Episode Transcript
[00:00:14] Speaker A: Hello, welcome to Call It Like I See it presented by Disruption Now, I'm James Keys, and in this episode of Call It Like I See it, we're going to discuss the effort by hundreds of doctors, professional professors, scientists, healthcare workers and and so forth to get Spotify to address the proliferation of misinformation, or specifically Covid misinformation, specifically related to the Joe Rogan Experience. Joe Rogan's podcast and the dilemma for not just content platforms, but society at large in dealing with what essentially amounts to non conformity. You know, it could be non conformity as far as belief or non conformity as far as action in the context of the pandemic.
And later on, we're going to discuss the way you may be able to simply turn off harmful stress like a light switch, take control of it and turn it off, make it so it either is no longer hurting you or it becomes an asset that you can use to your advantage.
Joining me today is a man who will catch you paying attention to his ambitions as a rider.
Tunde, Ogunlana Tunde, are you ready to rumble today?
[00:01:25] Speaker B: Just like Tupac got ambitions of a rider.
[00:01:29] Speaker A: There we go.
[00:01:30] Speaker B: She put me in that category.
[00:01:34] Speaker A: All right, now we're recording this on January 17, 2022. And over the past week, we've seen a lot of ink spilled and statements made and everything, conversations had about the December 31 episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, where Joe Rogan had on Dr. Robert Muell alone, who's described as a virologist who was recently banned from Twitter for spreading false information about vaccines.
What followed, predictably, was a discussion that included questionable or even downright false information about vaccines or what's happening with the COVID 19 pandemic. And what followed that also predictably, was an outcry from people about the platforming of COVID misinformation.
The outcry was a bit more formalized. It wasn't just people complaining on Twitter, you know, it was a bit more formalized and included an open letter to Spotify signed by, again, you know, serious people, you know, hundreds of serious people.
And Spotify being the exclusive host of the Joe Rogan of Joe Rogan's podcast. And it asked them to clarify their misinformation policy and to take action against misinformation on their platform. Didn't really ask for anything specific, like they didn't ask them to take off Joe Rogan or anything like that, but just to do something about this, to set a clear policy and then enforce that.
So Tunde let's get started by taking it head on. What's your reaction both to the unproven or disproven Covid information that was in Rogan's interview with this Dr. Malone guy? And also the response, the complaints over the platforming of what's been argued to be vaccine misinformation.
[00:03:16] Speaker B: I would say my reaction is similar to reactions I've had for the last two years just watching and observing everyone having a food fight.
Yeah.
This is interesting, though, because I sympathize with Joe Rogan on this one and kind of reminds me of some of the conversations we've had, just like the recent months with a lot of this kind of dialogue around the country and around the world, because we've said this in other ways and other shows. It's been two years now of this pandemic, roughly. And at this point, I think the establishment, if I can call the scientific community that for this discussion.
The scientific establishment has been trying to get the word out, convince people who don't trust either vaccines or whatever, just some people just don't trust authority or whatever the message is, for whatever reasons they've been trying to, and I think for good faith reasons, trying to get people to be aware of scientific information and to try and teach them maybe what is misinformation and all that. But I think the tactic of going after someone like Joe Rogan, I think will backfire for the scientific community, unfortunately, in this kind of instance. And I think Joe Rogan should be treated much differently than, let's say, Facebook misinformation or podcast or even certain, let's say, cable news outlets. Right. Joe Rogan doesn't hold himself out to be news and he's a talk, a show host, kind of like I said in a private conversation, not the same, but in a similar way that Howard Stern is a, is a, is a, is a show host. And I don't think people go to those shows specifically to look for medical information.
And what the scientific community risks doing is turning off a segment of the population that I believe they want to reach, but I don't believe they're doing a good job in how they're going about trying to reach them by attacking a guy like Joe Rogan. So that's.
[00:05:21] Speaker A: Well, let me push back on something you said. I'd like to hear you to respond to this also. Okay. Like you say, people don't go to Joe Rogan for medical information, but I don't know that you can say that in this case because he did have a Dr. Malone on there who says he's an expert dealing with viruses and all this other stuff. So that's not Joe Rogan talking to some playboy playmate and just having laughs and whatever sexually suggestive material like that is. He wouldn't have Robert Malone on to just kick it around and smoke weed or whatever as Joe Rogan definitely does not hold himself out as a source of news. But, but having certain guests does bring you into that purview, does it not?
[00:06:08] Speaker B: No, let me say it that way. I mean, where. Remember freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of intellect, and the ability to debate and be able to be around ideas that maybe you as an individual aren't comfortable with. I mean, I think that goes just like if we criticize people that don't wanna talk about American history and all that kind of stuff and other discussions, then I can also criticize people that don't want to hear things that they might not agree with from a scientific angle as relates to the virus. And I say this as you well know, that I'm someone that's double vaccinated booster. I believe in all the science behind the MRNA vaccine and all that, but I don't think. But you know, by chance.
[00:06:51] Speaker A: Well, but you're conflating two things though. It's not that something is making you uncomfortable. I think the question really goes down to whether the information is false or proven or unproven. And that's actually where I come in on this, is I started very much aligned with where you are. But I think first I'll say this. I think this is an unfortunate consequence of an open society. I mean, like, and to, to your point, you know, like, it's. You can't just. If somebody says something you don't like, even if the reason you don't like it is because it's not true, your options are limited. In an open society, like, people are allowed to say things that aren't true to some degree. Like unless they start getting into defamation and, or invasions of privacy or things like that, then it's difficult in an open society on purpose. It's difficult to stop people from saying things that aren't true.
But it's beyond just, oh, this makes me uncomfortable.
The people who are saying this is misinformation are saying that we have proof that this is incorrect. It is provable that this is incorrect. And this person either knows that or disregarding the proof. And so where.
The thing I think we have to wrestle with here is the idea of whether or not if people are going to obviously talking with your friends, it's whatever. But if you're going to be a publisher, whoever you are, do you have any obligation or is there any kind of, is there any kind of control mechanism or guardrail to use a term you like to use to prevent you from just engaging completely in falsehood? You know, like where does, is proof ever required or no, Are we just, are we taking the, the, the, the, the guardrails again off and just saying, look, anybody can say anything they want because what we know and is discussed actually in one of the pieces we read, I'll have on here from Rolling Stone was just that people are not good at determining or differentiating false from true. And in fact, because of biases like confirmation bias and so forth, a lot of times people will prefer information that's not true. And so from a societal standpoint, I think it's something to wrestle with. I'm not one that says you need to censor or deal with this in a very heavy handed way, but I think it's a fair question to ask as far as, okay, what are we doing here to say? Okay, well I can get up and say things that are unproven and there's nothing you can do about that. And if I have millions of listeners, tough. And I think that's a fair question to ask is what everybody's role should be in that.
[00:09:21] Speaker B: Yeah, Well, I think part of the issue here specifically I think with this attacking Joe Rogan in the show, like I said, versus social media misinformation versus cable news and all that. I mean, one of the things is, you know, there's channels on cable TV and I'm not gonna pick on them, but they actually have news in their title. Right, but then we all know that they spend a lot of hours with people that only talk opinion and it's been proven million ways how unfactual those opinions are.
[00:09:51] Speaker A: Well, and they'll admit in court that they're not news.
[00:09:54] Speaker B: Well, and my point is just saying that to me that's misleading because someone's saying that they're news and we generally, I mean whatever you want to define news as. Right. I think most people assume that news is supposed to be factual.
[00:10:04] Speaker A: News deals with facts. Yeah.
[00:10:05] Speaker B: And that there, yeah. And that there's actually a profession called journalism. Right. That, that, that, that has a certain ethics and pride in, in, in, in facts.
[00:10:13] Speaker A: Well, let me say I do agree with you that this is different than that. I agree with you that, that this is, raises a different issue.
[00:10:19] Speaker B: Well, and that's why I want to like really differentiate. Joe Rogan is a radio host in another era. That's why I compare him to Howard Stern. You know, they didn't have podcasts when Howard Stern started in the 80s, but Joe Rogan is a very similar. Just like, you know, and another one, let's say Rush Limbaugh, right.
My point is, is that they don't hold themselves out to be factual news people. They hold themselves out to be talk show hosts, just like Johnny Carson or Jay Leno. So what happens is this, and I.
[00:10:50] Speaker A: Mean, let me add this to you. And the insidiousness increases when someone holds themself out to be a purveyor of news, but really are just trying to provide entertainment. Like that's where that's worse is what, you know, kind of the point in which I agree with you on.
[00:11:07] Speaker B: And the thing is, is that with. As relates to this specific topic, right.
The, what I'm saying is the scientific community jumped out knee jerk reaction because the show where he interviewed this guy Malone came out in Dec.
If they were a little bit patient.
We're in January now where we're taping this discussion, right? So in the first week of January he had another gentleman by the name of Josh Zepps who we invited on and basically that guy poked holes in all of Joe Rogan's show from the December where the scientists went nuts. Joe Rogan then gave an interview after that and he said that that guest really made him feel dumb about what he said in the prior interview. So my point is saying that Joe Rogan is a guy that has all kind of different people on his show. And I think, you know, from a, from a thought perspective, like we said, you know, people criticize, you know, that like we say how people deal with the discussion about our history in this country, how people don't like how certain people aren't invited or kicked out of college campuses for what they say.
Then you should be, you know, Joe Rogan should be allowed to invite people on his show who have different ideas about the virus, even if I don't agree with them now.
[00:12:23] Speaker A: Well, Tunde, you keep going back to what you agree with and what you don't. My question is more so about what's provable and what's not or what is disproven.
[00:12:32] Speaker B: Well, but here's the thing.
[00:12:33] Speaker A: Do you not disagree with me?
[00:12:34] Speaker B: So you had a show about Galileo where you said that at the time he was the outlier, right?
Who knows if one of these guys, Joe Rogan Was.
[00:12:41] Speaker A: Yeah, he was the outlier. But he had proof. He came forward with proof.
[00:12:45] Speaker B: No, but what I'm saying is, what if Joe Rogan is inviting one of these guys that's an outlier and has some proof of something? I don't know. I'm just making the point that there's other ways to handle this than the scientific community asking Spotify to remove him.
[00:12:58] Speaker A: Because that's asking Spotify to remove him, though.
[00:13:02] Speaker B: Well, then what are they asking Spotify.
[00:13:04] Speaker A: To do to clarify misinformation policy? Cause Spotify doesn't have any. Like, it's kind of just anything goes, basically. And then it's complicated in the sense also, though, because Spotify is an exclusive provider of Joe Rogan, so they're going after, you know, who's paying him as well. So it's. And they get into that. And I actually want to talk about Spotify's role in this in a second. But I think. And generally speaking, I think you're trying to walk the line, and I respect the line you're trying to walk.
I have a bigger problem actually, with the person with a doctor in front of his name coming out with unproven information.
And this goes back to. It reminds me in a sense of the. The election stuff. You know, the stolen election stuff, where if some guy on a podcast somewhere wants to say the election is stolen or whatever, and obviously that person doesn't have any proof, then, you know, whatever, that's one thing. But when we had people in positions of authority coming out and saying that the election was stolen without proof, I have a bigger problem with that. I have a problem with that in the sense that this is a person that has a certain level of status, the standard for them to be making public statements, they have to. They have to deal in reality. And then. So in this case, I have less of a problem with Joe Rogan, as you point out, Joe Rogan has any. Lots of people on to talk about lots of different things. And he doesn't put hold himself out as an expert on these things necessarily. But the doctor, whoever, who gets on and says things that he can't prove to me is a bigger issue in our society in general. And that even when people like, there's just some disconnect that's happened where it's not required for you to be speaking truthful information, even if you are, you know, even if you're coming as a politician or you're coming as a scientist or whatever. And I guess I'm sensitive to it because in my profession as an attorney, you can get in a lot of trouble if you're going into court just saying things that are false. You know, like that's something that is frowned upon, to say the least. And I notice in our society, basically there aren't a lot of mechanisms for that to happen. By and large, there's defamation law. Like if you say something bad about somebody else, then you know people, they can go after you. That's still difficult to do. But I don't know the who that's saying it matters a lot to your point in terms of the, you know, the, the. Whether it's a news organization, so to speak, that matters, but also whether it's someone who's coming from a place of science as well. So I don't want to get bored down in that.
[00:15:25] Speaker B: Let me respond real quick to that because my only concern would be that just like with the election misinformation, I agree with you, bro. Like, you know, we're on the same page, right? I think the election was not stolen.
[00:15:36] Speaker A: But what happens, what you think, though? I'm saying my point is, is not what you think. My point is what you can prove.
[00:15:42] Speaker B: But let me keep going because the point is, is that we've seen that the kind of establishment or the scientists, and in the case of the election, right, the people like that knew the facts for real, whether it be the cybersecurity people or the Raffensperger types or whatever, when they try and come out with facts and tell people that don't believe it, hey, listen to me. And why don't you. I'm just saying that it hasn't worked. There's still a 30, 40% of this population that doesn't want to go in line with that. And what they're doing is they're finding their own truth anyway somewhere else. So what I'm saying is just like the Rogan thing, people that don't believe in the vaccine science and all that, they're finding their information anyway. So all I'm saying is instead of.
[00:16:24] Speaker A: The scientific community, let me say that a little differently. People who don't want to believe that finding their alternate.
[00:16:30] Speaker B: Because I can watch Joe Rogan's show and see that Mr. Malone interviewed and I don't take away, like, I don't regret taking my vaccine and all that. I don't believe it. I just say, okay, well, that's your opinion, but obviously someone else does. So the scientific community, I think would do a better job finding a different way to engage this conversation. That's really my point, I agree with you on that.
[00:16:49] Speaker A: They need to do a better job of engaging the audience because all they.
[00:16:51] Speaker B: Look like is they're attacking Joe Rogan now. And it's. All it's going to do is his 11 million listeners a week or however many are just going to say screw the scientific community. There's another reason why they're not to.
[00:17:02] Speaker A: Be trusted to your point. It reduces their credibility because it looks like they're just attacking him. And it looks like I'm trying to make this nuanced distinction between things that make you, that you don't like to being said versus things that are proven. But the vast majority of people aren't making that distinction. They're just like, oh, you're just attacking this guy because you don't like what was being said. And that perception is more harmful.
[00:17:23] Speaker B: I would say that's more harmful than.
[00:17:25] Speaker A: This guy saying stuff is the perception. The way they respond makes them look worse than the Malone guy out there just saying this or that. And so what do you think though, like in terms of, okay, so we talked about Rogan, we talk about, you know, how he holds himself out and so forth. But what about Spotify? Spotify is a content distributor, you know, so like we're on Spotify, you, you can, you can put stuff into the, out there and they can get it picks up and distributed by Spotify. But Spotify also has an additional role here. They're not just taking an RSS feed and publishing it on their, on their site. They actually are an exclusive host of the Joe Rogan experience. And so in this instance, they are like a content provider here. They are, you know, a CVS, so to speak, with 60 minutes. And so in this. So what do you think? And I'm going to ask you two things. What do you think their role should be and does it change because they are the exclusive host as opposed to just a passive, you know, pass through, basically?
[00:18:22] Speaker B: No, I think the second one to me is a quick answer. No, I don't think they're role changes. I think we should have, you know, standards. Whether someone is the content sole content provider or it's just passing through their system. I mean, obviously it's the public is getting the information and if you have.
[00:18:37] Speaker A: That's what I'm talking about, man, the buck stops here.
[00:18:39] Speaker B: Yeah, if you have one rule for one, I mean, obviously it's gonna, it's kind of like the gun show loophole. You know, you can have all these laws, but if you can sell a gun Without a background check at a gun show, then the laws kind of don't count. You know, people can go around them. So I.
I get it from that standpoint.
It's a good question. I thought about that as I was reading and preparing for the show. Is. Is. Is like what Spotify's role. And that's what I'm saying. We have the issue of freedom of speech. But then also, as we know, Spotify is a private corporation. And freedom of speech is really generally something that the government has to abide by.
Private industry can make their own rules to be on their platform. So again, what I would say is, look, they're paying the guy. Apparently I read $100 million contract.
So clearly they can have some sort of say over how his show and the content in it. I wouldn't try and say my perfect.
[00:19:32] Speaker A: Oh, by the way, let me just jump in real quick. Part of the reason they're paying him that kind of money is because he does things that get talked about. Like this, you know, like this is beneficial to Joe Rogan and so forth that we're talking about it. All these, you know, all these newspaper articles are written about, all these other podcasts are talking about, oh, what should happen here? What should do? This is all free publicity for them and gonna get more people interested.
Potentially.
[00:19:57] Speaker B: Yeah. No, and so correct. Obviously he was controversial.
[00:20:01] Speaker A: My point being, he was controversial before they signed that. Like.
[00:20:03] Speaker B: Yeah, that's part of. That's what I mean. Like decay. They're paying the guy $100 million. Cause they think they're gonna make a lot more money than that over time. Right.
They're a profitable business. They're not paying a guy 100 million. Cause they think they're gonna make 20.
[00:20:13] Speaker A: Million in the next year. But my point more so that they pay him 100 something million dollars. And he was controversial before that. So they knew they were getting controversial. It wasn't like he was buttoned up and then all of a sudden he got the money and it was like, oh, now I'm.
Look.
[00:20:26] Speaker B: And that's what I mean is this is one controversy that's brought by one group, the scientific community, about this Covid stuff. I mean, there's been other groups that have had other issues with some of his content in the past. And really that's where I'm getting at is Spotify can choose to do something. I mean, I'm just thinking out loud here. I don't have a perfect answer, but they could say, look, we're paying you $100 million, specifically when it relates to the pandemic because it's a health related thing with our whole society. You know, we're just going to ask you when you have, you know, you know, scientists or whatever that, that aren't going with the CDC and the kind of established narrative with how these things are going that you just, you know, every 15 or 20 minutes during the show, you just make a reminder that hey, this person is. Their opinion does not jive with the established CDC and NIH and all that. And that's okay. I mean, you could just say something like that, like, you know, like just reminding people that this is, this is a, this is a medical doctor. They're just saying something that is not agreed upon by the majority of their peers and let people make up their mind.
[00:21:33] Speaker A: I mean, I, let me tell you this. I actually, pretty simple, I think you're onto something in that sense. But I would disagree. In this sense, I don't think the CDC and the FDA or whatever are the end all be all. Like to me, no, I agree.
[00:21:46] Speaker B: That's why I think they get out.
[00:21:48] Speaker A: There sometimes ahead of their skis and start talking about stuff that they can't prove.
[00:21:52] Speaker B: And so, no, that's why I agree with our whole show here that why are they beating up Rogan?
[00:21:56] Speaker A: You're right.
[00:21:57] Speaker B: Not everybody's right. Not the CDC is not always right.
[00:21:59] Speaker A: Well, but we can figure out basically at any given moment whether somebody's talking nonsense or whether they're talking something they can prove or whether they're in the process of trying to prove it or whatever. And so I think we can't completely give up on the idea that there is provable fact and that there are facts that have been disproven. And so to me, it's less about whether somebody's walking the company line of the cdc. The cdc, like I said, will get ahead of their skis and they'll sometimes do things that are beholden to industry that I don't like and I don't agree with and more importantly, that they can't prove or that have been disproven. And so I don't think that that's necessarily the standard. But ultimately I think that again, I started this by saying that this is a problem of an open society. And I said open society very specifically because to your point, free speech doesn't really apply here. This isn't a freedom of speech. You know, like somebody's about to go to jail because they said something the government doesn't like or something like that this isn't, that this is about commercial consequences for things you say or do, which is totally consistent with free market economics. That's how it works. Consumers and business, people in business can decide who they want to do business with in a free market based on any factor really, you know, that, that, that they're allowed to do. And I say allowed to do, meaning that you're not supposed to make that on decisions based on like race and stuff like that. But beyond that, you do business what you want to do business with. Hey, I like the way that guy, you know, like, where's his tie? Yeah, I'm gonna hire him for this. Like that's how market, you know, society, or excuse me, market economy is supposed to work. So in the market system, what they're trying to do here is create a consequence that doesn't already exist, so to speak, that they're trying to put pressure on Spotify. Spotify is not harmed commercially by Joe Rogan doing controversial stuff. So these doctors and so forth are trying to put consequences on Spotify or trying to put pressure on them to say that, okay, well, even though people won't, market wise, turn away from you doing this, that we're going to try to embarrass you or whatever, ultimately it's probably not going to work because like I said, Spotify got into the Joe Rogan business because Joe Rogan was controversial and made people talk about it. So in this instance, Spotify's role is to be consistent, honestly, and that's about it. Whatever they're going to do, just do it consistently. Don't be arbitrary. I think that's where like, it's not one to one, but that's where like the Facebooks and the Twitters get in trouble is because they don't enforce their stuff consistently. And not to say that they don't treat both sides, quote unquote, the same way, but they'll let one side get away with something for years and then all of a sudden say up. We're not going to get away with that anymore. And it's like, well, hold on, that was cool. You let them do that for years and then all of a sudden you stop. Like you shouldn't have let them do it at all. So I think it's a very difficult line to walk basically. But I think consistency really is what the goal has to be because once you get beyond that, if the market's not gonna put the consequence on, it's difficult to do so purely from just pressure from outside forces.
[00:24:53] Speaker B: Yeah, no, it's well, and that's my point.
Cause you're right. I mean, the market is gonna respond. That's the whole issue with social media and the cable news. The market responds to what makes money. Yeah.
[00:25:06] Speaker A: It's not truth based.
[00:25:08] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's just, and it's just sad because as human beings, you know, we respond to fear and triggers and all that. So a lot of times the things that make money and that get people to click or watch shows that they can sell advertising are things that are end up being sensational.
And we've talked about this in other discussions.
[00:25:25] Speaker A: Right.
[00:25:25] Speaker B: Each channel and each, whether it's radio, podcasts or you know, cable news, whatever, it's just that each one then has to outdo each other with more outrageous type of content or actually direct their.
[00:25:38] Speaker A: Energy at just a different audience. Like, okay, we just won't try to get those people. We'll try to get these other people.
[00:25:43] Speaker B: That think silo it and try make it tribal and all that. So that's where I just think that, you know, that's why it's inevitable that these things happen. Like you said, kind of today's discourse between technology and the amount of people we have with varying opinions. And you're right. Like what do we do in a society that expresses that desire for freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought? And I'm just saying that, I wouldn't say that we stop the ability for someone like Joe Rogan to interview doctors or scientists that have a view that's against the mainstream. I'm just saying maybe there's a way. Like I said, if Spotify is paying a guy $100 million and if he interviews somebody that says that they believe and they have some sort of proof that they can prove that the pyramids of Egypt were built by aliens, you know, it's like, okay, well that's not gonna throw off the society and create. Cause a certain percentage of people to not conform. When you have a health crisis. Right. That's, that's a different type of opinion. But they could say, look, when there's something in the public interest like a pandemic, then we're just gonna have these disclosures rolling during the show that, you know, this person's a point, you know what I mean? This person's opinion should be, should be listened to. But you were just letting you know that their peers do not agree with this and you know, you may want to continue to, to or that you.
[00:27:02] Speaker A: Understand the proof that they say they have is in dispute or whatever. Like I don't know. But that's an excellent point because it nobody, well, at least to our, you know, nobody raised a huge stink when History Channel, which does hold itself out to have factual information started, call themselves.
[00:27:15] Speaker B: The History Channel ancient alien, you know.
[00:27:18] Speaker A: Which is something clearly they can't prove. You know, it's so like. But either, but the market spoke in that sense, they lost Tunde as a view.
So. But I want to, I want to get to the last point on this and it kind of leads into or pulls from what you just talked about. Like the pandemic seems to create specific challenges beyond the normal challenges we speak about when we talk about open societies and you know, speech and so forth.
And so what do you think about how it's caused a changed or exposed kind of the holes in how a quote unquote free society treats non conformity with virus related issues?
[00:28:03] Speaker B: I don't know if it exposed holes because I think we've always look, we've got a broad and diverse society that has people that are kind of in like any society. Right. The majority is considered the majority in terms of the thought, the culture and all that. And then you've got the fringe and.
[00:28:20] Speaker A: It'S like the prevailing majority because it doesn't stay the same.
Everything is thought to be one way and then something happens and then the prevailing majority may change as far as what is the general belief. Like you said with Galileo, for example.
[00:28:33] Speaker B: Yeah. And I think with different topics there's different prevailing majorities. I mean there's certain things in our country that I think we would have 90%, 80% agreement on. And there's other things like a globe, like the Earth is round, like around Earth and then, and then there's other things where you'd only have 20% agreement on. So I think that's where again, I think this reflects a lot of things that are somewhat unique to this moment in time, but not unique to human history. You know, the fact we have a global pandemic, but also at the time when we have all this plethora of technology where we can all, all these voices can be heard. So it's almost like we talked about, you know, we had that show last year about the 1903-1905 smallpox pandemic in Boston.
And a lot of the things we saw that were similar to now with anti masking, anti vaccine groups back, you know, 120 years ago, the same thing.
So imagine if you had that kind of thing, but during the same first 10 years of the printing Press, let's say, when it was like so new to have the ability to just spread information like that, you might have had a similar situation as now where you have this new technology to disseminate information which then causes a fracturing of what the central authority is and who the majority of the population feels they can trust for that as the central authority.
And I just think, you know, we're in one of those moments in time of human history where we're coming into a new order of something that'll take another generation probably to figure out. So this is a result of that where I think it's, it's like people like us, right? Like, and that's why I just go back to my own self. Like, I believe in the vaccine, I believe in all that, but I'm not an authoritarian. So it's just like, okay, the viewpoint that I agree with is not the only one that I believe that should be out there. Someone else has a right to be heard as well.
And that's why I said maybe there was. The answer I would have would just be to Spotify, to somehow put on there that, you know, some sort of alert that says, hey, look, this, this, this should be checked out. But I don't think they should be silenced. I don't think Joe Rogan should be silenced.
[00:30:44] Speaker A: Well, yeah, I mean it's the, the non conformity aspect. And like I said, that's, that's kind of non conformity in thought in that. Okay, well you, you have this information, you have what you call proof and then this other person has some information. And it's not like this Dr. Malone is saying he can't prove what he's saying, he just hasn't, you know, like, or the other people are saying we can prove that it's not true. And so anybody can also say that they have proof. And so like it's interesting in the sense that as you point out, like this kind of stuff comes up, not just, this isn't new, you know, like all of these same sentiments that we saw, you know, with the masking, the vaccines, they came up, the last few pandemics of record, they were all those issues came up. The Supreme Court ruled on vaccine mandates 100 something years ago. You know, like for the first, like that was they, they settled that question a long time ago. And so all of the same questions, all the same arguments and so forth. So a lot of the response to the, to the pandemic seems to be kind of innate in our human, human nature. Like the people who are Vaccine resistant aren't novel, you know, like, they're not something new. Like they were vaccine resistant people before, you know, like. And then it comes up every time. They're just the successors of that in that sense. And so because of that, I think what the pandemic presents, which is unique, is that it requires us. It requires us more cooperation and more conformity than most things that we deal with. Because the pandemic is not something that's easy to silo yourself from exposure to if you, you know, like, unless you just stay home all the time, which is not really a good option. And so what other people do affect you much more than normal issues that we deal with, you know, like that we deal with, that we're more used to dealing with and so forth. And so people are more angry or more upset when others in society aren't conforming with this general understood, whatever the prevailing knowledge, wisdom, whatever the people who have the balance of proof. Because that's the other thing is, you know, proof a lot of times isn't 100%, that's zero. Proof a lot of times is if you're in civil court, it's 51 to 49, or if you're in criminal court, it's 90 to 10 or 98 to 2 or whatever. It would be beyond a reasonable doubt. And so proof is a sliding scale kind of inherently. But in this case, when what you do, what somebody else does affects me so much more, the stakes are kind of raised and so everybody's just more heightened and, and it creates a. That's what I said. It creates a harder dilemma for society when. Cause we see it now with Europe and various places, like people are getting mad at the people who aren't vaccinated and trying to shame them or trying to punish them and so forth. And I'm a vaccinated person, like, I see it, I observe it, I'm not out here looking for blood. But I see the challenge for society, like, hey, those people, you know, like this. I don't want to be lining people up to have to do something because of the law, you know, like that's, that's a slippery slope.
And so I don't know that we need to be going about it that way. But we don't really have good answers right now in terms of how to lessen the nonconformity, particularly with the nonconformity. That is just because you don't trust the society at large, which may be earned.
[00:33:59] Speaker B: Yeah.
My kind of main thought as we close out this section is really, I think everyone should just look. And this is my opinion. Obviously, if everyone did everything I said, the world would be just perfect to me. But I'm pretty sure everyone else would have a problem with it. So maybe very clear here that I recognize my own arrogance with that statement. But no, I'm just thinking that requires some sort of mental and emotional flexibility and nimbleness dealing with these things, I think. And just the bigger picture, right? This pandemic's been now two years, roughly.
And I just think, like you're saying the need, and we talked about this in a recent show, leadership's important.
We're here now, two years into it.
I think that it's not the same as it was 18 months ago or two years ago, where at the beginning, if everyone just conformed and acted the part, it might have been different today, but it's not. And that's life. And it's okay.
[00:35:02] Speaker A: It might have been and it might not have been.
[00:35:03] Speaker B: Yeah, it might not have been.
[00:35:04] Speaker A: We don't know. But.
[00:35:05] Speaker B: And that's what I'm kind of saying, like. So I think this is where I guess I just, to close out the feeling about this, this whole Joe Rogan attack on Spotify from the scientific community is like, everybody needs to chill out, including the scientific community, and understand that we're dealing with a large population and not everyone's going to conform because we got a free country. I mean, this ain't China, where literally when they have two Covid cases in the city, they shut the whole city down again.
So it, you know, we're at the point where I think the people who've been vaccinated already are vaccinated. The people who are still holding out probably aren't going to get vaccinated. And that's my point. And they're not going to get vaccinated by continuing to be belittled by the people who have been.
[00:35:45] Speaker A: And they're going to continue to seek out sources of information that confirm their. Their decision.
[00:35:50] Speaker B: Exactly. And because we live in a type of society we live in, we can't shut down those source all of those sources of information. Right. And neither should we want to. And so I think everyone just needs to just like, okay, this is the big kind of the beginning of the end of this stuff, this pandemic generally, let's hope if there's not another aggressive variant that comes out at some point in the future, and between enough vaccination, between the exposure and herd immunity and all that, we're going to get through this. And some people aren't going to survive because they didn't make certain choices about vaccines. And that's life. And I think we all need to just relax and keep moving.
[00:36:22] Speaker A: I mean, I mean, you're right in the sense that I think people need to understand that this stuff is messy. This is human societies, man. It's. Exactly, it's not. There's no certainty involved. Like, and that's. We, we were accustomed to a life where we felt more in control and more certainty about what was going on and what to expect in the next week or two or four or whatever. And right now that has been disturbed. And so people are understandably on edge about that because that's just how it works. But I would say this to the scientific community.
I think that there is, and this is to knock them, there is a case of entitlement here that we're seeing, that they believe they're entitled to be believed just because they speak up and say it, whether, because they know the hours they've put in as far as proving and studying and so forth. But that doesn't necessarily, that doesn't translate automatically. Basically, they're going to have to do the work. If they want people to believe them and not Dr. Malone or whatever, then they got to get out there, they got to do the work and they have to, they have to match or exceed the energy of the people who are they, who, who they're saying are providing misinformation. And that's going to, that's difficult. It's hard, you know, but that's what you have to do if you're trying to bring more people on board. Yeah, I agree with you. It's not going to be because you shame them. It's not going to be because you punish them necessarily. That has limits, you know, like that there's, there's limits to how effective that can be. But get out there and do the persuasion.
Have these 270, you know, the doctors, scientists, whatever, have them flood the airwaves with, you know, go into Joe Rogan or Howard Stern or whatever and, and, and do that work. You know, get the ones obviously that know how to do media stuff.
[00:38:00] Speaker B: Yeah.
[00:38:01] Speaker A: Don't get the guys that are gonna get tripped up every five seconds. But either way, like, do the work. Don't be entitled. Don't sit here and say, well, I said it. That's my word.
Everybody else shut up. Like, that's not how it works, you know, especially in an open society. So I want to transition. Actually, the point of how the messy and the uncertainty leads us into the next topic.
We were looking at a piece this week which was very interesting because it talked about stress and humans with stress and how stress, obviously everyone knows, can be very harmful. But the premise of the piece and this will be in the show notes, but the premise was basically that you can reduce or eliminate the harmful stress by making very small changes or relatively small changes. Not in what you're doing necessarily, but on what you focus on and your perception, your focus and perception. So what was your reaction to this or your thoughts on this? How these small little tweaks could greatly reduce your stress or limit how stress can hurt you.
[00:39:02] Speaker B: This is just another great read of stuff that you and I have done extensive conversations on over the last couple years of this podcast, just with mind and body. And you're right, the ability for us to have a certain level of control by controlling our, you know, like our perception mentally of the outside world. And so to me, it's kind of fascinating.
And part of it too is needing to understand what causes our stress and what triggers us as individuals.
So I thought it was very interesting and.
[00:39:42] Speaker A: Well, yeah, let me give my initial reaction. I know you want to get into one of the studies that was cited and I agree with you like this. To me, the underlying premise dealt with how your focus one is vital in this and a quote from it. Our perception of reality is to a large extent created by the focus of your attention.
And so one of the tweaks that was talked about is how if you can focus on things that you can control versus things that are out of your control, then that will physically like your physiology, that will reduce your cortisol, all the markers of stress that will reduce that, that will return you to baseline by focusing on what you can control. So the appearance, the appearance of control, the perception of control actually influences your stress level and how stress is influencing your body, much more so than we can even imagine. And you know, like a light switch, you know, and that. That's fascinating to me. Like then. So I have an example how that has helped me or has played out in my life as well. But I know you wanted it. I want to get it. I'm very interested to your take on this.
The one of the studies that was cited in there.
[00:40:56] Speaker B: Well, yeah, no, that was a study on the rats which was very interesting. And it was about. They had the executive rat and the subordinate rat and the.
I guess the way I understood it was there was a electric shock thing in their cages. They were separated into two separate cages. One rat could control its electric shock and the other couldn't.
So the one that couldn't was constantly under stress because it didn't know where or when the shock would come. The one that could control it. Eventually they both started beginning with the same elevated stress levels, but the one that could control the shock eventually went back down to normal stress levels because it could anticipate the negative feeling, you know, that being shocked versus the other one that couldn't. And the subordinate rat and the subordinate cage did. Their stress levels were constantly elevated, you know, I guess the duration of the experiment.
[00:42:01] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:42:01] Speaker B: And what was interesting about that was one of the things I thought was our society, like, that's a very good representation of humans and how we're born. Think about it, that those rats didn't choose which cage they went into.
Right. That choice was made for them. And once they were in those cages, they both then had different psychological experiences.
And over time, imagine going through generations of that. Right?
[00:42:31] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:42:32] Speaker B: So over time, the executive mouse would have offspring and all that, that have a certain lifestyle and felt that they were in control, understood when stress was going to come or when it wasn't. The subordinate rat and their offspring would just be constantly under stress.
And I started thinking about, like, our society as human beings. Like, wow, this is where you hear about, you know, whether you're born into luxury or born into poverty, that's really not the child's, you know, choice. Right.
But in a similar way. And we've talked about this on other shows. I thought about the one we did recently about the ability of buying time.
People that have means can buy time through paying for people to do things that they don't want, and that can create more happiness. And I felt like that was a perception of control. Correct. You know, like, because I might be stressed out if I just work six days, and then on my only day off, I got to clean my house and mow my lawn.
But if I can pay for someone to do those things and I can relax, then I'm a little bit in more control of my surrounding versus if I don't have those means.
So that's why.
[00:43:42] Speaker A: But see, if you can pay for those things, whether you relax or not, whether you do for something else, it just puts you in more of an executive type of a mindset. Correct? I got that covered. Yeah, I think. But like, for me, it was interesting. Like, you pointed out, like, the rats, like, they.
The acute stress of the actual shock did the same thing to both of them, shot both of their stress levels up. But the one that felt can control, the one that knew it could turn it off or whatever and knew that if it came back he could turn it off again.
His stress levels went right back down to normal stress levels because it was something that he felt like he was in control of. Hey, if that comes up, I know what to do with it. No big deal. Whereas the other one, the stress level stayed high, the other one, their stress level stayed high regardless of whether the shock was going because they knew it could come back at any time and there's nothing they could do about it. And so that piece combined with what you focus on, meaning the example from the gentleman from the Holocaust that was in there as well, in terms of how he changed his focus to, you know, during going in a concentration camp, changed his focus to the things that he can control as far as on a day to day basis and not on the big picture of I'm in this terrible environment and have nothing to do. How that created a mental context for someone to be able to survive is similar as well. I mean, again, it all goes back to what can you control?
Figuring that out and then focusing your attention on that stuff and making sure that what you're doing and what you're thinking about is mainly about what you can control and not what you can't control.
[00:45:11] Speaker B: Yeah, you know what that reminded me of? And by the way, for the audience, the gentleman that James is citing is Viktor Frankl who is famous for basically he became a psychologist, but he based on like you're saying, his experience in a concentration camp and watching, basically he came away.
And it was very interesting they cited in the article that he believed that basically what kept a lot of people from living and dying, I mean those that let's say weren't shot or physically killed, but those that were able to survive versus maybe not survive through just their own effort was really like you're saying, the ability to find a way to control their immediate environment, which gave them a sense of hope. And I think part of that is just their mind probably could focus on something else and the terror that they were experiencing.
[00:46:02] Speaker A: And it's still perceived control though, because you still ultimately have very little control of your circumstances if you focus on a few things that you do.
[00:46:08] Speaker B: But yeah, that's what I was going to get back to some of the things we discussed in other shows too. I mean, you and I have long joked and cited our need almost mentally to do things like clean our kitchens every night.
I find like for me, cleaning Vacuuming and all that in my house relaxes me. It's funny. And when we've talked about it, what do we identify? It gives us the ability to do something small, immediate, that is controllable. And it's a task that. Incomplete, you know, incorrect.
My kitchen was a mess, and in 30, 40 minutes, it's spotless.
I controlled it. I feel good after it. I can see that. My results of my accomplishment. And no matter what was going on, else in the world, if the stock market's crashing, if, you know, I'm not happy with the politics stuff I'm seeing on tv, if I'm scared of this or scared of that, I could control that one little moment of my. Of my day. And I think there's something to that, that. That does allow us some sort of. And I would even say, like, when we do projects, you know, whether I'm painting a canvas or doing one of my planes, you know, in the end, it's all part of that. It's the ability for me to escape and have some sort of control over my time.
Which, by the way, just to fill.
[00:47:21] Speaker A: In the audience, you and I, we've talked offline about this. We both independently came up with that kitchen. Cleaning the kitchen thing. Like, we just were talking one day, and it was like, oh, you do that? Like, cleaning the kitchen every night.
We both like, oh, yeah, that's part of my, like, relaxation time. It's like, oh, for you, too. Like, so we just both discovered, like, oh, you do that too. And so, yeah, it's definitely something we've both employed, came up with independently to relax ourselves at the end of the day and to control something.
[00:47:49] Speaker B: And, you know, it's funny, I'll say this. You know where I got that from originally? Because I didn't, like, invent that. One of my old friends who at the time was playing in the NBA, you know, he was winning championships in the league, and we were talking, and that's what we were talking about, vacuuming.
And it's like, when it stuck out to me, and I'm like.
Cause he was telling me, he's like, yeah, Tunde, you know, vacuuming, relaxing me this. And I'm thinking, like, I was joking in my head thinking, you know, it's funny how we're all the same. My boy's playing. You know, he was on the same team with LeBron and D. Wade. And it. We're all the same in a sense, mentally, that we all just want a little bit of control. And no matter where you think someone else is in their life. You know, we're all. We're all in need for that. So someone could say, look at this big NBA player. They're making all this money, this and that. But then, you know, it's like, what makes that guy calm down and feel just relaxed is the same thing that makes us feel relaxed because it's the same mental state. We're looking for just a little bit of control in this crazy sea of life.
So it is funny. The other thing that stuck out to me just as we wrap up here with this article was I just underlined a part that says stress comes from the future.
And it reminded me of when we did the Power of Now a few months ago, that really our inability for most of us to really just be in the present just naturally creates anxiety, which anxiety is definitely the cousin of stress. And so because you're thinking about the future, you're always thinking about the what ifs, is this going to happen, that going to happen?
And, you know, it's just interesting because that's where I realized in reading this why it's not easy what I'm going to say, and it's going to sound stupid when I say it, why I've turned off the news and how I've been so much happier. And what I was gonna say is for people that have consumed our news media, it is somewhat addicting, but it's always negative. And like, I tried to turn the news on a couple days ago, and all I'm hearing about is all these snowstorms and this, and everything's negative everywhere. And it's just like, all right, I turned it back off.
I realized how happy I was the rest of the day.
[00:50:00] Speaker A: Well, and actually, the piece did cite specifically that our human tendency is to focus on threats and problems. And I mean, obviously that's an adaptation there, you know, because if it's a lion that's about to attack the village or whatever, then that kind of threat or problem, that immediate threat, is something that you should be focusing on. But the other piece that you put together with that actually, and it really provides some insight, is put our. Put the tendency to focus on threats and problems combined with what also was discussed is our. What they believe to be a unique ability amongst humans to kind of live mentally in a predicted future world. By focusing on the future, then you're worried about things not that are. That are imminent or that are right now, but things that could happen if this, this, this, this and this in the future. And so. And you've created that all in your head. And so you, like you said, it's not focusing on the now, it's focusing on the future, on a potential future, not even a real one. And so if you focus on the future and you have a tendency to focus on the negative, so to speak, and threats and problems, then you're going to constantly stress yourself out. And the last thing I'll say on this is, as you pointed out, the news focuses on that. And that is because of that tendency to focus on threats and problems. That's how they keep our attention, basically. And that's not to say that they shouldn't be telling us things that are the real threats and so forth, but the focus on it. When the game becomes solely about maintaining attention, that's when the news can become something that goes from informing you to just trying to get you hooked, trying to keep you hooked. As far as information that doesn't isn't really that important right now, like it may be important some point in the future, but they don't want you to turn the channel. They're competing again with movies and they're competing with sports, and they're trying to keep your attention at all times. And so instead of trying to give you perspective about threats and about things that are coming up, they're trying to just make you worry about it because that's how they're going to keep your attention. So it's, in a way, it kind of sets the stage for this kind of manipulation for attention that can be unhealthy and cause people stress. And I think last week we discussed how people are at their breaking point. And some of that is the real stress from living in pandemic. And then some of it also is the constant bombardment from where we're getting our information with trying to make us. We're trying to keep our attention and thereby making us more stressed.
[00:52:16] Speaker B: Yeah, I'll give you a quick example of that that just, you know, we're here in the second, you know, week of January, I think it was about two weeks ago was the big snowstorm in Virginia that I guess shut down part of i95. Remember that?
[00:52:30] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:52:30] Speaker B: Yeah, I'm glad you remember, because that's what I was thinking. What the hell do I need to know about that for? I mean, literally. No, because I was, you know, I do try and be engaged with what's going on. So I put on some of the news channels, you know, that day, just to see what's going on.
And it's like, first of all, I'm Sitting here right now as we're talking, I'm staring out of my window at a palm tree because we live in South Florida. Right.
So for three days straight, I had to hear about this snowstorm on one section of I95 in the state of Virginia. So it's not even a whole state on national news networks. And I'm thinking, like, well, why, like, why do I have to hear about this? I mean, I'm not taking away from the tragedy. People, you know, stuck outside at night at freezing temperatures, like, that's important stuff. But for three days straight, for the rest of us that aren't anywhere near that highway or in the state of Virginia that need to just know, hey, don't go. And I get it. That people in Virginia need to know about that highway being shut down because they're going on it. I'm not going on the highway in Virginia from South Florida today.
[00:53:32] Speaker A: Well, what your point is is that it goes from informing you to sensationalizing it.
[00:53:37] Speaker B: Correct. And what I'm saying is it's another something negative. Right. Because then what happens, you get all the pundits piling on about why the governor sucks and why, why this and that and why our infrastructure is bad. I saw an article on my newsfeed about the fact that America's highway systems are collapsing now because of this, this Virginia thing. And what I'm saying is that's what people don't realize. It's all negative. And it creates this negative undercurrent in your mind and in your emotional state where you just think, oh, everything's coming at me at all times.
[00:54:05] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:54:05] Speaker B: And that's what I mean. Once you. Once you just hit the eject button and decide, I'm not going to watch this stuff anymore, your life actually gets a lot better. The problem is, is that that stuff is designed to want to draw you in. So it's kind of. We talked about this on one of our shows too, last year. Like what they've done psychologically, what the food industry figured out years ago with sugar and salt.
[00:54:27] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:54:28] Speaker B: Is how to keep us coming back for more. And it's very hard to get away.
[00:54:31] Speaker A: Because our attention is their currency, you know, and that's really what it is.
[00:54:35] Speaker B: It's a very good point. I never thought of it like that.
[00:54:37] Speaker A: Yeah. So it's not. It's not even necessarily sinister. It is the market playing role. Like they need our attention.
[00:54:43] Speaker B: You know what it's like when you have little kids in elementary school age. That's a good point. I said, tell my son that his mother's attention is my son's currency. That's all he looks for.
Sometimes I wonder, like, I'm wondering if I'm competing with my own son for his mother's attention. He's so attached to her. So you're like, I'm gonna make the show to play it for him in 30 years, let him know how I felt about our competition he didn't realize we were having when he was 10.
[00:55:09] Speaker A: Oh, man.
Yeah, I think we can wrap it from there, man. But that's.
[00:55:14] Speaker B: That's.
[00:55:14] Speaker A: That's funny, so. But we appreciate everybody for joining us on this episode of Call It Like I See It Again. You can get us wherever you get your podcast. Subscribe to the podcast, rate us, review us, tell us what you think. And until next time, I'm James Keys.
[00:55:26] Speaker B: I'm Tunde Ogundlana. Not stressed anymore.
[00:55:29] Speaker A: All right? And we'll talk, at least for now.
All right? Right. And we'll talk to you next time.
