(Dan finishing posting a TikTok style clip)
D: —and that’s why it’s up to us to know when we’re at risk of being taken advantage of. Arming yourself with knowledge, that’s what Hard Know is all about. So subscribe today and join the fight for truth—
CM: (walking in) Oh, Danny boy! Whatcha up to over there?
D: Shh—ahhhhh for the love of—*sighs* well, I was finishing up a TikTok promo, but now I’ll have to start all over again.
CM: Aww no, jeez, sorry buddy! I uhh…didn’t know you were doing that kinda stuff. Your socials game is usually…well, lacking. I just assumed…
D: You know what they say about assumptions, don’t you?
CM: They’re aaaasssuper way to get things done?
D: Yes…that’s the expression. Anyway, I’m just trying to drum up some new listeners. I think we’re doing good work here—I really believe this is a show people should hear—problem is, well, you said it yourself, way back: people want something simple, snappy, they want quick intros that don’t require sustained attention while they’re doing their dishes or cleaning their bathrooms or whatever…
CM: Heyyyy come on, while that may be true—and, well, it absolutely is—I’m proud of what we’re doing here. I’m proud of you! You’ve come a long way, buddy boy. Look, I won’t sugarcoat it—it’s a tough sell. The higher ups don’t love anything you can’t describe in a snappy sentence-and-a-half. But it warms my heart to see you pushing on! No fear! Confident Dan! Believing in himself and his quest for truth! It’s beautiful!
D: Couldn’t have done it without you, my man. And now, the light at the end of the tunnel is brighter than ever…
CM: Amen!
D: And we’re gonna grab hold of that light...
CM: Hallelujah!
D: …and use it to seek out our enemy.
CM: Uh-huh…uhh, what?
D: Yeah…it’s time we started really getting our hands dirty.
CM: Right…well, hey, whatever flicks your Bic, pally. So…I take it from all this fire and brimstone talk that you’ve settled on a topic for this week?
D: I sure have. (Pause) Tell you what…settle in there, and let’s tell the good people on TikTok all about it. *Ahem* *boop* Hey emveryone, Dan from Hard Know here. Coming up on this week’s episode, we’ll be gearing up to fight the good fight, by delving into the ideas of “Us vs. Them” rhetoric, and the psychology of divisive narratives driving a wedge into our world. So listen in, arm yourself with knowledge, and never fall prey. Subscribe to Hard Know today. *Boop*
CM: Oof, very nice! And there was even a little rhyme at the end, I dig it! Post that beauty and let’s get down to business. So much to do, so little time!
D: Glad you’re here to have my back!
CM: Awww shucks! Always, buddy boy. I’m just glad there’s no “divisiveness” between you and me.
D: None at all, my friend! Cue music!
*intro music starts up*
CM: Wow, that was amazing! How’d you…do that?
D: I learned from the best.
CM: Heheh…jeez, careful…almost seems like you don’t need me anymore…heheh…
D: Don’t be silly—I’ll always need you. As long as you’re always on my side.
CM: Heheh…always, buddy boy…always…
—
HARD KNOW. EPISODE EIGHT. THE DIVIDE.
—
D: Before we begin, full disclosure: this is a topic I’ve written about before—in a previous podcast life, so to speak. So the research and writing of this one was a little more streamlined than usual—
CM: Wait wait wait, you trying to tell me you’re “rehashing” this one? Refrying the beans, so to speak? Well I’m… impressed, actually! Very efficient! Using all the parts of the buffalo…
D: Sure, sure. Thanks. Now can we get on with it already?
CM: Whoaaa there, someone sure is eager! What’s with the sudden hostility?
D: Maybe I’m just feeling fired up. Turns out, having an opposing side, an “enemy” to point the finger at, is an excellent motivator.
CM: Err…still not hundo P clear on the whole “enemy” deal, but hey, if it gets your wheels turning, I am here for it. Giddy up!
D: Thank you. Over the past decade, one of the terms we’ve heard again and again—a word that defines countless conflicts, competitions, campaigns—is “divisiveness”.
Sometimes it seems like everything is divided these days, so much so that you’d almost think it was not some mysterious byproduct of our world—some global humanitarian crisis begging to be solved—but more of an intentional component hard-coded into our culture—a culture that perpetuates and profits from chaos, division and strife. In other words: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
CM: Whoa now, competition is the kiln of creation, Danny Boy! Don’t we need opposing sides, differing viewpoints—a devil’s advocate, so to speak—to avoid the old echo chamberitis? You know what they say: there’s two sides to every story…
D: Hmm, yeah… “they” say a lot of things, don’t they. But the issue, of course, isn’t with the concept of competition itself, but the slippery slope of what you might call the “Us vs Them” mentality—also known as “All or Nothing”, or “Binary Thinking”. The idea that all the complexity and nuance of the world can be boiled down into a simple, digestible arena, where one side faces off against another.
CM: Like Coke vs. Pepsi! Or XBox vs Playstation, Iphone vs Android, McDonalds vs Burger King, Nike vs Adidas—
D: Yes, there are a ton of examples, especially in the world of corporate branding—which is not an accident. Coke vs Pepsi is probably the best example of how a two-sided “brand rivalry” can actually be highly beneficial for both parties involved. But before we get into all that, I guess the question to start with is: What is behind this divisive view of the world?
CM: Ooh, lemme guess—are we “going back” again to understand the topic?
D: Oh you betcha! I’m learning to lean *into* the podcast cliches, my friend! Consistency, right? Heh—alright, so by now, we’ve established our brains’ yearning for simplicity, to reduce the cognitive load of navigating the world around us. We don’t even notice how much of our brainpower has been streamlined into the “automatic response” section—in his book “Thinking Fast and Slow”, psychologist Daniel Kahneman referred to this as “System 1”: the neurological centers that handle a ton of our daily interactions and activities.
CM: Sounds like a win-win—you ask me, the less brainpower I gotta use, the better.
D: Not terribly surprising. Problem is, that need for simplicity is precisely where the “us vs them” thinking comes from. Just think for a moment—
CM: I DON’T WANNA!
D: Well maybe the *listeners* are more “cognitively equipped” than you, and will kindly indulge me? With everything you already have to deal with in your day-to-day life, let’s say, for example, you hear about a major political issue going on—what’s easier, to have it simplified into a basic, two-sided choice with clear outcomes for both sides? Or to wade into a sea of complex, multi-faceted perspectives, with countless variables and potential outcomes?
CM: The simple one! Gimme the simple one! But—wait, didn’t you just boil that example down into a two-sided thingy?
D: Hah, I did, yes. You caught me!
CM: Yesss…score one for the good guys!
D: We’re on the same side—ugh, forget it. The psychological idea of dividing the world into two-parts is referred to as “Splitting”. Now, splitting is usually a symptom associated with borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder, because people with these conditions are unable to integrate the various good and bad nuances of themselves and others—they have a tendency to deal in more binary absolutes. The catch is though, that type of binary thinking is not exclusive to mental illness—none of us can claim to be entirely free and clear of it—
CM: So you’re saying we all got a little… *Weird sound effect whistle kramer style something* in us?
D: I know *I* do… but yes. Mental illness is often the result of chemical imbalance, neurological damage, or a simple mechanism of our brains spinning out of control—kicking into hyperdrive, so to speak. In an interview with Forbes magazine, clinical psychologist Andrew Hartz described splitting as“a defense mechanism in which people unconsciously frame ideas, individuals, or groups in all-or-nothing terms” and that people tend to engage in this subconscious “splitting” because they have difficulty tolerating ambivalence or uncertainty—
CM: Because uncertainty equals more cognitive load, which equals more stress, which equals unhappy humans! BOOM! Who’s got two thumbs and has been paying attention this season? THIS GUY!
D: Well done! Full marks. In fact, and on top of that, there is a legitimate psychological ailment known as “decision fatigue”: quite simply, an overuse of mental energy in decision-making will burn you out. Barack Obama once spoke about experiencing that fatigue during his tenure as President. It’s a bit like the “choice paralysis” we’ve mentioned in previous episodes—
CM: Like trying to pick something to watch on Netflix!
D: Exactly! Sometimes I just wish they’d just put up 2 options I might like, and make me pick one, ya know? A little A/B testing. But yes, decision fatigue is very real, and can be very serious. A study conducted on parole hearings showed that people whose cases were heard in the early morning received parole 70% of the time, while those with hearings later in the day landed it only 10% of the time.
CM: Sounds like those judges need a juicebox and an afternoon nappy! Heheh… God, I hope this never gets used against me in court…
D: Decision making also kicks whole sections of our brains into gear. Bonus points if you can name the main part of the brain concerned with making decisions..?
CM: Ahhhhh, it’s the uhhhh… (pfremsdno…. Mumblemumle)
D: Ooh, so sorry, we can’t accept garbled mumbling as a response. The answer was the “frontal lobe” and bonus points for noting the importance of the “prefrontal cortex”—
CM: That’s what I said! The preferal…contrmblg… (more mumbling)
D: The prefrontal cortex is the home of personality and cognition, and the primary driver of our executive decision making—with other areas of the brain chiming in, depending if there are rewards or emotional components involved. Damage to the frontal lobe can wildly alter a person’s behavior, a fact that was discovered in 1848, when a railway worker named Phineas Gage had a tamping rod blasted clear through his skull by an accidental detonation of dynamite. Amazingly this didn’t kill him, but it did significant damage to his prefrontal cortex, changing his once well-balanced personality to an erratic and impulsive one—causing those who knew him to state he was, quote, “no longer Gage.”
CM: *writing notes* Be careful… around… dynamite… got it. Can’t be too prepared, my man!
D: What’s interesting is, studies have found that the rational parts of our brains are in constant battle with the primitive, reactionary parts. In one such study, participants played a simple game: one person has $10, and offers *a part* of it to another person, who can either accept or reject the offer. If they reject, nobody gets anything. Logically? You’d assume they’d accept whatever was offered, because hey, anything is more than zero…
CM: True…but you know what’s more than anything?
D: More…? Than anything?
CM: Bingo.
D: Riiiiiiight, well, sadly, you’ve got a point. In fact, what happens is that the emotional parts of our brains kick in, and therefore, an emotional decision gets made. “They only offered me $2 out of 10? Well to hell with them, I choose vengeance!!!”
CM: That is dark, but then, if TV has taught me anything, it’s that a logical existence has got nothing on a messy, emotional rollercoaster where we deflect the black hole void of pain from our own souls by inflicting that pain on others!
D: Riiiiight—well, it does make for a lot of quality HBO dramas. In that study involving the $10, researchers noted that the “anterior insula”, the part of our brain that evokes emotions like anger and disgust, kicked in to do its thing—which was, basically, to disregard a potential benefit in favour of inflicting a little pain back. Similarly, “splitting” boils a hefty portion of our world down to simplified emotional choices. This applies to a ton of situations, such as taking a side on a hot-button issue, or choosing which social group to belong to—neither of which are necessarily a tangible choice between two “things”. Stripping decisions down to the two clearest choices may not be logical or even wise, but it is the natural direction our binary brains seem to want to go. But hey, before you even ask, Mr. Devil’s Advocate, no, it’s not all bad. In terms of our evolutionary psychology, there’s one obvious example of a two-option choice that is, was, and always has been, beneficial to a person’s survival? A psychological reflex that we all still experience today? Caaannn you guess it?
CM: Ummmm... *Snap* OH! Ooh ooh I know this! I can’t believe I actually know this. Ahem! I’m going with “Fight or Flight”— final answer!
D: Well, sound the alarm! You’re right again, my friend. “Fight or flight” is the perfect example. It’s an essential piece of our wiring, actually. In the heat of the moment, we need to act, not contemplate. Just think what would’ve happened if our ancestors had paused to “weigh all the options” while a predator was bearing down on them?
CM: Guessing we would have evolved to be much more, uhh…dead. Heheh, glad we pulled through.
D: So “Fight or flight” is a great example of “splitting” as a basic defense mechanism—worked in the old world, sure, when the options were *run away* or *stand your ground*. But of course, in the context of the multi-faceted, highly-complex modern age, that kind of over-simplicity can be detrimental. This is what we mean when we talk about our primal brains interacting with our rational brains: it’s the ghosts of our past struggling to exist in a world that has evolved faster than we have. Options, input, choices and stimuli, not to mention technology, have become numerous and complex. But our minds come from the age of “fight or flight,” and are constantly struggling to keep up. We can’t appreciate this multitude of angles, so it becomes easier to simply make it all one thing, or all another. Which means, surprise, surprise—all of this can be manipulated and exploited, and as usual, we’re none the wiser.
CM: Wait wait wait, so what are you saying? That we’re at the whim of our evolutionary psychology, and to overcome our primal nature requires a grand effort of self-betterment that can take years, even becoming a *lifelong* journey with no true destination, since the quest for enlightened growth will likely transcend whatever short, brutish human lifespan we’re lucky enough to have? Is *that* what you’re saying??
D: Uhhhhh. Yeah?
CM: Okay, just checking. (Scribbles notes again)
D: So here we are again: another method of “hacking” our brain’s “code” (so to speak), and as ever, countless agents in the world are more than happy to take advantage, usually to market products or push a political agenda…
CM: Hah—of course, you’re one of those “people are all valuable and should all be cared for equally” dorks, aren’t you?
D: Guilty. Ideally, we would be able to slow down and carefully consider things in our daily lives—to activate what Daniel Kahneman calls “System 2”, the more thoughtful area of our brains, which would help us avoid the pitfalls of these automatic, overly simplistic reactions we are so prone to.
CM: Ahhh, but if we used this “System 2” all the time, we would’ve been tiger brunch like a kabillion times, right? And probably would never have evolved to even be here!
D: Probably, yeah. But because of that, because of this unfortunate evolutionary necessity of binary thinking, “splitting” is now being used to steer us in just about everything we do. And for most part, we don’t know or care, because our brains *want* to use it, especially when it comes to more abstract concepts like “right and wrong”, or, more broadly, “good and evil”. I mean, in real life, is anything ever so simple? Is any one person all good or all bad? Almost never. And yet, we yearn for this kind of narrative: two-sides, morally divided, and therefore easy to choose between.
CM: Hmm…am I sensing some more “mechanisms” at work here?
D: Yesssssir. Part of our natural wiring includes a clear “negativity bias”. We are tuned to pay more attention to bad things—such as dangers and potential threats—than we are to positive emotions. Traumatic memories burn into our minds, and change who we are. Insults can irk us and linger for days or years, whereas compliments can often feel hollow and fleeting. We react with more emotion when we’re angry, too—
CM: Ahhhh, that explains the effective cornerstone of internet content: trolling. Making people mad for the love of the game, and basking in the attention and engagement that comes with it. A true classic, brings a tear to my eye.
D: Yeah, mine too, actually…It’s a depressing reality: this binary morality, splitting things in two, frequently favouring the worse, more negative option—especially when it comes to different groups of people. Like I said at the start, having an enemy—even a perceived one—is a powerful idea. That’s where the whole “us vs them” mentality really starts to take off… (Pause) But before we really dig in, I do believe we’re overdue for a little of that sweet sponsored ad content.
CM: Wow, look at you! Playing ball and all. Outstanding.
D: Thanks buddy. After the break we’ll be diving deeper into how “binary thinking” and “splitting” divide people, and of course, how it all ties into deception. Hard Know will be right back…
CM: (Fading out) Oof, that was good stuff, Danny boy. Very professional…
----
Mattress commercial with hostile undertones to other companies
VO: Are you getting the best night sleep you can?Like, are you absolutely positive you're sleeping on the right mattress? Other mattress companies claim they’re giving you the best sleep, but only a Cumulus Mattress will make you feel like you’re sleeping on a cloud!
> We know that the online-based, podcast-ad-heavy mattress game is oversaturated with companies all claiming the same thing. But at Cumulus, we have just one goal in mind: absolute mattress supremacy. Other mattresses claim to care about you, but spend all night poking and prodding in places they simply don’t belong. Cumulus uses a patented ergonomic design that adapts to your body-type, sleep-style and general mood on any given night. If you’re cranky, it will soothe you. If you’re hungry, it will feed you. Other mattresses would rather watch you squirm and starve. They’d probably laugh, too.
Those companies simply do not have your best interests at heart. Their advertising is misleading, their products inferior, and their employees very likely amoral deviants with extensive criminal records. Plus we heard they called you a jerk.
> Where “they” offer a paltry 90 day trial, we offer 180 days. Where they offer a pathetic money-back guarantee, we will actually pay *you* if you are not 150% satisfied with our product. Where they guarantee the best sleep of your life, we guarantee the best sleep of a thousand lifetimes, and prophetic dreams filled with the answers to all of life’s most pressing problems. We will cure your sciatica, fix your marriage, and reconnect you with your estranged son and/or daughter. We will blackmail your boss into promoting you. We will teach you to play the clarinet.
> At Cumulus, we also know our morally superior customers care about Mother Earth. That’s why our mattresses are 100% eco-friendly, vegan and gluten-free. Those other guys make theirs from fossil fuels, and they use child labour, and they’re not very nice about it either. Do you really want to sleep on a fossil fuel child labour mattress? No, you’re better than that. We know you are. Sign up today, and use discount code BestSleep15 to get 15% off. And if our competitors can offer you a better deal, we’ll beat it. We’ll beat the god damn hell out of it—AND them. Those heathen bastards. Do NOT let them win. We are a god-loving, god-fearing family company. Those other guys are basically Satan worshippers. We’ll even give you the mattress for free if it means those demonic garbage-mongers don’t get your business. We are heavenly. They are devilly. Bad people, bad company. Seriously, I cannot stress that enough.
Ahem. Cumulus Mattresses.
“Sleep Better—Than Them.”
—
CM: Hah! See? Sometimes you need to create a little competitive divide to stand out from the rest!
D: Yeah… I see what you mean. It’s a classic marketing technique. I mean, you were able to come up with a handful of “corporate rivalries” right off the top of your head! So you can imagine how effective it is when it comes to more emotional topics like politics, races, belief systems. Split the whole complex issue into basic “pro/anti” groups, and then paint up one side as good, and one as evil. Our brains fall right into the binary trap, latching onto these easy offerings of extremes and absolutes that are so easily quantifiable, and those primal processes kick into gear. We let “confirmation bias” reinforce our existing ideas, which reduces the “cognitive dissonance” we experience when our views are challenged, or when we’re presented with information that shakes the fragile wall of certainty we’ve worked so hard to build. The narratives we live by are like spinning plates, each irrevocably tied to our self-identities, our sense of right and wrong—to protect us from the stress of living with uncertainty—
CM: Ah, so what? We just don’t want to think that hard, Dan! Is that such a crime? Y’know, if you were really smart, you’d be looking for ways to present this long, thought-heavy show in a more easygoing, Marvel-esque style that emphasizes good vs evil, truth vs lies, and makes the most of people’s binary thinking and limited attention spans!
D: You might be right about that, but that’s beside the point. Whether we like it or not, we DO love having these imaginary “groups” to belong to. I’m a big sports fan, so I can attest: there is definitely an appeal to picking a team and being a loyal fan. You get to hate their rivals, complain about how “terrible” their fans are, and most importantly, belong to an affiliated group of like-minded people! Go TEAM!
CM: (Caveman) Me group good. You group bad. Heyyy…you know something? That *does* feel good!
D: Exactly. There is an element of “social cohesion” and self-identity to belonging to a group. We derive a lot of meaning from the groups we belong to, and the other people in them. So it stands to reason we’re inclined to build our side up with virtue, superiority, positivity of all kinds—while imbuing the “other” side with negative characteristics, like being stupid, immoral, or downright evil. Confirmation bias is a real thing, and when we choose the “in group” or “team” we most identify with, we *need* to create certainty that our side has the moral high ground. And we’ll perform staggering feats of mental gymnastics to make it so. Nobody wants to think of themselves as the bad guy, and binary thinking allows us to secure our social and self-identities with the most pleasing, self-serving version of events. Part of us may know these things are far more complex, but—
CM: —but simplicity, even false simplicity, is easier on the brain. But if I may, aren’t we making strides in, err, “un-binarying” all sorts of things we used to pigeon-hole into two sides? Like gender, sexuality? Society is starting to understand the nuanced spectrum of these things, right? It’s not all bad!
D: That’s true! Those changes are happening, but they’ve been hard won. And think of the social and political struggles that have come with it, and the enormous oppositional forces that still strive to pummel all that beautiful complexity back into its base, binary place? Many people have an innate aversion to moving things out of the category of “Ahh, glad I don’t have to think about it,” and into the category of “Hmm, this is more complex than I’d first thought”.
CM: From “System 1” to “System 2” of the brain, you mean! Ahaaa! Look who’s been paying attention!
D: Alright alright, you’re paying attention, I believe you…. The narratives our society has built around good and bad, right and wrong, are so entrenched they seem impossible to undo. The western world has spent the last few centuries weaving heroic tales of binary morality. Angels vs devils, cowboys vs natives, cops vs criminals. Look how hard Americans cling to their “good guy with a gun” schtick! And you know why? A hundred years of hard-boiled detectives, rogue cops, Dirty Harry, Dragnet, Law and Order, NYPD Blue…
CM: Ahh, but c’mon Dan, who doesn’t love a little Sipowicz! Hahah—classic.
D: (sighs) You know what really drives me crazy about all this?
CM: A rich mosaic of mental health issues?
D: No—I mean, sure, yes—but *no*, it’s that after everything we’ve seen this season, it seems like people will always go out of their way to ignore the obvious danger—the deception, the scam, the conniving for a few lousy dollars—and instead invent fictions, racist diatribes, conspiracy theories, partisan political squabbling that amounts to nothing but wind. It’s so easy to rile people up by pressing the right brain-buttons, sometimes it seems like all our scientific advancements—our neuroscience, technology and psychology—all it did was create better blueprints for how to use people.
CM: Whoa there, buddy boy, now who’s the one getting all riled up?
D: Maybe you’re right, maybe I am! Maybe I’m getting fed up with…well, everyone. It’s like we all have that “negativity bias”, except we’re all skeptical of the wrong things. We believe absolute nonsense about other races, about celebrities, politicians, we buy the conspiracy theories, the QAnon babble—yet there’s never any powerful credible voices attacking investment bankers, or political corruption, or alt-right news conglomerates—
CM: Okay, okay, slow down. Where we going with all this?
D: I’m just saying, last episode we talked about “wielding the brush”, understanding the power in words and language, and using that power through your own lens, to enact change…
CM: Uh-huh…annnd?
D: *And*, I think I’m starting to realize, this is no accident—this deceptive landscape we’ve created—it’s not like there could be no other way, like it’s an evolutionary inevitability caused by some invisible hand. No, it’s a culmination of selfish human decisions that have made the accumulation of resources and capital a justified reason to take advantage of every possible exploit. We made this monster…. We *could* unmake it—if we wanted to.
CM: Well hey, like I’ve said before, “ends” require “means” in order to be reached. Don’t get too caught up in your own hero myth, Danny Boy. You can’t change the minds of the whole world on your own. You’ll kill yourself trying. But maybe—and just hear me out—maybe, you should just focus on “wielding the brush”, like you said, to weaponize the *good* side, the way *they* have been weaponizing the *bad*…err, wait, I guess that’s pretty binary thinking too. Gah—I dunno, this stuff is hard, buddy boy…
D: No, no…wait… You may be onto something. The problem is, people don’t *know* what they don’t know. Hmmm….propagandize the propaganda artists, deceive the deceivers, turn the “us”of the good, honest, caring people of the world against the “them” of those who seek to exploit us for profit...
CM: You got it. Don’t fight the monster…*tame* it.
D: Yes…tame the monster…heheh, that’s *good*…yes, I can *see* it…
CM: I am loving this new angle. Very, err…assertive! Attractive quality for a host, my man! Just saying! Heheh…But ooh, hey, before we shift gears too hard, I’ve just stumbled across some FIRE new content we absolutely MUST promote. And by MUST, I mean, of course, contractually volun-told by our advertising masters. Keep that kinetic energy on standby as we pop out for the ol’ dynamic ad break, Dan Man…
D: Can do, producer extraordinaire! More about “divisive rhetoric” and the psychological mechanisms that drive it, after this message from… uhmmm… well, whatever he’s got cued up I guess… Hard Know will be right back. Take it away!
CM: (typing/clicking sounds) Wheeeeee….
—
> Coming this fall to GBS…
*Sirens* *Gunshots*
> On the gritty streets of one of the 4 major American crime drama TV city settings… the lines between good and bad are about to get…busted.
COP: Detective McGargle, you can’t keep breaking rules like this! You’re gonna end up getting a mild slap on the wrist and a few days of paid vacation!
COP2: I’m just doing what I gotta do to get by! I won’t stand by while criminal scum run rampant over the innocent citizens of whatever city this is.
*Gun shots, Sirens*
COP2: Freeze! Don’t move or I’ll justifiably shoot you!
Criminal: Don’t do it! I’m just trying to feed my family, man!
COP2: Hah. That’s what filth like you always says! You think you can shoplift produce from honest, hardworking grocery chains and just get away with it? Not on my watch.
Narrator: How far are you willing to go in the name of the law?
Sergeant: Detective, you’ve done good work bringing the hammer down on these local thieves. Our arrests are up, and the brass at city hall is taking notice.
COP2: Thanks Sargeant, but I don’t do it for the stats, I do it for my kids— I’m just trying to make this a safer city for them to live in.
Narrator: Justice is a dish… best served… with extreme force….
Criminal: Why can’t you just let us go, mannnn? It’s just a little bit of weed!
COP1: “Just”—WEED?!? I won’t let this brain-rotting drug poison the fragile minds of our youth!!! *Punching sounds* This—is—your—brain—on—drugs!
Criminal: Ahhhhhh!
Narrator: This fall. A television experience unlike anything you’ve seen since last fall.
(Media frenzy sounds)
Reporter: Chief Jackson! How do you explain the recent uptick in brutality claims? And isn’t it true your department’s multi-million dollar budget increase is a band-aid solution that ignores the complex socio-economic factors that directly cause crime to rise—
Chief: Bah! “Brutality”, “Social-eco-whatever”—sounds like a lotta leftist woke-washing to me! This press conference is over!
Child: Daddy, the news man said you awe just a jack-booted fascist with a badge? Is that twue?
COP2: Everything I do, I do for you, little Timmy. If that means I have to lose my soul, turn a few blind eyes to a few savage beatings, take a few bribes—well, so be it… (Fighting tears)
Narrator: When the going gets tough, the tough, grab their badge and gun…
Sargeant: We’re stretched thin, McGargle. This band of thieves must have a vast criminal network—they’ve been lifting canned goods all over town. What are you gonna do, detective?
COP2: What I do best. (Gun click) Turn off my body-cam and dole out some indiscriminate justice. That’s the Chicago way—wait, are we in Chicago?
S: New York—
COP2: That’s the New York way!
Narrator: Criminals beware. There’s a new sheriff in town who shoots first and asks questions later, because 200-year old cowboy morality is totally applicable in a modern metropolitan melting pot.
“Good Cop, Bad Crook”, coming this fall to GBS.
—-
D: Good lord, another gritty crime drama? I mean, *sigh* do I have to point out the obvious conflict with the message we’re trying to send here?
CM: Hey, people love a good guy/bad guy narrative! It makes them feel safe! You said yourself you wanna fight all the lying baddies, so how’s that so different?
D: Alright, that’s fair…I guess it does set the stage for some of the darker corners we’re diving into here.
CM: Alriiight—Dan has entered the game! Round One... FIGHT!
D: Maybe I do wanna fight—a little bit, at least. I’ll admit, I get irked by the divisive rhetoric being used to create this splitting effect in people. But of course, my vilifying those who use it, making them the bad guys and me the good, is also a form of splitting. Soooo…yeah, I guess it’s not that different. We’re all susceptible to it! In fact—side note, the effects of splitting are amplified in people with higher levels of narcissism, and can also be a useful defense mechanism for people experiencing depression. And right now, studies are showing a general uptick in the rates of—yup, you guessed it—narcissism and depression.
CM: You ever consider leaning *into* that market? Pander to the depressed narcissists, pick a few fights, stoke the flames of rage, et cetera…
D: Of course, I’ve flirted with the idea before. Divisiveness sells! There’s all kinds of seminars and advice videos from so-called “content experts” who basically encourage—
CM: —being a dick?
D: Well, they don’t phrase it quite like that, but…yeah. “Be noteworthy”, they say, discuss “hot-button topics”, “share your opinions and be bold”. Essentially, like a newspaper printing a bigger, bolder, MORE OUTRAGEOUS headline, you’re in the business of getting attention—and what does that better than controversial subjects that trigger emotional responses and feed into cognitive biases? There’s no shortage of companies, politicians, modern media outlets willing to employ those tactics to keep people scared, lashing out, to reinforce the learned helplessness of a world that teaches you *not* to ask too many questions, not to think too hard, or dig too deep…
CM: Soooo I gotta ask—who’s the “target” of this week’s episode? Feels like a while since I’ve had someone’s ugly mug up on my dartboard. Come on, Dan Man, give me someone to blame! I wanna hate a little too!
D: That’s the spirit. Well instead, let me put to you a little thought experiment. In “Thinking Fast and Slow” Daniel Kahneman describes a way of thinking called “What you see is all there is”, meaning, our “System 1”—the automatic part of our brain that handles day to day operations—does what it does based on the information that it *has*, not all the information that *could* also be out there. In other words, we know exactly what we know, nothing more—until, of course, we do know more. Interestingly, Kahneman describes System 1 as a storyteller, assembling the most coherent story it can, based on the facts it currently has.
CM: Because it’s, err…(flips pages) …. “cognitively draining” to consider everything at once, right? Especially trying to comprehend the sheer volume of all that potential information we *don’t* have yet! Hah! Finally, proof that people love to act like they know everything… Like you! Heheh!
D: Exactly! It’s human nature, baby! We operate in our own self-constructed certainty, which is really only based on limited information that is essentially handed to us. Just think, when a new “hot story” of the day hits the airwaves, within minutes countless angles and interpretations are flooding the interwebs, articles and opinions and tweets being published, liked, shared—and “what people see” is “all there is” to them. If you are constantly fed the idea that the world is scary, filled with devious “out” groups, and simultaneously you’re given a little “pat on the head” for falling in line with the thought processes of your familiar “in” group…
CM: Then your System 1 will assemble that as the correct way of seeing the world! Thus perpetuating the primal, binary psychology… hold on, wait a sec…are you trying to say that System 1 is this week’s Public Enemy #1?
Err…do you have a picture of it? Where am I supposed to throw my darts…
D: You’re actually not completely wrong.
CM: Thank you, that is what I strive for.
D: Our System 1, as we’ve discussed, doesn’t quite adapt to our modern world. The dangers it originally developed to protect us from are no longer as prevalent. And a defense mechanism with nothing to do, will find other ways to stay occupied…
CM: So what, our brains’ defense mechanisms are experiencing some kinda… “empty nest” syndrome?
D: Something like that. So, to answer your question, no, System 1, our automatic brain, is *not* our enemy. Like so many deceptions, human needs, vulnerabilities we’ve looked at this season, it’s actually the *weapon*. So the real question we should be asking is, as usual, who stands to benefit most from keeping this ancient plate spinning?
CM: Lemme guess…follow the money?
D: You got it. And I’m not talking about the obvious bought-out politicians—they no doubt benefit, but they’re really more of a symptom than a cause—no, I’m talking about the businesses interests, the waterfalls of cash and investments determined to grow for all eternity. And flowing right along with it, you’ll always find one recurring culprit: news media.
CM: Ooooh, yes! Turning on the media is a highly-profitable avenue to take. Remember to throw the word “mainstream” before the word “media” to layer in some of that ominous predisposition for our listeners…
D: Now hold on. “Media” is a ridiculously broad term to use, since it means… well, pretty much everything… and therefore basically nothing at all.
CM: Hey, what can I say, I like my enemies like I like my police jurisdictions: broad and vague! I wanna never really know *precisely* what I’m afraid of, but boy do I wanna be afraid of it! OR, I wanna pick and choose the good parts of media while conveniently dismissing others, and ignoring the obvious shared characteristics between them! Why is that so hard to understand?
D: I know, I know, but remember: there are, in fact, many news organizations and journalists out there doing good, honest work, holding powerful people accountable and seeking out hard facts that keep everyday folks well-informed.
CM: Oh, sure, yeah—sounds like a couple handsome fellas I know—wink wink—heheh! (sinister sounding) I see what you’re doing there, Danny boy, and I like it…
D: What we see is all there is. We all have these beasts within us that emerge when poked and prodded. So when you have an informational landscape that incentivises attention at any cost—like, say, a 24 hour news network— leveraging those beasts becomes good for business.
CM: Then you can launch different outlets that cater to specific ideologies, allowing multiple dips into the old honeypot for each and every issue!
D: Exactly. A controversial supreme court case gets very different coverage depending where you get your information. A major issue gets broken down into two sides—for, or against—each of which becomes affiliated with certain groups, political affiliations, religious beliefs, and it’s simply a matter of pandering a pre-determined viewpoint to each group—
CM: —it’s the old A/B testing thingy! Launch two opposing ideas, see which one does better. Either way you win, if you control both sides of the conversation! Oof, sounds like fertile ground to sell…advertising!! Aahhhhh, I get it now! Hold on, hold on, I got a little something here…
D: Ad break time again? Whatcha got this time?
CM: Well, since you were displeased with that previous crime drama…a savvy businessman always hedges his bets! Perhaps your sweet bleeding heart will relate a little more to…THIS!
—
Narrator: Also coming this fall to GBS, another crime drama set in probably the same blue-filtered city—but this time, for a demographic of…different sensibilities…
Man1: I don’t know what else to do, rent has skyrocketed, now we can’t even afford groceries, babe!
Female: Honey, don’t do it! What if you get caught? You know what the cops are like in this city.
Child: It’s okay, daddy, I don’t need dinner! I’m a growing boy, I have a whole lifetime to eat! (Pathetic cough)
Female: (sniffling) Our little one is such a trooper!
Narrator: A desperate man living out on the edge, doing whatever he can to provide for his family.
Man1: Dammit, I have no choice! I’m a desperate man living out on the edge, doing whatever I can to provide for my family. I’ll be fine, babe. Besides, it’s not like they’d shoot me over a bit of stolen produce…
*Several gunshots*
Narrator: Tough times…create tough people…on…tough streets…
Man4: *on phone* Man, it’s tough out here. Yeah, I know, but I got no choice! I need the cash. Besides, it’s just a little weed…ooh hold up, they’re here, I gotta go…
*footsteps*
Man3: You got the stuff?
Man 4: Yeah bro, for sure—here. That’ll be 10–
Man 3: AHA! Freeze, criminal scum!
Man 4: What the f—c’mon, you set up a sting operation over a dime bag? Gah—
(Punching sounds)
Narrator: How far will you go to make ends meet?
Man: You can’t ask the police chief these kinda questions! You could lose your job as a reporter at the local…Gazette…paper...
Reporter: Dammit, someone has to ask the tough questions about this increase in brutality cases!
Man: You’re digging your own grave—
Reporter: If that’s the price of truth…so be it!
Narrator: A gritty, humanizing story about hard times, and the people getting…hardened…by them…
Female: We just don’t have enough money! With rent, childcare, gas, groceries, not to mention little Tammy has just come down with an expensive case of leukaemia! Babe, what are we gonna do??
Male: (gritted teeth) Whatever we have to. I won’t let this corrupt and broken system of free-market capitalism and unchecked income inequality leave my working-class family in the dust! Eat the rich! Defund the police! This is what hypocrisy looks like!
Female: Uhh, wh—what?
Narrator: This fall…the ends justify the means—because the monetary system is so fundamentally corrupt that we can’t afford to buy chicken and therefore it must be dismantled and rebuilt from within, if not by grassroots political activism then by bloody revolution.
“Good Folk, Bad City”. Coming this fall to GBS, right after that other one.
—
D: I am shocked—nay, flabbergasted, by what I just heard.
CM: Heyyy, never miss an opportunity to appeal to an untapped market, my man! Besides, in this ridiculously oversaturated content ecosystem, what does it matter who says what? Everyone’ll forget in 4 minutes anyway.
D: Eh, whatever, maybe you’re right. (Sigh) This is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s far too easy to pander to a simplistic and binary world. One side good, other side bad. There’s really no such thing, it just depends who you’re talking to. Our insane human brains have basically made up these ideas, and now they’re creating a sort of feedback-loop effect. Thanks to the internet, whatever your wildest, most rambling, nonsensical, conspiracy theorist beliefs might be, there’s sure to be a group out there to reinforce them. Once upon a time, maybe these beliefs would’ve fizzled out, or maybe someone would’ve talked some sense into you—but now, it’s all too easy to say “I’m not wrong, look how many like-minded followers I have who are hearting my every post!” It’s tangible, real-world reinforcement of our darkest selves, our worst, most shameful biases. It’s a…shadow realm.
CM: Ooh, catchy name for another Marvel hit…(scribbles) The…Shadow… Realm…hmm, yeah hehe…(ahem) But seriously, c’mon, Danny Boy, you’ve been a Twitter man for years, don’t tell me you don’t love that little dopamine hit you get from a like or a retweet!
D: Sure, look, we’ve established, I’m not above most for these things myself. I’m only human. But is it any surprise that these things seem to be getting worse? Complex discussions debased into over-simplified narratives, catchy buzzwords hurled around like grenades until they lose all meaning? What does “woke” even mean anymore? “Patriotism”? “Left wing/Right wing”? What does it mean to be a “radical”? A “socialist”? What constitutes “offensive”? “Objective?” Is anyone ever really “cancelled”? And is there such a thing as a “culture” of it? Or is all of this the result of cozy, self-perpetuating ecosystems that scoff at nuance and allow simplicity to flourish? And are media empires now so compromised by a desire for profit that they must appeal to the basest instincts of humanity just to maintain a floundering foothold in an industry that is perpetually in flux, as our society continues its eternal exponential expansion of this runaway behemoth we call a technological, informational landscape??
CM: I uhhhh… do not have the answer to that one, pally. Is that, err…more of an essay style question?
D: You know, Roger Ailes, the gropey architect of Fox News believed in the immense power of constant wedge-issues—the “split” that divides people, keeps them angry at each other, at their neighbours or their neighbouring countries—so they don’t pay attention to the real, more insidious issues plaguing them. These wedge issues are so ingrained in our society by now that we hardly think twice about them—everything from abortion rights, to taxes, to immigration, even phony small-scale culture-war issues like gas stoves, plastic bag bans or whatever… No nuance, no real conversation, just another contrived “panic” issue—for, and against—an echo chamber with the illusion of insight. It’s the business model that has propelled the propaganda empire of Fox News to the top of American television—and hey, what can I say, the system has worked for them.
CM: Hey, if it ain’t broke, Danny Boy, don’t fix it.
D: Except it *is* broke. Broken. Fubar. It’s lowest common denominator content. A shamefully successful strategy that’s been embraced for its monetary success, with no consideration of the damage it’s done to millions of brains, or the standard it’s set for other media outlets all over the world who must employ the same scummy tactics just to keep their own ratings and profits up. The content factories pushing endless opinion articles and hot takes, the morning talkshow loudmouth-ification of reality. Dominating airwaves, TV stations, social feeds, by virtue of being the loudest and richest voice in the room. Manufacturing talking points to stay relevant. No substance, no benefit, only the most basic appeal, a forever-spinning wheel of lies and money, lies and money, that is an insult to everything good and sane and human—
CM: Oh, whoa, whoa—uhh, didn’t I say something about “patented Dan rants” a while back? This would be…uhh…one of them.
D: You know what? You’re goddamn right. I *am* ranting. I am *angry*. And I AM tired of pretending I’m not. We should all be this upset. We’ve seen too much, you and I, on this little journey for truth. I can’t take it anymore. I’m sick. Sick of these monsters, these schemers and predators devouring the hearts and minds of regular people who are just lost, scared, confused, scraping to survive in a world that is burning, flooding, crumbling around them—all so a tiny handful of narcissistic sociopaths can put their feet up a little higher, turn their noses a little lower at the people they’ve deemed to be “below them”… (Pause, deep breath, collects himself…)
CM: Uhh…I smell a “but”…
D: *BUT*…they’re not gods. They’re not invincible. They’re human. Equipped with same tools as you and I, thralls to the same primal instincts. They’re not above us—they’re not above anything—only in their made-up, binary reality do they hold any real power. No, the truth is, they’ve simply gone unchallenged for so long, the rest of us down here have forgotten that we have our own roles, our own rules—our own…*power.*
CM: Oof—jeez, Danny Boy, you got like, a fire in your eyes. Not gonna lie, it’s freaking me out a little. But in a good way…I think. Heheh. I’m proud of you, buddy. You’ve come a long way. So, uhh, what does all this mean? Where do we go from here?
D: Well…I’ve chosen my weapon. And now, I think…it’s time to point it at someone who’s long overdue for an attack…
OUTRO:
*Dan strides into the studio alone, feeling confident, while various celebrity voices gas him up from the sidelines.
Keanu: Whoa. Keanu here. Great show, Danny Boy. As always.
Snoop: Ayo, it’s Snoop. Another dope ass shizzle. I am hella proud of you, my dawg.
Walken: Oh! Walken here, just wanted to say—oof, what a dynamite show! I got shivers!
D: (super confident) Thanks, celebrity AI pals! I feel amazing. There’s this…power…this energy flowing through me. I feel like I could conquer the whole damn world…
Walken: Atta boy! Hey—you know what this calls for? A *dance*.
Dan dances around to “Weapon of Choice” soundalike—except it’s about Hard Know.
Walken: Wow, look at him go!
Dan chants/sings along, maniacally, and as it fades down…a phone rings across the room.
CM: Yes…yessir, I’m looking at him right now. Yep, you uhh…could say he’s leaning hard
D: —and that’s why it’s up to us to know when we’re at risk of being taken advantage of. Arming yourself with knowledge, that’s what Hard Know is all about. So subscribe today and join the fight for truth—
CM: (walking in) Oh, Danny boy! Whatcha up to over there?
D: Shh—ahhhhh for the love of—*sighs* well, I was finishing up a TikTok promo, but now I’ll have to start all over again.
CM: Aww no, jeez, sorry buddy! I uhh…didn’t know you were doing that kinda stuff. Your socials game is usually…well, lacking. I just assumed…
D: You know what they say about assumptions, don’t you?
CM: They’re aaaasssuper way to get things done?
D: Yes…that’s the expression. Anyway, I’m just trying to drum up some new listeners. I think we’re doing good work here—I really believe this is a show people should hear—problem is, well, you said it yourself, way back: people want something simple, snappy, they want quick intros that don’t require sustained attention while they’re doing their dishes or cleaning their bathrooms or whatever…
CM: Heyyyy come on, while that may be true—and, well, it absolutely is—I’m proud of what we’re doing here. I’m proud of you! You’ve come a long way, buddy boy. Look, I won’t sugarcoat it—it’s a tough sell. The higher ups don’t love anything you can’t describe in a snappy sentence-and-a-half. But it warms my heart to see you pushing on! No fear! Confident Dan! Believing in himself and his quest for truth! It’s beautiful!
D: Couldn’t have done it without you, my man. And now, the light at the end of the tunnel is brighter than ever…
CM: Amen!
D: And we’re gonna grab hold of that light...
CM: Hallelujah!
D: …and use it to seek out our enemy.
CM: Uh-huh…uhh, what?
D: Yeah…it’s time we started really getting our hands dirty.
CM: Right…well, hey, whatever flicks your Bic, pally. So…I take it from all this fire and brimstone talk that you’ve settled on a topic for this week?
D: I sure have. (Pause) Tell you what…settle in there, and let’s tell the good people on TikTok all about it. *Ahem* *boop* Hey emveryone, Dan from Hard Know here. Coming up on this week’s episode, we’ll be gearing up to fight the good fight, by delving into the ideas of “Us vs. Them” rhetoric, and the psychology of divisive narratives driving a wedge into our world. So listen in, arm yourself with knowledge, and never fall prey. Subscribe to Hard Know today. *Boop*
CM: Oof, very nice! And there was even a little rhyme at the end, I dig it! Post that beauty and let’s get down to business. So much to do, so little time!
D: Glad you’re here to have my back!
CM: Awww shucks! Always, buddy boy. I’m just glad there’s no “divisiveness” between you and me.
D: None at all, my friend! Cue music!
*intro music starts up*
CM: Wow, that was amazing! How’d you…do that?
D: I learned from the best.
CM: Heheh…jeez, careful…almost seems like you don’t need me anymore…heheh…
D: Don’t be silly—I’ll always need you. As long as you’re always on my side.
CM: Heheh…always, buddy boy…always…
—
HARD KNOW. EPISODE EIGHT. THE DIVIDE.
—
D: Before we begin, full disclosure: this is a topic I’ve written about before—in a previous podcast life, so to speak. So the research and writing of this one was a little more streamlined than usual—
CM: Wait wait wait, you trying to tell me you’re “rehashing” this one? Refrying the beans, so to speak? Well I’m… impressed, actually! Very efficient! Using all the parts of the buffalo…
D: Sure, sure. Thanks. Now can we get on with it already?
CM: Whoaaa there, someone sure is eager! What’s with the sudden hostility?
D: Maybe I’m just feeling fired up. Turns out, having an opposing side, an “enemy” to point the finger at, is an excellent motivator.
CM: Err…still not hundo P clear on the whole “enemy” deal, but hey, if it gets your wheels turning, I am here for it. Giddy up!
D: Thank you. Over the past decade, one of the terms we’ve heard again and again—a word that defines countless conflicts, competitions, campaigns—is “divisiveness”.
Sometimes it seems like everything is divided these days, so much so that you’d almost think it was not some mysterious byproduct of our world—some global humanitarian crisis begging to be solved—but more of an intentional component hard-coded into our culture—a culture that perpetuates and profits from chaos, division and strife. In other words: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature!
CM: Whoa now, competition is the kiln of creation, Danny Boy! Don’t we need opposing sides, differing viewpoints—a devil’s advocate, so to speak—to avoid the old echo chamberitis? You know what they say: there’s two sides to every story…
D: Hmm, yeah… “they” say a lot of things, don’t they. But the issue, of course, isn’t with the concept of competition itself, but the slippery slope of what you might call the “Us vs Them” mentality—also known as “All or Nothing”, or “Binary Thinking”. The idea that all the complexity and nuance of the world can be boiled down into a simple, digestible arena, where one side faces off against another.
CM: Like Coke vs. Pepsi! Or XBox vs Playstation, Iphone vs Android, McDonalds vs Burger King, Nike vs Adidas—
D: Yes, there are a ton of examples, especially in the world of corporate branding—which is not an accident. Coke vs Pepsi is probably the best example of how a two-sided “brand rivalry” can actually be highly beneficial for both parties involved. But before we get into all that, I guess the question to start with is: What is behind this divisive view of the world?
CM: Ooh, lemme guess—are we “going back” again to understand the topic?
D: Oh you betcha! I’m learning to lean *into* the podcast cliches, my friend! Consistency, right? Heh—alright, so by now, we’ve established our brains’ yearning for simplicity, to reduce the cognitive load of navigating the world around us. We don’t even notice how much of our brainpower has been streamlined into the “automatic response” section—in his book “Thinking Fast and Slow”, psychologist Daniel Kahneman referred to this as “System 1”: the neurological centers that handle a ton of our daily interactions and activities.
CM: Sounds like a win-win—you ask me, the less brainpower I gotta use, the better.
D: Not terribly surprising. Problem is, that need for simplicity is precisely where the “us vs them” thinking comes from. Just think for a moment—
CM: I DON’T WANNA!
D: Well maybe the *listeners* are more “cognitively equipped” than you, and will kindly indulge me? With everything you already have to deal with in your day-to-day life, let’s say, for example, you hear about a major political issue going on—what’s easier, to have it simplified into a basic, two-sided choice with clear outcomes for both sides? Or to wade into a sea of complex, multi-faceted perspectives, with countless variables and potential outcomes?
CM: The simple one! Gimme the simple one! But—wait, didn’t you just boil that example down into a two-sided thingy?
D: Hah, I did, yes. You caught me!
CM: Yesss…score one for the good guys!
D: We’re on the same side—ugh, forget it. The psychological idea of dividing the world into two-parts is referred to as “Splitting”. Now, splitting is usually a symptom associated with borderline personality disorder or narcissistic personality disorder, because people with these conditions are unable to integrate the various good and bad nuances of themselves and others—they have a tendency to deal in more binary absolutes. The catch is though, that type of binary thinking is not exclusive to mental illness—none of us can claim to be entirely free and clear of it—
CM: So you’re saying we all got a little… *Weird sound effect whistle kramer style something* in us?
D: I know *I* do… but yes. Mental illness is often the result of chemical imbalance, neurological damage, or a simple mechanism of our brains spinning out of control—kicking into hyperdrive, so to speak. In an interview with Forbes magazine, clinical psychologist Andrew Hartz described splitting as“a defense mechanism in which people unconsciously frame ideas, individuals, or groups in all-or-nothing terms” and that people tend to engage in this subconscious “splitting” because they have difficulty tolerating ambivalence or uncertainty—
CM: Because uncertainty equals more cognitive load, which equals more stress, which equals unhappy humans! BOOM! Who’s got two thumbs and has been paying attention this season? THIS GUY!
D: Well done! Full marks. In fact, and on top of that, there is a legitimate psychological ailment known as “decision fatigue”: quite simply, an overuse of mental energy in decision-making will burn you out. Barack Obama once spoke about experiencing that fatigue during his tenure as President. It’s a bit like the “choice paralysis” we’ve mentioned in previous episodes—
CM: Like trying to pick something to watch on Netflix!
D: Exactly! Sometimes I just wish they’d just put up 2 options I might like, and make me pick one, ya know? A little A/B testing. But yes, decision fatigue is very real, and can be very serious. A study conducted on parole hearings showed that people whose cases were heard in the early morning received parole 70% of the time, while those with hearings later in the day landed it only 10% of the time.
CM: Sounds like those judges need a juicebox and an afternoon nappy! Heheh… God, I hope this never gets used against me in court…
D: Decision making also kicks whole sections of our brains into gear. Bonus points if you can name the main part of the brain concerned with making decisions..?
CM: Ahhhhh, it’s the uhhhh… (pfremsdno…. Mumblemumle)
D: Ooh, so sorry, we can’t accept garbled mumbling as a response. The answer was the “frontal lobe” and bonus points for noting the importance of the “prefrontal cortex”—
CM: That’s what I said! The preferal…contrmblg… (more mumbling)
D: The prefrontal cortex is the home of personality and cognition, and the primary driver of our executive decision making—with other areas of the brain chiming in, depending if there are rewards or emotional components involved. Damage to the frontal lobe can wildly alter a person’s behavior, a fact that was discovered in 1848, when a railway worker named Phineas Gage had a tamping rod blasted clear through his skull by an accidental detonation of dynamite. Amazingly this didn’t kill him, but it did significant damage to his prefrontal cortex, changing his once well-balanced personality to an erratic and impulsive one—causing those who knew him to state he was, quote, “no longer Gage.”
CM: *writing notes* Be careful… around… dynamite… got it. Can’t be too prepared, my man!
D: What’s interesting is, studies have found that the rational parts of our brains are in constant battle with the primitive, reactionary parts. In one such study, participants played a simple game: one person has $10, and offers *a part* of it to another person, who can either accept or reject the offer. If they reject, nobody gets anything. Logically? You’d assume they’d accept whatever was offered, because hey, anything is more than zero…
CM: True…but you know what’s more than anything?
D: More…? Than anything?
CM: Bingo.
D: Riiiiiiight, well, sadly, you’ve got a point. In fact, what happens is that the emotional parts of our brains kick in, and therefore, an emotional decision gets made. “They only offered me $2 out of 10? Well to hell with them, I choose vengeance!!!”
CM: That is dark, but then, if TV has taught me anything, it’s that a logical existence has got nothing on a messy, emotional rollercoaster where we deflect the black hole void of pain from our own souls by inflicting that pain on others!
D: Riiiiight—well, it does make for a lot of quality HBO dramas. In that study involving the $10, researchers noted that the “anterior insula”, the part of our brain that evokes emotions like anger and disgust, kicked in to do its thing—which was, basically, to disregard a potential benefit in favour of inflicting a little pain back. Similarly, “splitting” boils a hefty portion of our world down to simplified emotional choices. This applies to a ton of situations, such as taking a side on a hot-button issue, or choosing which social group to belong to—neither of which are necessarily a tangible choice between two “things”. Stripping decisions down to the two clearest choices may not be logical or even wise, but it is the natural direction our binary brains seem to want to go. But hey, before you even ask, Mr. Devil’s Advocate, no, it’s not all bad. In terms of our evolutionary psychology, there’s one obvious example of a two-option choice that is, was, and always has been, beneficial to a person’s survival? A psychological reflex that we all still experience today? Caaannn you guess it?
CM: Ummmm... *Snap* OH! Ooh ooh I know this! I can’t believe I actually know this. Ahem! I’m going with “Fight or Flight”— final answer!
D: Well, sound the alarm! You’re right again, my friend. “Fight or flight” is the perfect example. It’s an essential piece of our wiring, actually. In the heat of the moment, we need to act, not contemplate. Just think what would’ve happened if our ancestors had paused to “weigh all the options” while a predator was bearing down on them?
CM: Guessing we would have evolved to be much more, uhh…dead. Heheh, glad we pulled through.
D: So “Fight or flight” is a great example of “splitting” as a basic defense mechanism—worked in the old world, sure, when the options were *run away* or *stand your ground*. But of course, in the context of the multi-faceted, highly-complex modern age, that kind of over-simplicity can be detrimental. This is what we mean when we talk about our primal brains interacting with our rational brains: it’s the ghosts of our past struggling to exist in a world that has evolved faster than we have. Options, input, choices and stimuli, not to mention technology, have become numerous and complex. But our minds come from the age of “fight or flight,” and are constantly struggling to keep up. We can’t appreciate this multitude of angles, so it becomes easier to simply make it all one thing, or all another. Which means, surprise, surprise—all of this can be manipulated and exploited, and as usual, we’re none the wiser.
CM: Wait wait wait, so what are you saying? That we’re at the whim of our evolutionary psychology, and to overcome our primal nature requires a grand effort of self-betterment that can take years, even becoming a *lifelong* journey with no true destination, since the quest for enlightened growth will likely transcend whatever short, brutish human lifespan we’re lucky enough to have? Is *that* what you’re saying??
D: Uhhhhh. Yeah?
CM: Okay, just checking. (Scribbles notes again)
D: So here we are again: another method of “hacking” our brain’s “code” (so to speak), and as ever, countless agents in the world are more than happy to take advantage, usually to market products or push a political agenda…
CM: Hah—of course, you’re one of those “people are all valuable and should all be cared for equally” dorks, aren’t you?
D: Guilty. Ideally, we would be able to slow down and carefully consider things in our daily lives—to activate what Daniel Kahneman calls “System 2”, the more thoughtful area of our brains, which would help us avoid the pitfalls of these automatic, overly simplistic reactions we are so prone to.
CM: Ahhh, but if we used this “System 2” all the time, we would’ve been tiger brunch like a kabillion times, right? And probably would never have evolved to even be here!
D: Probably, yeah. But because of that, because of this unfortunate evolutionary necessity of binary thinking, “splitting” is now being used to steer us in just about everything we do. And for most part, we don’t know or care, because our brains *want* to use it, especially when it comes to more abstract concepts like “right and wrong”, or, more broadly, “good and evil”. I mean, in real life, is anything ever so simple? Is any one person all good or all bad? Almost never. And yet, we yearn for this kind of narrative: two-sides, morally divided, and therefore easy to choose between.
CM: Hmm…am I sensing some more “mechanisms” at work here?
D: Yesssssir. Part of our natural wiring includes a clear “negativity bias”. We are tuned to pay more attention to bad things—such as dangers and potential threats—than we are to positive emotions. Traumatic memories burn into our minds, and change who we are. Insults can irk us and linger for days or years, whereas compliments can often feel hollow and fleeting. We react with more emotion when we’re angry, too—
CM: Ahhhh, that explains the effective cornerstone of internet content: trolling. Making people mad for the love of the game, and basking in the attention and engagement that comes with it. A true classic, brings a tear to my eye.
D: Yeah, mine too, actually…It’s a depressing reality: this binary morality, splitting things in two, frequently favouring the worse, more negative option—especially when it comes to different groups of people. Like I said at the start, having an enemy—even a perceived one—is a powerful idea. That’s where the whole “us vs them” mentality really starts to take off… (Pause) But before we really dig in, I do believe we’re overdue for a little of that sweet sponsored ad content.
CM: Wow, look at you! Playing ball and all. Outstanding.
D: Thanks buddy. After the break we’ll be diving deeper into how “binary thinking” and “splitting” divide people, and of course, how it all ties into deception. Hard Know will be right back…
CM: (Fading out) Oof, that was good stuff, Danny boy. Very professional…
----
Mattress commercial with hostile undertones to other companies
VO: Are you getting the best night sleep you can?Like, are you absolutely positive you're sleeping on the right mattress? Other mattress companies claim they’re giving you the best sleep, but only a Cumulus Mattress will make you feel like you’re sleeping on a cloud!
> We know that the online-based, podcast-ad-heavy mattress game is oversaturated with companies all claiming the same thing. But at Cumulus, we have just one goal in mind: absolute mattress supremacy. Other mattresses claim to care about you, but spend all night poking and prodding in places they simply don’t belong. Cumulus uses a patented ergonomic design that adapts to your body-type, sleep-style and general mood on any given night. If you’re cranky, it will soothe you. If you’re hungry, it will feed you. Other mattresses would rather watch you squirm and starve. They’d probably laugh, too.
Those companies simply do not have your best interests at heart. Their advertising is misleading, their products inferior, and their employees very likely amoral deviants with extensive criminal records. Plus we heard they called you a jerk.
> Where “they” offer a paltry 90 day trial, we offer 180 days. Where they offer a pathetic money-back guarantee, we will actually pay *you* if you are not 150% satisfied with our product. Where they guarantee the best sleep of your life, we guarantee the best sleep of a thousand lifetimes, and prophetic dreams filled with the answers to all of life’s most pressing problems. We will cure your sciatica, fix your marriage, and reconnect you with your estranged son and/or daughter. We will blackmail your boss into promoting you. We will teach you to play the clarinet.
> At Cumulus, we also know our morally superior customers care about Mother Earth. That’s why our mattresses are 100% eco-friendly, vegan and gluten-free. Those other guys make theirs from fossil fuels, and they use child labour, and they’re not very nice about it either. Do you really want to sleep on a fossil fuel child labour mattress? No, you’re better than that. We know you are. Sign up today, and use discount code BestSleep15 to get 15% off. And if our competitors can offer you a better deal, we’ll beat it. We’ll beat the god damn hell out of it—AND them. Those heathen bastards. Do NOT let them win. We are a god-loving, god-fearing family company. Those other guys are basically Satan worshippers. We’ll even give you the mattress for free if it means those demonic garbage-mongers don’t get your business. We are heavenly. They are devilly. Bad people, bad company. Seriously, I cannot stress that enough.
Ahem. Cumulus Mattresses.
“Sleep Better—Than Them.”
—
CM: Hah! See? Sometimes you need to create a little competitive divide to stand out from the rest!
D: Yeah… I see what you mean. It’s a classic marketing technique. I mean, you were able to come up with a handful of “corporate rivalries” right off the top of your head! So you can imagine how effective it is when it comes to more emotional topics like politics, races, belief systems. Split the whole complex issue into basic “pro/anti” groups, and then paint up one side as good, and one as evil. Our brains fall right into the binary trap, latching onto these easy offerings of extremes and absolutes that are so easily quantifiable, and those primal processes kick into gear. We let “confirmation bias” reinforce our existing ideas, which reduces the “cognitive dissonance” we experience when our views are challenged, or when we’re presented with information that shakes the fragile wall of certainty we’ve worked so hard to build. The narratives we live by are like spinning plates, each irrevocably tied to our self-identities, our sense of right and wrong—to protect us from the stress of living with uncertainty—
CM: Ah, so what? We just don’t want to think that hard, Dan! Is that such a crime? Y’know, if you were really smart, you’d be looking for ways to present this long, thought-heavy show in a more easygoing, Marvel-esque style that emphasizes good vs evil, truth vs lies, and makes the most of people’s binary thinking and limited attention spans!
D: You might be right about that, but that’s beside the point. Whether we like it or not, we DO love having these imaginary “groups” to belong to. I’m a big sports fan, so I can attest: there is definitely an appeal to picking a team and being a loyal fan. You get to hate their rivals, complain about how “terrible” their fans are, and most importantly, belong to an affiliated group of like-minded people! Go TEAM!
CM: (Caveman) Me group good. You group bad. Heyyy…you know something? That *does* feel good!
D: Exactly. There is an element of “social cohesion” and self-identity to belonging to a group. We derive a lot of meaning from the groups we belong to, and the other people in them. So it stands to reason we’re inclined to build our side up with virtue, superiority, positivity of all kinds—while imbuing the “other” side with negative characteristics, like being stupid, immoral, or downright evil. Confirmation bias is a real thing, and when we choose the “in group” or “team” we most identify with, we *need* to create certainty that our side has the moral high ground. And we’ll perform staggering feats of mental gymnastics to make it so. Nobody wants to think of themselves as the bad guy, and binary thinking allows us to secure our social and self-identities with the most pleasing, self-serving version of events. Part of us may know these things are far more complex, but—
CM: —but simplicity, even false simplicity, is easier on the brain. But if I may, aren’t we making strides in, err, “un-binarying” all sorts of things we used to pigeon-hole into two sides? Like gender, sexuality? Society is starting to understand the nuanced spectrum of these things, right? It’s not all bad!
D: That’s true! Those changes are happening, but they’ve been hard won. And think of the social and political struggles that have come with it, and the enormous oppositional forces that still strive to pummel all that beautiful complexity back into its base, binary place? Many people have an innate aversion to moving things out of the category of “Ahh, glad I don’t have to think about it,” and into the category of “Hmm, this is more complex than I’d first thought”.
CM: From “System 1” to “System 2” of the brain, you mean! Ahaaa! Look who’s been paying attention!
D: Alright alright, you’re paying attention, I believe you…. The narratives our society has built around good and bad, right and wrong, are so entrenched they seem impossible to undo. The western world has spent the last few centuries weaving heroic tales of binary morality. Angels vs devils, cowboys vs natives, cops vs criminals. Look how hard Americans cling to their “good guy with a gun” schtick! And you know why? A hundred years of hard-boiled detectives, rogue cops, Dirty Harry, Dragnet, Law and Order, NYPD Blue…
CM: Ahh, but c’mon Dan, who doesn’t love a little Sipowicz! Hahah—classic.
D: (sighs) You know what really drives me crazy about all this?
CM: A rich mosaic of mental health issues?
D: No—I mean, sure, yes—but *no*, it’s that after everything we’ve seen this season, it seems like people will always go out of their way to ignore the obvious danger—the deception, the scam, the conniving for a few lousy dollars—and instead invent fictions, racist diatribes, conspiracy theories, partisan political squabbling that amounts to nothing but wind. It’s so easy to rile people up by pressing the right brain-buttons, sometimes it seems like all our scientific advancements—our neuroscience, technology and psychology—all it did was create better blueprints for how to use people.
CM: Whoa there, buddy boy, now who’s the one getting all riled up?
D: Maybe you’re right, maybe I am! Maybe I’m getting fed up with…well, everyone. It’s like we all have that “negativity bias”, except we’re all skeptical of the wrong things. We believe absolute nonsense about other races, about celebrities, politicians, we buy the conspiracy theories, the QAnon babble—yet there’s never any powerful credible voices attacking investment bankers, or political corruption, or alt-right news conglomerates—
CM: Okay, okay, slow down. Where we going with all this?
D: I’m just saying, last episode we talked about “wielding the brush”, understanding the power in words and language, and using that power through your own lens, to enact change…
CM: Uh-huh…annnd?
D: *And*, I think I’m starting to realize, this is no accident—this deceptive landscape we’ve created—it’s not like there could be no other way, like it’s an evolutionary inevitability caused by some invisible hand. No, it’s a culmination of selfish human decisions that have made the accumulation of resources and capital a justified reason to take advantage of every possible exploit. We made this monster…. We *could* unmake it—if we wanted to.
CM: Well hey, like I’ve said before, “ends” require “means” in order to be reached. Don’t get too caught up in your own hero myth, Danny Boy. You can’t change the minds of the whole world on your own. You’ll kill yourself trying. But maybe—and just hear me out—maybe, you should just focus on “wielding the brush”, like you said, to weaponize the *good* side, the way *they* have been weaponizing the *bad*…err, wait, I guess that’s pretty binary thinking too. Gah—I dunno, this stuff is hard, buddy boy…
D: No, no…wait… You may be onto something. The problem is, people don’t *know* what they don’t know. Hmmm….propagandize the propaganda artists, deceive the deceivers, turn the “us”of the good, honest, caring people of the world against the “them” of those who seek to exploit us for profit...
CM: You got it. Don’t fight the monster…*tame* it.
D: Yes…tame the monster…heheh, that’s *good*…yes, I can *see* it…
CM: I am loving this new angle. Very, err…assertive! Attractive quality for a host, my man! Just saying! Heheh…But ooh, hey, before we shift gears too hard, I’ve just stumbled across some FIRE new content we absolutely MUST promote. And by MUST, I mean, of course, contractually volun-told by our advertising masters. Keep that kinetic energy on standby as we pop out for the ol’ dynamic ad break, Dan Man…
D: Can do, producer extraordinaire! More about “divisive rhetoric” and the psychological mechanisms that drive it, after this message from… uhmmm… well, whatever he’s got cued up I guess… Hard Know will be right back. Take it away!
CM: (typing/clicking sounds) Wheeeeee….
—
> Coming this fall to GBS…
*Sirens* *Gunshots*
> On the gritty streets of one of the 4 major American crime drama TV city settings… the lines between good and bad are about to get…busted.
COP: Detective McGargle, you can’t keep breaking rules like this! You’re gonna end up getting a mild slap on the wrist and a few days of paid vacation!
COP2: I’m just doing what I gotta do to get by! I won’t stand by while criminal scum run rampant over the innocent citizens of whatever city this is.
*Gun shots, Sirens*
COP2: Freeze! Don’t move or I’ll justifiably shoot you!
Criminal: Don’t do it! I’m just trying to feed my family, man!
COP2: Hah. That’s what filth like you always says! You think you can shoplift produce from honest, hardworking grocery chains and just get away with it? Not on my watch.
Narrator: How far are you willing to go in the name of the law?
Sergeant: Detective, you’ve done good work bringing the hammer down on these local thieves. Our arrests are up, and the brass at city hall is taking notice.
COP2: Thanks Sargeant, but I don’t do it for the stats, I do it for my kids— I’m just trying to make this a safer city for them to live in.
Narrator: Justice is a dish… best served… with extreme force….
Criminal: Why can’t you just let us go, mannnn? It’s just a little bit of weed!
COP1: “Just”—WEED?!? I won’t let this brain-rotting drug poison the fragile minds of our youth!!! *Punching sounds* This—is—your—brain—on—drugs!
Criminal: Ahhhhhh!
Narrator: This fall. A television experience unlike anything you’ve seen since last fall.
(Media frenzy sounds)
Reporter: Chief Jackson! How do you explain the recent uptick in brutality claims? And isn’t it true your department’s multi-million dollar budget increase is a band-aid solution that ignores the complex socio-economic factors that directly cause crime to rise—
Chief: Bah! “Brutality”, “Social-eco-whatever”—sounds like a lotta leftist woke-washing to me! This press conference is over!
Child: Daddy, the news man said you awe just a jack-booted fascist with a badge? Is that twue?
COP2: Everything I do, I do for you, little Timmy. If that means I have to lose my soul, turn a few blind eyes to a few savage beatings, take a few bribes—well, so be it… (Fighting tears)
Narrator: When the going gets tough, the tough, grab their badge and gun…
Sargeant: We’re stretched thin, McGargle. This band of thieves must have a vast criminal network—they’ve been lifting canned goods all over town. What are you gonna do, detective?
COP2: What I do best. (Gun click) Turn off my body-cam and dole out some indiscriminate justice. That’s the Chicago way—wait, are we in Chicago?
S: New York—
COP2: That’s the New York way!
Narrator: Criminals beware. There’s a new sheriff in town who shoots first and asks questions later, because 200-year old cowboy morality is totally applicable in a modern metropolitan melting pot.
“Good Cop, Bad Crook”, coming this fall to GBS.
—-
D: Good lord, another gritty crime drama? I mean, *sigh* do I have to point out the obvious conflict with the message we’re trying to send here?
CM: Hey, people love a good guy/bad guy narrative! It makes them feel safe! You said yourself you wanna fight all the lying baddies, so how’s that so different?
D: Alright, that’s fair…I guess it does set the stage for some of the darker corners we’re diving into here.
CM: Alriiight—Dan has entered the game! Round One... FIGHT!
D: Maybe I do wanna fight—a little bit, at least. I’ll admit, I get irked by the divisive rhetoric being used to create this splitting effect in people. But of course, my vilifying those who use it, making them the bad guys and me the good, is also a form of splitting. Soooo…yeah, I guess it’s not that different. We’re all susceptible to it! In fact—side note, the effects of splitting are amplified in people with higher levels of narcissism, and can also be a useful defense mechanism for people experiencing depression. And right now, studies are showing a general uptick in the rates of—yup, you guessed it—narcissism and depression.
CM: You ever consider leaning *into* that market? Pander to the depressed narcissists, pick a few fights, stoke the flames of rage, et cetera…
D: Of course, I’ve flirted with the idea before. Divisiveness sells! There’s all kinds of seminars and advice videos from so-called “content experts” who basically encourage—
CM: —being a dick?
D: Well, they don’t phrase it quite like that, but…yeah. “Be noteworthy”, they say, discuss “hot-button topics”, “share your opinions and be bold”. Essentially, like a newspaper printing a bigger, bolder, MORE OUTRAGEOUS headline, you’re in the business of getting attention—and what does that better than controversial subjects that trigger emotional responses and feed into cognitive biases? There’s no shortage of companies, politicians, modern media outlets willing to employ those tactics to keep people scared, lashing out, to reinforce the learned helplessness of a world that teaches you *not* to ask too many questions, not to think too hard, or dig too deep…
CM: Soooo I gotta ask—who’s the “target” of this week’s episode? Feels like a while since I’ve had someone’s ugly mug up on my dartboard. Come on, Dan Man, give me someone to blame! I wanna hate a little too!
D: That’s the spirit. Well instead, let me put to you a little thought experiment. In “Thinking Fast and Slow” Daniel Kahneman describes a way of thinking called “What you see is all there is”, meaning, our “System 1”—the automatic part of our brain that handles day to day operations—does what it does based on the information that it *has*, not all the information that *could* also be out there. In other words, we know exactly what we know, nothing more—until, of course, we do know more. Interestingly, Kahneman describes System 1 as a storyteller, assembling the most coherent story it can, based on the facts it currently has.
CM: Because it’s, err…(flips pages) …. “cognitively draining” to consider everything at once, right? Especially trying to comprehend the sheer volume of all that potential information we *don’t* have yet! Hah! Finally, proof that people love to act like they know everything… Like you! Heheh!
D: Exactly! It’s human nature, baby! We operate in our own self-constructed certainty, which is really only based on limited information that is essentially handed to us. Just think, when a new “hot story” of the day hits the airwaves, within minutes countless angles and interpretations are flooding the interwebs, articles and opinions and tweets being published, liked, shared—and “what people see” is “all there is” to them. If you are constantly fed the idea that the world is scary, filled with devious “out” groups, and simultaneously you’re given a little “pat on the head” for falling in line with the thought processes of your familiar “in” group…
CM: Then your System 1 will assemble that as the correct way of seeing the world! Thus perpetuating the primal, binary psychology… hold on, wait a sec…are you trying to say that System 1 is this week’s Public Enemy #1?
Err…do you have a picture of it? Where am I supposed to throw my darts…
D: You’re actually not completely wrong.
CM: Thank you, that is what I strive for.
D: Our System 1, as we’ve discussed, doesn’t quite adapt to our modern world. The dangers it originally developed to protect us from are no longer as prevalent. And a defense mechanism with nothing to do, will find other ways to stay occupied…
CM: So what, our brains’ defense mechanisms are experiencing some kinda… “empty nest” syndrome?
D: Something like that. So, to answer your question, no, System 1, our automatic brain, is *not* our enemy. Like so many deceptions, human needs, vulnerabilities we’ve looked at this season, it’s actually the *weapon*. So the real question we should be asking is, as usual, who stands to benefit most from keeping this ancient plate spinning?
CM: Lemme guess…follow the money?
D: You got it. And I’m not talking about the obvious bought-out politicians—they no doubt benefit, but they’re really more of a symptom than a cause—no, I’m talking about the businesses interests, the waterfalls of cash and investments determined to grow for all eternity. And flowing right along with it, you’ll always find one recurring culprit: news media.
CM: Ooooh, yes! Turning on the media is a highly-profitable avenue to take. Remember to throw the word “mainstream” before the word “media” to layer in some of that ominous predisposition for our listeners…
D: Now hold on. “Media” is a ridiculously broad term to use, since it means… well, pretty much everything… and therefore basically nothing at all.
CM: Hey, what can I say, I like my enemies like I like my police jurisdictions: broad and vague! I wanna never really know *precisely* what I’m afraid of, but boy do I wanna be afraid of it! OR, I wanna pick and choose the good parts of media while conveniently dismissing others, and ignoring the obvious shared characteristics between them! Why is that so hard to understand?
D: I know, I know, but remember: there are, in fact, many news organizations and journalists out there doing good, honest work, holding powerful people accountable and seeking out hard facts that keep everyday folks well-informed.
CM: Oh, sure, yeah—sounds like a couple handsome fellas I know—wink wink—heheh! (sinister sounding) I see what you’re doing there, Danny boy, and I like it…
D: What we see is all there is. We all have these beasts within us that emerge when poked and prodded. So when you have an informational landscape that incentivises attention at any cost—like, say, a 24 hour news network— leveraging those beasts becomes good for business.
CM: Then you can launch different outlets that cater to specific ideologies, allowing multiple dips into the old honeypot for each and every issue!
D: Exactly. A controversial supreme court case gets very different coverage depending where you get your information. A major issue gets broken down into two sides—for, or against—each of which becomes affiliated with certain groups, political affiliations, religious beliefs, and it’s simply a matter of pandering a pre-determined viewpoint to each group—
CM: —it’s the old A/B testing thingy! Launch two opposing ideas, see which one does better. Either way you win, if you control both sides of the conversation! Oof, sounds like fertile ground to sell…advertising!! Aahhhhh, I get it now! Hold on, hold on, I got a little something here…
D: Ad break time again? Whatcha got this time?
CM: Well, since you were displeased with that previous crime drama…a savvy businessman always hedges his bets! Perhaps your sweet bleeding heart will relate a little more to…THIS!
—
Narrator: Also coming this fall to GBS, another crime drama set in probably the same blue-filtered city—but this time, for a demographic of…different sensibilities…
Man1: I don’t know what else to do, rent has skyrocketed, now we can’t even afford groceries, babe!
Female: Honey, don’t do it! What if you get caught? You know what the cops are like in this city.
Child: It’s okay, daddy, I don’t need dinner! I’m a growing boy, I have a whole lifetime to eat! (Pathetic cough)
Female: (sniffling) Our little one is such a trooper!
Narrator: A desperate man living out on the edge, doing whatever he can to provide for his family.
Man1: Dammit, I have no choice! I’m a desperate man living out on the edge, doing whatever I can to provide for my family. I’ll be fine, babe. Besides, it’s not like they’d shoot me over a bit of stolen produce…
*Several gunshots*
Narrator: Tough times…create tough people…on…tough streets…
Man4: *on phone* Man, it’s tough out here. Yeah, I know, but I got no choice! I need the cash. Besides, it’s just a little weed…ooh hold up, they’re here, I gotta go…
*footsteps*
Man3: You got the stuff?
Man 4: Yeah bro, for sure—here. That’ll be 10–
Man 3: AHA! Freeze, criminal scum!
Man 4: What the f—c’mon, you set up a sting operation over a dime bag? Gah—
(Punching sounds)
Narrator: How far will you go to make ends meet?
Man: You can’t ask the police chief these kinda questions! You could lose your job as a reporter at the local…Gazette…paper...
Reporter: Dammit, someone has to ask the tough questions about this increase in brutality cases!
Man: You’re digging your own grave—
Reporter: If that’s the price of truth…so be it!
Narrator: A gritty, humanizing story about hard times, and the people getting…hardened…by them…
Female: We just don’t have enough money! With rent, childcare, gas, groceries, not to mention little Tammy has just come down with an expensive case of leukaemia! Babe, what are we gonna do??
Male: (gritted teeth) Whatever we have to. I won’t let this corrupt and broken system of free-market capitalism and unchecked income inequality leave my working-class family in the dust! Eat the rich! Defund the police! This is what hypocrisy looks like!
Female: Uhh, wh—what?
Narrator: This fall…the ends justify the means—because the monetary system is so fundamentally corrupt that we can’t afford to buy chicken and therefore it must be dismantled and rebuilt from within, if not by grassroots political activism then by bloody revolution.
“Good Folk, Bad City”. Coming this fall to GBS, right after that other one.
—
D: I am shocked—nay, flabbergasted, by what I just heard.
CM: Heyyy, never miss an opportunity to appeal to an untapped market, my man! Besides, in this ridiculously oversaturated content ecosystem, what does it matter who says what? Everyone’ll forget in 4 minutes anyway.
D: Eh, whatever, maybe you’re right. (Sigh) This is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s far too easy to pander to a simplistic and binary world. One side good, other side bad. There’s really no such thing, it just depends who you’re talking to. Our insane human brains have basically made up these ideas, and now they’re creating a sort of feedback-loop effect. Thanks to the internet, whatever your wildest, most rambling, nonsensical, conspiracy theorist beliefs might be, there’s sure to be a group out there to reinforce them. Once upon a time, maybe these beliefs would’ve fizzled out, or maybe someone would’ve talked some sense into you—but now, it’s all too easy to say “I’m not wrong, look how many like-minded followers I have who are hearting my every post!” It’s tangible, real-world reinforcement of our darkest selves, our worst, most shameful biases. It’s a…shadow realm.
CM: Ooh, catchy name for another Marvel hit…(scribbles) The…Shadow… Realm…hmm, yeah hehe…(ahem) But seriously, c’mon, Danny Boy, you’ve been a Twitter man for years, don’t tell me you don’t love that little dopamine hit you get from a like or a retweet!
D: Sure, look, we’ve established, I’m not above most for these things myself. I’m only human. But is it any surprise that these things seem to be getting worse? Complex discussions debased into over-simplified narratives, catchy buzzwords hurled around like grenades until they lose all meaning? What does “woke” even mean anymore? “Patriotism”? “Left wing/Right wing”? What does it mean to be a “radical”? A “socialist”? What constitutes “offensive”? “Objective?” Is anyone ever really “cancelled”? And is there such a thing as a “culture” of it? Or is all of this the result of cozy, self-perpetuating ecosystems that scoff at nuance and allow simplicity to flourish? And are media empires now so compromised by a desire for profit that they must appeal to the basest instincts of humanity just to maintain a floundering foothold in an industry that is perpetually in flux, as our society continues its eternal exponential expansion of this runaway behemoth we call a technological, informational landscape??
CM: I uhhhh… do not have the answer to that one, pally. Is that, err…more of an essay style question?
D: You know, Roger Ailes, the gropey architect of Fox News believed in the immense power of constant wedge-issues—the “split” that divides people, keeps them angry at each other, at their neighbours or their neighbouring countries—so they don’t pay attention to the real, more insidious issues plaguing them. These wedge issues are so ingrained in our society by now that we hardly think twice about them—everything from abortion rights, to taxes, to immigration, even phony small-scale culture-war issues like gas stoves, plastic bag bans or whatever… No nuance, no real conversation, just another contrived “panic” issue—for, and against—an echo chamber with the illusion of insight. It’s the business model that has propelled the propaganda empire of Fox News to the top of American television—and hey, what can I say, the system has worked for them.
CM: Hey, if it ain’t broke, Danny Boy, don’t fix it.
D: Except it *is* broke. Broken. Fubar. It’s lowest common denominator content. A shamefully successful strategy that’s been embraced for its monetary success, with no consideration of the damage it’s done to millions of brains, or the standard it’s set for other media outlets all over the world who must employ the same scummy tactics just to keep their own ratings and profits up. The content factories pushing endless opinion articles and hot takes, the morning talkshow loudmouth-ification of reality. Dominating airwaves, TV stations, social feeds, by virtue of being the loudest and richest voice in the room. Manufacturing talking points to stay relevant. No substance, no benefit, only the most basic appeal, a forever-spinning wheel of lies and money, lies and money, that is an insult to everything good and sane and human—
CM: Oh, whoa, whoa—uhh, didn’t I say something about “patented Dan rants” a while back? This would be…uhh…one of them.
D: You know what? You’re goddamn right. I *am* ranting. I am *angry*. And I AM tired of pretending I’m not. We should all be this upset. We’ve seen too much, you and I, on this little journey for truth. I can’t take it anymore. I’m sick. Sick of these monsters, these schemers and predators devouring the hearts and minds of regular people who are just lost, scared, confused, scraping to survive in a world that is burning, flooding, crumbling around them—all so a tiny handful of narcissistic sociopaths can put their feet up a little higher, turn their noses a little lower at the people they’ve deemed to be “below them”… (Pause, deep breath, collects himself…)
CM: Uhh…I smell a “but”…
D: *BUT*…they’re not gods. They’re not invincible. They’re human. Equipped with same tools as you and I, thralls to the same primal instincts. They’re not above us—they’re not above anything—only in their made-up, binary reality do they hold any real power. No, the truth is, they’ve simply gone unchallenged for so long, the rest of us down here have forgotten that we have our own roles, our own rules—our own…*power.*
CM: Oof—jeez, Danny Boy, you got like, a fire in your eyes. Not gonna lie, it’s freaking me out a little. But in a good way…I think. Heheh. I’m proud of you, buddy. You’ve come a long way. So, uhh, what does all this mean? Where do we go from here?
D: Well…I’ve chosen my weapon. And now, I think…it’s time to point it at someone who’s long overdue for an attack…
OUTRO:
*Dan strides into the studio alone, feeling confident, while various celebrity voices gas him up from the sidelines.
Keanu: Whoa. Keanu here. Great show, Danny Boy. As always.
Snoop: Ayo, it’s Snoop. Another dope ass shizzle. I am hella proud of you, my dawg.
Walken: Oh! Walken here, just wanted to say—oof, what a dynamite show! I got shivers!
D: (super confident) Thanks, celebrity AI pals! I feel amazing. There’s this…power…this energy flowing through me. I feel like I could conquer the whole damn world…
Walken: Atta boy! Hey—you know what this calls for? A *dance*.
Dan dances around to “Weapon of Choice” soundalike—except it’s about Hard Know.
Walken: Wow, look at him go!
Dan chants/sings along, maniacally, and as it fades down…a phone rings across the room.
CM: Yes…yessir, I’m looking at him right now. Yep, you uhh…could say he’s leaning hard
