Crazy Together

Marcus reveals that he used to be a pretty big fan of post-apocalyptic movies. They were a lot more fun in his youth, when he could more easily ignore the many real-world fears and anxieties that were the constant sub-text of the genre (e.g., nuclear holocaust, fossil fuel scarcity, climate change, etc.). The movies were fun, and there was always a glimmer of hope in each one. For example, the Road Warrior reassured us that quality leather goods and hair products will remain in abundance in the future. And Waterworld aptly demonstrated that Kevin Costner can not only survive making a really bad post-apocalyptic movie, but he can also still convince people to give him millions of dollars to make another really bad post-apocalyptic movie just a few years later. Marcus and Esme then discuss how it became more difficult for them to enjoy the genre as they entered adulthood and the underlying fears became a little more real for them. Marcus then reveals why he has been thinking about these movies recently, and how they tie in to a sad scene he observed while taking a walk one day. But! He and Esme then close on a high note by discussing actions we can all take to make this world a little less apocalyptic.

As a follow-up to the “Very Special and Horrifying Announcement” released earlier this week Esme provides some much needed perspective. According to her, there’s a slight possibility that Marcus was misrepresenting the immediate danger to Crazy Together studios and the family as a whole. It turns out, the walls of their house might not be teeming with bats. That said, there’s no way to tell exactly what was crawling around behind the walls that night, and she is unable to disprove the possibility of interdimensional demons. Esme then provides a quick update of her gardening/dopamine management wins. Then, she and Marcus discuss why the world needs a little more Elisabeth Shue.

As a thank you to their listeners, Marcus and Esme are celebrating the release of the 100th episode of Crazy Together with a free merch giveaway to five lucky winners. Just go to crazytogetherpod.com and complete the 100th Episode Mug Giveaway form (look for the bouncing mugs). The first five listeners to submit an entry will automatically win!

Marcus is absolutely flummoxed by the advertising campaign for a product that is being marketed to people with anxiety issues. Specifically, he can’t figure out why someone would decide the best way to motivate anxious people to buy their product is by creeping them out. Esme is so entertained by Marcus’ musings she forgets her own hyperfocus topic, but contributes gleefully to the discussion. Visit our website: crazytogetherpod.com Support us on Ko-fi: https://ko-fi.com/C0C216B887 Contact us: https://www.crazytogetherpod.com/contact Our theme music Midnight—Declan DP [Audio Library Release] Music provided by Audio Library Plus Watch: • Midnight — Declan DP | Free Backgroun... Free Download / Stream: https://alplus.io/midnight-declan-dp

Picture this: you’re actively working on something that requires a lot of attention (e.g., homework, an assignment at work, an e-mail to a boss who requires communication that is somehow both succinct and robust, etc.). But then, all of a sudden – whoosh – your mind goes blank. No thoughts. Just blank. It would be a real Zen sound of one-hand clapping moment if the timing wasn’t so inconveniant. Because, eventually, you snap back to attention. You shake your head, bewildered by the experience, and upset that you allowed yourself to lose focus again. But what if it wasn’t entirely up to you whether you lost focus or not? In this week’s episode, Marcus and Esme review two recent studies that suggest: a) those moments where we lose focus, trail off in thought, or just go blank are a product of naturally occurring phenomena in our brains; and b) there are structural differences in our brains that differentiate our experiences from those of neurotypical people. What does it all mean? Well, maybe we can start by being a little kinder to ourselves.

October 2023: A TikTok creator uploads a video in which she tearfully recounts her experience asking about the possibility of time blindness accommodations during a job interview and the angry rebuke she received from her prospective employer. And people descended on her comments section like a plague of locusts. “Time blindness isn’t real!” some wrote. Another 30 or so commenters wrote some variation of “what if your employer had paycheck blindness - would that be fair?” The neurodivergent came for her as well. “I have ADHD and terrible time blindness and I’ve learned to deal with it. It’s our problem. Not our employers.” Why are we so quick to jump on someone who asks about reasonable accommodations for a legitimate issue? American workers make accommodations all the time. The only problem is, we make them for our employers. Salaried workers work 50 - 60 hours a week but only get paid for 40. Shift workers are at the mercy of algorithmic scheduling programs that optimize for efficiency and ignore employees’ personal circumstances and needs (e.g., childcare, transportation, etc.). In this episode, Marcus and Esme discuss time blindness, affirm that it is a very real thing, and make a case for accommodations. They then shift course to try to figure out why we are so willing to do our bosses’ work for them and criticize anyone who dares question the status quo.

Marcus and his daughter have a lot in common. They both enjoy crafting, storytelling, and creative problem-solving. They’re also both riddled with ADHD. In this week’s episode, Marcus shares the full story of the annual leprechaun hunt he and his daughter conduct every St. Patrick’s day, and how this accidental tradition perfectly illustrates some of the challenges associated with ADHD (impulsivity, time blindness, hyperfocus, etc.) and celebrates the joy of overcoming those challenges by working together to create something awesome. Esme jumps in with her take on the whole operation, reflecting on what it’s like to watch the two of them disappear into this strange, funny, and surprisingly elaborate project. For her, it’s a front‑row seat to the way their brains click together and the easy connection that comes from following an idea wherever it leads.

Marcus and Esme discuss a common condition among neurodivergent people: the fear of being perceived. This widely reported phenomena is an internal, emotional, and sometimes physical reaction to being ”seen” or judged, often causing people to feel as though they are ”on stage.” Marcus and Esme dive into why this fear is so common, how it manifests, and what neurodivergent people can do to cope with and possibly even overcome it.

Marcus and Esme discuss the ADHD “Tax” – a term used to describe the very real financial, emotional, and psychological consequences of living with the condition. Esme identifies some of the many transactions and decisions in which people with ADHD might incur the ”tax” and offers a few suggestions for dealing with or avoiding it altogether. Marcus does his best to add value to the conversation, with somewhat limited success. And yes, the human being who wrote the previous paragraph used an em-dash. Em-dashes do not immediately signify that something has been written by AI! I know many of us are on the lookout for non-human generated content, but please do not rob those of us who think and write tangentially of a much-needed punctuation mark.

Marcus and Esme made a mistake. In the span of three weeks they put out two episodes about the evils of dehumanization (and the cruelty that comes along with it), and one episode in which they unironically called Epstein and all of his buddies “monsters.” You might be surprised to learn that this glaring inconsistency went unnoticed by the couple until earlier this week. So, Marcus and Esme clarify their stance on dehumanization (spoiler alert: they’re against it) and explain how their emotional reaction to the news sparked some cognitive dissonance. They also explain that their impulse to dehumanize was rooted in their desire for justice, and their concerns that these men might not get the justice they deserve . . . unless we all do our part to hold them accountable.

Epstein was a monster; there’s no doubt about that. But he wasn’t alone. It’s important to note that no one has been charged with any crimes yet (and with the current administration in place, it might be a while), so it’s still difficult to separate actual evidence of guilt from noise. Nevertheless, the contents of the most recent release(s) of Epstein files paint a picture of a wealthy and interconnected network of monsters who either engaged in horrific crimes or simply turned a blind eye to the crimes being committed. In this episode, Marcus and Esme call back to a previous episode (#52. The Unwritten Rules of the Elites) in an attempt to explain how a network like this forms, and why it is that seemingly no one in that network ever spoke out or attempted to put a stop to it. The short answer: when you prioritize your agenda above your ethics, morals, or even your sense of purpose, you might just find yourself in the company of monsters.

In this follow‑up to last week’s episode on cruelty and dehumanization, Marcus and Esme try to figure out what happens after people buy into systems built on division, fear, and the promise of in‑group protection. Spoiler alert: those systems almost always turn on the very people who empower them. Drawing on historical examples from American slavery, the Confederacy, and Nazi Germany, the episode traces a pattern that repeats across eras and continents: political movements that rely on dehumanization don’t just brutalize their targets, they usually harm their own supporters. Or as Esme puts it, “when you vote for cruelty, don’t be too surprised when they turn that cruelty on you.” Marcus and Esme also lay out a multi-tier strategy for fighting back against dehumanization that relies on collective action, humanizing victims, and pointing out the motivations of the powerful people who seek to divide us.

In this episode, Marcus and Esme try to answer the question, “how is it that people are capable of being so cruel to one another?” Drawing on philosopher David Livingstone Smith’s groundbreaking work, they explore how political leaders, military institutions, and propagandists have learned to tap into some of our most primal instincts to overcome our sense of compassion and empathy through the process of dehumanization. Smith shows that dehumanization isn’t just an insult or a slur; it’s a psychological and political technology people and governments use to amass power through the fear of existential threats posed by the least likely sort of villain there is: our neighbors and community members.