Where has all the science gone? The 290th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
Today we are all over the map. First: Elon, AI, and humanoid robots, with discussion of sex, the industrial revolution, specialization, the Pleistocene, feminism, men’s work, porn, clankers, and vaping. Obviously. Then: are there differences between moral panics and social contagions, and is the current focus on pedophilia one or both? Finally: how widespread is fraud in science? It’s not rare, and not merely the result of bad actors. Taking a game theoretic approach, authors of new research ...
Hey folks, welcome to the Dark Horse podcast live stream episode number 280.
Not likely to be prime.
I mean, what?
We just talked about this.
Yes.
It's 290.
290, as I said, also not prime.
All right.
Yep, we did just talk about this.
It's been a long morning for me.
All right.
I got up at six.
was so busy doing stuff i even forgot to shave so i'm sort of going with the stubble look today i got up i got up before six and by by close to six was walking on the 20, which is not a great place to walk from Anacortus to the ferry terminal.
Walked onto the ferry terminal this morning.
You met me at the other end.
Yeah.
Here I am.
Here you are.
Having had a slight delay in an airline yesterday that caused everything else to fall apart because that is one of the giant disadvantages of living on an island.
Yeah, it is.
It is.
Many advantages to living on an island.
Few disadvantages.
Yeah.
All right.
It is 290.
It is 290.
Prime, as you said.
Prime-ish.
Yeah.
We are going to talk about the,
We're also going to talk about the interesting stance that Michael Tracy has taken relative to the Epstein case and in a related way relative to the case of the Israeli who was let out on $10,000 bond in Nevada and allowed to keep his passport and predictably fled back to Israel.
In any case, there's some interesting stuff to be said there as well.
So we're going to cover those stories and then we're going to cover the state of science as, I don't want to say revealed, but as partially revealed by a very new interesting paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which is a very prestigious journal in which they allege that a lot of work, even in very prestigious journals, isn't what it appears to be, that it's flat out fraud.
Yeah.
They argue strongly against the perception widely held in science that scientific fraud, while it exists, is rare and primarily the actions of a few bad actors.
They push back against that narrative.
And I think they're right.
Do you know where that belief is not widely held?
Here on the Dark Horse podcast, where we have been pointing out just how much probable fraud there was in the literature.
And in any case, those two things are going to meet today.
You've got scientific evidence of fraud, and you've got our model of what's been going on, and we will see how they mesh.
Indeed.
Indeed.
So join us on Locals where there's a watch party going on right now.
And before we get into the stories that Brett was just talking about, I almost called you Zach.
Apologies.
I usually don't do that on camera.
I'm not going to call you Maddie.
My parents used to call me by the dog's name.
Yeah, no, I've not done that, but having three of you Y chromosome types in the family does mean that I have occasionally called each of you by the other's name.
These things happen.
It happens.
No disrespect ever meant, as you know.
That will be a sign of respect in my case.
For all three of you.
Yes.
So before we get to the stories, we have to pay the rent.
We've got three sponsors, as always, who are at the top of the hour, none others throughout the podcast.
Three sponsors who, as always, offer products or services that we really, truly vouch for.
Actually, in this case, it's all products.
So without further ado, Brett, you're up first.
All right.
I care away.
I care away.
I care.
You're supposed to go in the kitchen, the mighty kitchen.
You're not.
All right.
Maybe I'll just get to the ad.
I thought it would have been cool.
We could have spontaneously broken into song.
Who knows where it might have.
I thought you were going to do both parts.
You know, I have been known to do both parts, but it sort of seems weird that you're kind of like talking to each other.
But it's sort of reminiscent actually of this genre of little video that people put out where they play all the characters.
Right, exactly.
Which I really dig.
I think that's a super cool innovation and it's beautiful stuffff, as is caraway.
Our first sponsor this week, Heather, is caraway, which makes high quality, non-toxic cookware and bakeware.
Listeners to Dark Horse are well familiar with some of the myriad ways that modern life puts our health at risk, including exposures to agricultural chemicals like atrazine and glyphosate, now sprayed on forests, fluoride in our water, food dyes, seed oils, and the hazards of nonstick coatings on cookware and bakeware.
Decades, mm.
Decades is that word.
Decades before we started giving seed oils the side dye, we threw out all of our cookware that contained Teflon.
Teflon is toxic.
A single scratch on a Teflon cookware pan can release over 9,000 microplastic particles, none of which you should be ingesting, many of which you will if you cook with Teflon.
Over 70% of cookware in the United States is made with Teflon, and 97% of Americans have toxic chemicals from nonstick cookware in their blood.
When you cook with Teflon, it only takes a half minute for a pan to get hot enough to start releasing toxins.
Enter caraway.
Caraway kitchenware is crafted with sustainable non-toxic materials like FSC certified birchwood premium stainless steel, enameled cast iron, naturally slick ceramic, and more to help you create a safer, healthier home.
And they look fantastic.
Those materials really look nice.
They're beautiful.
Caraway makes several lines of nonstick cookware and bakeware.
Our favorites are their stainless steel line and their enameled cast iron.
All of Caraway's products are free from forever chemicals and their new enameled cast iron is offered in six stylish and beautiful colors.
These pots are strong and highly scratch resistant.
They'll last generations.
We use enameled cast iron pots to cook stews and soups and even braise large cuts of meat or roast chickens because one of the great advantages of enameled cast iron is its uniform heat retention.
Yes, which also means you can leave things on the stove and they remain hot.
Easy to use and beautiful too.
You can't go wrong.
We just sent Zach off to his, we just sent Zach off to set up his first college apartment.
Period.
It's not his first apartment.
I was fearing the sentence, but I had no need.
It's all right there.
His first college apartment with some beautiful functional caraway cookware, knowing that he will be cooking with it for a long time to come.
There is no better time to make a healthy swap to caraway.
Our favorite cookware set will save you $150 versus buying the items individually.
Plus, if you visit carawayhome.com slash dh10, like Dark Horse 10, you can take an additional 10% off your next purchase.
The deal is exclusive for our listeners, so visit carawayhome.com.
home.com slash dh10 or use the code dh10 at checkout not sure if it matters but dh is capitalized caraway non-toxic cookware made modern Awesome.
Our second sponsor today is Masa Chips, which is a perfect follow-on to caraway.
Masa makes delicious, healthy chips and aren't going to make you sick because they're made with real whole ingredients the way that all of our food used to be made.
These chips are fried in 100% beef tallow.
No, you know what?
I was going to bring a bag, but we ate them.
Yep.
Yep.
So we do have some more, but I had a bet.
That is, they've caught us without our hand in the cookie jar because it's empty.
There's no point in putting your hand in it.
Yeah, but we do have a QR code on the screen here to get some for you.
And yours, too, will go more quickly maybe than you were planning on it.
But you'll feel good after eating them.
I'm getting there.
But, you know, unlike most chips, most things that read as snack food, these are actually good for you.
And you actually feel good after eating them.
So masa chips are made with real whole ingredients the way that all of our food used to be made.
They're fried in 100% beef tart.
tallow no seed oils ever you can taste the difference and your body can feel the difference america's health is declining fast chronic illnesses obesity autoimmune diseases have exploded why in large part because we've swapped real food for cheap industrial substitutes.
All chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow, but in the 1990s, corporations switched to cheaper fats, specifically to seed oils.
Seed oils include soybean, canola, sunflower, and corn, among others, and are often labeled vegetable oils as if that makes them healthy.
In fact, seed oils are increasingly linked to metabolic health issues and inflammation, and today's seed oils make up 20% of the average American's daily calories.
20%, not 20% of their fat calories, 20% of total calories taken in by the average American is from seed oils.
Industrial lubricants are now making up 20%.
And we wonder why we're sick.
Yeah.
In addition to seed oils, big food companies use artiftificial dyes, stabilizers, and other toxins.
In contrast, Masa chips have just three simple ingredients, organic nyxtabilized corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow.
Absolutely no seed oils, artificial dyes, or additives ever.
Beef tallow is nutrient-rich, nourishing, and makes food nutrient-rich, nourishing, and makes food taste incredible.
Masa chips are crunchy and delicious, and after you eat them, you feel satisfied, satiated, and energetic.
Masa also supports American farms and regenerative agriculture, ranches that revitalize soil health, boost biodiversity, and protect ecosystems.
Choosing real food heals us and our environment, which in turn makes us even more healthy.
Masa is champion in clean, American-grown ingredients, transparency, and authenticitycity.
Try them with salsa or goat cheese or a spicy pepper jam.
Smother them in beans and cheese or just eat them straight out of the bag.
They're delicious.
Masa chips are delivered by 10,000 customers and have been endorsed by industry leading health and nutrition experts.
Ready to give Masa a try?
Go to masa chips.com slash darkhorse and use code darkhorse for 25% off your first order.
That's masa chip.
masa chips.com slash darkhorse and code darkhorse for 25% off your first order.
I can also tell you that they are excellent with that smoked sauerkraut.
I can't tell you how I know that, but I do know.
That smoked sauerkraut is if we've talked about that smoked sauerkraut before, but it is good.
The oldy kraut.
Yeah.
It's good kraut from an awkward place, but it's a good business.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Smoked kale.
Smoked kale, crown it.
Yeah, that sounds super crunchy and weird, but it's so good.
It's really, really good.
Yeah.
Anyway, so masa chips with whatever your favorite topping is, but try it with some ferment.
Yum.
Yeah.
Give that topping a nod.
A nod.
It wasn't a good.
No, it needed work.
I should have known that it did need work.
The part of me knew.
So...
Our final sponsor this week is Armor Colostrum, an ancient bioactive whole food.
The original mammalian colostrum is the first food that every mammal eats.
It is produced in the first two or three days of an infant's life and is nutritionally different from the milk that comes in afterwards.
Colostrum serves many vital functions, including that of protecting and strengthening the mucosal barriers of infants before their own systems mature.
Modern living breaks down many of our mucosal and immune barriers.
In contrast, Armor Colostrum balances and strengthens, helping to create a seal that guards against inflammation and everyday toxins, pollutants, and threats.
Armor Colostrum is a bioactive whole food with over 400 functional nutrients including but not limited to immunoglobulins antioxidants minerals and prebiotics bovine colostrum has been used to treat cancer heart disease and rheumatoid arthritis among many other ailments it's a general anti-inflammatory and its use in adults has been clinically shown to increase lean muscle mass improve athletic performance and recovery time support healthy digestion and reduce allergy symptoms Armor Colostrum starts with sustainably sourced colostrum from grass-fed cows from their co-op of dairy farms in the U.S.,
and they source only the surplus colostrum after calves are fully fed.
Unlike most colostrums on the market, which use heat pasteurization that depletes nutrient potency, Armor Colostrum uses an innovative process that purifies and preserves the integrity of hundreds of bioactive nutrients while removing casein and fat to guarantee the highest potency and bioavailability.
The quality control is far above industry standards including being certified to be glyphosate free.
People who have used Armor's Clostrum have reported clearer skin, faster and thicker hair growth, and better mental concentration.
In addition, people using Armor's Clostrum have noticed a decrease in muscle soreness after exercise, better sleep, and fewer sugar cravings.
You don't want to put it in hot liquids, but it goes great in anything cool, like in smoothies.
Try it with loads of fresh mint, raw milk, fantastic honey, and cacao nibs, or just with raw milk, frozen strawberries, and honey.
It's amazing.
Armor's Clostrum is the real deal.
Armor has a special offer for the Dark Horse audience.
Receive 15% off your first order.
Go to tryarmor.com slash Dark Horse or enter Dark Horse to get 15% off your first order.
That's try-ar-m-ra.com slash Dark Horse.
Excellent.
So before you embark on your topical stories of the week, I will say that I was just getting back to the island today, having hoped to get back to the island last night.
I was seeing our boys off for their second year of college, their first year here in the United States.
And it is, I'm not going to say more about where they are and what it's like just now, but I'm really excited for them in this new adventure.
Yeah, they are preparing for their future.
And this podcast is strangely going to be all about the future and making sure that it is not a hell'scape.
This episode.
Yes, this podcast episode is really what I meant.
I didn't quite nail the clarity.
Hopefully it's the last hiccup of this episode.
All right, so should we start with Elon?
Let's start with Elon.
Okay.
Okay, so Elon put out a tweet in which he quotes another tweet showing what is claimed to be and certainly appears to be a what elon called a fashion show that showcases um models women who are the creation of ai wearing yeah dot women stuff um i mean so maybe we should show Here's the tweet and
here you can see that's ChatGPT's version.
Here we got Gemini.
This is Grock's version.
DeepSeek.
So this gives you some sense of the coming dystopia.
And I wanted to just simply point to an interpretation here.
I don't know the details, but I feel fairly confident that what we are beginning to see is effectively...
So let's take the obvious, the LLMs that produce knowledge, insight more rapidly with no, you know, cajoling or deal making or whatever, which are doing a lot of work that was traditionally male.
Obviously, that's now joint work of the two sexes, but There is a way in which the AIs are producing a product that makes the desirability of a mate and all of the complexities that come along with it, a mail mate, less obvious.
And it's troubling also for another reason that I think many people have not connected the dots on.
Elon's a very brilliant guy.
He has invested in humanoid robots.
And the advantage of humanoid robots, he is correct.
is that it's a cruddy design for a robot.
If you wanted to build a robot to do stuff, you could come up with a lot better design than a gangly bipedal robot with a you know yeah a robot doesn't have to have the same constraints that an evolved bipedal human does right and in fact you would think first order you would think the beauty of robots is that you're not constrained by evolutionary history you're totally free to design whatever you know
i mean a quad Copter drone isn't constrained by the history of helicopters and we see that they can do all sorts of things.
So there's a beauty to being completely liberated from what's called historical contingency.
But Elon has wisely looked past that, wisely from a business perspective, and created plausible human-like robots.
Of course, many others have too.
But the basic point, as I understand it, is that a humanoid robot So all of the stuff that you think that, well, you know, robots aren't going to, you know, get into your crawl space and fix your plumbing, yeah, they are.
Of course they are, right?
In fact, they won't even complain about your crawl space.
So anyway, the point is there is a way in which technology is about to obsolete men across a wide number of things, including the things that men uniquely do, right?
The warfare stuff, at least the fighting on the ground stuff.
They're going to, you know, the going into giant sewers and blasting away the fat deposits.
Yeah, of course it'll be a robot.
Anyway, that's a kind of obsolescence.
Then there's another kind of obsolescence that is coming for women, and it has to do with...
are prized if they do not require commitment because men have a reproductive strategy that works that way.
Now, in the case of women using birth control, it doesn't work that in that way.
But nonetheless, men are wired to seek this.
And so one can easily imagine a future in which everybody is scratching their own itch, whatever that itch is, without having to partner with somebody else to do so.
And that it is, of course, technologically, you know, in a world of surrogates, where providing a womb is a service that can be procured on the market, as it were, the idea
idea of being freed from romantic need or even sexual need by the AI revolution is truly frightening.
It suggests a kind of bifurcation of the species that we already see hints of in things like the Mugtao movement.
So, I mean, these are obviously related, but these are two different things, the humanoid robots and the AI.
Toby, our younger son, has shared with me a number of the epithets that people are coming up with for the humanoid robots.
And I am sorry that I can't remember almost any of them right now, but the favorite, his go-to is clankers.
And I think I actually, it's the first time in my life where I have heard people heard of people joyfully frivolously coming up with epithets for some group and I won't say population because that suggests organic life and felt like yeah you know we we need we need actually to to be able to to be explicitly pointing out the otherness of this thing and yeah I don't want this to become a semantic discussion or
you know pin picking apart little pieces of language but right at the top where you started talking i objected to your use of the word women like that's not women we didn't see women there just like trans women aren't women and part of how the trans madness took over and was able to be successful and still is in some corners even though it does seem to be waning in many was that those who weren't paying close attention became confused because trans woman Well, it has women in it.
I know that a pineapple isn't an apple, but that's not the same thing.
So a trans woman must be a woman.
And of course, a trans woman is a woman exactly as much as a pineapple is an apple.
And so using the word woman for an AI generated image that is designed to titillate and look like a woman, I think facilitates us going down that same slippery slope.
And so, you know, the humanoid robots are clankers or, you know, gosh, I can't remember any of the other terms that he's used.
I mean, you can generate a list, but he had some good ones.
But, you know, clankers and I don't actually know what we should be calling the, you know, the titillating, you know, AI erotica that we see in that fashion show, but women they ain't.
Yeah, women they ain't is exactly right.
It is a struggle to figure out exactly how to describe them because in some sense what they are.
So first of all, I will admit a piece of ignorance here.
It is not a direct line from my perspective as to how you get from LLM AI to image AI.
Yeah.
That's something I should look deeply into.
Now, it's possible that you can do it by doing the same trick with language that you do, you might do it with pixels, where the question is, well, what will the next pixel look like?
It seems to me that, you know, that could, you know, you can get a lot of missteps.
But presumably there is some way in which these two things are connected because one of the image version and the video version has happened right on the heels of the LLM version.
But nonetheless, what you are getting is a, I don't want to caricature it, but you are getting a reflection of what the average consumer of this stuff wants.
Right.
This machine is catering to your untutored desires.
And on the one hand, you can see why that would be a total winner from the point of view of the market.
But the key to the human species is partnership around sex and marriage and the partnering in the raising of offspring that results from the navigation of a space that is,
I swear to you, adaptive in the fact that you don't get exactly what you want, that you have to navigate with a real person who has, you know, symmetrically important desires and revulsions and all of this stuff.
Symmetrically important, but different.
Yes, symmetrically important, but radically different in some ways that are predictable by sex and gender and in many ways that are idiosyncratic to the person.
But the whole point is a proper marriage is a environment in which you you are a student of another person.
And for your life to work out well, you have to understand that other person well.
well and you never understand them perfectly and they have to understand you well and they never understand you perfectly and the idea that that is going to vanish because something is going it you know I got an idea how about it's the news except in telling you instead of telling you what you need to know it's going to tell you what you want to hear well what could go wrong okay so you you you began by talking about you said AI is going to make women obsolete for men and men obsolete for women.
And this creepy, crazy AI fashion show that Elon retweeted is a prime example of how women are can become are at risk of becoming obsolete for men but you also talked about effectively the trades that that men will be being replaced at doing many parts of by humanoid robots or other kinds of robots which suggests that the slippery
slope goes way farther back and that actually again that part of the problem is the specialization and the ability to parts out your life and say you know what i need i i i am comfortable enough that i can focus that i want to be able to focus on my art, my writing, my science, whatever it is.
I want to be able to have a life of the mind and not have to think about the cooking and the plumbing and the drywall and the garbage and all of the other pieces that, you know, most of us do some of those tasks that I just mentioned, but most households outsource at least one of them and some households outsource all of those.
And it seems to me that the kinds of work that men have historically done within a partnership have been outsourced earlier than the kinds of work that.
So, you know, we hear a lot about how feminism has failed the American family and is destroying the fabric of society.
And I feel like by this analysis, it's actually being able to hire men.
to do the kinds of work that men do within the family unit to support a household that actually helps slide us into the expectation that actually the family unit isn't going to be self-sufficient and people say ah you know the nuclear family is a new thing and we can't do it all like well To some degree that's true, but we never used to hire strangers before.
And so, you know, the idea that we are hiring strangers to do a bunch of the work that we used to say, okay, we have a unit.
And in part, we're growing children so that they can also help do the work.
And then we also have a neighborhood or an extended family, and we're all doing the work.
But the idea of hiring strangers to do the work that is necessary to keep your family going is, gosh, that can't be widespread for more than many, many decades at this point.
I agree with that observation.
We've outsourced a lot of stuff to the market.
We've talked here previously about how the fact that a psychologist does a lot of jobs that were done previously by members of a community, whether they were your friends or, you know, your favorite uncle or a clergy member or whatever, you know, with somebody who was's insightful about people um but yeah the handyman is you know taking some of the load off the husband who frankly may not even have those skills anymore many don't um most don't i would say right most don't um and
i guess i'm spooked because as far down this road as we already are ai plus robots gives you clankers plus clankers thank you that gives you a recipe for a one-generation catastrophe and let me flesh that out.
Yeah.
Human.
Let's keep it in flesh, can't we?
Yeah, all right.
Completely.
You know, we humans are wicked cool.
Now, we suck a lot of the time, but we're wicked cool.
And we're wicked cool because of one innovation evolutionarily that is...
And the adaptation is a secondary evolutionary mode that is passed outside the genome.
Right.
So this cultural mode, Heather and I talk about the cultural consciousness flip-flop in the book.
It's really worth thinking about this in detail because it lets you understand what a human being really is.
But the cultural mode passes on information that evolutionarily adapts and it adapts much more rapidly than it can in genes.
And it can move horizontally when it needs to.
Usually it moves vertically.
Often it moves horizontally.
Across a population in real time as opposed to requiring a generation to affect change.
Right.
But let me just asterisk here.
We've said it many times, but it is a mistake that I think many very smart people make, which is, which could be, which people could listen to what you just said and make the same mistake, which is it's not just humans.
Humans have the cultural mode more than any other organisms, but we have the independent evolution of culture in many different organisms with the greatest reliance on it, the greatest ubiquity of it, and the greatest diversity of it in humans.
But all the primates have some amount of culture.
Elephants, toothwhales.
toothed whales, corvids, crows and ravens, parrots, wolves, elephants.
Did I say elephants?
Anyway, there's a bunch of other groups that also have this.
And we've talked elsewhere and in the book about what the conditions are that seem to lay the groundwork.
But actually it is interesting here that some of the conditions are specifically the fact of being long-lived.
and of being social and of having long childhoods and of having generational overlap wherein two, three, even four generations live together or at least are alive at the same time and so can exchange information between them.
And so those things, those conditions which create culture in all sorts of organisms and most so in us are exactly about the kinds of relationship that are being outsourced and therefore disappeared by the AI revolution.
So if I didn't say it, all mammals and almost all birds have this thing in a primitive form.
Primitive form.
And a few clades have it in an advanced form.
Nothing has it like humans.
And the thing that's really, you know, what makes humans different from all the other animals?
It's language.
Language.
It's language.
One word.
It's language.
Anytime you're asked that question, the answer is language, right?
Language lets us transmit things across the open air, abstract things, and actually have them land in another brain and form themselves into something like the thing that we meant to transmit.
No other creature can do that with abstractions.
So, anyway, we're special.
The problem, though, is that that's...
but they tend to get stored in a latent form because the same process that makes them slow to spread makes them slow to wane.
You can lose important culture in one generation.
You just can't, right?
You can be a seafaring people who depends on ancient wisdom about how to make kayaks, and you can make landfall, and you can go inland far enough that nobody needs a kayak, and you can forget in one generation how to do it.
And so the problem with the, hey, I know a problem about being human, let's solve it.
The problem with that is that if you solve things that you don't understand what role they're playing, you end up creating a problem you now can't solve.
You can't even just reboot from the last mode that worked because you don't remember how to do it.
So to the extent that we create, you know, I would argue the sexual revolution did this, that it took a system that was, yes, unfair in many different ways, and it obsoleted it by making sex and reproduction totally separable by a responsible person.
Well, I'm going to repeat my objection to that, though, that the partsing out, the reduction is in the specialization.
and the movement of historically male jobs into that of people for hire contributed as well to the loss of the family fabric.
And that has nothing to do with sexual revolution.
It has to do with the other innovations following the industrial revolution that do not follow the usual story here.
I agree it's a powerful contributor.
I'm not convinced that they're totally separate.
Fair enough, but you can't blame hiring carpenters on the sexual revolution.
No, it depends.
If you showed me that the hiring of carpenters did not skyrocket after it, I would have to accept that I am on the wrong track.
But I guess my point is...
I think the burden is on you because that's a weird hypothesis.
It's not...
not weird for the following reason.
You've got...
and things were very different.
And then there's a period where you and I weren't around at all, you know, the 50s and 60s.
And so I have to infer what it was like to be a human in those circumstances.
Yeah, from good stories, wherever they come from.
Yes.
And from other evidence.
The point is, if sex is scarce, people find each other and they sign up for partnerships.
And I hate to be cynical about it, but sex is the most potent reward.
It's the most potent one for a reason.
And it is because the game is an evolutionary one and reproduction plays such an important role in evolution.
the point is absent you know if women are not uh sleeping around because they can't afford to because producing a child without a commitment is an insane thing to do then the point is oh well then the only way to get to this most potent reward the universe has ever come up with is by partnering in such a way that um that scarcity is
eliminated And so I guess my point is, at the point that you don't have the drive to partner that overwhelms any other sensibility you might have, then people put off partnering, for example, which means there are long periods of their life that if they don't have those skills, they have to hire them.
And there's a niche for it.
Yeah, but I mean, I think I was just talking about stuff that changes in our economic system that well predate what you're talking about from the mid-20th century, that you have the specialization in the form of.
you know, artisans and guilds and such.
And, you know, I don't think I'm not arguing for everyone to be a total generalist because we wouldn't have nearly the amount of.
of not just stuff and technology, but craftsmanship that we do, right?
Like I love a beautifully crafted object.
I totally admire it and love it.
But my point here is I think we can point to that as contributing to the beginning of a system in which because you are not a unit that inherently has to problem solve within yourself or within your existing community.
And so maybe this just goes back to money, right?
Like maybe then, anytime that you can exchange something in a commodity-like way, then you're going to have the beginnings of the connectivity failing.
Okay, I like this.
I think these two things are contributing.
I think the thing that I'm pointing to is a contributing factor.
It shows up at a particular moment.
The thing that you're pointing to is also a contributing factor.
It shows up, I agree with you, very likely earlier.
It's thousands of years ago.
Well, yeah, there's a question about when it shows up enough.
I think there's a threshold in here.
Fair enough.
But the point is something like this.
Used to be, you know, in the Pleistocene.
Guys had different specialties.
Yeah.
But the shaman was maybe unique in having a real specialty.
And everybody else participated in the hunt and some were better at spotting the animals and some were better at delivering a killing blow and all of that.
But the point is all the guys had all the guy skills because the range of skills wasn't that great and because not having one would be ridiculous.
You don't overspecialize in an environment like that.
And you don't overspecialize for a long time.
There's a line, I keep quoting it to our kids and they quote it back to me from And his line is, a man does not need nails to build a door, right?
I love this line because for one thing, a modern guy, you know, it might probably be three inch screws and two by material, but It's not obvious what you substitute for the nails.
He's talking about framing it, not the door itself.
No, he's talking about the door itself.
And so I think what he did was he used tapered pins.
We actually have a piece of furniture that's this way.
Our mango bench has tapered pins that cause tension to pull mortise and tenon together.
But anyway, a man does not need nails to build a door is such a great.
concept because the point is even if most men would not be building doors without nails because frankly there were nails and it's better to build it with nails if you have them it's faster and more efficient the idea that a guy left without nails would be like i can't build the door um yeah so i'm part of what happens.
you keep on going back to the sexual revolution, and I just feel like, like, I know what you think, and I know what we have written into Hunter Gatherer's Guide and such, but it also is completely abused by at least the online community of, of woman haters, honestly.
Um, and, and those who would easily fall into a, like, who can we blame?
Ah, it's going to be, it's going to be the feminists.
Um, part of though, which this is going to have nothing to do with, uh, the sexual revolution per se, but, um, you were, you're talking about the Pleistocene and, uh, and every guy could do guy stuff and presumably every woman could do woman stuff.
I have talked often about this paper that I love from the early 70s, which looks back from before then at the anthropological literature on across...
How gendered are the tasks?
Like how much do people, like in cultures that go whale hunting, how often do women participate in the whale hunt?
The answer is never.
Like that just doesn't happen.
And in cultures that do the, you know, preparation of vegetable foods, which is to say almost all of them, you know, the Inuit are close to the only exception probably.
And even then.
presumably there's occasional harvesting.
And the harvesting of vegetable foods, the harvesting and preparation actually of vegetable foods is not nearly as gendered as whale hunting, but it's more over towards female typical behavior.
So there's this question of like, what is it to be a male typical behavior or a female typical behavior?
And what we see actually across many, many cultures is that there are a lot of activities that are gendered for that culture, which is to say, actually, if we're talking about weaving, that's only for you, ladies.
But in other cultures, if we're talking about weaving, that's only for you, guys.
So we have a lot of activities that are highly gendered, but which culture does which, which sex does which varies by culture.
So that just points to the value of the division of labor.
What we see in our culture...
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on, I'm going somewhere.
What we see in our culture is...
Like what is it?
What is guy's work?
What is woman's work?
And we have, you know, feminism in part to thank for the idea of like, well, if you're interested and capable, maybe you can do that thing, right?
And if you're interested and capable over on the other side, maybe you can do that thing.
But that does then begin to muddle the expectations around, well, what if it turns out that you're not interested in anything?
Or all you did as a kid was sit around looking at your screen and have other people do things because in your family, you hired out all of the skills.
So it was always strangers coming into the house to do the actual functional things.
So the only model you have in your world of people who do functional things is randos who show up and your parents give them money and then they go away.
And so as far as you know, we people don't do functional things at all and you don't even know what you're interested in.
So that's, you know, that's, you know, down further downstream of specialization.
Do I blame specialization?
Not inherently, but there's a lot of chaos that has resulted.
Okay.
I want to go back and recover some points.
First of all, I just do want to point out I was, my dad had some of those skills, but.
By the time I was cognizant, he was mostly doing other things, which I will get back to the meaning of that.
He, like my father, like, you know, many of us grew up with fathers who were professionals and many of our mothers worked as well.
Right.
And it makes sense that, you know, you make vastly more money out there doing the thing you trained for.
It doesn't really make sense to be spending time that you, you know, the opportunity cost of not doing your actual job is high.
And so you tend to default to that, which does lead to, you know, needing a handyman, even if you have those skills on board.
But I wanted to go back to two points.
One, I ain't blaming the feminists.
I know you're not, but a lot of people do.
That's fine.
They're wrong.
Okay.
I think guys thought, you know what we need?
Birth control.
you know why they thought it.
It's perfectly clear why you would think it.
But it's a classic case of, hey, I'm going to solve that problem.
I'm going to invite a hell I didn't see coming because I don't even understand really, you know, what sex is.
So anyway, the invention of the birth...
Fine.
But the point is it was guys who wanted to have sex, didn't want condoms.
And so they invented something that radically changed humanity.
Okay.
But then I want to go back to the dichotomy.
got the sexual revolution which is downstream of reliable birth control without condoms and that has
But once you have people training for an out-of-the-house job, they're not going out into the back 40 in farming.
They are going to an office somewhere to facilitate the production of wealth through some means, some highly complex means.
The point is you get the exact opportunity cost calculation that you and I are describing our fathers as having been downstream from.
Guys who were perfectly capable of doing stuff.
My dad was an engineer.
Your dad grew up on a farm and became a computer engineer.
These were guys.
who knew how to solve problems and the point is the fact that they weren't doing the in-the-house problem solving jobs for the most part was the result of an economic calculation in which specialization was competitively sensible yes but uh you know this story i don't think i've i've shared it but i remember i i remember a moment So my father,
yes, grew up on a farm in Northeast Iowa, became a computer scientist before that was really a thing, and was surprised to find in his daughter the child who was the athletic, math-y, science-y one.
see one but embraced it you know didn't didn't see it coming but embraced it uh and i have a i have a younger brother um as well and he was just less less those things uh and i remember but but i also had you know i was also playing classical piano and had an artsy and righty and like nose in the book side uh and At one point, my dad, it was time to build a fence.
And my dad did not outsource that kind of thing.
He was like, we're going to build it.
We need to build a fence or the fence separating our tiny plot of land in LA.
Not a plot of land.
this tiny quarter acre, whatever it was, eighth of an acre, tiny, was falling down between us and the neighbors, and we needed a new fence.
And I didn't think I was needed.
And I wasn't needed, but I was needed according to my father because I needed to know how to build a fence.
Yeah.
You needed to know how to cause a fence.
It's not the same.
Anyway, nor is it true.
No, but it's a great pun.
It's really not.
And we'll never get the chance again.
Yes, I'm sure you will.
So he actually was one of the very few times that he got angry with me, as I remember it, as a.
a child.
And, you know, I wasn't super young, but he's like, you stop reading and you get out here and help us dig these post holes and learn how to use the tool that we rented.
And, you know, we're going to build this fence.
And frankly, I think, you know, we don't have daughters, but you were the same way.
And I feel certain that you would have been the same way with daughters with our sons.
That, you know, you, yes, you and I both specialized.
And, you know, it could, we have, we have, we know lots of people who don't do, don't know how to do work around their own homes.
Neither you nor I were ever interested in being like that.
At first, we just couldn't afford not to.
But also, you know, we grew up knowing how to do things and we generated new skills as we went along.
And the fact that both of our boys know, you know, like launched-ish and, you know, travel with tools and know how to do things was absolutely important without us ever having talked about it.
So I feel like it's one of these things that exists as a core skill set.
uh that because maybe we don't talk about it of course it's being lost because why why wouldn't you outsource it what like we have the money and why would you spend your time doing that when you could become better at the thing that you're really going to be great at like well because in part because the value in being a generalist is that you can actually make more strides within your one, two, three areas of specialty, the more other systems you know.
And we've talked about this.
The fact that you can come up with analogy, metaphor, analytical specificity from bike land and I can from ceramic land and we both know how to tile and do carpentry.
And it's just fabulously useful because it allows you to make connections that you cannot predict in advance.
It also makes you less of a sucker.
The fact is we.
have become consumers of everything who can evaluate nothing and don't necessarily have an alternative, right?
You know, the woman who goes to the car mechanic and doesn't know enough about a car to decide whether or not she's being told a story about what's wrong with it and the expensive repair that is necessary.
You know, it's a classic position to be in.
It's a classic position to be in, and too often society at large has understood the predicament as you simply need to know more about culture.
that the mechanics are likely to have a stereotype that is almost always accurate on board with regard to, can I put one over on this random dude who just walked in and get more than I deserve?
Or can I, am I more likely to put something over on this random woman who just came in?
All right, but.
So it's a statistical stereotyping game that doesn't inherently come from anything nasty or evil.
It just, you know, it emerges from the fact that differences exist.
Differences exist.
And it used to be that a wise woman who knew she did not know about cars would bring a guy.
And so this is yet again a place.
Actually, women may be about to get an upgrade in terms of seeing through their mechanic who's lying to them because what are they going to do?
They're going to go to the AI, which is actually pretty darn good at diagnosing shit.
So, but it's dead wrong.
but except when it's dead wrong but you know we're five minutes into the ai era and people are four minutes into using it so they don't know how to describe things in order to get it to work correctly and so anyway very easy to see that there is an upgrade coming where Understand a modern car.
Right.
And so that's, you know, welcome to the modern dystopia then because like I'd rather.
I don't.
I can listen to you and Zach, for instance, talk about the inner workings of motorcycles and cars, and I can follow some of it.
And at this point, he can refer to some kinds of engines.
And I'm like, right, I remember.
And I don't, I'm not that interested.
Right, right.
Of course.
And, but I, you know, I'd like I would, when I have a car problem, would prefer to have one of you guys take it in.
I would prefer not to pretend, not to be in a position of like, now I have to study before I take it to the mechanic.
Not because I can't do it, but because like, I would just like to have someone who already has the knowledge on board and has the interest on board.
But because of the specialization of the cars, not just the people, but of the cars, it is now impossible for anyone, no matter how awesome you are, to know all of the things without, you know, you're on, you know, without the additional thing that you need to use to figure out what the,
what, I can't remember what they're called, but like the, the, the computers that tell you what that flashing light means on your, the codes yeah um you're right but you do have a guy in your life and from that partnership you've got two other guys in your life yeah and the fact is we are now forced to use ai to diagnose the parts of the car that are beyond our understanding um so anyway it is kind of a steady march to a dystopia where we understand less and less and you know even guys are now outsourcing the guy work to the
machines right um So because the machines have become so specialized.
First, the humans became specialized and they created machines that became specialized out from under their own specialization.
Yep.
At one point, as long as we're having this conversation...
And I think there was a concern that, oh my God, he's not going to, you know, go get a professional job.
And, you know, maybe it would have been a mistake financially not to, but, um, but I never regretted.
the discovery of how all of the stuff, how a house works.
You can learn that by following people around, fixing everything.
And anyway, I regret it not at all.
Absolutely.
But okay, so where are we?
We've got a one-generation problem.
You can forget how to do some intricate thing that evolved over the course of tens of thousands of years in one generation and not be able to recover.
And you can see this, the very creatures that we talk about, birds and mammals, especially the highly social ones that have a lot of culture, what happens when they're going extinct and you raise them in captivity and then you try to reintroduce them to the wild?
which is you may have a perfectly healthy creature.
It may be healthier than a wild competitor at that same age because you gave it the exact right amount of food and took care of any illnesses it might have had.
But it doesn't know how to be an eagle, right?
It just doesn't.
The point is learning to be an eagle.
It needed to go to eagle school.
And you can't do that from a book or from some human who read a book.
You have to have learned from an eagle who knows how to be an eagle.
And so.
Eagle apprenticeship, better than eagle school.
Yeah, I mean, just I've been thinking and reading about the origins of school and how disastrous it is.
But, you know, apprenticeship one-on-one, learning.
I have known this for a very long time because school did not work for me.
But anyway, point is we are the kind of creature who more than any other creature is in danger of taking some beautifully architected evolutionary thing and squandering it because we solve some problem that is our focus at this moment in time.
And that is what's coming.
And, you know, it was obvious that this modern porn was going to be a disaster.
Totally obvious.
People are now, you know, decades in openly talking about the problem.
I know that wasn't possible a decade ago without being dismissed as a prude.
Now people get it.
But the point is, okay, here's another one.
Now you're going to have, you know, AI simulacrum of women to scratch your own itch.
It's better than women.
It's not, you know, women are fucking apes.
That's what they are.
Those things are going to have all the features of women that you want and none of the defects and good written.
That's going to be the selling point.
And the point is, no, no, no.
No spleens.
No one wanted hair.
Yeah, no.
No, no, none of that.
They're not going to, you know, ask you to do stuff.
And it's just a classic case of careful what you wish for.
Oh, yeah.
And so anyway, we're getting it.
Well, it's like, it's careful what you like.
Because most, I think most men, I don't know.
I was going to say, I think most men wouldn't have known to wish for this.
Maybe people did.
But some men at least will be presented with that and never have thought to want it, but have a hard time looking away.
And so being like learning to be careful about the things that immediately draw you in and get, you know, and titillate, get your dopamine reactions, get like whatever whatever quick hormonal reaction happens if it's coming from a tech source be careful yeah well beyond careful right i mean you will be a happier human if you figure out how to avoid this stuff entirely
because you can't really self-regulate it you know it it is built to make it impossible for you not to react and so I also find it interesting and a little bit tragic that Elon is pushing it.
All right.
That tweet, he's pointing to this fashion show and it's like, hey, isn't this cool, guys?
Well, I mean, I'm not in a mood to defend Elon, but he specifically was like, see, Grock won.
Yeah, no, no.
Look, Grock won at a competition in the race to hell.
Grock has won.
Fantastic.
So, yeah, fantastic.
Right.
But the point is, look, I'm in conflict with myself.
I'm a huge fan of freedom.
It is.
the goose that lays the golden eggs.
On the other hand, most of what gets produced with freedom is not good and some of it's perfectly horrifying.
And Elon is engaged in a script for his own life that I think is catastrophic for the man himself.
Never mind what anybody thinks about him.
Never mind, you know, what children he will produce.
I think his idea is already kind of downstream of this future that he sees better than the rest of us, right?
Basically, he's figured out, well, so far, no solution to the womb problem.
And he wants to produce a lot of offspring.
And so you're going to need women because they're the ones, they've cornered the market on wombs.
And so...
Sneaky, we are.
The sneakiest, believe me.
But he is living out some fantasy that, frankly, to a lot of us, does not look desirable at all.
Right.
Even to many to whom it does look desirable, it looks desirable for like five minutes, and then they start realizing what it is.
Yeah, and...
here's the thing the really cool stuff is And the mothering and the fathering is not a wet biology issue.
It's a cognitive cultural issue, right?
The guy who supplies the sperm is the father in one technical sense that isn't interesting, right?
The guy who supplies the know-how, that's a place you can really screw a kid up, but it's also a place where you can really make a kid shine.
The know-how and the corrections and the inspiration and the punishments when they are called for and the gifting of both wisdom and insight.
The be-in-a-man part.
And the...
I hesitate to see not only that the technology has brought us to the place that, you know, we're not even through 2025 and we're already dealing with.
Hey, are you going to fall into the next porn the way you fell into the last one?
And is this one going to ruin your life if the last one almost did but didn't like it's that, you know?
Yeah.
And yeah, some number of it seems like some number of people were beginning to wake up to the porn problem pulling themselves out.
You know, yeah, I remember 10 years ago trying to talk about the danger of porn and it's also hard because I literally don't look at the stuff.
I haven't seen porn since I was a kid and porn was a whole different thing back then.
So it's hard to talk about it because you're inherently naive, but I can see the product of it and I have an understanding of what landscape it's become.
But anyway, it was hard to talk about it because people were like, oh yeah, I get it.
You're a prude.
It's like, nope.
Perfectly cool with sex.
I think erotica is a valid form and it can be good.
It's the porn.
It's the stuff that the market produces that is a lethal danger.
It's the market, stupid.
But okay.
So it was hard to talk about in the past because it made you into something embarrassing, a prude, even if you weren't one.
We are now at the point where you and I were at the top of a local mountain at a beautiful vista point, which brings people from all over the place.
And we overheard a conversation in which a guy was talking, I think, far louder than he understood.
And he was talking about the, I forgot, there was some child in his life or his brother's life who had a porn problem and there was a question about talking to him about it.
And he was describing his own porn problem and how it really nearly wrecked his life.
And, you know, he's finally passed it.
But anyway, it was interesting just to hear some rando talking about the fact that actually, in retrospect, his hobby.
messed him up.
And how was he going to learn how to talk to his nephews and maybe children about it as well?
Right.
I almost went over to him and said, couldn't help it over here, but you couldn't.
possibly be aggressive enough in dissuading.
Aggressive enough?
Yeah, in dissuading at least your male descendants.
He was talking about a girl too, actually, if I'm correct.
Yeah, he was talking about.
Increasingly, that's apparently a problem.
But what I've said to our kids, which certainly made an impression, is I don't want you to have a drug problem, but I'd rather you had a drug problem.
because you know the drug problem we know what to do about the porn problem is going to rewire aspects of your brain in a way we have no experience unwiring them yeah right so anyway i think there's i think we're there on a new frontier.
Yeah.
I mean, this is going to sound like a total non-sequatur, although you will understand it.
One of the things I said to both of them, it doesn't have anything to do with sex.
While I was getting them situated these last few days, their new college, their new university, was I don't want you to smoke cigarettes because I think modern cigarettes are bad for you.
But I'd far rather you start smoking than you start vaping.
Yep.
And it's a similar sort of thing.
Like if you're going to, there are a lot of choices you can make and you certainly won't make all the same choices I would make.
But here's a list of some things that I think are just insane and you know vaping is also on the list absolutely absolutely all right um I've said much more on this topic than I was expecting to say shall we quickly move on to Michael Tracy and then get to the meat of the matter well I don't know about that honestly we've already been at it for quite a while so we may we may save the I think I think we should do it and we'll just do it very quickly okay um okay so Do you want to play?
Michael Tracy has taken up a very interesting and almost unique position on the Jeffrey Epstein story.
And then he has returned to what seems to be roughly the same position in response to the arrest and then release of the Israeli guy as part of a sting in Nevada where the Israeli government official was was accused of attempting to soliciting sex with a minor using a computer The sting represented somebody as a minor.
He apparently used a computer to try to arrange sex with this person.
They arrested him.
He, among something like 10 different defendants, was released.
$10,000 bail.
That isn't necessarily so strange, though.
I wonder about it.
But the really strange thing is they didn't take his passport and he, of course, fled to Israel.
And then, even more horrifying, Israel, Netanyahu's office actually downplayed what had happened, not describing it as an arrest, said that he was interviewed, but no, he was arrested.
I don't know what word they used, but they basically said that police talked to him.
They didn't say he was arrested and then released on bail.
And they didn't arrest.
And he's not apparently...
The Israelis didn't tell us to, which, frankly, they should have.
My feeling is somebody who's been accused of a sex crime with a minor or attempting a sex crime with a minor shows up in your country.
You arrest that person and you get to the bottom of it and you extradite them if you can.
I think we do have an extradition treaty with it.
But anyway, all that's beside the point.
Michael Tracy took up a position that he is consistent about in which he is doubtful about the evidence in the Epstein case.
And he is doubtful about the evidence in this case, which admittedly we don't have all that much of.
So anyway, here's his perspective and then I will give my response.
You're right.
People constantly ask me, why do you even care about Epstein?
Why do you even care about the pedo panic?
Why do you care about this latest Israeli allegation fleeing from the president?
from Nevada or whatever I'll tell you what okay I have a succinct answer that I've rehearsed for you here's why I care you know I hate moral panics I hate unchecked moral panics in particular.
I hate mass hysteria that is unfettered and unconstrained because the media and politicians and everybody else are too cowed to actually engage on the substance and show why the elements of the moral panic or the mass hysteria are unfounded.
I really hate that.
Okay, so I have a simple point here.
I think it's important.
The point is this.
Michael Tracy has assumed his conclusion in his framing of this.
I hate moral panics too, but So I would just ask you this question.
Did we experience a moral panic over trans ideology and the surgical and chemical transing of children?
I don't believe that we did.
I believe that we had an actual crisis in which a significant number of young people were induced to modify themselves in permanent ways with the complicity of science, of medicine, of their parents, of the schools, and that those people have effectively been made.
been maimed by our system and even a single such case is an unforgivable tragedy.
The idea that there were many of them means that the degree of concern was not overstated.
It was not a moral panic.
It was a correct moral revulsion for a behavior that should never have happened and it was necessary to bringing it to an end.
So the point in the Michael Tracy case here is we have a question, Michael.
How significant is this pedophilia in circles of power.
If many of us are right about what we think we are seeing, then there is a good, a significant amount of this, and it is playing a role in the governance of absolutely everything, which is completely intolerable.
The fact that governments seem to be covering for it and that there seems to be no mechanism for investigating it and just simply getting a full accounting of how significant a pattern this is.
is a problem in and of itself.
And of course, the nature of what many of us think was going on with Epstein is that it is a demonic system with an immune system of its own.
That is to say, if Epstein was collecting a large video library of powerful people engaged in unforgivable behavior, then whoever owns that library can now call
So the real question is, do we live in a republic that is based on the idea of consent of the governed or has somebody hijacked it using Compermont, we need to know the answer to that question.
You're entitled to hypothesize that this is a moral panic.
And if you do, what you are effectively saying is, actually, I think there's a lot less of this stuff than people expect.
I don't think the Epstein case is what people think it is.
I don't think the case of the Israeli who fled.
is anything but an aberration.
You can hypothesize those things, but then you're going to own it if it turns out that these cases are what they appear to be.
And so anyway, I think just phrasing it as a moral panic is a mistake because there are plenty of cases in which people's moral revulsion actually brings about, you know, an end to slavery, an end to the transing of children, an end to genocides.
It is a very useful piece of the human toolkit that has been named like so many things are after its pathological version, right?
Moral panic is the pathological version.
So social contagion is another thing that people call such things.
And that also usually has a negative connotation.
And certainly the social contagion of But just to repeat what you're saying, not all social contagions, moral panics, if you will, not all social contagions are in error.
right that we come we come to believe things sometimes rather than through first principles or direct observation ourselves but from hearing the concern in our neighbors' voices or our family's voices and feelings feeling something in ourselves that goes, yeah, I'm not sure.
Now, there was a moral panic over the unvaccinated.
That was a problem, right?
There was a moral panic over witches, right?
There are moral panics over all sorts of things that are obviously wrong-headed and cause much harm and grief to people.
But the fact that people can come to begin to think about things.
through hearing about those things from other people, that's actually how much of humanity has come to hear about things.
So I think at some level, it comes down to actually, you can't have a static line in the sand and say, I will never acknowledge that something is possible if a bunch of people are suddenly thinking that it is.
Because you're basically saying, you know, there's a couple types of errors in the world.
There's type one, there's type two, and I'm only going to abide one of them.
I'm just going to throw all of my weight into one and I'm never going to risk the other.
It's like you're going to, you have to be more fluid than that.
You have to not have a static position or else you're going to be extremely wrong some of the times.
And I objected to it first when you said it, like if you, if this is your position, you were talking to Michael Tracy here, then you're going to own the downside of that at the point that it is discovered that it's actually that, you know, pedophilia isn't as rare as you think.
Part of me thinks, ah, I don't know.
I don't know that people need to own that.
But your position basically is if you're going to say if it's, if it sounds like a moral panic, it must be wrong, then you do have to own the downside of that argument.
Yeah, well, I agree with you.
I agree.
And I would also say.
I mean, you've said it so, I would think so.
Well, I agree with your interpretation.
And I understand why you had the reaction to you own the downside, because where I've used that before is in the pandemic when we were accused of, you know, you're killing people with your perspective, my feeling is no, we are having a discussion about what the truth is.
And the people on both sides of that discussion get credit for it if they do it honorably because we discover through this process.
But if you're going to tell me I'm the killer if the shots work and I'm telling people, hey, you should be careful about that, then if they don't work and they're dangerous, then you're the killer.
You own the downside.
Yeah.
I mean, I think, again, what it comes to is is your position static?
If your position is static, and you are drawing a hard line in the sand, then the things that turn out to be true that are on the wrong side of the line from the one that you drew, you own that.
Whereas if you are in good faith trying to discover what is true and your position changes and you resist efforts to make you feel bad because sometimes you realize that you were wrong and own that fact, then you have been trying to discover what is true and that is what we all should be doing.
Right, so if you were effectively in this dialectic mode rather than a debate mode, where you're trying to get to the truth, then the point is, That's honorable, even if you're on the wrong side.
My point to Michael Tracy, which is different than the point I made to those who accused us of killing grandma, which we didn't, I want to say.
No.
We didn't and wouldn't.
The point is if your hypothesis turns out to be false, if you phrase it as a hypothesis, you own the downside, which is, oh, that hypothesis is falsified.
Now I have to change my position.
There's nothing dishonorable about that.
It's an honorable thing.
And it's exactly what you should want.
Michael, I would bet that if it turned out that Jeffrey Epstein is what...
You would be thinking of it as the rest of us do.
So anyway, we should want to get to the truth of that irrespective of what it is.
No matter which side of this issue you find yourself on at the moment, we should want to know how big a problem this is, what role it's playing, not only because that would tell us something about the magnitude of the problem from the point of view of the children who are having their lives destroyed.
It's going to be some.
Is it a huge number?
Is it a small number?
We need to know that.
But we also need to know what effect it's having on our ability to shape the world.
Consent of the government is supposed to be what this Democratic Re republic functions based on and if it's not functioning based on that because somebody has corralled a kind of power that the rest of us can't even audit that's a problem so anyway we should all want to separate but um like on different planes equally important point.
It's arguably maybe even more important because downstream of that would be things like wars that we shouldn't get into but can't avoid, right?
So the number of people who are destroyed as the result of us not even knowing what kind of what form of governance we have is huge.
Yeah.
So, um, all right.
All of that.
Yeah.
So you you want to move on today or you want to you want to save this for next time?
How long have we been going?
I don't I don't know how long have we been going Jen hour and 20 minutes like that I think we could do it.
Okay.
So Brad sent me this paper this morning after I had a stupidly long day yesterday and woke up in a city I wasn't expecting and walked to the ferry and tried to read this paper on the ferry while a very cute dog tried to eat my beef jerky.
So those are the conditions under which I read this paper.
So the problem, Heather, is that God who, well, you know God.
Not intimately, no.
Okay.
So God is sending us a message here, and I at this point am not on my game enough to know how to interpret it.
But your story, the elements of your story suggest that there is something to be said about a fairy dogmother.
Oh, oh.
You see what I'm saying?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But anyway, maybe it will occur to me later, and then I can kick myself for not knowing what it is now.
But let's talk about this paper from the proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which is an extremely prestigious journal.
I would say it's right below science, nature, and cell in the historical pantheon.
Anyway, the National Academy is very exclusive.
club.
So this paper is a little surprising because do we want to show the paper?
Yeah, just a minute.
I just wanted to actually, so I've got it on my screen and we'll scroll through that.
Boy.
Okay, so the title of the paper is The Entities Enabling Scientific Fraud at Scale Are Large, Resilient, and Growing Rapidly.
This is from August 4th of this year.
The first author is Richardson.
So do we want to just summarize what the paper is about?
Why don't we let them do it?
Let's read the abstract.
Okay.
Science is characterized by collaboration and cooperation.
Can you see my screen at this point?
Still not.
Let's try again.
No way, way, way.
How about now?
Okay, well, I can read it off my screen.
Science is characterized by collaboration and cooperation, but also by uncertainty, competition, and inequality.
While there's always been some concern that these pressures may compel some to defect from the scientific research ethos, i.e.
fail to make genuine contributions to the production of knowledge or to the training of an expert workforce, the focus has largely been on the actions of lone individuals.
Recently, however, reports of coordinated scientific fraud activities have increased.
Some suggest that the ease of communication provided by the Internet and open access publishing have created the conditions for the emergence of entities, paper mills, i.e.
sellers of mass-produced low-quality and fabricated research, brokers, i.e.
conduits between producers and publishers of fraudulent research, predatory journals, who do not conduct any quality controls on submissions, that facilitate systematic scientific fraud.
Here we demonstrate through case studies that, one, individuals have cooperated to publish papers that were eventually retracted in a number of journals.
Two, brokers have enabled publication and targeted journals at scale.
And three, within a field of science, not all subfields are equally targeted for scientific fraud.
Our results reveal some of the strategies that enable the entities promoting scientific fraud to evade interventions.
Our final analysis suggests that this ability to evade interventions is enabling the number of fraudulent publications to grow at a rate far outpacing that of legitimate science.
So I actually want to read the first paragraph of the introduction too because it's quite good.
Over the last four centuries, the production of scientific knowledge has increasingly become a matter of state and societal importance.
The contract between scientists and states can be summarized thusly.
In exchange for creating new knowledge that is useful to the state and training a workforce able to use that knowledge, societies support scientists with rewarding careers, good salaries, and public recognition.
The success of this contract has led to an extraordinary growth in the scale and scope of of the scientific enterprise and to its adoption across the world.
Indeed, some studies suggest that the wealth of a nation is closely aligned with the amount and quality of the research it produces.
And actually, sorry, one more paragraph here.
The state-supported scientific enterprise can be idealized as a public goods game with numerous and diverse stakeholders.
Because of the increase in complexity of the knowledge being created and increased specialization, the system relies on the good faith assumption of genuine contributions by all participants.
Scientists rely on other scientists to disclose knowledge that can be built upon, on other scientists and on publishers for the screening of scientific studies, on publishers for the dissemination of their work, and on funding agencies and universities for support.
Universities and funding agencies rely on scientists for evaluating the work of their peers and on the state and society for their funding.
Private sector firms rely on universities to educate a knowledgeable workforce.
The state and society rely on scientists to produce knowledge that will improve well-being and state security.
Etzkowitz and Leidesdorf formalize certain aspects of this web of relationships in their triple helix model of knowledge-based economic development.
So I wanted to read that because it reveals some of the complicated nature of what we are relying on with regard to information dissemination and reliability.
But two paragraphs down, we have what I think is one of their major, so they do some good data analysis here, but one of their major contributions here, which they kind of bury, they bury their lead, I think, is when they start talking about defection.
They say scholarly defection occurs when there is a failure to make genuine contributions to the production of knowledge or to the training of an expert workforce while still benefiting from the contract.
So specifically what they're doing here is saying, you know what?
You would have to be like, in any system, there will be some bad actors.
But most scientists, when asked about the ubiquity and source of fraud, we'll say it's rare and it emerges from a few bad actors.
And if we can, you know, we'll never get rid of them entirely, but if we can get rid of as many as possible, you know, we'll have it under control.
And in part, these authors.
writing this published this month in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences are saying, you know what, it would be better for us to think about this in terms, in game theoretic terms, using the language of game theory, defection from a system as a unfortunate but profitable strategy that some people will engage in given things like, and they talk about inequalities in access to funds in especially developing world countries and such.
But they also find in this paper how much fraud is happening within the first world in the United States and in Europe with regard to science publishing.
You had something to say here.
Yes.
I also think that they not only buried the lead, but I think they're doing a typical, careful, this is honorable academic work.
And the problem is that honorable academic work is often...
offering sort of the least bad interpretation of the pattern that they have.
They're being careful about it, but they're being careful in a direction that, you know, is cautious about estimating how much fraud there is.
But even so, there's a paragraph that I want to read that gives us a sense for this.
Jen, do you have that paragraph?
Okay.
I have a hard time reading it at that distance.
But I'll try.
It says, scholarly defection occurs when there's a failure to make genuine contributions to the production of knowledge or the training of an expert workforce while still benefiting from the contract.
A 2002 study of scientists funded by the United States National Institutes of Health reported that 0.2% of mid-career researchers and 0.5% of early career researchers admitted to falsifying research data in the previous three years.
A systematic analysis of more than 20,000 articles published between 1995 and 2014 reported that 3.8% of these articles contained inappropriately duplicated images with at least half of these cases suggesting deliberate manipulation.
We and others have also recently described a class of entities engaging in large-scale scientific fraud, typically denoted paper mills, that sell mass-produced, low-quality, fabricated research articles, as described by Bern et al.
And in a report by the Committee on Publication Ethics and in the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers, In a 2022-2023 survey of medical residents at tertiary hospitals in southwest China, 46..7% of respondents self-reported buying and selling papers, letting other people write papers or writing papers for others.
Some publishers report that up to one in seven of their submissions are of probable paper mill provenance.
Agents of paper mills have also recently been reported attempting to bribe journal editors and to hijack the entire editorial process at some journals.
So that's the rest of the paragraph that I had just begun reading.
And it's in the introduction.
And so they're here, they're just telling us what we already know.
Yep.
Ish, right?
And they.
And what they have done is a number of things.
They have gone into a number of indexing journal indexing databases.
The landscape is changing so fast, it's hard to know exactly how to define these terms anymore.
I went back and found a handout that I created the very last quarter that I was a college professor.
teaching students how to distinguish between full text databases and indexing databases.
Web of Science was my go-to that I recommended for students, although Evergreen didn't support it.
So we had to do some other, you know, some fancy footwork to actually allow them to do literature review.
Obviously conditions have changed considerably in the nine years since I made that handout.
But they are finding that there are these aggregators, the topics that they have are literature aggregators.
They have retractions and pub peer commons, pub peer being a place where you can say, you know, I actually think that there's a problem with this paper and they've got a text.
They are looking at whether or not they're individual editors at journals who are very likely to have papers retracted, very likely to have papers show up as duplicates of other papers.
Certain editors are disproportionately likely to have a pattern.
That's what I meant by very likely.
The conferences, particular types of conferences that are that are that are questionable and then they've got an actual organization and you still can't show my screen here but down in the methods,
they've got the Academic Research and Development Association, ARDA, in which this organization, the Academic Research Development Association, sounds like it's of academic quality, but they guarantee publication in a number of journals.
And they just, they're trying to keep up with the mostly unpaid legitimate journal editors, trying to figure out which and the aggregators of scientific articles are trying to figure out like where they can publish their stuff legitimately.
Meanwhile, you've got organizations that have these fraudulent journals and they can act faster than legitimate scientists.
And so you've got fraud upon fraud upon fraud.
The one issue I have with this paper, and there's a lot here, but the one issue that I have with this paper is that they've got a couple of...
Most journals don't do that.
They use that information.
But let me just tell the story.
Most journals don't reveal who the editor is, which means that for the most part, we have no possibility of seeing this information.
So the two journals, one of which is a major American journal, PLOS one, Proceedings.
What does the L stand for?
I've forgotten.
Public Library of Science.
Public Library of Science, yes.
Which only started in like early naught.
It started in 2000.
It started.
as a response to the corruption of scientific publishing.
Yes.
It was deliberately started to correct some of the perverse incentives in publishing and has done a decent job of it.
So anyway, this was a response to bad publishing.
And we've actually had some students published in Plus One.
It has been understood to be an excellent corrective to some of the corruption in science.
And one of the things that they are doing is trying to be transparent.
And so having their editors of their editors of individual papers be named as associated with those papers allows.
And sure, they found, for instance, the 45 Plus1 editors whom we were able to flag due to the anomalous rate at which they accepted retracted or pub peer commented publications or had their submissions handled by other flagged editors comprise only 0.25% of all editors.
That's one in 400.
That sounds like a low rate.
I wish it were zero.
But we also can't know if that's a low rate because we don't have the information on any of the other journals.
So this, unfortunately, I think this paper may end up being being looked at as evidence that plus one has a problem and in fact i suspect that plus one has less of a problem than other journals as evidenced by its interest in being transparent but we have no data to compare it to yeah i i agree the uh choice of the of the journal that provides the data specifically has the estimate in a place where the rate is likely to be low
because your name is on the damn thing.
If your name wasn't on the damn thing, it'd be a lot less likely.
And so I do think my one complaint about the paper, which is related to yours, is that I think it wildly underestimates the problem as bad as the problem they point out is the actual problem is worse so i wanted to run through just a few points about what is here and what isn't here and what it means the overarching point is going to be the sky fell and nobody blinked okay Scientifically, the sky fell.
And we've been shouting about it for a long time.
Here you have it now showing up in the proceedings of the National Academy of Science, or at least a hint at it.
Here's the question.
What we don't talk about in this paper is what is the direction of the fraud, right?
There's a sense that you have a competitive environment in which people get ahead by publishing papers.
You don't necessarily care about the content of those papers because, you know, a good paper in a good journal counts on your CV, causes you to get a job, causes you to get tenure and all these things.
However, in an environment where it is possible to game the system in this way, you better believe that people who stand to make a ton of money outside of the system have figured out how to game these paper mills or these journals using paper mills and brokers.
In other words, if pharma wants the impression that what is causing people to have an increase in cardiac arrests is climate change, then the answer is we've found a way that they can arrange for that conclusion to proliferate by creating a lot of what seems like work that indicates this connection.
And so you've got what is the direction of the fraud?
We really need to understand that.
This is like an Epstein-like thing.
where we don't know to what extent the things we think are true are downstream of a process that has nothing to do with science, which is highly likely.
I think this paper is a much more general approach.
And so it can't do everything.
And I think in terms of sense making and the role of science in society, which is where they start the paper, that problem is larger than a lot of the kinds of fraud that they seem to be talking about here.
But for instance, they've got this organization, ARDA, which appears to be entirely about encouraging scientific fraud as far as I can tell from this paper.
They write many articles published in the journals listed by ARDA are well outside the journal's stated scope.
For instance, an article about roasting hazelnuts in a journal about HIV AIDS care, or an article about malware detection in a journal about special education.
For the set of five journals that we inspected comprehensively, we found that between 34 and 98.7% of the articles published in these journals were outside of the journal stated scope.
Now, at one level, I don't care.
I don't know why any of us should care, except that a journal exists with a scope because editors have scopes and that presumably the editor of a journal on HIV AIDS care doesn't really know anything about roasting hazelnuts and so should have no particular ability to know who to send it out for to peer review or whether or not to make a decision that is appropriate with regard to the quality of that amazing paper on the roasting of hazelnuts but so that but so i that doesn't quite that doesn't fit with
the larger societal impact objection that you're making and yet it is also a kind of fraud it's a way that absurd papers that no no like unimportant papers are potentially getting into the literature and then if you don't like you might cite maybe maybe your deal is roasting hazelnuts and maybe the particular article it's just such a good example example.
Maybe the particular article on roasting hazelnuts misses a critical step by which you actually don't end up with good hazelnuts.
And the person doing research on hazelnut roasting doesn't notice that it's in a totally inappropriate journal for its topic.
And that would be a clue normally to like, where?
What do I know about the journal that I found this article in?
That has been, you know, if I could show my screen here, I was going to show this handout that I gave to students about like, how do you do research?
It's not just a, how do I find the thing that looks like it says what I wanted to say and plug it in?
Like, how do you assess your sources?
How do you find sources?
And how do you assess them once you have them?
All before.
all before you end up reading this thing.
So I don't know exactly what's going on with Hazelnuts in an HIV journal, but they do talk about the proxies that make the system run.
And one of the things that I think is very clear here is academic publishing is an ecosystem.
There is a niche in it for people who utilize paper mills and brokers.
There is a niche that will work for people who want to advance to put a particular set of ideas into the literature because it's useful to their business interests.
And so one of the proxies is something like an impact factor for a journal.
Oh, I've got three papers in a journal with a high impact factor.
looks good on my CV.
So if the HIV journal is a high impact factor journal and it's got hazelnut stuff in it and I'm trying to get a job somewhere in the neighborhood of medicine and, you know, I say, well, I've, you know, published and...
That can do it.
So I have the sense that it's some sort of a gaming that we don't anticipate because the subject is so weird.
But anyway, the bigger question, I think, is...
As you and I have said here many times, peer review is not review by peers.
Review by peers is desirable.
If you have peers, and there aren't always peers, sometimes you're in a place that nobody knows what you're doing because you're on a frontier.
But if you have peers, it's good for them to review your work.
There's no reason that shouldn't be happening in public where they have something to lose by getting stuff wrong and they have an incentive therefore to review your work well.
We are always told about peer review and how it's the guide to quality science.
Why didn't peer review catch all of this fraudulent work?
Now, I'm not saying it never catches anything but the point is if you had a system if peer review was what we are told peer review is then the point is this fraud should be impossible because you're trying to put stuff over on experts who ought to know better yeah no it's implicit in here that that what has failed is insufficient peer review as opposed to peer review itself was insufficient, which is an important distinction.
And I think this is irrelevant here.
They say, so they're talking about, you know, how the system has recognized the fraud are things like comments on this thing called PubPeer, where peers are pointing out that I think either I see duplicated images in this paper and this paper and I think this is there for fraud or the methods are wrong.
So pub peer commented articles and retracted articles are their sort of measures of public recognition of fraud.
So they say to provide perspective, we note that the number of retracted articles and pub peer commented articles has been doubling every 3.3.
years and every 3.6 years respectively, while the total number of publications has been doubling every 15 years.
So those differences in rates mean that, you know, we're in trouble now.
The problem is getting far, far worse very fast.
Yep.
And I would point out that those public comments are effectively the peer review that you and I are advocating for, where people actually say, hey, this is wrong with that thing out here in public, where you can see it, rather than killing off good work behind the scenes and stealing it and publishing yourself or whatever happens in peer review.
And believe me, it's a mess.
But, okay, why is it happening?
Well, it's happening because you've got a system that is built on a foundation in which the honor system was sufficient.
Mm-hmm.
You were doing it as a calling and you're whole, you're doing it as a calling.
You wanted to contribute things that would maybe carry your name into the future after your death because they were actually useful.
Publishing fraudulent work doesn't do that.
So.
You've got the honor system and the fact that everybody's trained in the same game.
And they are very right to apply game theory to this puzzle.
You've got effectively a collective action problem, which they describe as a public goods problem.
I won't go into the details of it.
You're a bright-eyed, bushy-tailed, science-minded college graduate who wants to go do your thing, you go to graduate school, you get there, your literature is full of fraudulent material, and you don't know which stuff is fraudulent.
Okay, that means it's very hard.
Think about this.
It's very hard to come up with something that makes sense because you're held responsible for a large body of literature.
much of which is wrong, right?
This is, I will get back to cherry picking in a moment, but.
And it's proliferating at a rate that no human could possibly keep up with.
Nobody knows.
And so the point is everybody in your field is parroting stuff of dubious quality.
And so, okay, if you're really smart, you get out, right?
Something's not right here.
It's not possible to do the thing that I was passionate about.
I don't want to do the academic rat race thing in which I'm now looking for a paper mill because I'm trying to, you know, buttress my CV.
So if you're really smart and you understand what's going on, you get the hell out and you go do something else.
You stay in and the point is, okay, well now you're trapped in a game where all of the people who you're going to be competing with for jobs are the ones who are maximally leveraging the available tools including paper mills and blah blah blah blah right fraudulent stuff how are you going to compete with them well there's only one way you're going to do it too so how do you get a system in which you've got tens of thousands of people engaged in various different levels of fraud
in every single discipline.
You get it by creating a system of incentives where you get a positive feedback, where the people who are succeeding are the ones who are doing these things.
And I'll make one more point, then I'll let you go.
No, no, you cannot leave.
No, soon.
But when Peter Boghossian, Jim Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose revealed their hoax to us in which they exposed the social science journals for being willing to publish absolutely crappy research that they themselves had generated.
I said to them, this is awesome.
The fly in the ointment is that you didn't try it on.
the science journals.
You would be shocked at how effective this would be on the science journals because they are a fraud too.
Yep, right?
So anyway, this is now effectively the proof that that is right, is that the science journals are exerting no kind of quality control, and there's a massive architecture that has grown up in that environment.
It's like leaving yogurt on the counter, right?
The yogurt's been sitting on the counter, and oh my God, there's, you know, fungus and bacteria and all kinds of stuff growing out of it.
Why are you shocked?
You left yogurt on the counter.
So they left the system undefended, and they've got all of these parasites who are now taking advantage of it.
And frankly, the honorable people aren't going to be able to compete.
So if you want to find them, they're not going to be there.
Yeah.
I mean, this just This complexity is why we propose the use of the game theoretical concept of defection.
We believe this to be a useful perspective because it frames some behavior not in ethical terms, but in terms of rationality.
However, the term defection implies realignment from normative behavior to non-normative behavior.
For many junior doctors and budding scientists, engaging in defecting behavior may be the new norm.
Yeah, new norm is exactly what you would expect, right?
It's, you know, because it's with the ecosystem.
rewards.
Right.
So as you say, you know, if you've got, if you said smartest, I would say the most, those who care most deeply about science will have left.
Yeah.
So if the new norm is likely to become defecting behavior, that is unscientific behavior.
You are no longer interested in discovering what is true.
You are interested only in staying afloat yourself.
And we all need to stay afloat.
We all will struggle to stay afloat.
But if you are in a field which is explicitly about discovering what is true and you have defected from the goal of discovering what is true in favor of gilding your CV, then you don't deserve to be in that field.
Yeah, you're not doing the science.
You're doing scientism.
So I've got three more points, and then we can put this to be, yeah, not even scientism.
One is the cumulative effect problem.
Longtime listeners will remember me talking about this.
It's a pet peeve of mine.
When you have a wrong idea in the literature, in the peer-reviewed literature, you are held responsible for accounting for it, which assumes that it's true.
If it's not true, there is not a good language for this result is one that I am going to sidestep because I don't believe the people who did it did what they said they did.
right even though it's frequently true even if the extent of the fraud is only that people reported something as a hypothesis that was actually an observation in the data which is a fatal flaw for any scientific study and not one that is detected by a method like this.
It's invisible to a method like that.
No, and they say, they specifically say in a section on limitations, we cannot see that which we cannot see.
Right.
But the point is almost everybody is doing this.
see some juicy pattern in a data set and they report it as if they had the hypothesis before they collected the data which means they didn't do science and they reported it as science which is fraud but everybody's guilty of it because Why?
Because it doesn't pay to be interested in science.
the cumulative effect, you introduce a few bad papers.
Those bad papers mean that anything Many things will be fatally compromised.
You can't come up with a true hypothesis that accounts for the data if some of the data isn't data, right?
So the point is a few bad papers results in a whole bunch of bad papers, which results in every paper being bad.
This literally happens like at lightning pace.
As the things that get cited in the field are less and less reliable, the rate at which things become unreliable skyrockets.
And so.
So unless your question is small enough that you can actually answer it empirically within your own lab or your own scientific ecosystem.
If you are relying on outside data sets, on reviewing literature, on reviewing data that other people have taken, and testing a hypothesis by looking at data that already exists but that you haven't seen yet, which is a legitimate test of hypothesis, it is because...
I just did more empirical science than you did.
I'm more of an empiricist.
It's like, I want to keep this, I want the questions to be absolutely intriguing to me, but I want to rely not at all on anyone else's data or on anyone else's analytics either, the stats too.
Like I want to keep it in-house so that I know for sure if there is a mistake in that, that mistake is mine.
And actually, it's very interesting.
That is exactly the response to a dark age.
Right.
In a dark age, you're not interacting with the community of scientists who are feeding you interesting things and you're responding in kind.
The point is you're in isolation because at least I know what happened here.
I can do a scientific experiment here and I can tell you what proceeded on my desk without reaching into literature to a bunch of stuff that may not have happened at all.
Okay, so the next point is one, I hate to be right about this.
I really do.
I'm not surprised to be right about it, but people have heard me talk about cherry picking, which is a indefensible behavior as.
the scientific establishment would have it.
And I periodically make a defense of it, which is cherry picking is the only mechanism which would allow you to tap into the literature.
And there's only one way to do it.
Well, first of all, there are two versions of cherry picking.
cherry picking is named after the pathological version right it's named after the version where you go into literature and find the papers that agree with you and you report those okay that's not forgivable but cherry picking for only those papers that you believe have a high likelihood of actually reflecting work that took place is the only way to get around rampant fraud that you can't personally detect.
And I would argue the only way to do that well, the honorable version of cherry picking, whatever its name should be, is to process very..
And which is, it's like one step out from what you're saying.
Yep.
I didn't do it all myself, but here are a few papers I believe.
Here's why I believe that they were actually done.
And here's what happens when you compile that much smaller set of insights and try to make sense of them, which is kind of what I've done.
And actually, I mean, I think this is maybe of interest to no one but the two of us, but I think you and I did.
the same thing in very different domains, me empirically and you theoretically, where I was thinking about working on this group of organisms, like, oh, do I go into Latin America where these frogs are well studied?
Do a lot of people know?
Or do I go someplace where no one has looked at them at all?
No matter what I find is going to be new.
And it's going to be harder.
It's going to like, I'm not going to.
It's going to be new.
It's going to be a meaningful contribution, which you were dead right about that.
You contributed a bunch of interesting things that contribute to our knowledge.
That's true.
But I don't think I ever had that thought.
I don't think I was thinking in that way.
I was thinking, do I want to be, well, I mean, maybe this is the same thing.
Do I want to be doing, do I want to contribute a brick to the wall of the knowledge?
Right.
do I want to begin to build the foundation but also over here I can refer to all the literature that's happening over in the you know it's the dart poison frogs in the new world where a lot of excellent work has been done and presumably some not so good work, but a lot of excellent work has been done.
And I know some of the many of the people who've been doing it.
I trust them.
I've been with some of them in the field.
But still, contributing to that work requires knowing intricately and being sure that everything that you're citing was definitely done perfectly.
Like actually over here.
All I have to know is that I saw what I saw and I did it honestly.
Yeah, actually, that's really.
And it's very much the same way that you ended up, the many much more important places that you ended up theoretically, it just like empirically versus theoretically.
Well, it ends up being a geographic kind of cherry picking because what you did, so for those who are trying to understand what we're talking about, Heather studied a group of frogs that was known to exist, but almost nothing was known about their behavior.
even though they looked tantalizingly similar to a different group that was now known to be unrelated that lived in the new world that was really well studied.
They looked so similar and were so similar in so many physiological and toxicology ways that they had actually been proposed to be sister taxa.
And we now knew that wasn't true, but that was about all we knew about them.
Right.
But the point is, if I understand you correctly, you could look at the vast literature that was done on the New World poison frogs and you could say, here's what that literature is.
You can review that literature.
Right.
And if it's wrong, it doesn't change a damn thing about what I did.
I can update that part of what I know and say, actually, this group scientific cherry picking.
Scientific cherry picking, which actually, funny thing happened on the way to scientific cherry picking.
The term cherry picking is named after the pathological version, but it's the name that should be given to the honorable version.
I don't know what the name of the pathological version is, the rotten cherry picking, I guess.
But, okay, last point.
How does this paper connect to COVID?
Well, I think this paper actually gives you a pretty strong indication of how it is that the COVID catastrophe could have occurred.
And I want to remind people, in the very early days of Dark Horse, Heather had suggested that we have the conversations about COVID that we were privately having over the dinner table because she thought that many out there in the world needed to hear what scientists who were not expert in any of the relevant fields except evolution made of what they were being told about viral origins, about transplants,
So we would sort it out in front of you and you would benefit.
Heather turned out to be right about this.
But in that early period, we experienced a weird kind of scientific heyday, which was great because what we were doing was we were reviewing the non-peer-reviewed literature because, frankly, the pandemic was changing so quickly.
What the public's knowledge of the pandemic was was changing so quickly that the peer-reviewed literature couldn't keep up.
And the fact that the peer-review is a slow process put us in contact with the pre-print literature.
Let me say, actually, I learned today when I was looking at PLOS One again, that PLOS One actually partnered with the BioRXIV, I don't know how to pronounce it, but that preprint server that was so fruitful, like the Wild West during COVID, they actually partnered with them in 2016.
So that's another piece of evidence that PLOS One is actually, they're one of the good guys.
Yeah, Rosenzweig started it specifically because he was fed up.
Yeah.
Anyway, an interesting chapter we should go back to at some point.
But here's the point I want to make about the preprint literature.
Yeah.
The preprint literature is not awesome.
The preprint literature is high variance, is what I'm saying.
what it is.
But here's the beauty of the preprint literature.
You're expected to cherry pick it.
You'd be a fool to do anything else.
Nobody's so foolish that they're going to go through the entire preprint literature because there's no standard exerted at all.
So you have to exert a standard and you have to decide which of these things is worth your time, which is exactly what we scientists should be doing.
And actually, that's great.
That's fantastic.
And frankly, given the numbers that I shared from this Richardson et al.
paper in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences this week or month of the rate at which the fraudulent papers are propagating more rapidly than what we assume are legitimate papers and presumably there are far more legitimate papers, far more fraudulent papers masquerading as legitimate papers than there are legitimate papers masquerading as fraudulent papers.
problem is probably way worse than what they have found are finding but given that we're That is exactly the lesson here.
And, you know, I will pat myself on the back for telling you you needed to cherry pick the literature and you needed to edit down.
You didn't need to try to account for everything you thought might be true, you're much better off editing down to things you're very confident of, even if you exclude many things that are probably worthy of your time.
A smaller data set.
Confident of the quality of the research.
Confident of, yeah, I knew that was true.
Therefore, this satisfies my point of view.
Confident that the work represented is what it appears to be.
Yeah.
Right.
That is vital.
And if all you, if you could magically just press a button and have every paper that wasn't what it appeared to be disappear, you'd be left with a tiny literature and you would get smarter so fast.
So that really is the job.
Can you detect what high quality work actually.
actually sounds like when it is reported and process only that, you'll see what's coming when nobody else does.
Why?
Because they've fed a bunch of garbage into their model and then they've been held responsible for accounting for all of it.
And if you've got garbage and you have to explain it, you're done.
You're not going to be able to do science.
You just can't.
So free to ignore every preprint is great.
Now you should consider yourself free to ignore any paper that doesn't smell right, right?
All right.
The last point I wanted to make is that effectively what we are, what this paper reports is the result of an inadvertent gain of function experiment run inside the literature in which those things that are easy to spot don't occur and those things that don't get detected by the immune system of science proliferate.
And you are left now with a cryptic anti-scientific system feeding stuff into science and getting science to do its bidding.
Right.
You've got escape variants proliferating through literature in every different conceivable form.
And you should be on high alert.
You should especially expect this stuff where there's money to be made.
Any place that there's money to be made, like health, you should expect garbage to be pumped into the literature, which then think about what your life on the internet looks like, right?
Somebody says, you know, ivermectin works for COVID and, you know, guess what?
It also works for cancer.
And the answer is, but here are 14 studies that says it doesn't.
Well, why do you suppose that is, right?
I mean, I'm not telling you you know what to think about it.
You need to find the literature that's actually did the.
the actual job in order to figure out what the actual effect of the molecule is on the disease.
But the idea that there would be a wall of literature telling you, oh, not only does it not work, but it's dangerous.
Of course there would be.
It's not profitable, right?
That's what you're going to find.
Okay.
Bonus point.
Bonus point.
And it's a good one.
What do you suppose are going to happen when AI reads the literature?
God.
It's going to be as dumb as your average PhD, which is not a good look.
That's what's going to happen.
The real question is, can you figure out how to teach an AI to cherry pick?
And that's not going to be an easy one because it's your spidey sense that allows you to actually honorably figure out which subset process and i don't know how you teach these things a spidy sense maybe you train them on people who have one or something but i mean they're just at this point they're still really bad and i know you know we have friends this is why in part but yeah i can't yeah so you guys can't see my screen but i found it I guess ironic is the right word that at the very top of this,
you know, so I always download articles so that I have them and so that I know they're stable.
And the thing that I read, I definitely read at some point.
I've got it highlighted and I know for sure, even though, you know, I really should print it, but I'm not printing articles.
I have hard copies of books for this reason.
But at the top of.
the PDF, which is presumably not something that you would see if you just read the thing online, I am offered by Adobe short on time, save it with a quick document summary, view summary, and then it offers to give me the AI summary of this article.
Right.
You know, this article, which is effectively trying to about the problem of people.
having defected from honorable science into labor saving and time saving fraud.
Yeah.
No, I do not actually want the quick document summary from the AI of this article.
My God.
my god yep all right well that is the state of um scientific progress at this moment in history and uh it's liberating to hear it it's frightening to uh see us begin to peer into that particular abyss but i'm glad it's finally happening because that means we're finally going to be able to talk about it in public Yeah, but it's not going to be enough.
Well, I mean, that's the other thing is when you hear, I do it more than you do because I think you're being more politic but when you hear me say you can't fix those institutions there's no baby in that bath water i'm not exaggerating you've got a system which competitively drives everybody into some version of fraud I don't think most of them know that they're involved in that,
but most of them look to the left, look to the right.
They're not doing anything worse than the people next to them.
And so they figure this is the way it works.
And only if you stand outside that system where you're so in love with your science that you can watch people engage in madness in front of you and say, I don't know what y'all are talking about.
You're wrong, right?
You're not seeing what's in front of you.
You're making stuff up.
Only if you're outside or inside, presumably temporarily watching the thing unfold, can you get a sense for how broken this system has become?
And we have to you know i will i will tell you what we got to do you got to find the keepers of the flame Many of them will not be academics.
Some of them will never have been academics.
Some of them will have been exiled from academia.
And they rekindle the fire of science.
That's the only right thing to do.
AI can't get you out of it if it's going to have to read the literature, right?
You need the keepers of the flame.
Well, AI can't do science.
AI can do a lot of pieces of it.
And we've talked about this before, but it doesn't have the spark of hypothesis generation.
Well, look, I hate it.
I don't want science done by AI.
I don't think there's any bar to it ultimately doing science.
I'm not looking forward to living in that world, but I think that's coming.
But at the moment, it is completely hobbled by the fact that the way it works is to be a really good reader and that's a really good way to learn a lot of stuff that just ain't true it's entirely past based yeah it's in the past it can only build it can't create yeah sorry it can only build on information from before it cannot generate entirely new things yeah it's a hill climber and not a valley crosser not convinced it can't be a valley crosser but
the current system is going to make it a hill climber and the point is um We've got an entire academy of people who are climbing that same hill.
And, you know, it's a hill of bullshit is what it is.
So.
Oh, perfect.
Yeah.
All right.
Well then.
So thank you for being here for this, you know, we talked about AI fashion shows and pedophilia and the state of fraud and science.
That was a really uplifting.
Uplifting show here at the end of summer in the Northern Hemisphere.
We're not that close to the end, but it feels like it's only 2013.
Yeah, it's actually today.
Yeah, I think it's 1st.
But, you know, the days are noticeably shortening now.
We are into the part of the year closing in on the equinox when things are getting...
So we'll be back next week, next Wednesday, in fact.
So six short days.
In the meantime, check out our sponsors, Caraway, Massa Chips, and ARMRA this week.
And until we see you next time, be good to the ones you love, eat good food, and get outside.
