Neil Shenvi gives a lecture on Social Justice, Critical Theory, and Christianity: Are They Compatible? at the Center for Faith and Culture. Dr. Neil Shenvi has a Ph.D. in Theoretical Chemistry from UC-Berkeley and an A.B. in Chemistry from Princeton. He homeschools his four children through Classical Conversations and can be found on Twitter at @NeilShenvi.
Well howdy there internet people it’s bo again so today we’re going to talk about how president donald j trump is playing and what his campaign against her says about him more importantly what it says that he knows about himself we’re going to do this because i made a joke in a recent video kind of an offhand statement the president said that men were bothered by the idea of a woman being nominated for vice president i said that wasn’t true i said that no men were bothered by that but maybe some little boys were i had women push back on that statement and say no that’s not true there are men who are bothered by it now to be honest had it been men saying that i would have written it off and just believed it was them trying to justify their own behavior but the observation was there ever since then i’ve been trying to figure out why that might be i found my answer in a 2015 study about video games specifically halo 3 was the one they used and they were trying to determine why women were subjected why women players were subjected to hostility they viewed it through the lens of evolutionary psychology and what they concluded was that female initiated disruption of a male hierarchy incites hostile behavior from poor performing males who stand to lose the most status i mean that’s funny in and of itself but there’s more to the study not just not just it determined that men who were poor performing that were low-skilled that they reacted this way to women it also determined that they were more submissive to players who were men look at trump’s interactions on the world stage look at the way he reacts to other world leaders this is why putin and people like putin can basically pull him around by his ear and then if you look at the way he reacts to world leaders who are women even if they’re not traditional world leaders look at the way he reacted to greta it demonstrates that this is true i’d like to take this moment to stop and point out that higher skilled higher performing men didn’t do this they reacted more positively but see there’s there’s one other piece to this politics isn’t a video game especially when you take it to the international stage it’s not like he can look at a screen and know that he’s poor performing know that he’s low skilled there’s nothing objective telling him this you know it’s not like domestic politics where he has poll numbers or something that he can go off of on the international stage this behavior has to be rooted in in his own personal acknowledgement that he is low performing that he’s low skilled there’s nothing telling him he has to know deep down under the facade under the image that he tries to put forth of being a tough guy deep down he behaves this way because he knows he’s a failure anyway it’s just a thought y’all have a
now with with language there’s also
things to look at in language just a lot
of times it has to do with paying
attention so if I say to you Lisa you
know what time did you get home last
night and you say to me well you know I
usually get home around 6:00 did you
answer the question but you’d be
surprised how many people will let that
go and they will move on I didn’t ask
you what time you usually get home I
asked you what time did you get home
last night because people are trying to
avoid lying directly is that why they do
it yeah snips through the cracks it does
well look people we all know it’s wrong
to lie so we don’t like lying so the
most popular way we lie is through
omission we will leave something out we
will be vague in our language and so we
really want to listen to the language
are people answering your question when
you ask a question do they respond back
with a question who me
are you talking to me it could be a
stalling tactic yes it’s me there’s
nobody else in the room it’s just you
and I who else would be asking you and
to listening to the language that people
use also another indicator is usually
when we speak we’ll say I I feel this
way I this I went here I that III what
you’ll tend to see in verbal language is
somebody who doesn’t use I it means that
there’s a lack of commitment that
they’re telling you something but
they’re not committed to it so think of
the sentence if I say to you miss you
love you can’t wait to see you okay I
miss you I love you I can’t wait to see
you there’s more of a commitment on that
latter one so you can possibly assume
again assumption but the first person
really doesn’t miss you all that much
really doesn’t love you all that much
doesn’t care whether they see you and so
there’s so many clues and the things we
say then also how we say them you know
do people speak with conviction are they
vague so when it comes to deception
people who lie are typically vague
because when you’re lying there’s so
much more you have to remember there
won’t be as detailed Wow yes that was
far ago and everything is in the book
that they can find everything is so much
stuff but it’s all great stuff and it’s
all it’s all the little things like
there’s no gimmick there’s no like here
just do these three steps you will know
it’s it’s really understanding people
studying human behavior look I’m
fascinated by people and everyone’s
unique and everybody’s different and so
you want to learn people understand
people and the more curious you are
about people the more you’ll be able to
read them and think what matters is to
this person why would they lie to me
well what would there be there what
would be their incentive their motive
and that’s where empathy comes in using
empathy to understand somebody else’s
perspective see the world not through
your eyes through their eyes and even
something simple as when I would do
interviews with people I would sit in
the chair the person I would be
interviewing and would sit because I
wanted to see what does it feel like to
sit in this chair where are they looking
what are they staring at is their window
is their clock are they distracted by
something what does it feel like so talk
to people not the way you want to be
spoken to but the way they want to be
spoken to a way that resonates with
and how do you do that by talking less
and listening more because they will
give you clues and insight to who they
God that was fire that was amazing
and I think I know the answer to this
question because I think you just
answered it but what is your superpower
gosh my superpower I feel a lot you fail
a lot yeah
failure is my superpower the more I fail
the more resilient I become and the less
afraid I am of it
failure is my superpower I love that and
where can people find you in your new
book and you show that you’re on and
everything that you’re doing
so spy games is every Monday night on
Bravo it’s 10:00 p.m. Eastern and
Pacific and then 9 p.m. Central and then
my book is be called becoming
bulletproof and honestly like all the
stuff we talked about it’s in there and
I just took everything that I learned
that I was privileged to be in the white
house to be around these extraordinary
people to go through all this training
and my mindset was how do I help people
how do I serve people I don’t want to
write a book about me I wanted to write
a book that people could take and use in
their everyday lives because all that
stuff I use today with everything in
it was so vulnerable and there’s so many
things that go on around us like how do
we protect ourselves not just physically
but mentally different people you know
even people that don’t mean to harm us
harmless and so how do you how do you
navigate that world so it’s becoming
bulletproof you can get it on Amazon it
comes out in April and so I’m really
excited about that because again like I
just I want it to help people and I
really think that’s a book that really
can amazing and where can people follow
you Oh common spelling Greek name hat
Febby pauperis so a tvy pauperis and
then p oh um pou re s amazing we’ll put
all the links in the show notes as well
guys guys I have been waiting for this
episode and dying to get this woman on
for god knows how long and so I am a
giddy child right now I’m so freaking
excited that she was able to sit here
and give all those words of wisdom go
buy her book go follow her if you’re not
following me follow me at Lisa Billy and
if you’re not subscribe to this channel
guys and you do
I feel like this is bringing you value
please please do click that subscribe
button down there and until next time be
the hero of your own life
I have suffered from serious health
issues for close to four years now and
when I say I’ve tried everything well I
pretty much have I’ve been to countless
doctors read more books on health and
you can possibly imagine take an advice
change my diet change my lifestyle
change my workouts all in an effort to
help me get stronger get healthier and
as a result show up in my business and
my relationships with Han but I’m gonna
be real with you guys the biggest thing
I did was take ownership take ownership
over my own health because the truth is
no one cares more about your health in
you and so I started to track my own
results I started looking at how much
sleep I got and the correlation between
that and my mood and productivity enters
whoop it literally tracks all things
sleep from my sleep so I cause stages
disturbances and efficiencies and based
on how strenuous my day is we can
actually suggest when I should sleep so
my body gets the rest I need I also
started to track my workouts with whoop
to see if I was pushing myself too much
and as a result suffering from burnout
it has a built in feature that allows me
to track calories burn my heart rate and
what zone my heart rate is in in real
time and once I started to do that it
literally changed everything I was
finally able to improve my work
performance and to be honest more
importantly I’m just so much happier and
let’s face it isn’t really what we all
are going for so I’m so freaking excited
that we have teamed up with whoop and
today they’re offering 15% off to our
audience when you use the code impact at
checkout at whoop calm that’s woop wh
ooo P calm and use the code impact a
check out to say 15% off your order
take your life by the horns strap on a
root band and remember guys be the hero
of your own life
what up guys Lisa here thanks so much
for watching this episode and if you
haven’t already subscribed keep that
little bun-bun in front of you click
click click away we release episodes
every Wednesday so be sure to get
notified until next time go be the hero
of your own life
Jason and Sarah mansplain mansplaining. — Written by Sarah Cooper and Jason Kyle
It’s a lot easier to run a cautious, inoffensive campaign when you’re not up against a culture of misogyny.
A narrative has formed around the presidential race: Donald Trump is losing because he’s botched the current crisis. Americans are desperate for competence and compassion. He’s offered narcissism and division — and he’s paying the political price.
For progressives, it’s a satisfying story line, in which Americans finally see Mr. Trump for the inept charlatan he truly is. But it’s at best half-true. The administration’s mismanagement of the coronavirus and the Black Lives Matter protests only partially explain why the president is trailing badly in the polls. There’s another, more disquieting, explanation: He is running against a man.
The evidence that Mr. Trump’s electoral woes stem as much from the gender of his opponent as from his own failures begins with his net approval rating: the percent of Americans who view him favorably minus the percent who view him unfavorably. Right now, that figure stands at -15 points. That makes Mr. Trump less popular than he was this spring. But he’s still more popular than he was throughout the 2016 campaign. Yet he won.
What has changed radically over the past four years isn’t Americans’ perception of Mr. Trump. It’s their perception of his opponent. According to Real Clear Politics’s polling average, Joe Biden’s net approval rating is about -1 point. At this point in the 2016 campaign, Hillary Clinton’s net approval rating was -17 points. For much of the 2016 general election, Mr. Trump faced a Democratic nominee who was also deeply unpopular. Today, he enjoys no such luck.
Why was Mrs. Clinton so much more unpopular than Mr. Biden is now? There’s good reason to believe that gender plays a key role. For starters, Mrs. Clinton wasn’t just far less popular than Mr. Biden. She was far less popular than every male Democratic nominee since at least 1992. Neither Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry nor Barack Obama faced overwhelming public disapproval throughout their general election campaigns. Hillary Clinton did.
A major driver of the public’s extreme dislike of Mrs. Clinton was its perception of her as duplicitous. In a poll taken just days before the 2016 election, Americans deemed her even less truthful than Mr. Trump. By contrast, in a Pew Research Center poll late last month, Americans rated Mr. Biden as more honest than Mr. Trump by 12 points.
According to fact checkers, these public perceptions are wildly incorrect. PolitiFact, a project of the nonprofit Poynter Institute, rates the veracity of politicians’ assertions. According to its calculations, which are based on hundreds of individual statements, Mrs. Clinton isn’t only far more honest than Mr. Trump. She’s also more honest than Mr. Biden.
Why don’t voters see it that way? Research on how gender shapes political perception suggests an answer. For a 2010 study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, two Yale researchers, Tyler Okimoto and Victoria Brescoll, asked participants their opinions of two fictional candidates, one male and one female, who were described as possessing “a strong will to power.” Attributing ambition to the male candidate didn’t hurt his appeal. But upon learning that the female candidate was ambitious, many participants responded with “feelings of moral outrage.” This “moral outrage” helps explain why Americans believed Mrs. Clinton was so much more dishonest than she actually was.
Critics might counter that Politifact’s data notwithstanding, what provoked the public’s opprobrium was not Mrs. Clinton’s gender but the scandals that surrounded her long political career. As a former first lady, she was asked to answer for her husband’s indiscretions in a way other female candidates might not have been. She also spent the 2016 campaign on the defensive for having used a private email server for her official business as secretary of state — a controversy that James Comey reignited by revealing new evidence in the F.B.I.’s investigation just days before the election. For all these reasons, observers might claim that Mrs. Clinton is a special case.
But the same “moral outrage” that plagued her four years ago also plagued this year’s most prominent female presidential contender: Elizabeth Warren. If Mrs. Clinton is far less popular than Mr. Biden, her fellow centrist insider, Ms. Warren has proved far less popular than Bernie Sanders, her fellow progressive insurgent. The data is striking. Most polls show that a majority of Americans disapprove of the gentlewoman from Massachusetts. By contrast, most Americans approve of the gentleman from Vermont, usually by double digits.
Voters also consider Mr. Sanders more honest than Ms. Warren, even though, according to PolitiFact, he’s not. Mr. Trump’s decision to assign both Mrs. Clinton (“crooked”) and Ms. Warren (“Pocahontas”) nicknames that connote deceit reflects his own misogyny. But it also reflects his instinctive understanding that when you call female candidates unscrupulous, the slur is more likely to stick. (In recent days, Trump has begun referring to Biden as “corrupt Joe.” For bulk of the campaign, however, he merely dubbed him “sleepy,” while labelling Sanders “crazy.”)
It’s worth remembering that the next time you hear Mr. Biden praised for running a cautious, inoffensive and largely mistake-free campaign. Given Mr. Trump’s epic blunders, inoffensiveness may be enough to propel the former vice president to the White House. But it’s a lot easier to be inoffensive when you’re a man.
Evidence from recent Supreme Court arguments suggests that the chief justice, like most people, may have ideological and gender blind spots.
Chief Justice John Roberts would like us to think that Supreme Court justices are mere umpires who “don’t make the rules” but simply “apply them.”
When President Trump criticized what he saw as an unreasonable ruling by an “Obama judge,” the chief justice said, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
Yet at Supreme Court oral arguments, chief justices have applied rules of the court with very real differences among justices depending on their partisan appointment: Justices appointed by Democrats have been interrupted more frequently than justices appointed by Republicans. And women have been interrupted more frequently than men.
And recently, as the court conducted oral arguments over the phone, it was Chief Justice Roberts himself who did the uneven interrupting in his role as timekeeper.
The pattern of interruptions reflects the reality that Supreme Court justices, like everyone else, are susceptible to bias. It is an unfortunate reality that women are often perceived as talking too much even though studies show that they talk less than men. And it is also the case that people like to hear things they already believe — and interrupt those with whom they disagree.
The same pattern manifests at the Supreme Court.
Normally, Supreme Court arguments are unstructured sessions in which any justice can ask any question at any point in the argument. Justices sometimes interrupt one another and the advocates, and some advocates even interrupt justices.
A 2017 study showed that the interruptions at the Supreme Court are both gendered and ideological. The study, which focused on the Roberts court as well as two earlier Supreme Court terms from the Rehnquist and Burger courts, found that female justices were interrupted at disproportionate rates by their male colleagues and by male advocates. Male justices interrupt more than female justices, and male justices interrupt their female colleagues more than their male colleagues. The interruptions do not reflect female justices’ participation in arguments: Female justices do not talk more than their male colleagues.
The same study also showed an ideological bias in interruptions. Both Democratic-appointed and Republican-appointed justices are more likely to interrupt a justice with whom they disagree. But the conservative justices interrupt their liberal colleagues at higher rates than the liberal justices interrupt their conservative colleagues.
The Covid-19 pandemic has sharpened these divisions. Last month, the court held oral arguments over the phone, and the justices spoke in order of seniority.
The new format shifted more responsibility to the chief justice. In the court’s usual argument structure, the chief justice’s role is to “referee” among justices when more than one speak at the same time. But in the new format, the chief justice was tasked with ensuring that each justice had the opportunity to speak for roughly the same amount of time. That gave the chief justice the power to decide when to end each justice’s time for questions (unless the questioning justice concluded it).
Looking at all the cases together — 10 in total — the chief justice arguably succeeded at being evenhanded. The justices who spoke the most, per questioning period that they used, were Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who represent different wings of the court. Justice Samuel Alito also spoke for a similar amount of time.
But the devil is in the details, and in some striking respects, the chief justice fell short of the ideal of the neutral umpire. The three justices who were allowed to speak the most in the very politically salient cases — the two cases about the president and one about access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act — were conservative men: Justice Brett Kavanaugh had two of the longest amounts of time in a case, and Justice Alito had the other. The justices who received the three longest individual questioning periods were also all conservative men: Justice Alito had two such periods, and Justice Gorsuch had the other. By contrast, the justices who received the three shortest questioning periods that the chief justice ended were all liberal women: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had two, and Justice Elena Kagan had the other.
When it came to the controversial topic of a woman’s right to contraception access, the conservative Justice Alito was given over a minute and a half longer than the longest questioning period by a justice appointed by a Democratic president — or any of the female justices.
There were also notable differences in whom the chief justice interrupted or cut off. The chief justice ended questioning periods nearly 160 times, typically by interrupting an advocate or concluding after an advocate’s response to another justice’s question. But on 11 occasions, the chief justice interrupted or cut off another justice. Every one of those 11 occasions involved justices who were appointed by Democratic presidents, and nine of the 11 involved female justices.
That is not because the female or Democratic-appointed justices were taking more time. The chief justice interrupted Justice Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer even though they used less time than a majority of their colleagues, including Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, whom the chief justice never once interrupted.
Justice Ginsburg, a senior member of the court, participated from her hospital bed on some days. But the chief justice did not lend her great deference, ending more of her questioning periods than that of the newest member, Justice Kavanaugh, even though she spoke, on average, over 10 seconds less per questioning period than he did. Ten seconds may not sound like much, but is more than enough time to get out an additional question or at least a remark about how an advocate’s claims are unpersuasive.
Similarly, the chief justice ended many more of Justice Sotomayor’s questioning periods than Justice Gorsuch’s, even though they spoke, on average, the same amount of time per questioning period and even though he had two of the six longest questioning periods and she had none.
To be fair to the chief justice, this was an unusual arrangement, and at the same time that he was supposed to be keeping the justices to their time limits, he was also participating in the arguments as a questioner and as a decision maker. By any standard, he had a difficult job.
Still, his uneven application of the rules was not random. It was gendered and ideological, as interruptions have been in previous courts. But it is possible that having these new demands, he could not or did not devote sufficient attention to checking his own biases.
The justices promise to be neutral, but the fact is that they are human with real human biases that affect their decisions. Oral arguments are just another occasion where that comes through.
It’s possible that with experience, Chief Justice Roberts will take corrective steps. If the court continues to have arguments on the phone into the next term, someone else, such as the clerk of the court or the counselor to the chief justice, could keep time and end questioning periods rather than the chief justice.
And if the court reverts to its usual argument, Chief Justice Roberts might want to keep a running tally of who interrupts and whom he allows to speak. Because as much as we may want the chief justice to be a neutral umpire, that is not what we have seen this month at the Supreme Court.