Speaker 1: So you get that a little bit of knowledge becomes
Speaker 1: very dangerous because once someone has a basic understanding of things,
Speaker 1: and only a basic understanding of things, they become convinced
Speaker 1: that that basic is exponentially applied and can give them
Speaker 1: the entirety of that base of knowledge. See this is
Speaker 1: why I'm always qualifying stuff where I say, look, I
Speaker 1: studied this, and I studied that. When it comes to
Speaker 1: like say the jfk assassination, people go, I want to
Speaker 1: know about this with absolute certainty, And I go, well, look,
Speaker 1: you got to consider a bunch of things. Nobody likes
Speaker 1: that answer because wherever it's going to go. If I
Speaker 1: say it's about you know, different techniques, different spatter, you know,
Speaker 1: different scientific tests have been conducted, and this is what
Speaker 1: was found. And in some ways we take these things
Speaker 1: collectively together and we can sort of begin to draw
Speaker 1: a good possibility about something that happened. People don't want
Speaker 1: to hear all that. They just don't. They want you
Speaker 1: to say, nope, I know this because of this done.
Speaker 1: They want the simplest answer. I've always thought it was
Speaker 1: because again it was the easiest thing to remember, so
Speaker 1: they could parrot it and appear as though they had knowledge,
Speaker 1: and I think that that is a factor here too,
Speaker 1: which maybe Dunning and Kruger didn't necessarily include in their study,
Speaker 1: although I'd have to go back over it. I know
Speaker 1: I read it in the late nineties or the early
Speaker 1: two thousands. I know I read it along with my
Speaker 1: studies on eyewitness accounts and the accuracy and inaccuracy of
Speaker 1: those things. I know I did that, and I know
Speaker 1: I don't recall you know, the whole Well, it makes
Speaker 1: it carry along, like why does this happen? The why
Speaker 1: of the effect is that someone who doesn't have an
Speaker 1: understanding and places their true trust in that confident individual.
Speaker 1: It's more attractive, yes, but it's also easier for them
Speaker 1: to adapt it into their own presentations and then prop
Speaker 1: up their own false sense of expertise when they have
Speaker 1: even less knowledge than the individual. See, that's the thing.
Speaker 1: There's the echo of the Dunning Kruger effect where indeed, okay,
Speaker 1: there's that manager they were just talking about who believes
Speaker 1: that they're very confident and believes that they perform, you know,
Speaker 1: at a way higher rate than they could possibly perform collectively.
Speaker 1: They believe in their own bs. But what that does
Speaker 1: is it creates a residual effect among individuals who are
Speaker 1: trusting or who have, through their own confirmation bias, placed
Speaker 1: an amount of trust in that individual. Now with less information,
Speaker 1: they continue with even more confidence because they knew the
Speaker 1: expert who wasn't an expert. So, in other words, this
Speaker 1: has a resonance that continues to ripple, much like a
Speaker 1: pebble out a pond, where you know, one pebble breaks
Speaker 1: the surface of the pond, but creates many ripples, and
Speaker 1: those many ripples go out and expand all the way
Speaker 1: to the shores of the pond sometimes, and that is
Speaker 1: the echo of the Dunning Kruger effect. And I don't
Speaker 1: remember if they studied that as part of their discussion
Speaker 1: in the article that was published and was peer reviewed
Speaker 1: and was received in a very strange way, because again
Speaker 1: the supposed experts who had maybe risen to levels of
Speaker 1: power and prestige in their fields were not necessarily the
Speaker 1: good experts. I mean, it kind of explains how an
Speaker 1: incompetent like doctor Phil is able to go out there
Speaker 1: give this. I'll tell you what the problem is. You
Speaker 1: just you don't understand this, and you're just being wrong,
Speaker 1: you know it explains how that dynamic works, how somebody
Speaker 1: that's never read the book can sell you the book
Speaker 1: that you'll never read too, and then both of you
Speaker 1: will claim that you have knowledge of the subject studied
Speaker 1: in the book. It is the continuing ripple effect. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I always find this fascinating, but I don't know if
Speaker 1: they actually tried to study the continuation of that particular
Speaker 1: set of actions when it comes to, like I said,
Speaker 1: the management, the head of the leader of the political party,
Speaker 1: the the leader of the church, et cetera. All these
Speaker 1: people that don't even have the competence in the field
Speaker 1: that they think they're supposed to have, they present themselves
Speaker 1: as having. But then the after effect of having even
Speaker 1: less knowledgeable individuals ca carry it on as if it's
Speaker 1: an expert's opinion. It becomes an exponential destruction of competent information,
Speaker 1: of reliable or ethical presentations, and continues to echo on.
Speaker 1: And I think that's how we ended up with an
Speaker 1: alternative media that is now almost entirely opinion based, and
Speaker 1: it almost looks like expertise. When one idiot goes about
Speaker 1: the document writer, I know, I know, I think we
Speaker 1: know who I'm mocking there, And it's not Machiavelli sounds similar, though,
Speaker 1: there you go, new conspiracy theory. There is something to this.
Speaker 1: The Mandala affect and the Mandela effect seemingly very very
Speaker 1: similar things, and entirely they do almost for a good reason.
Speaker 1: So I don't know where this next part is going
Speaker 1: to go. I don't recall, but I gotta tell you
Speaker 1: this to me is one of the keys digital age.
Speaker 2: The Dunning Krueger effect has found a particularly fertile environment.
Speaker 2: Social media platforms allow individuals with minimal expertise to broadcast
Speaker 2: their opinions to wide audiences with the same apparent authority
Speaker 2: as established experts. Oh here's the democratization of voice. While
Speaker 2: valuable in many ways, has also created what some researchers
Speaker 2: call an expertise crisis, a flattening of the perceived difference
Speaker 2: between novice and expert opinions. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it,
Speaker 2: one of the great challenges in this world is knowing
Speaker 2: enough about a subject to think you're right, but not
Speaker 2: enough about the subject to know you're wrong.
Speaker 1: See. Now, that's fascinating to me that these these guys
Speaker 1: and here's a you know, an argument, I don't agree
Speaker 1: one hundred percent with everything on this channel, but the
Speaker 1: overall exposition that is here is valuable. But when they
Speaker 1: point to a guy like Neilda grass Tyson, there is
Speaker 1: a guy who does have some level of expertise in
Speaker 1: various fields, and people discount them based on their confirmation
Speaker 1: bias all the time. And I disagree with Neilda grass
Speaker 1: Tyson on a bunch of things, but the reason I
Speaker 1: do is because of this exact problem. He applies this
Speaker 1: scientific study of ideas that he has in certain fields
Speaker 1: to things that it does not necessarily comport with, and
Speaker 1: then with absolute certainty shuts down people with very simple
Speaker 1: answers in debates because he has now overestimated his ability. See,
Speaker 1: there's a certain point at which intelligence and expertise does
Speaker 1: get to an arrogance. And again it is more about
Speaker 1: the interruption of continuous education, a need to continuously educate
Speaker 1: oneself and to dispossess yourself of maybe poorly received knowledge,
Speaker 1: like knowledge that was not entirely ethical when you took
Speaker 1: it in. It wasn't correct when you took it in,
Speaker 1: and you based a lot of things on it. You
Speaker 1: must go back and re challenge some of that stuff.
Speaker 1: Now and then Neil de grasse Tyson does not. He
Speaker 1: is highly intelligent and in some cases is intelligent enough
Speaker 1: to know that he is not an expert on everything,
Speaker 1: and yet somehow presents himself in that way. So he's
Speaker 1: gone over the hump to understand that he is intelligent enough,
Speaker 1: gotten to the nuances, and now broken his own paradigm
Speaker 1: by refusing to take in new or different information. He
Speaker 1: shuts down arguments with very effective debate techniques and sadly
Speaker 1: look as flaud as I'm pointing out that he is personally,
Speaker 1: it's irrelevant. He is part of a problem where yes,
Speaker 1: indeed they're of a more advanced intelligence than the average,
Speaker 1: But the problem becomes when they recognize that and now
Speaker 1: do not have the ability to take in anymore because
Speaker 1: they have overestimated the worth of the knowledge they've gained.
Speaker 1: In other words, he's more intelligent than the average person,
Speaker 1: that's an absolute certainty, but he's now lost his ability
Speaker 1: to continue to utilize that intelligence properly because it's really
Speaker 1: not a high bar to jump over the majority of
Speaker 1: people around us. I mean, I got to say that
Speaker 1: eight out of ten people I meet are at best
Speaker 1: at best benignly, idiotic and stupid. They spout off about
Speaker 1: things that they know nothing about continuously, and occasionally have
Speaker 1: a skill set where they are experienced enough that they
Speaker 1: could pass along relevant information to those that are less
Speaker 1: informed than themselves, and they do, But then they step
Speaker 1: outside of their own expertise and they do invade other
Speaker 1: areas with that over confidence. See in other words, they
Speaker 1: have a level of expertise in a particular area, and
Speaker 1: that's all great and everything, but that's all they've got.
Speaker 1: They don't have the rest, and people turn to them
Speaker 1: from many many other things. You know, a guy who
Speaker 1: can build you a house is not necessarily the guy
Speaker 1: who can tell you how to live your life. He
Speaker 1: may be the most intelligent for building a house that
Speaker 1: is not going to fall down on you for the
Speaker 1: next forty fifty years, but he doesn't necessarily know how
Speaker 1: to have a relationship. And people just correlate things like
Speaker 1: this together as if they are the same. They are not.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing. Neilda grass Tyson might understand physics
Speaker 1: for the most part, but when he makes blanket, you know,
Speaker 1: assertions about like vaccinations and things like that, he's only
Speaker 1: parroting what he thinks is expertise from others without the
Speaker 1: ability to test their expertise. Hopefully, over the years people
Speaker 1: have listened to me, and I know very few of
Speaker 1: you will remain from some years ago, but those of
Speaker 1: you who have stuck around for many years have learned
Speaker 1: that I have been careful enough to challenge the expertise
Speaker 1: of many people competently without necessarily debating them being rude,
Speaker 1: having you know, name calling contests and things like that.
Speaker 1: I've done it with a great deal of nuance, and
Speaker 1: sometimes they don't even realize that they've been challenged or undermined.
Speaker 1: And I presented their work, and I presented there their
Speaker 1: points of view and allowed them to present them without
Speaker 1: doing the gotcha and without doing the well I did this,
Speaker 1: and I debated, and I proved wrong, and I remer
Speaker 1: and I hammered, you know, much like the extremely nuanced
Speaker 1: debate that goes on, or that really doesn't go on
Speaker 1: most of the time, but that could go on. Regarding
Speaker 1: the right to life situation and how there is an
Speaker 1: inconsistency in the moral code, the scientific benchmarks, and even
Speaker 1: the religiosity of people's positions on this, an atheist has
Speaker 1: no reason to support pro life or pro choice based
Speaker 1: on their atheism, but they do. A Christian has no
Speaker 1: reason to support it if they're integrating science into their discussion.
Speaker 1: And there are scientific contradictions here among people's points of view,
Speaker 1: where you know, they've forgotten that murdering is different than killing.
Speaker 1: They've forgotten that it is perfectly acceptable to have the
Speaker 1: person's next of kin decide to shut down their life
Speaker 1: support system and put them to death because there's no
Speaker 1: brain function. And you know what, as you're listening to
Speaker 1: me say this, you're placing what I'm saying into your
Speaker 1: own confirmation bias, and you're assuming that I'm making statements
Speaker 1: about this in one direction or another. That's the fascinating thing,
Speaker 1: and that's what I've tried to do on my show.
Speaker 1: Most times. Occasionally I've gotten angry because somebody's touched a nerve,
Speaker 1: and hey, things happen over the course of four or
Speaker 1: five thousand hours of discussion. But for the most part,
Speaker 1: I've been about the exploration of the best information I
Speaker 1: could get my hands on, the most different thought, the
Speaker 1: most rare thought processes, and scientific explorations and philosophical divides.
Speaker 1: I have tried to go for rarity and nuance, and
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, that's probably why I'm
Speaker 1: getting less and less successful, because the more nuanced I
Speaker 1: add to the equation, the less attractive it is to anyone. Anyway,
Speaker 1: back to the point that's being made in this video
Speaker 1: and for the whole of this discussion, which by the way,
Speaker 1: whether you realize it or not, multiple points are being
Speaker 1: made to you at once here and I I hope
Speaker 1: that you recognize it, and I hope that you find
Speaker 1: something useful out of this, because at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, every single one of my podcasts I try
Speaker 1: to present something that is useful on multiple levels that
Speaker 1: one could adapt and adopt into their own education one
Speaker 1: way or another, to expand their base of knowledge, to
Speaker 1: continue their exploration. That's what this has been about. And
Speaker 1: even if it ends very very soon, even if my
Speaker 1: life ends very very soon, I hope that some of
Speaker 1: you have gained those nuggets one way or another, have
Speaker 1: picked up and have had a sum a well not
Speaker 1: a sum, have had a at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: an overall gain here, you know, in the cost benefit analysis,
Speaker 1: I hope that the cost of you spending your time
Speaker 1: with me are supporting me or participating with me one
Speaker 1: way or another has been a net gain for you
Speaker 1: in your ability to think about things, in your ability
Speaker 1: to explore them, in your base of knowledge, and in
Speaker 1: some cases in other ways that I don't even care
Speaker 1: to describe, because I'm hoping that one day somebody will
Speaker 1: decode a great many things that I placed in here
Speaker 1: for people to discover if they decide to revisit the
Speaker 1: information and the audio pieces that I have released over time. Anyway,
Speaker 1: back to Philosophy Coded and their YouTube channel and their
Speaker 1: excellent explanation at least part of their excellent explanation on
Speaker 1: the Dunning Kruger effect.
Speaker 2: This captures the essence of how the Dunning Kruger effect
Speaker 2: operates beyond academic settings, shaping discourse and decision making across society.
Speaker 2: The manifestation of the Dunning Kruger effect isn't uniform across cultures,
Speaker 2: which suggests that cultural factors significantly influence how people assess
Speaker 2: their own abilities and how pronounce The effect appears in
Speaker 2: different societies. In Western, particularly American culture, self promotion and
Speaker 2: confidence are highly valued. Children are raised to believe in
Speaker 2: themselves and their potential, creating fertile ground for overestimation of abilities.
Speaker 2: The American ethos of individual achievement and potential may inadvertently
Speaker 2: amplify the Dunning Kruger effect by encouraging positive self assessment
Speaker 2: regardless of objective performance.
Speaker 1: See wrap your mind around that. The American and indeed
Speaker 1: the Western concept of self worth and self value. And
Speaker 1: you know, whether it is the participation trophy, you know,
Speaker 1: culture that emerged at a certain point, or it is
Speaker 1: the self esteem or the opinion over factual relationship circumstances,
Speaker 1: or the image over substance or whatever. All of these
Speaker 1: sub particles of the paradigm that exists in the Western
Speaker 1: world primarily and most starkly demonstrate exactly how America and
Speaker 1: the Western world now it's a bad place. Oh, he's
Speaker 1: smashing America. No, none of that. I'm trying to tell
Speaker 1: you that it takes something like this nuanced Dunning Kruger
Speaker 1: effect and a few other things that I consider to
Speaker 1: be blights upon our intellectual society. One way or another,
Speaker 1: it amplifies them, it makes them worse. The idea of
Speaker 1: self worth and self determination being the supremacy of all
Speaker 1: tricks for continuing to measure the value of the individual
Speaker 1: or the groups of individuals or the actions of individuals.
Speaker 1: This is something that is entirely amplified disproportionately in the
Speaker 1: English speaking Western world. Absolutely, and I think that's relevant
Speaker 1: to remember anyway, Enough out of me, I'm sorry I
Speaker 1: keep having to interrupt, but I think these are important
Speaker 1: points to stress and important additions, plus a couple of contradictions. Again,
Speaker 1: I don't like Neil deGrasse Tyson being used as any
Speaker 1: example of someone who has intellectual efficacy. Although he is
Speaker 1: intellectually again, superior to the majority of people you will encounter,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that he is not exactly nailed by
Speaker 1: some of these issues of confirmation bias, his self evaluation,
Speaker 1: distortion and disillusion. Or maybe that would be illusion. I
Speaker 1: guess it's the illusion of self worth and the dissolusion
Speaker 1: of proper evaluation. Either way, the point is that it
Speaker 1: is amplified, and has been amplified even more and with
Speaker 1: a narrower spectrum than ever before, based on again, you know,
Speaker 1: like they brought up earlier, the democracy of ideas, the
Speaker 1: ability for the amplification of the very short ideas which
Speaker 1: are not nuanced, are not informed, can be easily amplified.
Speaker 1: I mean, think about the millions and millions of followers
Speaker 1: slash readers people have on social media platforms. Those things
Speaker 1: are directly relatable to financial gain, They're directly related to
Speaker 1: by the economy of attention, and they're definitely shown to
Speaker 1: be the primary drivers for a lot of why somebody
Speaker 1: has taken seriously, even the opposition that you can't stand,
Speaker 1: the opposition that gets out there and gets the message
Speaker 1: that you think is wrong out there, the you know,
Speaker 1: the the libtard, you know what, influencers out there who
Speaker 1: are talking about stupid things and aggravates you even more
Speaker 1: when they have millions upon millions of followers. It's not
Speaker 1: just about jealousy or being a hater. It's about that
Speaker 1: amplification and how easy it is to gain a foothold
Speaker 1: without actually having any substance that would merit that amount
Speaker 1: of influence. Like you would think the most intelligent and
Speaker 1: most substantive people who present the best or most accessible information,
Speaker 1: those individuals would be the most rewarded in our society.
Speaker 1: But look it over again, never are they the most rewarded.
Speaker 1: Never are they the most heard, Never are they the
Speaker 1: most followed. Never are they the biggest names or recognized
Speaker 1: sometimes until after they're dead. Even if they are recognized,
Speaker 1: then they still never have the marketability, you know. I
Speaker 1: mean he puts it as entertainment over whatever in this thing.
Speaker 1: But the truth is it is amplified even more in
Speaker 1: American and indeed Western culture. But I think American culture
Speaker 1: sits upon the type the tip top of the pyramid
Speaker 1: when it comes to this part of the paradigm where
Speaker 1: the amplification of this paradigm is extreme and of the
Speaker 1: most narrow and directed energy that it could possibly be
Speaker 1: in especially modern America. It's not just due to social media,
Speaker 1: but it is. You know, when you have a cold,
Speaker 1: it's not just because you're sneezing. It is one of
Speaker 1: the symptoms. It is one of the enablers, just like
Speaker 1: the TV used to be an enabler, but it could
Speaker 1: have been something else. This ability to communicate ideas instantaneously
Speaker 1: into wide audiences could be a tool for many things.
Speaker 1: But what it is is an extremely deficient, anemic information
Speaker 1: stream that is easily consumed. You know, why can you
Speaker 1: eat six bags of potato chips nowadays? Because there's nothing
Speaker 1: to them and you can continuously consume them, and for
Speaker 1: the paradigms where consumer rates and volumes are of the
Speaker 1: utmost paramount important, it'll be rewarded. And you can't say
Speaker 1: that in the USA and in Western civilization in general.
Speaker 1: You can be rewarded just for those empty calories that
Speaker 1: you feed into people's brains. Junk food for the mind
Speaker 1: is extremely profitable, not just because people are producing crap,
Speaker 1: but because people are demanding crap. On the other end,
Speaker 1: you know, why are there so many terrible TV shows
Speaker 1: that continue on and on because there's an audience for them,
Speaker 1: And both things are responsible. The people that want to
Speaker 1: do the shortcuts do it as cheaply as you know,
Speaker 1: Like why did reality TV get produced with all this
Speaker 1: garbage and you know, untalented people onto two reasons. One,
Speaker 1: on the one end, it was easier, cheaper, and faster
Speaker 1: produced than anything else. And on the other end, there
Speaker 1: was a receptive audience that would eat it up no
Speaker 1: matter how crappy it was. I mean, we went from
Speaker 1: let's tell your whole story over the course of an hour,
Speaker 1: the clips of people arguing over getting their cars toad
Speaker 1: and that's all part of the reality TV paradigm. And
Speaker 1: it was all junk food to educate people about virtually
Speaker 1: nothing and keep them engaged, and they play these things
Speaker 1: on you know what used to be called the learning channel,
Speaker 1: the education channels. A lot of reality TV ended up there.
Speaker 1: And if you don't believe me, just remember how Honey
Speaker 1: Booboo was on the learning channel. It did teach you
Speaker 1: something if you took time to learn it, but most
Speaker 1: people didn't. They just wanted to watch the fat little
Speaker 1: girl say skitties and talk about how she was sassy child. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was the thing in America. I mean, you know that,
Speaker 1: Jerry Springer, a whole bunch of lowest common denominator things.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be a surprise that that's what's rewarded, and
Speaker 1: it shouldn't be a surprise that that's what makes it
Speaker 1: real far when that's what people want again, the simple answer,
Speaker 1: the simple thing to look down on, the simple thing
Speaker 1: to feel superior even though you are superior over very little.
Speaker 1: See that's the problem with the hubris of Anil Degrass,
Speaker 1: Tyson or some of the other partial experts in their fields.
Speaker 1: Once they recognize that, they start to believe their expertise
Speaker 1: extends beyond what it is they have taken the time
Speaker 1: to gain it in and you can't blame them because
Speaker 1: in general, most times they will do what sound a
Speaker 1: lot better and seem a lot better and indeed be
Speaker 1: a lot better educated. Then you know the majority of
Speaker 1: those that they will encounter and that will listen to them.
Speaker 1: But here's the thing to consider. The kid who took
Speaker 1: a first aid class in the fourth grade has a
Speaker 1: lot more men knowledge than a whole lot of people,
Speaker 1: and it's real fresh in their memory. But they may
Speaker 1: indeed be more informed than the nurse who slept walk
Speaker 1: through and figured out how to take tests very well
Speaker 1: and didn't retain any of their knowledge. You're confronted by
Speaker 1: somebody with a master's degree in nursing and a fourth
Speaker 1: grade student with first aid training, and you may require
Speaker 1: treatment for a broken arm. The kid from fourth grade
Speaker 1: there is going to do better, But it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that they can also figure out the complexity of your cancer.
Speaker 1: You have to look at this from various angles. Although
Speaker 1: they might have a clue about how to even treat
Speaker 1: you know your symptoms. When it comes to the flu
Speaker 1: or pneumonia, they're not going to help you get it
Speaker 1: out of your system. And there's also a lot of
Speaker 1: D and C students that are doctors, nurse et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera, pharmacists. You know, don't forget. Not everybody was
Speaker 1: an A student. And most of those D and C
Speaker 1: students don't feel as though they failed because they weren't
Speaker 1: knowledgeable enough. They're confident. Yeah, so you know, just think
Speaker 1: about how this plays out when it comes to areas
Speaker 1: where you expect demand and require expertise beyond your own
Speaker 1: in some cases, and in some cases you'll find that
Speaker 1: you may have more than they do just because yeah,
Speaker 1: you did read something recently and they haven't read anything
Speaker 1: in a long time. Will not look for references, will
Speaker 1: not begin to explore anything that might have been discovered
Speaker 1: at any point in time. There are certain universal truths
Speaker 1: that remain, but one size fits all on human beings
Speaker 1: is always a rather difficult paradigm to adopt. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: present that for your consideration. But a little more on
Speaker 1: this from the Dunning Kruger effect again from philosophy coded,
Speaker 1: and then we'll be done for the night. And I'm
Speaker 1: sure I lost ninety percent of you along the way,
Speaker 1: but for those of you who've stuck around, I appreciate you.
Speaker 1: I want you to consider going to going to Dallas
Speaker 1: this year November twenty first, twenty second, twenty third, because
Speaker 1: that weekend I will be in Dallas, and I'll be
Speaker 1: the MC for the Lancer Conference, and I'd really love
Speaker 1: it if I saw some of you. There might be
Speaker 1: my last presentation ever ever. And yeah, I guarantee you
Speaker 1: one thing. If you know, actually observe the whole conference,
Speaker 1: you will learn something. And there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: going to be there, you know, Tony Glover, Jeff Meek,
Speaker 1: Paul Abbott, let's see Janet Banister, the Grodins, Robert and Janet,
Speaker 1: will Holler and Paul Blow, David Boyland, Larry Hancock. Now
Speaker 1: some of these people might present virtually. Carmine Savastano, Will
Speaker 1: Alex Harris, Johnny Cairns, Jeff Crudell, Walter Hurts, Bill Simpitch,
Speaker 1: Phil Singer, Brent Holland, Matt Crumpton, Matt Doutitt, Eric Hunley,
Speaker 1: and that other guy from the Untold American Stories, Right,
Speaker 1: Robert Tannenbaum. Clyde Lewis is gonna make a virtual presentation,
Speaker 1: He's promised. Martin Fitzgerald, Chris Gallup, Gavin McMahon. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of people presenting there, and I don't even have
Speaker 1: them all here in front of me. But I'll also
Speaker 1: be the MC for the event, and I'm going to
Speaker 1: do a live JFK Myths presentation with a unique twist
Speaker 1: on it to where I think this will probably be
Speaker 1: my last public appearance at a JFK conference, and might
Speaker 1: be my last public appearance at all. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: trying to remain in a situation where I don't wind
Speaker 1: up homeless before then. But either way, somebody should be
Speaker 1: able to get to get get to Georgia here and
Speaker 1: pick me up and bring me to Texas, because that's
Speaker 1: the deal I have in place. Not sure how I'm
Speaker 1: gonna eat over the weekend, but I am guaranteed to
Speaker 1: have a room to wash up in and change my clothes,
Speaker 1: and I'm guaranteed to have water and have a time
Speaker 1: on the stage in between everybody and trying to help
Speaker 1: run even a special like a selective seating room for
Speaker 1: some presentations might be in a segregated room run simultaneously
Speaker 1: with the other parts of the conference. So there's gonna
Speaker 1: be film presentations, there's gonna be partial video presentations, and
Speaker 1: there's gonna be lots of live speakers, and that's according
Speaker 1: to if all goes as planned, and I know it won't,
Speaker 1: but there might be new plans that come into place
Speaker 1: as we go. Ron Patten and Lewis are supposed to
Speaker 1: give me a virtual presentation. Now they were gonna go
Speaker 1: in person, but they changed their mind, and a lot
Speaker 1: of people have had to change their mind personally. I'm
Speaker 1: looking forward to Paul Abbott, who is coming all the
Speaker 1: way from Australia, and there's other people coming from other
Speaker 1: parts of the world. But I'm not going to talk
Speaker 1: about all of it. Andrew Isiler will be part of it,
Speaker 1: though Gary fanin that Linda Zambanini, I believe I might
Speaker 1: have just butchered her name. Sorry. You know a lot
Speaker 1: of people. Russ Baker's supposed to be there. That's gonna
Speaker 1: be good and uncomfortable. But I'm looking to enjoy this
Speaker 1: and I hope some of you will come along. And
Speaker 1: even if there's a small group of us, maybe if
Speaker 1: I can hustle up a couple of bucks, we can
Speaker 1: figure out how to split a pizza from the place
Speaker 1: owned by the gangster brothers that you know we're tied
Speaker 1: to Jack Ruby in fact, that we can get enough
Speaker 1: money together and get a ride over. We can go
Speaker 1: sit at the same table Ruby used to sit at
Speaker 1: and that restaurant if you like, uh, and yeah, that
Speaker 1: would be a lot of fun. And the food's good
Speaker 1: there too, I've eaten there before anyway, Pizza's kind of expensive,
Speaker 1: but isn't everything. So yeah, if you want to join
Speaker 1: me in Dallas, of course, there's a hotel and all
Speaker 1: that other information. Let me get that real fast, just
Speaker 1: so I don't screw it up, because, like I said,
Speaker 1: twenty first to the twenty third of November in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, obviously, and that's going to be at the
Speaker 1: Fairmont in Dallas, seventeen seventeen North ackerd Street akaar D
Speaker 1: Street in Dallas, Texas. I also know that it's conveniently
Speaker 1: located near Deey Plaza. There is some public transportation, like
Speaker 1: this little tram line that runs through the city. But
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that, you know, we'll be able to catch
Speaker 1: rides and do collective stuff, maybe even go down there
Speaker 1: at the Moment of Silence and see what kind of
Speaker 1: weirdness happens this year at the moment of silence in
Speaker 1: Dealey Plaza on the twenty, which is Saturday. But I'll
Speaker 1: be at it from you know, Thursday, when I'm helping
Speaker 1: us set up all the way to probably Monday when
Speaker 1: we pack everything up in Dallas, and then hopefully i'll
Speaker 1: get home in one piece. But uh, you know, the
Speaker 1: future of things is uncertain, so I'm hoping that that
Speaker 1: holds and I can get there and do it all anyway.
Speaker 1: I hope that some people join me there, but that
Speaker 1: will be in my mind my last public performance, my
Speaker 1: last public appearance anywhere. And I don't know if this
Speaker 1: show or this network will continue, you know, much into
Speaker 1: the next year, or even if it'll finish out this year.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to make it so we at least get
Speaker 1: to my birthday next year, when well, big bills will
Speaker 1: come up, and if I don't have the support, I
Speaker 1: can't paign and that'll be that. So download what you can,
Speaker 1: save what you can, and learn what you can while
Speaker 1: you can. Let us continue on with this discussion of
Speaker 1: the Dunning Kruger effect. Just a little bit more from
Speaker 1: Philosophy Coded, and I am crediting them giving you a
Speaker 1: link everything to their YouTube channel because I think it's brilliant.
Speaker 1: I mean there's like, you know, little cartoon illustrations and
Speaker 1: things that go on and the slides and all that
Speaker 1: during the discussion. I like it. It's very simple, very direct,
Speaker 1: and well written. And I would say that ninety five
Speaker 1: percent of the information contained in this thing, according to
Speaker 1: my evaluation, is very solid. Maybe ninety to ninety five percent,
Speaker 1: I would say, which is hella good for YouTube? Man,
Speaker 1: Oh my god, what a nightmare. Which, by the way,
Speaker 1: even recently I found, you know, tribute videos to people
Speaker 1: who hadn't died on YouTube, stupid things, constant debate videos
Speaker 1: very popular, and some TikTokers are now beginning to make
Speaker 1: a living on their very very carefully constructed or reconstructed
Speaker 1: debate videos, you know, with people that oppose them and
Speaker 1: making them look stupid, and people are watching it repetitively
Speaker 1: on TikTok Like mad, I can't be a TikTok guy.
Speaker 1: I just can't do it anyway. The landscape is changing,
Speaker 1: and maybe I'm not changing with it. Perhaps that means
Speaker 1: my time is almost finished. I guess we'll see. And
Speaker 1: I don't mind that. By the way, I only ever
Speaker 1: prayed in my life to have at most my life
Speaker 1: double my father's time on this earth. He didn't quite
Speaker 1: make it to twenty six. So if I don't quite
Speaker 1: make it to fifty four, then God answered a prayer
Speaker 1: from me. I have to reevaluate things seriously. Matter of fact,
Speaker 1: if I dropped dead right now, would probably be yeah,
Speaker 1: almost right with about double what he got. Let's see,
Speaker 1: he was two months short, so I would be four
Speaker 1: months short. You know what. No, no, no, I have
Speaker 1: to live till like December or January in order to
Speaker 1: get what I prayed for. And that's what I asked for.
Speaker 1: I never asked for anything longer than that, and I
Speaker 1: definitely asked for shorter than that, but I never asked
Speaker 1: for any longer lifespan than that, and fair enough. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that's a discussion perhaps another day, and my foolishness and
Speaker 1: my confirmation bias when it comes to prayer and what
Speaker 1: the universe does and doesn't do for different people for
Speaker 1: different reasons. Anyway, that is a whole mess of ology
Speaker 1: of some kind, but not for today. Back to the
Speaker 1: Dunning Kruger effect and a little real world psychology, which,
Speaker 1: again in psychological practices and in the alleged science of it, nowadays,
Speaker 1: I have to say that there is about a thirty
Speaker 1: percent useful rating on what currently exists in psychological circles, professional, academic, etc.
Speaker 1: And this is definitely part of the useful portion of it.
Speaker 1: But again these are my evaluations, and well, your experiences
Speaker 1: and your life might vary for mine, and for the
Speaker 1: most part, I hope it does. I don't wish anyone
Speaker 1: to ever have experienced my life exactly. I wish that
Speaker 1: some more people understood it, but I don't wish that
Speaker 1: anyone would have ever experienced my life. I literally, even
Speaker 1: if you're rage listening to me right now, screaming at
Speaker 1: shut up, already go back to the thing, or just
Speaker 1: shut the hell up because you're a moron, even if
Speaker 1: your hate listening to me right now, tell you this,
Speaker 1: I hope that your life is going better, better than mine,
Speaker 1: better than it has been, and I hope it continues
Speaker 1: to improve. Matter of fact, I hope that by the
Speaker 1: time your life is over, you're worried about going to
Speaker 1: heaven because you've already experienced it on earth. I hope
Speaker 1: that you're happy, healthy, loved, and surrounded by all good things.
Speaker 1: Even if you hate me. Back to the substance.
Speaker 2: By contrast, many East Asian cultures emphasize.
Speaker 1: Whoops. Okay, well you know, now we're going to go
Speaker 1: into East Asian cultures and things like that. And I
Speaker 1: got a little disruption in the UH feed because I'm
Speaker 1: literally playing the YouTube video and you know, just letting
Speaker 1: it roll. But we got a little interruption. I think
Speaker 1: it was for commercial purposes. Anyway, let's just take it
Speaker 1: back a touch. Well, no, we'll just continue where we were. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was a commercial. I had a little drop where
Speaker 1: it was spinning, you know, buffering or whatever, and I
Speaker 1: was like, oh, oh, but yeah, it turns out it
Speaker 1: was a minor commercial there. Sorry, I didn't play the
Speaker 1: commercial for you. But back to the audio itself, and
Speaker 1: they were just about to talk about Asian culture as
Speaker 1: opposed to American or Western culture, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: whether you're looking at the ethos or the pathos, or
Speaker 1: the criminal world, or political considerations or historical relevance, I
Speaker 1: mean cultures. Realistically, you could divide the entirety of the
Speaker 1: world into two culture sets. In my mind, there is
Speaker 1: the European Western culture and then there is the Asian
Speaker 1: African culture, and that's it. Those things cross over with
Speaker 1: one another. That covers the Middle East all that, right,
Speaker 1: and their cultural and intellectual realities, their criminal undergrounds, their
Speaker 1: political constructs, their social contracts, even yeah, you cannot intermingle them.
Speaker 1: And even in the criminal world, like as much as
Speaker 1: you might understand the Western civilization that that includes Russia,
Speaker 1: by the way, in the Asian camp, you know, it's
Speaker 1: not about race. It's about you know, location and culture
Speaker 1: and the reality of the ethos anyway, all of it together, Russia, Asia,
Speaker 1: Africa and oh Oceania like you know, Australia and all.
Speaker 1: That's why they're so different. Even though they're supposedly Western,
Speaker 1: they're not. Yeah, they're part of that half of the world,
Speaker 1: and the Americas, Europe and some other places two along
Speaker 1: the way that weren't included in the other part of
Speaker 1: the paradigm. This is a clear separation. Even in the
Speaker 1: criminal world. There is no relation between say, the triads
Speaker 1: and the Yakuza and the Russian mafia. You know, even
Speaker 1: though they call it, that does not function like the
Speaker 1: Italians any ethno related constructs of order, of politics, of
Speaker 1: social grouping of society. There is a divide across the world.
Speaker 1: There's literally two camps, and it's either the Asian African
Speaker 1: construct of one type or another, and again includes the
Speaker 1: Middle East and all that. And then there is the
Speaker 1: West and all the Americas, all of Europe. Pretty much. Yeah,
Speaker 1: these two things are separated. And even when you see
Speaker 1: that there is operation or conflict between peoples, any grouping,
Speaker 1: whether it's criminal organizations, militaries, geopolitical whatever, if you ever notice, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a very serious, striking conflict in operations, understanding and
Speaker 1: realities that can be divided in just this way, which
Speaker 1: I see starkly in the you know, alleged criminal underground.
Speaker 1: The most ancient of the criminal undergrounds that function do
Speaker 1: function in this way and function by this divide. It's
Speaker 1: not a geographical straight line, but it is a cultural barrier.
Speaker 1: There are literally two sets of cultures that you know,
Speaker 1: the Europeans, the Americans, the South Americans, the Central Americans.
Speaker 1: All those peoples and a few other loose pieces can
Speaker 1: all at some point point or another do business or
Speaker 1: battle with one another fairly seamlessly. But when you involved
Speaker 1: the Asian or the Asiatic and African contingent, you know,
Speaker 1: it's like Asia, Africa, Oceania area plus Russia, you get
Speaker 1: something else, and it is a completely different order and
Speaker 1: almost as if it was two planets combined. In my
Speaker 1: mind when looking at the criminal organizations, and I mean
Speaker 1: the ancient secret societies, very much based on different things.
Speaker 1: There's been attempts to adapt from one to the other,
Speaker 1: but they are never seamless. There's always like and one
Speaker 1: can learn from the other. And of course you know,
Speaker 1: Egyptian stuff is taken into the Western world as symbolism
Speaker 1: and symbology, you know, related to secret societies, et cetera.
Speaker 1: But I'm telling you at the core, no, there is
Speaker 1: a divide between these two very decidedly different camps or
Speaker 1: decidedly different groupings of cultures on the planet. So back
Speaker 1: to the Dunning Kruger thing. Through philosophy coded.
Speaker 2: The self improvement and awareness of one's limitations, studies have
Speaker 2: found that Japanese students typically rate themselves below average on
Speaker 2: many dimensions, the opposite of the above average effect commonly
Speaker 2: observed in Western samples. This cultural tendency towards self criticism
Speaker 2: may actually mitigate the Dunning Kruger effect by encouraging more
Speaker 2: conservative self assessments. Collective versus individualistic societal orientations also impact
Speaker 2: how the effect manifests. In more collectivist societies, where group
Speaker 2: harmony and interdependence are prioritized, individuals may be more receptive
Speaker 2: to feedback from others and less likely to maintain inflated
Speaker 2: self assessments that contradict group consensus. As Confucius wisely noted,
Speaker 2: real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
Speaker 2: Cultures that embed this philosophy into their educational and social
Speaker 2: systems may naturally cultivate the metacognitive awareness that helps prevent
Speaker 2: the Dunning Kruger effect from taking hold. Everyone wonders if
Speaker 2: earning an agree.
Speaker 1: With sorry about that, I didn't realize something was going
Speaker 1: to pop up out of nowhere and give me a
Speaker 1: headache real fast. There that was really loud, but there
Speaker 1: you go. There is the description of a portion of
Speaker 1: the cultural difference between basically East and West for the
Speaker 1: most part. I guess I was going for more ethnically
Speaker 1: identifiable markers, but it's East and West. Is a nice
Speaker 1: simple way to look at it. There's Eastern culture in
Speaker 1: Western culture, and Western culture has a grouping and ethos
Speaker 1: and Eastern culture has another. And the more collectivist a
Speaker 1: culture is obviously you're only part of the machine as
Speaker 1: opposed to an important individual who can build their own machine.
Speaker 1: There's a difference there in construction and deconstruction, That's how
Speaker 1: I would put it. But anyway, they're going much much
Speaker 1: further into this and I like it, hopefully you do too,
Speaker 1: and well we continue from there.
Speaker 2: No culture is immune to the basic cognitive limitations that
Speaker 2: underlie the effect. The fundamental challenge of not knowing what
Speaker 2: you don't know transcends cultural boundaries, even if its expression
Speaker 2: varies across different societies. While the Dunning Kruger effect highlights
Speaker 2: the dangers of overconfidence, it's important to recognize that confidence
Speaker 2: itself is not inherently problematic. In fact, a certain degree
Speaker 2: of self belief is essential for motivation, perseverance, and achievement.
Speaker 2: Confidence becomes problematic when it's drastically misaligned with actual ability.
Speaker 2: This misalignment can lead to poor decision making, resistance to learning,
Speaker 2: and interpersonal conflicts. However, appropriate confidence based on realistic self
Speaker 2: assessment can be highly adaptive and contribute to success. Research
Speaker 2: and performance psychology has consistently shown that optimal performance typically
Speaker 2: requires a moderate level of confidence, enough to motivate action
Speaker 2: and persistence, but not so much that it prevents recognition
Speaker 2: of mistakes or areas for improvement. This calibrated confidence represents
Speaker 2: the sweet spot where self belief aligns with reality. Interestingly,
Speaker 2: study suggests that slightly overestimating one's abilities by a small
Speaker 2: margin may actually be beneficial in some contexts. This mild positive
Speaker 2: illusion can increase motivation, help overcome initial challenges, and lead
Speaker 2: to greater persistence in the face of setbacks. The key
Speaker 2: distinction is between slight overconfidence that drives effort versus the
Speaker 2: dramatic overestimation characteristic of the Dunning Kruger effect. As psychologist
Speaker 2: Albert Bandura noted, people who have a sense of self
Speaker 2: efficacy bounce back from failures. They approach things in terms
Speaker 2: of how to handle them, rather than worrying about what
Speaker 2: can go wrong.
Speaker 1: See, there you go. It is a continued calibration that's required,
Speaker 1: which is not encouraged. Generally speaking, a bit of added confidence,
Speaker 1: even above what one would think is realistic assessment, is useful.
Speaker 1: But this is why I describe it as over amplification
Speaker 1: in the Western world, because that's what it is. It's
Speaker 1: very much the strumming of one guitar string that now
Speaker 1: rattles a building. In Western culture, there's where the problem
Speaker 1: comes in. Amplification is a great thing when it is required,
Speaker 1: but amplify the wrong noise. I mean, almost anybody who's
Speaker 1: ever been to enough live performances of music has been
Speaker 1: present when all of a sudden, nasty feedback and noise
Speaker 1: comes out of things and it is amplified static or
Speaker 1: you know, an ungrounded wire or somebody dropping a guitar,
Speaker 1: or some noise that overwhelms circumstances. And unfortunately, in the
Speaker 1: case of our own culture in the West, we tend
Speaker 1: to have far too many instances of over amplification. With that,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna let the rest of this presentation roll with
Speaker 1: a few more pieces from here, and then maybe a
Speaker 1: couple of other audio pieces I have, and then we're
Speaker 1: all done with this otelle. The effect, I think I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to break it into two parts, So this
Speaker 1: might be the end of part two, and I didn't
Speaker 1: realize that when I started. But what the hell. If
Speaker 1: you could put up with part one, you put up
Speaker 1: with part two, And congratulations, you've actually gone and endured
Speaker 1: something that I estimate very few members of my audience
Speaker 1: will have done, so I think this will have low
Speaker 1: downloads and even lower play rates as far as the
Speaker 1: amount of time somebody stuck with it. I almost wish
Speaker 1: I was up on YouTube so I could evaluate it
Speaker 1: myself directly with their metrics. But then again, their metrics
Speaker 1: are not trustworthy. See there I go again with my
Speaker 1: nuances and my questioning of things I'm not supposed to question.
Speaker 1: Right anyway, Hopefully you've learned something and gained something from
Speaker 1: all of this, And I really, really, truly do wish that,
Speaker 1: no matter what your circumstance, you are elevated if you
Speaker 1: rise from whatever position you find yourself in. I hope
Speaker 1: that we all do better.
Speaker 2: This healthy confidence differs fundamentally from the unfounded certainty of
Speaker 2: those caught in the Dunning Kruger trap. The challenge, then,
Speaker 2: is not to eliminate confidence, but to cultivate it in
Speaker 2: proportion to actual ability, to develop what psychologists call epistemic
Speaker 2: humility alongside self efficacy. This balanced approach acknowledges both our
Speaker 2: capabilities and our limitations. Perhaps the most challenging aspect of
Speaker 2: the Dunning Kruger effect is recognizing it in ourselves. By
Speaker 2: its very nature, the effect blinds us to our own incompetence,
Speaker 2: creating a stubborn cognitive blind spot that resists self awareness.
Speaker 2: The first step toward breaking free from this cycle is
Speaker 2: accepting the universal vulnerability to this bias. No one, regardless
Speaker 2: of intelligence or education, is immune to overestimating their abilities
Speaker 2: in domains where they lack expertise. As intellectual historian Robert
Speaker 2: Burton writes, the feeling of knowing is not a reliable
Speaker 2: guide to whether or not you actually know something. Practical
Speaker 2: strategies for counteracting the effect begin with active solicitation of
Speaker 2: feedback from others, particularly experts in the relevant domain. External
Speaker 2: assessment provides the objective perspective that self assessment often lacks. However,
Speaker 2: this requires genuine openness to criticism and a willingness to
Speaker 2: temporarily suspend defensive reactions. Deliberate practice with specific focus on
Speaker 2: areas of weakness can also help align perceived and actual ability.
Speaker 2: This practice must include clear, immediate feedback on performance to
Speaker 2: calibrate self assessment. Without this feedback, practice alone may actually
Speaker 2: reinforce over confidence rather than correct it. Cultivating metacognitive awareness
Speaker 2: thinking about your thinking serves as another powerful antidote. Regular
Speaker 2: reflection on the limits of your knowledge and consciously considering
Speaker 2: alternative perspectives helps develop the habit of questioning initial certainty.
Speaker 2: As Socrates wisely observed, the only true wisdom is in
Speaker 2: knowing you know nothing. Perhaps most challenging, but most effective,
Speaker 2: is developing comfort with uncertainty and not knowing. Modern society
Speaker 2: often rewards quick answers and confident assertions over thoughtful consideration
Speaker 2: and admission of limitations. Resisting this pressure requires intellectual courage,
Speaker 2: the willingness to say I don't know or I'm not
Speaker 2: sure when appropriate. As writer and philosopher Aldus Huxley noted
Speaker 2: that men do not learn very much from the lessons
Speaker 2: of history, is the most important of all the that
Speaker 2: history has to teach the Similarly, the most important lesson
Speaker 2: of Don Burger of that letter, the question I certainty
Speaker 2: a special one feel most confident.
Speaker 3: And are.
Speaker 1: Oh Chili dot com? Do you like history?
Speaker 4: Real history that you were never taught in schools? Why
Speaker 4: the Vietnam War nuclear bombs in Nation Building in Southeast
Speaker 4: Asia by author Mike Swanson, with new documentation as you've
Speaker 4: never assumed before that will open your eyes to events
Speaker 4: that led up to this. Why the Vietnam war Nuclear
Speaker 4: arms in nation building in Southeast Asia, nineteen forty five,
Speaker 4: it's nineteen to sixty on was get your copy today
Speaker 4: that Amazon dot com?
Speaker 1: Why let us War? By author of the Mike.
Speaker 4: Swans War in bons in niche Building in seven station
Speaker 4: of nineteen forty five through nineteen sixteen.
Speaker 5: One.
Speaker 4: Let's get your copy today at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 1: Why War by author Mike.
Speaker 5: Swanson revel like calm.
Speaker 3: Say, this is James Corman at Qorter Report dot com.
Speaker 3: You're listening to the dot.
Speaker 5: Com the Pain.
Speaker 3: This is James Brant at quarter Report dot com.
Speaker 1: They're listening to the Olly.
Speaker 4: Dot com the thrusting.
Speaker 5: It's the pain.
Speaker 1: Could use express my caller schools there anyone else who
Speaker 1: happens to get on the air at lly dot com.
Speaker 6: Do not necessarily reflect the music dot com or Chumko
Speaker 6: Chilly and we are not responsible for any stupidity which
Speaker 6: might ensue.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Coback.
Speaker 1: Dot com Radio Network.
Speaker 6: In denial the Secret Wars with air strikes it helps
Speaker 6: by Larry Handcock. The Secret Wars became a statement of
Speaker 6: US covert operations and are still happening today. Larry Hancock's
Speaker 6: built in denying Rix the cover on many of them
Speaker 6: using new files.
Speaker 1: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs and no
Speaker 1: one has ever written about before.
Speaker 6: It shows why it really failed and why the United
Speaker 6: States did.
Speaker 1: Not learn the product today.
Speaker 6: It also shows why other countries today are doing secret
Speaker 6: operations with more succes. This is the book that puts one's.
Speaker 1: Son want to Deny into the light.
Speaker 6: In Denial shows secret wars with air strikes and tanks
Speaker 6: Larry Hancock. It also shows for more in theormation, go to
Speaker 6: Larryheipen Hancock dot com. Pick up your copy of In
Speaker 6: Denial at Amazon dot COI in digital or.
Speaker 7: Physical foot The War State by Michael Swanson explains the
Speaker 7: great national transformation that took place and put the Kennedy
Speaker 7: presidency in the context of the times, and reveals never
Speaker 7: before published information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy
Speaker 7: would not have been assassinated if he had been president
Speaker 7: two hundred years ago. His assassination took place in the
Speaker 7: context of the Cold War and the rise of the
Speaker 7: national security state.
Speaker 1: Before World War II, the.
Speaker 7: United States was a continental republic. In the decade that followed,
Speaker 7: it became an imperial superpower. Generals such as Curtis LeMay
Speaker 7: not only wanted to invade Cuba, but knew that there
Speaker 7: were short range missiles on the island armed with nuclear
Speaker 7: warheads that they could not destroy because they were on
Speaker 7: mobile launchers. Their invasion could have led to a Third
Speaker 7: World War, and they wanted to go to war anyway.
Speaker 7: The War State by Michael Swanson reveals why and will
Speaker 7: show you what President Kennedy.
Speaker 1: Was up against. For more information, The Warstate dot.
Speaker 3: Com, dot com, radio networ.
Speaker 1: Shut to consision? What the effect the design is broken up.
Speaker 6: Through Consson?
Speaker 5: Must your life show.
Speaker 1: Chilly dot com revelation.
Speaker 5: Through conversation here, oh.
Speaker 1: Chell, you.
Speaker 3: Fact?
Speaker 5: Oh Jilly? Raise it through my day through Yeah