The Musical Innertube - Volume 2, Number 163 - Bob Jensen

JOHN 

When I was op-ed guy at the Philadelphia Inquirer, I always looked forward to reading and often publishing the latest opinion piece by Bob Jensen. They were always timely, clear aware, compassionate. Bob is Emeritus professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin. He's the author of a brand-new book titled It's Debatable, Talking Authentically About Tricky Subjects. Today we'll talk with Robert about his new book, which tries to formulate intellectual strategies that can help us clarify our political disagreements. Got critical race theory, climate change, transsexuality? If any of those interest you stay with us and hear what Robert has to say. Welcome to the Musical Innertube, Robert Jensen. 

BOB 

Well, thank you, John. Very kind of you. Appreciate being here. 

JOHN 

So, Bob, your book, at least sometimes discusses how to engage in discussion and discourse, how to employ argument and rhetoric, and the strategies we use to talk to one another. I'd like to begin with one such strategy that I've encountered a fair amount. Person A has just said to person B, “I don't think your argument makes sense, it just doesn't seem logical to me.” Person B responds, “I don't have to make sense. There you go again, you old white males, imposing your mind gauges on the way we think!” Now I know you've run into this. Well, what have you done when you face this response? 

BOB 

Yeah, there's a a kind of both of a folk wisdom. I think that one can know without actually having an argument. That common sense, that intuition, that these things should Trump intellectual work. And, you know, I spent my entire adult life as either journalist. Or a professor. So I have a fair amount invested in the idea that intellectual work matters, that that presenting logical arguments backed by evidence is important and in a sense nobody really disagrees with that. It it tends to be an A conflict only when somebody doesn't like the conclusions of your argument. So if I make a logical argument backed by evidence and you agree with me, you're going to endorse that method of coming to conclusions. If you disagree, you might argue with it. So I don't think in a sense anybody really doubts that logic and evidence matter. It's not merely a a western thing. It's not merely a white male. Thing it's a human thing. Now. We don't always do it in the ways that you know, look like modern science or something like that, or or a debating society. But in the end, if I can't explain to you why I believe something and explain why the the evidence I present leads to a conclusion. Well, then, there's no human interaction possible, really. It's simply reduced to power. If you have more power, you can ignore my argument. If I have more power, I can impose it. 

DON 

And I don't think anybody wants to live in a world where everything is settled by mere power. Let's talk for a minute about those who see the world in black and white. It's either good or it isn't. And The Who? You know, it's debatable who determines what's good and not that of course, all goes into the nuance. But let's talk about the the problem of nuance. For a while, the Gray areas of morality and that sort of thing. When you start getting into somebody who says Nope, this is bad. I've read the Bible, this is bad, and I won't stand for. And yet it's going to hurt somebody by taking that position. What's the the situation where you you're not able to convince somebody that there maybe is a Gray area and that maybe there are unintended consequences out of an action? M. 

BOB 

Well, I think here age is is beneficial. Not everybody who gets old starts to see the complexity of the world. But in my case the older I get, the more I realize that my own conclusions, no matter how valid I believe them to be. Are always in a sense rather conditional, and I'm I'm more aware of that than ever, which I think is a a. Healthy. Aspect of growing old, but I think we also have to recognize there is. I always think of a book. John Dewey wrote more than a century ago. The quest for certainty. There is something very reassuring about. No sense of certainty. There's probably no test that can determine why some people need that certainty more than other. For whatever reason, I don't feel the need to be right all the time. In fact, I've gotten tired of people demanding that everybody acknowledge their right. Let me give you an example. I'm a vegetarian now for more than 40 years I've eaten meat since I was in my 20s. But I had an engagement over e-mail with someone who's writing about this subject and was absolutely certain that eating meat was evil. He used that. Word. And I said, well, what about the varying cosmologies that consider animals in a different status? No, no, no, that's wrong. I said, what about in times of environmental stress when eating animals? Is necessary. Well, that he that was dismissed and I was quite shocked that a in in this case it was a trained philosopher, very bright. Could demand that level of certainty and use the word evil to describe a practice that human beings have been engaged in. For our entire species history that is eating meat now, it doesn't mean I think eating meat is right in all. Questions, but I'm aware of that. The question of whether or not human being should eat meat is not resolved by cut and dried. Black and white moral argument. It's simply too complex for that. And so it's not just people who who, you know, seek divine. Decisions you know who, who who revert to the supernatural to claim that something is right or wrong. I think it's a it's a common. I'm gonna call it a human failing. Maybe that's a little too strong and a little too harsh. Since we all fall prey to it. I certainly fell prey to it many times in my youth when I was convinced I was right and. Simply waited for people to shut up so I could explain to them why they were wrong. We all do it, and the question is, how do we get out of that trap, especially as the world gets more complex and the issues, as you pointed out, are less easily resolved, unintended consequences. We didn't anticipate those litter. The the debating field and we should be aware. 

JOHN 

Of them, when I was writing a textbook years and years and years ago, when I was still a professor. Sure. You called it writing worth reading and it was a very early entrant into the writing and rhetoric field where we actually had chapters about the use of reason in papers and connecting evidence to claim. And all of this. And we had, we argued a lot, the the other authors and I about can two people who both have evidence and and both have a pretty solid argument. Can they disagree in their conclusions. What is your feeling? Because I don't think people agree on that argument either. But, you know, is is your hope just that the. The people. People. Air their differences clearly, so at least we know where we disagree. Or that they. Did to the same conclusion. What do you think? 

BOB 

Well, there are certainly questions, probably basic questions in the sciences where there is only one conclusion possible for people who are truly informed. But I think in human. Fares. If only it were so simple. You know, I think of you mentioned there's a chapter in the book on on the not just climate change, but the ecological crises we face. And I think people can look at the evidence. 

JOHN 

Hmm. 

BOB 

And. Propose very different paths to what we hope is a sustainable future, simply because it's too complex. There's not enough evidence to determine a single right answer. You know, I I think I tend to be. Cautious in those debates in two senses, 1 is I hesitate to try to impose my position on anyone else. And cautious in the sense that we probably can't solve some of these problems and we better start. You know, taking steps to minimize the damage rather than think we're going to solve them. You know, we've kind of been circling around the question of hubris, a, a human flaw that certainly goes back to the earliest writing. The problem of believing 1 to oneself to be correct. And the inevitable tragedy that comes from that, it's the in fact, the center of most drama, you know, hubris and tragedy. And I think it, I think it was Whitehead who said, you know. 

JOHN 

That's life. 

BOB 

Tragedy the the the essence of tragedy isn't just in bad things happening, but the inevitable of it. And and that might be part of the human condition as we sort of slide down these multiple cascading ecological crises. That's a phrase I borrow from an old friend. It does seem to to be maybe human fate, but of course we can do our best to minimize the damage on the way down. 

DON 

How difficult is? To get somebody to unlock their their cement head, if you will, somebody who is definitely certain that this is the case and there is no other way around it. And I'm talking about people who just don't see climate change or see climate change. In a strange light like I have some meteorologists as. And most of them agree that we're having climate change and and they're not necessarily saying that there are more storms, but that the storms that are happening are much more powerful because of the influences of climate change. And then I have others who say this is the way the world has always worked. We had an Ice Age, we had a a point in our evolution of the of the globe where we had huge jungles where the Arctic now is. So this is just part of. What normally happens, and they won't sit back and say maybe mankind is speeding it up a little bit. So how do how do you if somebody has a a, a particular belief and they're not going to let go of it? Is it better just to let them have their belief or? 

BOB 

Yeah. 

DON 

Is it? Worthwhile to try to make some cracks in that cement. 

BOB 

Well, let me. Say a few things about that. First of all, in a sense, the example you gave, both things are true. The climate has changed dramatically over the course of the planet, and the point isn't that the climate has been stable for, you know, millions of years. The question is, given the acceleration of climate change and the expansive. 

Speaker 

Hmm. 

BOB 

Nature of the human enterprise right now, with 8 billion people. These changes, which happen perhaps more quickly than we can even imagine. Are going to result in. Human suffering that we have a hard time getting our head around. And so the question isn't who's right about the, you know, the client. The question is, do you care about the human suffering? And beyond that, do you care about the the? Threat to biodiversity the extinction of other species. Now if if people say they don't care about that, it's usually because they're affluent enough that they're protected, or they believe themselves to be protected from that suffering. So I think that goes back to a basic question of empathy. You know, I what to do depends on context. And and goal and I think of these things in terms of real people, so. Let me take an example of someone whose opinion I never bothered to try and change past the age of about 19, and that was my late father and he was rooted in a point of view that was unmovable, and I saw that fairly early and I made no attempt to move him because it was. Wasted effort, on the other hand, I had lots of colleagues when I taught at the University of Texas who always thought I was a bit of an alarmist. You know, always saying things are not as bad as you say. Jensen, you know, the environmental stuff will get fixed and. Not too long ago, one of those colleagues who I talked with for you know, my entire time at UT, said, well, Jensen, it turns out you may be right and what that meant was he was slowly thinking about conversations we probably had, you know, years ago. And anybody who's been a teacher knows that. The goal is not always to change a student's mind in the moment to present that with evidence, to challenge a belief they have. Let's say it's to get them thinking. And I think anybody who's ever taught or taught successfully has gotten letters from students who said, you know, I was in your class five years ago. And I thought you were a lunatic. But now I'm and I'm out in the world, and I'm starting to think you might have had a point. 

JOHN 

You're making me feel much better, Robert, I. Got a lot of. 

Speaker 

So. 

BOB 

And and that comes under. I always call this that it's from a a line from an old Tom Waits song. You can't unring a bell, right? Once you've rung somebody's bell and planted the seed, then you can't know when that seed might bear fruit. I had many conversations with students at the University of Texas. Where you know, they left my office. I know. Absolutely convinced I was wrong about everything and it would be interesting to, you know, chart the the intellectual path of all of them. I'm not saying everybody eventually figures out I was right because I've been wrong about things, but I think that's the goal is not to in the in the immediate. Element. Pressure someone into accepting. Or. Conclusion. But to present a case that gets them thinking, and I find that. Immensely enjoyable and I might be a little weird about this, but I I like arguing because not only it's fun to mix it up a little bit, but it challenges me. You know, the book of mine called plain radical, which was about my late friend Jim Coplin. 

JOHN 

Yeah. 

BOB 

Who? Who said once? Comparing he called it open-ended, disciplined inquiry. And he said it's more fun than anything else in the world. More fun than sitting at a blackjack table in Las Vegas for sure. And he was an old farm boy who went on to become a professor and. That really, I think, captures it open-ended, disciplined inquiry. You don't know where it's heading, but you have a discipline, you're committed to an honest engagement. And again, it might be a kind of oddball person who enjoys that, but it's been the most enjoyable. It's why I love being a professor. You know, amid all the bureaucratic BS and the and the reports you had to file, it was a job that paid you to to engage in open-ended, disciplined. Inquiry and I can't think of any a better way to make a living. I once I found out what a a a job I had, I was going to hold on to it. That was for sure. I think it's great fun and it doesn't guarantee that any two people ever come to the same place. 

Speaker 

This. 

BOB 

But it it makes the process enjoyable, at least for me. 

JOHN 

Want to ask you about? You write. So, well in this book. At various points in the book, in fact, about. The wokeness is. Issue. Critical race theory and cancel culture, all of which have different relationships, one to the the others and. And this is this has happened, I'm sure repeated times for you and has for me, and I'm sure with. Don, is that? Sometimes people who have experienced. Trauma due to history, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation. They will. Preface what they're going to say by foregrounding their ethnicity or the source of their trauma. They're saying as a black person, as a transsexual, as you know, fill in the blank, they'll foreground their identity as a basis for authority. Well, what they're actually also doing is shutting down your claim to authority. Or at least that's how it feels, yeah. I I want to be compassionate. To what extent do you think compassion? And. Leads us to say, yeah, it in some ways. They're very understandable. They do have authority. But then how do you? Mount a claim that other people might have something good to say in a situation like this. 

BOB 

Yeah. And I think that's why when invocations of identity to shut down the conversation are used. It's not just the person. You know me a an old white guy who suffers the conversation, suffers and lots of people have pointed out that and they're not all old white guys who pointed that out. I think we we should distinguish between identity. As relevant to how one experiences the world, which is obviously true and identity as a trump card, which it should, I think, never be so. I always think of this example, one of the first times I I started to. And this many people who were in law school in the old days, let's say, you know, 1960s, seventies, it wasn't uncommon. For a professor in a criminal law case, when talking about rape cases. To be somewhat cavalier, not realizing that of the female students in the room. A certain percentage had experienced sexual assault. And all of those women have experienced some kind of, you know, what I call sexual intrusion. And so for a professor to be challenged that the way he usually, he obviously is talking about a crime, that crime is not an abstraction. It's something a fair number of people in the room might have lived through. And the nature of the trauma that so often accompanies sexual assault. Is complex and will in fact shut down some number of students in the room who won't be able to engage. Alright, that's a case where identity matters. Being woke in a sense is a good thing to try and open up the conversation and make sure everybody can participate. The problem, of course, is that there are times when people either deliberately or not. Invoke identity to shut down conversations that should be more productive. So as in everything you know, when when people say to me am I woke, I say well, it depends. You know, I've been accused of being woke because I've been writing critically about race, about white supremacy and whiteness for the better part of 30 years now. And I've often, you know, I have a a box full of letters. This goes back so far. It's sometimes I got paper letters, uh, by people telling me I was an embarrassment to white people. I was pandering to black, you know, all the kinds of things one hears. Well, 30 years later, I think what we call critical race theory in that deep analysis of white supremacy. It was compelling. Then it's compelling now. It changed my life to take it seriously. But it doesn't mean everybody who labels himself as a critical race theorist is right about every claim. And we want to go forward because. Everybody's intellectual contribution is potentially useful. The way I'll, I'll summarize is I I would tell students who would try to to invoke identity as a, as a kind of. Guarantee of their analysis, I would say. Experience and identity is the beginning of analysis. It is itself, not analysis. To simply say I am in this category and I've had these experience is no guarantee that your analysis of how the world works is going to be the most accurate. So it doesn't diminish the differences in experience and identity that are so important. It just doesn't allow them to shut down important conversations. That's the way I feel. Yeah, of course. One has to be, you know, sensible in this. For instance, I've worked a lot in feminism, and especially the radical feminist critique of ***********. I always understood that after learning so much from those women who who offered that analysis, my job wasn't to go around telling women other women what to think about it. My job was to speak to men about what I'd learned from this analysis. And so I I you know, I didn't go into all female spaces and say, all right, women sit down. Shut up. I've got some things you need to understand that would have. That's simply. 

DON 

Mansplaining. It would have been mansplaining. 

BOB 

It. But when women in in classes or audiences or anywhere have asked me what have you learned about these subjects from your your research? I'm happy to offer it always recognizing it was the insights of radical feminist women, you know, now a half a century ago. That help me see it clearly. So both things are true. I would have never seen it on my own. I'm pretty sure, but once I did see that the power of that analysis I have had things to offer, cause I've done work. And so both things are true. I think I have something to say. And yet being male, certainly limited. My ability to see them without the the assistance of that feminist analysis. 

DON 

It's, uh, interesting, because I was talking to a friend of mine not too long ago, and uh, he's of Asian descent. I believe Korean, but to be honest, we've never really talked about it. We're more acquaintances than than good friends, but we we did a lot of work together and at one point we started. We were at lunch and we started talking about experiences we had and I started talking. I've worked in radio and television. For for years. And so I started talking about various stations I worked at in the fun and games that you, you know, as you mentioned earlier, professors have fun and games that they have to go to well. So do people who work in the media. And he had had some experience in that too. So. He said you should write this down, that this would be a good. Look and I started thinking in in the back of my mind it just flashed into my mind. That. My life has grown completely different than his life now. We may have shared experiences in the profession that we chose, but being Asian, he would have a different background. He would come from a different source and. As he moved through his life, he would have different challenges than I as an old white guy would. So I started thinking about what I've gone through in my life. Something that you mentioned in your book the the white privilege, which I think you've you've corrected a little bit, you don't call it white privilege anymore, but that sort of idea goes through my life that wouldn't have gone through anybody else's lives. 

BOB 

The human experience is not defined simply by disadvantaged oppression and suffering. The human experience also includes a lot of other things. I I happen to be friends with. Someone who's the son of a very wealthy man, and he's interesting, even though his life has been, you know, privileged in all sorts of ways. And he's interesting cause he's a thinking, feeling creative human being. And I think that's really the question. Can we learn from each other? But but your your point made me think of the the term colorblind and and so let me let me explain what I mean by this. I was you know. Agree that when white people say, well, I'm color blind. That's often a dodge that you know, people aren't really color blind, and if you are colorblind and you don't realize that color has an effect on people's lives. That's a really bad thing, in other words, to be colorblind and and to persuade yourself that you don't see the racial identity of of another person. Is obfuscation and it's a detriment to understand? But I also saw lots of folks say, well, I'm color blind and what they meant wasn't that I don't see color, but that I'm trying to overcome. Some of the assumptions, the prejudices I was raised with, though, you know that phrase can mean two different things. If you say to me you're colorblind and it means that you don't think race ever matters, and I'm going to argue with you. But if you say to me I'm colorblind and you mean I'm trying to get rid of the prejudices I was raised with. Right then I'm going to say. Fine. But unfortunately the same term can mean both things and people are sometimes too quick to critique without understanding the the way you meant it. And I think that's part of the minefield we're in. So right now is instead of asking what did you mean by that? Which any again, anybody who's ever been a teacher and you've got a student in your in your office before explaining what they're wrong about. The better question is what did you mean by that? Tell me what you mean. You know, give me more context. When, when? That's the opening gambit. Tell me more about what you mean. Productive conversations are possible. When people are quick to say you use the wrong term, here's why it's wrong. Here's why your assumptions are wrong without really knowing what was going on in that other person's head. Then that's an impediment. To to progress and so. So we have to get better at listening to each other and I I know that can be hard. I mean, if I were black and I I was sitting down with a an overtly racist clan member, it would be, I think, a bit of a heavy lift to say, you know, let me hear your perspective. So I I'm not making an an overarching. Claim that everybody should chill out and listen, but when we do have the space and the emotional capacity to listen, I think things generally work out better. You know, I found this out. Talking to people about religion over the years, you know, I I don't think I've ever believed in God in the traditional sense. You know, God is a supernatural agent who created and or directs the world. I don't think I ever believed in that, even when I was a child, it always seemed a little odd to me. But I found instead of explaining to people who do hold beliefs like that that they're wrong. It's been really fascinating to find out why they. Hold that belief. Is it history? Is it tradition? Is it family? Uh. Is it from a conversion experience? Uh, you know? If so, what was the nature of that experience? Those lead to really interesting conversations. I still don't believe in God. Still don't have a clue what people mean when they say. It, but at least I understand why they got there a little better. 

JOHN 

No discussion of it's debatable, would be complete without hearing the story of poor, beleaguered Chapter 5. Chapter 5 has the the title of defining sex, slash, gender beyond trans ideology. Now obviously you wouldn't get in trouble with anybody. For that. And So what happened to poor defenseless Chapter 5? And and where is it now? It's not in the book. That's one of the things, it's the it's the chapter that wasn't there. 

BOB 

Yeah, that story really starts around 1979, when the first feminist critique of the ideology behind the transgender what was then called the transsexual movement was published, and it was a compelling book, still very useful today. And since then, within feminism, there has been a debate about what 1 means when one says. I was born male, but I'm a woman. All right, well, for a long time, that was a fairly obscure debate, and mostly only within feminism. But as we all know, within the last decade or two, it's really come to the fore, especially the last five to 10 years. As I said, I come out of the radical feminist critique of ***********, and many of us from that movement also share a critique of the ideology behind the trans movement. I I use that phrase because it's not an attack on people who experience gender dysphoria. That is who experienced some dissociation between their. Biological sex and how they move in the world. That's a real question. Psychological distress around it is real. And what we do about it is important to discuss. But the underlying ideology, the ideas that animate that I think should be critiqued. I started writing about that subject in 2014, ten years ago now, and it immediately put me at odds with much of the liberal left, including, you know, left colleagues, friends of mine, because the left and liberal. Formations that embraced the trans. Movement. And so I've been battling this for 10 years as I've been writing about it. It was a chapter in this book that I thought was important because it is a an issue on which people become very emotional and that's the whole point of the book. How do we talk about things that get us emotionally charged? And so I was happy when the publisher, when I submitted the manuscript after being rejected by a fair number of publishers. I have a big fat rejection file that goes back many years. But uh, I was very happy when I said. Now listen, you know, be aware of that chapter will be touchy for some people. And the publisher said, not a problem. We don't mind controversy and the I signed a contract for the book with that chapter already included late in the game. The publisher had second thoughts. I don't know exactly why that happened, but my guess is that within the press there were probably employees who. Took objection to it and so late in the game, he said he could not publish the book with that chap. Here. But I didn't want to, you know, restart the whole process. And I I like the press. I like the work. They. Do so. We came to a compromise. Where? I put a PDF of that chapter on my website available for free to anybody, and in the book it explains that the the disagreement couldn't be resolved any other way. And so if people buy the print or eventually the ebook copy of, it's debatable, they'll find a couple of pages that explain this, and meanwhile, anybody can go to my website and read that chapter. And so it's not a perfect solution, but it was the most elegant solution I could come up with. And it wasn't a surprise to me. As I said for 10 years now, I've been. Routinely criticized and cancelled for. My position on the trans issue and by cancelled I don't mean, you know, I'm suffering. I mean, I'm a retired professor with a pension. Nobody has to worry about me. But I've had people, you know. Invite me to speak and then withdraw that invitation. When there was controversy. I've had a lot of trouble publishing some of the work about this. I think that space is opening up in the last two or three years. There's been much more critique of trans ideology in the mainstream, and of course, politically it's a hot button subject. 

JOHN 

Hmm. 

BOB 

Because those of us with radical feminist critiques. Don't want to be lumped in with reactionary right wing critiques, which come from a different source? It's a mess, and and in that way I think it's an important issue because it's a mess we have to resolve, not simply for some abstract intellectual reason, but because people's lives are at stake, how we treat people. The gender dysphoria matters, and I think the position I hold offers a better path. 

Speaker 

Yeah. 

BOB 

Then the the left liberal trans ideology. But that's a debate we have to have it in the chapter available on my website for. I think I make up a solid case people can make that judgment for themselves. 

DON 

Let's talk about people who are offended by generalities and have they apply to their lives and in kind of a roundabout way. It got me to thinking about. You do you, girl, you know that? That whole movement, that's that's been a big deal. Now in the last five 5 or 10 years, the whole idea that what 1 feels is as important as what exists. And and that leads to the problems with woke and cancellation and that sort of thing is you're talking about something that I feel very strongly about and therefore you shouldn't talk about it to me. 

BOB 

MHM. 

DON 

So how do we get around that situation? 

BOB 

Well, first of all. 

DON 

That, well, let's put up. 

BOB 

Sometimes it's appropriate that if somebody says I don't want to talk about this because of my emotional reaction to her film, that's fine. I mean, nobody there, nobody's obligated to talk to me about anything in the. World the question and and I make this point quite clearly in the chapter on trans ideology, the question is what about public policy? Right? If it's a purely private matter and has no effect on anyone else, then no one has a responsibility to listen to criticisms or attacks on their own politics. But when there's public policy issue. Then we have an obligation to engage. And so there's a lot of public policy questions around the trans issue. Do people born male who now identify as women, should they be allowed to participate in women's athletics? That's that's not a personal question. That's a public policy. Question that should in a high school locker room, should girls be forced to, you know, share a locker room with a biological male who now identifies as a girl? That's a public policy question, right? All of these things matter, independent of one's emotional reaction to it. Now, at the same time. You know, we we all should be sensitive to the feelings, especially the feelings of people who are suffering psychologically. And that's why I made the point that. People with gender dysphoria, people who who feel a mismatch between their biological sex and how they move in the world in a gendered sense. That's real distress. And the question is how to best deal with it, and that debate is going on within the medical community now in slightly more open and honest ways than it was. And that's a good thing. And so inevitably in that. 

Speaker 

This. 

BOB 

The public policy debate the medical debate. There's going to be hurt feelings, but sometimes there's no way around that. You know, let's take the race issue. Sometimes when people like me or or people of color critique white supremacy and white privilege. White people say, well, you're making me feel bad. Well, that's that's not a a reason to shut down a conversation. Sometimes feeling bad is important. As I, you know, made my way through critical race theory literature and was challenged by people of color. I felt bad a lot when I was challenged by feminists about my *********** use as a young man. I felt bad. I felt all sorts of things, but that emotion was necessary to move through. Great to greater greater clarity on the issue that's I think important. The other thing I would say is the idea that somehow emotion and reason are separate faculties that we have this you know the reason part of our brain, the emotional part of our brain, they're separate, they it's really I think an illusion and it's one of those things we've always known is an illusion and and. Modern psychological research kind of demonstrates it. So we should all recognize that no matter how reasonable rational logic and evidence based we are, we are also emotional creatures as we make those arguments and and I don't think there's a meaningful separation between reason and emotion in, in a kind of hard and fast way. That said, we should. Do our best to cultivate our rational faculties. That is, our ability to evaluate evidence honestly, to come to conclusions that are sound logically. That is a skill, and it's a skill you can get better at. I'm better at it. Today at age 66 than I was when I was 16, that's for sure. If I wasn't, I'd have. I'm accounting to to do. As I said earlier, age isn't a guarantee that one gets better at it, but that again, going back to that open-ended disciplined inquiry that my friend advocated, we can get better at it and I know I have. And I've seen many other people get better at it. And that's the point. We do it collectively, we don't get better at it by going in a room and and, you know, meditating. We get better at it by collectively engaging in that activity. 

JOHN 

Well, on that point, which is a very happy point point of hope really that by. 

Speaker 

Good. 

JOHN 

By engaging in discussion with uh, with goodwill and uh, disciplined open-ended. You know, inquiry in mind that maybe we can all get better at this. I want to thank Robert Jensen for being a guest on our show today. It's wonderful. We could go on for a long time with this lovely book. It's called. It's debatable talking authentically about tricky topics. And God knows there's a lot of tricky topics out there as and Robert, you've taken us some great places. Thank. 

BOB 

You. Well, great. It's been a wonderful conversation. I really appreciate it, Don John. Anytime. Let's do it again. OK. OK. 

Speaker 

You bounced. 

BOB 

Yeah, you're on. OK, take care.