The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast - Gregg Hurwitz - An Invitation to the Intellectual Dark Web

Episode Date: August 31, 2018

I spoke today with author Gregg Hurwitz (more information about him below). Hurwitz is currently working to rebrand the Democratic party, working to produce an issues-oriented, anti-corruption, practical mainstream narrative and to identify promising Democratic candidates who can hold their own in long form political discussions. This is all in an attempt to end the dangerous polarization and concentration on ever more extreme ideology that seems to be destabilizing political discussion.

Welcome to the Jordan B. Peterson Podcast. You can support these podcasts by donating to Dr. Peterson's Patreon, the link to which can be found in the description. Dr. Peterson's self-development programs, self-authoring, can be found at selfauthoring.com. music music Hi, everybody. I'm here today again with Greg Hurwitz, an old friend of mine, a former student from Harvard. We've talked before and we've got some exciting things to talk about today. Give you some background on Greg first. Greg is a New York Times number one internationally best-selling author of 20 thrillers,

including Out of the Dark coming out in 2019 and two award-winning thriller novels for teens. His novels have won numerous literary awards, Grace Top Ten lists and have been published in 30 languages. He's written screenplays for or sold specs scripts to many of the major studios, including the Book of Henry and written developed and produced TV for various networks.

He's also a New York Times best selling comic book writer having penned stories for Marvel, Wolverine and Punisher and DC, Batman and Penguin. He's published numerous academic articles on Shakespeare, taught fiction writing in the USC English department, and guest lectured for UCLA and for Harvard in the United States and the international.

In the course of researching his thrillers, he sneaked onto demolition ranges with Navy SEALs, swam with sharks in the Galapagos, and gone undercover into mind control cults. Her which grew up in the Bay area while completing a BA from Harvard and a master's from Trinity called Jocsford and she experienced tragedy, he wrote his first novel. He was the undergraduate scholar athlete of the year at Harvard for his pole vaulting exploits and played college soccer in England where he was a nox fellow.

So that's Greg. Hello everybody. It's quite an intro. I think I'm just going to have you following me around everywhere and reading that before I enter a room. This can actually disliked me. Yeah, exactly. That's right. That's the sort of intro that makes everyone hopes you're a real son of a bitch after reading an intro like that so they can they can morally dislike you. Yes. The best thing. Yeah. like that so they can morally dislike you.

Yes. The best thing. There's a lot to morally dislike Jordan, as you know. Yeah, yeah. So, we're not going to talk too much today about Greg's previous exploits. Instead, we're going to talk about some of the work he's been doing in the political realm recently and the reasons for doing that. So, Greg, I'm going to let you take that away.

Well, so, look, I write thrillers and I have the short hand that I always give is that about half of my friends are born again Christian, Navy SEAL snipers and half of my friends are gay ACLU lawyers. And I tour equally in the red and wood states. My readership is very, very diverse. And I think because of that, I have a real ear for the buzzwords and phrases and ideological shorthand that really shut people down that just make them stop listening. My own politics, I'd say I'm a bit more of a classical liberal. And one of the things that I talk a lot about is there are certain phrases that we've

run out with from both sides that just make people completely stop. And it's not dissimilar to what we're trying to do when we're writing, right? If you write and use buzzwords and catch phrases and cliches, it's less interesting. If you already know what you think before you start writing and there's no room for discovery along the way, then it's not real writing. It's propaganda, right?

It's Amrant. You're never going to be surprised by something in the third act. And so there's a real overlap for that that I found. And so one of the things that I've been trying to do, given how polarized I have found discourse to be, and how I've found myself moving between vastly different worlds, is to try and commit myself to ending, or contributing to ending polarizing discourse.

And so part of that is I've been focused on trying to rebrand the Democratic Party, working with a lot of different candidates and entities in an effort to get away from gridlock and more toward solutions. I have a view that's a lot like Jonathan Haik who you've interviewed at length, who I think gives a great description of the need and necessity for both conservatives and liberals in that, you know, conservatives like walls around things, right?

They like walls around gender. They like walls around countries, build a wall, a sort of a brilliant Republican slogan, and the job of liberals is to say, hang on a minute, if that wall is too impenturable, you're not going to have new ideas and people and then we'll stagnate and die. And so for me, and you and I've talked before about how it's also a case for inventors and entrepreneurs who kind of create things, which tends to be more of a liberal leading, but if you want them run effectively, often you need conservative managers to come in.

And so I want there to be stronger parties on both sides. I mean, I want there to be better discourse. I think if there's a stronger Republican party, it makes the Democratic Party have to raise their game and come up with solutions. And out of the one thing I will say that has been common of everyone who I talk to is nobody's throw over the level of political discourse right now.

So there's a couple of things there that are really interesting. I mean, you talk about the necessity for high quality representation on both sides of the political, what do you call that continuum, let's say. And there are really powerful, temperamental, and philosophical reasons for that. So, you know, you mentioned that the liberal types tend to be entrepreneurs and creators and conservative types tend to be managers and administrators. So that's pretty well documented in the psychological literature. But you see echoes of that and you mentioned the border issue as well because, of course,

to categorize things, we have to put boundaries around them. But boundaries can artificially separate and make things stagnant as well. So we have to have a continual discussion about exactly where the boundary should be drawn without ever also presuming that we should just do away with boundaries altogether, because that does away with category. And then with regards to hierarchies, well, you know, it seems to be the job of the right way to put forward the proposition that hierarchies are necessary from an organizational perspective. So if a bunch of people decide to go do something of value, let's say it's of collective value as well as individual value, then inevitably when they operate cooperatively and competitively, they're going to produce a hierarchy. And the hierarchy is actually a tool to accomplish that task in the social arena. But the problem with that is that hierarchy can become over rigid and corrupt and it can dispossess people

without without that dispossession being a necessary function of the task that the hierarchy is attempting to perform. Yeah, it's always both, right? What's that? It's always both, right? I mean, it's always that we needed to organize and they're always there are inequities that result of that. That's right. And the thing that I have found is that when people lock in the political conversations from one side or the other, it becomes all or nothing. And for me, nothing gets accomplished in all or nothing. And so to strong man, you know, Democrats that all of them just want to tear down the whole

system. And you know, those are some of the loud voices on Twitter isn't helpful any more than the claim that Republicans have no interest whatsoever in the people who are just possessed. Right. And so a lot of what's important is to look at, you know, conservatives who are, you know, thoughtful, it's not like they love the fact that people are just possessed. So the question becomes, how do we all help that? And how do we actually have a discussion? And how do we get away from the fact that compromise toward solutions is somehow a betrayal?

That if you compromise anything from the furthest extreme, you're sort of betraying your own ideology and your own people. Yeah, well, I think partly you do that by focusing on specific problems instead of podiodidological solutions. And that's so part of what we're trying to discuss today and to contribute to is the re-centralization,

let's say, of the political parties, and also to make a case for the necessity of intelligent discourse, knowing that people on both sides of the political spectrum have something intelligent to say. So the conservatives have every reason to put forward the proposition that hierarchies are both inevitable and useful,

but also to keep firmly in mind that they can become corrupt and that they do tend to dispossess. And the liberals have every reason to keep in mind that hierarchies are absolutely necessary in order to get things done, but that the dispossess need a voice so that the system remains both permeable and fair. And it's not necessary for both sides to have some Respect for the position of the alternative of the alternative temperamental type. Let's say well That's where we have to meet in in rational sort of enlightenment discourse or else we can't win You know, right? You talked a lot about the big big five personality traits and the ways that it ordinance differently in politics

So it's like liberals are higher in empathy, right, and higher in openness. That's why a lot of artists you find are tend to be liberal, you know, at least the good ones. Like we have Bruce Springsteen and on the other side, it's hard for President Trump to fill up an arena with people who are the artists of a certain caliber. And you know, it doesn't mean that that higher empathy is better. And I think often when liberals are talking, they're trying to push through only empathy and higher empathy and they're trying to educate

people in the higher empathy. Well, it's a fixed psychological trait. And the other thing is Republicans or conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness. In conscientiousness, codes for a bunch of things that are really useful, you know, codes for better health, better finances, more stable marriages, and longer lifespan.

So one of the things when I'm advising, you know, Democrats is like, you can't, you have to win an argument on the merits. You have to make a better argument if you're losing people. You can't just go to them and say, be more empathetic. That's not an argument, right? It's like going to President Clinton and saying, can't you just be an introvert?

These are sort of fixed traits. And the other thing is, is a lot of conservatives are doing fine over there when they're stable marriages among the world. Yes. Well, in the empathy issue is interesting as well, because it's easy for that to be regarded reflexively as a virtue. But an excess of pity, let's say, can be destructive. There's a whole psychoanalytic literature on the negative consequences of fostering overdependence, let's say, and that's a real problem. And there is a managerial literature, too,

that suggests that less agreeable managers do better, as well as less agreeable people in general having higher incomes because they're better at bargaining for themselves. So it is really necessary to give some consideration to the fact that each of these temperaments has it marked advantages and disadvantages and a proper niche where it can function and other places where it actually constitutes a problem. Well, that's where we have to rise above ourselves and meet. Like where do we meet? We meet in freedom of speech. There's a reason it's the first amendment.

If I was dumb enough to be a single issue voter, that would be my single issue. Because part of it is, as a classical liberal, I tend to approach things. I have a strong amount of empathy. But I also realize that that's not a trait that I can map onto everybody else when I have a discussion.

That I have to actually meet and make arguments for people who approach the world in different ways and have different kinds of successes to make higher conscientious arguments in a way that appeals more broadly. And I mean, that's free marketplace of ideas. We have to meet and figure out and discuss these matters. And if we're not doing it in words,

we're doing with fists and knives. The other problem with agreeableness, let's say, in empathy is that the empathetic identification tends to make the person who's experiencing it feel immediately virtuous because they're on the side of the weaker party, let's say. And there's obviously some utility in that, but it's not really, it doesn't come with a set of solutions to complex problems. It seems to me that agreeableness is a pretty good virtue for small units like the family,

where egalitarian distribution is of extreme importance, but it doesn't seem to work very well at higher levels of complexity. So, for example, it's conscientiousness that predicts workplace proficiency. It's the second best predictor after IQ. Agreeableness is actually somewhat negatively correlated unless the domain has to do with direct personal care. And so I don't think agreeableness scales very well, which is why conscientiousness has to enter into the picture. And that's how I view it as like a very helpful

motivator for myself. I look at a problem. My approach tends to be empathy for people who have been left out or have been who don't have the right end of the dominoity. And for me, it's a motivator to look at actual solutions and problems and issues. And there's a lot of real concrete things that can be attacked. But if you don't attack them from a perspective that's morally combissanting, you can actually get shit done. Well, it's also very helpful to increase the resolution of the problem.

And to stop trying to solve every problem with one brushstroke, most things are really complicated. So intelligent political discourse should involve decomposing a problem like poverty, which isn't our problem, but a set of a thousand problems into each of those thousand problems and then trying to generate creative solutions to each of them and then to test them. And so the resolution of the discussion has to be increased.

And one of the things that you and I have talked about was the possibility that these longer form, the longer form discourse avenues that are available on the new media, like what we're doing right now, might enable us to identify and promote politicians who are capable of high-resolution discussion, who have real solutions to real problems, instead of having to compress everything into a six-second sound bite.

Well, the other thing that I'm finding really heartening is a lot of the candidates that I am working with and interacting with. And at this point, that's in the Hungarians. Are very focused on actual solutions. I'm trying to get a handle on the cultural conversation, whatever the hell that is. It benefits by blowing the extremes up and it feels like that's almost all that we're

hearing about. When I'm dealing with actual candidates, a lot of them are dealing with anti-corruption, healthcare, jobs, and education. Like, they're aware that that isn't the play. And so there's this amplifying effect. And then we have a lot of sort of, like this cultural conversation, about the cultural conversation,

that things become very kind of meta. And the level that candidates are operating at, and the level that people are, I'm dealing a lot with candidates in different states. People are having a hard time right now and they need hardcore solutions. And they actually don't give a shit about everyone on Twitter and Facebook who's, you know, preaching everyone who hasn't already unfriended them. They need solutions.

They need government that's functional. They need, they want more transparency and lack of corruption. There's a very common set of things that govern people, but there's a sort of amplified effect from the extremes of the party that are gathering the attention. And the biggest tool that we have in a democracy in some ways is our attention and where we focus it. And if that's being hijacked by bullshit conversations and straw men, I mean, I would love to engage with reasonable Republicans, a lot of whom are my friends and are my colleagues,

to say, look, I know we can go and push everything to extremes and fight and debate and score points, but like, you don't like some of this shit any more than I do. Like, what's an actual conversation from our different perspectives, assuming I don't have all the answers, that we can come up with certain solutions that's gonna take care of people who are not doing as well, you know, or not doing as well, we're not keeping up with the economy.

Because that's not good for anybody. That's not a game that is iterable across multiple games and generations. If more and more people are starting to be more and more, that is good for anybody, even the people at the top. So how do we seek to kind of balance that out for people who don't have a fair shot and don't have a- Even from a conservative perspective, you can say, well, how do we stabilize the hierarchy? So the tendency for, or the multiple hierarchies for the tendency, so that the tendency for people to stack up at the bottom doesn't become so extreme

that the entire system starts to shake and tremble, which obviously isn't good for anyone at all. We're seeing a lot of shaking and trembling. I mean, I think a lot of people in the last election did not feel or seen or represented in the choices of candidates. And a lot of people are like, I don't care what it is, it's not going to be business as usual. Right.

So the solution isn't, in my estimation, to denigrate people who chose to vote for a President Trump. I think the solution is to talk about the fact that we people who chose to vote for President Trump. I think the solution is to talk about the fact that we need to do better. If we want to promote a, if the Democrats want to promote a viable alternative, we have to do better with what our messaging is. We have to do better on messages that are anti-corruption. We have to make a better argument. Yeah, well, the thing is, you know, I was on Bill Marshall a while back and a lot of the panelists on his show were really taking part shots at the Trump supporters and, you know, with the typical sort of pejoratives that are labeled at them.

And I thought that was extremely dangerous because they're basically dissing, let's say, to use a terrible cache, about 50% of the American population. And the same percentage that's been voting Republican for about 20 years. And to just out of hand dismiss here, the people who are voting differently, then you as somehow primitive or primordial or foolish or ill-advised is very, very dangerous. And also more than that,

it's also an abdication of responsibility because the Republicans might have won the last election or Trump might have won the last election or Trump might have won the last election, but certainly the Democrats lost the last election. And so I would have thought that their discourse would have been a lot more productive if they would have focused on the failings of the Democratic Party. And that's also a lot more useful because if you can figure out why you didn't succeed, even though it was very close election, if you can figure out what mistakes you made,

then you could rectify it. That's exactly along the lines of the things that you and I talk about at length, which is personal accountability. It's like, you get in a fight with your wife or your husband, is the best thing to do to point out the 50% or 80% or 90% where they screwed up or to actually reflect and think about whatever percent it is, or whatever number that you can do something better that's actually within your control. And so for me, that's a scalable notion. I have three friends, two widened varied and smart who voted for Trump to dismiss the mall's idiots. It's a very, you can't denigrate it, and plus

we're married to them. That's 50 percent. 49.9% of our population. We are married to them. And we have to figure out how to talk and to come up with solutions that make sense and that everybody can. And so for me, a lot of it is to look at what the impulse was that was underlying that. And to figure out where Democrats can be better at seeing and hearing people and furthering arguments in ways that feel legitimate and connect with people. And to figure out what the messaging is. You always clean up your side of the house first and it doesn't mean that there's a number of policies

that I'm highly critical of a president Trump. It doesn't mean that I denigrate his followers or the people who voted for him or that I will dismiss any tendencies that they might have had or hesitations that they might have had about voting otherwise. Yeah, well, the right message should be something something like not so much why your opponent is worse, but why you're better, why your solutions are better, why the grass is greener on your side of

the fence, why there's less corruption occurring under your watch and also marketing the fact that the solutions that you have are both reasonable and practical. And I mean, that does require a more elevated form of political discourse. And it would be really nice if that could be facilitated by these long forms that are available. I mean, I hear the refrain all the time of like the Democrats don't have a message.

Like Sam, the President Trump is awful is not a message. And I've been really heartened with the conversations that I'm having with candidates right now that there's a huge focus on kitchen table issues. There's a huge focus on prime attack or health care and education and jobs and ways that are more innovative. When you talk to the actual candidates who I want to start to pull into more and more conversations, I have an enormous amount of optimism. And the other thing is, is a real money where your mouth is stance against corruption? And there's something called the Disclose Act that a lot of Democrats are working on

which is fully disclosing all of your donors, you know, releasing taxes, taking a pledge against no dark money. There's a whole number of different resolutions, you know, fighting voter suppression. And that means whether we lose or not. It's not about fighting voter suppression to sort of tilt the vote in a direction. It's like we need the right to win elections or lose

elections fairly. And so there's a lot of positions that are being put forth right now that I feel are really heartening, including a very strong anti-corruption stance because you can't, you have to clean up what your side is. And in this wave of candidates that I'm looking at, you have to clean up what your side is. And in this wave of candidates that I'm looking at, it's been really impressive to me how they're starting to further and articulate what the argument can be from that side. And I think naturally,

you can also start to find Colin Brown to talk about how it's a corruption. I mean, there's a lot of Republicans who aren't thrilled with the level of discourse right now. One of the things that struck me when I've been talking to you lately is when we've been talking about what happened with the Democratic Party is also the idea that the radicals, the identity politics types, managed to take over the narrative to a large degree partly

because the extremism is more attractive, let's say, among a dying mainstream media, it's click-bady and easy-to-attract attention to and loud and cinematic and all of those things. But also that the centrist Democrats seem to have lost faith in their central narrative or perhaps have failed to produce one over the last 15 years. That left a void into which the extremist narrative, the oppressor, oppressor, oppression narrative, let's say, or oppressor victim narrative has been able to slide in and dominate because of that void. And so that's another thing that needs to be seriously addressed.

It's like the center has lost its narrative. And that's something I'd like to see the Democrats deal with. Now, in the first ad that you generated, you had a farmer talk, if I remember correctly, you had a farmer talk about success, and about what that might mean if you could attain it individually. I think where we have fallen down as Democrats and where we are now reorienting

is the discussion of aspirational values, meaning is it a rig game? Like we can absolutely point to things that are disadvantages, you know, but to say it's a rig game, it's a rig game? Like we can absolutely point to things that are disadvantages. But to say it's a rig game, it's a rig game. The thing that we have to say is, all that we're in favor of are fair rules at the starting gate.

And if you work harder, if you're an innovator, if you bust your ass, good on you, like go buy a mansion in three cars, go start a second business, we have to be rewarding of success in speaking to people's aspirations. And, you know, we talk a lot about income inequality and the problem with that is what's the opposite of that

is income equality. Well, nobody wants that. If you look at the average salaries and incomes of people in the Senate and Congress, they're doing just fine. They don't want that either. And so for me, I think it's much more powerful to talk about income injustice.

Because it means that people have a fair shot at the starting gate, and then they can differentiate themselves by their own, you know, abilities and their own willingness to work. And for me, it's about the starting gate in making sure that we look at things that are there. Yeah, well, and also that emphasis that you just placed on rewarding actual achievement, we also have to be in a situation where we can admit that at least one of the factors that differentiates people as they move up competence hierarchies, and we have to admit that some of the hierarchies that exist are actually based on competence and not merely on oppression, is the amount of effort they put into things. And that's become an endothematic proposition on many university campuses where you're not allowed in fact to state that

Hard work that some of the people who have made it have done it as a consequence of working extra hard Because I guess that undermines the narrative that the whole game is rigged and the truth of the matter is the game is partly rigged Like all games are as are, and that is unfortunate, but we can't throw the whole damn game out because it's partly rigged, unless you think you can put in place a game that isn't going to be rigged and good luck with that. It's, yeah, I mean, there is a very interesting interview between Eric Weinstein and Ben Shapiro on the podcast.

And what's so interesting is they're from completely opposite sides of the spectrum. I think doesn't Eric define himself as a socialist? Well, he's certainly on the left. Yeah, I mean, so, but you had them discussed and it was very, very simple this course. And I think Eric can do a much better job than I can of discussing the ways in which the issue isn't

that there was a dominant hierarchy in the people differentiating themselves based on their hard work. The issue is sort of what we've seen with a separation of the working class and the people at the very, very top. He points to a lot of trends about what's happened in workers' wages. A CEO a few decades ago made 30 times average worker.

Now it's at 300. It's not about overall people doing well that there's an increasing exponential separation between working people and people who are at the top. And I think that's the skew that's problematic. And the fact of the matter is, rather than pushing away, and we can talk a little bit also about, you know,

conservatives like Ben, but rather than sort of denigrating it, there's a lot of good brains on both sides of the fence. And like wouldn't it be absolutely lovely if we had reasonable conversations about what we all want to do about that rather than the position of going to be income equality versus only self-reliant employers up by your bootstrap.

Because there's some people who can't do that. There are some fundamental problems with the system that's leading to people having a lot harder time. And everyone agrees with that. And if we can talk about the details, it's sort of like when we talk about universal healthcare, I feel like you come in the door and the minute you say it, people are foreign against.

And for leaders, a lot of other arguments to make, it's like, look, we already have universal healthcare in this country. It's called emergency rooms. It's un-American and wrong to let people die on streets. We don't do that. But if people are uninsured, the hospital passes on the cost to insurance companies who raise our premiums. So the average cost of an emergency and visit in the

United States is $1233. The average cost of a vaccination is $19. We're all paying for anyways. And there's also a lot less risk of public health hazards and other things if we can figure out a way to come up with a medical system that people are getting the care that they want. The benefit of care is infinitely cheaper than trying to play catch up in emergency rooms. And if you don't just walk in the door and say, I'm from Universal Healthcare, I'm opposed to Universal Healthcare. A lot of people say, look, I was out of work and having a hard time and I had to figure out paying my own healthcare. We have to frame it in a way of saying, this is good for the robustness of the whole community. And I think there's a lot of arguments and discussions of both sides that we need all those brains pulling together. And it's one of the things is I'm watching a lot of I.V.

Dole and new stuff. I would love to see increasingly increasing conversations like the one that Eric and Ben had where there's two people from the opposite side who are engaging very reasonably and seeing each other's points and trying to figure out what skills they can bring from the respective sides of the proverbial eye. So you see, you think you see within the Democratic Party an attempt at least to increase the resolution of the discussion and to move away from the more polarizing discourse. You see that starting to develop? Absolutely.

So tell me some of those concrete things you've seen. Well, I mean, you know, I've been meeting with a lot of candidates. I found there's a candidate I really like called Joseph Copser is running in Texas. He's a, you know, 20 year in the army. He's a ranger. I believe he is a bronze star. He's a graduate of, you know, Harvard's Kennedy School as a professor at West Point. And what was amazing with him is he was talking about universal healthcare. He started his own business, a private business, that led to tons of jobs.

And he's this incredible person. And he made an argument in a way I have never thought about it when he's talking about healthcare. He was like, look, I have my healthcare from the army for life. That allowed me to take a risk. And to go out on super nearly to start a company that then led to tons and tons of Yeah, you know, there's evidence in Canada our rate of entrepreneurial development in Canada per capita is actually slightly higher than it is in the US and

Analysis is indicated that one of the reasons for that is the provision of universal health care Well, I know if people can take entrepreneurial risks in Canada without losing their fundamental safety net. So, you can make a conservative argument for the provision of a certain level of underlying security, let's say. Now, we're right. And it was a great argument for me. I mean, the other thing is I've seen a lot of candidates who are Democrats who are

very upfront with their support for the Second Amendment. And it's like, look, the Second Amendment is an amendment. You can't just get rid of an amendment. And I know that as a classical liberal, when people come after freedom of speech, I get really pissed. And people who are living in different regions in different states that have different cultures, when they hear people start to attack the Second Amendment

or when it's global, where it's all or nothing, if there's an inherent threat that comes with that. And a lot of it for me is to look at and go, look, every amendment has certain limitations on it. So you can't stand up on an airplane and scream the other bomb. You can't threaten the president of the United States that you're going to kill him.

The first amendment we have parameters around it. We already have them in place around the Second Amendment. Everybody knows you can't own a bazooka. Everyone knows you can't own a dirty bomb. So instead of coming in and sort of threatening people in their way of life, if they're handguns, if they're hunting, if they are weapons collectors, if we can boil the resolution down to say,

we're already having every amendment, we have, or the first and second amendment, we have certain limitations that we place on for the safety of the community. So how about if we just talk about violent history checks? Let's just talk about that one piece. So 90% of Americans are in favor of that and 73% of the NRA. And so to have a candidate stand up and say, you know, I love the first amendment, I fully support the second amendment.

Believe me, I have a lot of friends who are Army Rangers, Green Berets, and Seals. I know that culture well. And rather than having some sort of frontal attack on it to sort of say, well, what's reasonable? If you can't be all fired in the crowd of theater, how about if we only discussed that and I'm standing with 90% of Americans and 73% of NRA members, it's a much more respectful conversation. And it's a much more solution-based conversation. It's also a humbler conversation because it requires a certain amount of appreciation for incremental change, because it's very ego-inflating to do a great thing to make a massive change, and much less so to work in the background to make a small change. But small changes are solid, and they tend a massive change and much less so to work in the background to make a small change, but small

changes are solid and they tend not to produce terrible negative consequences and to work incrementally is to work realistically and properly. And I would also say meaningfully. And that's another element that needs to be introduced back into the discourse is like, well, why don't we, you know, the people who established the American system were incrementalists, fundamentally. And they knew perfectly well that we had a flawed system that was always going to be flawed and the best we could do was tinker away at it incrementally. And that's a really lovely sentiment.

I think it's very mature and wise to understand that what you're working on is like a highway. It always needs repair. There's always going to be construction on it. There's always going to be blockages on it because it needs to be maintained and updated. But you don't scrap the whole thing with every move. And part of the problem with the discourse now too

is that every issue becomes code for an ideological position.. I have a real hard time with all the environmentalist noise that I hear on the mainstream media in particular because I always see it as code for a very fundamental anti-capitalist ethos. And so I can't separate the damn week from the chaff. I know because I've read a lot about ecological issues that there are foolish things that people are doing in the world for a variety of reasons. Like, overfishing is a real catastrophe. And so is deep ocean trolley, as far as I'm concerned. But when I read general environmentalist claims, and these include climate change claims, I can't separate it from a fundamental anti-capitalist ethos. And so I can't decide, I can never decide whether I can trust the, the information.

And there's that Rousseauian underlay too that like man is bad and nature is good. That's not a rallying cry to say, let me pitch original send to you. The bad part of it is to say, what are short term effective gains that can be made in addition to middle and long term in business for clean rivers, and clean oceans,

and for fishing industries, and also to talk about the things we've accomplished. I mean we close the Ozone hole and companies' dentals are a business. There are actually solutions, you know, we basically eliminated polio from the face of the earth. There's entrepreneurial and innovative solutions for things that can also be pro-business. Yes, and we've reforested the Northern hemisphere. You know, there's more forest in the Northern hemisphere than there was 100 years ago.

So you said this thing about, you know, incremental change. And that's another thing I've been thinking about a lot, which is when we walk into door and say, I'm for gun control or I'm pro life in every circumstance or, you know, to come in with an absolute position. One of the things that's really tricky is, if you're not willing to have a conversation, if you're not willing to see ground,

there is no terms under which you feel that the negotiation or compromise can be satisfying. And that gets really dangerous, and it's funny because it's something that I always advocate for when people talk about or compromise can be satisfying. And that gets really dangerous. And it's funny, because it's something that I always advocate for when people talk about sort of a broad sweeping systemic problem or justice. The problem is, is it doesn't boil it down

to the level of resolution that you can get traction from all the people that you need, because people feel like, well, what's the solution? If the solution is to throw everything away positive and negative and change everything, they're not going to do it. And it's a problem we saw with Occupy Wall Street. And it's sort of spread from generalized corruption.

And incidentally, they were targeting sort of the banks and the bigger systems, almost more than they were the government who was allowing a lot of it. But then as it kept rolling into issue after issue after issue, it starts to get very complex of like, well, if we can see and make changes, are there any terms under which it will be satisfied? And I think that's one of the aspects of coming in on positions of like, pro-organic universal health care, right? Pro-organic to second amendment.

There's no ground to be had there because everyone's just digging in their heels. And I feel like it's also a bit of a product of social media. And the fact that we've all been sort of infant-alized to sort of these likes and dopamine hits that keep driving virtue signaling, and that goes from both sides. Because for both sides, if you can get a real slam or dig in on your opponent, then good for you. And meanwhile, in the middle, there's a ton of Americans, there's a ton of kids, in education systems that need real solutions. And it doesn't matter how much we're signaling what our beliefs are in our respected balls.

It doesn't come down to real solutions. Well, it's also much more difficult to generate real solutions because it means you actually have to have some domain knowledge. And it isn't obvious, for example, that the classic forms of media that politicians have used to interact with the populists have rewarded high-resolution knowledge because it becomes, well, it's easy for it to get tangled up in the details for that kind of discussion to get tangled up in the details.

But these longer-form conversations might allow people to unpack some of that in a more intelligent way. Well, yeah, for instance, there's a great discussion between Dave Rubin and Ben Shapiro at one point, talking about abortion, and they're on opposite sides of it. And what was really interesting was if we civil, and there was no denigration of the opposing side. Also, we're saying, look, I don't have an exact answer of when, for me, it becomes uncomfortable.

Like, there is some point that it moves from something that is into a point that he's not comfortable with abortion. There's a certain date that that would happen or a certain point in trimesters. And so it's hard. There aren't super clear and easy answers. And Ben has a different position.

Obviously, he's much more conservative on that front. But that's a position, it's weird. I have a lot of friends who are born in Christians and it's like, that's a position you can't just dismiss. Like, you have to talk about it like that to human position for people who have not believed. I mean, so for me, what it really comes down to when there's these sort of different positions on stuff that's really fundamental for people is to say, look, I don't, we, I feel like Democrats have to talk about instead of more humanizing, which is, I don't actually know what I would do in that circumstance.

If my wife was pregnant or a girlfriend, like, it's a really hard choice. It's not something that's just flipping of like, oh, it's a cluster of cells and it carries no emotional waves. I just don't find that to be true. But for me, there's a certain point where I'm still. I don't think that's ever true for anyone

who has an experience like that. Right, I feel right- I'm a way to approach it. Well, I think that the answer is like, look, I don't know what I would do. I don't claim to have all the answers morally. The one thing that I believe is I don't want the government coming into your house,

into your bedroom, and telling your life for you what to do. Like that's something I feel like it's so deeply personal and sometimes I even have her or shitty choices and choices that aren't good. And the flip side for me is I don't know what the alternative is when we're really talking with specifics, I don't know what government mandated pregnancy looks like. So if a daughter or a niece who's 18 is pregnant and doesn't want to have a child, I don't know what the solution is to that.

Like how does the government then mandate that and oversee that? And so these are conversations that I think are legitimate conversations to be had, but from a position of respect rather than sort of slogins or the fact that people who are pro-life or anti-women, because there's a lot of women who I know who have deeply held pro-life positions. I think it has to be a bit of a conversation that for me I feel like these are really personal choices. I have a strong libertarian reaction to it, and I also don't understand what the solution is going to be if that does become something that somebody doesn't want to have a child I don't understand how the government mandates that and what that looks like for those nine months and so

You know, it's not an approach that's dismissive that's all or nothing It's an approach of having a conversation about you know different values and we have different values We have to figure out how to how to talk about them in ways that aren't humanizing So what do you think what's a good plan for the next few months? What are you going to try to do? Well, I have a number of plans. I mean, one of them is to keep Democrats focused on nuts and bolts issues. I also really, there's a lot of Republican voices that I think are really important. I mean, I really like Avermick Mullin. I really like Wilson.

There's a number of commentators who have been really interesting in compelling. I listen to the broad spectrum of everything. I wake up every morning and also read the Dr. Porton and watch Fox News to have an understanding of what opposing narratives are so that I can understand the full spectrum on what's bothering people. What is it? Shapiro is a really good voice as far as I'm concerned because he's as intelligent

an articulator of the social conservative position as you could hope for. And so he's a great wet stone against which Democrats could sharpen their knives. Well, if they can confront him in a reasonable argument successfully, then they can confront him in a reasonable argument successfully, then they've really got the argument down. Because the share is very fast. And here's the thing with Ben, he's got a great brain. I actually would like it if he was playing less defense and actually could be engaged the way that Eric has

to be like, look, what are your solutions and thoughts on this from? There are some things he said that I deeply disagree with. Like, I don't believe that all trans people are mentally ill. He has some positions, but nothing that I've seen indicates to me that he's someone who can't conceivably be reasoned with. He's also pointed out in places where he believes he screwed up. He's written a whole article about reversing his position on things

or stuff he said that was done and Well, that's his words not mine, but You know, it's like that round-flaw the Emerson a foolish a foolish consistency is the hog goblin of little lines It's like how many of us have a completely consistent set of ideas and so I feel like with then and there was that big issue We're marked to plus came out and sort of said well, why don't we listen to him and there was a big issue where Mark Duplos came out and sort of said, well, why don't we listen to him? And there was a big art horror, and then he apologized. And I think that's an interesting thing to discuss, because from my perspective, you have three views if you're with Long Ben Shapiro. One is that he's an alt-right Nazi, which I don't believe. I don't believe that he's so far alt-right.

I should say fascist, not Nazi, because he's a lawyer. Yeah, and we need to define what the hell the alt-right is, too. The alt-right is basically a cover story for white supremacy and for an F-no nationalist state. And to target everybody who's conservative as an alt-right figure, which is something that's happened to me repeatedly, is absolutely counterproductive. Right. Because mostly right now, you have all our lectures on your opposition about right.

I mean, it's very easily disprovable. But with Ben, like, let's say from the sake of argument that that too he is, which I don't believe. Why would you not want to pay attention or follow him or keep an eye on him? Or no, what are you saying? It's not like he's some crap pot. He's someone who's very influential

and has a lot of followers. So even if it's the case, which I don't believe it is, I don't understand how not paying any attention to what's going on of them is helpful. I got to say one of the highlights. It's actually the error that I think Apple and Facebook and Spotify and so forth just made with Alex Jones, because they think they banned Alex Jones, but that isn't what happened. What happened was they pushed his millions of followers underground.

That was a very bad idea. And they're making a murder out of him in a certain way. Well justifying, you know, he's a little on the paranoid side, let's say he's a real conspiracy theorist. And the best, the worst thing you can possibly do to someone who's paranoid is to generate a conspiracy to take him out. Well, in my every rival is the best thing you can do. When Alex Jones has said virtually nothing that I agree with on any front is to give him as much airtime as much rope as possible.

Or to at least allow him access to that in the same way that everyone else has access to it, you know, because I don't watch Alex Jones, but there are a number of people on the right that I keep an eye on or the farther right because I want to see what they're up to, you know, and as soon as that becomes impossible, then you have no idea what those people are up to and how the hell are you supposed to be able to deal with it if you can't figure out what it is? Well, or if you're not watching it, like I'm a big fan, like I'm, I'm a big fan of the aspect of the ACLU that was the Skokie aspect, which was we show up if Nazis want to march,

right, and we will protect their right to peacefully march. And it's like, I have people who I despise It's like get out there and at a point you'll be crushed by the free market place and by DS I have not believed it up But you have to allow for it and the more that we murder and shut down We don't know how many people were watching Alex Jones to keep an eye on Right, you know, I don't imagine it was a tremendous number of people, but it wasn't none.

Right. Right. Well, look, you and I have talked about this. One of the highlights of my undergraduate years was when the Belkerv came out, and there was a debate at the Kennedy Center, and Dick Herndtstein, who I had as a professor, had passed away, and Charles Murray was sort of left to defend it against Stephen Jigle.

And it was a very high level discourse. And Henry Louis Gates gave the introduction, things were very, very heated on campus, because of the claims about racial differences in IQ. It was a very flashpoint issue. And Skip Gates gave a spectacular introduction, and he said, look, there's a lot of sentiments roiling around this issue and the best possible thing that we can do is to

dispute and defend and dismiss the aspects of this that aren't correct here, openly and publicly. And there was a big debate, a lot of the student groups stood up and walked out after that, intrigued from one of the amazing intellectual minds of, in the country. And so I just went down the front row because people had piled that. It's like, I wanted to hear the debate. I wanted to hear the sides from all different arenas

and it was totally captivating. But his point was, if someone's a crack pot and they don't have any followers and it's a stupid racist Bellowing things. It's fine to ignore people There's a certain point where when it's dick currency and Charles Murray. There's a point where That needs to be debated publicly and openly and the fact that the chair of the African-American Studies Department was advocating for that to me I thought was really important and should be heated that we need need these things, these debates to be had, and the aspects that are, that will incorrect me to be disproved in an enlightenment way, in a very intense and public way.

And so that's something that I've always sort of held to, is I don't, you know, and I'm, look, I mean, there's also part of this about, it's sort of a toughness argument. My grandfather went down during the Civil Rights Movement, who's also part of this about the sort of a toughness argument. My grandfather went down during the civil rights movement, who's a Jewish lawyer from Manhattan, and went down in the deep south to stick up for, to represent African Americans who've been convicted of crimes against white women. There's one case in particular that was totally ridiculous. And he went down, and people tried to run his car off a cliff and killed him. And so part of it for me too is like, I'm from that mindset of like tough liberals who want to, who actually can stand up. We need, we need people to be toughened on all sides of discourse. And I feel like, you know, when people were burning copies of Ulysses, I feel

like we're supposed to be the ones with the firehoses putting out the fires. We're supposed to be the ones who can be really tough and stand around. And if we can't do that, if we're going to duck from those fights and that harvining of a sort of intense, positive, really tough version of what the points are that we're arguing, then it's not a legitimate case. We need to be, that's what we need.

It's a tough time when we tough this course. Yeah, well, then, and that is exactly why you should seek out the most articulate exponents of your how your opponents position. You know, I just had that experience talking with Sam Harris and we talked for 10 hours. And you know, there are things we agree about. One of the most fundamental things is that both Sam and I are concerned that our ethical structures, it would be better if our ethical structures were grounded in something that was self-evidently solid. And so he wants to do that,

he wants to ground ethics in the realm of fact. And I can understand that, it's a perfectly valid desire. I don't believe it's possible in the way that he sees it as possible. And we talked about that a lot, but I learned a tremendous amount as a consequence of discussing things with him over a 10-hour period because it really pushed me. Yeah, no, you need to be pushed, man, because- Absolutely. You need all the pick, all kinds of holes, and you need to go in, understanding that you might not have all the answers. Well, that you don't have all the answers.

And that- So, for you, what I think is interesting is your approach to that is to ground things in an evolutionary model, which I think is a pretty good bedrock, right? I mean, that's been your sort of approach to this is to talk about like a sort of archetypal and evolutionary underlay, but it sounds unbelievably articulate and sharp. I mean, I have a pleasure having dinner with you and him and Douglas Murray and London and it's a vibrant, respectful, sometimes disagreeable mode of conversation that's incredibly fruitful. It's also stressful as hell, because you can definitely

get put on the spot and have your cherished assumptions undermined, as well as look like a fool. Because, you know, some of the time, even if you have an argument well thought through in that kind of discourse, you don't have it immediately at hand, you forget about it. And then, you know, it just appears as if you're a fool. And so you put a lot on the line in the discussion like that, but what you do is, at least no one's paying attention to you this journey. So don't worry. Yeah. Yeah. For you to have a moment where Sam Harris goes, huh? Gotcha. Right. Right. So, so, well, so we to have a boat where some Harris goes, huh, gotcha. Right, great.

So, so, so, so we're not being one more quick thing before I move on with this. So, there's a lot of proposals that I'll get or that are that are floated. Let's say there's an economic idea that somebody has in, in my work that, that wants to be passed on. The first thing that I do with it is I send it to, I have a friend who's a really sharp libertarian. I have a friend who's a really sharp libertarian. I have a friend who's a hardcore kind of Wall Street Republican, and I have another friend who's kind of a big money person. So they represent sort of the different polls of economic policy from the things that some of the policies that might be interesting to me. The first thing that I do is send it to all of them and go,

poke as many holes in this as you possibly can and tell me what all blind spots are. And that's not only for me to cover all those arguments. It's also for me to be able to learn and see if there's a better approach to it, if it's fundamentally flawed. And then certainly if I'm going to advocate something that's in your policy, I'm not strong on economics. I mean, it's probably my biggest spot, but it's to sort of know if we're going to advocate it, what are all the pitfalls we're falling into, and what are we potentially missing? And I find very few people are taking an approach like this.

And it's one of the things that I think is exciting. It's funny with the IDW has this sort of fear of an alt-right overlay. But the majority of you guys skew pretty liberal. I mean, if you look at Joe, if you look at Dave, certainly, if you look at Eric and Brad, I mean, it's got more of a skew, but what's nice is ideas can be parsed in a way where as much as it is embarrassing when you're put on a spot and you're wrong, no one's looking at twist the knife. You know what I mean?

Everyone's kind of saying, yeah, I disagree with this. It's disagreeable, it's high-disagreeable in this, but it's respectful discourse. Yeah, well, it's also best based at least to some degree on trust. You know, if I can assume that you're different than me temperamentally, but that you're actually striving towards the truth, then we can have a discussion. And I certainly feel that with Sam. Yes. I mean, I believe that I believe I believe that he's an honest person.

And you know, or I believe that he's as honest as me, let's say, which is more to the point. Right. Because, well, maybe an honest person is too high a barrier for anyone to actually achieve, given all of our faults. But I don't believe there's any evidence that he's striving with less intensity towards the truth than I am. Right. Well, then to get back to, I think the furthest right in the group is clearly bad. You know, and to get back to that point, it's like there's sort of three approaches. Either he's a horrible human and he's a hardcore

alt-writer, in which case, if you believed that, why from a sunsoup perspective, art of war, would you not want to know your enemy and figure it out? Or he's somebody who has views and ideologies, I disagree with him on a number of fronts, you know, but he's somebody who is interested in the truth and is willing to admit when he has gone too far or not gone too far. That's the wrong phrase. He's willing to admit missteps that he proceeds that he's made and has also taken new information. And it's like, I'd love to actually have a discussion with him about something, a discussion not a debate because he's a world class debater, you probably blittering me. But an actual meaningful discussion about some of the stuff where I see there to be differences. I think he might be in for that. You and I have discussed the possibility of finding high resolution, intelligent, centrist, Democrats, and getting some of these IDW people to interact with them. And so that so, you know, that looks like it's a real possibility and be

interesting to see what that would do to the political discourse. And I guess this is a step on that step in that direction. I talked to Ben and to Dave Rubin and to Joe or to Sam. And, you know, hypothetically, they're, they're at least willing to look into this as a possibility. And it would be very interesting as well. Go ahead. Go ahead, sorry. No, well, it would also be very interesting to see how this would play out with regards

to long-form discourse, because we need to find politicians. One of the things Joe told me when I was talking to him, Joe Rogan, when I was talking to him about his three-hour interviews, I said, well, does that ever not work out for people? And he says, well, yeah, I've had guests on who just run out of steam at about 45 minutes. They don't have anything else to say. And we don't need politicians who run out of steam at 45 minutes. We need people who can engage in intense discussion for three hours without running out of detail, without running out of ideas.

Right. A detailed grasp of the political realm, and we need to be able to see that. So we could move away from these like six-minute CNN interviews. And well, yeah, it's moving away from the tweets and the nonsense, which to my mind is inherently polarizing. It's like, look at what this, you know, asshole hardcore lefty get on a college campus,

or look at this most egregious example of something that's over here. And I'm not saying those things are important or that we don't have to pay attention to them. But the vast majority of people in America right now need real nuts and bolt solutions. And there's a corruption. Okay, maybe maybe there's a technological rule here. So imagine that this is like we could call this the Peterson principle, let's say,

the narrower the bandwidth, the more likely polarized information will be delivered over it. I think it's great, but I think we should call it the Hurwitz principle. You'll have to come up with a more elegant formulation then, but it seems to me that that's highly probable because if you have to compress complex information into a very narrow channel and broadcast TV would certainly qualify. and Twitter, of course, even worse, is that you have to you have to radically oversimplify it. Right. And always turn this because like I said, I have a lot of friends, I mean across the gamut of political orientations, I read a lot of news and follow a lot of people

across the political orientation, like all the way left to right, not far right or very far left, but I'm talking about within the reasonable polls. And it's just, it's amazing to me how skewed it is if you turn on MSNBC and then Fox News. We're in two different worlds. If you read the Huffington Post through the Drug Report,

and so it's very easy to get, like I think I have more of awareness of what the triggers are for conservatives and what the triggers are for liberals, but also the fact that these triggers are getting this outsize airtime constantly by this condensed means of information. And I think that's where like I.D.W. you,

like, there's way more listeners to you guys than makes any fucking sense. Like, the fact that you have 10, 2.5 hour lectures on the psychological underpinnings of the Bible, and that more than two people watch that makes no sense. And so there's a ton of people who are really curious for more in-depth analysis, to stop being net elsewhere.

And I think that's where the polls have been missing. I think that that's proverbially the group of people who are being missed and who aren't being counted. And it's really important that we have this more in-depth conversations about it. So that's our little conspiracy plan, so to speak, then, is to take the W. Just just just just just we got right right, is to to to to inquire if the people

who've been loosely grouped together as the IDW are willing to engage in serious discourse with with to begin with with Centrist Democrats doesn't have to be limited to that, but I think that's a nice counterplay too because for me, it can even be Democrats who aren't centrist, who are chelting even left of that, who are willing to engage in, find reasonable discourse, and might even have, like, different districts and states have different notions. And it might really make sense for an aspect of the party

that's further left to test something in San Francisco or New York and see what new ideas come out of it. It's just for me, it can't be with moral condescension and it can't be a purity test. You know, you and I've talked so much about how the left and the right get off track in different ways. The right gets very fascistic and you see them coming. And it's fascistic overlay. We know what that is historically. It will go heavily towards voter suppression. There's a lot of issues that are very highly problematic on that side of the fence. And when the white gets, it gets, it gets,

it gets, uh, ethno-centric, in the clear your sense, right? Yeah. And, you know, or, or, you know, illegal, or hardcore power grabbing in a way it's effective, let's say. And with the left, the left, you know, cannibalizes, and it's purity tests

and it goes kind of crazy that way. I think that we are seeing from the Democrats now an awareness that real solutions need to be offered. Again, anti-corruption is a huge thing that I'm seeing Democrats start to tackle in a very serious way, healthcare jobs education. And it's really important that these things get brought out. And so for me, it's like we can test things that are further left and see if worker don't

work. But we also need to do that from a position that isn't morally condescending. And a position that's also appreciative of different cultures in different places around the country. What's going to work in New York isn't going to work in Alabama. And libels are so good at, I think, it understanding and appreciating other cultures. It's one of the things that is sort of a trademark. But it's interesting to me that that,

I think we have fallen down on our understanding of different cultures within the United States. And so it's this very interesting divide that if it's foreign or perceived as exotic, it's all good, but we need a better understanding of certain cultures. Also, you know, Alabama, I'm Texas. And there certainly is guilty of this too. I mean, the right treats

Chicago as if it's some like horrible, you know, no man's land. I'm not saying this is a problem only of the left, but I'm saying we can really benefit with conversations. I'm talking a lot of candidates in Oklahoma, in Orange County, in Texas, who have an understanding of their constituents and what they want to do is help them and to present a reasonable alternative of real solutions to them about real issues and not the bullshit that everybody is engaging in. It's absolutely essential. And if we offer all that and lose, then tough luck.

We've got to make a better case. We've got to make a better argument. Like we screwed up, we've got to try harder. Yeah. And by the way, the other thing, Jordan, that's really hardening, I'm seeing with a lot of the actual candidates as opposed to the noise, is more of an emphasis on personal accountability.

You know, it's about helping people and creating new opportunities for them, economically, but in a way that empowers them with the freedom to sort of make their life or make their mark, if that's a freedom that they can seize. It's about sort of trying a level of baseline. Like we talked about how healthcare can be super helpful for business

and for entrepreneurial ventures. We talked about why it's essential for the robustness of communities, but it's about setting the terms under which people can be free to make choices and to perform at a level that they want to build their whole future. So it's not that it's a shift from sort of us running ahead and blocking for people to us trying to lift the constraints so that people can have better choices for their families, for their kids in their education system,

for their own work so that they can do better and make their own mark. And because a lot of what we're standing on, a lot of the successes that we're standing on as a country are on the shoulders of working men and women. That's a lot of what's accounted for the things that we've done well. And in fact, a lot of the world, frankly, a lot of the world is bedfitted enormously from the working people of the United States. Yeah. You know, in a way that I don't think gets nearly enough

recognition. And so we, I, I, I, I see the, the accruing financial success of the poor around the world, which is happening in a very rapid rate, is in large part a consequence of the, the sacrifice is made either willingly or unwillingly by the American working class over the last 30 years. Absolutely. The working class that's, it's competition with the world has been opened up at the level

of the working class first. And that's been unbelievably beneficial to the rest of the world and probably a pretty good medium to long-term strategy. Well, in the American working class, it's like they have built affluence for people around the globe. Like they're heroes. There's no infantilizing of them in a way that's drawnatory. And it's like it's our job to make sure that they can have choices for their future, that

they are free to compete, at least with the same rules, that everybody else competes to differentiate themselves. Because they've always kicked ass. I mean, it's an amazing, amazing workforce, and they've always done well. And it's like, if people are complaining about entitlements, it's like, we can also look at corporate subsidies. It's like, it's not about one shelter the other,

it's about the same rules that people need to differentiate themselves, and it's about creating more freedom for them reach their accomplishments. Well, it seems to me that the Democrats would have a lot more success and also be able to generate a counter-darrative to the radicals on the left

if they made the assumption that there's all sorts of good things about free market capitalism but crony capitalism is not one of them. Yeah. And that's part of your emphasis on, let's call it, a regulation of corruption. So like the free enterprise system works real well, except when it gets warped and twisted.

And so we have to remove the warping and twisting so that people do have the opportunity to compete and to cooperate as freely as possible. And that's in everyone's interests, including radical capitalists, because to the degree that the system is corrupt, then that reflects badly on the system and produces a tremendous amount of opposition towards it.

Absolutely. And you want to be, if you can't win fairly, what are you doing in the game? Like that's it. It's to me, it's a very tough argument that's like, if you can't sign a pledge, which is input for it, that's called the It's to me. It's a very tough argument. It's like if you can't sign a pledge Which which is been put forth that's called the Disclosed Act. There's a number of variations on it It's no dark money, you know, no for it's a strong stance against interference by my

Hostile actors. It's no voter suppression. It's getting universal health universal voter registration There's a lot of stuff of like let's get everybody out voting, let's lift the suppression and voter intimidation, and then Winfair Square. And it's like for me, it's like I want the right to win fairly, and I want the right to lose fairly. If we make a better argument, then let's do it. But you know, it's also anti-Jerrymandering, which is a really big problem. And there's a lot of people who bow to not participate in Jerry Mandarin and to also have it be either bipartisan committees or judges who determine the boundaries of justice.

Yeah, well, it's really, it's really quite an outrage that it's not bipartisan committees. It's ridiculous. It's stepping onto, you know, into a boxing ring and telling someone that you're going to fight them, but they can only step in certain areas and you can go anywhere. And they can only hit you with a jab, but you get to use your full battery shots. It's like, man up, right? Step into the arena. If you think you can win in Winfair and Square, and there's a big emphasis, I think, that's not getting enough press of Democrats

cleaning up our side of the aisle in a way that is accountable, and that is going to be clear. And this, there's no one who disagree with that. I believe if you're a heart, you're a Republican and you want to win, you should be aware that you can win fairly and under the same rules. And that, I mean, we can all agree on that, I think. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it would be nice if the Democrats too could help everyone figuring out figure out what the problems actually are. Because right now now mostly what we see in the media is a discussion of pseudo problems. Exactly.

And so I'd like to see what are the real challenges that confront us at the moment, and what are the proper solutions to those challenges? Yeah, it's so funny, because I feel like the racial discourse, or discourse around racism has gotten so loaded and so complicated. Since President Trump is his run or has taken office, and it's, I feel like all sides of the issue are, like there's nowhere you can step without being a landline.

And for me, it's really important to boil down to. I went with a program called the FI that goes and runs an entrepreneur program in the prison system. And it's absolutely unbelievable how, you know, what I call the prison industrial complex works, the privatization of prison. And you can sidestep all the arguments about who's doing what and who's responsible. African-Americans, you know, who are up for drug charges, the exact same drug charges as whites, are 600% more likely to get put in prison. Like that's a straight scam.

That's not, well, they're doing more crime. There's no argument to be had about that. There are certain unbelievable biases of how African Americans and people of color are put into a prison system which profits from them and which they're doing a lot of work and basically no wages. It's very problematic. Anybody would agree with that across the spectrum.

I think if you look at those numbers and it's partly unfair, there's one thing. We need to have an intelligent discussion about drug policy. That would be a real start. About the prison system and who it stood towards and the ways in which it is unfairly implemented. That's a no-shit major problem. If you discuss the actual hardcore facts and if you can boil it down to those things,

no one's going to disagree with that. You know what Bjorn Lombard did? This is really interesting. He's a Scandinavian. You used to be an environmentalist. He still is, but he calls himself the skeptical environmentalist now. And I really like Bjorn Lumberg. He wrote a great book called How to Spend 50 Billion,

and then a few years later, 75 billion to make the world a better place. A book I would highly recommend. This is what he did. And this is a really nice procedural achievement. He looked at the UN, I hope I got this story right, it's a while since I read it over, the UN puts out a lot of development goals, say, like I think they have 150 development goals, something like that, and that's too many goals. You can't do 150 things. And I worked on a UN committee

for a while, and we were trying to prioritize the goals goals because you have to prioritize things in order to accomplish them And one of the things we discovered was that you couldn't prioritize the goals because every goal had its constituents And they were outraged if any other goal was prioritized over theirs and That was a terrible thing because well that's like tragedy of the comments because the goals couldn't be prioritized and they couldn't be Then they couldn't be accomplished essentially. So Longberg figured out a way around this. So his idea was this. Okay, so there's a bunch of things that need to be done because there's a bunch of problems

out there in the world. And but there's too many to simultaneously address. So we have to figure out where we're going to start. So what we're going to do is a cost benefit analysis. So we're going to concentrate on doing as much good for the least amount of money as we can. That's going to be our initial strategy because why not? Right. Because money is a scarce resource and it involves human labor and human intelligence and all of that. And so you don't want to waste it. But he didn't believe that he would be capable of doing the prioritization. So what he did was get 10 teams of economists together, some of which were headed by world-class economists, people at one Nobel Prize, and he had them organize teams, and then he had them go through the development goals, and prioritize them and make an economic case.

And so then you have 10 separate cases. And here's the rule, you've got $50 billion. You can spend it on whatever you want, but you have to justify it in terms of cost-benefit analysis and have to choose from this list. And so then you got each economist to generate a list of their priorities, then he averaged across the lists and came up with a final list of both problems, which is a big deal, right?

Because the first issue is, what are the problems that we need to solve? You might think, well, what politicians should be generating is answers. It's like, no, no, no, that's not right. If you're trying to solve a complex problem, a set of complex problems, the first thing you want to do is formulate the problems properly. And then you work towards defining what the solutions might be. So it'd be really interesting to see if we could have an intelligent political conversation

that would concentrate on defining what the actual problems are. And it's not capitalism versus socialism. Right. That's not a problem. That's that's fun. That's fun. Everyone gets to scream at each other and then be superior and get in zimmers and get in retreats. Yeah. Without having to know anything about anything. Right. And there's no actual motivation towards trying to cope with solutions to the vast majority of people who are dealing with real problems.

And that's the part that pisses me off, is it's this masturbatory venture of discussing the overall culture. And if you turn on the news, it's these little sound bites of the most tabloid nature of the furthest experience versus nuts and bolts discussions of what actually makes sense. Yeah, okay, so what we need to do, let's say generally

speaking, is we got to figure out what the problems are. Like, what are the most serious problems that currently confront us as a society? That'd be a nice start. Like, what are the 15 most, most crucial problems that confront us as we move farther into the 21st century. That's a hard question. And then... I think the first... Okay. Go ahead.

Well, I mean, the first thing for me looking at the system is political corruption. And I'm not aiming that it either party. I mean, I have my opinions about which party does that more, but neither one is perfect. And the average rating of Congress right now is 15%. I'm sorry, it's 18% is the average rating of Congress, which is better what work says is slightly above syphilis. It ain't good. And if you don't believe that the people in government

are serving your needs and are instead more interested in furthering the big money donors over the interest to people, which is proven out time and time again, that's a huge problem. When trust is eroded that the people representing you are representing rich donors rather than average Americans than seem to your needs, you can't get anywhere. And I think that's part of what so important about this pledge that a lot of Democrats are working on. It's a pledge to say, here's what we, here's what we will disclose, and here's ways that we will clean up our side in the aisle.

And I think it's essential. It's essential that you start with your own reflection of fixing the things that you need to fix and we're going to make a better argument. For me, corruption in governments the top of the list here. But go ahead. Well, I was thinking more of it procedurally,

not so much in terms of what the problems might be. I mean, one of the problems I see emerging, well, one of them would be this increase in political polarization, which I think is very, very dangerous. I think another potential problem on the horizon is something like, as our society becomes more cognitively complex, which is happening very, very rapidly, the number of people, the proportion of people who are likely to be dispossessed as a consequence

of lesser ability to deal with that kind of complexity, that problem is going to increase, and that's across the board. And it isn't obvious what to do about that. I don't really buy guaranteed basic income solutions, in part, because I don't think that money is actually the solution to the problem of what to do in life. Like money can stave off. Right.

In some ways, it's the opposite. If you lose a goal that you're striving for, that makes life tough. This is a step over conversation that I think should be around table with Democrats and conservatives and Republicans to say, what's a firm capitalist argument for how we're going to train people and bring them along, right? What's a, what's a, you know, a liberal argument for having concern for people who don't have the same advantages from the same background? Yeah, well, you know, the

Silicon Valley types, they tend to skew pretty heavily liberal. And that's because they're generally creative and entrepreneurial. But they're very rapidly building a world in which people who are at the lower end of the cognitive distribution are going to be adrift. Right. And we need to fix that from both sides. So rather than saying all or nothing, right, like tough luck, capitalism, free market, forget it, or we need to support every single person in every

single way. That has to be the subject of complicated, in-depth conversations with people weighing in from a variety of different political views. It just has to be. In order, it's so complicated, it's so complicated that we need opinions and brains from all sides of the issue. That's for sure. We definitely might also need different test cases. Well, you could also think about that. There were some tough conversations, you know, like between someone who leans very liberal and someone like Ben Shapiro. You could think about those as stress tests. You know, if you're damn stupid solution, which you've put a lot of effort into elaborating, let's say, can't withstand the stress of a

single argument with someone who disagrees with you. What the hell do you, what makes you think that's gonna work when you implement it in the real world? Obviously it's going to fail merely because those people are going to object to it, independent of its objective merits. And so if it can't fly with your opponents, I mean, I'm not talking about the fringe opponents because nothing flies with the fringe,

except what the fringe believes. But it's absolutely that the fringe opponents because nothing flies with the fringe except what the fringe believes. But it's how I also think that the fringe is overly represented and that's what so hard. Like when Martin plus apologized for saying people should follow Ben Shapiro, right? There was an apology he put forth. I haven't worked with with with DuPlaus. I mean, I've heard he's a terrific guy and I think that his aim was sort of a further and so of an ending of polarization and discourse. I don't know who are all those people, who are personally deeply wounded by him saying that you should just follow somebody,

whether you agree with him or not, and I also don't know who the apology is geared towards. Like, who is he apologizing to? And if we have sort of a mob dictated, I mean, the one thing I say a lot, and this is especially true in Hollywood, is there's a huge and widening gap between conversations that people are having in public and what they really believe in probably. Yeah, that's the sign of a creeping totalitarianism.

That's really, really dangerous. Yeah. And it's also from both sides. I'm not just saying that this is a liberal value value I think there's a lot more people who have more complicated views that they don't feel safe to articulate because fear of complete reputation Slandering right they'll be out of work. It will be everything else and so I don't it's a very interesting thing I have a lot of sympathy for people who step out and say something and then sort of retreat and apologize because I feel like the force of a mod response from the fringe,

even if it's sort of pluralistic about ignorance, right? I mean, 90% of people might agree with you, but if the ten are allowed and it's all that you're seeing everywhere, it has the power to work reality. That's how mind control cults function. Mind control cults, one of the first things they do if they can get you off through complex is privacy deprivation. And everywhere that you look, if there's two versions,

they try and split me, I wouldn't undercover into mind control cults to research one of my novels. And when you're there, everything that I say that is cult-grad, there's splitting cult-grad from Greg-Grad, and everything that I say, like, wow, this is fun. It's sort of love-bombing. Everyone leans in, it's direct eye contact, it's sort of like non-sexual touching, everyone's engaged.

But if I say, you know, this is weird, I kind of miss being in contact with some of other friends, it's the sort of windshield that everyone's in. And it's what I think is happening, but from a smaller percentage of people, but they're really, really loud. And if you see it all of a sudden, it seems to be the reality when you're getting, yeah, yeah, yeah.

And there's this sort of apologies that I don't believe when a lot of you make apologies. They read flat to me. It doesn't feel heartfelt. And also, like, let's say you really did screw screw up like part of what we need to do is screw up. I mean, think about things and say things and overstaff and go wow that was kind of a screw up. Yeah. What's a blanket apology to society versus individual stuff to say hey I forwarded this position I wish I'd articulated it better. I don't always explain myself perfectly. Yeah, you're probably what I should have said.

Rather than I'm so sorry to have had a thought that is inappropriate. And we're seeing this across the boards. I think it's really the... Well, part of what needs to be done, and this is something we already talked about is to generate better dialogue that isn't like that. And hope that the mere fact that it's of much higher quality

is sufficient to attract people to it and away from this other nonsense. Yes, it's hard because as you said the short of this fan like I have people who know that we're good friends you know our work is kind of tangled up we mentioned each other in our books we've known each other shits since I was you know 20 years old and people say well he believes in course monotony, like dismissed. It'll be one thing. And it's like, it's an anthropological term or sociological term, which specific meaning detakes one Google search to sort of prove that it's not that Jordan Peterson is running around like in a World War II propaganda poster, like dragging Rimmon off into the caves of the

people. You're giving them them giving them to useless men. Right. I mean, but it's so disprovable, but it's also so damning on a format like Twitter, where you have, you know, 280 characters. And so it's that it's that reputation thing where like if you associate with you, you should never be discussed again. If you you should fall a bunch of pure whether you agree with him or not, you have to bombard it in shame until you apologize for even saying that you'll do that. And it's like, look, I have learned the most

from my friends who disagree with me the most. I have a wide range of friends. It's so funny that one of the stories that I tell, it's about the president Trump was elected. I was in Vegas on a book tour. And one of my friends was a crusty old armor and sniper from the Speckhocks community. He passed away recently, was elected, I was in Vegas on a book tour. One of my friends was a crusty old armor and sniper from the Speckhocks community. He passed away recently, but he was just a great

friend and a great guy. And I did a lot of shooting with him for the books. I did a lot of research. And he wanted me to see his ranch, and we pull up to his ranch, and he has a tink parked in his front yard and sticking out of the end of it is a Trump pent sign. So at that exact moment, my wife sends me a text and it's her and my daughter at like one of the, a thousand women marches and they just come up on Miley Cyrus. So they're like, my daughter's posing with Miley Cyrus

and the text sort of comes in and my body looks at me and he goes, what's that? And I looked up at him and I said nothing. But then I showed him and I said nothing. But then I showed him, and we had a good laugh about it in sort of this way that it's like, you need people around to have a whole variety of things. And one thing that's interesting with him

was around the time of the Muslim ban. And I was talking to him a lot about that. And I'm personally a very post-Muslim ban, for instance. But there's a lot of reasons if you talk to people in the military, there's a lot of problems recruiting translators now. Like that has a native effect that ripple through the intelligence community.

It's not good. And whether I have friends who are being meant advocates of this, but I'm arguing with them, saying, what is the actual ground truth of how that is affecting things? And then there's other people in the military who were like, this has been a total shit show. It's really hurting our intelligence efforts and our allies. I feel like that's the level of the discussion.

Or one of the other things for me that's very relevant is, you know, I don't know if you know this, but there's 15,000 Muslim physicians from the seven bamboozled countries in America and they predominantly work in rural red state districts. They're providing the majority of, not the majority, they're providing a ton of medical care to a lot of people in red states. And by the way, those are the people if they fled a lepo, they hate Bixielis on an extremism. Like this is exactly the sorts of people who you want to have in these areas. And if they're pulled out, we're going to have a lot of rural areas that more affluent physicians are not

going to have access to medical care because more affluent physicians or people from America don't always want to go to these regions. There's a lot of like bigger recruiting of physicians. So you have these people who are who are great sort of citizens and representatives, who hate extremism, who are treating people in deep red states. And it's like, that's really important. And you pair that with the intel picture that I think is deeply problematic. And you have a sort of argument that isn't just, you should have more empathy for Muslims, which then just deteriorates into well-there terrorists.

Like it just devolves, right? They're looking rather looking at the temperament of the people who are here. And you have to have conversations with people from all sides of the... Like, I have a lot of conversations with people in the military who support it or against it to kind of start to zero in on what, where my position is on. Okay, so the plan is something like this. So we've recorded this video. I'm going to post it as a public invitation to the Intellectual Dark Web. I think that's what I'll title it or subtitle it.

And the idea would be to bring on people, Democrats at least to begin with, because that would sort of run counter to the IDW reputation, let's say, Democrats who are capable and will, capable of unwilling to engage in long-form discussions about complex high-resolution issues and to provide a more, at least in part, a more centrist alternative to the radical leftists, but also to bring on people with more left-leaning views to have them try their arguments out in a more fully fledged manner, something like that. Yeah, I mean, I think how does anyone lose? Like if someone's conservative and not moving, they should know what the reasonable version is of the argument they're rejecting.

Like good for you then, you know. Yeah, all that they're seeing is reports of like students going wild on college campuses and the craziness that I believe is a problem. I mean, certainly you've dealt with protests and you've dealt with that sort of brutal group thing and anti-first amendment, like sort of shutting down speech. It's always tricky to talk about free speech in First Amendment because it's unclear always where that lapses into being legal or constitutional versus just people, particularly in things loudly. But I have no question that that's a problem. But I think that there's, I think

that it is overrepresented and amplified by the media and by both sides of the media. Yeah, I think so too. That's your topic. And I think we should get people and we're really not conversations that are solution-be-girne so that if people realize that, see, for me, part of what my interest is is in sort of trying to transcend politics and getting replaced with like, I care if you're a Republican or Democrat, as much as I care if you're offering real solutions.

Yes, right, exactly. So the other element of this would be to figure out what the problems are, to see if we can come to some sort of consensus about where the challenges that confront us really lie. Right. And if there is a Democrat running for office who is very dark money embedded and behold in the donors, and there's somebody who's a cleaner choice who's running, who's a Republican,

it's like, let's have that out. You know, this is about actually starting to figure out solutions for people in terms of the level of discourse that we can have in the solutions that you need to be offered. Because while we're here talking about all this stuff, there's a lot of people dealing with a lot of real life problems. Okay, so I've started to introduce you to a number of people. You've met Sam and you met Dave Rubin. You met Douglas Murray briefly. Who else have I introduced you to?

A number of other peripheral people or other crews, but I think, you know, I, there's a number of people I'd like to talk to to get this viewpoint and a viewpoint that's more aligned with my politics represented. So, you know, we'll keep, we should, we should keep at it. And we, I think that the aim, for me, there's a couple of aims. I mean, aim is to sort of end polarizing discourse, raise the level of conversation

that can be had for actual solutions that we need for actual people. that can be had for actual solutions that we need for actual people. And so, the long-term aim for me is just to eliminate the levels of corruption in the government. And that's across the board's deeper side. That's a long-term aim for me. It's like, who's willing to sign on to disclose that? Who's willing to say that they're going to disclose all their donors, everyone who paid for an ad? Who's willing to not take back money as individual candidates. You know, who's willing to stand up against Jerry Mandering? And that to me is party-agnostic. That's who's willing to come to that. Yep. Okay. Well, sounds like a plan. All right. All right. I'll start the ball rolling on my end. I've got some people that I want you to meet on the Republican end of the distribution

as well. Great. I'm happy to meet with anyone who is, you know, reasonable and willing to have discourse instead of chest fees. Yeah. Okay. Good talking to you, Greg. Bye. There. you