#1813 The Fence Sitter - Harps

some physiological visceral reaction. Right, everybody's or not everybody, but most people are have a side. And they asked me what I thought about some particular things. It doesn't matter, and this is not do I like him, do I hate him? What do I think his policies? Blah blah blah. It was just like with a particular thing. I said, look, this is what I think, but I could be wrong, but I really don't know. And now like, get off the fence, Get off the fence. And I said why,

like in other words, pick aside, I'm like, nah, pick aside. No, I don't want to pick aside. I don't know. I don't have all the data. I don't have all the evidence. I don't know, and what I do know is not nearly enough. But by the way, what I know is what I've learned through the media. How much of the media is accurate. How much of what I'm seeing or think I'm seeing is evidence or data? How much of it is manufactured bullshit? How much of it is rhetoric? How much of it is a form of marketing or

branding or you know, virtual manipulation or whatever. I don't know. I don't know, but it it just it dawned on me this idea that we very much inhabit a cognitive and emotional and cultural and sociological landscape most of us, where we are encouraged. No, we're coerced. We're coerced to pick a team, to pick a side, to pick a group. And I was thinking that, you know what, sometimes I really like being on the fence, not for the sake of being a fence sitter, but because it's for me.

I think it's the best fit. If I don't know, If I don't know, or I don't have absolute clarity or certainty, why do I need Let's you know, when we talk about, you know, choosing a side. We're literally talking about picking a group of thought, like a thought bubble, or a way of being or thinking or behaving, a culture, a religion, Pick a side, get off the fence. You need to belong, You need to belong to a team

or a side or a group. Here's what I think. No, we don't know, we don't Why do I need to climb down from a vantage point that gives me a perspective and a level of awareness, an understanding, and perhaps vision on my fence where I can see both sides. I don't have to choose, I don't have to align. And maybe sometimes I will climb down from my fence and I will join a particular ideology or philosophy because I truly believe that, and I think that, and I

have what I think is good evidence. But maybe, you know, maybe we don't have to absolutely know. Maybe we can say, you know what, I'm not sure? And I just wrote down what is it? One, two, three, four, five things I just typed them a little peuty before we went live here that I've spoken about in the last three weeks, that I've essentially said to people I don't know. And it bothers people when I don't pick a side, but I feel that in twenty twenty five, so I use

that term very fucking loosely. And I don't even know if I'm an expert. I think I have a bit of knowledge about a few things, but I wouldn't really call myself an expert. But experts or people who call themselves experts, feel compelled or coerced to have an absolute, categoric opinion, idea perspective on everything, and that's their stance, despite the fact that they really never have all the

evidence or data or knowledge. Everyone feels compelled to pick a side because if you're not on this side, well then you're clearly on the other side. By the way, if you don't hate Trump, then you must love Trump. How about this? How about I don't give a fuck? How about how about I don't know if intimittent fasting is brilliant or not brilliant. You know, these are the things that I've I've had this a similar conversation about

in the last five weeks. So Donald Trump, fasting, God supplements as in, you know, bodybuilding and nutritional supplements and AI and in the context of each of those situations and conversations I said to people, I don't know, I don't know, I don't have a strong opinion on that, or but you know, there might be some things, some supplements, like do I think creatine monohydrate is good? Well, I can tell you from my experience it seems to work for me. Now that's not very hard science, is it.

It seems to work for me. So I'd rather not say anything categoric about creatine monohydrate or protein powders or trimethyl glycine TMG or fucking any of them, right, because I don't I don't, I don't know, I don't have absolute knowledge, So I don't want to go I don't want to be in the yes this is good or no, this is bad camp. So I'm going to go. Look, I don't think there's an unequivocal categoric answer to that

for all people. So I'm going to tell you what I think, which is not to be confused with what I globally know. I can tell you what I've experienced personally, which, again, which is why I'm always saying this, This is not a recommendation for the majority. This is an experience of a very small minority, I E. Me same with AI, Like there are some things about AI that are I think brilliant. Are there some things that for me are

potentially down the track maybe problematic or fucking terrifying. Yes, yes, But again that's just my thinking. That's not data, that's not that's not fact, that's not universal truth. So this whole idea that sitting on a fence, that not having a categoric, absolute stance or opinion, that that is some kind of flaw or problem or weakness. I think fence sitting could actually be a strength. I think it could

actually be wisdom. And in a world that's increasingly divided into polarized camps, I think the metaphorical fensitter often faces criticism from both sides. So there's the profound question worth exploring, and that is sitting on the fence truly a position of weakness? Or maybe is it sometimes a vantage point or a perspective of wisdom. From the fence, we can gain a unique perspective unavailable to those who aren't sitting

up on the fence with us. Let's not say everyone needs to be up on the fence, but for those who have firmly planted on one side of the fence or other. They can't see what we can see. Now, having said that, am I ever on a side? Of course I am? Of course I am. And I don't think being on a side is bad, of course, But neither do I think that being on neither side is

bad either Necessarily. Kind of like an observer on a hill overlooking a battlefield, a fence citter can see the patterns and similarities and blind spots that combatants miss in the heat of engagement. So this elevated perspective of being in a place that the majority are not, which is I'm not in group A or group B, I'm not in a group, or I might be in a third group, which is the I don't know group, and it's okay.

Like this allows me from my fence. It allows me to recognize patterns across supposedly opposing viewpoints, to identify common ground that opposing sides or partisans might not see, and to see also how like both sides use similar tactics and similar tricks and similar manipulation. And also it allows me to see how tribal psychology shapes perception on both sides.

We're living in that echo chamber of thought that echo, and each side has their own echo chamber, their own confirmation bias, their own way of thinking and belonging and being and interacting. And by the way, if you want to be in our group, in our thought cult, on our side of the fence, then you need to agree

with everything. But this is problematic because when we are on when we're on one side of the fence, we automatically believe that what we think and our ideology, our philosophy, our practices, our habits, our rituals, our rules, we automatically think that we're right, which keeps us shut down from the possibility that the group on the other side of

the fence might actually be right with some things. So the moment that I think I'm unequivocally right, or I unequivocally know, or my truth is the objective universal, there is no argument truth, then I also think, and I've said this many times before, that everyone who doesn't agree with my group or my thinking, or my rituals, or my perspective or my religion or my ideas, I automatically think that they're wrong. And that's a really precarious position.

Think about, you know, think about how many times you've been wrong about stuff in your life. How many times you got And I'm not talking about Oh I trusted Diane and she fucked me over. No, it's not about Diane. It's about you. It's about how many times you did something and you got it wrong. You thought a certain thing, you took a certain path, and it was wrong. And this is not This is not that you're bad or flawed, or I'm bad or flawed. This is that you and

me are humans. We do shit that is dumb. We do shit that is flawed. We get things wrong. Now, when we join a group, when we get down from the fence, and then we go into our new group, we pick a side that is cool as long as there's a door between the fences, that I can maybe put my left knee through the fence and go well on this particular topic, on this idea, regarding this issue, I'm not in. The problem with being in a group is that you need to conform to the group. You

need to think like the group. You need to be fully committed to be able to belong, which means you are fully discouraged from disagreeing, from not aligning, from not conforming, from not being in the thought cult that is pervasive on each side of the fence, and it happens on both sides of the fence, doesn't it both sides of the fence. So the problem with this is package deal thinking. So choosing a side means accepting an entire ideology wholesale.

You're expected to embrace not just one position, but all the positions, an entire constellation of beliefs, many of which may or may not logically connect. And this bundling of beliefs, this grouping of thoughts and ideas and ideologies, restricts your own intellectual freedom, and it stops us from honest self inquiry and reflection because we're more interested in belonging, because

belonging meets an emotional need. We want to belong, And when I belong, I feel safe, and I feel included, and I feel seen, and I feel valued, and all of these internal kind of awarenesses that I have about some of these things that actually I believe a bullshit. I'll just bite my tongue because I'm more interested in belonging than thinking critically and letting them know what I think.

Once we choose a side, that choice often becomes intertwined with our identity and our position is no longer just what we think. It literally becomes who we are. I am. It's one of those I am statements. I am a fill in the blank, I do this, I am in this group. And this makes it psychologically costly to chain in our minds, and it makes it socially costly, and

it makes it emotionally difficult. It makes it and once we're really intertwined with a side or a group, once our sense of self and self worth and identity and our who I am this becomes intertwined with being on a particular side of the fence, then we the people who say we want to be open minded and objective,

we lose all of that capacity regarding that particular ideology. Anyway, Like there's never I've never met walked into a room, which I've done this many times and said, put up your hand if you if you don't want to be open minded or objective, and the hands go up, because everybody in the room wants to be open minded and objective except when it comes to their beliefs. Except that comes when it comes to the things that they think

they know for sure. So choosing a side, which I'll say again, it's not a bad it's not a bad thing. It's not a bad thing. But side taking can activate and amplify numerous cognitive biases. So confirmation bias, which we've spoken about many times on the show, we seek out information or ideas or behavior that confirms what we already believed. Disconfirmation bias we don't talk about much, but it's the opposite.

It's when we hear anything, or read anything, or are exposed to any idea or thought or ideology or philosophy or theology for that matter that doesn't align with ours. We either scrutinize it way more harshly or we don't even consider it. And I think, like, this is a really I'm thinking of about this in relation to me, right, this is a hard lesson. This is a hard you know,

I'm all about personal development. I'm all about helping you develop, you know, self and self awareness and physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually whatever that means. But this is a hard thing to do, is to recognize your own bias and to acknowledge your bias, and to acknowledge that when it comes to this or that I am not open minded, I am closed minded because I know, I know, and it's just it's just not true. Sometimes the truth is the

uncomfortable truth is that we don't always know. Sometimes we absolutely know, sometimes we absolutely know, but there are times where what we think is the objective, overwhelming, categoric truth is just a story that we fully believe. All right, let's talk about why fence sitting gets such a bad rap.

But it is culturally and socially very maligned. We want to know where people stand, and the shoulder shrugging I'm not sure, or I don't have a strong opinion, or I still need to think, or I need more evidence or more information or more data. That doesn't go down well often. So I think sometimes fence sitting gets misinterpreted as apathy. It gets conflated with not caring, when in reality, I think many fence sitters care deeply, but refuse simplistic

solutions to complex problems. It's not always A or B. And sometimes we're literally presented with two schools of thought and maybe we're not even thinking about other possibilities. So we get emotionally and socially and intellectually corralled into this place where people want us to choose this option or that option. But when you say is there a third option, they haven't even thought about that and the idea that look,

I'm not going to choose either option. Like I said, some people, they see that as not caring, They see that as apathy, they see that as ignorance. For me, I actually think sometimes I think it's a I think it's an act of courage because it's much easier to just agree with someone, isn't it. And I don't like disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. But you know, it's so easy to just keep that social lubricant that is

agreement happening. It's so easy to do that. But what happens when we just say yes to things that we actually don't really believe, or we just align or we just conform. I think in the middle of all of that agreement and all of that choosing a team, I think we lose ourselves. Like I am so passionate about I'm happy to belong to well, I don't really want to belong to a group. I just think how I think.

And if there are other people that think like I do, or belong or what's the word behave, or have similar values or ideas that's cool, But I would really hope those people don't align with me on everything, because then I feel like, well, now we've created our home cults by trying not to be in a thought cult. Now we've created one. We're all so good. Of Course we're going to diverge. Of Course we're not going to agree on everything. Of Course there's going to be you know,

there's going to be disagreement. But I think this idea that we all need to somehow live in echo chambers or groups where we essentially are the same and think the same and behave the same and periodically vote the same or worship the same or eat the same or whatever it is. I don't see that as being you or me being the best version of ourselves. I think it's also true and completely understandable that we have we

have an action bias. Like we are, we really like people to take action, be decisive, don't sit on the fence.

We have a real psychological preference for action over inaction, and the fence sitters fen sitting or the fence sitter's deliberation or thoughtfulness or consideration can be taken for paralysis analysis paralysis rather than being recognized as something of social, emotional, psychological, and cognitive value where I'm actually really thinking deeply, and I know that it doesn't suit you, and I know

that it's not convenient for your group. I know that it's not convenient for you right now in this conversation. But the truth is I don't have an opinion just yet. I don't. And maybe you'll see me in a week or a month or a year and I still won't know. And I don't. It's like, like I have this really interesting thing because you guys know that I grew up in a very much a God paradigm, in a very churchy, very very theologically strong environment, with certain beliefs and certain

values and certain unequivocal rules. And this is how it is. This is how, This is how religion works, Craig, This is how Catholicism works. And then later on that I was in another church, which was a fundamental Christian church, and this is how it works here. And this is the Bible, and this is true and God said this, and so you need to do these things. You need to stop doing those things. More of this, less of that, and if you don't do this, then this is the price.

And if you do do this. This is the reward, and so are you on board. And by the way, in order to have this mystical, magical, beautiful outcome, you need to basically sign on this metaphoric dotted line so you can join our team. And if you join our team, you're in the right team. All the other four thousand or so religions are wrong, but we're right, and we've got the one true hotline to God. And thank God you found us, literally because here you are and now

you're in the group. Now, the problem with that is one of the problems, one of the intellectual problems with that. Now I'm not saying there is or isn't a God, so don't judge me. I'm saying I don't know. I don't know, I don't know. I don't absolutely have absolute knowledge. And that bothers lots of people because like we very

much live in a culture where people not everyone. There's agnosticism where people are kind of not sure I know, and there's atheism, and there's right down the old theological rabbit hole fully committed. And again this is not judgment or criticism of any of those particular operating systems that people choose, but when people say to me things like which I get asked pretty regularly, what do you believe?

And I'm not even sure what I believe anymore? Do I hope that there's loving, compassionate God that cares about you and me, and blah blah blah all that kind of I maybe believe it less than I used to, and I feel guilty about that. And then I'm like, well, do I feel guilty because that's God? Or do I feel guilty because I have this historical intertwined relationship with this culture and this theology in this church and this

sociology that operates around this certain way of being. Like, this is difficult, and this is where thinking critically can be scary, thinking for yourself and being okay with saying, look, maybe there's a God, maybe there is an I don't know, and I think if we're all truthful again, I could be wrong, but we'd all have to say I don't know. Saying I don't know is not the same as saying I don't believe. Knock yourself out with your belief. I believe lots of things that I can't prove. So if

you said to me, do you know? I would say no, I don't know. But what I do is I believe or I have perhaps I have faith. I can have faith is literally believing something that I don't have data or evidence or science for. And so but people don't want you to be offensive when it comes to things like this, these big ticket items. Of course they don't, but maybe maybe for some of us saying look, I believe certain things that I want this to be true, and there are certain things I believe and I want

to be true. But when I'm being brave, when I'm being the most authentic, or I think I'm being the most authentic version of me, I have to say, look, this is what I want to be true, this is what I think. But I could be wrong. And the reason that I have to say that is one, I don't actually know. I don't actually know, I don't have absolute, unequivocal knowledge. And two I have to say that because

I have been so wrong so many times. In fact, choosing aside has probably been more disadvantageous than helpful over the years where I feel, oh, fuck, I've got to I've got to join one of these teams, because you can't not be on a team, I'm telling you. Sometimes fuck the team. Sometimes do a deep dive yourself. Listen to that in a wisdom, listen to that subconscious mind of yours. What do you know? What do you believe?

Or what do you think? And there will be still things that you still have conflict and confusion around, And that's okay. How about this? We just live with some of the conflict and confusion and the inner turmoil. Why do we need to know everything? Why do we need to have everything sorted? Why do we need to know? Why do we need to have a strong opinion on fucking everything? Why do we criticize people who aren't in a group? Why do we do that? Why do why

do we go get off the fence? You're getting splinters in your ass? Why do we do that? We do that because we're in a group and they want them to be in our group. That's why we do it. Fuck that. That is the opposite of independent critical thinking. To me, that is the height of being a fucking social sheep. You might do a full kind of audit and inventory and deep dive into what you think and where that came from, and what you believe and how and why you believe it, and they're all good things.

And you might eventually find that, oh wow, all of that stuff actually just naturally puts me on this side of the fence. And if that's the case, I think that's great. But I think being coerced and conjoled cajoled is that a word? I think it is to pick a side. I don't see that in any way as being helpful to you or me as individuals. Oh, I don't know if any of this is making sense. It makes sense to me anyway. So maybe what's the middle path.

What's the middle path? Is it being the active fence sitter. Perhaps what we need isn't to glorify fence sitting definitely or side taking per se, but maybe it is too m Maybe it's to reimagine what principled neutrality looks like. Oh I like that principled neutrality. So I've written a couple of things that I think are maybe a stepping off point, and number one is to commit to principles

over tribes, over groups, over echo chambers. For me, the wise fence sitter commits to consistent principles rather than groupthink, or consistent principles rather than consistent tribes. They apply the same standards of evidence and ethics regardless of which side an idea comes from. I'm going to say that again because I think that's really powerful and worth remembering and worth operationalizing. So the idea is to commit to principles

over tribes. The wise fensit it commits to consistent principles rather than consistent tribes. They apply the same standards of evidence and ethics regardless of where that idea came from. In other words, which side that idea or construct or theory came from. Number two on maybe choosing the middle path of being an active fendsitter is intellectual humility as strength, recognizing that the limitations of our knowledge are not weakness

but perhaps wisdom. It's not weakness to recognize that you don't know, or that you don't have an opinion, or that you don't fit into a group. That's not weakness, that's wisdom, that's courage. The fence sitters I don't know yet is actually a position of strength and independence and authenticity, not indecision. Two more, Number three strategic neutrality. Some issues

genuinely require taking a clear position. The wise fence sitter knows when to descend from the fence and when stay up there when to maintain perspective like the interesting thing is like in reality. Think about this. When I was thinking about before I started recording, I was literally thinking

of sitting up on a fence with a group. Let's say, say I'm up on a big fence, like a two meter high fence, if you're in the States, six and a half feet I'm up on a two meter fence, and there's a thousand people to the left of me and a thousand people to the right of me, and they can't see each other. They can all see me, and I can all see them, but none of them

can see each other. And if you can't talk to anyone on the other side, because you're on a side you can't talk to or listen to, or consider or perhaps gain wisdom or insight or understanding from anyone on the other side, how the fuck can you possibly be open minded because you already believe that everyone, every thousand, every one of those thousand on the other side are wrong, and every one of the thousand on your side all right.

And this is problematic. The wise fenceitter knows when to get down from the fence and when to maintain their perspective. I just think that sometimes sometimes being up in that position where you don't need to align with a group, you know, it's like and this will probably shatter some of you. Sometimes I think Donald Trump's a fucking idiot. Sometimes I think, oh, my goodness, like some of the shit, some of the and sometimes every now and then I'm like, oh,

that seems to be a good idea. Now do I think he's categorically this or that? No, I don't, well that you know, am I on a particular side of the fence. No, I'm not, and I actually don't want to be. That's the other thing I think when you identify I am pro this person or anti this person, or I think I think, you know, eating this way is good and eating that way is bad. I think that this kind of workout is the best kind of workout.

That kind of workout is dangerous. Blah blah blah. Now, unless all of these thoughts are really based in some kind of objective science or wisdom, then I don't see any real advantage in having to jump into either one of those psychological, sociological, cognitive melting pots. So I think I think sometimes from their vantage point, fence sitters can serve as translators between opposing camps, cognitive camps, helping each side if those sides will allow them to understand the

legitimate concerns of the other. And this is one of the challenges because around all of these things, all of these ideologies, all of these philosophies, all of these issues, and just have a look at the world. I don't say this often, and I'm not lying awake sleepless every night, but I'm pretty concerned. I'm pretty concerned with the world. And I think while humans are allegedly the smartest species, I would say I don't. It depends how we measure smart, right,

what are the metrics that we're using for intelligence? If we're talking about, you know, being able to build roads and cars and flight of space and build comp Yeah, of course, of course, if they're the measurements, we win. But when you also look at the absolutely devastating mindless stupidity that have happens, the hate, the division, the pick a side of the fenceness, the divergence, not the convergence, the separation that you don't think like me, you're my enemy,

thinking I just I worry. I worry. So maybe sitting on the fence isn't a failure of courage, but actually an act of intellectual integrity and bravery. And a culture that rewards rapid judgment and tribal loyalty, the decision to maintain perspective, to sit on the fence when it's appropriate might be exactly the counterbalance we need right now