Latest / Why We Do What We Do / Mini: Temporary Insanity

Transcript

Mini: Temporary Insanity · Why We Do What We Do

• 0:03
  Speaker 1: You're listening to Why We Do what we Do. Welcome
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: to Why We Do what we Do Mini. I am
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: your host Abraham and I'm Shane. We're a psychology podcast.
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: We talk about all of the things that people do,
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: and sometimes we do it in a very short format
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: we call a mini, which we release on Mondays. Mini
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Mondays with our minise, let's tell a quick story here.
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: I'll let you take this one because this is a
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: story you kind of know. I'm familiar with it. Yeah.
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: So David Berkowitz killed six people in eight shootings between
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: nineteen seventy six and nineteen seventy seven in New York City,
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: claiming to have carried out his executions under the orders
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: of quote Father Sam, an ancient demon who possessed his
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: neighbor's dog, quote the son of Sam.
• 0:52
  Speaker 3: Killers.
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: Lawyers use the now famous twinkie defense, and there's so
• 0:56
  Speaker 2: many things to unpack in this story. Use the twinkie
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: defense to argue that burke WIT's poor diet and life
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: circumstances exacerbated his mood swings and made it more violent.
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: This is one of the most famous cases of defense
• 1:09
  Speaker 2: lawyers attempting to use a quote temporary insanity and quote defense.
• 1:14
  Speaker 2: So we are all familiar with that term temporary insanity case.
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: We've probably seen that more than once or heard about
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: it more than once.
• 1:21
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: Yeah, most people will have heard of temporary insanity as
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: a legal plea in a criminal trial, or maybe even
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: at least as a colloquial excuse for someone's behavior. I
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: think I could imagine someone saying, oh, I must have
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: been temporarily insane or something like that, yeah, and then
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: voted one particular way in the twenty twenty election or
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. But what does this mean and how
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: does this work? Like when someone says temporarily insane? Is
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: that a thing? Like what's going on here?
• 1:53
  Speaker 3: Yeah? So let's talk about the history of this a
• 1:54
  Speaker 3: little bit.
• 1:55
  Speaker 2: So the temporary insanity defense was first used in eighteen
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: forty three in England after a man named Daniel McNaughton
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: attempted to assassinate the British Prime Minister. That's a pretty
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: hefty crime.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: Yes, yeah. His lawyers somewhat successfully argued that his mental
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: state was unstable and he was acquitted for this. The
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: judge acquitted him because they said, like, yeah, he was
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: temporarily insane. And this set a precedent that one could
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: be considered not culpable for a particular crime if their
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: mental state at the time of the offense it was
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: such that it, quoting the judge here, quote one interferes
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: with his ability to know or understand the nature or
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: quality of his criminal behavior, and two to have compromised
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: the defendant's ability to know or understand the legal or
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: moral wrongness of his behavior end quote. So those are
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: sort of the precedent set by this judge by saying
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: that this particular defendant was not culpable for this crime. Right.
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: So, this gained further popularity in the eighteen hundreds to
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: defend crimes passions such as jealous spouses. And I would
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: imagine if we probably looked at the data from that time,
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: I bet a lot of husbands got away with this
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: for a lot of different reasons, because men were kind
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: of jerks back then as opposed to.
• 3:14
  Speaker 3: Now, which we're all totally great.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: Yeah. I think this has been used somewhat nefariously at
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: various points, and it will become obvious, if not already obvious,
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: to many people where there can be a problem with
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: this particular line of reasoning here, so as suggested above,
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: essentially the idea of the temporary insanity plea this continues
• 3:37
  Speaker 1: to this day. The idea here is that the person
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: should not be held responsible for their behavior if their
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: mental state at the time of their crime was such
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: that they could not meaningfully determine that their actions were wrongful.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: That's the gist of it, and the idea of it
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: being temporary is that they returned to a normal sense
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: of clarity shortly after the crime happened. So up until
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: the crime took place during and then after the crime
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: was finished, they're lucid and totally in control of their behavior,
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: and for this brief window of time that conveniently overlaps
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: their criminal behavior, they are unable to determine that what
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: they're doing is wrong.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: Right, With all of that being said, many oppose this
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: way of thinking about crime. For one thing, Should it
• 4:22
  Speaker 2: be considered that stress and life circumstances can lead one
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: to commit serious crimes. Couldn't all convicts make the same claim,
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: and they all had stuff going on for them at
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: the time of their crimes too, And I think that
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: that's something that like, it's one of those legal precedents
• 4:36
  Speaker 2: that can quickly become a slippery slope without the right
• 4:40
  Speaker 2: safeguards in place.
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, US President Theodore Roosevelt did not like the idea
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: of the insanity or temporary insanity plea, writing quote, I
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: have scant sympathy with the plea of insanity advanced to
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: save a man from the consequences of crime, when unless
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: that crime had been committed, it would have been impossible
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: to persuade any reasonable authority to commit him to an
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: asylum as insane end quote. And so he's sort of suggesting, like,
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: if this person is otherwise fine, then we can't just
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: say they're insane just because a crime took place.
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: Right right to that end, this defense is only used
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: about one percent of the time.
• 5:19
  Speaker 3: So in seventy five percent of cases in which it
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: is used, it is rejected.
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: And I think that's important. It's rejected. It doesn't even
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: make it into court. Essentially, it gets you, they go,
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: I want to do this, and they go, no, you
• 5:32
  Speaker 2: can't do that before the trial. And only in those
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: cases twenty five percent in which the defendant has a
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: long documented history of mental health issues is a defensive
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: insanity likely to be effective, But also at that point
• 5:44
  Speaker 2: it is not temporary. So to that end, some states
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: do not make a distinction between the two, so they'll
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: instead of just doing a temporary insanity defense, they'll just
• 5:54
  Speaker 2: do an insanity defense.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, sort of blanket insanity defense. And there are some
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: implications with that. If someone is in fact found not
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: guilty by reason of insanity, then there is a specific consequence,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: which is to mean like, Okay, you're not in control
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: of your actions. That means you're not safe to be
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: out and around people. So you may not necessarily be
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: imprisoned in a prison, but you may be committed to
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: some kind of psychiatric care facility or some other type
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: of facility in which the person must remain constantly and
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: under ongoing supervision and surveillance, and also do not have
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: their freedom. So it's right for those of for whom
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: this is not a relevant defense, they are gambling with
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: their time and their lives. For those for whom it
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: is a legitimate defense, then maybe that is a safe
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: replacement for them, I think is the general hypothesis or
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: the sort of orientation here.
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: Right, Absolutely, So, I think that there's probably you're probably going, well,
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: what's why we do what we do? Stance on this,
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: and I think that you know, we tend to have
• 6:56
  Speaker 2: a stance on things. We tend to stand on business
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: as say these days, about the things that we like.
• 7:02
  Speaker 3: But before we do that.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Ads, Okay, so you've been waiting with baited breath to
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: hear our thoughts on this. First, I will disappointingly orient
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: you to the fact that we released an episode really
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: early on in our legacy of this show that was
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: called the Morally Difficult Position of Psychology. And now I
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: would recommend going that direction for a much deeper discussion
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: on what we're about to say here. But suffice it
• 7:34
  Speaker 1: to say that the point we are making in that episode,
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: and that's relevant for advancing this discussion, is that understanding
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: everything everyone does all of the time is a product
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: of our learning history up to that point and our
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: biological circumstances. That's the reason. That's the why we do
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: what we do. That's the actual reason. Like in all
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: of those and we can get into those those specific
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: nuanced discussions, but like I could have released one one
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: minute episode where I said, why we do what we
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: do because of our learning history up to this point
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: and our biological circumstances, that's the reason that's why. But
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: it's fun to unpack, you know, what those specific circumstances
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: and learning history might be. And so that's why we
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: just keep talking. And you know, because apparently I like
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: hearing my voice.
• 8:23
  Speaker 3: I like hearing your voice too, Abraham. Things that makes
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: two of us.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: Now.
• 8:27
  Speaker 2: The thing is is that there are people who legitimately
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: do not understand the things they do are illegal or
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: harmful to others when they have a severe cognitive impairment
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: or brain damage. So as somebody who works with folks
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: that are involved in the legal system or forensically involved,
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: this is something that I see often, and I've spent
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: some years working with folks to get them to understand
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: the nature of their crime before they ever get charged.
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: It's a complicated thing.
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly, it is. There are people out there for
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: whom that is legitimately the case. Like maybe for those
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: of you it's hard to believe, but like I've deserved
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: them firsthand, they really don't understand. Like it would be
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: like if you went to a country where like blinking
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: too fast was hugely taboo to the point of being
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: like very offensive, and you just didn't even know that
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: that was the thing that was very offensive to those people.
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: Now in that case, they could tell you and then
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: you would know. But I think just understanding the like
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: complete lack of awareness of a thing that's considered inappropriate
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: is where some people are. So that's one important thing here.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: And the implication of insanity again is whether someone can
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: be held culpable, which is to say that they're responsible
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: for their own actions. They themselves carry that responsibility and
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: therefore should receive some state impost penalty as a consequence
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: for having committed some crime. That's the implication of the
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: idea that insanity is a reasonable excuse for behavior to
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: have taken place.
• 9:51
  Speaker 2: Right, So, simply looking at it from an environmental perspective,
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: we can always understand the circumstances that lead everyone to
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: their paths, their choices, and their criminal behavior in times
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: that it occurs. So if you can take some time
• 10:03
  Speaker 2: to look at that environmental perspective, you at least get
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: some reasoning on how somebody ended up in the.
• 10:08
  Speaker 3: Space that they are committing a crime.
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: And that means that the people with a history of
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: criminal behavior and violence are likely to continue using that
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: approach of criminal activity and violence to solve their problems
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: because it's what they know how to do, and it
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: has worked for them long enough and often enough to
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: be their go to approach. That is what their learning
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: history has taught them up to this point. So for
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: those it means that we assume that if they have
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: done violence in the past, and they have a history
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: of learning that teaches that this is the way to
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: get things done, they are then also likely to do
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: more violence in the future.
• 10:46
  Speaker 3: But people who were.
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: Moved to action in the height of extreme emotions in
• 10:49
  Speaker 2: an unusual circumstance don't have the same pattern. They don't
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: have that criminal behavior in their history. Would they continue
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: to be dangerous? We don't really know, because I don't
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: know about anybody who's listening. But I think it's important
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: to remember that psychologists are not psychics, and that we
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: can't one read your minds, and two we can't predict
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: the future. We can do a pretty good job of
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: predicting patterns of behavior given enough evidence, but we can't
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: predict the future, especially in situations where somebody has never
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: done it before in a specific, unique circumstance, right, and
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: it really depends on the outcome for that person too.
• 11:21
  Speaker 2: Did they try to hide it, did they lie, did
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: they evade, did they get away with it for a while?
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: And if so, I would guess, or we would guess
• 11:27
  Speaker 2: they're more likely to offend if it's something that like
• 11:29
  Speaker 2: benefited them in some way without any sort of like
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: negative consequences. But if they turn themselves in immediately confessed
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: or otherwise expressed anguish over the behavior, they might be
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: less likely to reoffend.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: Yes, exactly, So I think think about, like what does
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: insane mean? And like, I think that's probably beyond the
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: scope of what we're trying to cover in a mini
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: But if we just go at the implication should they
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: be held responsible? Well, I also will say one thing
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: really quick, which is that this is already becoming a
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: lesser effective defense because we have a better diagnostic model
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: and like we have a psychosocial model of like understanding
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: mental health that's better than it was back then. So
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: diagnosable conditions do constitute an extenuating circumstance in trials of
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: this nature. But that being said, let's just continue on
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: with what's going on. The idea that like whether or
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: not someone is responsible for the behavior, it kind of
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: doesn't matter to me in my mind. What matters is
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: is this likely to happen again? And what should be
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: the feedback that they receive that informs their future behavior,
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: which is to say, what should be the consequence? And
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: so in my mind, like if someone is like, for
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: whatever reason, this thing happened, and we look at the
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: totality of the circumstances in this crime, and we then
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: think like, this person could have easily gotten out of
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: the situation in many other ways. This is something where
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: they had a lot of solution at their fingertips that
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: they could have chosen to do otherwise. That tells me
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: that for them, they saw this for whatever reason, whether
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: or not it's their fault, that this is what their
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: history shaped up for them. They saw their best strategy
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: for solving this as whatever that crime was, okay, right,
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: And that means that for them that's their go to move.
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: So I think they're more likely to reoffend if this
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: was a situation where it came out of like a
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: totally unexpected, random burst of circumstances that are very unlikely
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: to coalesce again. This person maybe reasonably justified this as
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: something like I just didn't even know what to do.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: I just was scrambling for anything you know, and we
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: see that they express in their own emotion, their own
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: emotional like any kind of anguish about the fact that
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: this took place the way that it did, then that
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: that sort of indicates and people can act like they
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: could totally be making this up. So I'm perfectly willing
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: to accept that. Man, maybe we need to, you know,
• 14:01
  Speaker 1: consider this another way. But I'm just trying to think of, Like,
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: in my mind, the main point is are they likely
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: to do something like this again, and to try and
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: use the evidence that's available to us to rule them
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: in or rule them out. If they look like they
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: are trying to already to atone for this, then that
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: seems to me that they're doing the things that indicate
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: they're unlikely to do it again. Right if they seemed
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: like they had other alternatives, that they have a history
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: of doing this sort of thing, that seems to me
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: like there their learning history has brought them to the
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: point where this is the solution that they understand the best,
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: and they need to be kept distant from other people
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: so that they don't cause further harm, like and in
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: my mind, like violence is also the demarcation line. But
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: just to say like that that's sort of my thought
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: about how to talk about responsibility is mostly that it
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: doesn't matter, it's just is it likely to happen again?
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: And what evidence do we have to suggest that it
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: is or isn't right?
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: And then how what we can do to prevent that
• 14:57
  Speaker 2: from happening again? Like I think that's I think that's
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: the thing that's like kind of maybe the thing that
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: we're getting at here too, is it's not just about
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: like is it likely to happen again? It's also about
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: what can we do to prevent this again? And what
• 15:10
  Speaker 2: I mean, what kind of restitution is appropriate given the
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: crime that was committed?
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: Right? Like? Right? Yeah, that is an important piece.
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: I think that's an important piece because you know, if
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: somebody is temporarily insane because of a medical condition or
• 15:22
  Speaker 2: something like that, which I've seen cases of that too,
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: where okay, so they are still responsible for what happened,
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: but to what degree and for how long are they
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: essentially quote unquote in time out?
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: Right?
• 15:33
  Speaker 3: Like exactly when do they get time in again? And
• 15:35
  Speaker 3: what does that look like?
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: And I think that's the thing that we have to
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: consider is I think if you consider a temporary insanity
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: plea or like, you know, not guilty by insanity or
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: whatever whatever language you want to use. I think if
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: you consider that as a compassionate look at the circumstances
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: in which the person has engaged in this behavior and
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: a more thorough way instead of just looking at the
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: crime itself and the topography of the crime, I think
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: that we are in a better place to address the
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: circumstances in a more meaningful and individualized way too.
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, completely agree. I love that point that let's say
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: that it did happen, this horrible thing happened, whatever it was,
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: whether or not, you know, I suggested that that whether
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: or not they're insane doesn't really matter, or whether or
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: not they're responsible, it doesn't matter. Let's just say that
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: it was, Like they're unlikely to reoffend again, but there
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: is still that piece of okay, but someone else was
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: still harmed in this. So we do need to have
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: some kind of consequence. That's like, these things can't happen,
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: and so like having some kind of punishment does make sense,
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: like it could some kind of penalty, whatever it might be,
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: Like you do still have to lose your freedom for
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: a certain amount of time by being in prison. You
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: do still have to pay a fine, you maybe do
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: have to do community service. Whatever there is there might be,
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: like the restitution will depend on the scope and the
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: magnitude of the crime itself, I think, and also I
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: think acknowledging sometimes accidents happen sometimes that the people totally
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: were not in control of the situation, they just happened
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: to be there and on the sort of causal end
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: of things, and that those things just took place, and
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: that people also get away with having committed serious crimes.
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: So this is not an easy, one size fits all
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: type of solution, right, But we've already gone long for
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: a second time in a row on a minis. I
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: think we should wrap it up. There. Is there anything
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: you'd like to add or anything that we need to
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: say before we let everyone go? I got nothing on
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: my end perfect. If you'd like to support the show,
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: go over to our Patreon page where you can get
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: bonus content, ad free episodes and that sort of thing. Otherwise,
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: you can leave us a rating and review, like, and subscribe,
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: Tell a friend. So this is our mini comes out
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: on Mondays. We release regular full length episodes on Wednesdays.
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: Join us there. But I think that's all I have.
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: So this is Abraham and this is Shane. We're out.
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: See you've been listening to Why We Do What We Do.
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: You can learn more about this and other episodes by
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: going to WWD wwdpodcast dot com. Thanks for listening, and
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: we hope you have an awesome day