Something You Should Know - The Objective Science of Marijuana & Understanding the Certainty Trap

Episode Date: November 14, 2024

Women apologize more than men. Why is that? This episode looks at the likely reason and it may surprise you. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797610384150 Marijuana has come a long way. A few decades ago, it was considered a very dangerous and illegal drug. Today, recreational use of marijuana is legal in a lot of places and smoking it is just not a big deal. While people have their beliefs about it, what does the science say? What is in marijuana? How has it changed? Is it dangerous or not? Here to tackle all those questions and more is Godfrey Pearlson. He is a psychiatric researcher, physician, and Yale neuroscience professor. He has authored a book on the subject called The Science of Weed: An Indispensable Guide to Cannabis (https://amzn.to/48IZJcF). You know that feeling you get when you know you know you are right and someone else is wrong? In some ways It is maddening but in other ways it feels very satisfying to feel right. Yet, it might also be a sign that you have fallen into the certainty trap. And that can be a problem. Joining me to explain the certainty trap and the dangers it presents is Ilana Redstone. She is a professor of sociology at the University of Illinois at Urbana– Champaign and author of the book, The Certainty Trap: Why We Need to Question Ourselves More―and How We Can Judge Others Less (https://amzn.to/3YEBWGp). Your furnace and central air conditioner are pretty reliable and ask very little of you. But there is one thing those systems really need that a lot of people just don’t attend to. And it could be costing you money and putting strain on the equipment. Listen and I will explain. Source: Jeff May author of My House is Killing Me (https://amzn.to/40HBBoN). PLEASE SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS!!! INDEED:  Get a $75 SPONSORED JOB CREDIT to get your jobs more visibility at https://Indeed.com/SOMETHING  Support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast.  Terms & conditions apply. SHOPIFY:  Sign up for a $1 per-month trial period at https://Shopify.com/sysk . Go to SHOPIFY.com/sysk to grow your business – no matter what stage you’re in! MINT MOBILE: Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at https://MintMobile.com/something! $45 upfront payment required (equivalent to $15/mo.).  New customers on first 3 month plan only. Additional taxes, fees, & restrictions apply. HERS: Hers is changing women's healthcare by providing access to GLP-1 weekly injections with the same active ingredient as Ozempic and Wegovy, as well as oral medication kits. Start your free online visit today at https://forhers.com/sysk DELL: Dell Technologies’ Early Holiday Savings event is live and if you’ve been waiting for an AI-ready PC, this is their biggest sale of the year! Tech enthusiasts love this sale because it’s all the newest hits plus all the greatest hits all on sale at once. Shop Now at https://Dell.com/deals Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a listener to something you should know, I can only assume that you are someone who likes to learn about new and interesting things and bring more knowledge to work for you in your everyday life. I mean, that's kind of what something you should know is all about. And so I want to invite you to listen to another podcast called Ted Talks Daily. Now, you know about Ted Talks, right? Many of the guests on something you should know have done Ted Talks Daily. Now you know about TED Talks, right? Many of the guests on Something You Should Know have done TED Talks. Well, you see, TED Talks Daily is a podcast that brings you a new TED Talk every weekday in less than 15 minutes. Join host Elise Hu. She goes beyond the headlines so you can hear about the big ideas shaping our future. Learn about things like sustainable fashion, embracing your entrepreneurial spirit,

the future of robotics, and so much more. Like I said, if you like this podcast, Something You Should Know, I'm pretty sure you're gonna like TED Talks Daily. And you get TED Talks Daily wherever you get your podcasts. Today on Something You Should Know, the interesting reason women apologize a lot more than men. Then an objective look at marijuana. What it is, how it's changed, and who uses it. About 15% of the. population have used in the last week, and about 45 to 50

percent of adults, we're talking about adults here in both cases, say they've tried at some point in their life. It's the most commonly used illicit substance in the U.S. and Europe at the moment. Also, something important your furnace really wants you to do, and the dangers of falling into the certainty trap. And what that means is it's the feeling of moral outrage, righteous indignation, contempt for somebody who disagrees, particularly on a heated or contentious topic.

All this today on Something You Should Know. What if we could disagree in a way that encouraged empathy, even during an election year, with a new episode of Thread the Needle, a better way to disagree? I'm your host, Dona Shil Dugan. I use my background in journalism and draw from my life experiences

to explore topics that matter to fellow feminists like you. In this episode, activist and professor Loretta Ross charges us to try her calling-in technique. I'm always gonna hold people accountable for the harm that they do. The question is, am I gonna do it with anger, or am I gonna do it with love and grace? And I choose love and grace

because it makes me feel better about myself when I walk through the world that way. You can listen to Thread the Needle on Apple podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. If you're looking for a really good podcast episode to listen to, I'd say you've come to the right place. Welcome to Something You Should Know and we start today with apologies. Perhaps you have apologized to someone today or someone has apologized to you for some reason.

It's a proven fact that women apologize more than men. So why would that be? Well a study in the journal Psychological Science found that over the course of 12 days, women apologized 217 times, men apologized just 158 times. The authors of the study concluded that men were actually just as willing to apologize as women. The difference was that men had a higher threshold for what bothered them. We tend to apologize for something we feel might be offensive or hurtful.

Men and women in general have different levels of sensitivity. A woman might snap at a friend and feel bad and then apologize, while a man might just think, no big deal, he'll get over it. And that is something you should know. Say the word marijuana to people, and you'll hear a lot of opinions. Some people believe it's benign, nothing wrong with it. It's less dangerous than alcohol.

And after all, almost half the states in the US have legalized recreational use of marijuana. Other people will say it's a gateway drug. It damages your brain and affects your behavior in a negative way. I'm sure you've heard all of this before, but what is the objective truth about marijuana? What does the science say about it? That is what Godfrey Perlson is here to reveal. He is a psychiatric researcher, physician,

and Yale neuroscience professor. He's also author of a book called The Science of Weed, an indispensable guide to cannabis. Hi, Godfrey, welcome to something you should know. Mike, very good to be with you. Thank you. So we have two words that get used a lot referring to marijuana, marijuana and cannabis. And they're two different words, so I suspect they mean two different things. But could you clear that up for me? Are they synonymous or do they mean different things? Cannabis is a plant, cannabis sativa, that grows in the wild but has been cultivated by humans for thousands of years, initially

for food, then for fibers, hemp, to make ropes, strong ropes, and then later as an intoxicant. Marijuana is something that was first used in the early part of the 20th century. And marijuana is a slang word that was used by Mexicans spelled with an H rather than a J. And it was re-spelled with a J and used in a pejorative sense, like these evil marijuana uses are corrupting our youth. So because of those connotations, a lot of people in the cannabis research field prefer to use the term cannabis rather than marijuana. So how long? Oh, before I ask that, let me just mention that as you're listening to this, as Godfrey is speaking, if you hear these little pops and clicks, it's in the audio. We have tried everything to get rid of it. Can't get rid of it. It's not too bad or distracting. So, but, but that's what it is.

And we're moving on with it. So Godfrey, how long has marijuana been a thing in society where, Hey, you know, the, these kids over here are smoking it. I mean, when did it become kind of not mainstream, but the fringes of mainstream where people started using it to get high, and those were those kids, and it came with a label. When did all that start?

The way this progressed is that Napoleon's soldiers were in Egypt around 1810. Alcohol was not available because of the culture, but cannabis was. So Napoleon's soldiers began using it. Some of them brought it back to France. So it spread among the elites in Europe as a kind of drug for upper-class people to use for amusement at parties, and then gradually spread to some individuals in the US. It wasn't until around 1900, when waves of Mexican immigrants came to the country as laborers, that they introduced it as a drug that was used by working class individuals for recreation, and that spread to American youth gradually.

So do you have at your fingertips or off the top of your head, you know, the numbers of like how many people have used marijuana or have tried it or, you know, just kind of to frame the picture here? About 15% of the US population have used in the last week and about 45 to 50% of adults, we're talking about adults here in both cases, say they've tried at some point in their life. So this is a very prevalent drug. It's the most commonly used illicit substance in the US and Europe at the moment. Before we go any further, I want to try to get a reading on you. Just for transparency sake, I think it would be good to know that, yes, you're

a researcher and a scientist and all that, but where do you stand on this issue? Are you pro-marijuana? Do you think it's not so good? Are you somewhere down the middle or where? I'd say I'm down the middle. I grew up in the 60s, so I was exposed both to the drug and the propaganda from both sides about it. And I'm a naturally skeptical person. So if something has a good side and a bad side, I'm not going to try and minimize one or exaggerate the other. The image of marijuana has certainly changed over the last several decades when, you know, in the 50s and 60s,

it was associated with hippies and it had this kind of horrible connotation that if you smoked marijuana, this was horrible, you were, it was illegal, you could go to jail, it's gonna ruin your brain. And over time, it's gotten much more socially acceptable. But if it was so bad then, why is it not so bad now? You're correct. A plurality of the US adult population now supports legalizing recreational

cannabis. More people, and in fact, support same-sex marriage. So that's been quite a journey from Nixon in the 70s to the present. And I'd attribute that to a few reasons. One is that people have used it and tried it and found that it had few ill effects. A second thing is that the anti-cannabis movement, and just say no and dare and similar initiatives, so overstated the case against cannabis and demonized it to such an extent that it was clear that much of what they were saying

was incorrect. So people became skeptical of the marijuana is bad message. The other thing is adequacy, first of all, on the part of users, but secondly, on the part of business in terms of companies that want to make a profit from selling cannabis, what people call cannabis or big cannabis analogous to big tobacco. And the other is states in the US that want to have a SIN tax and balance their budgets by selling cannabis in dispensaries that they can tax.

So I think it's a combination of all of those things. What are the dangers of marijuana? Because we've heard for so long it's a gateway drug that, you know, usually you look at people who are on much more serious drugs and really hooked. They started with marijuana. What are the real dangers to marijuana use? Well, some are clearly known and others are suspected, but unclear because not enough research has been done. But the real risks are cannabis use disorder. Basically, people become addicted to the drug

and suffer moderately severe withdrawal symptoms when they quit. So they find it difficult to quit. For teens, the main risk is psychosis. So teenage individuals who smoke high-potency cannabis that contains a lot of THC and smoke it often have an increased risk for developing schizophrenia and allied psychotic illnesses. It's not exactly clear what the magnitude of that risk is, but may raise the odds to maybe three or four times what you'd expect in the population.

Then there are risks from motor vehicle accidents in drivers. Again, compared to alcohol, those risks are not huge, but they're significant. And probably in older people, there are risks of falls just because cannabis does lead to gait instability. Then there are suggestions that it may raise the risk for heart attack and stroke in older individuals and possibly raise the risk for certain kinds of cancers. But that's very, very uncertain,

in part because people tend, in some cases, to smoke cannabis alongside tobacco. I'll use it with other substances. And it's hard from an epidemiologic point of view to separate those things. I've heard that the marijuana that kids smoked in the 60s is very different and much less potent than the marijuana today. Is that a fair statement?

That is a fair statement. So the cannabis we have today is a triumph of selective breeding. Essentially, growers mainly in California, develop stronger and stronger strains of cannabis to contain more and more THC. And as part of the genetics of the cannabis plant, the more you THC you produce, the less CBD there is in there to counterbalance it. So that we have more tetrahydrocannabinol, the chemical in the cannabis plant that is mostly responsible for getting us high, and less of the CBD that may offset THC's effects. But just as a caveat,

if people switch from near beer to whiskey, they don't drink pints of near beer. So they want to get high, so they smoke enough of the cannabis to get them high. So if there's more THC in the plant, then they'll smoke less of the cannabis to get them high. So if there's more THC in the plant, then they'll smoke less of it. So it sounds like, because we also hear about medicinal marijuana, it kind of legitimizes. Oh, well, maybe it could be good for you. But it doesn't sound like it's good for you.

I mean, that all things being equal, you're better off not smoking it than smoking. It doesn't do anything for you. I'd actually push back on that because if we think about other substances that tend to be abused, many of them are analogous to cannabis in that they have a good side and a dark side. So, opioids are still used widely for pain control. In fact, they're the go-to drug for severe acute pain, even in hospitals and orthopedic clinics. And cocaine is still used in eye drops and as an anesthetic drug. So, the fact that a substance is abused in some cases and has ill effects isn't to say that

it doesn't also have good effects. And there is a medicinal side to cannabis and cannabis derivatives. So for example, CBD that we spoke about, one of the main constituents of the cannabis plant, doesn't get people high, but it does have psychoactive effects in calming anxiety. That was recently approved for use by the federal drug administration for treating childhood epilepsy and THC in cannabis may be an effective pain reliever, although the key experiments to look at that in chronic pain have yet to be done in a proper double blind placebo controlled way.

So there may be medicinal benefits to the cannabis plant that are quite separate than its effects as a recreational drug. But if you're just hanging around with your buddies saying, you know, why don't we smoke some marijuana or, you know, maybe we should just go read a book. You probably should go read a book. Yeah, I'd agree with that. But there's a human urge that's built into most of us to alter our mental state. And people have been doing this for millennia, either with mushrooms or with alcohol. So if you have to pick among your recreational drugs, and most people do, then in many respects,

cannabis is a safer drug than alcohol. We are talking about marijuana, and we're talking with Godfrey Perlson. He's a psychiatric researcher and author of the book, The Science of Weed, An Indispensable Guide to Cannabis. Hi, this is Rob Benedict. And I am Richard Spate. We were both on a little show you might know called Supernatural.

It had a pretty good run. 15 seasons, 327 episodes. And though we have seen, of course, every episode many times, we figured, hey, now that we're wrapped, let's watch it all again. And we can't do that alone, so we're inviting the cast and crew that made the show along for the ride. We've got writers, producers, composers, directors, and we'll, of course, have some actors on as well,

including some certain guys that played some certain pretty iconic brothers. It was kind of a little bit of a left field choice in the best way possible. The note from Kripke was, he's great, we love him, but we're looking for like a really intelligent D'Covnay type. With 15 seasons to explore,

it's going to be the road trip of several lifetimes. So please join us and subscribe to Supernatural, then and now. Listen, we all need advice sometimes. to supernatural then and now. finding solutions to problems. Every week on Slate's How To Podcast, a listener comes on our show to receive advice from a world-class expert. It's like free group therapy, and everyone's invited. Look for How To from Slate, wherever you listen to podcasts. So Godfrey, one of the criticisms of marijuana has always been that it is a gateway drug,

that people who end up on harder drugs will frequently tell you that they started with marijuana. And is that a fair criticism? There's an association, but correlation isn't the same as causation. So that nearly everybody who uses harder drugs also started on alcohol and tobacco. So people who are risk takers are going to try what's out there. And I think it's fair to say that the majority of people who try recreational cannabis do not progress to more addictive or more harmful drugs. So epidemiologically, there's solid evidence for that. So the joke that I hear from my cannabis using research subjects is if cannabis is a gateway drug,

it's a gateway to your refrigerator because of the munchies. Yeah, what about the munchies? When epidemiologists have looked at people who use cannabis regularly, you'd expect that they would be couch potatoes who are eating snack foods and eating Cheetos and Doritos while watching TV or playing video games and gaining lots of weight. But in fact, the average user loses a small amount of weight for reasons that we don't quite understand.

Since the rules have changed and loosened up, I would assume that attitudes have as well. Have there been surveys? What do people think about this topic? Is there still a big push to keep it outlawed, or have people said, yeah, whatever? Partly that's a generational effect, but exactly as you say, attitudes have shifted.

And the modal attitude now in surveys is that cannabis is a safe drug with no harms, which is quite incorrect since as you and I have discussed, there definitely are harms that should not just be disregarded. But people have convinced themselves in general in the US population that cannabis is harmless. So that women, for example, feel increasingly comfortable using it to combat nausea and vomiting in pregnancy, which I think is a horrible decision. Or teenagers feel that it's a safe drug to use, which again, in that particular group

who's at risk for psychotic symptoms, again, is a very bad decision. We just have to not exaggerate the risks though, because scare tactics don't work. Yeah. Well, it sounds like what you're saying is much like someone in your position would talk about alcohol. It's not going to go anywhere. So it's here, so let's maybe take a more grown-up approach to it, rather than try to hide it under the rug

and pretend it's horrible and not here, because it is here. And people use it. A lot of people use it. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. And people have taken risk mitigation strategies to reduce the harms of alcohol very consciously in terms of social engineering. So, for example, in Scotland, there were problems with drunkenness and intra-familial abuse and fights and so on, violence that were directly attributable to excessive alcohol use. And alcohol was readily available cheaply in very large containers in supermarkets. So, the Scottish authorities decided to put a hefty tax on that. So alcohol was less

available. And all of those statistics on fights and violence within a year dramatically reduced. So just by sensible social policies and controlling price points, you can have a huge effect on what people use. The other side of that, though, is if you price the drug out of the market, people just go back to dealers and away from dispensaries and away from a supply of cannabis that's been vetted in some way in terms of content and contaminants. So you can't push too hard on that. Nevertheless, social policy can really control drug use and moderate harms. Talk about what marijuana does to people, particularly for people who have never smoked it. You might assume that it's analogous to drinking alcohol. But when people drink, people react differently.

There are mean drunks and happy drunks. And what is it that marijuana does to you? Or is it like that, where it depends on who you are and it does different things? For those people who haven't tried it, what would they get if they did? Dr. People who use cannabis will recreationally will just have a sense of pleasant relaxation. They'll chill out, they'll relax, they may become more reflective, feel they're being more creative.

They'll become more giggly and find things funny or silly, and their sense of time will be distorted. So musicians who like to improvise find cannabis a useful drug because they can see the space in between the notes. So there are positive effects, but for some people it's a drug that immediately produces anxiety, and in some cases paranoia.

And they're people who are not repeat customers, people who get anxious and paranoid are just not going to use the drug again. But it's not like there are mean drunks. People may become disinhibited, but it's not a drug that generally provokes violence in the way that alcohol does. That's less of an association with cannabis. It doesn't increase impulsivity to the degree that alcohol does. So, for example, we've done experiments where we've challenged people with either alcohol acutely or cannabis acutely in the lab and have them drive on a driving simulator. People who are mildly drunk with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.1, will speed up on corners and

drive really fast and ignore warnings, whereas people who are intoxicated on cannabis will weave more, be aware that they're intoxicated and drive a bit more slowly. So they're still involved more in crashes, but not nearly as much as alcohol and for very different reasons, because different drugs have different psychological effects on people as you intuit it. 2.1 Well, I have certainly learned more from this discussion about marijuana than I ever knew before. I'm not someone who partakes, so I haven't had the big urge to understand it and research it and learn more about it.

But I know an awful lot of people who take it and who like it. So I'm glad we had this discussion so I could learn more about it. Gottfried Pirlson has been my guest. He is a psychiatric researcher, physician, and neuroscience professor at Yale University and author of the book, The Science of Weed, An Indispensable Guide to Cannabis. And there is a link to his book in the show notes. Thank you for coming on today and talking about this, Godfrey.

Ladies and gentlemen. What are you doing? What do you mean? I'm making our- Just keep it simple. I'm making the promo. Just keep it simple. Just say, hey, we're the Braav Bros, two guys that talk about Bravo.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, we're the bra bro's two guys to talk about Bravo Ladies and gentlemen boys and girls. We're the bra bro. No Dude, stop with the voice. Just boy. It's simple. I've seen promos on TV, dude This is how you get the fans and engage. This is how you get listeners We're trying to get listeners here if we just say oh, we're two dudes that talk about Bravo people get tired of it Already, we need some umph. All right, then fine. Let's try to do it with your voice. Bravo bros, good job. I wanna tell you about a podcast I really like and I think you'll like it too.

It's called The Gist. Now The Gist is the longest running news and commentary podcast out there. The host, Mike Peska, puts out these very interesting arguments and asks great questions of his guests, which often get him some great, interesting, and sometimes unusual answers. Just to give you a sampling, a couple of recent guests include the Pixar and Saturday Night Live writer who got an early version of AI, which convinced him that computers were going

to be able to replace comedy writers within five years. He spoke with a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who realized he was being lied to by scientists to throw him off the scent of the COVID Lab League theory and the paleontologist who had to lose 50 pounds so he could squeeze through this narrow crevice so he could see in person the 250,000 year old bones of a species that he discovered. If any of this sounds interesting, and trust me, this is really an interesting podcast, listen to The Gist wherever you listen to podcasts. wherever you listen to podcasts. There is a feeling I know you have felt. It is that feeling you get when you know you're right.

Even though there may be another side to the story, you are, without a doubt, certain in your position. Nothing could change your mind. You might even be outraged that other people think you're wrong because you in fact know they're wrong. I can't imagine not having had that feeling at some point in your life. And that feeling is what we're about to discuss with Ilana Redstone. She's a professor of sociology at the University of Illinois and author of the book, The Certainty Trap, Why We Need to Question Ourselves More

and How We Can Judge Others Less. Hi, Alana, welcome to Something You Should Know. Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. So let's start by you expanding on what I just said about the certainty trap and what it is exactly. The easiest way to understand the certainty trap is to think about how we feel when we're in it.

And what that means is it's the feeling of moral outrage, righteous indignation, contempt for somebody who disagrees, particularly on a heated or contentious topic. And that comes from a couple of different things, including treating our knowledge, sort of what we know as definitive rather than provisional. It can come from treating our preferred, say, policy as having all benefits and no costs, treating complex situations as though they're simple. Any and all of the above are just examples.

Being certain about some things seems like it would be a good idea because you can't wonder and think, well, what about, on everything? You have to, I mean, I'm pretty certain my pen is blue. I'm not really gonna debate that with you. I think that's right. I think that there's no reason that we should all

be wandering around just in some kind of philosophical stupor all day. And so there are things that are just, they're not worth debating. And so one of the distinctions I think that's important here is the certainty and then the trap. So the trap part is the contempt and then the trap. So the trap part is the contempt because of the implications that it has for our,

particularly for our political conversation, but not all certainty is what I'm treating as a trap, if that makes sense. It does seem though that human beings are kind of wired to make judgments about things and people, and we size up people and to make judgments about things and people and we size up people and we make judgments about them and the things they're saying and that kind of seems like human nature. I think you're right. I think it is. I think it is human nature. I think that ultimately

I'm asking people to do something that does go against arguably human nature. It feels good to be morally outraged. It feels good to be righteously indignant. I'm trying to help people understand that this has implications for our political conversation, for political polarization, for how we get along, for social trust. We can then make choices about how we want to move forward. I think we're better off doing that once we understand what those choices imply. So help me understand the moral outrage part of this, because you could take a politically

charged topic like abortion. Somebody could be pro-life, and somebody could be pro-choice, and they could be very convinced that they're right, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're outraged by the other person. You believe what you want to believe. I believe what I want to believe. But I'm not outraged by your wanting to believe what you want to believe I believe what I want to believe but I'm not outraged by your

Wanting to believe what you believe I think that's a great efforts I think it's a great example. And so this is the distinction between the certainty and the trap so the the Problem that I'm trying to solve for is really viewing people who disagree with contempt So if you're as you're describing with with respect to abortion, live and let live, I have my position, you have yours, then that's not necessarily a problem of contempt. I can give you a different example.

Let's say I'm pro-choice and I'm viewing someone who is, depending on how I wanna phrase it, they are pro-life or anti-choice. And let's say that instead of kind of thinking, well, I have this opinion, you have that opinion, and we're on different sides of this, I now think that you're a misogynist who is trying to control my body, right?

That's a different way of coming at that topic where I'm making assumptions about someone's intent, their motives, et cetera, rather than sort of the first scenario which you described which is I have my opinion and you have yours. And the certainty trap, what I'm saying in the certainty trap is not necessarily that our assumptions are wrong.

I don't have a crystal ball that tells me what's going on inside someone's mind, but it's telling me, it should be telling us to be willing to stop and question the assumptions that we're making and ask ourselves, could we be wrong and what would it mean if we were? So interestingly when I first saw your book and this topic I didn't think it was about that. I

thought it had more to do with more everyday day-to-day stuff that we judge other people and the things they say not about politics so much but you know it and it starts in school like the kid who doesn't have such nice clothes people make fun of that kid and and bully him or her and that and and and then take what they say with a grain of Salt because they're not as cool as the cool kids are and it's more that than it is These very specific highly charged political conversations? It is that, it's that as well. And so, and I'll give you an example sort of just from

where that, what that can look like. So when I was having a conversation just a couple of weeks ago with a friend of mine who was in an argument with her husband and the argument was about, they were, it started out about just a difference of opinion in parenting styles. in an argument with her husband. And the argument was about, they were, it started out about just a difference of opinion and parenting styles. Anyway, it ended up getting to be a fairly heated argument. And to the point where he had, he was planning to cancel

a guy's weekend trip that was coming up. And he felt that she should cancel a work trip that was the following weekend. Basically they should focus on the marriage, et cetera. As she's telling me this, and I'm listening to her, my first thought is, wow, that feels really unfair. Like his treating, his guy weekend is not the same thing as your work trip that you rarely,

she rarely takes work trips. And that feels really, in my head, I was thinking that feels really controlling and manipulative. This is what I was thinking about him, for better or for worse. So then a couple of days later, she comes back and they've talked and she said, you know what? He's really concerned about us taking time away from the marriage while we're not really on solid ground, while we're not on solid footing, whether that means the increased likelihood of infidelity or just that it could create distance between the two of them. And suddenly the assumptions that I

had jumped to about him being manipulated, feeling sort of manipulative and controlling, I had to, I was stopped in my tracks and I was sort of like, wow, I can see how he got there. I can see how he, whatever I originally thought about his decisions about canceling travel and work trips, when she said that, I could see, wow, I see how he could get there in a way that has nothing to do with being manipulative, being controlling, it's just out of concern for their marriage, etc.

That's the difference between being in the certainty trap and out of it. Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes sense. My example that I was thinking about was, because I see this all the time, of people who are so dismissive of, say, the guy, the homeless guy who needs five bucks for whatever he needs it for. And people, you know, don't even see those people or dismiss them because of their appearance, because they, they're homeless. They make assumptions about them. And I'm more the person that goes up and talks to them and gives them

a little money and tries to hear their story a little bit. But most people are very certain that that is the dregs of society and stay away. Yeah. I think that's right. I mean, I think that example works too. I think all of those conclusions that we draw about people that allow us to, as you said,

I mean, I think the word dismissive is really apt here, to just sort of be dismissive, to look the other way. You know, another example I can think of would be when I'm, I used to be the person on the plane who would get annoyed at children who were crying, particularly babies who were crying, right? This was years ago before I had kids. Right, it's always before you have kids, right?

It's always before you have kids. And I would think, oh my gosh, you know, like what does this person do? Like how is this parent, you know, whatever the situation is, like there must be something that they could be doing that would keep that child quiet and they're not doing it

because they just don't care about, you know, how much it's bothering other people. And then, you know, when I had kids and I was the person holding the crying child on the long flight and I had no idea what else I could do to try and quiet the child, like I'd done everything and I could imagine and I could I could easily imagine that there were other people on that flight that were viewing people that were, excuse excuse me that were viewing me the same way I had viewed others in those years before. That's certainty. That's that's the way it's about how we judge people. And doesn't it seem that lately, like in the past, I don't know, 10, 20 years or so, there's been more of that certainty and less of the, less of the open-mindedness that, you know, before,

two people on opposite sides of an issue and opposite sides of anything could still talk and be friendly, but now it's, now we've thrown in this moral outrage piece that prevents that from happening because you're wrong and I'm right rather than we just disagree. It does seem to me like, I mean, I'm 51. It does seem to me like it has, it is worse in the last say 20 years. I think there are, you know, people have a lot of theories about why that's the case, include, you know, people have a lot of theories about why that's the case, include, you know, social media is one of the things that is often mentioned.

Social media rewards, if what you're trying to do is build a following, social media tends to reward outrage. So that creates an incentive. I don't mean to say that that's the only factor, but I think it's probably one of them. And I also think that there are, there have been changes in how we think about education, what's true about the world, and how we treat that information that has shifted in the last 20 years. What I see, and you see this in politics mostly, or at least most clearly, is when a person holds a position and then someone who disagrees with that position not only disagrees with the position, but then attacks the person for thinking what they think.

Because you think that, you're an idiot. And God, it didn't used to be like that. Right, it's that idea that the person who disagrees with me must be an idiot or hateful in some way. That's the problem that I'm trying to solve with the certainty trap. And it doesn't mean that you can't say, this is right, this is wrong, this is good, and

this is bad. What it means is you need to be clear about it and clear about what those principles are that are sort of driving your opinion. And that means, kind of as you were saying, that means not attacking someone's character. Well, what I wonder is what is the motive here? Because no one actually believes that if I'm morally outraged and call you an idiot for thinking what you think, I'm not gonna change your mind.

If anything, I'm gonna make you dig your heels in more. So what's the goal here? Why the moral outrage? It doesn't work. Somebody can't post something on Facebook and attack a whole group of people and go, there, that should fix that. They'll change their minds now.

No, they won't. Nobody will. It's a good question. I mean, so I don't want to sound like I think there's one goal that sort of answers that question equally for everybody. I can give you one answer though. So I'm in the sociology department at the University of Illinois and sociology, higher

education just on the political spectrum, I'm not saying anything new here, higher education leans left. Sociology within higher education is one of the disciplines that leans left within higher education. So that tends to be the orientation of a lot of the students that I see, for example. They, I would not say that when I interact with students, I would not say that their goal is necessarily to change minds. And I'm generalizing, there's obviously variability within students. I would say that they genuinely feel certain and believe that they are doing the right thing when they are saying, this is wrong, this is hateful, et cetera.

Right, like I think that it comes from, at least from what I've seen, not necessarily an instrumental goal of saying, I'm gonna tell you you're racist and then you're gonna change your mind, but a feeling that I need to call this out when I see it. And that's my, maybe they wouldn't word it this way, but that's my, maybe they wouldn't word it this way, but that's my moral duty.

Yeah, but to what end? But nothing comes of it. So big deal. Right. Well, part of that is, well, I don't even actually, I'm not even sure I agree with that. I don't think nothing comes with it. I think, sorry, nothing comes of it. I think that what comes out of it is more extremism, more polarization, more, more contempt, etc. Like I think that what comes out of it is more extremism, more polarization, more contempt, et cetera. Like, I think what comes... And so part of what I'm trying to do is help them understand that that's part of what's going on.

So I don't think if what you mean by nothing, you know, what comes out of it, yeah, what comes out of it in terms of, as you started to say, changing minds, like making the world a better place, that I don't think is where it ends up. I think it has all of these other consequences. So in other words, I don't think that that kind of behavior is neutral. I think it has negative consequences

that I'm trying to help people understand. Yeah, well, I think you're probably right about that because when I become dismissive of you, people get defensive and dismiss back. So now the dismisser is dismissing the dismisser. It's a lot of... And it just churns the pot. It just churns and churns and makes it worse. It does. And it has all kinds of implications for, again, like I sort of said this, but for extremism, for pushing people to further to extreme positions, for how we use terms like racist, transphobic, etc. to condemn ideas and all of what that means with the social consequences

that go along with it in terms of cancel culture and everything else. It's all sort of folded in to this idea of certainty and how we think about contentious topics. Really, that's the sort of through line between it. And so what is the prescription? If you think you're perhaps it. And so what is the prescription if you think you're perhaps in the certainty trap? I mean, what is it you would like to see people start doing? I would love to see people start out. So one of the things that I'll ask people to do is pick your some issue that you think and you think the person who has a different idea from you it has to be it's it's

odious it's objectionable it's hateful it's it's only a some kind of moral monster would hold that opinion and for different people it will be different topics so whatever it is for you and you can do this sitting in a room by yourself pick that issue and challenge yourself to try and come up with a version of that person's opinion, the one that you find objectionable, that would make sense to you. And I mean something really specific by make sense. I mean that you can't hang on an assumption about their intent or that they just don't have the right information.

So I call these, I have names for these fallacies, the fallacy of equal knowledge and the fallacy of known intent. So pick the objectionable point of view, try and come up with a version of that, like how the person could get to that point of view that makes sense to you. And I'll just say this again, by make sense, you're not hanging it on an assumption about their intent or that they just don't have the right information. Most of the time, for most issues, just going through that process helps people understand, wow, okay, I get it,

there's a different way of thinking about this. Then you can ask yourself the question, if you encounter somebody who has that view that you find objectionable, okay, well, maybe it's because they're hateful or stupid or whatever, but I actually also came up with this other possible explanation over here

that I did on my own. How do I decide which one? That's destabilizing certainty, right? So now you have two possible explanations and you can ask yourself, how likely do I think one is versus the other and why and et cetera. If you can't, there will

always be some issues where you cannot come up with, there's no version of, you know, the pro slavery argument that I think is reasonable to me. When that happens, your commitment in avoiding the certainty trap is to being very clear about what kind of bedrock principle you're bumping up against. So in the slavery example, it might be something like, I think all lives have equal moral value, or I think no human being should enslave another. And naming that principle in a way and using language that somebody who disagrees with you would understand. Does that make sense? Yeah, that makes sense. And I really appreciate having this conversation because it makes you think about what you think, about what other people think and how to bridge the gaps and

understand. I've been speaking with Ilana Redstone. She's a professor of sociology at the University of Illinois and author of the book, The Certainty Trap, Why We Need to Question Ourselves More and How We Can Judge Others Less. And there's a link to that book at Amazon in the show notes. Thanks, Alana. Well, thank you so much. If you have central air conditioning or forced air heating, there's a pretty good chance those systems are not filtering out all the junk in the air that they should, according to Jeff May, who's author of a book called My House is Killing Me.

In surveys, many people don't use the right kind of filter or change the filters often enough. The cheapest and easiest way to improve the air quality in your home is to get a really good disposable filter. The best kind is a pleated filter rated Merv 8 or higher. Jeff says you can get them at most big home improvement stores or hardware stores. And he recommends that you don't pay extra for the filters that are washable and reusable. Stick with disposable. Experts say there's no way to really get those other ones clean.

Replacing filters every three months will give you cleaner air and save you money. Dirty filters force your system to work harder. And that is something you should know. You know what would be great? It would just be great if you would just take a moment and tell someone else you know about this podcast and make a suggestion that they give it a listen. It helps us to grow our audience and every podcaster wants their audience to grow.

So please help us out and share something you should know with someone you know. I'm Mike Carruthers. Thanks for listening today to Something You Should Know. Hi, I'm Laura Cathcart-Robbins, and I am the host and creator of the podcast, Only One in the Room. Every week, my co-host, Scott Slaughter, and I invite you to join us and lose yourself in someone's incredible only one story. We talk to real people dealing with issues like infertility, the death of a loved one, human trafficking, and women who, um,

fake it. Oh, and we want to be fair, so we talk to celebrities too. Emmy winners like actor John Cryer, supermodels like Amber Valletta, and rock stars like Ryan Dusick. Everyone is invited to share their only one story with our listeners. With 21 seasons and counting, we guarantee you that Only One in the Room has a story that you'll connect with. This podcast is for anyone who has ever felt alone in a room full of people, which is to say that this podcast is for everyone. Download Only One in the Room on Apple or Spotify today. Hi, I'm Jennifer, a co-founder of the Go Kid Go Network. At Go Kid Go, putting kids Spotify today. about a spirited young girl named Isla who time travels to the mythical land of Camelot. During her journey, Isla meets new friends including King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table, and learns valuable life lessons with every quest, sword fight, and dragon

ride. Positive and uplifting stories remind us all about the importance of kindness, friendship, honesty, and positivity. Join me and an all-star cast of actors including Liam Neeson, Emily Blunt, Kristen Bell, Chris Hemsworth, among many others in welcoming the Search for the Silver Lining podcast to the Go Kid Go Network by listening today. Look for the Search for the Silver Lining on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts.