Pivot - Lincoln Project implosion, Microsoft says Google should pay newspapers, and Friend of Pivot Adam Grant

Episode Date: February 16, 2021

Kara and Scott talk about Microsoft CEO Brad Smith's stance saying the US should follow Australia in a model that would force tech giants to pay for news content. They also discuss implosions at the Lincoln Project and Disney dropping the actor Gina Carano. Then in Friend of Pivot, Adam Grant, the author of the New York Times bestseller "Think Again", joins the show to talk about how to think outside your opinion bubble. 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 and beyond and see for yourself how traveling for takes forever to build a campaign. Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you,

tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social a breeze. So now, it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Hi, everyone. This is Pivot from New York Magazine and the Vox Media Podcast Network. I'm Kara Swisher.

And I am so clearly your side piece. Let me get this. Seriously. On your other podcast, you bring on Bill Gates. What do we get? We get some like Joanna Bag of Donuts assistant commissioner that you kissed in college on our podcast. You've got to start investing in this relationship. Bill Gates, Bill Gates, assistant commissioner of parks and services.

No, no. You know, whatever. She might be the FCC chairman. Are you kidding? I'm not talking, I don't want to attack her. I thought she's huge, but let's be honest. She's not Bill Gates. You didn't like Fran Lebowitz. I can bring her on. No, she can't. Yeah, exactly. You bring Fran on the other. Anyways, enough already. I am sick of you just taking me out every other Tuesday night.

I heard some famous people. Listen, first of all, let me just say I'm back in the closet again. I'm in New York in Brooke Hammerling's closet broadcasting. Love Brooke. Love Brooke. We'll have her on the closet again I'm in New York in Brooke Hammerling's closet broadcasting because I can't paint because of my son Love Brooke Love Brooke we'll have her on the show again I am visiting my son at NYU for the long weekend

we've had the best time our little family has had a lovely Valentine's Day here so I sound a little like him in a closet I'm back in a closet again but let me just say

someone famous was mentioning you everybody made a big deal of it because I'm such a name dropper and actually know all the names but you were named But you were named by two people. Explain for the people

what happened with your book. I am generally very in touch with anyone who says anything nice about me, but I don't know. Brian Williams? I really don't know who you're talking about. No, it was Oprah was talking about. Oprah! They picked up your book. Oh, James Gordon. That's right. He brought my book. Yeah, he talked about my book. What's with that?

Why? What happened? What is with that? I don't know. Well, occasionally, I know this is a shocker, but occasionally I do something outside of this podcast that gets some positive reinforcement. No, but how did he get the book? I know that.

My guess is he did. He bought it, Kara. Really? Some people actually buy books. Okay. And believe it or not, occasionally someone actually reads my book. Not that you've ever read one of my books. As usual, you're triggered because you're a triggered kind of person the fact of the matter is i'm thrilled

that he bought your book and i just wanted to know how he got it and that was great that was just amazon i'm gonna go out on a limb here i know but i wouldn't go james corden and post corona i just wouldn't that would not be a combination he's a very thoughtful guy i've interviewed him he's great he's very funny he's very funny But I was sort of surprised it was him, but it was interesting. And then they talked about it, Oprah and him. It was a big deal. It was a big deal. Oprah. Oprah. We should get Oprah. One of the most inspiring women of the last century. We're getting Oprah. Probably from my other podcast. One of the most inspiring people. I can't believe you just said that. I can't believe you just said that. No, no, but we're going to get, we're're gonna get the head of the texas health

commission to come talk about animal rights you know what despite all its issues new york times you say it and they show up i'm sorry it's just the way it works now i'm kidding i had i did fine on rico it's so true if i call bill gates office like they call security they literally they're like uh i think it's a crazy guy and they should i think it's that crazy guy. And they should. I think it's that crazy guy. Speaking of crazy guys, Trump was acquitted. What does this say about the American brand going forward? Let's move along to other people besides ourselves. What do you think? What do you think?

It was a lot of Republicans. It was a lot of Republicans. I think if you go outside. So in America, it's 10 minutes in a 30-minute newscast. It's 10 minutes of international and 20 minutes of domestic. Abroad, it's 20 minutes of international and 10 minutes of domestic because they realize they live in a world, not in a country. Right. But most people still don't have time to track America with that great a detail.

Every nation tracks America because I do think that we hold a special position of influence. But I think if you really take the aperture back and you look at what's happened here, I think that the American brand has reinforced itself and has been buttressed, rejuvenated a little bit. We still have a long way to climb back, but the reality is we had a virus of narcissism, a lack of empathy, of bigotry, misogyny, and general incompetence called the Trump administration. And I do believe that the immunities kicked in and he lost the election. That's the headline news. I think the impeachment reflects really poorly. I think the worst influence is on American youth. And that is, kids, if you're going to incite violence, just make sure you talk about it and record it, and then you can get off. I just, I think this is a, and by the way, I'm more pissed off at the Democrats for not having the backbone to call witnesses. I think it was important that America

got more detail on what exactly happened here. So internally, no doubt bad for the brand. Globally, the America brand is in a period of overdue and welcome repair. Your thoughts? Yeah, I agree. I have to say, I think Biden's looking pretty good during this whole thing. I met a friend today who was a big progressive for lunch, and she's like, I am actually riding with Biden. I'm surprised how, you know, even though this Trump thing and people should still study it. And by the way, I think there should be a commission on what happened. So we have the information out there.

I don't think the Trump brand was good for it. Then look at Nikki Haley kind of said some really sharp things. McConnell in voting against the impeachment. I know. In voting against the impeachment, Mitch McConnell strafed Trump. I mean, there's a really interesting counter-revolution going on among them. And even though you can say, oh, they're all awful, it's still interesting. Like, how could they be with him and then against him and then with him and against him? And probably they'd be with him again if they need to be. But some of these words are very strong, strongly.

And, you know, whatever. They can sort out their own. Okay, but Governor Haley, hold on for a second. So there's a scene in the- This was an interview she did for people who didn't know where she's kind of strafed Trump pretty significantly for her. There's a scene in Gladiator with Russell Crowe.

My favorite movie. There's an incredible Welsh actor who passed away who plays the king. What's his name? Oh, shit. Him, him, that guy, yeah. Anyways, his son, Joaquin Phoenix, shows up after the battle is over. He's his father.

He says, father, did I miss the battle? And the king goes, you've missed the war. There is, courage is in abundance after the battle. And that's what Nikki Haley represents. Oh, wow. You're calling her Joaquin Phoenix? Well, look, for her to show up now after saying that Jared Kushner has a special type of genius, and I want to thank the president for his leadership. She is, I mean, I got to give it to

her. I think she's a deaf politician. But God, talk about jonesing for the mic and the camera in Iowa. I think she is, all of a sudden she's decided that the president is bad for America. And it's like, well, you know what? You missed the battle, Ms. Haley. You missed the battle. You know who actually – let me just say, first of all, it was Richard Harris. He's playing Marcus Aurelius. Richard Harris.

Thank you. Fantastic actor. Joaquin Phoenix's Commodus. A really good movie but let me say i thought lisa murkowski's murkowski who has been consistently uh tough on trump uh released an amazing and her her whole her whole statement which i i think she's been consistent the whole time she voted against trump every single time to much to her possible death from a while back a while back she's she essentially released a he sucks i've said he sucks he He's dangerous.

And if you want a primary, come and get me. Come and get me. I love Senator Murkowski. I thought that was great. I thought that was great. I thought she handled it well. And it was like, I'm not worried about being primary. If I get primary, I get primary.

So what? What do I care? Like, I'm good at what I do. And I'm doing things for the people of Alaska. So bite me. Like, it was good. I thought that's the real profile and courage in that particular party. And unfortunately, this says something about, I mean, here's the thing.

We like to personify emotion and movements, and it's easy to personify it amongst our elected representatives and go after them. But here's the reality. Those Republican senators, the 40 that voted for acquittal, or excuse me, the 43, were raised in American households. They went to American schools. They were elected by Americans. This is more, I think, a negative reflection on America because there was a member of parliament in Europe that summarized politics perfectly for me. And that was, she said, we all know what needs to be done. We just don't know how to be reelected after doing what needs to be done.

Yeah. And the reality is that Trump and his low-budget cruelty commands a ridiculous power in a primary. Right. And these individuals, it's easy to see. You can empathize with them and say, well, I can't do good if I don't get elected. No, that's an excuse. I agree. I agree.

I'm going to move you along on a topic. Actually, Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, I agree with you. I did that too. He was in a much more unusual state. He voted for conviction and wrote a great essay about it. And because he's guilty, they're like, why did you vote for conviction? Because he's guilty. Yeah, it was quite good. But speaking of which, speaking of which, people taking responsibility and sort of what other person was Collins, Senator Collins, who has been at cross purposes with the Lincoln Project, which has been imploding this week.

Collins, who has been at cross-purposes with the Lincoln Project, which has been imploding this week. The Republican strategist group, which has made amazingly sharp targeted against all Trump progressives, argue whether they were effective or not. I think it was a good shot in the arm of morale and everything else in any case. And I thought they were wonderful ads, actually. They've come under fire after accusations of young men saying that John Weaver, one of the organization's co-founders, there's several co-founders there, who had left in the summer, sent sexually explicit messages over a long period of time. And whether this group of people knew about it and did anything about it is, and there's, they're all fighting with each other. There's a woman who was there,

one of the other founders who said that they knew about it, others said they didn't know about it, including people we've had on the show. Steve Schmidt has left, and we didn't have him on the show, but Rick Wilson we've had on the show. And so it's a big mess about reporting of what happened here. And then, of course, there was a big story in the 19th about sort of the workplace, which there's a lot of, you know, typical political operative language, which was all pretty ugly. And at the same time, which you want to talk

about is Gina Carano was let go from the Mandalorian. You know more about her. I don't watch the Mandalorian. About some tweets that she did that people concede was anti-Semitic. I saw one of them and thought it was quite anti-Semitic, actually. But, you know, she's a Trump person and has been quite a Trump supporter. So what do you think about what's going on here? All the watching of language and not just that, but in John Weaver's case, clear sexual predatory behavior. Well, I think I know more about the Gina Carano story and you know more about the Lincoln Project story. So what are your thoughts?

You start. What do you think about what's going on? I think they I think I I'm guessing I don't know if they knew, but if they did, they should something serious should happen to them. You know, I think these workplaces, things get passed along. And I've seen, you know, every workplace has its issues. Let's just say, you know, every workplace has issues. But in this case, it sounds like he was predatory toward these young men, was a closeted gay guy, speaking of closets, which I'm in right now, and that he behaved badly. And when they found out about it, they're having an internal investigation by an independent investigator. We should find out when they knew about it. And they didn't do anything about it or take action and let him go pretending he had a heart attack, heart condition, which he may have, I believe. I think anybody who sort of looked the other way

should probably step away from the group. And the argument between and among the people about the way they talk, again, badly managed, maybe better managed. I think probably the project is, which collected a lot of money. There's always been allegations that they've sort of self dealt. They made these ads and which are very good ads. Let's take it away from that and, and sort of let the pay each other for them like hair on fire, which I'm not, again, I'm also not surprised at. But, you know, it's, they need to do an investigation and then people who knew and didn't do anything about it need to be removed from the project. And if the project survives, I don't know about that. I think that's happened. I think the, I don't know, but I think the project's over. I think this thing is done. Well, I think so. There's some people there still. I think it's not gone, but I don't know where they go now. project's over. I think this thing is done. Well, I think so. There's some people there still. I think it's not gone, but I don't know where they

go now. There's no way they haven't been impugned in a way that's significant. Yeah. And I liked a lot of what they did, but it's complex. We have a tendency to see all wrong. It's easy to group all wrongdoing into one bucket. And the reality is, my understanding is that John Weaver, while he never, I don't think he's accused of actually having physical contact, what he did was hugely inappropriate. And the thing that takes it to an entirely different level is that a report came out that he was initially communicating, even if the messages weren't inappropriate at the time, but he was grooming someone who was a whiner. Yeah. And the bottom line is there's jail and then there's a special place in hell for people who, quite frankly, abuse children in any way.

And there's just no getting around it. And this is unfair, but I think they should have shut down the Penn State football program. And by the way, it wasn't any of their fault. That was Joe, what's his name? I think they should have. I think when it involves children, and if you institutionalize serial rape

and continue to operate as if nothing's wrong, I don't know, the Catholic church, I just think there should be shrapnel that devastates the organization. And there's just no getting around it. Well, let's be clear. What happened at Penn State with that coach who was physically abusing a series of young That's an entirely different level. I give you that.

And the Catholic Church. Let's just, this is something else. This is just, this is incredibly bad, but not that level. I'm going to have to sacrifice it. I just want to acknowledge a point there because the three shouldn't be conflated. And now I'm putting my words back in my mouth. What happened to the Lincoln Project? I see your point.

My point is there's just a special level of damage and what I'll call, okay, no, anything involving a minor, do not pass go. Yeah, you're right. It's too bad. The whole thing gets fucking shut down. And quite frankly, I think some of the individuals, the senior level individuals, I don't, I'm not friends with any of them, but I know a couple of them. I think, I don't want to call them innocent victims, but they're, they also are, their careers are going to be damaged because when shit like this happens, the shrapnel goes everywhere. And I bet they just didn't know how to handle it. It's like, what do we do here? I don't know.

I think there's more there. I think the story, if you read the story in the 19th, and again, they were very good reporters there. I think there's more problematic management problems than you could easily understand. Once you read that piece, you understand what happened here. That's all. So, but talk about Gina Carano, because that's a more, that's another complex issue. This is, I think this is a tough one. Her tweet that supposedly put everyone over the edge, and I looked it up today, she wrote, or she tweeted, at least according to Wikipedia, Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers, but by their neighbors, even by children,

because history has edited, most people today don't realize that to get to that point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?

I don't agree with that. I think it is offensive. I think some of the imagery she put out, like you said, was very offensive. But before you start ruining someone's career, like Gina Carano, raised by a single mother, took her girls basketball team to the state championship, was the first female to really put a female face

on MMA fighting and really advance that sport for women. She did, indeed. She is a fan. In my opinion, she's a fantastic actress. And she said something really fucking stupid. And my sense is that we now have an economy or a sub-economy that takes shitty takes, makes them uber shitty,

and then we have algorithms that profit off of inciting a mob response to it. And I don't, and also there's, and I realize this is complex, but there is an orthodoxy that's turned into dogma, in my opinion, among universities and in the media, where if you step outside the lines and you say something stupid, it can ruin your livelihood. And I have a problem with that.

I find Scientology- I would agree. I find Scientology offensive, but I don't think Tom Cruise's life should be ruined. Well, let me just say, I think you're right about the one tweet she did. I think it just was obnoxious. But lots of people are making Nazi metaphors, let's just say. In this case, it was obnoxious. it was obnoxious there was one that she did that showed like there was a guy who was clearly looks jewish holding diamonds and there was one that was it says all we have to do is stand up and their little game is over um she had several that were you know i remember when john trump got in trouble for tweeting that uh the thing with the money and the jew star with Hillary Clinton, you know, nothing happened to him really.

Like, but people had a, had a big, she was right next to a line on some things. And so, you know, I think I, again, is it one tweet or is it a behavior pattern kind of thing, um, where they don't want to be affiliated with it? You know, I'm not sure. I think one of the things is, I would agree with, I think probably she should not have been fired for it, but she also tweeted a couple of things. If you keep looking, the more of them that come out, you're like, oh, that's not good.

You know, it's confusing because- The question is, at what point, at what point does your job and the corporation that pays you absorb your political views, whether they're smart, shitty, or offensive? And I think it comes back to a similar place. And that is we have lost so much faith in our institutions, and our institutions have been so underfunded and so disparaged that we no longer trust the courts.

We no longer trust even the HR department. We want Kayak, Airbnb, Twitter, and Facebook to punish the president. We want the Twitter mob to punish Gina Carano and Disney. And I don't want, I mean, I'm sounding now like a Republican saying I don't want the, there's accountability, there's shaming. I think that's important. And people should be called out. But there's something wrong here. There's something dangerous here.

And it's a different flavor, but being a communist in an era where the Russians had built the bomb, the Russians were coming for us, their enemy. And if you were to say you were a communist in the fifties in this country, that was just very offensive to people, really offensive. And we ruined their careers.

And the question is, is this that many shades away from that? Are we, I don't know, this is a tough one. It's not limited. I mean, remember Disney also let go of James Gunn a while ago because he had a bunch of jokey jokes about rape culture, I think, or something like that. He made a lot of jokes about pedophilia and stuff, and Disney, I think they rehired him and hired him. In any case, a lot of people have to, and you know what happened in The New York Times with Don McNeil. And I thought, by the way, if you want to read a great column, Ben Smith in The New York Times wrote a tough but very fair column on what happened with Don McNeil and interviewed one of the kids on the trip who actually had a diary. A very smart kid. And I think it was it i thought it handled it

really well i thought that if you want to read something it showed the difficulties on all sides of these issues and it's not one thing he said it was other things and um i think things are a lot more complex and i don't think it was one tweet with this woman. But at the same time, Disney did this with other people and some of whom were liberals. So it's a real question of it's more like James Gunn. It was not political speech, I believe. It was more other stupid jokes he made before. And that's happened. And then Roseanne, as you remember, when she said the thing about they removed her from the Roseanne.

I think that was Disney. I'm sure it was ABC. Roseanne, though, but look, let's talk about Roseanne. Yes. She had pictures of cookies coming out of an oven as Jews, and she was dressed up as Hitler. Yeah, I know. I mean, it's like, okay. And then Kathy Griffin, you know, who I know well, the same thing with her picture with Trump.

And she's quite liberal. So it's really kind of a very complex situation. I don't know if we have any particular answers to it, but we do have to, like these companies can do what they want. And I think this is going to continue because people leave this trail of information behind them. But I always think it's interesting to say, okay, what is the incendiary here? What is really powering all this? And one, I think it's that we no longer trust our institutions and turn, unfortunately, to Silicon Valley to try and punish the president or turn on individuals that we feel. But I still think most of this, or a lot of it, comes down to income

inequality. And that is, I think that people are so outraged at the prosperity that we've had the last 30 years without progress, that it has all been crowded mostly towards wealthy, older, white Americans, that there's a general sense of rage. And anything that appears to be the establishment, and the establishment is you're older, or you make a lot of money, or a corporation, there's a lot of rage. a corporation there's a lot of rage and then there's this incredible rage for profit machine that that that moves you into that rage bubble i think twitter twitter alone has made celebrities in the media more terse and a lot ruder because if you come back with a one word dunk on somebody you get thousands of likes. And Twitter sees that and then elevates it and goes, oh, my God, look at this dunk.

Ters come back. So it's taught all of us to look for opportunities, not to expand the dialogue and say, let's learn from this. True. It's taught all of us to go, boom, on everybody. Although sometimes, we've got to get to the next story because we have Adam Graham coming soon. But let me just say, I had a very great back and forth

with a number of people on this Codex story that the New York Times had, which had some problems, but we had a great discussion. I wouldn't say it's always like that. I think you could have, and not everybody agreed. And then one or two people were like, you're wrong, like was trying, doing the dunking thing.

And I was like, anyone who wants to actually talk about the complexity of this, I'm happy to. And so I think you can get to really good discussions. It's just you're right. Dunking is wins. But also, I can't help it. Communication on these platforms is as much about who says it as what you've said. communication on these platforms is as much about who says it as what you've said. And you, quite frankly, you can play a very productive role because, quite frankly,

you're given more license. People, women, people of different sexual orientation, people of color have been wrong for 450 years. And now for 24 months, whatever you want to call it, older white males show up in a room and they're wrong. And I think that the, I think the conversation, I, I think you can say things quite frankly, that because of your, your rigor and your background as a journalist and, and your background that some people would probably the, the lines of which they can color out outside of are narrower than they are for you. True. I feel, I know, I know you think, I know you think that it's just that I, everybody having a voice is going to sort itself out.

I do think that's the case. I do, but it does. That's the most hopeful thing I've ever heard you say. I do think it is. Cause I've had some very, you know, honestly, the minute like the more angry voices come off, the better it gets. I'll be, you know, the more like donkey ones. Anyway, big story. Speaking of which, about where news is going. Microsoft CEO Brad Smith, who I just recently interviewed, says the Biden administration should follow a controversial Australian proposal

that would force tech companies to pay newspapers for content. This is a direct aim at companies like Google and Facebook. The Australian proposal that is now in parliament will require tech companies to notify publishers of algorithm changes that could affect search rankings. In a blog post, Smith wrote, the United States should not object to a creative Australian proposal that strengthens democracy by requiring tech companies to support a free press. If the proposal becomes law in its current form, Google said it would shut down its search engine in Australia. Facebook has said it would bar Australian users from its social media platforms from sharing links to news articles. Europe has tried imposing similar laws with limited success, and the Trump administration imposed such measures in the United States, and so did the Obama administration, as I recall.

So this is a really interesting thing of paying publishers. Obviously, Rupert Murdoch thinks this is dandy down in Australia, but it's been something that's going on for a while, and Brad and I did talk about this issue. Obviously, Microsoft has its own search engine, Bing, which would advantage and they'd be happy and willing to pay publishers. So, what do you think about this? So, I absolutely, I think the mechanics need to rework out. I absolutely love this. And I will use this as an excuse to talk about how important and relevant I am. Okay. When I was on my first board meeting at the New York Times, I came in with an analysis that I thought was just incredible.

And I said, okay, I think Google is making $20 to $30 million crawling our content and then running ads against it. And they're trading at 12 times revenues. and then running ads against it. And they're trading at 12 times revenues. So I think Google, our willingness to let Google crawl all our gorgeous content is creating somewhere between 500 million and 700 million in enterprise value for them.

And as far as I can tell, we're getting somewhere between three and $5 million a year in additional subscription revenue and advertising revenue from them. So shitty trade. I'm like, why are we being such fucking idiots so we can stand near the innovation light? Why are we being such fucking idiots so we can stand

near the innovation light? Why are we beings, we need to shut off. And I propose this specifically, let's get together with the Murdochs. Let's get together with Pearson who owns the FT. Let's get together with the Newhouse family and let's take Vogue, the FT, the Wall Street Journal and take all this gorgeous content and put it, well, let's all create like an association and then license it to the highest bidder. And there's two bidders, there's Microsoft and Bing, and there's Google. And this content will give them another one to three points of share in a search market that'll get billions of dollars. Instead, we're being idiots. We are being idiots. And I was absolutely laughed out of the room. So I was talking to Senator Michael Bennett

last week, more name dropping about regulation and big tech. And I believe that algorithms of amplification should be taxed. And the moment I go back to is in that board dinner at the New York Times, when after we had presented this analysis and was laughed out of the room for the idea of turning off Google, they're like, no, don't be stupid. We want to be innovators, da-da-da. And then later that day, Bill Keller, I think his name is, Bill Keller. Yeah, Bill Keller. Who looked like something out, by the way, out of a 70s Aqua Velva ad.

He was like this really handsome guy from 1974. Really handsome. I remember just sitting there staring at him going, I know he's saying something, but I can't stop thinking about how handsome he is. He was the editor. Anyways, but a brilliant guy who ran the Moscow bureau for the New York Times. And he had to excuse himself from dinner. You know I had to leave?

Why? He was negotiating the release of a hostage held by the Taliban, a journalist, a New York Times journalist. I'm like, okay, so we let Google into our vaults to take money and then our managing editor has to go negotiate the release of a New York Times journalist. I'm like, fuck this. So I'd say my message to Australia is word, my brothers, tax that shit and put that money back into great journalism. Yep, I would agree. I think this is coming for them, even though some of it's been backed by someone like Rupert Murdoch, who I wouldn't trust, you know, holding my hat. It is, it is, I think it's coming for them.

I think paying both the social media tax and also, which I've talked about and you've talked about, and also paying for the content, we're tired of painting your fences. We're tired of, we don't, I don't think we need them as much as they think, if that makes sense. And so we're tired of painting your fences. That's really what this is saying. And I think it's going to be the case. All right, Scott, let's go on a quick break. And when we get back, we'll be joined by friend of Pivot, podcast host and author,

and Scott's personal nemesis, who is better than him, Adam Grant. 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. 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. Support for this podcast comes from Anthropic. You already know that AI is transforming the world around us, but lost in all the enthusiasm and excitement is a really important question. How can AI actually work for you?

And where should you even start? Claude from Anthropic may be the answer. Claude is a next-generation AI assistant built to help you work more efficiently without sacrificing safety or reliability. Anthropic's latest model, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, can help you organize thoughts, solve tricky problems, analyze data, and more.

Whether you're brainstorming alone or working on a team with thousands of people, all at a price that works for just about any use case. If you're trying to crack a problem involving advanced reasoning, need to distill the essence of complex images or graphs, or generate heaps of secure code, Claude is a great way to save time and money. Plus, you can rest assured knowing that Anthropic built Clawed with an emphasis on safety. The leadership team founded the company with a commitment to an ethical approach

that puts humanity first. To learn more, visit anthropic.com slash clawed. That's anthropic.com. moving on we have a friend of pivot we have with us adam grant adam is the author of the just released new york times bestseller think again obviously adam is a thought leader and a think fluencer of great repute and scott is also a think fluencer So we have two thankful influencers here. I am so the pips and this guy's Gladys Knight. Let's just be honest. Let's just be honest. How did I get two of the most delightfully disagreeable people together in one podcast? We're one of those things. We're one of those things. Think again, Adam. Think again. I don't know why you're here.

We know what you're doing. Let's start off and then Scott, I'm going to let Scott do most of this interview. Anyway, you talk in your new book about arguing like you're right and listening like you're wrong, which we do all the time. And I think it's the success of our show. But what are some tangible ways? Talk about what you're trying to do in this book. You'd like to see it implemented across news, politics, and stuff like this. But talk about the theme of the book and then explain that for me. So the overall idea is that we spend way too much of our time thinking and talking like preachers, prosecutors, and politicians. And I think it's weird to me because as an organizational psychologist, I wonder how in the world these jobs started inhabiting my mind when I've never worked in any of these fields.

Preacher mode is about saying I've already found the truth and my job is to proselytize it. Prosecutor mode is I'm trying to win an argument and that means I have to prove you wrong. And politician mode is I'm going to tell you what you want to hear in order to get your approval. And my worry is that all three of these mindsets stop us from questioning our opinions, our convictions, and our decisions because if I'm a preacher or a prosecutor, I'm right, you're wrong. I don't need to rethink anything. And if I'm a politician, I might change what I say, but my beliefs deep down stay intact. And I think that's a problem in a rapidly changing world.

All right. So what do we do about this? How could social media algorithms be better at incorporating this mentality into platforms? What do we do when we're... Scott and I were just talking about things like the arguments of people getting thrown off and being on Twitter, trying to be very right and dunk on people. How do you change it when social media kind of plays into these very human kind of personality traits? I don't know that I have easy solutions, but my starting point is to say it would be great if we had algorithms that encourage people to think and communicate a little bit more like scientists.

Where instead of immediately amplifying outrage, we said if people express some degree of uncertainty, if they ask questions instead of just giving answers, if they ask about the evidence that's available on a topic, right? That information should immediately be amplified. And I guess if I were writing a social media algorithm, I would be fascinated to see what happened if we said,

everyone's entitled to freedom of speech, but nobody has an immediate right to freedom of megaphone. So before a tweet, let's say, goes beyond 100 or 200 people, or if it's going to take off into the thousands, maybe we could fact check it at that point, or bring in a community of independent experts to weigh in on whether they think it has validity or not. And I think this is way too complicated at scale, so I have no idea how to do it. But this is the kind of thing I would start to think about. So Adam, first off, it's just so great to have you here. You generally are one of my role models.

It's the hair. Yeah, there you go, right? I have great hair, on the other hand. I just got it cut, but go ahead. We're both jealous, Kat. Okay, all right. So I think right now, I think it's a toss-up between you and Jonathan Haidt in terms of the two academics that are having the most influence on our dialogue and the zeitgeist in America. And Jonathan has written really eloquently about, I don't call it cancel culture, but this notion that to be offended in our society means you're right. And that unfortunately,

it's sort of leaked into what used to be a provocative place of evidence and argument, and that is the university campuses. And I complain a lot about this, that I feel that I'm just literally always one false move away from being fired on campus, and that we have embraced a certain dogma, a certain orthodoxy. I'm just very curious to get your views, because you write a lot about this. And what you just said, I think it's so powerful about trying to figure out if we have the right algorithms to give content. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of reach. Talk about what you're seeing on campus at Penn and your views. I think it's scary. I think there's a major suppression of not just conservative views, but unpopular views. And I've seen groups of students come together to bully classmates

who they think are not on board with the zeitgeist or aren't sufficiently woke. And I think, I don't know, I really like the way that Van Jones describes it when he says, I don't always want you to be psychologically safe. I want you to be psychologically strong. And part of the point of higher education is to learn how to reason with arguments that make you uncomfortable. Now, obviously, I don't think that condones hate speech or that any groups that are targets of systematic attacks should be subjected to that. But I think when people are bringing good faith arguments,

when they're actually trying to learn or challenge conventional thinking in order to get closer to the truth, as opposed to just to troll, that we thinking in order to get closer to the truth as opposed to just to troll, that we ought to listen to those. And I guess to me where cancel culture lies is it doesn't tolerate a whole lot of dissent. It's just, you know, there's high criticism, but low openness. And I want to live in a university campus and also in a country where we have both openness to dissent and quality standards, right? Where we can say people can speak, but we should also challenge them with

the best logic and the best evidence we have available. Well, let me challenge you both, because I interviewed the president of Oberlin about this topic just this week. And one of the things she was saying is, why are people always just dunking on college students about this when politicians do it all the time? Reporters do it all the time. saying is, why are people always just dunking on college students about this when politicians do it all the time? Reporters do it all the time. Everyone else, why are we focusing on them where they're in a state where they're sort of learning and developing? And adults, you know, people who are in the workplace do it all the time. And, you know, the idea that you can, like, they say they want to talk about dissent.

And then the minute, say, Liz Cheney dissents on the right, they dunk on her and then don't say anything about cancel culture. It's just because they don't like what she said. So I just think some people just grab. It's sort of like saying fake news all the time to say cancel culture when sometimes it's about accountability of what you say. Sometimes it's maybe you really shouldn't say that. Like maybe some things should stop being said. really shouldn't say that. Like maybe some things should stop being said. And the other one is that people tend to hide really horrible speech in this. I should say whatever I feel like I experienced that in Silicon Valley, or there should be no consequences to anything. And so

how do you square those, that particular circle essentially? Adam. Thanks for putting me on the spot there, Scott. I think, I think it's a good question. I think, I don't know, I have a lot of reactions to it. My first thought is, you know, there's everybody likes to quote, what is it, Moynihan on how everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts. I would modify that a little bit. I think you're entitled to your own opinions if you keep them in your head. But if you choose to express them out loud, then you have a responsibility to back them up with data and with reason. You also have a responsibility to be open

to changing your mind if new data or better logic would come along. And I think the reason that I'm comfortable, I'm not dunking on college students here. I'm making a case that we're not doing a good job. And I think John Haidt has captured this beautifully. We're not doing a good job preparing students to have thoughtful disagreement. And I think we need to change campus culture, right? Not criticize students per se. Scott, you actually agree? Look, it's not the students that are wrong. It's that we as educators who are supposed to be preparing people for an unjust world and giving them the tools to, in a sober way, present evidence and argument to make it a more just world, we're not preparing them. When we teach them that they get virtue points by being part of the guardians of gotcha squad, all we're doing is setting them up for failure. If they just want to watch MSNBC and never go outside, then fine.

But we are not preparing them. We're not giving them the tools. We're not giving them the Kevlar. We're not giving it. We're creating a generation of princess and the pea. So it's not their fault. It's our fault. Except again, I'm going to push back at both of you.

I think the right does game these groups of people all the time. And they're playing trolls. They're not trying to like, we should say what I want. They want to say the most disturbing and upsetting things to create a troll-like situation to, you know, let's poke the libs or whatever they want to do. And so I think that's not good faith. There's very few people that want to actually have a good faith argument. They want to have an argument. And so they create sort of discord just the way bots do or anything else. And so i don't think someone like president trump wants to create a dialogue he just wants to piss people off and

create chaos and so how do you get that difference when i think i i do i do think the right does like to play games in terms of getting people angry but take it take it down one level and then i want adam to come in okay take trump and comedians who oftentimes say offensive, provocative things. They don't go on campuses anymore. They literally just disappeared. Yeah, yeah. Yes, I would agree. Go ahead, Adam. I don't know what to do with the national politics version of this. It's complicated. I think, though, for the everyday conversations that people are shying away from and not able to have because, oh, well, that hurt my feelings a little bit. The place that I like to start is to teach my students a couple things. One is you should follow people not just because you agree with their conclusions, but because you respect the integrity of their thought process, right? You don't have to be on board with every answer they give if you're impressed by how thorough they are in asking questions. And I think that's a small step

we could all take toward getting out of our filter bubbles and echo chambers. I think the second thing is, this goes right to the heart of what I do as a social scientist. I want to know whether you would accept the results of a study before you know what it shows. So do we consider the methods rigorous? Yes or no? And then once the methods are established and agreed upon, we should be open to discussing whatever the data show.

It's a little bit for me like taking the John Rawls veil of ignorance where he asked, would you join a society before knowing your place in it to judge whether it was just? I want to teach my students to judge the rigor of data and logic by asking, would you follow this study even if you hadn't seen the output of it yet? And I think that's a starting point, right? Having a conversation about the conversation, agreeing on the standards of evidence, at least, is a step toward having a reasonable debate. Except you're assuming good faith. You see, I don't assume good faith. And one of the things, look, you guys come from a certain higher group

in the caste system, really. I remember- I have no idea what you're talking about, Kara. I remember when I was- Wait, is that the straight white man caste here? I'm not saying that because I'm trying to do this from a data point of view. But here's, let me tell you

from an experiential point of view. When I was coming out, especially when it was very difficult to do so i could not take another anti-gay thing said at me even if it was like let's argue about it i was like that's enough i've done with your ridiculous you can't say those things anymore and then they were like and then they were like yeah but it's free speech i'm like i don't really care i don't want to hear your anti-gay stuff i don't want to hear you tell me about children i don't want to hear you show me data that didn't actually hold up in the end. So that's the problem is which whose data and which data. So let's get to how you do it, though.

You have this on your book cover. It's right here. And you have a blue flame thinker, which is Scott Galloway's favorite thing to talk about. What are some, I do agree, like I had a great about, what is it, Slate Star, Stark, Slateate Codex or whatever it is this weekend. And I had great debates online about it because I could see from all the sides of the various things. I was trying to do that very hard rather than say, because that guy really does create really interesting debates and difficult ones. He does. I had a whole debate with him a few years ago online about the Google memo when I skewered it and then he criticized my critique. I pointed out a couple of places where I thought his response

was inconsistent with the evidence. He went right into his blog and edited it right there and said, here are places I made mistakes. I don't always agree with this guy's conclusions, but wow, I appreciate just how bloodless he is. How little ego he has attached to his opinions. Yes, and he changes, which I really liked. And then that's one of the things I was talking about. And I, and I could see completely the criticism of the piece. So talk about what some of the,

what some of the techniques you can do, because Scott really needs help in this. Well, let me just, let me give you a running start here, Adam. There's, I always, when I read stuff, try to find one thing that I'm going to hold onto.. And the one thing I'm going to hold on to from your book is that flip-flopping is changing your view because the mob comes from you, but evolving is recognizing which part of your arguments were shitty and that you've learned in your evolving. Can you speak to more about that?

I thought that was very powerful. Oh, thank you. It's something I really learned from super forecasters. So there's this super forecaster, Jean-Pierre Begum, who is arguably the world's best election forecaster based on his performance in tournaments. And one of the things he does is when he starts to form an opinion, let's say, you know, who's going to win the next presidential election, he makes a list of conditions under which he would change his mind. And he does that to keep himself honest, knowing that once his idea becomes part of his identity, he's either going to stick to it or he's going to change when his tribe ends up shifting. And he wants to know in advance, okay, what are the criteria that matter here before I have real emotions attached to my

beliefs? And I think that's something we could all do, right? We could all say, the moment I have a view, I should treat that as a hunch or a hypothesis and I should figure out, well, what would change my mind? And then be open to changing when those data come along or when that situation emerges. So why don't people change their minds now? Does something happen to our brains? It feels like people get paid to double down

and it's very unhealthy. No matter how outrageous, the best thing are feels like people get paid to double down and it's very unhealthy, no matter how outrageous. The best thing are we've trained people to double down. Or is it because we have a voice, everybody has a voice suddenly and they didn't before? Is there something about the mediums that are actually shifting the brain cells, essentially? I think there might be something to all of the above. I think, you know, psychologists have written for years about the totalitarian ego, which sort of controls the flow of information to our brains, a little bit like Kim Jong-un would control the press in North Korea. And the whole point of having a totalitarian ego is to keep out threatening information, which might signal I'm going to be excluded from my group, which might signal other people are going to think I'm an idiot. And so obviously, I don't want to change my mind and put myself at risk for either of those things. I think though that part of the problem is also cultural. It bothers me a lot that we take consistency as a sign of integrity.

And we say, well, if you've changed your mind on anything, that might mean you have no moral principles. No conviction. Yeah, exactly. And Scott, you were just touching on this a minute ago, but I think one of the greatest, by that logic, one of the greatest flip-floppers in human history was Abraham Lincoln, who came into the White House convinced that if he abolished slavery, it would tear the union apart. And how lucky are we that he changed his mind on that? And I think what's so interesting about the Lincoln case is his values didn't shift much, right? He was interested from the get-go in trying to end prejudice and eliminate this hateful practice.

But he shifted his policy as he learned about what might be possible in the country. And I think that's, for me, a lesson for all of us is to say, look, it's one thing to stick to your values. That's probably in many situations a good thing. But you should be pretty flexible on the opinions about how to best advance those values. What about like when people shift? I, you know, sometimes when I compliment, say a Mitt Romney, like when he gives a speech, I'll say this was a really good statement or, or Lisa Murkowski. I was just trying to think of sort of right wing stuff with a left wing attack. And they were like, well, just remember he did this. And I'm like, yeah, but listen to where he's evolved to.

Like it was a really, and I, I cannot get people off that. Like, and it's, it is very hard. I don't care, but it's very hard to get people to go, yes, he did think the other thing before, but it's like people who used to be against gay rights and are now you have an anger for them before, but you have to acknowledge their evolvingness. It's very hard now to acknowledge evolving. I think it is too, but I think there's a version of this where you can ask, okay, would I be open to that evolution if this person belonged to my tribe or was on my side? Right, Barack Obama also evolved on gay rights.

Yeah. And I don't see the left- I'm just making you talk about it. I was literally thinking that. But no, no, but I don't see the left attacking Obama for what he used to believe, right? It's just convenient when it's somebody who doesn't share most of your ideological views.

I think that one of the things that might be, I don't know how productive this is, but one of the things that might be worth thinking about here is we could say, okay, we don't really know what the person believed before. We know what they said before. And it's possible they were being political then and now they've moved toward a more scientific stance now. It's also possible that they were politicians all along, and

now it's become more expedient for them to do the right thing. Either way, it's better that they're trying to do the right thing, whether for the right reason or not right now, than not. And so I'll still count that as progress. Don't you? Yeah, I agree with you. I love the statement, you know, when the data changes, I change my mind, what do you do? And as we've, when we were talking about gay rights, when Dan Quayle said that, said that single mothers,

the children don't have as good positive outcomes, they immediately stretched it to, well then gay people shouldn't have children. And the reality is, what the science is my understanding has come out, is that actually the most important thing, he was right in the sense that a single parent family household, like the one I was raised in,

typically doesn't have as strong an outcomes because there's no zone coverage. You don't have two people. But it doesn't matter the sexual orientation of those two. There's a difference between one and two, but it doesn't matter if it's, you know, who the two are. And we got that data, and I like to think that a lot of people have evolved around it.

And there's nothing wrong. When the data changes, I change my mind. What do you do? Yeah. Yeah, but you can't get people that. So, one of the things you talked about is confidence versus competence. Can you talk? I thought that's what I really, this chart of yours, like armchair quarterback syndrome, confident humility zone, novice and imposter syndrome.

Can you explain that? I think we're all familiar with an armchair quarterback. Yes. Oh, my gosh. We got a pro bowl here, my man. Speak for yourself, Scott Galloway. It's the hall of fame here. I mean, the overconfidence problem, I think,

starts often when people gain a little bit of knowledge or skill. At least that's what the data tell us. And then their confidence climbs faster than their competence. And they start to overestimate how much they know. I think the opposite is the imposter syndrome, right? Where you're more capable than you think you are. And you walk around with these ongoing thoughts like, well, maybe I'm not as good as everyone thinks I am. And maybe I don't deserve my success. And we have a former doctoral student, Basima Tufek, who's now in the MIT faculty,

who studied these imposter thoughts and found that having them more often does not hurt your performance, whether you're an investment professional or a medical professional. And in some cases, it actually helps your performance because in those moments where you feel like an imposter, as long as that doesn't become debilitating, of course,

and prevent you from trying, you realize I have something to prove. So you're not complacent. You realize I have something to learn. I want to keep getting better so I can close this gap between where I am right now and where other people think I am. And so you see investment professionals second-guess their decisions and go and seek feedback from others.

You see medical professionals actually listen to their patients as opposed to interrupting them and then give them better care. And I think that when we have those imposter thoughts, it's worth recognizing, hey, you know what? This might be a moment for confident humility where I can recognize how little I know and yet have a strong conviction in my capability to learn. Yeah, you know no more, but you know no less. That's a good way to put it. I like that. All right, Scott, I have just one more question.

I want to think about, when I was thinking about your book, I was thinking about what happened to Wall Street bets and stuff like that, like this idea of these people being competent to invest versus experts. Everybody has an opinion now, which creates a lot of noise, right? There's a lot of everyone has some sort of thought on every single thing, some of which they don't know what they're talking about, some of which they actually do. Where do you meet when people have not just equal knowledge, but in the case of the investor situation, some of these retail investors really do know or do have competence that is not born of their job necessarily, just smart people who do research. Where do we go when we have so much noise to get out the signal from this very noisy

situation we've put ourselves in? I'm not sure. I think the place I would start is probably to recognize that we want the wisdom of crowds, but not all crowds are equally wise. And when you look at why some crowds aren't wise, there are a couple of things that can go wrong. One is that people are trusting their intuition instead of testing their intuition. And so, you know, I built up, I just think about Cara, intuition is unconscious pattern recognition. And I might have recognized some patterns in the past in an old stock market that are no longer relevant to the one I'm looking at today. And if I don't realize that the very things that have made me a good judge in the past

are going to lead me astray. Second problem is cognitive entrenchment, where you become so deeply steeped in knowledge or experience that you stop questioning assumptions that need to be challenged. And there's some fun data on this. You see expert bridge players, for example, if you change the rules a little bit, they actually perform worse than their peers because they're too stuck to the strategies that have always served them well. And so one of the things I want to know is, has this person become an expert for a world that no longer exists? Or have they continued updating their knowledge in the face of new information?

And I don't have a good benchmark for how to find that out necessarily, but I do like to give people a little test and say, okay, here's your prediction. Now, if we relax the following three parameters, how much would your judgment change? And if they're not willing to budge, then they're probably not learning. Oh, interesting. Someone just said that to me today. Someone was working in 1980s mentality. So it's not, you know, even though they're doing the things that would have worked then, it wouldn't work now. Scott, you get the final question. So Professor Grant, when people come to my office hours, they never want to talk about

the domain we teach. They want life advice or career advice is what I find. I hate that. I don't even know what advice to give myself for my career. How in the world am I going to help a student? That's what I'm going to ask you because, I mean, you say that, but from an outsider standpoint, it seems to me that you have an outstanding career. You're doing something that you appear to be enjoying. I know how much fucking cabbage you're making, boss.

You are killing it. And you are- Is cabbage a good thing? Cabbage is a good thing. Yes. That's how young people describe Benjamins. I hate cabbage, sorry. Benjamins, cow, cat, money, Adam.

Anyways, you are having a lot of influence. You look like you're living your best life professionally. What advice would you give, or what, let me, I'll phrase it another way. What two or three things, your fault or not your fault, that changed your professional trajectory? Interesting. I guess I would start...

It's such a complicated question. I'm trying to think of a simple answer. I think the... 140 or characters or less, please. Done. You know what? I can do this in probably a third of that. I think there's really one piece of advice that I would give,

which is you should listen to the advice you give to others. It's usually the advice you need to take for yourself. And if I can elaborate on that. Please. One of the hidden benefits of having all these office hours conversations is a lot of students have come for advice over the years. And I've heard myself give a lot of advice and realized how rarely I take it. Do what I say, not as I do. Exactly.

If you actually do as you say, not only do you end up probably learning from your own knowledge more effectively, you also end up more motivated. There's a bunch of evidence showing that when you give advice to other people, you're persuading yourself to do the things that you're reluctant So what is the one thing you tell them all the time? I've actually stopped telling them one thing. I've regretted giving a lot of bad advice. So what I do now is I ask, why are you here? Are you here because you just want me to give a rubber stamp on your decision that you've already made? Because I'm happy to do that. Should I go to work for Google? That's the one I like. Don't waste my time. You're going to work for Google. For you. Yeah. Good luck. Um, but, or are you here because you're worried there are blind spots in

your thinking and you want me to challenge some of your assumptions. And if that's the case, I'm going to argue the opposite. And then once we finished that conversation, let's see where you stand. That's interesting. I always say that people, I'm like, you get the job, like someone was going to a newspaper and I said, you get the job. How do you feel the next day? And every time they go, not good, I'm like, don't take the job. You brought up something, I apologize, but this notion of virtue signaling, I think about this a lot because I do it a lot, but there's a line of thinking saying that it's okay because if you get reward out of talking about good things you're doing, it will lead to doing more good things and lead other people to notice that it's good to do good

things and then talk about them. Have you given any thought to virtue signaling? That's very interesting. Yeah. I think about it through, I guess, a complimentary lens, which is social proof. So you know this well as a marketing guy, Scott. The psychology of social proof tells us that if nobody virtue signals, nobody else is going to see virtue in the signal you're sending. 100%. And so this is something I worried about a lot after the George Floyd murders in the summer and the Black Lives Matter protests that followed, white people being encouraged to be completely silent. I understand that as a temporary symbolic act. But then if white people never speak about racism, everybody is going to look around who's white and say, this is not my place.

And I think we know from the history of social movements that we need majority-minority alliances in order to get real attention and action on social change. And so I think that every time we criticize someone for virtue signaling, the first thing we should recognize is we don't always know what they're doing behind the scenes, and they may not be broadcasting it. Second thing we should do is say, okay, net, is it better that this person says something than nothing in terms of sending a message to all these people who think they don't have the legitimacy or the psychological standing to speak up that, hey, you know what? Racism is not an issue just for Black people or people of color. It is an issue for human rights.

Yeah, fair point. I have one last question. So sometimes these conversations just do get complicated. So at what point, for thinking again, do you walk away from a complicated conversation? What do you think away from a complicated conversation? What do you think the moments where you just say, no, I'm just not going to continue to think again? I think where most people stop is when somebody says, let's agree to disagree. Like, okay, our relationship is on the line. We don't want to risk it anymore. Let's, let's just take this issue off the table permanently. I don't stop there anymore. Now, when somebody says that, I say, all right, let's review the conversation. You know,

we didn't agree here. And to me, that means as, you know, as intelligent, reasonable people, we did something wrong. So tell me how I could have approached this conversation with more of an open mind or more of a thoughtful argument. And it doesn't usually change the person's mind, but what I'm trying to do is stop arguing to win and start asking questions to learn. And sometimes I come out of that discussion then with insights on how to have a better conversation with that person another day or a better conversation with somebody else the same day. And I think that's something we should all be invested in. Oh, wow. Scott, then I should stop saying, Scott, you're wrong. No, you should still tell Scott when he's wrong. He needs it. We don't want his head to get too big. Too late, my brother. I do have a question for you. We have to wax my ears.

We have to wax my ears to fit me in the podcast studio. Too late. Too late. No, no, no, no. I do have a question. So Karen, you can jump in on this one too, because you know Scott a lot better than I do. I think this is the first time we've ever talked. So Scott, I've enjoyed following your work over the last few years. You've just exploded onto the scene. You're smart, you're funny. Exploded is the operative word there.

Interesting. No, no, no, I mean, you just came out of nowhere and all of a sudden you're everywhere. Well, with all respect, yeah. Capture my attention. Worked my ass off for 50 years and now I'm an overnight success. But anyways, go ahead. Yes, I don't mean to diminish all the hard work you put in. Well, you just did, Professor Grant. You just did.

Well, then probably you deserved it. Go ahead. Go ahead. Let's agree to disagree, but go ahead. Let's not. Question. Land it, Adam. Somebody, I'll get that. I'm sorry. I'm being long-winded. Go ahead. Yeah, it was your fault. You're right. All right. Come on, boys. Anyway, somebody sent me an an episode the two of you did where scott you said that your career goal was to be the most influential thought leader in the history of business that's right bitch i'm coming for you just so you know really and who was i thinking about when i said that who was i thinking about oh my god wait was that targeting me do you hear my yes do you hear my supple yet well-manicured footsteps behind you, Adam?

I am so coming for your Wharton ass. Boom, watch out. I am literally, I am sick of being Scotty Pippen to your Michael Jordan. Not that I feel triggered. Not that I've thought about this. But, dude, I am you minus the intellect and minus the credibility. Distinct to that, I'm coming for your ass. Wait a minute.

Wait a minute. Think different. Plan B, blah, blah, blah, I'm coming for your ass. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Think different. Wait, wait, wait. Where's the question? Plan B, blah, blah, blah. I am coming for your boss. I appreciate the backhanded compliment there. All right.

I do have a question, which is, who cares how much influence you have? What are you influencing people to do? How about a goal that's bigger than Scott Galloway? Oh, no. Oh, God. This is going to be huge.

I feel shamed. I just wanted to know why. What impact are you trying to have? Because you could be the next Enron, right? Simply put, I want people to respect and admire me. I want to feel loved because in 30 years, I'm going to be dead, and it's going to be here in three years. I want to feel loved and relevant.

And don't you want people after you're dead to love you because you made business better, not worse? No, I'm too narcissistic. I want to enjoy while I'm here. That's what I was afraid the answer was going to be. I think once you're gone, you're gone. You know what? I want my kids to be confident, loving citizens.

That's my approach to the future. Beyond that, I want a Range Rover and I want to be fucking loved. No, he does want people to do a better job at business. I think he does too. I just wanted him to say it and admit it. He will not say it. Otherwise, if you stop there, Scott, you have a lot of fans. You think that you're making Gordon Gekko cool again.

New older brother. Oh, Gordon Gekko cool again. Making Gordon Gekko cool again. New older brother. Oh, Gordon Gekko cool again. Making Gordon Gekko cool again? Jesus. Oh, I love Adam came with a knife. Not selling. No, no, I just wanted to get to the bottom of this. Adam Grant, former friend of Scott Galloway.

Former friend. Can I just say, can I just say, you will never catch up to him. Scott Galloway, he just totally fricasseed you just now. He like filleted you and fricasseed you. He's Ben Johnson on steroids. No, no, no. All joking aside, I do want to say, I think that

you genuinely care about making things better. No, I believe you genuinely care about making things better and I just want you to admit it. Oh, do you, Scott? Have some feels. He's in so much pain right now. Look at him.

It hurts him. Why is this so hard for you? Adam, look, Adam, I hate my life less and less every day, and I want that to have a positive impact on you and the rest of the world. All right. I'll take that as progress. I'm going to end this.

It's whatever this has become. Karen, is that—wait, did he just grow? Two world. All right. I'll take that as progress. I'm going to end this. It's whatever this has become. Wait, did he just grow? Two words. Two words. First word, adopt. Second word, me. Seriously, Adam. How many kids do you have?

You just added another kid. I appreciate, Adam, I appreciate you doing this, but he will, like a rubber band, return to shape very quickly. I don't know. I think we can keep stretching him until he changes more.

Until he breaks. Until he breaks. Until he breaks. Anyway, Adam, you were fantastic. Thank you both. That was fun and fascinating. This book is called Think Again. Adam is the OG of thinking. Yes, Professor Grant.

We really appreciate it. I'm coming for you, Michael Jordan. I'm coming for you. Scotty Pippin gets the ball every once in a while. You're not even Scotty Pippin. Scotty Pippin gets the ball every once in a while.

No, no. Sorry. There's only one Michael Jordan. Thank once in a while. No, no. Sorry. There's only one Michael Jordan. Thank you. I'm ready. I just hope I'm not the Washington Wizard's Michael Jordan. Thanks, Professor. I've seen my knees all day.

Well done, Adam. Thanks, both of you. And thanks, Rebecca. All right, Scott. I think he bested you. One more quick break. We'll be back for wins and fails. Support for this show comes from Constant Contact.

You know what's not easy? Marketing. And when you're starting your small business, while you're so focused on the day-to-day, the personnel, and the finances, marketing is the last thing on your mind. But if customers don't know about you, the rest of it doesn't really matter. Luckily, there's Constant Contact. Constant Contact's award-winning marketing platform can help your businesses stand out, stay top of mind, and see big results. Sell more, raise more,

and build more genuine relationships with your audience through a suite of digital marketing tools made to fast-track your growth. With Constant Contact, you can get email marketing that helps you create and send the perfect email to every customer and create, promote, and manage your events with ease, all in one place. Get all the automation, integration, and reporting tools that get your marketing running seamlessly, all backed by Constant Contact's expert live customer support. all backed by Constant Contact's expert live customer support. Ready, set, grow. Go to ConstantContact.ca and start your free trial today.

Go to ConstantContact.ca for your free trial. ConstantContact.ca Do you feel like your leads never lead anywhere? And you're making content that no one sees sees and it takes forever to build a campaign? Well, that's why we built HubSpot. It's an AI-powered customer platform that builds campaigns for you, tells you which leads are worth knowing, and makes writing blogs, creating videos, and posting on social a breeze. So now, it's easier than ever to be a marketer. Get started at HubSpot.com slash marketers. Okay, Scott wins and fails.

I feel like, Scott, that Adam won and you lost. That's your win and fail. That is my win and fail. Win, Adam Grant, fail, Scott Galloway. What are you doing this for, Scott? Why? Why? The why of Scott. I mean, let's be honest. Can't fail Scott Galloway. What are you doing this for, Scott? Why? Why? Oh, my God.

The why of Scott. Literally. I mean, let's be honest. Yeah. I am a great artist, but I'm like Glen Campbell great. He's like Elvis great. I'm like Glen Campbell, cocaine addict, two, three hits, and then boom. All right.

Moved to Marina Del Rey and have a pathetic life. So what is your wins and fails? What is your wins and fails? I like my, I think it's really interesting what's going on. I wouldn't know if you'd call it Bitcoin, but Bitcoin's about to hit $50,000. I predicted that when it was a 19. So I'm just taking, I'm, of course, patting myself on the back because I'm deeply insecure. And after talking to Adam Grant, I'm now questioning everything I'm saying.

But this is what you're going to see. You're going to see, so far, Square, Tesla, MicroStrategy, and Twitter have announced, this is really more of a prediction, that they're converting part of their treasury to Bitcoin. You're about to see a couple hundred companies try and cast themselves under the Bitcoin light and move part of their treasury to Bitcoin. And I actually am revising my prediction. I think Bitcoin's going to hit 100,000. And also, you know, and again, I'm pumping my own, talking my own book here,

but I do believe it. I think Twitter's going to 100 bucks on an announcement from Jack Dorsey involving Bitcoin in the next 60 days. All right. Wow. Oh, okay. So including, and also, you're still on the subscription thing.

You still think they're going to do it or you think that's a lot of blah, blah? Yes. I think it's a lot of blah, blah? Yes. I think it's a lot of blah, blah, but they'll make slow progress. But they finally appear to be getting serious about it. Even the acquisition of, I think it's called review, is technically subscription newsletters. But all they need to do, I mean, literally all they need to do. With their groups, they're all moving in on this sort of audio space, which will be, we'll see how many people use it. Again, the issue is where is everybody gathered and who,

where do they gather first? And there's a real first mover advantage here, but people do switch these platforms rather significantly. And I think just like interoperability of cable, like streaming and you can get any information, you used to have to go to one network. I think you'll be able to operate on several different networks. People just come to you. Yeah. And also, so disclosure, I own Twitter. I do not own any Bitcoin. You know, I still do.

And I can't find it. I know you can't find it. I love that. It goes to a million. I absolutely love that. I will go through every single. You will find it? I will find it.

And then you and I will go on a vacation. Supposedly, there's like $50 billion worth of Bitcoin that can't be accessed because people have forgotten their passwords. Oh, God. I can't believe they did that. Anyway. All right, Scott, that was a fascinating show as usual. Kira, come out of the closet. I'm coming out of the closet.

I'll be back in D.C. on Thursday. We'll be back for more when we tape on Thursday, but then we'll be back on Friday for more. Go to nymag.com slash pivot to submit your question for the Pivot podcast. We love listener questions. The link is also in our show notes. Scott, read us out. Today's show was produced by Rebecca Sinanis. Ernie Andretat engineered this episode. Thanks to Hannah Rosen and Drew Burrows.

Make sure you subscribe to the show on Apple Podcasts, or if you're an Android user, check us out on Spotify or, frankly, wherever you listen to podcasts. If you like the show, please recommend it to a friend. Thanks for listening to Pivot from New York Magazine and Vox Media. We'll be back later this week for another breakdown of all things tech and business. Pass the ball to Scotty. He can take the shot. Pass the ball to Scotty. I would like to argue that Scott is the Dennis Rodman and not the Scotty Pippen.

Support for the show comes from Alex Partners. Thank you. In Alex Partners' 2024 Digital Disruption Report, you can learn the best path to turning that disruption into growth for your business. With a focus on clarity, direction, and effective implementation, Alex Partners provides essential support when decisive leadership is crucial. You can discover insights like these by reading Alex Partners' latest technology industry insights, available at www.alexpartners.com slash Vox. That's www.alexpartners.com slash V-O-X. In the face of disruption, businesses trust Alex Partners to get straight to the point and deliver results when it really matters. Support for this podcast comes from Klaviyo. You know that feeling when your favorite brand really gets you. Deliver that feeling to your customers every time. Klaviyo turns your customer data into real-time connections across AI-powered email, SMS, and more, making every moment count. Over 100,000 brands trust Klaviyo's unified data and marketing platform

to build smarter digital relationships with their customers during Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and beyond. Make every moment count with Klaviyo. Learn more at klaviyo.com slash BFCM.