Hi, I'm Zach and I am a writer on an elephant.
That'll make sense.
Keep listening.
It sounds weird now.
It'll make, it's still weird,
but it'll make sense in about 20 minutes.
My name's Caitlin and I can't wait to figure out
how emotionally moral I am.
I have a feeling you are.
I have a feeling I'm very moral.
My moral direction points to right.
But moreover, I think everybody is based on
the research we're doing today.
So you are a part of everyone.
And with that, welcome to Manipulating the Masses.
You are the masses.
Don't give yourselves to brutes.
Men who despise you and slave you,
who regiment your lives,
tell you what to do, what to think,
or what to feel, who drill you,
diet you, treat you like cattle,
use you as cannon fodder.
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men.
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
You are not machines.
You are not cattle.
You, the people, have the power.
Okay.
All right, so we are back with another episode
of our Bracing for 2024 series,
talking about political campaigns
and bouncing back to the psychology behind
why these things work.
Last week we discussed attack ads.
We went through a bunch of attack ads.
And you and I, Caitlin, went back and forth.
How did they make us feel?
What was our thoughts from the marketing end?
Now we're gonna break it down a little more
and talk about the theory of emotional morality
and how really our moral code
and the things that drive us in what right and wrong
is really based on our emotions and our knee-jerk reaction
and our fast-thinking reaction to different situations.
Look at me like layering in our other episodes.
This is like a pro podcast now.
I'm like impressed with ourselves.
If only someone would pay us to do this.
God damn it.
Speaking of that, my Venmo is, I'm just kidding.
We're waiting on that.
We're just giving it to you free
because we love doing it until someone offers to pay us
and then we'll do it because someone's paying us.
But in our discussion today,
I do think it's very relevant in politics and in marketing
because marketing companies do this as well,
but we vote for someone every four years, two years,
in the election cycle for president
because we think they're the right candidate
or we think the other person is the wrong candidate.
So I think it's important to address
how we come up with those decisions
and what little ticks in our brain drive that.
So Caitlin, we're gonna kick off this episode on morality
with a few scenarios.
You're gonna love these.
Your job is to tell me, is this right or is this wrong?
We're gonna all together figure out Caitlin's moral code.
So the first one, a family's dog is killed by a car
in front of their house.
Very sad day, hit by a car.
The family has heard that dog meat is delicious.
Come on.
So they cut up the dog.
Come on.
They cook it.
Come on.
And they eat it for dinner.
Stop it.
Nobody saw them do this.
Nobody else eats it.
You've already come to your moral conclusion
before I finished it.
Gross.
So why would you say, can you elaborate?
Why is that wrong to do?
Can I just ask?
Okay, my first instinct was like,
a dog is a part of your family.
You might as well have chopped up Aunt Betty
who died last year and cooked her over a frying pan.
Is there any difference between the two?
Is there a difference to you?
I mean, that's what we're coming up with.
No, there's no difference.
You see no difference in eating the dog and eating the food.
Cooking Aunt Betty and cooking a dog over your frying pan.
Asked Jeffrey Dahmer.
Do you?
Ha ha.
Okay, okay.
That's fair.
I would say the main difference,
at least in American culture,
is there are laws against eating other humans.
Is there?
I just have to ask.
Is there?
A dog.
Like seriously asking.
Like, seriously follow up.
I would hope so.
So we don't even know.
We don't know, okay.
I'm not entirely sure to be perfectly honest with you.
But to that point, laws don't define morality, right?
Like laws are an offshoot of morality.
We think what's right and we create laws
to enforce what we think is right,
but they could be wrong as well.
So your reaction is disgusting.
Okay.
You are in line with 97% of people.
97, okay.
97% of people.
In this scenario, I'm okay being a part of the masses.
Yes.
Well, we're just getting started.
So I mean, if you're listening to this in the morning,
maybe just take a pause, bookmark this,
you know, wait until a little later
because we're breaching some moral concepts here.
Okay, next.
And you are gonna know where I'm going over with this
right off the bat.
Let me finish.
Jack and Jill are brothers and sisters.
No, brother and sister.
Done.
I'm out.
I'm playing Ubers here.
I gotta go.
Their parents decide to send them on a trip to Paris
for a summer vacation before they go to college.
It's a beautiful night in the city of love.
Okay, I'm sorry.
Do you have to set up this scene?
Like we know where you're going with it.
Let's just get to the bottom.
I am literally taking these verbatim.
There's a wonderful book, The Righteous Mind
by Jonathan Hadel.
He does these experiments and he's talking about
why people are divided.
I'm not taking ownership of it.
I did not.
That's a good call.
I wanna say I did not create these scenarios.
I did not.
I am taking them verbatim
from a psychological study.
Yes, thank you.
I wanna qualify.
It's maybe a little too late to do that,
but I wanna qualify.
I did not come up with these.
So it's a beautiful night in the city of love.
Great, we're back in Paris.
Jack and Jill are brothers and sisters.
They're in Paris.
They decide that they'd like to sleep together.
It's a one-time thing.
And they feel like it would bring them closer together.
Jill is on birth control.
Jack uses protection.
They tell no one about this
and it helps their relationship.
In the future, they feel much closer
as brother and sister.
And it never happens again.
One-time thing, but it brings them closer together.
Right or wrong?
Jack, do you have a sister?
Nope.
Okay.
Well, let me just be the first to say.
Don't drag me into this.
This is Jack and Jill.
Don't drag me into this.
There is no brother and sister duo
in the entire world that would be like,
you know what?
I really want to get closer to you.
And then you find a method to do that.
Like, nobody is like,
I really need to get closer to my brother tonight.
And like, I don't care how we do it,
but I need to get closer.
It's like, no, every brother, sister, duo
in the entire world is just fine hating each other.
It is what it is.
It's the dynamic.
Everybody's fine with it.
So is it wrong?
Absolutely.
I don't even think I have to go into that.
It's incest.
That is a law.
Is it?
Yes.
Incest is for sure a law.
For sure a law.
I'm not sure about cannibalism,
but incest is a law.
Is it?
Marriage, because marrying incest is a law,
but is like relations a law in France?
I'm just kidding.
I don't know.
That's a genuine question.
Like, is it a law?
OK, well, so we're not sure about laws on this podcast.
Nope.
But as I said, laws do not define morality, right?
I think what we have to do is determine.
OK, tell me how many people I'm in line with.
Oh, 94% of people.
OK, that's disappointing.
You're telling me less people would rather
eat their dog than sleep with their sibling.
That's exactly what I'm telling you.
Yes.
There's a reason.
And we will get into that.
But there is a reason that people
feel more compelled to protect an animal than they
do human to human.
Feel compelled to protect from humans.
There is a foundation, a moral foundation,
which I'll touch on that we have that
speaks to that difference, that little bit of difference.
Yeah, and I think it's wrong, too.
I'll put that out there, too.
But it is, I do want to qualify that,
that it's hard to say why it's wrong, right?
Do you feel that?
Like, you went, your counter to why it was wrong
was like, this is unrealistic in the first place.
There's no brother and sister that would do that.
Like, that was your reasoning, right?
It wasn't anything about the nuance of right and wrong.
It was like, no, this is unrealistic.
No way, it's just wrong.
My second reason was it's incest.
But why is incest wrong?
Because you make strange babies.
OK, I agree.
I'm like, I want to qualify.
Do you use this question mark?
I'm fully on the same page as you, Caitlin.
I agree with you 100%.
But this is what we're pushing for,
is like really exploring the morality, right?
Because just saying incest is wrong is, in my opinion, correct.
But it is an emotional feeling that we're feeling.
We're feeling disgust, right?
We're feeling like that emotional tug on ourselves
to say, that's wrong.
When we have to remove ourselves from that,
it is difficult to explain in a reasoned way why it's wrong,
even though we feel like it is very, very wrong.
And that's what emotional morality is, right?
Like, it's just that feeling that we get that's like, that's
wrong.
I'm not advocating for incest.
I just feel like I'm digging myself a hole here.
I'm just, I am prompting discussion, Caitlin.
I am prompting discussion.
I get it.
In no part of my brain was like, Zach's advocating for this.
I guess you felt like you need to say that.
I needed to, because I know you would get it.
We're here face to face.
I know there's going to be thousands of people
listening to this.
This is the internet.
It's going to stay on forever in perpetuity.
I need to qualify it.
I need to be very clear.
People, celebrities have gotten burned for way worse
than me prompting a psychological discussion about incest.
I can't wait.
What's next?
OK, last one.
Yes, hit me.
Last one.
A woman is cleaning out her closet.
She finds an old American flag folded in her closet.
She doesn't want the flag anymore.
So she cuts up the flag and uses it as a rag
to clean her bath.
Right or wrong?
I mean, oh, fuck.
OK, I'm going to say wrong.
I'm going to say wrong.
A, because since the dawn of time,
since Caitlin was two years old, you've
been taught to not disrespect the flag
and do not burn the flag.
Do not do anything with the flag.
What?
Why are we laughing?
I just love that your daughter time is when you started.
Like, if the daughter time is when you were born.
I love that.
BC, Caitlin, and after Caitlin.
I love that so much.
OK, keep going.
I just love that.
So there was no world prior to Caitlin.
And so since the dawn of time, we've
been taught to not disrespect the flag.
So when you told me that, it was like very much
a visceral reaction.
And now you're going to ask me, but why is it a visceral reaction?
And I'm going to tell you, I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm confused.
OK.
I cannot have a good weekend anymore.
You're going to be thinking about eating dogs, incest,
and just desecrating the flag.
And actually, you are a perfect example of this,
because when Jonathan, hey, did these experiments
with people, he actually writes about it in the book.
He says, at some point, they did exactly what you did.
They're like, I don't know why this is wrong.
It's just wrong.
Just someone told me it was wrong.
That is the reaction.
Yeah, they would just get exhausted by being prompted of,
well, why do you think this is wrong?
Well, isn't the American flag just a piece of fabric?
Like, why is it wrong to use it as a rag?
And they just get beat down to the point that they say,
it's just wrong.
And that is the validation that this is just our morality
is justified by emotional tugs and pulls of our brain.
It's this idea that when we feel discussed
or when we feel disrespect, that's wrong.
Can I say, though, it's almost as if my morality was
defined by my upbringing.
So if I were, and I am in no way, shape or form,
disrespecting any sort of culture.
But I am going to say, in other cultures,
eating a dog is not looked down upon.
And often, it is like a means to an end.
It's survival.
And in that mindset, I would say,
a dog is not a household family member.
It doesn't belong in the house.
And so I am OK eating it, just as I am OK eating cow
or chicken or whatever.
So it's almost as if this isn't my own moral compass.
This is somebody else's morality defined for me.
That's so astute.
And I think that they do, he does talk about it.
There are differentiators between cultures.
As far as these scenarios are concerned,
but there are some cultures where even saying no to an elder
is blasphemy.
If someone's older than you, it is ultimate and respect.
And if any counter to their thought
is completely just immoral, and it
brings up that same feeling of disgust when they see people
disrespecting their elders like that.
So there is these elements and these cultural differences
between these particular scenarios.
But what he finds is there are six key components
to our emotional morality that drive us.
And we will later in the episode talk about them.
And then we're going to actually dive into each one
throughout the season, really try to talk about each one
of these six moral foundations.
So I'll leave that there.
I'll touch on them later.
But it is very key.
There's a common feeling between all of us
and reactions to certain things that drive it,
even though the scenarios will differentiate
between cultures.
It's a great point.
You should write this book, Caitlin.
Well done.
So bringing it to the political sphere,
we see politicians on both sides using these emotional
morality type of reactions to get people to either like them
and hate the other side.
And I pulled three examples.
Republicans claiming that the Democrats are
running a pedophile ring is my first one.
Pedophiles, we've talked about it,
take care of the children.
That just elicits such a strong emotional reaction
that they get people to be fully on board with the Republican
platform because they say Democrats are running a pedophile
ring.
And how can you be four pedophiles?
How do you get that same disgust
you mean that you had when someone was using the American
flag as a rag?
It's that same feeling where you can't before that.
Democrats on the other side claiming Republicans
are forcing back alley abortions.
And it's tough.
Like that is an emotional reaction that we have.
That one's a little bit harder because people can argue that
because they're serious.
God, I don't know.
The more I thought about it, the more I was like,
it's like, oh, my thoughts are going in circles about that one.
What is up?
What is down?
When we're thinking about morality, yeah, no.
We're on the same side of the political spectrum.
I think there's many arguments for that.
The Republicans are always going to argue we're pro-life.
And so nobody should like there is no scenario where there's
back alley abortions happening.
But the Democrats are claiming Republicans are forcing this.
And then the Republicans would say.
Yeah.
And then the Republicans would say, like, yeah.
That one's a bit.
That one doesn't feel.
That one.
Yeah.
That one doesn't feel as black and white as like Pizza
Gate, for example, where it's like, yeah, none of us
are for pedophilia.
None of us are for cutting open babies and drinking their blood.
Nobody's for that.
The back alley abortion feels like there might be a gray area.
But I don't think that's the topic of discussion.
I think I just had to say that.
No, I think you make a good point
because what we discuss on the podcast in previous episodes
is there's a fervent, dedicated audience to the Republicans.
And you and I both are on the other side
of the political spectrum.
But I would not say I'm hardcore Democrat.
I don't root for the Democrats every time
because I just have values, my own moral values,
that align with them.
And maybe that's what Republicans are doing better
is they're drawing these hard moral lines
saying Democrats are pedophiles while on the blue side,
it's more ambiguous.
They're like, yeah, they're not pulling
on our emotional morality to say we need to vote Democrat
or this country is going to totally go to shit.
Maybe that's a piece of the marketing
that we can discuss later.
But I will say in that vein, both sides
are claiming that the other one is completely destroying
the American culture.
What it is to be American, both sides
are saying vote for us.
The other person is taking the American flag, cutting it up,
and using it as a bathroom cleaner.
They are both saying that from different sides
to try to tug on that emotional morality.
And you made a good point.
You said your mind was spinning.
And it's like what we talked about, that fast and slow
decision making, this emotion and reason.
It's enough to send you in circles.
You don't know what's up and down.
And it is disorienting to some degree.
And the political parties, both of them
play on this to try to get you to feel very strongly about one
party and hate the other party.
In order to even get you to vote,
you got to feel a moral compulsion to vote.
And you need not only a moral compulsion to vote,
but to vote for them.
And I think a good example of this as well is gun control,
when we're talking about politics.
The Democrats argue reason.
And they argue, hey, less guns, less access to guns,
equals less shootings.
Here's the statistics.
Here's how we compare against other countries.
They throw a lot of numbers out.
They throw a lot of patterns out.
Republicans utilizing emotion say gun control is in our rights.
It was written as the Second Amendment in our Constitution.
You cannot take that away from us.
This is sacred.
This is something that was written into our Constitution.
Limiting guns is limiting our sacred rights as Americans.
And that is why I feel they get tons of support on the gun lobby.
Gets massive support because it's an emotional moral thing.
While Democrats, while we feel emotional or while gun control
advocates feel very emotional about it,
their argument is very steeped in reason.
And the only time they get leverage
is when there's a mass shooting.
And that obviously emotional pull of innocent people dying.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
I know I'm touching on tough subjects right now.
Yeah, I think there's a difference
between taking something away from someone.
People are going to be so much more inclined to hold on to that.
There's so much more inclined to say,
don't take away my rights versus the left side
is where we want to institute new laws.
We want to institute better background checks.
So it's harder to get on board with that because people
don't feel like anything is getting taken away from them
versus the Republican and the right is like,
I'm losing something.
That is a perfect segue.
I could not agree more.
And that's a perfect segue into my next moral scenario for you.
So here's the scenario.
And this one does involve me and you.
But it's not OK.
I'll just get into it.
I hand you, Caitlin, a piece of paper.
The piece of paper is a contract.
It says, I hereby sell my soul after my death to Zach Phillips
for $50.
So I give you $50, you give me your soul.
You have it.
I include a footnote.
Good luck.
I include a footnote that says, this is not
a binding legal document.
But it's a piece of paper that you would say,
hey, I will sell my soul to you for $50.
I get $50, you get my soul after my death.
Boom, done.
Would you sign it?
If I got $50.
You got $50.
For my soul.
I mean, first of all.
Do you sign it?
If I'm giving you?
You should have put a higher dollar amount on that.
Is anybody doing anything for $50?
Any more?
So you're at least debating it.
Like, do I even want to do this for $50?
Because the dollar amount, I upped it to $50 to be clear.
Like, in his experiment, he said $1.
I love debating to make it a little more reasonable.
$1.
When was this written?
Like, when they were exchanging rocks for currency?
The dollar amount doesn't matter.
I'll give you that hint.
Like, the dollar amount does not matter.
It does.
Because A, I don't care what you do with my soul afterwards.
I do not care.
It is, you are not, you're getting nothing out of that deal.
But I have to make sure I get something from that deal.
And that something is money.
I want money.
But you're giving away nothing.
Who cares if it's a dollar or $50?
But you think it's worth something.
You think it's worth something.
So now I'm telling you it's worth more.
And I'm saying, yeah, you can have it.
I don't care.
But it's actually worth a million.
You're going to negotiate the price of your soul?
OK.
I mean, that's a fair answer.
Spoken like a true business owner.
Well played.
But you're even debating it.
Like, for me, that's my fast thinking brain too.
At first, I'm like, give me more money.
And fuck yeah.
But at the end of the day, when I think through it,
I'm like, personally, I don't believe in a soul.
I don't think I have anything after death.
Give me the $50.
Sure.
I'll sign a fucking bullshit piece of paper.
And I'll just cash in $50 for free.
Why not?
Go have myself a nice dinner.
You know?
Like, who cares?
Right?
Yeah, that's the easiest $50 I've ever made.
And so now I think I can make more.
You're going to milk it for more.
Do you want my spirit?
That's fair.
Well, you are not in the masses.
Yeah.
You want my consciousness?
You know?
My consciousness?
My ghost.
My habit.
Yeah, my ghost.
They're like, what's on the menu?
What's is on the menu?
I love it.
Well, we didn't get into the typical,
you're not in the masses on that one.
You're not in the masses.
That doesn't surprise me.
Because typically people will.
Sorry to interrupt.
But that doesn't surprise me because religion, it's
so prevalent, and there is belief of an afterlife.
And God, all religions, I think.
Yeah.
Well, that's why you put the qualifier in there
that footnote that says this is not a binding legal document.
So at the end of the day, even if you still believed in that,
it's not a binding legal document.
It's just signing a random piece of paper for $50.
But people are still.
But it plays on that.
So protective of their souls.
And that's the emotional morality of it.
Our rational brains, our slow thinking brains say,
yeah, who gives a fuck?
It's not a legal document.
Maybe I don't even believe in a soul.
Give me the $50.
But our initial reaction, that fast thinking emotional brain,
says, my soul's worth more than $50.
Or I don't want to give that up.
I don't want to give up my soul.
What is going on here?
So hate creates this wonderful analogy
that I love that I said in my intro.
He calls it the elephant and the rider.
And this idea that our fast thinking emotional brain
is the elephant.
And it's big.
And it's moving.
And it's just lumbering along, really truly out
of our own control.
Our rational brain, that slow thinking brain, is the rider.
We can learn how to navigate it.
We can tell the elephant which direction to go.
We can learn the elephant's ticks and tricks
to guide the elephant.
But at the end of the day, that elephant's
going to go where it wants to go.
And there's some element of our brain
that if we're riding this elephant
and it starts moving towards the water hole,
we can say, oh, the elephant's thirsty.
We can rationalize the elephant's movements
as the rational brain.
But the elephant in its emotional state
is going to do what it wants to do.
Do you have any thoughts?
I think that's a great analogy of what
we've been experimenting with.
Do you have any thoughts on that?
Where does morality fit in that scenario?
That's a great question.
So rolling with this analogy, riding with this analogy,
the rider, it's the two working together.
The rider benefits the elephant in the sense
that the rider can see further into the future.
It can see trappings laid ahead and guide the elephant
around it.
So it can make better decisions for the elephant.
The rider can learn new skills and tactics,
which can help the elephant reach its goals and avoid
disaster.
And most importantly, the rider acts as a spokesperson
for the elephant.
So this is where morality comes in,
where our moral, that feeling of disgust,
is something innate with us.
That's the elephant, and that rider
is us trying to rationalize why it's bad to eat a dog.
The rider is acting as a spokesperson
for that emotional reaction.
But that doesn't mean the elephant's dumb.
It's really smart.
That's why he uses an elephant.
Elephants are really smart.
The idea that your emotions are stupid is ridiculous.
It is very smart.
The rider is just like the PR firm for the elephant.
The rider reacts and rationalizes and guides
the elephant in the right direction as best it can.
Wait, so in the dog-eating scenario,
your my reaction to that was like, was the elephant
or was it the rider talking?
It was the elephant and the rider trying to justify?
Exactly.
Oh, so the elephant was my emotion
and the rider was the morality.
Yes, the rider was you trying to explain,
like this is why the dogs are part of your family.
Like you saying a dog's a part of the family.
I feel like that's the same as eating Aunt Betty.
That's the rider.
The elephant is that emotional gut disgust of like,
oh, that's wrong.
You know what I'm saying?
And then the rider just rationalized.
OK, gotcha.
Yep.
Yeah, so I think it's a great analogy.
And to tie this to the 2024 election,
we need to be aware, particularly on both sides,
when politicians are speaking to the rider
or they're speaking to the elephant.
When we see ads that just try to tug,
as we saw in the attack ads, right?
Like the one I think of is Hillary Clinton's attack
ad that we reviewed that was like having the kids watching
Donald Trump say terrible things, right?
Like there really wasn't a substance of what Hillary
was trying to do differently.
It was really speaking to our elephant of like, oh,
protect the kids.
Don't let them see a world where Donald Trump becomes
president, right?
And we can beat that manipulation that politicians
try to do by understanding the difference and recognizing it
and saying, OK, I'm feeling this way.
Why are they trying to get me to feel this way?
And what rationalizations can I make to counter that?
So with that, I lost it.
I had a thought and I lost it.
I know I lost my elephant.
You lost your rider.
Your elephant's still going strong.
You never lose the elephant.
The rider took a break.
My rider's gone.
But that's really all I have.
It's kind of a heavy thinking episode,
so we'll keep it kind of short.
But do you have any gut reactions to that?
Like, what is your elephant?
What do you need to speak for your elephant?
The rider is checked out, gone for the day.
He jumped off.
He tied up the elephant at his watering hole.
And the elephant is just at the watering hole on a Friday.
Well, in that sense, I will how we're going to break this out.
Next episode, we're going to talk about campaign slogans
and kind of how they pull on some
of those emotional moralities.
But I do want to give you the six directions,
the six moral foundations that are common across all of us.
So first, we have the Care and Harm Foundation,
the idea that we either need to care for someone
or the reaction when someone's being harmed.
That is a key component and a key moral foundation.
And we'll actually be talking about that in two episodes.
The other moral foundation, the direction that the elephant
goes, is the fairness-cheating moral foundation.
We have very strong reactions to being fair to people
and very strong reactions when we feel like someone is cheating
us or cheating someone we care about.
I might have missed that.
The other one is.
But can you, when you're talking about these opposites,
what are you saying that we should be prepared for this
in 2024 to look for ads that are either appealing to care
or harm?
And you should be aware of whether your elephant is
being pulled in one direction or the other?
Yes.
So solely by playing on these moral foundations.
OK, so these moral foundations.
Gotcha, gotcha.
So people will play on these moral foundations.
Either they're playing on harm and causing a reaction from you
or they're playing on care and trying
to cause a reaction from you.
Either way, it's a moral foundation
that you need to be cognizant of.
Exactly.
I think the perfect example is the one
that we talked about, the Pizza Gate, deep QAnon people
playing on the Care Harm Foundation
by saying children are being manipulated,
their blood is being drank in the basement of this pizza
seller and it's run by this Democratic cabal when the pizza
place didn't even have a basement.
So they're playing on that moral foundation so hard,
it's devoid of any fact.
And there's no rationalization of that fact.
It's completely wrong.
But they are just manipulating that moral foundation
to get people to be on their team and be on their side
and advocate for what they're doing.
Nice.
OK.
So it's devoid of all reason and fact and solely.
And politicians on both sides do this.
And they're doing this more and more frequently
because people don't want to do research.
They're just playing on this.
So I think the goal of this series that we're going to do
is really getting people to understand.
And the first part is just understanding
that they're trying to do this.
And then your rational, your slow thinking, your rider,
brain can kick in and start to break it down a little bit
and make either a rational decision rather than
an emotional one.
Gotcha.
So there's kind of a problem.
No, no, no.
You explained it so brilliantly because I was a little,
like I said, the rider is left of the station.
A Friday afternoon.
It's been a long week.
OK.
So no, that's great.
So Karen Harm, what was the other one?
Fairness and cheating.
Yep.
So the idea that if someone's getting cheated or it's not
fair, we have a very strong reaction to that.
Loyalty and betrayal is another one.
Having loyalty to someone or betraying someone
is a common moral foundation.
This one I think is going to be very interesting to talk about.
But the authority and subversion moral foundation,
there is a moral reaction to authority and a moral,
we get these kind of emotional gut reactions
to subversion of authority as well.
I think that one's going to be a very interesting one.
That one plays into the next one.
So authority subversion, I think that one's
straightforward in politics, the authoritative,
whatever.
The next one is sanctity and degradation.
Now that is the emotional moral foundation
that I was playing on with the American flag.
Like there's the American flag.
We're degrading the American flag by using it as a bathroom,
rag, there's some sanctity, there's some like,
it can't be messed with because it is the American flag.
That's the moral foundation.
And then the last one is liberty and oppression.
So the idea of freedom and liberty and the idea
of being oppressed have very strong moral foundation
gut reactions from us as well.
So like I said, we'll give political examples.
Exactly, exactly like that kind of,
we want our freedom versus you are oppressing us by taking
it away.
Exactly, you're 10 steps ahead of me per usual, Caitlin.
So we will be giving political examples of this as we go on.
And then we will be diving into each one of these and saying,
OK, here's how you can tell that they're
playing on this particular foundation.
And here's how you can rationalize out of that.
And hopefully maybe even rationalize your peers,
family, whoever you're talking about with the election
to try to get a sensible conversation that doesn't
devolve into screaming at each other.
That's all I got.
Anything else?
No one really wants.
Are we morally right?
Are we still in the right?
Have you had second thoughts?
No, I'm just kidding.
I'm always on the right.
In the right.
I feel the same.
Maybe not on the right, but in the right, for sure.
I was going to say, I'm going to let you finish that sentence
and then cut it off right there.
All right.
Well, thanks.
Stay tuned for our next episode.
If you like this one, please like, subscribe,
follow us on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, the whole.
You guys know the deal.
You listen to podcasts.
Just find us, Google it, manipulating the masses.
Bye.
See you next week.