We Can Do Hard Things with Glennon Doyle - Malcolm Gladwell: Are We at a National Tipping Point?

Episode Date: November 21, 2024

365. Malcolm Gladwell: Are We at a National Tipping Point? Glennon, Abby, and Amanda welcome Malcolm Gladwell to discuss the concept of the 'tipping point' and its impact on societal change. They delve into how stories shape public perception and behavior, and explore ways we could create a unified narrative for societal progress. Discover:  -The shocking statistics that prove we aren’t actually as divided as we’re told we are -The danger of a monoculture and why diversity can literally be life-saving -The magic rule of three and what it means for making change -A powerful argument against pessimism Malcolm Gladwell is the author of seven New York Times bestsellers: The Tipping Point, Blink, Outliers, What the Dog Saw, David and Goliath, Talking to Strangers, and The Bomber Mafia. He is also the co-founder of Pushkin Industries, an audio production company that produces audiobooks like Miracle and Wonder: Conversations with Paul Simon, as well as podcasts including Revisionist History, Broken Record, and The Happiness Lab. Gladwell has been included in the Time 100 Most Influential People list and His latest book is Revenge of the Tipping Point: Overstories, Superspreaders, and the Rise of Social Engineering. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Interior Chinatown is an all-new series based on the best-selling novel by Charles Yu about a struggling Asian actor who gets a bigger part than he expected when he witnesses a crime in Chinatown. Streaming November 19th, only on Disney+. This podcast is brought to you by Humber River Health Foundation. From the discovery of insulin in 1921 to the promise of universal healthcare in in 1966, Canadians have always made health care our mission. Now we face our biggest challenge yet, a cure for health care. Reduced wait times, safer patients, advancements in technology,

the end of hallway medicine. We're finding it all here at Humber River Health. Help us innovate to keep health care alive. Donate at healthcarelives.ca. Hi everybody. I think that today's episode is going to be very helpful to you. If you, like us, are trying to make sense of things in this new world we are in post-election, if you are looking for explanations for what happened,

if you are looking for a way of looking at all of this that offers a bit of hope and power, Malcolm Gladwell is with us today. And Malcolm really helped us understand how the Trump tipping point happened in this country. Really just kind of illustrated in a way that made us see it differently. He also used examples from our culture like Will and Grace to help us understand how a tipping point can happen again and more in our favor maybe.

And he kind of brought it all home by explaining to us why we should never ever watch our children practice sports, which made us all laugh. I think that this conversation might give you a bit of hope back, it did for us. Malcolm Gladwell is the author of seven New York Times bestsellers, including The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers. He also is the

co-founder of Pushkin Industries that creates so many beautiful audiobooks and podcasts. He's been included in the Times 100 most influential people list, and his latest book is Revenge of the Tipping Point, Over Stories, Super Spreaders and the Rise of Social Engineering, which could not be a more timely thing to discuss. Welcome Malcolm Gladwell. I'm really excited that you're here. I've read all of your books throughout the years and your new book Revenge of the Tipping Point, it has some exciting new theories and ideas that I think are very timely in this American moment post-election.

And so before we get into that, can you kind of set the stage? Like what is a tipping point? What are super spreaders? What is an over story? Yeah, so the idea that runs underneath this book is the same idea that ran underneath my first book, The Tipping Point, which is that a really useful way to think about how ideas and behaviors spread

is to use the metaphor of the epidemic. And epidemics have very particular, as we all remember from COVID, they're these weird little animals that have their own rules and things. One of the rules of an epidemic is that, not always, but most of the time, the work of an epidemic is done by a very small group of people. An epidemic is something that affects us all, but is being driven by a tiny fraction of the population. That's one general rule.

So you have super spreaders who COVID was driven by a small number of people who just produced tons and tons and tons of virus. Another thing that epidemics have in common is that they have these sudden changes in direction. They hit these tipping points where they explode all at once or they stop all at once. It's not slow and steady, it's the opposite. And a third thing is that they're very much influenced by kind of the ideas that are in the air. The kinds of stories we tell each other and the environments we create

for each other can be either very hostile to epidemics or very friendly to epidemics. So those are the kind of three principles that I play within both books and sort of return to with Revenge of the Tipping Point. Okay, so when we're talking about the super spreaders, I would love for you to talk about the story of COVID and the Biogen meeting at the Marriott and what that is about, because that was so fascinating to me. And I think people will also feel the same. Yeah. When we were in the middle of COVID,

we had COVID all wrong. We thought that the disease was spreading through the actions of all of us. So anyone who we thought we assumed that anyone who was infected was at risk for spreading the virus to somebody else. It was a collective problem. So we were all told to stay home.

We were all told to wear masks. We were all told to act as if we were as much at risk of spreading the virus as anyone else. Subsequently, we've gone back and we realized, oh, wait a minute, that wasn't true. I tell the story of this famous outbreak of COVID early on in the pandemic. Started at a company meeting at a hotel in Boston. Company was called Biogen.

And a particular strain of COVID spread from that meeting all over the world and ended up infecting 300,000 people. And scientists were able to trace the spread of this particular strain, because it was so distinctive. And what they realized was it all started with one person. One person stands up in this meeting, infects over a hundred other people at this one particular meeting and those hundred go out in the world and spread it to 300,000 others.

And my whole chapter is all about how this guy who spread it all at that meeting was different from everyone else. He wasn't malicious or he wasn't, he didn't probably even know he was a super spreader, but there was something about his physiology that meant that he produced hundreds or if not thousands of times more virus than everyone else. And it shouldn't be a surprise because, I mean, you guys know as well as anyone, we're very comfortable with the idea that other physiological traits are highly variable or at least symmetric.

You know, there's only one LeBron James. There's only one Alison Felix, right? There aren't like a hundred of them. So it turns out with COVID, there's only one or a very, very small number of people who are kind of incredibly good at spreading virus. And that's just an insight that is really crucial to understanding how epidemics work. Because if you wanna stop them,

you don't focus on everyone. You focus on a small number of people. So tell us exactly, define tipping point for anyone who is not familiar with this. What is a tipping point? So this is something that all epidemics have in common, which is there's a moment when they explode. So if you think back, COVID is a good example.

I remember I was in December of 2019. I was in a hotel in Santa Barbara with my partner, and we ended up staying up all night in some bar chatting to other people over there. We were talking about this virus that we'd heard about that was in China, that was scary, but like it was in China. I remember I was because I had started my journalism career covering the AIDS epidemic back in the 80s. I knew a little bit about epidemics and I was, because I had started my journalism career covering the AIDS epidemic back in the eighties. So I sort of knew a little bit about epidemics and I was saying, you know, I don't know,

man, if it comes here, it could be a little scary, but it was all abstract, right? It's still abstract in January. It's still abstract in February. And then there is literally a day, I remember there was a day in March when everybody went home, we all went into lockdown and we were terrified. Yeah, March 13th, Friday, March 13th. Yeah, that was the tipping point. And that's the way these things work. Like it's boom, it's all of a sudden you realize, you know, this is so you can look at any epidemic of ideas or behavior or of an actual virus, and you can almost

always locate a moment when suddenly everything changed. Yeah. And this is the beauty, your work predated everyone understanding epidemics in terms of social contagions and theories. You were literally working on AIDS and then you transformed it to crime, et cetera. And now we understand, you know, a meme is on the internet, it's viral. It has picked up enough steam to snowball forever.

But I think it's so interesting. And I know we wanna talk about it in terms of this moment that we're in, cause I feel like it's really new and I haven't heard you talk about it and I'm very excited to see what you say. But there is, aha, aha, we got you, we got you. Buckle up, buttercups, buckle up.

But it's a mathematical, it's kind of like what they say about bankruptcy, like gradually and then suddenly. I was going bankrupt slowly and then all at once. White flight in the suburbs, there is a particular mathematical equation where the white people won't move out until this percentage and then everybody moves.

So if we were to look at what is happening in the world right now, where we say, it's very similar. I mean, I'll just speak for myself and you don't have to out yourself on what you think, but you know, if we have a moment where this man, Trump, came on the scene down the escalator X number of years ago, and people were laughing, it was a joke, he wasn't going to be taken seriously. It was so outside that he would ever get the nomination.

And here we are nine years later. And there's no denying the virality of the movement that is happening here. So if you had to apply your theories about Tipping Point, how do you locate within our society, the overstory, the super spreaders, the, what does it take to get, we were gradually and all of a sudden this is where we are and people are shocked by it. I think I'd say a couple of things. It's super interesting question.

One is, so I lived in New York and I moved to New York in 93. And if you lived in New York in the 90s, Trump was a joke. Like we all knew this guy. He was in the tableaus every day. He was always bankrupt. He was always making a fool of himself. Nobody took him seriously, right? So there is a moment.

So it's really hard if you were in New York in that period to understand what is going on now. Cause you're like this buffoon who was just like partying with Jeffrey Epstein at one nightclub after another, with an endless string of models on his arm and going bankrupt every five minutes, just a rich kid from his daddy gave him a couple hundred million and he squandered it. Like that's who he was, right?

So there's several things. One is I do think the apprentice in retrospect is just way, way, way, way more significant than we realize. Yes, I agree. Because he reinvents himself on the apprentice in front of all of America. As a guy who was like tough, decisive, charismatic, he was none of those things. He was just an asshole, right?

And I have two chapters in Revenge of the Tipping Point that talk about what TV could do in those eras, like the Will and Grace chapter and the Holocaust chapter. And The Apprentice is absolutely, that's crucial. I really, really think that, and you know, we do bring it up from time to time, but I feel like the story begins there and a generation of people are introduced to this guy

and he gets to reinvent himself in a way that you rarely do in your 50s. So that's tipping point number one, I think would be that. And tipping point number two, I think is those, the first time around, the debates he has in the Republican primary, where it turns out that he's really good at that particular kind of public event, the debate. I actually hate presidential debates. I think it's a

stupid way to choose a president. I don't understand why we care whether someone's a good debater or in that format. What does that have to do with being an effective president? Nonetheless, all those things aside, he was really good at that. He did that, he could play that dominant male role, alpha role, to a T. It's almost like that whole system was invented for someone like him. He's big, he's got a big personality, he fills up a room, he imposes his sort of will on people. So I think those two things were sufficient to turn him from a buffoon to someone who people took seriously. Wow. So that's how I would kind of account for his rise.

But I mean, you're right. It's totally weirdly improbable. I mean, what is going on? It's like nobody, nobody works for him, likes him. improbable. I mean, what is going on? Nobody works for him, likes him. Like that's to me is the real tell. I know. And the irony of the only reason he could do The Apprentice is because he was constantly available because he literally had nothing else going on. I mean, they talk about that's why they made the show. He was like, I have all the time in the world.

I can't tell you if you read the New York Post in the 90s, every single day in page six, the gossip page, it's just Donald out. It's just out, he's just partying. Like it's just incredible. Anyway. What is an over story? So this is this thing that I got really,

and I got into it because I was so fascinated by the gay marriage thing, the marriage equality thing, which is really, really, really interesting. Because if you guys remember this, there's this moment in like 2004, 2005, when it looks like it's never going to happen. happen when one prominent politician after another is standing up and saying, not only am I made uncomfortable by this, but I want to pass a constitutional amendment that says this can never happen. And the movement, which has been 20 years in the making, is losing one state battle after another. It looks grim. People in the movement don't think it's going to happen in their lifetime. They're talking about 40 years, a 40 year battle. And then it just crumbles. The opposition just goes away.

And to everyone's surprise, we have this big breakthrough less than 10 years later. And the question is why? This doesn't happen. This didn't happen with integration in the 60s. Integration, we're still fighting that fight. It's been 50 years, right? 60 years.

It didn't happen. So I can make you a list of five hot button issues that did not tip like that, but we just fight them. You know, abortion, did abortion? Abortion never went away. Abortion's just been bubbling along with a level of hostility on one side and a level of support on the other side since the 70s.

Right? So like, why does this happen with... So I was trying to understand something happened in the story as a society that we told ourselves. And so the question is, what is the story that we... What was the crucial story? And I think this is the argument that Evan Wolfson makes, who was the kind of guy who led the gay marriage fight.

It was not a story about gay people. It was a story about relationships. The battle wasn't for straight people to accept gay people as people. That's not the battle. The battle was for straight people to understand that it was possible for somebody who was queer to have a real relationship. And that was the part of the story that was missing.

That we could grant gay people their selfhood, their identity, their respect, their dignity, but we just didn't believe they could have a real relationship. That's not what you can't be gay and have a real relationship. That was the story for decades, decades. And something happened to change that story where people said, wait a minute, just cause you're gay, that doesn't mean you can't have a real relationship. I wanted to explain that. And I thought that it was the crucial thing there,

not the only thing, but one of the crucial things was something changed in the story that Americans told each other about marriage and gay people. So why did that change? And the chapter, if you've read it, you'll know that I really take Will and Grace seriously. I really do. I don't think that's a joke. I know people talk about Will and Grace as like, oh yeah, it was Will and Grace. I'm dead serious. I think it's dead serious. It's a huge part of that is that someone who had never even thought about gay marriage before, who just had it in their heads

that gay people couldn't do relationships, watched that show and saw Will and saw that Will could love Grace. He was someone who was capable of a real relationship. And that is so groundbreaking. That had never been done on TV before. Never been done in the culture. So it's like, that's what I mean by an overstory

is that we tell each other these stories that are really, really important. And we're not always aware of what's in the stories, but those stories have a huge impact on how we behave. And people can know, people know that. So there are people who use that idea that you can tell a story that changes hearts and minds and therefore changes civilizations.

And you can do that in ways that you find beautiful to improve inclusion, to make our ideas of humanity be wider. Or you can use that truth to be a super spreader for ideas that are divisive and scary. Or aren't even related to your actual motives. Like when you talk about that, you mentioned abortion and I'm thinking about, I come from the evangelical side of things. And I know that super spreaders often happen in meetings. There was a meeting where Jerry Falwell and some people sat down and decided,

how do we get a voting block so that we can keep our schools segregated? And they thought of the idea of abortion that could activate. They could pull on heartstrings by talking about life and death and babies. And they could motivate people to get to the voting booths using this idea that previously the evangelical church was very up in the air about where life started. They were very hands-off. People that now, that overstory of life and death, of this being what God wants, has changed the landscape of our entire country because of a meeting. Because then that idea is planted. And in my mind,

what happens is it's like this exponential situation where they make a decision that this is our issue now. And then those people go spread it to the pastors and then the pastors go spread it to the altars. And now nobody knows where it came from and everybody thinks it's been since the beginning of time. And that's the TV show, right? Instead of a Will and Grace on TV, you have every Sunday show for an hour where I go and watch the TV show that tells me that I can't love God and support Democrats. Right. Yeah.

I mean, you're getting that. The version, the smaller version we went through during the election was the thing about, which I think in retrospect will be considered to be really important, was the thing about Haitians eating cats in Springfield, Ohio, which is, I mean, it sounds like the punchline to a bad joke, but it's an incredibly powerful story because the point of that story was, these people are not human, right?

They're animals, they're like, they're eating pets. They're like, they're, and it was that, a really, really simple, powerful way of taking an entire group and demonizing them and justifying a level of response to them. That was that story. It was, by the way, an incredible story that to this day, I cannot understand why that, how that possibly spread the way it did with candidates for high office repeating it. Like, it's so ridiculous. And it was flatly contradicted by all people who live there. I mean, it was just like, with candidates for high office repeating it. Like it's so ridiculous.

And it was flatly contradicted by all people who live there. I mean, it was just like, but that's what a story can do. That's an overstory. That's a way that a story that allows people to reorganize the way they make sense of the world and permits an idea to spread in a contagious fashion. What is the point of that story?

How does that serve MAGA's ultimate goals? Planting a story about dehumanizing Haitians. Yeah, it justifies. And in order to justify wrenching people away from their families and communities and jobs and whatever, you have to diminish them, right, in our eyes. We have to believe that they somehow deserve it,

that they're less than fully human. And so these kinds of stories serve that intent. If you don't prepare the ground, then people are gonna be properly horrified. I think people will be properly horrified, but that's what they're trying to do with that. It's set the stage. You have to do it.

It's the same thing during enslavement. You had to tell people that black people were subhuman. You had to have people at least portend to believe that. You had to tell the story that black people did not feel physical pain on the level that white people did. Like there are necessary things to get people to get over or give them cover to get over what they're going to see. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's true. Yeah.

Yeah, I think that's true. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Tis the season for shopping. And whether that is really exciting news for you or really tragic news for you, I have something to make it a little brighter. Rakuten is the way that you are going to stack up the savings while you shop.

Use Rakuten to stack cash back at hundreds of stores on top holiday sales. That's like savings on top of savings. Do we call that compounding savings? Maybe. With Rakuten, you get to save money on gifts for everyone on your list, from toys for the little one to kitchen gear

To electronics all of it you shop at Rakuten and you spend more time locating the perfect gift less time trying Promo codes that don't work. Did I mention that Rakuten is super easy to use? You just start your shopping at Rakuten.com or in the Rakuten app Do your shopping like you normally would do and then you get the cash back either by PayPal or by check. They literally just give it to you. It's a no brainer. Join for free at Rakuten.ca or download the Rakuten app.

That's R-A-K-U-T-E-N. Rakuten.ca. This winter, take a trip to Tampa on Porter Airlines. Enjoy the warm Tampa Bay temperatures and warm Porter hospitality on your way there. All Porter Fairs include beer, wine, and snacks, and free fast-streaming Wi-Fi on planes with no middle seats. And your Tampa Bay vacation includes good times, relaxation, and great Gulf Coast weather.

Visit flyporter.com and actually enjoy economy. I'm Jenna Fisher. And I'm Angela Kinsey. We are best friends, and together, we have the podcast Office Ladies, where we rewatched every single episode of The Office, with insane behind the scenes stories, hilarious guests, and lots of laughs. Guess who's sitting next to me, Steve!

Ah! Ah! It is my girl in the studio! Every Wednesday, we'll be sharing even more exclusive stories from The Office and our friendship with brand new guests. And we'll be digging into our mailbag to answer your questions and comments. So join us for brand new Office Ladies 6.0 episodes every Wednesday. Plus, on Mondays we are taking a second drink.

You can revisit all the Office Ladies rewatch episodes every Monday with new bonus tidbits before every episode Well, we can't wait to see you there follow and listen to office ladies on the free Odyssey app and wherever you get your podcasts I keep thinking about the overstory of freedom here, the idea that MAGA has co-opted all evidence to the contrary with the rights over bodies and our self-determination, this idea of freedom that somehow they exemplify that. I honestly can't figure it out and I'm wondering what your thoughts are here. Is it the freedom of white men to continue to say whatever they want and be whatever they want and be special because of these other people get equal standing, they're not special anymore?

Is it because they need to continue to be mediocre and get all the good jobs and this is a threat to them? What is the thing under the freedom over story? Well I think you put your finger on it. I think the freedom over story is really a, the meaning of that is I would like to have the kind of privilege and authority that I have always had. I'd like that to stay. It's an appeal to the status quo. I think that word is just a convenient way to describe. They don't want things to change.

If you're a white guy, you've had a pretty good run. It's been whatever, a couple of thousand years. No one's in a hurry to have that end, right? So you create some pretty powerful psychological mechanisms for justifying keeping that in place. And it is, you know, I will say, and in no way, of course, am I defending them, but like, it's pretty disconcerting if you're someone who had it your way for thousands of years and all of a sudden there's a chance

you're not gonna have it your way anymore. That triggers some pretty powerful responses. I think that's what they call backlash. Yeah. So I wanna talk a little bit about the Florida Panther story, cause I think that that is really interesting as it kind of relates to what

we're all experiencing right now. Can you talk about that story? And I wanna read this quote that was in your book that I just think is so incredible. In order to be saved, it had to become something else, a hybrid of Texas and Florida. The best solution to a monoculture epidemic is to break up the monoculture.

Can you tell us about that story about the Florida Panther? Yeah, I heard about this school in this fantastic, wealthy little enclave somewhere in America. That was the perfect community. It was gorgeous. I went there and it was like I would move with my kids there in a heartbeat. Everyone loved each other, this best high school in the state, you know, incredible facilities, you know, no crime, gorgeous lakefront homes. And they had a problem, a suicide epidemic at their high school that they couldn't shake. That was really, really, really serious. Kids who did not seem to have any kind of obvious reason to take their own life were taking their own lives. So I started talking to people who had studied, two psychologists who had studied what has gone on there,

Anna Muller and Seth Arbertson. And one of their diagnoses for what had gone wrong in this town was the town was a monoculture. It was a place where there was only one identity for kids to embrace. And that is the identity was the incredibly athletic, incredibly socially successful, really smart kid who was on their way to an Ivy League school.

That was what town was all about. There was one pathway at that high school. And if that pathway didn't work for you, then there was nowhere for you to turn. Like that's what it meant. Normally in a high school, we have multiple identities, right? We can all find a little niche. There were no niches at this high school. There was one identity. The parents had chosen that place because it was a monoculture because they thought that was the best chance for their kids to succeed. And the problem with

monocultures is that they are incredibly susceptible to epidemics. Epidemics love a monoculture. If you can infect one person, you can infect everyone. So that chapter is in it, makes this analogy to what happened to cheetahs and panthers, which are two cats, two breed of cats, who we discovered in the last 25 years have been incredibly imperiled, incredibly sickly, and they're

prone to all kinds of epidemics because they are identical, basically for a complicated set of reasons. It's as if every cheetah and every panther in the world is an identical twin. So when, if one cheetah gets sick and dies, they're all susceptible to getting sick and dying because they have exactly the same gene pool. It's the animal version of what I was describing in this little community. To me, it was really interesting because I think our arguments for diversity, and I say diversity of all kinds, not just ethnic diversity, but are sometimes all wrong. We make it sound like diversity is medicine,

that like, gotta do it, it's the right thing to do morally. And we forget, no, no, there's a whole other reason, is it makes us stronger as a community, right? It gives you, by creating different places where people can feel comfortable, by creating differences in the way people express themselves and think and it serves as a kind of wall against viruses sweeping, epidemics sweeping

through and infecting an entire community. Right? So this idea that diversity makes us safer, I don't find that. Why are we making this argument? This is the reason, right? If we're different and we understand our differences and embrace them, then that protects us and makes us more resilient. It's an evolutionary advantage. It is an evolutionary advantage, right? It is absolutely the case, right? Isn't it also a disadvantage though? Because like when you're saying that, I'm thinking that is why the progressive groups that I am a part of, whether it's progressive Christianity or the left or why it's so easy to move the other side, why they're so united, why they're so like they one story and go and we're over

here like arguing about every damn thing, which makes us strong in one way. We are not gonna get knocked over one way or another, but it is very difficult to galvanize us, to unite us around one thing, to get us moving. That is why progressive churches just fall apart while the mega churches move into more and more or the left, it is hard for us to unite around a story. That's what everyone's talking about with this election.

Like what was our story? And so, yes, it strengthens us, but also in the culture we are in, where it takes consensus to get shit done or to gather more power. Doesn't it leave us out of that game? Yeah, you're absolutely right. So there's a price you pay for everything. So on the upside, we get resilience. On the downside, we lose cohesion. And that just means we have to work harder. If we want to kind of find some sense of common purpose, we have to pay

way more attention to the stories we're telling and the language we're using and finding and looking. I think there is common ground there, but you have to hunt for it a little bit more and work a little harder. Absolutely. But I feel like it's a very small price to pay for the kind of dynamism that comes from. This is a really, really obvious point, but if you go to some of the most, let's just pick companies, if you go to the most dynamic, innovative, creative companies in America right now, what do you see? You see exactly the same thing, which is you see more difference in the room than anywhere else. You see people from all over the world. You see people who think all kinds of,

I was just out on my book tour. I did a couple of stops in Silicon Valley. And like, you look at this room, it's like people from all over the world, you've got crazy libertarians, you've got fundamentalist Christians who are, you know, grew up in that community from the South, who are there, and everyone's there. And why is everyone there?

Because that's what they're about, is about they want that kind of difference, dynamism, creativity. They want the conflict that comes from, the good conflict that comes from people with different backgrounds and ideas. They understand that that's how you grow and get dynamic. We're always gonna have that in our diverse communities.

And that is worth, if the price of that is, it's hard to mobilize us around a single message or a single campaign. I'll pay the price. I'm happy to pay the price of that is, it's hard to mobilize us around a single message or a single campaign. I'll pay the price. I'm happy to pay the price. That's so hopeful. I feel grateful that just for that moment. So thank you. Go ahead.

And it also feels hopeful about there's so much about your book that's like, God damn it. And then there's so much that's very hopeful because it's like, if we are in the even in this moment we're in, I mean, we are anguished and enraged and grieved because it's like if we are in the even in this moment we're in, I mean, we are anguished and enraged and grieved and it feels like those people who are fighting for marriage equality and it's not going to be in our lifetime. And so there's something so fascinating about your work is that when it's all tipping points, you can't measure progress linearly. It's not, okay, 2% more and then we're there. So like we could be on the precipice and we don't even know it. It looks like failure and all

of a sudden it's not. If this macro world where we're like, okay, we got two black women in the Senate for the first time ever. Hallelujah. That's wonderful. Everything else looks for shit. So if we take it down to the micro, and can you talk about the boardrooms? If I am one woman in a boardroom versus another, and it feels like nothing is changing, what good is this anyway? Take us to the tipping point there. So this is this thing I got really fascinated with

when I was writing the book, which is this question about group size, group proportions rather. And you're right, the women's boardroom is a great example of this. So let's assume we've got a board, corporate board of nine people and they're all men. And they decide to replace one of the men. Safe assumption, Malcolm. Safe assumption. Safe assumption.

They decide to bring in one woman, right? Does bringing in one woman to a group of nine of eight other men change the fundamental nature of that group? Right? The answer is no. I had all these long conversations with women who'd been in that position and they would tell you they were ignored, no one listened to them, but they also weirdly stood out and they were like, they stood for all women, they felt scrutinized, but not her. I mean, it was just like a kind of a nightmare. They were telling crazy stories. Like this woman was saying she'd make a point at the board. She was, this is on a fortune 500 company. She's the only woman

on the board. She'd make some point, you know, what she thought was a really good point. And then everyone would go, okay, okay. Then a guy would speak up and make exactly the same point. And everybody would say, oh my God, that's brilliant. And she'd be like, wait, I just said that. Like she was invisible. So then I would say, okay, so what happens? Were you on that board when a second woman was pointing? And they would say, yeah, I was.

What happened? And this woman said, it was a little bit better, but not really. And then it's okay. What happened when a third woman was on the board? She's like, boom, everything changed. All of a sudden we were heard, we were seen, we felt comfortable, we could be ourselves. We felt we were changing the nature of the board. This is an observation that has been made, it's supported by a lot of psychological research that says there are tipping points in groups that when outsiders reach a certain point, the

way in which they are perceived and the way in which they behave and feel changes all at once, all at once. So to your point about the Senate, when women, and I call this the magic third, but basically it's somewhere around a, when outsiders reach somewhere between a quarter and a third of the total group, the group changes to meet them, right? So we're not that far away in many aspects of American public life from women getting

to those quarter, third range. It could happen in the Senate in the next five, 10 years, well, 10 years. It could happen in a variety, you know, there'll be a point where women are governors of more than a certain number of states, where the Supreme Court is, what's the Supreme Court now? It's three women or forgotten?

Don't hold your breath, Gladwell. We're losing two in the next couple weeks. Yeah, that's right. We're losing, yes, we're gonna lose. I don't know, so I'm, so the point is, you're absolutely right. This is a powerful argument against pessimism because you can't extrapolate from where we are now. You can't just say, oh, it's been this long steady slog with nothing much has happened and we don't see much change.

No, no, no. There was a point when change reaches a certain crucial moment and everything happens all at once. That's what were it happened with gay marriage, right? It was boom. And it wasn't 50 years, it was 10. So I think after this election, everyone's been talking about how many Hispanic voters, you know, moved right and voted Republican. You can't assume that's a permanent change. It's not the way these dynamics work, right? You have to assume that the world is highly volatile. Do you have any ideas at how we can actually, as a nation, get ahead of and maybe change some of these over stories for our benefit?

And I want to know what you think the left's over story is. What is it? And what is it? I wish it was something. Why are you laughing? Because I'm trying to figure it out. I wish it was something. Why are you laughing? Because I'm trying to figure it out. I've been trying to plant it.

I've been trying to make one. I'm not clearly not nailing it. I will invest in some posters. Well, you know, one thing is, if we look at the other side for a moment, I find the anti-abortion movement to be really interesting. So these guys got destroyed in 1973. They were left for dead.

Public sentiment was overwhelmingly in favor of Roe versus Wade. And everyone thought that we're never going to go back to. And these guys didn't give up. They changed strategies a whole bunch of times. They played the long game like I've never seen. They realized that they weren't going to win at the ballot box ever. And they realized it's going to be the court system. And they set about methodically over decades to reshape the court system around a single issue. Right? And they waited two generations. The people who started that strategy were not around

to see the victory because it was 50 years. Yeah. So like part of that, so one of this, I do think we have to be prepared for the long game. I mean, it may not take 50 years, but we need to be prepared. We have to have patience. That's point number one. And two, they were super, super single-minded. And I think we have to be really, really clear about what our priorities are. If you had to pick two things or three things, what would they be? And really, really, really go after what those things are. And that's where I think the storytelling, you can't have an amorphous story. The story has to be about something very clear and simple that we're trying to communicate. The gay marriage thing was brilliant because it

was about dignity. It's just about dignity. It wasn't about you weren't asking anyone to be comfortable with the prospect of what gay people do behind closed doors. I mean, all of that stuff that really weirded out some right wingers. We didn't ask them to accept any of that. We just said, this is about dignity. And people responded to that. So I'm wondering if we can find something. The dignity thing, by the way, still works

as a lot of what we're gonna be going through over the next 10 years is about the attempt by the other side to strip Americans of their dignity. Correct. Right? Yeah. That's a really powerful story. If we can stand up and say, we embrace everybody. But what if that story feels mutually exclusive to the overstory of the other side? Like,

it feels to me like we did just run on dignity, right? That was one of the major over stories of, you know, freedom, joy, dignity, love for all, inclusion. That was the amalgamation of the over story of the left this time. I feel afraid that what is happening is that when we say dignity for all, the other side hears that as at the cost of us. Are these two opposing over stories the problem? I am wondering looking at this, if it is no longer, we should not focus on that we should go into what people are afraid of in their homes and families is the fact that Trump came from all this, blew it, gets to reinvent

himself no matter what, even though he's a bit of a moron, is a symbol of alpha maleness, is that overstory that makes us sick, the very overstory that makes the other side relate and want that, that I too might not have anything, but I too could make myself into a star, that I might be an idiot, but I can still have power over women,

is the overstory that we find shameful. Are there people that want that to be their mini overstory too? Yeah, no, I think there's something to that. There's going to be kinds of battles at that level. There's going to be warring stories. But the thing about that, no marketplace is more efficient than the story marketplace. The best story always does win, right? That's the, you know, Hollywood, if Hollywood has taught us anything, it is that, right? That's the, you know, Hollywood, if Hollywood has taught us anything, it is that, right?

You can have the movie made for $5 million, that can sweep all the Oscars if it's a great story, and the one made for 400 million can bond if it's not a good story. So I mean, the question is, can we come up with a better one than that? And one that appeals to enough of Americans so we can find a way to kind of move forward.

I mean, a lot of this comes down to whether you believe that fear is a more powerful force than hope. And I think we have to have the position that hope is more powerful than fear. And I'm not even terribly interested in whether that is true. I think it's true in my heart. It has to be true.

That's the problem. That's the problem. That's the thing. You have to believe at some level that if we can put together a hopeful message, that it's gonna win out over something that is nasty and venal. Do you think that there's hope for a melded unified overstory?

Or is the effect of the silos we're in due to social media and not having, we don't sit down and watch Walter Cronkite anymore. We don't have a unified overstory. Is this going to just continue and we will be two Americas because the overstories will be solidified in different silos? Or is there any hope for a reunifying story? You know, this comes back to the conversation we're having about super spreaders. If you look at on this, let's talk about online, this notion that we are divided that comes from observing what's going on online.

So there's I read this really fascinating paper a couple of weeks ago by people who looked very closely at this phenomenon of super spreaders online. 97% of political content comes from 10% of social media users. 30% of all information online is toxic, and that is generated by 3% of users. 80% of fake news comes from 0.1% of users. 80% of fake news comes from 0.1% of users. Right? So first off, right there, what does that tell us? It tells us that most of us are not playing that game. Most of us are not even interested in that. And that what we're observing online is an illusion. That is feeding a perception that's fundamentally false. Right? So I suspect we have way, way, way more in common than

we realize and that part of our job is to uncover what those things in common are. I play this game when I'm on the road and I'm chatting with people and everyone, this happened actually like a couple weeks ago, that comes out to me at some reception, some business guy, and he's like, you know, I like your writing, even though I'm pretty sure we don't see eye to eye on most things. He's like a guy in his, white guy in his 60s, maybe 70s, very wealthy business owner. This is in Florida.

And I said, hey, sure. Say, let's talk. I'm not sure we do see, don't see eye to eye on anything. I think we probably agree on more things that we disagree about. So we had a conversation and it turns out, yeah, it was the easiest thing in the world for us to talk about the things we had in common. Really kind of basic stuff.

My point is that I talked to him for 20 minutes and we effortlessly found a whole series of things that we really, really agreed on. We spent the whole time talking about housing. He clearly had business interests in building houses. We're talking about how, God, this country, we're killing each other because we don't build enough housing, right? Housing is, to my mind,

the number one issue this country faces. And a lot of what we are arguing about is really, we're arguing about the fact that a whole series of people can't buy a house, and that's really, really problematic for a society. And he and I saw 100% odd eye on this. If I was a politician running for public office, and I made an argument that said, I care about this more than anything else, I think that a huge part of where American dignity comes

from right now is about you should be able to afford a house for your family. That shouldn't be impossible in the richest country in the world. But that guy would vote for that. He really would, you know, because that would trump a whole lot of other things that are in his mind right now as political issues. So I think we just have to work harder to. I have a, there's a woman who wrote a fantastic book about youth sports, Linda Flanagan, is her name. I always bring her up and her whole argument, she's trying to fix what was wrong with

girls sports. It's a really interesting book. And what's interesting about it is that she's always arguments about what went wrong. If you make those arguments to parents with kids who are involved in sports, which by the way is an incredible percentage of parents. I don't care what, how they voted in the last election, they will say, oh my God, that's true. Why are we doing that? That's an issue that an incredible number of parents would rally around, regardless of their ideology. So I think we just have to do a better job. One of Linda's arguments, she makes this argument about how like, it is crazy that we're professionalizing sports at way too young an age, right?

And that's just not good for anyone. No one's having fun anymore. She has this great argument about how parents should not be going to practices and all the games. Abby doesn't let me. She says, absolutely not. You will not watch the children. Prestige.

Yes, yes, yes. I 100% agree. Sports belongs to kids. When your parent shows up, the parent is trying to make it about them. No, it's the one chance a kid has. You don't want to like give them, allow them just get their 14 years old.

Can they not have a little moment by themselves to play the game with their peers without some crazy parents screaming at them. That's right. That's right. That's not a treatment. That's a real thing for people. For a parent to be able to think, someone who is thinking in a thoughtful, compassionate way

about what it means for your child to have a real childhood, that's an issue that matters. Why can't we talk about those kinds of things? It feels hopeful to me though, to consider what is an issue and then how do we make a story about that issue that says this is the dignified option for everybody. Because for me, it feels like if we're running on dignity, we're the party of dignity,

then that by default means you are not the part, you are not dignified. If we're for love and joy, you are not that. If there's something that's very divisive and condescending about that. You know, I'm reading so much now about the, Malcolm, I am, it's taken 48 years, but I've officially been humbled. I am willing to admit that I don't know anything. That's what the election

did to me this time. Like I have to start over. I have to try to see the other side in a different way, not out of the goodness of my heart, but for sanity for new strategy. And I'm reading a lot about, you know, the advertisements that said, women, you can vote differently than your husbands. Like go into the election and you can, he'll never know. And how our side thought that was freeing or something. And the other side, I'm reading so many reports of them feeling that was the most condescending bullshit.

They felt more condescended by us than by the sexual assault rapist that is running. We have to find a different way that includes everyone in the dignity of each issue, as opposed to continually running on we are the party of love and hope and joy and freedom. I'm with you on that. This is a little controversial, but I think part of giving everyone the dignity is giving everyone the dignity of the consequences of their actions.

And I think part of the reason why 53% of white women voted for this man is because white women are used to eating all of their cake and having all of their cake. And we think I can vote for this person because of my taxes, because of my whatever, because of my church, because this is what I believe, and I will never have to pay any kind of interpersonal price for it because we have agreed to the civility where we respect everyone, where we say we can all vote for everyone, we can still be friends, we can still have a beer, we can still whatever. Great, great. That's great if you believe that. For me, that doesn't

work for me. If you aren't looking out for me in rooms that I'm not in, including the voting booth, I don't want to hang with you. And so I think until we get over the civility thing, which is very strategic, vote however you want and keep whoever you have. And a lot of people are like, let's lean into each other. I'm like, okay, or what happens when we lean out? What happens when we're like, you can have that, but then have it.

If the freedom of choice goes both ways, you choose that person, I choose you're not safe with me. And when people start paying interpersonal price for that, maybe they're going to weigh something against whatever it is they're weighing on the other side. I like the fact that we're having these. This is the right kind of conversation to be having, right? We got to figure out what her story is. Absolutely. I just feel so grateful for you, not only just for your work, but to come on and appeal to the kind of thing that's happening right now and utilizing your work in ways that give us different things to talk about.

So thank you so much for coming on. We really appreciate it. Super fun. Yeah. Appreciate you, Malcolm. Thank you guys. Thank you. All right, Pod Squad. See you Super fun. Yeah. Appreciate you, Malcolm. Thank you guys. Thank you.

All right, Pod Squad. See you next time. If this podcast means something to you, it would mean so much to us. If you'd be willing to take 30 seconds to do these three things first, can you please follow or subscribe to We Can Do Hard Things? Following the pod helps you because you'll never miss an episode and it helps us because you'll never miss an episode. To do this, just go to the We Can Do Hard Things show page on Apple podcasts, Spotify, Odyssey, or wherever you listen to podcasts, and then just

tap the plus sign in the upper right-hand corner or click on follow. This is the most important thing for the pod. While you're there, if you'd be willing to give us a five-star rating and review and share an episode you loved with a friend, we would be so grateful. We appreciate you very much. We Can Do Hard Things is created and hosted

by Glennon Doyle, Abby Wambach, and Amanda Doyle in partnership with Odyssey. Our executive producer is Jenna Wise-Burman, and the show is produced by Lauren Legrasso, Ellison Schott, Dina Kleiner, and Bill Schultz.