Get Your Weekly Digest

Receive the best podcast summaries and insights delivered to your inbox every week.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

Freakonomics Radio

How Can We Break Our Addiction to Contempt? (Update)

with Arthur Brooks

Published October 15, 2025
View Show Notes

About This Episode

Stephen Dubner interviews Arthur Brooks about his argument that American politics has fallen into an addictive cycle of contempt, driven by media incentives, populism, and habits of communication, and that the most effective antidote is deliberately practiced love and warmheartedness. Brooks, drawing on economics, neuroscience, psychology, and his own varied career, explains how contempt differs from anger, how financial crises fuel polarization, and why media and political structures amplify division. He offers concrete techniques for individuals and leaders to reduce contempt, cultivate love as a verb, and reorient politics toward a competition over opportunity rather than mutual hatred.

Topics Covered

U.S. politics and elections Media trust and propaganda Social media addiction Dopamine Happiness Relationships Communication skills Leadership and management Perspective shift Personal Development

Disclaimer: We provide independent summaries of podcasts and are not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by any podcast or creator. All podcast names and content are the property of their respective owners. The views and opinions expressed within the podcasts belong solely to the original hosts and guests and do not reflect the views or positions of Summapod.

Quick Takeaways

  • Arthur Brooks argues that U.S. politics is stuck in a self-reinforcing cycle of contempt, which he describes as anger mixed with disgust that dehumanizes opponents.
  • He links rising polarization and populism to the aftermath of financial crises, where recoveries disproportionately benefit the top of the income distribution and fuel frustration.
  • Brooks contends that media and political entrepreneurs exploit this frustration by selling contempt for dopamine hits, creating an addiction-like pattern among consumers.
  • He distinguishes love as an action and commitment-"to will the good of the other"-rather than a feeling, and proposes increasing love as a way to decrease the power of contempt.
  • Drawing on psychological research and spiritual traditions, he suggests practical exercises, such as responding to contempt with warmheartedness and using a five-to-one ratio of positive to negative comments.
  • Brooks believes meaningful change must start with individuals opting out of the contempt cycle, while also calling for better political leadership that competes to expand opportunity rather than inflame division.
  • He maintains that many politicians are privately disturbed by the culture of contempt but face a massive collective action problem and strong media incentives that keep them in it.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic, which some expected to be a unifying common enemy, instead became another source of division, which Brooks attributes to "dividing contemptuous leadership" at a critical moment.

Podcast Notes

Introduction and framing of the contempt problem

Dubner explains why he is replaying the 2021 interview

Dubner says the nature of the national conversation has made him think back to an interview he did in 2021 with Arthur Brooks[1:05]
He notes that facts and figures have been updated, but the conversation was recorded in 2021[1:15]
He invites listeners to send feedback via email at radio@freakonomics.com[1:22]

Dubner challenges Arthur Brooks about his effectiveness as a public persuader

Dubner frames Brooks's book "The Conservative Heart" as an attempt to support a certain kind of Republican presidential candidate in 2016, such as Jeb Bush[1:41]
• Brooks agrees that the book was his entrant into the ideological sweepstakes of 2016
Dubner contrasts this vision with Donald Trump, playing a debate clip where Trump mocks Jeb Bush[2:12]
Dubner points out that Trump is not the kind of conservative candidate Brooks wanted[2:17]
Dubner notes Brooks's 2019 book "Love Your Enemies" argues the U.S. has a contempt crisis that must be fought with kindness[2:29]
He says evidence since 2019 suggests that argument is not working well either and asks Brooks how he rates himself as a public persuader[2:40]
• Dubner explicitly asks what the apparent failure says about the message or the messenger, given Brooks's skills and connections

Brooks introduces his "latent demand" strategy

Brooks says he uses a "latent demand strategy" and acknowledges that such strategies lose a lot[3:11]
He compares himself to entrepreneurs: rolling out something new that might never succeed[3:19]
He notes the average successful entrepreneur has "3.8 bankruptcies," framing his books not as bankruptcies but as bestsellers[3:21]
• He emphasizes that mayors and governors from both parties tell him they use his ideas to win elections and govern across the aisle
Brooks concedes his ideology can look quixotic, like tilting at windmills, but insists he thinks it is morally right and potentially popular[3:53]
He insists that giving up on virtue because it "didn't fit at the current moment" and turning to vice would be the wrong strategy[4:07]

Who is Arthur Brooks and his latent demand vision for a less contemptuous country

Brooks's current role and latent demand analogy

Brooks introduces himself as a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School and the Harvard Business School[4:19]
He explains latent demand with a Steve Jobs-style example: offering a product people don't yet know they need[4:23]
• He says latent demand can create much bigger markets than existing demand but requires visionary entrepreneurship
Brooks claims there is untapped latent demand for an aspirational country that is not characterized by bitterness and polarization[4:48]
• He envisions a competition between ideological sides focused on who can empower people the most, which he calls healthy
He argues that instead of this healthy competition, current demand is firing up dopamine repeatedly and creating addiction to contempt[5:14]

Brooks's unusual career path and belief in love as a political antidote

Dubner briefly sketches Brooks's background: former head of the American Enterprise Institute, former economics professor, and previously a professional French horn player[5:46]
Dubner says Brooks believes the best way, maybe the only way, to detoxify American politics is with love[6:00]
• Brooks declares he will not let the press, media, or politicians tell him he has to hate his brother-in-law, and says he won't put up with it
Brooks states that in the end people want to love, not hate, and that good leadership can accelerate this tendency[6:17]
He says he is spending all of his time trying to "make love cool" in politics[6:26]
When Dubner asks how the love offensive is going, Brooks jokes that everybody hates him and he is despised by one and all[6:30]

Framing questions: Can love conquer political contempt?

Dubner sets up the episode with questions about whether love can conquer all, whether Brooks is a fool for believing it, and whether listeners might be "his kind of fool"[6:43]

Contempt and polarization in American politics

Example of congressional contempt between lawmakers

Dubner imagines a civic-minded middle schooler watching the U.S. House floor and hearing a debate between Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Byron Donalds[7:21]
• Tlaib calls for standing up against a "fascist takeover" and says it's a fact, not just a word
• Donalds protests that Tlaib will not yield, calls her remarks insane, and objects to being likened to the Third Reich
Brooks comments that trying to insult someone into agreement is the stupidest and completely ineffective approach, even though it feels satisfying in the short run[8:17]

Public dislike of division and survey data

Brooks says surveys suggest most people hate the "noise" of division[8:26]
He cites Tim Dixon's data from 2018 suggesting 93 percent of Americans hate how divided the country has become[8:34]

Historical and legislative indicators of polarization

Dubner notes that polarization is not new and has existed in earlier American and Roman politics, but argues current American polarization has been building[9:00]
He cites data that in the 1960s only 42% of U.S. Senate votes were "party unity" votes, versus 83% by 2022[9:09]
He contrasts bipartisan support for the 1935 Social Security Act and the 1964 Civil Rights Act with recent major bills passing on strictly partisan lines[9:21]
• He notes the Inflation Reduction Act passed with zero Republican votes and Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed with zero Democratic votes
Dubner says this partisanship is reflected in daily life and media consumption[9:58]

Economic roots of polarization and populism

Brooks calls it a perfect question for economics and cites a 2017 European Economic Review paper by three German economists[10:11]
• The paper examined 800 elections over 120 years in 20 advanced economies, including the U.S.
Brooks says financial crises (twice-a-century events, not normal recessions) have strong impacts on political polarization in the following decade[10:38]
• He reports that, on average, such crises cause a 30% bump in voter share for populist parties and candidates
• He explicitly links this quantitative pattern to Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump
Brooks argues that after a crisis, 80% of returns go to the top 20% of the income distribution, leaving many people behind and open to populist claims that someone "has your stuff"[11:00]
Dubner suggests the frustration might instead be about blaming experts and elites for the underlying crisis[11:22]
Brooks agrees that comes into play but says it generally comes later, after people see others recovering while they and their relatives still struggle[11:25]
• He uses an example of a brother-in-law, "Cletus," still unemployed and watching TV all day, as a source of anger about unequal recovery

Leaders as followers of market signals in a democracy

Brooks describes democracy as the political version of capitalism, where leaders follow market signals from voters[11:57]
He claims Trump, Sanders, and news networks all follow these market signals, which come from widespread frustration[11:57]
He says contempt that serves markets as an outlet for frustration then fires up more contempt and becomes self-fueling, with the tail wagging the dog[12:14]

Are citizens both victims and villains in the contempt cycle?

Dubner presses Brooks on the apparent contradiction: most of us don't want to be in the partisan contempt cycle, yet we also supply the frustration it feeds on[12:41]
Brooks agrees citizens are both victims and villains, analogizing it to addiction where people seek relief despite hating the process[12:52]

The science and psychology of contempt versus anger

Defining anger and contempt

Brooks says anger is a basic negative emotion produced by the limbic system in response to stimuli[13:19]
He characterizes anger as a "hot" emotion that signals: I care what you think and I want it to change[13:28]
He explains that complex emotions arise from mixtures of basic emotions; shame and guilt are examples[13:36]
Brooks defines contempt as a mix of anger and disgust, turning it into a cold emotion[13:44]
• Contempt sends the message: you are worthless, what you said is worthless, and you are beneath my regard
• He says contempt should be reserved for something non-human

The danger of how easily we slip into contempt

Dubner reads from Brooks's book that people often describe the current moment as angry, but Brooks writes he wishes that were true because anger is self-limiting[14:14]
Dubner found it moving that contempt is just anger plus disgust and that most people don't notice when they add that layer of disgust[13:44]
He says the upside is that once destructive forces are identified, they can be addressed[14:45]
Dubner asks whether people who exhibit or experience contempt usually recognize it as distinct from anger[14:52]
Brooks answers no, because contempt is a habit as ingrained as smoking[15:06]
• He describes an incident where he rolled his eyes during a TV debate about capitalism and concludes his opponent likely just thought he was a jerk
• He says he did not hate the person; it was just a habitual gesture that made someone feel horrible

Who exhibits contempt and who is targeted?

Dubner asks about characteristics of people most likely to exhibit or be targets of contempt, including gender, party, age, race, or ethnicity[15:39]
Brooks says research does not show racial or gender differences in contempt and he does not see differences between right and left[15:54]
He says the big differences are in media consumption: more time on political social media or cable TV makes one more likely to be both victim and perpetrator of contempt[16:03]
• He notes that the likelihood of naming people of the other party as the biggest threat to the U.S. is directly related to how much political news one consumes, regardless of which outlet
Brooks likens heavy cable news consumption to "straight hits off the bottle" for people who can't handle it[16:26]

Neuroscience of contempt as an addiction-like behavior

Dubner asks Brooks to argue that contempt, while superficially satisfying, makes people psychologically and physiologically worse off[16:32]
Brooks cites Stanford psychiatrist Anna Lemke and her work on dopamine and addictions to video games, gambling, substances, and pornography[16:53]
He says these addictions all stimulate dopamine, just as media use can[16:59]
• Brooks argues that if someone watches six hours a day of partisan cable news, it is because their brain is lighting up with dopamine
He explains that the pleasure from such stimulation is neutralized almost immediately, requiring repeated consumption, which predicts falling happiness[17:19]
At a broader level, he says contempt drives love out of the brain[17:24]
He cites the Harvard Study of Adult Development, an 80-year longitudinal study, which found that happy, healthy older people have one thing in common: love[17:29]
• He quotes the study's conclusion: "Happiness is love, full stop"

Conceptualizing love as the antidote to contempt

Is love a verb or a noun in this framework?

Dubner asks whether love is a verb or a noun and invites Brooks to elaborate as if writing an econ equation[17:39]
Brooks says he is talking about love that is managed and made metacognitive, framing love as a verb[17:56]
He defines love as "to will the good of the other as other"[18:31]
He insists love is not a feeling and criticizes modern culture for over-valorizing feelings[18:09]
• He says over-focusing on feelings leaves people like "jetsam on the surf," tossed around and suffering more than necessary

Economics-style framing: contempt and love as variables

Dubner asks Brooks to treat contempt and love like commodities in an economic model, explaining supply, demand, and interaction[18:45]
Brooks proposes a heuristic: your vice, the opposite of your virtue, is your contempt divided by your love[18:45]
He says you can work on reducing contempt, but the real leverage is in a "denominator management strategy" of increasing love[18:58]
Brooks suggests that increasing the denominator (love) will make the vicious impulse decrease, almost magically[19:06]
He notes contempt is usually reactive and processed in the brain's habit-forming areas, while love requires proactive commitment[19:20]
• He mentions the nucleus accumbens as the brain region governing habit-forming behavior and relates it to contempt patterns
Brooks compares failed resolutions not to be contemptuous (similar to trying to quit smoking) with people bingeing on partisan TV at night[19:27]

Cable news and the reverberation of contempt

Dubner notes that actual binge viewers of cable news are a small share of the U.S. population[20:02]
• He cites average primetime viewership: MSNBC and CNN under 1 million, Fox News just over 2 million, in a country of about 340 million people
He argues that despite small audiences, the "noise" from nearly constant volleys of contempt reverberates widely like shouting into a canyon, disrupting peace[20:11]

Arthur Brooks's life story: from French horn to economist to think tank president

Musical upbringing and early career

Brooks jokes that he thought everyone who becomes a professional economist starts out as a French horn player[20:19]
He grew up near Seattle; his mother was an artist and his father was a math professor[20:05]
He started violin at age four, piano at five, and French horn at eight, which "stuck" because he was good at it[21:02]
He attended California Institute of the Arts but dropped required classes, taking courses like Indonesian dance and North Indian classical drumming[21:14]
• He says the school invited him to pursue his excellence "outside of the institution," a polite way of saying he left
He spent about 10 years playing professional French horn, including with the Barcelona Symphony Orchestra[22:33]
• He moved to Spain to woo a woman who did not speak English, in order to convince her to marry him; this became his wife, Esther Munt Brooks

Transition from music to academia and discernment of desire

Brooks says something was missing in his music career: his ambition was to be the world's greatest horn player, not to make beautiful music[22:33]
He describes that as a problem of seeking extrinsic rather than intrinsic satisfaction[22:07]
He began taking correspondence courses secretly while playing in the orchestra, embarrassed that colleagues might doubt his commitment[22:40]
He secretly completed a bachelor's degree by correspondence and then a master's degree at night at a local university[22:29]
Fascinated by ideas, he quit music and started a PhD[22:40]
Dubner asks what Brooks gained by coming to academia as a full-grown adult[22:34]
Brooks asserts that people generally don't know what they want; the obscurity is about desire, not tasks[22:54]
• He says people ask, "I don't know what to do with my life," but the real issue is they don't know what they want
He describes discernment traditions in Judaism, Buddhism, and Ignatian Catholicism, all focused on understanding one's own desire to be happy[24:23]
He criticizes the pattern of going to college by default, then to consulting or software, always hoping external experiences will reveal desires[22:53]
He says making life decisions and treating his life like an entrepreneurial endeavor helped him realize he wanted to be an "idea guy"[24:27]

Academic work on philanthropy and first book

After his PhD, Brooks became a professor at Georgia State and then Syracuse, spending 10 years in academia[24:08]
He focused research on philanthropy, especially motives behind charitable giving[24:05]
His 2006 book "Who Really Cares?" argued that people with strong religious commitments give more to all charities, including secular ones, than less religious people[24:18]
He notes that more religious people tend to be more conservative, which partly explained why conservatives gave more to charity than liberals at that time[24:37]
Brooks recalls treating this as straightforward data analysis, but the political implications drew attention[25:20]
He mentions that conservatives also tend to believe government is ineffective, which relates to differences in charitable giving versus redistribution preferences[24:47]
He says President George W. Bush read his book and was photographed carrying it, which spurred media and public interest[25:55]

Becoming president of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

Dubner recounts that AEI approached Brooks about becoming president while he was happily at Syracuse[25:40]
Brooks says AEI's presidential search was going badly and they "threw a dart" and hit him, despite his lack of fundraising and management experience[25:13]
He explains that chief executive jobs at universities and think tanks are grueling, 80-hour-a-week positions that require scholarly credibility[25:29]
Dubner asks whether AEI felt more like an ideas-based operation or an ideas shop geared to promoting a particular political spectrum[25:34]
Brooks says it felt like the former: an intellectual operation with scholars who often irritated their own political allies[26:05]
• He gives an example of AEI scholars insisting that "carried interest" is income and should be treated as such, angering donors who benefited from the loophole
• He recalls donors calling outraged and his response that scholars were simply following what the data showed

Media, think tanks, and structural incentives for contempt

Best return on investment for influencing policy

Dubner poses a hypothetical billionaire wanting to influence U.S. policy and asks whether think-tank funding, lobbying, or PR/media would bring the best ROI[26:36]
Brooks answers he would buy TV stations and newspapers and start a cable network to coalesce a highly ideological movement without critique[25:40]
He says believing one will be informed by prime-time cable news is "insane"; viewers are instead having their biases "scratched"[26:25]
He argues that even when people watch the opposing network to see "the other side," accelerants on half-truths and rumors won't change their views[27:34]
Brooks concludes the U.S. has a big problem with how it does "so-called news" and communication[27:12]

Possibilities for political change and better competition

Brooks outlines two paths: radical changes that transform the environment, or a slow "oozing" forward where party leadership decides it has had enough[27:15]
He nostalgically references 2012, when Obama and Romney debated who would be a better "opportunity politician," and many voters were unsure which one they liked more[27:39]
He contrasts that with 2016, when many people were unsure which candidate they liked less[27:42]
Brooks says things can change quickly in American politics and calls for candidates in both parties whom people will vote for, rather than candidates who merely defend them from someone they are voting against[28:01]

Practicing warmheartedness and techniques to reverse contempt

Advice from the Dalai Lama on responding to contempt

Dubner notes that Brooks has collaborated with the Dalai Lama and once asked him what to do when feeling contempt[27:59]
Brooks reports the Dalai Lama's answer: practice warmheartedness[28:09]
When Brooks asked for specifics, the Dalai Lama advised recalling a time when one answered contempt with warmheartedness, remembering how that felt, and then doing it again[28:10]
Dubner asks if it is really that simple, saying it sounds like something he could do[29:10]
Brooks calls it excellent psychology: reversing an automatic process[29:06]

Physiological exercise: faking a smile to feel happier

Brooks describes an exercise he teaches Harvard students: when unhappy, put a pencil sideways in the mouth and bite down on the molars[28:52]
He says this strains the orbicularis oculi muscles at the eye corners, creating crow's feet associated with a Duchenne smile[29:02]
This signals the brain that one is performing a genuine happiness-associated smile and runs causality backwards, making people feel happier[29:22]
He analogizes this to pretending to feel love as an act and commitment, thereby changing cognition and emotion over time[29:08]

Individual action versus massive contempt industries

Dubner suggests Brooks may be Pollyannish because powerful political and media industries profit from contempt[29:43]
He asks why Brooks thinks such "Goliaths" could be countered by many individuals (Davids) opting out of contempt[29:48]
Brooks responds that movements always start with a few people and leaders/institutions later step in front of existing parades[29:52]
He references Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. as models who began with individuals acting with courage and love rather than institutional reform first[29:22]
He states his writings are compatible with the need for institutional change, but insists everything starts with individuals[30:22]

COVID-19, leadership failures, and respect for politicians

Why COVID did not reduce contempt

Dubner notes that social scientists often argue common enemies unite groups and that some expected COVID-19 to lessen contempt, which he says did not happen[30:39]
Brooks answers that this failure was due to bad leadership[30:36]
He says appropriate leadership could have united the country, noting other parts of the world showed more unity, albeit imperfectly[30:52]
He claims the President of the United States used COVID to divide rather than unite, calling it a classic case of "dividing contemptuous leadership" in a moment of need[31:09]

Brooks's view of politicians and their constraints

Dubner quotes Brooks writing that his admiration for politicians has grown and that they are patriotic, hardworking, and hate the culture of contempt as much as citizens do[31:26]
He asks why such politicians cannot tamp down contempt if they dislike it[31:26]
Brooks says there's a problem of scale: one politician versus the entire media infrastructure and powerful politicians, creating a massive collective action problem[30:52]
He clarifies that not all politicians merit admiration; some are opportunists who create problems, but says most he has met are smart, interested, and want to improve things yet feel fear[32:11]
He notes people, including politicians, act suboptimally when fearful[31:09]

Counsel to Republican politicians about Trump and courage

Dubner asks how much time Brooks spends talking with Republican politicians and strategists and how he advises those on the fence about continuing to support Trump[31:46]
Brooks says he talks a lot with people on Capitol Hill (though not Trump) and shares his playbook with anyone who will listen, regardless of party[32:57]
His playbook is to restore a competition of opportunity, grounded in the U.S. belief in radical equality of human dignity[32:33]
He claims most Americans still believe in this equality and that both sides need to fight over how to expand opportunity, not over hatred[33:39]
Brooks asks politicians what they are willing to fail for and what they would lose an election for, linking this to the broader questions of why one is alive and what one is willing to die for[33:19]
He says examining this leads to courage: saying what one truly thinks and crossing a "Rubicon" of freedom from fear of losing office[33:38]

Practical steps for individuals to break the contempt habit

Four main recommendations to a hypothetical airplane seatmate

Dubner asks Brooks for his best ideas to fight contempt, with only 10 minutes left on a hypothetical flight[33:16]
Brooks's first recommendation is to "stand up to the man" by resisting media that manipulate people into hating[33:32]
Second, he advises running toward contempt as an opportunity to show love, likening it to a missionary bringing light where there is darkness[34:16]
Third, he cites John Gottman's advice for couples: keep a five-to-one list where one must say five loving or caring things before expressing something hateful, sarcastic, or critical[33:43]
• He suggests applying this to politics by requiring oneself to say five positive things before making a sarcastic tweet about Biden or Trump, predicting one will not reach the sixth comment
• He notes that practicing this will likely lead to losing followers on Twitter, which he calls a contempt machine, but will change the person doing it
Fourth, he urges greater gratitude, arguing that seeing the opposite party as the biggest threat to America is detached from facts and influenced by media "Kool-Aid"[34:24]
• He points out that in the U.S. one can call the president an idiot without fear of a knock at the door or jackbooted thugs, and says "God bless America" for that

Closing reflections and listener invitation

Dubner's closing question to listeners

Dubner asks listeners whether Brooks's prescribed love and warmheartedness can stand a chance against the contempt machine[34:32]
He invites feedback at radio@freakonomics.com and urges listeners to take care of themselves and, if possible, someone else[34:33]

End credits and brief return to Brooks's horn playing

The episode credits list staff and contributors to Freakonomics Radio and mention the theme song and composer[34:33]
In a brief coda, Dubner asks Brooks if he keeps up his embouchure and to try playing; Brooks says he could play but it would be bad, noting he has not played a concert in 25 years[36:03]

Lessons Learned

Actionable insights and wisdom you can apply to your business, career, and personal life.

1

Contempt is a learned, habitual response that mixes anger with disgust, and breaking it requires conscious practice of alternative habits such as warmheartedness, gratitude, and deliberately positive communication.

Reflection Questions:

  • • In what recurring situations do you notice yourself slipping from anger into contempt, even subtly, toward specific people or groups?
  • • How could you build a concrete "five-to-one" practice into your daily interactions so that you say more constructive things than critical ones?
  • • What is one relationship or context this week where you will intentionally respond to contempt-yours or someone else's-with a warmhearted act instead of escalation?
2

Your media diet strongly shapes your perceptions and emotions; overconsumption of partisan news and social media can function like an addiction, delivering dopamine hits while eroding happiness and amplifying contempt.

Reflection Questions:

  • • How many hours a day do you realistically spend consuming political or outrage-driven content, and how do you feel right after versus later that day?
  • • What boundaries or rules around news and social media consumption could you experiment with over the next month to reduce their grip on your mood?
  • • Where could you intentionally replace one hour of partisan media this week with an activity that reliably increases your sense of connection or calm?
3

Love, understood as willing the good of the other rather than as a fleeting feeling, can be strengthened by action first; behaving lovingly in the face of contempt can gradually reshape both your mindset and your relationships.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Who in your life do you strongly disagree with, yet might benefit if you consciously chose to will their good in some concrete way?
  • • How might your view of "love" change if you treated it primarily as a set of decisions and commitments rather than as something you passively feel?
  • • What is one small, specific act of goodwill you can take this week toward someone you currently view with frustration or distrust?
4

Clarifying what you are willing to fail for-what principle or purpose you would accept losing status, elections, or opportunities over-can free you to act with greater courage and integrity.

Reflection Questions:

  • • If you lost a major opportunity because you stood by a core value, which value would you feel at peace sacrificing for?
  • • How might explicitly naming what you are willing to fail for change the way you approach a current professional or interpersonal dilemma?
  • • What is one concrete decision you're facing where choosing integrity over short-term advantage would be a meaningful test of your priorities?
5

Big systemic problems often begin to change with small groups of individuals altering their behavior; waiting for institutions to fix contempt without personal change is unlikely to work.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in your community or organization do you see a "contempt habit" that you could start to counter through your own behavior, even at a small scale?
  • • How could you gather a few like-minded people to experiment with different, more respectful norms in a space you share (online or offline)?
  • • What is one concrete practice-such as gratitude, listening first, or refusing to mock-that you and one other person could commit to together for the next month?

Episode Summary - Notes by Blake

How Can We Break Our Addiction to Contempt? (Update)
0:00 0:00