Lurås 61 – Nordmenn er en saueflokk

Diger Roa Vigestrand, first associate professor in pedagogy at the University of South-Eastern Norway. Welcome. >> Thank you very much. >> Um, we have been in contact for a while, have been on the podcast before and at a time when we had slightly worse audio. So hopefully it works better this time. Shall we just check that everything is in order too. Um, you are concerned with thinking. How we think, not necessarily what we think, but what is critical thinking, which I know you have been a bit concerned with? Yes, critical thinking is, uh, a principle, uh, that one wishes to be a part of academia, which I am a part of, and elsewhere in our society. Uh, and it is about, uh, the ability, as I think about critical thinking, it is about the ability to, um, realize that perhaps I do not have the answer to all questions and try to look for alternative ways to understand different problems. Uh, so that is, like, the core of critical thinking, that it constantly challenges, uh, its own hypotheses, its own ways of understanding the world. Uh, to see if there is something else one can discover that can enable us to understand what is happening around us and ourselves, not least, in a slightly more nuanced way. >> Do we have a tendency to believe that we already have the answer and that the answer is what we, in a way, thought before. Is that what you are actually trying to say here, that we have a form of, uh, what shall I say, unrealistic belief in our own reasoning? Yes. Uh, I absolutely believe that we do. Uh, I believe that applies to most of us. Uh, and myself as much as anyone else. Absolutely. >> What is, what is the reason for that, psychologically speaking? >> Well, I have been very interested in, uh, a social psychologist named Jonathan Haidt, who talks a lot about this and has researched this a lot. Uh, and he believes that we have a type of intuition within us, a psychological intuition that makes us very quickly decide whether we think something is good or bad, whether we want to seek something out or try to avoid it. And when we have decided that, and that happens much faster than we have time to think about it, we find explanations for why it was probably wise that I chose to avoid talking to that person, or it was probably smart of me to say that I think this is right. Uh, and so we construct explanations and so we rationalize, as we say, to try, like, to, uh, reassure ourselves, probably, that what we thought and meant was actually right. >> Does that have anything to do with, or that we have a tendency to do that, that we are almost trying to save energy because, uh, and to come to decisions quickly because doubt, too much thinking. If you can think of it in a primitive state, you are in the forest, you hear some sound, >> you have heard that sound before and in 9 out of 10 cases it has been a snake, right? And then you proceed from that, even though it is not necessarily rational to draw quick conclusions. We are, like, evolutionarily trained to do that. >> Yes. 100%. I believe that this, I believe this is one of the most important traits we have, actually, for survival. It is very natural, very important. Uh, and at the same time, we now live in a world where, at least in the West, we have food in the refrigerator. We can lie on the sofa whenever we want and relax. Press the remote control a bit if we want. We do not need to think about survival, uh, to the same extent as when we lived out in the forest. But our brain has not understood that. So it thinks very quickly and very fast to survive anyway. And it is clear that the brain's most important task, according to brain researchers who look at these things, is survival. So the brain will try, actually, to save energy so that it can be used when a bear wants to eat us or someone else we do not know wants to stab us in the back with their spear. >> But what happens then in a situation where we are actually not threatened at all, at any point, for most of us, unless something very special happens, and we somehow never need the energy. What does that entail for such a modern human? >> I do not quite know, uh, how we can answer that. What I see, or what I think happens, uh, is that, um, these forces within us are very strong, and we need, we need, uh, energy for, for survival thinking. Uh, we need elements that can, or that, that trigger this, or, or let me rather say it this way. We are triggered, uh, by other circumstances than a snake or strangers in the forest that we encounter. So now it is what Jonas Gahr Støre has said that often triggers us, or the Football World Cup, uh, that is happening now. Uh, we feel that strong belonging to Norway, us against them. Uh, this so-called tribalism, right, that we belong to the group and we are very proud of it. Uh, so things that happen, the news, sports, and so on, I think that feeds these primitive forces in us. Uh, but which are also quite wonderful, especially yesterday, when we won 2-1 against Brazil. >> Mhm. But I know that you have also been frustrated by the ways we think, individually and collectively. Can you say a little about that? You seem to be, you are, in a way, a kind of dissident, calling yourself an intellectual dissident. You have taken the opposite view, or you have questioned, uh, the ways we have thought about certain processes, COVID, vaccines, what, what, while at the same time, in a way, there are perhaps natural explanations for why people think the way they do, right? That they have faith in authorities, that they, in a way, if they have heard something, if they have said something and thought something themselves, they do not spend too much energy questioning it. It is difficult to realize that you have been wrong at some point, so people avoid doing that. What is the reason why you are different or a bit of a dissident in these areas and get frustrated by what you yourself might describe as quite natural, in a way, human tendencies? >> Mhm. Um, I am, uh, like everyone else, I believe, concerned with what is true. Uh, that is, what is actually true? Uh, what will actually give us the best basis for making choices and decisions regarding, yes, regarding the pandemic or vaccines or immigration or climate issues or societal development or school development, which I am particularly concerned with, or these things. And so, uh, I believe, if I am to try to put it briefly, I believe that, uh, the development of the internet and social media has made us more superficial. Things happen much faster, so we become more superficial in the way we think about things. So we do not have time to think as critically as we perhaps did before, or perhaps some of us at least did before, because things happen very quickly. Information overload is talked about, and that means the brain does not have time to delve deeply into various topics, but we make these quick intuitive choices and move on. And I have been interested in this for many years, and there are some thinkers, uh, whom I have been particularly interested in. If we go back to the 19th century and this matter of freedom of speech, we have John Stuart Mill, who, uh, in 1856 or something like that, I do not remember the exact year, but around the mid-19th century, he wrote "On Liberty," where he talks, among other things, about freedom of speech being alpha and omega. We must have freedom of speech if we are to have a good society. Uh, and he believed there were three reasons for that. Uh, point number one, it is that if one person disagrees with everyone else in the entire world, that one person might actually be right. Therefore, that one person must be allowed to express their opinion. Point number two, it is that, uh, if we do not let this person say what this person thinks, we will not have the opportunity to strengthen our own arguments. And perhaps if this person is wrong, we will become even better at strengthening our own arguments if we let this person speak. So therefore, it is also important. And Mill's third point was that, uh, very often the truth lies somewhere between different viewpoints. And therefore, it is also important. So if we, if we try to, like, keep away the few who have different thoughts and opinions, our own truths will just become dead dogmas that live without us refining them, strengthening them, and developing our own ability to think critically. So that is, like, uh, a principle that I am very concerned with and that I see being overridden and pushed aside, uh, again and again. And, and that, uh, simply makes me a little sad. >> Why do you think it is like that, that people try to push away opposing viewpoints to their own? Because I agree with you too, that it almost seems to be a universal desire. It arises in every society. >> Mm. Mm. A desire to suppress contradictory information, things that do not fit with the consensus. Now, perhaps we had that around COVID. Now I would think that perhaps the most obvious in Norway now is the question of the Ukraine war and, and questions around that, where, like, every stance, for example, that Glenn Diesen takes, which is in many ways that the West has a large part of the responsibility itself by expanding NATO eastward, it was seen as a provocation to Russia, we have a large part of the responsibility, we must also try to find a compromise with Russia to, in a way, uh, give a short version of, of what is, of course, a much more complex argument that Glenn Diesen has. He was just at an event that was attempted to be canceled, probably because Glenn Diesen was involved, and he is huge now internationally on YouTube and so on, many are interested in what he has to say, but in Norway, he is a pariah, quite simply, because of those views. But then you can say, I would think, fundamentally, there is no danger to the consensus in Norway around Ukraine, the Russia issue at all, that you have, like, a few voices saying something else, but nevertheless, there is a lot of pressure on it. And now it is on both the right and the left, and we had a period where it was very big, perhaps it was the left that tried to suppress right-wing perspectives, typically, like, right-wing perspectives that came after Brexit, after Donald Trump won. Then we saw it on social media. >> Mm. >> Uh, cancellations, blockages, like, throwing them out of Facebook, right? Like, and there was a lot of that. It did not turn around until 2022 when Elon Musk bought Twitter and opened it up there, and the other big ones also had to, in a way, to not lose viewers, they had to, in a way, also open up Facebook, YouTube, Google, and so on. And then the Republicans also won Congress in 2022, and that also changed some of the dynamics. So I feel we are in a completely different place now. But and after that, you can say, if you look at the Trump administration, for example, it has been the opposite. We can look at universities where they have tried to, right, suppress critical voices against Israel, right, around what happened with Gaza and so on. Both the left and the right, in a way, when they feel they have power, >> try to suppress. And you see it on the right in Norway too. I dislike it very much. I dislike any attempt to cancel people extremely. I believe people must be allowed to say it, and you are clearly of the same opinion, but we seem to be a very small minority. Regardless of which political side one might belong to, there is a desire for it. I have my own theory about it, but why do you think it is like that? Uh, before I answer that, let me just say that I saw your article, I read it about Glenn Diesen. Uh, and, uh, when Russia invaded Ukraine and started the war there, uh, I became interested in Glenn Diesen. I did not know he was one of my colleagues. We work at the same university. >> Mm. >> Uh, and I saw some things he wrote. Uh, and I thought, interesting, someone who has, like, different ways of thinking about this than I get from NRK and Aftenposten. Uh, so I invited Glenn Diesen to speak to my students. >> Mhm. >> Uh, and had him in twice. And he told me that no one else invited him to speak to their students. But I think that is very important. Uh, and I, I think it is frightening to read, uh, if what you write and what that case in the church, it was first they were going to have an event and then at, >> at Holmenkollen somewhere. That, that is thought-provoking in many ways, and I, I absolutely agree with you 100%. We must hear other voices and get other types of information. And as I say, John Stuart Mill, he often said that perhaps the truth lies somewhere between different viewpoints. Uh, and I believe that too, when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, that there is a long history there. I have not delved into it in any particular way, but I understand that there are things that have happened historically, uh, between these countries that our usual media do not tell us about regarding the reasons for this. Uh, so, so I believe, or what makes it easiest for me to understand it in a way, or think about it, is this social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who describes moral intuitions within us, which he says are very strong. And he defines five moral intuitions, which are, like, uh, a type of intuitive feeling within you that something is right or wrong. And for left-wing people, they have, they have scored this in relation to political affiliation. For left-wing people, they score highest on the first two moral intuitions, which are care and fairness, which conservatives also have. But the more left-wing or left-liberal people, they have much stronger, uh, scores on care and fairness. And then there are three more moral intuitions. It is, uh, loyalty to the community or the group you are a part of. Uh, and then there is, uh, loyalty to authorities. That one trusts authorities or believes it is important to have someone in leadership, to put it simply. And then there is the fifth, that something is pure or sacred. That is, there is something we simply do not do anything about. For example, the Norwegian flag. We must not step on it. That is an example that Jonathan Haidt uses about the American flag. We must not step on the flag. But why not? It is, it is, it is a piece of fabric. Uh, what is actually, what is happening? But this is built into us that it represents something greater than us. It represents a type of community. And that we must hold sacred, and it must not be trampled on. There are such things. Um, and then there is a sixth dimension that came a little later in this research by Jonathan Haidt. And that is freedom from oppression. And there they see that while conservatives are most concerned with freedom from oppression by the government. Uh, this with taxes, that people do not want to be taxed to such a great extent when they are more conservative. One wants to decide for oneself what to do during a pandemic and make one's own choices to a greater extent. Then, uh, as an example, those who are more left-liberal or left-leaning will be more concerned with, uh, type of power relations that one can think back to Marxist thinking. Uh, not only that, but that is an example, that one should be free from oppression by an employer, for example, who wants to exploit you. So employee versus employer, uh, tenant versus landlord, uh, poor versus rich, that type of power relation, they are more concerned with on the left, that they score higher on that in his studies. >> If I can just for those you mentioned first, the two that left-wing people score highest on, you mentioned three more, but you did not link them directly to right-wing thinking. But, but loyalty to the group was one thing, sacred symbols was another, >> and then there was the other, >> authority. What are those three linked to? Typically more right-wing, uh, >> what shall I say, personalities? >> Yes. Uh, let us, let us forget freedom from oppression. That came a little later, and I explained how it is distributed. But there are, uh, five moral intuitions. And these are forces within us, Jonathan Haidt believes, that click in within a fraction of a second. And then it makes us choose how we think about some issue. Uh, care, fairness, loyalty to the group, uh, loyalty to authorities. And this about purity or something sacred and pure. All people score on these. Conservatives have a lot of care and are concerned with fairness. But they score on these five moral intuitions. Those who are more conservatively oriented score on all five a bit more equally, that is, to a greater extent. While those who are left-liberal or left-leaning score very high on care and fairness and much lower on the last three. Loyalty to authorities and to the community or the group you are a part of, and, uh, and this about something being pure or sacred. >> Uh, and that, and that was surprising to Jonathan Haidt, who is liberal himself. And he describes this as that people who are conservatively oriented, they have, simply put, and I do not know if this is pleasant to say, but this is his research that shows this, but more conservatives have a broader approach to reality when it comes to moral intuition. Uh, so that we will be influenced by more nuances, you could perhaps say, in terms of moral intuition versus more left-leaning people who are very strong on care and fairness and who score much higher on that. >> Mhm. >> Uh, and higher than, than conservatives. >> Mhm. Uh, and, and this, this for me, both when I think of myself and those I know and students and people I meet and people I have known for many years, I can recognize these moral intuitions very strongly. I find it incredibly fascinating. Uh, and, uh, and then Jonathan Haidt writes something that I find very interesting. So there is something that, uh, Norwegian media have talked about a bit, but in an interesting way, I would say. Trump has, uh, interfered with, uh, university boards and how they should, what topics they should teach, right, and some such things. Something that I, of course, do not think is good at all. Uh, what Norwegian media have not told us is that historically there has been a development in American universities where, uh, the mix, that is, they measure political affiliation. So, uh, the ratio between conservative and liberal professors was 1 to 2, that is, one conservative per two liberals from 1930 until 1995. Then, in the mid-90s, a change gradually began to happen where there were fewer and fewer conservatives relative to liberals. So today, Jonathan Haidt describes in 2018 that within his own field, social psychology, the ratio is one conservative per 17 liberals. Uh, and this is especially within social sciences and humanities that one sees this in the large universities, Harvard, for example, and Yale and Stanford, he sees that the ratio between conservatives and liberals can be one conservative per 10, 20, perhaps up to 30, uh, liberals. And, and then Jonathan Haidt explains the problem, he says it is not that there are so few conservatives and so many liberals. The problem is that there is no balance anymore, and therefore we do not get research questions that are stimulated by both conservative political ideological thinking and liberal thinking, but we get a large overweight of the liberal. >> But what is the reason? Do you have a theory on why it has become like that? That is, is it because it started with an overweight of liberals or left-wing people? We call them more liberalists or liberals in the US, we call them more left-wing, but that they, in a way, started recruiting like-minded people? Why has it become like that? Because in society, uh, generally, there has not been a major change in the ratio between the number of people, what shall I say, who have a tendency to be liberal or conservative. And you see that in voting patterns too, it is quite constant. And that is, like, human tendencies that are, in many ways, inherited. So why, why has it become like that in academia? Because I completely agree. That is, it has been my impression. There is probably much of the same development in Norway too. But why, are there any theories about that? >> Yes, uh, there is a theory about that. And this goes back to, uh, after World War II, there were many who returned from the war, had no work. Um, and, uh, a need began to be seen to develop universities further and to bring in, uh, people who could work there. And so it was that those who, uh, came in after World War II and brought with them a sense of community, right, and national pride, and very strong ideas from the war, uh, there were many who were more conservatively thinking. >> Mhm. And then, uh, there was a development, and in various ways, it became open for people who did not have much education to actually come in and become professors eventually in these systems. But then, uh, then a time came, um, you got more resistance to the Vietnam War. Uh, and then gradually, some of these conservative professors began to get older. And then there was a shift, little by little, in academia, where more liberal ideas emerged, and people who had experienced the war and that type of thing, those who were new to the universities, they had not been through that. They had grown up in a different time with more resistance to war, for example, the Vietnam War. >> Mm. Uh, and then, and grew up with slightly different ways of thinking about societal development. And so slowly, little by little, these more conservative people disappeared, and they were then replaced by more left-wing thinkers who brought their slightly newer, uh, newer experiences and ways of thinking about societal development. That is a simplified explanation. Jonathan Haidt, he has written a book about this together with. >> Can you now, when you mention these two, care and fairness, these two moral intuitions that are more, what shall I say, dominant, or more singularly focused on the left, is that perhaps also typically feminine, female characteristics? Is that true? >> Uh, if one looks at, for example, voting patterns in Norway, one sees that, for now, although the picture is somewhat nuanced, for now, the Progress Party has increased very much in support in recent years, and it is more young men, or men to a greater extent than women. But I do not know, I do not have the figures on that. And we are not that good in Norway at identifying the political affiliation behind many different things. But I believe it is correct to say that care, at least care, and especially fairness, can perhaps be shared more among women and men, but that care can be something that drives, drives as an intuition more strongly in women. That, that I believe is correct to say. >> Mhm. I think the figures are quite clear, and I think Statistics Norway keeps quite accurate figures on that, which show that there are quite large differences in voting patterns between women and men in Norway. >> Yes. >> Uh, and, and clearly, women lean towards the left relative to men. Although also, what shall I say, they follow the general trends. More women are also supporting the Progress Party now. But it is, like, I do not remember offhand, but there is quite a big difference. >> Yes, that is my impression, and that is it. >> Mm. >> Mhm. >> What, what, what, when it comes to freedom of speech, I touched on it briefly. Uh, my impression was that in the last 10 years, especially then, where I feel there has been a big, I was very worried about freedom of speech, around 2017, 18, 19, and for a few years. It was, like, the, uh, I saw it as a very big threat that people, the way people were excluded from social media, as long as social media was so important, that this directly affected, and then I ran Reset, and we were also very dependent on Facebook, for example, and had to be very careful, I remember, about how we formulated, which pictures, >> what at all, you know, we were banned or had our algorithms throttled just because we had an article about Tommy Robinson. Just that, right? It was not, it was just a journalistic article. It was not any kind of tribute to Tommy Robinson at all. It was, like, for several months, there was hardly any spread of our article at all. >> Uh, YouTube was, was much the same. Uh, I experience that as completely different now. Now I am almost not worried. Now we have to stay away from, like, naked breasts and pictures. Then you can get, like, punished and it gets taken down. But it is, it is a completely different reality, I feel. What, what, what is your impression regarding that? >> The first thing I must say is that I am not on social media. I have, like, chosen to stay away from social media a bit. So I have a bit with family, my kids, and so on on Snapchat, as it is called. But, but I spend very little time on it. I have a Facebook account, but I am never on it. Um, I, uh, well, my impression is, I followed it a bit, and when you started Reset, I remember that very well, and I followed it a bit, and the documentation came, and I followed some of the things that happened there, and I thought it was outrageous, quite simply. Uh, and it, it made me uneasy, I must say, to see how, as you say, articles were, like, tried to be throttled, and you were tried to be throttled, and there was, uh, I remember there was something about advertising, and how people were calling, like, activism. They called companies that advertised with you, as I remember. Mm. >> Is that correct? >> Yes, that is correct. >> To get them to stop advertising with you. So it was, like, that was completely wild, I thought. Um, so I, I have, well, an impression that there has been a lot of talk about freedom of speech lately, by the Freedom of Speech Commission, with her, what is her name? >> Kjerulf. >> Skjerulf. Yes. >> Mm. >> Uh, who, who leads it, has received a bit of focus, received a bit more focus on it, and perhaps people are calming down a bit. Uh, and some, some dare perhaps to a greater extent to say, listen, if some activist individuals contact you and say, relax, you know. This is a completely normal event. Even though the cases in the church chose to be pressured, in a way, as it appears to me. Uh, but I, I think, I think it is difficult, a bit difficult to answer concretely because I also see that, >> now there are tendencies, it has been for a long time, for many years ago, the EU, among other things, established, uh, some mechanisms to control and regulate social media and what was said there. Uh, and I have written a bit about it. I do not remember the exact figures, but it shows that they have censored, that is, the machines, these are computers, that are set up to censor various expressions on social media. They have censored 80, 90, over 90% of some expressions. And then it turns out that most of these expressions were legal. That is, they are within what is considered legal. >> Mhm. Uh, but nevertheless, it is censored because these are computers doing it, of course. Uh, and, yes. Uh, yes. >> Yes. No, but I think I can, in a way, shall I say, nuance my own view, because what I believe has improved is that the social media giants themselves have offered greater resistance to the authorities regarding censoring things. >> Okay. >> Uh, and they themselves have become freer. And I think a lot of it had to do with Elon Musk buying Twitter, now X, because it became a platform where things were free, people would go there, and that pressured Facebook, that is, it pressured Meta and Google and others to loosen up too. Because otherwise, everyone would have ended up on X. >> Yes. >> Because people want freedom of speech. >> That is, most of us want freedom of speech. That is, we want a place where we think that what is there is uncensored. >> So there was a competitive aspect to it. But we have, we had, most recently this weekend, an article describing that the British authorities are now trying to impose on the social media giants, and that is that, uh, that is that, uh, eh, that is that, uh, eh, these, what shall I say, BBC, these established media should appear higher in people's feeds than they actually do. Uh, and so they try, and they still will, but there is greater resistance, and that, after all, makes me less worried that you cannot, at a national level, unless you really take extraordinary measures like they do in North Korea and Russia, and shut it down almost, then it is very difficult at a national level to implement it in that sense. But it is perhaps the tendency, the desires, as we touched upon earlier in the conversation, the desire some have to prevent alternative voices to their own viewpoints, that will always be there. And then the question is, in a way, what, what does society manage to stand up against that desire for censorship, which perhaps was a bit unique to Western civilization, that the principle even arose, that this is important. Freedom of speech is actually important. That was, in a way, a unique event. Because if you have some dogma, whether it is a religious dogma, an ideological dogma, >> then you do not want any counterarguments. That is, it is fine. I think many can relate to that. It is very comfortable if everyone just agrees with what you say. Whether it is in a family situation or, right, you have a partner, and right, if your partner just agrees with you always, then it is very beneficial. Uh, and if you can, like, so that tendency to not want counterarguments, it is always there. So, so the only thing I am actually more positive about now is that social media is more driven by market logic. Mm. >> You could say that, that monopoly tendency is not so, uh, so dominant. And I, I can, in a way, see it in my own children, because there is no doubt that Norwegian schools, perhaps to touch on that a bit, are, both in the curriculum and a good number of the teachers lean towards the left, and there is a lot of strange stuff being taught. Things people have been concerned about, they have not managed to engage much with. It is that Pride debate and everything, like, these flags that hang in schools and are linked to a curriculum and such things. >> Mhm. But the children, the youth have access to TikTok, to YouTube. Now they are trying to, in a way, set age limits on that too, but there they get alternative perspectives, and those indoctrination attempts from the authorities do not work. That is, they only work on very few people, if at all. While most people, you can notice if you have children in, uh, in middle school, high school, they think completely differently. That is, they think for themselves, right, and can say that it means.

It's not that they think well or everything you get in a way, you understand on TikTok for example, is beneficial, but there they manage to, in a way, uncover some bullshit that you are told. The politically correct bullshit doesn't gain any traction, right, it doesn't gain any momentum on social media with the natural algorithms. Therefore, the authorities also try, of course, to go in and control it and control the algorithms so that, right, this, right, for example, that there should only be two genders, right, you have to dampen that on social media. It cannot start to spread on social media. So then the authorities will try to prevent it. Whereas if you just let it go freely, then the youth will say yes, of course. >> Mhm. And there are only two genders, right? And they saw that on TikTok, right? There's someone who said it on TikTok who is something other than what the teacher says. Then the teacher is no longer the authority. So therefore, that's what I mean, that the social, it is incredibly important that social media is free in principle. And then it is much better, in my opinion, to have some danger associated with it too. But that the algorithms get to run their own course. >> Mhm. You, let's, let's pick it apart a bit, because there are many things here, I think, that are both exciting and important. Um, let's take the with the Pride colors on the church steps, for example. I had a small post with you recently about it, eh, was it and the cases? No, Kampenkirke, it was >> Kampenkirke, there they had eh eh painted the Pride colors on the church steps on the way in. >> Mhm. >> Eh, and what I find interesting eh is perhaps even more so than whether it is right or wrong or eh, like, whether to fly these colors or not, but I am concerned with eh critical thinking around it. And it's a concept from ancient Greece and the philosophers there called Telos. And Telos is about eh goal or intent or purpose. And that's probably what I wrote a little about in relation to Kampenkirke. So, what is the purpose of the Church of Norway? What do they want to achieve? And are the Pride colors part of, like, the church's intention? It confuses me a bit. I get a little confused. And then eh, just a couple of days later, I drove past the fire station in Asker where I live. And they are flying the Pride flag >> Mm. >> eh all of June. >> Mhm. >> And then I thought while I was sitting in the car, what is the purpose of a fire station? Isn't it fire safety? >> Mhm. Eh, and where do the Pride flags fit into that of conducting fire safety and providing information about fire safety to the public? It just amazes me. I get a little, and of course, no one dies because that flag is waving outside the Asker fire station, but I find it very strange because I can't reconcile it with the fire station's Telos. >> Mhm. Eh, then, and and those types of questions eh I try to eh to help my students and in teacher training, for example, to talk a little about. And I think that if there is anything Norwegian schools and teachers in Norwegian schools could perhaps benefit from eh even more, it would be to let students who have seen something on TikTok, for example, that doesn't align with what the teacher said. If the teacher had managed to say, "You know, interesting, let's talk about that. Perhaps there are other ways to think about this than what I told you yesterday." >> Mhm. I think that would be very good for developing critical thinking in Norwegian schools. But if we just take that Pride issue a bit, because I remember that, you know, that type of problematic was something that I felt was, or that we wrote a lot about and were, like, concerned with at Reset when we started there in 2017-18 and things like that. Eh, it was a bit new then, you know, that Pride was coming in so, it came in so strongly then, and then I felt, like, it's okay to focus on it because it is, you know, it's a bit strange, as you are, as you are pointing out. It's a bit strange that there is such a big focus on, like, what does Pride do, why on earth should there be a whole month in schools, you know? There is a very big focus on it, at the same time as you can say, at least when it comes to, you know, homosexuality and, you know, it's bad enough that it was forbidden until 1972. We have come a long way, you know? And then this with the Pride flag has started to symbolize a number of other things when it comes to, in a way, gender-fluid understandings and, like, what is actually, strictly speaking. Eh, it's perhaps not something very good, at least, to try to convince people who are on the borderline or have a number of other conditions that this is what you are suffering from. So that you can think that it's not good if suddenly 5% of the population starts to become unsure of which gender they actually belong to, you know? It's, like, in relation to the old, there were, like, two out of 300 or something early on, you know, who, for biological, perhaps genetic reasons, are in that category. If suddenly there are, like, very many, it's a cultural influence. We thought that was, like, important. And then I feel like some of these things that occupy many for a period are that eventually it becomes a bit like kicking down an open door, and you win, and logic prevails. >> Mhm. >> Right? In the same way, if you look again at the children having a little faith in them that they will not necessarily listen to the teacher. Especially not in a situation where they get so many alternatives, you know, even if the Pride flag is hanging there at school, you know? It's a bit ugly to say, it's not good at all, but what is the case is that this expression, when we grew up, you know, "homo" as a slur, it is just as widespread now, despite the fact that this Pride flag is hanging there every single month. Perhaps a bit because of it. It will continue to be there, it doesn't seem like a propaganda symbol in a way. And as I think about it, I can't be bothered to spend any time on it. I can't engage. I don't just can't. I don't want to use my energy on it. But what I see is that it engages enormously on social media. >> Mhm. >> Right? And and and people, whether they use it consciously or not, but, you know, certain alternative media, they push very hard on it, whether they are actually that engaged in it, or just see that it works. It's hard to say. But there is still engagement around it. And that's a bit, and then if you drive around, you see it, for example, at the fire station. I don't see it as a problem. Even though I am aware that the association Fri, which is connected, has a lot of what I consider outrageous positions, it's a bit like I think that it won't prevail, you. It's not like the association Fri gains any greater support in the population because a Pride flag is hanging at the Asker fire station, like. A bit, a bit like that, actually the opposite, because it actually mobilizes even more. So it seems to me, they should have taken it down if, if it is genuine and it is a right that is important to fight for sexual minorities, because, as I said, it is still a slur in schools. It is still important to focus on their ability to be themselves. But now it seems to be counterproductive to hang up these flags. So it's okay to point out. But I can't engage myself so much and think that it's very harmful that these flags are hanging there, actually, quite the opposite. >> Because all of you who are so very engaged in that flag and fear that your children will suddenly become trans, relax. That's it, you know, trust the children, and it's perhaps a few who are impressionable, and it's not good that a few are influenced in a direction they wouldn't otherwise have been, but this is not a major societal problem, do you follow me a bit on that or >> Yes, you absolutely, I am very much in agreement with you. Eh, and I have many thoughts about it, and again, I am very concerned with this critical thinking eh and helping eh helping ourselves and each other to think critically about these things. Eh, and you do that eh in the way you talk about it now. It's eh, I share what you say 100%. I also don't believe that a lot of trans people will be developed by Pride flags hanging around. I don't believe that. But let me give some examples. Now I have taught a course for health visitors this spring, and then we touch upon this, and they have asked me to address this topic because, as health visitors at a health center or at schools where they work, they do occasionally meet children and young people who, yes, eh, come to them with these types of thoughts. Eh, and then I asked them the question and I asked them to think about it a bit. I said, let's say I am a man, my name is Stig. Right? I am a man. So I come in here one day and say to you that eh I am I am actually a woman eh and I feel like a woman. I want you to call me Stine instead. If I say that I feel like a woman and therefore you should call me Stine from now on. Eh, and there are 29 women sitting there because it was only women. So then I ask them, how do I feel when I feel like a woman? You must be able to answer that. 29 girls, women in the room. >> Mhm. >> Eh, but I didn't get an answer to that because they, they couldn't eh concretize it or define it. How does a woman feel? And regardless eh of what was possibly suggested, those were feelings that a man can also have. Eh, and that makes this a bit interesting, I think. What is it? How do we use language? And we probably can't cover all our feelings with language. But another thing that I am concerned with is that I eh I see in our curriculum, as it's called in pedagogy, this with gender identity. It's very important. Eh, and again, I think critically, and I am critical of everything, really. Eh, and then I have to ask, ehm, can small children understand eh what identity is? I mean, how do we work with small children to help them understand what identity is? And is gender identity really relevant for small children? I mean, you probably need the ability to think very abstractly, I think, if you are to think about identity. Eh, how old do children have to be before they become capable of starting to reflect on identity? Eh, and if, for example, to small children, something I have read, I don't know if it's true, but I see that some are critical of, for example, Fri, the association Fri, that they have courses where they tell, you know, small children that they can choose for themselves whether they want to be a girl or a boy. Eh, and I wonder what happens in the brain of Thomas, who is 10 years old, if he is told that you can choose for yourself, Thomas, whether you want to be a girl or a boy. And I wonder what a 10-year-old boy or a 10-year-old girl thinks if they receive such a message. Eh, and I don't know, because I'm not inside the heads of small children, but I wonder, like, eh, what is happening? And perhaps it is these external things that many associate with man, woman, boy, girl, that, okay, I'll put on makeup and maybe wear a dress, then I'm a girl. Perhaps that's how they think about it. >> This is very interesting. Could, you know, have had a whole separate podcast about it. I I seem to recall that time when I, what shall I say, read a lot about philosophy of language and that group there, that at least one of the theories there regarding the use of concepts and language is that it is equivalent to a delimitation of what it is not, as that you are able to, like, define a word as something specific. So it's like, yes, it is that, and it's not, I think you would get exactly the same answer if there were 29 men in that room and you asked, what does it mean to be a man? I think so. >> Definitely, because I wouldn't be able to answer that in any sensible way, I think, really, because it is, it is simple, otherwise it would have to go into being a delimitation against it, that it is, you know, that it is not something feminine or that package there, so that it is eh, and and and but so, so then you can, you know, because that's what we're actually saying, is that, like, how can a biological, if a man actually has any understanding when he says that I feel like a woman. I mean, what does that person know about what it actually means to be a woman? >> Right? So, really. But that would be a completely separate interesting discussion. But just briefly, when you say, like, what does Thomas at 10 years old think? I think most Thomases at 10 years old are very sure that, you know, regardless of whether someone at kindergarten or a teacher says that you can choose for yourself. Yes, say yes, but I am a boy, you know, that biological factor is very strong, and in many ways, as I see it, we assume the dominant one. So that it, again, you know, that bullshit you are told at school is not what will cause us to have 20% trans people in Norway. I'm not afraid of that, you know. No. Eh, and I also think that, you know, what I think about it is, in a very simple way, that for many, perhaps most of us, when we talk about man, woman, or boy, girl, it's the biological we think of. So if someone says to us that you can choose for yourself, then that doesn't make sense to us who think about it. I mean, we are talking about moral intuition. Intuitively, you and I just know we are men, and we can't choose that ourselves because it's something we just are. >> Mhm. >> Eh, and then I think that those who say that you can choose, or that someone can actually feel like a different gender than they are, they are not concerned with the biological. They are not talking about biology. It's irrelevant, I think, because they are concerned with feelings and identity and creating some kind of connection there. What I again think critically about, and that is that this topic gets a whole month, as you say, in June. Eh, I mean, people who have challenges and feel eh feel not included, accepted, respected in society because of sexual orientation or other circumstances they find themselves in. Eh, and then I think you have, like, so many groups that I think large parts of the population would see it as nice to be able to support children with cancer, for example. Why don't they get a day of flagging, as far as I know? >> Mm. >> Eh, children who are beaten and abused at home or abused by adults at home where they live. Horrible to think about. Not a flag, just two examples. So, so here, I think again, back to moral intuition. I think the reason we are where we are now is that some people have been very strongly influenced by their moral intuition about justice and care. Perhaps especially when it comes to Pride. And then it has, little by little, gained traction and developed into where we are today. And eh, I sometimes talk with people I know about this with Pride flagging and so on. And, you know, the kindest people I know and who are often very caring and concerned with justice and perhaps are more on the left politically, they say that they think it's an important topic. They think it's very nice, but it's become too much, they say. Now, now we have reached a point where it has become too much. So they experience that it simply becomes a bit intrusive and a bit too overwhelming. >> Yes. No, I mean, that's probably how you can see it from, in a way, opinion pieces and on social media, that more and more people think that. And what I think it will lead to is that it will die out a bit. I mean, it will be a real change, and that's also a message to those who are very active against it, that I would say, like, relax. >> Yes. >> This will sort itself out. Society will not be destroyed by the Pride movement. They are too marginal, they are too few. But again, it's a bit back to perhaps what it is with social media and in relation to people's, in a way, many people probably live a life where they need to engage in things. They need to get angry, in a way, or feel that they are releasing something by getting angry. Eh, and I find that a bit sad. I'm a bit more like you. I post things on social media, but I ghost post. I don't follow it. >> And I >> I agree with you too, that what you promote is superficial, you know, when you get things in your feed, whether it's TikTok, Facebook, X, I'm more on YouTube because there you can find long things. Although what I'm dissatisfied with is that you end up in such algorithm silos. So first you go into something, then you get more of the same. I am absolutely not interested in getting the same thing. If I've seen something once, that's enough. >> Mhm. I don't bother seeing it again. Eh, but you know, but when you get things in your feed, you know, you have people who are, like, super happy, because they have, like, 1 million, say, 1 million people have seen my post on eh on Facebook. No, it's not 1 million people who have seen that post. It has appeared in the feed of, because they have scrolled through. They might not have seen more than >> 0.1 second of it. But then it's counted. And Facebook does that consciously, because then people think, oh, so many people are following what I write on Facebook. >> But that's just bullshit, the whole calculation method in principle. But it has actually done something. Now there are more people on Facebook than there were before, so Mark Zuckerberg knows what he's doing in principle. But this thing when you get things in your feed, like 10,000 impressions in the course of a day, I can't fathom that people bother. I think it creates a form of restlessness, just to bring it back again to what was also your concern here, the superficial thinking, what social media does to us >> in that way. >> Yes, I am very much in agreement with you, and I am also quite concerned about this because I believe eh back to children, young people, and school and those things. I I believe that all children eh are better off being outside climbing a tree than sitting and scrolling on a screen. Eh, I don't think that all negative things that happen on a screen are negative. I think that one can develop knowledge and skills and things that are useful, but I think that all the hours that are spent eh, I don't think those are good. And again, back to my students. Let me give an example. Eh, these health visitors now, whom I had in my classes, I present eh some topics that I want them to discuss in groups, and then I ask questions eh and then I twist things a bit, and then I want them to get to the core of these different topics that we discuss. And it's about development, service improvement, innovation, which is a topic I've worked a lot with. Eh, and on the first day when I met them, I've been with them for many weeks, I explain how I think. And then I say that in eh teaching, I want you to put away both your computers and your phones. Eh, and eh after a few weeks, one of the students came and said that she had been a bit annoyed with me at first, and she wasn't the only one, I understood. But then she showed me on her phone, because I said in our breaks, you can of course do as you please, but I don't want these up because they magnify concentration, attention, and I want us to be a community where we talk about the same thing when we talk together or in groups. But then she showed me on her phone, she had a statistic of how many hours she is on her phone eh every day. And she had reduced it by several hours each day. >> And it was absolutely fantastic to see, like. So this was what did you call it? >> Eh rehab. >> Yes. >> Eh, and and after a few weeks, the atmosphere was very positive, and they said we talk to each other more than we otherwise would have done during breaks, they said. >> Yes. Then we would otherwise have just picked them up and scrolled a bit, but now it was in the backpack, and then it was much easier to talk to each other a bit. We have gotten to know each other much better. Eh, and then I don't know, if you go to a university education to become a computer engineer or a programmer, then it's almost self-evident that if the lecturer asks you to put away your computer, then perhaps that's not the smartest thing in terms of skill development. But in certain topics, like my topics, I think it can be an advantage, and these will also work with children and young people eh and perhaps help them with addiction, for example, screen addiction. So having experienced it a bit yourself, I think, can be a useful experience. >> I completely agree. And I just want to advocate for thinking without aids and not always having to listen to a podcast, although we should advocate for that here, or watch on YouTube or TikTok. I mean, there's nothing that makes me better in terms of productivity than going around and just thinking. I'm often out in the woods, or running, or cycling, rollerblading, or just walking. >> Eh, and and walking, and if you don't do that, then you simply won't have anything, you won't have any depth, you won't be able to move forward, you won't be able to ask critical questions about your own thoughts. And that's a big problem, you know, what you mentioned about your concern, that people can't change their minds. I mean, it's so widespread. People want to a far too great extent just to have their own prejudices confirmed. So I just, I would have liked, in principle, for us to also get into what Artificial Intelligence, AI, will have to do. But I think perhaps that will be for a later podcast, because we've been going for an hour already and I see that one camera is starting to overheat. It's the middle of summer, we're talking, so it will just cut out. Eh, but just to advocate for both the conversation here. I know you will be working on several scripts as well, and recommend people to read also in Nyheter and support us by subscribing eh or Vipps us at 763291. Eh, and then I simply wish you a very good summer. I hope you get to think a lot, Stig, and that the students benefit from it. >> Thank you very much, Helge, for inviting me, and I can't stop thinking, unfortunately. It's a bit difficult. >> Yes, you shouldn't apologize for that. >> Thank you. >> And and if I can finally say congratulations to you on the success you've had with Nyheter. I've been following you for a long time eh and I think it's incredibly great to see what you're achieving and the balanced way you present the news. And yes, let's take Trump, just for example, at the end. While I experience that many are most concerned with personal characteristics of Trump, you are more concerned with the issue. What is happening? What is he doing? What choices is he making? Is it thought out? You are not as concerned with him as a person as many others are. >> And that is a great strength and a great quality, among other things, I think. And this with Glende Isen, which you mention. Many things that make you, you know, what you are doing in Nyheter, I think is very good, very important. So I think it's an important correction to other parts of the press. >> It's Ole Asburn Nest who has introduced this slogan. We promise not to make it dumber. That's of course promising a lot, but we try to, we try to hold ourselves to that standard. Thank you very much. Take care.