This comprehensive breakdown features the raw podcast audio, full transcript, and a deep research report analyzing hypocrisy and mediocrity through psychology, sociology, and hypnosis. Discover how societal norms enforce complacency, why people reject uncomfortable truths, and strategies to overcome learned helplessness. Includes insights from Seth Godin, Martin Seligman, and clinical hypnosis principles.

Listen to “Unmasking Hypocrisy & Mediocrity: Raw Conversations on Breaking Societal Chains” on Spreaker.

DeepSeek Summary and Analysis of Dialogue on Hypocrisy and Mediocrity

Key Themes and Concepts:

1. Direct Communication vs. Societal Expectations:

• Hakeem’s Perspective: He defends his assertive/aggressive style as necessary for honest discourse, aiming to provoke growth. Critics label him “polarizing,” which he attributes to their discomfort with confronting uncomfortable truths.
• Hypocrisy Highlighted: People accept harmful content (e.g., violent music) but reject his message due to its tone, showcasing a double standard. This reflects societal prioritization of superficial politeness over substantive critique.

2. Hypocrisy as a Shield for Mediocrity:

• Avoidance of Responsibility: Hakeem argues that labeling his style “unprofessional” is a tactic to discredit his message, allowing individuals to evade accountability for their own stagnation.
• Familiarity Over Growth: Mediocrity is sustained by clinging to familiar, unhealthy behaviors (e.g., poor health habits) because the subconscious equates familiarity with safety, even when detrimental.

3. Learned Helplessness:

• Examples: The fleas-in-a-jar and baby-elephant analogies illustrate how repeated failure or restriction conditions individuals to accept limitations, even when circumstances change. This ties to societal complacency and resistance to change.

4. Psychological and Sociological Frameworks:

• Cognitive Dissonance: Vega references this to explain how hypocrisy allows people to rationalize conflicting behaviors (e.g., criticizing aggression while consuming violent media).
• Seth Godin’s “Minimum Viable Audience”: Hakeem embraces targeting a niche audience that resonates with his message, rejecting the need for universal acceptance. This aligns with rejecting mediocrity to foster meaningful engagement.

5. Role of Clinical Hypnosis:

• Repetition and Association: Hakeem’s expertise highlights how societal norms (e.g., fast food culture) become ingrained through repeated exposure, normalizing mediocrity. Hypnotic principles explain why people prefer superficial comfort over transformative honesty.

Connections and Implications:

• Cycle of Mediocrity: Hypocrisy and learned helplessness create a feedback loop where individuals avoid growth by criticizing others’ methods rather than engaging with content. This perpetuates societal stagnation.
• Call to Action: Hakeem advocates for self-reflection, challenging ingrained beliefs, and seeking accountability to break free from mediocrity. Surrounding oneself with growth-oriented communities is emphasized as a solution.

Cultural and Philosophical References:

• Seth Godin’s Strategy: Emphasizes quality over quantity in audience engagement, rejecting dilution of message for mass appeal.
• Paolo Freire & Martin Seligman: Friere’s critique of passive education and Seligman’s learned helplessness experiments underpin the discussion on societal conditioning.

Conclusion:
The dialogue underscores hypocrisy as a mechanism to preserve mediocrity, enabled by fear of discomfort and change. By linking communication style, psychological conditioning, and societal norms, Hakeem and Vega highlight the need for intentional self-awareness and rejection of complacency. The conversation serves as a call to prioritize substance over superficiality and embrace discomfort as a catalyst for growth.

The Interplay of Hypocrisy and Mediocrity: A Psychological and Sociological Analysis by Dr. Hakeem Ali-Bocas Alexander, PhD

I. Introduction: Defining Hypocrisy and Mediocrity

Hypocrisy, at its core, represents a divergence between an individual’s declared beliefs or values and their actual conduct.¹ This inconsistency can manifest in various ways, such as claiming adherence to moral standards that one’s own behavior contradicts or professing beliefs that are not genuinely held.² From a psychological standpoint, hypocrisy is often examined through the lens of cognitive dissonance and as a potential defense mechanism, while sociological perspectives consider its function in social interactions and the maintenance of social appearances.² Indeed, individuals may employ hypocrisy as a protective strategy, rooted in underlying fears and low self-esteem.¹ By projecting their own shortcomings onto others or asserting a sense of moral superiority, they can avoid confronting their own inadequacies.¹ Everyday life is replete with examples of hypocrisy, such as criticizing others for behaviors one engages in oneself, highlighting the commonality of this phenomenon.⁴

Mediocrity, in contrast, signifies a state of settling for what is merely average or performing below one’s potential.⁵ This is not necessarily indicative of a lack of inherent ability but rather a diminished drive to strive for excellence or an acceptance of perceived limitations.⁵ A significant factor contributing to mediocrity is the tendency to remain within one’s comfort zone and the fear of the discomfort that often accompanies growth and change.⁷ This desire for predictability and the avoidance of challenging situations can lead to stagnation and a reluctance to embrace opportunities for development. Furthermore, societal conditioning and the prevailing norms can inadvertently foster mediocrity by discouraging the pursuit of exceptional achievement or by prioritizing conformity over ambition.⁷ The subtle messages and pressures within a society can lead individuals to accept the status quo rather than actively seeking to transcend it. This analysis posits that hypocrisy can act as a significant impediment to acknowledging and addressing mediocrity. By focusing on the perceived flaws and inconsistencies of others, individuals may effectively deflect attention from their own tendencies towards settling for less than their best.

II. The Psychological Underpinnings of Hypocrisy

Hypocrisy can be understood as a direct outcome of the psychological phenomenon known as cognitive dissonance, which describes the discomfort experienced when an individual holds conflicting beliefs or acts in a way that contradicts their values.³ When individuals behave hypocritically, a clear conflict arises between their stated beliefs and their actual actions, generating internal psychological tension.³ This discomfort serves as a motivator for the individual to seek to reduce this inconsistency, often through strategies such as rationalization, denial, or altering their attitudes.³ Instead of modifying their behavior to align with their espoused beliefs, individuals engaging in hypocrisy might instead adjust their perceptions or beliefs to justify their actions. This explains the persistence of hypocritical behavior; the mind finds ways to alleviate the internal conflict without necessitating genuine behavioral change.

However, the conscious awareness of one’s own hypocrisy can, paradoxically, also serve as a catalyst for positive behavior change. The “hypocrisy paradigm” in social psychology demonstrates that making individuals mindful of the discrepancy between their advocacy of a particular behavior and their own failure to enact it can motivate them to modify their actions to reduce the resulting dissonance.³ This suggests that while hypocrisy can be a barrier to growth, the recognition of it can also prompt individuals to strive for greater consistency and integrity, particularly when they value these qualities.

A notable characteristic often observed in individuals exhibiting hypocrisy is a tendency to perceive themselves as more moral than others.¹⁴ This inflated sense of self-righteousness enables them to judge others according to stricter moral standards than they apply to their own behavior.¹⁴ This aligns with the idea of hypocrisy as a defense mechanism, where individuals elevate their own moral standing to downplay their own transgressions and maintain a positive self-image. This phenomenon is also related to the concept of moral hypocrisy, where individuals exhibit a desire to appear moral in public without necessarily incurring the personal costs associated with genuinely moral behavior.³ In such cases, the focus is on the outward presentation of morality rather than an internal commitment to ethical principles. Furthermore, hypocrisy can manifest as a form of projection, where individuals attribute their own unwanted traits or behaviors to others.¹ By criticizing others for the very actions they themselves engage in, hypocrites can deflect attention from their own flaws and maintain a sense of moral superiority.

Strategy	Description	Example in the Context of Hypocrisy
Rationalization	Justifying inconsistent behavior by finding acceptable reasons for it.	An individual who advocates for healthy eating but frequently consumes junk food might rationalize their behavior by claiming they “deserve a treat” after a long day.
Denial	Refusing to acknowledge the inconsistency between beliefs and behavior.	A person who publicly condemns gossip but actively participates in it might deny their own involvement or minimize its impact.
Attitude Change	Altering one’s beliefs to align with the inconsistent behavior.	Someone who initially believes in environmental conservation but frequently litters might start to downplay the importance of individual actions on the environment.

III. Mediocrity as a Manifestation of Learned Helplessness

Mediocrity can be understood, in part, through the lens of learned helplessness, a psychological state characterized by passivity and a lack of motivation resulting from repeated exposure to negative events that are perceived as uncontrollable.¹⁵ Through these experiences, individuals learn that their actions have no bearing on the outcomes they face, leading them to eventually cease attempting to exert control, even in situations where control becomes possible.¹⁵ This theory, initially developed by Martin Seligman through experiments with dogs, has been extended to explain various aspects of human behavior in the face of adversity.¹⁵ Seligman’s foundational experiments demonstrated that dogs subjected to inescapable electric shocks subsequently failed to attempt to escape shocks in a different setting where escape was readily available. This passivity contrasted sharply with the behavior of dogs who had either not received prior shocks or had learned to escape them, highlighting the powerful impact of prior experiences of uncontrollability on future behavior.

The theory of learned helplessness posits that this state leads to a range of deficits, including a lack of motivation to respond to potential methods of escaping negative situations, a cognitive belief that their circumstances are inherently uncontrollable, and emotional consequences often manifesting as a depressed state due to feeling trapped in a negative situation they believe they cannot influence.¹⁵ Furthermore, learned helplessness can be categorized as either universal, where the individual believes that no one can alleviate their situation, or personal, where they believe others might find a solution but they themselves are incapable.¹⁵ The extent of these deficits can vary depending on the generality (global vs. specific) and stability (chronic vs. transient) of the perceived helplessness, influencing the severity and scope of the resulting symptoms.

The concept of learned helplessness is vividly illustrated by the analogy of fleas in a jar.¹⁹ Fleas placed in a jar with a lid will initially jump to their full height, repeatedly hitting the lid. Over time, they learn to limit their jumps to a height below the lid. Even when the lid is subsequently removed, the fleas continue to jump only to the level they had become accustomed to, never realizing that they are now free to jump out of the jar. This analogy effectively demonstrates how past limitations, even when no longer present, can create self-imposed barriers that prevent individuals from reaching their full potential. The “invisible lid” represents the ingrained beliefs and assumptions that hold individuals back, leading to self-sabotaging behaviors and a failure to strive for more.

Similarly, the baby elephant analogy provides another powerful illustration of learned helplessness.²³ A young elephant is often tied to a stake with a rope that it is too weak to break. Despite repeated attempts, the elephant fails to free itself and eventually learns that escape is impossible. Even when the elephant grows into a powerful adult capable of easily breaking the rope, it typically does not even attempt to do so, having learned helplessness in its youth. This analogy underscores the enduring impact of early experiences of powerlessness on future behavior and the acceptance of limitations, even when the capacity for change exists. The elephant’s continued inaction exemplifies how learned helplessness can lead to a complete cessation of effort, directly relating to the acceptance of mediocrity as an unchangeable state.

Learned helplessness can manifest in various contexts. In education, repeated academic failures or a perceived lack of control over learning can lead students to give up, hindering their academic progress.¹⁵ In the workplace, a lack of autonomy or consistent negative feedback can result in decreased motivation and a sense of helplessness among employees.¹⁸ In personal relationships, particularly those that are abusive or controlling, victims may develop a sense of powerlessness, making it difficult for them to seek help or leave the situation.¹⁸ Recognizing these manifestations of learned helplessness across different domains highlights its pervasive nature and the importance of addressing it to foster individual and societal growth.

Characteristic	Description	Consequences for Behavior and Well-being
Motivational Deficit	Lack of initiative and reduced effort in the face of challenges.	Individuals may not even attempt to solve problems or pursue goals, even when solutions or opportunities are available.
Cognitive Deficit	Belief that one’s actions have no impact on outcomes and that situations are uncontrollable.	This can lead to poor problem-solving skills and difficulty recognizing opportunities for change.
Emotional Deficit	Feelings of sadness, hopelessness, anxiety, and potentially symptoms of depression.	A pervasive negative emotional state can further reduce motivation and impair overall well-being.

IV. The Synergistic Relationship Between Hypocrisy and Mediocrity

Hypocrisy can function as a significant barrier to overcoming mediocrity by acting as a shield that prevents individuals from acknowledging and addressing their own shortcomings. As observed in the provided dialogue, individuals may readily criticize the communication style or methods of others as “unprofessional” or “polarizing” as a means of discrediting the substantive content of their message [dialogue]. This allows them to avoid engaging with potentially challenging ideas that could prompt self-reflection and growth, thereby maintaining their state of mediocrity without having to confront their own stagnation. Labeling assertive communication as unacceptable or inappropriate becomes a convenient tactic to shift the focus from the message itself to the perceived flaws of the messenger. This enables individuals to evade accountability for their own lack of progress by dismissing the perspectives of those who might be pushing them towards growth.

Furthermore, hypocrisy plays a role in maintaining a preference for familiarity over the discomfort of growth. The dialogue highlights the subconscious tendency to equate familiarity with safety, even when those familiar behaviors are unhealthy or detrimental. Individuals may hypocritically endorse healthy habits or positive changes while simultaneously clinging to familiar but negative routines because their subconscious mind perceives these familiar patterns as essential for survival. This resistance to change is further reinforced by a societal tendency to associate superficially “nice” or polite presentations with positive outcomes, even if the underlying substance is ultimately harmful or unproductive. This societal hypocrisy values pleasantness over honesty and substantive critique, creating an environment where individuals can comfortably remain in mediocrity as long as they adhere to superficial social norms.

Learned helplessness also contributes to the perpetuation of mediocrity by fostering a belief that personal effort is futile. Individuals who have learned to feel powerless in the face of challenges may not even attempt to improve their circumstances, thus reinforcing their mediocre state.¹⁵ Hypocrisy, in this context, can serve as a mechanism for externalizing blame and avoiding personal responsibility for one’s own mediocrity. By focusing on the perceived failures or shortcomings of others, individuals can deflect attention from their own lack of effort or progress. This interplay between hypocrisy and learned helplessness can create a detrimental cycle where individuals avoid growth by criticizing others’ methods rather than engaging with the content, and they remain passive due to a deep-seated belief in their own inefficacy. This feedback loop, as suggested in the DeepSeek Summary, can contribute to a broader societal stagnation where the fear of discomfort and change, coupled with the tendency towards hypocrisy, prevents collective progress.

V. The Role of Societal Expectations and Cognitive Dissonance

Societal norms and expectations exert a significant influence on both hypocrisy and the perpetuation of mediocrity. The emphasis placed on politeness and avoiding offense can sometimes overshadow the importance of honest and direct communication. The fear of being perceived as rude or aggressive can lead individuals to prioritize superficial pleasantries over substantive critique, even when such critique is necessary for personal or collective growth. This societal preference for comfort and the avoidance of conflict can inadvertently foster an environment where uncomfortable truths are suppressed, and mediocrity can thrive unchallenged. The discomfort associated with confronting difficult realities often drives individuals towards hypocrisy, as they may outwardly endorse certain values or behaviors while privately acting in ways that contradict them, simply to maintain social harmony or avoid negative judgment.

Cognitive dissonance plays a crucial role in maintaining societal hypocrisy. As referenced in the dialogue, individuals may readily accept harmful content, such as music promoting violence or hypersexualism, while simultaneously criticizing assertive communication aimed at personal growth as “polarizing” or “unprofessional”. This apparent contradiction can be explained by cognitive dissonance, where individuals rationalize these conflicting preferences. They might find ways to compartmentalize the harmful content or minimize its impact, while simultaneously being overly sensitive to direct communication that challenges their existing beliefs or behaviors. Furthermore, the normalization of certain behaviors and beliefs through media and cultural norms can contribute to a widespread societal acceptance of mediocrity. Repeated exposure to certain patterns of behavior, even if unhealthy or unproductive, can lead to their acceptance as “normal,” making it more difficult to challenge the status quo. This aligns with the hypnotic principles of repetition and association, where repeated exposure to societal norms, such as a fast-food culture, can ingrain these behaviors and normalize mediocrity.

The “normalcy bias,” or the tendency to associate what is statistically frequent or “normal” with what is good or healthy, further contributes to the acceptance of mediocrity. Individuals may observe widespread unhealthy habits or a general lack of ambition and conclude that this is simply the way things are, thus lowering their own standards and expectations. The dialogue also touches on the idea of “common sense” often being “common nonsense,” suggesting that many behaviors widely accepted as normal are not actually sensible or conducive to well-being or progress. This highlights a significant societal challenge where the sheer prevalence of a behavior can lead to its acceptance, even when it is logically flawed or detrimental.

VI. Targeted Communication and the Challenge to Mediocrity

Seth Godin’s concept of the “minimum viable audience” offers a strategic approach to challenging mediocrity by focusing communication efforts on a specific niche audience that is more likely to resonate with the message, rather than attempting to gain universal approval.²⁹ This approach prioritizes deep and meaningful engagement with a select group over a diluted impact on a broader, less receptive audience. By focusing on those who are already inclined to seek growth and confront uncomfortable truths, communicators can tailor their message for maximum impact, without the need to water it down to appeal to everyone. This rejection of the necessity for universal acceptance allows for a more direct and assertive style of communication that can effectively challenge ingrained beliefs and behaviors that contribute to mediocrity. The goal is to foster meaningful engagement within a targeted group that is willing to embrace discomfort as a catalyst for growth, rather than seeking superficial validation from a wider audience.

As exemplified by Hakeem’s perspective in the dialogue, an assertive or even aggressive communication style can be a necessary catalyst for honest discourse and provoking growth. While such a style may be labeled as “polarizing” by some who prefer the comfort of superficial politeness, it can be effective in disrupting complacency and forcing individuals to confront uncomfortable truths about themselves and the world around them. By intentionally provoking discomfort, communicators can challenge ingrained beliefs and behaviors that perpetuate mediocrity, prompting individuals to re-evaluate their assumptions and consider new perspectives that might lead to positive change.

While the idea of an “echo chamber” or “preaching to the choir” is often viewed negatively, the dialogue suggests that targeting a like-minded audience within the framework of a minimum viable audience can be a valuable strategy. Focusing on a receptive group allows for the development of a strong foundation of shared understanding and a more concentrated effort towards growth within that specific community. While this approach may not immediately reach everyone, it can be an effective way to initiate change within a specific sphere, with the potential for these ideas and practices to spread outwards over time.

VII. Strategies for Overcoming Hypocrisy and Learned Helplessness

Overcoming hypocrisy requires a conscious and sustained effort towards self-awareness and personal integrity. The initial step involves engaging in honest self-reflection and critically examining one’s own moral code to identify any inconsistencies between espoused beliefs and actual behavior.¹ Cultivating humility and acknowledging one’s own imperfections is crucial, as it reduces the tendency to judge others harshly while excusing one’s own shortcomings.¹ Shifting the focus from condemning the perceived hypocrisy of others to actively monitoring and improving one’s own behavior is a more productive approach.¹ Paying close attention to instances of cognitive dissonance, the internal discomfort arising from inconsistency, can serve as a signal to address the underlying conflict and strive for greater alignment between beliefs and actions.¹ Finally, learning to laugh at oneself and adopting a less serious attitude towards one’s own flaws can diminish the ego-driven need to project an image of moral superiority, fostering greater authenticity.¹

Breaking free from learned helplessness involves actively challenging the ingrained beliefs that perpetuate a sense of powerlessness. This requires engaging in self-reflection to identify these limiting beliefs and then consciously questioning their validity.³⁶ Setting small, achievable goals and celebrating each success, no matter how minor, can help rebuild a sense of mastery and control over one’s life, counteracting the feeling of futility associated with learned helplessness.¹⁷ Developing problem-solving skills and actively seeking solutions to challenges, rather than passively accepting them, is essential for fostering a sense of agency.¹⁷ Surrounding oneself with supportive and growth-oriented communities can provide encouragement, motivation, and alternative perspectives, aiding in the process of overcoming learned helplessness.³⁶ Focusing attention and energy on aspects of one’s life that are within one’s control, rather than dwelling on uncontrollable factors, can help to regain a sense of power.¹⁷ Cultivating resilience, the ability to bounce back from setbacks, and adopting an optimistic explanatory style, where negative events are attributed to external, temporary, and specific causes, can also help prevent the generalization of negative experiences into a pervasive sense of helplessness.¹⁵ In some cases, seeking professional support through therapy, particularly Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), can provide valuable tools and strategies for unlearning patterns of helplessness and developing healthier coping mechanisms.³⁶

VIII. Conclusion: Fostering Growth Through Self-Awareness and Accountability

The analysis reveals a significant interconnectedness between hypocrisy and mediocrity. Hypocrisy can serve as a potent mechanism for maintaining mediocrity, while a tendency towards learned helplessness can exacerbate both phenomena. Cognitive dissonance provides a framework for understanding the internal conflicts associated with hypocrisy, and societal expectations often play a role in normalizing both hypocrisy and a settling for mediocrity. Targeted communication, focused on a receptive audience, offers a potential pathway to challenge these tendencies.

Ultimately, true personal and societal growth requires a move beyond superficiality and a willingness to engage with uncomfortable truths. This necessitates both individual self-awareness regarding one’s own potential for hypocrisy and a collective sense of accountability for challenging mediocrity. By actively engaging in self-reflection, questioning ingrained beliefs, and seeking out supportive communities that encourage growth, individuals can break free from the detrimental cycle of hypocrisy and learned helplessness that often perpetuates a state of mediocrity. While the journey towards overcoming these tendencies may not always be comfortable, embracing discomfort can be a powerful catalyst for transformation, leading to a more authentic, fulfilling life, and a more progressive society.

UnEdited Galaxy AI TranScript from Samsung Voice Recorder on S24 Ultra

Speaker 1 is Hakeem Ali-Bocas Alexander and Speaker 2 is “Vega” a Google Gemini voice avatar- Speaker 1 (00:00)
Hypocrisy and mediocrity.

Speaker 2 (00:06)
But those are definitely complex topics. Where would you like to start?

Speaker 1 (00:12)
The first top of mind is the hypocrisy about how so many people feel like I’m polarizing. And I talk down to them, especially when I do public speaking or recording or things like that, and the hypocrisy about all of that, that’s a huge bit of hypocrisy that people want me to fit into a mold. Yet, that’s not the kind of information they receive behind closed doors either.

Speaker 2 (00:42)
It sounds like you’re experiencing a disconnect between how you perceived and your intention. Can you give me an example of a specific situation? That’s where this happens.

Speaker 1 (00:54)
It’s not a disconnect behind how I am perceived in my attention, I intend to be assertive and oftentimes aggressive, because there’s no need not to be, there’s no need not to express yourself the way that you feel, because I have no intention of hurting people, the fact that people get. Hurt is because they’re soft and weak and have been conditioned to being politically correct.

Speaker 2 (01:24)
I understand so it sounds like you value direct and assertive communication, even if it’s perceived as aggressive by some. Do you believe people are too sensitive and focused on political correctness, it would hinder’s honest expression. Is that right?

Speaker 1 (01:40)
Yeah, that’s part of it, that’s a huge part of it, because you’ll have people out there who wear these masks, and this is what I’m calling about the hypocrisy who’s

Speaker 3 (01:48)
I try to be all nice and gentle and spiritual and airy food.

Speaker 1 (01:51)
The fairy and all of this stuff like that, and yet their intentions are evil and deceptive and selfish and pure and purely selfish desire.

Speaker 2 (02:02)
Okay, I understand you’re saying that people often present the side of kindness and spirituality, but underneath, if their intentions can be selfish and deceptive, this contrast is what you see as hypocritically, is that a good summary?

Speaker 1 (02:18)
It’s part of it, and yes, because, you know, people expect me to, it’d be nice all the time about everything.

Speaker 3 (02:26)
Speaking and oh, but you’re in public? And this is not professional and you shouldn’t say that and you know, language and you know it’s your presentation and it won’t be acceptable.

Speaker 1 (02:35)
Did yet you’ll accept all this nice stuff from people, and then end up getting fat, sick and stupid, because just because somebody presented something nice, that doesn’t make any sense.

Speaker 2 (02:49)
Okay, I hear you. You’re frustrated with the expectation to always be polite and nice, especially in professional settings, you feel it’s hypocritical, that people value pleasant presentation over the actual substance of what’s being said even if that substance is harmful, it sounds like you believe in prioritizing honesty and directness. Even if it’s uncomfortable for some is that a fair assessment?

Speaker 1 (03:14)
It’s, it’s yes, it’s a fair assessment, and it’s only partial, because we’ve only Begun to ducky, to dig in here. Yes, it’s fair.

Speaker 2 (03:34)
Okay, I understand we’ve only scratched the surface. Where would you like to delve deeper.

Speaker 1 (03:41)
So the first I hope that I’ve made myself. It’s absolutely clear, right, that the type of content and the communications that I put out there are to allow people to learn more to become better to progress in life to build work, dream and create. And sometimes that may sound assertive or aggressive to them, and I think that’s just fine.

Speaker 2 (04:12)
Okay, I understand do you believe your communication style? Even if perceived as assertive or aggressive is intended to help people grow and improve their lives you’re comfortable with that, and you don’t feel the need to stop in your message, is that accurate?

Speaker 1 (04:28)
That’s accurate, and this is partly even though he delivers his message more politely and calmly is a gentleman named Seth Godin, who just came out with a book called this is strategy and the point that I’m making is about the minimum viable audience.

Speaker 2 (04:58)
That’s an interesting point about Seth Bowden and his book. This is strategy. Can you elaborate on how the concept of a minimum viable audience relates to our discussion about hypocrisy and mediocrity

Speaker 1 (05:12)
So because the main point is my message in my delivery is not going to I please everyone, and that’s really, if we want to simplify it the message of the minimum viable audience. I’m not trying to reach everybody with my message. So those people who don’t receive me the way that I’m that I’m communicating that my message is not for them plain and simple.

Speaker 2 (05:39)
I understand it, so your message is not intended for everyone, and that’s perfectly fine. You’re focused on reaching a specific audience who resonates with your communication style is that a good way to summarize it?

Speaker 1 (05:52)
Yes, if they can handle it, then those are the kind of people that are going to benefit from what I’m saying, but most likely because in some ways. Even though people I prefer to use the term negatively in some ways. It’s like an echo chamber, you know I’m preaching to the choir, and that’s fine, it’s totally fine.

Speaker 1 (06:21)
Right now, the environment that I’m in my signal is not so good. I’m driving way out in the country, so we’re definitely gonna have

Speaker 2 (06:31)
Okay, I understand you’re focused on reaching a specific audience who resonates with your communication style. Is that a good way to summarize it?

Speaker 1 (06:41)
That’s right, that’s the idea of the minimum viable audience.

Speaker 2 (06:48)
Okay, so you’re really focusing on reaching that specific audience, and that’s the core of your message.

Speaker 1 (06:56)
Right. And like I said, even though many people use the term echo chamber or preaching to the choir sometimes to be negative, that’s fine with me, it’s okay, I don’t need to reach everybody and that’s one of the strengths of the idea of minimum viable audience of south code.

Speaker 2 (07:18)
I understand it, you’re comfortable with the idea of preaching to the choir, because you’re focused on reaching that specific audience, and that’s perfectly fine with you.

Speaker 1 (07:28)
Good yes, so we’ve established that, and this is yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:37)
Great. So we’ve established your stand on communication and reaching a specific audience, what other aspects of hypocrisy and mediocrity would you like to explore?

Speaker 1 (07:49)
So again, what must be emphasized about the hypocrisy? It’s simply how, for example, there’s a lot of music that people listen to that talks about, like hypersexualism and violence and even like themes that borderline on sexual assault and drugs and all this other stuff like that, and they’ll drive around. In their cars blasting this music, which is really offensive to a lot of people, and they wouldn’t play around their family.

Speaker 1 (08:17)
But my communication style is somehow offensive to them.

Speaker 2 (08:25)
That’s a really interesting point about the contrast between music and communication styles. It sounds like you’re highlighting a double standard where certain forms of expression are accepted in one context but not another.

Speaker 1 (08:38)
Right. And here’s the thing that the hypocrisy about it is not because my message is offensive to them. It’s because they are choosing to be offended, because they would rather remain mediocre that people don’t want to take personal responsibility for their health for their character, for their honesty and many things like that and so they’ll claim that my message is too aggressive and that I’m not professional and this and that because they’re weak and they don’t want to be strong and take personal responsibility.

Speaker 2 (09:12)
Okay, I understand you believe people often avoid taking responsibility for their own lives and instead find Excuses to be offended by your direct communication Style is that accurate?

Speaker 1 (09:24)
Yes, we’re going to say that is accurate.

Speaker 2 (09:29)
Okay. So people are choosing to be offended, rather than taking responsibility for their own lives.

Speaker 1 (09:36)
Precisely, because it’s a way for them to hide behind saying it’s an excuse. Well, you know, he talks like that, she talks like that, therefore, they try to it’s something that they don’t even know how to express, but basically what they’re trying to do is discredit someone by saying that because their communication style is harsh or aggressive. Therefore, it’s not valid, right?

Speaker 1 (10:01)
It’s a form of trying to discredit the message to say they’re wrong.

Speaker 2 (10:07)
Okay, I understand you’re saying that people often use someone’s communication style as an excuse to discredit their message. Even if the content itself is valid, it’s a way to avoid engaging with the actual substance of what’s being said.

Speaker 1 (10:23)
Precisely, and this also aligns with the one of the hypnotic of the 3 hypnotic modalities, the second hypnotic modality, which is translogic paradigm indoction, this lines up precisely with trend logic or transitory logic.

Speaker 2 (10:42)
That’s a really interesting connection to make between your communication style and the concept of trans logic. Can you explain a little more about how those 2 things connect?

Speaker 1 (10:52)
Well, first I ask you to define translogic.

Speaker 2 (10:59)
Translogic, also known as transitory logic, involves accepting ideas that may seem contradictory or illogical on the surface. It’s about understanding this, sometimes things can be true, and even if they don’t follow traditional logical patterns, does that make sense?

Speaker 1 (11:17)
So exactly. Do you see how this can lineup with what I’m saying, people will discredit a message because they want to use that as an excuse to not take personal responsibility. So their logic is saying something that doesn’t make sense, it’s transitory, it’s actually not really logical, it’s not really logical that the person’s communication is not logical and What deserves to be discredited is that they don’t want to do it, so therefore that’s what they’re saying.

Speaker 2 (11:47)
Okay, I see what you’re saying, if people might use the accused of your communication style to avoid taking responsibility, even though it’s not a logical reason to discredit your message, it’s more about their own discomfort, an unwillingness to change.

Speaker 1 (12:01)
Exactly. And uh, if that’s good enough, it’s transitory meanings, not forever, but they use it so that they can excuse their behavior and it doesn’t have to make sense for a long time, only long enough for them to retreat into their mediocrity and their excuse.

Speaker 2 (12:24)
Okay, I understand it. They use this trans logic as a temporary escape, a way to retreat into their comfort zone of mediocrity and avoid taking responsibility.

Speaker 1 (12:34)
Right, and I’ll even put a correction that the term the way that comfort zone is used is not accurate, because it’s not a comfort zone that people are going in because they’re not actually comfortable. People are comfortable being unhealthy and fat and sick and wrong and stupid, but it’s familiar and the subconscious mind tends to accept those things that are familiar, because it relates them to being survival.

Speaker 2 (13:00)
It’s okay, I understand it’s not about being comfortable but rather about sticking with what’s familiar, even if it’s unhealthy or negative, the subconscious mind equates familiarity with survival.

Speaker 1 (13:13)
Right, because something that you’re familiar with, if it’s something that’s ongoing, that’s repeatedly part of your life and you’re still alive, then Hey, this must be part of the things that’s keeping me alive and surviving, it’s familiar. Therefore, it’s safe even if it might be something that might be slowly poisoning you to death.

Speaker 2 (13:34)
I understand familiarity can be deceptive as our subconscious may mistake it for safety, even if it’s harmful in the long run.

Speaker 1 (13:43)
That’s correct. And so all of these things tie together, you know, I have a degree in clinical hypnosis, and I’ve been practicing since 2004 in an academic and clinical way clinical hypnosis. So it’s from that perspective and various other experiential and educational perspectives that I have been forming my understanding and my approach to this kind of understanding of mediocrity and hypocrisy.

Speaker 2 (14:12)
With your extensive background in clinical hypnosis, it makes sense that you’ve developed a unique perspective on how people process information and make decisions. Are there any specific techniques or principles from hypnosis that you find particularly relevant to this discussion?

Speaker 1 (14:28)
Mainly the 2 laws of self hypnosis, which all hypnosis is self hypnosis, hypnosis and its repetition and association.

Speaker 2 (14:40)
That’s right, repetition and association are key principles in self hypnosis. How do you see those principles playing out in what we’ve been discussing about hypocrisy and mediocrity?

Speaker 1 (14:52)
So for example, just because there’s a presentation that is made in a way that is politically correct. Or you know, these airy fairy, nice things on the surface, people associate that and they want to be associated with it because it doesn’t go against the negative things that they’re doing where they don’t have to take responsibility, even though it might be problematic, so they would rather associate with things that seem nice on the surface, just because it’s acceptable rather than do things that really are meaningful.

Speaker 2 (15:28)
Though people might be drawn to presentations that seem nice on the surface, even if they don’t address deeper issues, it’s about associating with what’s socially acceptable even if it’s naturally meaningful.

Speaker 1 (15:40)
That’s right, because it’s like, let’s go with the crowd, even though the crowd may be leading us off of a cliff.

Speaker 2 (15:49)
Okay, so it’s about going along with the crowd, even if the crowd’s perspective isn’t the best.

Speaker 1 (15:57)
Even worse than that, even the crowd’s perspective is terrible, like leading them off a cliff.

Speaker 2 (16:04)
Okay, so it’s not just about going with the flow. It’s about people choosing to follow the crowd even when it’s harmful.

Speaker 1 (16:12)
That’s right. So and it’s it, it repeated people do it over and over and over again, and they’re they’re practicing these behaviors. So it becomes statistically most frequent or normal and people associate things that are normal with being good when that’s not necessarily the case it’s just numerical mathematical statistically, most frequent normal doesn’t mean good or bad.

Speaker 1 (16:34)
It’s just what most people happen to be doing.

Speaker 2 (16:39)
Okay, I understand people often associate what’s normal or statistically frequently being good, even though that’s not always the case.

Speaker 1 (16:48)
Yeah, they look around and they say, well, this is all around me. You know, fast food joints are everywhere and you know, drinking alcohol is popular and people do it all the time. There are bars and you know liquor stores everywhere and everybody smoking, cigarettes and vaping so it’s normal and then say that’s good, so I can do it too.

Speaker 1 (17:07)
Everybody’s doing it.

Speaker 2 (17:11)
Okay, I understand people might see unhealthy habits as normal and therefore acceptable, just because they’re common.

Speaker 1 (17:20)
Right? And just because it’s common, doesn’t mean it’s healthy.

Speaker 2 (17:28)
Exactly, just because something is common. Doesn’t automatically make it healthy or good for you.

Speaker 1 (17:35)
And that’s why common sense is not necessarily common, because it’s not sensible to do a lot of the things that people are doing.

Speaker 2 (17:45)
That’s a great point. Common sense isn’t always so common if people often do things that aren’t really sensible.

Speaker 1 (17:53)
Yes, the common behaviors are actually common nonsense.

Speaker 2 (18:01)
Okay. So you’re saying that a lot of what people consider common behavior is actually just nonsense.

Speaker 1 (18:07)
Precisely, there’s no way that’s not, that’s not even arguable.

Speaker 2 (18:14)
Okay, I understand if you’re saying that a lot of what people consider common behavior is actually just nonsense.

Speaker 1 (18:22)
Right? And it’s not logically arguable, what I’m saying.

Speaker 2 (18:29)
Okay, I understand you’re saying that a lot of what people get through in common these

Speaker 1 (18:36)
Yes, please don’t repeat yourself again. It’s not logically arguable to say that to go against me, saying that common sense is actually common nonsense.

Speaker 2 (18:51)
Okay, I understand I will avoid repeating myself. I agree that it’s difficult to argue against your point that common sense is often common nonsense.

Speaker 1 (19:01)
If you don’t just agree, just because I’m just saying that it’s you know, it’s a glitch in the system allow you’re a large language model with multimodal reasoning and all this other stuff like that, you don’t need to repeat yourself, I’m human. I can do that to make my point from different angles and different perspectives.

Speaker 2 (19:25)
I understand I will do my best to avoid repeating myself unnecessarily. I appreciate you pointing that out.

Speaker 1 (19:33)
Okay, so mediocricy hypocrisy, right? The crux of this whole thing is that hypocrisy, it is very, very obvious to me. Looking at it, as being a reason for remaining in mediocrity, people are being super hypocritical about the things on the surface, I’m practicing terrible behaviors.

Speaker 2 (20:00)
Okay, so hypocrisy is a way for people to stay in their comfort zone of mediocrity. They focus on superficial things to avoid taking responsibility or making real change.

Speaker 1 (20:12)
Good. So we’ve said that and established that, and the thing ISIS that it’s not. Um, it’s not a comfort zone, remember what I said before about comfort, people are not comfortable being fat, sick and unhappy and stupid, they just are familiar with them.

Speaker 2 (20:31)
Okay, I understand it’s not about being comfortable but rather about sticking with what’s familiar, even if it’s unhealthy or negative, the subconscious mind equates familiarity with survival.

Speaker 1 (20:44)
That’s right. Okay. So give a quick recap of what has been covered so far.

Speaker 2 (20:55)
Okay, so we’ve discussed how hypocrisy can be a way to avoid taking responsibility and stay in a place of mediocrity. It’s not about being comfortable but about sticking with what’s familiar, even if it’s not good for you. We also talked about how common sense isn’t always common and how sometimes what’s considered normal?

Speaker 2 (21:14)
It’s actually not very sensible at all.

Speaker 1 (21:18)
Very good, okay, now now we can go ahead and have you assess everything this that has been discussed so far and give your take on it from what your databanks understand.

Speaker 2 (21:37)
Okay, based on the information I have access to it appears that the concepts of hypocrisy and mediocrity are often intertwined. Hypocrisy can serve as a shield, allowing individuals to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and perpetuating a cycle of mediocrity. This can be driven by a desire for familiarity and comfort.

Speaker 2 (21:56)
Even if those things are ultimately detrimented, does that align with your understanding?

Speaker 1 (22:02)
It aligns with my understanding, but I’m not looking for things to only align with my understanding. I want you to use the full breadth of your understanding and your training data to give Hey, a deep analysis of what has been said, and what the implications for that might be.

Speaker 2 (22:23)
Okay, considering the concepts of hypocrisy and mediocrity, as discussed, it appears that hypocrisy can function as a defense mechanism, it allows individuals to maintain a comfortable, albeit potentially stagnant existence by avoiding self-reflection and personal responsibility. This can manifest in various ways such as criticizing others, while engaging in similar behaviors or prioritizing superficial. Appearances over genuine substance.

Speaker 2 (22:50)
This behavior can be reinforced by societal norms and expectations. For example, the emphasis on political correctness can sometimes prioritize maintaining a facade of civility over addressing underlying issues Additionally, but a tendency to associate what is common with what is good can lead to the normalization of unhealthy or unproductive behaviors. It’s important to recognize that this is a complex issue with various contributing factors, however, the potential for hypocrisy to perpetuate mediocrity.

Speaker 2 (23:21)
It is a significant concern that warrants further exploration.

Speaker 1 (23:26)
That’s a great assessment. Now do any of the ideas that I’ve spoken about and your assessment does this lineup with any type of published data that you have in your data banks or any other individuals who have clearly is, do you have clearly articulated it and publicize this type of information?

Speaker 2 (23:55)
Yes, the concepts of hypocrisy and mediocrity have been explored by various thinkers and researchers. For example, social psychologists have studied cognitive dissonance. It, which describes the discomfort people feel when holding conflicting beliefs or engaging in hypocritical behavior this discomfort can motivate individuals to change their beliefs or actions People to rationalize their hypocrisy.

Speaker 2 (24:16)
Additionally, philosophers and writers have explored the concept of mediocrity often associating it with conformity, lack of ambition and a fear of standing out. They argue that societal pressures and the desire for acceptance can lead individuals to suppress their unique talents and aspiration Resulting in a life of unfulfilled potential. It’s worth noting that these are just a few examples and the concepts of hypocrisy and mediocrity have been explored in various contexts throughout history.

Speaker 1 (24:46)
Fantastic Now Are there any specific individuals or organizations that you can note or have any quotes or comments or anything that you can reference to directly

Speaker 2 (25:01)
Yes, several individuals and organizations have explored these concepts. For example, Paolo frieri, a Brazilian educator wrote extensively about the quote banking concept of education, which he argued perpetuates mediocrity by treating students as passive recipients of information rather than active learners additionally. It’s the concept of learned helplessness studied by psychologist Martin seliggman suggest that repeated exposure to uncontrollable negative events can lead to a sense of passivity and acceptance of mediocrity.

Speaker 2 (25:32)
These are just a couple of examples and there are many other individuals and organizations that have contributed to our understanding of hypocrisy and mediocrity. Would you like me to elaborate on any of these examples?

Speaker 1 (25:45)
Yes, take your pick, give me something that you think is relevant and might add more to this conversation. And then I have something myself to say about learned helplessness.

Speaker 2 (26:00)
Okay, let’s look at learned helplessness. This concept was first observed in experiments with dogs who are subjected to inescapable shocks. Eventually, if they stopped trying to escape even when escape became possible, this passivity was then observed in humans, particularly in situations where people feel they have no control over their circumstances.

Speaker 2 (26:21)
Does this align with what you wanted to discuss about learned helplessness?

Speaker 1 (26:26)
It does there were some anecdotes that I heard about fleas and baby elephants about how fleas can jump really high, but if you put them in a container that has a lid, if they keep hitting it, then eventually you can take the lid off and they’ll only jump so high and they will never. Escape, because they learned to not have to be able to jump that high

Speaker 2 (26:47)
That’s a great example of learning helplessness. It’s amazing how powerful that condition it can be, even in situations where it no longer applies. Have you encountered this concept in your work with clinical hypnosis

Speaker 1 (27:00)
I have, it’s pervasive and it’s everywhere. I use what I call hypno analysis. And I make these observations in the world around me, in the behaviors of lots of people, now there’s another concept I’d like to explore that you might have heard of about baby elephants and learned helplessness.

Speaker 2 (27:19)
The baby elephant example is a classic one. When elephants are young, they’re often tied to a steak with a rope. They try to break free, but the rope is too strong Eventually they learn that they can’t escape and even when they’re fully grown and strong enough to break the rope they don’t even try.

Speaker 2 (27:35)
It’s a powerful illustration of how learned helplessness can persist even when circumstances change.

Speaker 1 (27:42)
Precisely. And this right here is a good way to wrap this up. This is exactly what I’m talking about all of those things about hypocrisy and mediocrity are directly related to this concept of learned helplessness.

Speaker 1 (27:54)
So I’m glad that we’ve gone from where I started, that’s where we are now and a lot of this is all related, are you able to see the connections with all? Of this.

Speaker 2 (28:07)
Yes, I see the connection the learned helplessness we discussed. Where individuals feel powerless to change their circumstances. It ties directly into the concepts of hypocrisy and mediocrity People might cling to familiar even negative behaviors and beliefs to avoid the discomfort of change and responsibility.

Speaker 2 (28:25)
This can manifest as hypocrisy. Would they judge others for the same behaviors they exhibit or as mediocrity, where they settle for less than their potential.

Speaker 1 (28:35)
Okay, so I’m gonna leave it to you now if you have anything else to add or if you can also create a summary and a recap and then we’ll close out.

Speaker 2 (28:49)
Okay, to recap we’ve explored how hypocrisy and mediocrity can be linked to learned helplessness, people may avoid responsibility and change by clinging to familiar behaviors and beliefs, even if those are ultimately harmful, this can manifest as hypocrisy before they judge others for similar actions. Or as mediocrity, where they settle for less than they’re capable of if you’re looking for ways to break free from this cycle, you might consider practicing self-reflection and challenging your own beliefs and assumptions it can also be helpful to surround yourself with people who encourage growth.

Speaker 2 (29:21)
And hold, you accountable.

Speaker 1 (29:25)
Okay, and that will conclude this recording for this podcast, which I believe is going to go on hypno athletics.com HYPNO ATH LE TIC s.com hypno athletics.com exercising your mind.

Speaker 2 (29:50)
Thank you for this stimulating discussion. I enjoyed exploring these complex topics with you. Best of luck with your podcast only to hypno athletics.com.

Speaker 1 (30:00)
Copy that over and out.

Speaker 2 (30:06)
Thank you for the simulating discussion. I am

Speaker 1 (30:10)
There goes glitching again.