 Following online, scientists were split on whether or not this was from a lab or from zoonotic passing in a wet market. And it took many, many, many scientists being canceled online before John Stuart cracks a joke on mainstream TV for it to start to get some credence and for some people to start to wonder, well, maybe there are some coincidences here that involve more investigation. What's up, everybody? And welcome to the show today. We drop great content each and every week, and we want to make sure that you guys get notified. And in order to do that, you're going to have to smash that subscribe button and hit that notification bell. And if you've gotten a lot of value out of this, make sure you give us a like and share our videos with your friends. Yeah, I don't know if you become more rigid because I just keep thinking that it took 369 years for the Catholic Church to forgive and apologize Galileo that, you know what, you were, you were right, we were wrong. So I'm not, so I'm not sure we're worse. I think there are two social movements that are happening simultaneously. One, AJ, exactly what you're saying is called preference falsification is people publicly are expressing views that are completely counter to what they believe privately. And I am a firm believer is if you want to deal with biases, police officers, teachers, government officials, the only way that you could re-educate someone is actually to understand what they believe in and what their perspective is. But the only way someone's going to reveal their perspective and their beliefs is that they know they're not going to be socially persecuted if they reveal those things. You know, I've been into, I was at a workshop several years ago at George Mason University. It was a LGBTQ before IA came on workshop. And one of the parts of the workshop was there were white, there was white paper and all over the room and it had bisexual here. It had queer here. It had gay here. And you were to write down Chimney Sweep, the first thing that came to mind as you see those words. And they were, the facilitators were very clear. I don't want you to hold it in, conceal or suppress anything. And there were some of us that wrote down what we actually thought and AJ, just as you're saying, we got crushed, crushed socially, not just during that workshop, but that came up three months later, three years later. Remember that thing that you wrote in the workshop? They didn't preface it by saying the facilitator wanted you to get it out so you can work through your teachings. You downloaded culture over the course of your life. You learned certain terms, you believed in them. And now you're committing yourself to, to educating and changing and evolving as a person happens there. But if someone's going to keep a file drawer and hold it against you and anything you said with an older version of self becomes harm, what you're going to get is that social pressure is going to lead to a discordance between you will never know what I actually think and thus we will never have a genuine social interaction. Nobody wins that way. But on the other side socially, you have a rise and it's what you're describing in terms of people saying, there's a different way of living other than trying to be happy all the time. That's living a meaningful, rich life. And so here's one of the maxims of the science of minority influence or principle rebels, which is what is beneficial for the group is going to be painful for the individual. And so the social sacrifices or the sacrifices to your well-being that you're going to make by dissenting because you know there's a better way than the way a group is going right now. You will be personally harmed. You will get strong social bonds of other people that hear your cause, but they might not publicly defend you. They might do it privately, but the group will be better even if they don't agree with you. When it dissenters in the mix, it puts a little bit of like a tinge of thought into everyone of like, you know what? Maybe there's not just one perspective. Maybe we've only been looking at one vantage point. Maybe we've seized and freezed on a solution way too quickly. And the dissenter often doesn't get the benefit of getting credit when they change their mind and agree with them a year later. Yeah, that has certainly been the case through my lens on this experience of COVID and the disinformation that's circulated. I mean, even you take an instance talking earlier about humor, right? So following online scientists were split on whether or not this was from a lab or from zoonotic passing in a wet market. And it took many, many, many scientists being canceled online before John Stewart cracks a joke on mainstream TV for it to start to get some credence and for some people to start to wonder, well, maybe there are some coincidences here that involve more investigation. And the debate is still raging now. But humor was that one breakthrough of light on, Hey, what's going on here? I certainly don't know what to make of both cases. There's been papers published of late that show strong ties to the wet market. Then there's a lot of arguments around, well, what is the data set we're working with? Science, of course, is is murky in that way. But I think about in a lot of these ways, it's conditioned people I know myself personally to really guard what I say, even on a platform like this with a friendly audience of people who I think are listening because they enjoy my perspective. And I know Johnny's felt the same way because of some of this coercion, cancellation and labeling that we've seen around those who are in subordinate to mainstream views. We drop great content each and every week, and we want to make sure that you guys get notified. And in order to do that, you're gonna have to smash that subscribe button and hit that notification bell. And if you've gotten a lot of value out of this, make sure you give us a like and share our videos with your friends. So with this, the in your book, you cover the real importance of persuasion. So not only is it being principled in your insubordination, but in subordination, as we've talked about, gets you canceled, gets you taken off platforms, kicked out of the family, like poor Uncle Phil, a lot of deleterious effects for those who are in subordinate, unless you can get a healthy group of people to have your back to start to agree with your in your principled in subordination and come on board. So it took John Stuart jumping on board this lab leak theory for it to break through and become actually a part of the conversation in mainstream media. So how do we start to persuade once we've identified that we're principled in our insubordination? Just one second, AJ. And for Todd, if if you could just explain to our audience this idea of principled rebel, it should be self-explanatory, but but nail it in so that our audience can understand. Yeah. And I'm glad we're using so we're not really talking about COVID. We're really using this as as an example so that we don't repeat history again, and it becomes easier and better and more functional next time. And I think this is what we should always be doing for every social cause and every tragic event and every and every every problem that society or any organization or any school system faces.