The Media Theory That Explains “99% of Everything”

Tänk till exempel att Ett par rejäla gummisstöblblar hjälper lite. Ivs hemförsäkring hjälper mycket.

Welcome back to Plain English. Last year we did an episode on this show called The End of Reading. And in it I talked about a short story that I just read by the science fiction writer Ted Chang. That story was called The Truth of Fact, The Truth of Feeling, and it's from his collection, Exhalation. The story runs on two tracks at once. In the first part of the story, in the near future, a journalist is sent to cover a new technology called REMEM, like the beginning of the word remember.

Remem lets people record their entire lives and replay any moment on a retinal projector. Basically, it's like perfect memory on demand, a little bit like that Black Mirror episode written by Jesse Armstrong, where every disagreement between a couple turns into a courtroom exhibit where you could say, look, you said this, it was wrong. where couples could rewind and litigate what was said, when it was said, and with what tone.

But there's a darker edge here too. If nothing ever fades, it can become harder to move on. Some people don't just remember more clearly, they find it harder to forgive.

That's the first part of this story. But the second jumps back in time, and a Christian missionary introduces writing to a young man named Jajinki in a pre literate African community. At first, Jujinki thinks writing is bizarre, useless. His world already has a memory tradition, an oral tradition. Stories are repeated, lessons learned, knowledge kept alive through the social act of telling and retelling.

But as Jajinki learns to read and write, he realizes something important. Literacy doesn't just add information, it changes the shape of thought. It alters how he relates to the past, how he evaluates truth, and how he argues. The technology of writing puts him on a collision course with his elders because in one part of the story they tell one version of events, and then Jajinki can point to a document that says, no, your memory is wrong.

Chang's story bounces between these two narratives, these two technologies in these two societies to get at one big philosophical question. What happens when we change the way we store reality?

At the end of the story, Cheng adds an author's note where he thanks a scholar named Walter Aung and his book Orality and Literacy. Aung's argument in that book is simple but radical. Literacy isn't just a skill you learn in school. It's a technology that rewires your mind and your consciousness. In oral cultures, Ong says knowledge is maintained through repetition, mnemonic techniques and narratives.

Oral life is synchronous and communal, like people literally have to be together in the same place at the same time to say, hear the Odyssey. Writing does something totally different. Writing fixes language in place. It allows one person to pin down an idea on a piece of paper, and then another person, decades later, can go retrieve that information with far less drift than any oral chain can manage. Once ideas can be fixed on a page, Weird things can start happening.

You can build longer, more complicated arguments. You can compare claims across time. You can store a complex idea that can't be memorized and then add more complex ideas over that, stacking abstraction over abstraction. I mean it amazes me that oral poets could hold epics like the Iliad and the Odyssey in their heads, but there is so much they couldn't do. They couldn't invent calculus or quantum mechanics or modern science as we know it without writing things down.

Even a genius might be able to invent these things mentally, but they'd still have to transmit, say, calculus as a story, and a story, and a story, and there'd be errors that accumulated at each step. Literacy makes possible ideas that you can correct and refine and scale.

The world we live in today is built on a foundation, which is the culture of literacy. And it's a foundation that some people think is disappearing under our feet. Today's guest is the Bloomberg writer and podcaster, Joe Weisenthal. Joe has written some of my favorite riffs in recent years about a shift he thinks is happening right now. A move from written culture back towards something like oral culture, except digitized, sped up, and oddly less social.

He has called it, without exaggeration, the single biggest story of our time. And now he's gonna tell us why. I'm Derek Thompson. This is Plain English. Joe Weisenthal, welcome to the show. Thanks for having me. Thrilled to be here. So Joe, sometimes I like to slowly walk up to the thesis statement of a show, like set the table, forks and knives and plates, like go really, really slow. With this, I want to dispense with all of that and just

Set the stage for you to make your biggest, boldest, most ambitious proclamation. What is your orality thesis? Why do you think it explains everything? Why is it the most important idea of our time? You know, I don't think it explains everything. I think it only explains ninety nine percent of what's going on. I imagine AI is probably also kind of an important trend, but you know, it's a minor thing compared to the really big picture.

Which I think has been underway for some time and that I've been thinking about for a long time, which is I believe that cu human communication is becoming more oral. And by that I don't mean that people are talking more with their mouths per se, although I do think, you know, that is the case. We're talking, I talk professionally on the podcast. It's more that communication in general, whether in the sort of spoken form or in the digital form, particularly online.

has the characteristics of conversation. That is, there's a certain um aspect of conversation that is fundamentally different from the written word, that people in conversation think differently than when they're writing. People in conversation think differently. than their writing and it truly harkens back to a time before really the written word or certainly mass literacy and about ten years ago. It was actually in twenty sixteen, I think, during that um presidential election.

I started reading the work of Walter Ong. He was a uh Jesuit priest. He studied with Marshall McLuhan. He was at the University of St. Louis. And he wrote this really incredible book called Orality and Literacy. And the basic gist is that Humans really fundamentally think different when they're in this world that you can't write anything down, that you can't look anything up. And this is, I think, a really good place to start, which is that for most of human history.

There was no way to look up anything at all. There was no there was nothing there was no reference material and so forth. And as such, you know, people had to optimize their communication for the conditions of that time. It's almost a a certain linguistic economy, so to speak. And so through a lot of study of Homer and other sort of ancient epics, people realized that there were certain patterns. And so uh people sp spoke um

with uh, you know, with rhythm because rhythm helps people memorize things. People speak with rhyme and musicality again because that helps people memorize things. There's certain uh phrases that just get repeated over and over again, repetition, communication, information is optimized for memorability and packets and what we would call going viral. And so I think like the basic gist as I see it. It's that when you think about, you know, I'm like

I've been addicted to social media, particularly Twitter, for well over fifteen years at this point. When I started reading this book, I was like, look, this has a lot of explanatory power. These things that characterize the Homeric times, the way society

prioritized and packaged information greatly resembles um what we see today. And I would say that's my big thesis, which is that as um As you know, communication becomes more of this back and forthness, um, that that's changing the way that uh fundamentally the way we communicate and fundamentally changing the way we think.

So and researchers like Aung say the most significant shift that they're looking at was this shift from the age of orality that you just described to the age of literacy. When did that shift happen? Are we talking about the development of the Greek alphabet? Are we talking about the development of the printing press, which happened, you know, one thousand five hundred years later?

Are we talking about the era of mass education, mass literacy, which was hundred years hundreds of years after Gutenberg and his printing press and his Bible? Like what how would you time this shift? From the age of orality to the age of the written word, the recorded piece of knowledge. Yeah, I mean I I think the way you put it is very apt, which is that, you know, there's no switch that's flipped from the age of orality to the age of literacy. What you have are various developments.

over time. And I think a good place to start is sort of um, you know, around Plato and Aristotle and the great Greek philosophers, at that point the written word was starting to become uh uh starting to become a thing. And this was the sort of the first rise of sort of what people would call

recognizably sort of what we call reason or rational thinking and so forth. You know, something that uh If you go on the um the Plato subreddit, which I've done before, there is this frustration, um, that many people are fans of uh Plato's Republican philosophy, but

There is this question that comes up multiple times on the subreddit. They're like, why did Plato spend a chapter of his book, The Republic, calling out poetry? And people think of this like, I love poetry and I love Plato. I don't understand and Plato said that uh poets had to be banned from the republic. I don't understand this. Like, why can't I have Plato in poetry?

And the gist, and there's this scholar Eric Havelock, who wrote a book wrote a book about this, essentially trying to answer this exact one question. And the gist is. Plato was not really calling out the artistic form of poetry that we think of today, where people are being very creative. He was talking about a mode of thinking the sort of um

the Homeric, what they might have called the tribal encyclopedia, where all knowledge is contained in these epic poems, and that is how values were transmitted over time. And I think and Plato, according to Eric Havlock, found that lacking. He there was a certain lack of rationality, there was a lack of reason, there was a lack of abstract thinking

associated with the old uh ancient, the ancient bards, the epic poets, et cetera. And Plato and Aristotle, there, they understood there was this new thinking that r the written word enabled new kinds of thought. enabled us to tackle problems with a certain remove, with a certain uh understanding that the characteristic of the thing was different than the thing itself, which we could get into. And so there was this early period um where they realized that they had to sort of shed.

the oral thinking because this new technology of the written word and the Greek alphabet was emerging. And that opened up new possibilities for um understanding the world. And then, you know, as you said, then there's a long process. I mean, we didn't go from You know, the sort of the the world of ancient epic poetry to sort of modern, literate human beings overnight. But, you know, there was this.

There's this long trend of, you know, tho hundreds, thousands of years. You know, then you get the printing press, then you get the age of mass literacy and so forth. Um, so you get these stages and obviously mass literacy is a very novel invention. Oh basically nothing in uh human history in the grand scheme of how long human beings have been around. It's like fairly recent.

But it begins to build, I would say, yeah, with uh the Greek alphabet and then accelerates over time as books and the printing press and so forth are established.

To drill down on why the shift to literacy was so important for the way we think, for the way we transmit knowledge, for the way we build institutions. I want to quote two great scholars here. The first is Joshua Meiroitz. We're going to talk about him more in a second. He's an author whose work you turned me on to. He writes, quote, The break from total reliance on oral communication allows people to become more introspective, rational, and individualistic. Abstract thought develops.

From the circular world of sound with its round huts and round villages, people move over time toward linear, cause and effect thinking, grid-like cities.

and a one thing at a time and one thing after another world that mimics the linear lines of writing and type. End quote. I it's it's such a provocative piece of writing. The second is from uh another great scholar named Joe Wiesenthal, quote, Many of the things that modern institutions are built on, enlightenment thinking, formal logic, reason, meritocracy, examining the evidence, are downstream from the ability to contemplate the written word at a distance. End quote.

Why don't you expand on on either quote, either yours or or Joshua's cause i I think this really gets to the fundamental heart of the matter that literacy change the texture of thinking and the texture of the institutions that we built with new modes of thought.

Yeah, I think, you know, a lot of people can probably feel this, even setting aside the arguments, you probably feel it. intuitively. And again, I think about how much time one can spend interacting on social media, which again I love and I have no criticism towards. And I like Uh I like Twitter debates and so forth. But you know, when you're when you're when you're in a

Twitter debate, when you're in conversation with someone, let's set aside like social media per se, let's talk about conversation. You know, when you're in conversation, like what are you doing? You're often trying to impress someone, you might be trying to one-up someone. Maybe if there's a few people there, you're trying to put someone down to look cool for the other person. These are all things that occur.

That don't occur when you're in solitude, right? And so solitude, a s solo interaction with language can only be done really with the written word. And so even setting aside the sort of like logical arguments for, you know, the connection between the alphabet and the left to right thinking, the sort of linear thinking. Most people I think can sort of intuitively understand that

interactive environments foster different priorities, right? There's like in an interactive environment, you have to be funny, you have to be snappy. These are all sort of demands of what happens in an interactive environment that do not happen. when you're reading a book or when you're writing a letter. When you're writing a letter, or certainly let's say you're writing a book, as you have

You know, you don't necessarily have the the reader in mind at that exact moment. In fact, you have the luxury of writing and not having to think about like what is the reader going to be doing?

at this moment, or what does the reader look like per se? These are all luxuries that occur in the context of literacy, the written word that don't that are separate from a conversation. And so, you know, these demand uh The the written word creates all kinds of new opportunities to think about You know, think through these things, take time, not respond right away.

Um, you know, one of the part of the reason I got interested in in this area, and I think why a lot of this stuff really spoke to me in twenty sixteen during the election. was noticing the fact that uh Donald Trump spoke with some very Homeric uh qualities. Uh you know, and it's hard not to notice. Um other people have noticed this too. You know, it's like crooked Hillary, Lion Ted. Swift footed Achilles. It's the same it's the same thing, right? It's this sort of

packaging of an idea in a way that's like memorable, repeatable, and so forth. And something else happens w there when, you know, if you go back to the Homeric the Homeric stuff, the wine dark sea, swift footed Achilles, etcetera. It wasn't just that there was a person named Achilles who happened to be fat. No he was Swift footed Achilles. He was swift footed Achilles over and over again. And so the idea of an adjective

such as swift footed or such as wine dark, being this characteristic that could apply to many things. This is more abstract thinking. This is modern. There's a person, and we can ascribe various adjectives. to them, we can start to abstract there is a difference between the person and the uh characteristic of swift footedness. And in the uh and so that that's something that is enabled by abstract thinking, whereas in conversation, it's like, no, the person is the thing itself.

Which again is not very modern thinking, right? Like we like to think like, Okay, I know Derek. I could say various things about him. He wrote a book. He r has a newsletter, he has a podcast and so forth of various things. I can construct a somewhat chronic chronology of your career and so forth. I can ascribe all of these adjectives to you. Um But they're not you, right? They're they're not you. And so I think that we're sort of um

And when I notice like Trump speaking in this way, it's like this return to the person is the characteristics. And Trump has said this in another context, which is He was uh I think he was asked in 2016. He said someone asked him, you know, reporters used to ask some very lame questions. They're like, you say all these nasty things, like, isn't that not very presidential? And he said, like, well, it is presidential because I'm the president.

Which is very revealing about how his mindset is that like To him, there is not some abstract category of behavior that we call presidential. What's presidential is the behaviors that are done by the person who is the president right now. And so we can see not just by the way he talks, but the by the way he speaks. That he rejects this premise of a person being separate from their attributes. He it is it is one and the same.

There's two threads here that I wanna make sure I I I name and then lay out in a particular order in my very literate linear thinking. Um one is this thread of how learning used to be necessarily social. And then it became possible to learn in solitude. That's I wanna hit that first. You also mentioned Trump. We're gonna return to politics in the moment in in a few minutes. I I want to get back to this idea that Thinking.

used to be something that had to be done socially. Like it is imp it was impossible. To learn the Odyssey on your own. Yeah. You couldn't read a manual. You couldn't read a manual on how to do it. And it wouldn't even make any sense to like go into your own like room maybe and just like recite it to yourself. Like you would probably work it out and rehearse it with someone else. So the mode of information transfer was necessarily social. But you think about a book. I wrote a book.

I co-authored the book with Ezra, but we didn't co-author it in the way of I spoke aloud a sentence about housing and Ezra transmitted it onto papyrus. We wrote independently and we wrote alone. Books are written alone and books are typically read alone. And so this age of literacy.

gave rise to this privilege of solitude and interiority that I think is really, really important. Walter Ong, our mutual hero, has a great quote that I want to throw to you and then get your reaction to because it goes right to this point. He said, quote, human beings in primary oral cultures do not study.

They learn by apprenticeship, hunting with experienced hunters, for example, by discipleship, which is a kind of apprenticeship, by listening, by repeating what they hear, by mastering proverbs and ways of combining and recombining them. But not study in the strict sense. I'm very interested in a phenomenon that I call the antisocial century, the idea that for a variety of reasons we are spending much more time alone and that is having a bunch of

Second side, second, and third order effects. Yeah. And it really is interesting to me as I was going deeper into this project to think that it's the age of literacy that in many ways allowed us. To be alone as we learned and prize a certain kind of interiority. And I wonder if you wanted to just dilate on that a little bit before we take this next step and move from the age of literacy to this second comeback of orality, the revenge of orality.

There's so many interesting threads that you pulled on that and ways that we could talk about this specific point. I mean, one of the things, so Marshall McLuhan, I mentioned that Walter Ong studied with him. He had this observation, he said the alphabet is the most detribalizing technology that's ever existed, which I think is very interesting. And it speaks to this idea that like prior to the written word, all knowledge was per se communal. It had to be in a group and who do you trust?

You know, if you have multiple texts in front of you, then you trust the one, oh, this is the one that feels most logical, right? In the modern sort of like rational sense. But you know, you don't have that luxury when all knowledge is communal. And so you have to be there. You have to be part of the crowd. Being part of the crowd has to be part of learning, et cetera.

So orality the conditions of orality foster a certain like a certain tribalness and it's not for better or worse, a certain uh tribalness. I think it's interesting, you know, I even in 2016 I didn't appreciate this much. But when I look at the modern world, for example, and the contemporary digital world, I think tribalism of all sorts.

which uh is sort of is on the rise, right? We see that a certain nationalism really around the world is on the increase. Um certain bigotries of so many of every you can list them all off. are now tolerated publicly in a way that we couldn't have like say imagined fifteen, twenty years ago or out however long. This strikes me as sort of very strong vindication of this idea that like in as the sort of solitary study disappears.

that once again we sort of have like the tribal encyclopedia. And it's not pe necessarily people believing what's right and wrong. They learn what's right and wrong because there are various conditions and the group that they that they attach themselves to for the process of learning and accumulating some body of information. So I think that like this is a very powerful idea. You know, another thing And I think you sort of touched on this earlier uh in your earlier question.

Um, this idea of like the ear and the eye are very different organs. Um, you can close your eyes. Which you can't do with your we you can't do with your ear. you can get perspective from your eye and establish perspective in what you can't do with your ears. So it's like you go into a room and you can like stand back at the corner so you can like make sure that you can see everything going on in the room.

The ear is like very different. We're like at the center. We're at the center of everything constantly. You can't close it. The ear continues to work while we're sleeping. It's like it's an evolutionary purpose for the fact that like we can still hear and we're sleeping because if there's an intruder or, you know, a wild animal or something, it wakes us up and we can run. So the ear is McLuhan said like is inherently sort of a source of terror. Um

Inherently. And like when you again, it feels very digital, right? So it's like even though we do look at the internet, there is this sense in which we can never remove ourselves. From it. It all even if we're reading the internet, it almost feels more like we're hearing in it. There's like an immersiveness.

in contemporary digital discourse that I think is much more like hearing than it is about uh than it is about seeing. So I think there's all kinds of different ways that we sort of like returning to this realm, both the sort of um For sort of uh mechanical reasons, we want to attach ourselves to groups again, but also this sort of like sensory element where we're just kind of enveloped and absorbed in information that surrounds us 360 degrees.

That's beautifully trippy. The idea that a the a a book is an eye and the internet is an ear is is a very interesting way to think about it.

So we so To take us to the third stage. of this triptych that we're trying to tell. We had the age of orality, which was the age of the ear. And then we had the high watermark of literacy, which is the high watermark of the age of the eye, let's call it. And now we're in this messy third stage where it's like there's some

human facial organ that's an eye and an ear mashed together because we have TV and radio and social media and TikTok. And what's interesting about these technologies is that they are all oral. Yeah. What is radio if not oral? What is television if not oral? What is TikTok if not spoken and live? Just like you're there with the guy who learned the Odyssey before you did. It's people talking. But

There's a lasting record of it. There's a lasting record of your tweets. There's a lasting record of that TikTok which can be shared. And the fact that these pieces of media can be recorded means that in many ways they are also of a piece with the age of literacy, of literate recorded artifacts. What do we make of this weird synthetic new stage that we're in? What do we call it? How do we describe it?

Well, you know, so someone I really like and people should read is uh Andre Mirror, who has I think written some of the best stuff contemporaries, sort of updating a lot of Aung's ideas. He has multiple books. So he calls it digital orality, which I really like, which I think is a good way to think about it. You know, it's a one thing that's interesting though.

And I think this is where AI uh really comes in, which i is that um We don't really have we might not really have those records in the future. I mean, for one thing, like things get disappeared, but two, when you can create the illusion of archives via anything. So it's like, oh, we we have a picture of this happening. We don't really trust.

Um, we don't really, you know, that that archive is sort of is sort of tenuous, right? I we maybe had this like brief period where we had a lot of digital archives and we could trust them. But digital archives are disappearing and you're gonna have facsimiles, things that looked like they happened that didn't actually happen, which incidentally Ong talks about. So he talks about how in a lot of oral cultures, history was um malleable and so

One of the f one of the things uh that he talks about is, you know, you you think about like biblical genealogies, right? So it's like, It's very it's very dry. It's like so and so begets, so and so begets, so and so begets, so and so begets, so and so beget and it'll just go on forever. And this is like very characteristic. But as he pointed out, there are a lot of examples throughout um in oral cultures.

where when something is no longer convenient, maybe there's some lineage of kings and that king falls into disrepute and they switch it. They'll just rewrite the they'll just they'll just come up with a new poem. And so there isn't, you know, the idea of like a fixed history

is sort of like a modern, literate thing. And I think that's probably what's gonna happen. Like between like, you know, we're not really gonna have or the direction of travel is well, we're gonna have books for a very long time, but people are just going to you know, history will be manufactured in accordance with the sort of contemporary values of the moment. And so I think a phrase that I was thinking about, someone made this really funny joke. They were talking about um

Hallucinations in the legal field. You know, lawyers have been gotten in trouble for citing cases that never existed. And so someone made a joke. he mocked up a fake law review paper saying that um hallucinated case law is better than real case law because even if it didn't really happen, that it might as well have happened because it was uh, you know, it fit with the spirit of the time. And even though it's a joke.

I sorta think that's the future, which is the like the history the future of history. Is going to be, well, if there's some aspect of history that we find to be inconvenient, I'm not thrilled by this. Believe me, I'm not endorsing it. But if there's some aspect of history that we find to be inconvenient, let us hallucinate a superior history that

validates the contemporary mood um better. And so I do think to like your point, like yes, like right now you see a screenshot, you see a record, you can more or less trust it. But I don't think it's obviously that that's gonna be the case 10 years from now because things disappear and new things that look like the past can be created. And so I do think it'll sort of more look like the oral histories, which are malleable. and to the uh to the to the conditions of the time.

Aaron Powell This is a period that some people call post-literate. They show that reading is in decline, standardized test scores are in decline. As I've written, it sometimes feels like everything is trying to become television. Here we are, two former audio only podcasters.

talking on something that people will watch on YouTube or Spotify. Social media is becoming T V, podcasts are becoming TV, people are going to the movies less. They're watching TV on their phones with or with their phones in front of their faces. So everything is evolving toward short form video. I think one way that I think I remember putting it is like

It's as if short form video is like the attractor state of all media. It's like we reach the end, the the the fukuyama end of communications history. Like the end of history is just short form video. I I wonder how you feel about this. This general like thesis space that people are playing in, that we're in a postliterate age, that everything is evolving towards short form video.

fits into this philosophy that you're building out around orality. You know, this this idea of like post-literacy, I think there's like a sort of figurative um meaning and a literal meaning. So on the one hand, like again, when I hear the word post literacy, It or when I y when I've used the term, it doesn't necessarily mean that people don't know how to read.

Um, I still think it's mostly useful as a term to describe sort of conditions of information and conditions of communication that are very distinct. From what we consider, you know, the sort of the solitary removed um literate communications. So I think the fact that like so much is talk, so much is back and forthness, so much is one-upmanship.

so much as information designed to be viral, memorable, repeatable, et cetera. This is mostly what I'm thinking of when I think about quote post literacy. Incidentally I don't think people know how to read either. Like I also think it like l like, you know, if you can't and there seems to be a lot of evidence for this. The evidence I look at myself and I think I read books.

way more than, you know, I probably read more books than ninety-nine percent of the population, which most people read books. But I can't get like, you know, if I I'll read two pages and then I'll like check my Twitter mentions. If I'll read two pages and check my Twitter mentions. I like.

I'll be totally I think isn't that everyone? Like, can anyone actually read three pages anymore? Maybe it's just me and my like attention span is just totally bombed out, which is possible because again, I spend all day looking at a screen, but I'll fully cop to that. And I consider myself someone who I finish books and then, you know, I read a lot and I but I still every few pages I'm like, uh I'm gonna I'm gonna check my phone again.

So incidentally, I do think that is functionally a form of literacy, which is that if you can't even concentrate to finish an article or finish a book. Maybe you're kind of literate, but you're definitely less literate. And so I think that's real. And look, I I kinda agree with you about short form video. It does feel like um

There's this trend towards everything heading towards that because it's talk. It's just, you know, it's the most natural, it's the most natural thing. We're just just talking to each other.

I do also have the sense when I'm reading that there's often especially if my phone is anywhere within reach or sight. that there's something calling me away from that book at all times. And it's a little bit like I'm never gonna forget your distinction, or maybe it was McLuhan's distinction originally between the eye and the ear, because I can practically

hear yeah the fights happening on Twitter that demand my attention and even my intervention, right? My involvement. Um it it it does feel almost auditory, that the it that anxiety. To get back on my phone and participate in the world of I mean for for me it's Twitter, for other people it's TikTok, for other people, it's Instagram. But there yeah, there

there is a an an almost an auditory anxiety, I think, to like get back into that like swirl of ideas um that people feel around around their phones. You know, um One uh one of the reasons that I like reading McLuhan a lot of like sort of mid twentieth century or sort of mid

60s, 70s, whatever, 50s, 60s. Uh a lot of the thinkers about media and so forth is because I think they have a lot of like testable hypotheses. And so Um, I there's a lot of people writing these days about the effect of the phones and the effect of digital media on our on ourselves and

It all seems kind of true and I buy most of it, but anything, you know, in in finance people talk about like you want out of sample data, right? You want hypotheses that could explain market movements before the markets happen so that you can like test whether the hypothesis is valid. And when I go back and read some of the uh the writing from like the 60s and 70s, one of the things that I've noticed a few times in that in this body of work.

People talking about um the effect of the phone on interrupting people having sex. And uh this was like a c this is a common observation. They talk about unplugging the phone. Um before uh couples having sex or whatever it was Um, and I think like, you know, again, one of the things people talk about right now, which I find fascinating, is like the big fertility drops and people are trying to figure it out.

And this is something that is occurring in almost every country around the world, including China, which does not resemble the rest of the world these days. which has avoided many sort of contemporary pathologies. Even there it's happening. And I do think it's very interesting that if you go back and look at the how many people noticed this phenomenon when uh everyone started getting phones, the degree to which it was sort of like

the th the phone was the third person there interrupting the privacy of the couple, et cetera. That's like a very powerful observation that I think then has a lot of explanatory effect. for what came afterwards when everyone started holding a phone on them, you know, every waking minute.

I want to apply your theories to uh some domains of modern life, starting with politics. You mentioned Donald Trump, um, and uh You know, I I went to look up Donald Trump nicknames because I know that you're very interested in I think you turned me on to this idea that Donald Trump's propensity for epithets. Uh for nicknames is very Homeric. It's very old fashioned. Right.

And so fortunately for our purposes, Wikipedia keeps track of all of Donald Trump's nicknames. So I didn't have to remember them. But um uh speaking of outsourced memory, but here are some of them. Steve Bannon was sloppy Steve, Joe Biden was sleepy Joe, Michael Bloomberg was mini Mike. Jeb Bush, of course, low energy Jeb, Crooked Hillary, Lion James Comey, Ron De Sanctimonius DeSantis. I think that one might Trump.

But but to your point, like this plays into this classic tradition of orality, right? The the wine dark sea, swift footed Achilles, white armed Hera. And Walter Wrong has a great passage where he writes about this that I and I would love to get your reaction to this enquote and how it applies to modern politics. Quote: the cliches in political denunciations in many low-technology developing cultures.

enemy of the people, capitalist warmongers, that strike high literates as mindless, are residual formulary essentials of oral thought processes. End quote. Um He's basically saying it's so interesting to think that Aong is saying that it is low technology developing countries. Where these nicknames are prevalent. But you wake up today and it's so obvious the richest country in the world is presided over by a now two time president whose facility for nicknames is very famous. Um I I I wonder

What significance do you put on this? Why is it important that a figure like Trump plays into these old-fashioned oral traditions? You know it's interesting when I you know, when when you say things like, Oh, Trump has a sort of like Homeric quality to the way he Like that repels a lot of people, like, what are you talking about? Like That's nothing Homer. But my theory, which I can't prove and I've never is that probably like

the original bards who comprised Homer were probably Trump like characters. So rather than seeing Trump as a Homeric character, what's probably what I'm almost certain is the case that the people who like gathered round and told these ancient stories were probably Trump like characters of their time. Colorful, very big characters and so forth. People who are loud, who could like really get attention, who would captivate people when they talk.

Um, one of the on uh observations he talks about in orality and literacy, he talks about like the difference between that the oral world with this demand for sort of memorability created and he called him like heavy and light character. And so heavy characters, it's like the Cerberus, like the three-headed dog, the Medusa, um, the Zeus, whatever, like these sort of just like larger than life, frequently grotesque.

visually grotesque characters. Because you can call them mythic characters. Yeah, mythic characters, et cetera. And I think if you look at the modern world, we're the modern world has highlighted, you know, is elevated a lot of what I think on would call heavy character. I certainly think Trump is a heavy character with his makeup and his hair and

his whole visual presentation. I think I think Elon is a is a heavy character. I think if you look at the visual way that a lot of sort of YouTube stars look with their, you know, the ridiculous like open mouth soy faces when on their uh on their the YouTube screenshot. Like I think they sort of present themselves not in a way that we would think of as like conventionally good looking, right? Like

Not in a way that's like conventionally attractive, but this sort of like grotesque visual that just sticks in your head. And that that is clearly what works. Like we're in the time of the heavy character. And I think, you know, you look at icons of this sort of more the the previous age and you know like JFK was not a heavy character, like that's a light character, someone a certain coolness, right? Obama was a kind of a a light character, like there was a certain like

to him. You know, one of the things that uh people debated a lot, I see, is like, oh, if Obama could run again, would he wouldn't he just like clean up? Like if Democrats could just bring Obama back for a third time. Wouldn't that just solve all of Democrats' electoral problems? And I think like in twenty sixteen I probably would have believed that. And maybe in twenty twenty I would have believed that. Maybe but like I'm certainly less of it. I feel less.

I feel like that's less the I would be less confident to say yes, he would definitely win in the next election than I think. And I don't know. Like I I feel like Obama is a character of a cooler um more a a different time. It's like a a character from like a pre TikTok time in in many respects. Maybe more resembling the sort of Kennedy era and so forth. And I do think that we pr we we're looking for these more sort of like

Yeah. Visually arresting types who uh it make a huge leave a cut a huge figure on the screen and whether you like the way they look or don't, you remember how they look. Um I don't feel so dead about the character and so uh and so these are someone like Trump is the type of character that thrives politically in this new environment. Let me try out a pushback here. I'm not sure how strongly I I disagree, but let me try a pushback. I think Obama in two thousand

Or even 2004 with the first ENC speech, I think he was a heavy character. I think the presidency lightened him. I think Trump in twenty fifteen was a heavy character, and he is a lighter character now, having suffered overexposure. I think in many ways the fissures that you see in the Republican Party are you could I've never Heard this uh articulation or interpretation before, but you could say a part of what's happening is that Trump, the once heavy character, is losing the weight.

That used to be necessary to keep this coalition together. And people are seeing, you know, he's kind of lost it. Ly att svårakut var i din hemsin. Du plattade alltså håret utan värmesyd. What's wrong with your woman. Up to 25% on healing hair care at Lyco. Your beauty playground. Ving firar 70 år av resor som är svåra att släppa taget om. Och det gör vi med massor av erbjudanden som är omöjliga att motstå. Boka redan nu på wing.se, de bästa resorna försvinner först. Semester.

They will have them from. Joshua Meyerwitz is another writer that you turned me on to. He has a book called No Sense of Place: The Impact of Electronic Media on Social Behavior. Aaron Powell Let's talk about that term, no sense of place, in a second, but why don't you just jump right into why why Meyrowitz's theories sort of fit where I was going with politics?

Yeah. So I think this is like, you know, this was another so Myroitz's book, No Sense of Place, sorry, I'm looking it up right now. I think it came out Well it was I five. Nineteen eighty five, right? So he was talking about electronic media um before anyone really conceived of that idea. And I think everyone should read this book'cause it really does um

It was extraordinarily foresightful. All the things that we talk about with digital media and so forth, he was talking about in the early 80s. But one of his observations, in that book that I thought was very powerful was this idea that like everybody has a front stage and a backstage, right? You we we talk on this podcast. in a certain way, but that is different than how we would like talk at home with our family. But even when we talked, um

In our family, you like talk differently around your kids than when your kids aren't there, or you and I might talk differently when we hang up this podcast and we're saying goodbye or something. Like this is like a very normal thing, which is that you like just talk differently in different environments at so far.

And what Meyerwoods anticipated in no sense of play is is this idea that electronic media and he was again he was really like uh sort of trying to figure out in advance what the consequences of uh widespread television and television cameras everywhere would be. that electronic media would cause us to come to be suspect. of people who talk differently in one environment uh or another. That like if someone code switched, if someone talked differently on the campaign trail.

that they would uh uh than they did in their private life. That we would come to oh, this person's a phony, right? That this person they like are so eloquent when they're giving a speech, but they talk it differently around their family while they're just a fraud. et cetera. And he come he he predicted that by allowing everyone to see all the facets of these characters, we would sort of view them, we would come to view them differently. You know, you like or you watch a T V show.

A good example, you know, you'd like someone like watches it watches the show Sex in the City, for example. And for men, perhaps that's the first time that they ever get to hear like women talk about dating, because these are conversations that wouldn't have occurred, you know, in their presence before. And then suddenly like maybe they're like more suspicious about like uh

you know, how they're being perceived on a date or something like that. Or, you know, you watch the Sopranos and you see there's the priest and suddenly you like see episodes with TDs doing things that are like less priestly and then you go to church and you're like, wait, does my priest do that stuff too? Or are they like do they also have a private life?'Cause I've only ever seen them

in the church or, you know, then obviously the presidency. And again, you know, like thinking about uh a politician You know, something about Trump is that he truly There's very few examples of him ever talking differently than any other environment. Like people could be totally repelled by him.

um things they said in public or private. But what one thing that you probably not is like he's not a hypocrite in the way that a lot of people use it. It's like he is the same in almost every environment. And I g you know, I think this is what uh this is precisely what Meirowicz would have anticipated, that we would gravitate towards people Who, when we saw their front stage and their backstage, where the concept of place was completely disintegrated from the idea of like character.

that we would uh come to view that sort of consistency. consistency of character as as a value. And I'm you know, the twenty sixteen uh election and many elections since then I think have been um strong vindication. You know what I think is interesting? is around the world we see this phenomenon where someone becomes to your point, someone gets in office

Whether it's Keir Starm or or whoever it is, someone gets into office and then their popularity immediately tinks. The camera's on them and people actually get to know this person. I think it is interesting that, you know, in uh in China, we don't know anything about what Xi Jinping is like his private life. We know nothing. They don't tweet at all. They do we do not have

Videos of them doing whatever. They're a complete black box outside of the sort of formal presentation of self. And so I think. There is probably a sense, my guess is that there's probably some intuitive sense on the part of the party there where they realize that a good way to lose esteem, a good way to um lose the respect of the public.

is for the public to see that the public persona is uh just a persona and they don't wanna, you know, they don't wanna bring their whole selves to work, as th as we say here in the US.

The name of Myrus's book is No Sense of Place. And I wanna just slow down on that title because it's it's a pun. It's not a very intuitive pun, but it's a really, really smart pun. Um By no sense of place, Meierwitz is is saying that electronic media extends our consciousness outward. So we don't really know where we are. That is it, like I could be reading Twitter. In Arlington, Virginia. But feel myself becoming emotional about Gaza or Ukraine. or Minneapolis.

Yeah. In a way that was impossible in the age before certainly television or radio. That that this new age of communications media takes us out of where we are and puts us right in front of the faces of people that are thousands of miles away. So that's no sense of place. But he also means no sense of place in a hierarchical sense. He means that people will be able with electronic media and this was unbelievably prescient. Two.

speak outside of their slot in the hierarchy. That the poor will be able to scream at the billionaires. The disenfranchised will be able to scream at those who disenfranchise them. And this, he said, is gonna create more social unrest, it's gonna create more think what he would agree now is something like populism. And this really interesting idea that electronic media not only unmoors us from where we are geographically, but it also demolishes

hierarchies. I think it was incredibly insightful considering it was written forty one years ago. But he g he goes one step further in a way that's like really surprising and this is the part I'd really love you to comment on. He says this about our future relationship to expertise. And God only knows how many people have talked about like what's happened to expertise in the last few decades.

Meyerowitz, quote, our increasingly complex technological and social world has made us rely more and more heavily on expert information. The general exposure of experts as fallible human beings has lessened our faith in them as people. The change in our image of leaders and experts leaves us with, and this is exactly your point, a distrust of power, but also with a seemingly powerless dependence on those in whom we have little trust.

It is I mean when you read that book and again nineteen eighty five, it does feel like, oh, this could be in the Atlantic in 2025. Right? Like it's just so far ahead of like and so it's so contemporary. the way he talks about it. You know what I think is interesting is that like You know, you talk about or you mentioned the poor could scream at the billionaire. You know, I think a lot of things are the same thing.

A lot of this sits a little bit uncomfortably with a lot of people because they say, well, that's a really good thing, right? Like we do not want to have a society in which the billionaires are cloistered from the public and they can't be criticized and so forth. But there is this sort of conservatism to I think this entire field of study because we get the good with the bad or we get things that we like, which is um uh

Society uh technology has dissolved a lot of these bonds and there is this sort of the public can have more say, et cetera. And you could see the way all of our like politics is sort of spinning out of control. I think that there is this sort of like when. Part I mean, this is a little bit separate to the conversation, but what

I do not think that like the up until recently, like there was not a lot of attention played to p placed to this field of work. There is not a lot in cur contemporary academia that sort of traces its roots to this sort of school of media ecology. And I think that it sits a little bit uncomfortable with any ideological project. That there is this sort of like, That these observations don't fit very nicely into a sort of left-right viewpoint or anything like that.

I think it sort of offers a quasi-scientific way of understanding history that's sort of distinct from studies of Marxism or studies of class, which is of course a very popular way of understanding history among people. So I think that, you know, like you said, like is it bad or good? Like are are these good or bad things? I think most people would say, look.

the poor can have their voice heard and billionaires are brought low and can be sort of hectored. And we see that happen every day online. Most people intuitively think that's like a very positive development. That's like an egalitarian development. Um, but you know, by the same token there are other things that most people will try uh sit And so I think this whole field of study offers a certain way of viewing history that.

It's not entirely satisfying to anyone of or anyone's uh anyone's particularly certainly political project current.

Speaking of topics that aren't uh particularly comfortable with any political project, I I have a question about AI for you and how AI slots into orality versus literacy. Um I want to come at it from from what I hope is is an interesting angle. This is a quote from orality and literacy by Walter Ong, someone who we've essentially up till now said got a ton right about the near future. Ong writes quote

A written text is basically unresponsive. If you ask a person to explain his or her statement, you can get an explanation. If you ask a text, you get back nothing except the same often stupid words which called for your question in the first place. End quote. I remember re rereading that section on a plane recently, and I like jolted up in my seat. I was like, that's what AI has changed. You can enter into conversations with tech.

Like that is true either at a literal level, like I can download I guess a PDF of a book and you know give it to Claude and be like, Claude, can we like talk about this book? Yeah. But also at like a higher abstract level, like we're talking about a technology that is pre-trained on tech. It's pre trained on literacy. But we have a oral, which is to say conversational relationship with that training corpus.

And so AI sits at this like really interesting intersection of like we're having an oracular conversation. Maybe that's the wrong word, an oral conversation with. a piece of text. You know. And it's weird. And I'm not saying again, not good or bad. That it that that it that is a weird new alien way to interact with media. You know what? I totally agree. And you know what? I think the jury is out. You know, when we talk about

post-literacy or orality. I actually think the jury is kind of out still on how AI Slots into this because on the one hand, you're like, all right, well, it's certainly more oracular. We're now converse conversing. And I've done that, you know, like upload some text.

To Claude or to Google Notebook, and then you can like ask questions and sort of like it becomes an interactive thing. And so it's like, all right, that's oral, that's conversation, sure. This is just continuing the trend. On the other hand, Uh Those conversations with AI, they don't feel like other conversations that exist online.

For example, the AI is not trying to oppress you, typically. The AI is not trying to one-up you. The AI is not going to insult you. The AI is not going to speak to you in memes. The AI is not going to use epithet phrases and so forth. I'm not trying to uh one up the AI either and so forth. And so I you know, and again, like one of the things that Ong talked about was this sort of he the he used the word agonistic. We the c would you competitive, right?

Um, and we certainly see that online and social discourse, how like we're sort of always competing with each other when we're talking. AI chatbot communications aren't agonistically toned. In fact Just the opposite. Most people's complaint with AI is that it's too obsequious, that it's not confrontational enough enough, that I'll like

say something stupid into the chat bot and I say that's a really good idea, Joe. Let's explore that further. And saying, and what we wanted to do is say, that's really dumb. Like this is a real like you're going down a dead end here. And so this is actually like one of the big problems of AI, which is that it's insufficiently impelled, you know, the chatbots do not correct you and that can people become delusional there about because like, oh I'm gonna, you know.

I'm gonna make a breakthrough on the order of uh Einstein because I'm, you know, doing vibe physics and I've I'm this close to a breakthrough. I just need to sit here for another thirty-six hours with the chatbot and I'm this close you know, that's LLM psychosis. And I do think that's really interesting, which is that like it is conversational, but it doesn't have a lot of these other aspects of conversation that other digital conversations have.

And so I I think the jury is out. And I don't, you know, like whether it maybe it's a turn. And I do think like, what are ways that AI could go, right? You know, it's very easy. Any sane person or intelligent person can come up with a bunch of stories about how

the existence of AI is gonna be bad. But maybe the fact that, uh, you know, we're gonna have more and more interactions with an entity that is not trying to, you know, dunk on you, not trying to insult you, not trying to one up you, et cetera. That's a shift and I don't think we really know what the consequences of that are gonna be yet. Yeah, I I

A hypothesis that I'd be willing to test out here and and I'm interested in what you think about it is that the age of social media really is the revenge of orality. Yeah. And an age of AI would be much more like the revenge of literacy. In one way in particular. Like Ong and Havelock, Myrow Witch, they all point to this idea that we're going to be able to do Literacy pulled us into ourselves. Right. Reading is interior. And then novels. In response to the interiority of reading.

became more interior, right? Like 19th century novels are incredibly rich about like what is it like to be thinking and alive in this moment. It's not plot, plot, plot, it's not genealogy. It's fully inside the phenomenological experience of the characters. And AI to me feels much more like it feels subvocal. It feels interior. Like I'm having a conversation with myself. And it's not myself, it's it's this machine that I'm talking with. But it feels more like daydreaming with myself than it

than the antagonistic experience of being on Twitter where I'm inside the minds of other people, right? Thrust into the faces. of strangers who I've never met but still feel like I I have to win this conversation. Yeah, yeah. No combatitiveness, which as you said is is more like the age of or or what was more in keeping with the age of a reality. So h how do you feel about this idea that a world in which

Social media will of course continue to play a large role in people's daily life. But also AI might continue to play a large role in our daily life as a world in which like a new kind of orality and a new kind of literacy are gonna sort of like proceed along parallel tracks simultaneously. Yeah, I totally buy it. I think that's very plausible. You know, the one thing I'll say I I I don't I very very I think you you put it very well.

Um, you know, it's not gonna look exactly like the previous age of literacy, but it never does, right? So these things come and go and the current age of a reality is different obviously than the original one. et cetera. But there could be, you know, secondary literacy. Maybe we call I don't know what it what it whatever it is, digital literacy or something like that. But yeah, this sort of interiority

The solitude that one can the sort of return to solitude. When you close if you're having going back and forth with the chat bar, you close the computer. you don't feel that same like, oh, they're all they're still arguing there without me. They're talking them they're talking online about me and I'm not there to defend myself. Whatever it is. Like you don't have quite have that same pull. So

It could actually yeah, I I like I said, I I think things that could go right. Maybe there is a version of the sort of return to literate thinking.

And then my big thesis that the return to orality is the biggest story in the world, maybe that was true for about fifteen minutes and then we we that was and now that's already over. So yeah, I think I think all these things will sort of um They'll live with each other and there'll be shades of the past that sort of we hear echoes of and so forth and they'll be different and they'll be similar and

I think it's good to sort of recognize these patterns and sort of observe them'cause just for one's own sanity to have a sense of like I don't think you know, to have a sense of what's pulling you in various different directions.

Uh to close with a Joism, uh what I miss? What's important in this space that we that we didn't have time to talk about or that I didn't uh sufficiently prompt to the question. No, I think uh I think that was great. I think you you hit uh

I think I'm trying to think. I think we we talked about the the return of the ear, which I think is really powerful. Um you know, I just think by and large I said it before, but I do think that There are a lot of contemporary pathologies, and I think more or less rightly people like point to um digital media, the phones, et cetera, as drivers of them.

And what I would just say is there's a lot of writing that ans that I think could tr help helps answer these questions that was written before any of this existed. And I find that to be very powerful because then you don't get this, you know all the data is in sample, so to speak. And I I would like it if more Meirowitz and Aong and Havelock and McLuhan and so forth uh

people became more familiar with them. I think that um I would like that. I I just want to talk to about it. Talk about talk to people with about it. I don't know if it's gonna save the world if more people read about them, but I think it's uh there's a lot of stuff that's very valuable that should be excavated from the past.

Well, look, just speaking personally, it's been valuable to me. I mean, I I am so glad that you recommended Ong to me. I'm so glad you recommended Meyrowitz. Um I've not yet read Havlock on uh Plato and uh the difference between um the age of poesy and the age of of philosophy. But um maybe that's the next stop on my Joe Wisenthall tour through orality and literacy. So thank you, Joe. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Derek. That was a blessing.