#70: David Hundsness - Thinking Our Way Forward

Why can't we resolve our differences using facts?

What is the difference between misinformation and disinformation?

Why aren't good intentions good enough to promote positive change?

These and many other compelling topics are addressed when critical thinking guru David Hundsness joins The Rabbi and the Shrink.

https://hundsness.com/

https://foolacy.com/

https://www.tiktok.com/@pet.earthling

http://jupitered.com/about.php

Inspired to create the Critical Thinking Project.

Critical thinking isn't taught in our schools.

When we teach to the test, what happens when there's no test?

When learning is entertaining, we can draw students in.

Ask unexpected questions to elicit thinking.

If I'm confident in my point of view, I don't have to resort to deception.

The danger of rationalization: no one more dangerous than a true believer.

Critical thinking is a tool that can be used or misused.

The danger of relying on intuition.

There's no shortcut to the truth or to sound decision-making.  We have to develop our thinking skills.

People are seeking a calm voice of reason.

Don't think like a lawyer; think like a judge.

The Word of the Day:  Inscrutable
That which cannot be known; unfathomable or unknowable
We justify willful ignorance by convincing ourselves alternative viewpoints cannot be understood

You have to want self-improvement.

Rather than ridicule, make it safe for others to change their minds.

Transcript

Margarita Gurri: 0:04

Welcome to the Rabbi and the Shrink. This is Dr. Margarita Gurri, the shrink. And here's my favorite Rabbi,

Yonason Goldson: 0:12

Yonason Goldson,

Margarita Gurri: 0:13

and the good rabbi and I have found somebody who actually not only knows how to think, but can incite others to do this. What a what a concept. He's fun. He's interesting. His name is David Hundsness. Welcome, sir.

David Hundsness: 0:27

Thank you.

Margarita Gurri: 0:28

You have the critical thinking project. Tell us how that got started. And then afterwards, I'll brag about you a little bit. How did it all get started for you?

David Hundsness: 0:38

It's fairly new about a year ago. But I just started looking for something else to do. I've already was running a business and it was taking care of itself. And the politics started really was weighing on my mind and seeing misinformation and disinformation, about science about Paul's kind of political propaganda and so on. And it just started getting me to think why are people doing this? And then I just started cataloging it and digging into the questions and thinking, how can we stop it? Because usually, what you see is in social media, people start arguing facts. And it doesn't go anywhere. So that one of the questions was, why isn't that going anywhere? So that's when I kept digging deeper and deeper and kind of went back to my teaching roots, and looked into curriculum, and how can we stop this at the source? Maybe the current generation is beyond hope? I don't know. But no, never. It's a new generation out there and a new generation behind them. So that's where I put my focus.

Yonason Goldson: 1:38

Well, we can make an effort to avoid hot button issues, because we don't want to lose half the audience right off the bat. But I find it my experience that when I have conversations about any kind of politics, either people are telling me how awful the right is, or they're telling me how awful the left is. Yeah. And it's it's very difficult. I mean, I love the work of Jonathan Hite, for instance, do two talks about how the right and left need each other. And what I hear from you is you you're trying to, to influence the dialogue, so that there actually is dialogue so that we can benefit from our differences, as opposed to being driven apart by them.

Margarita Gurri: 2:19

Which is why we started this podcast in the first place. You wanted people to enhance the critical thinking, a sense of right action, and be able to have civil conversation, where one actually listens to the point. I know, that's old fashioned at this point. But I think we should bring thinking back. I don't know call me crazy. So yeah. Okay, so you dug into it. And instead of just getting grumpy and doing the canceled culture thing and taking your base and going home, what what are you noticing now that you've kind of catalogued it and what's happening now with with your new approach,

David Hundsness: 2:57

what I noticed is that, so just the general population seem to have like, so many misunderstandings. And so that got me to thinking about what's being taught in the classroom. And then since I have the data at my disposal, I started digging through the data. And I looked at the standards, and kind of realized what I was afraid was true is kind of true. And that is, you know, what we think of as critical thinking skills isn't really being taught in the classroom. Now, everyone thinks it's important. And that's the interesting disconnection, it's like, they think it's important, and yet it's not being taught. So, you know, I found that the standards aren't very specific about it. People don't know how to define it. But you can't define it, you can't create a learning objective about it. And if there's no learning objective about it, and it's not in the standards, then the teachers are pressured to follow the standards and not add other stuff that's not in the standards. So it becomes a whole chain reaction.

Margarita Gurri: 3:54

Right. And I think that since it's not being tested, so consistently, that many of the teachers in schools I've talked to them about curriculum about critical thinking, they avoid that because they're not getting paid to score on critical thinking and they can't afford the time away from their curriculum, development time. And instruction time. It makes me sad. So this solution is you've come up with critical thinking project. I it's a.org. I love it. I love your website is fun as all get out. Or you have also pet Earthling, which I want you to talk about in a second. You don't have a book out right now, but you have many books in you. You're at 8 million viewer tick tock guy. I was Salvan

David Hundsness: 4:52

Oh, are we talking about views?

Margarita Gurri: 4:53

Viewers? Yeah, likes Yeah. Okay, and I think that bodes well for or how people are interested in learning how to think. So, you, you also created something that I think is way cool called Jupiter, Ed. Is that the business you were talking about? That is going smoothly?

David Hundsness: 5:13

Yeah. Yeah. 18 years.

Margarita Gurri: 5:16

That's amazing. It's a platform that it seems like individuals can buy it, who are teaching, and it's got all sorts of resources from grading, attendance, all sorts of stuff. I think it's really easy and simple. I'm, I'm hoping the whole world buys that one for for you. So I did have one question about that many, many speakers who have ideas have online courses? Can Jupiter EDD be used for those online courses, especially for continuing education points?

David Hundsness: 5:54

Yeah, one of the features I am most proud of is a way for teachers to create interactive curriculum. Yes, interactive curriculum can be text, it can be questions, so you can feedback along the way. And then they can embed videos, and then make a series so they can organize it into chapters and everything and create a course out of it.

Margarita Gurri: 6:14

Well, I thought was great. And it's very inexpensive. I thought so it was good. When I last I looked at it was only $10 a month for an individual. I mean, that's, that's a cup of coffee, less than a cup of coffee at some of these places. So I don't know, Rabbi, is that worth it? Is a cup of coffee? Should it should, should the price of a cup of coffee be worth me learning how to teach better?

Yonason Goldson: 6:37

It's kind of funny how our psychology works, that even even $10 will walk out if we don't see the immediate benefit to us. And of course, that's where that's where sales and marketing comment, which is another angle on on ethics, demonstrating to people the benefit that we want them to have, from our fraud from our products. And no, I think David, that's, that's what differentiates you is that you're making this stuff, entertaining, and engaging. And that's a great book, to get people to actually do what is really in everybody's best interest, though.

David Hundsness: 7:28

Yeah. And then the curriculum I developed and developing that was always free from the start, because I want to reach as many people as possible. So just giving it away?

Margarita Gurri: 7:40

Well, I think it's brilliant. And I hope that many, many people continue to follow you, because critical thinking happens to be super important to ethics, and to I think having a great life. Rabbi, I like the way you talk about critical thinking and ethics, if you would mind addressing that, sir.

Yonason Goldson: 7:58

Well, one of the stories that doctors heard before, I taught high school for 23 years. And I live

Margarita Gurri: 8:06

to tell the tale. Yeah.

Yonason Goldson: 8:07

And made make ample use of the Socratic method. Because I wanted to show students that they could often reason the way that they pick the answers themselves, rather than have me spoon feed them. And I always remember this one young lady, as a sophomore, very bright. And I was trying to draw some thoughtfulness out of it, the students and she suddenly burst out why can't you just tell us the answer? And I said, because I want to show you that you can get there on your own. So what are some of the devices that you've used to, to get people to embrace the concept of critical thinking?

David Hundsness: 9:02

Um, I think my approach has been deconstructed into the specific skills. So trying to tackle it as a whole, you know, just ends up being a discussion, and it doesn't have a lot of structure to it. You can try to ask thought provoking questions. I guess I try to go for the question they weren't expecting, rather than just entering the same old debate and going in circles, like, well, let's talk about a modem. Have you thought about that? Like, What's the motive for the person to act that way rather than debating the facts or something like that? So that's where I like to approach it.

Margarita Gurri: 9:40

And I think that also teaches more empathy, like what is someone thinking and feeling in order for them to act this way, rather than just condemning, but it certainly is easier to just cancel them out with the cancel culture and say, well, they don't know what they're doing. And then we don't have to think and they're the solution is is right there. It's not a good solution. shouldn't but I think that's what many people are doing. You made a comment on one of your many amazing posts about disinformation versus misinformation, if you wouldn't mind addressing that.

David Hundsness: 10:12

Yeah. So when I went to look at most information, I'm seeing the general public, maybe having discussions online. So they're not experts. And they're often repeating what they've heard. I consider that, you know, it's misinformation, they don't know that it's incorrect. What intrigues me is that at some point, you know, someone took that sentence out of context, someone took that graph out of context, someone they knew what they were doing, and that person was creating disinformation. And I started to think about, well, why are they doing that they know that they're lying. And, you know, how do they justify that what's going on in their mind.

Yonason Goldson: 10:51

This is where critical thinking and ethics really intersect. Because if I'm confident in my perspective and my point of view on my philosophy, then I should be able to convince you, if not to change your point of view, at least to recognize the legitimacy of mine. But if I have to resort to deception, to get my point across, then isn't, am I not saying to myself, I don't really believe in what I'm saying or what I'm doing. And then if I if I did, I wouldn't have to resort to this tactic.

David Hundsness: 11:33

Yeah, I think when I when I try to empathize with that person, I think they're just rationalizing at the end justifies the mean, I believe they truly believe that their goal is good. And that the means to get there is justifiable. So if they need to lie and create disinformation, to get the masses to go along with a platform that will get toward their end goal. They'll say that's okay. And we can see that way of thinking across the board. I know, like, a long time ago, there was a campaign against secondhand smoke. They're saying secondhand smoke kills, and so on. And that wasn't actually true. They were it was a bad study, they were misrepresenting it. And the idea is like, well, we don't want people smoking. We don't want kids smoking, therefore, it's okay to lie about secondhand smoke. And it's used across the spectrum in that way.

Yonason Goldson: 12:27

And once we start rationalizing that way, then there's really no end to it. Yeah. In my my presentations, I've said that the first enemy of ethics is rationalization. She says, there's no nobody more dangerous than a true belief or really, yeah.

Margarita Gurri: 12:45

That's true. So we're gonna have a society let's let's pretend we have a healthy democratic republic, let's pretend. How do what do we each need to do to move this conversation forward? Where critical thinking is commonplace and interesting discourse is encouraged? What do we need to do each of us?

David Hundsness: 13:11

My thought is that, right now, the general public can be persuaded with misinformation. And because of that, it's an effective tool to create disinformation, you want to cut off the source make it not effective. In order to make disinformation not effective, you need to arm the general public. And so that's why I think of schools and just getting an entire generation of you no more critical thinking skills, so that when they create the disinformation, most of the population will say, No, I don't believe that, that just doesn't persuade me. And we'll get called out and change, which is something that, you know, we used to see more often, if someone did something disrespectful, the population would shame them. And we're seeing less and less of that. It's like, Alright, let's move that dial. So, yeah, that's where my focus is on just getting more critical thinking skills into all students.

Margarita Gurri: 14:04

I think you're doing that with some of your work. And I think you tiktoks in many of your videos are reaching parents as well. I think it's very interesting.

Yonason Goldson: 14:15

Is there a danger that even if we develop our critical thinking skills, we all have our biases, we all have our political bent. We lean this way we lean that way we maybe we more than Lean is are we in danger of just like people are in danger of cherry picking facts? Are we in danger of applying critical thinking to support our own point of view? And not so much to see the other shot? And how do we how do we compensate for that?

David Hundsness: 14:54

Yeah, the way we think of it is, you know that like when I think of a scale, I think of it as a two pool. And a good comparison would be like a kitchen knife. That's a tool that you can use for good and most of the time it is used for good. It can also be used as a weapon. And so if I've got lessons on logical fallacies, people can use that information to try to figure out how to argue with the other side. While still committing fallacies. They will know how to defend themselves against the accusations, they'll know how to throw accusations and kind of learn the tricks. And it could be used for bad either consciously or subconsciously. But I do believe that overall, the good outweighs the bad. And just with enough volume, that will start to balance out.

Margarita Gurri: 15:42

Could you give us an example of a beloved fallacy that seems to be interfering with critical thinking?

David Hundsness: 15:51

Well, how do I pick a favorite?

Yonason Goldson: 15:54

You take more than one? Yeah.

David Hundsness: 15:57

I divided into 30 to 33 of them.

Margarita Gurri: 16:00

Oh, come on anyone?

David Hundsness: 16:02

Yeah, I'm trying to think Alright, the last one I talked about was appeal to common sense. And so this is where people feel very comfortable with intuitive thinking. And analytical thinking takes work. And some people are more practiced in it than others. So it's very tempting and easy to fall back on intuition. And if it sounds logical, it must be true. If it seems hard to understand it must be false. And so that is both a bias that we have in the way we think. And then when we apply it into arguments, it's a fallacy. So that can come up in a lot of current events, arguments.

Margarita Gurri: 16:42

That's very clear. I wish everyone had your clarity of thought is very interesting.

Yonason Goldson: 16:47

And there's a certain inertia that the more something is believed. The more the more cause there is. To accept it. We did we just had on Jason Pfeiffer, the host of Beltre tomorrow podcast, and, and he had an episode with a whole list of facts. Air quotes for the listeners that we all know are true that aren't true. They just get repeated so often, like a goldfish has the attention span of eight seconds, or whatever it is. It's a it sounds right. Yeah. And you hear in its end, and it's an easy to say soundbite. And it's repeated, and experts are saying it and after a while it just in trenches itself in the culture. Until somebody comes along and says, Well, actually, there's evidence that says not like

David Hundsness: 17:45

that. Yeah, like people

Yonason Goldson: 17:47

will keep believing in.

David Hundsness: 17:49

One of my favorites to pick on is the drinking eight glasses of water a day. That just it was an appealing idea that caught on and it sounds intuitive. If something is good, then more if something is better, water is good, more water must be better. And it's like, well, not really the evidence, you know, that was never from a scientific study, and so on. But yeah, there's a factor of one is just the repetition. We know that bias that when you hear the same words over and over again, like which people use for talking points, they just tend to believe it after hearing it so many times. And then the other is the the bandwagon effect where you know, when a lot of people already believe something, it's easier to go with a majority.

Margarita Gurri: 18:30

Yeah, it's easy to be a lemming, you don't have to then think. I know many people who vote by asking others how they voted, and they don't research for themselves. And so that's the ultimate for someone like me, who's a naturalized citizen. I'm horrified by that. Because I don't want people to lose their voice. I mean, we we have a voice in this nation and many nations, and it's just so sad when someone's voices silenced by laziness, you know, yeah.

David Hundsness: 19:02

But it creates an interesting conflict. So, you know, like what you said, it's, it's like the desire to go with the majority and say, well, a lot of people are saying that, but then people who are like conspiracy theorists, they take pride in going against the majority. Yes. And yeah, like you can't flat out say that, you know, the majority is always right, because sometimes you get misinformation, which is the majority that people believe. And you can't flat out say that, you know, the majority is always wrong, because conspiracy theories are always right. So yeah, like, there's no shortcut. I'm looking for, like some sort of easy heuristic to determine the truth. And it's not. It's just a collection of critical thinking skills, and you have to weigh things. It's hard.

Yonason Goldson: 19:42

There's certain cultural institutions. I mean, you alluded to this doctor that we have two political parties. And yet more and more and more, we are finding that we're given two choices, both of which are absolutely horrific. And most of us seem to agree, then both choices are awful and keep getting worse. And yet there's no real hope, as yet of establishing a third party. Because and I hear I heard this so many times, it's a wasted vote. How's that for a fallacy?

David Hundsness: 20:27

Well, and I'd say, given the mechanisms of the way we count votes, there's some truth to that. But that gets into like another topic of like having a rank, rank choice voting, things like that. There are other ways that other countries do it that allow third parties to thrive, but the way ours is set up, I've heard some interesting podcasts about how they really do have a duopoly.

Yonason Goldson: 20:52

But if I if I use my vote to vote for somebody, I don't like for the sole reason that the other person is worse. I mean, to me, that feels like a wasted vote. Yeah. That's supporting a system that's not working.

David Hundsness: 21:09

Yeah, that's a tough one. Yeah, it's in the game theory.

Margarita Gurri: 21:17

In terms of your work, what has been the most exciting thing you've discovered, as you've gone down this, this amazing path?

David Hundsness: 21:29

I guess the fact that there's an audience for this, when I started tick tock, it was a completely different project. The pet Earth lien was about psychology, but in a humorous way. And I put it out there, and it really didn't get a whole lot of reaction. And so I thought, Okay, well, I still want to talk about psychology. So I'll just do talking head videos. And I think within six weeks, it just started booming. And now I have the numbers I do. And so I'm amazed and surprised by that. So that was the most exciting discovery.

Margarita Gurri: 22:04

I think that you are the Mr. Fred Rogers of thinking. You're calm, you're confident you're rational. And I think I think we are all flocking to somebody who we can trust. And I think you've presented yourself that way, which is a good tip for leaders out there who are listening. If you want people to follow you, it might behoove you to make sense. And be consistent. You know, it's something

David Hundsness: 22:31

that kind of like was pointed out that I didn't think about, like, people would comment on my videos, how, you know, I was calm and saying you always is calm. And so I realized, like, that's what they liked. And I just took it for granted. It's like, well, yeah, I always am this. But okay, now I know why they're connecting.

Yonason Goldson: 22:47

Yeah. Well, it flies in the face of the conventional wisdom of, let's say, cable news. Oh, yeah. Where they they promote these sort of gladiatorial engagements that don't tell us anything we didn't know already. And don't make any progress towards any kind of resolution or finding common ground. And they apparently do this because they think this is what's going to drive ratings. And yet, you're discovering that this is not what people necessarily want, which is reassuring.

David Hundsness: 23:23

Well, there's, there's a niche for it. I think, apparently, there's a larger audience for the whole rabble rousing and appeal to anger. But then there's this unserved niche of you know, just let's look at the nuances. So some of the videos I'm most proud of are the ones where I got criticism from both sides. It's like, okay, because I'm looking for the nuances. I don't, you know, I don't think most of the arguments are really as lopsided as they're presented. People always like to argue in black and white. And, you know, we even have a legal system that's designed that way, you're supposed to argue black and white. And then we have all these TV shows and movies and courtroom dramas. And kids go into debate class in school, and there's a lot of training on how to argue black and white. And at some point in my life, I got tired of that. And I always thought, I don't want to think like a lawyer. I want to think like a judge. And that's more like how I look forward, I look for the nuance, and I'll say, Well, you know, one side does have more supporting evidence, but they're not. They're exaggerating. They've got some things that are overstated here, and the other side is not completely without merit. It's not 5050 and not split into down the middle. But you know, I tried to call out, you know, those overreaches

Yonason Goldson: 24:36

as you should, as we all should

Margarita Gurri: 24:38

know, well, we applaud you. Well, Rob, I think it might be time for the gun to run word of the day.

Yonason Goldson: 24:48

Word of the day, just fired by our guest is inscrutable. inscrutable, which means choice rabbi, incapable of being investigated, analyzed or screwed. NYSED are impenetrable, not easily understood, unfathomable. And some things are indeed, inscrutable. There are mysteries in the universe in physical science, in human psychology, there are things that we really cannot get to the heart of the matter. But a lot of the things, a lot of the ideas and philosophies that, that we've we've convinced ourselves, especially when we don't like them, especially when they're presented by philosophical, political or ideological adversaries, we don't want to be able to understand their point of view, is a kind of willful ignorance, where we say, well, there's there's nothing there, there's no reason to engage, there's no reason to try to understand there is no other side. And that's profoundly dangerous. And that is why we, we invited, David has this to join us. Because by developing critical thinking, we can train ourselves to look beneath the surface to examine all all the angles, to try and see the whole picture more clearly. So that we can come to a greater perception of the truth.

Margarita Gurri: 26:24

By choice, well, so what takeaways would you have for our listening audience? Let's say they are now more devoted than before, to critical thinking, and to maybe reanalyzing some of their own foundational beliefs or choices, what do you say to them?

David Hundsness: 26:50

For those who are willing to do self improvement, obviously, that's, you know, the best path. I'm not sure that many people want to do self improvement. And therefore, I don't know how to reach them or advise them. I think one thing that came up, though, that I saw was like, when you are dealing with someone who, you know, maybe doesn't want to believe in, you know, the evidence. This culture we have of mocking, and ridiculing, calling them names and insulting them. It's not effective. And it does actually create that divide more. Maybe they're not in a space yet where they're ready to take that leap into critical thinking. But if you're on the other side, and you know, you feel like you've got the skills. I guess a good piece of advice would be don't insult and ridicule and mock, you need to give that person a safe space to return to, you know, facts and evidence, rather than creating a situation where they would be too embarrassed to ever change their mind.

Yonason Goldson: 27:52

respectful debate, civil discourse, constructive disagreement. I mean, here's the way that we bridge the distance rather than widening it.

Margarita Gurri: 28:03

Yeah. And not shaming people. I think the best way to close someone's mind and heart is to shame them. And it's also very dangerous they'll come after you every time. It's not a shaming is not not I'm Catholic. So it's you know, my birth right. But Maricopa, but I think shaming is has its purpose I guess but not so good in a in an odd in in an argument we had Darrell Davis on who opened up his heart he some African American brilliant thinker and musician who befriended kk k. key leaders, and many of them change their mind and hung up the ropes. And so I think he's, for me, one of the one of the heroes of critical thinking, and the way you were talking about it. So I think that's very cool. So then, people can reach you in several ways. What are the is the pet.or Pet earthling The Tick Tock? What what is it?

David Hundsness: 29:11

Yeah, It's Pet dot Earthling.

Margarita Gurri: 29:12

It is. Okay. First thing I love that I thought was really cute. And then critical thinking project.org Correct? Yes. All right. Now, the last and most important question is, sir, what do you do for fun?

David Hundsness: 29:27

Right now I am writing fiction.

Margarita Gurri: 29:30

Really? What are you writing?

David Hundsness: 29:32

So this first project where that first lien came from as a name, so I was writing about psychology, but using a humorous perspective of aliens that were trying to understand humans. They kept humans as pets. So earthlings were their pets and it was a pet guide to understanding. Now I've taken that premise and I've used it as a story. So I have written that out and I am now in the print process of doing final edits and trying to get it out in the world.

Margarita Gurri: 30:03

Well, if you need a beta reader, sign me up That sounds almost like colleges and some humans are my favorite people. I mean, you know, I love the idea of a guide for the pet Earthling. That's

Yonason Goldson: 30:20

twilight zone a little bit there.

Margarita Gurri: 30:24

I can't wait to read it. That's good.

David Hundsness: 30:27

It's, I mean, it. Like there is some basis for like a linguist who doesn't speak the language as an outsider, they kind of have a fresh perspective on the language. And so that was the idea of like, the easiest way to understand human behaviors to not be human. So I try my hardest to not be human,

Margarita Gurri: 30:47

I think that's very clever. You gave yourself the distance or the or the reader the distance to look at human beings. with fresh eyes. I think that's a wonderful thing. And scary for many people. See who we are and who we become. I do believe we can do much better. So if we're going to, let's say everyone catches this critical thinking bug, how do you envision the world would be different?

David Hundsness: 31:15

Ah, I see it simmering down a lot. You know, right now we're we're definitely exploiting a lot of appeal to anger. And so the the emotions are intentionally turned up. But yeah, a long, you know, series of events, if it gets saturated in the curriculum. And then New Generations come out of school with these skills, there's enough of a quorum enough population where those techniques won't work. And if those techniques are long, no longer effective than the politicians will stop using them, and they'll switch to something else. So there was a time in history when people were fascinated by debates. It just It blows my mind that the Lincoln Douglas debates were something that people wanted to read about in newspapers, even if they didn't live in that state. And that's not at all the what it seems like today. Like no one's no one's really interested in a debate that doesn't have to do with themselves directly.

Margarita Gurri: 32:08

Well, some of the debates are hard for me to watch, because it's really so disrespectful and they don't really, they're not really having a conversation. They're they're gladiators. Where sponsors are, are excited about when blood is drawn. I mean, I don't I don't have I liked seeing high school debates better. Yeah. Where they're truly decided and looking at different points and expressing that that to me is exciting.

David Hundsness: 32:35

Yeah. And that's also kind of funny to me that, you know, the kids in high school do know how to debate properly. And then once they get into the, you know, a position of influence, they throw all that out the window.

Yonason Goldson: 32:50

Like go up in popularity if you get an A good Zinger. Whereas if you make a cogent argument that gets that gets forgotten, because of all the spectacle that it's it's lost

David Hundsness: 33:00

in. Yeah, like, there's a politician who has was an excellent debater in college. But you wouldn't know that the way they talk on TV. That is an intentional choice.

Margarita Gurri: 33:13

It is. And many of the advisors are saying, Get that soundbite belittle them, make them look silly. And I think that kind of fighting is no, it's just so destructive to, to our culture to a to America, I think Americans can do better. I'm going to urge them all to go to pet dot earthling and critical thinking project.org and learn a thing or two, also your Jupiter in which I adore. I've already told several teachers about it, and several school districts with whom I consult. So I think it's pretty exciting. We're Rabbi Do you have a last word for us, sir?

Yonason Goldson: 33:53

There's a question that's sort of bouncing around in the internet. Like really an idea is live your life? Or your epitaph or your obituary? And got me thinking, what do I want? I think written, I've written on my on my headstone. And I really just came down to the two four words. You made us think and think that you are doing that, David? Very well. Thank you. Challenging, challenging us and making it making thinking engaging, making thinking cool. Making thinking fun. If we if we can promote that, then we're certainly on are on the path in the right direction.

Margarita Gurri: 34:43

I think I think we can. Well, we're we're just thrilled that you joined us. Thank you so much. I'm just I can't wait to have a chance to dive into all your tiktoks This is David Hunt SNESs with critical thinking project.org And we urge you all to one of my critical thinking decisions is follow him please and learn. Thank you all and we'll see you on the next episode of The rabbi on the stream.

Unknown: 35:12

Thank you for listening to the rabbi and assuring everyday ethics unscripted to book Dr. Red Shoe, Dr Margarita Gregory or Rabbi Jonas and Goldson as speakers or advisors for your organization, contact them at the rabbi and the shrink.com. This has been a doctor Red Shoe production