Gad Saad and Joe Rogan critique COVID-era censorship, from Canada’s inconsistent lockdowns to Twitter’s ideological suppression, warning that deplatforming figures like Alex Jones or purging dissenters (e.g., Satoshi Kanazawa at Psychology Today) stifles discourse. Saad’s "homeostasis of victimology" and "concept creep" explain how language shifts—like "compliment rape"—fuel tribalism, while Rogan laments media’s refusal to challenge falsehoods in debates (e.g., Biden’s unchecked claims vs. Trump’s bombastic style). They pivot to comedy, where passion and regret shape careers, contrasting women’s societal scrutiny with men’s double standards, before Saad’s The Parasitic Mind exposes how noble academic ideas—like militant feminism or transgender activism—become harmful "idea pathogens" when detached from biology, reshaping HR, military training, and politics. Rogan urges listeners to hear Saad’s book as an audiobook to confront these distortions. [Automatically generated summary]
The numbers just keep going up because people are at home and they're trapped and they look for content.
They also look for honest content.
There's not a lot of that shit out there headed up to the election.
Everyone is so twisted and biased, and it's just such a weird, weird time.
I mean, I want it to be over in hopes that not just the election, but also COVID, so that people can get back to work, which I think will calm people down when the financial situation starts to improve.
I mean it's been tough over here because I'm on sabbatical this semester and it's at the time when my book came out so I was planning on doing all kinds of world book tours and all sorts of stuff and everything has been shut down.
unidentified
So it's been a bummer but at least I get to spend more time with the family I guess.
As long as people take advantage of this time, you can do some self-improvement.
People can meditate and exercise and write.
There's a lot of things you can get done.
These are minor concerns, I believe, in comparison to the people whose businesses are shut down.
And the people who've lost family members and have struggled personally health-wise with the disease.
The number of people that are losing their businesses is just insane.
I mean, this is unprecedented.
There's nothing like it.
And one of the reasons why we left California is because of their draconian measures that they're using to shut things down.
You know, the initial conversation, they were going to shut it down until they flattened out the curve, and the hospitals were able to accept people, and they weren't overburdened.
Well, they're not overburdened now, and they still have everything shut down.
It doesn't make any sense.
And they're saying now, after the election, after the election is what they keep saying.
So they're not even trying to hide that it's political...
Jamie and I and the rest of the crew, we were all pretty sick of it.
Our freedoms are being infringed upon.
It didn't seem like what we signed up for.
We never signed up for an autocrat.
We never signed up for the government to be able to tell us that we can't work.
This is insane.
This has never happened before.
And it makes all the wacky tinfoil hat conspiracy theories actually seem to make more sense than they've ever made before, which is even more terrifying.
Because people have already been QAnon'd out the ass online, everyone's so crazy already online, and this all gives them, it adds more fuel to the fire, that this is real.
And it seems to be in a lot of ways, I mean, that they are, they're doing this for political purposes, which is terrifying.
Yeah, you know, I analogize it to, you know, if you want to raise children well, you need to have, you know, consistent parenting so that the child knows what he or she needs to do to get the strokes and what he or she needs to do if they're going to get punished.
When you have a haphazard parental style, it's a form of mindfuck, if I might say, for the child because they don't know when to expect your love or your scorn.
And in a sense, I view the current COVID regulations Akin to an inconsistent parent, right?
I don't know if tomorrow I'm allowed to invite people over for a small barbecue at my house or not.
It all seems very sort of flying by the seat of your pant.
unidentified
And I think that's what stresses me the most, that I can't really have any sense of What are the regulations in Montreal in terms of what you're allowed to do and not allowed to do?
I think it varies across each province because of all of the provinces for much of the COVID crisis, Quebec and Montreal in particular were some of the hotspots.
As a matter of fact, where I live was one of the hotspots within the hotspots of Montreal.
And so we were quite concerned.
And so we've tried to limit to the best of our abilities going out.
But especially in Montreal, where, as you know, you lived in Boston, Winter is coming.
So it was easy to kind of go through COVID when it's April, you know, May and June and July.
It's going to be a lot more challenging to do the lockdown when it's, you know, minus 20 and I haven't been outside for three weeks.
Which is just, they were offering rewards for people turning their neighbors in.
You know, in the beginning, it made sense because we were worried that two million people were going to die and this was a disease that was going to ravage the entire country.
But then when you look at the survival rate, it doesn't pan out.
If we knew coming in to, if COVID, we had all the information that we have now at the beginning.
If we had all that information now and they proposed the same lockdown, I think people would have resisted.
They would have been furious.
The problem is they initially agreed to it thinking that it was going to be way worse than it was.
And then when it turned out to not be nearly as deadly as we feared, there was no adjustments made.
I've had a few virologists on my show, and I think you have as well, and several of them have told me that early in the lockdown that they thought that there wasn't a very good cost-benefit analysis in terms of the repercussions of such a lockdown, that many of the costs of the lockdown were not being taken into account within the modeling.
Their position has turned out to be true, right?
Very few people talk about the missed cancer screenings and the heart disease and the anxiety and the depression and the spousal abuse and the child abuse.
And so I don't know when that autocorrective mechanism is going to work, but I suspect that people are not going to tolerate this for much longer, I think.
I suspect it's because that's where sort of the intelligentsia end up going.
And as you know, most of the folks that are within the intelligentsia are typically exactly the people that I discuss in the parasitic mind, the people who are parasitized by all these idea pathogens.
And so I suspect that You know, if you are an up-and-coming person who lives in Binghamton, New York, no disrespect to Binghamton, and then you want to make it, you move to New York and then you get some degree in the liberal arts college, you get parasitized by these idiotic ideas, and then slowly all of these urban areas become ultra-progressive.
I think I'm endowed with a happy disposition so that when I wake up in the morning, notwithstanding all of the possible challenges I might face in a day, I'm like a kid in a candy store.
I wake up and I'm excited.
Oh my God, I'm going to speak to Joe Rogan today.
I'm happy.
If I weren't speaking to Joe Rogan, I would be working on the next paper.
So dispositionally, I'm someone who's happy.
Which I think protects me against the lunacy because even though, of course I get stressed, of course I get beaten down, my innate disposition is to be smiling.
And so in a sense, I'm lucky enough to have won the genetic lottery of being someone who views the world through an optimistic lens.
And I think that's what allows me to fight the fights that I do because otherwise I think I would have beaten down a long time ago.
I mean, the only way that, as you know, you could survive in the cesspool of academia Saying the things that I say is, first of all, to be, as you said, happy and optimistic, but also to be...
So I talk about, in Chapter 8 of the book, I talk about, you know, activating your inner honey badger.
The honey badger is an incredibly ferocious animal, as you know, Joe.
So he can withstand the approach of eight adult lions.
The honey badger is the size of, you know, a small dog.
How could it be that lions are intimidated by the honey badger?
Well, because he's ferocious.
And so...
While I may have a happy disposition, as you know, if you've seen me in some of my battles in social media, I'm also an intellectual honey badger.
If you come after me, you better come correct, because I'm going to come after you, I'm going to come after your ancestors, I'm going to come after your dead ancestors.
And so I think...
You know, the tenacity coupled with the optimistic outlook is kind of the right cocktail of traits to have to be able to fight the lunacy.
And I think I might have mentioned this story before to you on the show, but it's worth repeating.
It's actually a story that I discuss in the book.
It relates to you.
So, you know, when I went to Stanford Business School several years ago to give a talk, you know, as you might imagine, it's a very, you know, highfalutin, elitist environment.
The host who took me out that evening prior to my talk, the night before my talk, said, oh, you know, I hear you're going on Joe Rogan.
I said, yeah, yeah, you know, we're friends, you know, love to go on Joe.
It's such a great forum to spread ideas.
And he was very haughty, right?
He said, well, you know, at Stanford, we don't support, you know, doing research so that you could appear on Joe Rogan.
I said, well, what do you mean?
You don't think it's a good idea to appear on a platform that allows you to spread your ideas to 10 million people instead of Writing a paper that will be read by you, your mom, two reviewers and an editor.
Well, I guess he didn't like that response, but the reality is that that's the kind of elitism that you see in academia where, I mean, I'm happy to see that a growing number of academics are coming on a platform like yours because it is insane to not take advantage of such platforms.
Look, I am in the currency of creating knowledge and then spreading knowledge.
Well, I could appear on Joe Rogan's podcast for five minutes and have greater impact than if I published 10 papers in the most elite scientific journals.
So yes, I embrace those forums because pragmatically, it's a wonderful way to have fantastic conversations, right?
And it's beautiful that brave academics are being rewarded.
The people that are willing to go on my podcast and other podcasts that might get looked down upon by these scholars.
They get rewarded by enormous audiences.
And also curious people that maybe have full-time jobs, maybe didn't go to college, but are curious folks that want to explore these ideas and explore them being described by a person such as yourself who has deeply studied them.
Joe, do you know how many, and I know you know this already, I don't have to tell you how incredible your platform is.
I could be walking on a beach in Bahamas, and that literally happened, by the way, where a local Bahamian will come up to me and say, oh my God, Didn't you appear on Joe Rogan?
And I don't say this to talk about fame, but to demonstrate the kind of platform you've created where I could be in a bathroom in some little town and someone's going to recognize me because I appeared on the show.
And I say this not because of the recognition factor or the fame, but again, if I am in the business of discussing ideas, I should use every possible tool, whether it be your podcast or if I create my own podcast, any way that I can spread ideas, I'm going to jump on it.
I think a lot of academics don't do it because of an ego-defensive reason, which is they know that they may not be able to pull it off appearing on Joe Rogan, and therefore they denigrate those who can, right?
Because they've mastered one form of communication, which is You know, the rigid academic paper, that they can do well.
And that's great.
I mean, we are professors, we should be publishing academic papers.
But why not try to tip your toes so that the public can get excited about your ideas, right?
But doesn't it suck that I always analogize academics to Navy SEALs, right?
When we choose Navy SEALs, we're picking people who hopefully have athleticism, have great courage, bravery.
So shouldn't we be picking similar traits in our intellectuals?
But we're not, right?
So we don't create intellectual SEALs Who are willing to go in uncharted, intellectual territories.
Rather, we create tepid, sheepish academics who stay in their lanes, who never rock the boat.
And as you and I know, the world is shaped by people who are unorthodox, right?
Whether it be Sigmund Freud telling us about the unconscious mind, or Charles Darwin developing his theory of natural selection, or Galileo, or Socrates, the world is shaped by those who weren't fence-sitters, right?
You became who you are with your podcast because you decided to step out of the bubble and create something that no one else had created before, a three-hour intimate conversation with incredible guests.
I always tell people, yes, you can play it safe, but no one will remember you.
If you take risks, the great rewards will befall you.
Well, honestly, the risks, they're not that great.
That's what's crazy.
Especially this podcast, rewarding me, it's hilarious, because I never intended to do this in the first place.
This is all just an accident.
I started this podcast smoking pot and talking to my friends on a laptop, and it became slowly but surely a place where I could get guests, And then explore things that I'm interested in.
And I don't even remember how you and I first got in contact with each other.
I know we have in common your nephew, Ariel Helwani, who is an MMA journalist for ESPN, and I've known Ariel for years.
But other than that, how did we even get in contact with each other?
The weird thing is that when we went over to Spotify, it actually got bigger.
The numbers on YouTube and iTunes didn't shrink.
We just picked up new listeners.
It's very bizarre.
I expected that the numbers would drop on iTunes because we have this new platform, but since we're on both platforms now, what happened is we just gained new people on Spotify that really maybe were Spotify loyalists.
I mean, when you wake up in the morning, can you believe that you've become this cultural icon that sort of moderates all these unbelievable conversations with all sorts of incredible people?
This is – I'm not really – because I'm not qualified, that's probably why I'm qualified.
Because it works, because I don't have the barriers.
I don't have the – I don't have the sense to say, well, this is probably not a good person to have on for my career, or this is not a wise topic of discussion.
I'm going to get a lot of criticism for this.
Because I don't think that way, that's probably why it's worked.
Number one, I think it's your intellectual curiosity.
And that's one thing that I always tell my graduate students when they're looking to do their doctoral dissertations and so on.
You could be the hardest working person and the brightest person if you don't have that intellectual curiosity, right?
Sort of waking up every day excited about things that you're going to learn that day, then you're not going to be a good scholar, let alone a great host on a podcast like yours.
And I also think it's exactly what you said, is your honesty, right?
That comes through on the camera, that there is no BS coming from you.
And I love the fact, by the way, that you said that you don't modulate who you bring on.
And let me share my own personal experience.
I was just contacted a few days ago, and if she's listening now, I'm sorry if I haven't responded yet, I will.
I was contacted by a Very famous former porn star.
I won't mention her name.
I didn't actually know her work, but I have since gone and done my research on her.
And if my wife is listening, it was completely for research purposes.
And so anyways, so she reached out to me and said, hey, would you come on my show?
You know, I'm a fan.
Now, if I were the typical academic, I would be doing all sorts of machinations in my head and calculations.
Well, is it good for my brand to be speaking to a porn star?
Doesn't it make me look less professorial?
And actually, it never even entered my mind.
I saw that she had a sufficiently large platform, that she was certainly an intelligent person.
And I'm very likely to reply to her and say, hey, let's do it.
And I think that comes across with you.
There's no pretense.
Let's just sit down and have conversations with interesting people.
Of course, in my case, my show is infinitely smaller than yours, but it's been successful within my sphere for, I think, similar reasons to why yours has been so successful.
The porn star thing is very interesting because people avoid even the topic of porn, but yet clearly a lot of people are watching it.
And a good example, and I don't mean to throw this guy under the bus, is the journalist from The New Yorker who unfortunately was on a Zoom call recently and thought he had muted his video and did not.
And while he was at work on the Zoom call, decided to start masturbating.
Two Seinfeld references that speak exactly to that point.
You ready?
So the first one is actually one that I discussed in my first book, my 2007 book, The Evolutionary Basis of Consumption, where I was talking about how you can analyze cultural products, including sitcom themes via an evolutionary lens.
And so I take the example of the classic episode from Seinfeld, Master of My Domain, right?
So the Master of My Domain, of course, is a euphemism for who could withstand their masturbatory urges the longest.
And then I say, well, let's analyze that plot line of that particular show from an evolutionary perspective.
And so...
The first thing you might remember is that there are three male characters and one female one.
They all recognize that she has to put in more money into the pot, the bed pot, because it isn't as difficult for women to resist their masturbatory urges.
So that was the first point.
Then as each one was losing the bed, meaning they were succumbing to their masturbatory urges, it's interesting to look at what was the trigger that caused them to lose the bed.
So in the case of Kramer, it's because he is seeing a gorgeous young woman, scantily clad, Doing all sorts of sexy positions as she's exercising.
So what triggered him to masturbate was the visual imagery.
Whereas when it came to Elaine losing the bet, it's because she fantasized about becoming the long-term partner, the wife of John F. Kennedy Jr. She wasn't masturbating over the cabana boy who was 18 years old with a nice ass.
And so that spoke to the differences in terms of the content of the fantasies of men and women.
And then the second point I wanna make that is also from Seinfeld is there's an episode where George decides to forego sex and by freeing his mind from having to focus on sex, he starts learning a whole bunch of new languages and he's solving chemistry equation problems because 99% of his brain is no longer focused on sex.
But again, discussing porn, or especially having a conversation with someone who participates in the actual production and acting, I'll say acting, with air quotes, it's forbidden.
It's taboo.
You get looked down upon for some very bizarre reason.
I'm not sure if we've discussed this before, but even if we have, I think it's worth repeating.
It's probably many years ago that we discussed it.
So in one of my other books, I talk about the evolutionary explanation of pornography, and I specifically talk about porn that is directed at heterosexual males.
Typically, you might think that because men are interested in sleeping with many women, that pornography is going to have one man sleeping with multiple women in a particular scene.
That's called polygyny.
One man, many women.
Whereas, actually the study has been done, scientific study, it turns out that there's a lot more what's called polyandrous depictions in porn.
Polyandry is one woman with multiple men.
So why is it that porn directed to heterosexual men has a lot more Scenes with one woman having sex with multiple men, and there it turns out that the explanation comes from something called a sperm competition hypothesis.
The idea being that men, and actually males in many species, get a rise, literally, in seeing other men having sex.
So for example, when you are trying to get a stud, let's say a horse or a dog, to mate with a female, you often will make him watch another male having sex, And that will get the rise out of him.
And so there's some really interesting scientific ways by which you could study a product like pornography, which of course is one of the most – the products that we spend the most money on.
It's a book that came out in the 90s called Sperm Wars.
At the time, he had retired, and so he replied to me very graciously and said, look, I'd love to come on your show, but I'm out of the whole thing.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Now, so let me just mention what his theory was and then what people have said since.
So he argued in his book and in several studies that he had published that when men ejaculate, they actually have three types of Sperm within their ejaculate.
There is the traditional sperm that you could think of, sort of the fertilizer, right?
The traditional, the head with the tail that's looking for the egg to fertilize.
But then he argued that there are also blockers.
So these are kind of malformed spermatozoa that actually don't look for an egg, but rather place themselves at the entrance of the reproductive tract of a woman So that it could stop any incoming new sperm from other men.
And then there are killer sperms that don't look for the egg to fertilize, but look for other men's sperm to kill.
Now, if that theory is correct, and you're exactly right that there's been contentious points about whether it is as accurate as he said or not, And I think the jury is still a bit out.
If the theory is correct, this basically argues that women, evolutionarily speaking, would have been extraordinarily promiscuous because sperm within a woman's tract is only viable for about 72 hours.
So that if men have evolved the chemical weaponry to block other men's sperm and kill other men's sperm, that means that, evolutionarily speaking, women would have been very likely to have mated with at least two guys within a 72-hour period.
Now, when I mention this theory in front of a crowd, the feminists will come up to me and say, thank you, Dr. Saad, what a great...
You know, lecture.
Because that theory supports the idea that women could be just as salacious in their sexuality as men, and that supports the feminist argument.
If I propose an equally, if not even more sound evolutionary theory that doesn't support the feminist narrative, boo, Dr. Saad, you're a Nazi, boo, boo.
So it shows you So it shows you what happens when you use ideology to judge the veracity of a theory.
If it occurs with my narrative, you're a great scientist.
And anyone that knows your past, if you've described your past and your history on my podcast, the idea of calling you a Nazi becomes incredibly offensive and ridiculous.
Because, you know, we're these controversial guys.
And the people who are the agitators who canceled us put out Facebook flyers where they said, you know, neo-Nazis and white supremacists are not welcome in Toronto.
And so when I wrote and said, well, but I'm Lebanese Jew.
That didn't alter.
I was still a neo-Nazi.
And so it shows you what happens when people are completely parasitized by political tribalism.
It's just such a stupid way to discredit someone's ideas instead of having conversation.
This is one of the weirdest things about our current climate, is that instead of engaging with people on these ideas and discussing them, they look to discredit, and they look to discredit with these disingenuous labels.
There is something in psychology called a fast and frugal heuristic.
Most of us, when we're making a decision, don't necessarily sit and weigh all the pros and cons of a multi-attribute choice that we're making.
Rather, we want to use some simplifying decision rule to arrive at a choice.
Well, to label your debate opponent, one of these names, in a sense, is a Ugly manifestation of a fast and frugal heuristic, right?
Because it takes very little cognitive effort for me to deploy it, right?
I don't have to really engage the merits of your points.
You're a Nazi, shut up, we're done.
And as you said, I mean, it is the height of anti-intellectualism.
And by the way, it's not just...
You know, the typical social media blue-haired person who does it.
Even academics engage in this form of anti-intellectualism, and that's what upsets me the most, that they should know better, and yet they succumb to the same kind of fascist strategies.
And I would also say that academia has regrettably created...
If you like, the reward mechanisms for hyper-specialization, right?
So when you're thinking about becoming an academic, a scientist, you really can sort of follow one of two strategies.
You can become an unbelievable expert in a very, very narrow area.
Because that creates economies of scale, right?
I don't have to continuously go back and check the literature because I really know everything there is to know about this very, very small area of expertise.
Or you could be a polymath, you could be a broad thinker.
And regrettably, much of academia promotes the former rather than the latter.
Now, if you look at my own scientific career, I haven't done the things that I should be doing according to the rules of the academic game.
Because if I were trying to maximize, you know, according to the rules, I should only be publishing in journals that are within my narrow area of expertise, evolutionary psychology, consumer psychology, psychology of decision making.
But if you go and look at my CV, I've published in medicine and economics.
In psychiatric issues, in consumer behavior, in evolutionary theory, in bibliometrics.
I don't care where I publish.
If you have a problem that I think I could contribute to, sign me up.
And that kind of speaks to what we talked about earlier when we were talking about willingness to speak to all sorts of people.
It's an openness of spirit, of mind.
I'm willing to go to any intellectual landscape as long as it triggers my interest.
Well, it's part of being a curious human being, isn't it?
Exactly.
Well, shouldn't that be encouraged?
I mean, it seems like when a person as intelligent as yourself chooses to take your mind and apply it to other different disciplines and different ideas, that should be rewarded.
I've been told by colleagues that they were looking at hiring me at some other university, but then when they looked at my CV and saw that I had published in all these different areas, that it looked like I wasn't focused.
I was scattered.
I'll give you a wonderful example of the strategy of not being scattered.
When I was a doctoral student at Cornell, one of the famous psychologists within my department was a lady who has since passed away, Professor Alice Eisen.
She was a great noted psychologist, but her entire career was about affect.
Not affect, affect, right?
Your feelings, right?
So she studied how does affect affect variety seeking?
How does affect affect word completion?
So it was basically affect and fill in the blank.
So for 40, 50 years, that's all she did.
So if you talked to her about affect, she certainly was the queen of the hill.
But if you talk to her about anything outside of affect, She was probably a babbling imbecile, and I apologize for saying that.
May she rest in peace.
She wouldn't be able to get on The Joe Rogan Show unless you talked to her for three hours about affect.
To me, she may be a great professor, but she's not an intellectual.
An intellectual is one who can go to different intellectual landscapes and engage in great conversations.
And regrettably, there are very few public intellectuals today Who have that capacity.
But someone like Christopher Hitchens, whom I think you know.
This is the kind of guy that you want to be hanging out with at a party.
And by the way, he wasn't a professor.
He wasn't a professional intellectual, but he was a true intellectual in the old style of European intellectuals.
You could sit down with him and talk about art or literature or science.
He was well-read about everything.
And in a sense, again, not to blow the proverbial smoke up your behind, I think that's what you do.
Yes, you may not have the fancy degrees, but you come with that intellectual curiosity so that you could speak to Sir Roger Penrose one day and to a comedian whose every second word is F this and F that, and you could pull it off with both.
Well, I had a conversation with Eric Weinstein about that once, and he was like, imagine what it would be like for someone who didn't know what your podcast was about.
And they tuned in and saw Roger Penrose on one day and then Joey Diaz on the next day.
They were like, what the fuck is this show?
But this show, if it anything, it represents what I'm interested in, and I'm interested in a lot of things.
I think the term intellectual is such a grandiose and ridiculous term for someone who's a cage-fighting commentator and a stand-up comedian.
But I am curious, and I'm very fortunate that I do have friendships with people like yourself, and Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, and that I could get a guy like Roger Penrose to sit down and talk to me.
And many other brilliant people that I've had the pleasure of talking to.
When you and I are speaking, of course we can get very academic and so on, but we can also joke because we're friends and we're both funny and so on.
Does it intimidate you when you speak to someone like Sir Roger because you don't have that I don't think it intimidates me as much as it confines me, but I was so curious to hear his thoughts on things.
I was fortunate that I had a lot of questions for him, and I really did want to dive into his intellect and try to find out what How he thinks about these things and what he's studying and what his thoughts were.
So it was very fortunate that I had a deep curiosity about the subject.
I kind of avoided talking to him for a long time because I was worried it was going to be not good for him.
Because I'm such a fan of his as an artist.
I think he's a brilliant musician.
But I also think that because of his...
I mean, he's been diagnosed as being bipolar.
I mean, whatever you want to say, whatever mental issues he's had, I think they contribute in some ways to his art because he's so prolific.
His mind is going in a million different directions all at once.
And someone who is like that but very different, of course, is Elon Musk.
million different directions all at the same time as well and his his ability to focus on so many different subjects simultaneously is stunning kanye is the same way but in a different realm right his focus is on design and on rap and on now uh religion
i mean he's become very religious and and even politics but he's very misunderstood kanye is a very misunderstood person and i i think that he doesn't do himself any service by calling himself a genius and and all the but all the that all the junk stuff Similar to Trump, right?
He's kind of – he pats himself on the back and pumps himself up and talks about his accomplishments and his financial success and all those different – For whatever reason, those put some people off.
They don't put me off, but they do put some people off.
But I understand why he does it.
I understand that he's kind of looking to affirm that he's on the right path.
These are markers of success that he could point to.
You can say he's an idiot.
You can say all these different things.
But hey, look at all he's accomplished.
Look at what he's done.
And if you listen to his music, I mean, he's brilliant.
You know, I receive many, many, maybe hundreds of emails from women who will sort of lament the fact that they no longer can meet a man who exhibits that kind of masculinity, right?
Because what's happened now, as obviously you know, is Men are so confused, right?
Am I supposed to pursue a woman or will I be accused of approach rape?
If I give her a compliment, will that be considered compliment rape, right?
One of those mandatory sex education tests at the start of last year at university.
All professors, all students, everybody has to take it.
And one of the questions, I don't remember the exact words, was, you know, if you see a guy, you know, cat calling a woman on campus, is that a form of sexual violence?
Or something to that effect.
And I knew what was the answer going to be.
And I answered no.
And then it kind of prompts you.
And it's like, no, it is a form of sexual violence.
And then they kind of explain it to me as if I were a three-year-old child who hasn't yet mastered the dynamics of being social amongst human beings.
And so while I might have been satirical about the compliment rape, we have gotten to the stage now where it is mandatory for university participants, whether they be faculty members or staff or students, to take these mandatory sexual training manuals.
I kind of understand why they want people to think differently about harassment.
I get that.
I mean, I would hate to be...
Look, I've been hit on by gay men, and it's odd.
It's complimentary.
But I've been hit on only a couple times in my life, but a few times where it was aggressive.
And I was like, what's different is, first of all, the man who was doing it, one particular guy who was doing it, that was the most aggressive that I can remember, was not physically dangerous to me.
Like, I could have killed him if I wanted to.
So I was like, listen man, stop.
But it wasn't, it wasn't, I wasn't, the roles weren't reversed.
But if it was Mike Tyson who was doing that to me, I would feel terrified.
Because if he wanted to beat me up and have his way with me, there's not a lot I could do.
So I don't have the understanding that a woman would have.
When a woman is being approached by a man, there's a very real concern that she could be raped.
I don't have that same concern unless someone's drugged me or done something.
If the man is weaker physically than me, I don't have that concern.
But I try to look at it from a woman's perspective, and I get how catcalling, if you're a woman, particularly if there's a large group of men, and they say things to you, that's terrifying.
It could be terrifying.
I could understand.
But it's not violence.
The problem with the word violence is you start...
Using that word with other, like, silence is violence.
No, it's not.
Violence is violence.
Silence is not violence.
You can't bastardize these words.
You can't distort the meaning of these words.
Because as soon as you do, you're forcing people to comply with, you're resetting language, you're changing definitions.
You can't do that.
You can say it's very disrespectful, it's rude, and it's intimidating to catcall a woman.
I would agree to that.
And I would say, I've never done it.
I'm not the type of person who, a girl walks by, I'm like, hey baby, that's not, I'm, you know, I've never been raised that way.
I've never, I don't do it.
I've never done it.
I don't appreciate it.
But it's not violence.
It's just gross.
It's intimidating.
It's harassment.
And if I was a woman, I would fucking hate it.
But we need clear definitions.
Words are noises that we make that convey intent.
When you say that it's sexual violence to catcall, you're fucking with language.
And you're fucking with it in order to...
Because everyone knows violence is bad, right?
Everyone knows violence is evil.
Everyone knows violence should not be tolerated in a polite society.
So when you attach an extreme definition, an extreme word that doesn't apply, but you force it into a situation, you're fucking with our definition of the way people behave and think.
And you're doing it to sort of force compliance into your ideology and what you feel the way people should act and behave.
And so I've got a psychological mechanism that I explain in the parasitic mind about how you redefine realities so that you can get the victimology narrative that you want.
And I call it the homeostasis of victimology.
And so let me explain what homeostasis is.
So if you think about your thermostat in your room, it is a homeostatic machine because what it basically says is, okay, I'm going to set the temperature at 70. And it's gonna sample the air.
If it's too hot, it will release the air conditioning.
If it's too warm, vice versa, right?
So our bodies are made of many homeostatic systems, right?
If I'm hungry and my blood sugar goes below a set point, I have approach behavior to food, right?
So many of our physiological systems are homeostatic.
Many of our psychological systems are homeostatic.
And so I argue that this The never-ending redefinition of words and context to make it seem as though they are rape or violence or misogyny is what I call the homeostasis of victimology, which is what, basically?
There is a set point that we need so that we can always argue that our society is evil and sexist and racist and so on.
The reality is that you can't identify that sexism and racism.
You simply redefine words, redefine concepts so that you could get your set point.
You follow what I mean?
And there's a similar concept that's called concept creep.
From an Australian psychologist that argues along the same lines, right?
And it's exactly the reason, by the way, why someone like Jussie Smollett will engage in, you know, full victimology.
Because he is basically saying, look, I need to reach a set level of victimology so I can have the right currency to ascend the apex of victimology.
And if I don't have that narrative, then I will manufacture it.
And I mean, isn't it incredible how the onus on believing changes as a function of the political affiliation of the supposed victim, right?
So when, I can't remember her name, Blasey Ford, When a woman came up the night before Kavanaugh's confirmation or whatever to say that 36 years ago it may have happened somewhere and I'm not sure where and I don't know if it happened, I don't have any details.
Well, hashtag believe all women.
When a woman came up against Joe Biden with apparently more evidence, now I don't know the veracity of each of their accusations, but it was certainly the case that the accuser of Joe Biden As convincing evidence, if not more than the former case, but now it was no longer hashtag believe all women, right?
And so it demonstrates to you how ugly these hashtag fast and frugal strategies are, rather than sticking to first principles, which is People are presumed to be innocent unless there is overwhelming amount of evidence.
We either fry someone or not as a function of political expediency.
I think the way out of it is, and I'm not sure that what I'm about to say is easy to implement because we are tribal animals.
Sorry, I'm putting my glasses because it starts getting fuzzy.
I'm getting older.
Look, I always tell people belong to the tribe of truth rather than to specific political tribes.
Now, what do I mean by that?
If you come to me and ask me, you know, it's hard to pin you, Gad.
Are you conservative?
Are you libertarian?
Are you liberal?
And I will usually answer, well, it's hard to pin myself because I am an issues guy.
So if it comes to the death penalty, I might give you a position that you might think I'm conservative.
Or when it comes to immigration, you might think I'm conservative.
When it comes to social issues, gay rights, transgender rights, I'm about as socially liberal as they come.
So I don't belong to a group.
I'm not conservative.
I'm not liberal.
I am a one idea at a time guy.
Why?
Because I use first principles and my ability to engage in critical thinking to espouse a position on any topic that you wish to discuss with me.
But I don't think that that's the natural state of most people.
Most people are, I am Republican, I am, you know, whatever, Democrat, and therefore I must toe the line on issues 1 through 37. And so what I implore people to do is don't be like that.
Even though it's a natural reflex to want to belong to Team Blue or Team Red, belong to Team Truth if you can achieve that possibility.
Yeah, in the United States at least, I'm not really that familiar with your political system in Canada, but in the United States it's reinforced because we really only have two parties.
And so much so that Brett Weinstein created this thing, Unity 2020, where he was trying to bring together conservatives and liberals together and find some common ground.
And he was promoting this as an alternative to the two-party system, and they were banned from Twitter.
Banned from Twitter.
They banned his personal Facebook page, and then tried to say that it was an error.
But no, it was a conscious decision.
There are people that work for these social media companies that have since left and now talk about it openly that they did have the freedom to edit things.
They did have the freedom to delete things.
And that they sort of took pleasure in doing so.
And that you were...
Given this leeway, if you felt like something was ideologically opposed to the terms and services of whatever social media organization you're working for, you were allowed to make that distinction.
It's very subjective.
You were allowed to say, well, this is negative.
This is negative towards our election.
This is promoting something that's going to damage the Democratic Party.
So we're just going to ban the Twitter account.
For violating terms of services, it's never been clear.
It's still banned.
The Twitter account is still banned.
And they just do this based on their own personal political beliefs.
It's not about truth.
It's not about the freedom of expression.
You should be free to express the idea that the two-party system has major flaws.
And one of the flaws is human beings' natural inclination towards tribalism.
We're very aware of that.
And if you find support within your tribe and you have steadfastly adhered to these ideals that the left has or the right has, you'll be rewarded.
Like, you're a part of us.
Yay.
Good job, Gad.
Or good job, Joe.
Like, you have adopted our conglomeration of opinions.
And you have stuck to them.
And they're so predictable on both sides, right?
On the left, you're supposed to be pro-choice.
On the right, you're supposed to be pro-Second Amendment.
And we have a series of these different things that you have to adhere to if you're on either side of that line.
And people take comfort in knowing that there's other people on their tribe that also think that way.
And they find some commonality in that and they find this camaraderie in their knowledge that this person that they're talking to has also agreed to stay within these lines.
Look, a quick story that recently happened to me regarding all these social media platforms.
I posted on all my social media platforms, including on LinkedIn, a post where I basically said, hey, you know, Joe Biden might have been a parasitic nothing for the past 47 years, but just wait next year when in the 48th year he's really gonna, you know, solve diabetes and cure cancer.
There was a satirical thing where I was kind of arguing that he hasn't done much throughout his public life.
LinkedIn removed it because it violated their community standards of harassment and bullying.
Well, who was I harassing and bullying, right?
I mean, I was harassing and bullying a public figure who's running to become the president of the United States, but that was bullying to him.
That's the world we live in.
So I think guys like, I don't know if you know these guys, and you might want to consider if they're willing to come on your show to have them on, guys like Senator Josh Hawley, Senator Tom Cotton, and Ted Cruz have been trying to, you know, reform the legal, you know, taking these social media from being, you know, So that they don't get the protection anymore.
They're actual publishers, right?
So that they don't get the protection of, hey, you can't sue us if we do stuff.
But of course, most of the Republicans and Democrats never want to go after the social media platforms because the ability of all of these top players to fund the politicians, whether they are on the right or left side of the aisle, is so great that most people turn a blind eye.
unidentified
But I really can't see this being something that can Well, it was locked out, and Jack Dorsey has since stated that they have amended their policy, and that if the New York Post wants to post again, they can, and then they can post the exact same story.
What they have to do, however, is they have to go back to their original post, remove it, That will reinstate them and then they can repost the exact same story and then they'll have no issues with that whatsoever.
And he said that in a conversation that he had with Ted Cruz.
It's very confusing.
I think that might just have to do with the way their social media platform is structured.
Jack Dorsey though, I can speak from knowing him on a personal level.
He is a man that believes in free speech.
And I think that inside the company he's fighting a battle.
But he is personally a person that believes that Twitter should be open and that it should be an open platform and he believes in free speech.
I don't think that idea is...
I don't think it's embraced by the vast majority of the people that make decisions over at Twitter.
And I think that his idea is probably unpopular, but he agrees with the sentiment, the original sentiment of the internet, the ability to distribute information for all people.
He thinks that all these people that have been deplatformed should have a place, and that the internet should be treated like a utility, and that it should be available to everyone.
He believes that.
I know he does.
But I think it's very difficult when you're a CEO of something that is a publicly traded company, an enormous company that's arguably one of the three or four biggest platforms for disseminating information on the planet Earth, and was never intended to be that.
They didn't see it coming.
I mean, obviously I sound like a Twitter apologist, but I really like Jack Dorsey as a person, and I think he's a very honest and he's a very interesting human being.
I think he gets unfairly maligned, but in my conversations with him, I think he really does believe...
He's actually proposed that there be two Twitters.
A Twitter that there is some moderation, and a Twitter that's the Wild West.
And just like you, I mean, I got the feeling that he's a real genuine, you know, genuine person, really cares about the world.
But I think you're exactly right that there are so many different constituencies that are pulling him in different directions that even though, you know, he may be fully supportive of the freedom of speech that you and I would be behind, he's kind of beholden to certain different camps.
Do you think that there will be eventually a regulatory mechanism that kind of sets all of these social platforms straight?
Or do you think forevermore we're going to be beholden to their BS? I think it's the only way out of this.
I think someone has to step in and they have to impose First Amendment protections on free speech on the internet.
Right now the internet, the social media platforms, they're thought of as private companies.
They can make their own decision.
Maybe if you had a party over at your house and someone came over your house and they started saying a bunch of really offensive things, you can kick them out of your house.
But that's your own house.
It's a private house.
But when your house is the world and you get to decide what's offensive and what's not and other people disagree, the problem is you're stifling people.
Free speech.
And you're stifling the ability for people to make up their own mind as to what is and what isn't offensive, what's correct and what's incorrect.
And, you know, it's been said a million times.
I've said it a million times.
But the answer to bad speech is not censorship.
It's better speech.
It's more accurate speech.
It's like you have to win the battle of ideas.
And much like a lot of these intellectuals that you were talking about that want to silence Alternative perspectives on campus, you see the same thing on social media.
People that have these ideological perspectives where they've steadfast adhered to this left-wing agenda, they don't want to engage with anyone that has a disparaging opinion.
Or a differing opinion.
They don't want to.
They just want to kick those people off, deplatform them, deplatform them, and they yell it out because it's been effective with people in the past.
They've gotten rid of people like Milo.
They've gotten rid of Gavin McGinnis and Alex Jones and a lot of these people.
They've canceled their voice.
I think by doing so, they've done themselves a disservice, whether they recognize it or not.
They've done discourse a disservice.
They've done free speech a disservice.
And they've created this tyranny of information, where they've decided that they're the ones who get to decide what gets disseminated and what doesn't.
Yeah, you know, ten years ago, I think it was in 2010, So I have a column on Psychology Today where I publish these short psychology articles on all sorts of interesting topics.
I haven't been writing for them as often these days, but when I started in 2008, I was a very heavy contributor.
And at the time, probably the most popular blogger...
At Psychology Today was an evolutionary psychologist by the name of Satoshi Kanazawa, who is a professor at the London School of Economics in England.
And he was a very sort of bombastic guy, very politically irreverent, used language that was perhaps at times, you know, unadvisable.
And he had published an article where he was talking about research, not his research, he was describing someone else's research, where they had done a study looking at Differences in how women across different races were perceived in terms of their beauty.
And the results had not come out in a way that was politically correct, if you follow what I mean.
Now, the way that he had handled that particular topic It seemed maybe a bit bombastic.
Maybe it wasn't the right words.
But right away, there was a huge call to get rid of him from Psychology Today, which happened.
But they also wanted to get him fired from his tenure position.
And I had written an article, and I think I was the only one who had written a public article, where You can still go find it on my column, where I said, you know, purging a blogger sets a dangerous precedent.
If Satoshi Kanazawa's words are wrong, what better punishment is there than to keep his words up there, because the light of the sun will forevermore condemn him, right?
What's the point of getting rid of him?
But, of course, people didn't listen to my warnings, and now it's become common ground to get rid of anybody with whom we disagree.
he was uh thank you my memory sucks today Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley did a series of national debates on primetime television in the 1960s and they were fascinating fascinating to watch these two guys go back and forth and debate ideas and two guys who really didn't like each other and hated each other but for the United
States to be able to tune into television just regular television and watch these open debates of liberal and conservative ideas.
I think was very rewarding for people.
And we don't do that now.
We don't have that anymore.
We don't have these open discussions where an intellectual on the left like Gore Vidal and an intellectual on the right like William F. Buckley can engage in this sort of intellectual combat and we could see who rises and whose ideas resonate with more people.
And I think it was around that time where Thomas Sowell was smacking down what we today would call social justice warriors when we were all in diapers, right?
I mean, I think if you go back to the 60s and 70s, some of the interventions that Thomas Sowell had on many of the issues that we're still debating and discussing today, he was doing that in the 60s and 70s when we were in diapers, right?
This is a guy, by the way, I don't know if you've ever reached out to try to get him on your show.
This is someone that I think you'd want to have on your show.
Do you think there would ever be a context where some of the powers that be will kind of wake up to the power of your platform and try to replicate it in mainstream media?
Or do you think it's simply too corrosive to actually allow two people who have different positions to share the same stage?
I think the only way to do something like this is to have a very small amount of people involved.
And when you do something on mainstream media just by definition, you're going to have an enormous group of people.
You're going to have investors, you're going to have network executives, you're going to have producers, you're going to have writers, you're going to have all sorts of people that And many of them, a vast majority, have a very liberal and left-wing ideology.
And to have the ability to have on whoever you want, you really need a singular person.
A singular voice, like a singular mind, who is curious about a bunch of different issues, who's not easily influenced by people on the outside and their criticisms and their intimidation.
People are intimidated by attacks and criticisms and insults, and so they'll change the way they participate, the way they communicate, and what they put out based on that intimidation.
I'm sorry, that's what happens, by the way, when there are presidential debates where the moderators are typically less than ideal in terms of their expressed bias.
And that's why I was very excited.
And I think I had even shared when the rumor was coming out that, you know, you'd be willing to moderate a debate between Biden and Trump.
I thought, God damn, that's a great idea.
Whatever happened with that?
Did either of their camps reach out to you or did you connect with them?
He contacted people that contacted me to do it, but I never reached out to the Biden people.
I felt like if they wanted to do it, they would reach out to me.
And if they did, I would have done it.
But I just don't think that's a good forum for him.
I mean, as we've seen, the debates themselves, specifically the last debate, was not good for him.
But what I would have done is, like when he was saying that I've never said I was going to ban fracking, Jamie would have just pulled up video of him saying, I'm going to ban fracking.
And that would have been horrible for him.
It would have been much better in terms of getting some clarity on what he's actually said and what he's actually done.
And then the other things about saying that his son never received any money from Russia, that's a lie.
It's been disproven.
It hasn't been disproven.
He knows it hasn't been disproven, but he knows that he can say that on the air and no one's going to call him on it.
I would have stopped the moderation.
I would have stopped the thing where I go, sir, we're going to pull up these articles and I want you to tell me what about these articles is infactual.
What's a lie?
And are you sure?
Would you be willing to say this in court?
Would you be willing to risk perjury?
Would you say this in front of a judge?
Because you could be in real trouble if you did that.
But you could just lie in a debate and the moderators don't check you.
No one says anything about it.
No one Googles it.
Why can't they just pull up a story?
Pull up a video?
I mean, the fracking thing was particularly egregious.
Yeah, well, there's only one Jamie.
He's right here.
We're not giving him up.
But someone could have done that.
And it would have been much better for the American public to just stop everybody in their tracks.
And also, why do they have two minutes to answer?
That's so antiquated.
This is so ridiculous.
The idea that you're talking about something that literally can affect the free world.
The decision of who gets control of the United States of America, what party is in control, and that you're going to put some arbitrary two-minute time limit on these discussions is crazy.
It's so ridiculous.
And also, the format is confined by these time blocks that they have, this 90-minute time block.
You shouldn't have a 90-minute time block.
You should start it at agreed-upon time, 6 p.m.
or whatever, whatever you want to do, and then...
Work it out.
Like, Abraham Lincoln and some of the speeches that he gave when he was running for president, they were hours and hours long.
And he was talking without a microphone in, you know, like a town square and discussing these ideas that he had.
And they would last forever.
And that's how you find out what a person thinks and believes.
But now, with the tools that we have available, the fact that they don't use those tools during a presidential debate.
Fact check Trump.
When he lies about something, pull it up.
Show that he's not telling the truth.
Show what he actually said.
Show what he actually did, as opposed to what he said he's doing.
Call him out on it.
Call Biden out on it.
Let's get to the bottom of this.
But even though those tools are available, Mainstream media would have to give away control.
They would give away control of their ability to navigate and steer this narrative.
The narrative that they're trying to steer, the bias that they're trying to exert on our election process, is really offensive.
It should be offensive to people.
It should be offensive that they have the ability to Google whether or not Joe Biden really did say he would never ban fracking.
And they didn't.
Why would you not pull up a video that's readily available online and say, sir, we're going to pause here for a moment.
We're going to play this video and tell me what you meant when you said you were going to ban fracking.
Tell me what you meant when you said you were going to embrace the Green New Deal.
Tell me what you said when you said that you were going to do whatever the fuck he lied about and pull it up.
I think for me, what amazes me about when he says things like that, and I suspect maybe we can say the same thing about Trump, although I can't remember quite the same types of lies.
Trump usually lies about, you know, my penis is the biggest.
The women have told me I'm the greatest lover ever.
Look at the number of people.
It's bombastic boasting.
Whereas the other guy is basically saying things that are demonstrably false.
And the only thing I can think of that could explain sort of the chutzpah of engaging in these types of lies It's as if Joe Biden's brain still exists in the 1940s where he doesn't know that there is this thing called Google and computers where we can quickly have Jamie fact check you, right?
So in the same way that he does the corn pop story, which is difficult to know if he's telling the truth or not, because again, it happened in the 60s or 70s or whatever, he could say something thinking that it can't be falsified.
Because how else could you logically explain that he would engage in such lies, right?
Well, not only that, how is the Democratic Party not saying, hey, this is a mistake?
And the whole idea that there's a deadline to this process and it all has to be done in a certain amount of time and this is how we have to do it, it's like, boy, it's so weird.
It's so weird that they're such an important decision.
If Trump wins, the lunacy will be much greater than if Biden wins.
I think if Biden wins, of course people are going to be disappointed and upset, but the manner by which that disappointment will manifest itself, in my view, won't be as drastic as if Trump wins.
I think if Trump wins, I'm going to be hiding under my desk forevermore.
Because the one that he released, it's like this woman was so antagonistic.
The way she interviewed him, it's not the way to interview anyone.
And it's definitely not the way to interview someone who's going to be the President of the United States.
I understand that he overpowers conversations.
I understand that he does that.
But I also think that this is also a function of the fact that you only have 35 minutes to talk to this guy.
And so he can just filibuster.
He can just keep going.
He can just talk over you.
He can ramble.
He can say things that aren't true.
He can rant and rave and do the things that he does when he does the campaign rallies.
It's not...
That's not the ideal way to get to him, to really find out what he's really all about.
The ideal way would be like this.
Sit down at a podcast and have him here for four hours and have him sit down and talk and then stop him when he says things and stop him and go, but hold on, okay, understand, sir, sir, let's check that and tell me Tell me why you said that when you said the biggest attendance ever for his inauguration, and then you go and see this big open field, and then you compare it to Obama's inauguration.
It's packed.
So many more people.
Clearly, there's more people in this photo.
Why is that?
Is this propaganda?
Did someone Photoshop it?
Or are you exaggerating?
Because you kind of exaggerate.
I know it's part of his personality to make fun and exaggerate.
He's an entertainer first, right?
He's a businessman at first, but became an entertainer and knows really well how to say outrageous and then oftentimes reprintable and they make clips out of these things.
They become sensational.
And that's also how he got elected in the first place.
The mainstream media thought that what they were doing was exposing what an asshole he was.
What they didn't realize, they're giving him free press.
They were constantly talking about him.
I mean, it was really a brilliant strategy.
He would say outrageous things.
They would take those outrageous things, put them on TV. People would laugh, and they would go, I like him.
A lot of the media, it's as if the humor module in their brain is completely lacking because I watch when Trump does his trolling.
And again, people always wrongly presume that whenever I take some position, it is a manifestation of the fact that, you know, I must have posters of Trump in my bedroom, which my wife and I use as foreplay aid, which of course...
It's not the case at all.
I'm just coming as an impartial guy from Canada.
I don't have a dog in the fight.
And I'm always telling people, well, wait a second, aren't you being a bit too tribal?
And so that's really the extent of when I engage the topic.
And so I will objectively listen to something that Trump said, and I will crack up laughing because I actually think it's funny.
And so, for example, when he says, you know, I guess...
When I finish my fourth term running, of course, because he is trolling, right?
So they go crazy.
He's a dictator.
So how do you explain the fact that a Adult with a functioning brain who's called a journalist is unable to recognize that when he says in my fourth term, he is just joking.
Well, I don't think that they can ignore it because I think that they have been programmed to catch people saying outrageous things and expose those things.
So when he says outrageous things on purpose, they can't help themselves.
And then people go, but you know he's just joking.
And they see that juicy carrot and they just run towards it.
And they don't realize it's on a stick.
And they're like, where's the...
Give me that fucking carrot!
And they can't get the carrot.
It's very strange.
But it's also, he's playing on their strategy, which has always been to catch people saying things that are unfortunate.
He's a statesman, a perfect statesman, probably the best one we've ever had.
And I think that there's one benefit of a guy like that is that we look at someone who's a president as a representative of the best aspect of the United States.
When you look at a guy who came from a single mother, came from poverty, and rose to become a lawyer, a senator, and then ultimately the President of the United States, and you see him and you go, wow, that's an admirable person.
If that was my son, I'd be immensely proud of the way he speaks.
The way he carries himself.
Now, if you want to get into policies, if you want to get into some of the things that they've done, it's not as impressive as you would have hoped when he was running for president, particularly in the defense of whistleblowers.
Their take on whistleblowers in the press was some of the worst that any administration's ever had.
But you also could say, I don't know how much the president Actually has control of that, how much power they really have.
I tend to believe that our view of the president is grossly distorted in terms of their real amount of influence over policy and decision making, particularly in terms of national security measures, whistleblowers, things along those lines.
I think the intelligence community has far more power than we believe And I think once a person gets into, and not just the intelligence community, special interest groups, lobbyists, you know, the money and the power that got them into that position leaves them so ultimately compromised that they get into office and then they realize the task at hand.
And also I think then they're probably briefed on the real problems internationally, the real problems security-wise in the world, the real problems that we have with our national security issues.
I think it's probably terrifying.
I think they probably have to amend all the ideas that they had, these idealistic notions that they had when they were running for office, and then they have to sort of regather and just have a new approach.
Obama's positions on a lot of things that he had when he was running for president, like, first of all, how did he never legalize marijuana?
How did he never federally legalize marijuana?
A guy who smoked it.
There's photos of him smoking it.
Why would you want to keep people locked away when you know that the United States has incarcerated so many people of color for decades and decades for a plant that makes them happy?
How was it possible that you got out of office and didn't do that your entire time?
I don't understand.
How is it possible that you didn't exonerate a lot of the people that were in jail for nonviolent drug offenses?
How did you not reform our definitions of what's legal and what's not legal?
What is Schedule 1?
What is Schedule 2?
What is Schedule 3?
How did you not change the laws in terms of what people can be locked in a cage for?
And when you're seeing...
States like Colorado, then ultimately California and all these other states becoming states where it was legal in the state.
Why is it not legal federally?
We all understand that it's safer.
And people could say, well, why do you worry about marijuana?
Because it's a personal freedom issue.
And it's not real.
The dangers, the reasoning for keeping it illegal, they're not real.
They don't work.
We know it's propaganda.
We know it's bullshit.
And we know it, especially when you look at the revenue that's been generated by these states like Colorado and California and Washington and Oregon, all these states that have made it legal.
You realize it would be of great benefit to these places.
And now there was an article recently about Texas doing it.
It would be of great benefit financially.
People are still buying it.
The United States is not getting the taxes from it.
And it's foolish.
You can only say that there's got to be some other motivation.
And that motivation is probably the people...
That run pharmaceutical companies and all these other special interests that don't want it to be legal because it would fuck with their bottom line.
And it would interfere with the money that they have coming in.
So as a psychologist who studies psychology and decision making, of course, I'm interested in how people make decisions, and in this case, consequential decisions in terms of who's going to be president.
Back in 2003, I had published a paper looking at the decision rules that people use when choosing presidents.
And perhaps to your dismay, or perhaps you already have the intuition that this is happening, people don't use We have heavily cognitive justifications in choosing their presidents.
They use these very emotional-driven, fast and frugal heuristics in making decisions.
So, for example, when you and I were both speaking about Obama, that he's majestic and he has a mellifluous voice and he speaks with the cadence of a Southern Baptist minister and he's presidential, all those things might be true.
But it's exactly what I think I mentioned once on your show.
I'm gonna take this to be akin to the cork of a wine bottle.
There's an expression in Arabic that says, getting drunk by simply smelling the cork of the wine bottle, right?
You don't actually need to drink the whole wine before you get drunk.
All you need to do is smell the cork and you're already drunk.
And I think this is exactly what happens to people.
They look at Trump, They get drunk by the cork bottle, which basically says what?
And I wish people would spend more time actually, as you correctly pointed, engaging the policies.
So I'll give you an example.
I could have a colleague who hails against Critical race theory and how dreadful it is.
And then when Trump bans critical race theory as something to be taught to federal employees, he simply can't give him the kudos because, you know, bruh, he's so disgusting.
That's what I'm angry about, that people lose their ability to objectively look at people's policies rather than at the superficial clues of he looks majestic or he looks like a vulgar ogre.
And in that sense, he does himself a disservice in a lot of ways.
Well, a lot of people had hoped that once he got into office, he would become presidential, like he would shift.
That was the hope.
It absolutely didn't happen.
And when people catch him saying things that aren't true and he argues with them about it, then you're feeding the fire.
But also you have to realize, he's made enemies.
With so many groups, particularly groups of power that have been in place in the United States forever, like the intelligence communities.
He's the enemy of a lot of the intelligence communities, particularly the FBI. I mean, they've shown that they were actively trying to get rid of him.
And then there was a lot of the people in the intelligence community that decided that he was going to be someone that they attacked.
And that's just crazy.
I mean, we talked about it yesterday with Glenn Greenwald where he discussed how Chuck Schumer had openly said that it's so foolish for Trump to attack the intelligence communities and become an enemy of the intelligence community and that it's going to prove to be foolish.
As a threat.
The intelligence communities were going to go after him, and they obviously have.
That seems to me...
It's fascinating to see it.
It's fascinating to see these mechanisms being put into place and these stories like the Steele dossier where he's got Russian hookers peeing on him and all that jazz.
And the fact that that was printed and they talked about that on CNN and it was printed in major newspapers as...
You know, a possible true story.
All that is so bizarre to see.
It's so bizarre to see his personality flaws amplified and weaponized and did not concentrate on just the policies.
He's a classicist who is a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford who has written a book, I'm promoting his book now rather than my own, but who has written a book about why you should have voted for Trump and so on.
And because he is a classicist who has studied Greek mythology, he analogizes Trump to the classic example of Sophocles of the tragic hero, right?
You know, you get the feeling that Trump simply wants someone, maybe because he is narcissistic, he wants someone to say, good job, here's where you did well.
And the fact that he could never get the mainstream media to even remotely be minimally fair.
You know, if you ban critical race theory, or if you support, you know, absolute free speech, you should be congratulated for that.
Irrespective of your political stripe.
But yet because they simply could never give him any kudos for anything, then his bombastic sort of bragging gets amplified because he is the tragic hero saying, look, what do I need to do to get you to just tap me on the back ones?
And I think that Victor Davidson's Hanson's analogizing with the classic tragic Greek hero is exactly spot on for Trump.
In the past, I sort of always thought of him as kind of lefty, progressive, don't pay attention to him.
But I've seen him several times appear on Tucker Carlson, which is, of course, a show that you shouldn't appear on because it's Fox News and so on.
And I've always found him to be incredibly fair.
I have to apologize to him here on the record that I thought of him in the past as sort of this really annoying kind of progressive guy, but I actually find him to be incredibly fair-minded in the way that he handles these types of issues.
And I think that's one of the reasons why he decided to go on Tucker Carlson in the first place, is to expose his way of thinking to a lot of people that may have had these predetermined ideas of him, these prejudiced ideas of him.
You know, it's funny because he actually had the same opinion of me.
You know, like when we did a podcast yesterday, he was like, I saw you before.
I thought he was some guy who platformed too many of these alt-right assholes and he hates trans people.
And he goes, and then I started listening to your show.
He's like, oh, he's not that at all.
And, you know, it's easy to have this sort of reductionist perspective of someone and decide, oh, that guy, he's a wacky, leftist, progressive, just ridiculous ideas.
But Glenn Greenwald is an honest man, and he's a man of principles, and he's courageous, and that's why he released the Snowden papers, and that's why...
He's done a lot of very important work in Brazil, and he's hated for it by some groups and loved by others.
He's taken a lot of chances, and I find him to be incredibly intellectually honest, and he's also willing to discuss some real landmine issues, real hot-button topics.
We got into some of them yesterday, and I respect him very much.
I think there are generalists like him, Matt Taibbi.
There's quite a few of them out there that are sticking their neck out, and they take a lot of attacks because of that.
But we need more of them.
We need more people that are going, this world is going mad and we have to look at things accurately.
We have to look at things for what they really are rather than what you want them to be or rather than the description that you say where you know you're going to get love from your tribe because you've drawn the correct line in the sand. - Yeah.
So I wanted to ask you something, and I hope it's not inappropriate for me to bring it up.
So you recently obtained a huge deal with Spotify, of course, putting you in a whole new category in terms of wealth.
Has that reality altered your felt level of happiness?
And let me explain why I say this, because I receive countless emails from people who say similar things to you, similar things to what you said at the start of our show today, where you said, you know, you always seem so happy and positive and all this kind of stuff.
And I always try to give them an answer in terms of, you know, what are some pathways to happiness?
And maybe I'll write my next book on this topic.
And I always tell people that, you know, don't rely really on money.
I mean, money in a sense, it's an inverted U. Up to a certain point, having more money makes you happier.
But beyond that point, it's diminishing returns.
There's an inflection point where it doesn't really alter your level of happiness in any way.
Would that be correct of you in that the fact that you've got this huge deal doesn't really alter your, you know, global holistic level of happiness?
I'm happy when I can do stand-up, and I can't really do stand-up right now.
I'm happy when I can do podcasts.
I'm very fortunate I can do that.
I'm happy my family's healthy.
I'm happy I have good friends.
Those things are still there.
Those are the things that make me happy.
I'm happy to be able to talk to someone like you.
I'm happy to be able to express myself.
I'm not a guy who needs a lot of money for stuff.
I don't live the most extravagant life.
I dress like a bum.
I haven't really changed much about that kind of stuff.
I think that, if anything, it brings more pressure because once people realize you're making a lot of money and they put you in a different category, then they start criticizing you more.
whether it's because of jealousy or because they realize you, you know, you're a more viable target, you know, it resonates with people more, especially during this climate where so many people are losing their jobs.
So many people are losing their businesses to see someone make a lot of money.
It's like, fuck that guy fucking.
And then you find more reasons to say, fuck that guy and even distort that person's opinions and perspectives.
Cause if it fits your narrative and it helps you criticize them easier.
No, it definitely hasn't.
But also, I didn't trust...
I think it's good to be with a company that...
Has an interest in your show being successful.
instead of just being on a platform where they benefit from you, but they don't really have a vested interest in you.
The communications that I had with the head of Spotify and the people that made this deal, they want the show to be successful.
They have an interest in it being successful.
Financial interest in it being successful.
And also, the head of Spotify was a fan.
He likes listening to it.
He didn't want it to change.
And we've gotten insurance that it wasn't going to change.
And a lot of people were really concerned.
Like, now you're going to have a different kind of a show.
No, I'm just going to do the exact same show.
There's been zero input in terms of someone telling me, hey, don't talk like that.
Don't say this.
Don't bring these subjects.
There's been none of that.
As much as people speculate there has, there's been none of it.
But it doesn't make you happier.
Yeah.
You're happy when you don't have to worry.
When you don't have to worry about your bills.
That's when money makes you the happiest.
That's the big leap.
Because I remember when I first got my first development deal and I went from being really poor and not having any idea how I was going to pay my rent...
To having a lot of money in the bank, having like six figures in the bank, and then this huge weight lift off my shoulders.
I remember that feeling.
I remember the feeling like once I looked at my bank account like, whew, I don't have to worry about my bills for the first time in my life.
There you were on the increasing part of the curve, right?
You were, in other words, more money led to greater happiness.
But then you get to a point where there's diminishing return, whether you have 10 million or 30 million or 100 million, doesn't add one millimeter of happiness to your global life.
And then you also, like I said, you're the target of more criticism.
That can make you less happy if you pay attention to it.
But what I've done is ramp up my physical exercise, my meditation, and my, as in California at least, my yoga.
I haven't really been pursuing that out here, but I've been doing a lot of exercise.
And as long as I have physical struggle, like a tremendous amount of physical struggle, I'm really good at letting the rest of it just wash off my back because I give myself so much physical struggle.
My workouts are so intense that whatever the pain or the frustration or the difficulty of criticism, it pales in comparison to what I do to myself.
And it sounds like a crazy person's approach to things, but I've really got a method to my madness.
In terms of the way my mind works, I work out like I'm training for something, like I have some insanely difficult physical task ahead of me that I have to prepare my body for.
But I really do.
That task is maintaining sanity.
My body has a lot of requirements.
And because I am in this high-pressure, sort of stressful situation with this place that I find myself in where there's a skeleton crew of people, me and Jamie mostly, that reach...
Millions of people all over the world.
How did this ever happen?
If I just sat around and thought about all those people listening and all the people that are mad at me and all the people that love me and the expectations and the criticisms, I'd lose my fucking mind.
I really would.
And if I got into it...
And I start engaging with those people and arguing with those people all day.
The biggest stressor are my own errors and the things that I've done wrong.
Those are the things that bother me.
When I've had a show where I wasn't at my best, or I said something that wasn't accurate, or I said it in a way where I could have done a better job of expressing myself, those are the things that bother me.
You know, it's so funny you say this because I'm going to relate what you just said to something that drives my behavior.
So when people tell me, why do you take on all these fights to fight against these bad ideas and it adds so much stress to your life?
I always tell them that I have, and it's going to speak exactly to what you said about yourself, I have a very exacting code of personal conduct So that I am truly my, you know, my most severe critic because I set the bar very high so that at the end of the night when I put my head on the pillow, in order for me to not suffer from insomnia and to not feel like a fraud, I need to know that I've done Whatever I could to contribute to the battle of ideas.
Now, however big or however small, I don't have Joe Rogan's influence, but I certainly have some influence.
And so for me to be able to go to bed with my whole personhood intact, I need to feel as though I've done all that I can.
And that's what compels me to engage in the way that I do.
And so I really do appreciate what you said about sort of having this Now, it can be exhausting, right?
Because you become your worst critic.
Did I say the perfect thing?
Did I say the right thing?
Was I at my best?
But in a sense, maybe it's best for you to be your own critic rather than others to be your critics, right?
Yeah, I always tell people I'm not a fan of my work.
If anybody has criticisms, believe me, I have worse criticisms.
But I think that's a great regulatory mechanism.
And some people say, oh, I should take time to smell the roses.
I do outside of my work.
I do.
I love...
Friendships, and I love life, and I love my family, and I love a lot of things.
I love a lot of things.
But when it comes to my work, I'm pretty ruthless on myself.
But that's a great regulatory mechanism for keeping sanity with something that's public.
Because you're doing it publicly, so you are exposed to all these people's perspectives and views and criticisms and praise, and both of them are equally toxic, right?
The criticisms can change the way you feel about yourself to the point where you could lose all self-respect and hate yourself and just want to argue with everyone who doesn't like you, but also the praise.
You can get delusional and you can start to think that you are someone special, you are different than the rest, and you don't have to try as hard, and everything you do is amazing.
And that's probably worse.
I think it's probably better to be ruthlessly self-critical than ruthlessly self-congratulatory.
I think that's actually probably more toxic.
Not actually.
I definitely think it's more toxic.
And the people that I know that lean in that direction, they all turn to shit.
Like, their work suffers.
They lose their ability to understand whether or not they're doing something good or bad.
And one of the things that people always say when someone becomes successful is like, how do you remain relatable?
Like, how do you maintain clarity?
But that's the introspective part.
That's the ruthlessly introspective part.
I don't think I'm any different than anybody else.
And I'm constantly telling people, all I've ever done is just keep working and grinding.
And so if you're on a path and you're running...
and you're running for five minutes, well, you're going to get X amount of feet, thousands of feet ahead, a mile ahead, or whatever you're going to get.
But if you're running for five days, you're going to get further.
It's just natural.
If you run for five years, you're going to be further.
You're going to run for 10 years, 15.
It's just a grind.
You just keep going.
And if you find yourself 10 years into the run, and you go, "Look how far I've gone.
I am amazing.
I am the best.
I am a, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
You just kept going.
That's all you've done.
Anybody could keep going.
And you get better if you pay attention.
If you pay attention to what you're doing and you are ruthlessly critical and you do have those days where you do something that you don't like, well, then you don't do it that way anymore.
And then you think about what you did wrong, you think about what you could do better, and you apply that information, and you apply some hard work and some discipline, and you keep fucking going.
And as long as you do that, you're going to get better.
Even in something that doesn't seem like you get better at it, like with conversations.
But you do.
You do get better at it.
There's an art form to conversations where you can make it in a way where the people that are listening, it resonates.
Yeah, I think more than anything, there's an intimacy in these conversations, right?
I mean, right now, I could completely presume that there's nobody listening to us, and it's just two guys talking to each other in a very familiar, intimate way.
And I think people pick that up.
And even on my own show, I think that's exactly what happens.
I often notice when people come on the show before I turn on the camera, They're nervous.
But then I set them at ease and I say, look, forget about the fact that there's going to be some people watching.
Just have a normal conversation with me.
And then within five minutes, you see the morphology of their face change because they really just get into it.
And I think it really speaks to You know, there's this old kind of adage that, you know, people have short attention spans.
They want, you know, clips to be three minutes long.
And my goodness, has your show proven that to be, you know, about as incorrect as you can get?
Because again, people are, you're speaking in people's brains, right?
By the way, people were so upset when my latest book, I didn't do the narration because they had so gotten used to my voice I don't want to say hate mail because they were very polite.
They were fans.
But they said, we are so disappointed that you didn't narrate your own book.
And they even offered to pay me to just take my act and just transcribe it.
And I said, that's ridiculous.
That wouldn't work.
Don't do that.
That's crazy.
So then what's the audiobook going to be?
Me doing stand-up with no audience?
That's so dumb.
That's ridiculous.
I'm not doing that.
And then I wrote some things and I wrote some weird things like my thoughts about sometimes I act as if life is a simulation.
I act with the knowledge that life is a simulation.
I literally go and I approach every interaction of my day occasionally with the idea that life is a simulation.
I did it in a humorous way but in a way that The concept is, of course you know this, if there is a simulation that's so good, you cannot discern whether or not it's a simulation.
How do we know whether or not we're in it right now?
And when you talk to really intelligent people that have studied this over and over again, they say it's highly likely that that is the case.
We will one day reach the point where simulations won't be discernible.
How do we know if we're in one right now?
And I was saying that I spend some of my time behaving as if I'm in a simulation.
And these are the benefits for that.
They're like, this is too weird.
And I'm like, yeah, I think weird.
Sometimes I think weird.
And they were like, we wanted to have punchlines in each sentence.
You know, I gotta tell you, I mean, so this is for aspiring authors who are listening to this show.
You touch on a very important point.
The relationship between the author, well, and the publishing house in general, but the editor who's handling your book is really akin to a marriage because you are ultimately sharing with that person the first draft Of your intimate thoughts, right?
Your book is your baby.
And so in my case, my editor for The Parasitic Mind was just the perfect guy because You know, when you send off the first draft, I mean, you're scared, right?
Because you think it's a great book.
You think you've done a great job, but you don't know.
Nobody's looked at it yet.
This is going to be the first guy who's going to actually look at it.
Is he going to say, what the hell are you talking about?
Or is he going to be?
And so the feedback that I got from him was really just one main thing.
There was very little.
He said, look, your book is too long.
We need to make sure that when people are reading this book, they can't put it down.
You currently are at, I think it was my first draft I gave to him was 93,000 words.
He said we need to scale it back to about 70,000 words.
But he was very polite in sharing that feedback because he knew that it's tough to tell an author who spent time agonizing over every syllable, hey, cut off 23,000 words from your baby.
But I think you have to come with the humility.
You can't be the type of guy who says, I am not going to change a goddamn syllable in my book.
And so I actually took his feedback to heart.
I did make the cuts and I think the book is much stronger for it.
So I really think there's got to be this unbelievable trust and intimacy between the editor who's handling your book and yourself.
If that relationship doesn't work well, I think the book will suffer.
Does the first time that you introduce new material to someone, for example, will you do the bit in front of your wife before it goes out on the road or the first time is in front of an audience?
Occasionally I'll say something on a podcast and it's funny and then that becomes a bit...
But most of the time, I have an idea, and the first time I say it, what I'll do is I'll make a shit sandwich, meaning I'll do a bit that I know works, and then in between that bit, I'll sandwich in this new stuff, and then if it sucks, then I'll go on with a proven bit afterwards.
So it's beautiful if you have material already, because you have a little scaffolding.
And so one of the things that I do every time I release a Netflix special, You have a special, and then you have all this time off after the special where you have to write a new special.
So I have usually about three to six months between the filming of a special to when it airs.
So during that time, I make a lot of shit sandwiches.
So I have those bits that I know work and then I sandwich in this new stuff.
And then some of the new stuff is great right off the bat.
It's rare, but occasionally you have a finished product from the paper to the audience and it works right away.
And you've nailed it.
It resonates.
But a lot of times it's not.
Some bits, they take forever to figure out.
And you've got to attack it from all these different angles and it could drive you crazy.
Yeah, it was one of the happiest moments of my life.
Because it was like, that was Mecca.
Comedy store.
When I started out doing stand-up in 1988 in Boston, I had heard about the Comedy Store from everyone.
Everyone talked about that is where Sam Kinison started.
That is where Richard Pryor used to perform.
And you would hear about all the greats, Robin Williams, all these different people who worked out at the Comedy Store in LA. And you would see video of it on television, and you would see these comedians that you knew were the greatest of all time, and they all came out of this one place.
And there was this one woman, it was her vision.
And she's, without a doubt, the most important person in the history of comedy outside of comedians.
It's Mitzi Shore.
She's the number one.
She allowed the lunatics to run the asylum.
And it's a bizarre family there where the only currency was, are you funny?
It didn't matter if you're a woman or a man or gay or straight or black or white or Asian or East Indian or whatever the fuck you were.
Are you funny?
And if you're not, fuck you.
That place was ruthless.
But if you were funny...
And you made it and you became a paid regular.
You were in this very small group of human beings.
There's probably, I would say, a thousand legitimate professional comedians on the planet Earth.
Out of those 1,000, there's maybe 500 that are really good that can headline in a theater or an arena or a sellout, a comedy club.
They have a following.
People come to see them.
It might be less than that.
It might be being charitable.
It's a small group of people because it's...
Such a brutal business on your self-esteem.
It's such a brutal business on your emotions, and it's so hard to get good.
You know, you could start off kind of good, but to be consistently good over and over and over again, to put out consistent specials, to consistently improve, it's so much work.
And most comedians, and this is a terrible thing to say, but it's true, they become good and then they start to suck.
They get to a point where they get that adulation, like we were talking about, and they embrace it.
And that's all they want.
They don't want to grind anymore.
The Comedy Store forced you to grind because you weren't just performing for your audience.
If I was going up on any given night, I'm not just performing for my audience.
There's people there that are there to see Whitney Cummings, they're there to see Eliza Schlesinger, they're there to see Joey Diaz, they're there to see Anthony Jeselnik.
I'm just one.
Of many, many, many people that are on the lineup, and they're all killers.
All these comedians would just be, you know, Ali Wong, they'd just be smashing, smashing, smashing, and you go on after them, and you gotta bring the heat.
And you're also trying to work out new material, and it's a gem, and it's like, it's also, there's like a family aspect to it.
Everybody's like, especially over the last decade in particular, because Comedy over the last decade, we realized that we don't have to have a famine mentality anymore, because everybody in the past was all competing for a limited amount of slots on television.
Everybody was competing for parts in a movie or parts on television shows or the host of The Tonight Show, and it was like a very dog-eat-dog sort of environment.
With podcasts, the atmosphere changed.
And then it became, no, we help each other.
You get on my podcast.
We have fun.
I tell people to watch your show.
I tell people you're going to be at the Chicago Improv.
And then everybody realized, oh, no, we're in this together.
And then it became like a brotherhood and a sisterhood.
It became a family thing.
And now it's much, much, much more supportive than it's ever been in the past.
So then the Comedy Store became, instead of this antagonistic sort of battleground, then it became this place where people...
Go to, like, refresh and see their peers.
So everybody would go on the road.
One of the best nights at the Comedy Store was Tuesday night because no one was on the road on Tuesday night.
Because the Tuesday night, everybody would come into town.
And so the people like Sebastian Maniscalco or all these people that would do Madison Square Garden on the weekend, they would come to the Comedy Store on a Tuesday night to work out new material.
And we'd all see each other.
So you'd go there on a Tuesday night and there'd be three sold-out shows on a Tuesday night.
It was madness.
And the lineups were just insane.
You'd look at the lineups.
And you go, look at this lineup!
This is crazy!
Anywhere in the world, you'd have to pay so much money to see this lineup.
Dave Chappelle would stop in.
Chris Rock was there.
And you would pay $20.
$20.
And you'd get to see the greatest comedy you've ever seen in your life.
And the word got out.
And it became this place where consistently it was sold out seven nights a week.
And that all happened within the last ten years.
And specifically...
From 2014 on when I returned because we had been talking about it and that was what that episode of the Comedy Store was all about.
We talked about it so much on the podcast and we talked about me and I would advertise so often about what a great place it is and I'd have guys like Tom Segura and Burt Kreischer and Ari Shafir on my show and we talk about the fun times we'd have and people were traveling from all over the world to come to this place and We were there because of the vision of Mitzi Shore.
We were there because of one woman.
Because she, in the 1970s, said, the only way this is gonna work is you let these fucking crazy people do whatever they want and find themselves on that stage.
And all that matters is that you're good.
That's all that matters.
Are you funny?
Is the audience laughing?
Well, then you're doing your job.
Everything else, I don't give a fuck about.
I don't care about the industry.
I don't care about agents.
She wouldn't give free passes to anybody.
And all the other clubs, like the industry and the agents, they would all hobnob and come to these clubs because it was their social place.
They would get free tickets and free drinks, and usually they would become a problem.
They would talk too much, and they'd get loud, and they weren't listening to the comedy, and they were drinking too much.
But not at the comedy store.
The comedy store, fuck you.
Pay the money.
It's 20 bucks.
Like, you know, oh, this is someone from ICM. Fuck ham, she would say.
I was going to say, I think that you mentioned earlier that You know, it's a very tough business to be in because of the rejection and so on.
I think rejection is such a fundamental part of life, right?
So, for example, when I send a paper to a journal for it to be peer-reviewed, I mean, the rate of rejections in top journals is in the order of 90-95%.
I mean, so stop for a second and think what that means, right?
You've just spent two, three, four years working on a scientific project.
It took you another six months, eight months to write it up.
You send it to a journal and you have a 90-95% chance of it being rejected.
And so I always tell my students that, you know, rejection is really part of being anti-fragile, right?
Who's a very good friend of mine, also a fellow Lebanese, right?
So anti-fragility is something that, I mean, as long as something doesn't kill you, right?
The old adage is, squeaky doors don't break, which is basically rewording the concept of anti-fragility.
You know, you and I grow because of the rejections, right?
And I think a lot of my graduate students oftentimes are disheartened by the odds of a paper being accepted because they say, my God, I'm going to spend the next 30, 40, 50 years operating within a domain of interest where the likelihood of my work being rejected consistently is in the order of 80, 90, 95%.
It's a tough pill to swallow, but ultimately the process ensures that that which does get published is top quality.
And I guess in a similar sense, it's the same for you guys, that the person who ends up making it is hopefully funny.
I think you told me on the first show that I ever came on your podcast, You had compared what I do to yours.
And probably of all the things you've said to me, that's the one that I remember the most.
You said, you know, there's something very similar in what you do and what I do in that it's impossible to hide.
The audience will find you out, right?
If you get into a ring as an MMA fighter, you can't fake it.
If you get into in front of a stage and you're not funny, you can't fake it.
If I get up in front of people and I start espousing stuff that's garbage, I'm going to get...
I really appreciate that because it shows that, yes, what we do is risky, but it's honest.
If you're good, the crowd will tell you that you're doing a good job.
It could be your attitude that you carry with you on stage.
You could be too cocky or too confident and not engaging enough.
It's not humble, but connected to the idea of expressing the bit rather than you killing on stage.
Some people just want to go up there and be great.
But what you really have to do is don't think I want to be great.
What is the best way to get this into people's minds?
And one of the best ways is to be completely tuned in to what you're thinking and what you're saying, to be locked in, focused, and also it's got to resonate with you.
You have to really think this is funny.
And it takes a while to figure out what about it is funny to you because you're so close to it.
You wrote it.
You're sitting there with it.
After you've written it and rewritten it three or four or five times, maybe it's not even that humorous to you anymore.
You have to figure out how to make it humorous.
And the way you've got to do that, it's one of the rare art forms where you need an audience to really put it together, to create it.
And you might get a bad crowd.
You might get a crowd that's drunk.
You might get a crowd that just had a heckler thrown out five seconds ago and people are upset.
You might get a crowd where the person before you had a terrible set and the audience is like, why are we even here?
This show sucks.
You got to kind of re-energize them and re-engage them.
They might have a preconceived notion of who you are when they look at you.
Women have a problem with that.
There's a lot of women that go on stage and men are like, ah, girl, she's not funny.
So women have like a bigger hurt.
I think comedy for women is probably at least 50% harder than it is for men.
I really believe that.
It's like the perceptions that a lot of men have are very prejudiced towards whether women are funny or not.
I think I might have discussed this on a previous show, but one of my former postdocs, his doctoral dissertation was on an evolutionary study of humor.
And the argument was that humor is a sexually selected trait, meaning that humor serves as a proxy for intelligence, right?
And so to the extent that there are sex differences in the frequency of top comedians, An evolutionary perspective would argue that there are stronger selection pressures, evolutionary pressures for men to be funny as part of their elaborate courtship rituals than there are for women to be funny.
So, for example, you know, never have the following words been uttered Sure, Linda, you have a gorgeous ass, but you're not funny enough.
We're not gonna have sex, right?
But the other way, it certainly has happened, where a woman sees a gorgeous guy, but he's a dud, he's not funny, he's not engaging, and she decides that he's not the right partner for her, right?
That's why women can consistently say, I want a funny guy, because they're effectively saying, I want a smart guy.
I mean, it's hard to be funny and witty and be a dumb guy, correct?
You're right that it's much harder for women to be comedians, but in part, evolution explains why there are sex differences in terms of the frequency of comedians.
But, you know, it's funny because when you said that he was miserable in the fact that he was a comedian rather than a movie star, it kind of, if we circle back to one of the first points that we talked about when we started today's conversation where you said, you know, you're a happy guy and so on, it speaks to the importance of really pursuing something that on a daily basis makes you happy.
I mean, I get tons of emails from people who say, hey, professor, I finished my bachelor's in this.
What should I study for my master's?
What is the market suggesting?
And I always tell them, no, please don't look at it that way, because you're going to have to wake up every day.
I mean, the place where you spend most of your waking time is at your job, right?
And the fact that I am happy, sure, I'm dispositionally happy.
It's just my innate personality.
But I'm also happy because I have a job that I love to do, whether I'm writing a book or speaking to Joe Rogan or giving a lecture.
I'm always excited by what I'm doing.
Therefore, it's hard for me not to be happy.
So someone like this comedian, this regrettable thing where he committed suicide, That mismatch between where he wants to be and where he is every day is a terrible...
Now, for most people, they don't commit suicide, but they do wake up at 57 saying, you know what?
I never wanted to be an accountant.
I became an accountant because my dad told me it's a safe job or a dentist or a doctor or whatever.
And I always tell people, I mean, I know it sounds cliche-ish, you have to find what makes you passionate.
And if you can do that, I think it's one way by which you can guarantee happiness.
Some people want to be a musician and unfortunately they make furniture.
There's a lot of that out there.
And not everybody can be a rock star, right?
Not everybody can be a famous painter.
And I don't know, other than what I do and what I've done, my path, I don't know what it would take for someone to be successful in their chosen field.
It's not mine.
I don't know.
But for Jenny, he was of an era where if you really wanted to make it, you had to be a movie star.
He looked at guys like Jim Carrey and all these people like Jerry Seinfeld to become a television star.
That was what everybody wanted.
They wanted a thing.
They wanted stand-up to be the thing that got you to the ultimate goal.
And now comedy is the ultimate goal for this generation of comics.
I'm a color commentator for the Ultimate Fighting Championship.
I'm a lifelong martial artist.
That's a dream job.
I'm a professional stand-up comedian.
I work the biggest venues.
I have the most fun.
I have great friends.
Dream job.
Podcasting, which I never even thought was a job, has become this amazing job.
And I love doing it.
I love it.
When I was leaving my house today, knowing I was going to get to talk to you online, nothing but happiness.
I was looking forward to it.
Nothing regretful about it at all.
I'd have zero regrets in terms of inaction.
Any regret that I have of action, the things that I've done wrong or people I've wronged or things I've said that I shouldn't have said has made me a wiser person.
I know so many people whose lives have never really worked out because they've chosen the wrong people.
And they've had these insane relationships, these terrible, you know, combative relationships with their significant other.
But you have to be the person that attracts a person that is a quality human being.
If you don't have anything to bring to the table, if you're filled with self-hate and loathing and anger and all the jealousy and pettiness, you're not going to get a person who is a good person.
It's not going to happen.
You've got to fix yourself.
Like, so many people think they're going to find a person.
That person's going to make them happy.
Now, I think people enhance your happiness.
It certainly makes you happier.
But you have to figure out who the fuck you are.
You have to work out your own bullshit if you want to have a good person in your life.
Because a good person's not going to be attracted to someone who's all fucked up.
They're not going to want to be around you.
You're going to be a problem for them.
And you should, in a non-selfish way, you shouldn't want to have a good person in your life if you're a mess.
Because you're going to fuck up their life.
But I agree with you.
Having a family and having people that you love and loved ones, if without that you don't feel complete.
People need love.
And it's such a...
You know, it's such a cliche thing to say, you know, all you need is love.
It's not all you need.
You need food and shelter.
But if you have everything but you don't have love, you will be fucking miserable.
There's so many people that are successful, but they don't have love.
And those people, it's an imbalance, right?
I mean, the standard cliche of the...
The billionaire CEO who works 16 hours a day and is on his fourth marriage and has a bunch of kids that are drug addicts because he was never there.
On paper, he's successful.
But his real life is a shambles because he spent all of his time concentrating on accumulating wealth.
And accumulating power and none of his time on himself and how he interacts with other people and being a good father and being a good husband and being a good friend and being a decent human being.
And sometimes those are the hardest things to do.
It's easy to concentrate on a task at hand.
If you could just distract yourself from your own barbaric humanity and just think only about accumulating numbers in a bank account.
I mean, that's Michael Douglas in the movie Wall Street, right?
Without giving any names, I have family members who have been of that type, who really have never fostered long-term friendships.
When I say family members, I don't mean my own family.
I mean, my family of birth, where they became very wealthy, where they collected Ferraris and Aston Martins.
And I've warned these family members that life is long and if one day you were to lose your money, and I hope that you don't, the trajectory is not a good one.
And I hate to say it, but it's turned out that way.
Love is a protective belt.
We get older, right?
You should always be accompanied by great quality people around you, but you should certainly have those great quality people as you enter the golden years of your life.
And I think, regrettably, for some of these high-flying players, They think that the party is going to go on forever and it isn't.
And so, yeah, you know, choose carefully who you're going to go to bed at at night because that's one of the sources of happiness.
And also, if you get if you're concentrating only on success in terms of financial success, and that's what a lot of people do that are in business, right?
You're really your your life is fixated on numbers.
Your life is fixated on accumulating numbers.
It's an empty pursuit, but it's also a pursuit that becomes insanely addictive, because you compare yourself to the people around you.
Mike's house is 4,000 square feet, but my house is 5,000 square feet.
And then you're happy with it until you realize that Steve's house is 7,000 square feet, and you're like, fuck!
I think that for a lot of people, goals make them happy.
Achieving goals.
Like having something that you're working towards.
And I don't necessarily just mean financial goals.
I think that's where people get tripped up, is just thinking about financial goals.
But...
Accumulating skills.
Getting better at things.
To me, that makes me happy.
Or at least keeps me engaged and satisfied.
There's something about learning new things that's very rewarding.
Getting better at things.
Very rewarding.
But not if all you're concerned about is numbers.
Not if you're just doing it to try to achieve bigger and greater.
Like you were talking about the point of diminishing returns when it comes to financial wealth.
I think challenges are important, like having things that you're working towards, because they give you this sense that in doing these things and getting better, whether it's getting better at playing chess or getting better at tennis or whatever, pick a thing.
There's something about it that develops your overall human potential.
When you get better at something, you flex the muscles and exercise the muscles of getting better, of figuring out problems, of being engaged.
When you're stagnant and just doing the same thing over and over and over again with no change, your mind atrophies.
It speaks to what you said earlier when you said using the COVID lockdown for self-improvement.
So, for example, one of the things that I did during the COVID lockdown is I said, because I am now addicted to this step counting thing that's on my iPhone, I said I wanted to always maintain at least 14,000 steps per day.
So it was a very concrete goal.
I knew that I had to reach that benchmark.
And it didn't matter if at, you know, 10 o'clock at night, I have to go walking around the block eight times so that I could hit that mark.
I was going to do it.
And so by doing that, it gave me great satisfaction because I could look now at the last seven, eight, nine months and see that my pedometer is showing that I've maintained this very specific objective.
By the way, I was recently on, I don't know what you think of her, but I was on the podcast of Jillian Michaels.
That was super fun.
Which, by the way, again, shows you all of these incredible connections that today we have.
In what world would I, a professor of evolutionary psychology and so on, have connected with Jillian Michaels, but apparently she was a fan of my show and invited me on.
So, again, the social network stuff allows You know, meetings of worlds that you would have never thought possible 10, 15 years ago.
What she does after, I don't know, but I joked with her at the start of the show.
I told her that, you know, when I invite people on my show, I have all sorts of illustrious people, most of whom my wife never batted an eye, but when she found out that I was appearing on Jillian Michaels, She said, oh, tell her I'm a fan.
Tell her I'm a fan.
So apparently I finally got street cred by appearing on Jillian Michaels' show.
I feel as though you've been remiss in pointing to the fact that I'm about 20 pounds lighter than the last time that you saw me when I was on your show.
I think a little shout-out from Joe Rogan saying, well done, would have been the appropriate thing for you to do, but I'll forgive you.
There's an ongoing joke now, and I'm sure you probably don't check it because you probably get tagged a million times on Twitter, but oftentimes I will post something decadent I'm eating and then I will write, please forgive me, Joe Rogan, hashtag Joe Rogan.
So somehow you've managed to incorporate yourself in my culinary conscience So that every time I eat something bad, Joe Rogan is on my right shoulder, you know, insulting me.
People love that term, fat shaming, to use it as a pejorative.
But there's something about fat shaming that can motivate you.
If someone says, it's like we were talking about earlier, things that feel bad.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Like, oftentimes they'll force you into action, you know, and I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, but sometimes their feelings need to be hurt a little in order to prod them into action, and you can do that with people.
Actually, I had written an article on my Psychology Today column defending Jillian Michaels, whom we just talked about a second ago, because she had gone after, but in a very polite way, she had gone after Lizzo saying, well, sorry, but I'm not going to celebrate her body because it's not good for her to be this overweight.
And suddenly she was this monster Nazi because how dare you not celebrate Lizzo's body and so on.
And I said, I mean, are you insane?
Why should she be celebrating?
She's a fitness expert, a health expert.
Why should she be celebrating someone being 300 pounds overweight or whatever she was?
Well, because, I mean, of course, women do look at men's physical markers, but not to the same extent, because in a sense, men can compensate for some of their physical shortcomings by doing well in other metrics, right?
So you could have a guy who's very funny, who's Maybe not the tallest, but he has great personality or a dominant personality.
But when it comes to physicality, it's difficult to compensate for that.
You either are facially symmetric or you're not, right?
But it's really funny that some of the people that also say that you shouldn't body shame, they're the same type of people that make fun of Donald Trump for having small hands.
It's like whenever it's convenient, you will forego those rules.
That's why there is something called the seven deadly sins, right?
It's because moral philosophers and theologians were well aware of many of the quicksand traps that we could fall into and they've put them into a easily digestible list for us, right?
Well, that's why it's important to have psychologists like yourself who can explain exactly what's going on in the mind that's forcing you into these weird little traps and holes.
It came out on October 6. So far, it's doing really well.
Very excited by it.
It basically is the story of many of the things that we've been talking about all the years that I've been coming on your show, which is there are a bunch of these terrible ideas, these idea pathogens that were spawned on university campuses because it takes intellectuals to come up with really dumb ideas.
And so I trace What these bad ideas are, how they originated, and then I offer solutions for how we can protect ourselves against these bad ideas, how we could vaccinate ourselves against disordered thinking.
So far, not too much criticism because I'd like to think that I've done a pretty good and tempered job in presenting the evidence.
So one of the things that I try to explain in the book is that each of these bad ideas start off with a kernel of truth and some noble cause, but then in the pursuit of that noble cause, the idea gets distorted and it becomes parasitic.
So for example, When it comes to feminism, equity feminism is a great idea because it basically says that men and women should be equal under the law.
There should be no institutional sexism.
We can all agree to that.
But in the pursuit of that original noble goal, we shouldn't then say As do militant feminists say, that there are no innate biological differences.
Everything is due to a social construction.
We need to make men and women indistinguishable in the pursuit of the original goal.
When it comes to transgender activism, it's the same story.
You and I can both be fully in favor of transgender rights, As I think we both are.
But that doesn't mean that we reject biology, what I call biophobia, in arguing that a 275-pound guy who's 6'7", who decides to call himself Linda tomorrow, he can fight the MMA against women who are one-third his size.
And if you say otherwise, you're a transphobe.
And so what I basically argue in the book is that each of these terrible ideas Started off from a good place, but then it metamorphosized into a complete departure from reason.
And then I offer ways by which we can sort of retake reason and logic and science from these parasitic ideas.
Now, when you construct a book like this, do you look at it in terms of how people could potentially criticize these ideas and what arguments they would have against what you've proclaimed?
Well, what I try to do is offer a way by which it becomes difficult to argue against me because the evidence is too great in my favor.
I always tell people that when I walk into a room, if I walk with the requisite squagger, it's because I know what I know.
But I also have epistemic humility, meaning that if you were to today ask me, Joe, give me your position, Gad, on the legalization of marijuana, I would tell you, you know what?
I simply don't know enough about the story.
I haven't done my homework.
I haven't built, to use a term from my book, I haven't built the nomological network of cumulative evidence that would allow me to pronounce a definitive position.
And so I think if I've done a good job in the book, I will have communicated to people a way by which when they are constructing arguments, they can do it void of hysteria.
If I want to prove to you, Joe, that toy preferences are not socially constructed, I can prove it to you by bringing data from across cultures, from across time periods, From across disciplines, showing to you that toy preferences have a biological signature.
I don't need to get hysterical.
I don't need to get emotional.
And so I'm offering people an epistemological truth in establishing when to know that something is truthful or not.
My blood pressure is higher because of that, right?
So yes, but in all seriousness, I face it both in my public engagement.
Meaning, let's say, on social media or whatever, but also in my scientific career, as I think you and I might have spoken in the past, I've always faced that consistent debate because many of my colleagues in the social sciences, even till today, are very, very resistant to accepting the idea that biology matters when it comes to human affairs, as I think we've discussed in the past.
And so it's really, in a sense, this book I've been writing it for 25 years because I have seen, you know, I tell in chapter one of the book, I basically say that I faced two great wars in my life.
The first war was the Lebanese Civil War when I was a child, and the second war has been the war on reason, logic, and science that I have experienced as a professor of 26 years.
Some of the stuff that is being taught and promulgated at the universities is absolutely insane.
I mean, people think that I'm making it up, that I'm being satirical when I say these things, but you now see the downstream effect of all those bad ideas, right?
You're seeing it in HR departments.
You're seeing it in the training in the military.
You're seeing it in political parties.
So these ideas start off in the universities as some esoteric nonsense, but with enough force, they become mainstream stuff.
Yeah, well these people graduate from those universities and they go on to enter the workforce with these notions that they have.
And these notions are reinforced by the other people that are their age that graduated along with them and they want to reshape society and these ideals.
And then one day they get older and then they get a mortgage and then they get a job and they get a family and they go, what the fuck was I doing?
Exactly.
But they've already started this process.
It's interesting that you say this denying of biology and its effect on human affairs is such a strange thing because it's clearly a factor.
It's clearly a significant thing.
We know it's a real thing, but the denying of this particular factor is very strange.
Because imagine if we can argue that your child and mine has equal probability to become the next Lionel Messi or Michael Jordan as Lionel Messi or Michael Jordan.
We're all born with equal potentiality.
We're all born on equal footing.
We're all born tabula rasa.
So again, that speaks to my point earlier, right?
These idea pathogens free us from reality, but they do so in the service of kind of a feel-good, noble cause, but it is perfectly detached from reality.
Men and women are not biologically the same.
We're not all likely to become Michael Jordan.
Transgender people have every right to live free of bigotry, but they shouldn't compete with biological females if they're trans women.
And so again, I think the difficulty is that for most people who are social justice warriors, they think that we can't chew gum and walk at the same time.
I could be for all of these noble causes without ever murdering a millimeter of truth.
Yeah, and the physical issue is very strange, too, because physical variables, they're so real.
And to deny that as a factor, as a real factor in who you are and what your potential is, that's one of the reasons why sports are so interesting, right?
Like, a person like me really doesn't have a chance to compete against LeBron James.
It's not going to happen.
It's not on the table.
And to deny that, it seems foolish.
To deny physical differences.
It's one of the reasons why sports are so interesting.
You get to see these freaks.
You get to see these rare people that can do things that you know for a fact if you had a million years to practice, you could never achieve the things that they're doing.
And it's But by the way, John Watson, one of the founders of behaviorism, argued basically, and I have the exact quote in the book, that, you know, give me any 12 infants, I could turn any one of them into the next beggar, the next surgeon, the next athlete.
So he was basically arguing for exactly the position that you are so rejecting.
Hey, I could turn you into the next LeBron James If you give me the right opportunity to properly condition you and socialize you, it's insane.
By the way, even, for example, in psychiatry, until very recently, something as clearly organic as schizophrenia was blamed on the environment.
You had a schizophrenic mother who hugged you too much or didn't hug you enough.
Of course, today we look back at that and say, who believed this nonsense?
Well, Freudians did, right?
So again, it's not as though these ideas are not espoused by otherwise very smart people.
John Money of Johns Hopkins University Who was one of the original sort of gender is a social construction, used to advise surgeons, well, don't worry about it.
Do the surgery on this boy and put him in a dress, call him Linda, and he will be a girl.
Because it was thought that gender is completely due to social construction.
It has nothing to do with biology.
So these ideas have real consequences.
They're not just some esoteric thing that we talk about in the humanities department.
Look, I know we've talked about Justin Trudeau previously on your show.
Justin Trudeau is a walking manifestation of almost every single one of the bad ideas that I discuss in the parasitic mind.
He's into postmodernism.
He's into diversity, inclusion and equity.
He's into cultural relativism.
You know, every single one of the dreadful things that I talk about in the book, he exemplifies it.
Why?
Because he is a product of that Educational process.
That's what you're supposed to think as a progressive.
And now that he is prime minister, he institutes each of these ideas.
They have real consequences.
I'll tell you a quick story that just happened to me recently.
My daughter came to me and told me that her science teacher had an avatar of BLM in their dialogue, in their whatever, Zoom or whatever it was called.
And I thought that was very objectionable.
And so I wrote a very polite but firm letter To the principal saying that I didn't think that it was appropriate in the pursuit of her pedagogic responsibilities that a teacher would signal her political affiliations to young children.
And secondly, I then said, but never mind that, If you look at some of the positions that are espoused by BLM, they're truly grotesque, whether it be the Marxist stuff, whether it be the black supremacism, whether it be the clear anti-white propaganda.
And so I thought, is this something that's appropriate for a teacher to be doing?
Well, within a few hours, It was taken away.
It was taken off, right?
So that was, in a sense, me activating my inner honey badger, right?
It's not that I just got on a Joe Rogan show to talk about these ideas.
In my own personal life, I got engaged, and I think that's what everybody needs to do.
You need to be engaged in the battle of ideas because they have truly severe consequences on our children and their children.
They're afraid to engage in the battle of ideas because they don't want to be labeled a bigot and they don't want to cause people to attack them and they'd rather just keep their mouth shut and complain quietly to their friends.
But earlier we were talking about all of the different frailties that the human condition suffers from.
I think cowardice is something that I've always said should be added to the long-standing list of seven deadly sins.
We should have an eighth sin called cowardice.
Look, I don't want to sound hyperbolic, but the young folks who landed on Normandy weren't given a guarantee of safe passage.
They knew that most of them were going to be mowed down like little mosquitoes by the machine guns of the Nazis, and yet they said, hey, I'll go, I'll do it.
And they did that.
They made that sacrifice so that Joe Rogan and Gad Saad can today sit in a free society And have this great conversation.
So I understand that people are afraid of real repercussions.
And I'm not suggesting that people should be reckless martyrs.
But what I am saying is that you can't simply say, I'm too afraid and I've got too much to lose.
Let Gad Saad, let Jordan Peterson, let Joe Rogan put their neck on the They've got this.
They can handle it.
No, we each have a small part to play.
If we all grow a pair and speak out in unison, we'll get rid of these ideas by next Wednesday.