Truth And The Problem With Labels
Subscribe Today!
It’s an okay start to label something because it can help us understand or get a hold of what the other person is saying. The problem with labels is that it’s something that causes people to escalate a conflict. In this episode of Purchasing Truth, hosts Bill Stierle and Tom talk about truth and labeling, specifically the negative side of labeling people most especially in politics, using how Donald Trump labeled the immigrants at the Southern border as an example. They also get down on insurance and branding and how it relates to political branding.
---
Watch the episode here
It’s great to be back with you. I’m excited to talk about another niche topic here on this journey. We’re talking about truth and labeling.
I’m delighted to be back. As somebody that focuses on how language works to either escalate conflict or deescalated conflict, labels are something that causes people to escalate a conflict. Even though a label can help us with understanding or start us down the process to try to get a hold of what the other person is saying because we’re labeling something and it’s an okay start to label something. The problem is as soon as we label people or a behavior, what happens is we actually put them in a box or cause a disconnect to take place. We’re not seeing them as a person any more or a person that’s struggling anymore. All we’re doing is seeing them through the window of that label.
That label is often on a very narrow view of them or it may be a skewed view of them or the situation, is that right?
That’s correct. If we start in the middle and start what the center point is, what a label does is it tilts one way or another. It starts to say, “You’re this type of person, you’re in this category, you’re in this religion, you’re in this race, you’re in this political party, you’re in this thing, you’re over here, you’re this, you’re that.” What happens is it even though labels have been something that is essential to provide a starting place or guidance, it’s not supposed to be meant to be the be-all and end-all of our experience, but people make it that way.
Those people that are assigning the label to someone or this group, are they being very calculated usually in doing that or is it more of a human nature thing?
It’s worse than that. It’s not calculating and it’s not human nature. It’s worse. The worst thing is the persons tried to provide themselves protection. They’re trying to create separation. They’re trying to create emotional safety. They’re trying to create identity away from, “You are a, I am a,” and all you got to do is stick in two opposite labels. Let’s do this on a sports team. What’s your favorite football team?
I’m a New England Patriots fan. That’s going to be an easy one.
That’s an easy one to pick on. You’re a Patriot fan. Isn’t five enough? Can’t you carry it around a little bit? When it’s a sports team or a college, that can be interesting because I don’t like those guys over there because there are the Alabama folks, Florida, any particular sports team. Being somebody that leaned on and grew up in Florida as a Miami Dolphin, Patriots are not my favorite group. I lived in Kansas City and I became a Kansas City Chiefs man and Tom, the Patriots are not one of my favorite groups. It’s very important to watch that and when it’s in a sports thing, the level of conflict doesn’t have to be that high. Although, sometimes fans go into the violence place around, “You’re this person and your team sucks.” What happens is the violence can escalate over that label and that team alliance or that team identity.
It definitely can. Certainly as a Patriots fan, I’ve been the brunt of a lot of criticism from longtime friends over the years who just think that the Patriots cheat and somehow they don’t deserve what they’ve achieved. It does seem that with the sports, there’s a difference though. To me it feels like at a lower level because with all those people, and I’m talking about people I grew up in high school. I grew up in high school in suburban New York City. Patriots were not liked there either. It’s the Giants and the Jets. That continues with most of the people I grew up with. They all know I’m a Patriots fan and accept it and it stopped short of painting me in a very bad light. They talk about the team, your team did this or is that, and it doesn’t seem to rub off on me as much as what my impression is when we label people in a certain category. We’re talking about immigrants. I think people are getting labeled very much today.
That’s a good segue to this thing with immigrants and here’s how one party is dealing with immigrants and here’s how the other party is dealing with immigrants. Where did the middle ground go? The middle ground is not there because if one side is casting, the Democrats are having an open border that lots of people that go and come from or where they choose to take our stuff and use our systems. That’s what’s putting the pressure on the thing where that’s not the reality. The pressure is coming from the economy. It’s not coming from the immigrants but they’re easy targets. They’re easy targets because they don’t have a voice like try to take on the drug companies with the prices they charge with a medicine. Who’s going to take on that giant? I want to pick on the easy win. The easy win is to make it the immigrant, the person that’s helpless. The one that’s coming here for the first time. Let’s go and demonize them.
The one that “doesn’t deserve” to be here.
Meanwhile, they’re coming here and adding to and filling an economic niche, which is picking strawberries or anything that they choose to do. Statistically speaking, that first generation that gets here, has to bite the dust. They have to take low pay jobs and their idea is future-oriented.
“My kids, my grandkids will.” They’re in that space. In whatever country, “My kids, my grandkids, they know when they’re coming here, they have to bite the dust. They have to take the lower-paying job, they have to take this thing. They’re trying to get a foothold. They’re trying to get here because they would like some of the features we have, safety, protection, rule of law,” which is something that’s valuable. We have a good expanse of the rule of law that generally protects people. There are some problems with that though. What labels and diagnoses do is take the compassion and the humanity out of the person that we’re projecting it on. All you’ve got to do is put immigrant, Muslim, Iraqi, whatever you put on there and then all of a sudden, they’ve got three, four or five labels on top.
The most obvious example in recent years is when Donald Trump makes his announcement that he’s running for president. What labels did he put on immigrants at the Southern border? I think he said they were murderers, rapists. Some I’m sure are good people, but that did marginalize the positive benefit to our country of immigrants.
Branding does that. When it’s done well, what it does is it causes separation and a distinction. Everybody’s got to catch up to what that brand just said. “I’m tough on immigrants,” is what this brand is standing for. Meanwhile it runs into this whole other counter set of values that we’ve established in our constitution and in our rule of law. His guys are like, “We can’t do that because we’ve already agreed not to do that. We’re choosing to do this and we’re going to make a place for this person to bite the dust here in this country because we know that we’re in a more stable place than their country is.”
We’re taking the high road. We’re not taking the low road called, “Sorry, you can’t come here.” That’s just one place that the labels take place in the political spaces. Whether you are a Democrat and Republican, the language has caused the polarization to take place. If I can put enough polarizing language around you, then they won’t be thinking, vote for me. They’ll think, “I won’t vote for you.
I’m not voting for Lying Ted. I’m not voting for Little Rubio. I am not voting for Crooked Hillary.” It’s like a low energy jab. If I’m not voting for those, who am I voting for? “The person that’s going to make America great again.”
All of a sudden, it’s tilting over this way and a good branding and a good marketing campaign, the branding part is the label and the tag. The marketing is the repeated messages in different ways of the same branding and marketing tech. If I’m going to start off with GEICO Insurance, I am going to put up a gecko because they sound alike. They have this image. If I’m going to do progressive insurance, I’m going to start with being a high tech company and realize that doesn’t sell, but you know this flow of character dressed in white and this quirkiness and her going through that space and now the rest of her minions that are coming up the flow like look-alikes is changing the message. The progressive box that’s white and is talking. It’s a unique way to present something that is, if you don’t mind me saying insurance is boring. It’s a safekeeping sell. How do you sell safety and protection? Not by saying we’re selling safety and protection. We’re selling a brand to imprint. “Call us, we’re lower.” Liberty and Mercury, they’re all trying to get in the game by shifting they’re messaging to branded brain printing, marketing repetition.
There’s an interesting thing that’s occurring to me now in this analogy of insurance and branding. I want us to discuss how that relates to political branding. Insurance is a boring industry. It’s not something that you need to always buy every day, every month that is sustaining life. It’s not like you need food to eat, you’re going to go to the grocery store. There’s less of an urgency to need it unless maybe it’s required because you need car insurance and you bought a car, but oftentimes certainly switching from one insurance to another to save a few bucks. It may save a few bucks, but it’s not going to keep your bank account from getting overdrawn because you don’t have enough money to make ends meet. It’s something that they need to brand more. They need to manufacture this awareness, interest, and excitement in something that is pretty boring.
When I think about our political system and how much money it takes to get elected, it seems that branding yourself or your candidate as the right one is also something that is similarly needing to be that branding needs to be manufactured in our country in order to get awareness and understanding and to label. Aren’t they trying to label their candidate as the one you want or the one that’s better than maybe the problem with the 2016 election was that Hillary could do was to say, “I’m not him. I’m not that bad?” She was labeled as Crooked Hillary and she kept saying, “I’m not. We know it wasn’t locker room talk,” all those sorts of things. She was on defense.
The fantasy was that she couldn’t speak to his issues in a strong way. The idea is, “I can’t call him out around sexuality because he’s going to call my husband out about sexuality. He’s got to bring that out.” Meanwhile, in the debates, literally one sentence changes the whole election. He says, “It was just locker room talk,” because that was what the propaganda/marketing message was.” All she has to do is turn him and say, “Locker room talk, you mean what a fifteen-year-old does in a locker room?” Now all of a sudden he’s going like, “She labeled me a fifteen-year-old.” “A fifteen-year-old talk about women that way. That’s the way a young boy does it. Are you that?”
Now he’s labeled as a juvenile.
I like a higher narrative than people labeling a diagnosis to each other. I would like people to talk about something, but if somebody is using the tactic of branding, label marketing, messaging and saturation of that message, the truth is nowhere to be found. There’s no way to have a truthful discussion about adolescent behavior. There’s no way to have a truthful discussion about what truth is because you’re talking about spin now. You’re saying who can outspin the last person? Truth is nowhere to be found there. In all these different kinds of counterstories and counter messages that are being spun around Barack Obama as well as Trump, that’s not to say all of them aren’t on a scale of things, but what happens is they’re pushed to one side of the scale or others.
Is there a sense of naivete for Don Jr to go and take this meeting with Russians? Yeah. He didn’t know what he was doing. That could be problematic, especially if you use something from that meeting and that thing was used in the thing. He was cooked but it didn’t happen and so there was an attempt out of naivete and on consciousness. If I’m evaluating a judgment judging that. It’s not mindfulness of, “This is the way the rule of law works.” You may want to check up on this meeting as being effective because I’m not in the business environment about securing a loan here. I’m in the political world where there are all these legal constructs that I need to play within the rules of the game. I need to apply these rules to my behavior, which is something that they didn’t do as applying the rules to them.
It seems to me that they largely didn’t even know what the rules were and then if they became aware of the rules, they thought it didn’t apply to them and did whatever they wanted to do. It seems clear now with The Mueller Report having come out that they were lucky. Attempts at doing something may not be crossing the line of legality.
You and I could start the planning on a bank robbery. I’m just joking now. We can start planning it. We have the notes. It’s on our computers. If somebody gets wind of it and they take it, the truth is, there is a conviction for that.
For attempted bank robbery.
There was a rule about that. If you start thinking about something about breaking a rule, there is a statute. You thought about it. It’s called premeditated. I was thinking about it. I didn’t do it or I didn’t get there or I was thwarted or they caught me before. It’s premeditated murder or terrorist attack. Premeditated is premeditated. Notice how this truth discussion is nowhere in the media.
What does premeditated mean? If I was one of the candidates, I would pick one of this narrative. This is what premeditation looks like, and then set it next to what the law looks like. In funding, it looks like this and that, similar to this and the law where people get an understanding of, “Yeah, he did do that.”
There are two instant things going on in the media right now. One is that what they seem to be saying is, “Because they didn’t succeed, they didn’t break the law. They didn’t technically break the law, therefore it’s okay.” Now they’re elevating the behavior to accept help from a foreign company. As long as you didn’t break the law, that’s okay and that’s allowed now.
Bill Maher mentioned that. He goes, “They picked Russia. I’m picking China. Why don’t the US pick China? China, if you can find Trump’s emails, if you can find his stuff, let me know.” That’s not the narrative that we want to do is called who has the greatest foreign power that are allies? Even as I say that right now, there are certain countries that actually do that. These are friends and these are not our friends. These are the ones that we like better and they work with us better and they’re easier to get along with.
These are the ones that are not easy to get along with. We do label and diagnose each other. We do get stuck there and before this whole thing sounds way left-leaning and you and I get lathered with that, if I take a moment and have compassion for what Trump and the Trump campaign did, it will sound like this. “I have a need for success and recognition and I’m trying to get as much information I can in order to help my party win, my identity win. I am looking to fight the battle the only way I know how,” and that’s what they did.
It’s the only way they knew how, which is applying a business standard much lower than a legal standard of, “This is a way around that. I can take the information anywhere I want. I’ve been more around the world than most politicians have and I can wreck the political environment because I’m more international than they are. I’ve done deals in different countries.” He’s not in very good relationships with those people in the different companies but he did do deals. He brought revenue and he built golf clubs and it had created a type of economy and added to the value of all the people working there for all of his different resorts throughout the world.
He brings an economy to places. Money can bring in an economy to places in and the people that voted for him had the thought that the corporation or incorporate people have a benevolence to them. That because they can make money, they’re good people. Is there a religious part to that? Is it that God blesses and that’s a belief structure? Does God bless a person because they’re affluent? That’s problematic, that particular belief but is a label and a diagnosis of, “This is not fully the truth and everybody doesn’t believe it.” The problem with truth is that there are rich people that are good, very generous, and provide a lot of support for their communities and their churches. There’s a bunch of people that don’t do that.
We said at the very beginning, we’re talking about truth and labeling. We’ve talked an awful lot about the labeling. Where is the truth and how is the message just that the truth gets obscured by the labeling? What’s the lesson here?
The lesson is that it boils down to one sentence. When there is a label or diagnosis going, the person is applying the sentence called, “Please help me understand my pain.” Trump’s pain is, “I have a need for respect. I have a need for my identity. I have progress. I have a need for acknowledgment, of self-worth in this. I want to be heard. I have a need for choice. I want to choose to do what I want to choose to do.” That’s the problem when somebody has gotten their need for choice met for so long and has had that level of freedom in the business sector. If somebody is not meeting their need for support and choice, and he stops paying them. There was a whole other problem with payment but he fires them and stuff.
What happens is that if I have a need for choice and if I’m looking at Trump’s behavior, it’s like choice and then fairness. He struggles with those things. “I’m going to meet my need for choice and then I’m going to define fairness the way I think fairness is. You put this estimate in, I wrote this contract, I signed it, and then at the end of the contract, I’ll pay you half.” That’s Trump’s need for fairness. He thinks it wasn’t worth it and he can go and nitpick. “You made all these mistakes and I’m going to deduct all that, therefore I’m going to give you half.” The other person’s going like, “That level of standard is not what you paid for.” “I have to fix it.” “You didn’t pay for that in the beginning,” and then all of a sudden, he’s in a court battle and then he’s able to stall them out.
He’ll likely win.
He will likely win because he has enough money to play the long game. It’s like this presidency, he has enough. He’s caused enough time to take place to play the long game. He and his people have played the long game for four years. They didn’t play the long game for eight years. He would have behaved better but there are other problems there. They are not going to have time for impeachment because they played the long game. There’s no time for it. Do you want the impeachment in the middle of the things? I don’t know if you want that there. At the same time, it’s their constitutional duty to go, “This guy did some stuff. You’ve got to at least hear it and do trials about it and see what the play is.”
The play may be to use those mechanisms to label Trump. There are so many ways this happened. You’re talking about Trump’s need.
He’s the thing. “Please help me understand my pain.” Trump is in pain. The Democrats are in pain. The United States or the people in the United States are in pain. The media is in pain. There’s a lot of pain going on because of the way we’ve painted ourselves into the branding marketing corner. That truth has no place to exist there.
That’s also the pain that a lot of America was in the electorate who make up what has become Trump’s base. They were in pain leading up to the 2016 election.
All there had to do was it to be one negative label that would come out of the Democrats that the Republicans could use to fire the other side up. Do you know what that word was? One word that came out of the person’s mouth.
Hillary? Is it deplorable?
Yes, that’s it, deplorable. We’re in pain here. We’re not deplorable. We’re in pain about something here. All she did was repeat something someone else said as going like, and her pain was, “I’m aggravated about it too. I can’t have a discussion about what’s meaningful for America because I have to fight my way out of the paper bag of branding and marketing. I’ve been branded as crooked. I made a mistake on the emails and the servers and I checked with other people and they gave me a pass on it, but clearly it wasn’t good. I’m an old person. What do I know about technology? I was just trusting other people.”
Her pain is, “I’m not being seen. I’m not being heard. I’m not seen for the value I’ve done, let alone the resume piece. I have a resume. I’ve been there and done this in government. You, sir, have not. Your resume stinks in government. It might be good in business, but it doesn’t translate. Would you like to see three reasons for that?” All of a sudden if Hillary speaks it like that, it’s like your resume doesn’t translate. You think that your resume translates because you have money? That doesn’t translate here. This resume translates to cooperation and collaboration. You don’t do that. How about that in the debate?
It would’ve been a game-changer.
People are scared about the worst sentence that the other side is going to say. They’re scared about the worst sentence. Once we look at the worst sentence that someone can say to us in a debate or say something about our character and you hear it as, “Please help me understand my pain underneath it,” the sentence dissolves. You can say the worst sentence to the world and the sentence dissolve if you hear it from here. Let me give you an example of somebody that has 27 years’ experience in this. I get this sentence once a while. I’m going to have you give me the sentence and I’m going to show you what the counter sentence is to that sentence.
Here’s the sentence, “Bill, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t have a PhD.” That vibration of word is coming towards me and I have a little bit of time and there are three different ways I can take it. If it hits my need for truth and respect because it’s true, anger is showing up next if it hits those two buttons. It’s like, “I have 47 years experience and I’m bringing anger back.”
Sure, because I have attacked you.
There is the verbiage if I take it as an attack and I don’t take it as your pain if I take it as an attack. Say it again.
“Bill, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t have a PhD.”
As the vibration of those words of it, it’s this other called the need for self-worth or my own identity. I could have had a PhD but I took a pass on it. I’m going to feel embarrassed, unsettled, uncomfortable. Notice it’s the same sentence, but the truth is still not being talked about, which is my skill, my experience. What you’re talking about is the label of PhD.
Somehow I’m trying to say because you don’t have a PhD, your skill is invalid.
“If you had so much skill, why don’t you get a PhD? PhD gives you this thing.” I’m not trying to take things away from PhD people because it’s hard to work and narrow focus and come up with a project that meets the dissertation and all that research and all that stuff that goes into it. It is huge. It’s a big thing and we need that distinction of that person jumping through the hoop. It’s a good measurable piece. At the same time, a person’s wisdom, knowledge, and experience that they have accumulated, especially if they are more well-read than most PhD’s, you will give them a little bit of a push on the credibility piece and the respect piece. The third time I’m going to have you say it, I’m going to catch it this time here and then I’ll show you how the, “Please help me understand my pain,” sentence shows up.
“Bill, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t have a PhD.”
The vibration of that sentence is coming in my direction. I pick it up here, catch it here and look at it and then I become compassionate towards you and then this next sentence shows up. “Tom, I’m guessing you’re feeling doubtful and you don’t have trust or respect because you respect people that have PhDs. Right now, you don’t have that trust and respect with me because I don’t have one of those things. Tom, is that correct?
Yes.
Now it’s back on your side. The bullet never touched me.
It became all about me and how I feel about it and not about your truth.
My truth. Say the sentence, “It was just locker room talk.” You like me to hear that that was a mistake you made and you respect women and you regret saying that sentence. Is that correct?
Nobody has more respect for women than me.
You like me to trust that people that use that sentence respect women. How does that go together with respecting women and using language like that?
That’s where we would get in trouble.
They can’t put that together. It sounds like your truth is that get to say and do things. Even if he said the sentence next, “Your husband,” it becomes, “I chose to meet the need for stability with my marriage. It seems like you didn’t do that.”
Can you imagine? My goodness.
It’s the end of the deal. She’s in the White House. He’s not. She still hasn’t overcome the deplorable thing after all these years. She is labeled as calling certain Americans deplorable. Instead of going, “They’re in pain,” the best title, if she wants to write a book, is called Deplorables: The Forgotten Americans and write that book. That book puts her back. That book makes it right. It’s like, “Here’s what the loss of Americans was and here’s what we can do from it.” Her voice is still needed because quite frankly, her resume is still way better than his. That’d be my recommendation. Write the book.
That’s an astute recommendation. She labeled herself, unfortunately, and then her opponent labels her as Crooked Hillary and how negatively it impacted her. He labeled Mexicans and immigrants as murderers, rapists, bringing drugs into the country. It wasn’t in his mind or in the way he communicated, it wasn’t Americans he was talking about, it was people outside of America, that label became accepted by enough Americans. I don’t know if it was you I’m talking about it or if I discussed this with somebody else, but I was reminded about Ronald Reagan and George Bush having a debate about immigration in the primaries in 1980. Was that a discussion we had?
Yes, it was.
How the open border was seen as something that made America great, that made America strong. When you think about our whole economic structure, it’s built on growth and there’s only so much growth you get from everybody having babies and continuing to grow the population of the country. Growth is also immigrants coming into the country and contributing to our economy. I think they recognize that. The labeling of immigrants now in the Republican party and the position of needing to slow down this wave of immigration because it’s going to hurt our American way of life is counterintuitive when you think about it.
There’s immigration on all levels of economic status. We have a business right now looking for people at higher skill than higher-paid positions and we can’t fill them with people coming out of US universities. We’ve got to go and pluck people from India, from China, and from other countries to fill these jobs because the skillset is not available. The challenge with that is the belief structures are also very different too. Now you’re inserting somebody with a great engineering skillset, but the belief structure is not particularly strong.
That’s problematic too because then the person’s got to have the ability to shift the beliefs. Sometimes it takes a couple of generations for the belief structure to shift and second generation, third-generation Americans, their belief structure is shifted just fine. They heard the words, the phrases, and the mindset that makes up what an American is and then applies that. The only challenge is that the people that are here for a while, fourth, fifth, there are people that got lost and said, “I did the work ethic. I did go to school and it didn’t get me anywhere. Where was that job that I got promised?”
One and one is not two. Going to school and getting a degree means I’m in debt and having I’m not a slave to a person. I am slave to a student loan. I am a slave. You’re doing work, but people are like a leech sucking blood off. Every time I get on and look at a different new internet fee that I’ve paid, I was like, “Somebody sucked $5 out of my pocket for what? Just for me to have that ready to do something. What’s that $5 a month they’re taking?” It is this little pull and it’s like being vigilant to get that mosquito away from me. It’s sucking the money out of me. Regrettably, this is that part of the economy that is not life-serving necessarily because you think you need this thing and all of a sudden you don’t need this thing.”
This is truth and the problem with labels. Labels and diagnoses create a very narrow view set. What winds up happening with labels and diagnoses is that they eventually lead to black and white thinking, blaming and shaming narratives, criticism, defensiveness, content withdraw. Regrettably we’re getting pushed into a very violent language strategy, which then causes people to isolate and don’t become cooperative or collaborative, which is actually what we’re struggling with right now. It’s that the ability to trust and because you don’t know what kind of truth you’re getting, what winds up happening is you’re extending trust and immediately, within a week or two or five, a month, even a year, you’re pulling trust back and you’re going, “I trusted you and I believed the truth you were saying and the truth you’re saying was not delivering for me.” That makes it hard.
I hear what you’re saying in terms of having a productive dialogue with anyone, labeling is not going to be very helpful, very productive to whatever the goal you’re going to achieve. We talked about politics a bit, wouldn’t it be better if you are in politics and you’re in the debate, you want to diffuse the label your opponent is trying to put on you, but at the same time, you want to label your opponent. Isn’t that the way it is and how you would succeed?
You don’t have to label. All you need to do is differentiate. You can actually hold the label back and differentiate and the label punch is something that can land the label and diagnosis. Statistics had Hillary winning all of the debates. She won all the debates. The trouble with that is that there’s a difference between good and great. The great debate is the one that differentiates. It’s a differentiator between Kennedy and Nixon. Those differentiations are what is needed sentences and narratives that cause the person to say, “I think and I can extend trust to this person because they are more truthful than this other person,” or “I have more confidence that this other person can say and do the things that they’re saying and doing.”
In the debate, aren’t they trying to establish a black and white differentiation as much as they can?
Yes, but you can’t do it from the place of, “My plan is better than your plan.” Hillary tried that one. I have a plan. You can’t do it there because it’s true. She did have one and it is definitely better than the no plan that we have going into this. The singular objective on the Republican side is to cut taxes for wealthy people and not help people at the bottom so much because of the different labels that they have about them as being lazy or non-working or whatever. It’s very disheartening. Let’s do a couple of labels here. If you say, “Bill, you’re a narcissist,” you’re saying that I’m meeting my need for respect at the expense of others and I’m meeting my need for truth at the expense of others. Is that correct?
Yes.
Notice how you gave me a label, I gave you compassion. Compassion wins, empathy wins over violence all the time. It’s an easy game. We have so many wonderful things there to continue talking about. When we come back around to and we look at this title as the takeaway around, “Please help me understand my pain and the problem with labels with truth,” it leads us into we have this labeling problem. It’s going to lean into the problems of black and white thinking, criticism, judgment, defensiveness, contempt and withdraw. We can pick it up there next time because it is such a valuable conversation to talk about what the truth is in regards to language and language use and re-nurture our brains back to have, “Here’s what the level of thinking is and so we can have a healthier dialogue between parties by applying some of these important tools of communication.”
That’s great. We’ll leave it there and talk to you next time.
