A piece I wrote for my Defusing American Anger Substack (learn more at www.american-anger.com). It’s my attempt to persuade Americans why they should see it as vitally important to work on reducing political toxicity, even as they may have various fears and grievances and anger about their political opponents. If you have skepticism about the ideas in this piece, I would ask you if you'd be willing to read my ebook on this topic, Defusing American Anger. If you want a free copy, email me via my american-anger.com website and I'll send you one. This is an extremely serious problem and I think to help solve it we need more people to consider ideas that may, at first, make them uncomfortable.

Learn more and sign up for a premium subscription at PeopleWhoReadPeople.com.

In a recent Fox News interview, Trump was asked whether he thought there would be chaos and violence if he won the election, and his response included mentioning that, if necessary, the National Guard or other military might be needed. Many framed this response as indicating that Trump would go after his political opponents and those who opposed him using the military, leaving out the context that the question asked was about election-related violence. I discuss what this incident can teach us about our toxic political divides. Topics discussed include: Republican-side grievances and how incidents like this relate; how conflict leads us to filter things in more pessimistic and negative ways; the self-reinforcing nature of toxic political polarization; the importance of trying to understand your opponents’ narratives; how understanding doesn’t require agreeing; Trump’s “bloodbath” language and similar highly negative reactions to that; the ease with which we can be biased without even realizing it, and more. Learn more about my polarization work at american-anger.com.

Learn more and sign up for a premium subscription at PeopleWhoReadPeople.com.

In the documentary Money Electric, filmmaker Cullen Hoback put forth the theory that developer Peter Todd was Satoshi Nakamoto, the mysterious creator of Bitcoin. In this episode, I talk to cryptocurrency expert Jeremy Clark (pulpspy.com) about this theory, with a focus on the language and behavior of Peter Todd. We discuss: the 2010 forum post by Peter Todd that forms the backbone of Hoback’s theory; Peter’s behavior in the film when confronted, which many people saw as suspicious and strange; the difficulties of relying on nonverbal behavior for clues; and how simple, neat, and exciting stories can attract us.

Learn more and sign up for a premium subscription at PeopleWhoReadPeople.com.