Latest / The Search / The Mechanics of Outrage: Empathy Versus Social Deterrence

Transcript

The Mechanics of Outrage: Empathy Versus Social Deterrence · The Search

0:00
SPEAKER_01: Welcome to The Bait.
0:00
SPEAKER_01: So today I want you to picture a woman dialing a phone number.
0:05
SPEAKER_01: She's calling a tip line to report an undocumented immigrant.
0:08
SPEAKER_01: You are watching her actively try to inflict state violence on someone,
0:12
SPEAKER_01: essentially attempting to ruin a life because of her own personal frustrations.
0:16
SPEAKER_01: And then, well, then you look at the Internet's response.
0:19
SPEAKER_01: Right.
0:19
SPEAKER_01: The backlash.
0:21
SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
0:22
SPEAKER_01: The reaction is instantaneous.
0:23
SPEAKER_01: They mock her.
0:24
SPEAKER_01: They condemn her.
0:25
SPEAKER_01: They completely destroy her online.
0:27
SPEAKER_01: It's clean.
0:28
SPEAKER_01: It's fast.
0:29
SPEAKER_01: And, you know, it feels like absolute justice.
0:31
SPEAKER_02: Yeah.
0:32
SPEAKER_02: It basically functions like an immediate social antibody response to a pathogen.
0:37
SPEAKER_02: Like we see harm being committed and the collective immune system of
0:40
SPEAKER_02: the community just attacks it to neutralize the threat.
0:43
SPEAKER_02: It is highly efficient.
0:45
SPEAKER_01: It is efficient,
0:46
SPEAKER_01: but Julian Brown's essay,
0:48
SPEAKER_01: The Mechanics of Outrage,
0:49
SPEAKER_01: which for context looks at this exact scenario,
0:52
SPEAKER_01: though the original incident was actually a comedic video featuring a fake tip line,
0:56
SPEAKER_01: he asks us to hit the brakes on that immune response.
0:59
SPEAKER_01: He asks a profoundly difficult question,
1:02
SPEAKER_01: which is,
1:03
SPEAKER_01: what would have to be true for this behavior to make sense from her perspective?
1:06
SPEAKER_02: Which is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people.
1:09
SPEAKER_01: Absolutely.
1:10
SPEAKER_01: So today we're examining the tension between that kind of empathic reconstruction
1:14
SPEAKER_01: and the raw utility of social outrage.
1:16
SPEAKER_01: I will be defending Brown's thesis.
1:19
SPEAKER_01: I argue that distinguishing causal explanation from moral justification is really
1:23
SPEAKER_01: the only functional route to diagnosing and preventing bad behavior.
1:27
SPEAKER_01: Pure condemnation on the other hand is mostly just performative.
1:30
SPEAKER_02: I will be taking the contrasting perspective today.
1:52
SPEAKER_02: Or what we often derisively call outrage,
1:55
SPEAKER_02: actually serves a vital functional role in deterrence and boundary policing.
2:00
SPEAKER_01: Okay, let's begin by unpacking the core machinery of Brown's argument,
2:04
SPEAKER_01: because it rests on a vital distinction that public outrage almost always collapses.
2:08
SPEAKER_01: And that is the difference between understanding a mechanism and excusing a behavior.
2:12
SPEAKER_02: Okay, but when you say understanding a mechanism,
2:15
SPEAKER_02: what are we actually asking people to do in the real world?
2:18
SPEAKER_02: Because, I mean, that can sound like a massive academic mouthful.
2:21
SPEAKER_01: Fair point.
2:22
SPEAKER_01: Let's use the woman calling the tip line.
2:24
SPEAKER_01: Brown breaks her action down into three distinct, separate components.
2:28
SPEAKER_01: First, her frustration was real.
2:32
SPEAKER_01: She genuinely felt she was working hard and struggling, while others benefited at her expense.
2:38
SPEAKER_01: Second, her explanation for that frustration,
2:41
SPEAKER_01: blaming undocumented immigrants, was objectively wrong.
2:45
SPEAKER_02: Right.
2:46
SPEAKER_02: Completely wrong.
2:47
SPEAKER_01: And third, her resulting action was deeply harmful.
2:51
SPEAKER_01: But Brown's critical insight is that all three of these things can be true at
2:54
SPEAKER_01: the exact same time.
2:56
SPEAKER_01: Like, her pain is real, her logic is flawed, and her actions are dangerous.
3:02
SPEAKER_02: Right.
3:02
SPEAKER_02: And the mob just sees the danger.
3:05
SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
3:06
SPEAKER_01: When we rely on public outrage, we just flatten all of that complexity.
3:10
SPEAKER_01: We just label her a bad person.
3:12
SPEAKER_01: But as the essay points out,
3:14
SPEAKER_01: diagnosing the psychological friction,
3:17
SPEAKER_01: asking what information she might be missing that leads her to this conclusion,
3:21
SPEAKER_01: is mechanically necessary to stop the cycle.
3:24
SPEAKER_01: If we don't understand the causal chain that led to the behavior,
3:28
SPEAKER_01: we have zero capacity to dismantle the machinery that produces it.
3:32
SPEAKER_01: We are literally just yelling at a machine we refuse to take apart.
3:36
SPEAKER_02: Look, I can completely validate the clean abstract logic of that framework.
3:40
SPEAKER_02: It is philosophically pristine to say that explanation does not equal justification.
3:46
SPEAKER_02: But we have to pivot immediately to the real world friction of that demand.
3:51
SPEAKER_02: Outrage is not just a, well, a simple answer that exists merely to comfort us.
3:57
SPEAKER_02: Outrage is a vital social technology.
4:00
SPEAKER_01: How so?
4:00
SPEAKER_01: I mean, what is it actually building?
4:02
SPEAKER_02: It's a rapid response mechanism for setting community norms.
4:07
SPEAKER_02: When Brown posits that we must pause
4:09
SPEAKER_02: to perform this deep psychological reconstruction of a bad actor,
4:13
SPEAKER_02: he's demanding a massive expenditure of social energy.
4:17
SPEAKER_02: My position is
4:18
SPEAKER_02: that prioritizing this empathic reconstruction fundamentally deprioritizes
4:23
SPEAKER_02: the immediate need for boundary enforcement.
4:26
SPEAKER_01: But does it have to be an either or situation?
4:28
SPEAKER_02: Well, it asks the community and often the highly vulnerable targets of the harm
4:33
SPEAKER_02: to put their own self-defense on hold in order to prioritize
4:37
SPEAKER_02: the aggressor's narrative.
4:39
SPEAKER_02: Stigma and outrage evolve to protect the group.
4:43
SPEAKER_02: Stripping them away leaves the group exposed.
4:46
SPEAKER_01: I see the logic there.
4:47
SPEAKER_01: Yeah, but it assumes that understanding the aggressor and protecting
4:51
SPEAKER_01: the group are mutually exclusive actions,
4:54
SPEAKER_01: and Brown explicitly argues that they aren't.
4:57
SPEAKER_01: Let's dig into the first major load-bearing assumption here, how and why people act.
5:02
SPEAKER_01: Brown suggests we need to ask,
5:04
SPEAKER_01: what would have to be true for an action to make sense from the actor's perspective?
5:09
SPEAKER_02: Wait, this is where Brown loses me.
5:11
SPEAKER_02: He is making a massive assumption here.
5:14
SPEAKER_02: He's relying on what we might call the rationality assumption.
5:17
SPEAKER_01: OK, explain that.
5:19
SPEAKER_02: He's looking at this woman and assuming she is merely trying to make sense
5:23
SPEAKER_02: of her own situation as if she's just a fundamentally decent person operating with
5:28
SPEAKER_02: a flawed data set.
5:30
SPEAKER_02: I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that.
5:32
SPEAKER_02: Let me tell you why.
5:33
SPEAKER_01: Go for it.
5:34
SPEAKER_02: Because it completely ignores the realities of intentional cruelty,
5:37
SPEAKER_02: bad faith opportunism and structural malice.
5:41
SPEAKER_02: Think about a political opportunist who scapegoats a minority group.
5:44
SPEAKER_02: They aren't necessarily trying to make sense of a confusing world.
5:48
SPEAKER_02: They are often executing a calculated, cynical strategy to consolidate power.
5:53
SPEAKER_02: Sure.
5:53
SPEAKER_02: Bad faith actors exist.
5:55
SPEAKER_02: Right.
5:55
SPEAKER_02: But if we approach every instance of malice as a mere misunderstanding,
5:59
SPEAKER_02: if we constantly ask, oh, what data are they missing?
6:02
SPEAKER_02: We become completely vulnerable to them.
6:05
SPEAKER_02: They will happily weaponize our desire for nuance just to avoid accountability.
6:09
SPEAKER_01: I see why you think that.
6:10
SPEAKER_01: But let me give you a different perspective.
6:13
SPEAKER_01: Even intentional cruelty and calculated opportunism have causal mechanisms.
6:18
SPEAKER_01: That's exactly what Brown is getting at.
6:20
SPEAKER_01: Let's look at the bad faith opportunist you just mentioned.
6:23
SPEAKER_01: Yes, they might be acting with pure calculation, but why does that calculation work?
6:27
SPEAKER_01: Because fear sells.
6:28
SPEAKER_01: Right.
6:29
SPEAKER_01: But what are the specific environmental incentives making that a viable strategy in
6:33
SPEAKER_01: that specific moment?
6:34
SPEAKER_01: What are the structural vulnerabilities in the population that make them receptive to that fear?
6:40
SPEAKER_01: When Brown says we need to understand how someone arrived at a decision,
6:43
SPEAKER_01: he isn't mandating that we discover a sympathetic inner child
6:46
SPEAKER_01: in every corrupt politician.
6:48
SPEAKER_01: He is mandating that we map the architecture of the behavior.
6:52
SPEAKER_02: But mapping takes time.
6:53
SPEAKER_02: While you are mapping the architecture, the politician is passing harmful legislation.
6:59
SPEAKER_01: True.
6:59
SPEAKER_01: But if you just label the opportunist evil and rely purely on
7:03
SPEAKER_01: the social deterrence you're advocating for,
7:06
SPEAKER_01: you might suppress that specific person in that specific moment,
7:09
SPEAKER_01: but you haven't resolved the underlying systemic vulnerabilities that produce them.
7:13
SPEAKER_01: Deterrence without diagnosis is just playing whack-a-mole in the dark.
7:17
SPEAKER_01: Whack-a-mole in the dark.
7:19
SPEAKER_01: Right?
7:20
SPEAKER_01: The essay states it perfectly.
7:22
SPEAKER_01: Calling someone a bad person doesn't tell us much about how they got there.
7:26
SPEAKER_01: It just gives us a label.
7:27
SPEAKER_01: A label is a dead end.
7:29
SPEAKER_01: A mechanism is a roadmap for actual prevention.
7:32
SPEAKER_02: OK, but let's test the boundary conditions of this roadmap,
7:37
SPEAKER_02: specifically regarding the asymmetry of harm.
7:40
SPEAKER_02: Because if you're listening to this right now,
7:42
SPEAKER_02: you are probably thinking,
7:43
SPEAKER_02: why should I care about the underlying mechanics of someone who is weaponizing
7:47
SPEAKER_02: the state against immigrants?
7:48
SPEAKER_02: And that is a completely valid reaction because I think the essay engages in
7:53
SPEAKER_02: a highly problematic false symmetry.
7:55
SPEAKER_01: You mean between the woman and the Internet commenters?
7:57
SPEAKER_02: Yes.
7:59
SPEAKER_02: Brown treats the woman attempting to inflict state violence
8:02
SPEAKER_02: on undocumented immigrants and the Internet commenters mocking her
8:05
SPEAKER_02: as symmetrical manifestations of outrage.
8:08
SPEAKER_02: He says both sides fall into the exact same loop, but this is a profound false equivalence.
8:14
SPEAKER_02: How so?
8:15
SPEAKER_02: One person is trying to literally destroy a family using the apparatus of the state.
8:20
SPEAKER_02: The other is utilizing social shaming to say this behavior is unacceptable.
8:26
SPEAKER_00: OK, I do see why that feels like a false equivalence on the surface.
8:29
SPEAKER_00: But let's look at what Brown is actually equating here.
8:32
SPEAKER_00: He is not saying the impacts of their actions are morally equivalent.
8:36
SPEAKER_00: He's saying the cognitive mechanisms they are deploying are identical.
8:39
SPEAKER_02: I'm not sure I follow.
8:40
SPEAKER_02: How is trying to deport someone cognitively identical to leaving a mean comment on a video?
8:45
SPEAKER_00: Well, the essay is very careful to state you can recognize harm
8:48
SPEAKER_00: without assuming you understand the entire person.
8:51
SPEAKER_00: Brown is pointing out that both the woman and the Internet mob are using
8:54
SPEAKER_00: the exact same cognitive shortcut.
8:56
SPEAKER_00: They are taking a highly complicated situation and turning it into a simple villain.
9:02
SPEAKER_02: Ah, the simplification process.
9:04
SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
9:05
SPEAKER_01: The woman looks at her economic struggle,
9:08
SPEAKER_01: leaves out all the complex macroeconomic data,
9:11
SPEAKER_01: ignores systemic wealth inequality, and creates a simple villain, the immigrant.
9:16
SPEAKER_01: Then, the internet commenter looks at the woman's harmful action,
9:20
SPEAKER_01: leaves out the complex socioeconomic and psychological context of her life,
9:24
SPEAKER_01: and creates a simple villain, the irredeemable bigot.
9:27
SPEAKER_02: I see what you mean.
9:28
SPEAKER_01: The symmetry isn't in the damage caused.
9:30
SPEAKER_01: It's in the willful ignorance required to feel righteous.
9:34
SPEAKER_01: If we don't recognize that we are using the exact same faulty cognitive hardware as
9:38
SPEAKER_01: the people we condemn, we are doomed to perpetually recreate the cycle of hostility.
9:42
SPEAKER_02: But is that cognitive hardware actually faulty, or is it highly optimized for survival?
9:48
SPEAKER_01: Optimized in what way?
9:49
SPEAKER_02: Well, this brings me to the practical limits of Brown's heuristic.
9:54
SPEAKER_02: We live in an era of infinite, high-velocity online interaction.
10:00
SPEAKER_02: We are exposed to thousands of bad actors,
10:03
SPEAKER_02: toxic opinions, and harmful behaviors every single week.
10:07
SPEAKER_02: It is cognitively impossible to ask what would have to be true for this behavior
10:11
SPEAKER_02: to make sense
10:12
SPEAKER_02: from their perspective every single time someone does something abhorrent.
10:16
SPEAKER_01: True, it is exhausting.
10:18
SPEAKER_02: Extremely exhausting.
10:20
SPEAKER_02: We simply don't have the information,
10:22
SPEAKER_02: the time,
10:22
SPEAKER_02: or the emotional bandwidth to perform a bespoke psychological autopsy on every troll
10:28
SPEAKER_02: and bigot we encounter online,
10:30
SPEAKER_02: which is why social sanctions exist as efficient heuristics.
10:35
SPEAKER_02: People often do not respond to understanding.
10:38
SPEAKER_02: They respond to consequences.
10:40
SPEAKER_02: Right.
10:41
SPEAKER_02: Let me give you an analogy.
10:43
SPEAKER_02: If I touch a hot stove,
10:44
SPEAKER_02: I don't need to understand the thermodynamics of the heating element
10:48
SPEAKER_02: to know I shouldn't touch it again.
10:50
SPEAKER_02: The pain teaches me the boundary.
10:52
SPEAKER_01: Right.
10:52
SPEAKER_01: The pain stops you in that exact second.
10:55
SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
10:56
SPEAKER_02: Outrage is the heat of the social stove.
10:59
SPEAKER_02: The Internet Ma provides the heat that tells society, do not touch this behavior.
11:05
SPEAKER_01: That's an interesting point, though I would frame it differently.
11:07
SPEAKER_01: The heat teaches you to pull your hand away, sure,
11:10
SPEAKER_01: but it does absolutely nothing to teach you how to fix a gas leak before
11:13
SPEAKER_01: the whole house explodes.
11:15
SPEAKER_01: Meaning what exactly?
11:16
SPEAKER_01: Meaning that outrage gives us a very comfortable illusion that we have done something.
11:21
SPEAKER_01: You join the internet mob,
11:22
SPEAKER_01: you dunk on the woman calling the tip line, and your brain rewards you.
11:25
SPEAKER_01: You literally get a hit of dopamine.
11:27
SPEAKER_01: You feel like you protected the vulnerable.
11:29
SPEAKER_01: But you haven't actually changed anything about the environment that produced her.
11:35
SPEAKER_02: Have
11:36
SPEAKER_01: you, though?
11:37
SPEAKER_01: Stigma alone rarely cures a societal illness.
11:40
SPEAKER_01: It mostly just radicalizes the behavior in the shadows.
11:43
SPEAKER_01: Think about the mechanics of how human beings process public shaming.
11:47
SPEAKER_01: Right, they retreat into echo chambers.
12:03
SPEAKER_01: Exactly.
12:04
SPEAKER_01: They go to corners of the internet where people tell them, no, you are the real victim here.
12:08
SPEAKER_01: The outrage didn't fix the bad behavior,
12:11
SPEAKER_01: it just gave it a much stronger, more hidden root system.
12:14
SPEAKER_01: As Brown notes,
12:15
SPEAKER_01: taking a complicated person and reducing them to
12:17
SPEAKER_01: a single bad decision leaves out critical information.
12:20
SPEAKER_01: If we operate in a state of constant,
12:22
SPEAKER_01: exhausted outrage,
12:24
SPEAKER_01: we are fundamentally ignorant of the very world we are trying to fix.
12:27
SPEAKER_02: But that assumed that the primary goal of the internet mob is to rehabilitate the offender.
12:32
SPEAKER_02: I would argue it is not.
12:33
SPEAKER_02: What is the goal then?
12:35
SPEAKER_02: The goal of public stigma is to signal to the rest of the group that
12:39
SPEAKER_02: the behavior carries a high social cost.
12:42
SPEAKER_02: It is an exclusionary tactic designed to preserve the integrity of the community.
12:46
SPEAKER_02: But let's look at the internal tension in Brown's solution,
12:49
SPEAKER_02: because this gets to the heart of accountability.
12:51
SPEAKER_02: He claims that we can say what you did was wrong while simultaneously asking why did you do it?
12:57
SPEAKER_01: Yes.
12:57
SPEAKER_01: Living in the space between excusing the behavior and joining the mob.
13:01
SPEAKER_02: Right.
13:01
SPEAKER_02: And honestly, when I first read this part of the essay, I struggled with it.
13:05
SPEAKER_02: That's a compelling argument.
13:06
SPEAKER_02: But have you considered how you extend empathy to someone actively causing harm
13:10
SPEAKER_02: without endorsing their worldview?
13:12
SPEAKER_02: It is tricky.
13:12
SPEAKER_02: If we publicly validate that this woman legitimately feels marginalized and
13:17
SPEAKER_02: that she feels other people are benefiting at her expense,
13:21
SPEAKER_02: do we inadvertently validate the legitimacy of her xenophobic premise in
13:25
SPEAKER_02: the public square?
13:27
SPEAKER_02: Because when we spend our time carefully contextualizing the systemic anxiety
13:31
SPEAKER_02: of people doing harm we risk laundering their toxic ideas
13:34
SPEAKER_02: into mainstream acceptability.
13:36
SPEAKER_02: By trying to understand the root of the bad behavior,
13:39
SPEAKER_02: we end up platforming the very justifications the bad actor uses
13:42
SPEAKER_02: to excuse themselves.
13:44
SPEAKER_01: That is a crucial question.
13:45
SPEAKER_01: And that is precisely why the essay rigorously separates understanding from agreement.
13:50
SPEAKER_01: Validating the existence of a feeling is not the same as validating
13:53
SPEAKER_01: the factual premise of that feeling.
13:55
SPEAKER_01: Brown writes, Can you give me an example of how that works practically?
13:58
SPEAKER_01: Because it sounds like a very thin tightrope to walk.
14:05
SPEAKER_01: Okay, think about it like a doctor treating a patient.
14:09
SPEAKER_01: Let's say a patient comes to a clinic genuinely believing they have parasites
14:13
SPEAKER_01: under their skin because of a severe hallucinatory disorder.
14:18
SPEAKER_01: The doctor must validate the reality of the patient's Oh, I see.
14:21
SPEAKER_01: Right.
14:21
SPEAKER_01: Oh.
14:35
SPEAKER_01: Brown's conclusion isn't about extending forgiveness or seeking some forced,
14:39
SPEAKER_01: enlightened compromise.
14:40
SPEAKER_01: It is a diagnostic discipline.
14:41
SPEAKER_01: It is about creating just enough cognitive breathing room to see the whole picture
14:44
SPEAKER_01: before deciding what it means.
15:02
SPEAKER_02: That is a brilliant way to frame it in a clinical setting.
15:06
SPEAKER_02: The doctor analogy is incredibly strong.
15:08
SPEAKER_02: But let's take that doctor out of the safety of their office and drop them into a street brawl.
15:14
SPEAKER_01: OK, let's go there.
15:15
SPEAKER_02: A doctor operates in a controlled environment with established power dynamics and
15:20
SPEAKER_02: a clear mandate to heal.
15:22
SPEAKER_02: The public's fear is not a clinic.
15:24
SPEAKER_02: It is a chaotic arena of competing interests, bad actors and vulnerable populations.
15:31
SPEAKER_02: When you apply clinical neutrality to a bar fight, the aggressive party usually wins.
15:36
SPEAKER_01: Because the aggressor exploits the hesitation.
15:39
SPEAKER_02: Exactly.
15:40
SPEAKER_02: I think Brown's essay assumes we all have the luxury of being the doctor in
15:44
SPEAKER_02: the room, standing safely outside the fray, calmly analyzing the mechanics.
15:50
SPEAKER_02: But think about the people who are the actual targets of the tip line call.
15:54
SPEAKER_02: They aren't doctors observing a fascinating pathology through reinforced glass.
15:58
SPEAKER_02: They are potential victims trying not to get crushed by the state.
16:02
SPEAKER_02: For them, outrage isn't a cognitive failure.
16:05
SPEAKER_02: It is an alarm bell.
16:06
SPEAKER_01: That is a really powerful distinction.
16:08
SPEAKER_01: The difference between the clinician observing the harm and the target experiencing it.
16:12
SPEAKER_01: And I think that brings us to the core synthesis of our discussion today.
16:16
SPEAKER_01: If we hold strictly to the position I've been defending,
16:19
SPEAKER_01: Brown's thesis,
16:20
SPEAKER_01: we must acknowledge a hard We might win the moment through sheer social force,
16:23
SPEAKER_01: but we lose the future because we never understood the mechanics of the conflict.
16:38
SPEAKER_02: And summarizing that position,
16:40
SPEAKER_02: I would say that while epistemic charity and the desire to understand
16:43
SPEAKER_02: the root causes of behavior have immense intellectual value,
16:47
SPEAKER_02: deploying this framework universally,
16:49
SPEAKER_02: especially during moments of active harm, carries unacceptable risks.
16:54
SPEAKER_02: It can validate dangerous grievances,
16:56
SPEAKER_02: it disproportionately burdens the vulnerable with the task
16:58
SPEAKER_02: of understanding their aggressors,
17:00
SPEAKER_02: and it blunts the shark necessary edge of social deterrence.
17:04
SPEAKER_02: It seems we've identified the survival boundary of the essay's core claim.
17:07
SPEAKER_02: I think so.
17:17
SPEAKER_01: The unresolved frontier here is whether Brown's heuristic asking what would have
17:22
SPEAKER_01: to be true for an action to make sense holds up best as
17:25
SPEAKER_01: an essential private epistemic practice.
17:28
SPEAKER_01: Perhaps it is a discipline for the individual,
17:31
SPEAKER_01: a way to seek clarity and guard against our own cognitive biases,
17:35
SPEAKER_01: even if it fails as a universal public policy or a real-time standard
17:39
SPEAKER_01: for societal interaction.
17:41
SPEAKER_02: I think that is a highly credible way to map the limits of the text.
17:44
SPEAKER_02: As a private tool to prevent oneself from becoming utterly cynical or reactive, it's profound.
17:50
SPEAKER_02: But as a public mandate for how a society should handle active malice in real time,
17:54
SPEAKER_02: well, the mechanism breaks down.
17:56
SPEAKER_01: And yet, there remains immense, enduring value in examining that space, Brown identifies.
18:02
SPEAKER_01: The gap between excusing a behavior and joining the mob.
18:06
SPEAKER_01: The source material offers profound questions about our own cognitive reflexes,
18:10
SPEAKER_01: challenging us to look at our certainty
18:13
SPEAKER_01: and ask what information we might be missing.
18:15
SPEAKER_01: We leave the final judgment to our listeners,
18:17
SPEAKER_01: as there's always more to explore in the mechanics of how we interact.
18:21
SPEAKER_02: Definitely.
18:22
SPEAKER_01: But the next time you see someone doing something inexplicable and you feel
18:25
SPEAKER_01: that clean,
18:26
SPEAKER_01: fast rush of righteous condemnation pulling you toward the simple answer,
18:31
SPEAKER_01: ask yourself, are you fixing the machine or are you just becoming another cog in it?