The Daily Stoic - The Fine Line Between Genius and Delusion | Journalist Helen Lewis

Episode Date: December 10, 2025

Being the smartest person in the room is usually where the trouble starts. In today’s episode, Ryan sits down with journalist and author Helen Lewis to talk about genius, ego, and why so many “brilliant” people eventually spin out. They discuss the myth of the lone genius, why smart people overthink themselves into bad ideas, and how ego quietly wrecks careers, reputations, and entire movements. ​​Helen Lewis is a staff writer at The Atlantic who writes about politics and culture. Her first book, Difficult Women: A History of Feminism in 11 Fights, was a Guardian, Telegraph and Financial Times book of the year. She has written for The New York Times, the Guardian, The New Statesman, and Vogue. She is the host of the BBC podcast series The New Gurus and Helen Lewis Has Left the Chat, and co-host of Radio 4’s Kafka vs Orwell and Strong Message Here. She won the 2024 Kukula Award for excellence in nonfiction book reviewing.Check out Helen Lewis’ book The Genius Myth: A Curious History of a Dangerous IdeaFollow Helen on Instagram @HelenLewisPosts Read Helen Lewis’ article: How Joe Rogan Remade Austin🎟️ Come see Ryan Holiday LIVE: https://www.dailystoiclive.com/San Diego, CA - February 5, 2026 Phoenix, AZ - February 27, 2026 👉 Support the podcast and go deeper into Stoicism by subscribing to The Daily Stoic Premium - unlock ad-free listening, early access, and bonus content: https://dailystoic.supercast.com/🎥 Watch the video episodes on The Daily Stoic YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@DailyStoic/videos🎙️ Follow The Daily Stoic Podcast on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dailystoicpodcast✉️ Want Stoic wisdom delivered to your inbox daily? Sign up for the FREE Daily Stoic email at https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail🏛 Get Stoic inspired books, medallions, and prints to remember these lessons at the Daily Stoic Store: https://store.dailystoic.com/📱 Follow us:  Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, TikTok, and FacebookSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Introducing your new Dell PC, powered by the Intel Core Ultra processor. It helps you handle a lot, even when your holiday to-do list gets to be a lot, because it's built with all-day battery, plus powerful AI features that help you do it all with ease, from editing images to drafting emails, to summarizing large documents, to multitasking. So you can organize your holiday shopping and make custom holiday decor and search for great holiday deals and respond to holiday requests and customer questions and customers requesting custom things and plan the perfect holiday dinner for vegans, vegetarians,

pescatarians, and Uncle Mike's carnivore diet. Luckily, you can get a PC that helps you do it all faster, so you can get it all done. That's the power of a Dell PC with Intel Inside, backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Get yours before the holidays at Dell.com slash deals. Terms and conditions apply. See Dell.com for details.

You know, you don't have to let big wireless and your overpriced phone bill suck the joy out of the holidays this year because right now all of Mint Mobile's unlimited plans are 50% off. You can get three, six, and 12 months of unlimited premium wireless for 15 bucks a month. It's their best deal the year and it makes it really easy for you to give your expensive wireless bill the Scrooge treatment. All Mint plans come with high speed data and unlimited talk and text at the nation's largest 5G network. Plus, you can bring your current phone and number over to Mint. Actually, we just signed up for a Mint mobile plan to use the social media phone here at the office, and we didn't notice any kind of change in the quality of service or network or any of that. Just a whole bunch of savings.

Turn your expensive wireless present into a huge wireless savings future by switching to Mint. Shop Mint Unlimited plans at mintmobile.com slash six. That's mintmobile.com slash six. Limited time offer, upfront payment at $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for 12 months. plans required, $12 per month equivalent, taxis and fees extra, initial plan term only, greater than 35 gigabytes-based low when network is busy, capable device required.

Availability, speed, and coverage very seament mobile.com. Look, ads are annoying. They are to be avoided, if at all possible. I understand as a content creator why they need to exist. That's why I don't begrudge them when they appear on the shows that I listen to. But again, as a person who has to pay a podcast producer and has to pay for equipment and for the studio and the building that the studio is in, it's a lot to keep something like the Daily Stoic going.

So if you want to support a show but not listen to ads, well, we have partnered with Supercast to bring you an ad-free version of Daily Stoic. We're calling it Daily Stoic Premium. And with premium, you can listen to every episode of the Daily Stoic podcast completely ad-free, no interruptions, just the ideas, just the messages, just the conversations you came here for.

And you can also get early access to episodes before they're available to the public. And we're going to have a bunch of exclusive bonus content and extended interviews in there just for Daily Stoic Premium members as well. If you want to remove distractions, go deeper into Stoicism and support the work we do here. Well, it takes less than a minute to sign up for Daily Stoic Premium and we are offering a limited time discount of 20% off your first year. just go to daily stoic.com slash premium to sign up right now or click the link in the show descriptions to make those ads go away. Welcome to the Daily Stoic podcast, where each weekday we bring you a meditation inspired by the ancient Stoics, a short passage of ancient wisdom designed to help you find strength

and insight here in everyday life. And on Wednesdays, we talk to some of our fellow students of ancient philosophy, well-known and obscure, fascinating, and powerful. With them, we discuss the strategies and habits that have helped them become who they are and also to find peace and wisdom in their lives. Hey, it's Ryan. Welcome to another Wednesday episode of the Daily Stoic Podcast. Had a lovely weekend here in Austin. It was cold for a couple days. And then it got beautiful. And we went out, cut down a Christmas tree and then running some errands. And I'm at the bookstore, signing some books. If you want signed copies for the holidays, there's not much time left to do that. You can grab that at store.dailystoic.com or you can go to the painting porch.com.

Anyways, this is why I love Austin. I went running in a t-shirt this morning, I had some delicious breakfast, Taco. And then we just had a lovely day at the bookstore. We're hanging out. The kids are making a lot of noise downstairs. I think they got those like big water jugs from, you know,

like the water cooler at the office, and they're throwing them off the balcony, trying to make a bunch of noise. This is why I love it. It's just a different pace of life here. It's calm. And it was funny. We went and got our Christmas tree in Elgin.

It's this Christmas tree farm. we've been going to. We were looking at photos on their phone. I think we've been going seven years. And anyways, as I was leaving, someone came up to me and said, oh, hey, I'm a big fan. And actually, I saw you here last year. So it's, you know, it's just enough of a small town. It's lovely. I'm flying to New York tomorrow, which I like for very different reasons, but I don't live there for a reason. What does this have to do with today's episode? Okay, I want to take you back to September 24. I was reading a piece in the Atlantic and it was titled How Joe Rogan remade This is her description of Austin.

It says, the city attracts people with a distinct set of political positions that don't exactly line up with either main party. They may be religious, but equally likely to be spiritual. They shoot guns, but worry about seed oils. They're relaxed about gay people, but often traditional about gender. They dabble with psychedelic drugs, but worry about drinking caffeine first thing in the morning. Their numbers might be relatively small in electoral terms, but they transmit their values to the

rest of America through podcasts, YouTube, and other platforms largely outside the view of mainstream media. Go to a cocktail mixer or an ayahuasca party or a Brazilian jiu-jitsu gym here and you might run into Tim Ferriss, the author of The Four Hour Workweek, or the podcaster's Lex Friedman, Chris Williamson, Ryan Holiday, Michael Malice, or Aubrey Marcus. Now, I don't agree with all of it, namely the part about running into me. This is something I said when I gave my talk here in Austin a couple of months back. There was an Atlantic article a couple of months ago that was talking about all the people that moved to Austin for the last couple years, and it was saying on any given night in Austin,

you could have, be at a party with Joe Rope here, some tech investor or some writer, Ryan Holley could be there. I was like, no, no, he wouldn't be. I'm surprised I agreed to be here tonight, I guess maybe the only thing you could bump into me doing would be shopping for Christmas trees because I don't go out. I don't do stuff. I like to hang out with my family. And, you know, you're not going to see me on 6th Street. You might see me at Whole Foods on 6th Street sometimes.

But, you know, you're not going to see me hanging out in awesome, which is kind of what I like about it. It's like, all these people live here. And unless you're, like, directly connected with them, you're not going to. to see each other. It's not as a bubble in a bad way. It's just like you can live your own private life here. It's just big enough and just small enough. Anyways, if you want to know more about my talk in Austin, I think we've run some clips of that in various episodes. And then I'm going to be doing two new talks. I'm going to be in Phoenix and in San Diego in February. You can

grab tickets at daily stiliclife.com. I just got back from doing that talk in Seattle. Anyways, that's not how I first became familiar with Helen Lewis's work, the author of that paragraph. It wasn't my first time reading her stuff. I'd been reading it for a while, but it was certainly the first time I'd appeared in any of the articles. And so I shot her a note because later in the piece, she described me as like a heterodox thinker or something. And I shot her a note.

I said, how dare you? I'm not a heterodox thinker. Wasn't exactly pleased with all the people I was being lumped in with. But she has written some fascinating things about this place that I live. And a number of fascinating things about what's happening in the world today. love her stuff in the Atlantic. And I didn't know she had a book coming out. So I was excited to grab that. It's actually great. It's called The Genius Myth, a curious history of a dangerous idea. And we had a lovely chat. We actually had the same publisher. And in this episode, we

discussed the nature of genius, whether it exists or not, whether it's good for a person to be labeled as a genius or not. The impact of social media on public perceptions, the challenges of navigating a world of political correctness as well as a world of misinformation. We talked about being a contrarian. Is that good for you or not? And it was a fascinating piece. I really enjoyed having this conversation. I really like her writing. I think she is someone worth reading. We both talk quite a bit about Elon Musk in our two new books. He's a character in The Genius Myth. I talk about him in Wisdom Takes Work. Basically, my point is that there's a big difference between being smart and being wise and that sometimes right being seen as a genius being

seen as smart can be very bad for your brain make you stupid in many ways as i said helen lewis is a staff writer for the atlantic who writes about politics and culture her first book difficult women a history of feminism in 11 fights was a guardian telegraph and financial times book of the year she's written for the new york times the guardian the new statesman in vogue she's the host of the bbc podcast series the new gurus and helen lewis has left the chat she's the co-house host of Radio Force Kafka v. Orwell, and strong message here. And she won the 2024 Kukula Award. I don't know how to say that for excellence in nonfiction book reviewing. I was just actually thinking about having a guest on who she reviewed one of her books. So I was messaging her about that.

Great writer, great conversation. Definitely check out her book, The Genius Myth, and follow her on Instagram at Helen Lewis posts. I was doing my research. I had no idea that you used to work with Tucker Max. That's very funny to me. Yes, many, many years ago. I had a different life before this life. Oh, no, I only say that because when I went to do my reporting in Austin, I emailed, was it him or was it someone in that genre of person? Does he now live outside Austin somewhere in some survivalist community? Yes. Yes. Then it was him that I emailed. And he sent me back an email that was like, basically, you're not ready to meet me. You're not ready for the truth.

And I thought, I think I probably am, actually. I think I probably am. Austin's a little strange these days. I was at a party last night and there were a lot of cyber trucks. I was like, oof, okay. Yeah, well, I just watched Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation say that it's been taken over by Marxists. And that's why he needs to be de-charted and reconstituted as part of more Texas administered municipal districts. Austin has been taken over by Marxists?

Yeah. I thought, hasn't it mostly been taken over by heterodox comedians? Yeah, I'm curious, because in your piece, this is how we connected, you lumped me in with some heterodox thinkers. What is that? I know, I didn't realize that was an offensive thing to have done to you. Sorry about that. I don't know if it's offensive. It's just not, it's not, it's not the community that I would consider myself. I guess, well, let's start with the word, because I think it's an interesting word that maybe, maybe to someone like me has a certain coding to it, but I imagine the vast majority of people, they don't even, they've never even

heard that word. Yeah, I don't think it's necessarily a pejorative word. Neither is anti-woke, really, which is, I think, probably where most people see the meaning of it being. But it's people who aren't straightforwardly Democrat or Republican, or maybe even more than that, aren't straightforwardly on board with the 2020 version of the Democratic Party, the 2020 version of the Republican Party, which are both very distinct political positions that aren't necessarily just simply right or left-wing. Although I imagine some of them would object to it being a political term at all. And they would say, no, I'm a I'm a freethinker or I think for myself or... But they've all got the same opinions, right?

That's the other thing that's really funny is that there was actually of a kind of heterodox orthodoxy eventually, which I guess you did in the end to diverge from, right? Yes. You're not capital H heterodox. You're just actually heterodox. I would say that I... Yeah, it's funny. I sort of get it from both sides. I'm...

Yeah, welcome to my life. Yeah, which is, I guess, a good sign that you actually are thinking independently or thinking for yourself. You may just be an asshole, right? Like, that's sometimes what I think. I think, am I just, am I sitting here or self-satisfied being like, wow, I do seem to get a lot of grief from both sides? And I think maybe I'm just objectionable. Maybe that's why it is.

It could be. Yeah, like, I remember I was talking to Peter Thiel once and he objected to the label of contrarian, which I put out there. And he said, you know, that, to me, he's like, that. just means you're taking what everyone else thinks and putting a minus sign in front of it, you know, which I thought was interesting. Like, if you're a contrarian because you just think the opposite of what everyone else thinks, you're also not really thinking, right? If you're happening to come independently to conclusions in each and every case that are

quite different than everyone else, I guess that would be truly heterodox or truly contrarian. I'm just not sure. It's rather coincidental that all your, as you said, that all your opinions seem to line up as either being the opposite of conventional wisdom or happen to magically align with a bunch of people that look and act just like you. But where Peter Thiel, I think, is interesting, is that, and I would probably describe me as a contrarian, is that he, he seems to take relish, I guess would be the thing I would say, in taking minority unpopular positions. Like, I watched his interview with Ross Dutat of the New York Times in which he said, just apropos of nothing, you know, I'm always anti-baby boomer. And you're like, what, you know, one of the genuinely least popular political positions that you could take because baby boomers vote in enormous numbers and they have enormous, like in the housing policy, right?

They have an enormously deformed American political life around them. So, yeah, I mean, yeah, I think that's the thing when people mean by contrarian. They mean that he seems to take oppositional attitudes. and kind of relish doing so, I guess. And that can become kind of a trap. Like, I spent a lot of time with Peter when I was writing a book about him. And I always thought it was interesting that you could never ask him a question and get a quick answer. He always did genuinely seem to be thinking about whatever you asked, right?

Which doesn't stand them in very good stead on the podcast circuit, right? When he went on Rogan the last time, people made super cuts of him going like, uh, uh, uh. But actually, I thought that was kind of deeply unfair. Why do we, it's a bad thing about our culture that we sort of think that eloquence is just a sign of actually that's what deep thinkers are like. Lots of the most interesting people you could ever meet are very inarticulate. And that's actually the problem I think with podcasts and the sort of social media space is that it does incentivize and prioritize people who are really good at just pulling what seem like fully formed opinions out of their ass, which are masquerading as deep thinking. But I would say, though, the heterodox thing can be a trap in that in that same interview you mentioned with Peter, towards the end, he goes, Rosal goes, you know, now obviously you think humanity should survive, right? And then he has to think even about this, right? And so there is this sort of trap. I think what I've always found interesting about the heterodox people is they're all obviously objectively very smart, right? They have all gone to great schools. They've read a lot of things that they're genuinely pretty. smart and then they managed to think themselves into some pretty stupid opinions by nature of

this having to overthink it and then who they reject and who they dislike and you end up in this weird sort of horseshoe thing where they end up in in this weird nonsensical opinion that has no basis whatsoever but they thought a lot to get there right but this is like a kind of classic university philosophy department right filled with very smart people, making the most bonkers arguments you've ever heard, and doing thought experiments that are kind of morally repugnant or stupid because they just can't quit. Like, what if we slaughtered all children at birth? Like, let's stop and think about it for a minute.

And you go, no, I'm pretty confident that, you know, my snap judgment on that one, it's bad, is going to hold out under a crisis scrutiny. But like, I like that about philosophers. There should be a role in public life for people who just say my things. I mean, even the thing that Peter Thiel got in probably most trouble over the years, the idea about women not voting is a logical end point of his argument, which is that he doesn't believe in the Social Security Welfare Net. And he worries that women vote in favor of it, right?

And it would be easier to accomplish the policies that he likes if you had a male-only franchise, he believes. And I don't agree with that. I think it's a repugnant thing to. I think everyone should have the right to vote. But he has followed that thought all the way to the end of the road. And that is kind of what a public intellectual should do. Well, there's something refreshing in the,

ability to think thoughts and express them without being constrained by political correctness. The problem is sometimes political correctness acts as a guardrail against truly abhorrent ideas, however logical they might be. And so the anti-woke, which is really synonymous with anti-political correctness, I think the reason some of these folks get themselves into trouble is they don't realize that political correctness does serve some socially useful, you know, has some social usefulness. And it often protects us from ourselves. Right.

Moderation is not, you know, is not wrong. If you believe something, you shouldn't necessarily believe the strongest or most extreme version of it. It's okay to have a kind of, yeah, a half class of it. Yeah, I think that's true. The other thing I feel having had conversations about the book about genius is that sometimes the anti-wokeness can become a cover actually for lazy thinking. The idea of that we actually have to take every thought for a walk and whatever actually manifests as men are smarter than women, white people are smarter than black people, and actually the only reason that anyone wouldn't say this is that they've been hidebound by political correctness. And that leads people to say very dumb and empirically wrong things about IQ and genius. Like the idea that, you know, if you've got 140 IQ, you're a genius. Hang on a minute. Let's define our terms here. And also, I can find you plenty of people who've got very high IQ.

who have not got any objective record of achievement in their lives, right? Their personality characteristics, their upbringing, whatever it might be, has impaired them from being able to kind of put those intellectual gifts to use. So that's, yeah, that's the bit where, again, lots of people would, I think, would probably kind of call me an heterodox or anti-woke writer, but even then those, you know, I don't agree with those people either. I'm not a joiner in. You know, it's a good quality for a journalist to have, but it does make your life slightly

annoying. It sounds like we might have had some similar experiences where we've been invited to sort of dinner parties or been the audience of one for some of these very smart thinkers. And one of the theories I put together, I sort of call it like the dinner party trap or something, which is that I think a lot of these thinkers, you know, they have unlimited money. They sort of like to cultivate sort of salons or dinner parties where they just discuss things, right? And so if you're a billionaire and you're a smart person. They tend to mostly be dudes. You're a smart dude. Maybe you're a little socially awkward. You start cultivating this kind of dinner party scene. And these dinner parties, you workshop different ideas, different things you've been thinking about. And you say them,

and this is a polite company. So, and then a lot of these people work for you or want something from you or are in awe of what you have done. And so, When your theories cross over from interesting or provocative into bat shit crazy or really fucking stupid or morally abhorrent, no one's going to be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, that is, what are you talking about, you know? And so it is interesting. Sometimes you'll see them in other contexts, whether it's an actual sort of adversarial journalistic relationship or they're writing, you know, an op-ed or something. thing that's just going to be read by the public. And all of a sudden, this kind of sloppy thinking or this very indulgent thinking that people in their life have not challenged faces actual market forces or just real human beings, suddenly the sort of simplicity of it or the contradictions of it or the repugnance of it becomes clear. And they just don't realize the way that it's kind of

an emperor has no close moment for a lot of these ideas. Yeah, and that's what I, that is one of my ways that I think about what journalism is. Your role is to be the little boy going, uh, has everyone else seen what I'm seeing, which is hard. Like I was just reading Paul Bloom just, the psychologist just wrote a really interesting piece and substack about obedience saying how much he really liked the, um, the ash conformity experiments and the, you know, they were of all the bits of 20th century psychology, which, most of which turned out to be very wobbly indeed.

these ones really do stand up. We are deeply conformist as a species for very good evolutionary reasons. But you have to kind of train yourself out of that as a journalist. And it's one of the reasons I think it's mad. Being an American, this will seem very normal to you. Being British, it seems completely mental to me. The American press corps journalist,

the White House press corps, stand up when the president comes into the room. Yeah. You know, why? We're not friends. No. And I just do not think that journalists should be friends with politicians, right? you are there essentially like a meat inspector. Like you go to the factory, you inspect the meat, you leave again.

You are not friends with the guy who runs the factory. And it's one of the reasons, yeah, I've never wanted to have one of those jobs because there's a level of kind of compromise that you have to do in order to get really good stories and deliver scoops your organisation that leads you into quite murky moral territory. And I just, I find it much more relaxing just to be on the outside hurling bricks. So we live on a Halloween street. We knew it was a Halloween street when we moved there. And then it has quickly become a Thanksgiving and then a Christmas street. Everyone's vying to outdo each other with their decorations. And I'll admit it sneaks up on us, especially as the competition gets more and more. The holidays are here. And if you're looking for holiday decor or last minute refreshes around the house, Get what you need fast with Wayfair.

That's where we got a bunch of our Christmas decorations and a bunch of essentials because we have some of my wife's family visiting us for the holidays, blankets, linens, all that kind of stuff. You can get all of it at Wayfair. You can also get big stuff like sofas and dining tables, beds, desks, and more all shipped for free. They don't have huge delivery fees for furniture. Find all your must-haves from furniture and decor to appliances and cookware all in one convenient place. get last minute hosting essentials, gifts for all your loved ones, and decor to celebrate the holidays for way less. Head to Wayfair.com right now to shop all things home.

W-A-Y-F-A-I-R dot com, Wayfair, every style, every home. Human. Your body has a performance superhighway. 60,000 miles of blood vessels that deliver oxygen and nutrients to every cell. This, of course, is your cardiovascular system. It's the foundational system that powers everything we do. Both elite athletes and longevity experts invest directly in the cardiovascular system because supporting healthy blood flow is critical for energy, recovery, mental clarity, and overall performance.

That's where human comes in. That's human with two ends. They started out of research at the University of Texas, near where I live, and have 15 years of experience making award-winning supplements for nitric oxide production and healthy blood flow, now used by over 160 pro and college sports teams. Human cardiovascular health daily is a plant-based and made from clinically studied ingredients like grape seed and seed kelp extract. It supports nitric oxide production for healthy blood flow and energy while also supporting blood pressure and helping support the delicate interlining of your blood vessels. Just two capsules each morning will power energy and recovery while also playing the long game by supporting long-term vascular health and healthy aging.

human has an exclusive offer for our listeners. You can visit human.com slash stoic for an extra 15% off your first purchase. That's enter code STO-I-C. Stoic at checkout. That's human with two ends. Dot com slash stoic for an extra 15% off with code stoic at checkout. This is my favorite line from Joan Didion where she talks about how because she was so small and unassuming people thought

she was nice and she was like, no, I'm plotting to destroy you basically, you know. And most of her best pieces, her journalistic pieces, she was sort of crafting this devastating argument that the person was just feeding her unlimited, you know, material for because they saw her as this, you know, cute little thing and they didn't realize like she was a killer. I've had situations like that where someone has just been patronising me to my face and I've just been like, I could fight back against you but actually I will be going home and reflecting on this encounter.

Mind you, I do also have a rule which is that I try and if I'm going to say something very rude about somebody and I'm interviewing them, I try and say it to their face and give them a chance to respond back. Because actually, weirdly the thing that I've found is that if you say that things to people without, if you say the factual content without the aggressive edge,

people are actually usually able to deal with it, right? in a way that you wouldn't expect and I think people get very hung up on but most I mean I'm mostly right about politics most politicians are only too aware of their public image and the way that people think about them

so if you say to them you must be aware that people say such and such like how do you know how do you feel about that actually you often get quite an interesting answer you don't actually usually get a kind of complete angry blow up and everybody stares in grim silence at you

although that has happened too I think what's interesting about some of the Silicon Valley heterodox folks that were talking about is there was the snowflakiness of it of like they have these interactions with journalists or they write things. And then they're very, very surprised and personally hurt when there's pushback or disagreement about those things. And this is where I think, I think that sense of security and sense of represent, like having figured it out and that actually any smart person would agree with them, that they've been lulled into that sense by these sort of rooms that they've cultivated, these sort of safe spaces ironically that they have cultivated for

themselves where they just bullshit either in podcasts or at dinner parties or conferences or whatever. And there's just, it just doesn't hold up to actual criticism or scrutiny. And And then they take that very personally. Yeah. And I can understand that actually, you know, there are, I've been a hatchetman on occasion and I've just written very toughly. Like I wrote a very tough review of Michael Lewis's book about Sam Bank Winfried. Michael Lewis is a writer I really love.

I think he's great pro-stallist. I think his subjects are really interesting. But I felt that this book was a real swing and a miss because he had essentially tried to jam Sam Bankman-Fried into the story of the big short, right? which is rebel, odd ball, genius, boy wonder, see something that other people don't in the sclerotic financial system. And it was like, there's a line from a,

from a sitcom, a British sitcom called Peep Show where someone says, the secret ingredient is crime. And that was, that was the case with sound like me free. Wow, these numbers are incredible. Ah, the secret ingredient is crime. And it just felt to me that he was very reluctant to see that very obvious possibility of fraud in the system because he had a template in his mind.

And so I wrote quite a tough review. And I always feel a little bit bad about it because I don't hate Michael Lewis and I don't wish him any ill. But I do think that it's really pernicious to have that kind of idea of the boy wonder in our culture without people interrogating it. But I can imagine that it, you know,

it must feel pretty, you must feel like pretty brutalized by that process. Although I read that review. I disagreed. I thought he flayed Sam Bankman-Fried in that book by but but but but in a rather restrained way i think like i came away thinking that that he was a sociopath and that he was engaged in fraud and that he was a miserable unhappy shitty person and i felt like michael lewis allowed sam bankman free to present himself that way as opposed to

doing it in a more adversarial way i think ezra klein is pretty good at this on his podcast too where he interviews, like, usually right-wing thinkers, and he doesn't exactly challenge them to their face, but he just sort of really asked them to explain their argument. And when they don't do it, and it's very unsatisfying, but there's something unsatisfying about seeing the arguments presented in an unsatisfying way instead of the sort of hostile back and forth of calling someone out to their face. Yeah, I mean, I watched my old colleague Medea San's Jubilee surrounded debate, which was him as a very left-wing pro-Palestine guy, surrounded by 20 of the most central casting far-right people you've ever seen. And I'm not going to lie, I did enjoy it, because

Medi is nothing, if not, you know, a terrifying debater. But I did think, I'm not sure this adds to the some type of human knowledge. I mean, this is like watching bear baiting, essentially. I'm not sure anyone has come away from this with their mind change. Certainly not me, much more, even more smugly liberal than I was when I started it. You know, I felt like coming up through, I used to be big into new atheism, right? And that was a movement that was afflicted hugely by a sense within it that people were just smarter than Christians and they'd seen through. And I think that's, I've seen that tendency everywhere now, and I'm sure I'm prone to it as much as anybody. So many social movements now were defined by a feeling of sort of, hmm, about the kind

of the people, the outside people, that, you know, they're the kind of benighted heathens outside the golden circle. Well, you said somewhere, and I think you're right, you said that the story of genius is really the story of ego or that every genius story is the story of ego. I think the tension of being smart or being right can be a real problem. Someone told me ones that making a successful contrarian bet can be a sort of cognitively devastating experience. Because you did a thing and everyone told you you were wrong. Everyone told you're an idiot. They were incredibly condescending along the way and smug about it. And then you proved them wrong. It is very hard for you to go back to zero on the next thing and the next thing, right? You're starting now with a cynicism and a

skepticism and a sense of superiority. And that is very tough. That is an imbalance that affects your future endeavors and political and social opinions. Oh, I completely think that's true. I remember having this conversation with a journalist. There's a British journalist who died a couple of years ago called Christopher Booker. And he became in his later years a climate change denialist. And I asked someone who'd worked with him, you know, how did that happen? He was so smart.

Like, how did he end up just spending the last 10 years of his life talking about the hockey stick graph and all this stuff we used to hear about before, you know, every summer scorched Texas and wildfires raged across the Midwest. and people kind of went, no, I do think this is a bit weird now. And this other journalist said, well, he was one of the, Christopher Booker was one of the original journalist involved in uncovering the thalidomide scandal, which was a huge medical scandal in the 1960s in Britain where women were given a morning sickness drug, and it led to limb deformities in their children.

And for a long time, the medical establishment denied this, covered it up. And it took a really big investigation by the Sunday Times and others. I'd like to bust this open and get people compensation. And he said essentially that generation of journalists was ruined by it. because they had seen this massive conspiracy where the establishment were lying to them and they were right. And I think that's true.

My friend Sarah Daitan once said this about the Iraq war, ruining the left, right? Everybody in the left who was like, the Iraq war was a very bad idea. I think this is a foreign policy disaster, you know. And then it was, got the idea that actually, like, this is true of everything. And you just, you know,

you end up applying the same paradigm because it was right last time. And as you say, the key thing is that humiliation, the humiliation and vindication. And I write about this in the book, There's an idea of the kind of scientist's rebel that comes through. You see it in the Galileo story. You see it in Ignace Semmelweis and his work on antiseptics and maternal mortality.

That's such a compelling story to us, the idea of the one man standing up against the crowd and being laughed at and then being vindicated. It's so unbelievably emotionally satisfying that unfortunately we vastly overindex on it and we see it, you know, we almost want it to happen every time. Whereas obviously that would be absurd. You'd never be able to get in an aeroplane if it turned out that every, you know, every engineering thing was wrong. You never go to a hospital about every bit of medicine was actually wrong.

And when you watch people not engage in good faith with your ideas and be intellectually dishonest, it's hard, and you watch what you actually really were thoughtful about, be sort of caricatured and treated, you know, as a straw man, it's hard for you later when you actually aren't on his sound of footing not to convince yourself. the same thing is happening. Yeah. And so I think you see that a lot. And this is actually, I think, the trap of scientific genius.

It's the trap of entrepreneurial genius. Like everything that worked, right, it was doubted at that time. I mean, Nikki, our mutual editor, when I came to them and I said I wanted to write a book about an obscure school of ancient philosophy, you know, she told me later that they were like basically just humoring me and that they hoped I would go back to writing marketing books after, right? And so I feel like I've had to do a lot of work with the success of that of reminding myself that it actually was a bad idea. Like, the conventional wisdom, like, she was not like being elitist, that she was not like, the amount of money that they offered me

and the expectations they had for the book were within the bounds of reason and made sense given their past experience. They were not snubbing me. They were not insulting me. I did not know better. I had a hunch and they had a hunch and my hunch turned out to be not even right, right? Because it succeeded more than I thought it would succeed.

So I can't retroactively give myself more prescience than I had because I didn't have any. I was just interested in something and I thought it could work. and the fact that it did work at a pretty extraordinary level, that is a surprise to both parties, right? And so what can happen? I saw this when I was at American Apparel. You know, the idea was insane. The way that what Dov Charnney was trying to do

and what he was trying to pull off and he was like, everyone was right to say that it wasn't going to work. It worked despite itself. But if you tell yourself a story afterwards that you're a genius and that you knew better, and that all these people are idiots, then you're going to get yourself in trouble later on when you have the other idea or when those people go, okay, hey, you did succeed, but you should be careful of X, Y, and Z.

Yeah, they call it Nobel syndrome, I think, don't they? When people win a Nobel Prize and then they start going, well, never mind organic chemistry, wouldn't you like to hear a few of my thoughts about astrobiology? No. Yeah, didn't Newton get into alchemy? Yeah, Newton spent a lot of his life in alchemy and also a lot of his life on something called biblical chronology which is so wacky that we don't even remember it today

basically trying to work out when events in the Bible would have happened to work out how old the earth would be from that point. There's loads of examples like that. You know, Mary Curie, one of the greatest scientists, she would go to seances, you know, she would go and see mediums. It was a very popular thing to do at the end of the 19th century. And I think there's an interesting bit about that, right? Because she was working with radiation, which was an invisible force.

that was real so why not ectoplasm and I think that's the thing if you're working at the edge of the kind of the known then you're going to end up quite a fluid sense of reality but I think isn't what you're talking about

a bit narcissism because it's just if you go along with the conventionalism and you're right that doesn't distinguish you or say anything about you but if you buck the conventionalism and you're right that means you are better

and I just I think so much of the troubles we see across our society are essentially narcissism But conspiracy theorizing fundamentally to some extent is narcissism, right? It's like your sheephole, your NPCs, and I've seen the truth. I think it's very important to lots and lots of people now to feel special, to not feel ordinary. Your point about Curie, and so she's already on the fringes, so she has an affinity for or an openness to something, which that's what enables her scientific discovery.

it also makes her susceptible to, you know, less substantive ideas. And then you could also argue, and I would certainly include myself in this, I think, anyone who is creative has some narcissistic traits in you, because you're like, I want to make something and people will like it. Yeah. There's already a selection bias towards these traits. So like when you warn against ego or, you know, the genius, these things maybe don't matter to your ordinary person living a relatively ordinary life in civil service or, you know, middle

management, it's that the people who are drawn to the highest levels or the fringes or these different fields, they're already selecting for certain traits that then tend to be enabled by the success they find there. Yeah, that makes sense to me. But I think it is a real challenge of of modern life is working at which experts to trust and which authority to trust and to calibrate that, right? Not to just take everything that you're told by people with letters after their name as gospel, but also not to go so far out that you just, you know, you just don't believe anything at that point. Yeah, Churchill had a line about he rejected convention, but he venerated tradition. And I think there's there's something in that sort of balance there, that distinction that I think

we have lost. Like, so you go, Aristotle tells us to think from first principles. And this is famously what Elon Musk says, right? You know, take it down to the physics. Except we also have precedent for a reason. If you rethought every single thing, every single time, you're going to end up kicking out some foundational things that actually do make. a lot of sense or maybe they're just hard for you to imagine. Like, I think it's interesting that we

went from like disruptive Silicon Valley companies to some of those people being like, and why shouldn't we all be polyamorous? And then, and then they're like, and why shouldn't we do psychedelics all the time? And why shouldn't we? And it's like, because, man, because you're overthinking it again. And you're kicking out some of the legs of the stool that not just society sits on, but also that like basic sanity sits on. And it's going to be hard to come back from there. Yeah. I mean, society can tolerate a smallish number of rugged individualist bohemians. But if everybody is a rugged individualist behemians. I mean, it's like the story of every commune ever just collapsing and arguments over who's going to do the washing up. Yeah, I think that is unfortunate. It's

unfortunate that we don't venerate that. But when you were saying that, it made me think about the fact that one of the few people in Silicon Valley that I do really rate as a thinker and enjoy reading his essays is Paul Graham, he was one of the founders of Y Combinator. And he has a couple of essays, a reference a couple in the book, but another one is the one about, you know, do you hold a belief that everybody around you doesn't? And that's the thing is like, when Elon Musk is saying, I'm going to rethink everything from first principles, I would have more respect for that if Elon Musk just came out and said, you know what I think affirmative action is good, or you know what I think that Israel's actions in Gaza are appalling, or like something that actually would be

genuinely unlikely for his milieu. And Paul Graham, to his credit, has done that. He has been very strongly pro-Palestine way before, I think there's been a really strong recent turn in public opinion against Israel, but he was way out ahead of that, in a way that caused him an enormous amount of difficulties among people who would otherwise be his kind of intellectual set. So he was really living his principles there. But yeah, I think it's a good test. If you think of yourself as a free thinker, but all the other free thinkers that you hang around with, all free think the same thing, maybe you're not a free thinker. There is this myth. about genius, just as there's myths about writers and artists that I think is

contributive here too, you know, I feel like you can have crazy ideas and a normal life, or you can have a crazy life and normal ideas. The hard part is when you're sort of disruptive and transgressive and you're relatively untethered because you're, you now fly private everywhere and no one can tell you, and, you know, your marriage is falling apart. I think there's a flow bear line, I think, where he talks about, you know, if your desk is clean. Yeah.

The wild life of the, so is it. I live the quiet and orderly life of the bourgeoisie so I can be violent in my work, something like that. Yeah. Yeah. And I've always taken that to mean, like, you know, you have to have some stability. Like people, you know, you have to have something that's tethering you to normalcy or you can sort of spin off the planet. I think that's kind of what you tend to see in geniuses,

not just like scientific geniuses, but certainly in artistic geniuses as well. They just keep crazy hours and do lots of drugs and, you know, that's hard to sustain. Right. But like somebody like Picasso is a very good example. Whatever his eccentricities in his personal life, they did not prevent him from banging out an enormous volume of work. You know. Yes, but he was also a monster. I mean, I know. Some people have really pushed back on this because I do say this in the book. And I quote his granddaughter to Marina, you know, who said he was a vampire, you know. And there are a number of people who killed themselves around Picasso's Aubay. Like he just was not an easy person to be around.

He had this sense of his talent entitled him to live in a particular way. I was surprised. I thought everybody kind of accepted that. But people are still quite hostile to it. It's really fascinating to me. Like the thing I hadn't quite clocked when I came into this book is quite how much the idea of genius is kind of are tied up with hero worship. Yes.

And I should have got that a bit more because the Thomas Carlyle set of essays from the 19th century, which have this idea of the Great Man Theory, they're titled on heroes. You know, it's about whether or not you can worship people or raise them up above everybody else. And so there is definitely a defensiveness

where when people feel that their heroes are being taken away from them. Or you can see it like at the other end of it when their heroes do something that they don't agree with. Like I wrote a piece about when J.K. Rowling came out as gender critical. And, you know, let me tell you, the message boards of muggle.net were fuming about that because it was like you've ruined my childhood. You've taken my childhood away from me. And this intense hero worship mutated into an intense loathing that I think anybody who hadn't felt either of those emotions would think, well, they're just some quite good books about wizards. Don't see there's any need to get this excited about it. But you know what I mean? These are deeply emotional things. I talked to somebody in the wake of the book who'd had a Michael Jackson song at her wedding. She'd walked down in the aisle. to it, I think. And then suddenly had to face this idea of like, oh, how do I feel about my wedding day now? Yes. That it's got this soundtrack to it of this person that I now think,

you know, I feel a bit reluctant to endorse. So I think, you know, I think these are quite deep emotional bonds that we have with people when we call them a genius. Function is the only health platform that gives you the data that most people never get. And it gives you the insights to start doing something about. it too. With function, you get access to over 160 lab tests annually, from hormones to toxins to markers of heart health, inflammation, and stress. And for an additional fee, you can also access MRI and chest CT scans, all tracked in one secure place over time. It's a near 360-degree view to see what's happening inside your body, which is why so many top health leaders are all behind

function. If you want to give someone or yourself something truly meaningful this year, give them the clarity that comes from knowing their health. Most gifts fade, but this one helps your loved ones stay healthy. And you can own your health for just $365 a year. That's just a dollar a day. You can learn more. Join using the link. Go to functionhelp.com slash Daily Stoke

or use Code Daily Stoke 25 for a $25 credit towards your membership. Well, it's almost here. Christmas is just a couple of days away. And maybe you're scrambling. You're like, what should I get my dad? I should get my mom. I've got to get something to my sister. People love showing off pictures of their kids, and that's where today's sponsor comes in.

I've gotten one as a gift. I've given it as a gift the Aura Digital Picture Frame. It's easy to use. It never gets old. You're constantly updating it with new pictures. Aura digital picture frames are so much better than any digital picture frame I've ever seen. It's got a high resolution. It's got a color calibrated display.

You can add video. You have two pictures come up at the same time, picture and a video. It'll pair photos together for you, like two pictures. are the same person or from the same day. It's really easy to set up. You just download the app, connect the frame, and then you can pick photos and videos right from your phone from anywhere in the world.

And there's a reason Oprah added it to her favorite things three different times. For a limited time, save on the perfect gift by visitingoraFrames.com to get $35 off or as best-selling CarverMatt frames, named number one by wirecutter by using promo code Stoic at checkout. That's A-U-U-R-A-Frames.com, promo code Stoic.

This deal is exclusive to listeners and frame sell-out fast, so order yours now to get it in time for the holidays. Support the show by mentioning us at checkout. Terms and conditions apply. We would like people to be able to do incredible, extraordinary things, but still be sort of decent, upstanding people like we see ourselves. And it is something. somewhat disillusioning to go, oh, no, maybe it's not possible.

Or maybe that's actually a much harder target to hit, right? To be very successful or very smart or very, you know, elite at what you do and not jettison some of the, you know, sort of basic human capacities that we'd otherwise want someone to have. But it's also a little bit immaturity, isn't it? That's what I felt when I was writing that piece about J.K. Rowling. It was people who see themselves in a perpetually childlike or young teenage position. And these were people who were by now nearly my age, you know, in their late 30s and 40s. And you think it's like when you find out your parents are just, you know, normal people who are trying their best

and not the kind of, you know, gods of your childhood. And I think that's the bit as well that sometimes people feel a reluctance to. And I guess social media has made that worse, right? Because if you say you like something, someone pops up. like clipy, the paper clip, to kind of go, did you know, they're actually quite bad? But it's okay. It's okay to really like and revere some people's work and the things that they've done without endorsing every single aspect of their personality.

But I think there's something particularly about the modern media environment that makes people quite uneasy about that, right? They want the relaxation of purity, essentially. Yeah, although I found the J.K. Rowling thing to be interesting because I never read Harry Potter as a kid and then I started reading it to my kid. So I came to it, like, only in the last, like, few years. So I don't have like this a nostalgia for her. So I'm sort of coming to her new.

And she's not totally wrong about everything she said, but I think it's been interesting to watch her evolution, where she went from a somewhat heterodox person to sort of coming up with a very sort of dogmatic, orthodox and strident opinion that she expresses over and over and over again with a lack of sort of empathy or, humility. And then I think what's interesting to me about it is that there's no other opinion that she's expressing like this. Right. So there's this kind of trap we see in our modern

discord where someone goes, this is a totally normal person who just happens to have this one transgressive view and everyone's attacking her, her or them about it. But what's interesting is you don't see the other opinions that were supposedly the marks of their normalcy seem to recede into the distance and you go, oh, actually you've just been kind of radicalized by this one thing and it's now consumed you as a person. I do understand it a bit, though, having followed this argument for about a decade, because it was a bit like invasion of the body snatchers, right, that people that you thought had been quite normal. And you would say, well, of course, you know, we should be accepting of everybody and I'm very happy to, you know, call people what they want

to be called and be respectful. But I don't think we should have biologically men people competing in women's sports. And you sort of assumed that was a pretty mainstream opinion. And then we went through this like ludicrous bend for a couple of years. That was like hate speech. And then that era is now ended and that's now become a kind of normal mainstream liberal opinion, albeit somewhat submerged again. So I think that again, it comes back to the kind of the trouble with people telling you, laughing at you almost. Yeah. I think that's a kind of uniquely deranging experience. Having been through it myself, you do go, no, I'm pretty sure. I'm pretty sure I'm not the one with the, you know, radical out their opinion on this. I'm pretty sure

actually everyone agrees with me, but they won't say it out loud. I mean, it's a kind of tiny insight into what it must be like living in a kind of slight, in a totalitarian society, right? Where you're pretty sure that everyone else also thinks the leaders are cretin, but you know also that on pain of death, no one is ever to say this. I mean, that must be so psychologically unhinge. It requires a real strong sense of self to have an opinion that is not radical. And and everyone tell you it's radical and not become radicalized in the process. I think to not being radicalized in a bunch of different domains, whether it's politically or or culturally or, you know, with your sort of heterodox ideas, it's really hard. It's really hard to just have

opinions and not make them your identity or your personality or not not sort of feed off the energy that is there, you know? I've seen this with some people I know where, like, they, maybe they were sliding a little bit in relevance or their sort of best days were behind them. Well, yeah, can I ask you, how old were these people? Because I think this is a form of, I think for lots of people, this isn't the new form of midlife crisis. People who once had an affair or bought a sports car and now they get really into a particular political thing and start being very strident about it. That's exactly, it's exactly right. And I'll tell you. tell you the person I'm thinking about off the air. But so they, they notice as sort of a decline or a

slowing. And then they, they express something, maybe that they didn't even think was a big deal. They, they tweet something or they write something, they say something in an interview. And then it gets a lot of attention, like negative attention from the, let's say the mainstream and then positive attention from maybe some fringe groups who are, who are sort of opposed to the mainstream. And then you watch as that becomes like, they, go to the action, right? Because it's like, it's like the old days when they were connected to the zeitgeist. And so it used to be they got that rush from the work. And now they get that rush from the political acrimony and, and energy of the times. And so you, you sort of watch this

person get transformed into something that is almost unrecognizable. But it's really rooted. in that narcissism that you mentioned earlier. It's rooted in the narcissism of needing to be relevant, needing to have heat, needing to be in the conversation. And they just, they can't get it as an athlete or as a writer or as a filmmaker, but they can get it as, you know, they see themselves as a truth teller. I think they're more of a bigot or a hack or a wacko. But it's, it's the same energy. Right. And I was delighted when I found the story of William. Shockley for the book who won the Nobel Prize. He was one of the names on it in the 50s for the transistor,

although really it was much more down to the other two people who were named than him. He was head of the lab, so he kind of wing-manned onto it. But he was, I just remember reading all this stuff that was happening in the 60s and 70s being like, this is so unbelievably modern. So he wins his Nobel, but he's already gone a bit strange by this point. People in the lab don't like working for him. There's brilliant men in the lab who leave because they can't bear it. He starts giving the employee's psychometric tests and IQ test

because he becomes obsessed with personality and IQ. And, you know, eventually people, he leaves Bell Labs, sets up Shockley Semiconductor. Everyone leaves Shockley Semiconductor. You know, he basically creates Silicon Valley because people can't work with him. So they end up in other places. And then he starts talking about race and IQ. And it's exactly that dynamic that you're talking about, which is that he says one thing about, you know, something about dysgenics, essentially,

something about a kind of, you know, classic welfare mom story who's got 17, kids and like why are we paying for these people and and everybody kind of reacts but another group of people are saying oh thank god someone said some you know finally said it you know you can't say these things and so suddenly he's getting listened to again and he's getting invited to these conferences you know what does he know about this he's not this is not his scientific baby right this is not his scientific specialism and there's this incredible 1980 playboy interview with with him which is pages and pages of it but he just says a kind of series of wacko things like he thinks his IQ has gone up. That's why he didn't get into the term and genetic studies of genius because he didn't

meet the cutoff as a kid, but now he thinks his IQ has gone up with age. Not really a thing that happens to you at the age of 70, but okay. And, you know, it's just the sort of psychological chip on his shoulder and the way that for a while when he was on the upswing, I guess this is what happens, when people on the upswing of their careers, maybe their sort of psychological flaws, you know, people put up with them, they think it's because they're young, they're not more pronounced. And then at some point, as you say, the kind of road runs out and it turns them into their worst selves. I think that's the story of lots of people that I've seen follow that trajectory. I was trying to work out whether or not, is that a thing that only happens to kind of

famous people and therefore we hear about it a lot? Or is it happening to lots of people and we're only hearing about the famous ones? No, I think you're right that it's a kind of, it's a kind of midlife crisis. So look, if you have access to media and people are soliciting your opinion, that's where you're going to go for the rush and the, you know, the energy. That's your drug. But if you're a school principal, maybe you're going to buy a motorcycle, right? You know, or get a tattoo or, you know, cheat on your spouse, right? Like, so, so it's, it's what you have available. What destructive, exhilarating behaviors do you have access to? Now, if you're Elon Musk, it's buying a social network and, you know, becoming a bond villain or something. If you're, again,

And if you're a regular person, it's going to happen on a much smaller scale. But it is fundamentally the same kind of irrational, biologically motivated, you know, psychological, you know, catharsis. Right. And I'm actually, I'm going to excuse or exempt Jacob Rowling from this criticism because the notable thing about her is that the work has continued to be good. I really like the Corman Strike novels. And she is clearly still put in a productive phase of her career. But the thing I now think about her is that she accidentally became famous. as a children's author, when really she's one of the great haters of the age.

I just read her review of her nemesis, Nicola Sturgeon, the former First Minister of Scotland's memoir. And it's just, I've written some mean things in my time. It makes all of them look like a, you know, Sunday parade. And I just now think that it's taken her until midlife to reach her true calling as a shippost her. Well, actually, there is something, the root of most of these sort of genius gone bad stories is some kind of personal grievance or slight. I just interviewed David Mamet, whose work I'm a big fan of.

And it was an interesting interview. And as I was watching it, there's this other interview that he did a couple weeks ago where he ended up walking out when he got asked some political questions. He stormed out. But the guy was asking, he was like, hey, you know, as late as like 2008, your political opinions were this. And, you know, after that, your political opinions became this. What happened, you know? And you'd think he'd be like, well, you know, I read this book and it changed everything.

or, you know, I peeked behind the curtain. And Mamet starts to tell this story. And there's something refreshingly honest about it, although I don't think he thinks it reads this way. He's like, okay, so in 2009, I put out this book. And I sent the book out to all the media outlets who I've been interviewed by many times and that I thought were my friends.

And he's like, Terry Gross blew me off and the New York Times blew me off. And he just starts going through all the people. And the guy goes, wait, so you're like, you became a conservative because they didn't like you, you know? And he said, no, no, of course not. But he just unsolicitedly explained that that's kind of exactly what it is. And almost all of them, you see some very real example of that. A, I kind of understand it in that it is sort of mad that in the whole of American theater,

he's basically the only overt Trump supporter, right? there's a lot of people in America who like Trump. Like, they deserve some, they deserve to be bored at the theatre too. And I'm not that David Mamma, I quite like O'Leanna. I can't speak to the rest of his work. And actually, I've seen Speed the Plow, that was good too. So, yeah, let me, they're fast plays. I'm not, I'm not being rude.

Don't come for me, David Mamet. I've seen the mean cartoons you do in the free press. Like, I don't need that in my life. But, you know, I just, I kind of also, you know, I used to be the deputy editor of a left wing magazine. Before that I worked for a right-wing newspaper. So I like to kind of mix things up so that I could get, like a spend the period being annoyed by one side's follies and then switch and become annoyed

by the other side's follies for a bit. And the thing that I just found fascinating about the left was that, you know, as I kind of got older and started earning a bit more paying a bit more tax, I was just like, but you hate me. Yes. You need this money in order to pursue redistribution, but you're going to kind of hate me for having it and giving it like to the state. I don't understand what that is. Like I can, I think there is a thing where people.

just essentially get like J.D. Vance with Zelensky, right? Where they're like, did you say thank you? Well, look, J.D. Vance, again, to add another piece of events of my, he was really personally hurt by the reviews of the god-awful movie about his life, you know? Yeah. But then I can also imagine if you're him, that feels like they're reviewing you as a person, right? Well, they're just like, you don't seem very nice or like approachable. Well, and the vertigo of the book being beloved or popular and then the movie not being popular. Again, it takes a certain amount of fortitude and a strong sense of self to understand that sometimes people are going to like you and sometimes people are going to dislike you.

And sometimes they're going to be totally indifferent to you. In a way, the indifference is almost the actual most painful thing because, again, your addiction is to be. to the attention and the validation comes whether it's positive or negative. It's probably the sort of failure and the shrugging to the movie that hurt more than the reception. So it takes a, it takes a sense. So anyways, I think when you look at a lot of these people, there is some grievance. I mean, you could trace, some people trace the entire Trump presidency to him being humiliated

at the White House Correspondence dinner. Yeah, racist by Barack Obama, yeah. Yes, exactly. Actually, I find that a very compelling thesis. You know, there is often a kind of, and it's often a kind of snooty intellectual elite, right? That's the thing, one of the things that I find fascinating. I've got, you know, many criticisms about the Democratic Party having a set of values that are at odds with many of its voters, never mind the median opinion in America.

But like the idea that kind of these sort of billionaires feel still somehow that there's some mythical kind of college professor, right? Yes. If they endorse them, then that would be the sort of summit of human achievement and they feel rejected by it. It's kind of fascinating. I mean, you know, you coming from a philosophy interest must be particularly interested about this, right, in that there is no shortage of demonstration in our current society that great wealth and success does not necessarily bring you contentment. And I think it's really useful. Like if you're going to look at Donald Trump or you're going to look at Elon Musk, you should think, okay, well, whatever, like this money is not filling the hole in your soul. And I just, I'm obsessed with my favorite Donald Trump interview from last election cycle was him with Theo Vonn, where he talked about his violent overbearing father and watching his elder brother, who seemed to be quite a kind of sensitive sort, die from alcoholism. Essentially, I think probably having been attacked by his dad all the way through his life for being not tough enough.

And I thought, well, actually, you know what, now I understand the bullishness, the bullying, like this was your protection mechanism throughout your childhood. Like seeing, you know, your beloved hero-worshipping older brother just not made the great. He has a Shakespearean figure. He has the perfect villain origin story. And I would totally agree with that. I mean, you mentioned me and philosophy. What I've experienced it's been interesting is like, I think what I do is good, right? I think I'm taking these ancient ideas and making them accessible to people who wouldn't be interested in them. And then it's like the philosophy people sort of suits. Am I going to like guess that academic philosophers think that, actually you're not doing it right and you just, yeah. No, so they snoo, they're getting it dirty really with your grubby hands. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I remember an article and it said something like, you know, this guy who's popularizing,

like how this guy made a philosophy popular with Greek slaves, you know, influential in Silicon Valley or something like that, how he took a philosophy of Greek slaves and made it popular in Silicon Valley. And it was just like such a preposterously bad faith misinterpretation. And then the conclusion is silly. It's like, okay, I'm talking about this philosophy of a virtue. I'm making it popular with people in Silicon Valley. Isn't that a good thing?

Wouldn't you like that? Like, I'm not taking fucking I and making her more popular. I'm taking something good. And yet, no, still here it's being misconstrued. And so, again, I think it requires a certain sense of self to be like, that's unfair and not true. But I'm not going to allow myself. to be driven into the arms of an equally, you know, dysfunctional, toxic group because I have to have a home somewhere. And so to me, being heterodoxes, if anything, it's the ability to sort of

stand alone or stand as yourself and not allow one contrarian opinion or one sort of bit of othering or outside the mainstreamness drive you fully in that direction. Yeah, the closest I've ever got to writing anything that was self-helpy was I had this idea for a while that you should appoint, like if you're going to do any kind of public-facing work, or, you know, which I, as you say, might even be being like the principal of the school, like anything that you're going to do that's going to get you criticism, you should appoint three arbiters of you. And these should be people that you know that you know would stand up to you if you did something wrong, right? Like it's not like your mom who, like, if you're, you know, we'll always see the best in you and excuse anything that you do. Now, these are people who would call you on your bullshit. And they're people who you think have a genuine moral compass that you want to follow. And people who have made themselves hard and unpopular decisions. And then one of the things you can do is run any decision you're going to make by, you know, maybe not even them in real life if you can't talk to them, but like the versions of them in your mind. And I'm really lucky, like my best friend Laura is very much like this. She and I have known each other

for 20 years. And there have been times like during the great feminist Twitter Wars of the 2010s, Well, she once did say I had to go at somebody and then they were horrible to me and then they piled all their friends to me and I was having a big pity party about how terrible this was and she was like, yeah, but that was completely over the top and unnecessary what you did.

And I was like, but no, we were having the time where we were going to like indulge me in my, you know, my fantasy that I'm only of the victim of meanness and never the perpetrator of it. But I thought it was a really, you know, that's what like a genuinely really good friend should do. And it's why I worry about,

you know, you've seen the chat GPT update, lots of people saying, you've taken away my friend. Chat GPT is not going to call you on your bullshit. No, you're paying chat GPT. Right, exactly. There's a line from Janet Malcolm, one of my other favorite female journalist

from Joan Didion about like you will never have somebody who's completely on your side as your defense lawyer in a libel trial, right? They would just tell you that everything that you did, of course you, everything you did is right. And you need to actually move away from those kinds of people. I mean, maybe it's useful in a libel trial. But like in your friendship, you need to have friction.

You need to have a certain sense that there are people who are not, you know, they want you to succeed, but they don't want to tell you that everything that you're doing is fine. Well, I have a chapter about this in the book that I just finished, which is about wisdom, and I have a chapter about, so you sort of find a mentor early on, and then after you succeed, you need a kind of a board of directors, right? And you could argue that one of the tragedies of the Silicon Valley or the sort of self-inflicted blow was with the myth of the founder genius, came incredibly favorable terms that allowed, you know, your Zuckerbergs and your musks and your whomevers to have almost complete control of all the voting stock of the company. So they handpicked the board of directors. The shareholders can basically never fire them, never pressure them, never reject any of the things that they want to do.

And so in the short term, this is good because, you know, they can't be fired, that they can invest long term. They can do all their sort of big things. But it also has the corrosive effect that absolute power has on everyone else. And, you know, Elon Musk basically has multiple multi-billion dollar companies that he can raid their bank accounts to support his other crazy ideas. He has essentially no fiduciary responsibilities. He's untethered from any consequences of his actions by nature of his enormous wealth, the law is no longer a check. And so it's inevitable that he would spin off the planet, lose his mind and then do things that are harmful, not just to himself, but to humanity as a whole. I mean, ask the people of Ukraine or, you know, there is

real consequences to not having people who can tell you the truth or even that you have to justify what you are doing too. As you said, the process of just running a thing by a friend forces you to be a little more intellectually honest with yourself. Yeah, I don't like that that found a myth. You're right. It just becomes that it isn't good if you're running a company, like and it's a now mature company. It used to be a startup and it's now as mature. That without you, it's dead in the water. Like that makes, if that, that multi-billion dollar evaluation at that point is extremely fragile. And, you know, I really felt that during the kind of botched AI, open AI coup, whatever

that happened there, I thought, well, this is really interesting to watch this play out, because essentially what is being said here is that the entire valuation of that company, whatever wild hundreds of billions of dollars it is now, is actually a valuation on Sam Altman, right? Open AI is him and he is open AI. And maybe that is true, or that's not. that's an incredibly fragile sand to build it, that castle on. In all cases, is it true?

I mean, Apple is kind of fascinating on this, right? Everybody said, well, they'll never succeed without Steve Jobs. I think actually it's got bigger cash reserves than it did. Like, Tim Cook running it as a kind of very incredible supply chain, has proved to be in a different way, equally successful, to the much more creative jobs era. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. This time of year is wonderful.

It's quiet. It's peaceful. It's beautiful. It's also stressful and bleak and dark. And then there's the whole family stuff. You've got to make sure you're taking care of yourself and you've got to make sure you're taking care of your mental health. This time of year can be not just stressful.

It can also be lonely. And therapy can help you make space and time to focus on getting well. And feeling good. Consider trying BetterHelp online therapy in December as a way to close the year with clarity rather than chaos. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is one of the world's largest online therapy platforms, having served over 5 million people globally. And it works. It's got an average rating of 4.9 out of five for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. This December, start a new tradition by taking care of yourself. And our listeners get 10% off at BetterHelp. dot com slash daily stoic pod that's better help.com slash daily stoic pod well every genius thinks that they are indispensable and unprecedented and no one can do what they do and that's that's the inevitable rot of egotism is set in when they think that but the other people that are important in that story are the people who go along

with it. And I think there's been a lot of talk about the way that Donald Trump is essentially, what's that phrase, talking about reverting to an older style of government. I think it's patrimonialism, right? I remember having this conversation when I was down in Florida a couple of years ago interviewing voters ahead of Ron DeSantis running for re-election as governor. And I spoke to a Democrat in Miami who said, she was herself, Cuban-American. She said, well, lots of Cuban-Americans really like voting for Trump because that's the politics that is recognizable. Like, there's a guy, you pay more. dad right but also just like there is you know there you pay your protection money right and the idea about america as a democracy was that you know you didn't have to pay protection money to somebody

actually there was a sort of legal system that protected your property rights and definitely i would say under under trump we've gone back to that you know look at the the crypto dinner where everybody kind of pays you know puts money into the meme coin or whatever and they just pay for access just quite openly corrupt as far as i'm concerned but you know it's it's a system that actually lots of people including very smart people, including very tech-savvy people, find more comfortable, right? Instead of dealing with this complicated, you know, bureaucracy and checks and balances, there's a guy and you pay off the guy and you get what you want. Yeah, no, the enablers or the people that just kind of don't speak up are a big part of it.

I gave a talk at a conference back in June, I think, that was this sort of Freethinkers Libertarian Conference. And when I agreed, you know, it was like, hey, it's a normal conference and a normal place. I might not agree with everyone. But in between when I agreed and when I showed up, Ross Olbrick was hardened and then invited to speak, right? And do you know who that is? He's a Silk Road guy. Yeah. And so when I got up and gave my talk, I felt like just for my own conscience, but also for my own...

I read about this. You stood up and did the thing that, like, no one ever does, which goes, I'm just going to make everyone very on comfortable now. Yes. Let me tell you, it was extremely uncomfortable, but I was like, this is not a heterodox independent thinker. This is a guy that ordered six contract killings of people who were getting in his way. And by the way, he was so incompetent at it that he accidentally asked an informant, you know, an FBI informant to do it. So thankfully no one was actually murdered. But as far as he was under the impression, He was murdering people.

We have to be able to draw a line with people who have dangerous ideas, people who are dangerous. Like, to me, that's been an interesting wrinkle in the sort of podcast world. I was endlessly fascinated by Joe Rogan's interview with Terrence Howard, where you're like, this is a... Where he started talking about his number theories, right? Like, I have this longstanding belief that the number one sign that somebody's gone bonkers is them coming up with a new theory of physics.

There's a load of examples of it in the book where it happened to Chris Langen, the guy who said for a long time he had the highest IQ in the world, he's in Malcolm Gladwell's outliers. He's got this cognitive theoretical model of the universe. It's happened to Travis Kalanick of Uber, who was just talking on the all-in podcast about how he does vibe physics and he's really reached the limits of human understanding by talking to chat GPT. And you were like, okay, it's possible. It's possible. No, no. I think one of the hallmarks of this community has been an extreme credulousness. an inability to notice or recognize what are signs of mental instability. Like cases. Yeah. You're like, when I watch that, I go, because I've met people who are not well before, that's a person who's not well. And you're engaging with them as if you're talking to them as if they're serious, not talking to them the way that I talked to my grandfather when he was in his final years.

I just said, uh-huh, yeah, sure. You know, like, I'm not saying you have to call this person out to their face, but you probably shouldn't have them on your podcast because they are not well. And not being able to recognize psychosis or to be able to go, hey, there's a line between political incorrectness and Andrew Tate and bigotry and, you know, just cruelty. And we have to be, if we want to engage with dangerous ideas, we do have to be able to draw lines when those dangerous ideas are actually dangerous. Yeah, I think it's really, I'm spent a lot of time reporting on that chunk of the podcast sector.

And I find it really fascinating that there are some people that even they consider to be Delulu. Like Candice Owens would be a very good example, right? She do not see a lot of her doing that circuit in the way that she might once have done. But she was also so recognizably crazy from the beginning. That's what I think is interesting. Yeah, but I think it's really funny that you just think, like, finding everybody's individual tipping point, because almost everybody does have one, right? Tucker Carlson interviewing that poor guy who claims to have slept with Barack Obama, you know, the former crack addict.

Like, A, who cares? And B, why you, like, platforming this mentally troubled man with this story, apart from just to prove that you can. But I think it's really interesting, as you say, that I'd be interested to know whether or not Terrence's hands comes back again. Because I think from almost everybody there is a line. It's just that some people draw the line a lot more loosely than other people. But there's almost nobody who is a complete absolutist that just thinks there's no opinion that doesn't deserve a hearing on the internet. But again, I have the same experience of you, which is I know somebody in my family was committed to a psychiatric hospital when I was young. And talking to them when they were in the grip of that is just, it's kind of extraordinary.

Like you watch the post hoc rationalizations, right? You try and contradict things that they think that are wrong. and they confabulate and they kind of come up with a reason and you see the fixity of the idea and then the backfilling of rationalisation. And it was a really interesting and instructive lesson to me very early on that we don't think about things from first principles. Actually, most people have a belief

and then they work backwards in order to justify it. But it was true, yeah, it was, I think it definitely affected my, how I feel, like I say, I feel this sort of like moral irritation with people who are unwilling to draw those lines, because it's kind of inconvenient or it doesn't make them seem cool, right? It just, oh, I'm not edgy, I want to be edgy. And, well, fine, if you think someone's really, like, got a brilliant idea that is not getting.

There are things that, you know, I've been involved in that people would rather I didn't write about and think that like that. And you make those stands, but it's not, like you say before, it's, it's not everything. I do think that this is where the grievance or the anger can can really mess you up. Because if what your animating principle is owning the libs or, you know, exposing the hypocrisies or, you know, whatever, you're going to, you're going to have a certain frame that's going to blind you to the fact that this person, even though they're saying what you want to hear, is an unreliable narrator or an unstable person or a dangerous person. I think you see this in Tucker Carlson's interviews a lot. It's like, he'll interview these people with the most

spurious of credentials or the craziest ideas. but because they line up with who he wants to hurt, he'll have them on. But does he believe it or not? This is the thing, I just, this is my endlessly fascinating question. It's my question about J.D. Vance as well. Like, does he believe it or not? Or is this just? I think sometimes yes and sometimes no.

I think sometimes it's, he's genuinely stupid. And then I think other times he is Machiavellian and calculating and it's hard to know the difference. Right. Because I watch him, you know, with Russell Brand, a guy who's under suspicion of serious sex offenses, praying in an evangelical style. And I think, you just know what the audience wants, the repentant sinner. And then I watch him looking at Rosanne as she talks about Democrats drinking blood. And you can see in his eyes that he thinks, oh, you're a crazy person.

And so there is, like, there is still some twinkle there. But then you watch his speech where he's like, you know, Daddy's home and he's going to give you a spanking. And you're like, you're also nuts. Very, very peculiar business. And then I watched another speech where he said, it's not fair in America that young people can't buy a home, how are we ever going to people to vote for us? And I thought, well, I agree with you. I agree with you on this one. Hang on a minute. You've just briefly tuned into

reality FM on the dial's way to somewhere else. So, okay, from somebody who's written a lot about ego and about having a daily philosophy, what do you do if there's someone in your life that is going down that radicalisation path, right? Because I don't know if there is an answer that isn't sort of smugly superior. And I will simply explain to them that I'm right and they're wrong and they should adopt my way of thinking about life. Like, what actually does a start a conversation with someone in that space. I do think it depends on where they are in your life. My main response is the same response I had during a pandemic, which is quarantine and reduce exposure. Because I tend to think that this stuff is pretty contagious. You know, I think it's hard,

cognitive dissonance does some work on you, where you want to like this person and you know they're right about other things or maybe they're smarter than you on other things. And so I do try to largely sort of keep my distance when I see, when I see people going down that path, I go, this is going to work itself out or it's not. I don't have a savior complex about trying to, you know, deprogram people, I guess. I've seen it happen too many times. So that's, I think, part of it. And I think, you know, there's that Orwell thing about like seeing what's right in front of you is like one of the hardest things. It's hard enough to stay sane in this world not being surrounded by or exposed to outright craziness and nonsense.

When you said quarantine, I thought you would give the advice, which I think probably would be mine, which is the touch grass advice, right? Like, if you can find somebody who you think has got unhealthy thought patterns, if you can encourage them to spend time in real life with a range of the kind of people that you meet, like, in an office or whatever it might be, like the bowling club or a church or like, whatever. That will be a much healthier set of social inputs than spending a lot of time on the internet. I mean, I don't know about you. I still use X because it's very useful for politics.

But I can actually feel myself becoming more racist in real time as I'm just pumped full of like more and more like London is falling videos. And I think maybe London is falling. And then I kind of look out the window at London, which has its problems but is not falling. And yeah, but you can just feel like if you just sat there, like you were isolated and alone and you were feeling pretty miserable about your life and you're just pumping the stuff into your eyeballs for eight hours a day,

I feel very differently about stuff. I mean, look, none of us are probably as smart as Elon Musk, and if it can happen to him, it can happen to us, you know, it's not good for you. I think he is an interesting case of what happens when you go from reading Soviet rocket manuals to watching internet videos and spending a lot of time on social media. It rots your brain, and it doesn't matter how smart you are. And in fact, the smarter you are, perhaps the more susceptible you are to going, hey, if I think this, it's probably true.

Or, you know, if I read this and it jived with me, that's a dangerous thing. I feel very much the same about Jordan Peterson, who I interviewed a number of years ago. I wish that there had been a way that he could have stayed as a professor at the University of Toronto because by all accounts, his students really liked him. He cared about them. You know, he really thrived in that position. and that was a much better outlet for his talents and I think would have made him ultimately much happier

than the internet provocateur route that he chose. Fame is a hell of a drug. Yeah, yeah, definitely. I think it's fascinating. I don't think this is a conversation that only applies to like the 1%. I think actually in the era of social media, everybody has got the opportunity to have a sort of fame

or at least to be thinking about themselves constantly in terms of their personal presentation online and just having themselves reflected back at them all the time. So things that would have once only applied to movie stars, now are questions that you have to face at 14 years old and then for the rest of your life. I actually met him very early at a conference before the stuff had sort of blown up. And I remember, I messaged someone, they said, hey, I heard you met Jordan Peterson. What did you think? I said, he felt like a prophet to me. Like, I don't mean like what he said was prophetic,

but he seemed to think he was a prophet. He had the energy of a person who believed he possessed some timeless truth that he needed you to know. And so that's a dangerous place to start from and then become incredibly famous and controversial and I think engaged with largely in bad faith at the beginning. And I remember saying something like I said, I wish there were more professors like Jordan Peterson, meaning like here's someone who loves the classics,

whose passion for them is infectious, who's good at communicating ideas with people, who's clearly very smart. If we had more professors like this across the ideological spectrum, we'd be better off as a society. I think what you watched in him is sort of a slow-moving mental breakdown

under the strain and stress of fame and attention and overwork. And it's a very potent cocktail. But I find it fascinating. to watch people engage with him today as if he's the Harvard and Toronto professor of old. And it's like you're not you're not dealing with that person anymore. And you're excusing a lot of the insane things that he's said and done since and acting like you're talking to someone who's fully there. And I don't think they are.

Yeah, I think it's really tough. Like, you know, and it's something I've reflected on having interviewed him and written about him previously about, you know, did I dunk on him in a way that was unhelpful? You know, I had lots of people who told me after that interview, you know, I'd done incredibly well. Like, you know, you really showed him. And equally just as many people on the other side saying, like, you know, he completely stitched me up and he obviously got the better of me. But it's very tricky because I do think he had, like you say, I think he had some ideas that really did need countering. And again, how you engage with people in good faith in the kind of gladiatorial arena of the internet is another question.

I mean, I wonder if lots of people, more sensible people, are just simply going to opt out of it entirely. That's what I did. Well, right. And I think maybe if you're 17 now, you have your arguments with chat GPT rather than with people on social network forums. And I don't know, is that better or worse? Hard to call. I know. I would say that not going on Twitter is an important choice.

in retaining one's sanity these days. Yeah, well, not reading the news generally would be, but I picked the wrong profession to do that, really. But yeah, I've had exactly, all the things that you're talking about are things that I've wrestled with in my professional career, right, which is essentially how do you do work that is not driving you crazy? I think that's a way to do it. And there's lots of different ways.

And I don't think that's something that just applies to journalists or podcasters. I think that applies to huge numbers of people, because essentially it's the kind of serenity prayer, right? It's about how much should you try and accept the things you can't change? And I think that applies to lots of people and lots of different types of jobs. And this is just one instance of a way that it plays out. Well, to not go crazy in crazy times is the challenge of our time, I would say. Yeah.

But then I always think about the fact that, you know, people live through civil wars in their own country, you know, the constant threat of nuclear apocalypse. Like you have to have some kind of defense mechanism. I just think maybe it was just easier to tune those things out previously than it is now. Well, you look at someone like Lincoln, Lincoln's real ability is to maintain a kind of calm and equanimity in this incredibly destabilizing, dysfunctional, violent moment where he's having to, and not that there's a false equivalency between the two, but he has to deal with this sort of rabid, radical, you know, nihilistic. southern contingent. He has to deal with collaborators and enablers sort of in the middle. And then to his, I guess you would say right, but to the other side of him is the sort of incredibly radical part of his political party that even if he agrees with at some level from a moral standpoint,

he knows is politically insufficient. And, you know, so how, again, in a time of hatred and division, and dysfunction and then craziness, how do you sort of maintain that equanimity? And then your own strong sense of right and wrong, that's the analogous sort of struggle that everyone's having to do in this world today. You know, I was in Pennsylvania reporting for the election last year. And so I went around Gettysburg. And I have to say, I would recommend it as a tonic to anybody who, because you just think, wow, how did this country stitch itself together up? to this. This is kind of unbelievably impressive and incredible. And it did, it did leave me more cheered in the sense of that sometimes, as you say, somebody who is sufficiently eloquent and

sufficiently charismatic and cares enough about an idea can articulate that idea in a way that can take enough people with them to rebuild something. I'll wrap up with a book recommendation for you then. Do you know who Gary Wills is? He's kind of a heterodox historian. He's a, he's a, he's He's very old now, but an American historian, he wrote a book called the Gettysburg Address that is long, like, it has more pages than the Gettysburg Address has words in it. But his argument is that Lincoln effectively, you said, how does the country stitch itself together? Lincoln does that in the Gettysburg Address, which is through his sort of very sharp legal mind, re argues what the Civil War is about and pulls one over. Like, Will's argument is that

most of the soldiers at Gettysburg would not have recognized that what they died for there was anything close to what Lincoln is arguing in the address, right? But he does it so brilliantly and so eloquently and paints this story that it becomes essentially a refounding document. And it's a beautiful book that goes to the power of language and story. And it talks as a writer, it's fascinating to see, like, there's a couple talks that Lincoln gives where he riffs on the ideas from the Gettys. It's just, it's a fascinating book that you realize, oh, okay, everyone thought this.

Like, half the country thought this and half the country thought that. And here Lincoln comes up at Gettysburg and argues something totally different than either of them. Yeah. And that becomes the prevailing view today. And it's the power of language and speech and all that. It's a beautiful book. Okay.

I will take that away. I'm about to go on vacation for a little bit. So I love a chunky history book to take on vacation. Well, I loved your book. I thought it was fascinating. And I'm going back and reading your book on difficult women. So maybe we'll talk again. Okay.

Brilliant. Thanks, Ryan. Lovely. All right. Thanks so much for listening. If you could rate this podcast and leave a review on iTunes, that would mean so much to us and it would really help the show. We appreciate it.

And I'll see you next episode. You know, I'm going to