Modern Wisdom - #217 - Gad Saad - The Death Of Truth And How To Revive It

Episode Date: September 7, 2020

Gad Saad is an Evolutionary Psychologist, Professor of Marketing at Concordia University and an author. Bad ideas are infecting every area of society, it's time to discover how to inoculate ourselves. Expect to learn what is the grandaddy of bad ideas, why people are so easily persuaded, whether Gad is bored of spending his time arguing on Twitter, what he thinks of Nassim Taleb, who he predicts will win the 2020 election and much more... Sponsor: Get your Lawnmower 3.0 at https://www.manscaped.com/ (20% off & free shipping with the code MODERNWISDOM) Extra Stuff: Buy The Parasitic Mind - https://amzn.to/3gN3JfD Follow Gad on Twitter - https://twitter.com/GadSaad Subscribe to Gad on YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLH7qUqM0PLieCVaHA7RegA Get my free Ultimate Life Hacks List to 10x your daily productivity → https://chriswillx.com/lifehacks/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Join the discussion with me and other like minded listeners in the episode comments on the MW YouTube Channel or message me... Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/ModernWisdomPodcast Email: https://www.chriswillx.com/contact  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hi friends, welcome back. My guest today is Gad Sad, evolutionary psychologist, professor of marketing at Concordia University, and all-around fascinating human. I've been looking forward to this one for an awfully long time. I first heard him on Rogan a few years ago, and I've wanted to get him on the show ever since. Bad ideas are infecting every area of society, it seems, at the moment. And Gad's new book, The parasitic mind, is hopefully going to teach us how to inoculate ourselves.

So today, expect to learn why postmodernism is the grandaddy of bad ideas, why people are so easily persuaded by them, whether Gads is bored of spending his time arguing with people on Twitter, what he truly thinks of Nassim Talab, who he predicts will win the 2020 election and much more. This is definitely a multiple listener one. GAD is a true polymath pulling in information from all areas of academia, so I really hope sad. It has been a very long time coming, but I'm finally joined here by the man behind the sad truth that Godfather himself, so good to have you here. Thank you so much for having me Chris, good to be with you. Pleasure.

Burning question that obviously everyone has come here to work out is Adele's hairstyle problematic? Deeply problematic. I didn't know that she was a mixture of himmler and Hitler, but apparently she is. By the way, for those of you who don't know this about a few years ago, I did a couple of sad truths. The one sad truth was where I gave temporary clearance to anyone who wanted to eat Lebanese food. I gave them a 24-hour period. Because I'm Lebanese, I'm entitled to speak on behalf of all Lebanese. And so I gave a culinary clearance for 24 hours. And then I asked for everyone to take a photo of their passports so that they can give me clearance in whatever they want to give me clearance. And so for example, a Portuguese person would write and say, my name is Jose,

whatever Rodriguez. And I give you clearance to eat Portuguese spicy chicken. So you should go check it out because it shows you that most people are still sane and make fun of this stupidity. So that's like an IOU reciprocal altruism thing that you've got going on here. I eat your food, you eat my food, but you can only eat it once. And then it's like you've got a track and trace thing going on as well, which is COVID. So we're going to talk about your new book, Parasetic Mind, but before we do, could you give us a bit of an overview

of your background as an academic? Why do you have a license to talk about this subject? Sure. So I have been a professor for 26 years, my main area of scientific research, although I'm someone who's a true polymath, I'm all over the place, I truly believe in interdisciplinary, but my main claim to fame, if you'd like, in academia, is that I founded the field of evolutionary consumption, which is basically applying evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology to study our consummatory nature. So just to give you one quick example, it would be, here's one, how do our hormones affect our behaviors as consumers? For example, when men engage in conspicuous consumption, what happens to their testosterone

levels, when women are going through the various stages of their menstrual cycles, what kinds of foods do they eat, how do they dress, does that vary across the menstrual cycle? So I look at the biological underpinnings of our consuming instinct, if you'd like. And as part of being an evolutionary slash consumer psychologist, I've always been interested in interspecies comparisons. This is a field called comparative psychology. So oftentimes, if you wanna make the argument

that some behavior is an evolutionary behavior within the human context, you will study cognition and other species to make the link because they are our evolutionary cousins. And so as a result of my, if you like my openness to studying other animals, I noticed that there was a field called neuro parasitology, which is the study of how parasites can infect the brains of a whole host of hosts. So for example, Toxoplasma Gandhi is a parasite that affects the brains of mice, and when they are infected with this brainworm, they lose their innate fear of cats.

They become sexually attracted to the urine of the cat, which is not a good thing for a mouse to be attracted to the urine of the cat, which is not a good thing for a mouse to be attracted to. And so I took this principle from animal context, and I argued that humans suffer not only from actual brain worms in the same way that the mouse does, but we suffer from another class of idea pathogens, and those are actual ideas that are parasitic. And of course, your original question is what allows me to make those arguments? Well, having lived in the ecosystem of academia for the past 26 years, I can promise you that all of the most idiotic ideas all stem from academia. Is that give you a good answer? Absolutely. You are patient zero for this. So what's an infectious idea?

Right, so probably the grand daddy of all of these idea pathogens would be postmodernism, because postmodernism, if you'd like, is the negation of the scientific method. It's the negation that there is a truth with capital capital T that is out there to be discovered. Now I should always, I always like to preface that scientists do have epistemic humility so we recognize that what is true today might become untrue tomorrow in light of new evidence but at any given point we do operate under the premise that there is a truth out there to be discovered there is for example a universal human nature as an evolutionary psychologist I want to study that there is a truth out there to be discovered. There is, for example, a universal human nature as an evolutionary psychologist. I want to study that. There is certain recurring patterns of how women respond to their avalatory cycles. Postmodernism completely blows up this edifice of reason

because it says that there's only subjective truth. Everybody is bound by their biases, by their subjectivity. There are no objective truth. Everything is subjective. And so there's a, a now famous story that I recount, which for some of your viewers who might not be familiar with my work, it's maybe worth repeating. I once had a chat with a postmodernist, radical feminist, and cultural anthropologist, so kind of the holy trinity of bullshit. Wow. That's the dark triad, isn't it? That is the doc triad, right?

And so she had gone out to dinner with my wife, my doctoral student who had just defended his dissertation, and she was, this woman was his date for the evening. And he had warned me that this person, you know, is infected with these parasites, although he didn't use those words. And so he was kind of imploring me to be on my best behavior so we can have a good time because we were out to celebrate his accomplishment of having finished his PhD, to which I said, yes, of course, I'll be on my best behavior, which of course was bullshit. And so halfway through the dinner, whenever it was, I said to her, so I hear you're a postmodernist. Yes, yes, I am. So there are no universal truths, absolutely not.

So do you mind if I may be offer you some universal truths? And then you can tell me how you think I might be wrong. She said, yes, go ahead, go for it. So, is it a universal truth that within the human species only women bear children? Is that not a truth? Can we hang our hat on this one? It's absolutely not. Oh no, how so? Well, there is a tribe of some island in Japan where within the folkloreclam, within the spiritual realm, it is the men who bear children. So by you restricting the conversation of bearing children to the physical realm, this is how you keep us pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

After I am resuscitated with an ambulance from the stupidity of her point, I then say, okay, maybe I shouldn't ask you something as controversial as, you know, bearing children. Maybe that's just too corrosive of a topic. So let's do something a bit less sensitive. Is it true since time immemorial that within the vantage of earth, sailors have relied on the premise that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west is that not a universal truth? And then here she uses a sub-form of postmodernism called deconstructionism, language creates reality. So she says, well, what do you mean by East and West? Those are just arbitrary labels. And what do you mean by the Sun? That which you call the Sun, I call Dancing Hyena, to which I retorted, well, the Dancing hyena rises in the east and sets in the west

I put on dancing hyena lotion when I go to the Caribbean so I don't get dancing hyena burn to which she said I don't play those label games now that was an incredibly prescient story if you'd like because this happened in 2002 and today you can get cancelled for saying that only women bear children you can get canceled for saying that only women bear children. You can get fired for saying that there are two sexes. You can get fired for saying that only women menstruate. And so this is what happens when in this case, the granddaddy of idea pathogens takes over academia up is down left is right. There are no truths. It does seem like postmodernism is the source code that's underwritten everything.

And then what you've got on top of that are some apps. So you're a nice nice way of putting it. Yes. Yeah. So you have the particular operating system. That's postmodernism. And then you have given some of the apps. What are some of the apps that people have downloaded onto their social justice phone? Sure. So, so for example, anything with the trans prefix becomes an instantiation of, it's my truth. There is no truth, right? So, there is transgender.

Not, by the way, when I say this, that doesn't mean that I'm negating the fact that there is such a thing as transgender people. And there is such a thing as we should not, we should not be bigoted against them. And they should live free of bigotry. So one doesn't imply the other. But for example, when in the pursuit of trans activism, you negate biological realities that the average three-day old newborn pigeon knows, then that becomes a problem, right? So you have to be able to chew and walk at the same time. I could fully, I could be fully

liberal and supportive of transgender rights while also saying, look, if you're 270 pounds and six foot four and suddenly you call yourself a woman, no, you can't compete against biological women. And it doesn't make you a transphob. My very young children look at this quizzically and they don't understand it. Are they transforms? Are they Hitler's? So that would be one example. Radical feminism is another perfect manifestation of this, right? In the pursuit of equality under the law, which we should all support, that doesn't mean that we reject that there are innate sex differences. But most radical feminists think that by giving leeway to the possibility that men and women might be different, this opens the door

to maintaining the sexist patriarchal status quo. No, we can recognize that men and women are equal under the law and there shouldn't be any institutional bigotry, while also recognizing that there is such a thing called sexual selection, Darwin, which basically says that we have evolved many things similarly, but many things differently, precisely because we are a sexually reproducing species. So these would be a few examples. Do you want me to give you more? No, I think we've got some good ones there. It seems to me that the, the panicious thing

about these ideas is that they've got a kernel of truth. Right. And is that the delivery mechanism? Is that the delivery mechanism of the parasite? So give me an example of how rejecting that only women could menstruate could have a kernel of truth. No, I so, for instance, with regards to the trans rights, we want to ensure that people who are transgender are treated fairly equally in society

with radical feminism. Everyone believes that women perhaps in the past, there were some particular prejudices that they had to battle against. We had a separate jet movement. Those are the fairly objective. You couldn't vote. You couldn't do X, Y and Z. But it's when that gets turned up to 1,111. Sorry, go ahead. That's it. Just that there's kernels of truth, most of which appear to be kind of archaically grandfathered in. I would say that they're different objectives. It's not that the objective of seeking social justice in the true sense of the term, not in the pejorative social justice warriors,

that is something that we should all seek if we are rational, liberal, good-hearted people. In the pursuit of that objective, we never murder truth. We never rape truth. That's the problem, is that what they do, is they conflate the pursuit of social justice with a consequentialist ethic, right? Which basically says, it doesn't matter if

I murder and rape truth in the service of this more lovable goal called social justice. No, as a purist, I'm an a true classical liberal person. I believe in the rights of transgender people, but without sacrificing a millimeter of my commitment to truth, to science, to logic, to common sense, to rationality. So that's why I separate these two things. Why the parasite analogy? So the parasite analogy is exactly,

as I said, stemming from the neuro-parasatology literature, which demonstrates that, you know, it's almost science fiction, right? You can have this parasite. Now, by the way, the reason why I say neuro-parasatology, because parasites can take hold in different parts of your body, right? So, you can have a tapeworm that's in your gut, right? So, neuro-parasites are ones that seek the brain brain because as part of their reproductive cycle, this is where they have to kind of go.

So, there is a parasite that will infect the brains of certain insects causing these insects who are otherwise very water phobic to jump into the water as if they're kind of committing Haraq, you know, kamikaze thing. They hate the water because the parasite needs the water to then complete its reproductive cycle. So it is rewiring your circuitry to its benefit. Well, idea pathogens are doing the exact same thing, right? They can take a otherwise supposedly functioning human being and then you can have these idiotic ideas infect your brain so that you could become a mush of bullshit. So that you instead of, instead of jumping into

the, the water as the insect does, you now jump off the abyss of infinite lunacy, right? So, you know, all borders are racists. Well, there is this thing called countries and nations and countries have borders. And last I checked, it wasn't only the Nazis who were condoning borders, but I can walk with you on university campuses where that is the official position. Borders are a form of white supremacy. So when people start saying things that are so such the partures from common sense, then the parasitology analogy is really quite an apt one. With parasites, you have no control over. I'm going to guess it's not due to will that the mice go and become attracted to the cats. I'm not thinking I fancy about being a, oh, that's kind of sexy,

bit of a sort of cat way of the far side. They're compelled to do it. Right. This is semantic, right? This is an idea, this is an abstraction to this. There must also be an ability. Way out. Yeah, well, this is,

both as before we get to how can we protect people? How can people protect themselves? How can you get the parasite out of yourself? That's a great question. So it really, so anything that I'm going to say in answering that question, how do we, how do we inoculate ourselves against this? How do we vaccinate ourselves against if we're already parasitized? How do we cure ourselves? That rests on one single, you know,

apriori tenet, and that is that you are at least open to my evidence, right? So, so if you just go, la la la la la my ears and I'm not gonna listen, then there's absolutely you're impenetrable, there's no way for me. It's kind of like saying you'd like to benefit from the vaccine, but you're too scared of the needle and therefore you, I can't give you, I can't give you, so once we agree that you are open to the vaccine, then here is how there are several things that we can do, but let me discuss the biggest one. So there is a thing in chapter seven of my book, which I call the biggest one. So there is a thing in chapter seven of my book which I call

nomological networks of cumulative evidence. Now this originally comes from my work in evolution psychology actually which I now apply to this context. So nomological networks of cumulative evidence is the idea that if I'm trying to convince you of an explanation, let's say a scientific explanation, I have to start thinking this way. What would be the data that I would need to show you that becomes so unassailable that even the most dogged the tractor will be drowned in a sea of evidence, right? Now, as someone you're in Britain, correct? Correct. So Charles Darwin, if you'd like, is perhaps the most famous example of someone who was thinking

synthetically in this way, synthetically, meaning putting a whole bunch of stuff together, creating conciliates, unity of knowledge. Now, he didn't use the term, nomological networks of cumulative evidence, but that's exactly what he was doing, because in demonstrating that his theory of natural selection was theoretical, was correct. What did he do? He is seriously over many decades collected data from an incredible number of sources, from paleontology, from animal husbandry, from embryology, from comparative anatomy, from geology, and each of these small pieces of the puzzle, once you put the whole thing together,

made it impossible for you to argue against it. Despite the fact that 150 years later, people are still trying to falsify it without being able to, right? And so I take this mindset, and I formalize it in this thing called nomological networks of cumulative evidence. Maybe if I give you a specific example,

it will help explain. Okay. So let's suppose I wanna prove to you that toy preferences are not due to social construction. In other words, it's not just mommy and daddy are sexist pigs and they teach little Johnny to play with the truck and little Linda to play with the doll, right? In other words, there is something beyond the social

constructivist argument. How would I go about demonstrating this to you? So now what I'm going to do is I'm going to say, can I get data from different cultures, different time periods, different paradigms, different disciplines, different methodologies, all of which point to the same incontrovertible final conclusion. Well, so I'll just do a few, okay?

Well, I can look at children who are in the pre-socialization stage of their cognitive development, meaning they're too young to have been socialized. They're three months old, they're six months old, and I could study their sex-specific toy preferences. Now, you might say, well, how would you elicit their preference? They can't speak yet. They're three or six months old. Well, you can do it through eye gaze. You can do it through how they, what do they go towards.

And what you show is that children who are in the pre-socialization cognitive developmental stage are already exhibiting the sex-specific toy preferences that we then see in later children. Now, if I already stop there, I'm already giving you evidence that is slowly, you know, making the cot, you know, the nail in the coffin, but I'm going to give you a lot more, okay? If you take little girls who suffer from congenital adrenal hyperplasia, which is an endocrinological disorder that masculinizes

their morphology and masculinizes their morphology and masculinizes their behavior. So little girls who suffer from this this order are more boy-like and we take this group of little girls and look at their toy preferences. What do you think happens to their toy preferences? They are reversed. They're exactly like those of boys. So now I've given you two datasets. I've given you datasets from developmental psychology, and now I'm now giving you data from pediatrics, from pediatric endocrinology.

Now already, the social constructivist thing should be in the dustbin of bullshit history, right? But let's go on. I could look at other species, vervet monkeys, recess monkeys, chimpanzees, to see whether the infants in those species exhibit the same sex specificity in toy preferences and guess what, my man, they do. Well, you'd have to argue that mama vervet monkey and papa vervet monkey are prone to the same patriarchal sexist influences that we see

in humans, right? So now I've given you, if you like, three boxes of the nomological network, bit by bit, I will drown you in evidence so that it becomes very difficult for you to stick to your position. So what I try to then argue to people, that epistemology that I just described need not only apply to scientific arguments or to evolutionary based arguments, it could apply to any phenomenon that has a lot of contentious debate around it. So the example that I give in the book, the sort of the final example in chapter 7 is Islam

a peaceful religion or not. Now I don't need to get into hysteria. I don't need to listen to noble prophet Barack Obama tell me that it is peaceful or not. I simply need to build a nomological network. And if that nomological network says that Islam is peaceful, then we've proven that it's peaceful. If it says otherwise, then we've proven otherwise. So I don't need hysteria, I don't need emotionality, I don't need to trigger my affective system, I simply go where the data tells me to go. Does that give you a good sense of how to get vaccinated against BS? It does, but is that an effort that people have to do individually? So have I got to go and do this literature review

where I scour the internet and I look at this stuff and is that a veritable source and so on and so forth? So that's a great question. In a sense, it's a slightly less extreme version of putting my ears in my right because what you're saying is, okay, even if I don't, even if I'm open to listening to you, do I have the cognitive desire to expand? Also, the effort for me to protect myself potentially from one of these ideas is that on me to go out and search for this much stuff, or is there some platform or there's some particular voices? Have you got a very book? Yes, so one of the projects that I'm currently working on, and I just published an academic paper on exactly that. So one of the ideas that I have is to have something akin to a Wikipedia platform where what is it? This is a lot of joke. This is really. I know it's not a joke, but it's funny.

I've got a question coming up that this relates to. So I'm going to let you go and then I'm going to give you the share. But now what I'm going to say is specific only to evolution and psychology. So it's not to any debate. So one of the, one of the things that I find most galling when imbussels argue against evolutionary psychology, sorry, I don't mean to say imbussels. That's not diplomatic. People with a deferring opinion, also known as lobotomized idiots. More on. Right. So they will say things like, well, you know, People with a deferring opinion, also known as lobotomized idiots. Morons. Right. So they will say things like, well, you know, bra, evolutionary psychology, it's pseudo-science.

Yeah, you're a moron. The mind didn't come from magic. It didn't arise through a magical cultural process. Culture exists in its form because of biology, not instead of biology. Socialization matters, but socialization is not something in lieu of biology. It's because of biology. So unless you think that everything in our body is due to evolution, short of the organ that most defines our personhood, this thing called the human mind, then there is no such thing as evolutionary

psychology as pseudoscience. Now you can argue that this particular study in evolution in psychology did not meet the evidentiary threshold that I like for me to be convinced, but that's also true when astrophysicists are deciding whether the universe is expanding or contracting. So the fact that we made debate about specifics in evolutionary theory or evolutionary psychology doesn't imply that the epistemological exercise of evolutionary psychology is false, it's pseudoscience. So say that evolutionary psychology is pseudoscience is like saying chemistry is pseudoscience. There is no other game in town. If you believe that the human mind evolved through material processes, it's not God who put it.

There is no other game in town, right? So, to come back to the earlier Wikipedia point, so one of the things that I'm trying to do here is to if you like counter the most common criticism of evolutionary psychology that comes from fellow academics. And usually it is that evolutionary psychology is just a bunch of fanciful, just so storytelling, right? So I sit around, I put on my sexy berry white music, I'm smoking a pipe, sipping some cognac, and I just come up with some bullshit pontification as to why men, and as I showed you a few minutes ago, know when I want to prove to you that toy preferences are sex-specific for an evolutionary reason, I actually go through incredible length to do so, much more so than other sciences. So

in my attempt to thwart this, I thought, well, if I can get more people to think along the ways of nomological networks and start building these, like a wisdom of the crowd where we can build together. So if you want to go see what is the current state of cumulative evidence to prove that men have a preference for the hourglass figure, you can go to that Wikipedia of nomological networks and see it. Does that give you a good feeling? I love that.

I think James Lindsay is trying to create something similar, but less than the scientific side and more kind of in the rhetoric side. Oh, I didn't know that. Yeah, he's got like 300 different definitions of, so he's trying to provide a, we bring him for you to reach out to him. Right, so he's the question,

it's supposed to be further down. I'm supposed to ask you this later on, but I'm gonna ask you it now. This comes from seeing Douglas Murray live. He's been on the show and he went to go see him speak live event for the spectator. And then he said something that stuck with me, which is a line he's used before, which is when the barbarians are at the gates, we'll be debating about what gender they are. Yes, I've heard that quote before, yes. And that married with a quote

that all of the listeners will be familiar with, which is that the greatest minds of our era have been spent, have spent their time working out how to get people to click on ads. Now, my concern is, I've got someone like you, multi-disciplinary polymath, James Lindsay, PhD in pure mathematics. I don't want the brightest minds of our time to be taken up.

I don't want this in the nicest way possible. I wish that you hadn't had to write this book. Yes. I agree. What are you bored of talking about social justice? You know, fantastic question. More than bored, I'm indignant. So oftentimes, the most, the most indignant people

I know, yeah, I love it. And sometimes people say, oh, you know, but when I meet you or I see you, you seem like such a affable, warm and friendly, it's because they mistake my very punchy, my very, at times, a serbic wit and sarcasm, as you know, I'm this mean guy. I'm exactly the opposite. I'm the truly the warmest, friendly sky, but I'm indignant. I'm angry for exactly the reasons that you're saying.

I'm angry that hundreds of thousands of students in a world with limited resources and limited time instead of studying many wonderful things. And by the way, I don't believe that you should only be studying in university, you know, medicine or law or business or the natural sciences. You could study the social sciences very seriously. You could study the humanities very seriously, you could study literature very seriously, but there's always a commitment to a common discourse, to a commitment to reason irrespective of whether it's in the humanities, the social sciences, or natural sciences. But what I see in the universities, it's a minority, but it's certainly a powerful minority.

They ruined the lives of thousands of students, let alone the bank accounts of their parents who are spending $70,000, $80,000, $90,000 for somebody to take querying architecture and feminist glaciology. That angers me. Why? And this, by the way, goes to chapter one of my, of the parasitic mind because I want to explain exactly why I'm indignant. And I argue that there are really two life ideals that drive who I am. One is truth, and the second one is freedom. And I give examples from many different areas of my life, not just my academic life, but so let's take, for example, freedom. Okay, so freedom could be, you know, freedom

of speech, right? I'm a champion of freedom of speech. But when I used to be a competitive soccer player, I played the playmaker role, the number 10 role where I just kind of float around. Whenever I had a coach who would put restrictions on me, you're playing today more on in left midfield and you have to track back and cover somebody. Suddenly, my brain would explode because you were removing what I considered to be my greatest asset, which was to kind of look for spaces to freely roam around looking for those opportunities, right? So freedom is something that constantly comes up in my life, whether it was when I was a soccer player, when I'm deciding which topics to pursue as a scientific project.

So for example, the reason why I'm a polymath is because I could never accept that I'm at a business school, therefore I should only publish in these types of journals. That suffocates me. You're the playmaker of academia. Exactly, right? So because of these two driving goals of freedom and truth, I see the world around me through very pure lenses. So then when I see what I call intellectual terrorists, so the postmodernists are like 9, 11, they flew planes onto buildings. Well,

the intellectual terrorists, they fly planes of bullshit onto our edifices of reason, right? That angers me. Why? Because I come from civil war. I come from chaos. I come from tribalism. I come from identity politics. And now 40 years after leaving this garbage in Lebanon, I now see it taking foot in academia. So yes, I wish I didn't have to do it. but to the extent that you see me being punchy on social media, it comes from indignation, not from meanness. Yeah. Again, I don't have a problem with the way that you deliver things. I think you and Talib and James Lindsay and is that the thing is that the background that you and Talib both have because there is definitely some similarities

in the way that you deliver your discourse online. Yeah, that's another great question. I think Nassim and I are very good friends for several reasons, one of which, at least if I can speak for him, in terms of, you know, I always joke that Nassim thinks 99% of humanity are useless creatins that should be killed because there are imbicils beyond redemption and that I am one of the few who makes it into his You're in the cut, you're in the 1% I'm really in like, I think getting the approval of Nassim might be bigger than a Nobel Prize, right? I mean, I say that slightly facetiously, but I think the reason for that is because he appreciates in me that I am a costly signaling guy, meaning that I walk the walk. I don't give a shit.

Skin in the game, right? Right. So because of that, he respects that. And I also respect that in him. So partly because of our similar personhood when it comes to that combativeness, maybe partly because of the Middle Eastern thing. When you are my friend, I will die for you, right? So, and I won't get into specifics, but I could tell you that when it came to at certain

points him defending me for something, he was willing to blow up the world to come in my defense. Now, for many people, so for example, I have other friends who nascent the spices and they will say to me they can't understand why I would be friends with her, right? Because they see him as this vile nasty. But the reality is that if you're in his corner, he's much more likely to fight and die for you in the trenches than those high-falutin bullshifters who would turn away when you're screaming for help and pretend that they didn't hear you. So I think because of that

trait, we're sympathical on that dimension. Fair where the friends, man. No one needs any of them. Exactly. Why is it the West where these ideas are proliferating? Surely living standards being high should give people less to complain about not more. So there are several reasons for that. I mean, some of it comes from the Frankfurt school that kind of kicked off some of this bullshit stuff. Some of it is that, you know, if I am suffering every day, not knowing if I'm going to get my caloric, minimal caloric, you know, food for the day, I don't have time to pontificate about feminist gliciology. So in a sense, it is a measure of the decadence

of the West, right? It's kind of the Caligula effect, right? When Rome becomes too imbued with all of this hedonic pursuits, it kind of self-implosed. So I think there's a similar thing here where instead of feasting at the buffet of gluttony, the actual food, we're feasting at the gluttony of bullshit ideas because in a sense it demonstrates how well we have it in the West, right? But

by the way, that's another thing that really pisses me off because the people at Wellesley College who are complaining that they were misgendered should have lived Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock in the morning of my childhood in Lebanon, where I didn't know at 10 o'clock, whether at 10 o'clock, my head would still be connected to the rest of my body. Maybe that's another source of indignation, right? When you're constantly whining,

when you simply don't know what else there is in the world, right? That is frustrating to those who have lived that, right? So Ian Hershey Ali, do you know who that is? Yeah, so Ian Hershey Ali should be someone that people seriously listen to, because she's lived Islam. And yet she is a Hitler bigot who is an Islamophobic. I mean, if a black woman from Somalia

who is an ex-Muslim is somebody that doesn't carry the right identity markers to speak about Islam, then we're lost, right? So I think that's another reason of my indignation. And that is that boy, are you sheltered when you complain about the things that you do in the West? It's interesting this.

I've been playing with this all year. The idea that in the absence of a real crisis, we create our own and in the presence of a real crisis, we reset our values. It's like this abundant scarcity paradigm also is mapped onto the abstraction and the realism of the problems that we have. And I think very much, as you said there,

it's a Mazda's hierarchy of needs thing. Like, no one's having an existential crisis if you don't know where your next food's coming from. You might be worried about where the next meal's coming from, but you're not that first about whether or not your social networks quite right or whether you've actualized and you really just wanna be warm, be fed, and go to sleep and somewhere safe.

So I, Mano, I totally agree. fed and go to sleep in somewhere safe. So I, Mano, I totally agree. What role does ridicule play in defending the public from these ideas? Well, I have a whole section in the parasitic mind on the power of satire. Is this from an evolutionary perspective as well? I'd love to hear how this maps onto that. So I don't in the section in the paracetic mind, I don't specifically link it to an evolutionary underpinning. Although off the top of my head since you asked, and this is not specific to satire, but certainly humor has been studied

from an evolutionary perspective. Then I'll come back to satire in particular. Humor has been studied in the following way from an evolutionary perspective. It is a honest signal of your intelligence. So when women constantly say they are attracted to a funny guy, but you don't, you sell them here, guys saying, she's gorgeous with the most beautiful hour guys figure.

But if she's not funny, there's no sector you like that. She just makes me laugh. She just doesn't make me laugh, but my God, what a beautiful hour guys figure. But if she's not funny, there's no sex for you. She just makes me laugh. She just doesn't make me laugh, but my god, what a beautiful behind she has. Too bad, because she's not gonna get any of me because she doesn't make me laugh, right? So, but the reason why women insist on funny guys is because usually it is a very good correlate

of intelligence, right? It's very hard to be witty, sardannically witty, to be sarcastic at the right delivery if you're a babbling fool, right? It's very hard to be witty, sardannically witty, to be sarcastic at the right delivery, if you're, you know, babbling fool, right? You have to have a very sharp mind to be able to, I very quickly identify these things. So now coming back to satire, I think satire, so the expression I like to use is properly activated. Satire is like the surgeon's scalpel cutting through warm butter, right? Because it cuts to the heart of the stuff, right?

So for example, I'll give you one quick example that I just started recently. So right now on social media, I'm not sure if you've seen it or not. I know what you're gonna say, yeah, it's great. What is it like? Is it where you've been suggesting the most outrageous books that you can for people to read and then saying, if you don't read this, then you're a bigot?

I have done that. Thank you for noticing that. No, but now there's different weapons, right? There's different weapons that you've presented. I activate the satire. So now, if anybody sends me any compliments and thank I received a million of those on social media, I will always state that I need to know what your skin you is before either accepting the compliment or not. If you don't have 50% plus people of color you, then I'm sorry, but I reject your compliment

because I'm trying to decolonize my Twitter feed, right? So what I've done is I've taken literal things that these morons say and I've just taken them to the extreme People say how come you never get into trouble? I mean no one I mean the most irreverent person That you could think of doesn't weigh in one percent of what I do. And yet, knock on wood, I'm still not canceled. Well, I think it's because I found naturally, by instinct, the wormhole of how to tackle these issues, right? So, for example, it's very hard to pin me because when I say something sarcastically You could technically not know whether what I'm saying is right

So if you come at me, I say what are you talking about bullshit? I am totally decolonizing my Twitter feed. I don't want to receive Compliments from from you know people that suffer from being white if they discuss You get it? Yeah, so what happens is I am pointing the mirror. I'm taking the exact semantic structure of your argument and I'm laughing, I'm mocking it into oblivion, right? That's why I survived because now but that's exactly why dictators throughout history and I point to many different of these guys, have despised the satirists, because the guy who is a very powerful satirist is a lot more threatening

to the dictator than the guys with the big muscles. The guy with the sharp tongue is the guy you really want to kill. I mean, online is a perfect example. I would much less like Andrew Doyle or Zubi to come after me than Nassim. And the reason for that is there's going to be so much social embarrassment because they're going to find a thing that I did or that I said. And they're going to make me feel so dumb. And this is the particular modus operandi of yourself, and Andrew Doyle specifically, and Zuby's very famous video where he did the deadlift record,

it's utilizing the weaponry, the semantic weaponry, against people who are weaponizing it against you. But yeah, I'm thinking about the satire thing for yourself. I don't know whether you've played, you almost certainly won't have done, but Call of Duty Warzone is super popular at the moment, and my house make plays it. And you get to choose like a preference of a loadout of your different weapons, and you can have like this automatic rifle and this knife and this gun or whatever.

And it definitely feels like satire is like the go-to primary weapon for you. Absolutely. That's the one that you get, that's the first gun that you pick up. And then there may be a little bit of this and there's a little bit of that. And there's quote tweeting, quite a bit. Because on social media, I don't have the platform to build you normal logical networks

of cumulative evidence, right? So I have to take the sharp surgeon's scalpel and very quickly, right? So for example, I say, you know, it disgusts me when a noble faith that is responsible for 36,000 deaths, 36,000 terror attacks since 9, 11 alone in 70 countries when people associate that faith to violence. That's disgusting, that's fobac. Well, come at me, I'm being truthful, I'm not being sarcastic. I mean, you only have 36,000 data points

from seven million subscribers varying across every ethnic, racial, economic system, linguistic system. If only there was a way to identify a common thread across these. Well, how could you attack me? Right? Because you live up, right?

So by providing you with the packets of information in a way that is enrobed in sarcasm, in sardonic wit, in satire, it almost makes it, now the difficulty though is, it's hard to kind of teach a seminar on this, right? Because it's hard to say, please come to Professor Sad Sardonic with seminar so that you can castrate the morons, right? Because in a sense, there are certain rules that you can use in building your satirical arguments, but it's also instinctual. So some people just have it, right? For example, I don't believe that charisma is something that you could teach in leadership class, right?

You're either charismatic or not, right? Now you could, within certain, you know, little plus minus epsilon can teach somebody to be a slightly better orator. So even Martin Luther King wasn't as good an orator, you know, early in his career as later in his career, but he had to start off with the stuff, which someone else doesn't. So I've always kind of questioned, is there a way for me to truly have a how to play book

of satire? I don't know, well, what do you think? You think it's possible to teach? I'm currently reading Robert Pullowman's book about Blueprint about genetics. And increasingly, I'm not realizing just how restricted we are with all of our characteristics, the classic like NBA, I'm not six foot six, I can't play in the NBA example. The same thing goes for this. There are certain immutable truths and capacities and restrictions that you have. Some of them are visible, some of them are invisible.

And the invisible ones, you know, not everyone's built to be a podcaster, I'm shy to art. Like I'm really, really, I have the still the drawing skills I had when I was about five years old. I'm the exact same way. Fantastic, well, we're birds of a feather. And right, we've done your book is fantastic It will be linked in the show notes below and that is that's that I'm stopping now

The talk about social justice and I want to utilize you for the next 20 minutes on some other good topics sure go for it Who do you think will win the US election? Oh? Wow, what a great question I Won't you I want you that we were out of the safe woods I'm ready to do safe woods. I'm the only reason I'm hesitant is because I genuinely don't have a good sense. I could tell you who I'd liked to who I'd like to win. That's not the question

that I asked. I'm still going to go with Trump will win. Would you have said that in April? So at the start of the so before COVID, I would have said it's 95% sure that he would win with COVID and all of the embassies that now say, well, look, the deaths, it's Trump, right? This is like your aunt got diabetes during Trump. Well, there's really only one conclusion. It must be that Trump caused her diabetes because it's during his presidency, right? An Amazonian fraud just died in the Amazon.

It is during Trump's presidency. So how could you not see the link more on, right? So because most people have the cognitive abilities of a newborn pigeon, they are regrettably all placing the blame on Trump. So now I think it's almost a toss up. I think that the polls still show Biden as winning for similar reasons as to what happened with Hillary Clinton. When it comes down to finally going to the booths, I still think Trump will win. If that happens with the last few months of very, very vehement manipulation by press. And also such compromised by a lot of the people who are weaponizing movements of goodwill for a political agenda on all different manners. By any means, it was a consequentialist outcome that you were

talking about earlier on. It's like, by any means, if we get him out of office, if the orange man fucks off, yeah, it's worth it. If he gets voted back in, that is the kitchen sink's been thrown out, the cats gone at them, you know, somewhat someone pooed in the hand and they've had a crack, a crack, that is everything they've thrown at him. And it's the last one worked. Yeah. So you're saying, what would happen if he were to win? No, just I just think that if it happens, and he does win after every weapon under the sun that has been picked out by mainstream media and individuals and movement groups and stuff like that,

I think it's a stark message about just how wrong the Democrat messaging, the left messaging generally is at the moment, and how much it doesn't resonate with the normal people, not left messaging generally is at the moment. And how much it doesn't resonate with the normal people, not the people that live on Twitter. Exactly. Look, do you want me to talk a bit about why a lot of people have a hard time, but you know, Professor, I look up to you, how could you support a maniac like Trump? First of all, there's a difference between the positions that I take and supporting Trump, right? I always say that I don't have posters of all, there's a difference between the positions that I take and supporting Trump, right?

I always say that I don't have posters of Trump, which my wife and I use in the bedroom as foreplay, right? So the fact that I explain why Trump is a very viable option doesn't mean that I'm a pro-Trump guy. I understand that he's brash and he's vulgar and he's non-presidential, but as I explained recently in a clip, a sad truth clip, there's an expression that I bring from Arabic that basically says to get drunk by smelling the cork of the wine bottle, right? What is an Arabic place?

The scuttables Zbibbe. Zbibbe means like the raisins, but you can also apply it for the cork. So here's the cork, right? So I could either drink the wine to get drunk or I could just go, I'm already drunk. Now do you understand the analogy here? That means that it takes very little to get me drunk because I'm a moron, because I'm a lightweight, right? So here's what most people do,

including some of my very high-falutant, high-brow cerebral friends, okay? Trump is vulgar. He speaks in a brash way, he's contancurist, he's brazenly boastful. Therefore, he attacks my sense of aesthetics. This is what I call an aesthetic injury, right? But now look, you see, I'm getting drunk, you see? On the other hand, Obama, he's lanky, he's tall, he's majestic, he's got a radiant smile. I'm getting more drunk by

the second. You see, I'm getting a bit wobbly, right? He's got a malefluous voice. Oh my god, I'm getting drunk. He's presidential. Now, what Obama says is utter garbage. It's rehearsed, plated to theness, vacuous bullshit. Okay? If anything, the semantics of what Trump might say might actually be much more substantive, but Trump is vulgar and

Disgusting he repulses me therefore he is a monster, right? This is why in chapter two of the Pericidic mind I have a section of the chapters about feeling versus thinking It is wrong to pit these two systems against one another. Humans are both a thinking animal and a feeling animal. The problem is when you activate the wrong system at the wrong moment, right? When I'm walking down an alley and I see four young men loitering in the alley and my heart starts racing

and I start getting kind of an anxiety thing. So my affective system is kicking in. It makes perfect sense. I've evolved to have that fear response. In that case, having my affective system kick in makes perfect sense. On the other hand, if I'm trying to do well on a calculus exam, my affective system is not as good to activate as my cognitive system. So when it comes to choosing my president's using my affective system as the key driver, he discusses me, he's repulsive.

He's, no, he's, yes, he is that. But what's the content? He supports freedom of speech. The left doesn't. I've already have enough to support him. The fact that he is a brazen narcissist, I couldn't give a shit. Obama was as much of a narcissist, but I didn't succumb to the cork because I see through his bullshit. What I'm saying, and I think regrettably most of my high-falutin colleagues are unable to see this because they come from a rarefied world where you speak. I can speak as fancily and probably 10 times more fancily than all them combined, but I can also say bullshit, right? And that that's why I say I'm the professor of the people. So I can connect with Trump on his level.

I get what he's doing. He's a buffoon in that in a style sense, but the content of what he says, he is against open immigration. He cares more about radical Islam. So how could you have one of my friends, you probably can guess who he is, who has historically built his career criticizing Islam? But then when it came to supporting Trump or Hillary Clinton, he supported Hillary Clinton, who is the one who would have opened the door to the whole. So how do you reconcile this? Well, as he tells me, but he disgusts me. As someone who spent an awful lot of time trying to separate himself from his emotions, that is not the answer that he should have given.

It's so interesting, man, especially as a Brit like, I don't have a dog in this fight. I mean, I don't want the world to break, but the, I have no preference. And yet I, I can totally see how people get confused by that. But the bottom line for me is that, yeah, Trump is uncouth and he's simple in a way, but that's Simpleness belies honesty. And I think that's a big part of why people didn't vote for Hillary that they were sick of the bare-faced, actually, no, sorry, they were sick of the very manipulative, very malicious, cleverly constructed lies.

Like they'll take the uncomfortable brash, glitzy, covered in gold and styled us sort of ugly truth over a platitude that they know will never materialize. A 100% and linking back to what you just said to Nassim and I are friendship, we're both direct talkers, right? We're both no BS. Therefore, we can see what Trump is. It's not as though we're simpletons who don't understand that he's got certain qualities for real. Right, the legend. Yeah, yeah. Exactly. But it's that, I don't want to speak for Nassim, I'll speak for myself. His authenticity is something that I greatly value. I prefer a bull in a China shop that is uncouth, as you said, who is vulgar rather than the platitudinous radiant

smile of Obama. You know, he stunned. Exactly. You know, he stunned. And I have a hard time before just sorry, just I have a hard time understanding why my otherwise very bright colleagues don't see that. Right, I mean, you were cut from the same cloth when it comes to that. I think that there's maybe a little bit of grumpiness being used as a appropriate measuring tool there. The fact that if you have not a short fuse, but a short

tolerance for bullshit, that you actually are able to kind of cut through at least some of the sort of rhetoric that's been pushed recently. We've been talking a lot recently about the gender sex gap on this podcast. How much do you think that the shifts in sexual norms and sexual marketplace, like Lesmond Ogamy and Tinder and gender imbalance on campuses and in cells and so on, has contributed to the current social unrest among young people? Any specific area of society? The fact that we're so ready to riot and loot and also be very very sort of the cipher is online when we don't have anything to back it up.

It just seems like there's a lot of unrest among young people. Is it the fact that they're not getting laid? Well, I don't know if I can tie the in-self phenomenon to the, you know, the chaos that we see. I think it's a bit of a, I like to be very tight. I'd like to have my nomological network exactly tight before I pronounce it. But I can certainly tell you that evolutionary speaking, we do know that societies that have many men twiddling their thumbs in frustrated celibacy is not the recipe for a stable society, right?

So, for example, if you look around the world across cultures, about 85% of cultures have either condoned or accepted or had some form of polygyny. Polygyny means one man, multiple women. About 15%, so the rest of the pie is monogamy and a very, very, very small percentage way less than 1% is polyandry, one woman with many men. Now in those cases, the most famous example of that is called fraternal Tibetan polyandry. In those cases, it's a Tibetan system where one woman is shared by multiple men, but the multiple men are brothers. In other words, that's so fucked up.

But now let me explain the evolutionary reason for that. For whatever reason, we don't have to get into the details, you don't want to have a whole bunch of men. For example, you don't want only the eldest to have sexual access, but then all the younger brothers to be twiddling their thumbs, that's not going to read to a stable society. So the next best thing is to have multiple men share a woman, but their brothers, because then in that case, if the best thing is for me to extend my genes directly through direct reproductive fitness, I am sure that it is my child. The next

best thing is if the woman that I'm sharing has a child, let it at least be someone who is genetically related to me. 50% of my genes or whatever, exactly. Exactly. I can increase my fitness indirectly through skin selection. So I can't answer the in-cell versus chaos, but I can certainly tell you that a lot of evolutionists have thought about what happens to societies when you get a lot of sexually frustrated men and it's never a good thing. I was going to say so evolutionary science would it say sexual inequality is as powerful of

an explanation for rage's economic inequality say. Well, it depends what you mean by sexual inequality. I mean, you sort of mean so it's good. In balance. Yeah, exactly. There are different currencies you could use, right? So but speaking of the gender gap issues, this may or may not be where you want to go. But one of the things that we talk about in universities

is something that I've, I mean, humorously, but truthfully referred to as the die religion, diversity, inclusion, and equity, right? So I reorganize the letter so that it's die, because it's literally the death of meritocracy is the death of common sense, right? So I reorganize the letters so that it's die because it's literally the death of meritocracy, it's the death of common sense, right? Now, in universities, my university's in every other university, it's now being run by the dies of, Zars, right? So professorships are granted not based on the merit of your CV, but it is based on whether you have the right identity markers, one of

which, since we're talking about gender gap and so on, one of which is, you know, some professorships, you are officially not allowed to apply unless you are a woman or you self-identify as a woman. That's not satire. This is literally true. Don't apply, right? It's, well, first of all, you wonder, how is that not illegal? But now here's the little rub. 100 years ago, we had institutional sexism

whereby women were denied equal access to education, in which case that was wrong and we've corrected it. Now, today, here's the data that I'd like to report to your viewers in the US. If you take five races, so black, white, Hispanic, Native American, I can't remember the fifth one, so across five races and four levels of education. So in the US, you have what's called an Associates degree, which is half a bachelor's, then you have a bachelor's degree, then you have masters, then you have doctoral. So you have five races by four educational levels.

So there are 20 cells. Guess how many of the cells do women outnumber men? You follow the question? So there are 20 cells. You get? How many of those cells? Okay, let's do the other way, actually. How many of the cells? Okay, let's do the other way actually. How many of the cells do men outnumber women? I just had my answer right now, you've shifted and said, I would say that women will outnumber men, I think women outnumber men in the 20 cells. You're exactly correct. I guess maybe I set it up in such a way that you were going to go this way. Now, if it were that we need programs to protect women in university, it should be what it was 100 years ago, which is if we took this exact same data matrix, 20 out of the 20 sales,

it would be men outnumbering women, and we need to redress that. Well, today, not 100 years ago, across every race and every educational level, women outnumber men. So what is the logical conclusion of what we should do? We need more programs to protect women because bra massage. And so this is what an idea pathogen does to your brains. It says, I don't give a shit about this racist thing called data and facts and science and numbers. I care about a victimhood narrative. And there is no amount of evidence that you could give me that you can deny the

fact that women are afraid to walk on campus because of daily gang rapes, right? So now that doesn't mean that I don't support for, by the way, I was asked to appear at a business school luncheon or whatever to give a talk on how I am a better ally to women. Guess how that conversation went. I said no, I'm not an ally to women. Guess how that conversation went. I said, no, I'm not an ally to women. I'm an ally to all individuals. I have been an ally to women. I have been an ally to men. I have been to ally to people who are purple, who are white, who are fat, who are short. I judge people based on the merits of who they are. So then I said, but I'm willing

to come and talk about evolutionary based sex differences. Oh, let us get back to you professor. That they never got back to you. I know for a fact. Well, they got back and said, sorry, we're going in other direction. Not how I... So why should I support that victimhood narrative? I mean, my dean, who's a fantastic person, is a woman. The associate dean of research is a woman. The head of my department is a woman. Some of the recent research professorships are all women. So guess what?

Let's find a way to be better allies to women. That makes no sense, right? So how about we stop with the victimhood narrative, drop all this die-religion bullshit and go back to an ethos of individual dignity? That's that cervix privilege for you, man, honestly. One thing, I think it was Gertner that talked about how society vacillates between different extremes, and it moves between them.

And it kind of seems like that's the case, but in his argument he talked about that vasolation then the frequency starts to dial down over time and you reach a center, a balance point. What's your prediction for the future of crazy social justice ideas? Where are we on the trend curve? Are we, is the roller coaster still going up? I think we're still going up, but here's some good news if I can leave the audience with some optimism.

That would be wonderful. I think it would take very, very little for the whole thing to crash. In other words, to use the term of Nassim Kali, social justice warrior bullshit is fragile. It's not anti-fragile. If you're able to truly shock the system, then the whole thing will collapse. Now, what is the concrete? What does it mean concretely to shock the system? The silent majority hates the stuff. I know this because I receive a million emails a day from all professors who are too afraid

to speak and they say, thank you, you're my only ticket to sanity. So I know that 99% of people are against this stuff except that each of the 99% is too afraid to speak up. So it is left on three, four, five people to carry the burden for everyone else. The day that people find their testicles, whether they're males or female, and actually activate their testicular fortitude, and speak out and say, enough of this,

my seven-year-old child is not learning white fragility in class. It's not going to happen. And if everybody does that, the whole thing will go away. If not, then your vacillation that you spoke of will instead of it being done by next Tuesday, it will take another 30 years of wasted talent, wasted money, intuitions and so on. Wow. Final question is a request. It's to request to improve your Twitter feed. Actually, I know that you have a lot of different things, but this is my sort of personal input. Would more

shirtless photos be an option? In my current state, I think it would be a crime against humanity and have a shirtless photo. My 1985 version is what is known as Godlike. So if you want more photos of 1985, I think it's a benefit to society. If you want of me right now, I think I should be arrested. Have you considered, because Bella Thorn recently broke the single day record for only funds? Have you considered doing a God-sad only funds? And you could maybe have like some training footage of Nassim on there as well, because he likes to deadlift.

And if you know it's funny, you say this because one of the things that's been frustrating for me, but I haven't given it much thought, is that I haven't been able to grow my Patreon support and you know that when people you know give you support and so on because I do spend a tremendous amount of effort take great risk to do this and one should be remunerated or at least have an insurance policy and I think one of the reasons I haven't been able to do it is because I don't have the tier the tier reward system right it's just I appeal to people's decency hey you consume my content why don't you donate that I don't think that works.

So maybe at the $100 or more, there should be shirtless option in which case maybe I'm so lonely. Absolutely. If you want that, comment below with, we want to see you shirtless, please, God. And I will see if we can make it happen. Look, link to the parasitic mind will be linked in the show notes below. Anything else that people should check out? Where else do you want them to go? They can go and sign up to my Twitter feed at Gatsad, G-A-D-S-A-D.

A few months ago, I started a new personal website where everything has on it. Gatsad.com. You can go check it out. I've got my podcast, which I started recently. I've had my YouTube channel for many years, but people kept saying, well, we don't want just the YouTube channel, we want to be able to download things,

and so you can go check me out on my podcast. I'm all over the place. I'm hard to miss. I love it, man. Thank you so much for your time. This was very, very much worth the wait. Pleasure. Thank you, Baronicus. Yeah, oh, yeah, oh, yeah, oh, yeah.