Transcript: "Why People Fly From Facts," With Dr. Troy Campbell

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy
Campbell
Wed, 04/24 09:57AM 33:14
SUMMARY KEYWORDS
people, modern, troy, talking, understanding, students, potentially, person, facilitating, read, design,
teach, true, communicating, research, disagree, world, culture, facts, media
SPEAKERS
Damian Radcliffe, Troy Campbell
D Damian Radcliffe 00:04

Hello, and welcome to the second Demystifying Media podcast for Fall term 2017. I'm
Damian Radcliffe, the Carolyn S. Chambers, Professor of Journalism here at the University
of Oregon, and I curate the Demystifying Media series. Each time I invite a number of
guest speakers from across industry and academia, who are all united by one key feature,
they're working at the cutting edge of the communications landscape.

And today's guest, Dr. Troy Campbell, is one of those very people. Troy represents a double
first for the series. He's my first University of Oregon colleague to participate in the
program, and the first speaker not explicitly come from the media sector, but whose work
is clearly relevant to it. Troy, welcome.
T Troy Campbell 00:42

Hi, I'm a double first, that's pretty cool.
Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

Page 1 of 15 Transcribed by https://otter.ai
It's pretty cool. Not many people have that honor, dubious, or otherwise. So thank you
again for joining us. Just a quick bit of background for listeners who don't know who
perhaps, Troy holds a PhD from Duke in marketing and consumer psychology and BA from
UC Irvine in psychology. He's now an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of
Oregon's College of Business. And he describes himself as a design psychologist, and a
lover of nerdy things. The two may not be mutually exclusive. We'll find out.

So earlier, this term choice spoke to a packed room around about 75 students and faculty
on the subject of why people fly from facts. And one of the key reasons why we were really
keen to hear from Troy on this topic is that it felt very timely and topical.

Sadly, yes.

Yeah. So Troy, let's start off by understanding a little bit about your journey and
understanding this kind of narrative. Is this an idea that has really kind of emerged over
the course of the past few months, or something that's been percolating with you for
some time?

Yeah. So I'm a design psychologist, which is a term that most people aren't familiar with.
And not many people would call themselves that, and it's sort of a new thing. And the
idea behind design psychology is it's research really related around things to design the
world to be better. So it's very theoretically-based, but it is specifically practically
applicable. And so my goal with all of my research is to literally make the world awesome
through psychology.

And that can be whether we're designing better things in the media, or one of the places I
got my start, which was at Disney, where I was working at Disney Imagineering. And I had
this really formative experience at Disney Imagineering that I think is going to be relevant
to modern times, which is I went in and worked for Disney and the design sector. So,
Disney Imagineering, and I'm so excited to go work there right, what am I going to do? I'm

going to do the coolest things in the world. I walk in the first day, behind me is literally the
Haunted Mansion track had been taken out and put there, and I'd walk by it just to go to
the bathroom. And so this is this really cool thing. And yet, the thing that I ended up
working on mostly wasn't designing a better ride, it was designing how people got around
the park, which seems like the most boring thing you could possibly do at Disney, but I
ended up actually really, really loving it.

One, it's a complicated question. And two, it's actually potentially the most important
question. Because it doesn't matter how well you design Disney, it doesn't matter how well
you conceptualize this amazing paradise, if you don't know how to get people to the right
places, keep people in the right mood, they're not going to enjoy that. And so that's what
I'm sort of doing in this media sector is I'm saying, I'm a design psychologist, so it's really
about designing, in this situation, the process that gets us to this great future. The great
future, is actually really sort of easy often to understand.

Now, that's a little hyperbolic. But we all know what type of future we want. We want a
future where people aren't racist, we want a future where people get along with each
other. We want to be a future where people use research in forming questions for the most
part, we can agree on those things. And we spend a lot of time just shouting that that
should be true. And we don't spend a lot of time working and saying what are the steps
that we have to take, so that we can get everybody get on the Space Mountain of the
future and enjoy it?

So what are some of these steps then?

Yeah, so what are some of those steps? So one of the most important things about
communicating in modern times, is that we see that there's a lack of trust. And the
question is, how do we fix that lack of trust? So broadly speaking, trust comes from two
places: when you're looking at a scientist, a journalist, anybody in sort of these
authoritative, communicating positions, you ask yourself two questions? Is this person
competent? Do they know their stuff? But there's a second question that people ask, which
is, is this person on my side, is this person caring about me?

And what's happening a lot of times in modern times this people see people out there,
who they see as potentially pretty competent, but don't see that person as on their side.
And so even if this person is communicating things that they might think are true facts.
They don't think they're worried about them, right facts can be arranged. And lots of times
when people are looking at scientists and modern times, they're looking at journalists and
modern times. They're seeing them as that sleazy car mechanic. The car mechanic who
knows every single thing about cars, but might not be on your side. And so might be using
true facts, but might not be arranging them in the right way to sort of better a future for
you.

So there's a perception then that some of these experts, they clearly have skills that
people can recognize and value, but perhaps they're pursuing their own agenda.

Yeah. So let me give an example. So I was at Duke University, and I was giving a
presentation and the presentation was about how you communicate climate change to
conservatives. And the general idea behind this presentation was that, in this situation,
conservatives are just engaging, on average, in more motivated reasoning than liberals
would, because they are scared more of the solutions, which are government regulations,
than liberals. And even mentioned projects where I was doing where liberals would show
the same bias. After I left that stage, the host of the event at Duke University said aloud to
an entire packed room, "Thank you, Troy for providing research that shows that
Democrats are unquestionably better than and smarter than Republicans."

That was said aloud at a university. Now, that a wasn't what the point of my project was.
And actually, usually I don't like shout back to people, I shouted back in that situation,
"That's not the point of what I say, and that's the opposite." But what that does is it sort of
that's what people feel when they see universities and academics. And those situations, I
believe, are more rare than sometimes they're actually presented. But they are true. And
even if it's that rare, if it happens once and you're that type of person, you feel really bad.
And when I tell that story, at the University of Oregon, a fairly liberal leaning institution, I
see a lot of my students nodding in the background, that's my experience in some places,
sometimes.

You know, I also talked about how issues are often overlooked, like rule issues. So the
University of Oregon spends a lot of time talking potentially, and all institutions may
spend a lot of time talking about problems that span the United States that span the
world, big gender, racial issues, but not the poverty 20 miles away down the road. And one
of the things that we are looking at in our research is the idea that you have to sort of
start with care and show care. And that if you in especially because lots of times, people
are skeptical of that. And one of the ways that you do that is you have to talk about
everybody's issues.

So if you're watching, let's say a news program, and they're talking about a bunch of
problems in the world, say they're talking about racism, and they're talking about sexism.
And they're talking about inner city poverty, and they never mentioned the issues that you
are facing in rural America, which physically is 90% of the country are somewhat like that.
Then what you're looking at is you're saying, well, it's not that I disagree with what you
said about all those things about sexism and racism and urban problems. But it doesn't
seem like you care about me. And I see as if the things that you are engaging in, seems to
be like you're trying to promote a world that's leaving me behind. And so I'm not
interested in what you have to say, I'm afraid that the facts you're using are biased, or at
least being used against me.

And so what we really want to do when we're ever communicating is make sure first and
foremost, that your audience knows that you care about their outcomes. And I know that
that can get a little tricky in journalism, and I'm being prescriptive. I'm not a journalist. I'm
a psychologist and a business school whose focuses on helping usually businesses make
things awesome, or social movements succeed. So I sometimes sound over prescriptive for
what journalists should do. And I know that and if I ever sound that way, just just ignore
me.

Or just consider what I'm having to say, not take it as a prescriptive. But that's it. And you
know, when anybody's reading something about climate change, who might be slightly
conservative in the United States of America, they're thinking this person who is writing
this thing probably dislikes me as a human being--it's a little hyperbolic, not always

happening like that--but that is a huge part of the variance that is occurring, why people
are reading. And none of those articles about science are managing those social threats in
any way, and sometimes are exaggerating those social threats in ways like through
providing solutions that are potentially antithetical to those ideologies, which may be
necessary. But I also think that people don't realize how threatening they implicitly or sort
of adding on by the content in their news coverage.

So this is about both a mixture of design in the first instance, as well as then the
dissemination. And so a good example, if we stay on the climate change track would be
that earlier this year, the New York Times recruited Brett Stevens, as an economist from
the Wall Street Journal, he's famously a climate change denier. And there was a lot of
perception that one of the key reasons why they were hiring him was because they
needed to also to broaden the conversation and provide a platform for voices that were
perhaps slightly different. And, and Stevens clearly did that. But it sounds as if from the
way you've described it. They're not necessarily saying we agree with your concerns and
your point of view, we want to provide a platform for that, actually, it was more cynical
than that, if you like.

Yeah, so I like here's one of my favorite phrases for modern times "death to debate." And
here's the two reasons. One, The Wall Street Journal, what it's doing is it's really not
opening up conversation, it's just opening up on its own platform for people to disagree
with each other, within itself. And to some degree, the newspaper that's doing that the
New York Times is benefiting from that the same way that CNN benefits on Hardball, or
Crossfire, or something like that. Or HBO benefits, where they bring multiple people who
really disagree with each other to talk on Bill Maher. Those are debates. And that is not
conversation. And so what we really need in modern time is conversation and the point of
conversation is just to come together, start with talking about how you care about the
other person, and you want the outcomes to be beneficial for them. And to have a
conversation with the expectation that at the end of that conversation, you have not
convinced them.

We have this crazy idea that people can be changed with a tweet. No, change is hard,
even good change. Change takes time, even the best change. And that approach to the
debate is problematic and leans into the all the problems with identity politics, which are

so obvious that I'm not sort of going to get into them. But we're really not having that sort
of conversation. And conversation what it is, and as I sort of signified it again, you're
caring about the other person and is very, very important thing is that you're hearing the
other person. It's not necessarily you're agreeing with them, it's your hearing them. So
there's tons of research that shows that when people show that they have taken your
perspective, so it's meta- perspective taking research, that person is more trusting and
liking of you, even if potentially you haven't agreed with them. But I see that you see it like
this, I see that that's hard for you. And this is where I'm coming from on this thing.

And the word that I hate in modern times, and the hashtag I hate maybe more than any
hashtag is hashtag "mic drop," because I think it sort of signifies exactly everything wrong
in modern society--which is that I have said something, and I think that you are so
pathetic, so stupid, so unworthy that not I don't even want to hear you apologize to me.
And you mic drop and everybody cheers like you're Beyonce or Eminem. And that is just a
horrible way in which we approach things. And I think a way that is facilitated even by,
and this is my big thing, even by the people that we play praised in modern times, as great
communicators, often are doing that. I think that you know, at this institution, the students
love John Oliver, and love Trevor Noah, I think they often do very good things. I think
many, many times they lean into mic drop culture, especially in some of the videos, they
post on their more extreme followers on their Facebook, of which I am one of them. And
so again, I like those guys. But that is that is very problematic, and I think emblematic of
what is going on.

Is it also a reflection of the fact that our media, and I think as a society, we've become
more partisan than ever. So where are the opportunities for finding common ground and
perhaps doing things differently? And we ever had a time where that's, been the case of
the lessons we can learn from the past?

So let's talk about this and big things. First of all, I'll end with my sad bit. But my we're
going to start with the positive bet for this first, is that I think what lots of people say in
modern times is how do we change the world? Instead of asking themself the question,
how do you change your world? So how do you change things? You get local. So how do
you specifically work better with the people around you? And that starts with talking
kinder to your relatives, that starts in the way that you post on Facebook to your friends

and followers. It starts with liking people who post nuanced stuff rather than "FDT" F-word
Donald Trump, right, or F Obama, whatever it is. Even if you agree with that, that is
facilitating often, potentially problematic culture. Though there's, nuance to that.

The other thing is, and this is where I sort of might get controversial, is if you are an
education, stop complaining about how terrible the world is, and make education better
period. Because there are so many things about the way that the world exists, that
education is incredibly facilitating. We teach people how to write an A plus thesis on why
racism is bad, but don't teach people how to communicate with anybody who is racist, or
slightly racist to improve them. We have a lovely thing that we love in liberalized modern
culture, which is the opinion essay. The opinion essay is potentially the worst assignment
that has ever existed. You'd say somebody, take your opinion, then go find research to
support it. And direct quotes, I've heard this a million times as long as you argue well
enough, it's not wrong. It's like, we're literally teaching people that their opinions are more
important than all the research out there. And that's the exact thing that every single
teacher then decries when they see climate change deniers.

And there's a wider challenge with that, that that many news, consumers can't necessarily
differentiate between what is an opinion piece versus what is an article--what's the old
balance piece of reporting, because it looks the same on the page. And often you're using
common language and terminology, like an OpEd, for example, that might mean
something to us, but doesn't necessarily translate to a wider audience.

Yeah. And, the problematic thing, again, being that people also don't believe there's any
difference right between it. And the definition that we have a fake news is different. Like
Seth Lewis, the professor here talks about. We, you and I, probably would call fake news is
something that's just straight up false. People call fake news now, things that are just
potentially not in line with their ideology, or that they might disagree with. Because again,
I think, to some degree, the culture and educational culture, which is very good in some
ways, which promotes the ideas of free thinking and exploring and stuff, has swung the
pendulum too far, and got out logic and got out science.

It is absolutely ridiculous that we put students through so many things yet, we don't teach
them how to read media, we don't teach them about psychology. And we don't really
teach them about logic. Arguably, three of the most fundamental skills across all
disciplines and things we don't teach them. Now, there's been some really great advances.
You know, writing across the curriculum is good, critical thinking is good, as long as it
doesn't go too far towards just over criticisms, and whatnot, the book Limits of Criticism
really hits that well.

So how have you brought some of these principles into the classroom? How do you teach
things now in a way that perhaps you didn't do a couple of years ago?

Yeah. So how do I teach things in the classroom? So here's what I do. I spend the first week
doing my entire class where nothing is graded. And I have two goals. One, I want you to
make you feel an expert of the material in the first week. So I teach the entire class in the
first week. And I have the students go to actually the museum on campus, which is a fun,
safe place, and identify all the concepts that I'm teaching around design and psychology
and consumer experience. And so in the first week, the students see themselves already
sort of as experts on the topic. And that's something that is really, really important is that
when you feel expertise on something, now, all of a sudden, I don't feel like this God
Professor talking down to you. I'm somebody who is doing stuff that you understand and
you're interested in and engaged in. That doesn't always happen in the scientific
community.

The second thing is, I really try and show that I like them for who they are and where they
want to be. And I say, I learned the very first thing in class, one of their favorite things in
my first classes: what do you think is awesome? And why do you think it is awesome? And I
find that about them, I find out their different goals. And I really expressed that I'm
interested in helping people have different kinds and different things. And I do that I'm not
able to talk with every single student personally in the week, because I have about 70
between my two classes, but I almost get every one. And I get a little bit personal with
them and let them okay, your goal is to be this, that's really different than this person next
to you.

And the thing about what I actually do in my classes, is I have a slight bias, to spend more
time talking to the kids who are less...who are the non-A kids. Because the people who
have B's and C's in class, sometimes actually feel a little ashamed or just think the
professor doesn't like them. And so I talked about the the first week I have a podcast
called "The Power" that features a section called the power of the B student. And I talked
about how the fact that you shouldn't be ashamed to not be to be an A student is
something great and you should strive for it, you should not be ashamed. And I like all of
you for that way. And I know you're all making decisions in this, and I talked about the fact
that most of the donors at the business school were B students.

And I also talked about the idea that they walk around our hallways, and they have told
me like, "Troy, do all the other professors know that when I was here, like I wasn't in A
student, I got B(s)". These are people who are worth 15 million plus dollars now who are
incredibly successful, they're not successful, because of random like...these people are
solid, wonderful people who care about education, who are here, and still embarrassed
about that. And so thinking about all the threats that people feel is something that I really
try and pay attention to.

And how do you take those principles from, say, a class of 70, and apply that to an
audience of 7 million or 700,000? Or, or whatever it might be? So, if you are CNN or the
New York Times, or the BBC, for example, how do you take some of those principles and
apply that to your work?

Yeah. So one thing I would say is always remember that diversity is really hard. And so one
of the things that you're trying to do is you're trying to show representation and care for
everyone. And what lots of people often think is, well, if I show somebody who has your
skin color, I've accomplished this. Or I've show somebody who says they're your ideology,
I've accomplished this. And that's not true, right.

So one of the things that I think that the major news organizations can have is a breadth

of understanding what true diversity looks like. And you know, a lot of people have talked
about how the Daily Show is this wonderful, diverse place now, because people are
different color skin, that is a group of people who all have the exact same beliefs about
everything, and to some degree, similar stories. And they are relatable to a specific group
of somewhat diverse people. But that's not true diversity. And in a way, it's not ideological
diversity. And I think the Jon Stewart Daily Show struggled with racial and sometimes
gender diversity. And I think Trevor, Noah's Daily Show struggles with ideological diversity.
And again, these diversities are all these different things. And so understanding that is
important.

And just always really understanding the idea that you are caring for the people who you
are criticizing as wrong. And so one of the things we're working on right now is what we
call change narratives. And the idea of a change narrative is you celebrate people who
are in the process of, or who will be future changers. Rather than posting things online
that says... it's really weird, because like, so my wonderful social activist friends, but they
will say is what they want out of people's they want change. But then when people
change, they're like, too late, explicit word. And that is not facilitating change in a proper
way. And so looking at those ways in which you can facilitate change, which is one of my
favorite lines, from one of the communication director of Black Lives Matter.com. And she
says, we must be radical, but we must be welcoming at the same time. And I think that, as
a simple phrase, is just such a powerful way to understand that dichotomy of what you
need to be in modern time.

And then, in modern times, what can we as consumers do to, to embody some of the
principles you've talked about? Because presumably there are there are multiple facets to
this. So you've talked a little bit about the role that educators can play in terms of of
changing that narrative and changing that message how organizations can embrace
diversity in a way that goes far beyond where most organizations are now. What else can
we do on an individual level, beyond just being nicer to our friends on Facebook?

It's hard to be nice to someone when you don't understand them, right. And so it's to build
understanding. And I know that seems cheesy and cliche, but it's true. So one of my
favorite things to do is I have one goal, one rule for myself every week. And it's to spend
one hour watching a video that I would never, watching videos and reading, things that I

would never have thought to in the first place. And I have a little list on YouTube, because I
really like watching videos on YouTube, because I think you've learned more about people
in their culture, from watching videos, rather than reading. And so that's one of the things I
do I just watch random things, right. And, you know, one of the things I watched recently
was video about people in censorship-China who understand they're living in censorship,
and are very okay with it. The line being I know, I'm censored, but it doesn't bother me.
And some people saying that it actually helps them. And so just understanding what that's
like.

You know, one time I was I was talking to somebody in college, who, who was in a sorority.
And the sororitywas at a school where there was a quote, "key three." And so the key three
didn't associate with the sororities.

I don't know what a key three is because I'm British...

Different schools are different, so I'm not painting the Greek system with a broad brush
here, but at some schools, there are certain fraternities and sororities who are the "key." So
they're the top, and they say them and they sort of have that social standing the popular
kids. And they don't often associate with anybody other than like the key threes at them.
Sometimes there's key four sometimes there's key two something so high one, different
things...

...So you won't sully yourself with fraternizing with people who are of a lower social status.

...And so talking to this person who's lower on the totem pole, and I was like, doesn't that
bother you? Doesn't it bother you? And she said, no, sometimes it's really good to know
your role. I mean, there are people who sororities lower than mine that I don't associate
with. And I think it's really good that we know our roles. And when you have those, when
you actually go out and you talk, or you listen, or you read blogs by people who are
different than you, you really start to be like, "Oh, this thing that I think is true about you,

you're actually experiencing it really different, right?" So for me, I think as like the, you
know, social feminist guy, I'm just going to come and liberate you, right? But not really,
and realizing that once I say my one word, everything is going to change. I'm actually not
really understanding where they are.

Which leads me to sort of the tragedy that I was talking about earlier. And it's the tragedy
of Martin Luther and his theses. So when Martin Luther who started the Reformation in
Europe, posted his theses, he believed that once everybody read them, everybody would
change, everybody would be different. He actually thought that, he actually encouraged
the publication of the Quran, which he disagreed with, because he said, Well, once people
read this, they'll realize how crazy it is. And then they won't, they will be against it. And
what he thought was his words, in the first information revolution, which is around the time
of the printing press, we're now in the second information revolution, the time of the
internet, that everything was just going to change and everybody rational, this
enlightened meant before the Enlightenment, all this stuff was going to happen.

And it didn't, that the printing press actually led to polarization. And in that case,
hundreds of years of holy wars. And so we have sort of this idea. two things. One is that
when we make information freely available, it's a great thing. And it will solve all the
problems, we also have. And the one of the reasons we think that is because we think the
things that we think are right and rational if read by other people, unless that person is
ridiculously biased, which we tend to not think everybody is, it's going to convince them.
And so how can we avoid being like Martin Luther is really important in modern times.
And it's knowing that change isn't going to happen with a tweet, or some thesis posted to
a door, it's going to happen by understanding and caring [for] your audience and not
lecturing at them or debating them. But sitting down and having conversation with them,
which is hard, which is difficult, and requires a local intertwined with a global perspective.

This is not easy, as you've alluded to, on multiple occasions. I think this is the 500th
anniversary this year of Martin Luther nailing his theses to a church door. Humans have
not changed daily to some extent during during that time. So and particularly in an
algorithmically generated world, it's harder, I think, than ever to expose yourself to
different points of view. How do you do that?

First of all, I am very fortunate and lucky to be a scholar at a wonderful institution, where I
can just literally send an email to a friend and say, hello, I'm looking to read these types of
conservative blogs, you do research on conservative blogs, can you tell me this level of
libertarian with this level of social conservatism, right. And so that's pretty easy for me to
do in this situation. And I like doing that, and I've also sort of at once doing that, I've got
sort of this feel that when I look at a post on my very blue feed, I can sort of get a sense of
oh, I know what this looks like, on the other red feed. Right? Okay. So the blue feed is
saying, oh, here's the the sexual assaults coming out, read feeds are bringing up examples
of times where sexual assault cases were founded to be incorrect. And like, okay, and I
sort of started understanding that.

So one is, you know, having expert friends. But the other is, again, what I would say is you
want to, you want to spend a certain amount of time reserved for yourself, once you find
somebody, who, on the other side, is saying things that are interesting to you keep on
those content. So in reading from the other side, there's sort of two people, and they're
often the same person, But really, it's two things that I look for: one, it's who's really
intelligent, who I slightly, potentially might disagree with, and who is just really eloquent?

And so oftentimes, some of the people who I would disagree with, I discover very easily
because I can actually go find those conversations, but really debates, on YouTube where
they're doing it--and then I can go down from there, read their blogs, listen to the
podcast... But the other thing is, I can just see who are the heroes of these movements,
right. And one of the interesting things that we have in modern times is we all feel like
we're very familiar with the people on the other side, who are the heroes of the
movements. So we potentially think we're very familiar with either Milo on sort of social
conservative side, or sort of the libertarian conservative side, like with an Rand Paul. But
we're really not, because we've only heard the coverage of them. So what you can when
the easiest way is, is just that think of who is it that you're always hearing about, go watch
a video they have posted that's 15 minutes long, and get their own story.

Another thing that I do is, I've lived across the United States, both living in Southern
California and the South. listening to the music is really lovely to do, you know, listening to

music, rap, country music, and even some of modern rock, sometimes it's very explicit with
sort of the beliefs and stuff. And again, when you listen to country music, you know, if
you're a social feminist, you're going to be like, this is oppressive. And then you go to the
concerts, and it's mostly women chanting along to those songs. And you're like, h, "Oh this
is being experienced far different than I thought, I thought this would only be guys
showing up at this place being like, I got a girl in my truck, she doesn't have a name. And
I've only described her by her. butt." Right, like, that's literally like what those songs are,
like, slide your sugar shaker over here. Like that's it.

So in summary of that long, little rant there, which is, I would say, find the people who are
having the arguments with you, your person, and then potentially go read their content.
Find the people who you are, know that your groups usually are criticizing, maybe you're
watching Trevor Noah, maybe you're watching Sean Hannity, go watch the personal
they're criticizing as their own content. And then also, if you can consume the art and
culture, right, watch a couple episodes of a show that you think is ridiculous, whether that
show is on HGTV, or CBS or Adult Swim. Whatever it is, watch that and you'll sort of get to
start to understanding the culture of other people. And again, that's it's cliche, but
understanding is essential to leading to any sort of change.

Great, thank you, Troy, some very actionable insights there for our listeners. We hope
you've enjoyed this discussion, a reminder that you can catch Troy's full talk and other
materials related to his presentation and others for our series on our website at
demystifying.uoregon.edu.

In the meantime, it just reminds me to thank my guest once again, Troy Campbell. Until
next time, thanks for listening.

Thanks for having me on.


Transcript: "Why People Fly From Facts," With Dr. Troy Campbell

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transcript: "Why People Fly From Facts," With Dr. Troy Campbell

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy

Damian Radcliffe, Troy Campbell

D Damian Radcliffe 00:04

D Damian Radcliffe 00:25

T Troy Campbell 00:42

D Damian Radcliffe 00:44

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

D Damian Radcliffe 01:14

T Troy Campbell 01:28

D Damian Radcliffe 01:29

T Troy Campbell 01:42

T Troy Campbell 02:09

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 02:57

T Troy Campbell 02:57

D Damian Radcliffe 04:02

T Troy Campbell 04:04

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

D Damian Radcliffe 05:24

T Troy Campbell 05:33

T Troy Campbell 05:56

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 07:33

T Troy Campbell 08:21

T Troy Campbell 08:55

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

D Damian Radcliffe 09:37

T Troy Campbell 10:27

T Troy Campbell 11:23

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 11:26

D Damian Radcliffe 13:30

T Troy Campbell 13:51

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 14:47

D Damian Radcliffe 15:51

T Troy Campbell 16:14

T Troy Campbell 16:57

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

D Damian Radcliffe 17:31

T Troy Campbell 17:40

T Troy Campbell 18:31

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 19:50

D Damian Radcliffe 20:18

T Troy Campbell 20:35

T Troy Campbell 21:03

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 21:48

D Damian Radcliffe 22:48

T Troy Campbell 23:17

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 24:19

D Damian Radcliffe 24:34

T Troy Campbell 24:36

D Damian Radcliffe 25:02

D Damian Radcliffe 25:08

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 26:00

T Troy Campbell 26:50

D Damian Radcliffe 27:55

Why People "Fly From Facts" with Troy Campbell

T Troy Campbell 29:13