543: Avoiding Misinformation in the Era of Fake News

One of the biggest risks people face when trying to understand the economy, investing, or personal finance isn’t a lack of information. It’s the illusion of being informed—while quietly limiting the sources that shape your thinking.

We live in a world where information is everywhere. Podcasts, X threads, YouTube clips, newsletters, reels. But abundance doesn’t equal diversity. In fact, the algorithms behind social media are designed to do the opposite: they show you more of what you already agree with.

Over time, your worldview narrows—not because you chose it to, but because it was curated for you.

I noticed this years ago when I started listening to alternative asset podcasts. 

At first, it felt refreshing—new ideas, new language, new opportunities outside the mainstream. But after a while, something became obvious. Many of these shows were operating inside an echo chamber. Different hosts. Same conclusions. Same narratives. Same villains. Same heroes.

It was as if they were all listening to one another and simply regurgitating the same ideas, reinforcing them in a closed loop until they felt like truth.

And to be fair—knowing many of these hosts personally—that’s often the business model. Audience reinforcement is rewarded. Dissent is not. 

Ever since then, I’ve made a conscious effort to study people I don’t naturally agree with. Not because I want to adopt their views—but because I want to stress-test my own.

This matters more now than ever because social media accelerates groupthink at scale. When an idea gains traction online, disagreement quickly becomes social friction.

It’s easier to conform, retweet, and nod along than to pause and ask, “What if this is wrong?”

I once had a conversation with Robert Kiyosaki where he told me he actually gets worried when everyone in the room agrees about the economy. When viewpoints converge too neatly, it’s usually a sign that critical thinking has been replaced by consensus comfort—and that’s exactly where blindsides are born.

If your goal is to get closer to the truth, you must seek out opinions that challenge your own. That includes people you disagree with—especially people you disagree with. Truth doesn’t emerge from unanimity. It emerges from tension.

And that applies to me as well. Daon’t let me—or anyone else—be your sole source of information. No matter how much you trust someone, outsourcing your thinking is always a risk.

I can tell you from personal experience that in economics and personal finance, narrow perspectives lead to surprises you only recognize in hindsight. Those are the moments people regret most—not because they lacked intelligence, but because they lacked perspective.

Financial education is critical. But a real curriculum doesn’t just confirm what you already believe. It exposes you to competing frameworks, conflicting data, and uncomfortable questions—and forces you to think for yourself. That’s how you build conviction that actually holds up when the world changes.

This week’s episode of Wealth Formula Podcast examines this groupthink problem on a broader scale throughout society with an author who wrote a bestseller on our inherent appetite for misinformation. 

It’s a fascinating conversation that will surely get you thinking about the way you view the world.

Transcript

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated by AI and may not be 100% accurate. If you notice any errors or corrections, please email us at [email protected].

 You can imagine people who are conflict avoidant, probably not so likely to post online, as opposed to people who are conflict approaching who love a fight, right? If that’s, if those are the folks who are more likely to post, that’s gonna shape our information space in really, really important ways.

Welcome everybody. This is Buck Joffrey with the Wealth Formula Podcast. Coming to you from Montecito, California today. Uh, wanna remind you before we begin, there is a website associated with this podcast called wealthformula.com. That’s where you go if you wanna get more involved with, uh, the show, with the community, uh, specifically, um, if you are interested.

There is a sign up there for something called investor club, which if you aren’t a credit investor, you sign up basically, uh, you, uh, get onboarded and then you can see potential deal flow that’s not available to the public. And, uh, lots of things going on in there. Real estate, we’ve had stuff in the aircraft spaced, um, interesting stuff.

You should check it out for sure. If you are, uh, enter credit investor. And again, that is wealthformula.com. Just click on investor Club. Now today, let’s talk a little bit of, you know, just let’s talk a little bit about one of the biggest risks that people face when trying to understand the economy of investing personal finance.

It’s not lack of information, right? These days, there’s an enormous amount of information. It’s just the illusion of being informed while quietly limiting the sources that shape your thinking in the first place. So we live in this world. I live in this world too, where information is everywhere. You got podcasts, you got X, you got YouTube newsletters, reels, random emails.

Abundance of information doesn’t really equal diversity. In fact, the algorithms behind social media are designed to do the opposite. They just show you more of what you already agree with, and that is a little bit of a problem because over time your worldview really starts to narrow. And not because you chose to narrow it necessarily, but because it was curated for you.

You know, I noticed this myself, uh, several years ago when I started listening to podcasts like my own. Even before I started my podcast. And what happens is that you get, initially you get kind of interested ’cause the stuff resonates with you. You get some ideas, you get new language, new opportunities outside the mainstream.

But after a while you start to realize, or I start to realize that, you know, these shows were sort of operating inside of an echo chamber. They’re saying the same thing, different house, same conclusions, same narratives, villain. Same heroes, you know, it was as, again, it was as if they were all listening to one another and, and simply regurgitating the same ideas and reinforcing them, uh, in a, in a closed loop.

Um, and when you do that, it starts to feel like truth. And to be fair, knowing many of these hosts personally, that is kind of the business model. You know, audience reinforcement is rewarded, descent is not so ever since then. You know, I’ve actually made a conscious effort to study people. I don’t, uh, naturally agree with.

I actually don’t listen to any other personal finance podcasts, uh, that are sort of in this alternative space because I already know kind of what our narratives are. I wanna know what others think. I wanna, uh, I, it’s not necessarily that I’m looking to adopt their views, but because I wanna kind of, you know, challenge my own and this matters more now than ever.

Again, because of social media. How that accelerates group think at scale. You know, when an idea gains traction online, um, you know, disagreement quickly becomes social friction. Now I think the thing to do is, you know, always be questioning yourself and asking the question really, what if I’m wrong? What if this narrative is wrong?

And it reminds me actually once, uh, you know, I’ve had a chance to spend a little time with Robert Kiyosaki. Period, uh, different, different times, and I still. Kind of consider him a mentor. And I remember being at a table with him, a bunch of people talking about, you know, where the, where the economy was, what’s going on.

And he looked at me and he says, this is what gets me nervous. I said, what, what gets you nervous? And he says, everyone here, everyone here, even people who normally disagree with one another, are agreeing with each other. Uh, the point is that when some of these, you know, viewpoints converge too neatly. Uh, it’s usually a sign, uh, that, you know, that critical thinking has kind of been replaced, and that’s exactly where you start to get blindside and where, you know, there’s a danger there that there’s something that no one’s, no one else has really even mentioning anymore.

So if your goal is to get closer to the truth, you actually have to seek out opinions that challenge your own, and that includes. People you disagree with, especially people you disagree with. Because you know, truth doesn’t really emerge from unanimous thought. It emerges from sort of that tension and challenging, and that applies to me as well.

You know, if I’m the only personal finance podcast you listen to, you probably shouldn’t be because I have, you know, made my own conclusions based on what I’m thinking and what I’m listening to. I try to get people. Um, you know, from different spaces talking about stuff, but the reality is that, you know, everyone’s biased.

I’m biased too. So, um, you know, I can tell you from personal experience, uh, that in economics and in personal finance, the problem is that when you have these narrow perspectives, um, they often lead to. To prizes. Uh, you can’t, you know, they only recognize in hindsight, and those, uh, those are the moments that most people, I think, regret more than anything.

Not because they lacked intelligence necessarily, but they lacked perspective, right? Listen, financial education is critical and we, we know that that’s the point of doing the show in the first place, but, you know, any real curriculum is, isn’t there, just to confirm what you already believe. I, I, if you, it should expose some competing frameworks.

And, you know, different questions or different takes on things and, and that’s how you know, if you listen to those and you listen to those arguments, that’s how you can really build conviction that you can stand behind. And even if you’re wrong, you say, yeah, you know, I heard the other argument too. I didn’t buy it, but I guess I was wrong.

Believe me, I’ve been wrong, uh, more than once myself. So the reason I bring that all up is because this week’s, uh, episode of Wealth Formula podcast really examines. Greater than just the idea of, you know, personal finance and macro economics and that type of thinking, but a greater problem, which is group think in general on a broader scale throughout society.

And my, uh, my guest is a, a woman who wrote a best seller on this topic. It’s fascinating stuff. I think it’ll get you think. Make sure to listen in and we’ll have that interview right after these messages.

Wealth Formula banking is an ingenious concept powered by whole life insurance, but instead of acting just as a safety net, the strategy supercharges your investments.

First, you create a personal financial reservoir that grows at a compounding interest rate much higher than any bank savings account. As your money accumulates, you borrow from your own. Bank to invest in other cash flowing investments. Here’s the key. Even though you’ve borrowed money at a simple interest rate, your insurance company keeps paying you compound interest on that money even though you’ve borrowed it.

At result, you make money in two places at the same time. That’s why your investments get supercharged. This isn’t a new technique. It’s a refined strategy used by some of the wealthiest families in history, and it uses century old rock solid insurance companies as its backbone. Turbocharge your investments.

Visit Wealth formula banking.com. Again, that’s wealthformulabanking.com.

Welcome back to the show everyone. Uh, today my guest on Wealth Formula podcast is Professor Dana Young, who’s a professor of communication and political science at the University of Delaware, where her research explores how media psychology and identity shape belief systems she’s the author of Wrong, how media politics and Identity drive our appetite for misinformation and examines why people clinging to false narratives, and how understanding identity can improve persuasion.

Our work helps decode the emotional and cognitive forces behind how we process risk, truth, and decision making. Welcome, professor Young.

Great. Thanks so much for having me. Thanks for that intro. Someone has done their homework. I like that.

Well, I try to, uh, well, let’s start with this. You know, one of the central arguments, uh, that you have is that people often believe things, not because they’re true, but because those beliefs serve as an identity function.

Interesting concept, which I can kind of see in, uh, when you watch TV these days, can you, can you talk a little bit about that?

Sure. And, and realize this is not happening at a conscious level. This isn’t something that we are thinking about. We’re not thinking, I wanna believe things that are untrue, but make me feel like I’m a part of my team.

It doesn’t work that way. It is the, the truth, value of the things that we perceive is contingent on how those beliefs serve our team.

Mm-hmm.

So if there are things that our team believes. Those are the things that sort of historically, based on evolutionary psychology, those are the belief systems that would’ve made us probably really good members of our, of our tribe.

Mm-hmm. That would’ve, um, if we had embraced those beliefs that would have. Give an indication to the shared members of our team that we are a good team member and therefore they should protect us. They should protect me, I will protect them. There’s a reciprocity there. So that belief sharing with our teammates is something that historically has served us well.

And when it comes to survival, we really prioritize our social motivations above all else, because that is such a huge predictor of what allows us to survive and thrive. Is being a part of a community. And so, yeah. So the empirical validity of those claims is a little bit beside the point.

The obvious, uh, the, the things that I think about there, I guess the, the sort of analogy there is like, you know, being a a, like I’m a big football fan, right?

So I’ve been a big fan of the Minnesota Vikings for my entire life, although I’ve not lived there in from, you know, three quarters of my life. I grew up as a kid and that was my team. People come in, right? People go out. They’re people who, you know, were never there at the beginning, but I still root for them.

Yeah. Yeah.

And I still believe in them. And so, yeah, it, it reminds me of the sort of a, uh, you know, this tribal thing you’re talking about. The other place you see it, uh, is, is in politics. Uh, you know, when I, when I think about like, the way the parties have changed without getting political at all here.

The, the, there’s some very, very significant changes that have happened in the ideologies, uh, or maybe not in the ideologies, but in the actuality of these parties and what they believe. They’ve changed so much in the last 30 or 40 years, yet the same people believed, uh, or identify as those party members.

Is that kind of what you’re getting at?

Yes, and, and because I’m a political scientist and political communication scholar, a lot of my interest in this area was born out of my concerns about our political, the political moment that we’re in, and how we really lack. A shared reality that’s necessary for democratic governance.

Um, we, and we are seeing that literally there are dozens of examples every single day of different perceptions of reality across the left and the right. And so, so that was sort of why I tried to understand this, um, in the first place. But the. What you can glean from these theoretical dynamics, um, extend far beyond politics, right?

To, as you were saying, and everything from economics to health, to the environment. Um, but because the shift that I think has been most impactful in this area regarding political identity is that in the United States, the. How the parties, what the parties are made up of, who the parties are made up of has changed dramatically over the last half century.

And so rather than being these sort of loose coalitions of interest groups that would kind of come together and perhaps share a platform on specific policies, the way that the parties have shifted, especially sort of after the Civil Rights Movement made it that. Individuals began to identify with political parties based on like fundamental characteristics of who they are.

Things like race, religion, geography, and, and fundamental aspects of culture. And so you have two political parties that actually look very different from one another in their racial and ethnic and religious and geographic sort of composition that is not good for democracy. Because we actually do not want our political parties to map onto such primal aspects of identity.

’cause it creates sectarianism and opens the door for dehumanization and violence, all kinds of bad stuff. But it also really tends to fuel some of these identity-based processes that we’re talking about because when you look around and everyone on your, in your political party. Lives like you do. They look like you do they worship like you do?

They have the same hobbies as you. They drive the same kind of car. You know, those kinds of things. Like there’s a lot of that overlap that really makes your political identity take on a life of its own, and that life is increasingly. Um, unrelated to policy and more about kind of culture and aesthetics.

So all of these caricatures that we think about of the left and the right, the, there’s. Stereotypes for a reason. They exist for a reason and they are so exaggerated through as a result of this political party shift over time. And, um, uh, as I talk about in the book, these differences are also exploited by our media environment.

It’s really good for targeting and target marketing to have these kinds of divisions, uh, not great for democracy. Um, but they, these identities become further exacerbated. The more media we consume that tends to play into these identities.

Yeah. It, it’s interesting to me, I think sometimes when you, when you think about what people believe

mm-hmm.

And then, you know, and then. Identifying those beliefs with like a, a political party or something like that. It’s interesting to think of the actual identification of the party coming first.

Yeah.

And then the beliefs following. Based on the identification. So that’s almost like religion, right?

Exactly.

Exactly. Right. And that’s a lot of the, the metaphors that we’ve been drawing from in political science. A lot of political scientists have been writing about this, really drawing upon the sociology of religiosity and how it operates because it, it, you’ll notice there’s another similarity too, that people will.

Have this large identity as like a Catholic, right? Like I was raised Catholic. It’s, it’s part of who I am. Now. Do I believe everything that they say at church? No, but my identity as a Catholic is still very big. I, I, I will let it drive certain things, but I’m gonna write off other things as like. Not as important as my overarching identity.

In the same way that we will find people who have a Democrat or Republican identity, and they live like a Democrat. They live like a Republican. However, when it comes to their actual policy positions. They don’t necessarily agree with their party platform. And that actually is where I get a little more optimistic because even though these caricatures seem so distinct when you drill down to actual policy positions, Americans have a lot in common.

Those divides are not as giant as we think they are.

I’m curious in terms of understanding the United States versus other countries, um, we, we seem to have a certain polarity which. It’s relatively new. I would say that, you know, even compared to, um, being a kid in, in the eighties, um, feeling like, you know, there was these two parties, but they seemed to get along pretty well.

Mm-hmm.

And for the most part, they were both kind of near the center. Yeah. And, um, but there’s this, there’s a much bigger division now. Um. What, I guess what drives the, the changes and when you look at different countries, like if you can compare and contrast like Sure. Are there certain specific variables Yes.

That about our culture that that makes us who we are.

Yes. Yeah. So that first question, um, I, I think that what’s really important is that when you think about how our political parties used to operate, um, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the two parties. We’re kind of in agreement when it came to racial issues in a way that was not good for African Americans in this country.

Once the great migration happened and you had blacks from, from former slave states moving north and west, there was real pressure on leaders in those cities to advance or civil rights. Platforms, civil rights legislation, and to advance the rights of African Americans. That really put pressure on the parties in such a way that then it was the Democratic Party who became the party of championing civil rights.

Then there was a response from the Republican party that was framed in terms, right, in terms of. State’s rights. That really drove the sorting of different kinds of people into the parties. It’s also fascinating to look at how religiosity and religion. Play a role here because during this very moment under the Nixon administration, there were efforts to revoke the tax exempt status of certain Christian schools that were sort of defacto segregated schools that were in violation of the policy at the time, which was to integrate those, the school system well.

Those Christian parents were very unhappy with this, you know, revoking their tax exempt status. And there was a man named Paul Wyrick who came in and said, you know what, this is a moment to really bring together these two issues regarding race and religion. And he mobilized and created a grassroots movement out of this effort to sort of like protect our schools.

And that actually became the conservative group, the Heritage Foundation. So that, that bringing together sort of the, the project of evangelical Christianity with this sort of move in opposition to integration that has a long history in our country. To your second piece though, about why the United States is, is.

Special. Um, one, we have our, our history of slavery is not fundamentally unique, right? There are many countries that also practice slavery. I think the role that slavery already p played in the founding of our nation was important to keep in mind in terms of how the, the issue of race played into these shifts across political parties.

And two, probably the biggest thing of all is that we have a. Two party system in countries that are dealing with some of these same pressures related to race and ethnicity, immigration, right? Where you see some of this polarization happening on ideology and a lot of those places they have multi-party systems.

Which play a real amazing role at buffering some of these dynamics. So it’s not black or white, yes or no left, left or right. Uh, so we are uniquely positioned to have a hell of a time with polarization.

When I, um, uh, I, you already sort of referenced, um, media. Mm-hmm. Um, you know, like when you think about polarization or you think about like.

Re um, sort of constantly, um, emphasizing the things that you already suggest that you believe, uh, social media in particular is, I mean, is just pounding away at that, right? Yeah. I mean, sure. I just think about like my own feed, the things that I Yeah. You know, respond to or the things that I, you know, show affirmative, uh, reactions to the next thing.

You know, like on x, you know, on Twitter, which I’ve been in. You know, doing more of, that’s all I get. Right? Sure. And it’s interesting because the next thing you know, you feel like. Everybody agrees with you.

Sure, sure. And you’re like, oh, this is, this is amazing. I’m so Right. Right. No one has, right. No one believes the opposite of me.

Right. Yeah. And it feels amazing. What role is that playing?

Uh, I guess in,

in your

view?

Social media dynamics are, are really fascinating because let’s, let’s realize, talk for a second about why it is that a lot of the content that we’re exposed to on social media is so divisive and identity evoking. Um.

The reason that that happens is because the algorithms really just want us to be more and more engaged, obviously, because the only way that they’re able to, to micro target us with ads, et cetera, is by making use of the data points, the breadcrumbs that we have left behind. The only time that we leave those data points that we leave those breadcrumbs is when we do things.

So if we’re just lurkers, we are not serving them at all. If we’re just hanging out looking at stuff, if we are actively liking or doing an angry thing, or writing or sharing, that’s what they need. So the algorithm is going to prioritize the content that is sort of outrage inducing, especially because negative emotions are exceptionally sticky.

And there’s been some amazing work by um, uh, Jay Van Beil and his team who studied the sort of virality of different kinds of content online. And they found that the kind of content that is especially suited to virality is content that is both moral. Emotional that makes claims about what ought to be and what ought not to be, but is also like really emotionally and effectively evocative.

And the kinds of content that tends to check those boxes is the content that is identity activated. Us versus them. They are doing this awful thing to us. Our way of life is under threat. Um, they are the bad guys. We are the good guys. So that’s how that happens, right? So that’s the kind of content that tends to be privileged across these platforms.

That’s a piece of the puzzle. Another piece of the puzzle is that the kinds of people who tend to produce the most content online. Are weird, uh, as someone who posts online, uh, I, I just offended myself, but that’s fine. Um, the people who post a lot online tend to be more ideologically extreme. They also tend to have certain kinds of personality traits that maybe aren’t great is some of my work is looking at the, the trait of conflict orientation.

You can imagine people who are conflict avoidant. Probably not so likely to post online as opposed to people who are conflict approaching who love a fight, right? If that’s, if those are the folks who are more likely to post, that’s gonna shape our information space in really, really important ways.

Well then you get responses that are much more aggressive too, right?

Like

sure.

In either direction. Sure. Something that’s kind of lukewarm. No one really cares to respond to it.

Right.

That’s

exactly right.

And then, and then those, those particular posts are rewarded by the media companies themselves because they’re getting all sorts of attention rising the top and those influencers who getting paid for that.

So yeah,

I mean, that’s the thing that really, that’s where I, I, I get to the point sometimes with this work where I, I’ve, I do feel a bit demoralized because I don’t necessarily see. Where there are really empowered agents to who can work within the system, we have to try to dismantle the incentive structure.

So you know, if there are entrepreneurs out there who can think about ways to incentivize different kinds of content, I applaud that kind of development there. There are some, of course, who, who do the sort of, um. Positivity posts, you know, posts for good and viral videos about people help helping other people, and there is some indication that those also, they’re people love those.

Those do go viral, but they don’t have the immediacy of the outrage,

I guess, that when you think about, you know. The implications of this is really just, you know, I guess polarization, maybe some misinformation. Even misinformation is difficult because Sure. You don’t even actually know what is real information anymore.

You don’t have like, sure. You know, when I was a, again, going back to being a kid in the eighties, it’s like you had one set of. Set of facts, you know? That’s right. But now that’s, there’s lots of different sets of facts, and in reality it’s hard to know what’s real. You just, you know, you just, you, you believe something and the next thing you know, something comes out and it, boy, that wasn’t real at all.

Um,

yeah. And, and let’s just, I’ll pause you for a second because, you know, as someone who studies misinformation, I, I have been through quite a journey with how I’ve thought about digital technologies, right? Yeah. Whereas. When I first started in this field 20, 25 years ago, I really lamented the fact that there were these voices on high at the news organizations who got to gatekeeper.

They were the ones who decided what was true and what was not. And because of the way that they produced the news, that tended to reinforce certain kinds of official narratives. You know, there were times when conspiracies were exposed later on, when we learned that Wow. They did not tell us the truth, right?

So early on I thought, oh wow, digital technologies are gonna be revolutionary, citizen journalists and iPhones. Mm-hmm. And in 2011, we saw the Arab Spring and we watched all these, these, you know, dictatorships. Topple. And then we saw the real tide shift with misinformation, with and disinformation deliberate efforts to exploit those.

The lack of gatekeepers to exploit the, the lack of professional, quote unquote truth tellers, and really just make hay of our information space. And now sometimes it’s amazing, right? Because sometimes. The official account is not true, and other times the official account not only is true, but belief in the official account is necessary for us to sort of make progress as a society, right?

So. The trouble is we don’t know which time is which.

Well, well that, that’s, that’s what I was gonna say. I mean, I, I used to actually kind of in my own rein, have this narrative that, you know, certain sources were true and certain not, but even,

yeah.

You know, even after, you know, things that happened during COVID, for example.

Yeah. Um, um, you know, the Wuhan Laboratories and, and things like that, that, you know, everybody looked at as a. A conspiracy theory and all this stuff,

right? A tinfoil hat theory,

a tinfoil hat, and you brought it up and you were crazy and everybody, you know, and, and the next thing you know, that’s the truth.

That’s what happened. Yeah. So it, I think you’d even take people, um, it, it makes people who, uh, believe in the system, not believe in the system anymore. And, and I think that’s kind of where a lot of people are headed.

That’s where the huge danger is. Yeah. And, and I think one area of research that is so.

That is empowering and is hopeful. I have a, a doctoral student who is doing her dissertation on this. It’s a, it’s a concept called intellectual humility, which is just the extent to which we acknowledge that our beliefs and our perceptions of the world could be wrong. And what happens is when you operate in an intellectually humble way when you have beliefs, but you also are open to the fact that new information could come in at any moment, that could tell you that the things that you thought were true are not true.

When you live that way, you tend to. Be closer to empirical truth than the people who are intellectually arrogant because the people who are intellectually arrogant, they’re so sure they’re right and they’re never looking to update their views.

Yeah. You know, curiously on that too, like what, what does a research show about like highly educated or quote unquote intelligent people?

Are they just as vulnerable? Are they more vulnerable? Because of this. And you know, in some ways I would think they’re almost more vulnerable.

Yeah. And, and I think that it depends. So when we look at individual level factors and how they interact with susceptibility to MIS and disinformation, all of these different, so there’ll be psychological traits that interact with education level, that interact with what kinds of things you then are exposed to.

So it is complicated. It’s complicated. So it tends to be the case that people who are. Perhaps more educated are more likely to seek out information from more like legacy journalistic sources. Yeah, yeah. Right. Yeah. Right. So, and on average, those sources tend to have more things that are empirically true than if you’re just sort of like looking on the internet for whatever you can find.

Um, in fact, there’s also some research that shows that the people who report, um, quote unquote doing their own research. They are statistically more likely to believe misinformation, which actually makes sense because when you think you’re doing your own research, you’re actually doing what we call selecting on the dependent variable, which is you are looking for the information that confirms what you think is true.

That is just what we tend to do. Unless you’re doing a controlled experiment.

Yeah.

You’re not actually looking for information that contradicts your beliefs.

So, you know, we do this, this is, uh, a lot of times, um, you know, we talk about, uh, personal finance and mm-hmm. And macroeconomics and stuff. How does this translate over to like, beliefs about.

Economy, the, you know, ’cause these are, these are important things that, again, there is incredibly different, uh, views on. Sure. You know, um, an example now, uh, an example is that everyone, you know, whether, whatever you believe the pol policy or not, that, that, that, that tariffs were going to drive inflation, a hundred percent inflation was gonna skyrocket.

The last CPI number comes under like under three right? 2.7%. Yeah. Like what, what, tell me how this all applies to that kind of news, that information.

Yeah, so, so I, I’m going to make a, a couple points that I think will, will get to your question. Yeah. Because, you know, a, a lot of what I have landed on is this role of social identity, right?

In shaping belief systems and. One thing that I’m sure you’re familiar with is that when the party in the White House switches overnight from Democrat to Republican, people’s perception of how the economy is doing as a function of political party flips over. So when the White House went from Biden to Trump in January, 2025, overnight, Republicans went from thinking the economy was in the trash to thinking the economy was doing excellent, and Democrats did the opposite.

So is that an actual empirical observation of the world, or is that an expression of their. Perception that their team is in charge. Therefore, things must be better. Or now my team is no longer in charge, so now things must be worse. Right. That’s the big one. We see that. You know, I’m. Every election back to who, however long this has been tracked, we see this.

Um, another thing that I think is interesting is in terms of people’s perceptions of whether or not the economy is good or bad, that is very much shaped by who we’re talking to and what information we’re exposed to. So this, this in invites a whole host of questions about how should elites talk about.

Economic health, right? You had under Biden, Biden trying to tell people, the economy is doing really well, the economy is doing great. Look at all these metrics. The economy is doing great. And so you have Democrats saying, oh yeah, the economy is doing well, and Republicans saying, I am looking at how much things cost.

I am looking at, you know, various things in my bank account. I’m gonna say the economy is not doing well. I also think that Biden is not a great president, so I tend to think that things aren’t going well when the other party’s in charge. And then you look now under Trump. Trump is in a bit of a pickle, right?

Because he is saying the economy is doing well. He’s saying, look at these metrics, look at these numbers, and you have this sort of. Viral perception among people that we are in a stagnant economy. I even heard my 15-year-old, we were at Costco and we got, you know, their pizza slices are like $2. We got pizza slices and she said, well.

You can get a whole dinner for $8 in this economy, Rick. I was like, what? Economy? But, but those perceptions are so, and it, it’s also very, very difficult to figure out where did that perception come from?

Yeah,

yeah.

How do we isolate the source of that perception that this economy is, is not good.

Yeah. Well then certainly like behaviors follow, right.

And yeah. So I guess, yeah. I guess that’s like, I mean, I’m sure that’s a completely different thing. Like, I mean, how do, how do these, you know, different perceptions. Party based perceptions

Sure.

Ultimately influence the economy because of the way people think of the economy.

Exactly. Right. And how, how do mm-hmm.

When it comes to what have tariffs done, right? Mm-hmm. Like I’m not an economist. I do not know what tariffs have done. My understanding from my media exposure is that there are, on some certain kinds of items, prices have gone up a bit, but that some of the other. Like at the grocery store, for example, some of the price increases that we see there are not the result of tariffs.

So then what are they the result of when it comes to how we attribute responsibility and blame, that is also very much shaped by our social identity. So if it helps me to think my grapes are expensive because of Donald Trump, then that’s what I’m going to think.

Give us your sort of final thought here.

Mm-hmm. Just in terms of, you know, what’s, what’s the learning. Here and how can we apply this to our own thinking?

So, so I, I like to leave things on, on a kind of positive note because there is a lot to be concerned about in such a fractured information space. Um. One of the things that has been bringing me some, some hope that I think we could carry with us into how we think about what it is that people yearn for, what it is that people want.

Even in this, this very splintered environment, I am convinced that even though all of our technology is creating atomized spaces for us to become our most exaggerated version of our self. I think what we really crave as human beings are shared experiences, opportunities for us to share experiences together, whether that be media content that we then want to talk about, whether those be events.

There is a reason why football is still such a successful, um. Kind of entertainment. Right? And there’s also a reason why when there are cultural stories that allow us to all talk about them, like the couple at the cold play concert that was outed or whatever, there are reasons why those moments just catch fire.

And I think it is because despite the fact that our technology platforms are trying to give us. Atomized, individualized, discreet spaces. At the end of the day, we really do want to share things with one another.

Good stuff. Uh, professor Young, uh, uh, Dana Young, it, the book again is Wrong. How Media, politics and Identity Drive Our Appetite for Misinformation.

Thank you so much for being on Wealth Formula Podcast.

Great. Thanks so much. It was fun.

We’ll be

right back. You make a lot of money, but are still worried about retirement. Maybe you didn’t start earning until your thirties. Now you’re trying to catch up. Meanwhile, you’ve got a mortgage, a private school to pay for, and you feel like you’re getting further and further behind.

Now, good news, if you need to catch up on retirement, check out a program put out by some of the oldest and most prestigious life insurance companies in the world. It’s called Wealth Accelerator, and it can help you amplify your returns quickly, protect your money from creditors, and provide financial protection to your family if something happens to you.

The concepts here are used by some of the wealthiest families in the world, and there’s no reason why they can’t be used by you. Check it out for yourself by going to wealthformulabanking.com.

Welcome back to the show everyone. Hope you enjoyed it. Again, just make sure that you are getting multiple sources of information.

Whether that comes to, you know, this show really is about personal finance and macroeconomics and only politics and all that is not what I’m into, but the point is. That, uh, when it comes to, uh, when it comes to anything including personal finance and microeconomics, make sure you have multiple sources of information.

Listen to the arguments and, uh, you know, make a decision that you can live with, whether you’re right or wrong. That’s it for me this week on Wealth Formula Podcast. This is Buck Joffrey signing up. If you wanna learn more, you can now get free access to our in-depth personal finance course featuring industry leaders like Tom Wheel Wright and Ken McElroy.

Visit wealthformularoadmap.com.