A View of The View
Hello, and welcome in to another episode of the 2 Parachutes Podcast. I am one of your co hosts. I'm Scott Olson, retired FBI agent and current private investigator. With me as always is the other half of the two Parachutes Podcast.
Shawn:Hey, Scott. Sean Baker Garcia here, cohost of 2PP, and I am the happy accidental CEO and global security enthusiast. So welcome to everyone.
Scott:All right. Well, I think we have a bit of an interesting start point today as we were up at altitude. We're in our aircraft. We're got our parachutes on, and we're gonna jump. So what's our start point today, Sean?
Scott:You wanna set
Shawn:this Yeah. We'll do. So Scott and I are super excited. We, in addition to the podcast, which now is almost coming up on a year, we've been actually recording sessions or episodes, which has been terrific. We've learned a lot.
Shawn:We have a lot more to learn, as we know. But in addition to all of that, we've decided to undertake book effort. And so we are loosely working with, you know, focus on the hard work of interacting and what that means for humans in, you know, the twenty first century in this digital, emerging AI age, and why it is so important to all of us and potentially ultimately to our, survival and our thriving. One of the things that we mean by doing the hard work of interacting is really leaning into conversations, whether they're in person or online, and really doing sort of the hard work of pressing through discomfort, where there is disagreement, or there is, you know, a confirmed or perceived clash of worldview or ideology. Because the more that we reject those types of conversations, or avoid them even worse, is, you know, it closes down the lines of communication to where, you know, ultimately you want to get to some level of shared understanding, or if not a shared understanding, at least a mutual understanding of what drives the other person's reactions or positions or, you know, where they fall on on issues of of social and political import.
Shawn:So an interesting I saw an interesting reel yesterday, and I brought it to Scott's attention, And then he watched it, and we had a conversation about it. And we thought it was a good case study for illustrating what we mean when we talk about doing the hard work of interacting and why it is so important or matters in today's world. And some of you may have seen this, you know, by the time this goes to air, maybe, you know, you've seen it or or at least heard about it. But there was an opportunity, where you had the ostensibly two flagship representatives of the two political ideologies in America today, represented by the right Republican sort of conservative movement and the left progressive liberal Democrat movement. Insofar as on the right, it was, you know, current vice president, presumptive presidential candidate for the next election cycle, J.
Shawn:D. Vance. And on the left, he was being hosted by the, you know, famously sort of progressive leaning or left leaning, talk show, The View. In this discussion forum and interview where you would hope that the two sides feeling confident that, you know, they have cachet among their own sort of constituencies and audience members and some credibility, you know, and probably a good chance of some overlap, right, where some moderates, you know, don't find the other totally, you know, reprehensible or unpalatable, there's a good opportunity to kind of have a moment to come together and really say, you know, broker some kind of an understanding. Like, you know, where are you on these issues and why?
Shawn:Where are you on these issues and why? Well, what we saw, at least in this reel, which, of course, I'm sure was deliberately cultivated by those who are looking for clicks, monetizing clicks, is a sort of interaction between vice president Vance and Whoopi Goldberg. And what happened was, in short, she kinda came out the gate pretty pretty aggressively towards him saying, you know, why is this administration, meaning the Trump administration, racist? You know, you're you're pursuing and implementing policies that are bad for the black community and that erase black history. And, you know, so there's a lot of and and I'm summarizing.
Shawn:This is not verbatim. Obviously, go listen to the the the entire clip. I I urge you to get the full facts. But his response to that was, well, you know, can you give me some examples of where you're seeing this history being erased or, you know, whatever? And and all she did was kinda flail her hands and say, well, you know, there's just so many examples.
Shawn:Okay. Well, I'm sure he didn't know where to go with that. So what he did then was said, well, what I can tell you is that here's what we have done, you know, as in one example. And he cited the example of reducing crime rates in the District Of Columbia, Washington, DC, which is, by his words, not mine, has one of the largest populations of black, you know, American citizens in the country per capita, I guess. Again, you can fact check that.
Shawn:It's not my words. Those are his. And then he kind of went on to list, like, you know, that, you know, crime rate has gone down, acts of violence, you know, you know, all these things. And he and he listed a fair number of, you know, what sounded like pretty positive outcomes. And her response then back to him was, well, what has that got to do with anything?
Shawn:Well, okay, so I just said more black people in this really consolidated, heavily black area community of our country was, you know, suffering from certain types of crime and violence experiences, and we're saying we improved that. You know, what do you mean? What is why is that relevant? You know? But because he didn't address the black history being erased from American, like, museums or you know, she never actually gave and maybe she did later, Scott.
Shawn:I don't know. But at the time, she didn't give any, you know, explicit examples. So whether that's true or not, I have no idea. You know, until it's proven, I guess I would say no. But like, I'm sure there's somebody must know of an example.
Shawn:Otherwise, they wouldn't have raised it. But the point is, then I'll pass it to you to kind of take us into the commentary or the analysis, is they had an opportunity to do the hard work of interacting. They had an opportunity to example for the rest of the country how to have a meaningful conversation where you could try to understand, like, okay, like, you know, you say all this, JD Vance, but like, what makes you think that you're not racist? And then give him a specific example of where something's happening so that he has something to build off of and say, okay, well, could see why that optic looks bad or that you know. And try to build into something where you could at least see, even if you still disagree, you could at least see the trail of breadcrumbs that lead you to understand why that person's shared like, why that person's lived experience may lead them to the conclusion that we're doing all we can.
Shawn:Or that, you know, you're not doing all you can. And that just didn't happen, Scott. And it was a big missed opportunity in my book for both of them to lead by example and to try to tamp down the sort of inflamed divisions in our society today. But worse, it just showed that there was like zero interest in actually understanding what was driving the other person's frustrations. And if we can't do that at even that scale where very safe environment for them, right, they each had their constituents locked in, you know, and they still couldn't do it.
Shawn:They couldn't be brave enough to try to understand where the other person was coming from and and to build some kind of understanding based on facts versus just, allegations and and accusations that, you know, were ultimately, kind of mean spirited and and, you know, unproven. Or or at least, you know, for that purpose of that argument, nobody could actually how do you refute something if you don't know what you're refuting?
Scott:Yeah. Yeah. And that's that's what makes this a good example for what we're trying to do here on the 2 Parachutes Podcast. This one, know, sort of strap in and get ready to follow because there are actually a lot of moving parts here that just come out of this one little example and there was more to that episode of The View before this little exchange and then more followed. So those who want to observe to us that we're you know taking a sound bite or a clip and maybe it's out of context, that's fair enough, but go with us as we jump through this because it illustrates a lot of what we think is really important.
Scott:And it's this notion of what we call the hard work of interacting. And part of the hard work of interacting is being thoughtful, forming your own opinions, but also being open to have your mind changed in particular, if you learn facts that you didn't know before. And facts matter because opinions are inferences that are based on facts. If the facts aren't known or if the facts are unknowable, then the inferences need to have that asterisk by them because they're not firmly grounded in accepted facts. So a lot of the debate actually should be on the facts.
Scott:And that's the sort of the first flag on the play for this exchange is at least Whoopi Goldberg alleged facts wasn't able to demonstrate those facts and then jumped straight to a conclusion that all of the things that Vance was saying that the Trump administration had done to make life for the black community that Goldberg was interested in, in the DC area, he listed all the things that made their life better and it was all under the heading of reducing crime, reducing the incidence of victims, and her response was, you know, how does that matter? I think the reason it matters is because of what happens when two humans disagree and can't find their way to understanding each other. When two humans disagree and they can't find their way to each other, inevitably it leads to frustration, it leads to both sides needing to win because otherwise they're wrong, and that inevitably over some timeline leads to violence. The principled stand here at the 2 Parachutes Podcast is that violence is not an acceptable outcome. It's not okay, no matter the provocation, with one exception, no matter the provocation, violence is never the answer.
Scott:The only exception is it is often necessary to use violence to stop violence and maybe that's a debate for another day and happy to have that debate, but you have to hate violence enough that you're willing to do anything to stop it, even use violence. But the point is, we can get ahead of that and we can get ahead of that through the hard work of interacting. The challenge is as an observer of this exchange, those who agree with Vance will agree with everything he says and reject her because it's confirmation bias. Those who agree with Goldberg are gonna do the same thing. She did a great job, she spoke truth to power, she was very courageous when in fact all she wanted was an admission from him that her negative opinion of him was correct and that is a extraordinarily rare thing to happen where a person accuses another person of essentially being bad and that other person agrees and says yes you're correct I'm bad.
Scott:It just, it doesn't happen. And so I think the challenge is to start with the facts, but the other part of the challenge is that it requires self control to learn. If you're outraged at something, your ability to really examine that thing and understand it becomes very truncated. And you know again I am here and I'm hearing my own voice and I know that I'm making a lot of sweeping statements, factual statements as though they're true and I'm happy to be disabused but at this point I think that it is self evident that when you're outraged you don't learn, you don't listen. And she came into this outraged and so she didn't learn.
Scott:And that is performative. And so the question becomes, is the view in particular and then shows of that type, is it performative? Because it's performative, then as customers we can now understand why that interaction is happening and why this, what we see as a lost opportunity happened. Because they're not actually in front of the camera to engage in the hard work of interacting. They're not there to presume good intent.
Scott:They're certainly not avoiding ridicule, at least Whoopi Goldberg was not avoiding ridicule. It was performative and why does that matter for us? It matters for us because what we care about at the 2 Parachutes Podcast is giving people in the world tools that they can choose to use to interact with the public dialogue, to understand it. The average person who watches The View or who hears about this and goes in and looks at that clip, sitting at home you can't affect what The View is, whether it's performative or it's doing the hard work of interacting, But you can understand that it's either performative or doing the hard work of interacting and therefore allow it into your thought processes, into your considered formation of your own opinions in a way that makes sense to you. And it's the belief that we are better as a society if each individual in that society is taking care of themselves and then interacting with the rest of society.
Scott:So you can't change the view, but you can control how you use the view. And that's what matters. That's why we're talking about this. I don't know if that shakes anything loose for you. Well, there's a There's a
Shawn:lot lot of of stuff My brain is processing this like a AI platform. I'm grabbing onto key terms and words because I know that there's connective tissue between them all. But what I'm trying to do is synthesize those key terms, you know, into a coherent, like, logic thread that I can kind of build off of what you were saying. A couple of things that you were talking about. I think there are potential air pockets for us to fall in follow or fall into and follow.
Shawn:One of them was also was is, the idea of going into an interaction with built in assumptions and maybe some of those assumptions not being accurate or faulty in some sense. The the other sort of term that was jumping out to me was is that, you know, the idea that, you know, you can disagree on policies. And but unfortunately, nowadays, what what that is turning into is an automatic assumption. And again, this goes back to the assumptions piece, so maybe I really am ultimately coming back to assumptions, is that, you know, if you disagree with me on a political issue or or, you know, idea, that equates I'm already making the judgment that you are morally or from a values standpoint, corrupt. Like, so, you know, so policy disagreement equals moral or values failure.
Shawn:And and that's a really dangerous place for us to be as a society. We should be able to disagree on policies, disagree maybe on portions of policies, you know, but have a shared values and and morals sort of, you know, you know, like as a nation. Right? Like American values, American morals, I think, is a thing. It's it used to be.
Shawn:It's it's I believe it still is a thing. And if, you know, the World Cup foreigners coming all over the world to come and enjoy this, you know, if what I'm hearing is that people are enjoying their their American experience. You know? And so so I do believe it still exists. There there is a very shared American morality, I think, that has been cultivated over the last two hundred and fifty years, probably longer if you consider it a pre, you know, sort of nation birth.
Shawn:We were, you know, those immigrants that came over and settled this this continent. You know, they they were working for or operating from a consistent sort of, like, you know, I think, upbringing that then was transmitted to all of us as we evolved into this the country that we are today. So so I think that, you know, going back to our book, like, what we're trying to say here is that, you know, human interaction, I think part of our premise or our core thesis as we discussed at Scott is, you know, this is not a passive state or or or something that you can delegate to to an algorithm online. Right? Like, you actually have to get dirty.
Shawn:You have to get into the muck of it. You have to be you have to want to be curious and and know what's going on in the mind of somebody who you might disagree with. And and you have to be willing to resist the temptation to just jump into an assumption about them or their beliefs or their experience their lived experience. And and you have to be willing to exercise that social muscle because, you know, the and then the only way you can do that is through resistance training, which is disagreement. So they're looking at well, they, I don't know who they is, but, you know, people in today who are who are kind of, like, retreating from the physical world, right, who are living a lot of their life online or their their conversations online, and when they are in person, you know, I'm still texting the person across the table from me.
Shawn:You know, it's ridiculous, right? Like, what are we even doing? You know, we cannot just retreat into these digital echo chambers, right? You know? And I think that we need to reintroduce the idea that like, you know, words are not violence and that, you know, disagreement is not moral failure.
Shawn:And, you know, and I'm not saying in every case, I'm sure there's somebody out there who I might, you know, have a conversation with. I'm like, nope, like, you know, you're a cannibal, we just can't get on board with that. Like, you know what I mean? Like, I'm sure it exists. Know?
Shawn:Or, know, I'll be very honest, like, people who live in in very conservative, like, you know, societies like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, I don't have a lot of common in terms of, I don't think, like, you know, my value system there, right? Those might be more religious based, but, you know, it's not a society I'd feel comfortable living in. We'll say that, Right? You know, and I'm sure they wouldn't feel comfortable living in ours. So we'll just leave it at that.
Shawn:But I think what we're trying to get out to everybody here is introducing the idea that Houston, we have a problem. You know what And I it's a communication problem. It's a social muscle problem that we are increasingly not exercising because it provides too much discomfort. You know what I mean? And we don't, because of how we've been taught or increasingly been told by, you know, media sources and like online experiences through social media platforms, that, you know, any disagreement is violence, or disagreement is judgment of value.
Shawn:You know what I mean? Or value judgment. Or what am I trying to say? That if you don't agree with me, your values are less than mine. You And I think that's what we said, you know.
Shawn:And let me just turn it around by this. If I had been in Whippy Goldberg's position, frankly speaking, she had every opportunity to be like, Okay, well, let's just put aside the fact she couldn't give him an ex explicit example of where black history was being erased. Okay. So option a is come ready with your example so that you can have a conversation about that. And now it's now it's on the burden of proof is on Vance to explain why the example, you know, shouldn't be interpreted that way or, you know, why it's happening, you know, and and defensible.
Shawn:Alternatively, option b, since she didn't come without game plan, you know what I mean, option b for her would have been to say, okay, I hear what you're saying. Of course, I'm happy that black lives are, like, lifestyles improving in in this particular area of the country. I don't agree with the way in which it was done. She could have said that and said, you know, which you know, because I think the left position and I'm inferring here because it's not actually one I think I share. But like, is that, you know, you had to take extra steps that were extra constitutional.
Shawn:You brought in this, like, you know, militant police force to enforce, you know, so the minute all that goes away, they're just going to go right back to where they were. And so essentially, you're just running a police state. You're like, okay, yeah, maybe I am safer from a physiological violence perspective, but am I freer? You know what I mean? Like, she could have engaged him in an intellectual rigor, and I think he's actually up for that challenge.
Shawn:I think he's actually, whatever you wanna say about this guy, I do think he's an intellect. I think he thinks deeply about these things, and I do think he cares. I think she cares. You know what I mean? But I think I think that social media and fandom and this sort of abdication of really getting to, you know, objective truth in society has made her and others on shows like The View lazy.
Shawn:They don't feel a need to defend themselves because out the gate they see themselves as morally superior and morally right. So the burden of proof does not lay on them, lie on their shoulders anymore. It's on the person that they're accusing, you know what I mean, to defend him or herself. So I guess that's where I land. Don't know if that's helpful at all, but I think it I
Scott:think it's very helpful because it's the entry into a path or a gust of wind that's going to blow us in a direction that I think really is related to the core of what it means to be human. And it's about the self and about the self image, and it's very hard as a human, and some people will deny this, and I'm happy to have the debate, but where I am is, if you believe something, it's negative, it's embarrassing to have that belief demonstrated to you as being not true. And when a person believes something, they will hold on to a lie to the end rather than admit that they believed something that was false. And you know, we can call it, you know confirmation bias, hidden confirmation bias, but when you go out into the world and we use the metaphor of the shaking leaf as you're walking through the forest and it could be the wind or it could be a lion, and your amygdala jumps in and you have fight or flight, and the safest thing to do is run, but then you have to deal with all of the other people in your community who think it's funny that you thought the wind was a lion, and you have potentially the shame of it, and if you are feeling shame because it was wind and not a lion, it's very difficult to stand up and say, well, at least I didn't get eaten by a lion, than it is to feel bad that you got something wrong, and people don't want to be wrong.
Scott:So I think you're absolutely correct that interacting with people, with other people, is
Shawn:a
Scott:perishable skill. If you don't go to the gym, you're gonna get weaker. If you don't exercise, even if you don't go to the gym and lift weights, you're gonna get weaker if you don't get up and move, run, walk, hike, do something, your cardiovascular system is going to erode. If you don't go out into the world and speak to another person, you lose the ability to do that, and even though we spend a lot of our time talking to each other on screens, which is great, I mean, I'm on the West Coast, you're on the East Coast, and we can do this podcast using online technology, and it's great. My mom was a teacher during COVID and she recited at length how much more difficult it was to create environments where her students learned when she was communicating through a screen to them than when she was communicating to them in shared space when they were there.
Scott:You now add to that things like search engines, whether they're conventional search engines or AI, you're actually not having a conversation, you are gaining facts that may or may not be true, but you're not interacting with a human being. You're not speaking, you're not reading nonverbals, you're not listening, and that leads to snap judgments, first impression judgments, Whoopi Goldberg's approach to this interview segment that we're using as an example. And thank you, Ms. Goldberg, thank you, Mr. Vance, for providing us an example that we can talk about.
Scott:There's no ridicule here. It's a good example. But her approach to it was she had already decided what the facts were. She had already made a value judgment about him, so what's the reason for the conversation at all? She could have very easily done a monologue that said, here are the facts, here's what I think about the Trump administration.
Scott:The only reason that she interacted with him was in an attempt, which I got to think she knew was gonna fail, to get him to admit that he was bad, and that the Trump administration was bad, and then outrage. But that is, that is all about I'm right and I am not listening, and it's fascinating really that not only have we, not only are we losing the skill of interacting with people, and also losing the skill of the art of disagreeing, and the art of talking about what we disagree about instead of personally attacking the other person, we're losing something much more fundamental, I think, which is the notion that we actually don't have to agree. We we just need to agree enough to get along. There there are things in the world that people are not going to agree with, and I don't the reason I pause is because I'm trying to make a general statement. There are things in the world that people do that those people think are right, that I think are wrong, and I will never think that they're right, And okay, I'm happy to be disabused, your example of cannibalism.
Scott:I would be surprised if somebody could convince me that cannibalism is a good and worthwhile thing. I'd be surprised at that, But I think we just, you know, label that agree to disagree, and I think the reason that agree to disagree is not useful is because it stops short of a course of action. We don't agree on this, comma, what do we do? And this is the other part. If you think you're right, what are you gonna do if you're wrong?
Scott:What are you actually gonna do if you're wrong? And I think you see this in the political sphere more than anywhere. You know, a person runs for office and says, well I'm gonna do this, this, and this, and this, and it's gonna solve all our problems. And the question that always pops into my head is, okay, but what if you're wrong? What if your ideas don't work?
Scott:What are you gonna do then? And almost nobody asks that question. And I would be thrilled to ask any politician, running for office or sitting politician, who has a great idea, I hear your great idea, I understand your logic. What are you gonna do if you're wrong? How not are you hurt people?
Shawn:At least show the math, right, on the cost benefit analysis. Because, you know, there's always a potential something doesn't work. It'd be you're right. It would be refreshing to hear from somebody, like, what does it look like if that doesn't work the way that you think it does?
Scott:Yeah. And and it's it it it takes a certain level of maturity to interact with somebody that you don't agree with and to talk about the facts, because it's risk, right? The risk is that you're gonna see some facts and have that, you know, eye popping experience of, oh wow, two minutes ago I believed this and now I see that's wrong. And that's the first time that happens to you, it's unpleasant. The millionth time it happens to you, you're just learning.
Scott:You become like Edison. I didn't fail in creating the light bulb. He is reputed to have said, I just found 10,000 ways that didn't work. That takes a certain level of maturity that a lot of people don't have, and certainly a lot of people today don't have, but it takes another level of maturity beyond that to understand that, hey, I can still live in this society and disagree with my neighbor. I can like somebody and not agree with them, and it's not that it's okay, it's that it's possible.
Scott:It's possible to have a warm human emotion for another person, and at the same time disagree with things that they believe are true. And that now becomes human experience. Instead of becoming the rare thing, becomes the normal thing. It's like, oh, I'm gonna go across the street and have a glass of wine with Bob, and Steve, he still believes these crazy things, and enjoy it for the human contact, and for not needing to be angry, and not needing to be frustrated, and not needing to, you know, either actually or figuratively beat some sense into poor old Bob. Yeah, that's kind of where I am.
Scott:What do you think?
Shawn:Yeah, so for me, what it's all kind of, this is culminating to, you know, a couple of things. And one of them is that I think we have gotten too comfortable with you know, and let's just talk about politics for a minute because you just can't escape it in this context. It's just so ever omnipresent. You know, our our society has been relegated like, so okay. Let me put it this way.
Shawn:Because we have increasingly, potentially for much longer than what even I realized, have been sort of underutilizing our interaction, human interaction, social muscle. Right? It's badly atrophying. And it's funny because I was in a you know, part of what Scott and I are doing is we're we're working we're actually leveraging the AI tool for, you know, helping us to efficiently organize our thoughts and and, you know, construct this book. And and we're doing that deliberately, by the way, because we think that what we don't want people to to the message to to come away from all of this effort is that, oh, like, you know, technology's bad, AI's bad, social media's bad, everything's bad.
Shawn:You know? That's not the premise that we're starting from. And in fact, you know, there there are ways, but it's just the rightsizing of where you use those technology resources so that it doesn't replace the human process, whether it's the creative thought process or interacting. But one of the things I was actually trying to organize some information for for one of our, you know, our book outline the other day, and I was really probing into this, you know, question about the existence of binaries. And you and I talked about this in human sort of society.
Shawn:It's like And I'm not talking about biological stuff. There's binaries. I accept that, and I'm good with that. And I'm not trying to get into that conversation. But what I'm talking about is, you know, us versus them, left versus right, good versus bad, these sort of philosophical binaries that I think drives a lot of our worldviews going back to the time of, you know, first civilization, where we were starting to put our thoughts onto record, you know, through art or through pictographs or writing.
Shawn:And I have to wonder if it's starting to look like a really good premise to think that humans start to overproduce binary frameworks when the interaction muscle atrophies. You know what I mean? Like a chicken or an egg thing. It's like, you know, we're so dug into the left and the right right now, or the Republicans and the Democrats, because we got bad at interacting. Somewhere along the way, we stopped having hard interactions that produced meaningful disagreement where both sides could say, we share values, but we disagree on the path forward.
Shawn:We all want America to be economically successful, but we disagree on how to get there. We all want America to be, you know, defense ready and and able to protect its homeland. We disagree on how to get there. You know what I'm saying? So, you know, whereas nowadays, it's kind of just like, you know, you're with us or you're against us.
Shawn:You know? And and and I think that, you know, it's funny because where have I heard that term before? First time I ever remember hearing that term in a political context actually was George Bush the second, you know, w, where it was like his proclamation, you know, to the allied nations where you're with us or you're against us in the, you know, 2003 goal four kind of thing. And that tells you right there, something broke down. They stopped doing the hard because when you have to start issuing ultimatums, and when you, you know, are being relegated to binary choices, that's maybe the first red flag that something's gone wrong.
Shawn:You know, potentially. And so I think that's worth exploring. And I do think that there is a paper trail probably to be had there that, you know, when that muscle starts atrophying where- and sometimes I think it's our engagement mechanisms that lead to that atrophy, because you over bureaucratize an interaction, you know? I think that's what- so in the political sense, I think that started happening back in the late 90s, early 2000s, with the onset of the, you know, the World Wide Web and the internet and email and You know what I mean? And now I see a sort of new wave of that atrophying taking place as we bureaucratize our social interactions.
Shawn:So if our social if our human if if we're not doing the hard work of interacting at the governance level or the bureaucracy level, and we're not doing it or or professional even, you know, take government out of it in your just day to day work, and you're not doing it in your social sort of, like, sector, then you're just not doing it. And and then you're not producing meaningful human interactions that are allowing you to learn more about other people and their worldviews and their lived experiences. And, you know, when you couple that atrophying and sort of, you know, overreliance on, you know, the digital forum to kind of, you know, algorithms, right, to kind of make choices for you or to shepherd you like you're a sheep, you know, like into your pen where they think you belong, when you couple that with a decreasing, that will create I think there's actually causality. I think when you do that, then you start caring less for humans. Because you know them less, there's nothing for you to value.
Shawn:It's dehumanizing them, which prevents you from then entering that interaction. Like with Whoopi Goldberg and with J. D. Vance, it's like, you know, were they leading with goodwill? Right?
Shawn:Well, how can you do that if you've already dehumanized each other? You really it's hard to do that. You know? And and maybe Vance was, because he was actually sorry. His temperament was quite open, and and and I think he was he was there for it.
Shawn:I think he was ready for the conversation. I think he was there for legitimate pushback, and he just didn't and I don't think The View could meet him where he was at. You know? You know? And and they so that's why I say it's a missed opportunity for them as well.
Shawn:You know? Now his opportunity missed, I guess, would was to be more explicit about where he was lead you know? He he could have just been like, I want to understand why you guys think you know what I mean? Like, why are we here, guys, ladies? Like, what what what on earth is happening?
Shawn:What are you seeing in your day to day lived life that is telling you that this is happening? And and I don't want quotes from rhetoric from social media tweets or that you know what I mean? Now they could very well have come back and said, well, okay. No. But it is the tweets.
Shawn:Your president puts out insane things. They would be right.
Scott:They would be right.
Shawn:And and he would have to defend that.
Scott:Yeah. Or or concede it.
Shawn:Or or con well, yeah. That's what I mean. That's exactly. He would have to own it, I guess, is what I was saying. He would have to own that as the sort of second in command.
Shawn:Like, you're the vice president. You know, you're telling me you have no influence. You're not telling me that you can't you know? And or maybe he does, and maybe we would be enlightened, and, you know, god help us. Maybe we'd find out, well, it's better than the one he was gonna send.
Shawn:I mean, you know what I mean? Sure. Who knows? Who knows?
Scott:You're touching on so many things and it's funny when we are in conversations like this where there are so many
Shawn:entry points.
Scott:There are so many teeny parts that make up this machine. Reminds me of something that bear with me because this may not seem relevant at first, but it reminds me of when my first daughter was born, my oldest was born. And I had always wanted to be a father. I knew from the time that I was a child myself that I was going to be a father. And so I was excited.
Scott:I was excited to be married. I was excited to be in love with a woman who wanted to be a mother, and we were going to do this together. And we have this baby and she's 35 now or 36 now. But when she was born, she really didn't give a crap about the baby didn't care that we were tired, that we were frustrated. You know, when she was happy, she laughed when she needed to poop, she pooped when she was hurt, or hurting, or frustrated, she cried.
Scott:And I realized in the first two or three months of her life that I could not make her do anything. I could not make her do anything. I could interact with her, I could hold her, when she was hurt I could try and figure out you know, did she have, you know, was her tummy hurting her, was there something, you know, just trying to figure out why she was crying because you don't cry when you're not in pain. I want to know what the pain is so that I can stop the pain but I couldn't make her do anything. As she grew and siblings came, the biggest takeaway for me as a parent is I could not make another human being do anything and we go now into the political world and we believe that we can make other human beings do things.
Scott:You know, we pass laws and we think when we're passing those laws that it's going to make people change their behavior. I was a prosecutor. I was a prosecutor for six years and 100% of the people that I prosecuted for committing crimes did it knowing it was a crime and did it expecting not to get caught. So the fact that it was a crime did not impact their decision to engage in that bad behavior. So I'm not an anarchist.
Scott:I think that guardrails to a certain extent so that we, you know, you can walk across the bridge, but you're gonna feel more comfortable walking across the bridge if the bridge has railings, even if you don't touch the railings. If there are no railings, you're much more concerned about falling. If there are railings, you're less concerned. I think that's the practice, but the notion of well you know we need to have a law to make people do this or to make people do that, we're not going to solve anything if our approach is I know what's in your best interest so do what I say and if you don't do it I'm going to punish you. It doesn't work.
Scott:It's not effective. People may think it's effective, but I love that debate because when you dig down into it, you have a person who is trying to put a restriction on somebody else that if that restriction was placed on them, they would hate too. And so you go back to the first time there were three people sitting around a fire, you know, pick your Neanderthal or Cro Magnon, three people became a problem because two of them were going to be friends and then the other one was going to feel left out. And that's what happens now in our political world and it's I don't think it's a choice between being political or non political. Politics, that label is in every place in the world where there are groups of people is what we call how we figure out what we're going to do when we disagree and that's the hard work of interacting.
Scott:The problem that we have now is I think the problem that we've had in history when a group or a small group of people thinks that the solution is to force another group to do something and that's what we see certainly in The United States right now is our system is designed to produce the least worst decision where everybody gets something but nobody gets everything and what's happened to us over the course of a few decades is there are some groups of people who believe now that that is morally reprehensible and isn't it interesting that the most human of things, which is live and let live, Let's figure out what we're going to do rather than my way or the highway. That's the most human thing and we're rejecting in some ways that humanity because I must win and the I must win mindset necessarily makes the person who is now going to lose less human. And this idea of, you know, we're going to vote for this person or that person because they're going to fight for us. That's people who've never fought, because if you've fought and my experience with fighting is limited to Taekwondo tournaments.
Scott:For a few years when I was training in Taekwondo, everybody gets hurt. Somebody wins, but everybody gets hurt in a fight. And it's not okay. And to win, to make yourself feel good by dehumanizing another person, I find that to be reprehensible. I understand you don't want to feel bad, you want to do what's right, but dehumanizing another person is I think fundamentally wrong and this notion of well we're voting for this person and they've got these glaring deficits but they're our guy and we're not, you know, I'm part of this group and so I hate that group and no matter how good their candidate is, I would never vote for them.
Scott:That level of thoughtlessness in us to our detriment. It really does and it is not theoretical, it is real. It really is real and we need to think and we don't. I mean, you can go into the news right now and see political parties, you can see Republicans voting for candidates that they would rip apart if that person were a Democrat. You see Democrats supporting candidates that they would rip apart if that person were a Republican.
Scott:And it's not defensible. It's just not. But it's also really hard. It's hard to support the opposing team.
Shawn:Well and where I think that kind of necessarily takes us, which I think is a good I think we're coming around the bend here as we, you know, come up on an hour. But I think what it comes down to, for me, is that we have lost an ability to lead with goodwill or love, right? And so when you approach other people with a fundamental commitment to their dignity, their well-being, where it's clear, you know, or potential, right, like for camaraderie or for, you know, even getting on the same page about something, right, you are more likely to, you know, kind of, come to a a consensus outcome that you know, we had this conversation once before about, you know, if if you come out of a a out of a negotiation having won a 100%, then you haven't probably won because that person's coming for you. You know what I mean? Yeah.
Shawn:Right? So so they do this in politics all the time now with the power of the presidential sort of decree. Right? They they found a loophole to circumvent the will of the whole amount of the people. Right?
Shawn:So instead of coming to a solution that, you know, was brokered and that, you know, gives this side 80% of what it wants and this side 80% of, you know, or whatever, fiftyfifty or sixtyforty or whatever, That's the kind of, you know, that's the kind of outcome you probably actually want, because otherwise you're creating bad will and a future problem. And so I think that when people feel or believe that you value them, it makes- and this is true even in work, right? Like, you know, if you come at an employee or a peer without doing it, or even your child, like, you know, like coaching. You know, it's actually funny. I had a moment today where I coached my child and my junior coworker all at the same time.
Shawn:I had one on a video screen and one on the couch. And because, you know and funny enough, it was about the same issue. They had both sent an email that I was on, and they and they're kinda close to an age. I mean, you know, Sadie's almost 18, and and, you know, I'll leave the other one nameless, but, you know, this other one is is, you know, in her early twenties or mid twenties. And and it was not a big crime against humanity or anything.
Shawn:It was just formality in emails. Right? Like, you don't approach your elders as like, hey. Hey, you. Or like, you know, that's an email.
Shawn:Like, you know, or or or you you don't task one of your contractors and be like, Hi, please do this for me. Yeah. Like, it's jarring. You know what I mean? Like, you know what I mean?
Shawn:So, but it was great because I was able to approach that. Well, first of all, they both know that I love them. They both know that I'm a safe space. So it's much more likely that they're going to feel less threatened. They won't become as defensive.
Shawn:They're going to be receptive to feedback. And they're going to be willing to acknowledge mistakes or own them up in the future if they do forget and make the same mistake or do another one. You know, that is how we need to be engaging with each other. You know? It's like, hey, like, you know, I'm gonna give you this feedback because we already have a history of knowing that we can interact with each other, and that you, you know, at least have respect for my humanity, or my, you know, kind of lived experience, as I keep saying.
Shawn:Even if, you know, we don't see eye to eye on things, right? But somewhere along the line, we lost all that. And, you know, and that fundamental connection and sense of like, we're all part of the same tribe, even though we have different colors of the tribe. Right? And I don't mean skin colors.
Shawn:I just mean, you know, that's the blue tribe, that's the red tribe, that's the purple tribe, that's the orange tribe. You know, we all have different communities and, you know, circles that we run-in. And so, you know, we're gonna have differences. And that's important. It's necessary.
Shawn:And nobody's supposed to be happy 100% of the time. But nobody's supposed to be miserable 100% of the time either, you know? So I just think what you're kind of, to your point, and just to bring it back to what we've been talking about in this whole last session, is just if Vance and Willoughby Goldberg had led with a more And then again, I actually think he did lead with goodwill. I actually saw it in his body language, posture, his choice of words. She was unable to meet him in the moment.
Shawn:She was unable to meet him in the moment, and it takes two to tango. You know?
Scott:It does. It's So. It really does begin with recognizing the humanity in the person that's sitting opposite you.
Shawn:Yes.
Scott:And it is remarkable how scared so many people are. They're so scared of being wrong. They're so scared of being embarrassed. They're so scared of being hurt that they would rather hurt somebody else, show that that person is wrong, do all the things to another person to dehumanize them that they don't want done to themselves. And the problem isn't just that they do those things.
Scott:The problem is they don't understand that that's what they're doing. Because they just want to be right. So it is the hard work of interacting and it is worthwhile, not just because it makes, you know, the world and humanity a better place, because and I'm speaking to every individual who has hung on and listened to this whole episode, it makes you feel better. It makes you feel less anxious, less frustrated, more balanced, more sure of yourself, more stable, more calm in the world. It's gonna make you feel better when you see other people as human and interesting.
Shawn:Absolutely.
Scott:Rather than being wrapped up in all the panicky things that you don't want to have happen to yourself. That's the reason why.
Shawn:My mind I got a mental image of myself, If I'm the if I'm the pier, which is strong and it's it's stable in the water, it doesn't matter how raging the storms are. You know, they're just gonna break across the pier and I'm still there. Yep. You know? And and and it allows you to take the when you are able to find that center of confidence and goodwill and and and, you know, look, guys, it takes coaching.
Shawn:You gotta coach yourself. It's not gonna happen overnight or automatically. Start with one person who you know that you disagree with and and and work on it. You know? And and work on approaching them with love and understanding and and trying to see it from their their view.
Shawn:But also, I guess my second clarion call that I would issue to to the group is is, you know, hold these media people accountable. Hold them accountable. Stop watching them if they're not if they're not doing good journalism. Stop you know? Or or post comments that say, hey.
Shawn:You know, you lost an opportunity there, whoopee, to defend us. You could have said that you cited this and this. Educate them. Hold them accountable.
Scott:It's the individual's choice to interact. And again, it's not you know, the idea that, oh, I'm just one vote and it doesn't matter. I'm just one voice. It doesn't matter. Well, it matters to you.
Scott:You always feel better. I guarantee this, if you go out today and you interact with another human being, you will feel different. You will feel better. It'll be a heady experience for you if you hadn't done it in a while. But yeah, give it a try and see what happens to you.
Scott:It's not about affecting them. It's about
Shawn:Although it does. It does. But yes, it's Yeah.
Scott:It certainly does. Yeah. But what you will feel is how it changes you. And if everybody does that, then we are different.
Shawn:So can I close on one anecdote that reinforces that drives your point home?
Scott:Absolutely.
Shawn:It is really simple. Last word from me on this is I did the hard work of interacting the other day in a very strange way. Well, not strange. It's 's shows you I'm working across all the practice areas of my life, as all this says. So thank you to Scott for doing this work with me because it's actually made me a better person, and I'm working really hard on myself right now.
Shawn:So I go by this guy every few days up the street. He's homeless and, you know, he's Panhandle Lane and he stays in the median, and we're right next to a big intersection, like about a mile out, and that's where I have to go to get to my PetSmart, right? So, you know, so I see them, and, you know, I'm always parked at the light because the light never is You know, so I see them pretty regularly. I challenged myself to do the hard work of interacting the other day because I sometimes I give them cash and have some on hand, and other times I don't or I can't afford at that moment to part with what I do have. But anyway, I I rolled down as my window well, and I actually heard this from one of my Catholic podcasters, Katie McGrady.
Shawn:So shout out to Katie McGrady Show. She's fantastic, and she taught me this. She had a similar experience is where I learned it from. But I rolled down my window, and I didn't have anything for him the other day because I just I didn't have any cash on me. And I said I said, hi.
Shawn:I said, I don't have anything for you today. But I said, but I'm praying for you. And and, you know, I'll catch you the next time, you know, if if you're around. And and he he always he's really elderly elderly black man, and he was really funny. And he says this to me every time.
Shawn:He he always says, you're so pretty. And, like, you know, who who doesn't like who doesn't like being told that? So I said, well, thanks. I said, I don't know if you know this, but you tell me that all the time. And I said I just said, you know, what is your name?
Shawn:And he just, like, like, double backed. He was like, Woah. What? What? What?
Shawn:Like and he's like, Oh, well, Al. I was like, well, hi, Al. I said, I'm Sean. It was very nice to meet you, and I should have asked sooner, and I didn't. But, you know, I hope you have a blessed day and, you know, stay safe out there.
Shawn:And he said, yep. He's like, I'm just grateful because it's not hot today. And I said, yeah. That's a good thing. You know, so just push yourself.
Scott:Yeah.
Shawn:It's huge. And Scott's right. It was good for me, and I think it was good for that gentleman. And, you know, there's a lot of different ways you can do it. You know?
Shawn:It doesn't always have to be in this sort of political nonsense, but, you know, so that's my call to action.
Scott:I love that. Great to end on a call to action. Thank you all for listening, and we will see you all on the next episode of the 2 Parachutes Podcast. Bye everybody.
Shawn:Bye everyone.