Transcripción completa de 288. Tim Caulfield: Why Have Canadians Lost Trust in Experts?

TRANSCRIPCIÓN 🔗

WEBVTT 00:00:00.080 --> 00:00:01.280 I'm Timothy Caulfield. 00:00:01.280 --> 00:00:06.639 I'm a professor in the Faculty of Law and the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta. 00:00:06.639 --> 00:00:09.199 Who can we trust anymore? 00:00:09.199 --> 00:00:16.960 The body of evidence tells us, you know, if you think about it globally, that much of the distrust that we're seeing right now has been manufactured. 00:00:16.960 --> 00:00:21.760 It's been manufactured by certain actors and by influencers. 00:00:21.760 --> 00:00:25.760 I just want to put like some quotes to you who Before you do the quote. 00:00:25.760 --> 00:00:27.359 I know what you're gonna do. 00:00:27.359 --> 00:00:32.560 You're gonna quote politicians and scientists who say, get vacuum from Biden to yeah. 00:00:32.560 --> 00:00:34.960 So you have to be careful with quote farming, right? 00:00:35.200 --> 00:00:42.560 My concern is like less with people with social media platforms and more like the state's power over people. 00:00:43.039 --> 00:00:48.079 So the the you know, the little online uh podcaster is not a little thing, right? 00:00:48.079 --> 00:00:56.560 In my own sphere, um, studies have consistently shown that you know online influencers have a huge impact on health decisions, right? 00:00:56.560 --> 00:01:00.399 A massive impact on Joe Rogan has a fan, huge impact. 00:01:00.640 --> 00:01:02.320 Huge, a huge impact. 00:01:02.320 --> 00:01:04.000 He regularly says he's a meathead. 00:01:04.000 --> 00:01:07.599 He regularly says, like, I'm an idiot, I don't know everything about everything. 00:01:07.599 --> 00:01:08.959 I'm just speaking with people. 00:01:09.120 --> 00:01:20.560 This I'm just, you know, I'm a meathead, I'm just asking questions, is an invitation to this false balance, both sides, middle ground fallacy that's fueling so much public discourse right now. 00:01:20.560 --> 00:01:24.400 So, who would you blame for the polarization? 00:01:31.040 --> 00:01:34.640 Timothy Caulfield, thank you very much for joining us today. 00:01:34.640 --> 00:01:36.959 Would you mind briefly introducing yourself? 00:01:37.359 --> 00:01:39.120 Sure, I'm I'm Timothy Caulfield. 00:01:39.120 --> 00:01:44.959 I'm a professor in the Faculty of Law and the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta. 00:01:44.959 --> 00:01:53.840 I'm an author, I you know, and I explore health and science policy, especially around the misinformation space. 00:01:54.480 --> 00:01:58.000 I have a very important question to start with. 00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:01.280 Who can we trust anymore? 00:02:02.000 --> 00:02:04.879 Holy cow, that's a little question to start with. 00:02:04.879 --> 00:02:06.079 Exactly. 00:02:06.079 --> 00:02:06.719 You know what? 00:02:06.719 --> 00:02:10.319 And I'm I'm gonna turn the question on its head a little bit if I if I might. 00:02:10.319 --> 00:02:22.000 I I I think that what we've really seen over the last, especially last few years, but I think this has been a phenomenon that has happened over the last six, seven, eight, maybe the last decade. 00:02:22.000 --> 00:02:25.599 This lowering in trust in institutions, right? 00:02:25.599 --> 00:02:28.800 This this increasing distrust of institutions. 00:02:28.800 --> 00:02:38.319 And look, uh there are communities that have historical reasons for being you know, justifiably, you know, not trusting institutions. 00:02:38.319 --> 00:02:42.400 There are individuals that are in that same place too. 00:02:42.400 --> 00:02:52.080 But I think all the body of evidence tells us, you know, if you think about it globally, that much of the distrust that we're seeing right now has been manufactured. 00:02:52.080 --> 00:02:57.759 It's been manufactured by certain actors, by you know, influencers. 00:02:57.759 --> 00:03:04.080 Um, and we know this because the distrust is not spread equally, right? 00:03:04.080 --> 00:03:06.159 There's not an equal distribution of distrust. 00:03:06.159 --> 00:03:11.599 The the distrust has grown within particular sectors of society. 00:03:11.599 --> 00:03:15.199 So when you ask the question, who can we trust? 00:03:15.199 --> 00:03:19.599 The answer will be different depending on what community you live in, you know? 00:03:19.599 --> 00:03:30.879 And so um I think I think there are still trusted voices out there, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to find those voices because our information environment is so chaotic. 00:03:30.879 --> 00:03:37.840 And we are constantly told, we are constantly told not to trust entities. 00:03:37.840 --> 00:03:44.479 And that distrust, I once I very recently I gave a talk and I argued that we're living in a distrust economy. 00:03:44.479 --> 00:03:54.080 Um there are these actors benefit from creating distrust so their own narrative, their own agenda, their own products can have space. 00:03:54.960 --> 00:03:55.520 Fascinating. 00:03:55.520 --> 00:04:09.439 I I just kind of want to start maybe by grounding it in my perspective, and then I I want to go through questions, but I want you to pick apart where I'm at because I imagine I'm part of that grouping that's lost a lot of trust. 00:04:09.439 --> 00:04:17.199 And you might see it, and from the phrasing of like your response, you you framed it as like people are telling me not to trust. 00:04:17.199 --> 00:04:24.959 But I'll I'll kind of lay out kind of chapters of where I've lost trust in our institutions, and then we'll we'll dive into other questions. 00:04:24.959 --> 00:04:39.199 But I think the big one, as I'm sure you're you're aware more than most, is COVID, is where we had institutions more than I feel like we had experts, telling us how to think about things. 00:04:39.199 --> 00:04:56.079 And the the vilification of people who I found to be good faith actors, asking honest questions, being accused of being anti-vaxxers, um, be like I had a reaction to the first vaccine, and I really struggled. 00:04:56.079 --> 00:04:58.000 I was

Load full transcript

fainting a lot, I couldn't think straight. 00:04:58.000 --> 00:05:00.800 So I didn't get the second vaccine. 00:05:00.800 --> 00:05:07.600 And I was invited to events, and I said, hey, I actually don't have my passport, not able to attend because of that. 00:05:07.600 --> 00:05:17.120 And I still have organizations that won't work with me because they think I was driven by an ideological malice against that rather than anything else. 00:05:17.120 --> 00:05:26.160 And so just seeing, we know that Justin Trudeau had said before, hey, we're not gonna do vaccine passports because they're gonna be divisive. 00:05:26.160 --> 00:05:28.959 And then what did he do about a year and a half later? 00:05:28.959 --> 00:05:34.319 He did the passports and they were divisive, uh, which his original claim lived up to it. 00:05:34.319 --> 00:05:36.959 But then we've seen different issues arise. 00:05:36.959 --> 00:05:43.839 How my university uh UBC responded to the discussion I was incredibly disheartened by. 00:05:43.839 --> 00:05:55.040 I've always remained honest that I think my university education at the Fraser Valley in a Bachelor of Criminology was much more valuable to me because we did debate ideas. 00:05:55.040 --> 00:06:05.839 I debated the idea of whether or not there's systemic racism as an Indigenous person, saying that there isn't systemic racism, to put myself in the shoes of people who might question whether or not that's real. 00:06:05.839 --> 00:06:12.399 And that was it was incredibly beneficial to my understanding of how to take a position and steel man it and try and understand it deeply. 00:06:12.399 --> 00:06:21.199 We did not do that at the University of British Columbia in the law program during when governments were making huge decisions about our liberties. 00:06:21.199 --> 00:06:27.920 During that period, the the classmates I had were saying, if you make me go to school, you're gonna kill my grandma, you hate us. 00:06:27.920 --> 00:06:29.839 And so we just had this breakdown. 00:06:29.839 --> 00:06:37.040 Right now, you may be aware, I've interviewed um people about the unmarked grave story, which is hugely divisive in our country right now. 00:06:37.040 --> 00:06:42.560 And you have the Liberal Party of Canada, CBC saying, if you talk about this, you're a denialist. 00:06:42.560 --> 00:06:43.759 You're actually a bad person. 00:06:43.759 --> 00:06:48.720 And you might actually have to go to jail if we enact this law because of how you think about things. 00:06:48.720 --> 00:06:55.920 And I've interviewed Francis Widowson, Tim Thielman, Candace Milcom, people who are staunch questioners of the unmarked graves. 00:06:55.920 --> 00:06:59.600 And they've always said, we don't question the harms of Indian residential school. 00:06:59.600 --> 00:07:03.680 We don't question that those schools existed and that bad actors existed in them. 00:07:03.680 --> 00:07:07.040 We question the specific claim around the 215. 00:07:07.040 --> 00:07:09.519

And I've tried to do that thoughtfully. 00:07:09.519 --> 00:07:20.399 Um, I push back against their arguments, but there's this kind of institutional bias against those folks and will not speak with them candidly or fairly. 00:07:20.399 --> 00:07:22.879 And so I do, in kind of response to that. 00:07:22.879 --> 00:07:45.519 And the last piece I'll share with you, uh, Tim, that I have serious concerns with and why in part I host the show the way I do, is because on CTV News, on CBC, on all of these channels, they bring in lobbyists or people who are campaign managers or people like that to debate the issues, not individuals always like yourself or people who are actually experts in the topic. 00:07:45.519 --> 00:07:51.040 They'll bring on strategists to say, this is what Pierre Poliev or this is what Mark Carney should be doing. 00:07:51.040 --> 00:07:56.240 And so you're getting people who are literally funded by campaigns in order to give their political opinion. 00:07:56.240 --> 00:07:58.240 And so I don't view the news as honest. 00:07:58.240 --> 00:08:00.720 I view universities, the professors within them. 00:08:00.720 --> 00:08:05.279 I know a lot of them, they'll message me, hey, you're having more honest conversations than I can have in the classroom. 00:08:05.279 --> 00:08:07.120 There has been this breakdown. 00:08:07.120 --> 00:08:15.759 And so I would just land there that, like, when I look at Joe Rogan, who got vilified throughout this, he ended up saying that, hey, COVID shots probably aren't good for kids. 00:08:15.759 --> 00:08:18.240 And he ended up being right on that issue. 00:08:18.240 --> 00:08:20.240 But it was on right on that issue. 00:08:20.240 --> 00:08:21.759 He was on CNN. 00:08:21.759 --> 00:08:23.600 Um, it was being pushed by CNN. 00:08:23.600 --> 00:08:27.120 Well, see, like the the recommendations have since changed in response to that. 00:08:27.120 --> 00:08:30.800 But I'll let you kind of respond to that and then we can get into more of the specifics. 00:08:31.279 --> 00:08:35.360 Look, I I think that the there's a lot going on in what you just said. 00:08:35.360 --> 00:08:37.360 Let's start with the debate aspect. 00:08:37.360 --> 00:08:42.080 I think that there has been, and I've been, you know, targeted with respect to this. 00:08:42.080 --> 00:09:10.080 Those of us who are concerned about the spread of misinformation, those of us who are concerned about the role that the online media is having in shaping public discourse, um are often held up as some uh as individuals that are trying to suppress um particular viewpoints, or that we are against freedom of expression, or we're about cancel culture. 00:09:10.080 --> 00:09:14.960 Well, this is something that we've actually studied, and we've studied it in the context of COVID. 00:09:14.960 --> 00:09:22.320 And a lot of the narratives that you just described were, you know, there people have suggested that they were marginalized or silenced. 00:09:22.320 --> 00:09:23.679 That's not the case at all. 00:09:23.679 --> 00:09:27.919 They, you know, ended up being a dominant uh narrative. 00:09:27.919 --> 00:09:38.480 Um, whether you're talking about the Great Barrington Declaration or whether you're talking about perspectives on the harms caused by the COVID vaccine, which are often wildly misrepresented. 00:09:38.480 --> 00:09:41.919 Um so that's a little bit of a false narrative. 00:09:41.919 --> 00:09:45.679 And it's raised specifically to sort of legitimize these views. 00:09:45.679 --> 00:09:52.000 There was a fascinating study that was done in in um Europe uh a few years ago. 00:09:52.000 --> 00:09:58.720 I think it was published in Nature Behavioral Medicine, and they asked the public, uh, you know, what do you think? 00:09:58.720 --> 00:10:00.000 It's a really clever study. 00:10:00.000 --> 00:10:04.799 What do you think the experts think about the COVID vaccine? 00:10:04.799 --> 00:10:15.200 So what do you think the public health experts, the you know, the the PhDs, the the individuals who are actually doing the research on COVID, what the COVID vaccine, what do you think they think about the COVID? 00:10:15.200 --> 00:10:22.639 And the and the public said, four out of five people, Aaron said, we think the experts are divided, right? 00:10:22.639 --> 00:10:27.200 Like 50% think this and 50% think that, which couldn't be further from the truth. 00:10:27.200 --> 00:10:41.519 You know, you know the data, you know, the there is you know almost universal agreement among the biomedical experts um that the COVID vaccine has a very impressive safety profile and has saved millions of lives. 00:10:41.519 --> 00:10:45.759 Um but the public thought the experts were split. 00:10:45.759 --> 00:10:47.120 So why am I raising that? 00:10:47.120 --> 00:10:53.440 Because that is the power of false balance, the power of the middle ground fallacy, the power of both sidism. 00:10:53.440 --> 00:10:57.200 Um, I'm a huge advocate for freedom of expression. 00:10:57.200 --> 00:11:09.440 Um, I think the way that we counter, um, and so I bet we're on on I agree with this, the way that we counter uh misinformation is through um more content, accurate content, right? 00:11:09.440 --> 00:11:12.559 That counters it in the marketplace of ideas. 00:11:12.559 --> 00:11:16.480 And I think most people advocate for exactly that, right? 00:11:16.480 --> 00:11:18.639 They advocate for exactly that. 00:11:18.639 --> 00:11:30.879 Um, the reality, the other the other good news story is that went from that same study, is when you talk about what the scientific consensus says on a topic, first of all, you explain the nature of the scientific consensus. 00:11:30.879 --> 00:11:34.960 It is not a meta-narrative that we get from the star chamber. 00:11:34.960 --> 00:11:37.759 You know, here's the memo we're supposed to tell people. 00:11:37.759 --> 00:11:43.679 It is hundreds, sometimes thousands of studies that point in a particular direction,

always contested. 00:11:43.679 --> 00:11:45.200 That's the nature of science. 00:11:45.200 --> 00:11:54.559 You explain, you explain what the scientific consensus actually is, and then you explain the degree to which there is one, if there is uh uh scientific consensus. 00:11:54.559 --> 00:11:57.440 And even among skeptics, you can change people's minds. 00:11:57.440 --> 00:12:02.799 So I do think it's important to talk about what the science on a topic actually says. 00:12:02.799 --> 00:12:15.360 Uh, I do think it's important to counter misinformation when it resides, but I also think we need to be careful about how we represent the debate and the way we talk about the debate to the general public. 00:12:15.360 --> 00:12:34.960 We just just studied, uh just just published a study just like uh a couple of weeks ago, where we looked at how this is directly on point to your how how you started this conversation, where we looked at how uh discussion about the COVID vaccine was represented in the the mainstream media, right? 00:12:34.960 --> 00:12:42.320 So not even online, like which we've also studied in the mainstream media, so the primary uh what people think of as the legacy media. 00:12:42.320 --> 00:12:46.559 And uh we found that it was right out of the gate politicized, right? 00:12:46.559 --> 00:12:53.679 So, yes, they are they did represent what this the science says, but it very much became a political story, right? 00:12:53.679 --> 00:12:55.519 Um, almost out of the gate. 00:12:55.519 --> 00:13:17.360 And I think that's really important because the more these topics become tethered to political identity, the more they become tethered to the community and the team that you belong to, the the the more likely it is going to be a polarized discord discussion, the more likely the discourse is going to degrade. 00:13:17.360 --> 00:13:22.960 Um, and the more difficult it is going to be to be allow people to for their positions to evolve. 00:13:22.960 --> 00:13:27.519 You can't evolve your position if it's it becomes an ideological flag. 00:13:27.519 --> 00:13:35.840 And that's exactly what we've seen with so many topics, especially in the health space, but others, obviously, um, they become ideological flags. 00:13:35.840 --> 00:13:40.159 And we have to avoid that, I think, also in our our public debates. 00:13:40.159 --> 00:13:46.159 It has to be about the facts, the science, and and how those things are interpreted. 00:13:46.159 --> 00:13:48.000 I'll stop there, but I could go on. 00:13:48.000 --> 00:13:49.120 I could go on. 00:13:49.360 --> 00:13:50.960 Well, let's keep following up on it. 00:13:50.960 --> 00:13:54.559 So, who would you blame for the polarization? 00:13:54.559 --> 00:14:06.879 Because I know that legacy media and politicians will say the people became divided, but the state had done things that had never been done to a to the the world before. 00:14:06.879 --> 00:14:20.080 Like these things had just never arisen the way that

they did, because we have a globalized economy where like countries were all agreeing they were gonna do something to their population in a way that you just couldn't have done in the 1900s. 00:14:20.080 --> 00:14:27.919 You couldn't have had the control over the population, the way that that control and authority was exercised on churches and in on individuals. 00:14:27.919 --> 00:14:39.519 And so, of course, once you have your civil liberties questioned or challenged or your ability to go to church, then people go, Well, I'm gonna be I'm gonna raise my flag on this side of the aisle the second you do that to individuals. 00:14:39.519 --> 00:14:42.720 And so who do you put the onus on for a brunt of that? 00:14:43.039 --> 00:14:49.360 So I I think this is a really interesting uh question for a whole bunch of reasons, obviously, a lot of layers there, right? 00:14:49.360 --> 00:14:56.240 First of all, um this is sort of a an associated response to something I said earlier. 00:14:56.240 --> 00:15:09.440 Often, often those who have advocated for um you know passports and for mandatory vaccines, it was it was presented as if it was a government conspiracy almost, right, to control the population. 00:15:09.440 --> 00:15:13.360 Um, yeah, I'll be honest, I was involved in some of these conversations. 00:15:13.360 --> 00:15:16.720 And there was disagreement, strong disagreement. 00:15:16.720 --> 00:15:22.159 Like everyone knows, everyone that when I was in those conversations, everyone knows this was an extraordinary measure. 00:15:22.159 --> 00:15:25.279 No one thought this was something that should be done lightly. 00:15:25.279 --> 00:15:34.159 And I'll be honest with you, even within the public health community, there's disagreement about when mandatory um vaccine policy should be implemented. 00:15:34.159 --> 00:15:37.279 Uh, the literature is really interesting on mandatory vaccines. 00:15:37.279 --> 00:15:47.440 I'm actually amongst the cohort of my colleagues, and I'm not gonna name names, I'm on the more let's be careful side of the equation, um, than those, you know, let's let's implement them. 00:15:47.440 --> 00:15:52.879 Um, but I still think there is a place for mandatory vaccination policy. 00:15:52.879 --> 00:15:58.320 Um, they it does work, and I want to be careful when I'm gonna define what I mean by work. 00:15:58.320 --> 00:16:04.399 Uh, having a mandatory vaccine does, in general, whether you're talking about school policy or others, get more people vaccinated. 00:16:04.399 --> 00:16:10.080 So if there is a crisis and you're trying to get more people vaccinated, mandatory vaccines do work. 00:16:10.080 --> 00:16:20.000 Of course, as you've highlighted in your question, there are you know fallouts from that that also need to be weighed when you're making a decision to do that, right? 00:16:20.000 --> 00:16:28.480 But I think it's really important to highlight that when these decisions were made around the world, it was made, you know,

and I obviously it wasn't in every room. 00:16:28.480 --> 00:16:43.679 Or I my sense is uh despite you know the idea that there was some world economic forum or uh conspiracy or some you know national conspiracy, uh though people considered all the above, right? 00:16:43.679 --> 00:17:00.480 Um studies from the United States have found, for example, with uh mandatory school vaccines, it does increase the vaccination rates, um, which we you know for look what's happening with measles, etc., can have a benefit uh on the population. 00:17:00.480 --> 00:17:08.880 So I think that's really important, important to recognize out of the gate, because part of that polarized discourse is placing blame blame. 00:17:08.880 --> 00:17:10.720 Look, polarization has always existed. 00:17:10.720 --> 00:17:17.839 I know you know that this, it's it's not new, but what has changed is the way we feel about the other, right? 00:17:17.839 --> 00:17:25.839 So you go back a few decades, there might have even been relatively similar kind of political polarization, but not that affect. 00:17:25.839 --> 00:17:28.000 Like the other side's the enemy now, right? 00:17:28.000 --> 00:17:32.880 And it didn't, I think that the degree to which that's true is one of the big differences now. 00:17:32.880 --> 00:17:43.920 So when we had things like you know, vaccine policies that people disagreed with, it became the other side's the enemy, not that maybe I don't agree, it's a judgment and how you weighed the risks and benefit. 00:17:43.920 --> 00:17:45.920 It's they're the enemy. 00:17:45.920 --> 00:17:57.200 So I think it's really important to recognize what really went on and those conspiracy theories about what drove the decision for vaccine mandates need to be, you know, weighed, I think, with some nuance. 00:17:57.200 --> 00:17:58.240 I'll put it that way. 00:17:58.240 --> 00:17:59.279 Some nuance. 00:17:59.279 --> 00:18:00.480 So who's to blame? 00:18:00.480 --> 00:18:04.160 Okay, so this goes back to what I said at the very, very top. 00:18:04.160 --> 00:18:13.599 There is a growing body of evidence, and we've even done some research uh on this, that the distrust that we're seeing right now has been largely manufactured, right? 00:18:13.599 --> 00:18:17.200 And and I'm not just saying that through speculation. 00:18:17.200 --> 00:18:25.519 We we know uh again, I we shouldn't just stick with vaccines, but uh, there's just so much research on vaccines, so it's a good topic to point to. 00:18:25.519 --> 00:18:37.039 We know that the rise in vaccination hesitancy around the world, especially in the developed country, but increasingly on planet Earth, has been driven by misinformation, by the spread of misinformation, right? 00:18:37.039 --> 00:18:42.079 A lot of that has come from the United States, but it's starting to come from, you know, all over the world. 00:18:42.079 --> 00:18:48.000 Um, and we also know that it resides almost entirely on one side of the political spectrum. 00:18:48.000 --> 00:18:50.160 Not entirely, but almost, right? 00:18:50.160 --> 00:18:53.759 So that tells us that vaccination, it's a wedge issue now. 00:18:53.759 --> 00:18:57.920 It's a wedge issue like abortion, gun control, you know, pick your topic. 00:18:57.920 --> 00:18:59.519 Um, it's a wedge issue. 00:18:59.519 --> 00:19:11.680 And the distrust that the increase in distrust that has happened, again, has happened almost entirely, not completely, but almost entirely on one side of the ideological spectrum. 00:19:11.680 --> 00:19:18.000 And I want to be real, I know it sounds like I'm being partisan, and I don't mean to be, because historically it shifts. 00:19:18.000 --> 00:19:33.359 I, you know, I often highlight um there there was a study in the United States uh that highlighted that, you know, in the 19 early 60s and 1970s, it was the left, it was the Democrats that were kind of more anti-science and skeptical of science. 00:19:33.359 --> 00:19:38.400 You know, it's Vietnam War, Agent Orange, you know, uh Watergate. 00:19:38.400 --> 00:19:39.759 It was that side. 00:19:39.759 --> 00:19:43.680 And the Republicans were extremely strong institutional science. 00:19:43.680 --> 00:19:46.160 And now we have a complete flip that has happened, right? 00:19:46.160 --> 00:19:49.839 So it's important to recognize that history and context matters. 00:19:49.839 --> 00:19:54.880 And in my own area, my own area, um, we have also seen that shift. 00:19:54.880 --> 00:20:02.160 I've lived it, you know, for most of my life, most of my career, I got my hate mail from the left. 00:20:02.160 --> 00:20:11.680 You know, it was like, oh, you're not, you know, there's different ways of knowing, there's spiritual uh ways to approach health, you know, there are these different kinds of cultural approaches to health. 00:20:11.680 --> 00:20:14.480 And now it's all I'm getting my hate mail from the right. 00:20:14.480 --> 00:20:17.039 Um, so that's fascinating in itself. 00:20:17.039 --> 00:20:22.799 But we know that the distrust has been manufactured when you ask the question who to blame. 00:20:22.799 --> 00:20:31.599 I think we can blame our information environment, the degree to which the algorithms are driven by rage, by fear, by grievance. 00:20:31.599 --> 00:20:36.240 Um, the algorithms win when we're angry and feel polarized. 00:20:36.240 --> 00:20:49.440 So the algorithms plus influencers that benefit from distrust, political actors that benefit from distrust, state actors, Aaron, that benefit from distrust. 00:20:49.440 --> 00:20:56.000 You put those people as a combination, and you see this rise in distrust. 00:20:56.000 --> 00:20:58.400 Now, I know I'm going on too long, but it's an important question. 00:20:58.400 --> 00:20:59.279 No, not at all. 00:20:59.279 --> 00:21:10.880 Um we we say that there's this decrease in trust, but to be fair, some actors or some sectors in Canada and in the United States remain highly trusted. 00:21:10.880 -->

00:21:19.680 So scientists, healthcare providers, you know, teachers, you know, farmers, nurses, there are communities that remain very, very trusted. 00:21:19.680 --> 00:21:31.839 Um, the trust has gone down uh on a popular, when you measure on a population level, but that decrease in trust has almost happened entirely on one side of the ideological spectrum. 00:21:31.839 --> 00:21:33.759 Look at data from the United States. 00:21:33.759 --> 00:21:44.480 Uh, when you look at something like measles vaccination, we've heard about how there's this decrease in uh uptake and decrease in trust in the MMR vaccines. 00:21:44.480 --> 00:21:49.200 Um, that decrease almost entirely on one side to be the ideological spectrum. 00:21:49.200 --> 00:21:53.279 And the data here in Canada is very, very similar. 00:21:53.279 --> 00:21:59.359 Um, the one of the strongest predictors of whether you're hesitant or whether you haven't got vaccinated is your political identity. 00:21:59.359 --> 00:21:59.759 That's true. 00:21:59.759 --> 00:22:02.240 In both Canada and the United States. 00:22:02.240 --> 00:22:07.759 So not pointing fingers, because I think I'm not blaming the individuals or saying people are wrong. 00:22:07.759 --> 00:22:11.599 I'm just saying how where did that distrust come from? 00:22:11.599 --> 00:22:14.880 The degree, how was it manufactured? 00:22:15.839 --> 00:22:28.079 I just want to follow up on that because I agree with, I certainly put a lot of onus on social media, and there was a lot of stuff coming out in the early days of the pandemic that were completely conspiratorial. 00:22:28.079 --> 00:22:31.920 World Economic Forum type stuff, I would see on my feed. 00:22:31.920 --> 00:22:40.000 But I just want to put like some quotes to you, and just like I can see how people who do the quote. 00:22:40.799 --> 00:22:41.680 I know what you're gonna do. 00:22:41.680 --> 00:22:47.200 You're gonna quote politicians and scientists who say get vaccine, you know, from Biden to yeah. 00:22:47.200 --> 00:22:50.240 So that you have to be careful with quote farming, right? 00:22:50.240 --> 00:22:54.000 Because uh there are, you know, let I'm gonna make up a number. 00:22:54.000 --> 00:22:56.240 I'll do I'll use myself as an example. 00:22:56.240 --> 00:22:56.640 Okay. 00:22:56.640 --> 00:23:03.119 Um I've probably said on in in the public 10,000 things about vaccines. 00:23:03.119 --> 00:23:09.039 You could probably go back and find three or four quotes that are less than ideal and use those, right? 00:23:09.039 --> 00:23:20.400 Quote find, you know, cherry picking a quote that makes me seem extreme or wrong, and and use that to say this is why people don't dis why people distrust the government, right? 00:23:20.400 --> 00:23:31.759 Uh then what happens is influencers pick up on those quotes and they talk about them on their podcasts, they use them, they create memes about them, and they share them. 00:23:31.759 --> 00:23:43.519 And that then you get the powerful confirmation bias comes into play, and everyone starts pointing, happened to Fauci, it happened to um our our pub all of our public health authority individuals. 00:23:43.519 --> 00:23:50.160 Um so, yes, uh how we talk about vaccines and how we talk about the state of the science matters. 00:23:50.160 --> 00:23:59.519 And I think we need to be really careful not to overstate the science, uh, the state of the science. 00:23:59.519 --> 00:24:06.799 I think we could have, like my best book is called The Certainty Illusion, we could have done a better job job talking about the scientific uncertainty. 00:24:06.799 --> 00:24:13.440 Um, but but um, you know, is we're in the middle of a pandemic and people are are talking. 00:24:14.160 --> 00:24:14.640 Absolutely. 00:24:14.640 --> 00:24:18.160 So I'm not raising health officers or anybody like that. 00:24:18.160 --> 00:24:23.839 I just think what what I recall, and you may have it, we have different lived experiences. 00:24:23.839 --> 00:24:31.119 What I heard from people privately in regards to the pandemic, were I just I'm a little hesitant. 00:24:31.119 --> 00:24:33.920 It's new, I don't feel comfortable. 00:24:33.920 --> 00:24:40.160 Not people who were like, I think that we should go after the vaccinated people. 00:24:40.160 --> 00:24:45.279 They're so dumb, we shouldn't even have like if that was coming from one area, and so I'll just give you a few. 00:24:45.279 --> 00:24:52.559 Justin Trudeau, they are extremists who don't believe in science, they're often misogynists, also often racists. 00:24:52.559 --> 00:24:54.960 Do we tolerate these people? 00:24:54.960 --> 00:25:01.519 Um, because of the risk posed to all of us by unvaccinated people, people are getting angry at them. 00:25:01.519 --> 00:25:05.279 It's time to start shaming them from Don Lemon. 00:25:05.279 --> 00:25:32.000 Um, some of these comments, I just think like I'm sure you saw people put those labels on their like their cars and stuff and started saying, like, I am like part of the problem or something like that on their license plate after Justin Trudeau made those comments, because I there was a vilification that I'm sure you know happened to people who did not get vaccinated in a way that I really I think also helped politicize this. 00:25:32.000 --> 00:25:38.000 So while I I do put a lot of responsibility on social media, I think like I have the timeline here. 00:25:38.000 --> 00:25:50.960 We have a quote from Justin Trudeau, January 14th, 2021, saying having to take um more extreme measures that could have real divisive impacts on the community are not worth taking. 00:25:50.960 --> 00:25:53.599 And then later we saw it come in. 00:25:53.599 --> 00:26:02.319 Um, in May 2021, he said, We're not a country that makes vaccination mandatory, for example, but we want to encourage everyone to get it. 00:26:02.319 --> 00:26:08.799 And then by August 13th, 2021, he began to take steps, and the federal government began to take

steps to do that. 00:26:08.799 --> 00:26:18.559 And so it was a 180 from our prime minister acknowledging um in May that this would be divisive, um, and then a decision to proceed with it. 00:26:18.559 --> 00:26:27.519 And so, like, I know you were aware of that, and I'm sure those were some of the conversations that happened behind the scenes, but that's what I think some people go to um when they respond to that. 00:26:27.519 --> 00:26:30.799 And I'd just be interested in in how do we like I agree with you. 00:26:30.799 --> 00:26:41.680 I think it's happened, it's in the past now, but how do we rebalance that and make sure that there are there are systems in place in the future to make sure that there is healthy debate? 00:26:41.680 --> 00:26:48.240 Because I don't think you and I disagree that just the rollout, the communication style, I just think had a lot to be desired. 00:26:48.240 --> 00:26:49.519 I would have liked to see Dr. 00:26:49.519 --> 00:26:54.720 Bonnie Henry sit down with a concerned citizen and really like answer some of those questions. 00:26:54.720 --> 00:27:00.559 Vet it, make sure they're reasonable questions, make sure they're not worried about the um World Economic Forum. 00:27:00.559 --> 00:27:03.119 Or like chip in the vaccine or something like that. 00:27:03.119 --> 00:27:04.000 Exactly. 00:27:04.000 --> 00:27:13.920 Like make sure they're grounded in reality, but like have those people seen so that when somebody is watching who's afraid feels represented by the person asking the question. 00:27:13.920 --> 00:27:17.200 And I always go back to this because it was a really important moment to me. 00:27:17.200 --> 00:27:35.599 I know people hate Justin Trudeau right now, but when he used to do those sit-downs where there was a room full of people and he was in the center, and some person would put up their hand, and I'm sure they selected the people beforehand and vetted the questions, but there was just something cathartic about seeing your leader surrounded by their citizens and answering questions. 00:27:35.599 --> 00:27:40.880 And I just didn't, I watched the news every day trying to figure out what I was allowed to do, mask, no mask, what's going on. 00:27:40.880 --> 00:27:46.559 Um, but I just didn't feel that the public debate was strong enough to quell a lot of these fears. 00:27:46.960 --> 00:27:49.440 Yeah, I mean, that was not an ideal quote. 00:27:49.440 --> 00:27:50.799 You know, I can remember that. 00:27:50.799 --> 00:27:54.160 It's like, you know, it was not an ideal quote. 00:27:54.160 --> 00:27:57.039 Because look, I I it's hard. 00:27:57.039 --> 00:28:11.680 Some you're in the middle of the pandemic, and and it can be very hard not to get frustrated with people making decisions that aren't that you feel, that you feel aren't evidence-based and you fe personally feel might hurt you and the community more broadly. 00:28:11.680 --> 00:28:15.039 But I do think what we we we need to always sort of check that. 00:28:15.039 --> 00:28:17.119 And you know, I have to remind myself of it. 00:28:17.119 --> 00:28:18.000 I'm not ideal. 00:28:18.000 --> 00:28:22.000 I've I've you know sometimes, you know, rage posted too. 00:28:22.000 --> 00:28:30.240 Um, I think that we need to check that because shaming um it's that's not a strategy that's going that's going to work ever, right? 00:28:30.240 --> 00:28:32.160 We want to engage in conversation. 00:28:32.160 --> 00:28:38.720 And I think the better strategy is don't blame the people that that have these feelings. 00:28:38.720 --> 00:28:45.839 You know, talk about what the evidence actually says and talk about the individuals that maybe are spreading the misinformation. 00:28:45.839 --> 00:28:58.880 Um, you know, that's where the energy, uh, the anger energy maybe should be focused, should be focused more, especially if they're doing it to to create polarization, you know, to exploit a situation. 00:28:58.880 --> 00:29:05.200 As you probably know, you know, studies have shown a lot of the content about the vaccines was spread by state actors, right? 00:29:05.200 --> 00:29:09.680 That wanted to create division and polarization in Canada and the United States also. 00:29:09.680 --> 00:29:15.440 You know, they wanted to throw sand in the gears to create the situation that you and I are talking about. 00:29:15.440 --> 00:29:16.720 Um, they won. 00:29:16.720 --> 00:29:18.400 You know, that that strategy worked. 00:29:18.400 --> 00:29:28.960 You know, here we are, years later, still talking about it, still a polarized, polarizing discussion, despite the fact that you know the COVID vaccines are probably the most studied biomedical intervention in human history. 00:29:28.960 --> 00:29:36.640 We have so much evidence, we have safety monitoring going on, and still we're having we're still we're having these these conversations. 00:29:36.640 --> 00:29:39.200 So I do think that's can I just quickly jump in? 00:29:39.279 --> 00:29:49.759 Like I would just like again counter that with like the trucker protest, it's come, I'm sure you saw it came to light that like they were not in like in the wrong the way that that was pitched at the beginning. 00:29:49.759 --> 00:29:58.480 And so, like again, my concern is like less with people with social media platforms and more like the state's power over people. 00:29:58.480 --> 00:30:11.599 And then they give a narrative that these people were doing horrible things and starting to act and they needed the emergency powers act, and then like a whole review comes out that says, like, almost none of what the government claimed on stage that happened happened. 00:30:11.599 --> 00:30:32.160 And so, like, I'm just I like I'll always side with the little podcaster over the state when actions like that are taken, because obviously it's the people with the guns and the authority to arrest people, debank people that need to be worried about more than it's the person with a microphone online

getting a couple thousand views. 00:30:32.480 --> 00:30:37.359 Well, look, we know that podcasters and influencers have a huge impact in Canada. 00:30:37.359 --> 00:30:53.039 I don't know if you've saw the study that came from McGill in Toronto and Blanky on the name of the uh the institute, where they found that online influencers, talking to one now, talking to one now, um, have a greater have did you see the study? 00:30:53.039 --> 00:31:02.319 Have a greater impact on public discourse in the political sphere than the media or even politicians. 00:31:02.319 --> 00:31:08.799 Like they have so the the, you know, the little online uh podcaster is not a little thing, right? 00:31:08.799 --> 00:31:17.279 In my own sphere, um, studies have consistently shown that you know online influencers have a huge impact on health decisions, right? 00:31:17.279 --> 00:31:27.359 A massive impact on and there's a little bit of a paradox there, and it's kind of funny because you you asked if we went out, we interviewed a thousand Canadians and said, you know, do you trust uh Tom Brady? 00:31:27.359 --> 00:31:30.799 We'll say that, someone who I love, Tom Brady on health. 00:31:30.799 --> 00:31:32.319 People say, no, I don't. 00:31:32.319 --> 00:31:35.839 But we know that that in that he might have an impact. 00:31:35.839 --> 00:31:39.039 We can measure the impact that they have on beliefs. 00:31:39.039 --> 00:31:57.680 Joe Rogan has a fantastic, huge impact, huge, huge impact on so there's a fascinating study that came out in JAMA, Journal of American Medical Association, just I'm gonna say three or four months ago, where um he had Mel Gibson on his show talking about ivermectin and cancer. 00:31:57.680 --> 00:32:05.119 There is zero evidence, zero evidence that ivermectin can cure autism or cancer or COVID, right? 00:32:05.119 --> 00:32:07.440 Um it's become an ideological flag. 00:32:07.440 --> 00:32:27.759 But that discussion with Joe Rogan and Mel Gibson um resulted in a spike in the prescriptions, not just the sale, the prescription of ivermectin for cancer, despite the fact that you know there's studies and experts and research institutions that tell us that you know this is not not a good idea. 00:32:27.759 --> 00:32:30.240 Uh, there was a the Edelman Trust Barometer. 00:32:30.240 --> 00:32:34.559 I don't know if you know familiar with this international survey that happens every year. 00:32:34.559 --> 00:32:37.680 They recently came out with, and this is right on point, Aaron. 00:32:37.680 --> 00:32:39.440 You're you're gonna love this data. 00:32:39.440 --> 00:32:44.319 There uh they came out with uh their their latest one that I think did it come out in February? 00:32:44.319 --> 00:32:50.079 I want to say February, March of this year, um, where they went specifically to this question. 00:32:50.079 --> 00:32:56.559 So they said, um, you get advice from the medical, your doctor, the medical community, or you get advice from online. 00:32:56.559 --> 00:33:02.240 And they wanted to get a sense of what do the public, what does the public do when there's this conflicting information out there? 00:33:02.240 --> 00:33:07.119 And 51%, I think they it's 16,000 people they they survey. 00:33:07.119 --> 00:33:09.519 So it's not an insignificant uh number. 00:33:09.519 --> 00:33:15.599 Uh, they found that 51% of the population said they will listen to their MD. 00:33:15.599 --> 00:33:17.039 Only 51%. 00:33:17.039 --> 00:33:19.920 And in Canada, I think it was only 42%. 00:33:19.920 --> 00:33:22.640 And in the United States, I think it was only 37%. 00:33:22.640 --> 00:33:26.000 Now, look, I don't think you should blindly listen to your doctor. 00:33:26.000 --> 00:33:28.000 That's not that's not what I'm saying. 00:33:28.000 --> 00:33:37.759 I'm saying that that demonstrates the power of these online influencers to shape public discourse, and it's increasingly so, right? 00:33:37.759 --> 00:33:46.319 So, yeah, uh the government may have a narrative, but the online the narrative pushed by the online influencers, and many of them don't follow journal. 00:33:46.319 --> 00:33:47.680 I'm not saying this is you. 00:33:47.680 --> 00:33:53.119 Many don't follow journalistic standards, they don't follow scientific standards, etc., etc., etc. 00:33:53.119 --> 00:33:58.880 So what those, you know, on online influencers say, not insignificant. 00:33:58.880 --> 00:34:02.880 On c on the contrary, it's becoming a dominant voice. 00:34:03.279 --> 00:34:04.319 I agree with you. 00:34:04.319 --> 00:34:11.599 I guess you and I both know like Ivermectin isn't considered dangerous or a huge risk to take in comparison to other things. 00:34:11.599 --> 00:34:25.920 So if you were to juxtapose the example of Joe Rogan and I think you said Mel Gibson uh talking about Ivermectin, to what Purdue Pharma did to people and how it reshaped our our North America in a lot of ways. 00:34:25.920 --> 00:34:27.199 And the use of drugs. 00:34:28.480 --> 00:34:32.480 Because one of the great challenges is look, Big Pharma's been a bad actor, right? 00:34:32.480 --> 00:34:35.679 Um, you know, you could I've written about it. 00:34:35.679 --> 00:34:36.960 I've written about it, right? 00:34:36.960 --> 00:34:38.480 Um, they've been a bad actor. 00:34:38.480 --> 00:34:41.920 And so you can always point to those those bad actors, right? 00:34:41.920 --> 00:34:58.480 But but a lot of these medical interventions that are that um they they're studied with you know, using a variety of methods, a variety of individuals, uh, you know, public money, private money, public private money, studying, uh, studying these interventions. 00:34:58.480 --> 00:35:00.960 And of course, there's this massive paradox, right? 00:35:00.960 --> 00:35:10.079 Because often the exact same people that won't are are hesitant with vaccines, or I'll even go so far as to say, are anti-vax. 00:35:10.079 --> 00:35:16.800 Those individuals, and let's let's be honest, like vaccines

are the most studied biomedical intervention. 00:35:16.800 --> 00:35:21.840 They're there's you know independent safety monitoring, um, on and on and on, right? 00:35:21.840 --> 00:35:24.480 Unlike almost every other biomedical intervention. 00:35:24.480 --> 00:35:25.920 But these individuals are anti-vax. 00:35:25.920 --> 00:35:41.440 So they won't, they won't take the highly regulated, highly studied safety monitored intervention, but they will take unproven ivermectin, unproven, they'll inject themselves with an unproven um uh peptide. 00:35:41.440 --> 00:35:45.920 Uh, they'll, you know, they'll take unproven supplements that are known to cause harm. 00:35:45.920 --> 00:35:49.840 So you have so, yes, what you say is really important, right? 00:35:49.840 --> 00:35:58.719 That that their big firm has been been a bad actor, but it's not like that is being deployed um in a kind of conceptually consistent manner. 00:35:58.719 --> 00:36:02.880 You know, these are these individuals also not, you know, using Viagra? 00:36:02.880 --> 00:36:06.559 Are these individuals also not using testone replacement therapy? 00:36:06.559 --> 00:36:09.119 Are these individuals also not using Botox? 00:36:09.119 --> 00:36:11.119 Are they not using uh peptides? 00:36:11.119 --> 00:36:12.079 On and on and on. 00:36:12.079 --> 00:36:13.519 So why am I raising that? 00:36:13.519 --> 00:36:19.760 Because we know that it's more than just the idea of this pharma conspiracy, there's something else going on. 00:36:19.760 --> 00:36:27.039 Otherwise, um that concern would be deployed in a more conceptually consistent manner, and it never is. 00:36:27.360 --> 00:36:31.199 Well, I guess I would the only other piece I would add is the financial benefit, right? 00:36:31.199 --> 00:36:39.760 We know that Purdue made made billions of dollars from their approach specifically with uh um not heroin. 00:36:39.760 --> 00:36:42.400 What was the drug that they were delivering to people? 00:36:42.400 --> 00:36:45.519 It wasn't uh I'll have to look it up. 00:36:45.519 --> 00:36:53.840 But they they had gotten people to use drugs um as a way of coping with pain, um, and then they became addicted to that and made a lot of money from that. 00:36:53.840 --> 00:37:00.960 Joe Rogan, when he speaks to Mel Gibson about using ivermectin, he makes nothing personally, financially, from that. 00:37:01.119 --> 00:37:07.119 And regularly says, designed a Spotify contract for was it 150 million dollars making that number up? 00:37:07.119 --> 00:37:12.960 You know, and and also a lot of the people that are pushing this misinformation, they sell supplements. 00:37:12.960 --> 00:37:18.960 Like, um, and I I'm not again not just speculating about this, is something you know, people have looked at this systematically. 00:37:18.960 --> 00:37:28.000 So many of the voices that are pushing the anti-vax rhetoric sell supplements, completely unproven supplements, right? 00:37:28.000 --> 00:37:29.679 So there is a conflict there. 00:37:29.679 --> 00:37:33.519 People, people choose, and uh by the way, I'm not saying either one of those is good. 00:37:33.519 --> 00:37:36.639 I'm not defending, I'm not defending Purdue. 00:37:36.639 --> 00:37:37.280 Far from it. 00:37:37.280 --> 00:37:40.719 You know, this is something I've been very critical of in my career. 00:37:40.719 --> 00:37:48.480 Um but people deploy that concern about about conflict of interest very selectively, right? 00:37:48.480 --> 00:37:52.000 They deploy it in a way that you know fits their narrative. 00:37:52.000 --> 00:37:53.280 And we all do it. 00:37:53.280 --> 00:37:54.639 Like we all do it, right? 00:37:54.639 --> 00:37:55.840 We all do it. 00:37:56.559 --> 00:37:57.280 Interesting. 00:37:57.280 --> 00:38:04.480 Yeah, because I guess like the challenge with trying to catch somebody like Joe Rogan is he regularly says he's a meathead. 00:38:04.480 --> 00:38:08.000 He regularly says, like, I'm an idiot, I don't know everything about everything. 00:38:08.000 --> 00:38:09.519 I'm just speaking with people. 00:38:09.519 --> 00:38:14.639 Uh he does like what like an episode on who built the great pyramids to like other things. 00:38:14.639 --> 00:38:17.840 So, like, he's not a person who takes himself super seriously. 00:38:17.840 --> 00:38:32.480 And so I and I imagine your pushback and frustration would not be like that, but like that approach gives people a lot of trust in you, and therefore um they're more likely to trust you because it doesn't feel like you're forcing yourself uh on them. 00:38:32.480 --> 00:38:38.559 And just to clarify, it was oxy uh cotton that was uh the thing that Purdue was pushing people on. 00:38:38.960 --> 00:38:43.679 But look, the other pushback is we know that he has has an impact, right? 00:38:43.679 --> 00:38:59.280 Um, yeah, wellness influencers, and again, just using my space as an example from Gwyneth Paltrow forward, have always used that, saying, look, you know, I'm just giving, you know, my perspective, um, I'm you know, filling a need. 00:38:59.280 --> 00:39:02.960 Um, but we know that it's having an impact. 00:39:02.960 --> 00:39:13.760 Um Joe Rogan must know like that this is going, you know, the Ivermectin thing is going to be controversial and it's gonna help, you know, get clicks and views, right? 00:39:13.760 --> 00:39:26.960 Um and this, I'm just, you know, I'm a meathead, I'm just asking question, is an invitation to this false balance, both sidism, middle ground fallacy that's fueling so much public discourse right now. 00:39:26.960 --> 00:39:32.480 Um and it's not like the discussion with Mel, you know, Mel Gripson was completely unhinged, right? 00:39:32.480 --> 00:39:36.079 It wasn't like it was a thoughtful analysis of the existing data. 00:39:36.079 --> 00:39:37.599 I would be less critical, right? 00:39:37.599 --> 00:39:47.519 If someone said, Oh, here's the animal studies that we've done, you know, here's the speculation as to why it

might work, it probably won't work, you're gonna have to pay for it. 00:39:47.519 --> 00:39:48.639 You know, that's very different. 00:39:48.639 --> 00:39:51.119 Like misinformation is disempowering, right? 00:39:51.119 --> 00:39:56.000 It takes away people's autonomy because they're, you know, they it's lies. 00:39:56.000 --> 00:40:03.119 It's it's making it more difficult for people to be well informed to make autonomous choices about their health. 00:40:03.599 --> 00:40:08.079 Tim, I did not expect this conversation to go here, but I'm really enjoying the back and forth. 00:40:08.079 --> 00:40:11.599 And I think I'm actually the perfect person for you to push back against. 00:40:11.599 --> 00:40:18.639 One term, one, one term I'm actually personally like just don't believe is a useful term is the term misinformation. 00:40:18.639 --> 00:40:20.400 And I want to get your take on that. 00:40:20.800 --> 00:40:22.960 Okay, another great question, Aaron. 00:40:22.960 --> 00:40:24.079 Um, and you know what? 00:40:24.079 --> 00:40:26.800 Um this is maybe this doesn't surprise you. 00:40:26.800 --> 00:40:31.280 That's also true in even even in the in, let's call it the misinformation community, right? 00:40:31.280 --> 00:40:38.079 They're misinformation researchers, um, misinformation um uh policy people. 00:40:38.079 --> 00:40:41.920 There is a discussion about that term, you know, there really is. 00:40:41.920 --> 00:40:47.679 And so on the one hand, on the one hand, um, people don't like the term for two reasons. 00:40:47.679 --> 00:40:50.239 And one I think is more legitimate than the other. 00:40:50.239 --> 00:40:56.639 Uh so let's go with the the the the the reason why the more legitimate concern. 00:40:56.639 --> 00:40:58.960 The first one is it's too broad. 00:40:58.960 --> 00:41:00.159 It's too broad. 00:41:00.159 --> 00:41:06.400 And some scholars and some policymakers, you know, are just think that we should focus on disinformation. 00:41:06.400 --> 00:41:15.679 So this is um lies and twisted science, et cetera, that is the the purveyor knows is a lie, right? 00:41:15.679 --> 00:41:21.360 And they're deploying it with the knowledge that it's a lie for personal gain or political gain or whatever, right? 00:41:21.360 --> 00:41:22.960 So focus on disinformation. 00:41:22.960 --> 00:41:35.840 Whereas misinformation, the broader term, could also apply to individuals that, you know, they they are they don't know it's a lie, they believe it, and they're just doing what they think is best for themselves and their community, right? 00:41:35.840 --> 00:41:40.079 Um, that's that's sort of a broader definition. 00:41:40.079 --> 00:41:43.280 And I use the term misinformation in the broad sense. 00:41:43.280 --> 00:41:48.079 Um, and I and I think a critique of me doing that is is welcome, right? 00:41:48.079 --> 00:41:52.000 Because I do think we need to think about this because it's become such a big issue. 00:41:52.000 --> 00:41:57.039 Um I I think it's

we use and I use the broader term is we need an umbrella term. 00:41:57.039 --> 00:42:04.000 And and for the pre people that receive that information, uh, that's what matters, you know, whether it's true or not, that's what really matters. 00:42:04.000 --> 00:42:11.360 The other reason I use the broader term, and I and I'm not just saying this through speculation, this is through you know, studying this area on and on. 00:42:11.360 --> 00:42:16.800 Most of the of the misinformation that does harm is demonstrably false. 00:42:16.800 --> 00:42:19.039 Like it's flat earth kind of stuff, right? 00:42:19.039 --> 00:42:26.239 And so I don't buy the crit, you know, the critique that, well, who who why do you get to decide it's it's misinformation? 00:42:26.239 --> 00:42:37.920 And you know, those that that critique I think is valid around around the edges, but most of the of the misinformation that's doing real harm in this current moment is stuff that's demonstrably false, right? 00:42:37.920 --> 00:42:43.280 And so calling it misinformation, I think, is you know, for brevity's sake, is is fine. 00:42:43.280 --> 00:42:57.840 The critique that uh the other critique that I don't buy is that the idea of misinform the word misinformation has been kind of weaponized by those who are trying to stop the crit critics. 00:42:57.840 --> 00:43:05.440 Just like the the term fake news was kind of monopolized by Trump and MAGA, the word misinformation, the same thing has happened, right? 00:43:05.440 --> 00:43:14.639 They've they've made it into um a a word that rep that is you know woke or are politically polarizing. 00:43:14.639 --> 00:43:21.599 And I don't think we should, you know, by not using it, those people who are trying to chill the discourse are winning. 00:43:21.599 --> 00:43:22.880 They're winning, right? 00:43:22.880 --> 00:43:25.920 So I I don't buy I don't buy that. 00:43:25.920 --> 00:43:42.559 Um increasingly, so having said all that, Aaron, uh when I talk in the public, I increasingly use words like like lie, something that, you know, I they words that are sharper and go to the to whether this is true or not. 00:43:42.559 --> 00:43:45.440 But I I do want to come back to this. 00:43:45.440 --> 00:43:47.679 I know I'm going on a little bit, but I I love this topic. 00:43:47.679 --> 00:43:49.599 Maybe you can see this. 00:43:49.599 --> 00:43:57.519 Um I I do think that we need to recognize that very often this is about stuff that is demonstrably false, right? 00:43:57.519 --> 00:43:59.599 I don't think we should move away from we're not talking about. 00:43:59.599 --> 00:44:02.960 For example, who should get the COVID vaccine? 00:44:02.960 --> 00:44:06.559 You know, what population would benefit now, you know, most from the COVID? 00:44:06.559 --> 00:44:08.880 You can have a reasonable conversation about that, right? 00:44:08.880 --> 00:44:10.320 You know, should it be out risk? 00:44:10.320 --> 00:44:17.920 You know, when I have strong views about it, but I think you could put a number of scientists or vitamin D, like who should be getting vitamin D supplement? 00:44:17.920 --> 00:44:19.920 We could have a reasonable conversation about that. 00:44:19.920 --> 00:44:24.079 And I shouldn't call someone who disagrees with me, you're spreading misinformation, right? 00:44:24.079 --> 00:44:25.840 That's not the kind of stuff we're talking about. 00:44:25.840 --> 00:44:27.440 We're talking about things that are demonstrable. 00:44:27.440 --> 00:44:30.960 The COVID vaccine is not causing turbo cancer. 00:44:30.960 --> 00:44:35.360 The COVID vaccine is not resulting in sudden death. 00:44:35.360 --> 00:44:37.119 There's zero evidence of that. 00:44:37.119 --> 00:44:37.760 Like zero. 00:44:37.760 --> 00:44:38.719 There never has been. 00:44:38.719 --> 00:44:42.000 The the MMR vaccine does not cause autism. 00:44:42.000 --> 00:44:44.559 We have no evidence to support that claim. 00:44:44.559 --> 00:44:46.559 It's a it's a lie, it's always been a lie. 00:44:46.559 --> 00:44:57.920 So I think we should focus on the big stuff before we you know worry about these things at the margins where that critique about the the the phrase, uh the word misinformation, I think has more power. 00:44:57.920 --> 00:45:00.639 Sorry, I went on way too long here and there. 00:45:00.639 --> 00:45:01.199 I apologize. 00:45:01.199 --> 00:45:02.719 You kind of wound me up a little bit. 00:45:02.960 --> 00:45:15.519 No, you you you hit the nail on the head, which is uh if you're going to say that I'm like it sounds like we have different understandings of what was good for youth and uh the COVID vaccine. 00:45:15.519 --> 00:45:18.480 If you think I'm wrong, uh just say you think I'm wrong. 00:45:18.480 --> 00:45:28.400 Like saying, like, if I heard somebody say, like, oh, Aaron's a purveyor of misinformation from that, I'd be like, I have tons of different conversations and I have tons of different thoughts. 00:45:28.400 --> 00:45:30.239 Everything I say is misinformation. 00:45:30.239 --> 00:45:37.599 That's how I and you kind of described like it gets used often so broadly as to not mean as much because it's hard to know. 00:45:37.599 --> 00:45:40.559 Like, is everything Joe Rogan's ever said misinformation? 00:45:40.559 --> 00:45:42.079 Is it like certain pieces? 00:45:42.079 --> 00:45:56.559 Like, that's where, like, to me, if you think he's wrong on something, and I'm not saying you specifically, but the the general you, just go after what I said and say, I'm a liar, I'm wrong, uh, I don't have the facts about like that that the adding the teeth to it, I think, is important. 00:45:56.559 --> 00:46:02.239 But I find in news media so often people go, oh, like Joe Rogan's a purveyor of misinformation. 00:46:02.239 --> 00:46:09.679 And it's like, on certain points, you may argue, absolutely he is, but when you just say it so broadly, it just makes it sound like you don't like the guy. 00:46:09.679 --> 00:46:18.000 Like it

doesn't, it doesn't give enough meat to the bones for me to be convinced that you actually have a substantive argument in it to to like actually go toe to toe. 00:46:18.000 --> 00:46:27.519 And I know you can, but so many people who use the word so often just kind of throw people into buckets that I just don't find it like informative when when people use that term. 00:46:27.760 --> 00:46:29.199 It it has it is fascinating. 00:46:29.199 --> 00:46:32.159 And you know, I've watched sort of the evolution of the term misinformation. 00:46:32.159 --> 00:46:36.960 I've been researching this area for a long time, and most people didn't care about it. 00:46:36.960 --> 00:46:42.000 You could say this is misinformation, and be, you know, it was like a niche topic, right? 00:46:42.000 --> 00:46:50.719 So it's fascinating for me to see that term become sort of central to public discourse about all the things that we're tackling, uh, we're tackling today. 00:46:50.719 --> 00:46:59.760 I don't have a problem saying Joe Rogan is a purveyor of misinformation because he has been a purveyor of misinformation, not every episode, but um, he has been a purveyor of misinformation. 00:46:59.760 --> 00:47:07.199 And and um, I do agree with you that the term shouldn't be used as sort of a global insult to silence people. 00:47:07.199 --> 00:47:18.480 And there is a very interesting irony that's happening here because, and again, I've experienced this personally, um those exact people who critique the term often use it as a weapon, right? 00:47:18.480 --> 00:47:22.159 So, you know, Caulfield, he's the spreader of misinformation, right? 00:47:22.159 --> 00:47:25.199 So it's really sad that it's come to that, right? 00:47:25.199 --> 00:47:32.719 And I think we have to try to um own the term again, the those who are trying, you know, who are trying to do rigorous work in this area. 00:47:32.719 --> 00:47:40.400 Um, not everyone's gonna agree with us, but let's, you know, back up our claims and and try to reclaim it with substance. 00:47:41.119 --> 00:47:47.199 Another piece I'd be interested, because we're kind of talking about the media sphere and how it's working. 00:47:47.199 --> 00:47:51.840 One of my personal predictions is we're in a time of great transition. 00:47:51.840 --> 00:47:59.599 And Canada, um, from my perspective, with how they've supported traditional media, has just slowed the process. 00:47:59.599 --> 00:48:04.079 But that we're kind of going through this wave where, like, yeah, cable news is kind of dying. 00:48:04.079 --> 00:48:05.440 I think everybody knows that. 00:48:05.440 --> 00:48:09.280 And so we do need to transition to something where people can watch it on YouTube. 00:48:09.280 --> 00:48:17.440 But then we need to build in the same types of guardrails that traditional media had, and there's just been no force and effect. 00:48:17.440 --> 00:48:23.599 Like if CTV news was to go, we're going online fully now, we're we're done with cable news, we're gonna move in this direction. 00:48:23.599 --> 00:48:25.920 Cable news can error stuff, but we're going online. 00:48:25.920 --> 00:48:29.519 Then you have, but they have not, I've watched them not like adapt. 00:48:29.519 --> 00:48:32.639 They don't do good thumbnails, they don't do good marketing on their stuff. 00:48:32.639 --> 00:48:37.039 So they just haven't figured out how to pitch people the news episode in the first minute of the show. 00:48:37.039 --> 00:48:40.239 Like those types of kind of technical things you have to do for YouTube. 00:48:40.239 --> 00:48:45.119 And so you have people like myself who I I often worry about my role in this. 00:48:45.119 --> 00:48:47.360 Like, I want to make sure I'm a good faith actor. 00:48:47.360 --> 00:48:48.480 I've interviewed journalists. 00:48:48.480 --> 00:48:50.480 How do I do this properly and ethically? 00:48:50.480 --> 00:48:54.400 I try and have people like yourself on where you're you're the main voice. 00:48:54.400 --> 00:48:58.079 I'm asking questions, but you're you're giving more of the insights. 00:48:58.079 --> 00:49:08.800 But I do see people who have just like, oh, if I say the most extreme thing, you get more views, and then people tune into the next episode, and you can, I would have grown much faster had I taken that avenue. 00:49:08.800 --> 00:49:14.639 And so and there's no incentive to, there's a disincentive to take the route I'm taking, which is slower growth. 00:49:14.639 --> 00:49:20.719 People regularly comment, like, oh, you should be bigger, but it's like, but I don't want to say a crazy thing just to get views. 00:49:20.719 --> 00:49:23.360 Like, you want to be ethical with your voice and responsible. 00:49:23.360 --> 00:49:35.199 So we're kind of in this transition where like this is where it's going, but there's not the safeguards and and rails in place and the personal ethics and accountability that people have in order to want to do that in a good way. 00:49:35.199 --> 00:49:47.360 One of the people I've really enjoyed, and I'd be interested if if you followed him at all, is Diary of a CEO, because it seems like he's got um, he's got more, he's in the UK, he's one of the most popular um shows. 00:49:47.360 --> 00:49:53.280 He he seems to do a better job of trying to ground the conversation in the evidence, and then people kind of criticize it from there. 00:49:53.280 --> 00:50:05.119 So I'd just be interested in do you think we're in a transition and and how do we support that transition and encourage people who have independent shows like this to move in that direction, to follow best practices? 00:50:05.119 --> 00:50:12.880 Like, I don't see kind of a united front where if you're starting a YouTube channel, here are kind of the best practices on how to be ethical and responsible with it. 00:50:12.880 --> 00:50:24.079 Like I think that would be helpful for people in order to keep not only their show grounded, but also I don't want to be a person who looks

back on an episode and goes, wow, I was just doing it for clicks. 00:50:24.079 --> 00:50:27.440 Wow, I'm just an empty person who's just chasing the next view. 00:50:27.440 --> 00:50:35.199 Like you want to be able to have do this all with some integrity, but really there's nobody there to support you or kind of give you best practices from the outset. 00:50:35.199 --> 00:50:37.519 And everything's just taking off on this side. 00:50:37.519 --> 00:50:40.639 Like there's a lot of opportunities to grow with YouTube and stuff. 00:50:40.639 --> 00:50:44.960 And there's just nobody, there's no kind of, hey, let's try and do this in a good way. 00:50:44.960 --> 00:50:51.039 Leadership from Canada, from the news organizations, from anybody saying, hey, if you're gonna do this, here's how to do it right. 00:50:51.360 --> 00:50:52.960 Yeah, I think we are. 00:50:52.960 --> 00:50:53.840 There's no doubt. 00:50:53.840 --> 00:50:56.559 There's no doubt that we are in a in a transition. 00:50:56.559 --> 00:50:57.840 You know, you're living it, right? 00:50:57.840 --> 00:50:58.800 You're living it. 00:50:58.800 --> 00:51:02.239 Um, I have a lot of concerns, you know, and you've outlined some of them. 00:51:02.239 --> 00:51:04.239 The lack of standards for sure, right? 00:51:04.239 --> 00:51:06.639 You know, there is, you know, journalistic standards mean something. 00:51:06.639 --> 00:51:07.599 They mean something. 00:51:07.599 --> 00:51:13.039 The other thing I'm worried about that you didn't touch on is um the lack of journalism, right? 00:51:13.039 --> 00:51:14.239 So, what do I mean by that? 00:51:14.239 --> 00:51:27.360 So many you know, Substack voices, so many online influencers, they don't have a, they're not finding journalists on the ground to collect objective information that can inform um conversations, right? 00:51:27.360 --> 00:51:39.679 And the more the money flows away from the entities that are doing that, that have someone in Gaza, that have someone in Ukraine, that are interviewing scientists on the ground, that are going to laboratories, they're going to hospitals, right? 00:51:39.679 --> 00:51:59.280 The more that money flows away from those institutions towards um, you know, entities that aren't doing that, they're just really aggregating information and you know, putting a spin on it, um, the more we're gonna, you know, we're losing our our our touch on reality, I guess is one way to one way to put it. 00:51:59.280 --> 00:52:04.159 And we just become this opinion echo chamber, which is is not a good thing. 00:52:04.159 --> 00:52:05.039 So I'm worried about that. 00:52:05.039 --> 00:52:09.119 Number two, and I thought this is where you were gonna go with it, Aaron, is AI. 00:52:09.119 --> 00:52:11.280 You didn't even say that, you didn't even say uh AI. 00:52:11.280 --> 00:52:12.880 And I thought that's where you were going. 00:52:12.880 --> 00:52:16.480 Um, AI is just like um gonna change all of the above, right? 00:52:16.480 --> 00:52:17.199 All of the above. 00:52:17.199 --> 00:52:36.000 You have, you know, sub so many substacks are you can wake up in the morning and go, um hey, Chat GPT, do a summary of the news today with a rage bait left-leaning uh uh vibe in my voice, or a right wing rage baiting uh vibe. 00:52:36.000 --> 00:52:39.039 Um put it out and charge people for it. 00:52:39.039 --> 00:52:51.760 And that that a you know, that chat bot is going to go to all the newspapers that have journalists um that you know, just gonna take those that the content from there and they're going to monetize it, right? 00:52:51.760 --> 00:52:53.440 So it's it's a real, real problem. 00:52:53.440 --> 00:52:59.760 And the other thing, of course, is AI is going to make all the misinformation stuff that we talked about even worse. 00:52:59.760 --> 00:53:11.519 So there was a study that was done by Angus Reed that came out just a couple months ago where um it asked the uh Canadians about AI, and you know this, you've probably even done a show on it. 00:53:11.519 --> 00:53:16.079 A lot of anxiety about AI in not just in Canada but around the world. 00:53:16.079 --> 00:53:17.199 A lot of anxiety. 00:53:17.199 --> 00:53:19.519 But what they found was 95%. 00:53:19.519 --> 00:53:21.519 Think about that. 00:53:21.519 --> 00:53:26.320 95% of Canadians are worried about AI misinformation, right? 00:53:26.320 --> 00:53:28.079 And they think AI is gonna make misinformation. 00:53:28.079 --> 00:53:32.000 You know, you don't get that kind of bipartisan numbers in Canada very often. 00:53:32.000 --> 00:53:37.280 You know, we were talking about how the word misinformation was polarizing, and I think you're exactly right about that. 00:53:37.280 --> 00:53:49.840 You know, if we went back in time even two years and asked that exact same question about just the word misinformation as opposed to AI misinformation, you would get a polarized response, right? 00:53:49.840 --> 00:53:51.840 You would get a polarized response. 00:53:51.840 --> 00:53:56.719 Now, um, because of AI, you get almost you get bipartisan support. 00:53:56.719 --> 00:54:02.000 And I've seen I've seen studies from the US similar, not quite as high, but similar, right? 00:54:02.000 --> 00:54:14.000 Um, so I think the Canadian public is right, and evidence tells us they're right, but uh that it might also be a policy opportunity to create the standards that you are you are are talking about right now. 00:54:14.000 --> 00:54:18.719 Um, and by the way, and you probably know this, but people cannot tell the difference. 00:54:18.719 --> 00:54:19.599 They think they can. 00:54:19.599 --> 00:54:22.000 There's this huge Dunning-Kruger effect that's happening. 00:54:22.000 --> 00:54:30.079 People think they can tell the difference, they can't tell the difference, they can't tell the difference with written word, with audio, with pictures, with video, increasingly with video. 00:54:30.079 --> 00:54:32.800 In my space, there's now all these AI

influencers. 00:54:32.800 --> 00:54:33.440 Have you seen them? 00:54:33.440 --> 00:54:34.000 Any of them? 00:54:34.000 --> 00:54:34.239 No. 00:54:34.239 --> 00:54:36.400 They look incredibly real, right? 00:54:36.400 --> 00:54:39.039 I think here's my dystopian prediction for the future. 00:54:39.039 --> 00:54:39.760 I hope I'm wrong. 00:54:39.760 --> 00:54:41.280 I hope I'm wrong. 00:54:41.280 --> 00:54:47.760 Um, a couple years from now, there is going to be an AI influencer that is specifically targeting you. 00:54:47.760 --> 00:54:48.719 You know what I mean? 00:54:48.719 --> 00:55:00.000 Like they're just gonna create an AI influencer that is, you know, plays to your, that plays to your rage, your fears, your concern, your political leaning, you know, whatever it is. 00:55:00.000 --> 00:55:03.039 And it's gonna offer a supplement at the end of its pitch. 00:55:03.039 --> 00:55:05.760 But that's where we're going. 00:55:05.760 --> 00:55:09.280 So we're absolutely in in a transition. 00:55:09.280 --> 00:55:17.280 Um, the good news is, um, the good news is, and this kind of builds on something you said too, um, because I you always like to have a little bit of good news, right? 00:55:17.280 --> 00:55:19.920 Is that uh there are more voices out there, right? 00:55:19.920 --> 00:55:20.480 I like that. 00:55:20.480 --> 00:55:24.559 You know, they're young voices, diverse voices, voices with different perspectives. 00:55:24.559 --> 00:55:25.760 That's a good thing. 00:55:25.760 --> 00:55:29.039 And and I, you know, I I as I said, I've been at this a long time. 00:55:29.039 --> 00:55:30.079 It wasn't always like that. 00:55:30.079 --> 00:55:35.599 You know, I think that we're having so many people engage in the conversations that we're having right now, that's a good thing. 00:55:36.320 --> 00:55:42.960 One of the pieces I really admire about your approach is that you've kept a list of things you've changed your mind about. 00:55:42.960 --> 00:55:51.119 And I imagine you get asked that a fair bit, but what's one of the most consequential things on that list that you changed your mind about? 00:55:51.440 --> 00:55:55.119 Um can I say I'll I'll give you a grab bag, okay? 00:55:55.119 --> 00:55:56.320 Grab bag. 00:55:56.320 --> 00:55:58.719 Um, one that seems kind of har harmless, but it's not. 00:55:58.719 --> 00:56:04.639 I used to make fun of walkers, people walking, you know, which is I know that sounds like a little thing, but it's not. 00:56:04.639 --> 00:56:09.440 So I was, you know, I thought the data, so this is a good example of my own cognitive bias, right? 00:56:09.440 --> 00:56:10.800 Um, I love exercise. 00:56:10.800 --> 00:56:11.360 I always have. 00:56:11.360 --> 00:56:13.280 My my partner does, my wife does too. 00:56:13.280 --> 00:56:15.280 You know, so I've always loved it. 00:56:15.280 --> 00:56:18.960 So I thought, unless you're doing it real, Aaron, it doesn't count, right? 00:56:18.960 --> 00:56:21.440 That's complete BS, right?

00:56:21.440 --> 00:56:23.440 And the growing body of evidence tells says that. 00:56:23.440 --> 00:56:25.119 So I've changed my mind on that. 00:56:25.119 --> 00:56:28.000 Let me give you another one, that a more recent one. 00:56:28.000 --> 00:56:29.599 GLP1s. 00:56:29.599 --> 00:56:36.079 Okay, so when they first started rolling out, um, maybe it's because of part of the things that we've talked about already. 00:56:36.079 --> 00:56:38.320 I I always think there's too much hype. 00:56:38.320 --> 00:56:47.920 You know, it's the effect size is overplayed, everyone says everything's a revolution, and um and so I was skeptical, right? 00:56:47.920 --> 00:56:49.679 I was wrong about that. 00:56:49.679 --> 00:56:51.119 You know, I was wrong about that. 00:56:51.119 --> 00:56:59.119 Um, so I think you need to always be humble and to remember that um that uh science changes. 00:56:59.119 --> 00:57:10.320 And you know, you you were talking about, you know, Trudeau, and I'm not, I don't want to support this um uh, but I think changing your mind based on the evidence changing should be a badge of honor. 00:57:10.320 --> 00:57:14.800 It shouldn't be portrayed as flip-flopping, it should be a badge of honor. 00:57:14.800 --> 00:57:17.360 You should explain why you changed your mind. 00:57:17.360 --> 00:57:20.159 Um, but it's people shouldn't be damned for it. 00:57:20.159 --> 00:57:21.199 They should be celebrated. 00:57:21.199 --> 00:57:25.440 When the evidence changes and you change your mind, that's a good thing. 00:57:26.719 --> 00:57:32.559 I guess on that note, I also feel like we need to do a better job of tracking who got it right. 00:57:32.559 --> 00:57:43.920 Like when it was the most controversial, when it was the toughest, what was the person's position, and were they correct or incorrect, and do it across different issues so that you can understand. 00:57:43.920 --> 00:57:48.239 But one of my big concerns is that people move the goalpost. 00:57:48.239 --> 00:57:59.519 Um, I like I watch a lot of the UFC, and so uh Dana White had come out and made a comment when he started uh his new boxing company, Zoofa Boxing, and said, Judge me by the end of the year. 00:57:59.519 --> 00:58:02.480 Judge me by the end of the year on what we're able to put together. 00:58:02.480 --> 00:58:06.719 Well, it's now October, and he said, judge me over the next couple of years. 00:58:06.719 --> 00:58:13.280 And he moved the goalpost ever so slightly as to say, Don't judge me just on this year, because I don't think I did that well. 00:58:13.280 --> 00:58:18.159 And so I I worry that we don't do a good job of tracking people when they got it wrong. 00:58:18.159 --> 00:58:20.960 But also, did they, to your point, did they just own up to it? 00:58:20.960 --> 00:58:26.480 Did they just go, like, hey, I I was over my skis on this, I was incorrect, um, and I shouldn't have done that. 00:58:26.480 --> 00:58:33.199 Like, I came on the show, I was very frustrated by people's

reaction to DRIPA at the beginning, and I just felt like it was another thing. 00:58:33.199 --> 00:58:39.920 People in BC, we have this law on the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People, and I thought people were just overreacting to the law. 00:58:39.920 --> 00:58:45.840 And so I kind of made some snarky comments on Twitter, and then I came on the show and immediately started with like, I was wrong. 00:58:45.840 --> 00:58:50.719 There are reasonable concerns that legitimately we can discuss here, and I'm gonna go through them now. 00:58:50.719 --> 00:58:56.960 Just like owning that helps people know, like, oh, you're like a good faith actor in a way that like I can have more confidence. 00:58:56.960 --> 00:58:58.000 What's your thoughts on that? 00:58:58.239 --> 00:59:00.079 Yeah, I this is a really interesting question. 00:59:00.079 --> 00:59:05.119 And and I think that I I agree that you should always talk about the evolution of your thinking. 00:59:05.119 --> 00:59:11.280 I I think it goes to that idea of, you know, I work in the biomedical space, so I'll use this language, that scientific humility idea. 00:59:11.280 --> 00:59:21.119 There's really interesting research, Aaron, that says that you know, that scientific humility, having that characteristic, um, has a whole bunch of positive uh attributes associated with it. 00:59:21.119 --> 00:59:26.559 And one, you know, not falling for misinformation, being more open to science as it evolves, et cetera, et cetera. 00:59:26.559 --> 00:59:32.559 But I do think we need to be careful to not valorize an individual um just because they got it right. 00:59:32.559 --> 00:59:36.400 You know, the the I hate cliches, I hate them, I try to avoid them, I don't use it anyway. 00:59:36.400 --> 00:59:44.559 The broken clock cliche, you know, that um even a broken clock is uh, you know, right once a day, um, or twice a day, I guess. 00:59:44.559 --> 00:59:47.280 Um that that is a mistake. 00:59:47.280 --> 01:00:03.360 So the example I often use is um, let's say there is a weather uh institute, and they use AI and all the very best um science to determine the weather, and they say, tomorrow it's not going to rain. 01:00:03.360 --> 01:00:07.920 And then you go to this, you know, this individual that reads the tea leaves, right? 01:00:07.920 --> 01:00:15.679 And and uses fur from rabbits or something, and then decides, you know, tomorrow um it is going to rain. 01:00:15.679 --> 01:00:16.800 I want to make sure I get that right. 01:00:16.800 --> 01:00:19.679 I can't remember what I said about the institute, the weather institute. 01:00:19.679 --> 01:00:30.639 And and if this individual turns out to be right, that doesn't mean we should ignore the the weather institute and start listening to individuals that read tea leaves to predict the weather, right? 01:00:30.639 --> 01:00:32.559 That doesn't mean that at all. 01:00:32.559 --> 01:00:38.960 Um you try to make the best decision you can with the available

evidence at the at the time. 01:00:38.960 --> 01:00:40.320 But you should say that. 01:00:40.320 --> 01:00:46.639 You should say, given the available evidence I have right now, this is the decision that we're making. 01:00:46.639 --> 01:00:49.920 And Aaron, if you don't buy that, we're paralyzed. 01:00:49.920 --> 01:00:50.960 We're paralyzed. 01:00:50.960 --> 01:00:53.199 No one, you know, we wouldn't be able to build bridges. 01:00:53.199 --> 01:00:59.199 You know, no one goes, I was joked that no one goes on all knowledge is relative airline, right? 01:00:59.199 --> 01:01:03.599 We don't, and uh, you know, the Bernoulli effect is just an idea. 01:01:03.599 --> 01:01:05.199 You know, no one does that. 01:01:05.199 --> 01:01:09.920 But when something becomes a wedge issue, all of a sudden people, you know, have these kinds of conversations. 01:01:09.920 --> 01:01:13.599 And I think we need to avoid, we need to try to avoid that. 01:01:13.599 --> 01:01:19.039 So when you're going back saying, okay, who was right, who was wrong, I do think you need to put a lot of context in that. 01:01:19.039 --> 01:01:22.559 I do like the idea of talking about the evolution of ideas. 01:01:22.559 --> 01:01:25.119 You know, it's funny because I do that with sports casters. 01:01:25.119 --> 01:01:25.840 I don't know if you do that. 01:01:25.840 --> 01:01:32.400 Like the sportscasters say, oh, the the Patriots are gonna lose for sure against the Bills, and then the Patriots win and they reflect. 01:01:32.400 --> 01:01:33.360 I you're right. 01:01:33.360 --> 01:01:34.639 It gives them more credibility. 01:01:34.639 --> 01:01:37.760 And I think that is true regardless. 01:01:38.079 --> 01:01:38.639 I agree. 01:01:38.639 --> 01:01:43.599 And sorry, I just I didn't mean on like one issue, then they become the hero of the story forever. 01:01:43.599 --> 01:01:47.119 I more meant like if you're like a commentator like like myself. 01:01:47.119 --> 01:01:48.159 People do do that. 01:01:48.159 --> 01:01:49.280 I I believe you. 01:01:49.280 --> 01:01:58.719 But I think like if you're like if I'm a commentator and I say it should be like I did a breakdown on Dripa and I say this is what I think, and then I get it wrong, I should A come out. 01:01:58.719 --> 01:02:06.800 But then if somebody had like a chart and it was like Aaron got this wrong, this wrong, this wrong, this wrong, this wrong, I should be, I should give up my YouTube channel. 01:02:06.800 --> 01:02:12.159 Like I should, I've lost credibility, I should walk away because I've lost the public's trust. 01:02:12.159 --> 01:02:27.519 Like I've I've not been able to predict or or have any ability to look outwards consistently, where I think that that's how we should be able to judge, particularly news, news coverage people is like, are they getting issues right and helping you make informed? 01:02:27.519 --> 01:02:36.159 Because that's that's the the business that I think I'm in, is like, am I helping people make more

informed, thoughtful decisions, or am I setting them up for worse? 01:02:36.159 --> 01:02:47.360 And if I'm having on the wrong guests and asking the wrong questions and making people make bad decisions when they go to the grocery store or something, like then I should stop doing what I'm doing because I'm actually doing a disservice. 01:02:47.360 --> 01:02:57.679 And we should do a better job of it in some way tracking that because, like, as you said, like one organization that I respect, but I disagree with a lot is Juno News. 01:02:57.679 --> 01:03:10.559 I don't know if you know Juno News, um, but they're um a news organization and they just keep posting things about like the Cow Chin decision means everybody's losing their land, Dripa means the government controls everything, and it's just like you guys are just wrong. 01:03:10.559 --> 01:03:14.559 Like, and I'm happy to debate you, but I just like disagree with you fundamentally. 01:03:14.559 --> 01:03:18.559 And if you get this, this, and this wrong, I like I don't think you should be as trusted as you are. 01:03:18.559 --> 01:03:24.559 And so, like, I I think there should be a way of like more tracking organizations and people on that kind of front. 01:03:24.559 --> 01:03:27.519 Well, I you know, I I wish you were right. 01:03:29.519 --> 01:03:34.719 Because if you look at what's happening, uh I it's so easy to pick on the United States, but we're gonna I'm gonna do it anyway. 01:03:34.719 --> 01:03:42.880 Um people do track how often RFK Jr.'s been wrong, like exactly wrong, not just kind of wrong, exactly wrong. 01:03:42.880 --> 01:03:45.840 And he must know it's a lie, you know, hundreds of times, right? 01:03:45.840 --> 01:03:49.280 There's still a large sector of the population that believes him. 01:03:49.280 --> 01:03:50.719 Look at Donald Trump. 01:03:50.719 --> 01:03:57.039 Like every single time he opens his mouth, there's a you know, something that's not true that falls out, right? 01:03:57.039 --> 01:04:01.280 Um still people believe him. 01:04:01.280 --> 01:04:10.639 Um or they're draw, I think more importantly, they're drawn to his his his gestalt, his the gist of what he's saying. 01:04:10.639 --> 01:04:12.559 There's this fascinating research. 01:04:12.559 --> 01:04:22.000 Um Stephen Lewandowski from um and others have have worked on this, um, where they talk about the difference between belief speaking and fact speaking. 01:04:22.000 --> 01:04:23.119 And have you heard about this? 01:04:23.119 --> 01:04:30.079 So in the past, uh journalism and media uh and really just commentary more broadly leaned on fact speaking. 01:04:30.079 --> 01:04:38.000 So the you know, the what there was the facts were tethered to reality, you know, tethered to the facts, tethered to evidence, tethered to science. 01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:39.760 Um, that's fact speaking. 01:04:39.760 --> 01:04:47.920 Um belief speaking is starting to take over where people just say it emphatically enough and with enough passion that people believe it. 01:04:47.920 --> 01:04:50.320 Tucker Carlson, very good at this, right? 01:04:50.320 --> 01:04:56.400 Just say one of my favorite examples of it is immigrants are eating cats and dogs, right? 01:04:56.400 --> 01:04:57.119 Remember that? 01:04:57.119 --> 01:05:01.760 Um, I I don't think anyone really believes, you know, maybe I I should take that back. 01:05:01.760 --> 01:05:08.159 They maybe there are some people that believe that literally, they believe the gist of what was being said, right? 01:05:08.159 --> 01:05:13.599 And um so unfortunately, you know, I wish uh you were right. 01:05:13.599 --> 01:05:20.559 I are and I agree with what you're saying, and I'm glad that people are keeping a track of all the demonstrably false things that have been said. 01:05:20.559 --> 01:05:23.119 But that's just one piece of the puzzle. 01:05:23.119 --> 01:05:30.559 You know, people are still drawn to the gist of whatever the message is, um, regardless of whether it's true or false. 01:05:30.559 --> 01:05:36.800 And and unfortunately, I worry that kind of discourse is going to continue to dominate our information space. 01:05:38.400 --> 01:05:42.239 Timothy, uh, can you share with me uh how people can follow your work? 01:05:42.239 --> 01:05:43.679 I know you have some books available. 01:05:43.679 --> 01:05:45.440 Can you share how they can find that? 01:05:45.760 --> 01:05:46.559 Yeah, for sure. 01:05:46.559 --> 01:05:48.000 Um you can find me online. 01:05:48.000 --> 01:05:54.079 Uh, I'm uh on Blue Sky and I'm on Threads, I'm on Instagram, I'm on Facebook. 01:05:54.079 --> 01:05:56.800 I'd I'd love to hear your thoughts, but no hate mail. 01:05:56.800 --> 01:05:58.880 I I get enough of that. 01:05:59.440 --> 01:06:02.719 So well, thank you so much for being willing to do this. 01:06:02.719 --> 01:06:03.760 It's really fascinating. 01:06:03.760 --> 01:06:09.440 I liked having my own ideas challenged, uh, and you've done a lot of work in this space, so super grateful to share the time. 01:06:09.440 --> 01:06:10.719 Thanks for having me on.

Editar transcripción