By playing, you agree to uListen's Terms and Privacy Policy and YouTube's Terms of Service.
Re:Thinking with Adam GrantHow to disagree better with Utah Governor Spencer Cox
Summaries, chapters, transcripts, and FAQs on this page are made by uListen, not YouTube.
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 1:13
Cox’s “hypocrisy disclaimer” and the problem of political exhaustion
Spencer Cox opens by acknowledging he often fails to live up to the standards he’s urging on others, calling it his own “hypocrisy disclaimer.” Adam Grant sets the stage by describing widespread fatigue with polarization and wishing for more “team of rivals” leadership.
- •Cox says listeners can find examples of him not practicing what he preaches
- •Cox frames the challenge of being a public advocate for better disagreement while still making mistakes
- •Grant describes being exhausted and disgusted by political polarization
- •Grant invokes Lincoln’s era as a model for working across differences
- 1:13 – 3:19
From hothead moments to checking the fight-or-flight response
Grant asks Cox why he’s an unlikely messenger for “disagreeing better,” and Cox shares personal examples of losing his temper. Cox explains how political conflict triggers defensiveness and how he tries to shift toward curiosity and listening instead.
- •Cox describes growing up in a small rural town and struggling with anger
- •He recounts being thrown out of a kids’ flag football game for belligerence and apologizing afterward
- •Cox explains the instinct to fight when confronted by anger, especially in politics
- •He says outcomes improve when he de-conflicts, listens, and engages more positively
- 3:19 – 3:58
Being persuadable: self-scrutiny, listening, and when minds actually change
Cox argues that yelling and demeaning rarely persuades anyone, so he tries to be genuinely open to rethinking. He describes a habit of examining how he formed his beliefs and occasionally changing his mind.
- •Cox says people don’t change their minds from being yelled at or demeaned
- •He tries to be “persuadable” by taking in multiple sides and challenging his own assumptions
- •Cox describes asking himself how and why he came to believe something
- •He says most of the time he keeps his beliefs but sometimes does change them
- 3:58 – 4:54
Polarization as symptom: losing healthy tribes and replacing them with unhealthy ones
Grant raises Cox’s claim that polarization isn’t the root cause, and Cox explains it as a symptom of a deeper social breakdown. He argues people are wired for connection and tribal belonging, but traditional community institutions have weakened and been replaced by less healthy forms of identity and affiliation.
- •Cox calls polarization a symptom of a deeper problem
- •He says people need connection and tribes and are losing healthier forms of community
- •Cox points to declines in volunteer and civic groups as part of the shift
- •He argues unhealthy “replacement tribes” intensify polarization
- 4:54 – 5:50
Unity versus uniformity: contempt, moralized politics, and the collapse of coalition-building
Cox distinguishes unity from agreement, emphasizing acting together despite differences. He warns that when politics becomes a religion, opponents become “heretics,” and contempt replaces disagreement—making problem-solving nearly impossible.
- •Cox says unity is acting together, not believing the same thing
- •He frames the Constitution as a framework that enables cooperation and coalition-building
- •Cox warns that treating politics like religion turns disagreement into moral condemnation
- •He describes contempt as moving from “I disagree” to “I despise you,” blocking cooperation
- 5:50 – 9:52
Moderates as enemies and why the system was designed to force bigger coalitions
Grant connects Cox’s contempt point to research showing polarized partisans often see moderates as outgroup members. Cox says he’s experienced this dynamic and argues the U.S. constitutional system was designed to resist in-group/out-group impulses by making broad coalitions necessary to accomplish anything.
- •Grant summarizes research suggesting moralized issues can make moderates seem like enemies
- •Cox says the dynamic is real and increasingly prevalent in current politics
- •Cox argues the Framers designed government to make action difficult without coalition-building
- •He says the intended outcome was compromise—getting less than 100% to include more people
- 9:52 – 11:43
Evidence-based policymaking and states as “laboratories of democracy”
Grant asks how to get more politicians to use evidence, and Cox describes challenging his team to pursue evidence-based policymaking. He argues federalism can reduce polarization by letting states differ and learn from one another, with governors sharing ideas across party lines.
- •Cox says he pushed for evidence-based policymaking and finding credible evidence sources
- •He praises federalism and argues states should be allowed to pursue different approaches
- •Cox describes states as laboratories whose successes get copied by others
- •He says governors often collaborate and “steal” good ideas from one another
- 11:43 – 12:57
Energy cooperation across parties—and why good news doesn’t travel
Cox offers examples where governors work together on major issues like energy, describing cross-partisan collaboration. He argues negative news dominates coverage, obscuring how often governors cooperate and focus on shared problems.
- •Cox says the country needs more energy production and the issue spans party lines
- •He cites examples of states leading in different energy approaches
- •Cox argues negative news sells better than reporting on functional cooperation
- •He claims in governors’ working sessions, party labels often aren’t obvious from the conversation
- 12:57 – 15:48
Utah’s “pro-human AI” approach: a policy lab with guardrails and human-in-the-loop
Grant asks about AI regulation and coalition-building, and Cox describes Utah’s early work on AI governance. Cox explains creating an AI regulation office alongside a policy lab that works directly with companies to add guardrails while trying to avoid regulatory capture and keep humans in control.
- •Cox describes Utah creating an office focused on AI regulation but not only regulation
- •He says they hired a top AI mathematician and built a policy lab to work with companies
- •Cox emphasizes avoiding regulatory capture and not blocking competition
- •He mentions work on AI chatbots for kids and on medical/prescription use cases with a human in the loop
- 15:48 – 20:14
The “perception gap”: why partisans misjudge each other and how to close it
Cox asks Grant about the “perception gap,” where Democrats and Republicans are closer on issues than they assume. Grant attributes the gap to caricatures amplified by social media extremes, and argues reducing animosity requires collaborative experiences on shared problems—suggesting AI could become a unifying concern.
- •Cox describes the perception gap: medians are close, but perceptions of the other side are far apart
- •Grant says social media amplifies extremes and encourages caricatures
- •Grant distinguishes affective polarization (animosity) from cognitive polarization (policy differences)
- •Grant argues collaborating on shared problems works better than just talking; he proposes AI as a potential common focus
- 20:14 – 22:13
Expanding the tent: leaving echo chambers, talking across lines, and serving together
Grant asks how to respond to people who treat moderates as immoral, and Cox lists practical behaviors to counter echo chambers. He emphasizes intentional exposure to different viewpoints, face-to-face conversations, and especially service as a way to reduce hatred and rebuild relationships.
- •Cox urges people to step away from algorithms and social media-driven confirmation bias
- •He encourages time with people who disagree—conversations over coffee or breakfast
- •Cox suggests reading news sources with different political leanings to understand perspectives
- •He says serving together makes it hard to hate up close and helps people see others as more than politics
- 22:13 – 27:47
When dialogue feels impossible: January 6 objections, relationship repair, and a “tell me more” script
Grant explains why many on the left reject conversations with Trump voters, and Cox notes parallel sentiments on the right. Cox argues contempt isn’t working, says refusing dialogue makes people miserable, and offers a simple conversation starter—then Grant refines it by suggesting “how did you arrive at that view?” to encourage reflection and story.
- •Grant shares pushback he hears: some see cross-side conversation as a moral non-starter
- •Cox reports the right’s version of the same refusal is rising too
- •Cox challenges whether contempt is producing results and emphasizes relationship repair
- •Cox recommends asking, “Tell me more about why you feel this way,” and listening; Grant proposes asking “how” to elicit a belief-formation story
- 27:47 – 31:47
A story of de-escalation: LGBTQ advocate at a Republican convention and a surprising hug
Cox recounts an example from his book about Troy Williams, an LGBTQ advocate in Utah, shifting from outrage tactics to coalition-building. Cox describes Williams engaging an angry convention delegate with curiosity and listening, sharing personal experiences, and ending with the other person apologizing and offering a hug.
- •Cox describes a shift from fundraising off the worst quotes to trying to get practical results
- •He recounts Williams buying a booth at the Republican state convention and inviting dialogue
- •Cox narrates a near-violent confrontation that de-escalated through questions and listening
- •Cox emphasizes that while it won’t always end so well, the interaction can change future behavior
- 31:47 – 39:37
Accountability vs. grace: Cox’s conversations about pardons and his support for Trump
Grant presses on accountability for people in power and challenges Cox’s earlier push for a pardon as a way to cool polarization. Cox says he agrees politicians must be held accountable, but explains he hoped a dramatic act of magnanimity could reset the national trajectory; later, he says he doesn’t regret supporting Trump because it enabled difficult, direct conversations during a volatile moment.
- •Grant argues many believe power shields politicians from accountability and raises concerns about pardons
- •Cox says he won’t try to change Grant’s view on accountability, but explains his “reset the narrative” rationale
- •Cox says someone must choose to be the bigger person to break cycles of contempt and violence
- •Cox says he doesn’t regret his support because it strengthened access and influence in high-stakes conversations, though he acknowledges he could likely have had some conversations without endorsing
- 39:37 – 43:33
Lightning round: rethinking AI, rejecting contempt as an off-ramp, and a dinner-table of historical figures
In a rapid-fire segment, Cox identifies AI as his most recent major policy rethinking and criticizes the idea that contempt is “not worth fighting” because it supposedly gets things done. He names Abraham Lincoln and George Washington as leadership models, adds Martin Luther King Jr., and mentions inviting Bono—citing Bono’s book and an example of cross-difference collaboration.
- •Cox says he was pro-AI and is now very concerned
- •He calls the worst polarization advice the claim that contempt is necessary or “not worth” addressing
- •Cox selects Abraham Lincoln and George Washington as models for rising above division and power
- •He adds Martin Luther King Jr. and mentions Bono, referencing Bono’s book and an example of collaboration across differences
