Social Identity Theory: Your Group Rules, Others Drool

21:19And that's when it gets to the point where I'm like, well, that's no fun.

21:24Chuck Bryant:Well, that brings up the next point or the next nut or bolt, I guess, depending on your view of social identity theory, which is social identification. I think that kind of explains what you just described. I think you're right. that's when you start to identify with my group, let's say Falcons fans, and then that becomes part of my sense of self. But, you know, we're influenced by the values, and, you know, when it comes to sports, maybe its values and stuff don't come as into play, but the opinions and values and maybe behaviors of the larger group. Behavior, for sure. For sure, yeah. And, I mean, everybody, I'm sure, has met somebody who's like, Like, wow, your whole identity is tied up in being a Falcons fan.

22:08Chuck Bryant:Like, this is your life, right? Well, not me, but yeah. No, not you. But there are people out there. I'm sure you've met them just from being a Falcons fan. You can't help but rub elbows with people who you're like, wow, this is really important to you. Like, you can tell that this person identifies throughout life as a Falcons fan, I think. That's true. But, you know, the problem with Falcons fans is that we're not as like that as much as a lot of cities. Well, that's Atlanta for you. Exactly. No support for anybody. Yeah, for sure. I do feel like we should at least acknowledge and give a hat tip to Anna, who helped us with this.

22:45Yeah.

22:45Chuck Bryant:Every single example she used was the Mets. Mets Yankees. She's very clearly a Mets fan. She tried very hard to get the Mets in there. So, go Mets. That's pretty funny. And then the final of the third would be social comparison. And that's when and we've kind of been doing this a little bit with our joking around about sports is comparing our group or whatever, you know, what we think is our in group to the out groups and other groups. And, you know, it can be a lot of different things because we've just been doing just that. Like you said, sometimes it's a favorable opinion. Sometimes it's unfavorable.

23:20Sometimes it's neutral. but like we're incentivized in a way to make obviously favorable comparisons between our in group and the out group because that helps your own self-esteem and the self-esteem of a group overall and what they called positive distinctiveness.

23:40Chuck Bryant:Yeah like we're different from the out group but in the best possible way and you know best possible way can mean all sorts of things depending on the context of the group which is what i was just doing like we don't curse out in front of kids and throw beers and stuff exactly falcons fans don't do that um that seems to have kind of adopted a in pre-existing theory called social comparison theory from 1954 by psychologist leon fetzinger yeah and um fetzinger was was applying this to individuals basically saying that our self-worth is very commonly determined by or generated by comparison to others.

24:19Chuck Bryant:It can be, you know, comparing ourselves to somebody we think is above us and then maybe that motivates us to do better. More often than not, we compare ourselves to people who are, say, below us. I made scare quotes just now. And that that generates attitudes of like superiority, prejudice, bias, all that stuff. So what Tajfel and Turner did was they seem to have taken social comparison theory and made it a component of social identity theory and applied it to groups rather than just individuals. Yeah. And, you know, comparison, that can be tricky because when you're talking about comparing sports fans, it's not that big of a deal.

24:56But if you're talking about comparing like a, you know, an ethnic group that you're in or a social socioeconomic group that you're in, that's when it gets really kind of sticky and gross. And that's when, or why you hear, I think, famous sayings like comparison is the thief of joy from Roosevelt or Twain's comparison is the death of joy. Because that's when, you know, if you're really sitting around comparing yourself to people of a, of like a higher financial class or something Like that is truly the death of joy because it can consume you, I would imagine.

25:37Chuck Bryant:Yeah. I mean, that's what makes Instagram in particular so toxic. But pretty much all social media is it engenders comparison like that's that you can't help but do that. Yeah. You know, so, yeah, it's a it is the death of joy. Here's the thing about Taj, Fell and Turner, though, is and this is kind of an important point. Like they don't think that, like in the case I was just talking about with what like your socioeconomic status, that's obviously something that has like a material basis at its root. Yeah. But it doesn't have to have that. And that's what they posit. And I agree that conflict doesn't need a material basis.

26:15It can be, you know, there can be a situation like back in the days of Tuk Tuk where there are very, very limited resources and incompatible group goals maybe within a group. And like it doesn't necessarily have to do with the material thing.

26:31Chuck Bryant:So I disagree with that. I think that if you look deep enough or if you expand your definition of resources widely enough. Oh, yeah, maybe. There always is one. So dominance is probably a pretty common one. One group wants to dominate the rest and have say over what, you know, where the society that all the groups form goes. That's a big one. Good point. You could say winning is a resource. Like there's really only one group that can win unless you're playing soccer and then everybody wins. So, yeah, if you start to get more, you know, less tangible and more esoteric or ethereal, one of those ethereal, I think.

27:13Chuck Bryant:Then to me, there's always some sort of resource at stake. OK, so you disagree because there are ideas that prejudice doesn't require material inequality and you feel like it does. Yeah, depending on your definition of material, I think. All right. Well, that makes sense. So Taj, Feld, and Turner were on to something, they felt. And so they were like, all right, what if we dig down a little bit deeper? And we started kind of poking, or not poking holes, but asking questions about groups in a person's place within a group. And one question they came up with is like, what if you don't feel good about the group that you're in?

27:47Chuck Bryant:Right. And that could be a group that you're born into. It could be an ethnic group that you're born into or a financial strata that you're born into. And they said, all right, there's a few different strategies that you can employ if you aren't so happy. And the first one was individual mobility, which is this idea of like, let's say it's a high school clique and you're in the Dungeons and Dragons club. Yeah. And you're starting to not feel so great about that. So what you think the move to do is to climb to what you perceive as a higher social status and become friends with the popular kids or the jocks or whatever.

28:27And this is only – the key here is this is only a thing if that's something that's possible to do. Like you can't change your race, in other words, but you may be able to elevate from the D &D group to the whatever perceived more popular crowd is.

28:42Chuck Bryant:It depends if that if that high school hierarchy is so rigid that the jocks are like, nerds need not apply, even former nerds. Then maybe, you know, you're now you're an outcast from both groups. You're just in the middle and you're you're up the creek. They make teen movies about this very thing. Oh, I mean, yeah, every John Hughes movie almost is sort of has this as a basis. Right. And then the lesson that's learned is that that group that you originally felt superior to or thought were losers or whatever, that they are the ones that truly care about you. The jocks don't care about you guys.

29:14Chuck Bryant:Let's just face it. Yeah. And in the movies, though, it's almost always possible to make that leap or if you don't make that leap to for someone from that upper group to peel away from them to recognize you anyway. Yes. You know what I'm saying? Yeah. What was the one with, he was like the hot guy on Grey's Anatomy at first. McDreamy. Yes. Can't Buy Me Love. Yes. I don't think it's ever been done better than that one. I love that movie. That one's a little too far along for Ruby, but we did have recently watched Some Kind of Wonderful and Pretty in Pink, which also have sort of this idea. But yeah, Can't Buy Me Love really nails it.

29:57I loved all three of those movies.

30:00Chuck Bryant:I have forever, it's just in my head, that scene where he goes to the Italian pizza guy who's this kind of Don Juan, and he's like, what have you done before if your girlfriend's husband found out about you? He's like, I take a knife and I stab him a bunch of times. He don't bother me no more.

30:24Oh, the 80s movies. Yeah, they're great. All right. So individual mobility is one. Social creativity is the next one. If you don't feel about like great about how your group as a whole is perceived, you can maybe just start sort of changing the language about how you're comparing your group to other people. So the first subgroup of that is comparing your in group to the out group in a different way. So like, you know, the D &D group, like we may not be as cool of the jocks, but like we're a lot smarter than them.

30:57Chuck Bryant:Precisely. That's an excellent example. Yeah. Another one is you can basically change what attributes are focused on about your group, right? So I guess going to the D &D one, say, I don't know, I can't figure out how to use that one. You got something for that? Well, it's sort of about changing how others perceive your group. So maybe the D &D group may not be looked at as cool, but we have the best homemade shirts. I guess so. That seems similar to the first one. It sort of does a little bit. But it's in how, I think in the first one, it's how they perceive themselves. We're smarter than they are, and they'll just never know it.

31:45And the other one is we've got these cool uniforms that we wear, and everyone thinks they're awesome.

31:51Chuck Bryant:Gotcha. Great. Great example. I'll bet D &D uniforms are awesome. Well, I was thinking of the Stranger Things, the Hellfire Club and the cool T-shirts. Oh, okay. I only saw the first season. Yeah, you know, I liked it all, but first season was great. Have you seen The Devil in Silver? It's the third installation of the Terror series? I don't know about any of those things. Oh, well, just start watching the Terror. Well, yeah, you've told us about that. I remember that now. Skip over season two and then just go to season three. It was pretty good. Okay. Wasn't season one like sailboats and frigates and stuff?

32:28Yeah. Pirates or something?

32:30Chuck Bryant:It was based on, I can't remember which expedition, but a lost British Navy expedition in the Arctic. Okay. It was like based on that, but also had like all sorts of fiction. Okay. So seasons one and three? Yes. Just do not watch season two. All right. So the third way you can do that is change what out-group you're comparing yourself with. So the D &D group would say, like, well, we may be D &D nerds, but have you seen the chess club? Right. Wow. You're just on fire today, man. And I love chess club. I love chess. I love D &D. I'm not slagging any of these. If anything, I'm anti-jock. There you go.

33:12Chuck Bryant:Got to be anti-somebody, right? That's the whole in-group, out-group basis. Oh, man, I'm just getting myself in trouble to all our teen listeners. One of the things about the social creativity, too, is all three of those, they don't actually change anything in the way of like the hierarchy. The jocks are still, you know, at the top. They rule the school. But things have changed. There's something has changed, right? Social mobility is like the group has changed because you've left and maybe the hierarchy has changed because you joined this higher group or whatever. But social creativity does not actually change any part of, like, the larger structure, say, of society.

33:51Yeah, for sure. So those were the first two. The last one is very easy. It's social competition. And that's when you choose to take on the group that you perceive ahead of you, like, head on. So that's Revenge of the Nerds.

34:03Chuck Bryant:Yes, it is. That or any, like, if there was some greedy developer who's trying to shut something down, that's the basis of it. Whether it's a ski resort or a car wash or a hot dog stand, that's it right there. Taking it on. That's right. So one of the things these two guys, Toshviles and Turner, Toshviles? Toshvile and Turner wanted to point out was that like resource or material inequality or scarcity, they don't always have to lead to social conflict. so sometimes if you're a like a low status uh individual or something and you might align with a new group identity or or try and redefine that group in a more positive light like the things kind of we were just talking about yeah but there's no um difference in like your access to resources like it might just happen within the group and how you're perceiving yourself or having others perceive you it's not like you went out and got like uh cooler clothes for the dnd group to wear.

35:09Chuck Bryant:Right. That's a much better way of what I was trying to say. Okay. Chuck, I say we take our second break now and then come back and talk more about social identity theory. Let's do it.

35:30I'm Martha Stewart from the Martha Stewart podcast. You know what I love about cooking? the endless inspiration, sharing exceptional flavors, and of course, the best ingredients. I refuse to make a dish without them. McCormick has been and is an essential in the kitchen. Now McCormick's new line of signature seasonings make bringing fresh inspiration and endless versatility to everyday dishes easier than ever. There's the everyday essential, garlic and olive oil, the savory sweetness of caramelized onion, and globally inspired flavors like the herby with a touch of heat chimichurri, and chili garlic that elevates everything from ramen to stir-fry to even grilled meats.

36:18Try the chimichurri blend to make your steaks delicious. Each signature seasoning is crafted by flavor experts to make every dish more delicious. When you want to make your best, it's got to be McCormick. Find your favorite at mccormick.com. That call was really pivotal for me. Hey, it's Emily Tisch-Sussman. And this season on She Pivots, the podcast where women share bold career moves and personal turning points that changed everything. I sit down with culture-shifting women who share their pivots, like Paralympian Allie Truitt. I was like, I'm a month out from a shark attack. There's no way in 11 months I'm making the Paralympics.

36:57Advocate Elizabeth Smart. I still feel that drive that I can still make a difference, so I'm going to keep going. Celebrity chef Carla Hall. Was that scary to walk away from such a stable career after just two years? No, I was more afraid of being unhappy than I was broke in a dead-end job that I didn't enjoy. And feminist legend Gloria Steinem. All of us were trying to express women's real lives. We If I can contribute to that, I'd like to maintain that and leave this house for that purpose. Listen to She Pivots on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

37:36Chuck Bryant:I'm Jake Brennan, and on my podcast, Hollywoodland, I revisit some of the biggest stories from Hollywood history, separating the myths people want to believe from the reality underneath them. Like how the story of Marilyn Monroe isn't just the story of a Hollywood icon. Marilyn Monroe has become so iconic that her death can only be explained through conspiracy theories. And for some fans who can't let go, these stories have metastasized from conjecture to accepted fact. So on August 4th, 1962, Marilyn Monroe died. Then the rumors started and she died again. And now we're going to set the record straight and learn about the way Marilyn Monroe actually died.

38:22the third way. Learn more about what happens when fame, media obsession, and conspiracy collide.

38:29Chuck Bryant:Listen to Hollywoodland on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

38:49Word up, Jerry. So I guess we should compare social identity theory with the two big ones that we talked about before. Adorno's and what was the other guy? I can't remember. That's right. Sharif.

39:05Chuck Bryant:Oh, you want me to do that? Yeah. Well, the big one between Adorno's authoritarian personality theory and social identity theory is that Adorno is basically saying it's a bunch of individuals messed up issues coming together to create fascism or to create, you know, combative in-group, out-group behavior. It's these individuals who have problems. And that just is it's not the opposite, but it really does not come. It's not compatible with social identity theory because to social identity theory, people coming together as a group, that group is what generates just the fact that people are together generates those issues.

39:47Chuck Bryant:There are positives and negatives to the whole thing. Yeah. Like, for example, some of the benefits, just a sense of belonging, which people make a case that we have developed that evolutionarily to keep us in groups, that deep sense of well-being that we get from feeling like we belong. Yeah, for sure. That's a huge, huge benefit of being in a group. A sense of purpose. You know, groups typically have missions. I know that you Falcons fans like to go on weekend retreats at camps very often in the off season to talk about the Falcons and their prospects for the next season. Yeah. That's a purpose.

40:25Yeah, totally.

40:26Chuck Bryant:And then self-worth, just having a sense of self-esteem from belonging to a group like the Falcons fans. Right. That, like, you can't buy that kind of self-esteem that the Falcons give you. Boy, it's so funny that we're using the Falcons because I don't know if there's a collective group of humans on planet Earth that feels worse about themselves.

40:51That's funny. The other one was the realistic group conflict theory. So social identity theory is probably a little closer to that one than Adorno's authoritarian personality theory or trait theory because it frames prejudice as a byproduct. of an intergroup conflict. I think maybe one of the differences is, is that RCT, realistic group conflict theory, sort of frames it as like the resource scarcity that we're talking about. And Taj fell again in Turner. They say that scarcity doesn't necessarily have to be a part of that or a precursor at least to that.

41:31Chuck Bryant:Yeah. And like, there's a lot of different nuances that are different between the two. I think social identity theory like really spreads out much further. Yeah. But that's the main difference between them. Yeah, agreed. So there's a lot of people who are like, yeah, duh, including you, Chuck. But there's also a lot of people who are like, have you guys proven this? Like, we're talking social psychology here. We just, somebody did like a study once and everybody says, well, now it's proven. That's maybe. So there's this thing that they use to test social identity theory called the minimal group paradigm.

42:06Chuck Bryant:and originally I thought minimal referred to like the fewest number of people in a group which made me think of the special people club from Welcome to the Dollhouse with Don Wiener and the kid. Yeah was it just like two people? Yes. Yeah. But they mean minimal as far as like the minimum circumstances that the people in the group have in common. Like what What is the least amount of stuff that those people can have in common and still belong to a group together that where this this behavior will develop? And using that as a test paradigm, I guess, that actually pans social identity theory out basically every time.

42:47Yeah, this is where I thought it got like a little more interesting for me and that they in 1979, they got together with another social psychologist named Rupert Brown for a study called Social Comparison and Group Interest and In-Group Favoritism. Part of it would help is if they just sexied up these titles for sure. But again, they wanted to see, like, what if we just sort of arbitrarily grouped individuals together and then tasked them with some questions about something, which we'll see in a minute, and see what happens. And so in this case, it was 62 14 - and 15-year-old students. And to group them arbitrarily, they just gave them a series of abstract paintings and said, pick out which one you like the best, and that'll be your group or whatever.

43:33and that they ended up in four separate groups, the triangle group, the circle group, the dichromatic group, and the polychromatic group. Here's what I don't understand is that she said, really, they were just all put in the triangle group? What does that mean?

43:48Chuck Bryant:I think that, so I didn't get that either. I went and looked. Essentially, they were arbitrarily put into two groups that had nothing to do with what the kids involved thought they were a group member of. So the whole triangle, circle, dichromatic, polychromatic, it was just a fool. Oh, yeah. Thinking they were a member of a group when really they they were just arbitrarily assigned to one of two groups. One was the control group and one was the experimental group, essentially. But those kids didn't think in those terms. They thought I'm team triangle or I'm team dichromatic. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

44:22I got you. All right. So then they they grouped them like this and then they said, fill out these forms and we're going to determine how much each group is going to get paid for the stuff. study and they had like the forms were side by side with like a proposal for a dollar amount for each group. Some of them are equal, some are not equal. And what they observed was, I think, fairly interesting is that even when like like one of the things they observed was that even when they had a chance for both groups to make 11 bucks, they would choose to make ten dollars for themselves if the other group made five.

45:01So essentially they wanted, they all chose to have a disparity between the groups. So in other words, to make their group like get more money than the other one, even if there was an option to get paid equally and it was more money.

45:14Chuck Bryant:Yeah. So to their own detriment, they wanted to, but essentially the way that they explained it was that those, the people choosing that were trying to enhance the status of their group. They weren't trying to maximize their money. They're trying to maximize their group status. by making twice as much as another group. Yeah, I mean, I think this is fascinating when you look at it in the terms of like, the idea of like socialism versus capitalism and making sure everyone's taken care of versus like, screw that guy, I want the most for myself. Right. These are teenagers. It's a little distressing.

45:48Chuck Bryant:For sure. There's another one that we turned up in the Journal of Neuroscience from 2021. And it used a brain scan study. This was 34 people. I don't know how many were involved in the other one you just mentioned, but these people had their brain scanned, so they were figuring out what part of their brain they were using while they were doing this. But the thing that really has to do with social identity theory is that they showed people like a video of somebody doing something. This wasn't it, but say carrying a tray full of beer steins, full beer steins, right? Okay. And you were watching somebody give it a shot, and then you tried it yourself.

46:29Chuck Bryant:And if you saw somebody say like lifting it with both hands and they were successful or trying to lift it from the bottom and it fell over, if you thought that person was a member of a rival out group, in this case, Democrats or Republicans, you would not learn from their mistake or their successful way of doing it when you tried it. It's like you would refuse to learn from the enemy or this out group. even if it would help you. Yeah, that's fascinating to me. It is. Like super fascinating and it really kind of jibes and makes sense. But a lot of people are like, there's some real criticisms we can level against this.

47:10Chuck Bryant:And one of them is, okay, you guys are scanning 34 people's brains. You're studying like 16 Boy Scouts, you know, like the stakes are really low here. If you take this and apply it into the real world at higher stakes, like say expressing prejudice or bias against another group publicly and then potentially have being ostracized or shamed or whatever in response. Like, are people still going to carry out these behaviors? Like, does it hold up in the real world? Yeah, for sure. And also this idea that like kind of what you were talking about earlier is sometimes with these studies, I feel like there's a lack of nuance.

47:47And so this idea that personal, that like the difference between personal identity and group identity isn't just so cut and dried as Tajfell and Turner think it or propose that it is. Right. And there have been other social psychologists, one in particular named Masaki Yuki, who says that, or at least he argues that, you know what, the social identity theory has its limits if the society is a little more collectivist, like in East Asia was his example. And I think that makes sense because, you know, again, if you're taking these like small groups of like 60 teenagers or these Boy Scouts, it's hard to extrapolate that to like.

48:29And this is true all over the world.

48:30Chuck Bryant:It is. It is. And I saw someone say like it is universal people discriminating against out groups in favor of their in group. And you can make a case like there's a lot of rivalries between Japanese baseball teams in Japan. Oh, sure. You know, there's rivalries between China and Japan and South Korea and Japan. Yeah. Like it does exist in one form or another. I think that's probably what Tajfel and Turner would point to if they were both still alive. They could be pointing from their graves right now. We wouldn't know, though. That's right. So back to the study with the kids choosing to pay the other groups less.

49:11Again, very distressed about that. But they thought like, hey, we nailed that study, everybody, because that really bolsters this idea that bias can occur in the absence of conflict. Like there was no reason for these groups to like not want the other group to have as much money, yet they still did. and this idea of the desire for positive social identity can lead to bias because the students chose those financial options that made them different from the other group, even to their own detriment.

49:44Chuck Bryant:Yeah, and just to restate it again, these kids had nothing in common. They weren't even in the groups that they thought they were in, and yet that immediate sense of group membership made them discriminate against people who they thought were in other groups. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. So I think Tajfel and Turner would be like, hey, we're still pointing. Let's talk about some of this stuff in real world. Like you want some real world proof? How about some anecdotal proof, everybody? Yeah. And one great example they came up with where a group, particular group, used social creativity to achieve like a positive distinctiveness that they were talking about, which can be attained, was the Black is Beautiful movement.

50:27in the 1960s when black Americans were like, you know what? We're sort of tired of hearing about how this idea of beauty is so Eurocentric. And, you know, blonde hair and blue eyes is all that. Like, no, no, black is beautiful. Our skin color is beautiful. Our hair and our culture is all beautiful. And just the black aesthetic was like fully embraced and touted as a movement. And that did a, I think that was a huge like cultural change in the 1960s. Yeah.

50:57Chuck Bryant:And that was a great example of social creativity, right? Yeah. And then another example of social creativity is poor white racism, where a group, in this case, poor white Americans, choose to discriminate against poor black Americans because they are capable of feeling superior of that other group rather than comparing themselves to wealthy white Americans. Yeah. And then kind of fast forwarding to today, there's also a lot. I mean, it's still very much going on, like in the United States, the more you identify with not just your political party, but like what your political party stands for.

51:39Chuck Bryant:the more you take that on yourself as part of your identity, the more likely you are to view the opposing party as like bad people, as dumb, as not having any idea what you're supposed to do with the country, that kind of stuff. Yeah, for sure. There are people that argue that in order to like radicalize somebody into maybe an extremist group, it really helps when you appeal to them with a real distinctive identity for for the in group that they're trying to get you in. Yes. Another one is that products like domestic versus foreign made products. Yeah, yeah. That in-group, out-group predicts that, your sense of ethnocentrism or nationalism.

52:28Sure.

52:28Chuck Bryant:And then musical preference. There was a study done by a guy named Daniel Shepard who found that the more strongly you identify with your musical preference, the more likely you were to say other musical preferences suck. and that reminded me of Disco Demolition Night from 1979. You remember that? Yeah, for sure. Where all those rockers, like, rioted because they hated disco so much. Yeah. And I guess that's about it. Like, yeah, duh, definitely sums it up. But to me, it was like the nuts and bolts of the whole thing that were so interesting. That and all of your awesome examples. Well, I really enjoyed that study of the kids, like, choosing to pay the other kids less.

53:12I thought that was fascinating. And I think a lot of this stuff is fairly fascinating at the end of the day. So I think it won me over a bit.

53:19Chuck Bryant:Good. I'm glad. Well, since Chuck's been won over, you know, everybody, that automatically triggers listener mail.

53:29I'm going to do the shorter one around this one. So, hey, guys. In the Judy Blume episode, you guys were talking about we must, we must, we must increase our bust. That actually wasn't invented by Blume. She's the same generation as my mother, and they did that in junior high school. The rest of the rhyme, according to my mom, goes, the bigger the better, the tighter the sweater. The boys are counting on us. Judy Blume and Beverly Cleary shaped generations of young mind guys. That is from Margo in New York City. And we had a few different people write in and tell us that. And I tried to find online the origination of that.

54:07And almost everything says Judy Blume until you dig into Reddit, and then somebody has a pretty exhaustive list of like, you know, in the 1950s, it was used in this thing and it was used in this thing. But I don't think anyone ever nailed like the first person to say it.

54:20Chuck Bryant:Good old Reddit. Good old Reddit. That was from Margo? That was Margo in New York City. Awesome. Thanks a lot, Margo. That was wonderful. And if you want to be like Margo and make us laugh and delight us, you can send us an email too. Send it off to stuffpodcast at iheartradio.com. Stuff You Should Know is a production of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

54:56This is an iHeart Podcast. Guaranteed human.