okay I’m going to read the op-ed now. 

[The op-ed is here.]

Categories
podcast

“Gimbal” UFO video and other famous videos explained in new documentary

Brian Dunning, creator of the Skeptoid podcast, has a documentary out that brings a skeptical, analytical eye to the recent UFO craze – including those three famous UFO videos that got a lot of attention in a 2017 New York Times article. His documentary has the tongue-in-cheek title “The UFO Movie They Don’t Want You To See.” You can find it at www.briandunning.com/ufo. I think more people need to see Brian’s movie; it explained a lot and now I feel like I finally understand those videos. It’s been surprising how little attention the more rational, analytical explanations for those videos have gotten. If you’re someone who’s seen those videos and thought “What the hell is going on?” I think you’ll want to watch Brian’s movie. In this short episode I focus on one specific explanation for one of the videos in question.

Episode links:

Related resources:

TRANSCRIPT:

This is the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zach Elwood. This is a podcast aimed at examining and better understanding human psychology and behavior. You can learn more about it and subscribe to the podcast on various channels at behavior-podcast.com. 

In this episode I’m going to talk about those mysterious UFO videos that were released by the Pentagon in 2017 and that came to prominence via coverage in the New York Times. I’m going to focus on one of them, the video titled ‘Gimbal’ which featured a seemingly strange vehicle flying at fast speeds and seeming to rotate in strange ways. 

And just a note that if you’re listening to this on audio, this is heavily video focused so you’ll probably prefer to watch the video version on youtube. It will be okay on audio, as I try to explain things, but video would be better. 

In 2023, I interviewed Brian Dunning, who has run the Skeptoid podcast since 2006, examining all sorts of topics with skepticism and critical thinking. As Brian said when i interviewed him, he doesn’t like the term “debunking” to describe what he does, but he has debunked a lot of bad information. I first learned of him when I got interested in the Erin Brokovich case and read his examination of the many mistruths about that case that were contained in the well-known Julia Roberts movie. 

Long story short: we are surrounded by bullshit these days. We’ve got the internet and social media, which is just a huge source of bullshit. We’ve got podcasters and influencers who don’t care if they share all sorts of bullshit and bad information with their audience as long as it gets clicks and makes money. We’ve got fictionalized movies loosely based on real events and biased documentaries, and many people trusting that these movies contain real and trustworthy information. Then we’ve got a political polarization problem, which results in many people tending to engage in emotional, team-based thinking, which makes them propagators of bullshit and bad information without knowing it. 

And I think Brian Dunning has done some great work helping people navigate all this bullshit. He’s helped me navigate it. I highly recommend signing up to his newsletter, which you can find at briandunning.substack.com. https://briandunning.substack.com/ And I recommend you do a paid subscription; honestly, whatever Brian is making, I think he deserves more money; he’s just done great and important work over the years. 

So recently I watched Brian’s UFO documentary, which is titled The UFO Movie They Don’t Want You To See. That’s a tongue in cheek title; just a funny nod by Brian to conspiracy-minded thinking. You can watch the movie on Amazon or with ads on YouTube. You can learn more about it at https://www.briandunning.com/ufo/

Long story short: if you want to understand those mysterious videos released by the military back in 2017, which got so much attention in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/us/politics/pentagon-program-ufo-harry-reid.html) and other places, you need to watch Brian’s documentary. It helped explained so much of the mystery there for me, because I did, like a lot of people, find those videos so mysterious. I had a hard time imagining what the explanations could be, based on what i’d seen. So I’m going to share some snippets from Brian’s documentary to give you a little glimpse of some of the explanations, but really you need to go watch the whole thing. 

So let’s start with this video; the so-called ‘gimbal’ video, which was taken by Navy pilots and was written about in a 2017 New York Times article titled Glowing Auras and ‘Black Money’: The Pentagon’s Mysterious U.F.O. Program. Let’s watch some of that. 

[PLAY CLIP OF GIMBAL UFO]

Pretty wild looking. If you’re anything like me, you watched that and went “what the hell?” and were very impressed. It’s not just the video itself, but the pilots’ clear shock and confusion at what they’re seeing that really sells it. 

Now let’s watch a clip from the UFO Movie They Don’t Want You To See. This is a clip from about an hour in where Brian is talking to a researcher named Mick West about how that object could represent either something very close to the camera or something very far away. 

[CLIP FROM BRIAN’S UFO MOVIE]

Let’s stop it there and discuss this, as it goes by rather quickly and the video is counterintuitive. And so much of these explanations come back to the deceptive nature of video. As a video/film major myself, I’m very much aware of how much video footage can be deceptive; people tend to think and say things about how “video doesn’t lie” – but video can actually really distort our perceptions. Sometimes there are multiple explanations and factors involved in why a video seems to us the way it does. A video can lie; or at least, our instinctual interpretation of what a video shows can be very, very wrong. 

So as you’re watching this video, instead of thinking about it as something up close, imagine it as something fixed, in the distance. Something on the horizon. Such an object would stay in the same place on the screen. As Mick West says, it could either be something close and moving fast, or something far and not moving at all. 

Now, you may be thinking; but it’s staying the same size; that means it must be an object traveling near us. If it were something far away, it would be smaller or getting smaller if it was receding. The fact that it stays the same size supports our instinctual interpretation that it’s an object somewhat near the camera, moving at high speed. But Mick says it’s not an object we’re seeing; it’s likely an glare of infrared light, and a glare can be quite large. So as you’re watching this, imagine it’s just some sort of glare far away on the horizon; something many miles away. Imagine you’d put on some infrared specs and were just seeing some sort of bright, amorphous glare from something hot far away. 

So now we get to the infamous rotation; the thing that made it seem extra weird. Let’s watch what he says about that:

[CLIP FROM BRIAN’S UFO MOVIE]

So, to sum up: the nature of the video system is that it must rotate in order to keep a static image of the thing it’s tracking. This makes sense as the jet is moving very fast, which makes it require various advanced rotation systems to keep its static shot. And every lens has various traits and imperfections, so as the camera lens rotates, the artifact, the glare, rotates also. Think of your own camera phone; you’ve probably noticed it has little ways it distorts light and that as you rotate your phone those distortions rotate with the camera. 

So let’s watch that video again, and this time imagine you’re watching some heat glare from a distant jet and that the camera lens is rotating, causing the artifact to rotate. 

The documentary goes into more detail about that video. As far as I’m concerned, they explained away the mystery of that video. The only remaining questions I have about that particular video is why the pilots thought it was so strange; wouldn’t they have seen other artifacts like that? Has anyone asked them or other pilots about that and the commonness of that?  

Another interesting thing about the ‘gimbal’ video is that one of the pilots mentions that they saw a fleet of those objects. We don’t see those in the camera system, though, so we don’t know what he’s referring to. But it seems possible if they saw other ones on their visual tracking system, then maybe it was a fleet of jets that had several infrared glares. I don’t know, though. That’s another thing I’m curious about. 

The full documentary has several other interesting explanations of the other well known videos that were released in 2017. The documentary also delves into some of the more famous UFO myths and stories that are often told by UFOs fans and alien-visitation true believers. I watched the movie with a couple UFO buffs and they found it very interesting and educational. 

After watching Brian’s video, the main question I and my friends had was why we hadn’t heard these explanations before. It struck me as so strange that I hadn’t seen these explanations in major newspapers, or hadn’t seen the military trying to explain these things. 

I asked Brian why that was and he wrote me the following: 

Journalists absolutely have reported it — it just doesn’t make the headlines because it’s the least sensational version of the story. 

And if you read the reports from AARO (https://www.aaro.mil/ All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office), it’s clear they’ve come to the same conclusion, and sound like they have watched Mick West’s videos, though that’s obviously not the only way to come to the right conclusions. 

The reason the UFOlogists continue screaming that the government won’t give this the attention it’s due is that they don’t like what the government concluded when they did give it the attention it’s due.

Again, that was Brian’s message to me. It seems like a lot of things these days, more sensational stories travel faster and get the most attention. More sensational stories are spread around by various other news channels and podcasters and influencers; the more serious and skeptical work gets far less attention; maybe it’s mentioned in an article but, because it’s not as exciting, nobody’s talking about it on youtube or instagram or facebook or whatever; the multitude of shitty news sites don’t want to talk about the more analytical and boring stuff as much. 

All in all, this was a bit of a journey for me. Back when I interviewed Brian Dunning in 2023, we talked about a range of things, including acupuncture, chiropractor work, and UFOs. Back then I was actually a pretty firm believer that something very strange was happening with these UFO videos and UFO sightings. To be clear: I still think it’s possible something strange is happening; more even than the rather weak video evidence, I find some of the reports by experienced jet pilots about multiple sightings of objects, like those featured on the 60 Minutes episode about UFOs, to be interesting and unusual. But Brian’s work has helped me approach this entire topic with a lot more information and healthy skepticism. More importantly, my journey on learning about these UFO videos has helped me approach other topics with more skepticism, as it’s easy for me to remember the feeling of getting so excited and going with the crowd about the UFO videos, and then coming back down to earth a bit. 

So thank you for your work, Brian Dunning. If you liked this, please go watch Brian’s movie and become a paid subscriber to his substack https://briandunning.substack.com/. He deserves your money and support. Also, check out my talk with Brian in 2023; we talk about various topics and also about the meta-level topic of why people are so gullible. 

This has been the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zach Elwood. Thanks for your interest.

Categories
podcast

A dumb 1960s book on reading physical aspects of faces

I thought it’d be interesting to read a very dumb book from 1969 called “Face Reading: A Guide to How the Human Face Reveals Personality, Sexuality, Intelligence, Character, and More.” To be clear: this is a very bad book with no sense/logic to it, basically astrology-like, and I’m reading it just because I was curious what it said and thought some other people would find it interesting. I’m generally curious about the weird things people believe; also curious about some stereotypes that were present about such things in the 60s era. I thought it was an interesting relic and some other people might also think so.

Episode links:

Categories
podcast

I ask an 8-year-old about her belief in Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and more

I interrogate an 8-year-old about her belief in magical creatures, including: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, the Boogey Man, mermaids, gods and devils, and more. We also get on the subject of dreams and the nature of her mental imagery (e.g., aphantasia).

Episode links:

This was a segment of an interview from 2021. For the full interview, go here.

Categories
podcast

Fake intel/psy-op expert Chase Hughes spreads paranoia about New Jersey drones being psy-op

I didn’t share this episode on the audio podcast platforms; I put it up only on YouTube.

I saw that Chase Hughes, a serial liar who I’ve examined in the past for this podcast, was getting a lot of views for a video promoting the idea that the New Jersey drone sightings might be a government psy-op (psychological operation). So I made a YouTube video to try to educate people about a) the silliness and lies of Chase Hughes, and b) along the way to talk about the badness of reaching for paranoid conspiracy theories without strong evidence.

The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upRfGugO2gA

Categories
podcast

To avoid polarization destroying us, we must recognize how “our side” contributes

No matter who wins the election, we’ll likely see toxic political polarization get worse, at least for a time. To avoid us tearing ourselves apart, we need more Americans to see that we’re caught in a feedback loop of conflict. Each group’s contempt and fear provoke contempt and fear from the “other side,” in a self-reinforcing cycle. Political scientist Lee Drutman refers to this as the “doom loop.”

This is a reading of a piece I wrote for my Defusing American Anger Substack: that piece is here. If you think these ideas are important, or if you’re skeptical and want to learn more, check out my books at www.american-anger.com.

Episode links:

Categories
podcast

Taking Trump’s words out of context: How that drives conflict, and even helps Trump

In a recent Fox News interview, Trump was asked whether he thought there would be chaos and violence if he won the election, and his response included mentioning that, if necessary, the military might be needed. Many framed this response as indicating that Trump would go after his political opponents using the military, leaving out the context that he was responding to a question about election-related violence. I discuss what this incident can teach us about our toxic political divides.

A transcript, post-release show notes, and resources related to this episode are farther down below.

Topics discussed include: Republican-side grievances and how incidents like this relate; how conflict leads us to filter things in more pessimistic and negative ways; the self-reinforcing nature of conflict; the reasons why people framed Trump’s statements the way they did; Trump’s “bloodbath” language and similar reactions to that; the ease with which we can be biased without even realizing it, and more.

Episode links:

Show notes:

  • I think there are areas of nuance here that result in people talking about different aspects of it and misunderstanding each other.
    • For example, a piece by Tangle News focused on the badness of Trump saying he might use the military on protesters. I see the badness of that as quite debatable as I think there are scenarios where that’d be a reasonable response. Also Trump did say “if necessary,” which leaves a lot of room for ambiguity. But in any case Tangle’s focus was different than mine; I focused on people leaving out the context of the question Trump was asked, and framing it as if he were talking about dealing with his political opponents generally. (Learn why I recommend Tangle.)
  • As I discuss in this episode, when making these points I’ll receive criticisms like, “Trump is unhinged and dangerous; it’s clear what he meant.” (You can see a response like this in these comments. ) But the fact that I and others can have very different interpretations of these moments shows that the meaning of such things is not obvious. And hopefully you can see that you can think Trump is horrible while also seeing how overly pessimistic framings are bad and unhelpful (and while also seeing how such things can actually help Trump).

Resources related to this episode:

TRANSCRIPT

This is the People Who Read People podcast, with me, Zachary Elwood. This is a podcast about understanding people better, and understanding ourselves better. You can learn more about it at behavior-podcast.com. Also on my site are entries for these episodes with related resources and transcripts and more. 

In this episode, I’m going to discuss something in political news that bothered me a few days ago. I think it’s a good example of something quite specific and granular that tells us a lot about how our political divides work on a broader level. 

If you do disagree with me, I’d ask you to keep in mind the broader point that disagreeing on these things is easy. Often for these contentious issues, disagreement on political views or disagreement about specific points becomes a reason for people to walk away from thinking about these ideas. But if you can see the meta-level point that it’s easy for us to see things in very different ways, that’s very much related to the points I make in this video. 

In an October 14th interview on Fox News, Trump said some insulting and divisive things about liberals and Democrats, as he often does; He used the phrase the “enemy within” to talk about his political enemies, and discussed specific people, like Adam Schiff, who he saw as his enemies. During that talk, he was asked by the host, Maria Bartiroma, what he thought about the chances for violence after the election if he were to win. I’ll play that clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmmx1zQCQds

Maria: Are you expecting chaos on election day?

Trump: No, I don’t – not from the side that votes for Trump.

Maria: But I’m just wondering if these outside agitators will start up on election day. Let’s say you win. I mean, let’s remember, you’ve got 50,000 Chinese nationals in this country in the last couple years, there are people on the terrorist watch list: 350 in the last couple years. You got, like you said, 13,000 murderers and 15 thousand rapists, um, what are you expecting? Joe biden says he doesn’t think it’s going to be a peaceful election day.

Trump: Well, he doesn’t have any idea what’s happening – he spends most of his day sleeping. Uh, I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. Not even the people that have come in and are destroying our country – by the way, totally destroying our country, the towns, the villages, they’re being inundated – but I don’t think they’re the problem in terms of election day. I think the bigger problem are the people from within – we have some very bad people, we have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think – and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen. 

Trump’s mention of using the military was then framed in extremely negative terms by many in the media; ways that seem extremely biased to me. Here are a few examples of what I mean: 

Here’s a clip from New York Times’ The Daily podcast: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/17/podcasts/the-daily/election-roundtable.html (4:30)  Note that here they conflate together the “enemy within” language with the statement about the use of the military. Again, they don’t mention that there was a question about election-related violence that prompted the remark on the military. This show was the reason I started looking into this, because I was frankly pretty surprised by their framing and the lack of context given. 

Here’s a similar clip from Jake Tapper: https://www.instagram.com/p/DBM2-F8O1GH/?hl=en

Here’s a headline from NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/us/politics/trump-opponents-enemy-within.html: Trump Escalates Threats to Political Opponents He Deems the ‘Enemy’: Never before has a presidential nominee openly suggested turning the military on Americans simply because they oppose his candidacy. 

Here’s a headline from MSNBC: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-enemies-within-military-protest-rcna175410: A military that quashes protest is a part of Donald Trump’s fascistic dream

Kamala Harris also talked about it. She said, during a Fox News talk, that Trump suggested he would quote “turn the American military on the American people.” https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/truth-be-told/truth-be-told-trumps-threat-to-use-military-against-enemy-from-within 

Now, to be clear here, I myself am very much anti-Trump – but I’m also someone who is concerned about what some far left people might do if Trump is elected. For the upcoming election, one of the paths to worst-case scenarios I see involves Trump winning followed by far left people doing bad things, which then leads to counter protestors doing bad things, and to escalating street violence, and then to Trump and others cracking down harshly on protestors, leading to more outrage and protests, and more crackdown, and so on. That’s one of the pathways that scares me. 

So the idea that there may theoretically be a substantial amount of violence and the idea that it may theoretically be necessary to use the National Guard to break up protests isn’t an unreasonable idea to me. 

Also we should note that Trump was prompted to answer here, so he had to say something, and note that he also did say, “if necessary.” This wasn’t a statement he produced out of the blue; when analyzing statements for meaning, we must differentiate between prompted speech and speech that one produced unprompted. 

This statement from Trump about the theoretical use of military force, if you subtract all his usual “sick and bad people” type language surrounding it, struck me as quite banal, all things considered, and as the kind of thing that Kamala Harris might say, using different language, if asked about the possibility of far right violence if she won. From my point of view, this was a quite minor moment compared to some of the much more objectively bad things Trump said in this talk, including calling his political opponents the “enemy within” and other things. The thing is with Trump: there are just so many more clearly and unambiguously objectionable things to focus on, which makes it a strange decision by anti-Trump people to focus on the more subjective things he’s said. 

Some people thought that Trump’s “enemy within” language showed that he was talking about more than just violent protestors, because that’s a term he used elsewhere to describe his political opponents in general. But that to me is not persuasive evidence; we know Trump likes to speak in extremely divisive and insulting and dehumanizing ways about his opponents. But granted that we know that, it’s not surprising that he would keep using the same phrase, the “enemy within” to describe his enemies as a whole, and that he’d fail to distinguish between the different types of his so-called “enemies.” We also know that Trump loves catchphrases; he often will go a while using the same phrase, because he just seems to get a kick out of using it. This is just to say that the claim that he was talking about his opponents in general as opposed to violent protestors specifically is not an objectively obvious or provable one; I think that it’s overly pessimistic. 

At the very least, even if you disagree with me on that, maybe you’d agree that it would have been good and responsible journalism to mention that the statement about the military came after he was asked about potential election-related violence. 

In my books on polarization, my main focus is on the self-reinforcing nature of conflict. When you take the worst-case interpretations of everything your adversaries say and do, you amplify the toxicity of the conflict. It’s entirely expected that these pessimistic takes and interpretations should happen, when we’re conflict; that’s what conflict does to us. Pessimism begets pessimism. People on both sides of the conflict see the other side in increasingly negative and pessimistic ways, and then filter everything through that lens, and so on. 

If you care about reducing the toxicity of our divides, or even if you mainly are interested in accomplishing specifical political goals, you should care about how this cycle gets worse, and you should want to work against it.

And not only that: worst-case interpretations help build support for the “other side.” Our worst-case, pessimistic interpretations help those on the other side of the conflict construct their narratives where we are the bad guys. We’ll often view our own behaviors and statements as reactions to the other side’s badness, but they will see our criticisms and reactions as provocations and aggressions. For this specific incident, it’s easy to imagine how Republican-leaning voters view this: these are the incidents that confirm for them why they are right to distrust liberal-leaning mainstream media. I’ll say that even for me, these incidents are extremely disappointing and agitating; for one thing, it means that when I hear the latest outrage on the liberal side, in respected liberal outlets, I can no longer trust that things happened as they’re claimed to have happen; when I hear something that Trump or Republicans did that is supposedly worthy of outrage, I can’t trust the sources anymore, I have to go do my own research. This is what’s so frustrating about this, even apart from the fact that I see these things as amplifying conflict for no good reason. 

If you’re curious to learn more about that, I have a talk with Yakov Hirsch in the backlog of episodes, where we talk about the importance of anti-Trump people having cognitive empathy for Trump and Trump supporters; for understanding why Republicans can perceive a huge, biased system aligned against them, and how that makes them feel and act. Again, in all of these areas, you can arrive at empathy and understanding for other people’s narratives without agreeing with their views. Contrary to what our instincts tell us, understanding does not equal agreeing.

Here’s a clip from Maria Bartiromo’s show yesterday, October 20th, where she talks about people taking Trump’s statement out of context https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLR1c9tEvz4&t=12m40s:  

No surprise this week to see the media critique and misread my exclusive interview with President Trump last weekend when he responded to my question about whether outside agitators would emerge to create chaos and election day should it appear that Trump was winning instead most media Outlets cut out my question entirely to suggest Trump wanted the military to take down his political enemies here’s a clip.

[Here she plays the clip from her interview…]

Following my interview Democrats and many mainstream media outlets constructed their own political narrative without including the full context of the Q&A about outside agitators on Election Day among the media Outlets that ran misleading headlines NPR Vanity Fair the part and many others and this is how the interview was covered on television: 

Watch this in a Fox news interview the former president also suggested using the military to go after what he called the enemy from within on Election Day it comes as former president Trump is deploying increasingly inflammatory rhetoric against his rival and suggesting using the military against what he described as domestic enemies it we’re at the point where where he’s saying I’m going to use the National Guard and the military to take my political enemies out of the country talking about but I’m talking about

Donald Trump saying that he wants to use the National Guard in the military to go after the left that’s what he’s saying on the campaign Trail Trump this weekend stepping up his anti-immigrant rhetoric and suggesting he might use the military against quote radical left lunatics on Election Day. 

Joining me now in this Sunday Morning Futures exclusive is Trump organization Executive Vice President and the son of the 45th president Eric Trump. Eric, great to see you thank you for being here your reaction. 

Eric: Thanks Maria listen my reaction is very simple. I’ve lived this for 10 years Maria I mean it started with the dirty dossier where they made up the most Unthinkable things about my father then they went to

the Russia hoax and that hung over my father’s presidency for threeyear period of time then they tried to impeach him the first time then they went after Brett Kavanaugh then they tried to impeach him the second time then they raided his home they raided melania’s closet they raided you know Baron’s room then they tried to take him off the valley in Colorado then they tried to take him off the ballot in Maine then they weaponized every AG and DA in Atlanta in New York and in Washington DC to go after my father then you had you know Paige and stru and and Comey you had me getting 111 subpoenas you had

them ban him from Twitter ban him from Facebook ban him from Instagram the they I I mean where do you want me to stop and and that’s exactly what my father’s talking about that’s the enemy within. 

I include this clip not because I agree with what Eric Trump says; in fact, I think Eric is someone that, like many people these days, has been deranged by conflict. He filters everything about the quote “other side” through the worst possible lens, and it’s a very distorted lens, in my opinion. He sees everyone on the quote “other side” as all being aligned against him, as all being part of a big plot; that is also what conflict does to us. He filters everything through a very pessimistic lens while being unable to empathize with the reasons why people view his father so negatively. Remember that Eric Trump is the person who said, about Trump’s political opponents, “I’ve never seen hatred like this. To me, they’re not even people.” He can’t see the big picture of the conflict; he is only focused on the badness of his opponents, as he sees it. And it’s easy for conflict to derange us; easier than we think.  https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/6/7/15755852/eric-trump-not-people-dehumanization 

I include this clip to help people understand how incidents like this one fit into the broader narrative building that happens on the Republican side where Trump’s enemies are the undemocratic ones, willing to do and say whatever they can to make Trump look bad. Again, you don’t have to agree with that to understand why people feel that way, and to see why that can be a large factor in support for Trump. Grievance and anger are big factors in our politics; more so than most people want to believe, on either side. 

Another prominent example of this dynamic was around Trump’s “bloodbath” comment, in which he made the statement that, if he lost, “it’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.” I’ll play that clip:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtE4Z0yWbPA 

[PLAY CLIP]

As with the statement about use of the military, this specific phrase struck me when it happened and got media attention as a non-issue. Listening to Trump’s statement in context, it struck me as completely banal. The kind of thing that would pass unnoticed by most people if people besides Trump were to say it. 

Supporting the view that it was rather banal, I’ll read a snippet on this incident from Factcheck.org https://www.factcheck.org/2024/03/trumps-bloodbath-comment/

“If you actually watch and listen to the section, he was talking about the auto industry and tariffs,” Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Trump’s campaign, told the Washington Post, adding that “Biden’s policies will create an economic bloodbath for the auto industry and autoworkers.”

That explanation seems the most plausible, given the context of Trump’s comments.

End quote

Also supporting evidence for this is the fact that one of the understood meanings of bloodbath is an “economic disaster.” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bloodbath 

And yet, in this case, also, many smart and influential people, from academics to political leaders to pundits, ran with the most pessimistic interpretation possible.   

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have both repeated the claim that Trump’s “bloodbath” language was meant to predict or threaten violence if he lost. 

In the debate in June, Biden talked about this:  https://www.c-span.org/video/?536407-1/simulcast-cnn-presidential-debate

 “And now he says if he loses again, such a whiner that he is, that there could be a bloodbath.” 

Here’s a clip from Kamala Harris from their debate in September:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYbTQ4MmqdY “Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be a bloodbath.”

Tim Snyder, https://snyder.substack.com/p/the-bloodbath-candidate is the author of the best-selling book On Tyranny, in which he makes the case that Trump poses an authoritarian threat. Snyder framed it as obvious, in context, that Trump really did mean a physical and literal bloodbath. He made the case on his substack that one must put Trump’s statement into context. After laying out the context he saw, he wrote: 

By now we have taken into account some important contexts: how Trump himself introduced his speech; the politics and mendacity of his coup attempt of 2021; and the history of fascist violence generally.  All of this confirms that when Trump threatens a bloodbath he means a bloodbath.  

Later he writes:

The people who say that the car context rescues Trump ignore the meaningful contexts: history, Trump, the opening of the rally, what he said in the speech generally.  Focusing on the cars has the effect of casting away the fascist overture and rest of the speech, and all of the other contexts.  Those who speciously insist that Trump had in mind an automotive bloodbath never mention that he had just celebrated criminals, repeated the big lie, dehumanized people, and followed fascist patterns.

This helps us see the explanation for why smart people, people who I think should know better, can justify overly pessimistic interpretations: They think that you must take into account all the context and look behind the surface level meaning. The arguments in that direction tend to sound like this: “We know how bad Trump really is and the many bad things he’s said before; we can’t give him the benefit of the doubt” and “Don’t be naive; we know what he was really thinking; he tries to speak in ambiguous ways so you can’t be sure exactly what he means but we know better.”

But this is all quite bad logic to me: these are justifications for taking the worst-case interpretations of things people say; they aren’t logical reasons why you should do that. 

For one thing, reaching for the most pessimistic interpretations possible is what people on both sides of an extreme conflict will find themselves doing. This is what Trump and Republicans do to their opponents all the time. This is what conflict does to us. If we want to work against conflict, we must see it as important to not jump to pessimistic conclusions about everything around us. The truth is that in the course of speaking, all of us every day say things that could be taken in extremely pessimistic ways; there is no shortage of things to use to build pessimistic narratives. And if we do that for other people, they’ll be more inclined to do it for us. 

The impulse to engage in mind-reading is one clue of this mindset; we see this from highly angry people on both sides of our divide; people who say things like “We know what’s in their hearts; we know what’s in their minds; we know the dark, dangerous things our opponents are thinking.” 

For another thing, if your goal is to criticize Trump, there are just so many things Trump has said that are worthy of criticism and that don’t require reaching for subjective, ambiguous, and non-persuasive interpretations. If your goal is to persuade others of Trump’s badness, reaching for the most subjective and ambiguous examples of his behavior are a surefire way to drive people away from you and make them see your arguments and your concerns as silly. Think about it from a Trump voter’s perspective for a moment: when they see people overreacting about Trump’s “blood bath” language and his mention of using the military to quell unrest if necessary, they will find it easy to write off other liberal-side concerns about Trump. They will find it easy to think anti-Trump people are overreacting in general.  https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/us/elections/trump-promises-extreme-rhetoric.html 

Another defense I hear is from people who agree that these aren’t good things, but who say: “But the problems are so much worse on the other side; why are you focused on this small stuff?” But hopefully by the time you’re done this video, you’ll have a better sense of why I find these things so important to talk about and to consider.  

Pessimism and contempt beget more pessimism and contempt. For people who see liberal-leaning media acting in biased ways, they will also reach for pessimistic conclusions, like, “The media knows they’re lying; they’re purposefully lying to hurt Trump; this is all part of a big plot.” 

But this is another overly pessimistic interpretation. The simple fact is that conflict produces bias and overly pessimistic views. Conflict diverges our narratives, making it harder for us to understand the narratives people on the quote “other side” have. In my book Defusing American Anger, I include a section on our polarized, divergent views of Trump, where I talk about how we can arrive at such divergent, entirely different views of the things Trump has said and done. 

[Show diagram] When you see these dynamics clearly, you’ll have a better understanding of things that can be rather mystifying. For example, on a personal note, I’ll say that it’s rather mystifying to me how smart people in the liberal-leaning media can so often arrive at these extremely pessimistic and, to me, illogical, takes about Trump. Why are they focusing on these subjective and non-persuasive things, I wonder. In the same way, I am often perplexed by the very unreasonable and divisive framings of things in conservative-leaning news. It would be quite easy for me to reach conclusions like, “All the reporters and leaders I think are speaking in very divisive and biased ways are purposefully trying to deceive people.” It would be very easy to jump to extremely pessimistic conclusions about so many people. But because I’m someone who works against pessimism, I think it’s important to examine the underlying causes at work. Smart and compassionate people can arrive at views they believe are completely defensible and logical but that I and others see as extremely biased and misleading. Just as Timothy Snyder can defend his framing of Trump’s “bloodbath” comments by arguing it’s all about the context and putting the pieces together, others in various ways are doing the same thing. They are connecting the dots in various ways. 

For example, for Trump’s military comments recently, some made the argument that it was clear, from the context of the rest of the aggressive and divisive interview, that Trump’s statement about using the military didn’t just apply to violent protestors; that in the context of him talking about the “enemy within” and talking specifically about Pelosi and Adam Schiff and such elsewhere in the talk, that it was clear that he was insinuating violence in general against his so-called enemies as a broad group. As I previously said, I don’t find this persuasive logic, as it requires deductions and assumptions, but I can understand how they got to that stance. 

The truth is that we’re all making all sorts of deductions and assumptions every day. Our logic and our thinking are built on all sorts of assumptions and deductions. And what does conflict and polarization do to us? It makes what we focus on and the deductions we make more pessimistic, and more hysterical; it makes our thinking itself more team-based and unreasonable. As humans, we’re good at assembling stories; we’re good at assembling the pieces of the puzzle in all sorts of ways, and often the picture we put together will be overly dark and scary. 

This is just to say: if you’re someone who is drawn to often thinking that people on the “other side” are always lying; that they can’t possibly believe the things they say they believe – I hope you consider that, more often than you think, those people really do believe what they say they believe. This is not to say there aren’t liars (because conflict makes people more willing to lie, too), but just to say that often our divergence in narratives will mean we’ll have a hard time distinguishing between true believers and liars. 

Our divergent narratives and interpretations will lead to moments like this https://www.mediaite.com/tv/jake-tapper-shuts-down-mike-johnsons-spin-of-trumps-enemy-within-comments-hes-literally-talking-about-using-the-military-against-democrats/ between two people who I think do genuinely have completely different but yet defensible views of this incident: 

TAPPER: He’s literally talking about, using the military against Democrats. I mean he’s literally talking…

JOHNSON: No, he’s not. No, no, he’s not, Jake.

TAPPER: Yes he is!

JOHNSON: No, he’s not. No. No, he’s talking about using the National Guard and the military to keep the peace in our streets. 

I write about these dynamics in my book Defusing American Anger, which is written for all Americans and is currently only in ebook. My book How Contempt Destroys Democracy is written for a liberal and/or anti-Trump audience and is available in paperback as well as ebook. My work in this area has gotten some good reviews. For example, Kamy Akhavan, Executive Director of USC Dornsife Center for the Political Future, called it “One of the better books on polarization” and said it contained a “great explanation of how polarization actually works.” Kirkus Reviews said it contained: “Compelling arguments, based on astute observations and backed by solid research.” Daniel F Stone, a polarization researcher and the author of the book Undue Hate, which I highly recommend, gave me a book review in which he said that I’m quote “one of the wisest voices on the topic of toxic polarization.” 

You can learn more about my polarization-related work at www.american-anger.com

I hope you found this of interest. If you did, please consider sharing on your social media; sharing my work is how you can encourage me to do more of it. 

Thanks for watching. 

Categories
podcast

Is Peter Todd Bitcoin’s creator? A talk about his behavior and language

In the documentary Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery, filmmaker Cullen Hoback put forth the theory that developer Peter Todd was Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious creator of Bitcoin. In this episode, I talk to cryptocurrency expert Jeremy Clark about this theory, with a focus on the language and behavior of Peter Todd. We discuss: the 2010 forum post by Peter Todd that forms the backbone of Hoback’s theory; Peter’s behavior in the film when confronted, which many people saw as suspicious and strange; the difficulties of relying on nonverbal behavior for clues; and how simple, neat, and exciting stories can attract us.

Peter Todd watched this episode; links to his thoughts are below in the show notes. Also below is a transcript and resources related to this talk.

Episode links:

Notes about this episode:

  • Peter Todd looked at this episode shortly it came out. Here are Peter Todd’s comments in reaction.
  • Several people (including Peter) misunderstood my point about the forum post language. My point, which I elaborated on at the end, was that I thought the language itself was unusual/rare, not the fact that he was correcting him. I would predict that if you were to study instances of people correcting other people’s points (even when correcting people rather bluntly or rudely), the phrase “to be specific” would be rare. That’s something that could be studied (could run an analysis of many forums/threads maybe). But again, even if I’m right (which I might not be), people do say unusual phrasings all the time, so it wouldn’t mean much on its own. It might become interesting if you could prove it was extremely rare, though.
    • Here’s Peter saying he thought his “to be specific” language was softening the tone of his correction
  • Here’s one person’s thoughts on why he thinks the forum post language supports the idea that Peter isn’t Satoshi. I include this as a way to emphasize that there are clearly many ways to interpret the totality of evidence.
  • Towards the end, it might have come across like I was saying that the filmmaker, Cullen Hoback, was being a bit conspiratorial with regards to ideas that Peter Todd may have worked for the CIA. To clarify that: I don’t think that’s what Hoback was doing; I think he was talking about theories that are out there as a way to get to his theory about Peter.

Resources mentioned in or related to this talk:

TRANSCRIPT

(transcript may contain errors)

Zach Elwood: A few days ago, I got an email. It read: 

Hi Zachary, HBO recently aired a documentary on Bitcoin titled Money Electric (covered in NYT, New Yorker, etc.). As you might know, Bitcoin was invented by an anonymous individual. The film ends with the filmmaker confronting the man he suspects, a developer named Peter Todd. A lot is being made of Peter’s body language and behavior, which is admittedly strange. The director keeps retweeting people saying they believe it is Peter because of his reaction. I would love to hear your take. The concrete evidence is very thin, so his reaction is a main piece of evidence.

That email came from a cryptocurrency expert named Jeremy Clark. This episode will mostly consist of a talk I had with Jeremy about this after I watched the Money Electric documentary based on his recommendation. Jeremy and I discuss a statement Peter Todd made on an early bitcoin forum, which is the primary piece of evidence in Hoback’s theory that Peter is Bitcoin’s creator. And we discuss Peter’s behavior when he was confronted by the film maker.   

This is the People Who Read People podcast with me, Zachary Elwood. This is a podcast aimed at better understanding people. You can learn more about it behavior-podcast.com. If you like my work, please hit subscribe and share it with others; that’s how you can encourage me to spend more time on these projects. 

A few notes on this: 

  • This episode will make the most sense if you’ve seen the Money Electric documentary first. I think you’ll be able to follow it either way, but it will probably just be the most enjoyable if you’ve watched the movie.
  • I want to emphasize that I went into this knowing almost nothing about bitcoin or theories about who Satoshi was. After Jeremy sent me the email, I watched the documentary, read a couple articles online, and jumped on a call with him. As you’ll notice, I am quite ignorant about these topics. But I thought this minimal research approach would work out because it gave me a chance to share reactions and thoughts that a lot of people probably had watching this, and gave Jeremy a chance to push back on and correct some of my more ignorant reactions.  
  • One interesting thing about this episode to me is how my initial confidence in the film maker’s theory gave way, as Jeremy educated me, to more doubt and uncertainty. This meta-level point is something Jeremy and I talk about, too; how we can be drawn to stories that make us feel we’ve understood something, even when our understanding is quite wrong, or quite partial. We can be especially drawn to stories that are exciting, or stories that make us feel we’re in possession of some secret, special knowledge. I’m honestly a little bit embarrassed of some of the things I say towards the beginning of this talk with Jeremy, as in hindsight it seems obvious to me that of course many smart people have been pouring over this topic for many years, so it’s rather silly to think that this film maker or I would have amazing insights that others very close to this hadn’t already carefully considered by now.
    • To be specific, I’m embarrassed at my saying to Jeremy that I found the evidence quote “really persuasive,” because in hindsight my confidence was partially due to my immense ignorance in this area. Another thing I’m a bit embarrassed about was my initial excitement, after watching the documentary, at the idea of closely analyzing the language patterns found in Peter’s and Satoshi’s posts. As I talked to Jeremy I quickly realized that of course people have already looked into that in depth. 
    • These points about the allure of exciting and simplistic stories is something I think about a lot in my work on political polarization-related topics. The truth is that we’re drawn to simplistic stories in all aspects of our lives; from stories about our politics and political groups, to stories about how the world in general works, to stories about our own personalities and personal lives. And simplistic stories are tempting and can draw us in, but simplistic stories come with prices, because they’re often quite inaccurate and misleading, and can even lead us down dangerous paths sometimes. 

A little bit about my guest Jeremy Clark: he’s an Associate Professor at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. His website is www.pulpspy.com that is “pulp” “spy” .com. Jeremy’s website bio says that he mostly works on quote “security and cryptography with real-world applications to finance and democracy.”

Okay, without further adieu here’s the talk with Jeremy Clark…

Zachary Elwood: Yeah. Hey, Jeremy. Yeah, thanks for showing me this story. It’s very interesting and I wonder do you want to start by giving your thoughts about whether Peter Todd is Satoshi and then I can give my thoughts, or do you want to do it that way?

Jeremy: Sure, happy to. Yeah, so this documentary came out from HBO and it pointed to someone called Peter Todd as potentially the person who invented Bitcoin. I know Peter; I’ve met him before at various events very long time ago. There’s even a picture with a bunch of people around a dinner table, and it’s in the film just for a split second. I am in that picture, but it frames me out. I wasn’t sitting close enough and it wanted to zoom in on Peter. But yeah, let me just say a high-level way of how I think about the question. So, I think of everyone sort of walking around with a needle that’s somewhere between 0% and 100% chance of being Satoshi. Right? And so Peter’s needle is definitely a lot higher than an average person that you’re going to pick off the street. He does have experience on the development side, he has a longstanding interest which you can see through forum posts and things like that on digital cash. He has developer experience, and so he ticks a lot of those boxes. The problem for me is that there’s probably, by my count, maybe 10,000 other people that would kind of tick those boxes as well. You also have a reverse causation where if you do a project like Bitcoin, you’re going to attract those people. Those are the people who are going to come. Right?

Zach: Right. So they’ll be involved with it early on and be around it. Yeah.

Jeremy: Exactly, exactly. So, the fact that you’re involved early isn’t necessarily evidence that you’re Satoshi. It just means that the project drew you into the spotlight. And then, of course, you’re going to have lots of people around the project that are very capable of creating it. What I would say is just that from what I saw of the film, it didn’t move the needle. Okay? I’m not saying he’s not Satoshi, I’m not saying he is.

Zach: Right, it wasn’t convincing.

Jeremy: Yeah, whatever his needle was at before, they brought forward a bunch of evidence and it didn’t change it.

Zach: Gotcha. Do you want me to talk about my thoughts now?

Jeremy: Yes, I’d love to hear them.

Zach: You had contacted me about behavior, which as I was telling you via email—and I’ve said many times on my podcast and such—I’m quite skeptical about drawing major conclusions from nonverbal behavior. I am much more a believer in statement analysis and analyzing statements, which is not about really behavior at that point, it’s just about analyzing and making logical deductions of what people say and the way they say it and the way they phrase things. So, yeah, what really stood out to me… I was skeptical going in because I read a little bit about it and I was like how much could this very clearly smart person give away—considering he hasn’t been a major suspect so far. So, I was skeptical. But I will say the thing that stood out to me was the forum post itself. And I’ll actually share the screen here because it probably helps us talk about it. One second. Let me just make sure I have that up.

Yeah, can you see my screen?

Jeremy: Yeah.

Zach: Yeah, so the part where they talk about this thing where Peter Todd’s account on an old Satoshi post in a forum, Peter Todd follows up with the post. It was apparently a minute and a half after Satoshi posted or something, or maybe it was an hour and a half. I can’t remember offhand.

Jeremy: Yes. Yeah, 90 minutes roughly.

Zach: Yeah, 90 minutes. Yeah. This, to me, really just stood out. I find this really persuasive evidence that Peter Todd is Satoshi because, I mean, he didn’t even get into the documentary but the language here. Of course, to be specific, that to me does not sound like something somebody responding to someone would say. Just thinking about how anybody would respond or how I would ever respond to somebody who is well-known in the community and is clearly extremely smart and you’re saying, “Of course, to be specific…” It’s like you’re clarifying something like it’s a continuing thought, which is what they say in the documentary, like this seems to be a continuing thought and he was logged into the wrong account, and he had only recently made the Peter Todd— Or Peter Todd only recently made his account on that forum, apparently, so it makes sense that he might have confused the accounts, that to me really stood out as like I really find that hard to explain other than Peter Todd being Satoshi. This is not to say I’m certain, but I do find this really persuasive evidence. So, this brings up other lines of questions for me. 

Zach: Just a note that I edited out some of our talk here. I’d gotten confused by the fact that in the documentary the film maker had added ellipsis to both Satoshi’s and Peter’s posts. I had thought there was potentially some clue in the use of the ellipsis, but the ellipsis weren’t present in the original posts. This gets back to what I was saying in the intro: I was getting excited thinking, “what various clues might be present in the language?” when of course all this stuff has been poured over in excruciating detail already. Back to the talk.

I would wonder also to look at this specific post for Peter Todd, like the asterisks around exactly, I would wonder if Satoshi often did that. I would even look for the phrase ‘to be specific’ because there’s little minute things like that that if you can find people often using them, it can be a clue to whether it’s the same person.

But just alone the “of course, to be specific,” I’m just imagining putting yourself in Peter Todd’s position. He claims to have barely been in the Bitcoin space at that time—and that was the other thing that he mentioned in the documentary, the fact that he claims to have not really been that detailed about the thinking then—so for him to clarify Satoshi’s post of all people soon after Satoshi posted about a very minute technical detail is pretty strange. And then you added in that the surrounding things about like Peter Todd’s new account, the fact that both of them went silent on that board for really long after that at the same time, all these things… But even just this—leaving aside all these other things—just this post is so strange to me. T he language of ‘of course, to be specific,’ to me it sounds like someone clarifying their own language and not something you would ever say to a third party, especially somebody who’s much more respected. I don’t know. What do you think of that language choice there? Do you think I’m making too much of that?

Jeremy: Well, let me say a few things about everything. First off, in the film, they do show the long version of the post but then later on to sort of stylistically emphasize it, they kind of pull that thought closer to what it looks like he might be correcting from Satoshi. I would say you have to put yourself in a bit of a time machine here in 2010. Bitcoin, I don’t know what it’s worth and how much a Bitcoin is worth—probably less than a dollar or something like that. So, yes, Satoshi did invent the system and it’s attracting a lot of attention. But at the same time, it’s not the Bitcoin that we know today and Satoshi is not the Satoshi that we know today.

Zach: So people speak more informally to them and correct them… Disagree with him, correct them.

Jeremy: And for computer scientists especially, they tend to be very informal and sometimes a little hostile. And Peter Todd has a reputation for being a bit of a troll.

Zach: Right. Yeah, I get that, and those are reasons why I am far from certain. But I do just find this specific phrasing to be specific. And maybe that’d be something interesting to look into it. Like, has he used that language when correcting people in the past or in other places, and maybe it’s a Canadian thing or something? You know? These are reasons why I don’t drawing really firm conclusions. But I do just find the immediate follow-up and this specific phrasing like “To be specific,” I just can’t imagine myself ever saying ‘to be specific’ to somebody else. It’s possible, especially if you’re being—like you say—he’s rather troll-like and often corrects people. Right? So I can see where he’s almost like speaking for him like, “Well, you know, what you meant to say was this.” I could kind of see that. I just find that, combined with some of the other details, I do find quite strange. I don’t know if you want to respond to that more or…

Jeremy: I’ll just sort of dilute your confidence a little bit more. One person I did see on Twitter, I didn’t reconfirm this but I expect it’s probably true, they did look to see whether Satoshi ever put things in asterisks—like the word ‘exactly’— and never did.

Zach: Oh, nice. Okay. Well, that’s…

Jeremy: So, that was one thing. The other thing is—this is where I could actually contribute something because I kind of understand the conversation at a technical level—in the film, it was presented as a continuation of thought. Right? But I want to put the emphasis that this is a correction. Like, Satoshi said something wrong and this is a correction. And it’s not even… If I say correction, usually you fix it. You’re like, “Oh, you said this wrong, so this would be what would be right or this is what you could do instead.” And in this case, it’s like, “You’re wrong,” without the correction. Right? And so it seems weird that you would just be like… If you followed up and you saw that you said something wrong, you would probably actually correct it. Whereas this is just sort of like, “Oh yeah, that’s not right.”

Zach: Oh, I see what you’re saying. Are you saying if Satoshi had made a mistake, he would just correct it himself? As I was saying.

Jeremy: Yeah, he could edit the post as well. The problem is it leaves the issue hanging. Right? Satoshi says, “Oh, we could do it this way,” then Peter Todd comes along and says, “Oh, actually, basically you can’t do it that way.” But then what is the way that you do it? And so neither Satoshi nor Peter say like, “Well, what could you actually do?”

Zach: Got you.

Jeremy: And then one other thing I’ll pour a little more cold water on it. This is also something I haven’t confirmed, but Peter Todd himself said it, and a few people in the documentary. Right now, the post has Peter Todd’s name on it, on that post. And that’s because at some point he changed his screen name and we’re looking at the website as it exists today. But at the time that that post was made, he was using a pseudonym and the pseudonym wasn’t like, “This is my understanding from what was said,” it was that it wasn’t strongly tied to his identity. And so if it were a mistake and he realized it was a mistake-

Zach: He could have deleted it.

Jeremy: He could have deleted it and never posted with that again, not come along later and actually changed it to his real name.

Zach: True. Yeah, that’s a really good point. Yeah.

Jeremy: Some people thought, well, maybe it wasn’t completely disconnected.

Zach: Maybe he felt he had to leave it there and it would be suspicious to delete it if there was something tying him to the account. He felt he couldn’t delete it theoretically.

Jeremy: Yeah. Yeah, so it leaves you just with uncertainty. But that’s a bit more color around the issue.

Zach: I’m curious, is it unusual to you that his post was only an hour and a half later and quickly to the next one? I was looking back at the post before that and it seemed like they were regular people. The other thing, it was pretty late at night for what I assume was their time zone. It was like Satoshi’s post was at 12:00 and Peter’s was at 1:30 AM. I don’t know, that’s a little unusual too. But, obviously, computer people are late-night people. He’s young, so it doesn’t mean much in itself. Yeah.

Jeremy: Satoshi, actually, people have done analysis on when he posts. And so there is a sort of time spectrum. And late at night Eastern, we don’t know what time zone he was in either so we don’t know what it corresponds to. But if he were in Eastern Time zone, it sort of looks like someone that maybe worked during the day and worked on Bitcoin at night. And then Peter Todd, I guess was a student at the time and so he might have a similar one. If it had come 30 seconds later or a minute later, that would be very natural. But then you probably wouldn’t have the logout and the login to a new account either. Right?

Zach: Yeah, you make good points. You make good points throwing cold water on it, which is important. Yeah. Getting back to the idea that a lot of times in these cases, I see so many people just jumping on narratives about it is, or definitely it isn’t… But it’s good to be uncertain and to embrace uncertainty. I was curious, is it strange the documentary maker framed it as strange that Peter Todd said that he wasn’t really in the Bitcoin community that early or kind of downplayed his knowledge? Do you think it’s strange, knowing what you know about the technology, that he made such a correction or comment on Satoshi’s post back then when he wasn’t doing that otherwise?

Jeremy: Yeah. There was probably a greater conversation that got cut, so you don’t really know. If someone asked me like, “When did you get into Bitcoin?” It wasn’t like I woke up one day and I went from zero to a hundred. You sort of get involved and you maybe post things. That post would suggest that he understands a lot of the details. There’s a very technical detail called the UTXO, Unspent Transaction Output, and that whole post—the technical premise of that—is based on properly understanding that piece of Bitcoin. And that piece is one of the last pieces that people understand. I teach Bitcoin, so when I teach them or if I give a simple talk, I’ll simplify that model. I won’t go there because… So, it’s one of the last pieces that you would sort of learn. So yeah, at the time he made that post, he definitely understood the protocol quite well.

At the same time, I don’t know what he actually said in the documentary about when he got in. Adam Back was also present in the documentary, and that question also tried to frame that he also was sort of being elusive about how much he knew at certain times. So, I don’t know how much of that was meant for Adam as opposed to Peter or both of them.

Zach: Yeah, and to your point, I often don’t like documentaries because they often do have such bias and it’s such a short format so you often just find that it’s storytelling. Like, people are telling a story so they have to go through dozens of hours or more of footage and pick and choose what they want to show. That’s honestly why I find a lot of documentaries just really misleading when you actually learn what happened. There’s a lot more nuanced compared to what they’re trying to show. So I totally agree with you there. I would love to see the unedited footage, if you ever… And hopefully, you would think he would decide to release that because that’s theoretically more information for people to sift through. I don’t see why he wouldn’t. But yeah, there’s often a lot occluded in a documentary and that’s something you really have to be aware of when you’re watching these shows.

Jeremy: Agreed. Agreed. Peter also tweeted something. He said, “I met the filmmaker four times and it wasn’t obvious what his motive was until the very last meeting.”

Zach: Right. Okay, that’s a good segue into when it comes to the behavior—and I want to preface this by how I often say I find that all these so-called behavior experts, which I’ve talked about recently on my podcast, these people who try to claim you can get all these firm findings from all these different behavioral nonverbal things, I just find that people who claim that you can get a lot of stuff frequently out of nonverbal behavior are just bullshitting you, in my opinion. Behavior is very hard to interpret. 

I thought at this point I could basically read the interaction that the film maker and Peter Todd had in the film. I would include the video but often including video means that YouTube will give you a copyright infraction. This interaction comes near the end of the movie, when the film maker gets Peter and his colleague Adam Back out for one more recording and confronts Peter. I want to emphasize again that, we don’t know how this interaction was edited. It’d be much better to see the original footage. I also want to point out that I might have some minor errors as some of the words were a bit unclear. 

Here’s the transcript of the final confrontation: 

Todd: Satoshi’s last post was like one week after I signed up for Bitcoin Talk, but …

Hoback: Right. And then you disappeared. 

Todd: Yeah. Then I disappeared. (laughs)

Hoback: And Satoshi disappeared at the same time. 

Todd: Yeah. I really should have paid more attention to Bitcoin early on but, you know, I had other stuff to do. 

Hoback: You corrected Satoshi, but it kind of looks more like you were continuing a thought of Satoshi. 

Todd: Well, Satoshi made a little brain fart on, like, how exactly transactions work. And I corrected him on that very boring thing. 

Hoback: Why didn’t you delete the 2010 post? 

Todd: Why would I?  

Hoback: Well, I mean, cause it, it just makes you look like you had these deep insights into Bitcoin at the time and then –

Todd: Well, yeah, I’m Satoshi Nakamoto.  

Hoback: I mean, it’s sort of the last thing you’d expect Satoshi to say. 

Todd: Ah, but that’s it. That’s like the meta level, right? Because I know you’d expect Satoshi Nakamoto to delete the post. You just said, why didn’t Satoshi Nakamoto delete the post? 

Adam Back: The post that was corrected? 

Hoback: Yeah, yeah, the correction post. 

Todd: Right? But then I did the next level of meta. And then didn’t delete the post to throw off people like you. 

Back: Yeah,  I don’t know. You’re feeding him, like, footage that’s just gonna be…

Todd: Oh, it’s gonna be great.  

Later on in the documentary it returns to their interview.

Hoback: So here’s what I think happened. Possibly. 

Todd: Possibly. 

Hoback: Okay. I think that John Dylan was created, so that you would have an excuse to make ReplaceByFee, a concept which you had envisioned years earlier, but you needed some kind of cover in order to make. And you also needed some cover for that 2010 post. 

Todd: 2010 post. Yeah, because I was Satoshi? 

Hoback: I mean, yeah. You know, you’re very concerned about all the privacy stuff, uh, so you reach out to your old buddy Adam Back, who said, we need to do something about this, but we need to pay the devs. But you can’t join Blockstream because it would look too, uh, suspicious. So, you don’t. 

Todd: I will admit, you’re pretty creative. You come up with some crazy theories. It’s ludicrous. But, it’s the sort of theory someone who spends their time as a documentary journalist would come up with. So yeah, yeah, I’ll say of course I’m Satoshi, and I’m Craig Wright. And yes, I was definitely covering that little bit about, you know, fees to go pretend to be Satoshi. Or not Satoshi, one or the other.  

Hoback: Well, why make up the whole John Dylan thing?  

Todd: Well, like I said, I’m not John Dillon. 

Hoback: Okay. 

Todd: Sorry, I’m not John Dillon. I don’t know who that is. I’ll warn you, this is going to be very funny when you put this into the documentary and a bunch of Bitcoiners watch it. 

Hoback: Well, I don’t think they would be very happy with this conclusion. Because you’re pretty controversial within the community at this point. 

Todd: No, I suspect a lot of them will be very happy if you go this route. Because it’s going to be like yet another example of journalists really missing the point in a way that’s very funny.

Hoback: What is the point?  

Todd: The point is to make Bitcoin the global currency. And people like you being distracted by nonsense can potentially do good on that. 

Zach: Back to the talk…

Zach: So let’s take specifically this example of clearly Peter was uncomfortable. But what does that really mean? It’s like if he’s innocent or guilty, he’s going to be uncomfortable in that spot basically suddenly being set up to be accused of this of this narrative on camera. Anybody would be uncomfortable. So, there’s that element. Then you have to add in the fact that Peter is kind of a troll and a contrarian, and he’s liked to play with the idea that he is Satoshi. So whether he’s innocent or guilty, we can understand why that makes results in a weird behavior dynamic where he’s kind of trying to have it both ways and kid around like, “Maybe I am,” but clearly he’s very uncomfortable by the idea. And you could see why he would be uncomfortable, even if he tries to make light of it. It’s like that’s theoretically a life-changing accusation to be thrown at suddenly. So he’s like even if he was innocent—I guess innocent’s not the word—if he wasn’t Satoshi, then you can see why he’d have all these conflicting ideas that would make him behave in unusual ways.

That’s just to say for this and for many spots where so-called behavior experts sometimes try to get a lot of information, it’s like this is a very complex dynamic and you can imagine all sorts of things running through his head at that moment that make him behave in uncomfortable strange ways that make him say strange things that you’d be like, “Why would he say that?” Right? And especially with this dynamic of people liking to say that they’re Satoshi, that clearly adds another level of weirdness to it. But I’m curious, what do you think of all that?

Jeremy: Actually, this is why I asked you because I wanted to hear your thoughts on it. I have no expertise in reading people or trying to figure out if someone’s bluffing or not. What I do know, though, is that the filmmaker was promoting his reaction as positive evidence that he was Satoshi so he tweeted some things to that effect or retweeted other people saying that he sort of talked a bit about… One thing I thought was good is he said in an early interview that he didn’t think the case could be solved just by internet facts. Like, “Everyone’s poured over everything you can learn online and so I’m going to go and meet people face to face and just see where it goes and I’ll get their reactions. And that’s what I can do sort of as a documentary filmmaker that a lot of other people wouldn’t do or couldn’t do.”

Zach: Yeah, I saw one tweet the filmmaker made where he was pointing to Todd looking at—what’s his name? His mentor.

Jeremy: Adam Back.

Zach: Adam Back. And making the point that Todd seemed to be looking at Back as if he was a father figure who he needed support from and that was evidence that he was looking to this guy who helped him maybe hide his identity and were looking to him for support. That’s not conclusive. That’s not any sort of evidence for anything, because like I said, there’s reasons for Peter to be uncomfortable and you would look to somebody else for support and be like, “What do you think of this stuff?” That, to me, doesn’t mean much. 

Zach: A note here: I made a mistake; that tweet wasn’t from the filmmaker but was from someone else responding to the filmmaker. But the point remains that many people were reading into Peter’s behaviors in various ways…

Zach: So yeah, I think we have to be very careful with not seeing what we want to see. Clearly, the filmmaker was painting a narrative that he believes. So we have to be very careful to not see what he’s telling us to see and then read in our interpretations of like, “He seems uncomfortable. He said something weird. I’m going to use that as a reason to highly trust this story or this accusation.” Right? I just think that for all these reasons, we really need to work against our desire for certainty or our desire to believe a narrative that someone else has told us. I think in the political realm and our personal lives, there’s all these narratives that we can find ourselves embracing that have much more nuance behind them.

But we like a simple story and we’re going to embrace that and then we’re going to use that belief in that narrative to filter for reasons for why the behavior adds up and for some reasons to believe that narrative. So yeah, I didn’t see anything. I might add more thoughts later. I think one thing that was clear was Peter seemed quite defensive and didn’t seem to really directly defend himself very well, but then you add in the fact like on the other hand, he’s being accused suddenly, he’s probably not making his best in the moment. He’s clearly somebody that has liked to play with the idea that he could be Satoshi so he’s not really going to feel the need to defend himself that strongly because he doesn’t want to sound defensive too. So for all these reasons, whether he is Satoshi or not, you can understand different reasons for why he behaved the way he did. That was my takeaway from that interview scene. Yeah.

Jeremy: Yeah, that’s great. I love that analysis. I think it probably did catch him off guard.

Zach: Yeah, I think so. He seemed very uncomfortable. Yeah.

Jeremy: Yeah. And Adam back, too, there was an earlier scene where they were sitting on the bench and he kind of did the same thing with Adam Back and Adam Back was like, “Oh, I was hoping that you wouldn’t ask me about Satoshi, because I’m not.” It felt like they had sunk a lot of time together and then he was getting around to the Satoshi question, almost kind of sabotaging it at the end, and so I don’t know if that happened with Peter but based on his tweet of doing about four recording sessions before understanding that that’s what the film was about, it was probably just a surprise question.

Zach: Right, a purposeful ‘gotcha’ kind of moment to put him on the spot, which I think is pretty clearly what he was trying to do. Do you have any other thoughts on the whole thing? One thing I’m curious about is say it came out that Peter was definitely Satoshi or definitely not Satoshi if it was proven to be somebody else, would you be that surprised either way with what you know, or do you just have an uncertainty range of it could be, it could not be?

Jeremy: I think I would be a little surprised that it was him. I just feel like the personalities don’t match. Now, maybe if he’s pretending to be Satoshi, the theory of the film is that he wouldn’t be taken seriously because he was so young and so maybe he’s adopting this persona of sort of more mature and stately and those types of things. But their personalities really seem quite different. That would be the piece that would sort of surprise me. But everything else could fit. I mean, he has the technical capability. He’s smart enough to have done it. The fact that his age was so young also doesn’t… There’s lots of people that have invented things in computer science as teenagers that were quite remarkable. So, yeah. But anyways, I would be surprised to learn that it was. And he could prove it, if he was Satoshi, that’s a provable thing. Satoshi has these keys that more or less he knows. If Peter Todd somehow knew them and was able to use them, he at least got them from Satoshi or someone who knew Satoshi, whether he is Satoshi. But you can’t prove a negative, so you can’t prove that you’re not.

Zach: Unless somebody else was proven somehow to be him.

Jeremy: Yeah, sure.

Zach: Accounting for the personality differences in the posting styles, do you think that could be… I mean, theoretically, if Peter Todd was Satoshi, could it be a factor of Peter basically working with Adam or somebody else to finesse this public image like it could be a group effort would help explain differences, and then they would do their best to remove any identifying language markers and things like that?

Jeremy: Yeah. The group hypothesis for Satoshi’s loaded and a lot of people think it could have been a group. I think it’s too complicated. Satoshi stuck around for a year or a year plus answering questions, and the idea of having two people do that is too complicated in my mind and you don’t remember who answered what. And the person who was answering, they answered questions about every aspect of the system. So they knew, in a consistent voice, they knew the system inside and out. So the simplest explanation is just that it’s one person.

Zach: Also, the kind of not professional-level coding would lend support that it was one person, probably. Right?

Jeremy: Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Satoshi wasn’t a superhero. He did something remarkable—like Bitcoin is a big technical achievement—but he wasn’t perfect across the board. His code wasn’t perfect. Even the idea, it was a unique combination of ideas, but it was existing ideas. It wasn’t invented completely from scratch. And so yeah, he’s not like a God-like figure.

Zach: Right. Two or more people would probably have resulted in better code and saw things that he wouldn’t have seen if he was one.

Jeremy: Yeah. But then you get into inconsistencies because like the one person that coded the one aspect, there’s a question about it. So that person has to answer that question and then the other person has to answer the other questions, and so you have this split personality that would emerge with all the emails and the forum posts and things like that. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it’s a much simpler example. And the only reason that people want it to be a group is just because they think it’s too big for one person. But my suggestion is that it’s not too big for one person.

Zach: Yeah. Okay, getting into the realm of the vibe of the documentary, how do I know you’re not running interference for Peter Todd and you weren’t hired by… I’m just mostly kidding here. [chuckles] That’s kind of a humor… I thought that was a humorous way. Maybe you’re working for Peter Todd or maybe you’re working for the government, the CIA, you know? [chuckles]

Jeremy: Yeah, the whole CIA thing was interesting because there was no logic to it, but they kept coming back to it. Like, maybe Peter worked for CSIS—which is our CIA in Canada—and, oh, Satoshi was mad that Gavin Andresen went to the CIA and talked about Bitcoin. And then there was this other persona that was invented that was like a government agent. Oh, sorry, sorry, no one knows this John Dillon. So maybe Peter invented John Dillon or it was a real person. And so it was like he was kind of trying to paint this intelligence into Satoshi’s story and into Peter’s story, and then somehow you were supposed to just think that that somehow leads to evidence that Peter is Satoshi. But there’s no logic to it. It’s just association, right?

Zach: Right. Again, that’s what I didn’t like about the documentary and a lot of documentaries in general. I would have liked to see the things that we’re talking about in here more in the movie. Like, what are the arguments against this as opposed to just like, “I’m going to paint my narrative.” Right? Or at the very least, nod to the fact that there are a lot of ambiguities and uncertainties and tell people where to find those ambiguities and uncertainties at the end. I feel like that kind of approach to documentaries is much more responsible than like, “I have this narrative, and even though people can clearly disagree with me, I’m going to paint this picture of why you should believe my narrative.” Yeah, I would have much rather seen some of the arguments that we got into in this talk in the movie. Right? But there is this incentive to create the grand narrative for these documentaries because it’s like that gets attention and that gets people talking. So I think even if I don’t know what the filmmaker really believes, but even if he had a lot of doubts about his suppositions, there is an incentive for him to draw those conclusions in the documentary to get people talking and to spark debate and get attention and make money. I’m not saying that’s why he did it, but I’m just saying there are those incentives and I think we need to draw attention to those and draw attention to the uncertainty more.

Jeremy: Yeah, a hundred percent. I think that was the one piece that was missing was some critical thought about it. And then the other piece which I think someone brought up on Twitter too is that he didn’t really go back and interview family and friends and people that would have known him at that time. And this is in contrast to some of these other Satoshi… This isn’t the first documentary to suggest the name for Satoshi. There’s probably been 10 newspaper articles. One of the most famous was Dorian Nakamoto. This was—was it  Newsweek that did it? I have it written down here. Yeah. Sorry, it was Newsweek. I actually listened to a podcast recently with a reporter who reported that story. I was wondering if did she change her mind? Because nobody believes it. In fact, I think in this documentary, they make fun of it too. I might be misremembering that. And she does. She still sticks to her guns. One thing she said is, “I just talked to his family so much. I talked to the parents and the siblings and no one could really account for what he did and he was always very secretive about work.” I didn’t find the reasons conclusive, but at the same time, she put a lot of effort into trying to interview people and try and understand the context of where that person was at that particular time. I didn’t see any of that. Maybe it didn’t make it into the film, but it seemed like there was this confrontation. And they talked to Adam Back but they sort of got to Peter Todd via Adam Back, but they didn’t talk to anybody else who knew Peter or did any sort of investigation of what his life was like at that time.

Zach: Yeah, I would really like these documentaries to end with like, “Go to this URL to see resources and counter arguments.” Right? That would be a responsible thing. I mean, especially if you’re making accusations that are life-changing about people. Show people where to go to or show whether there’s some nuance and more information and do your own looking at it or whatever. But yeah, it disappoints me that more documentaries don’t do that.

Jeremy: And then to answer your early question, there is no way I can prove that I’m not running interference for Peter or anything like that, but I do have a pretty long history working in this space and you can see that I have lots of publications and books. I even talk a little bit about Satoshi and we wrote a textbook—or some colleagues at Princeton University wrote a textbook on Bitcoin and I wrote the forward to it and I talk a little bit at the end, and so this is a question that I’ve been interested in long before I ever met Peter Todd way before this documentary came out. So, yeah, that’s my defense.

Zach: And to be clear, I was kidding with that.

Jeremy: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Zach: Yeah. I do want to thank you, Jeremy, because this is something that was interesting. I actually watched the end of the documentary twice because it was so interesting and it’s something I probably wouldn’t have looked at for a while if it wasn’t for you reaching out. So, I just want to thank you.

Jeremy: Yeah, pleasure. I thank you also for looking at it. I think you’re well-positioned to comment on, and particularly, the sort of behavioral stuff at the end.

Zach: Thanks, I appreciate it. 

Zach: That was a talk I had with cryptocurrency expert Jeremy Clark. 

A couple more thoughts about Peter Todd’s behavior in the movie: Some people were reading a lot into Peter’s meta-level stuff, like when he was like “If I were Satoshi, I’d know you’d think that so I’d do this.” To me, it’s entirely believable that someone like Peter would engage in this kind of meta-level bantering and would enjoy messing with people’s minds, no matter if he was Satoshi or not. So to me, that doesn’t mean much. 

Another thing people focused on was Peter getting upset. I myself went back and forth as to whether this was meaningful or not. In the end, I don’t find it a meaningful thing either way. I find it easy to imagine Peter in either scenario, whether he was Satoshi or not Satoshi, reacting in either angry or calm ways. The truth is, as with a lot of behavior, it’s just so easy for people to go down different emotional paths. 

Now clearly there’s a lot of uncertainty in all of this. But I will say that one thing I keep thinking about after that talk with Jeremy is that forum post by Peter Todd: Of course, to be specific, the inputs and outputs can’t exactly match. 

The phrase “to be specific” seems to me to be something that someone says to clarify something they themselves have said. Imagine hearing someone say a sentence starting with “To be specific” and imagine the context. To me, it’s really only a phrase I’d imagine someone saying to clarify something they just said; or else clarifying someone with whom they work closely with, or something. It’s hard for me to imagine someone following up something someone else said with “to be specific.” 

That coupled with the other assorted coincidences strikes me as quite strange. 

But the fact that other people don’t seem to make much of that, from what I’ve seen, makes me wonder if I’m just really off base with my instinct about that language. Maybe it’s simply more of an understandable and normal use than I think it is. That’s totally possible. Sometimes my instincts are quite wrong. But it does make me curious if anyone’s done work to see how common that phrase is when used to correct or clarify another person’s speech. I would predict that specific usage is rather rare.  

I also wondered how often Satoshi followed up his posts with another short thought, versus just editing his first post. If there were almost no instances of Satoshi following up a post with a short clarifying post, that would be meaningful to me. 

Another interesting thing that we touched on was the use of the asterisks around “exactly.” The fact that apparently Satoshi never used asterisks around words is important; you’d think you’d find at least one use of that if Peter were Satoshi. If it’s definitely true that that was Peter’s original post, and it’s known that it wasn’t edited in some way (for example, Peter adding the apostrophes shortly after posting to add a red herring), AND it’s known that Satoshi didn’t use asterisks around words in that way, that all seems like it almost completely absolves Peter for this evidence. If I wanted to show that this accusation wasn’t credible, that’d be what I would focus on. And it’s likely someone has already done this; again, I am not educated in this space and speaking very much as a noobie and speaking very much off the cuff. 

In defending himself in more detail in an interview in Pravda, Peter says the following: 

That claim specifically is especially ridiculous. He’s referring to this post.   [and he links to it]

The thing is, that’s the second post I made with that account, and at the time, the account handle was set to a pseudonym.

If I had actually made that mistake, why on earth would I keep using that account rather than just discarding it and creating a new one? Why on earth would I change the account name to my legal name a few years later? It makes zero sense, and I think Cullen knows this.

End quote. 

Peter’s defense here isn’t very solid, though. For one thing, if Peter knew his pseudonym account could be tied to his real name by internet researchers, he would be incentivized to embrace the account as his own. If he ignored it or stopped using it entirely, that would be incriminating, so he’d have an incentive to lean into it being his as a way to show he had nothing to hide. This is just to say that it’s not a really solid defense, unless there was a way to prove that his old pseudonym account had zero way to be connected to his name. 

But again, as stated, I think this dynamic with Peter is rather unusual and not directly comparable to crime-related accusations. We know Peter may not, at heart, truly care about removing all beliefs that he is Satoshi. There are obvious positive incentives for not removing all doubt; Peter gets noticed, he gets fame. There are downsides, too, but just to say there are also many upsides. Also, Peter may simply believe, as he says, that it’s silly to focus on such things; he may not care about mounting a strong defense. Just to emphasize that the unusual dynamics and incentives in this case make it very different from a case where someone has every incentive to prove their innocence. 

Again, in all of this, I’m not making any confident guesses. I am only just dipping my toe in these waters. I realize that, as an amateur in this area, I’m very much at risk of reading too much into what might be small pieces of evidence. But I thought some people would be interested in seeing some of the back and forths and thoughts I and Jeremy had about this. 

Thanks again, Jeremy Clark, for reaching out with this idea. 

Thanks for watching.