Welcome to another episode of Conversations with Coleman. A few announcements before today's guests: I've updated my website to include several new requested functions, supporters can now change update and cancel payments more easily. There's now a donate page so you can donate any amount on a one time basis. All podcasts will have transcripts and soon they'll be translated into Spanish. By popular demand, we now have podcasts, merchandise that you can buy and you can now become a member on YouTube.

In addition to the website updates, I'd like to announce a speaking event I'm hosting on September 29th at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The event will be exclusively for high school and university students. If you're associated with a high school or university, you can register for this event to have your students or classmates listen to me speak and then engage with me. Again, that's September 29th. And visit colemanhughes.org, for more details. OK, today, my guests are James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian.

James Lindsay is a mathematician, writer and founder of New Discourses and the author of a new book called Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender and Identity. Peter Boghossian is a philosopher, a professor at Portland State University and author of A Manual for Creating Atheists and How to Have Impossible Conversations. We talk about critical theory, postmodernism, critical race theory, and how these conspire to build the foundation of social justice ideology as we know it today.

We talk about the ways in which social justice has departed from its parent ideologies. And much more. I really enjoyed this one, and I hope you do, too. So without further ado, James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian.

OK, thank you, James and Peter, for coming on my podcast.

Pleasure. Thanks for having us.

Yeah, I'm glad to be here.

Absolutely.

So let's -- I think a lot of people will have heard of you either through the "Sokal Squared" hoax from a few years back, from being on Rogan related to that hoax or from both of you have several books about you have a math background, James, and you have a philosophy background, Peter. So I want, can you tell me how you guys met and how you guys sort of started collaborating and how you got in the same circle?

Twitter

Really?

Yeah. It turns out we met on Twitter. I mean, I don't know the exact -- how much influence this had, but I know when I started following Peter is that I was complaining about my favorite hobby horse in philosophy to complain about on Twitter, which is moral philosophy. And then even in getting into some aspects of ontology, we don't have to get too deep into any of this. And somebody came to me, I think this was around like 2013, it was a long time ago, and said, if you don't like philosophers that dalil around an ontology, you need to follow Peter Boghossian.

He's probably the leading philosopher who's not into the whole metaphysics thing. And so I followed Peter and Peter follows like 10 people on Twitter, so he didn't follow me back for a long time. Then he finally ended up reading something, I think that I had written about Sam Harris. I responded to some Sam's arguments, but I also defended Sam against weird accusations which tap into this "woke" stuff to some degree. And Peter was impressed with my writing and sent me a note of appreciation and followed me.

I got the infamous Peter Bogosian tweet followed. And so that was, I think, in 2013. And then we started to talk a little bit and he wanted me to read a manual --

And I, and I had I had a question from my book and then I called you on the phone. I'm like, dude, what? Help me out with this --

Oh yeah, the Drake equation. It was the Drake equation.

Yeah. Oh is that right? That's where it was, right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I didn't expect to start here, but I'm curious, what were your objections to ontology and metaphysics? And I feel like I might kind of share them, having just finished my philosophy degree and having taken --

Peter's phrase at the time, and I think he would still stand by it, we'll let him confirm, was, "metaphysics: just say no." (chuckle)

(laughing)

But it's that if you're coming at philosophy from a perspective where empiricism means anything, metaphysics is right outside of that realm. And so what often happens is that you end up with philosophers -- if you want my particular critique of it -- who get bogged down in arguing about the ontology of various ideas. They want to say, oh, do mathematical objects exist? In what way do they exist? What does that existence mean?

And our friend Daniel Dennett wrote a very important, I think, but not well-read piece in philosophy about something he called "chmess" like chess with an M added into it to indicate that people like to kind of play in these other worlds that don't really connect to reality. And his point was that that's interesting, but it produces work of no abiding significance. I have a very kind of complicated view of metaphysics and what metaphysics role should be, but I don't particularly find those questions to be interesting beyond an academic level.

That's right.

And it gets annoying. For example, I was speaking with the president of the Southern Baptist Convention earlier today on a podcast, and he wanted to know how I grounded my morals objectively as somebody who is an atheist. And I've been asked many times like, well, if you're an atheist, how do you have logic? If you can't ground the idea of logic in the logo's and in the body of Christ or whatever. And it's like, what are you talking about?

(says through laughter) Just what are you talking about?

Right --

How is this helping anything? And so it feels to me that it generates a lot of very tangential conversations that are not particularly necessary. It does, by the way, relate to what we, I think we'll talk about if we talk about wokeness, because they have their own metaphysic that people have not yet really cleanly pinned down. And I'm working on that now, try to understand what it is. But I think it's like it's a way...

It's intellectual masturbation for the most part. It's vaguely interesting, but a distraction from more meaningful and important questions, especially in philosophy, which should be guiding us into how to live a reflective, thoughtful, informed life.

Yeah, and part of the problem, Coleman, is that I see people have over ascribed certainty and have made these, I don't know, appredicted pronouncements about what they consider to be political propositions. Oh my God. That sounded so academic that it didn't sound like it.

But so basically they've overascribed certainty to propositions about the world and the way to know and understand those things is not through abstract speculation. It's to science, to evidence. You can't reason your way to certain empirical propositions. I mean, people try it in theoretical physics and then they look for empirical confirmation of that. I had a great conversation with my friend Lawrence Krause about how that's accomplished. But the concern that, that I had was that we're teaching people things.

What is the ultimate nature of the universe or what have you? Well, I don't know, but maybe it's just a bad question. Just putting a question where in front of a bunch of other words doesn't make it a legitimate question. And Jim was absolutely correct. One of the most underappreciated pieces in all of philosophy is you'll be great if you could link that in the YouTube section. And Jim and I have published something in Russell Black, which the problem of philosophy and I think that's a very important idea that you want to pursue philosophy ought to pursue questions of abiding significance.

And to many people, just trying to think of a less vulgar way to say it. I can't but just intellectually masturbate around ideas that are completely untethered to reality and the answers. It's like what Gilbert Ryle calls a category mistake. People are looking at philosophy to solve questions that is best solved through science. People have done that to religion through religion, too. But it's in a sense, it's less excusable in philosophy as it is.

You will probably notice, unfortunately, if it's two plus two massive Bockl all summer and somebody just on Twitter to kind of put a punctuation mark on this. I don't know if this person's significant or probably a grad student in philosophy or something. That's usually what they work out to be. But he said that I don't even know if one plus one can equal two, because I don't know if they're any identical objects in the world that you could possibly get together.

And it's like all you're doing is confusing yourself at that point. It's just like, well, you know, this apple in that apple aren't identical. No, but the category Apple is so sorry. It works. And in fact, you can get into the physics of things, but certain elementary particles are, in fact, all identical. So the claim isn't even true. But he's confused himself by digging into the ontology of the mathematical object one.

And Jim, just imagine there are whole disciplines like that that have hoodwinked people, just imagine that how crazy is that? We've institutionalized these disciplines, fields of study. They have bogus scholarship. People are pointing to those. When you ask them how they know something, they're grossly over inflating their confidence in propositions about the world. But that's buttressed by bogus fields of study. So that's a problem with ontology.

Yeah, no, I remember distinctly feeling that when I took my metaphysics class, probably junior year, there was something very fun and very trivial about the whole thing. Like I felt like I was doing mind puzzles that were interesting as like a kind of logic game. I would play with my friends just as a joke. It sort of reminded me of that YouTube video where this guy asks, is water wet and just goes through all of the arguments and counterarguments and it's really fun.

And it got like millions of views. But a lot of the questions we were dealing with in metaphysics and ontology had that character where it seems like there's really nowhere to stand, where there's an objectively true answer here. And it's all trivial. And it's really unlike symbolic logic or ethics or any of the other classes I took in that in that vein. So I got to check out that Dennet essay.

But that's not where I wanted to start or that's not the main thing I hope to discuss here.

Really, what I want to talk to you guys about is basically your book, James, which you wrote with Helen Clark Rose. And, you know, Peter, you've been talking about, you know, all these same themes. So I almost feel like you're somehow a third author on the book, even though you're technically not.

So that just just a quick comment on that, if I may. So that book is cynical theories. And I think it's not only is it a masterpiece, it's really is the Rosetta Stone to help people understand things. And I'll let Jim speak to the details. But Jim and I wrote another book together at the same time we were doing the grieving studies, how to have impossible conversations. And that is a solution. We're not claiming it's the solution to the current moral panic and quagmire.

So I think that those books go very well together. Games to Helen's book in my book with James one one offers as well. The cynical theories offers a solution based on liberalism and how to have impossible conversations, goes back to those values of how to speak to people, how to engage conversations and ideas. Yeah.

So where I want to start is with postmodernism and critical theory. What do these two terms mean and how do they differ?

OK, so they are two distinct or mostly distinct schools of thought. They both can be traced to having roots in Marxist thought, but it would be incorrect to call either of them Marxist as they were both extraordinarily critical of Marxism in particular. They're also quite different from one another. It's a useful kind of earmark to say that the critical theory is neo Marxist, meaning that it changed Marxism to some new form, whereas postmodernism is post Marxist where it had a kind of abandoned all hope and Marxism.

And so that gives you a sense immediately of their flavors. So critical theory arose in the 1920s going into the nineteen thirties, where it was outlined by a number of communist thinkers who noticed that the communist revolutions that had been predicted were not taking place. They were particularly not taking place in the places where you would expect them to, which given Karl Marx you would expect them to be Germany would expect them to be London, which was most industrialized city in the world at the time, and neither place was anywhere close to having a communist revolution.

And that just weren't the whole ideas. They weren't sticking. And so this school of thought arose to try to explain why that wasn't happening. And so it started to draw off of the new fields of sociology and psychology, particularly Max Weber and Sigmund Freud, and tried to read Sigmund Freud. Actually, they explicitly intended to try to figure out how to take Freudian psychoanalysis and important in the Marxian theory to explain inside people's heads why they were not having a class consciousness and would not overturn the capitalist society and initiate the process toward a communist utopia.

And what they concluded was that the elites in society, whether they're the bourgeoisie or the capitalists, more specifically within, they were creating an ideology of how society should be. And in particular, following the one communist thinker or the Italian thinker, Antonio Gramsci, he pointed out that the kind of institutions that produced culture in society are responsible for making people content with their lives. So critical theory became a way to try to understand how the correct place of analysis that Marx missed was not economics, but rather culture.

And so they started to look at how the elites in society produce. Culture, they produce mass culture, they produce popular culture, they produce a middle class that tries to keep people happy and out of that consciousness that will lead them to want to overthrow their happy with their lives. And they shouldn't be more or less, and they aren't going to overthrow a society. So they separated the world into two classes of thought, traditional theories that seek to understand the world.

This, of course, follows Marx as one of his most famous pronouncements, traditional theories that seek to understand the world and critical theories to seek to change it. And the point of a critical theory has has three characteristics, according to Max Horkheimer, who wrote it down at first in nineteen thirty seven. A critical theory must understand how the current system falls short. It must have an overarching normative value system against which it compares, and it must advocate for social activism and in those terms.

So that's what a critical theory is. A critical theory is, in other words, a way to bring problematize in saying that ideas might be true, but their truth creates problems in society. And so we have to now rethink them. Postmodernism is a much more pessimistic reaction to the failures of Marxism that arose in the nineteen sixties going into the nineteen seventies. And its big picture idea is that all of knowledge is socially constructed. Everything we know is tied up in language and that language is decided upon the proper uses of language, I should say, and of what we claim to be true and false.

And knowledge and not knowledge are tied up in the powerful groups and interests in society who get to decide that. And part of the way that they do so is with their bias. And part of the way that they do so is with the intention of excluding other ways of knowing that would threaten their cultural hegemony. So these two schools of thought were running in parallel. By the time that postmodernism started to flare up academically in the sixties and seventies, critical theory was flaring up in violent protests in the nineteen sixties across Europe, in the United States, especially in nineteen sixty eight.

It being the most famous, obviously, which followed directly I think is a fair thing to say from the agitations of the Marxist thinker Herbert Marquesa, who had written at that point repressive tolerance in nineteen sixty five. And I've written one dimensional man in which he directly said we need to bring together the outsiders, the racial minorities and the leftist radical intelligentsia to form a movement. And in fact, the outsiders referred to radicals who wanted to do the same kinds of things we're seeing in twenty twenty on the streets that.

So that's the two schools of thought. Postmodernism is objective, truth is not possible, and all claims upon it are politics. Critical theory is the world is split into oppressor versus oppressed, and the people who are on the right side of history are seeking liberation from that systemic oppression that's maintained by hegemony of culture, by the powerful in society.

So on their face, those two seem to be in tension because postmodernism rejects the idea that any metanarrative is true and an example of a metanarrative would be something like Christianity or Marxism or liberalism or any of these sort of big systems of understanding the world where critical theory at least seems to be itself a kind of metanarrative.

You talk about in the book, sort of. You know, people want to act, and insofar as they have some postmodernist baggage, they have to reconcile their desire to act with the postmodernist skepticism of everything. So can you talk a little bit about how that gets reconciled?

Yeah, it's very important to understand that critical theory in the formal sense. The so-called Frankfurt School, which would be all of these names that I mentioned we have, we don't have to name them all again. They definitely were in the modernist frame that were definitely concerned with truth. They were definitely concerned with falsity. They were just saying that those aren't enough. We need to add another layer of analysis that adds in liberation as a concept. And they were very clear that emancipation and liberation and liberation were the ideas.

And what you're being emancipated or liberated from is these systems of oppression that are created by the hegemonic cultural powers in society. And so the postmodernists would have generally rejected this. And there is a tension there. But what happened is in the 1980s and we could draw the lines from people like Herbert Marcuse if we wanted, through Angela Davis, one of his mentees, I think UC Davis, you see something anyway, Angela Davis is obviously even active today.

She's very prominent. She's being profiled and popular publications like Vanity Fair and things I think I saw just the other day with her and she was one of Markus's Marquises students. She said that Marquesa radicalized her, as a matter of fact, and she went on to inform much of what was happening in black feminism. Meanwhile, feminism in general was picking up postmodernism so they could break down the idea of gender as a social construct. And so all of a sudden, you have these two ideas kind of in the same area.

And then the 80s, mostly getting toward the late 80s, you started to have these discussions from a variety of different people. Mary Poovey, within feminism, for example, Bell Hooks and Kimberle Crenshaw within the kind of black feminism going into critical race theory analysis. And what they were saying is that postmodern tools are very useful for breaking down to just deconstruct, in fact, the fundamentals of systemic power, which was that critical objective. But they go too far.

And I think the key observation is that at some point these black feminists hit upon the idea. And I want to stress for everybody that they don't know, black feminism is a school of thought. I'm not referring to feminists who happen to be black. It's a different thing. It is a particular school of thought. They hit upon the idea that you when you have the experience of systemic oppression, sabai racism, you could only possibly deconstruct a concept like race that's a site of systemic oppression if you have the privilege to think that that doesn't matter.

And so all of a sudden, the original postmodernists became privileged white guys, and that was why they were blind to this level of this critical level of analysis. And they kind of shoehorn the things together by saying the one thing that cannot be deconstructed. And in some sense, then the one thing that's objectively real is this oppressor versus oppressed paradigm wherein various types of identity create are sites of systemic oppression that must be set aside from deconstruction. And then what deconstruction is properly used for is to deconstruct the roots of the systemic power to take apart the systems of power themselves, but not everything.

And that's where you end up getting this fusion in the book we call Applied Postmodernism.

Yeah, and that's a really important point that I want to highlight, because you talk about how the I guess you could call them classical or high postmodernists, the people who are recast as privileged white men. I'm thinking of someone like Fuyuko. He explicitly. Yeah, yeah. Like had a kind of ironic distance from everything as a as a mode of engaging with ideas.

Everything was just a construct, whiteness, blackness, all not that he used these words, but the crucial difference between someone like him and someone who inherited parts of his philosophy and critical race theory is that blackness becomes becomes something very real and concrete and not liable to the kind of cynical distance that used to deconstruct what is viewed as the people on top of the system. That's right. I have an analogy in my head that I think encapsulates what what postmodernism tries to do.

And I want to know if you think this is accurate. I remember being a kid and first learning, you know, hearing people speak different, speak English and sound different and learning the word accent as something that meant, oh, well, you know, my aunt has a Puerto Rican accent, right. And I didn't realize that. I also had an accent. I just spoke and everyone else had an accent. So there was a kind of an other an othering, you could say.

And then at some point I had the aha moment that actually there is no objective center from which to. View other people as having an accent and accent is just a word for how you speak, and it equally applies to someone like me who I think of having a mainstream American accent as it does to anyone else. So that aha moment, I think, is what postmodernism tries to replicate in every sphere of life, even, I would argue, in places where it doesn't belong.

Does that make sense to you as an analogy?

Not only does it make sense, I would say that's exactly what it does and it is exactly the thing that it does wrong. When you say that it takes that and applies it in places where it doesn't apply, it tries to find that aha moment and apply it to literally everything, including knowledge, for example. So the view that knowledge then becomes like an accent. It's just something that people with certain cultural values value as knowledge is. Add to that.

I'll add to that and say not just knowledge but epistemology and epistemological processes. Yeah, everything.

The whole thing. If they see it as a political process, can you define that for people?

Epistemology or epistemology is just how you know the nature of knowledge and study of knowledge and the idea that there are different ways of knowing. And we can talk about standpoint epistemology if you want, but the scientific method is on this view, just a way of knowledge. We haven't talked about relativism yet, but we should probably get into that sort of epistemological relativism epistemology. So there is no God I've, you know, view outside the system of one way of knowing everything is situated and everything is linked to individuals and cultural situations.

Yeah, I remember, you know, being in a in a gender studies class. I'm sorry. And when I was a sophomore, a friend of mine convinced me to do it. And I'm glad I did in retrospect. But it was it was quite bad. And we read we read Fuyuko, I think history of sexuality.

And this was one of those classrooms where, you know, it was actually the strangest classroom I was ever in at Columbia because no one would almost ever ask the professor questions.

There were maybe one or two questions per class and we were dealing with some heavy ideas, regardless of whether you agreed or not write like that.

Whereas in all my other philosophy classes, there would always be, you know, pesky students like myself trying to bring up objections and like lively discussion. But this one, it was it was dead. It was a dead classroom. And we read Fuyuko.

And, you know, I remember bringing up the point because I think I had recently read Thomas Nagle's book From Nowhere The Last Word, actually, where he one of the points he makes is that, you know, postmodern skepticism of objective truth inevitably bites its own tail.

Because if nothing is objectively true, then how do you know? How do you know postmodernism itself is objectively true? And I brought up this point first. I want to know, is that a good critique of postmodernism, do you think? And, you know, I just remember that the professor giving some very handwaving answer, oh, fuck. All sorts of that stuff out.

Well, it depends is a good it depends on who you ask and not in a cheeky way, because if you ask a postmodernists, they would say that it misses the point entirely. And the postmodernism deals with this simply by by acknowledging that it doesn't believe that it's objectively true. It believes that nothing is objectively true. And so it must be self skeptical, radically self skeptical also. And that's where you see it kind of devolving into Derrida's play and exactly like that, which, of course, later generations discovered wasn't that useful for activism.

You can't really do anything with with something that works. Right. I mean, even Judith Butler wrote that it would be considered itself a postmodernist because it would be inappropriate even to take that label or even to give that label, meaning it would be anti postmodern to define postmodernism. And so but if you ask somebody from outside of it, yeah, it's a pretty pretty good criticism of it. Let me let me jump in there.

And and that was Harbourmaster's Harbourmaster's, the German Klosters critique of Derrida and that it's a performative contradiction. You're using rationality to undermine the tools of rationality. That idea has an ancient pedigree in the literature. You see that in the platonic dialogue. You see that in literature throughout the history of Western intellectual thought. But it's an old old idea, but it doesn't seem to bother people. If you don't subscribe to the rules of reason and logic, then the criticism that you don't subscribe to the.

The of reason and logic only works if you subscribe to the rules of reason and logic. So I think Jim's absolutely correct. They just they just hand wave it off. And so that actually, by the way, highlights the tension. In case any of your listeners don't realize, Harbourmaster's the last really of the critical theorists, who was the last member really of the Frankfurt school in any significant way. And of course, this is postmarking as opposed to the riots of the nineteen sixties.

Postmarks are going on television in the 1970s and yelling about how anti intellectual his movement had become. And so he had a much more tempered and reasonable view of the critical approach. But more importantly, as you see this rather vigorous or vicious critique of Derrida, which indicates that there was in fact tension between the critical theory approach, which was ultimately modernist and the postmodernists approach, as you as you pointed out. So I wonder if it's OK, Coleman, I want to linger on that for a minute.

I think it's important for listeners to understand one of the objectives. And I just finished Kennedy's book, and I I see this scattered throughout the literature, is to remove the tools by which one makes discerning judgments about things. This comes up a little bit and cynical theories. But when you remove the tools, scientific rationality, epistemic adequacy, consistency, then it becomes impossible to make to kind of step outside of a system and adjudicate competing claims. It becomes impossible to do that.

And this is really the overarching goal is to remove the ability to make. Judgments, particularly epistemological and moral, moral judgments, and it's utterly terrifying consequences of that.

Yeah, so I want to talk about the relationship between postmodernism and what I guess is variously called social, social justice, woak ism, whatever far left ism, whatever it's known as, that's either pejorative or just descriptive, depending on where you're situated.

How is what we like what I encountered and have spoken about on this podcast a lot at Columbia tied to the ideas of postmodernism and critical theory.

And in what ways is it different?

Sure. So the thing that we refer to maybe is the social justice movement now or critical social justice. If we follow Robin Tangelos, very clear exposition of it in her her book that she co-authored for those on SENSOY called Is Everyone Really Equal? What we see is actually a diffusion of three lines of thought, three schools of thought, postmodernism and critical theory. We've already discussed to some degree. So we know what they are. The third is the social justice idea, which can be expressed in a number of contexts that arose from Jesuit priests.

So it arose in a religious context. It was actually probably most thoroughly developed in the earliest part of the nineteen hundreds by Walter Rauschenbusch, who is a Baptist minister and Baptist minister who happened to also be the grandfather of Richard Rorty, the American half postmodern philosopher. Rauschenbusch came up. He was in Hell's Kitchen in New York City and was very interested in social welfare issues, and he came up with six principles. Arguable that he found those principles when he went to London for a year or two and studied with the Fabian Society there, which was a socialist think tank of a kinder society, is the right word.

I don't think they really had think tanks operating in the late eighteen hundreds early 19th. But anyway, he spent a couple of years with the Fabian Society, came back in and wrote down this idea called The Social Gospel. Many of the ideas of social justice were already embedded within the broad idea of liberalism. The statement at the very beginning of the Constitution, the very beginning of the Declaration of Independence. I'll point to that, that there's this liberalizing equalizing notion of bringing people to levels of equality.

You see it when in particular, I loved it. The Fourth of July this year, they promoted Frederick Douglass. Wonderful speech, I think from eighteen fifty two or three. Obviously, slavery was still going on. And he talks about very clearly living up to the vision of the founders of the country, very clearly living up to the Constitution and then the hypocrisy and failures of our nation to do that by that point, which was instrumental, I think, in the ensuing ten years into achieving abolition.

So there's this principle of social justice built into our the fabric of liberal societies as well, which painfully and slowly seems to bear fruit. Not always and comfortable are pretty ways, unfortunately, although I think it's arguable that we're getting better at it as time has gone on. For example, if you consider how difficult the civil rights movement was for for black Americans in the nineteen sixties against how not to say it was all easy, but if you compare that against the gay movement of the nineteen nineties, it was a much smoother ride the second time around.

We have a better sense of social justice. Clearly this was developed by liberal philosophers like John Rawls with his veil of ignorance, thought experiment. And so we have this whole line of thought about making society more fair and more just. That can be analyzed in a number of ways. One of those ways is through critical theory. So the liberationist paradigm, we saw this very clearly in the civil rights movement in the sixties where you had the black power aspect up against the, I guess, Martin Luther King or universal liberal aspect and tension with one another.

As the state representative from Memphis went viral on the Twitter yesterday for his speech, he was talking of being involved in the Memphis civil rights movement as a child. And when the riots would break out, he said his father would grab him by the arm and walk him away. And this is not our movement. This is not how we're going to be. We're about peace. We're about equality. We're about what did you say? Civility and dignity and class.

He kept saying class. We're class or class. He a very different thing than this. Very critical radical. You have your power. We have our power conflict theory approach. But you can't approach the concept of social justice, which is increasing fairness and equality and decreasing discrimination and disenfranchisement in society through critical means if you want. So there's a critical theory, school of Social Justice that has taken up these ideas and then what happened? So that's where you see the fusion of those two.

And then what happened is in the 90s, they picked up the. Postmodern tools as a means of deconstructing the systems of power and the foundations of that which reduces and legitimizes power. So that's how they came together to form the present social justice movement that you would have experienced at Columbia, which we originally had just called applied postmodernism. But cynical theories we outlined had actually reified itself by around 2010 into something very, very metanarrative based, very, very rigid and doctrinal, very almost dogmatic, if not religious.

And we call it reified postmodernism, which is a nerdy way to put it. But a simpler way to put it would be WOAK, which means generally being aware that society is constructed out of systems of power and that those are somehow maintained by language and representation and symbology and art, and that the means of cultural production in those those domains have to be challenged, disrupt, dismantle, taken over, replaced by different means. And so. Exactly. That's really why we see happening here.

Yeah. And when one grokked that, that's the most cogent explanation for what we see happening now. That's the grounding for what we see happening and playing out all around us right now.

If you want to kind of concrete example, you can look at the origin of critical race theory, specifically with Derek Bell at Harvard Law. He's credited with being the founder of Critical Race Theory, along with his student, Kimberle Crenshaw. So they together are the founders of Critical Race Theory by Derek Bell. If you read Derek Bell and Kimberley Crenshaw, Crenshaw have very distinct styles and approaches. And the difference is actually postmodernism. They both very critical of liberalism.

They're both, I think, very pessimistic and their analysis of liberalism, if not cynical. But nevertheless, Derek Bell was a materialist in his approach. He's very clearly interested in law. He's very clearly interested in institutions and the direct effects of law. And obviously, Kimberle Crenshaw talks about law as well, whether intersectionality she's talking about this coming out of these cases, I think at General Motors. And it's possible to discriminate against black women while not discriminating against blacks or women as broader categories.

And this is a legitimate I mean, I think it's one of the most interesting and powerful and important discoveries in discrimination law, period. But unfortunately, she went on to say it was. And then a couple of years later, she writes this other paper, mapping the margins and decides to recast the entire thing in terms of a modified version of postmodernism that takes up with black liberationist politics, which she explicitly says this. That's what the margins are.

Black liberation ism pushes black women to the margins. Radical feminism, which as a white feminist approach, pushes black women to the margins. And so the intersectional black feminism needs to be raised up out of the margins and mapped out mapping the margins of society on the margins. Yeah, and so when she's discussing the failure of postmodernism, she she talks about specifically that it deconstructs City of race and it misses the idea that that's a very important concept. And she has a very, very clear paragraph where she says there's a fundamental difference between I am black and I'm a person who happens to be black.

And her criticism of I am a person who happens to be black is that it forwards person in a universal sense instead of the identity group. And then she says that intersectionality is a provisional concept linking contemporary politics, meaning identity politics, radical identity politics to postmodern theory. And this is a direct quote, right. That is flawed by that quote. Actually, I had never seen that before. I remember reading the paper the first time while we were doing the grievance studies affair and I thought, what in the heck is this?

I'm reading it. And I got to that sentence and I was like, whoa, something here change into cynical theories. You know, there's this line where we say this little insight was about to change the world. In fact, I don't I wish I could remember how I wrote the sentence the first time because we had this huge Pelin and I had this huge argument about whether or not I was way too mean about it, because I really was I was really sassy about it.

And we turned it down to something understated and plain. But it really did this combination of those ideas, social justice infused critical theory, combined with post-modern tools in that particular way that forewords identity and removes the view of universal humanity and even individualism was a very profound shift in thinking. And of course, it caught fire like crazy within all the relevant corners of the world because meaning all of these radical academics, because now they had tools to problem, which I problematize each other, which is like there's things they're afraid of Moses being problematize.

It's all the feminists are like, we're racist now. And all of the black liberation scholars like we're sexist now. And and everybody hates queer people and they're all melting down. Attacking each other, which is like their favorite thing to do, and it just consumes the entire intelligentsia, radical left, as Marcus rephrased it in a very short period of time to where by two thousand, two, three, four, you're seeing papers like we a last defense of materialist feminism.

We still need this, you know, and people are coming out saying there has been a shift. Everybody's just saying this is just how we think about this stuff now. We think about this stuff, intersectionality. Now you have papers coming out that's as early as the early 20s, you're saying? Yeah, by 2004, I think it was the nail was in the coffin the last.

And this is at a time when if you're not in academia, there's probably a zero percent chance you've heard the word intersectionality. Correct. Whereas today in the culture, if you're just if you're online and you don't have to be anywhere near a university to to hear this word and to be influenced by it.

That's right. And in fact, Kimberle Crenshaw is herself complained about that. She's put us in cynical theories, is that she feels like it escaped her original intentions. It is mummified and is taken on a life of its own. But she still pushes it just as hard. And I don't think she even works very hard to reclaim its true commitments as she saw them, which is a very odd thing to say that it's now gotten out of her control, but she's not really going to do anything about it.

But yeah, it's taken on a life of its own and mummified and is now to the point where the intersections are just bizarre and every conceivable level and people obsess about their position. So that means obsessing about their identity and its relationship to power, to the point where I mean, the Navel-gazing for a young person in particular, could be astonishing. Like you could spend just days and days and days and days. You go on Tumblr, discover this stuff, and all of a sudden spent days and days and days trying to think of every unique identity you have and how it's like Dungeons and Dragons world building, but around your own identity all of a sudden.

Yeah, this is one of those things where I think if I hadn't experienced it first hand in high school, which is to say I was one of those people on Tumblr, you know, at 15 with my friends seeing these ideas for the first time being, a mixture of fascinated by them and skeptical of them. And, you know, just and if I hadn't seen people and hadn't myself done the thing that you just described, which is noting that I'm a man, but I'm black.

So, you know, in some sense this cancels out on in my position on the intersectional sort of hierarchy. And, you know, it would seem if I didn't have that first hand experience that you're just sort of making it up, you know, like if you're away from this stuff, it sounds too crazy to be true. But I can just, you know, especially having gone to Columbia and especially Barnard, intersectionality is more than an ideology.

In fact, you know, probably most people who are deeply embedded in the intersectional subculture, I would call it at this point, I don't couldn't necessarily tell you about Kimberle Crenshaw, the initial paper and what she really meant by it.

But it's become a a social subculture.

That's right. Yeah. Kimberly Crenshaw actually describes it from the beginning as a practice, not a theory, not as a practice. And so as a practice, it can come to define a subculture that engages in that practice and defines themselves by their engagement or their practice. I want to throw you a curveball real quick, though, since you were on Tumblr and we're talking about deconstructing our identities because this happened to me. Because I wasn't on Tumblr, but my kids were and then I was like, go find out what this is.

And so then all of a sudden I remember.

Do you remember maybe you that maybe this is about to be your moment, but I bet you it's not. Did you have a moment where you discovered other kin for the first time?

Do you know what other like like people who call themselves animals? Yeah, I don't I can't say I recall discovering other kin on Tumblr, man.

I did. I remember when I found that and it was like days of my whole my whole life, like for days I could do nothing but think about the fact that some people define themselves as dragons and like dress up as wolves and go out and act. And they say they run in packs. I was like, what the heck is this? And the truth is, is this like the ultimate expression of the deconstructive mentality where interfaces with the Internet?

So I finally figured out because on the Internet, you're your avatar, right? You're not really you. You're your avatar. So people go on. I was like, holy crap, people are going on a Tumblr. I didn't have this language yet. And in fact, this came from our friend Mike Nayana. But they go on on these social media outlets, especially Tumblr was really bad for it. And they deconstruct themselves and then put it together in some pretend way.

And that sort of defines what's going on with so much of the non scholarly side of queer theory. And it's just shocking. So I was really curious, since you said Tumblr, I'm like, oh, man, I bet he has a story. But when he's not, I mean, other can and like, maybe you got a dragon. I don't know. I don't want to put you on the spot. No.

Well, I would say the thrust of what I remember from and to be completely honest, I got a Tumblr because girls I liked had Tumblr. Right. 15 years old. But being exposed to the main thing I remember from Tumblr culture with now having some years of distance from it is that it was a lot of talk about mental health, but some of which was very healthy. But there was it was also, ironically, a kind of perverse celebration of self-harm.

It was like there was a there was a sense in which talking about how much you self harmed, gave you a kind of social status. Right. But it was all couched in caring about mental health and giving mental health advice to tell people not to do all these things. But admitting to doing them gave you points and credibility and the kind of strange way. And it was all married to politics as well. And the politics was a straightforward, just straightforward intersectionality.

And it was unhealthy in many ways, it was very insular, and I think we sort of seen that exported to the culture. I think, frankly, I think a lot of people encountered all of these ideas on Tumblr first. And Jessie Single has spoken about this. And Katie, whom I think of Katie Herczog Herczog, because it is really interesting on this topic, too. Yeah, yeah.

It's it's a very interesting world. And I think you're right that what if I were to try to put a map to it? I would guess that certain activists who took probably classes like gender studies classes, which were a small percentage of people, but also probably struggled with mental health issues, ended up finding community on these social media platforms. And then they were the ones who had the explanations that then legions of teenagers would connect to me if I had to guess.

I seriously think that that's how a significant part of how, if you want to use the metaphor of the year, how the virus escaped the lab on at least one level, there are other levels, like the fact that it owns most of our colleges of education. So our teachers are just teaching it. But there's. Yeah, and if your listeners want to learn more about that, the work of Lyle Asher is fantastic. He talks about how this is metastasized in College of Education and pre service College of Education, where they they teach teachers this dangerous, toxic nonsense.

Yeah. So I think you're right, though.

I think that the social media culture, my guess is that people who are getting informed in these classes by these fancy pants professors were then taking those ideas and they can be very self-indulgent ideas and then feeding them to communities of of young people who gobbled them up. And then they mutated very quickly in a social media environment much quicker than academic research. Mm hmm. And they spilled out of the academy, which is where we are now. Right, right.

So now you can see Richard Carranza in charge of New York public schools, saying that things like perfectionism and good grammar are actually manifestations of white supremacy culture like what you thought were these neutral markers on time. Yeah.

What you thought were these neutral markers of a kid doing well are actually racism in disguise. This is straight out of postmodernism and critical race theory, right? That's right. That's right. So so it's already sort of in government. I don't want to be too alarmist, but it's, you know, the the the the the arrow is going in one direction only at this moment. That's right.

That's right. And I am actually quite concerned about Carranza and specific. We don't have to dwell on him, but he is definitely, definitely it's dangerous. For what? For what's going on with the New York City school systems and his agendas are. And that's the most important point derived directly from the critical race theory school of thought about how things work and are in the world, which is, I don't think, the best way to diagnose things and one of the worst ways to prescribe solutions for things that have come across as far as race goes.

So I want to speak to that just just for a minute. Without naming individuals, you know, one thing that Jim has spoken very eloquently about in Helen as well as our world, you can't use the master's tools to disable the master's house. You can't use reasoned scientific method, epistemic adequacy, et cetera, to overthrow systems of race and racism. And and Jim and Helen's book, Cynical Theories, they have a just a just lovely line. And they say that the problem is not the master's tools.

The problem is that historically, people haven't been given access to the master's house.

And we need to open we need to make those things more accessible in Socrates. In the symposium throws the women in the slaves out of the room before he begins the dialogue and indeed that principle of not letting certain people into the into the house. It's I think it was Churchill was asked about capitalism, a terrible system at it's best worst system we have. That's not true with the master's house. That's not true with enlightenment values. That's not true with liberalism.

It's truly the pinnacle of human reasoned rationality and science that we can use to lead us to flourishing. But right now, what's happening is that those ideals are being vandalized by critical race theory, by the implementation of non-scientific ideas that are untethered to reality. And again, you see this manifest throughout the society.

Yeah, actually, I remember that line. It really struck me. You know, the master's house actually is a good house. It's a well built house. The problem is we haven't been letting people in it. And there are people who want to, just as you say in the book, you know, reduce the house to rubble so that we can all equally live in rubble. And that's right.

Yeah, exactly correct. Yeah.

That's where, you know, the phrase Baudrillard's phrase directly was the master tools will never dismantle the master's house. And so the question is, why do we want to dismantle it? And so that's where this somebody sent it to me on Twitter the other day. So I happen to recall it is on page twenty. That's where this came from. Helen and I had a discussion about it and Helen actually wrote that part. I won't take credit for it.

That's her phrasing. She's a very good job with. But it's we thought, well, no, the master's house is good historically. And even to the to this day, there are still issues that we've had a problem with generating fair access to the house. But why in the world would you want to tear it down? If it's a good place and we haven't let everybody in properly, why would you tear it down as a result of that?

Doesn't make any sense. And what would be what would be the alternative? Well, we say it is equal access to a pile of rubble is not a worthy goal. That's Helen sentence that I'm just so struck. That's really. Yeah, yeah. It's and it's true. The easiest equity to achieve is nothing for everybody. That's like when your when your mom or at least I don't know, my mom got pissed off. I was a precocious child, but I don't know if your mom ever like when you're growing up like you and your brothers or sisters, your friends or whatever, are squabbling over who's going to get however much of the cake or the pie or the dinner or the whatever it is.

A mom finally flips out and nobody gets any. And it's like gone. Right? It's in the trash or something. I think my mom lost it. We're fighting over a pie one time and the whole thing, she'll just throw it out in the yard and was like, there you go. Nobody gets any. And I can go to the birds, I guess. And it's just like that's the easiest path to equity. Nobody gets anything. Just tear it all down and then everybody's equal.

And that's really scary because. It's really hard to build something that's good and to then find ways that are fair to divvy it up, especially when fairness is interpreted differently, if we get into kind of the moral psychology of John High. We see that fairness is interpreted differently by conservatives and by people he describes as liberals. They have a different concept, underlying concept of fairness. It's very difficult to determine what is fair then that's a very hard problem.

So if you're trying to solve a very, very hard problem and you're just frustrated with the problem, the easy thing to do is just throw it away. And that's a that's a catastrophe.

And the other thing is we've done the intellectual labor. We've already figured these things out. You mentioned John Ross before. Rawls have figured this out about to extend the pie metaphor, make it as if your enemy defines your social place. So when I was growing up, when some people I knew may have smoked marijuana, I may have heard of somebody who knew somebody who smoked marijuana. And the way that these scandalous individuals would divide their marijuana was what one would divide it and the other one would choose.

And there's something intrinsically fair about that system. So we we have really a long history of having thought about these things. And what we see now is that Jim is right, that we see people wanting to bring us back to the Stone Age. Right. We see people wanting to destroy systems. We we know that are not perfect, but it's the we view views, the most robust tools and the best thinkers. We've try to falsify notions. We have an infrastructural infrastructure that we've built around these concepts.

And then we have a bunch of people who happen to have platforms or social media and they're trying to rip down and destroy everything. And that itself is, again, what Jim was talking about is deconstruction and political theory problematize.

Yeah, there is another line that jumped out at me from the book that I want to talk about. That's the big black box part and a chapter three is. No, it's not, because that makes Helen really embarrassed and it's good to talk about it as often as possible.

I mean, you have to say more when you have Helen on.

You have to ask her about that. OK, that's a teaser for later. But the part I'm thinking about is you talk about the political principle of postmodernism. Can you summarize that for me? Yeah.

So it's easier if I start actually with both. If I do both principles at once, because you have to understand the knowledge principle to understand the political principle. So we separate we try to summarize themes and principles of postmodernism so you can see consistently how through different eras in its application, it's consistent is still there. Right. Because a lot of philosophers like to argue that postmodernism died in our argument is no, it didn't. It changed. But to do that, you have to say here are the core ideas, core principles, core themes.

Those are mostly maintained with some modification or no modification from one stage to the next. So we all had these two principles of postmodernism, the knowledge, principle and a political principle. And the post-modern knowledge principle is that there's no access to objective truth. Everything is, in fact, radically subjective. If we were to put that as Frico would have, it's that to look at a truth claim as though it matters whether it's true or false in reality, as it corresponds to reality, let's say, is to miss the point that the authentication of a truth claim as true or denial as false as a political process.

So we should interrogate the politics that rose in that circumstance rather than worry about if the thing's actually true or not. Yes, I think people misunderstand what Jim said, Coleman, as meaning there's no objective reality. Right? That's not what that means. That's not what they mean. It means they care about objective reality that Rorty put it. Actually, that reality may be out there, but the truth isn't out there. The truth as a social construct that human beings react.

So that's the knowledge principle. But you can already see where the political principle comes in. If we're going to interrogate that politics, the political principle is that we have to understand knowledge intrinsically as being political. It is the fruit of a political process that then needs to be interrogated. So interrogating the politics that lead to a language or knowledge system is the political principle. And it generally follows that the view was that the powerful in society, whatever that means, are the ones who get to set the stage for the discourse.

They get to decide which statements are true. They are the authenticators of truth, as code put it, and therefore we have to be very skeptical of anything that maintains the dominant view of the world as again, Fucka would put it, in order that we might expand the potentialities of being or the potentialities of living. And so the post-modern political principle is this radical skepticism of the politics that are believed or the power systems that are believed to be at the root of it.

The construction of knowledge.

Yeah, and the line that I thought was so, so clarifying in that I'm going to steal from you, if you don't mind, or whether or not you mind that the view of systems of oppression, systemic racism, being a clear and probably the most often used example, the notion, the distinction between systemic racism rather than the old fashioned individual racism that most people think they understand the meaning of what makes it systemic is that no one in the system is actually has to be a racist in order for the system to produce racist outcomes.

If you linger on that and actually think about it deeply, it's a very puzzling idea because it suggests that the criminal justice system, even if there were not a single racist policeman, judge or prosecutor, could yield or explicitly racist law could yield a racist outcome.

And you call this a conspiracy theory without the conspirators, which I think is is a brilliant way of characterizing it, because that's really what it is. There's an abstract sense that a system is conspiring to produce the outcomes that we see today.

But the burden is never on the person proposing this conspiracy theory to say exactly who is perpetrating it to locate the racial bias.

That's sort of the notion of systemic racism. At least you know how it's often construed.

Right? Right. Yeah. So I actually I talked about this a little bit on Joe Rogan's podcast, and I wrote an essay on new discourses about it, the way that it helps to step out of something so uncomfortable as racism to and as far as discussion can go to really get a sense of how not helpful the systemic jump to systemic thinking is. I mean, we could talk very concretely and say in the usual or the older view or the proper view of racism.

Racism is an action or a belief or an intention, which means you can intervene with an individual or an institution and get them to change those things and do differently, whereas if it's a system, it's very vague and there's no where to stick the finger. But this is this analogy I thought of when I was out walking with my wife on one night on the sidewalk by the road and a car whizzed by a little faster than it should, enough to catch my attention.

And suddenly it hit me. I said, Imagine that you and I were walking, talking to my wife down this street right now. That car had just roared by. And for whatever bad coincidence set of reasons there is to say a broken bottle laying on the sidewalk, the end of it sticking up at an awkward angle. And I step on it and I tripped and my shoulder runs into you and knocks you into the street and you get hit by the car and you die.

OK, who's to blame for this? Where is the fault? And we could start trying to look at different contributors to the situation. And one of them, of course, would be whoever threw the bottle and broke it on the sidewalk. One would be the person speeding up the road in the car. One would be that I hadn't taken enough care in my own walking. One could be that we chose to walk at the time that we did.

Now we're starting to get very vague or that we chose to. There's a cultural bias toward walking during evening hours, which really isn't. Nobody wants to walk in the bright sun because it'll burn you and nobody wants to walk in the dark because it's dark. But there are very few people I know. Young young people like to go out in the night. But when you get older, like I'm going to bed. So, you know, there's all these different things we could say, but we could go with the systemic thinking and we could just focus on the bottle in the car and we could say, well, there's an entire culture that believes in drinking, derives value from drinking, that benefits from the fact that people buy and consume alcohol.

There's an entire economy built around this. And this led to that bottle being broken on the sidewalk through whatever Vagg system of actions that led to somebody's drinking and throwing liquor bottles out their car window and breaking on the sidewalk. However, it happened, but if there was no desire by anybody, if nobody desired to drink, nobody would be drinking liquor, nobody would there would be no liquor. There'd be no reason to drink. There would be no bottle on the sidewalk.

Or if we live in a society where nobody wanted to drive cars, that car could there would be no cars. Nobody would've been ripping up the road in the car at that particular time. And so in a sense, because we are all contributing to an economy where there's liquor and a value system where people drink and enjoy themselves that way. And we all participate in an economy, in a world that's structured around driving cars. Everybody's complicit in that death because we all support that.

We all buy cars. We all think driving cars as normal. We all think drinking is a thing that happens. We all understand. We apologize for the young person who threw the bottle, though. They're young and stupid. They just got wild a little bit. It's unfortunate youth is wasted on the young, but we have all these these excuses to justify that behaviour and excuse that behaviour. But it's this entire system, whole culture that supports liquor and driving and all these things that led to this death.

And you can see immediately when you take it into a situation like that, just how poor a way to analyze a problem that is. And maybe that's a bad analogy, but I haven't figured out why it's a bad analogy yet. But this is this is the nature of the systemic thinking when you read books like Being White, Being Good Bye Bye, Barbara Applebaum. And I may have got that backwards. Maybe being good, being white. I get it mixed up sometimes.

But either way, his 2010 book, you can go read it, Barbara Applebaum is correct and she talks about white complicity. That's the point. That's actually the argument she gives for why all white people are always complicit in racism is that they benefit from the system, just like we all benefit from a society that where there's cars or that we can enjoy the freedom to have liquor and have parties or whatever, whatever it is. And there's an economy built around that we all benefit from the capitalist economy.

This is a very bad analysis of moral responsibility. And any time someone says, well, wait a second hour, has a questioning, then then another phrase is used during epistemic pushback. So there's an infrastructure in place to a very well thought out infrastructure to keep these ideas in play.

Right. So when we now switch back to to racism, you start to see things like with Abraham Kennedy and these very people aren't catching on to Dr Kennedy. He very specifically says that the reason he always talks about policy. Right, we're going to have a racist policy. And how do you know if a policy is racist welfare outcomes that are different for certain races rather than others. And we can get all ugly and say which races count and which races don't and start raising questions about what's going on with that analysis.

But we don't need to even openly says that he's using the word policy in place of the word systemic, the way that it's usually used, because he finds that people get confused by systemic and they understand policy. So he's going to be campaigning on housing. He gives a bunch of examples, but he very explicitly even says that if we find that anti-discrimination, say, like the Civil Rights Act, anti-discrimination produces inequitable outcomes, then that's racist policy and needs to be changed.

But if discrimination would produce more equitable, obviously selective discrimination would produce more equitable outcomes, and that would be anti-racist policy. And so you see what happens when you zoom out. I don't even think it's zooming out. I think it's looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope. It's like you're looking at and you turn this thing around and it's all backwards and you can't see anything and it's all blurry and small. And we look at the problem of racism, say, or sexism or patriarchy or misogyny or homophobia, heteronormativity, you name it.

We look at these problems in a way. We're all we do is say is there is or is there eight different outcomes, you know, a very hillbilly sort of way to look at it. You can't solve the problem. You're not looking at causes. You're not looking at potential solutions. And it's again, I just said it earlier. It's very bad at describing the problems it talks about. It's just not a helpful way. And then it offers horrendous proposals to fix the problem, like Kennedy wanting to set up a constitutional amendment.

And then three, let our government agency that basically scrutinizes all policy and changes everything that doesn't have, as he calls them, equitable outcomes.

So I want to pivot a little bit and talk about how to have conversations with people about all these topics. You know, the people with whom you disagree. This is one of the most common questions I get from listeners to this podcast is people are trying to talk about the news or about the ideas that survive the news cycle with their friends and their family members. And they're afraid of losing friendships, of breaking relationships. And I have enormous empathy for them.

And they often ask my advice.

And of course and of course, Kallman, your advice is to read James, Lindsay and Peter for al-Qaida have a possible conversation. That's right.

That is invariably what I say verbatim. That's the right answer. So I do want to I want to talk about that book. It's called How to Have Impossible Conversations. And it strikes me that, James, your book from, I think five years ago, which is called Everyone's Wrong About God, it's kind of similar thematically because it deals with what atheists and believers, you know, how they're mis communicating when they use the word God differently. So it strikes me that you guys have kind of kind of been dealing with this problem for a while.

So I'll ask the annoying question. Can you summarize your book for me in a few paragraphs so you can take that or make me know that it's all you?

OK, how to have any possible conversations breaks down thirty six techniques that anybody can use to speak across golf's moral golf, physiological golf. They can speak to fanatics. They can speak to nonbelievers about things that they're uncomfortable with. It's a it's really a book of self empowerment and empowering people. It gives them the tools to have conversations that they wouldn't ordinarily be able to have. That's the one sentence thing. But little deeper on that, it draws from multiple domains of thought, hostage negotiation called exiting applied epistemology, everything you could think of.

And we took the best available literature and we summarize those individual discrete techniques that that people can use. Right.

So what you were speaking to just a second ago, Golman the introductory parts of the book, but the book is sequentially written so that there are kind of easier beginner level techniques going up through intermediate expert and advanced and master and all of this. And so the techniques get more difficult in some sense or another as you go. Not necessarily difficult to apply, but it's often difficult to. Apply it to the principles within yourself, like anger management is one of the techniques we talk about further on in the book.

It's very difficult sometimes when you talk about touchy issues or emotional issues not to become upset or to get overwhelmed with emotion. But the beginning part of the book talks about much more basic techniques, listening to one another, learning, establishing rapport, setting goals for the conversation, and making sure you keep coming back to those to avoid getting off an unproductive or damaging tangents to understand the dynamics of conversation. But at the end of the book is where this talking past each other and being able to not being able to understand one another really comes up.

And that's where I drew off of my my readings of moral psychology and talked about in everybody's writing about God a few years ago. So that part is very important. If we want to try to talk with people about social justice or WOAK issues, if we want to call them that, because not only are they speaking a different literal language in the sense that they use the words in English differently, but they are also coming at those words. Everything's morally imbued.

There's always like a hidden connotation or extra meaning to the words that makes it very difficult for people to understand. So you have to be able to get on each other's same page with regard to values in order to have a conversation about these issues. And we use Jonathan Hyde's The Righteous Mind. We've used the really cutting edge techniques and ideas in psychology, in the literature to spell out to people, OK. And there are templates in the book. Someone says this uses that.

You say this, someone says this, and it draws from my first book How to create this. Yeah, that's right. But I mean, you structured it. I mean, you see what happened to 20? You think it's Brainbow or what happens at fifty four? You think, oh my God, I'm going to get Alzheimer's.

OK, so a manual for creating atheists. And one of the things that that did was it drew from conversations with with prison inmates and conversations with the faithful to help people be more reflective about the the means that they used to come to knowledge. But really, I think to to relate that to cynical theories, what we see happening now is and again, this comes from Judith Portaloos, which is the parodies of disruption or some big politics of parody politics.

Thank you. We want to always disrupt. We want to there is no and this is what I was thinking. Kullman when you said that you had a professor and there wasn't a lot of questions because in general, dialogue isn't valued in these places. And as much as they palfry as this book, you as a Brazilian educator, Pedagogy of the oppressed, as much as these folks draw from that, the idea that they want to develop a critical consciousness and this is talked about in cynical theories as well, they don't really value discourse, dialogue, debate, and we don't value that.

You don't see that modeled for you in a classroom. And so the consequence of that is when you hear an idea that runs counter to your own beliefs, you might think it is odious. You might other the people, but you don't know how to engage the idea. So Jim and I wanted to do and how to have possible conversations because we wanted to give people a tool and we don't think it's the solution to anything. But we wanted to give them a tool to empower them to speak across divides.

So when you see a protester, when you see or anyone, you OK with first order of business to figure out what these people believe when we sketch it out, why do they believe this? And it's a basically very gentle it's asking questions and it's seeing if you can it's drawing from Socratic techniques, the Socratic method it's seeing. It's asking them to ask themselves if the beliefs that they hold can stand up to scrutiny. So you're not telling anybody anything?

Yeah. So I think this is really interesting. I've definitely you know, I've had conversations that just go completely, horribly where I feel like I did everything right. And then I feel like there's been conversations that one. All right. Where I was a bit more of a dick than I would want to be. And in retrospect, you know, I've had the full I mean, so much of it comes down to just the two people and the moods that you're in.

But there are definitely ways of improving your likelihood of having conversations not go horribly.

And some of your recommendations, I think, will be maybe counterintuitive to people.

So one of your recommendations is to not cite facts unless it's until it's a last resort. So can you talk about why that makes sense as a way to improve conversations?

I mean, sure, because it's going to give you an example. What happened with the shooter in Kenosha the other night. You don't have to actually answer. You just have to get uncomfortable. What what I know is that there are there are two narratives that different ones of my friends will are completely probably, you know, convinced are right. Let's share that overlap like Venn diagram, but are totally different at their core. Exactly.

So one of the reasons you don't want to bring facts in is because when you actually have people, most people don't think and very rigorous, factual based way as they tend to think in terms of what those facts imply, what stories those facts tell, how they fit into broader narratives of meaning, they fit into broader narratives of consequence. And so what you find in practice is that each side has its own facts. And so you present facts and they say you have the facts wrong.

These are the facts. And then you're shotgun's across the table, as they say. So they have their facts. You have your facts. And then it's like even I was on when I was under Reagan and we started talking about the Michael Brown shooting in 2014. And I presented what I thought was a fact. And he's like, yeah, but is that really what happened? And it's like, well, I don't know crap, you know?

So now it's just nobody move the ball anywhere at all. Instead, what what tends to produce effect is to try to find ways to better understand each other, where you're coming from and the values underlying the discussion so that you can match one another in those regards and that kind of a space, you actually can start to bring up facts and you can start to ask questions like which facts are relevant to having formed your belief on this. And you don't have to then challenge that.

It's just a matter of getting them to kind of list the facts that they think are relevant so that you can better understand their beliefs. And to piggy back off of that, you shouldn't expect reciprocity. Right. Right. Right. You shouldn't expect that they grant you the same courtesies. The bottom line. So in the discussions about faith and religion from my writings and Facebook, et cetera, and the atheists that we did, this is an incredibly counterintuitive idea.

You're correct. And it's the one idea, I think, that's run throughout all of my work that it's almost impossible, if not impossible, to get people to do because everybody just thinks, oh, if someone just had one fact, if they just had one piece of information that changed their mind. But the moment that you get in that mindset, as we talk in the book, you're delivering a message. And the moment that you're delivering a message, you're no longer having a conversation.

So you've gone out of conversation, space, and then any opportunity you had to help them be more reflective has increasingly vanished.

Yeah, I guess the context in which your advice makes sense is that you distinguish between a conversation and a debate. And, you know, frequently the moment we talk about politics, even with a friend we're debating without realizing it, like there's a there's a part of you that is instantly concerned with saving face, with not being made to contradict yourself, with appearing smarter and, you know, better informed. And all of this just you know, you just have this mode you switch into and your book, it's basically advice about how to not get into that mode that you're almost inevitably going to want to get into when you talk about anything that feels important to you.

So that's why some of the advice, I think, is going to feel counterintuitive to people. But I do think a lot of it is good advice if you if you're with people that you deeply disagree with about stuff. But you want to maintain those relationships because, you know, you can't just you know, if you lose half your friends over politics, you know, it's actually harder to make new great friends, you know, than than it might seem.

Yeah, that's really that's really interesting to me. I think that's a manifestation of the sickness of our age. I really do. When I was a kid, my parents had friends from all different political communities and commitments. And Jim has often said to me he thinks one of the most, if not the most important thing in that book is let friends be wrong. And I'm always struck by and I have lost three very, very close friends now because of the stances that I've taken to to have been directly over the grievance.

That is a fair and one has been directly over positions that I've taken on issues in the last year. Subsequent to that, and those were hard for me. And I, I, I understand that there are some things that are just deal breakers. Like I got that. And we all have to make our own make up our own mind as to what those deal breakers are like. I can't be friends with someone if they believe this. Someone just said to me, if they're a Trump supporter, OK, everybody has to make up their own mind for what that is.

But as a general rule, I think we're only made better by having friends who have different opinions. And if your friends only have the same political opinions as you, I would suggest getting an additional group of friends. Yeah, a really good piece of advice that you touched on, Coleman. But there's an old saying for it is that you can't make old friends. And when you. I don't. It's probably about your age not to play that old wise guy thing here, so we can't do it anyway.

I was going to do that to you, Jeff. Yeah, well, it's true, though. You can't make old friends. And when it really sinks in for you, like the first time in your life that that idea really hits you, you're like, oh, crap friends that you've had say from childhood friends that you've maybe had since college. I know that's newer for you, Coleman, but for me is over 20 years ago now. And for Pete, I think it's close to a thousand.

It's you can't make up for that. I talk about it with my wife a lot is that she and I have been together for 16 years. And so if something terrible were to happen and she were to die or we had some massive stupid fight and we were to get divorced, I could not possibly in 16 years I might have somebody who I've been with for 16 years again, but I won't have somebody I've known for thirty two and you can't make old friends is a very profound thing.

And so it's really tragic when you start to see belief sets canceling out friendships. And so letting friends be wrong and trying to maintain that rapport and fearing ideological movements, genuinely fearing ideological movements that drive people to want to split from their their valued relationships is really in mindsets even like that. I'm just going to push the envelope. That is a mindset the friend on Facebook and want to move away from that. Yeah. You know what's amazing to me that I find I wouldn't say unique to this cultural moment, but almost enshrined in this cultural moment is the lack of kindness that I see on the part of many social justice advocates.

These are just not kind people. And kindness doesn't play a role in your movement. I suggest you may want to reflect on the movement.

I mean, it's also I want to say they're very kind within a circle of people that are nominated for that purpose. That.

That's right. That's right. Outside of that circle. Yeah. Parochial altruism is what they call that in the literature. Yeah. So I've had a very a peer and I both have a very bizarre life. I'm sure you have now Coleman in the past year or so, but especially the last maybe six months or four months. And there's been a lot of crossing of the streams, as you might say. Peter and I are now Peter writes a book, a manual for creating atheists as a whole, like Christian evangelical Christian, like war waged on him, whether writing books about how he's a lunatic and all of this literally.

And then now we're we're friends and and speak frequently with and spend free time frequently with profoundly significant members of the Southern Baptist Convention and other religious groups. And, you know, there's this new friends with conservatives. I'm friends with liberals and friendship progressives and friends across the spectrum, except the WOAK don't like me very much. And what I find is and they talk about this in the social justice literature as well, is that there is a thing and the social justice literature referred to as relationship alischa, a form of relationship born and having a friendly relationship.

So what I found is when I talk with my friends say that are religious because we're friends, they're much more willing to listen to my perspective, to consider where I've come from. Exactly. And when I was antagonistic with them as an atheist, I in fact, I'm more likely to move the needle now, as if I were an atheist activist trying to move the needle, which I have no interest in doing, really, by having friends in there who want to in religious circles, who want to listen to me, who want to understand my perspective as clearly as they can rather than us, just call each other names and fight.

And that's that's an old idea in religious literature.

It's come from a branch called relationship evangelism. And I will point out that relationship relationship is deeply problematize. It's considered the worst form of relationship and and not not a true form of ally ship. It's not the way you're supposed to do it because it required you to have a personal relationship to change your mind. So you change your mind for impure, impure reasons. You should have just known better.

All right. Well, thank you guys so much and hopefully have you back another time. Right on the links, should it?