Pivot - Best Friends of Pivot

Episode Date: December 22, 2023

As 2023 comes to an end, Kara and Scott are revisiting some of their favorite Friends of Pivot interviews, including fascinating and thought-provoking conversations with Esther Perel, Mehdi Hasan, Lakshmi Rengarajan, and Rupublicans co-founder Craig DeForest  Follow us on Instagram and Threads at @pivotpodcastofficial. Follow us on TikTok at @pivotpodcast. Send us your questions by calling us at 855-51-PIVOT, or at nymag.com/pivot. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Support for Pivot comes from Virgin Atlantic. Too many of us are so focused on getting to our destination that we forgot to embrace the journey. Well, when you fly Virgin Atlantic, that memorable trip begins right from the moment you check in. On board, you'll find everything you need to relax, recharge, or carry on working. Buy flat, private suites, fast Wi-Fi, hours of entertainment, delicious dining, and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. delicious dining and warm, welcoming service that's designed around you. Check out virginatlantic.com for your next trip to London data, and a matching engine that helps you find quality candidates fast. Listeners of this show can get a $75 sponsored job credit to get your jobs more visibility at Indeed.com slash podcast.

Just go to Indeed.com slash podcast right now and say you heard about Indeed on this podcast. Indeed.com slash podcast. Terms and conditions apply. Need to hire? You need Indeed. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

And I'm Scott Galloway. Every Tuesday and sometimes on Friday, we introduce you to a friend of Pivot. It's a segment where we actually let other people talk, which is not usual for us. It's people who can give us some context around news or introduce us to some new concepts, and it's sometimes just a person we've been dying to talk to. This year, we've had more than 50 friends of Pivot. And as we come to the end of 2023, we wanted to share a sampling of the ones that particularly resonated with us

and with you. Let's call them our best friends of Pivot. I'm going to kick us off with a friend of Pivot who joined us back in February. Lakshmi Rangarajan had just co-hosted the Vox podcast, Land of the Giants, dating games about the rise of dating apps. Lakshmi's work focuses on how to help people connect in real life and how to offset the weariness of online dating. She previously worked at Match.com and WeWork as director of Workplace Connection. She joined us to talk about the state of dating

and even gave some of the married people something to think about. Welcome, Lakshmi. Can I just do a quick gushing moment? Is that okay? You may gush. Gush away. Kara, I've been following you for so many years. Thank you so much for everything you do. I adore all of your work. Thank you. And Scott, I have to tell you, I discovered you when I was at WeWork and I was there for the crash and all of that. And I just want you to know, like, your content helped me and a lot of other people process what was a really difficult few months. And so I just wanted to I wanted you to know that. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for saying that. We were recording. Don't worry. Yeah, good. We're good. We're glad to help you out. I think Scott really did a lot of really important work during that time period. And I appreciate your things. But let me say, you also, besides, you were director of Workplace Connection there, which is one of the big pulls of WeWork was the idea that you could meet people and socialize and the drinking, etc., etc.

And then you also worked at Match.com, but now you've been working on this show, Land of the Giants, which is focusing different things every time they do it. And this time it's the dating games. So give us an overview of the work you've done in the field of dating and how you feel about dating culture as it stands today or connection culture, I guess, because that's what you're really doing. Sure. So it's actually like back in 2009. So online dating was already a big thing. It was like before Tinder, but people were dating online and that had started. And I started already noticing the change in people, that there was the disposability, the snap judgments that had already started. And I was doing this project where I had interviewed all of these couples

that met at work. And almost every couple told me that the person that they were with was not someone that they liked immediately. That this person had kind of grown on them over time. 100%. That's how I feel about Scott, but go ahead. Yeah, exactly. It's how I think a lot of people feel about Scott. Go on. Go, let's pay your money.

There's your co-host. There's your next co-host. Go, let's pay your... There's your co-host. There's your next co-host. Okay, good. But so I saw this... Yeah, I saw this like change in people. Like we're losing this sort of gradual attraction, this thing that happens with people. And I was at this lunch and learn where I worked

and I had just gone for the free pizza. And there was this guy there that I didn't notice at all. He could have just been wallpaper to me. And he gave this presentation about sports marketing. And it wasn't just about sports marketing. It was sort of about his life and how he arrived at this moment. And he had slides and he told this like really, really important, sweet story. And I remember he started to look different to me. Like in the course of those like 20 minutes, he started to look different to me. And then I was talking to this group of women outside afterwards. And they were like, oh, that was a really good presentation.

And then I said, were any of you kind of turned on? And they were like, yes, yes. Like what was that? What was that? And it was because this person had sort of been dimensionalized. And we were getting context on him. So I sort of took note of that. And then so I started experimenting with in-person events

and storytelling and slides and how could I slow down the process of dating, but still make it a really efficient and fun experience. And so I did that for several years. And then that's what caught the attention of Match.com. And that's how I kind of went there for a while. So you wanted to fix them. You wanted to fix, get rid of the judgy stuff, the- Yeah, I did.

Disposability. Yeah. When you got there, what did you want to do to fix them? Because their algorithms don't get as much scrutiny as other social apps, like how they're doing them. Yeah. I mean, I was brought in for a lot of reasons. I was brought in to try and change our events business. I think I was brought in to bring my opinion and what I was learning in the field. There's a lot of people that report on dating. There's not as many people who are actually trying to build something different. But I mean, you know, long story

short, I don't know that anyone really wanted to hear from me because I was saying I was hired for those insights. But then when I got there, I ran into a lot of like, well, we're going to make this button green instead of blue because green is more engaging. So I don't even know that people knew what I was saying, quite frankly. So let's just double click on something you said, that a lot of people over time, at least on initial encounter, weren't interested and found that they became increasingly interested. It's very reductive, but I've generally found that guys get turned on with their eyes, women get turned on with their ears. And what do you do? One in three relationships begin at work. And if it requires a certain level of persistence or trying again or expressing interest, first off, you're told as a man that if you express anything resembling romantic interest at work, you're a predator and should be fired.

And two, how do you even begin to talk about the reality that sometimes it requires a little bit of persistence? I mean, haven't we just basically said to the entire mating community that a third of all mating opportunities are going away because... And then you rely on online, and then you rely on online. Everyone has to go online. You're not supposed to meet at work. And anyways, I'll just stop there. But haven't we basically, through certain norms, which are justified because of some of the terrible things that have happened in a professional workplace, haven't we just essentially kind of destroyed a third of the alchemy and points of inspiration for relationships?

Yeah, we have. And I've heard you talk about this, and I'm with you. And so I don't feel like I can necessarily comment on workplace romances per se. But I think what you're pointing at, and I think the thing that we have to remember is whether we like it or not, we have spent decades making work the de facto town square. Right. That was one of the few places where you could go and slowly get to know people over time. So I think that's the thing that we have to take away is remember that a lot of your coworkers, a lot of your friends, a lot of the people that you adore were not people that you liked initially. And you got to know them over moments. You got to know them because they cleared your coffee mug, because they spoke up in a meeting.

And whether or not – I'm not advocating for workplace romances, but I think the takeaway is that people unfold over time. And work is one of the few places where people can unfold over time. So how do you not get unfolded online? Because everyone crafts their online persona, and it must impact. I find it all – I've never used an online dating service, but they seem performative to me and not real. My son took his off. He finds them ridiculous. You know what I mean?

They're not. And then of course it's harder to meet in person, as you say. How do you fix the world of online dating? Because that's where people are doing this now, if given other venues are not available to them. No, I get it. And I know that everybody wants like advice or the way that I like to think about it is I rather than advice, because I think when we give people

advice, we suggest that there's a right or a wrong way to do this. What I like to do is give people sort of considerations and think about the pool that you've been placed in, which is what we're doing in Land of the Giants. We're not blaming the dating industry, but we want you to know the pool that you've been placed in and what chemicals are in the water. And I think that's where you start. And you have been placed in a pool where marketing yourself and standing out is more important than developing the skill of how to get to know other humans. Right. is more important than developing the skill of how to get to know other humans, right?

So, like, my advice to people is to remember and be very aware of how dating online has changed you and changed everybody else. What about fixing the apps themselves? Well, I don't know that anyone will listen to me about fixing the apps. But what I do know is that we need to care about who is building our apps and who's going to be building the future of dating. I would go look at the founder, right? Because that will tell you a lot about what's being built and how they, you know, like how they inform their world and the decisions that they make. So, no. Do I think we can fix dating? No.

But do I still want to empower people to date differently and date well and be aware? Yes. I'll put forward a thesis and I would just love to get your response to it and go more meta than just online dating. And that is women date or mate socioeconomically horizontally and up, men horizontally and down. Over 50% of women say they would never date a guy shorter than them. And it's probably closer to 80% because it's an embarrassing thing to say I wouldn't date someone shorter than me. And what you have, women now own more homes, single women, than men. shorter than me. And what you have, women now own more homes, single women than men. You have men maturing later, getting mixed signals about being aggressive, not being as economically viable. My friend, Chris Williamson, who has a great podcast, by the way, he described it perfectly

to me. And he said that for the last three decades, women have been getting taller and men have been getting shorter. And I hear women, and we all hear this story, and I know a bunch of them. I know all these great women that not only are mating, they're not even dating. And it's not because there aren't men out there. It's because we're not producing enough economically or emotionally viable men. Have you given any thought to like big picture solutions, whether it's through technology or society or social programs that can get men growing again, if you will? There are a few things I think about more than this. So, like, there's a lot to say here, and I know that this is a topic that you care a lot about. And one thing that I hear in your voice, and I've heard this several times, is I know that

you are hearing a depth of honesty that not a lot of people get to hear. You're not just hearing dating frustration. I think you're hearing some despair. And I think we have to be very mindful of that. So as we are talking to people about how to date better and how to find a partner, I think we also have to be really careful not to depict singlehood as this awful deficit and this awful thing that, you know, you are. It doesn't define success. It does not. It does not. And so I just want to make sure we're having both conversations. One thing that I learned from designing events for such a long time is men are visual, but they also are much more open-minded. They're less choosy.

That's the way I was saying they're less choosy, right? They have a big range for what they find attractive. But what happens is when they're on the apps, the most – I mean, we've heard of this, the most shallow side of them is being cultivated over and over and over. And so the side of them that does, you know, it like does have range and doesn't just look at women for how they look or how old they are or what their weight is, that side of them gets suppressed. And then you have the same thing happening with women. I know that the surveys say that women, you that women are obsessed with height. And I think in a survey format that is true, if you really talk to women, like really talk to them, and they're not just responding to a form, they're not as hung up on that as you might think.

They are hung up on that in the moment when they're asked to make a snap judgment. But the thing that I learned over and over is if you can delay people's judgment, and that is something that the apps do not let you do. They prey on your snap judgment. And that's where events and in-person is so important. If you can slow the process down, you get a different side of people. And at one of my early, the first couple that ever got married from one of my events, I love sharing this story because I think it says a lot. The guy was 28 and the woman was 36. That was the first couple that ever got married from one of my events. And, you know, he even like told me later, he's like, yeah, I probably would not have, you know, picked her out. Probably would not have, you know, picked her out.

But by the time I got to knew her, I was in. She's amazing, you know. So that number was not going to deter me. So you're all talking about in-person things, that these apps, you're never going to write it because they're designed for click, click, you know, swipe, whatever. They're designed for click, click. And they're designed for speed. And I think they put forth this message of efficiency. And efficiency is a very- Year of efficiency. Sorry, I have to say it every time I hear the word.

Yeah. No, and efficiency is a very powerful message for men in particular. They love that idea. But I would argue that this isn't an efficient way. You're getting volume, but you're not, you're, I would actually say it's not, it's not efficient. It's not efficient. Yeah. So I agree with you, especially for women, that society has to stop evaluating their success through the lens of romantic success or not. I would say, though, that I do think it's actually more important and key to a successful development. Kara, you talked about both your sons have had girlfriends. I'm really hoping my 15-year-old son gets a girlfriend.

I think men without, and it's increasingly happening, men who do not have relationships by the time they're 30, I think women who don't have relationships have much greater social connections, are more aware, more mature, more professionally adept, better at gas on, gas off, saving money. I think a man, if he hits 25 and hasn't had a romantic relationship, I think he's literally like comes off the fucking rails. He doesn't have guardrails, doesn't develop any social skills.

I think it's actually, I think men fail if they don't have these relationships. Well, it's interesting because one of my, my son, my one son does have a very, has a girlfriend who's gone out for a while now, he's 17. And the other one did have a girlfriend and actually his new thing was he's going to wait till a woman asks him out, which has taken a long time, right? Right? If he doesn't, he doesn't want to be the, and my other son and I are like, well, you're going to wait a long time. I have to tell you it's not going to happen, which is interesting. So when you're thinking about, I don't want tips for setting people up, but you were talking about live events, this idea of constantly, because there's not church,

there's not other places, there's all kinds of things. I'll caveat that. So yes, events are great, but most singles events are absolute garbage. So that's the problem. So like that, that is like the, in the hierarchy of, you know, event types, I would say singles events are usually pretty low in terms of like quality. The, the, the, the standard has always been just shove a bunch of single people into a bar, give them drink tickets and hope that something happens. Right. And so single events, like rightly so, have a bad reputation. So what I was trying to do, and maybe I'll do this again someday soon, is to elevate that, right?

So like, how do you use environment? How do you use the size of the crowd? How do you use stimulus? Like you were talking about, yes, people need to have something other than we are all single as a point of connection. And so all of those factors need to be put into consideration. And if I could say something, you said something about your son and Scott about your son. And I've never said this publicly, but I feel like this is the place to do it. One of the reasons why I think this industry doesn't get the same scrutiny that, say, Twitter or TikTok or any of these other places is that, you know, the moment when we start to see a piece of tech and we start to see its downsides is when we see it affect children.

Right. So think about the social dilemma, you know, at the end when the product manager sees his child on Instagram. That's the moment when he realizes the impact of the product. We don't have that in dating. We don't see adults in the same way that we do children. The hearts of adults are just as important as the welfare of children in this context because of the implications. And so you have people building products that don't see their quote unquote children experiencing the impact of that product. And so that is why it does not get, I believe, it does not get the same scrutiny as some of the other forms of tech. So let's do the tip, finish up with the tips. And Scott, if you have any more questions.

But what are some of the tips you have now? Well, I heard your episode last summer about how people always want you to set them up. Yes, they do. I'm good at it. But I do lying. But don't do my method. I lie to them. I make things up and I set them up via dissembling.

But go ahead. Here's what I would say. I get there's a couple things to just remember when you're trying to set someone up. One, never tell them that you're setting them up. Don't use that word and never use the word match and never say that you guys are perfect for each other or anything like that. This is the phrase that I like to use and it's really simple, but it's very powerful. It's like, I think you guys might get along. That's it. I think you guys might get along. That way you as the person that's doing the setting up, you're kind of like out of it. So you don't might get along. That way you as the person that's doing the setting up,

you're kind of like out of it. So you don't feel responsibility if it doesn't work out. You have just created a little container. And so that is just real. So the language is really important. You've taken the pressure off of it. And then those two people can decide if it if there's something more. So just something as simple as I think you might get along. Yeah, you should meet. Yeah, you should meet. Professionally, personally. I try to do that with Scott, with friends, but go ahead. Yeah. And I think actually, Scott, meet is good. Get along is better. It just pushes the person just a little bit more. And that little bit can make all the difference. The other thing, and this is

really important, and I want to teach you guys guys this because Kara, I know people approach you all the time and I feel like you would crush this. I have this thing that I call a lodge line. And it's a little tiny thing that you say about the person that you're trying to set up that kind of like lodges into someone's heart and kind of opens them up a little bit. When people set people up, they tend to talk in these sort of like boring, well-meaning, but boring platitudes. You know, they're amazing. They're wonderful. You'll adore them.

And that doesn't do anything. It doesn't help. You want to give a tiny, tiny line about the other person that evokes a visual and tells you something about their character. So can I give you a quick example? Sure. It's not like, oh, I'd fuck them. But go ahead. Yeah.

Well, I mean, if you want to throw that on at the end, I'm not going to tell you not to. No, I'm not. I mean, you are Kara Swisher. I know. I wouldn't do it. You can get away with more F-bombs than most people. So yeah, go for it. Go for it. But the thing that you want to do, so I'm going to give an example from this week. So I'm sitting in the studio with Chris, Chris, audio engineer at Vox. And I'd been telling him for the past couple of weeks, I was super nervous about this interview. And then last week, I was like, oh, man, I just know my computer is

going to break down. Like the one time I get to talk to Scott Galloway and Kara Swisher, I'm going to have a tech issue. And he was like, look, I will book a studio. I will sit in the booth with you. And you're going to be great. And we're going to make this work, right? So first of all, Chris is engaged. So sorry, he's off the market. But like you just heard something about him and it wasn't super deeply personal. You weren't telling me what to think about him, but you probably pictured this guy who like looked out for somebody and like booked a room and he's sitting over there, you know, having my back. And that's the kind of stuff that we need to share about each other, especially in a world where we're all getting flattened by our screens. We as people need to do that little bit of extra work to dimensionalize people when we try and set them up. Yeah, I think what you're talking about is powerful in this notion of third places where random encounters where things like pheromones and humor and body language can relationships and potentially finding something that turns into a romantic relationship. What advice?

Let me add, man and man, woman and woman. Yeah. Okay. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Before you're shaming. I said a man or a woman. I didn't say we're gay or straight. All right. Okay. Okay. So, a couple of things. One, I'm going to do one philosophical thing and then one like very practical thing. One, philosophically, please remember that most of the people that you like and care about were not people that you liked immediately. And you got to know them in moments,

right? So right now- Be open. A second coffee. Well, so, okay. I'm going to push back on that for a second, Scott. Like, I get the sentiment of be open, like be open-minded. But when someone hears that, it actually comes across as a little bit condescending, right? It's like, oh, you're doing it wrong. But here's the thing to remember to your coffee comment is most dates right now are happening in coffee shops and at restaurants, which makes sense. But this is a terrible environment to get to know somebody. It's not, it's not, I understand that why people do it.

But if you look at all the dating advice that is out there, it is all around navigating this very narrow box, right? It's like, did he pay for the check? Did they order something? Were they nice to the server? And so you're trying to get to know somebody in this very, very limited context. And so you're putting so much pressure. It's like being in a fucking Law & Order episode, right? But it's just here, right? And everything is being determined at the moment. So please just keep that in mind. These are not the best ways to get to know people. I understand you have to do it, but don't try and draw a complete picture about somebody. I just want to press pause.

I couldn't agree with what I did. I describe every date I had in a restaurant is me as like controlled boasting. Me just sitting there trying to be more impressive than I was. Yes, exactly. It's just it's not even though that's and that's what everyone's doing. So just remember, this isn't like the best environment. The second was you have to work on getting people to share like bits of their story as opposed to like their pitch. The engineer. Right?

Because most people are trained to pitch themselves. And you have to get people out of pitch mode. And I'll give you an example of how people do this very inadvertently. So a very common question when people are dating is what's your family like? Are you guys close? Right? Sounds like a good question, right? It's not a good question. Because first of all, it puts people in this state of

being judged. Not everyone identifies with the word family. That is a very privileged word. Not everybody has good associations with family. And you're putting someone on the defensive. But it seems like a good question. Here's the question I tell people to ask, and it will change the trajectory of your conversation. What was one great thing about your upbringing? Okay. That's good. Very different. Nothing I was beaten daily.

There could be a bad answer. But think about it. Like, you know, Scott has talked a lot about his upbringing and that I'm going to hear more of that. And everybody has had an upbringing, but not everyone has had a family in the way that we tend to think about family. I like that. That's really good. And you're going to get a great story. Yeah. You don't have to tell everything. Interesting. Someone, my son, he's not dating, but he's meeting different people. And one thing that he's doing is not telling people that his moms are lesbians, right?

And there's one woman who he likes him who's super anti-gay. So he's like, oh, interesting. And I said, have you told her? And he's like, not yet. Not yet. And then he moves on to tell me something wonderful about your upbringing. Anyway, this is so helpful. Lakshmi, we're going to have you back on again.

Thank you so much. You can hear more from Lakshmi on this season of Land of the Giants. Thank you so much. This was delightful. Thank you so much. Since our chat, Lakshmi has started her own dating podcast called The Later Dater Today, which focuses on dating after the age of 45. And I'll be speaking with her about that on Prop G in the next couple of weeks. I find this stuff, I think this stuff is fascinating.

It is. It is. It is. Anyway, Scott, we're going to take a quick break. We come back, our conversation with MSNBC's Mehdi Hassan about the art of debate. Fox Creative. This is advertiser content from Zelle. When you picture an online scammer, what do you see? For the longest time, we have these images of somebody sitting crouched over their computer with a hoodie on, just kind of typing away in the middle of the night. And honestly, that's not what it is anymore. That's Ian Mitchell, a banker turned fraud fighter.

These days, online scams look more like crime syndicates than individual con artists. And they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. they're making bank. Last year, scammers made off with more than $10 billion. It's mind-blowing to see the kind of infrastructure that's been built to facilitate scamming at scale. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of scam centers all around the world. These are very savvy business people. These are organized criminal rings. And so once we understand the magnitude of this problem, we can protect people better. One challenge that fraud fighters like Ian face

is that scam victims sometimes feel too ashamed to discuss what happened to them. But Ian says one of our best defenses is simple. We need to talk to each other. We need to have those awkward conversations around what do you do if you have text messages you don't recognize? What do you do if you start getting asked to send information that's more sensitive? Even my own father fell victim to a, thank goodness, a smaller dollar scam, but he fell victim and we have these conversations all the time.

So we are all at risk and we all need to work together to protect each other. Learn more about how to protect yourself at vox.com slash zelle. And when using digital payment platforms, remember to only send money to people you know and trust. Thumbtack presents the ins and outs of caring for your home. Out. Uncertainty. Self-doubt. Stressing about not knowing where to start. In. Plans and guides that make it easy to get home projects done. Out. Word art. Sorry, Live Laugh Lovers. In. Knowing what to do, when to do it, and who to hire.

Start caring for your home with confidence. Download Thumbtack today. Cara, we're back with the best Pivot interviews of 2023, our best friends of Pivot. Who's up next? So, Scott, one of the things people like about this show is how we handle our disagreements, and that's why it was interesting to talk to Mehdi Hassan, who until recently hosted his own show on MSNBC and Peacock. He had written a book about the art of arguing, and he joined us just as the debate over the origins of COVID-19 was reigniting. An article in the Wall Street Journal had just come out casting new light on the lab leak theory, a topic that remains divisive to this day. The conversation we had on that episode got

straight to the point of our show, which is that disagreement can be civil and opinions can change. Let's listen. Let's bring in our friend of Pivot. Mehdi Hassan is the author of Win Every Argument, The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking. Welcome, Mehdi. Good to see you. Thanks for having me, guys. So speaking of arguments, we were just talking about the debate over the lab leak theory.

You hosted some conversations about COVID's origins. When the news came out, you tweeted, it's hard to have a good faith disagreement about a major issue if the issue itself has been hijacked by bad faith folks. Unpack that for us i'd love we love your thoughts on this yeah a lot of people got very upset i haven't had a response to a tweet like that from kind of crazy right wingers for a long time i've been trolled on that for days i got i got properly ratioed people are very upset with that tweet i think it's because they read it as some kind of admission of a conspiracy by the liberal media to stamp out this story when in fact

the very opposite i actually covered the lab leak story on my show back in June. I had to go back and check. June 2021, I hosted a debate between Alina Chan, who's one of the biggest lab leak promonents, and Angie Rasmussen, the virologist, who's a big critic of it. So we didn't run away from it. But I have a longer memory than most people I would like to think. I think our media culture is dominated by people with very short-term memories. There's always a reset button. I hate to go along with that. And I haven't forgotten 2020. I haven't forgotten Donald Trump standing in front of crowds shouting,

Kung flu, Kung flu. I haven't forgotten Peter Navarro saying the Chinese Communist Party created it in a lab and sent Chinese people to infect the rest of the world. I haven't forgotten Washington Times Daily Mail running bio lab, bio engineer, bio weapon stuff in January, February of 2020. So there was a lot of nonsense around this stuff. It's always been plausible that it leaked out of a lab, but it was always a natural disease. No one ever claimed it was, no serious person ever claimed it was a bioweapon. And the problem was it was very, very quickly hijacked by the bioweapon conspiracy crowd and by the anti-China racist hawk crowd.

That's undeniable. Go back, pull up the clippings, pull up the clips. I might do it on my show next week, in fact, because it frustrates me that people are acting like we should have all just sat down in March of 2020 and said, let's have a good faith, impartial reason debate about whether it came from the wet market or whether it came from the Institute of Virology. That was not what was happening. Donald Trump was president of the United States, was trying to deflect blame for crazy deaths here in America, talking about disinfectant, and began by praising Xi, his friend,

but then decided to blame China and the China virus for everything else. So it's nonsense. And by the way, one last quick point. The story that's come out this week does not vindicate anyone. No, it's low confidence for everything. Not even just low confidence. No one in the story is saying it was related to a military program. Tucker Carlson went on air this week, this week, and said, and what did he say? He said it was engineered in a lab as part of a military biolab. The GOP house, the house GOP's position is that

this was related to a Chinese biological weapons program. No, the intelligence specifically says we do not believe that. And by the way, only two out of the eight intelligence agencies have looked at this say that it's lab leak. Four say it's zoonotic. It's from the wet market. And by the way, the two that say it's lab leak, one of them is the FBI. And I thought we don't trust the FBI anymore. Well, they don't. So there's two very viable ways this could have happened, right? And both should have been investigation. And probably all our agencies should have said, we don't know until we do know. So let's entertain both of them at the same time. But talk about this.

What does this specific case tell us about the argument styles and the left and the right? Because this tweet by you really did get a lot of attention. So, I mean, Twitter is not the greatest place to have arguments. I keep telling myself that and I keep doing it again and again. I'm sure you're in a similar boat. I was going to have a chapter in my new book about arguing on Twitter, and then I thought, well, no, maybe that's for a sequel. But look, I think what the COVID as a whole, the whole handling of the pandemic, and why I actually think the right have won a lot of the messaging battles on vaccines, on masks, think the right have won a lot of the messaging battles on vaccines, on masks, on lockdowns,

on school closures, and now perhaps on lab leaks, is because A, the right-wingers have a very clever tactic, which is to declare victory in the middle of the game when the game's not over and say we won, and allow kind of both sides' media to indulge. They did it on Mueller. I mean, the Mueller report. Oh, they misrepresented that before the findings were even out. And they've now left a legacy where everyone thinks the Mueller report showed no collusion or showed Trump did nothing wrong, which is not what the Mueller report shows. And I think similarly now on COVID, it's a very clever tactic to declare victory. And separately, the whole approach to pushing back against COVID mitigation measures was very cleverly framed by the right as freedom, liberty, standing up against oppression. People

in America love that stuff. These are the values that appeal to Americans. And they very quickly realized that if you make something about identity and about values, you win. And liberals, leftists, progressives, members of the academic community, the scientific community, they think if we make it about the facts and the figures, just one more peer-reviewed paper, then we win. That is not how the human brain works. That's not how people, that's certainly not how Americans engage in debate or persuasion. So your book, Win Every Argument, The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking, do we want to win every argument? Isn't there a need for debate or

conflict to take on a level of consideration and acknowledgement of other points. It strikes me that we're in a situation now where we don't want to win every argument. It's a great question. A lot of people have asked that question. So let me address it in a couple of ways. Number one, I 100% agree with you. You should not want to win every argument. I make it very clear in the dedication page on the front of the book that I do not win arguments with my wife and I don't want to win arguments with my wife. So I'm very clear about situations where you don't want to win every argument. But people have jumped on the title and said, win every argument. You shouldn't want to win every argument. I mean, I could have written a book called Drive Every Car.

Doesn't mean I'm telling you to go out and drive every car. Literally, I'm saying, here's a set of skills that allows you to drive every car. You can choose when is the best moment to win that argument, because some people, they don't have a choice, Scott. Some people need to win an argument. It might be a job interview. It might be something their job depends on. You might be a prosecutor in court where you have to convince this jury to stop this person you believe is a murderer from getting off. So the point of the book is to say, here is a skill set that you can learn that should

help you win any argument you choose to win. Because the reason I wrote the book is because I hate when people say, well, you were just born this way. You came out of the womb doing this stuff. I'm not like that. No, I'm saying actually anyone can pick up these skills. They've been around since Aristotle. And just on your point about, you know, should you want to win every argument in the big stuff these days? I think people should want to win. For example, democracy. I believe that democracy is at stake in America right now. I believe there's an existential threat to our democracy, our free press, etc. Those are arguments you cannot shy away from. Those are arguments you cannot keep your head down on. And those are arguments that my side, I would argue the pro-democracy side, is in fear of losing because we're confronted by people who've degraded our public discourse. We're confronted by gaslighters and BS merchants who aren't interested in the rules of formal debate or facts and figures. And therefore, I would like to see people who believe in democracy and freedom be equipped with the rhetorical tools to win those very vital battles. So when you think about that, how do you have good faith disagreement? Because there

doesn't seem to be any good faith. It's always a one up kind of thing and a dunk. And obviously, I've gone way off Twitter. Scott's sort of gone up kind of thing and a dunk. And obviously, I've gone way off Twitter. Scott's sort of gone off Twitter. You clearly haven't. I'm just using it as the example because it is a very small little world. Speaking of echo chambers, it's the echo is chamber there is. But what is a good faith? How do you have a good faith disagreement? And how do you decide when to engage and when to walk away? It's a great question. And I talk a lot about the phrase good faith in the book and about the need. And I genuinely believe in good faith disagreement because I believe that democracy cannot survive without it. That's the reason I wrote the book.

That's the reason why I enjoy debating and arguing and value it so much. Because, you know, I quote the French essay of Joseph Joubert that it's better to debate an issue without settling it than to settle it without debating it. There's an intrinsic value to the process, to truth-seeking in that way. And I think you're right. It's really tricky. People say, what is a bad faith argument? How do you define it? And it's like the Supreme Court definition of porn. You know it when you see it. There's so many different ways to engage in a bad faith argument. People who shift the goalposts, people who make claims without any evidence whatsoever, people who only engage in abusive ad hominems. Those are people you should probably walk away from. I was going to write a chapter in

the book on when to walk away from argument. I didn't. Maybe that's saved for a sequel because there are arguments, Cara, that I choose not to have to go back to Scott's earlier question. People say to me, would you have Marjorie Taylor Greene on your show? No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't have an argument with Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's pointless. She's a grifter. She's not interested in any facts or figures. She doesn't even believe most of what she's saying, probably. No, I wouldn't. I wouldn't have an argument with Marjorie Taylor Greene. It's pointless. She's a grifter. She's not interested in any facts or figures. She doesn't even believe most of what she's saying, probably. Why would I give her a platform, especially on live TV, to spew uninterrupted nonsense? So there are some arguments you should walk away from. But good faith arguments, I mean, I write a chapter in the book on listening,

right? Something we don't do in arguments, and I'm a bad listener. I say that openly in the book. My wife laughed at me when she heard I was writing a chapter on listening. bad listener. I say that openly in the book. My wife laughed at me when she heard I was writing a chapter on listening. Empathetic listening is a very important part of having a good faith argument. Because if you're just having a debate where you're waiting for your turn to speak, then that's not a good faith debate or argument. But if you're actually critically listening to what the other person is saying, if you're empathetically listening to what an audience is saying, for example, in a political context, then actually everyone feels like they have a stake in the conversation and everyone feels like they're going somewhere. And I give the argument, I give the example in the book of

1992 Town Hall in Richmond, Virginia, where a questioner asks George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and of course, ridiculously, Ross Perot, how the national debt has affected them. Bush isn't paying attention, looking at his watch, gives a nonsense answer about interest rates. Bill Clinton goes up to the woman and says, tell me how it's affected you. And that's the beginning of a great conversation, someone who's automatically persuaded by one person in front of them. Yeah. So you sent us a clip of an interview you did with John Bolton. Set us up for this, and what were you arguing about? So John Bolton has done a lot of interviews. John Bolton is a man who I don't like,

but I respect him as a debater. He's a very clever guy. You can't question his intellect, whatever else you question about him. He's been debating since his Yale days. And he agreed to come on my show in 2020. I don't know why. I was surprised. And we wanted to do an interview with him. And we looked at what he was promoting his book. And I didn't want to ask him what everyone else was asking him. I like to ask questions that other people aren't asking. And I looked at his book, and he hadn't mentioned the fact that he gave speeches, paid speeches for an Iranian opposition group called the MEK, who are nuts. They're a bunch of cultist misogynists.

So I decided to press him on that angle. How much of your antipathy towards Iran is to do with geopolitics? How much of it is to do with the fact that you've had a long association with a group called the MEK, which was once a terrorist group banned by the State Department while you worked there. You don't mention it in your book. This is really about as low as it gets. The fact is that Hillary Clinton,

perhaps someone you support, took the MEK off the US list of terrorist organizations. How about that? I speak what I believe. She took it off in 2012. You were speaking with them in 2010 when they were still a banned group. Yeah, look, you're simply wrong on your facts on this.

No, you were there in Paris in 2010 speaking at the MEK rally when they were still a banned terrorist group, according to the State Department. Nobody buys my opinion. And you can ignore that if you want. I'm very comfortable. I have never said anything other than what I believe. And we are now, sir, 20 minutes into this interview, which you said was for 15. All right. That didn't seem good. Yes. Madi, can I ask a question? I don't, and I struggle with this as someone who's a podcaster

interviewing people. And there's a reason we let Kara lead the interviews. And when I hear that, I feel like you're purposely putting him on his heels to score points with your liberal viewership, that you aren't having a productive conversation, that you are so aggressive there, that you yourself are reducing the likelihood of a productive conversation. So, obviously, I disagree with you on that. And I understand my wife is actually takes a similar view to Scott that some people don't like such confrontations. And I think the American media suffered because your point of view has dominated and we haven't had enough challenging conversations. And the reason why I have partly succeeded in a career here in the US,

in people like Jonathan Swan did well with their Trump interviews, because people are quite frustrated that American interviewers have been so deferential to people in power for so long. And that we engage in both side ism and don't really call people out. And not just that, but I'm just talking about the tone. And you know, yeah, sometimes you do need a bit of, you can call it aggression, combativeness, belligerence, whatever it is, someone like John Bolton, who filibusters, who has talked over and bullied interviewers for years. And it took 20 years, 20 years from the Iraq war, whatever it was, 18 years at the time for someone to ask him, as I did later in that interview, you know, does he have any qualms? Does it rest on his

conscience that tens of thousands of people died in Iraq because of him? I think those are questions that need to be asked. And a lot of American interviews, sadly, are a little uncomfortable asking such questions. And I take your point about scoring need to be asked. And a lot of American interviews, sadly, are a little uncomfortable asking such questions. And I take your point about scoring points for liberal viewers. Maybe that's part of it. I'm not going to pretend otherwise that I want to get views. But I also think it's about holding people to account. I mean, I do what I do because I want to hold people to account.

Otherwise, I'd go be an accountant. Do you think you're just as tough on people from your side of the aisle, liberals, when you do that? Yeah, I try to be. And in fact, liberals get very upset because sometimes they expect a kind of softball interview. Jen Psaki is someone I've grilled before. She put the quote on the book saying that. Look, is it tonally the same? Not necessarily. But then, for example, Tony Blair. If Tony Blair was in front of me and someone I've never got to interview, oh, I would push him as aggressively on Iraq as I push John Bolton, regardless of the fact that he's a center-left

prime minister who I once voted for. So I think there might be tone differences, but no, certain issues, people need to be pressed. I try and be tough on everyone. Obviously, certain people, you know, Cara, the reality is we live in an age right now where one group of politicians are particularly deceitful and offensive and bigoted. And that is reflected sometimes in the tone of my commentaries, because that's the reality. The issue is, though, it does, and I try very hard to get as many people from all sides as possible,

and not to be both sides-ism, but more to be like, at some point, it degenerates into a way that's not illuminating to people in any way. And so you have to be very careful not to seem, because one of the reasons I don't watch cable that much anymore is I'm like, it's this, I know exactly what's happening. Like, you know what I mean? It never illuminates. It's a lot of fire, but no illumination whatsoever. Well, that's not always the case. And I would say, watch my show and you've been on my show. When you're on my show, it's certainly illuminating. So I wouldn't want people not to watch you when you appear on my show. But I would say this, look,

to go back to Scott's point about, is it productive? I say context is everything. We have very, very productive interviews with experts and with interesting people such as yourself on my show. But then we do have the more lively, combative interview with people like John Bolton. What I would say to you, Scott, is let me turn it around. Let's say you were sitting with John Bolton talking about the MEK. What would you have asked that would have been illuminating that he would have engaged in good faith? I would have brought up the point and I would have said, what do you say to people who say it's hypocritical and that you're sort of bought and sold as evidenced by this? And I

would have let them respond. And I probably wouldn't, like you have a style and you have a show on MSNBC and I don't, so you kind of win. But when I hear that tone, and again, it's hard because it's one clip, right? And my guess is we should look at the entire body of your work. But I find that that's easily gonna, it sounds to me like that's gonna digress into a food fight where the person doesn't trust you and it just thinks you're trying to embarrass them.

So here's the thing, Scott, what I would say. Number one is, if you did that, he would be delighted because there's no follow-up to point out that he's lying to the viewers about when he spoke to the group. But just on the broader point. Well, I think you can say what you said. Well, that doesn't feel accurate. So it's a tone issue. That's great. But just on the wider point, Scott, that you're making, I just want to address this really important point. I say this in the book. Sometimes you're not trying to persuade the other person. I'm not really interested in whether John Bolton agrees with me.

He's not going to change his mind. He's John Bolton. I am interested in the audience seeing that people in power can be held to account for their lies. They can be held to account for what they've done. And I think that's what's been missing too much from our discourse. Sometimes you're not trying to convince the other person, you're trying to convince the third person, you say the liberal audience to point to God. I'm saying the American public that needs to hear some sharp conversations. And perhaps sometimes my tone

is off. I'm only human. But I do think the style is very important to be tough. I do think that's important. All right, last question. Scott and I frequently argue that's our entire thing. I think we argue well, actually. One of the more harmless arguments is about whether my Chevy Bolt is sexy. I'd like you to tell us who's winning that argument. Is the Chevy Bolt sexy as a car? I think the Chevy Bolt is as sexy as the person driving the car. And that is how I would define it. Oh, nice. Oh, no. God. Let me phrase the question.

Yes, you should reframe. I say in the book, always reframe. Am I more likely to get a random blowjob in a Tesla or Chevy Bolt? Your turn. This is what I have to do. He's got his head in his hands. Let's bring back John Bolton. You've literally thrown me off there

I wasn't seeing that coming Look at him, he's flustered, he's speechless I didn't see that coming In all the media interviews I've done, I didn't get that question Exactly The flaccid penis joke always ends up there What I would say to you, Scott Is that joke

Contributing to a productive discussion And illuminating our lives or not You know what the answer was? The right answer was no. No right answer involves Tesla is the answer is what I would say. There you go. I agree with that.

Oh, very well done. Anyway, last question. What's the most important thing, not winning every argument? What is the empathetic here at listening, I think is, I suspect is what... I actually think the more important than anything else, I have a chapter on it,

is confidence building. Unless you have confidence, you can't do anything. You can't listen, you can't speak, you can't engage, you can't take a position. And we lack a lot of confidence in our societies. We defer to people who are overconfident. And I talk in the book about the need to build confidence because that's the stepping stone for everything else. Yeah, that's the explanation for Elon for sure. Anyway, the book is Win Every Argument, The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking. It's available now. Thank you so much, Matty. I really appreciate it. Thanks, Matty. Nice to meet you. Thanks, guys. I appreciate it. Matty was probably the only guest to successfully interrupt us multiple times,

but he wasn't the first to end up with his head in his hands by the end of the interview. What great copy they give us, Kara. Yeah, yeah. Scott, our next conversation took place during Scott Free August, one of my favorite times of year, with our audience's favorite Scott substitute, George Hahn. It was about the theme of art and artificial intelligence. Earlier this year, an Instagram account called Republicans went viral for its AI images of prominent members of the GOP in drag. The account was a reaction to a series of anti-drag bills and general anti-LGBTQ legislation percolating around the country by Republican legislators. Using MidJourney AI and ChatGPT4, one couple created stunning images of Mike Pence in a feather boa, Lindsey Graham in blue eyeshadow, and more. So obviously, I just had to have these nice

young men on. And even though George was co-hosting, we made sure you were there in spirit and in drag. Let's listen. I'd like to see an AI that makes Lindsey Graham look straight. Now that's technology. Okay, let's get to our friend of Pivot. Craig DeForest is a co-creator of Republicans, a parody Instagram account showcasing AI-generated photos of Republicans in drag, including Ted Cruz as Cancun Barbie, Mike Pence as Miss Womb Warden Supreme, and Marco Rubio as Sister Rosie Rubio of the Sassy Sacrament,

and so many more. And it's so enjoyable to watch. It's been a real delight. Welcome, Craig, and thank you for your beautiful work. Thank it's so enjoyable to watch. It's been a real delight. Welcome, Craig, and thank you for your beautiful work. Thank you so much for having me. So talk about how the project got started. Because when I saw it, I was like, this is just what I love social media for. So tell us how it happened. It really got started actually in Palm Springs, of all places. Love it. And we were watching the news, really really hearing what was going on. I think

at that time it was really things in Tennessee happening around anti-drag legislation. And I thought to myself and said to Steve and my husband, I would love to see these GOPers in drag. And he immediately said, Republicans. And the idea, he's a writer and his brain just works like that. And the idea came out of that. And I went online and looked, is anyone doing this? And couldn't find it anywhere. It was super surprised. Stephen suggested I use tools like MidJourney and ChatGPT and start looking into those. So I taught myself and the first post within 24 hours, really from the idea to the post is when this all happened. And two weeks later, it was like 200K.

So you didn't have any particular background in this technology you've used. Zero background. I'm like international education, community engagement, higher ed, life tech, but like, no, I don't have any idea. I taught myself. Right. And so you, you know, as you said, we're in a tough time for the LGBTQ plus community, including with the introduction of these drag bands, as you noted. You called your work fantasy, but how do you use it as activism?

Do you consider yourself an activist or how do you see it? I mean, it's obviously caused great delight and consternation, which is how you want it to work out. But what is it doing from that? I do. I love that question because I have started to see myself as an activist and all of the people who are following along are taking action. So many of them already are activists. So in three days, we raised $21,000 for the ACLU of Montana Foundation. And that was a shock. I didn't know that we could do that. That happened in like the first month or two. We're trying to call out the hypocrisy of the GOP. So yeah, I want to keep calling them out. I think AI, there is a place for it in activism. George?

First of all, so nice to meet you, Craig. And now to put a name and a face with this whole thing, because I'm loving every single post. So I'm curious to know, do you run it through a thing? Like, do you describe, I want to see Lindsey Graham, and do you talk about like, what colors you like to see, the setting and how many like iterations before you get the right one and make sure they all have five fingers? And yeah, like, what does it take? Yeah. What does it take to turn her into a drag queen?

Yeah. Yes. And thanks for sharing, Jord. You shared our page early on, which certainly helped us grow and get the word out. So I appreciate it. It's so good. I go on to Midjourney and I put in all of what you said. So, it's unique original prompts, and I'm not inputting images. I'm saying, this is the person I would like to see.

This is how they look. This is the color scheme is maybe it's like 1990s inspired or barbie inspired uh and maybe they're feeling a certain way like the rudy garland image that really set things off like uh for that who has by the way appeared in drag in real life i know some of these folks have and that's the craziness, right? Right, right. Yeah. And one of the words in that is mental breakdown for the description and the prompt.

Why? Why? Well, because Rudy Giuliani was like, he always looks like he's having a breakdown. He is a mental breakdown. Okay. And how do you decide which one to roll out next? Obviously, Lindsey Graham's an obvious one. He is a mental breakdown. Okay. And how do you decide which one to roll out next? Obviously, Lindsey Graham's an obvious one. Rudy Garland is an obvious one.

Ted Cruz is a very attractive drag queen, I would have to say. Have you gotten any pushback from anybody? Not major, but it's funny you mentioned Ted Cruz, aka Cruzella DeVille, because when we did the Ted Cruz post, he posted about it on Twitter. I don't know if you saw this. So the Houston Chronicle ran a piece on it. They did like an op-ed sort of thing and talked about the post. Ted Cruz, I guess, saw it. And that day, he posted the images of himself as a drag queen and commented on it. He got roasted. What did he say? I believe green is my color and not whatever you use. If he wanted to have fun with it, yeah, he could have. No, he said, I guess it's a slow day at the Chronicle. And then everyone just roasted him in the comments. It was amazing.

So you've said you'll never do a portrait of former President Donald Trump. Why is that? Is it unattractive? What? He gets so much attention. Immediately when we started doing this and people were just, we want to see Trump. We want to see Trump. When are you doing Trump?

Our immediate reaction with our conversations with each other was just like, this is not happening. We're done. We're done with Trump. And like, I know the world isn't done with him. He's still a huge figure and could be our president again. And I just think he gets enough attention. He wears enough makeup. He wears more makeup than a drag queen. So he's already got it going on. I think. Right. The hair. Certainly. You're good. So you're not going to make that even though probably be the most popular, presumably.

No, but I like this choice. All right. Okay. I respect this, that you're not going to do him. And by the way, that would really probably make my eyes burn. Okay. Now, George and I are going to open a special image you've made just for Pidget. Let me link to the image here.

I'm so excited. Oh, wow. Oh, my God. That's fantastic. All right. Oh, wow. Oh, my God. That's fantastic. All right. Oh, good heavens. George, read the caption, George. Wearing my glasses, by the way, but go ahead.

Wait a minute. George, why don't you describe the photo? Explain it for people. It is Scott on a tarmac with a PJ, a plane in the background. Yeah. And he is wearing, from the waist up, it looks like he's wearing a gold lame cat suit. Or maybe this is sequins, but it's gold cat suit, sunglasses like aviators, but like with gold rims and a skirt.

There's a skirt feature over this gold lame cat suit. And gloves, black gloves, and there's a little pink hair coming out from behind and cascading down the shoulders. Read the caption. Please welcome to the literal runway, the lady of London and daddy of Ibiza, Anita Scott-Free-August. She's wearing heels higher than your ambitions as she boards her PJ to get the hell out of Wokistan. They call her the dog, but you won't see this diva chasing tails or bending over unless it's to pick up a fallen eyelash or her capital gains. And the only thing thicker than her contour, that portfolio, Hany. Now, come on, that's good. Hashtag.

You were really good. You got that. Check out all of our socials today to see that image of Scott for yourself on Instagram and threads. It's beautiful. It's really quite beautiful. I'm glad you love it. Anita Scott Free August, I like. What would you turn me and George into? So I might put you in Palm Springs. Yeah. You might be standing next to a bike and a palm tree. So I might have like a palm tree

theme like you're on vacation, getting some sun. Any names come to mind? Mia Kia. Oh, my gosh. Oh, my, by the way, update, the Kia is fine. It's being fixed. We'll go ahead, move along. Oh, good, good. Got crushed by a tree. What about George? George is, George, there's so many directions you can go. Well, George is going to be in a park.

You know, he has his good morning videos that he does on Instagram. So I think he's going to be in a New York park setting. I'm feeling like a navy blue sort of feel, like deep, you know, colors going on. And it's got to be a really, really big wig, like cascading over the top. Oh, a cascading wig. Very nice. Yeah, yeah. And none of this was possible, like Kara and George, nine months ago or whatever. When we first started this, we were like, we couldn't have done this six months ago. This is a whole new world that this opened up.

Right. With all of the sort of contempt prior to investigation with regards to AI, you have sort of shown where it can create a job, as it were, because you guys have created a little job for yourselves. Not little, it's big, and it's fantastic. You've got merch and you've got things like that. Is this going in a real monetizable direction for you? Well, great question. I mean, if Scott was here, I might ask him, Scott, like, how do I monetize this? But no, I mean, we're not making money right now. And the main goal is to, I would say more than that, is find ways to support causes and candidates. And being a sustainable thing

is important and it's secondary. But right now, this is so new. And I want it to be a place where people can come to learn, get motivated, stay engaged. I was so apathetic for a while because of just the political scene. When I started this, it jumpstarted something in me and reignited something. And my guess is that it's done that for some people too, who are following the page. What I'd like to be able to do is support candidates maybe on more of a local level. There are these national figures that are corrupt and doing all kinds of awful things, but we know a lot of change happens at the local level too. So what can we do for them?

How can we raise funds for organizations like the ACLU? So in terms of money, that's what I'm thinking right now. Yeah, I agree. I think one of the things is it's got a sense of humor about it that I think is much more effective than just being angry or anything else. You can feel your anger, but it's with whimsy. I think what's attracting people to this beside the humor is a big piece. But it's this intersection of all these things that are at the tip of our tongues and top of our minds right now. It's art, it's politics, it's drag, LGBTQ issues, it's artificial intelligence, and it's at the forefront of law.

Like we're out here sort of in a gray area, which we're aware of. But I think that's what drew a lot of people to it. It's fascinating. Anyway, we love it. Thank you, Craig. And you can and must follow, you can't listen to us anymore if you don't, follow Republicans at Republicans on Instagram, but you can find it lots of anymore if you don't, follow Republicans at Republicans on Instagram, but you can find it lots of places, but start there. And threads. And threads. It's everywhere. And it's really fun and it will make you laugh and maybe think really hard about these terrible men who are doing terrible things to people who do not deserve it. Anyway, thank you so much, Craig, and we think you're wonderful. Thank you. Appreciate it. And if you want to see Anita Scott Free August, the Republicans AI version of Scott, she's still up on our Instagram

and threads at pivot podcast official and pivot podcast on TikTok. So is our Annie Leibovitz picture of us. Nice. People love that. That's a great picture. I think we nailed it there. I think that is not only the content people need, it's what they deserve. They need it. They need it. Yeah. All right. We're going on a quick break.

When we come back, we'll share with you the friend of Pivot interview from our most popular episode of the year. As a Fizz member, you can look forward to free data, big savings on plans, and having your unused data roll over to the following month. Every month. At Fizz, you always get more for your money. Terms and conditions for our different programs and policies apply. Details at Fizz.ca. Scott, we're back. Why don't you introduce this next clip? Cara, the Monday after Hamas invaded Israel, Esther Perel had already been booked to join us and promote her new podcast. However, the events of the previous weekend turned the recording with the world-famous psychotherapist into something very different and even more important than what we had planned. Here's our conversation with Esther. Speaking of which, about how we should be our better selves, let's bring in our

friend of Pivot. Esther Perel is a psychotherapist and an author. For over 30 years, she has been counseling people struggling with love, infidelity, grief, and loneliness. As the host of the Vox Media podcast, Where Should We Begin?, Esther invites listeners into her office each week as she helps real couples work through conflict. Esther, we're glad to have you this week because a lot of people are struggling with what they're seeing in the news. So where does someone even start when it comes to dealing with what's happening in Israel on an emotional level? First of all, hello. Hello. Hi, Esther.

To both of you. So in this moment, we are not working through anything. This is really in the immediate. People are in shock. People are emotionally numb. People are in deep, deep grief. People are frightened. There is terror.

There is counterterror. And on all sides. But we're talking about the people who have just begun to understand that there was a massacre of epic proportions and basically an intergenerational trauma of epic proportion that is in the make as well. And the response when one is attacked and one is an animal as we are is that we try to counterattack and to go at it stronger, harder, and to defend ourselves and to not feel the helplessness,

the weakness, and the terror that invades us. And all of this is deeply animalistic. And it's very important probably to not take many, many moral stances on this, especially for the people who are far away. There is so much hatred, and it is very important that the people who are around these fighting factions not add more oil to the fire and not stew the hatred further. Hurt people hurt people, and to the point that it really risks of dehumanizing us. We feel we have

been dehumanized. We respond with the same, you know, we think it's going to protect us, and on occasion it does, and then sometimes it goes too far and it even destroys us. Sure, sure. So there can be a struggle between trying to stay informed, I think a lot of people want to be, and doom scrolling. How do you find that balance? If you've seen an image once, don't. If you read the story, don't go look for the image. Don't get trapped into the, it's a nine versus a 10. It's not sure that the image is really the right image

and it really tells the story that it pertains to tell. It's a total mind fog. There is, it's a little bit like 9-11. We tell people, titrate. Don't just watch it over and over again. You will not sleep. You literally will not sleep. I am not sleeping.

And I didn't watch much. I just talked to people and that's enough. So what you do after that, when you feel like the tide is rising inside of you and you just feel like you don't know what to do with all of this, is the most important thing is to come together with others, to experience collective trauma collectively, to understand that this is changing something in the world, not just in the Middle East. And to read poetry, to talk about

what's happened, to ask people where they are. I think allyship is extremely important in a moment like this. And all of those who miss the allyship of Black Lives Matter will understand it even more so now. That when somebody writes to you just to say, I know you have an attachment to that place, or I know you know people there, or I know, you know, you were there recently, or something that says, I know, I know you know people there or I know, you know, you were there recently or something that says, I know, I see you. There's nothing else for me to say. And you answer, this means a lot. You thought of me.

I exist in your collective awareness. And that is a lot. Well, let me ask you, how are you doing? I just drove up here two hours and spent one of those two hours on the phone with my friends and my family checking in and you know you listen you try not to judge we all you know we can get into political discussions we we we know what the story is we are a bunch of informed people but this is not the moment it's like people don't have much rationality. So you hold, you contain, you make them feel like you want to hear it, you can

tolerate it, you care, and you create an envelope, an arms, you know, that just says, I'm holding you in your grief, in your rage. Please be careful. Please don't go and do irrational things. But, you know, nobody is deciding a lot of these things alone. What helps a lot, in general, what helps a lot is for people to get active, to do something, to not feel like you're sitting there helplessly, just taking it all in. Volunteer, send stuff, write to people, alert people, inform, read carefully and read stuff that doesn't just describe your side of where you stand. Just try at the best you can to stay open, to understand a little bit how the other side, whichever side you're on, because there is so

much and social media is not helping with that. It's like if you've said one word in this favor or to think, to say that you're thinking about this person, you get slashed. Shame on you for not thinking about that side. Shame on you, shame on you. And every side that, you know, you cannot hold a moral, this is not the time to even keep a moral balance. You must take sides. And that side basically denies everything from the other side. There's very little nuance and very little complexity. So every time you see a place where people are able to not bite at each other, but just hold each other, we are a little closer to our humanity.

It's so nice to see you, Esther. And congrats on all your success. Thank you. You're welcome. all your success. Thank you. You're welcome. There's a crisis of loneliness. And when I think of your work, I think of advice you give around relationships in sort of the middle to the end part of the relationship. And what about on the front end? What advice would you give to one in seven men don't have a single friend. One in four can't name a best friend. A lot of women will say they're having a really difficult time finding a viable mate.

A lot of men have just given up. And what advice would you have for a young man or woman who really feels a sense of loneliness? Not only advice for them romantically, but how to address this crisis of loneliness? Modern loneliness masks itself as hyper-connectivity. And so people have easily a thousand virtual friends, but no one that they can ask to feed their cat. A lot of friends, no friendship. Yeah. And that loneliness that is really a kind of depletion of the social capital is extremely powerful.

It's more to men than to women, but it's quite general. It's very broad. It comes in part, and I'm going to say that first before I say what I recommend, because I think that we didn't understand what accompanies us on that on an everyday basis. understand what accompanies us on that on an everyday basis. I've been very interested in talking about modern loneliness as it connects to the rise of the other AI, artificial intimacy. So I am looking at how the rise of artificial intimacy is, you know, cultivating a social atrophy and with the social atrophy, a compending social and loneliness. It's these three steps. Because, and I'll tell you one question that I keep asking, that I had no idea was going to be so pertinent to what can people do.

Because it's a question that I've asked, I just came back from a lecture tour in Europe. And I said, where you, as you grew up, when you were a child, did you pay freely on the street? I asked it in London, in Israel, in Budapest, in Berlin, I mean, and the majority of people learned to play freely on the street. They learned social negotiation. They learned unscripted, unchoreographed, unmonitored interaction with people. They fought, they made rules, they made peace, they made friends, they broke up, they made friends again. They developed social muscles. And the majority of these very same people's children do not play freely on the street. And I think that an adult needs to play

freely on the street as well. For us as adults, that means talking to people in queue with you, talking to people on the subway, talking to people that you create any type of book club, movie club, this sports club, whatever, interaction with. And you stay in the practice of experimentation, of doubt, you know, of the paradox of people. You need people very much. Marisa Franco talks about it. You need people, but the very people that you need are also the ones who can reject you. So people are a paradox. And we do not have the practice at this moment. Everything about predictive technologies is basically giving us a form of assisted living in which you get it all served in uncomplicated, lack of friction, no obstacles, and you no longer know how to deal with people because people are complex systems. Relationships, friendships are complex systems. They often demand that you hold two sides of an equation and not that you solve little problems with technical

solutions. And that is intrinsic to the modern loneliness. And that's where the victory is, right? That figuring out those complexities. And that's where the victory is, right? That figuring out those complexities. And that's why romantic comedies are two hours and not 20 minutes, right? That's what happiness is. Navigating those complexities and engaging in victory. Real friendship, real love, real sexual attraction, no? So, when I was in London now, we had almost 4,000 people at the theater.

Loads of them. People who had come alone to the talk, which we asked them to stand up. And we asked the people who knew, who were sitting next to them to actually introduce themselves so that they wouldn't leave as the new kid in the class. Like church. They used to do that in church. Yes, yes. And what I was talking about was about part of the podcast was to bring people into listening

the way that you actually know what goes on in your neighbor's life. Today, your best friend can break up and you never saw it coming. And the podcast had in its constitution the desire to bring people to listen in on others so that they could see themselves and create these invisible connections by being a fly on the wall of another couple's session or another individual. So it's interesting you say that. I just was reading a story about a guy who was 102 and he said the reason is he introduces himself to everyone every day. Like he's, you know, and he's quite good shape. It's, you know, they love those 102 year old people stories. But he kept saying,

I just say hello. I make new friends all the time, which was interesting. And it was interesting because it was very analog, obviously. It was physical, face-to-face, where you're up near people to talk to people. I noticed my son, my oldest son, always says, how is your day going to people? And I've taken it from him because I think it's a great thing. Because people just, this shock when I say that to people is fascinating because no one ever asked them how their day is, right? And I saw him do it and I thought, huh. And you could see the response

and I started to do it, which I think is, because again, whether it's someone, you know, you're going through TSA or whatever, you're buying something at the store and people you don't know. And it was really interesting. And one of the things, though, is that people do interact. Again, they're always looking at their phones. They're online. And I think this situation in Israel is made even worse because of that, right? There's nowhere to grieve. You can't have a discussion about it. And so everyone's interacting there and not with each other, because you certainly wouldn't have the same, you know, biting that you talked about in person. You just don't. Some people might, certainly, but most people don't have that biting when they're in a physical situation. Because I see you, because I see your eyes, that means I have an entrance into your soul.

When I am writing on social, I do not have to see the consequences of my words. I can slash you, I can hype you, I can go in every direction, but fundamentally, I am only experiencing a partial connection. Now some of these connections are very powerful, but I think you use the social platforms to say tonight we are meeting at the house of so-and-so. Everybody bring some food. Let's sit and think. Talk together.

Grief together. Sing together. Read poetry together. Make dark jokes together. Whatever it is. But be not alone with this so that we actually will sleep better. Physically, we will sleep better than if we just enter into a rumination. The platforms are useful, but they are useful in order for us to get off them.

You know, I asked another question on this tour that really spoke to the loneliness and the question you just asked. How often do you find yourself working the whole day on your laptop? Then you can't wait to close the screen. Then you go home, but you're too tired and all you do is watch TV. Then while you watch TV, you're also scrolling on your phone. Then while you're scrolling on your phone, you lift your head and you see that the people in the room are doing the exact same thing. This is modern loneliness. This is artificial intimacy. I am there, but I am not present. And then I talk to you about something that really matters to me. And your answer goes, uh-huh. Uh-huh. And you know that the person is kind of listening but not really.

Well, we're not able to listen anymore or we're not good at it. All of that is modern loneliness. It's different from the I'm alone in my room and I don't have, it's actually I'm talking. But in the experience of talking, we experience what used to be part of the experiment of the still face. You're 100%. Yeah. I know.

The mother that doesn't respond. Yeah. Yeah. So there's being in the presence of strangers, there's engaging with strangers verbally. Have you thought anything about, I don't know what the right term is, non-sexual touch or affection as a means of making you feel closer to people. The reason I bring this up, I'm trying to be more affectionate with my male friends,

and I think it's very rewarding and very difficult. And I've been thinking a lot about male affection. Have you thought about, and its role it plays in trying to be less introverted and express love and cement friendships and just feel better about yourself. I've been reading this article saying it's very healthy for you. Any thoughts on non-sexual affection? Can I bring, yes, Sarah, let me give you some context. Scott was recently at lunch where an old lady kept touching his arm. Who turns out to be an incredibly famous podcaster and cook, Scott.

She's very famous, just so you know. Really? She's very effective. She's lovely. Yes, very. What's her name? Ruthie? What's her last name? Someone sent me a link. I'm going to send it to you know. She's very effective. She's lovely. Yes, very. What's her name? Ruthie? What's her last name?

Someone sent me a link. I'm going to send it to you. She owns the River Cafe. Just Esther, I had lunch. This woman invited me to lunch. I had no idea who she was. And 20 minutes into the lunch, she started holding my hand. And it absolutely like stilled me.

And at first, it was uncomfortable. And then by the end of the lunch, I thought, this is the nicest thing that's happened to me all week. You know who used to do this? My father. My father would talk to you and he would hold your arm or he would put his hand. You know, he had this. Anybody. He just, you know, I want to tell you something.

And I think when I go to men's groups, when I attend weekends of men's groups, there is a tremendous amount of affectionate touch and nurturing, physical nurturing, because we can live without sex, but we can't live without touch. And that we become irritable, we become angry, we become depressed. And so I think there is a cultural factor about male touch in the United States, among white men in particular. Other cultures are much more permissive in the physical communication between men, period. In fact, the often very homophobic cultures have a lot of physical touch between men. Middle Eastern cultures are very affectionate with males, male to male. India, I mean, lots of, you know.

So here it usually gets ritualized through sports. You know, there are code languages that allow you to touch without it having to be called touch. But as a whole, absolutely, absolutely. And I think that one of the ways I address it, because I'm a family therapist, is to tell the mothers and the fathers, don't stop touching your boys. By the age of three, we touch our boys significantly less than our girls, than our daughters. I would agree. That is so important. My sons sit on my lap all the time.

I'm like, they crush me, of course, but it's interesting. And one of the things that I just was thinking about when I come home, both my smaller kids hug my leg. And I don't know, it's just the most lovely, you know what I mean? Like, and of course, they're so easy to it. And I'm wondering when they unlearn it, right? Because they're so grabby, touchy, you know, they touch you all the time, kick you and stuff like that.

There's a moment where kids unlearn it. So, Naomi Way talks about it as second grade. She's actually going to be at the conference I'm at. And she talks about how the intimacy of boys, the physicality of boys, the erotization of the physicality that boys then get involved in. The erotization of the physicality that boys then get involved in, and to call it homoerotic rather, begins to adhere to what is now often called the male code of stoicism, fearlessness, competitive, that whole thing. But I think that parents collude in it. The child doesn't grow by itself. It grows in a context filled with spoken and unspoken messages. Yeah. I have one final question. Your parents actually met during a time of grief. They were It grows in a context filled with spoken and unspoken messages. Yep, yep.

I have one final question. Your parents actually met during a time of grief. They were both Holocaust survivors and you're sole survivors of their respective families. I'm just wondering how that affected you. Speaking of parents, your father touched you a lot. He was still open to love, right? Which is an indication of that. What was the lesson you learned from them?

Wow, there are many lessons, you know. And of course, I think about it a lot now in light of what is happening. But I think one of the very important things that I did learn is not to be ravaged by hatred. Not to think that, and to actually embrace life. They survived and they were going to make the best of it. They were very erotic in that sense. They cultivated aliveness, vibrancy, vitality, and, you know, curiosity. They talked to people. And in a way, you know, curiosity. They talked to people. And in a way, they managed to separate the person from the group that the person was a part of. I think, you know, my father was an illiterate man who had gone three years to school, but he was a true humanist. My mother too, but my dad, you know, basically had a way of just engaging with anyone he would meet on the street at the

gas station, you name it, and start to talk. I think he understood long before, and he told me that always, don't get fooled by money, don't get fooled by education. The only criteria is decency. Who respects you and treats you with dignity and decency? And he learned in the concentration camps to distinguish between those who still had an inkling of humanity and those who were purely sadistic and psychopaths. And in that sense, he basically said, look at the person, give them an opportunity and don't judge. It's so easy to judge. Don't think that because they are from your tribe, they are definitely better Or because they are from the other tribe, they are by definition evil. It's a lot more subtle and a lot more careful and judicious. And I think that if I carry that and I really attribute that to him and to them.

I'm just curious for you personally, Esther, what is your North Star here? What is your why? You're doing, you know, your reach is expanding. If you try to distill it down to a box you're trying to check, what are you trying to accomplish with your different media channels? So, you know, my motto is often to say the quality of your relationships determines the quality of your life. Relationships, as I see them, are undergoing massive upheaval. And we don't have the skills. We are really atrophied.

And the pandemic only added to that. only added to that. And I will do anything I can via Where Should We Begin, which now has 40 episodes a year versus 15. The subscription on Apple, the live events, we're going on tour now in the US to a number of different cities to help people gain confidence about their relationships, learn to connect, not just know that it's important, but know how to do it, reclaim the imagination, the poetry, and the skills to do so in all stages of the relationships. I think that I'm identified often with romantic love because that's what I wrote about first,

but I think that we should be careful not to put romantic love on a pedestal at the expense of many other very important relationships, friendship being one of them, mentorship, creative partnership, like the two of you, what you do. That is a very strong bond, too. all types of relationships at home and at work. If I can be one voice that contributes to helping people manage those better because they can cause tremendous grief, but they can also give us tremendous bliss. And I would like to be at the heart of that. You know, for a long time, dealing with relationships was fluff. It was considered feminine and feminine skills, especially in the workforce. And feminine usually means that you can idealize it in principle and then disregard it in reality. And then suddenly, because of technology, because of the social

skills having become suddenly so important again, it's kind of the last thing that distinguishes us for the moment from the machines, there is a real need and hunger in every sphere of society to address the subject of relationship. Sometimes it's called mental health, but what is mental health that doesn't include relational health, that doesn't include physical, sexual, and emotional health? They all go together, for God's sakes. So I speak through relational health, but I'm a clinician. I'm a practicing clinician, and I'm basically talking about mental health in a way that is accessible without losing the complexity. Well, you're fantastic, and you're the perfect person to have on today when everyone is reeling. And I just can't quit, Scott.

That's the way it goes. No, Esther, I want to say you've helped me, And I find that the wellness industry is mislabeled. A candle in a meditation app isn't going to make you well. It's relationships. And that's who you speak to. I think you should rebrand yourself as the wellness industry. You are the wellness. You can also use candles in meditation apps.

Those are nice, too. She's always correcting me, Esther. I'm just saying. It's true. There's nothing wrong with candles. Why would you not like candles? Passive aggressive. Candles are so...

I have a candle right now. You know, when I see the two of you, I'm dying. Kara, Kara, love me, don't judge me, says Esther Perel. Tell her to love me, not judge me, Esther. Oh, I'm going to judge you. I'm judging hard. Esther, did you know I dated Patti Stones? She did not. We're not getting into it. Don't, don't, don't, don't ask what that is, Esther. It's a fantasy and it's starting to become stalking, actually, at this point. Fantasies are important. Anyway, you can hear Esther every week on the Vox Media podcast, Where Should We Begin? We love her.

She's one of our best friends of Pivot. I'm going to make you best friend of Pivot. And we really appreciate everything you do. It's always a pleasure to be with you both. I'm dying to delve in and to do a little couples work that I will resist. We can have a session. We'll do that. We're bringing you back.

That's the seventh ring of hell you don't want to go into. We will bring you back and you will understand the hell I go through every single week. No, I know. I love Scott. I love Scott. So we're going to bring you back for that. You're going to do couples therapy with us. We'll do your show if you'd like.

That I want to talk about with you. No, I am going to invite you actually at one point to have a conversation with me. Because I think that, you know, it looks seamless when one sees you. And one doesn't know how much relationality goes into creating what the two of you do. And I think that it would be so interesting for people. Here is this man and this woman, they have their lives, they have their partners, kids, et cetera. They have their philosophies and they don't try to harmonize all the time. They show the tension, they show the differences, and they at the same time show

how much they like each other. I mean, fundamentally, that is still the thing on top. You can tolerate a lot of differences when you like the other person. So I want to have a chat with you on that. We will do it. We will do it. It's actually the heart of the show, I think. It'll be a quick episode. I'm in it for the money. No, it will not. You know, this is why people listen to us, because they like it. People say that. That's the only thing people ever say to me. I like listening to the two of you disagree. Anyway, Esther, enough about us. We will come on your show. We would love that because we need some shrinking, especially Scott. Shrinkage is an important issue with him. All right, Esther, thank you so much. And we'll have you back soon. My pleasure. See you soon. Scott, I love how she talks about the rise of the other AI, artificial intimacy, and how for all the friends you might have on social media, you still need to have someone you can ask to feed your cat. This interview really ended up being about so much love, friendship, mental health, and real-life connection. That's something we can all use more of in the near.

And I think we did very – we enjoyed listening to it. It was what we needed at the moment, I think. It calmed us down quite a bit. All right, Scott, that's the show. Please read us out. Today's show is produced by Lara Naiman, Zoe Marcus, and Taylor Griffin. Ernie Intertot engineered this episode. Thanks also to Drew Burrows, Milsa Vario, and Gaddy McBain.

Make sure you subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back soon for another breakdown of all things tech and business. And thanks to all our friends at Pivot.