Modern Wisdom - #684 - Vincent Harinam - Cancelled For Appearing On This Podcast

Episode Date: September 23, 2023

Vincent Harinam is a data scientist, law enforcement consultant and a writer. Vincent came on Modern Wisdom 2 years ago. Shortly after that, he was pulled into a meeting at a prestigious British University where he was teaching to be reprimanded for his comments. Today we get to break down what happened, and continue our dating discussion that got him in so much hot water. Expect to learn why academia has such a problem with independent media, what has changed in the dating market over the last 2 years, what the future trends in mating crisis-land will be, whether men are actually lost or just need to work harder, whether polygyny can fix population collapse, Vincent’s thoughts on my male sedation hypothesis and much more... Sponsors: Get 5 Free Travel Packs, Free Liquid Vitamin D and more from AG1 at https://drinkag1.com/modernwisdom (discount automatically applied) Get an exclusive discount from Surfshark VPN at https://surfshark.deals/MODERNWISDOM (use code MODERNWISDOM)  Get 20% discount on House Of Macadamias’ nuts at https://houseofmacadamias.com/modernwisdom (use code MW20) Extra Stuff: Get my free Reading List of 100 books to read before you die → https://chriswillx.com/books/ To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/modernwisdom - Get in touch. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/chriswillx Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/chriswillx YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/modernwisdompodcast Email: https://chriswillx.com/contact/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hello everybody, welcome back to the show. My guest today is Vincent Harinam, he's a data scientist, law enforcement consultant, and a writer. Vincent came on modern wisdom two years ago, shortly after that, he was pulled into a meeting at a prestigious British university where he was teaching to be reprimanded for his comments that he made while talking to me. Today we get to breakdown just what happened, and continue our dating discussion that got him in so much hot water in the first place. Expect to learn why academia has such a problem with independent media, what has changed in the dating market over the last two years, what the future trends in mating crisis land will be, whether men are actually lost or just need to work harder, whether polygamy can

fix population collapse, Vincent's thoughts on my male sedation hypothesis, and much more. This episode is brought to you by AG1. You are not eating and a fruit and vegetables in your diet, and you know it, and this is going to help. If you are looking to make an upgrade to your nutrition, AG1 is a fantastic place to start. It is a daily, foundational nutrition supplement that supports whole body health. It's got a science-driven formulation of vitamins, probiotics, and whole food source nutrients.

It delivers comprehensive support for your brain, gut, and immune system. This is why Dr. Andrew Huberman and David Sinclair and Joe Rogan and Lex Reedman and myself are all massive fans because it is the best daily foundational nutrition supplement on the planet. Also, there is a 90-day money back guarantee, so you can buy it and try it for 89 days, and if you do not like it, they will give you your money back. Head to drinkag1.com slash modern wisdom to get a year's free supply vitamin D, 5 free travel packs, plus that 90-day money back guarantee that's drinkag1.com slash modern wisdom. This episode is brought to you by Surfshark VPN. Protect your browsing online and get access

to the entire world's Netflix library for less than the price of a cup of coffee per month. If you are using the internet without a VPN, you are basically dancing in a muddy field without any shoes on. It is not good for you. If you use a public Wi-Fi network, like a library or a cafeteria, the internet admin can see all of the data going back and forth between your computer and the internet. Plus your internet service provider is tracking everything that you look at and then selling your information to companies who will target you with ads on what you browse. Also, it means that you can't access the entire world's Netflix library and you can't use services like HBO Max or Amazon Prime when you're abroad.

All of this is fixed by Surfshark VPN, it is available across unlimited devices so it protects and gives you access on your laptop, your iPad, your phone and even your smart TV, plus there is a 30 day money back guarantee and an 83% discount with 3 months free. All of that is available if you go to surfshark.deals slash modern wisdom. That's surfshark.deals slash modern wisdom. This episode is brought to you by House of Macadamia's. House of Macadamia's, ready salted macadamia nuts are unbelievably good. I didn't think that I was a nut lover and these things are kind of like tiny little balls

of crack. So if you're a nut lover or if you know someone that is, you need to try these. Macadamia is the lowest carb of any popular nut, it's 33% less than almonds, they've got the best fat profile like an avocado on steroids, more heart healthy, mono unsaturated fat than any other nut and the only nut rich in rare omega 7 fatty acids. This is why Tim Ferris and Jurorogan and myself are all massive fans, plus obviously they taste phenomenal. You can get a 20% discount, site-wide, plus a free box with your first purchase. If you go to houseofmacadamias.com,

slash modern wisdom and use the code mw20, a checkout that's houseofmacadamias.com, slash modern wisdom, MW 20. A checkout. But now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Vincent Haranam. What has happened to you since our last episode? Ha! Well, it's a good question. I guess we take the long route and explaining what exactly has happened here. You're of course well aware of the situation.

You've been a great friend and a great confidant in this affair, but what I can tell you is that I am no longer in the academy as a member of staff and a lecturer. I have left the academy because I was soft-canceled at a prestigious university in the UK. I won't say which one. I've for to keep the details off the table. It's happened quite a bit away back now. So we'll keep that off the table. Well, we can certainly talk about how we got there, at least how we got here. Yeah, I was instrumental at least in some regards.

I facilitated your soft cancellation. This is correct. It was you, Ed McHale Peterson. So I have the both of you to thank for the talk. Speaking of duo of people to be associated with. Yeah. Off-flit individuals that try to improve the lives of others by putting out content to help them better themselves. Gosh, you people, you know. Okay, so take it from the top. What, what was the issue? What was the experience? What were the conversations? What was the outcome?

Well, I suppose the, just to take it from the very beginning is that I'd went through an application and interview process for a professional job. As I said, a fairly prestigious university in the UK. What were you at the time? What were you? I was a lecturer. I was a lecturer. What's the official, is that lecturer of or is that associate professor?

It's just a lecture ship, a lecture ship, a lecturer you would teach classes more so. It's sort of like a contract-based professional job at a non-UK university, so you would be seen as a teaching screen professor at another university, for example. Yes. Yes, so I'd gone through the process of this job and I didn't up getting it. The reason why I know all these details is because it was told to me by various members of staff and various members of the hiring committee after the fact. There are certain people that were very unhappy with what had happened.

They couldn't keep it themselves and they gave me all these details about the things that had transpired behind closed doors. But just to explain what happened is that I was essentially chosen to be the professor. I was essentially given the job, but the contract was not sent to me. The decision was made on a Friday, and HR obviously doesn't work on the weekends, so you'd have to wait till Monday. But in between the Friday and the Monday, one member of the department, or a few members of the department, had heard that I would be the next in line for the job.

And so they brought up the podcast that I was on, the podcast with yourself, the podcast with Michaela, and then it became an issue that I was not a worthy candidate because of my participation on these platforms. And so they'd essentially brought it back to a second interview, a sort of kangaroo court, which was set up in such a way that it put me to be a bad candidate. Chris, before

I even sat down in that seat for the second interview, they'd already plain the podcast that I was on with you, decrying that I was a member of the atmosphere. They actually, I was a member of the manosphere, they actually, one member of the hiring committee actually circulated an article, salon.com article, on the red pill, and decried me as being a member of that community, that being the manosphere community. Yes. We spent much of that conversation, but the people that haven't listened to it, we spent much of that conversation mildly criticizing to outright mocking the red pill, confused ideas about what men shouldn't do. It was about two years ago when we sat down and it was one of the really formative conversations

that I had. You've written a number of great articles about this, but yours have been really, really sort of foundationally my understanding of the conception of what's going on, this tall girl problem imbalance, hypergamy, all that stuff. But it was so overly delicate and so softly spoken throughout that we would have been accused

by anybody in the manosphere of being blue-pilled. Anybody in the manosphere would have said, this is simping for feminists. This is your your your wantonly bending at that breaking your back because you want to be accepted by the wider community at large. And what it shows is just how far the spectrum can move that to internet people, you were so blue-pilled that you're a cook, but to academic people, you're so bigoted that you're unspeakable.

Do you know what I mean? And it's the same conversation. Yeah. Same conversation. And the thing which I found most interesting is that I was told that one member of the hiring committee was so appalled by this decision that they refrain from actually making a call as to who would receive the job They'd abstain from boating at all because they thought it was it was simply a travesty Which kind of brings true to me because it it seems to me

I have two sort of takeaways from from this experience The first takeaways that people have this tendency to believe that cancel culture is something which is overt and public. That it's a public cancellation. Someone is a public figure that is no longer working a job because members of their faculty or department have removed them because of some sort of public consternation. But my contention is that true cancel culture is pervasive and silent. It's behind closed doors, where members of the academy will essentially black ball potential candidates because of their political ideologies, let's say. Now, I would say that the other takeaway is that,

I don't think it's purely based on political atomists, these sort of soft cancellations. I think 50% of it is political, and the other 50% of it is personal. I would say that a sort of soft cancellations, I think 50% of it is political and the other 50% of it is personal. I would say that a lot of these cancellations are premise around jealousy within the academic sphere. Jordan Peterson comes up as the optimal example. I think that half the people that wanted a cancelat guy, they did so because of his views on Bill C-16. And I think the other half of the academics that wanted to cancel him were simply jealous of it.

They didn't like the fact that he was courageous and bold in making the public statement regarding this particular policy and that he was accumulating all of the line-light. Academics are very jealous and petty people by nature. Just based on my experience, you ask any academic, they'll tell you stories about individuals in their department. I think it's often a tribute to Henry Kissinger, but there's a quote out there from Wallace Sayer, who was a American politics professor at Columbia University in the 1950s and 60s, and he said that the reason why university politics is so vicious is because they're so

little at stake, and it ties into something called Sayer's Law, which stipulates that the intensity of feeling in a dispute is inversely proportionate to the value of the thing at stake. Yes. Well, one thing that it's got in my head is that personal vendetta's masquerading as social justice or right just call out is such a beautiful strategy to couch your own petty juvenile, capitalistic, personal, egotistical aspirations in, because it gives you, it allows your questionable morality to stand on the shoulders of someone that you deem as having done something wrong. And it means that nobody's actually going to bother to look at you. This is right. This is correct.

I would say that it's not a meme. I think it's probably correct based on the studies that are out there that a lot of American professors are probably far left and support far left economic policies. If for example, we were to snap our fingers and make these individuals have a substantive salary overnight, they would change their their economic views. They would go all the way from the left to probably the center, maybe even the right regarding taxation.

Are you saying that the problem to fix workness in academia is to pay people more? No one complains when they're highly paid, do they? I had a Corey Clark on the show. I made, I sent you that one on WhatsApp. And another skew is that the Academy is now very heavily dominated by women. And women and men have differing ideas about what is and is not acceptable behavior, what is and is not acceptable findings to be discovered in research, how behavior between

students with their lecturers and lecturers with each other and so on and so forth. It's a shifting shifting tectonic plate, I think beneath the academy in a way that it hasn't been previously. And then again, the modern world of like leftism, not traditional liberalism, but like this sort of internet leftism, is purpose-built to make the followers look good online. It's it's performative empathy, it's look at how much I care about this disadvantaged group, it's the tyranny of that minority You know trying to uphold whatever the most oppressed this week. It's people with a club foot and next week It's people with a gluten intolerance and then

Because that makes you seem like an empathetic person, but as we've seen right over the last couple of months You know Ellen DeGeneres Amy Schumer, you know the Alan DeGeneres, Lizzo, Amy Schumer, you know, the most vehement forthcoming of the like card carrying we care about the little people people are actually the ones that are the most bigoted behind the scenes. Mm hmm. I would completely agree with that statement, that sentiment. In its entirety, I would say that within these sort of institutions, it is the appearance of the

thing without the thing itself. And I suppose the frustrating part, though, is that the effects or the downstream, the second third order effects of that is that you're not hiring the most meritocratic candidates. The best person does not receive the job simply because they don't hold certain ideologies which are in consonants with those within a department or within an institution. Which drives down the quality of research if you're not hiring the best people to do the best form of research out there. So we are, in essence, taking institutions such as the academy, such as the news industry

and downgrading it because of political ideology, because of wanting to look good. We reduce the quality because we reduce the quality of individuals that we hire based off of their ideology because of wanting to look good. We reduced the quality because we reduced the quality of individuals that we hire based off of their ideology. Okay, so you turn up to this second interview, which actually turned out to be a struggle session where you were held up against a wall and had my podcast, our podcast episode shot into your face. What happened after that? Because that didn't necessarily mean that you needed to leave the academy. Right, excellent question.

I didn't care. That's the short answer. I think I'd relay this point to you is that what this one had to be. Yeah, we spoke exactly that. We spoke that day and within the next 24 hours I'd moved on to something different. I'd like, I'm the type of person.

I take these sort of things in stride and I don't linger on them for very long. I like to move on to the next thing right away. In life, you have a lot of options, at least I'm the type of person that can call to be different options, and I took an option that was available to me. I'm very happy now. To be honest with you, I looked at this particular soft cancellation very similarly to the COVID lockdown in the sense that it was a form of accelerationism, because I was always going that this particular soft cancellation very similarly to the COVID lockdowns,

in the sense that it was a form of accelerationism, because I was always going to leave the academy at some point and join the private sector, join industry, and they just did that for me, right? So, thanks, I guess, I mean, I have no Adamist towards the people that did it. I understand their point of view. I understand how this happens in the academy. And to be honest with you, if you're an academic in, at an academic institution and this sort

of thing happens to you, it should be expected. It should be expected at this point. Council culture, as I said, is endemic within the institution and to soft cancellations, never public or very rarely is public. The soft cancellation thing is so interesting as well, because it's another layer of protection from the accuser to the QZ. Exactly. Exactly. You know, there's no point at which anyone in HR or some news organization could come in really.

Where's the story from like Vincent wasn't allowed to sit at the cool kids table in the staff tea room, you know, like where there's none of that. It's all the easy to disguise, second orderly, wishy-washy manipulative stuff. Right, I agree with that. And I would say that it's a pernicious brilliant where you can use the available machinery and mechanisms within an institution to be able to cover your tracks, to be able to demonstrate that, look, I did all the necessary things that I needed to ensure that this candidate had a fear hearing, I had a second interview where I had him or her, you know, say exactly what was on their mind and answer these questions, but an actuality it's done in a way that, again, identifies flaws in candidates, manufactured flaws as a word that makes them a candidate that's not viable for a job or a position. What were the particular issues? What were the particular issues that they took with our episode? Well, one thing was the comment that I made around the ravisher and the ravage.

So again, that conversation, a lot of conversation was around compatibility between two people in a relationship. And so they made it seem as though I was in favor of women getting ravaged, something ridiculous along those lines. I think a lot of women are in favor of women getting ravished as well. I don't want to comment on that, Chris, because I might get canceled again. That's impossible. At this point, second cancellations. But you know, that's the kind of thing that I'm talking about. It's nitpicking bits and pieces of podcasts,

bits and pieces of media, without any sort of context, and presenting that as the person's views on a certain point, without playing the first five minutes prior to that. And the mere fact that I was on a podcast with Michaela Peterson was also another problematic issue. Another thing that was interesting as well, I'm just remembering this right now,

is that someone said to me, ah, one of your podcasts, released the podcast with Chris was on Rumble. That's an alt-right side, and it must mean that you are somehow affiliated with these sort of people. It's just circle at circumstantial evidence that has clumped together to make an argument

in favor of someone being a terrible person. Oh, dear. Yeah, the guilt by network association or guilt by website association there. Yeah, I've, it's so strange, man. The, um, and this is the closest that I've been to someone going through this experience. I said it to you at the time. I am sorry for the, for the annoyance it caused, even if it does end up being an accelerationist thing and it was, you know, a blessing in disguise and all the rest of it, the fact that you've

managed to alchemize a shitty situation into a good one doesn't mean that the shitty situation should have started in the first place. But yet to be this close to it, for me, it's personally invested in you as well, and your well-being is so bizarre because I see these stories on the internet, and I know that they're happening, I know they're not a fiction But because it's never been me right yet and because it's never been anyone really close to me It kind of seems like lapping or it almost seems like a story or something else that's not going You know like these Portland Antifa people like it just doesn't seem like they actually exist.

It just seems like they just exist on Fox News or CNN or something. And yeah, I don't actually see them. And this has made it a lot more visceral and real. Absolutely. Personal experience, I think, is the greatest teacher. I'm, I, like, there, I guess this is a general comment about reading versus doing things. I'm, I would say that when you're up close and personal and you're actually doing an activity,

then that's a form of primary knowledge. You have a very good feel about what something is actually like versus secondary knowledge, which is something that you acquire from reading a book. You're just reading something that someone else did, right? You don't actually feel the thing, see the thing with your eyes. You're experiencing what is happening on a page. So I would say that it's, it's far more impactful and it's far more instructive when you see something up close and personal, primarily.

I'm glad that you went through it so that I didn't need to learn the lesson. Me and George Mack had this idea of 2D lessons and 3D lessons and it maps exactly onto what you're talking about. So a 2D lesson is me reading Bill Perkins' book, Die With Zero, in which he says that wealth, time and health, time and money are the three main parameters that you're playing with and you want to end up enjoying your life as much

as possible, which means maximise your health, spend your wealth appropriately and utilise time as best you can. Reading the book's really impactful, it's great read, it's four hours long, everyone can go and listen to the episode, they did it with Bill, or go pick the book up, it's fantastic. Reading the book was a 2D lesson, recording with him, and then him saying, hey, what you do after this? And I was like, I don't know, probably going to go home and like edit this episode. He was like, do you want to come wake surfing? I was like, yeah, sure, I can wake surf. So within two minutes, he's made two phone calls. The driver that he had outside, loops back around the block, picks us up.

His boat captain jumps in the boat, drives, picks us up from Austin 360 bridge. And then I get to go to his house, which is the most expensive house in Austin ever sold, who's built by the creator of Bumble, the founder of Bumble built this fucking compound on the water. And then I got to see firsthand how he's instantiated the strategies from the book. You know, he's really utilizing as much as possible to free up his time, to free

up his mental ability, so that he can have fun with his friends so that when he works, he's incredibly focused. And for when he's as time off, he's incredibly relaxed. And I was like, oh, yeah, like I didn't need to read the book. I could have just come and I could have just had the 3D lesson, not the 2D lesson. Absolutely. I think that's a really great analogy when it comes to learning, especially in this age is that what you, so just a general question here, would you rather take lessons on how to shoot a basketball from someone who's written a book about shooting a basketball or Michael

Jordan? Michael Jordan, a basketball or Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan, old man. Michael Jordan, exactly, all day long, not because he's Michael Jordan, but because he's been in the NBA and he has a long, long, many years of experiential knowledge on this sort of issue. So what I'm noticing, especially with these sort of courses that a lot of the gum-tree people are developing, is that it's never people that are the best of the best in a particular area. It's always the people that are writing books that are selling courses. All the people that are doing these things are too busy making money.

So you should be, you should do like Nancy Pelosi and just copy trade all these, or just copy trade Nancy Pelosi or something because she's actually doing, she's not writing a book on investment. Yeah. Yeah, it's such a political. No, not at all. At all. Yeah. Yeah. Of all of the lines that I don't want to cross, it's Nancy Pelosi's insider trading. That's where it's gone too far.

So final, final thing, now that you are on the outside looking in to the Academy, what is your prediction for the future? We have some close friends, Rob Henderson being one of them, that are remaining in for better off it was, what's your prediction for the future of academia? 20 to 30 years. It's no longer going to be a viable institution because of things like this happening. Why would anyone, why would any parent send their child to a four-year institution soaking up all this money, all this debt for four years of ideological indoctrination and

essentially not paying for an education. Why would anyone subscribe to that sort of model? I mean, there was a there's an interesting tweet I don't know on Twitter very often, but there was an interesting tweet. I read the other day. What is one scam that we are aware of but not is not as publicized. We have been sort of gotten rid of the scam. And the answer that came out the most was higher education. So what this means is that there's going to be alternative means for education, not

just the university itself. I think the university is going to fall by the wayside. You're of course going to get top two universities that remain at the very top, but everything else within the periphery, all the second third order, or excuse me, third degree universities, are going to be eliminated or have their enrollment rates reduced significantly. I would say within the next three or three years. Yeah, well, I don't know. I can't work out whether that seems tragic.

It does seem tragic to me actually. I'd like the antipathy toward higher education isn't toward the institution of university and it isn't toward academia. It's towards the people who are not using it for the thing that it was supposed to be for. And I try and check myself when I go like, oh, you down with the university. It's like, no, the universities are fine. It's just some of the fucking people that are inside of them. This is correct. The institution in and of itself is brilliant. It was designed to educate a ton of people in a short period of time that being four years, but it's become a degree mill tinge with ideology and it's really just a business.

I mean, that's another way of thinking about it. Anything which sort of sets itself out to be the way of thinking about it. Anything which sets itself out to be a principle but is based off of gaining money is not principled. If money is the primary principle or the driving factor. What do you think has changed in the dating market since we last caught up? I know that you had other things on your plate like trying to save a career and then find a new one. But what have you been getting particularly interested in the dating market? Well, I wanted to move away from all the descriptive stuff. So the last conversation we had was on what exactly was going on in the dating marketplace

with relation to men and women. But I wanted to look at it from the perspective of the future. So examining, looking at the current dating trends and trying to extrapolate 20, 30, 40, 50 years into the future, what those results were going to be. And I haven't gotten around to building the simulation models. I know we talked about that.

I'll eventually do that. But I've mainly been looking at some statistics around crime, violence, you know, the young male syndrome as it were and trying to make sense of all that. What is young male syndrome for the people who want familiar? Right. So Jung Mail Syndrome is a concept that sort of instantiates or says that Jung Mail's, I guess, between the ages of 18 and 30 who are not partnered, not married, are sort of low status or perceive themselves to be low status. They are the ones to engage in anti-social activity, to sort of up end the existing political

order, the existing social order, because of their inherent belief that they are downtrodden and low status. Right. And we have an interesting paradox on our hands at the moment that large numbers of men within the 18 to 30 cohort aren't having sex. They probably don't have a massive amount of meaning. We have got lots of unemployment in particularly previously employable groups

and they're probably not integrated very well in society, but we haven't seen an in-kind increase in anti-social behavior, mass shootings, et cetera. And this is something I put to you, my male sedation hypothesis, which is actually finally been cited by bus and William Costello, which is pretty cool. But you have, your background is actually like criminology statistician. Is that close enough?

I would say so. I would say a data scientist that does criminology. Right. Okay. That was close enough for me. Close enough. So you are the guy, right? You understand the dating market. You understand what's going on there. does criminology. Right. Okay. That was close enough for me. So you are the guy, right? You understand the dating market.

You understand what's going on there, but you also have this very unique insight into anti-social behavior, criminal behavior, and it's coming at it from a demographic economist's statisticians lens. So what do you think? Like what's the current trajectory got for young men and what's going on? Why aren't we seeing everybody blowing everything up? I think we're headed for it. I think that there's a time-lagged delay.

And I think the thing with your thesis, the docility hypothesis is that it's correct, but the only element it's missing is a impetus towards violence, a galvanizing cause, as it were. I guess that's how I'll determine a galvanizing effort. So I'll give an example. So if you look at research done by Scott Atrin and Max Abrams, so these are professors out in the United States.

I think one guy was at NYU. They found that the vast majority of suicide bombers. In fact, all suicide bombers were male and single. Young males are single. male and single. Young males are single. The vast majority, in fact, all of terrorists were young male and single. If we look at captured ISIS records, all of these individuals before they joined ISIS were young male single, and then they got married once they joined ISIS. So, you need some sort of galvanizing cause to sort of bring these docile men to wake them up in order to engage in violence. And the research on it is quite phenomenal. I was blown away by some of the things that I was looking at, so I'll give you one statistic. So one study looked at percentage increases in single men within a population, and they

found that for every one percent increase in single men within a population, the proclivity or the probability of civil war increases by 0.25%. The number of terrorist attacks increases by something like 0.05 attacks, and the number of people that die in terrorist attacks increases by 0.7 people dead. And again, this goes back to that notion that you need an impetus to drive people towards some sort of endeavor to rouse them into being. It's why I think Andrew Tate and I says have so much in common. I'm not equating them in that sort of way. I'm just saying that they galvanize young men towards a specific cause. Here is a mission. Here is a journey, here is a goal that is

grounded in yourself, you're not useless, you can contribute. This is right. And to add a few more points here is that there is a historical precedent for polygenies association, that is, polygeny, we can sort of break that down, but it's more so a surplus of single young men engaging in violence. So one particular example I can give you in antiquity is China in the 18th century.

So this is Hua Pei. It was called the Nian Rebellion of 1851 to 1863. And essentially what had happened in Hua Pei was that there was a massive famine. There was a infanticide. And the ratio of men to women was 126 men to 100 women, which meant that there was immense surplus of men, and all of these men that were socio-economically poor and deprived had to defer marriage by around six years because of this surplus. And I think 25% of them didn't end up getting married. And this was also

affected by the polygamous practices of the rich. So rich men in Huawei China accounted for about 10% of the marriage, even though they accounted for maybe 1% of the population, something like that. And what this led to was massive riots and and and roving bands of thieves and criminals that would go around the Chinese countryside assaulting people. We see a similar example in medieval Portugal, where I think you know of this example. My favorite one. It's your favorite one. So medieval Portugal sees a 112 men for every woman.

And because of pre-Megenditor and first son rights, the first born son was the one that would inherit and be able to marry, which meant that you had a cohort of second born sons and poor men that were sort of listless. They didn't have a partner. So the monarchy in Portugal decided to ship all of these surplus men out to conquest, out towards overseas, so they could get that aggression out there as a means of conquest and colonialism. Get the aggression off Portugal, mostly. Exactly. Because I suppose the leaders at that time knew that these men were the the the Linchpin

towards revolution and change. And their opponents knew that in order to quickly change the political regime to kill their enemies, to kill the ones in power, they would have to galvanize these men to action, give them some sort of prize or Benefit or incentive to engage in political violence, which is very easy. Yeah, I'm looking at this here landmark study of 500 high-risk males in Boston by criminologists John Lowe and Robert Sampson Sampson, yeah found that marriage reduced the odds of criminal activity by a whopping 35% This was corroborated

by another major story of 400 and London men who found a 44% increase in criminal activity during periods when men were single or divorced. Furthermore, men who stayed married saw an 80% decrease in their offending rate. Finally, a meta-analysis of the scholarly literature found a negative association between marriage and crime in 78% of eligible studies. There's also an amazing one that I learned from Roy Baumeister, so they got men to cross the road and looked at how far the nearest car was to them when they did it, and men were either crossing the road

in the presence of women or without the presence of women. And in the presence of women, or without the presence of women. And in the presence of women, shock horror, it was way closer. The car was half the distance away that they would do and they were just prepared. So risk-taking behavior very much is informed by women and wives very much do domesticate husband. Absolutely.

Absolutely. There's a lot of studies that tell you, OK, well, Faradol, I'll just make this point. There's one caveat with these studies, and it's the lot of studies that I tell you. Okay, well, fair enough, I'll just make this point. There's one caveat with these studies, and it's the age in which the men get married. The overall study was at men's level to testosterone drops when they have children. Is that mediated, or is that the case because they have children and they're married, or is that because there are an age where their testosterone begins to drop? That's the question.

But I even still, I would say that that's quite an important study with regard to the pacifying effect of a family on a man. And the two studies that you've mentioned, at least the criminological studies, are Linchpin landmark studies within criminology. So, Sath and Lob, OG criminologists have, you know, around the gauntlet in terms of great studies. David Farrington, who did that study in London, was a former colleague of mine at Cambridge. He's renowned for these sort of studies and these are the sort of studies that really bring the notion of marriage into a perspective

as a force for reducing potential violence in the future. Also, obviously, marriage means that you are less likely to grow up in a single parent household. And I'm sure that you as a criminologist have some terrifying statistics about the different kinds of crime outcomes and risk profiles for men boys who grow up in single parent households versus two parent households. 100% so that's the second wing of the argument with relation to future violence is that there will probably be a cohort of young men that grew up without fathers that engage in criminal activity. One study that I looked at found that 85% of prison inmates grew up in a single mother household. General increases, so 1% increases in male figures, not necessarily fathers, but male figures within neighborhoods, decrease the crime rate by a substantive margin, or something like 0.5% off the top of my head. It could be lower, it could be higher.

But the point being here is that the presence of two parents within a household is substantive and incredibly impactful when it comes to not just deterring young boys away from crime, but improving life circumstances. So for example, single mother households have $40,000 less income relative to stable two parent households. There's rates of depression that are higher in single parent households, graduation high school, getting into post-second year institutions,

living in poverty, you're at a complete disadvantage if you live in a single parent household. And sort of just to contextualize this in its entirety 41% I it's either 40 or 41% of children in the United States are currently born out of wedlock and one in five children in the United States, so that means 21% of them live in single parent households That is single mother households to be more specific Yeah, I had Melissa Kani on the show. Have you seen that? The two parent advantage. It's coming out in about two weeks time. I had not.

You'd love it. So she, she's been on with Rob and Rob introred me to her book and I had her on yesterday. Dude, it's shocking. Like she's a policy wonk type from like Washington and He's a policy-wank type from Washington and straight up economics. It's just raw economics is what she's looking at. Then the outcomes are really, really scary. To fall back in the social justice, performative empathy line, I think that many people from the high-faluting institutions from the parts of government that could instantiate policies that would be able to help these people feel like they're being, like they're patronizing, especially minority groups, you know, this is specifically a problem in the black community. This is specifically a problem in the black community. This is specifically a problem. It's not people that are college educated. If you've got a four-year college degree, none of

this stuff touches you. No, not at all. You probably won't even get divorce, right? The cohort of the number one cohort that has the lowest risk of divorce are college educated women. Yep. Yep. And the thing is, Chris, is I think that it's actually racist in and of itself to view these views of these high-falutin individuals as actually a soft form of bigotry to soft form of racism. So look at these people and say, well, I, you know, they can't get married. It's okay if they don't have intact families. It's just how they do things. Well, that's ridiculous. That's ridiculous. I mean, Thomas Saul has looked at this issue in a great level of a great level in his books, or at least one of his books,

with white liberals and black red necks. I believe I have that mixed up, but he looked at rates of intact black families and the success that they had. And it's only when the Model City's act came into effect in the 1960s in the United States that we saw a degradation of intact black families and the success that they had. And it's only when the Model Cities Act came into effect in the 1960s and at states that we saw a degradation of the black family structure and therefore increases in crime within black communities. Yeah, that's interesting. Okay, so going back to male sedation hypothesis,

young male syndrome, is it your belief then that the right galvanizing activation energy flashpoint thing could light what appears to be kind of like the materials, the foundation, the Tinder of a particularly disgruntled group of young men? Is that kind of what your concern is moving forward? Precisely. Precisely. I would say exactly that. We are one match being lit away from a massive crisis. And I know I stated some examples in antiquity, but there are modern examples to really implicate this particular crisis. So China would be the operative example. So you're well aware of the, the what was it called, the one child policy in China? Yes, the one child policy in China resulted in an approximate number.

What is it? It's 80 million lost women, which means that there's a massive surplus of young Chinese men that are now coming to age, they're single. And what the statistics indicate is that there is a five to six percent increase in violent crime and property crime in China because of this surplus amount of young single men. There's another study that indicated that between 1988 and 2004, one-seventh of the rise in property and violent crime within China was due to the surplus of men between the ages of 16 and 25. Here's another one I'll give you. I'm just

listening to this at this point. But in Mexico, for every one, for the decrease of one men per 100 within the population, there is a commence for 0.43 reduction in homicides per 100,000. So less men you have within a population, surplus-wise, less homicides you have. For the people who don't understand why when we don't have a massive gender disparity here, like it's around about 50-50 men to women, we haven't had in fantasied because everybody wants to have a male first born or whatever. Can you explain why it's the case that we have these disengaged out of relationship men if it is around about 50-50? I guess you're talking about the imbalance of women that are in a relationship and the

commensurate number of the associated number of men that are not in relationship and the commensurate number of the associate number of men that are not in relationships despite the 50-50. Well, I think the reason is probably because of a soft form of polygene where you have a small number of men or an outsized, not quite an outsized number, but a decent sized number of men within the population that have relationships or balances with these women who think that they're in a relationship

which means that you have a cohort and increasing cohort of men, perhaps the majority of men that are not in any sort of relationships. This actually harkens back to historical or a anthropological finding, which was that we have 66% of our ancestors were female, something like 60 to 66,

a 70% of our ancestors were females, whereas 30 to 33% of our ancestors were female, something like 70 to 666 to 70% of our ancestors were females, whereas 30 to 33% of our ancestors were males, which meant that a small number of males in antiquity in ancient times had sex and reproduce with the majority of women. We don't have as many male ancestors as we do female ancestors, and it's the same sort of principle here within the dating market. Yes, to put that into a little bit more easy to understand numbers, I think it's right. 80% of women reproduced, 40% of men reproduced, it's around about, it's still the two to one, but that's within the overall population. Yeah. Yeah. So one, sorry, go ahead.

I was going to state another statistic, but I think, well, one, one thing I looked at was that one anthropologist found that for every 17 females in, if I've been, every 17 female ancestors of ours that reproduce one male ancestor, ancestor of ours reproduced. So it's quite an imbalance between the two. Yeah, that's huge. Okay, so soft pilliginy, which is one man capturing the attention of many women, now we're not seeing polycules with just one dandelion floating around, but you know,

you need a woman, yes. Correct. In a world that's got casual sex and situationships and we're just seeing each other kind of laborless relationships going on, it's quite easy to see how one guy could capture the attention of many women. Louise Perry calls them digital harrams when it comes to online dating. comes to online dating. And even if it's not that, one guy of high value cycling through multiple women throughout his 20s, throughout his 30s, throughout his 40s,

and now I'm mid 40s and I'm finally going to decide to settle down, can leave a wake of sort of broken hearts that are kind of left for other men to pick up, which I think is one of the criticisms of the more extreme sides of the Red Pill and Manusphere advice, which is if the goal is to kind of raise up the well-being of men, a lot of the advice around how to date women create precisely the broken, used and discarded women that men are now going to have to pick up and piece back together. It's a, at its worst, it's a philosophy

that benefits some men at the expense of everybody else. That's right. I think that's entirely correct. That critique of the manosphere, at least the Red Pill, is 100% correct. They create the problem with the ideology that they espouse, that they rail against, which is young women that are having sex with multiple men that are incredibly promiscuous.

Well, you're the ones that are preaching about having multiple sexual partners, that is going out with multiple women. So you're essentially creating this cohort of women that don't want to have a relationship that apparently use men for their resources. So it's staggering to me. And I do think that this is a serious problem that's happening apparently use men for their resources. So it's it's it's staggering to me and I do think that this is a serious problem that's happening in in modern society although There is evidence to suggest that there is of course a fertility crisis and a crisis around sex where we're no longer having a sexual recession as it work. I

Found this is a Alexander date-like stat. He's coming back on soon. He's like, if I could do a dream roundtable for dating, I would probably get you, Alex and William with Rob. Like you for, as a roundtable would just be phenomenal. You guys sit down with enough caffeine and four hours and a few good mics.

But he has, he did a really, really big study. 50% of men aged 18 to 30 say that they haven't approached a woman in the last year. That's not surprising. That's not surprising at all. I, I, I'm not even shocked by that. I mean, there, there's a few research study out there that, that sort of corroborated, well, actually the same finding that of the men that are not in a relationship, it's something like 53% of them, 57% of that number reported not being able to approach a woman or being afraid to approach a woman as the reason why they're not in a relationship. Oh, you need to send me that.

I haven't seen that one. I thought you were going to cite the one that said 55% of men between the ages of 18 and 30 say that they're not looking for casual or long-term relationships. But we don't know which of these are crossing over the top, right? Like, presumably, a lot of the men that don't want casual or long-term relationships are not approaching women, but some non-insignificant number of people who do want to be in relationships are also not approaching women. So you have this very, this is kind of the interesting thing about men at the moment among like a million other interesting thing. Is that you have a culture of guys who want to, you know, kind of take life by the horns, they feel like maybe antiquity would have been better for them, that the modern world has kind of robbed them of something in terms of meaning or purpose or connection, that there is an imbalance and some unfairness going on, and they want to kind of grab life by the horns

and finally get a purpose. At the same time, as being sedated heavily by porn, video games, social media screens, weed, convenience, so they're sort of pushing and pulling, at least pushing ideologically and pulling in terms of what they're doing with their lifestyle, they're stated in reveal preferences. And then when it comes to the women thing as well, a lot of the time, the guys will applaud an Andrew Tate, somebody who really does forge their own path when it comes to women. I think he's got a number of kids by maybe a number of women and he's doing all this stuff.

And it doesn't slow him down and he'll go do this thing. But then how many of the 50% of men that haven't approached a woman in the last year are a part of that cohort? And then me too, me too, it went to try and sanitize men and it sterilized them instead and all the rest of it. I don't disagree. I think that the fallout of an overly zealous me too movement, me to it went to try and sanitize men and it sterilized them instead and all the rest of it. I don't disagree.

I think that, you know, the fallout of an overly zealous me to movement has been catastrophic for women's dating desires. Completely. Completely. I'll give you a statistic there. It was either a Harris poll or an American studies poll. I forget the exact polling institution, but they found, not always pure. It was pure.

It's always Peele. Peele found that of the individuals that they interviewed with regard to the Me Two movement, 69% of men said that it had a deleterious effect on men's ability to know how to interact with women. 61% of women felt the same way. So of the cohort that they interviewed, which is supposed to be representative representative of the population, the vast majority of people view the Me Too movement as negative towards interactions, romantic interactions between men and women, because it's sort of knee-cap bed from taking the initiative and asking women out, because that could be viewed under the strictures of me too as harassment.

Yeah, 20% of Gen Z say that a man approaching a woman in person sometimes or always constitutes harassment. And that's only going to continue to get worse as people live life more vicariously through their screens. This aversion to doing anything in the real world is, I remember I was out for dinner with a friend and I mentioned, I was bored of him and I said that we should go and talk to those girls over the real world. I remember I was out for dinner with a friend and I was bored of him and I said that we should go and talk to those girls over the fast side. This is years ago now. He looked at me like I'd suggested going and hitting them over the head with the hammer and dumping their

bodies in a river. He said, I have been told under no circumstances that I'm to go up and talk to a woman. I'm like, dude, you are putting yourself on the back foot with regards to dating. And yeah, it's so strange, such a hydrahead, this sort of generalized risk of version that everybody has, where whatever the safest, lowest number of potential negative outcome approach strategy is the one that's right. That's the one that we should go for. Because you're not optimizing for what's best. You're optimizing for what causes the least number of potentially bad things. And I haven't said this on the show before. I'm going to try and thread the needle, but if I'm clumsy, please forgive me. How many?

How many sexual assaults? Actually, no. How many non-approaches by a guy to a woman is one sexual assault worth? Is it two million? Is it five million? Is it twenty? Is it zero? Because there's a number, right?

It could be, and I'm completely open to, it's an unlimited number. No one woman should ever, ever have to face any sexual assault. Absolutely. And there is no cash value of men not approaching women that would go with that. But you can see why it's an interesting question

because you think if you are creating an environment in which men never approach women, I would imagine that, well, maybe it doesn't reduce sexual assaults, maybe it doesn't even do that, I don't know. But let's say that it does, you would say, okay, well, it is a trade-off then, right? Because if you have sort of a trickle-down effect of men who aren't sexual assaulters, not approaching women who they wouldn't be sexually assaulting, in an attempt to reduce sexual assault, you have this collateral damage with regards

to approach anxiety. Absolutely. That's a phenomenal point you've raised. This sort of goes back to our last conversation, and it's all about risk. No one wants to take any risks anymore. That's the main thing I see from Generation Z. We're very much inclined to be on our phones and scrolling through our phones

and not wanting to go outside, starting businesses, approaching people, meeting new people. We have a generation of kids, both men and women that are entirely risk-aversed, that would prefer to live life in a bubble. Maybe COVID and the lockdowns are feeding into this. Maybe this is a side effect, but I think this was going on way before that. I think that we're only now seeing

this metastasized and it's only going to get worse as things progress forward. Mads Larson, you sent me a paper of his and he's actually coming on the show in a couple of months. I met him at HBES, the Human Behavior and Evolutionary Society conference a couple of months ago. Sex ratio studies suggest that women's perception of there being few acceptable partners activates a polygamous mindset which in prosperous monogamous societies drives promiscuity to the detriment of pair bonding. More than six million years of hominin evolution under promiscuous polygamous and monogamous regimes shaped make preferences that evoke different cultural and behavioral responses as environments change.

The Church's imposition of lifelong monogamy contributed to the emergence in the modern world, but if this world's gender equal societies no longer motivate reproduction, being more open to polygamy could be worth considering as a means for increasing fertility. What do we think, Vincent? Here we go. Here we go. So just to break down the argument for the audience, the fundamental question we're asking here is whether or not polygamy would be able to

end or reverse the fertility crisis, whether relationships or marriages where there is one man married to multiple women. In this case, that would be polygamy. Yes, polygamy would be conducive to more children being born. And I guess we can sort of break this conversation down into two parts. The first part would be, well, what is the historical precedent regarding polygeny or polygamy? And whether or not it actually is conducive to increases in the fertility rate. So my contention, and I think that a lot of evolutionary psychologists, so your Amira Grossbards, your Robert Wrights, your Matt Ridley's, would probably agree with me in saying that polygyny is actually, or polygamy,

is actually the norm and not the exception. It is actually monogamy, that is the exception, that is the newfangled invention in terms of the institution of marriage. So just to break down the historical evidence, there was a American psychologist by the name of George Murdoch, who wrote a very influential book called the Ethnographic Atlas,

where he surveyed 1,170 societies. And what he found was that 850 of those societies partook in polygamy of some kind, they're polygamous in nature. Now, the interesting thing now is that another anthropologist by the name of Francois Neilsen took Murdoch's data and re-analyzed it. And he wanted to identify how many of these societies were monogamous. And so what he found was that it was something like 21.5% of herding cultures were monogamous, 6.5% of advanced horror cultural systems were monogamous,

10.5% of hunter-gatherers were monogamous, 2.1% of fishing cultures were monogamous. All of this is to say that monogamy is again, is not the rule, but the exception. Just to interject there, what you notice, even in those sort of four different types of societies, is that as the ability to accumulate wealth and resources increases, monogamy decreases, because if you are a nomadic hunter gatherer type person, how are you

going to support two wives, bro? Right. Like you're the meal that you eat is what you kill tomorrow. Excellent observation, Chris. Excellent observation. So that's exactly that inner of itself is a fundamental truth of these statistics, that the more wealth that is, that is sort of distributed across society, and I guess the less centralize it is, the more likely it is for us to have a monogamous society. But that being said, just making the general point here around monogamy and polygamy, I do think that our species is more, I say, geared towards that, naturally

geared towards that in terms of a factory setting, that is polygamy. So Joe Hendrick, I believe you had him on the podcast a little while. Weedest people in the world, Joe's great. Yeah, he's awesome. He's a Harvard psychologist for the audience to know. And he often conduct studies of his undergraduates, particularly women, and he often asked the question, well, if you were given the choice of being the second wife of a billionaire,

or the primary exclusive wife of an average man, what would you choose? What do you think in terms of percentage of women chose to be the second wife of a billionaire, Chris? Do they think that their answers are going to be seen by the rest of the class? Let's just forget about that. If they did think that their answers are going to be seen by the rest of the class, it would be way, way, way toward the monotonous thing.

Completely, completely private and anonymous. Right. Oh, I would still think maybe only like 30 to 40% of women would say the billionaire at an absolute top end. I can't imagine more than that. 70. 70%. Elon. Keep popping them out, baby.

Oh, boy. Yeah. Well, that's that's staggering, right? So there is historical president for for polygamy and there is a modern precedent for it. I think if women were given the choice as they are Today in the sort in the in the form of soft polygamy or soft polygamy and soft heroms There is a lot of evidence to to substantiate This institution of marriage. Well, I wonder I it would not surprise me. We have seen Retreats into varying inner citadels all the way back.

Do I tell you this one? I say a Berlin's idea that Rob Henderson taught me, this is fucking awesome. Let me citadel. So, I say a Berlin says, when the natural road toward human fulfillment is blocked, human beings retreat into themselves, become involved in themselves

and try to create inwardly that world, which some evil fate has denied them externally. If you cannot obtain from the world, that which you really desire, you must teach yourself not to want it. In short, if you cannot get what you want, you must teach yourself to want what you can get. This is a very frequent form of spiritual retreat in depth into a kind of inner citadel, in which you try to lock yourself up against all the fearful ills of the world and Rob explained in a simpler way. He said, if your leg is wounded, you can try to treat the leg. If you cannot, then you cut off the leg and announce the desire for legs is misguided and must be subdued. So, it's like the, I don't need to lose weight these airplane seats to a two-narrow argument, right? Maybe some bath waters, right?

Yeah, so what you see, what we have seen is an increasing number of different retreats all the way back is, you know, I don't need a man, children don't need a father in the home to be able to raise them. That is an inner citadel retreat of, I have struggled to find a man, a father who has stuck about

after we've had a child together. From guys, from the guys side, just hold on boys, the sex robot are coming, the entire make-tow movement, all of the sigma male, lone, grind set, bro culture. All of that is a retreat from, I don't need to be hurt by other people, I don't need to be hurt and betrayed by friends or by partners or by society at large. And don't get me wrong, dude, I understand and have a massive sympathy for all of these people that have retreated into it, but I do think it's important for the people that are doing that to understand where this compulsion comes from, that this is them teaching themselves to get what

they can, to want what they can get, not to get what they want. And, you know, with our own desires and what it is that we truly feel, we are so duplicitous to ourselves that we don't even know that we're being duplicitous. Right. It's unbelievably easy to make the world believe alive, you believe it first. Right. So that's an effective way to do it. But, you know, we've got all of these different retreats. One of them you saw with that TikTok girl with like the blonde bob and she was wearing like 1950s. It's the tradwife, the tradwife movement.

Oh, that meme. Yeah. She even dressed in this sort of frilly floral kind of dress thing. Anyway, so Can I ask you a question regarding tradwives, just a straight question. What tread traditional Catholic wife, just a trad Catholic woman is on TikTok, bathing like that. Yeah. Well, that's a good question.

That's that's the thing. I don't mean that kind. I don't mean that kind of traditional. Okay. She clarified for me. Great. So that was one. That one is probably a not everything's an inner citadel. I don't want to make it an unfalcifiable theory, but that is a recanting of having to be too independent, having to make too many decisions. And you know, some people

may say that that's a return to a more sort of ancestral form of living. You've also got one that would be, it's bimboism, which is the opposite, a similar, similar, but opposite end of the spectrum, which is women retreating from contributing to like the earning potential or socioeconomic uplift of themselves by themselves. So I'm not going to go to university. I'm not going to bother trying to get a job. I'm not potential or socioeconomic uplift of themselves by themselves. So I'm not going to go to university, I'm not going to bother trying to get a job, I'm not going to bother chasing down a career,

I'm just going to chase down the man, it's not quite tradwifi because I'm not doing it kind of in praise of the man, it's still a little bit more atomized, solipsistic, like individual kind of. In some regards, but there's an amount of narcissism in there as well, because it's all praying at the altar of going to brunch with the girls on Sunday. It's not praying at the altar of, I want to make like acute family with sandwiches that are

cut in triangles, which is like the tradwife equivalent of this. But what, and to get my long, meandering fucking tale, to get to where I'm going, is it would not surprise me if we see a movement that tries to somehow empower women that polygyny is an effective strategy for them to move into. Because you have to create a cultural meme that legitimates people wanting what they can get. And if what you can get is being the second wife of a dude that earns 500 grand a year, how am I going to justify this to myself?

And if there is a number of people trying to justify it to themselves, that creates essentially a market for a meme, right? We interject something into the culture. This is now the new broads. It's it's sigma wives or it's like fucking like whatever. I don't know. And then Buff. There you go. So the meme becomes reality. That's that's what you're stipulating. And I think I think that we're going to get there. So Joseph Hendrick was involved in a Canadian court case. This was in British Columbia in 2011. I think he was, he was also involved with a academic out of Oakland University by the name of Todd

Shackoford, and they were brought in as academic experts on the concept of polygamy and whether or not it should be legalized within the, the province of British Columbia. British Columbia and government of course shot it down. It's now five years in prison for marrying more than two people. But nevertheless, there was a interesting statistic that I saw the other day that stipulated that 36% of Canadians were in favor of of polygamy, or polygamy. They were in favor of that form of marriage institution coming along. In the United States, I believe it was another Pew research statistic. It said that in 2003, 8% of the population was in favor of polygamy, or polygamy.

And now in 2023, 23% of people were in support of this institution of marriage. So we have seen a significant increase over the course of 20 years. I think I'll just make one point here, Chris. I think that the next major marriage debate or the massive marriage case was gay marriage, but now it will actually be polygamy. Yeah, that's interesting. Can you work out what the change in fertility would be from a polygina society?

If you looked at this, because I'm talking about women with no partner are unlikely to, less likely to have a child. But not impossible. A one night stand will get you a child pretty effectively if you time it right. But you have other contradictory challenges, especially if you're talking about polygene, especially if you're talking about living in the same house together.

You've got infanticide, you've got poisoning of different kids, you've got, you know, I found this out that a child that lives in a house with a non-biological mother takes a huge number fewer lifetime visits to the doctor, just way less likely to the kids ill, like, yeah, whatever, like, you'll be fine is not my kid. Even if you love him like he is your kid, seeing raw Darwinian forcing functions, a hell of a motivator. So yeah, so talk to me, talk to me about the birth rate change, the fertility change that occurs due to polygamy and some of the challenges.

I think the literature on it is quite scattered, so there really is no definitive evidence as to whether or not polygamy or polygamy, I guess we're kind of flip-flopping between these concepts. If it does have a substantive increase or impact, I should say, on fertility rates, I would say that the answer is probably no. So the historical examples that I've looked at would indicate this. So a study was conducted in Ghana looking at fertility rates in 1988. So they're taking Department of Health Service records and trying to identify whether or not polygamous marriages equated to more children than monogamous marriages and Ghana is an interesting example because

It's one of a few West African countries. Well one of few countries on the planet where 30% of marriages are polygamous and What that study found was that there was no difference between the couples that is a polygamous and monogamous in terms of the amount of children had. The only mediating factor that determined the total fertility rate of a woman was how old she was at the point she was married. So the younger a woman is, the more likely she is to have woman over her reproductive lifetime, which makes complete sense. So the only conceivable reason as to why polygamy would have an impact on fertility rates is because

it may influence women to get married to a resource rich man at a younger age. That's the only possible explanation. But even still, when PubMed sort of accumulated statistics of West African countries. They looked at Senegal, Togo, Guinea, Niger, Nigeria, and Ghana. And again, they compared the rates of total fertility between monogamously married women and polygamous marriages. And they found that there's no difference in the total fertility rate between these two marriage institutions in these

West African countries that hire that had rates of polygamy above 30% in terms of all marriages. The difference was about 0.1 to 0.5. In fact, in Ghana and Burkino Faso, the rates of total fertility were higher within monogamous marriages. Women in polypilligamous unions design more children than women in monogamous unions. However, they do not have high fertility rates than women in monogamous. This is correct. And they're less likely to use contraception or earth control. That's right. So there is, there is no evidence for it.

Okay. So how the fuck is polygamy going to fix the birthright problem then? I thought this was your golden pill. I thought this is your magic bullet that was gonna solve all of our problems. I'm going to be canceling again, bro. No, this is not my golden pill. I don't, it's such a silly argument to make. It's, I know what I despise is most, Chris.

It's when people present public policies that don't have any sort of empirical backing, or the evidence on it is entirely scattered, and they don't consider second and third order effects. So let's say, for example, that we did institute this policy of polygamy. We made it legal, and it obviously doesn't work, but what does that affect going to, what is that, what effect is that going to have on crime rates with regard to listless men no longer in marriages? It's going to be catastrophic. Exactly. It's going to have on crime rates with regard to listless men no longer in marriages? It's going to be catastrophic.

It's going to be catastrophic. But I suppose we should turn two solutions. We should have a discussion around that and what we could potentially do. Have you looked at any countries or cases where they've increased their fertility rate? Hungary spent some ungodly proportion of their national GDP. It's hungry for the place. That's right. 4.9% of their national GDP went towards family and shellacare spending.

And they did 25%, 50% and 100% discount for the first, second and third plus child. And that was discounted exclusively to the woman's personal income tax or the family income tax for the rest of time. Yeah, so I'll break it down in its entirety. So Hungary was the exact example I was going for. Your about administration is given a lot of flat but by God do they have some good policies with the relation to families and incentivizing children being born. So there's a, so something called the fundamental law of Hungary, which stipulates that the

Hungarian government must have a vested interest in supporting Hungarian desired-havd children, which means that Hungary in 2019 devoted, as I said, 4.9% of the national GDP towards family and childcare spending. The OECD average for that type of spending is 2.55% of the national GDP. So Hungary is mouse above in terms of spending. And in terms of the actual policies, they have one particular policy. It was the loan policy that you're referring to here, where any married couple, where the woman is between the ages of 18 and 40, can take out a general purpose loan interest

free. where the woman is between the ages of 18 and 40 can take out a general purpose loan interest-free. And if within the first five years of taking out that loan, a child is born, the loan continues to be interest-free, and the payment is expanded or suspended for another three years. If a second child is born, then 30% of the remaining principal is taken off the books, and it's expanded for another three years. If a third child is born within that span, the remaining principle is wiped off the map entirely, so it's gone. And I can list another set of policies that they implemented. They have, and actually just to go back to that, to stipulate the total loan, it was like 31,250 euros that you could take out interest free.

But another policy that they have is with relation to a tax embarrassment. So every family, if they have a child, can have a tax reimbursement of 196,000 Hungarian foreign, which is equivalent. I think if you do the conversion, it's about $550 US dollars every single year. Now, maybe for the audience, $550 USD every single year. Now, you know, maybe for the audience, $550 is not a lot of money, but if you take into consideration that 37% of Americans do not have $500 to $1,000 saved up in terms of the emergency spending, it's a lot of money. And I think the most popular policy that they have out there is with regard to taxation.

So if a woman in Hungary has four or more children, she is exempt from taxation until the age of retirement. So she pays no income tax whatsoever. And there's like a 15% flat tax in Hungary. What did that do to that birthright? And increased it. So from the early 2000s, I guess the late 1990s, throughout the 2010s, Hungary's birth rates, or at least sorry, the fertility rate,

the total fertility rate was 1.3, right? So it remained stagnant and flat. Orban comes into power in 2010 or 2011, if you guys wins, and these policies were implemented in 2015. In 2010, when Orbán was in power, the fertility rate at Hungary was 1.3. Now in 2023, the fertility rate is 1.54. So it hasn't had a massive increase, but it has had an increase. So we had 10 years of stagnation, 20 years of stagnation, and

all of a sudden, these policies are implemented. And you see a growth in the fertility rate. There is evidence that this stuff works. Yes. However, we haven't got ourselves back to 2.1. We haven't really even got us close back to 2.1. And it's cost 5% of global GDP. I'd never national GDP. So in terms of interventions, yeah, Hungary are trying some things, but I think that there are more fundamental forces at play here and it does seem a little bit like trying to swim upstream. Absolutely. So just referencing the, you know, fertility statistics a bit more internationally,

there's a study by Valset in 2020 and they found that 23 countries would have their population reduced by 50% of more or more by 2100 and 34 countries would have their population reduced by 25 to 50% by 2100. 150 countries will no longer be able to sustain their current population by 2050. And this is because they're no longer having children at a replacement rate of 2.1 or whatever it is, 2.33 globally. Yeah, for every 100 Koreans, for every 100 South Koreans that exist now, there will be four great grandchildren. No.

The 96% extinction rate over the next 100 years. There are other low ones, I think. No point. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, anything by way beyond tax incentives and making childcare more affordable and allowing people to have loans and this sort of pyramid scheme staggering thing where more babies come out more money goes in. What else have you considered anything if you've got any more ideas? I have to think about it more because the issue here is doing research around public policy and what to and what exactly to implement. But I would say that what really will solve this issue is more of a social investment in families reinvigorating the institution of the family. Because I don't think we care about the family as an institution very

much, and it's the reason why society is crumbling. If you look at the Roman Empire, for example, Brian Wurt Perkins wrote a book called of Ry Fall of the Roman Empire, where he was looking at, well, the zenith of the Roman Empire and then the collapse. And he said that the reason why the Roman Empire was not able to sustain itself was because it was not able to perpetuate institutions from one generation to the next. Romans in one generation will not able to pass down the tenants and the importance of an institution to the next generation. The same thing applies to families within the West today. We are not able to instantiate within children why families are important. We are not able to pass down the importance of this institution from one generation to the next.

So it's no surprise why there is a reduction for totality rate because we as a society are individualistic. Over individualistic, the point of atomization. We no longer care about families, we simply care about ourselves. And so if you only care about yourself, there's no need to have any choice, there's no desire to focus on anything but your career and how much money is in your pocket.

And that's not to say that these things aren't important, it's obviously important to have money and be able to provide for the people around you, but you can't spend that money if you have no family, who are you going to spend it on yourself? Yeah, you need a pro mating culture, which I don't think that we have. And it's, you know, family is totally right. This Melissa County book, two-parent advantage you're going to love. But more than that, even before that, just the concept that men and women should get along,

that they should be compatriots or collaborators, as opposed to enemies or competitors or an adversary to be used and discarded or avoided altogether. It doesn't, from the very, very beginning of men and women interacting with each other, this situation doesn't lend itself to them working well together. So, yeah, I think cultural working well together. So, yeah, I think cultural changes very much needed, individual agentic changes very much needed, but yeah, it's fucking a role of the Dyson man. It's a real sort of coin toss about what's going to happen. I mean, ultimately it's not an existential risk, right? Like I've spoken about population collapse a lot over the last year. It's not a genuine existential risk. It's not the same as like nanotechnology or bioengineered weapons

or AI. I mean, it's kind of not far off nuclear war because nuclear war wouldn't wipe everybody out. It just fuck a lot up for a lot of people for a long time. Yeah, so an example actually would be, I guess it would be like those, you know, those Marvel movies where the purple guy snaps his fingers and half the people go away. That's actually the outcome. It's not far off. It's just a bit more protracted. Yeah, but the thing is as well, like the quality of life for people, the only way that this doesn't absolutely annihilate quality of life for people is if we have AI that can supplant the current. It's an appointment. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. That's right. Well, look, that's what we're headed to. I mean, I would say that the only institutions that will not integrate AI right away are

public sector institutions. Law enforcement, for example, I know working with law enforcement organizations, they're not going to get rid of people. Governments are not going to get rid of people. They're going to keep them in their chairs doing work that a computer could do. But you are going to see this a lot in the private sector where sort of the needs of people, perhaps healthcare, healthcare is one,

certainly transportation, delivery services. These are all gonna be automated, right? We're not, I would say within the next 30 years, we won't have any truck drivers. This is all gonna be automated more than likely, self-driving trucks in one hour. Talk to me about your perspective on men's advice moving forward over the next few years.

They're kind of at one of the linchpin's of what we've been talking about today. You know what it means to be a man, the culture of manhood, masculinity, and the advice as well that they're being given. What's your sort of feelings on where we're at now and your projection moving forward? I would say that the current situation is pretty bleak. So my view is that the current advice given to men is that you should have as many women as possible level up, which is, level up is fine, but leveling up to what extent is the question.

But it's more so engaging in vapid sexual relationships that yield nothing in the long term. So there is, it's always, the advice I would say is always geared towards short-term gain, but no long-term game with relation to personal relationships. And what I notice most about the advice given is that it lacks honor. And we have a cohort of men that retreat within themselves and have no interest in benefiting society and the people around them.

It's always about me, me, me. And if I would give advice to men in terms of how to meet a viable partner, I would say go to places where you think you'd meet the people that hold the same ideas that you do, that have the same values you do, perhaps it's a church or a religious institution, maybe it's a political conference where they like mine at are.

And you'd be very upfront and honest about what it is that you're looking for. You can really only be yourself. I know some guys in the red pillar in my eyes, he's a cock, he's blue pill, that's terrible advice. But if someone doesn't accept you for who you are, they're never going to accept you. So you might as well just be yourself and see and see where that takes you. Yeah, a lot of men's advice would rather you get into a relationship with someone who falls in love with a person that you aren't, that you stay single for longer and find me find someone who gets into a relationship with a person that you are.

That's right. Whenever you're on a date with someone, I always find that it's often like the person that you're sitting in front of is just a representative of that person. They're trying to present the best part. Yeah, press secretary just presenting the best possible image of that person It's only when you really get into the third and fourth date that you kind of Realize that this person may not be who they said they were in the first day when mr. Mrs. Press secretary was listing all the talking points One of the things that I've sort of noticed throughout today's conversation has been this rapid Culture counterculture dispensing of moving on to the next one

of tiny memes and of lifestyles. And I think we've definitely seen that with the Red Pill, you know, only probably two years ago when we last spoke. It was still in its ascendancy, probably. You probably, you know, you didn't have big dating panel shows as the sort of de facto manosphere format. And in that time, they've ascended and now kind of dropped off on the back end, but both Andrew and Tristan Tate distancing themselves from the Red Pill saying that it's for like in-cell artist versions or something. And yeah, they did. It's so interesting to me how quickly these things ascend and how quickly these things descend on the other side. I have a theory about that. And it's it's with relation to have

you heard of the concept of Lindy, yes, and seem to love concept of Lindy. So that which is a historical precedent will continue to be a precedent moving forward. I believe that Lindy applies to the red pill atmosphere in the sense that ideas which are naturally bad, so the internal logic is just awful or not sound. When it's brought into the mainstream, it accelerates its destruction. So in this case, the worst thing to ever happen to the red pill was that it was mainstream, because it means that a lot of grifters are now going to be joining this environment, joining the circle of people that degrade the overall idea, because again, the idea

was subject to degradation in the first place. So I would say that there's a natural life cycle to this sort of content. There's a natural life cycle to all sorts of content, but I would say in the next five years, I'd be very much surprised if you still had the certain, I'm not going to name the people, why give them cloud on your, on your channel, but I would, I would assume that we wouldn't be seeing those faces on YouTube, at least not having the audiences that they do now. I mean, Ray William Johnson was a big YouTuber back in the day, where is he now? It's an interesting woman. I really, really like that idea of public accelerationism, we can call it, or like exposure-based accelerationism, where any idea gets molested and perverted

as it becomes way more popular. And that means that you need to have an unbelievably high purity, very, very robust idea at its center. And if there are any cracks, as it starts to get expanded out, those cracks will get expanded out to. Absolutely. And I would just say this point. So you mentioned Tate, which I thought was very interesting with relation to his affiliation with the Red Pill. I've always found it to be interesting because, you know, he's the type of person that professes to be four men. He's all four men's uplifting and improvement when he was a guy that was promoting only fans, like he was running an only fans or a website of that nature.

And he sort of rags on men for being an only fan. So it sort of seems a bit hypocritical that someone that is actively involved in perpetuating this sort of content would then essentially be selling the cure to this content in terms of his ideology. It actually kind of ironically enough mimics a lot of what he says regarding COVID-19, where the same sort of people that apparently spread the disease are the same sort of people

that make money off of selling the cure. You don't sound like I'm saying, it's very ironic. Well, you also have, you also have only fans and webcam girls and stuff like that are porn. So being anti-porn was being in the, essentially the porn industry, seems like an odd duality to be able to hold together. I think his argument would be something along the lines

of that is an older version of me, that was me doing what I wanted to do then, or what I needed to do then in order to be able to achieve the level of success that I needed to get to. And there are cohorts of his fans that are absolutely, have selective amnesia about what it is that happened. And you know, no, no, no, no, but that's an older version. And now there's the Islam you know, the Islam version

or whatever it might be. And dude, like I've spoken to Andrew a good bit over the last five years. And, you know, I've brought him on the show even though I didn't publish the episode. And one of the interesting pivots I think that needed to be made by him and like everything that he was doing was he needed

to stop pointing the finger at women because it was getting him too much negative attention. Right. And you notice, you can go back about 18 months ago and you will see that up and to that point, a lot of the like finger pointing stuff, he did that date with that girl. It's like a British, he's a British girl, she does like loads of different dates. Grilling things, I agree. Grilling things, that's it. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Grilling things, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That, that, what everyone knows what I mean, it's got like millions,

tens of millions of plays. And just before that was when I noticed, or round about that time, was when I noticed that the rhetoric had stopped from being like women are and women should be, to men can be. And I think that it's a much more sanitized version of this, right? Because saying that people can be better is significantly harder to see as being nefarious than like you are, like why aren't you in the kitchen, make me a sandwich, blah, blah, blah.

And that's a way to sanitize it. And maybe that's an awakening that occurred, or maybe it was a tactic to be able to kind of keep the same audience, but pivot the talking. It's a shifting of political messaging. I think that could be what it is as well. But the selective ad measure thing is interesting, but because it was only 2020 that he was running

these campsites, right? It's not that far away. I know COVID has sort of extended people's memory of these sort of things, but 2020 was only three years away or three years ago. And I think with the Hustler University, there was a module around pimping your, the girls in your life. Oh, come on. I'm not trying to make this out to be an androotate, you know, criticizing our, but I like to be

very critical of everyone and try and try to look at our, but I like to be very critical of everyone and try to look at it from a very logical perspective and understand what exactly people's ideologies are and whether or not they're being completely bulletproof and truthful in what they're presenting or whether or not it's just a grift. I'm very conscious of this issue now that very famous people are sort of getting

one over the general population. It's while it come onto podcasts like yours because I know who you are on the camera and I know who you are off the camera and those people are the same. Well, it's hard, it is hard in some degrees and I can see why definitely as scrutiny increases in Andrew had started talking about this,

he sort of had this line that he's been trutting out for a good while, which I think is true, which is the things that you say when you've got 1,000 people watching aren't the things you can say when you've got a billion people watching. And I think he's right in that regard. of the same as the purity of the idea thing, you know, in efficiencies and inaccuracies in what you say and how you put it across, they become magnified when you have a city's worth of people watching everything that you do. You know, like, million to one odds happen eight times a day in New York.

And this is kind of the same. The million to one misinterpretation happens tons of time today, if you're the most Google person on the internet. So yeah, I think, you know, it would be interesting to see what the space of men's advice looks like over the next few years. The Washington Post, Christine Embers article,

was fantastic. Another one just came out today. Politico did a, it's called like the men's issue or something like that. And among, that was seven different articles. That's nine articles in total. I've told you about that. Zero were written by men. Ah, zero. Well, I suppose I could turn the question on you now. So what do you think the future of this, uh, this fear will be? Um, I, I don't think that Jerry Springer for the TikTok generation can continue much longer. That's right. Uh, because I just don't think that there's any there there.

Uh, and ultimately the way that you feel after you've watched some of this stuff, there is some great manosphere and Red Pill content out there. And even, you know, the guys that sometimes get a bit more wayward also have, like, diamonds in the rough and fair fucking play. But ultimately, like, your content diet should be spirulina for your soul, not fast food for your amygdala. And the way that I feel after I watch some manosphere content, to be frank, even if I watch like Destiny having a debate with like a pro-lifer or something which has got really nothing

to do with the manosphere, I'm tense and my shoulders are high and there's a ringing in my ears and like the back of my head feels tight, and I just Don't want to feel that way. And even if you can limbically hijack your way to getting locks and lots of plays I do think that sooner or later people are going to catch on. The same way as Most people that are moderately educated aren't eating McDonald's every night even if it would taste good Like it's food in some ways ways but it's also not food in some ways too. So yeah I don't know what the future of the men's advice stuff has man like it's it's a real fucking coin toss at the moment. The choice between sedated and listless or angry and blissless. I would rather not have everything be set on fire, but

only by like the tiniest of slivers and the only reason that I can make that choice is because we're not at war. You know, if there was some sort of enemy force that everybody needed to be galvanized against, just turning the switch off on porn, hub, Instagram, TikTok and video games and Xbox and PlayStation would be the best thing that you could do. Like, all right, sure, like, man are angry, predominantly man have been victimized by this crime. What are they going to do? Get angry and then, okay, we'll point in the fucking enemy's direction. Yes, yes. It's tough to say. I mean, I, with regard, I supposed with regard to the manosphere and this sort of content, the most interesting person, I think, in

terms of a change or shift for me has been that sneaco character, that guy, because he went all the way from being sort of a degenerate in terms of his messaging to now sort of level headed in what he proposes. It's quite interesting because he may be emblematic of the overall movement of that movement, that they may shift from sort of the Gautschia, Jerry, Springer content, more wholesome content. It is very much possible going from a heavy metal band to Christian rock. I wonder, I've asked this question for ages. I wonder how many of the realizations

and personal growth arcs that we end up relying on are just byproducts of getting older. Like how much of it was you manifesting your reality and I wrangled entropy and I did the agentic, sovereign individual thing, and how much of it was yeah dude, and now you just 35. Like, and now you've got a bit more time and wisdom and your belt, and it was coming along for the ride.

The insides were there along for the ride. Rooch, V, yep. Neil Strauss, I'm talking to his assistant at the moment about bringing him on the show. I sat next to Tucker Maxx at dinner on Saturday night. We've known each other for a little while, so that was cool. You know, it's that next to his wife, and he's telling me about his five kids that are at home, and the problem he's having with his lambs, it's a lambing season, or he's got lambs

or some bullshit, and one of them got caught in the kids' climbing frame, and I was like, this is a guy that wrote, I hope, this of Bearing Hell. And Neil Strauss sounds like a born again, like unreligious born again Christian. And Rouch actually is a born again Christian. And you know, you just have this, you absolutely have this sort of Chad to dad arc. But growing up.

You're the growing up pipeline, yeah. Yes. That's fun, isn't it? Yeah, the people. The mental cycle of young adulthood to adulthood. Again, again, think about the fact that like if you're growing up, you know how the accusation always gets more attention than the retraction in headlines? That's right. It's almost like the most effect. The most egregious version of yourself is the one that'll get all of the plays. And then the milk toast vanilla, I've got lambs and four kids at home version of yourself

has exited. So it's like permanently making accusations for the more hedonistic, gregarious out there, shiny, shiny object lifestyle. But you don't ever actually publish the retraction, which is, oh, and I grew out of that. So everyone's like left with this open loop of, I bet Tukamax is still slaying pus. You know, he's in a form of...

He's a home-blaming. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, Vincent Harrinam, ladies and gentlemen, dude, I love you to bits. I'm really, really glad to see you back again. I'm super excited. We haven't spoken about what you've got coming up next, but I'm sure that'll be released and made public within the next year, probably within the next few months to a year. Where are you intending on getting back on anything publicly? You're still a digital ghost, no? Still digital ghost. I thought about it. I know you and I were having a discussion about whether

or not I would sort of come on and be a public-facing person and be a public intellectual, it would just not happen. You know, with me, if I have to think about something and I'm not actively doing it, I'm probably not interested in doing it. And I think my writing style, the way in which I produce my work, just isn't conducive to this environment. Everyone wants content very quickly, a week, you know, every day, I can't do that. I need to think very closely and carefully about an idea and get it out in a couple of months. And that, I don't think it's conducive to a long career

in this sort of environment. And I just don't want to do social media and I just want to be left alone. Just to have my head down and do the things that I want to do. The Goggins is my man. I mean, we all have a patron saint in this sort of environment. I think yours is kind of like maybe Rogan, you know, sort of the podcasting fear.

Mine is Goggins, man. You know, just get an after, get in your head down and do what you need to do. Get back to the lab, man. I appreciate you. Absolutely. Chris, buddy, thank you so much for having me. I love you, brother.

you