Ten Percent Happier with Dan Harris - How To Improve Critical Thinking Embrace Uncertainty And Stop Self Censoring Jenara Nerenberg

Episode Date: January 11, 2026

Plus how to speak up and challenge your own tribe, how to successfully engage with people you disagree with, and more.   Jenara Nerenberg is a journalist and author. Her latest book is called Trust Your Mind: Embracing Nuance in a World of Self-Silencing. She holds degrees from the Harvard School of Public Health and UC Berkeley. She lectures widely on rhetoric, psychology, neurodiversity, sensitivity, innovation and communication.  In this episode we talk about: The phenomenon of groupthink—and its health implications The health implications of self-censoring Vulnerability in the age of social media The role of comedy in pushing back against social norms Sign up for Dan's newsletter here Follow Dan on social: Instagram, TikTok Ten Percent Happier online bookstore Subscribe to our YouTube Channel Our favorite playlists on: Anxiety, Sleep, Relationships, Most Popular Episodes  

This is the 10% Happier Podcast. I'm Dan Harris. Hello, everybody. How are we doing? In my opinion, one of the biggest problems we face in this country, by which I'm referring to America, and this is also true in many other parts of the world. One of the biggest problems is that the public conversation has become increasingly and impossibly toxic and corrosive. There are many aspects to this, but one of them is that we tend to exist in our own media echo chambers, where our priors and our biases are reinforced and rarely challenged. The image that comes to mind for me is like a murmuration of starlings, you know when all the little birds instinctively flow as a pack, which can be beautiful in nature, but deeply unhelpful when it comes to a functioning democracy.

We really are in a precarious and combustible moment. We have huge groups of people who detest one another often based on incomplete understandings of the other side's point of view. There's a surplus of confidence and certainty and outrage and a dramatic, and I would argue, dangerous lack of empathy and basic curiosity. So today, we're going to talk about how to develop your critical thinking skills. We're also going to talk about how to get comfortable with uncertainty, how to stop self-censoring and self-silencing, how to speak up and challenge. members of your own tribe, how to successfully engage with people with whom you disagree, and much more. My guest today is Janara Nirenberg, who's a journalist and author. Her latest book is called Trust Your Mind, Embracing Nguense in a World of Self-Silencing.

Before that, she wrote another book called Divergent Mind, thriving in a world that was not designed for you. Janera holds degrees from the Harvard School of Public Health and UC Berkeley, and she lectures widely on rhetoric, psychology, neurodivor. sensitivity, innovation, and communication. In this conversation, we talk about lots of stuff that I have already mentioned, but a few other things just to say

by way of teasing the contents of this show. We talk about the phenomenon of group think and its health implications. We also talk about the health implications of self-censoring, vulnerability in the age of social media, the role of comedy in pushing back against social norms, and much more. Before we get started,

I just want to let you know about something. Very cool that we're going to be doing in the second half of May. We are going to be doing a live meditation mini-series each weekday from Monday, May 19th to Friday, May 23rd at 4 p.m. Eastern. I will be leading a short guided meditation, and then I'll be taking your questions. The whole mini-series is going to center around a set of practices that I often refer to as the Buddhist antidote to anxiety. And I'm not making this up. One of the key practices that I'll be teaching is loving-kindness meditation, which the story. goes was invented by the Buddha to help his monks who were dealing with a lot of fear. And loving

kindness is part of a family of four related practices known as the Brahma Viharas or the divine abodes. I will admit, when I first encountered these practices which are designed around cultivating loving kindness, compassion, something called sympathetic joy and also equanimity. When I first ran into these practices, I was, as you might imagine, a little reflexively judgmental and dismissive. But I have really come to embrace these practices in a huge way over time, and they've had a massive impact on my life. And, by the way, they've now been studied quite extensively in the labs and have been shown, particularly loving kindness practice, to have physiological, psychological, and even behavioral benefits. Anyway, this is all happening over at danharris.com.

Like I said, Monday through Friday, the week of May 19th, like any good drug dealer, the first dose will be free, so Monday's session will be open to everybody. And then for the rest of the week, you have to be a paid subscriber. So head on over to danharris.com and check it out. We'll get started with Janara Nirenberg right after this. Janara Nirenberg, welcome to the show. Thank you so much for having me. Pleasure.

Okay, so the title of the book is Trust Your Mind. What does that mean, trust your mind? That is a great question. I think it's a little bit provocative intentionally, but I, for the past few years, went through this long process, diving into how do we develop critical thinking. So I think the message of trust your mind really reflects arriving at a point where we can trust our minds after really learning how to question group think and develop our critical thinking skills. Why did you get interested in this subject?

Or how? I've been a journalist for a long time. My background is in public health and political theory. My first book was about neurodiversity. And that book was very well received. And I've had amazing support. At the same time, I, after many years, started noticing some really extensive group think happening across all forms of social movements, especially online, the social media space. I became very concerned by the way we were over categorizing people and relying on categorizations and our ability to see one another as unique individuals seem to be very, very diminished. And this was outside of the neurodiversity space just across the board. I had had my own experience of organizing a conference, actually, and I was kind of mobbed a bit online by people who didn't agree with the

speakers I chose, and this was way back in 2019. And I just thought, like, wow, there's so much nuance missing, and there's so many people who are doing good work in the world with very good hearts and yet online, it just seems like we're a huge mess. So after many years, this set me on a journey of thinking about, well, what is the psychology of group think? The through line and all my reporting has been psychology. That's what sent me on this journey. Did you see the Ezra Klein column in the New York Times about NPCs? I don't think I saw that one. Okay, well, good, because that gives me a chance to recapitulate it for you. NPC is a term that my 10-year-old uses a lot because he plays video games. It's a non-player character. So if you are in a video game,

you're a character who has agency, but the world is populated by non-player characters. And this has become an epithet often on the right for liberals who engage in group think. Now, Ezra was making the point that there are a lot of NPCs on the right as well. But in his essay, he did concede that on the left, there is a point to be made that there is a group think that sets in. In other words, what he was trying to say is very similar to what you're saying, which is that no matter where you are on the spectrum, there seems to be an increasing susceptibility, although I'm not sure it's increasing, but there's surely, and you can tell me whether it's increasing, but there's surely a bipartisan susceptibility to group think. Absolutely. You know, I grew up in the

Haydashbury in San Francisco and went to UC Berkeley. And that's really my. my grounding in the world for how I see the world, right? I grew up in a very diverse, multi-faith, multi-party, multi-class neighborhood and family. I thought that that's what it meant to be like a liberal, open-minded thinker. And I think what became really challenging for me and observing a lot of the modern social movements on the left, to be honest, was just that it got too narrow-minded and too out of hand. So I feel like this book, in some ways, is a love letter to the left through the form of critique and saying, where did we go wrong? Why can't we hold space for unique individual thoughts within all these groups? I think the left has been such a powerful

force in championing marginalized communities, but then when we only see people as a group, I think we really lose the plot. And there's, of course, a lot of, a lot to be said about group think on the right, particularly when it comes to the influence of religion. But on the left, I think we've really, really struggled with this. And I think what started out as something really good and really positive to want to champion people has ultimately blinded us. And so we hardly ever see nuance in our discussions anymore. We hardly ever see like an assessment of people and human beings as individuals, whether we're talking about a We're a divergent community, the trans community, the black community.

There's diversity of thought within all of these groups. And that's the place that we need to get back to. Just in the presidential election, we've just come through, there was all this shock, shock on the left that people who are traditionally thought of as monolithic, democratic voting blocks, Hispanics, which, by the way, is an absurd category in some ways because there's so much diversity of, you know, a Cuban. and a Mexican and a Costa Rican, there's going to be massive cultural differences in political and philosophical differences. Black voters voted for Trump in higher numbers than we had seen. So there's a kind of expectation some precincts on the left and maybe also in the center or on the right that people are going to engage in group think. But in fact, there's way more nuance than you might think. Absolutely. Yeah. There's way more nuance. And I don't know.

know, I think the internet, the algorithms, social media has all, it sort of created this swirl that has kind of funneled people into at least performing like they all think alike. But then I think after so many years, it really is at the point where people are no longer questioning themselves and they really are starting to think all alike until you pull back and you have to sort of take assessment of, okay, what do you. I really think about this? Do I believe this? Am I just posting this because my so-called group is also posting this? I think the role of the internet and social media really can't be underestimated here. Do you think that social media is degrading critical thinking writ large

or just in this one area of group thinking? I think social media has given us many incredible things. Again, I've reported so much on the psychology space. So I will say that, although I think that the whole concept of like pop psychology, there are a lot of errors there, and I'm actually critical of it in the book. I just in the last year to actually think that people have sort of, because social media is so oversaturated, people are actually finally starting to really get into nuance. I'm starting to see podcasts pop up in the therapy space that are actually called like nuanced something. So I think that Group Think has been an issue across the board with social media.

I do see pockets where that is slowly being undone. But I think by far the biggest damage we've seen is in the area of identity and how we see each other and how we categorize each other. And I just think that that has really stripped us of being able to connect. I think it's contributed to the loneliness crisis. And I just think it's frankly sad and scary that we've lost the ability to just assess the person in front of you as an individual. I think it's really sad. You may have just answered it.

But when you say that group think and the degradation in our capacity for critical thought, it has contributed to the loneliness crisis, can you just unpack that a little bit more? Sure. So I think the way that social media, the way that algorithms play and thrive off of outrage, combined with, you know, of course, the long pandemic period and people sort of being removed from one another. But mostly, I think the way we have limited people's conceptions of one another to these really broad strokes of who that person is because they belong. in such a group? Well, it's that combined with a fear of speaking up, right? So the subtitle of the book is embracing nuance in a world of self-silencing, right? So it's this over-categorization of human beings. It's the algorithms that thrive on outrage. And then it's this very core, private, intimate

experience of fear and terror, of saying the wrong thing, of being canceled, of getting something wrong of being fired, being attacked by a friend or a colleague online, this whole mess, this whole set of circumstances has contributed to the loneliness crisis. There's no doubt about it. I think if we're all so tight and in fear of saying the wrong thing or asking a question, there's no way that human beings can connect with one another because friction and tension are part of life, and they're frankly part of connection and love and getting to know someone and feeling close to someone. So if that nuance has been stripped away, if the curiosity has been stripped away, how on earth can we expect each other to feel connected? And especially if the

potential for honesty has been degraded by self-silencing, real relationship becomes impossible. It becomes just performance. And I agree with you, conflict is part of relationship. And if you are so afraid of conflict because the consequences can be so grave and we see it online, not infrequently. It's very hard to really have a true relationship with somebody. I remember a conversation I was having several years ago. Pre-pandemic, it was probably 2019, we're really in a moment of a lot of online fervor around identity politics, et cetera, et cetera. And I'm not saying that's all bad, but it can have some negative externalities some of which you've just enunciated.

I remember I was having a conversation one day with a friend of mine, Seven A. Salasi, who's a meditation teacher of color, who was teaching a course online that I was taking about the Dharma or the Buddhist take on race. Seb is incredibly nuanced. And I remember one day sort of complaining to her about some of the, what I thought was the performativity in some of the group sessions because I think people were scared. And she said to me, you can say whatever you want to me, because I'll never kick you out of my heart. That's a real relationship.

Absolutely. That's beautiful. I think that that's a great take. And I'm familiar with some of her work. I think we just need more of that. I think that we need to open our hearts again to nuance and to being okay, feeling questioned and frankly develop the tools as well that come with the uncertainty, right? The uncertainty of being asked a question or the uncertainty of putting yourself out there and asking someone else the question. So I love that exchange between the two of you. To your credit, this book is filled with practical tools. Before we get to that, though, just staying on a sort of higher level. Is there data to show that critical thinking is on the decline? Is there any way to demonstrate this empirically? I didn't really look at wide surveys around the current state

of group think or like a dearth of critical thinking. There is extensive debate and discussion. within the education community about how to teach critical thinking. Does the teacher just model it? Do you ask explicit questions to help provoke critical thinking? So there's a debate happening in the education community. What I really focused on in the book is how group identity forms, how group think forms, the psychology of group think, how to recognize when you yourself are sort of playing into group think. And so we have a lot of key markers around that. The research shows that people who have very high degrees of self uncertainty are more drawn to groups and group identity and group thing that offers some kind of strong sense of identity. And that makes sense, right?

A person is sort of unsure of themselves. They're going to be drawn to something that purports to offer certainty about the world. We also know that groups are stickier. They're what's called entity levels. Things like ritual, vocabulary, dress. Like there's all these codes that we all can pick up on, right? Like a cheerleading group, a mountain biking group. But, you know, there's usually like little things that go along with it.

And so you've seen that online, of course, like people saying certain things as a way of virtual signaling and saying, I'm part of this group, not part of that group. So I would say that there's extensive research about how group think forms. The correlate that you're referring to around looking at critical thinking rates and how it's decreased. I'm not sure how we would assess that on a global scale, except to say that teachers are actively debating this right now. Do we know anything about the health implications of either succumbing to group think and or self-censoring? Yeah, so there's extensive research on the phenomenon of self-silencing. So self-silencing is strongly correlated with depression and low self-esteem, low self-confidence. I haven't seen a ton of research around how it's related to anxiety. But I can say that the international research that I've looked at shows that there's a lot of fear among people, actually, especially among journalists and people who are in the media. which is, you know, almost everyone these days, all the content creators, all the influencers, all the young people who are online posting on TikTok. I mean, this is everyone now. So there's research out of Europe looking at people who were very active online. And then they graduate from college. And then they get really worried about their digital footprint. You know, what is an employer going to see that they posted on X five years ago when it was called Twitter? There's definitely a lot of research looking at how we're all in this heightened climate of fear. Because there's so much uncertainty around how am I perceived now offline in the real world in a very different stage of life compared to where I was five or ten years ago. Is it never appropriate or healthy to go back and take a look at somebody's Twitter feed and say, wow, they posted some serious.

racist shit before. Maybe they shouldn't be CEO of this company or confirmed for this cabinet seat? I don't have an answer for that. I think that this is a very complicated question. I think it depends on where you fall on the spectrum of free speech advocacy. If you're a free speech absolutist, then I think somebody might be more inclined to say,

well, no, you should hire the person. I think in this day and age and the climate that we're in, someone could say that that shows very poor judgment and why would we want someone on the team like that? So I think it's so nuanced and so case by case. And I think my goal is to really help people think through these questions and think for themselves because I don't think that there's a blanket answer. And I think because our lives are online and people change throughout the course of their lives, we do have to start facing these questions. I mean, as we're seeing right now with Vance and Musk and the young guys posts for before. I'm conflicted about what's sometimes called cancel culture. I know even that's controversial.

You can get canceled, quote unquote, if you use that term inappropriately or whatever. It's pretty easy to piss people off these days. I sometimes refer to the Internet as a perpetual umbrage machine. And I can see an argument for the fact that it's healthy that you can't get a way with saying hateful shit, the way you was totally fine to do not that long ago. And so I don't like the atmosphere of fear and self-silencing. I agree with you. It can be really detrimental to our relationships and our mental health. And the fact that cultural norms are changing around saying cruel stuff about vulnerable populations, that seems like you could make an argument

for some of that. Absolutely. And I think it's nuanced. I don't, you know, again, this is the conversation we need to be having, though, right? And every workplace, every organization, every family, every friend group is going to come up with a different answer, right? What are the tolerance levels? What exactly did the person say? Can there be a repair conversation? Is it too overboard? Is this just like, no way we're going to consider this? I think that every person is different in this way. every group is different in this way. I personally don't shy away from conflict. I'm a pretty direct communicator. My family's very open. I grew up in a very open-minded environment. And I know that my style is different from other people and other people are more conflict avoidant and don't like that communication style. Not to say that, you know, we're going around saying super offensive things, but just this underlying emotional climate of things. fear and not feeling comfortable to ask things is something that I personally am very uncomfortable

with. I think especially in our profession as writers and journalists and members of the media, I think it's our job to speak openly. And I think that's what led to so much concern on my part and why I felt I really had to tackle this subject personally and professionally. Yeah, I sympathize with that. And it can be stifling for sure. There's a great term I heard,

predatory listening. When I see somebody's just listening for the part where they can tear you down. And I feel that and fear that in the culture. As you said, it's nuanced. And I think there are lots of ways to look at this. Just as a point of clarification, when you talk about self-censoring and self-silencing and, you know, the apparent seeming degradation in critical thought, are you specifically referring to sort of cultural, social, political issues?

or are you talking about just the fact that many of us are afraid to speak up in many contexts, having nothing to do with hot button issues? On the one hand, there's all of this self-silencing and fear around hot-button issues around gender, sexual identity, or sexual orientation, race, religion, et cetera, Another hand, like it is also true, I think, and I haven't seen the data, but I believe I've done some interviews on this, that certain groups self-silence in, for example, corporate settings because they are, you know, they are a minority or marginalized or whatever language you want to use. And that is very detrimental, not only to their health, but the health of the organization, because when people don't feel safe to speak up, more mistakes happen, better ideas, many good ideas don't come to light. So is that within the sphere of what you're talking about or is that kind of outside of the realm? I think that's such an important question. I would say if that's not something I explicitly addressed in the book, largely because that's just not my own viewpoint. I think there's so many incredible books out there that do address that, right? And that's why we've seen such a huge wave of DEI and DEI advocacy and all the books on DEI. And, you know, that's a whole.

whole other conversation. You know, is DEI being done well and productively, or is there also some room for change there? So I don't work in corporate settings. I'm a journalist and an author. It's not something that I can speak to. It did bubble up in my thoughts and thinking, like, this has been a problem for decades. This is not like a new problem. And the groups that don't feel comfortable speaking up are always going to change depending on current power dynamics. So it's not something that I was really focused on in this particular book. I would say in my first book, which was all about neurodiversity, that probably was a much bigger focus. Coming up, Janara Nirenberg talks about some recommendations for people who want to speak up in a real way, even though it's hard

to do, some tips for tolerating uncertainty, how to debate in a friendly way, and the role of comedy and pushing back against social norms. Okay, enough throat clearing. I've asked you all this sort of macro questions. Let's get practical, because the book is very practical. For those of us who are interested in getting a little braver, what do you recommend? Actually, let me phrase the question differently. I know one of the things you recommend is to start small.

Can you say more about that? Sure. I think, you know, the book, it's practical in the way of providing a lot of information, a lot of of background information, a lot of in-depth information about the psychology of group think, essentially. So my goal was to help empower people to understand the deeper concepts and the deeper sort of dynamics at play so that every reader can identify what's happening in themselves, no matter where they find themselves. Since I'm not a therapist or a, you know, a corporate at executive, I didn't want to get too specific around, you know, you should do this in this

situation or do that in that situation. But I think the first step in overcoming self-silencing, whether it's offline or online, is to learn how to get comfortable kind of holding uncertainty. Because when you ask a question, again, whether it's online or offline, you don't really know what the response is going to be. And so I think all of us, do you have to sort of build up our capacity to just sit with the uncertainty of not knowing what you're going to receive in response just by simply asking a question. So say more about how one would actually do that? Let's take race, for example.

That's been a longstanding interest of mine. And when I first began this journey, I came across several emerging thinkers who really impressed me with how they were reframing the conversation around race and who were saying kind of similar things around, you know, we need to see each other as individuals. Why are we limiting our perceptions of one another to whatever racial categorizations we perceive them as belonging to? So I think even basic questions like what does your cultural background imply about X, Y, and Z? I think we're living in a climate now where people feel even afraid to ask that. And it wasn't like that, you know, even 15, 20 years ago.

It used to be a very rich, like a source of rich conversation to ask somebody about their cultural background or how they grew up doing something. And now I feel people are not sure if it's their place to ask that. That's just one example. There's a chapter about having the strength to dissent. What did you learn about how one can generate that strength? Yeah, I think what really helped me in feeling comfortable asking different kinds of questions online and offline was finding other people who were comfortable with dissent. You know, we talk a lot about this concept of community and belonging and that's something I kind of push up against as well because I think if we stop asking questions and we are just kind of for the purposes of belonging community, we're just repeating certain talking points, then we're not being ourselves.

And that's actually not real community. That's not real belonging because it's not based in authenticity. And so I spend a lot of time in the book talking about how people can feel connection, feel a sense of belonging, but still disagree with one another. And I would say that this is actually very, very difficult because it requires sort of casting a wide net. And also it requires feeling comfortable being a bit of a loner, to be honest. So I think in terms of feeling comfortable dissenting in any setting, you have to sort of seek out people who also value dissent. This points the question of finding people who have shared values.

You know, it doesn't mean that you agree. But there's like a basic starting point where I know that this person has the tolerance. they have the capacity to tolerate, like me having a different opinion. Otherwise, it is quite tricky to just be like dissenting left and right. You kind of have to know that you are in a so-called safe space. And I talk about that in the book as well, that I don't think a safe space is just being with a bunch of people who agree with you. It's actually being around people who it's okay to disagree with.

I can imagine people listening and thinking, well, how do I find that kind of safe space? So this is, you know, maybe one good aspect of the internet, right, is finding people who value dissent and are okay with it. So there's a very interesting space that has emerged that, you know, some people are critical of. I find tremendous value. There's this word that's thrown around called heterodox, right? Heterodox just means like unconventional viewpoint. And so several years ago when I started seeing some of these thoughts and these things, sort of spaces emerging online really caught my attention because I kind of saw myself in this space. I was like this way of approaching the world, approaching relationships seemed to really

match me. I mean, if people are genuinely curious about this, there is a whole space on the internet. It's referred to as heterodox. Of course, the famous social psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, started what's called the Heterodox Academy, which is all about empowering diverse viewpoints on campuses and schools. So there are. are little communities popping up all over the internet. These are podcasters, YouTubers, and unfortunately, many of them have been pegged as far right, but that's just because they're questioning some of the dogmatism on the left. But so many of these thinkers and these communities are just full of really curious people who have an allergy to group

think and are feeling so starved by the media environment, as I know millions of people are right now. You know, we talk about the silent majority. So that is one concrete thing to do is to start looking into these spaces. And I talk about them in the book. I interviewed several of them. And I will be honest, it's a very welcoming space. And I know that might come as a surprise to some people. I had this experience a couple years ago as at TED. I recognize that in and of itself is kind of an obnoxious thing to say, but I was at TED and I was very happy to be there. And I had made friends the year before at TED with this young guy who I suspect is who you have in mind when you're talking about heterodoxy, Coleman Hughes.

Mm-hmm. Absolutely. who is a young black man, extremely articulate and well, highly educated, very interesting mind. And I first heard about him. I had heard of him through my friend Sam Harris, who's also in that same sort of, we're not related, but he's kind of a friend and a mentor to me. And he's in that kind of same bucket, you know, sometimes what used to be described as the intellectual dark web. I love Sam as a person. and I find many of his viewpoints really compelling and galvanizing, and I don't agree with everything he says, but that's fine, and that has not damaged our relationship in any way.

And Coleman, I have similar feelings about. He's, if you meet him, and the same is true, Sam, they're just very warm people, and part of their openness is, I think, contributing factor to their winning interpersonal style. Coleman, the first year I met him, he was not speaking at TED, we just hung out a bunch. I was like literally standing behind him in the lunch line and we and I recognized him and we talked and struck up a relationship. The next year he came and spoke and he gave a speech about colorblindness. People were outraged. It caused a furor within Ted.

And it was so interesting. Coleman was like unfazed. He just like and Sam has this too. They just kind of like they don't fear as much as I. do social rejection. I actually don't know enough about the nuances of the arguments around colorblindness and whether Coleman was on the was right or wrong. I don't have not making a case on on any of that except to just back you up my own personal experience in dealing with people like Jonathan Haid and like Sam Harris and like Coleman Hughes that there is this kind of yeah,

It's interesting. They on the one hand have this apparent Jesse single I would also put in this category. This apparent lack of fear of offending their own tribe and offending anybody. And they're also really friendly and nice. And yeah, I don't know why all of that is, but it seems to be a real trend. Absolutely. I appreciate your insight. I think that there is this really amazing, fantastic space and these emerging thinkers

and philosophers who are just asking questions and pushing back and they're not even obnoxious questions. Like, they're just really basic questions. But because they're not fully in line with the talking points of a certain political party, so many of them have been sort of maligned. And it's, I don't know, like, I just, I think I understand it politically. I think it's strategic, but on a personal human level, I don't understand. I think it feels like these people are coming from a good place.

I frankly would love to see more people like this. And I think that these are the kinds of norms and values that would really help lift our society up right now. Speaking openly, learning how to see each other as individuals, being okay, asking questions, welcoming diverse viewpoints. I mean, that all sounds amazing to me. So that's my viewpoint. And as you said, it's nuanced because this whole just asking questions thing can be abused. It's like, I'm not saying any of the aforementioned characters are doing that, although I'm sure they've been accused of it. And maybe correctly, I don't know, because I don't remember all of their utterances,

chapter and verse. But, but I know for sure that this whole just asking questions, bro, move can be passive aggressive or aggressive aggressive. So there's, it's not uncomplicated. That's a great point. And yeah, probably when I said it, it came across way too oversimplified. And that's, I think because I'm not at all talking about people who are coming at this with bad intentions and who are just saying like outrageous things or who are saying things for the purposes to rile people up. Like that's not at all that I was something that I looked at. I was really focused on these emerging thinkers who I believe are coming from a good place. And I think, like you said, really communicate a lot of warmth and openness. So that is a careful distinction

that, you know, my editors and I were careful about in this book was like when you talk about free speech, it can be complicated, right? Because we're not talking about just opening the floodgates and people just saying whatever or asking whatever. And, you know, I mean, there's a meaningful debate to be had about that. But I think where I'm coming from in my own life and as a writer and someone who's been observing all of this is really wanting to get to a place where people can create a culture of warmth and open. and acceptance. And so to that end, I spent a lot of time in the book talking about what is free speech? And this is something I don't think many people have talked about,

because I don't think that free speech really is about just letting loose. I think the next place that we need to go in this national debate is for people to figure out what's going on underneath. The analogy that I always think about is that there's an ocean, right? And so above the waves, it's super noisy outside, right? And that's what I see with like the culture wars and all the political conversations. Underneath, when you submerge yourself, things get a lot quieter. So I don't think that as a culture, people have really developed the tools and the emotional awareness to communicate what's happening underneath all the knowledge. Underneath all the noisy culture wars, right? To say things like, I feel sad, I feel hurt, I feel scared. I think that

would be like next level free speech because it's more authentic. It's more like free expression. So if we evolve to a place where we could have those conversations, I think our political climate would be drastically different. Yes. Susan Kane, the great writer who's written about introverts and also has a book about this quality of bitter sweetness, which is kind of in itself a nuanced view of life and all of its inevitable ups and downs. She has talked about the fact that in a culture that seems to have two modes, normative smiles, false positivity, and outrage, because those are the two modes that the algorithm tends to reward, like some faux wisdom inscribed in latte foam art or orange man bad or Biden bad or whatever those are the two

gears we seem to have we're missing this whole range of emotional expression of honesty of discussion and discourse around yeah i'm terrified that's what's really going on here or i'm really sad that's what's really driving x or y comment or viewpoint that kind of freedom of speech would be marvelous. I don't know how we get there, though. Yeah, I love Susan. She's a friend as well and has been a big supporter of my work. And she's so gifted in staying in that place, staying underneath the wave and communicating from that place. I think the way we get there is by having conversations like this. This is the one shiny area of the internet. I mean, I've, as critical as I have been around the oversaturation of therapeutic content and vocabulary

on the internet and social media, we are starting to see some really amazing content and thought leadership around how to build secure attachment, how to deal with conflict. And if that kind of awareness does spread and people do understand how to regulate, get centered, communicate from that place. I think over time, we will see this spread. That might be like 100 years from now. But I can see it. I can see it in my head. Me too, actually. I'm actually working on a book that touches on a lot of this stuff. And I know my friend Adam Grant is working on a similar project. It feels like it's a ripening cultural trend. I want to hear more because you use the word authenticity. And in the book, you talk about,

you describe it as like staying true to yourself i want to hear more about like how you think we can go about that before we do though i want to run by you a practical tip that i've learned for doing what you were describing about true freedom of speech you know talking about what's really going on with you as and it comes i talk about these people all the time mudita nisker and dan clerman they're a married couple and they wrote a book called let's talk and they basically came up with this very simple but also Buddhist inflected communications protocol. And I've been working with them for six and a half years because notwithstanding the fact that I'm a professional communicator, my interpersonal hygiene, but was not awesome. And so they've been very helpful.

And one of the things they talk about is, this is going to sound a little technical, but stating your positive intention, like identifying for yourself in a conversation, what is my goal here? and then articulating to the other person at the beginning of the conversation, especially if there's a relationship goal. I'm giving you this tough feedback or I'm telling you about my emotional state because I want to have a good relationship with you or I want to get closer or whatever it is. Their whole model is to, they don't describe it this way, but I do. Their whole model is to keep the amygdala, the stress center of the brain offline and keep the prefrontal cortex,

the locus of reason and higher order thought online. And so if you want to take a risk and say to somebody, you know, what's really going on for you, if you preface it by saying, I'm going to say something that's vulnerable or revelatory or whatever. And here's why. It's because I care about you when I want to have a good relationship. I found that to be super helpful. How does it sound to you?

I think that sounds amazing. I really like that. I think it makes a lot of sense. Again, I'm not a relationship expert. and I did look at a lot of this more on a macro level, but my husband and I have been together for 20 years, so I think we have a lot of experience in figuring out communication styles. And I think that what you're describing would lower defenses right off the bat.

And so it makes a lot of sense to me. At the same time, I'm thinking how people would do that online and on social media. And I think that would probably work as well. So maybe it's something we can all try. I mean, I found I didn't really start doing anything on social media until about a year and a half ago. I had accounts, but I wasn't really doing anything with them. But I got pretty leaned in for a bunch of reasons that are not interesting or germane. And my whole thing is, I'll do a little video diary after I've almost had a panic attack because of claustrophobia on a plane or something like that.

And people love that shit. People love honesty. And so actually, you know, there's a way to hack the algorithm, which generally does. reward bathos and bullshit and outrage and whatever. But it also rewards like people really want realness. There is a real, to be cute, thirst for realness. And so I actually think taking these types of risks online in public is worth doing if done in the right way. That's a great point. That's something I also addressed in the book is the vulnerability wave that we saw, especially after Brine Brown's work.

And I think the openness of people, like sharing these deeper emotions or deeper experiences, was so huge in shifting our culture to be more open about mental health. And that is something that I have definitely championed a lot in my own career and in my first book as well. Because I think in some ways, that kind of also went too far. Yes. So I don't. Yes. I think it's, again, it's nuanced.

Like every individual has to figure out, you know, is an influencer just doing that to play the algorithms? You know, are they sort of getting even deeper into the mud with their so-called like victim mindset about something? Like, is that the point? Have we gone too far? Because again, that's one of those things that I feel started out with really amazing intentions and amazing potential and had incredible results for our national conversations about mental health and well-being at this. same time, you know, speaking again to, you know, what so much of this book is about, which is the over-categorization of people and the extensive group think, we've gotten to the point where in people's bios, it's like, I belong to this category and that category, and I have this going on with me and that going on with me. And it's like now the whole idea of sharing ourselves and sharing our unique nuanced experiences has just been funneled into like, oh, I have this disorder or that disorder and I have this label and I belong to this group as a way to sort of simplify or cut to the chase. So I don't know. What are your thoughts on like the balance of vulnerability?

The one area where I can really specifically comment is on vulnerability around mental health issues. I think it's incredibly positive that we're in a world where people can be open about it. And I've read a lot of good pieces about the fact that the online oversharing, it can be counterproductive, even if it does come from a good place, because it has a contagion effect. At its best, it makes people feel not alone. At its worst, it really makes people wallow with you. To me, the dividing line between helpful and not helpful is, do you then share? something you can do about it. So if I'm going to talk about having had a panic attack, I will then say, okay, here's what you can do about it. So I think we want the normalization

and the help. And if you're only doing one all the time without the other, that's, that's where I think things get problematic. I think that's a great point. And then it raises the question of, well, like, who's doing the sharing? Because some people might not be in the, the best position to like share you know a tip or a point there's a lot of misinformed people out there so yes to invoke sabine a salasi again this quote i heard through her but it comes from somebody else the quote is we should teach from scars not wounds and so i think if you're in a florid mental health decompensation probably best not to go on ticot if you you know are on the other side of it or you learn something amazing from your therapist, that's a good moment to be helpful in public.

Coming up, Jen R. Nirenberg talks about how to build capacity to be okay with uncertainty, which is very hard for most members of homeless apians. We'll talk about the definition of free speech and we'll talk about vulnerability in the age of social media. That's coming up. I want to get back to your book because I realize that we have limited time and I really do kind of want to get at to the extent that you're comfortable, some of the things we can do to live up to some of these ideals that you're pointing us toward. And so just on the notion of authenticity or staying true to ourselves, what do you recommend that would help us have the gumption to speak up in a real way publicly on sensitive issues? Yeah, it's a great question. I appreciate the invitation

because so much of this book really is just processing and synthesizing these macro things, like what is happening, what's happening to our minds as a result of the algorithms and sort of like trying to weave together some kind of explanation, which I think helps people in itself to sort of place things and map things out, okay, this is happening, that's happening. But to get really specific, I think that every person kind of just reaches their own tipping point, right? I think if you are in a place where you are fed up with what's happening online and offline, and you yourself are really noticing that it is hard to speak up, it's hard to disagree,

it seems like all your friends believe the exact same things. On social media, you never see people expressing something different. If that starts to bother you, if you start to feel a little bit of an allergic response, I think that that's a really good, healthy sign. I think that that is you picking up on a kind of existence that's not really based in reality, right? I mean, we know that there's so much diversity in the world, diversity of thought, diversity of viewpoint, experience, perspective, opinion, like, that's reality. And so I think the first step is really noticing that and honoring it and not really questioning it,

just being like, okay, like this is the reality. I'm part of this online world. There seems to be a very flat, a flattening effect, flat culture that I'm observing. I go to work every day. I go see my friends on the weekends. I'm just, there's something missing here, right? So if you find yourself in that position and you are starting to notice, I think that's a great first step. The next step, I think, is then starting to get informed yourself so that you can sort of pick up on how people do this, right? Like if there are other models out there. So again, you know, sort of looking up these new emerging spaces for diverse conversation and diverse viewpoints can be really helpful. And I think it's totally fine for that to be like a private experience. You don't have to just go bulldoze

through your friend group and, you know, just sort of like bring up all this controversial stuff. I think that it does require some exposure to how this can be done in a healthy and productive way. In the book, I talk a lot about different thinkers who are sort of pioneering a lot of this. A lot of them are in the so-called heterodox space. Many of these people have started little communities. Once you do some of that and kind of get exposure to a different way of being with one another, and you kind of embody your own comfort with that and you figure out what is bothering you, what you have questions about, why you feel a little uncomfortable at that work meeting

or at that friend hangout. I think it's perfectly fine in like a one-on-one or small group setting to bring it up. Like, hey, you know, I was reading this thing. What do you think about that? I've kind of noticed X, Y, and Z. What I've kind of noticed X, Y, and Z? what I have found in talking to people in that same way is that they are also honestly, oftentimes having those same thoughts and questions. And so that's where the danger is, like because we're also afraid, because we're self-silencing and people are afraid to step on each other's toes, no one is speaking up and articulating these nuances.

So everyone just thinks that everyone else thinks the same thing and that they're not having those questions. But many times they are. People crave depth. People crave real talk. And this is another example of it. I mean, we are all bombarded with these issues and this information every time we pick up our phones. Right.

So it is on our minds. It is affecting our mental health and well-being. Once you kind of let yourself go there, I think it opens it up in a really nice way. And you start to figure out who in your circles feel similarly, want to talk. talk about things, have questions, have concerns. So that's a great, great way to start. Is there evidence to suggest that diversifying your media diet can help with critical thinking? There might be. I didn't look so much at our news exposure. I was more interested in the way people do or don't allow themselves to be exposed to opinions of people in their social circles.

So not so much about media diets, but almost like a viewpoint diet, exposure to different friend circles. So there's a lot of research around this can go many different ways. So some people, when they are exposed to different viewpoints or different audiences, it can be very healthy for the person and encourages the person to think more critically. and actually to seek that out and to keep seeking it out, it almost has like a positive effect. Depending on the person, it can also lead some people to want to censor their so-called diet even more because it's too threatening. That's where we want to get more into that like individual piece. Like how do we raise a person's own capacity and tolerance for uncertainty? You talked earlier about raising one's capacity for tolerating uncertainty.

and I didn't actually follow up on it, so I will now. Are there mechanisms that you've seen that might be helpful in that regard? Yeah, I'm trying to think about this because part of me wishes I was like a meditation teacher or something where I could really give like solid answers for these things. It's hard for me to answer the question because I would say that for myself and a lot of people I know and who I've interviewed, it feels a little bit like an innate curiosity. I'm not like trying to gloat or anything. I'm just saying it's a little difficult to try to imagine not being okay with diverse viewpoints and diverse information. And I recognize that this is fully an issue that people need to contend with.

So I think what I'm thinking is that this is like a deeper issue. This is like a cultural issue around shifting. social norms, probably a meditation teacher or someone who's a specialist in mindfulness could give an answer of like, you know, certain breathing exercises and regulating your nervous system to get to a point of like expanding your capacity. And certainly I've seen a lot of that kind of information out there in the relationship sphere and interpersonally, right? Like if you're having a disagreement with your spouse or your partner, how do you learn to just sit there, stay curious, stay engaged?

I like your tip earlier around stating your positive intention. But I think as a journalist, as a member of the media, who's sort of documenting these trends, I see this on a macro level. You know, I think if our schools are not diverse, if our friend groups are not diverse, you are just not going to develop this capacity as greatly as other people might. So I do talk about this in the book that I grew up in such a diverse environment where that was way more normal to me than being in some kind of bubble. There is research around, like, for example, having more friends across racial lines really reduces your stress about cross racial interactions. So if somebody is racialized in a certain way and has some fear about, you know, crossing the streets and interacting with a group of strengths, strangers, their fear is actually going to be a lot less if they have had a lot of exposure and experience to cross-racial friendship because essentially their nervous systems do feel reassured.

And it's also the case that they feel more confident and reassured and less stressed because they have someone to go to across racial lines if that interaction doesn't go well. So this is a long-winded answer for, you know, how to deepen our capacity. for uncertainty, but it's kind of both, right? It's like the individual learning how to regulate yourself. But it's also very structural and societal and just comes down to the life decisions that you make or that your family is made. Yeah, it's tricky because there is this, I'm probably going to mangle this, the contact hypothesis or the contact theory, the idea that if you have contact with people who are different from you, open-mindedness does kind of inexorably

ensue and you don't want to be using other people as like instruments for personal growth for yourself and on a macro level we've got a culture that's self-sorted ideologically and racially in many ways and so it's all to use the word again nuanced there's a chapter in the book about debate as an antidote here what did you learn that might be helpful for those of us who struggle to have these conversations to debate in a friendly way without it having it go completely pear shape. Yeah, that was one of my favorite chapters to work on. I got to interview some really incredible debate coaches across the country who are every day working with young people on really complex issues. And I think they spend far more time working through nuance than

most adults do in their daily lives. So I think debate as the antidote is a macro and micro intervention. I think what was really valuable in those interviews was these are debate coaches who work with students from a young age to see many sides of something. So these people have to prepare for these competitive debates and they don't know what side they're arguing for, right? So that requires being able to really see, right? I mean, this is sort of a spiritual and metaphysical thing, you know, as you're referencing with some of your other calls. colleagues, like to really open your awareness, to really see, to let yourself imagine the perspective of somebody else and how they might see something, even if it's completely opposite of how you feel or how you've been taught to feel. And I think something so critical came out

of those interviews, which is that these young people actually stopped seeing things in such black and white terms. And this one coach told me that there was almost a sort of loss of innocence, loss of naivete, because they realize that the world isn't black and white. There's always multiple ways of seeing something. And so in my mind, I almost think of that as a little bit of like a Zen way of moving through the world. It does imply a little bit of detachment, which is so opposite of how we're sort of conditioned, especially in American society, you're supposed to have like super strong opinions on

everything. But it turns out that's not always healthy. To really get grounded, develop compassion and empathy, you do have to learn to see all sides of something. And that is a very philosophical and spiritual question and journey to go on, which is, as I say, writing this book completely changed my life and view of the world and other human beings. So debate is this incredible skill that I think we should all develop. And it does go back to that question of, you know, this is also a macro thing. like, I didn't have a debate club where I grew up. I went to public schools in San Francisco.

And as amazing as that was, you know, we didn't have the resources for, for debate clubs. Yeah. You also write about the power of comedy. And I'm curious, like, what role does comedy have to play here? Yeah, writing about comedy was really fun because this is obviously like a very relevant question at the moment. You know, the role of stand-up comedians and pushing back against social norms and things like that. and how far does a comedian go and who decides that and do the networks decide? Does the audience decide? I wanted to write about comedy for a few reasons. One, to really honor the role of comedians and forcing us all to think more critically.

Also to look at the healing power of comedy and of laughter. And obviously, there's a lot of neurological studies of looking at the role of humor, what makes people laugh. But importantly, how laughter and humor reduces our stress levels, brings people together, serves evolutionary purposes of even sorting who can be a good partner because learning how to finesse your way through stressful, intense situations, serves evolutionary purposes. I think I veer on the side of, like, tolerating provocative comedy because I think the benefits outweigh the cons. So I wanted to open up the discussion around comedy to say like, hey, this is really important if we are depriving ourselves of something that is seems too risky or has a potential to offend us. You know, people can walk out of a room. They don't have to expose themselves. But I think we miss too much if we like oversensure in that direction. And I think comedy and laughter has the potential to be a very unifying power.

So I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of trying to make comedy more and more safe. I wanted to open up that discussion so that people were a little bit more aware of what's at stake. There's a great riff from Leslie Jones in a Netflix special a couple of years ago about how 20-year-olds are failing us. We look to people in their 20s to be, you know, like the examples of having fun in life. And she had so much fun and was partying her ass off in her 20s. And now the average 20-year-old, this is her. Riff saying, you know, the average 20-something spends a lot of time saying, I'm so offended. And she's like, what's the matter? Did you not find Pikachu? Which I love.

I actually think it's an, I work with a number of 20-somethings and actually work out with a whole separate group of 20-somethings. And I don't hear them saying I'm offended often, but it was a funny bit anyway. Is there something you were hoping we would get to that we failed to get to? No. I'm actually just starting this process of, you know, doing interviews for the books. I really appreciate all your questions. I know your audience is used to kind of more practical content, but hopefully this information was helpful. I'm happy to discuss anything else. No, it's great.

Before I let you go, can you just remind everybody of the name of this book and your prior book and anything else we should know about from you? Yeah. So the new book is called Trust Your Mind, Embracing, Nluence in a World of Self-Silencing. It comes out on May 6th. My first book was Divergent Mind, thriving in a world that wasn't designed for you. I've been so grateful to all my readers. You've been so supportive. I am a little bit of a hermit, but I am on Instagram a fair amount sharing my international journeys and some of the writing I do.

Thank you so much for having me. Yeah, Janara. Thank you very much. Thanks again to Janara Nirenberg. Great to talk to her. And a reminder to go check out our live meditation mini-series that will be happening every afternoon from Monday, May 19th, through Friday, May 23rd at 4 p.m. Eastern.

You can get all the details over at Danharis.com. As mentioned earlier, this will be centered around the four related Buddhist practices known as the Brahma Viharas. I will guide some meditations and then take your questions. Come check it out. Dan Harris.com. And if you can't afford a subscription, just let us know. We'll hook you up. Before I go, I just want to thank everybody who works so hard to make this show. Our producers are Tara Anderson, Caroline Keenan, and Eleanor Vassili. Our recording and engineering is handled by the great

folks over at Pod People. Lauren Smith is our production manager. Marissa Schneiderman is our senior producer. DJ Kashmir is our executive producer. And Nick Thorburn of the band Islands wrote our theme.