Speaker 1
But it seems to me that the fundamental distinction, and this is the political game, at least along the liberal conservative axis is boils down to one thing. It boils down to how open borders should be compared to how closed they should be. And you know, you can see that reflected, for example, in the attractiveness of trump to a large part of the general population, because he's going to close the borders, build a wall and fortify the boarders. And conservatives like that. They like to have boarders between things stay tight. And they don't even care if it's state boarders or political boarders or town boarders or ethnic boarders, or borders between ideas, or borders between sexual identities. Conservatives like to have things stay in the damn box where they belong, partly cause they're orderly, and partly because they're low in openness. They don't get any real they're not interested in what happens if you free up your conceptions. All they see in that is the probability of disorder. Whereas liberals, who are high in openness and low in conscientiousness, slash orderliness. They get a real charge out of letting things out of the box so that they can creatively interplay. Now, the issue is, who's correct? And t answer is, you don't know, because the environment underneath the political land ape moves. And so sometimes the right answer is tighten up the borders and fortify. And sometimes the right answer is, no, no, no. Loosen things up, because everything's getting too static and tight and we need more information. And the dialogue that occurs in the political landscape, this is why dialogue is so important, is fundamentally between these two opposing views of borders. And because you can't say with certainty which one is right at any given time, an unopened dialogue has to maintain itself so that the entire political state can manoeuvre properly along that moving line. It's absolutely crucial. It's really, really, really useful to know that people vote their damn temperament. It gets you, gives you more of an understanding, at least in principle, of your of those who sit on the other side of you on the political fence.