The eight symptoms of groupthink include an illusion of invulnerability or of the inability to be wrong, the collective rationalization of the group’s decisions, an unquestioned belief in the morality of the group and its choices, stereotyping of the relevant opponents or out-group members, and the presence of “mindguards” who act as barriers to alternative or negative information, as well as self-censorship and an illusion of unanimity.
In a world filled with simplistic partisanship-driven binary thinking, USAID is either ONLY a good-hearted charitable organization OR an evil empire. Joe Rogan illustrates the proper balanced approach. Admit that USAID did many good things but also state that it also did many despicable things. For instance, it was a money-laundering pro-censorship organization that overturned democracies. I am convinced that USAID was DESIGNED to be a trojan horse (complete with a misleading name), publicly displaying do-gooderism while hiding hundreds of billions of dollars of evil-doing.
Bono:
Just recent report. It's not proven, but the surveillance enough suggests 300,000 people have already died from just this cut off, this hard cut of USAID so there's food rotting in boats, in warehouses. There is this, this, this will will fuck you off. This will not you will not be happy. No American will. But there is, I think it's 50,000 tons of food that are stored in Djibouti, South Africa, Dubai, and wait for it, Houston, Texas, and that is rotting rather than going to Gaza, rather than going to Sudan, because the people who know the codes or for The warehouse are fired. They're gone. And so this, I don't know. I just it's, I'm, what do you think? What? What? What is? What is that? That's, that's not America, is it?
Joe Rogan:
Well, they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, right, right? This is the problem. The problem is, for sure, there have been a lot of organizations that do tremendous good all throughout the world. Also, for sure, it was a money laundering operation. For sure there was no oversight. For sure, billions of dollars are missing. In fact, trillions that are unaccounted for, that were sent off into various they don't even know where, because there's no receipts, the way Elon Musk described that, he said, if any of this was done by a public company, the company would be delisted and the executives would be in prison. But in the United States, this is standard. When Biden left office, when it was clear that Trump won in the 73 days, they spent $93 billion from the Department of Energy on just radical loans, just throwing money into places, and there's no no oversight, no receipts. Like the whole thing is, it's there's a lot of fraud, a lot of money laundering.
I've been listening to outstanding podcast titled "Sold a Story,” an eight-part investigative series hosted by journalist Emily Hanford. Launched in October 2022, “Sold a Story.” This podcast examines the widespread use of an ineffective (and often counter-productive) reading instruction method used in many U.S. schools. This method, heavily promoted by Lucy Calkins, author of the “Units of Study”, was one of the most widely used reading curricula in U.S. elementary schools after its introduction in 1987. This method, which intentionally discourages the use of phonics, has been so firmly embedded in grade school curricula that it continues to be used in many schools despite decades of cognitive science showing that kids learn far better when they are taught significant amounts of phonics. “Sold a Story” exposes how millions of children struggle to read (even now as adults) because schools relied on Calkins' thoroughly debunked theories, often referred to as "balanced literacy" and "whole language."
The focus of the “Sold a Story” is this: Why do so many American schools continue to use reading curricula rooted in such a flawed idea that children can learn to read primarily by guessing words using context clues or pictures, rather than systematically decoding words through phonics? Calkins' approach, influenced by figures like Marie Clay and perpetuated by popular authors and publishers somehow ignored the "science of reading," research showing that explicit phonics instruction is a critical component for most children to become proficient readers. The series also highlights the horrific consequences of excluding phonics—65% of current U.S. fourth graders are not proficient readers.
[Note and Spoiler Alert: Lucy Calkins began incorporating phonics into the Units of Study for Teaching Reading curriculum with the release of her newest method, called the Units of Study in Phonics in 2021. This was in response to growing criticism, including the criticism levied by the "Sold a Story" podcast. Calkins' updated method includes phonics primarily in K-2 classrooms to supplement the core reading curriculum, aiming to address foundational skills like decoding. In her current method, phonics is still deemphasized for grades 3 and beyond.]
Lucy Calkins agreed to be interviewed by Emily Hansford in 2021 after previously rebuffing Hansford. For me, this interview was gripping--I've transcribed it below. What would Calkins say after causing such widespread damage to millions of children? Well, this interview revealed Calkins' lack of integrity and an unwillingness to fall squarely on her sword. She just couldn't bear to admit that she refused to look at the science of reading while creating and promulgating her flawed method. This willful ignorance occurred while Calkins was the nation's de facto rock star of reading education. For years, the science of reading demonstrated that her method was harming children by teaching them to pretend to read. Many kids are wired such that they learned to read despite the fundamental flaws of Calkins' original method but, as indicated above, many other students were left behind, some of them for life. The following is from Episode 6:
Entertaining conversation illustrating this quote by F. Scott Fitzgerald: “[T]he test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." As Bill Maher argues, McDonalds tastes good even though it it not healthy food. BOTH of these things are true. Same thing for ice cream and many other foods. Most important these days, we can love other people even though we disagree strongly with some of their beliefs and opinions. Really.
But in modern times, many people are not admitting to things they know to be true because it is not approved by their respective tribes. We need to stop allowing emotions and social pressure to prevent us from saying things we know to be true. Only then will we be able to have meaningful conversations with each other.
As I've written repeatedly, embracing membership in a tribe reduces one's IQ by 50 points.
Additional note: I think Casey Means is courageous and brilliant. I highly recommend her new book, Good Energy.
Fascinating video. This woman recently started seeing the DNC and progressive left for what they are. She describes the experience of scales falling from her eyes.
I created a transcript of her 3-minute video:
I feel like I have a unique perspective with this whole election thing. Because I used to be very, very far left, like I was one of the people having a fucking mental breakdown in 2016 when he won, right? And I didn't even like him up until six months ago, when it became very obvious that they were staging a coup and tried to assassinate him. And then some shit started clicking. So I'm still very new to this whole side of things. But the thing is, when I was very far left, like, radically far left, I thought I knew what was going on. I genuinely believed I was informed. I thought I knew better than everybody else, and that's what these people think, too. And the thing is I would get so triggered and so angry when people would question me because I didn't actually know what the hell I was talking about. I thought I did, but really I didn't actually know any policies. I didn't actually know any politics. All I actually knew was what I had seen online, in mainstream media, and because everybody was saying, I just assumed it had to be right, right. And I think where a lot of this comes from is like, people just don't want to be wrong. Like, it's humbling and it's embarrassing to acknowledge that you were wrong or that you didn't know as much as you thought you did, but I would get so defensive and fly off the handle when and whenever somebody would question me, because I didn't actually have any talking points, and the talking points I did have were inaccurate.
But I didn't want to be wrong so I just kept fucking regurgitating. I just kept echoing the same shit that I was hearing over and over again, and that's what people are still doing. And I I don't blame them. I'm not mad at them, because really, I mean, if you're only exposed to that, then that's what you're gonna believe.
But it's crazy to be on the other side of it for this election and see just how misinformed people are, and they will argue with you, and I won't have a card, because they will argue with you till they're blue in the face because they are just so convinced that they're right, and I was one of those people, and the fear they're feeling is very real. I'm not invalidating the fear. I'm just it's just that the fear is not founded in anything factualbecause it's not the things that they're scared about. It's not going to happen. It didn't happen last time, it's not going to happen this time.
And it's just it's so crazy. It's like being the sober person at a party full of drunk people.