Hello and welcome to the Cortina gurus, the podcast, when Anthropologist and a psychologist, listen to the greatest Minds the world has to offer. And we try to understand what they're talking about. I'm
professor at Brown and with these associate professor
Chris Cavanaugh.
Good morning, Chris. How are
you morning? Matthew? I'm I'm fine. And dandy Genki.
You kinky? That's good. Yes, we just had a lot of audio problems, but I no longer sound like a robot, right? So we can actually do this.
You do sound like a robot to me, but hopefully not to the listeners. So that's fine. I'm dealing with some issues, Matt, with my internet. I don't know what's going on. Everyone sounds like a robot to be it. I hope it's the
internet. Yeah, not me mate. Not me.
Maybe you've all been replaced.
If these like bad throwbot coffees and I mean character, I'm the. What's it called? Like Truman? Yeah,
could be, could be, could be well, I just got out of a grade assessment meeting, which was interminable. This is the meeting where we all sit together and talk about the grades that were handed out for all the different units and I was commenting. Snarkily on everybody else's inflated grades. And then I realized that the comments were basically
Public's and now you've told five seasons of people.
Any coexisting to not look for the private DM comments for that meeting? Just don't, don't even look for them. You don't want to see, there's nothing. There's nothing. Nothing there that you want to see.
That's right. So my 111 thing that you did recently, which I was quite surprised to see and I think we need to mention. So, you know, last time we discussed that, we got an unofficial Discord set up where we're taking a leaf out of the guru's Berg and we're in
Regine. Our community that form these inch Allure communities where they can stick them on people and do all these kind of bad things and I was surprised as were the other members of that this chord, when you're created an alternative official Discord and were siphoning people off, you, you already created, you know, Discord drama we covered are, it's multiple discords nullify. And yeah, I was surprised to see.
That you had created your own Discord server and more pointy people in that direction. So what happened? But you you just a power-hungry maniac.
I
know it was so crazy. Like somebody on
Twitter was asking for the lake to the Discord. So yeah, he said some people credit unofficial Discord, which is great and I popped in there and had a bit of a chat with people. It was all very nice and then suddenly on Twitter the link and I was like, I didn't I had a good link.
The thing I just installed the app and I'm like, you know, I'm venturing onto much. I don't know how this stuff works. And so I, I thought I was sharing a link to the unofficial
server, but somehow,
and I just I just I supposed to do in the lake and then just didn't think any more about it. And then this big brouhaha out happenings. Well, I wasn't faking it turned out. I'd made an entirely new discuss. Several just
with one president Lee created our
Rifle to this court. That's impressive. What I've said to you did that, and I saw some people commenting and say, no, they've set up like an official 190 it, you know, they were saying, no, that's, alright. That's their right. It sounds like dick. Wait. What what, what did we do? And I was 100% sure that you did not intentionally create this card that you would need to manage, but I did enjoy that for a while. People were speculating.
In that, that this was what had happened and there. And yeah, and then you did it, the leader, it doesn't exist anymore. But I enjoyed the suggestion that I think it was Dan. Gilbert was saying, you could call it Matt meet Kiev, and and just make it your own little private Discord. If people come there, I actually, but you looked at my it's gone. It doesn't exist anymore.
It's called, it was sowing Discord Discord and we couldn't have that. Oh, maybe it was a mistake.
Machiavellian plot for me. All of this is a cover story. That's right. Yeah,
you you saw the negative feedback and you just need to be taught me. The towel was the cliff. They're onto me and unique that. No, good job. My, I just, it's pretty remarkable, but somebody could accidentally create a Discord. So that's so yeah, so you're an impressive person. So he discords patreons, all those things. They are available seek them. I don't trust my every singe, any links.
Send you. Somebody
private forums or something. So just keep an eye out for him if you're going to the
official account, but otherwise, you're pretty see, if it pays
nobody asked me for the link to the Discord because this could all happen all over again. And what had to get any more like
my before? We get onto the episode of today and what we're up for five. We sometimes, you know, we just have these thoughts that pop into your mind about.
Products and services that might be available and and beginning to hear in the back of my mind, some ukulele strumming happening. I don't know. They have any idea what's going on.
Maybe it's got something to do with this ground News application. This wonderful app for people who aren't afraid to have their opinions challenged. Could that be it? Chris,
please go on, tell me more.
This is app that allows you to compare. How a single story is being covered across the
Medical Spectrum, you know, it gets you out of those rabbit holes. Yeah, that's right for those kids. You've got down a rabbit hole, it gets you out of the rabbit hole. If you're in the bubble, it'll pop that bubble. It's amazing. It's the cure for click bites and / lism and polarization. And it'll give you a mix of stories across the political spectrum. And you can also figure out where particular stories are being covered in the political Spectrum. So all in all a pretty amazing tool,
that's incredible, but this is my finger that exists is
it can people access it
know, I know it sounds like something in a beautiful wonderful tree before I woke up and had to Face Reality again, but no it actually exists out there in the real world at Ground. Start news forward slash careers as with these two amazing features. One feature is the news blind spot bed, enables you to see news. It's being ignored by one side of the political Spectrum. It's with this other one, which is news comparison feature where you can take a particular story and see how it's giving covered across the entire Spectrum.
So, you know, helps you to think for yourself and not the totally driven by the particular slant of the news that you're
consuming. You can go to grind out news forward slash gurus or click, the little link that will put in the podcast descriptions. Check it out.
Absolutely. Check it
out. Well, Matt, so today we have a special episode. We're not doing a guru decoding with
Doing an extended interview and we're doing our first Guru response, a response. We gave, anybody who we cover on the show within reason the right to come and talk to us about what we said and you know, respond to our critiques and the person who decided to take us up on that offer. Yeah, you may have heard of item is a little-known figure that it has a couple of blogs that he's contributed to and what not, but
One Sam Harris, is the interview guest for this episode. Have you heard of him? Matt prior to this interview?
Yeah, it does ring a bell. It's time to come up a few times. Something to do with religion. I think he's all for it. But think like
that. Yeah, I've heard that he's it's a strong advocate for the
importance, of religion, and modern
societies, but we're not focusing on that. Part of his output in this interview. The interview is kind of split into two parts, and they think it's important to
Flag up for people. What those two parts are? We cover it in the intro segment of the podcast? So I won't belabor it. But the first part is talking about the waking up app, and some of the criticisms we had on the specific episode focused on him, recommending the app and and talking about how he links his political views, potentially to the introspective practices that he recommends on those up. So we spend about
And are at the beginning, discussing that and issues of gurus and introspective practices before moving on, to wider issues, broader criticisms, and with tribalism and the culture war and more controversial topics in the second half, but that's the division.
I do. Most people tuned in to hear me, give my opinions and I Pine on things, but you're not going to be getting a lot of that.
In this interview Chris is spearheading it. Chris is feeling it and that's fine. That's fine.
Oh, wow. Wow, look at that passive-aggressiveness. I don't I don't want to peel back the curtain a bit and say though it is true that in the second half of the interview, Matthew essentially disappears Into The Ether. He becomes one with the cosmic Consciousness. He returns at the end, but one issue I think probably people will hear is that this interview is a little
Halfway between at the beard and an interview in the second half and those different Dynamics to whether you're having at the beer or an interview. And perhaps we should have fought a little bit more prior about how to manage that Dynamic. It's no fault of Sam's, but I think we are stuck between that point. Emily in causes some little bit of friction at the leaders, the
Ages of the
interview. No, there's a bit of material. You refer to a different points in the interview that Chris.
Yeah. So the one thing that comes up in the interview was that our editor better angels on Twitter, who is a prince amongst man, and is responsible for saving us a whole lot of work. And he noted that there were some things that he didn't have the full context for and because
Referencing people that we assumed knowledge of like maajid Nawaz and Douglas Murray or Stefan molyneux and so on. So we'll put a bunch of links into the show notes that will hopefully provide extra information about those but also in the episode there's only one clip played to Sam and it's about his previous opinions and the expressed in an interview, a couple of years back. I buy
Out Gad sad and Dave Rubin know I played this likely wrong clip. So when you listen to the episode, I've inserted the correct clip first, then there's a gap and then you'll hear the clip. That's am heard. So Sam did not hear the first clip and I just want to make that clear that he's responding to the second clip, but I wanted to put it in so there's the context. So people know what I was intending to refer to and there's one.
Lower part leader and the episode where we're discussing comments. He made in the CM interview in relation to France and potential. Future conflict there and Muslim immigration and I don't want the inserting new clip into the interview because it's not really fair. But for context, I think it would be important or you. I mean at least useful for people to hear what I'm referencing, so I'm going to play it here.
Just not
me as an another, do a skin color. It has. It's just, you know, if you told me, you know, if you had a crystal ball and you said you actually 75 years from now, Europe is going to have much more of the character of the Middle East today. Then the Europe you, you know, and love that certainly seems possible to me and it's worth worrying about and that
would be like
Really possible like can people will impose Sharia or
just they'll be you know, if you said to me 20 years from now, there will be a Civil War in France and a million people will die. Right? That does not seem like like a a completely paranoid concern. I'm at that, you know, I what are the odds of that I would. I would put the odds of that at who knows, who? If he told me, if you told me the odds were 50/50. I wouldn't find a good reason to tell you. They weren't
So yeah, just a double and triple emphasize Sam probably remembers that if your ribs that at all probably remembers it relatively vaguely you weren't all teed up and ready to play that clip for him. But that's just to let people know what you're referring to
cuz I think it was one of the things that was a little bit
confusing in the leader
segment. But as you say, sound probably doesn't remember exactly what he said there, but that's the context of some of those comments and that is from a podcast platform.
Conversations with Ina who's a
very strong critic of Sam, but there's there's an interview they did a couple of years back when she was more positively inclined, but you were still very critical in that episode. So that's where the clips are from a movie, put links in the show notes. And there's only one other thing that I think, might be useful to flag up. And I get to spend very much time on it, but we get ball darling in the later parts of the interview with
With discussions about tribalism and I think part of the issue there is potentially differing definitions. Maybe I'm coming at it. More from the view of like social psychology, in-group bias and whatnot, which doesn't require that all members of a group or signed up to the exact same things or that you cannot be part of different groups and so on. So there's a bunch of literature by thing called minimal.
A paradigm which indicate that when you assign people arbitrary group identities that you can produce in-group bias and that I'm not arguing that. What I'm calling tribal biases are arbitrary, but just to say that I think that sounds view of what we mean by tribe is a much more very rigid and identifiable tribes like political parties and partisan political groups and so on so that comes up and if people are interested in
In the distinctions that I would make amongst the heterodox and IDW set, I did a podcast interview with Aaron Robin wits for embrace, the void, explicitly on this topic. So I'm not treating IDW and heterodox set as, like just one individual thing with there's no disagreements or divisions. Yeah.
It's one of those things, isn't it? With 20/20. Hindsight, you realize that they would have been good to find out terms or whatever more carefully. So you guys.
Looks a little bit of cross purposes I think. But that's what happens in live interviews.
We yeah, yeah. And sand deserves credit for coming on and addressing criticisms. And we have a fairly robust to be so people can listen provide us feedback. And yeah, we hope you enjoy enjoy.
Okay, so we have with this today, of course, the very well-known figure Sam Harris. Welcome to the podcasts, and thank you. Matt, Christopher, happy to be here. So, Sam house probably needs, no introduction for most of our listeners, suffice it to say he is a best-selling author, a podcaster, someone with a background in Neuroscience, but also, someone who has spent a lot of time writing and talking about religion and also has a very strong interest in meditation.
He has his own app waking up with Sam Harris. Meditation app which Christian Noah. I have been using for a while and Samsung today to talk about some of the issues that we brought up in a recent episode. We'll also get into some other topics in the second half where we can talk about politics and tribalism and maybe we can present some of the criticisms and yet just talk about things as their rise. How does that sound
Chris? Yeah, good. And we had critical things to say about, Sam on that.
Many episodes that we did to cover him and I think it's to his credit but he's willing to come on and discuss what we got wrong or where we may need to re-evaluate things. Will argue our corner, but I think you genuinely deserve credit some because in our experience, it's rare for people to want to engage with people that have had critical opinions. I know you've had various experiments and having difficult conversations with very
Grades of success, but hopefully this leans towards one of the more successful in Carter's.
Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's what I hope for it. The reason why we're having this conversation. Is it? I heard you do an episode on me and waking up which to call it. Critical doesn't quite get at it. I mean, you guys were really kind of shitting all over me, but you were having so much fun doing it that I found. There's something just endearing about it as much as I wanted to. Despise you. I really couldn't.
Quite. So I just thought, maybe there's an interesting conversation to have dealing with your skepticism and various concerns. And I should just say generically, I'm a fan of the project, decoding the guru's and on horsing the guru's, and Shining Light on the guru's and questioning the whole phenomenon of gurus. So there's a conversation to be had about waking up, but there's a further conversation to be had on topics related to culture, War issues, tribalism social, justice stuff, I think.
You've had other podcasts where our other episodes of your podcast where you've brought on people like Robert Wright, who have had critical things to say about me on these topics. I may not have heard everything you guys have said about me. I have certainly heard those two episodes. So anyway, that's the basis of my interest and happy to go wherever you guys want to go. You quite a ride. We don't hesitate to be critical in our podcast, but hopefully in a light-hearted and reasonably friendly kind of way. You probably not aware of.
Of the reasonably strong, praise that Chris and I have had for you as well in different circumstances. So you're a little bit unusual in our caste, because we've got both nice things and mean things to say that, but yeah, this'll be great
and some for context. You give us some homework in preparation, which you are happy to do. Where you kindly give us full access to the app and asked us
to use it for Brian about a
month. Which Matt and I
Judea flee dead, not missing a single day. Every
Ukrainian foreign minister this afternoon or whether it's morning for
you. It's not. Not that project. That's not true. That's yeah, I got the reminders on my phone, making me feel guilty every day, but I will say the app is very well designed in the sense of it, definitely uses what we know about the psychological rewards and reminders in order to
Enforce, their behavior. You get the emails but I like a pat on the head for completing the session. I'm not saying that in a negative sense. Actually mean it and it works even if I'm aware that I'm receiving automated Prius. I still cannot stop myself being like yeah, that's right. It's an empty good. Your psychological manipulation. Succeeded in that respect. I
should point out. We were issued many of these standard manipulations like streaks and other game of occasions that most
Tears, I just decided those didn't make any sense for the the nature of the project. So you were not subjected to the full Funhouse Vegas-style, gamification of the content that you might get all sore. Yep, started Badges, and that kind of thing.
It's right. It didn't feel intrusive.
I got into it as well. I did to a bit of meditation, many years ago and haven't done anything like that for a long time. It was interesting. The initial exercises were short and easy to do. It's funny, isn't it? Like you do feel?
Feel relaxed and refreshed by just sitting down and doing it. Even in the reasonably half-assed way that that I did. And it's kind of a reminder that it is good for anybody to do any kind of just timeout. Just take 15 minutes or so and to just sit still and be calm. It's refreshing. It's nice. Also, yellow. Let's plunge into the places where you have been were remained. Skeptical of the whole project and my approach to it and the ideas and all of it, Hit Me With Your Best
Shot.
Yes, divert him from the experiences of using the app. One thing that stuck out to me is that there's a potential issue, that one of the hooks of the app, is that it? You're involved? Like, it's like waking up with Sam Harris. The meditation lessons that you give our by the nature of them quite intimate things. Lots of people have talked about the Cara social nature of podcasts about meditation instruction. In particular, has
As an intimate quality to it because individuals are sitting in silence. So I think the, he's a potential issue, especially because you've kind of tied, your wider views, including political views to the meditational practice. And so, is there a danger that by you becoming somebody's virtual meditation teacher, you run the risk of accelerating, the kind of Guru Dynamics, not fruit, intentions, but that people might come to
Be very power, socially attached, more than they would be to say someone who doesn't have a meditation app, but it's just a processor or pundit.
Yeah. Well, this opens the door to an interesting conversation about the phenomenon of gurus and whether there's a legitimate Lane to travel in there or whether it's always problematic. And the Very structure needs to be somehow retired on one level Guru just means teacher, you're the teacher of anything. You're a guru of sorts, obviously.
That the stakes, get higher, when your expertise, or your your purported expertise relates to really cool or existential issues for people, you know, the difference between happiness and suffering. You know, what should I do with my life? But what kind of person should I be when you're dealing with ethical and psychological terrain of that kind, there are therapists and their coaches, and they're really, obviously parents may people get into that space with with other human beings and the amount of responsibility I think goes up.
But one of the things I love about doing this in an app is that it frees me from the usual venues and pitfalls of functioning in this role normally without an app without this technology that allows me to just put out audio and let people listen to it and you know, an asynchronous way the way to do this is on Retreat or at some live event. Puts you in direct relationship with specific individuals and then it opens you to all of the
Rejection and the weirdness and it's not to say it's all projection and weirdness in those encounters with teachers, but it certainly kept, there can be a lot of it, and you can get very messy. It can be very encumbering to me both the good and the bad parts are very encumbering. The truth is, I just don't want to live that way. Even if I felt that I were qualified to be in a kind of classical Guru, relationship with people who wanted to learn something about the nature of their minds with me.
I think it's a role that is somewhat inevitable. And I've had immensely useful encounters with quote gurus, you know, people who have served that role for me face to face, but it's not a role that I want to be in with people. So the app allows me to just put the ideas out and to give people all the caveats around what it means to consume these ideas, outside of a relationship with any specific teacher, you know, just just to see the kind of feedback we get, people get a tremendous amount.
Value from it. And I'm not seeing much evidence of confusion about me or kind of weird attachments to me as a person. I'm very honest about my experience and what I consider the limits of my experience, and also, I have a podcast where I'm dealing with many other topics and any illusion that I'm not up to my elbows. In kind of the grittiness of the rest of the world is, I think banished. If you just listened to many hours of me on my podcast, fighting with people about
Out, you know, all manner of thing. I don't know if it gets to your question. The limitations of doing this, in a nap strike me as the principal advantages of the medium for me. And I don't see it carry over into any weird. I think I have an audience before which amplification of my gravitas with my audience. In fact, I'm unusually vulnerable to criticism. I've cultivated an audience, that value, intellectual honesty, I think above all else, so that when I get it wrong,
I see many people with audiences where they get things wrong and there's just no accountability. They're just playing tennis without the net With Their audience. If somebody like Trump is the ultimate example of this, like, he literally can contradict himself and the span of 30 seconds and no one cares. If I do that, everyone in my audience, cares, and so I get a lot of pain when I get things wrong or seem to get things wrong in front of my audience. Yep, I value that. So I don't detect any kind of hero worship or really gross projection coming toward me from
my audience and I think I'm distinguished among the citizens of Earth at the moment in having a subreddit devoted to me where most people or certainly many people seem to despise me. There's a lot of criticism out there even among my so-called fans. Yep. Those points are well taken.
It just one quick comment to me. So it's true that your subreddit is an
interesting place where it's kind of a civil
war ongoing between people. That as you say here you are young people that are quite fondly.
Supposed to, but I would push back a little bit that it is true. That you've got an audience, that will be openly critical. I would consider myself in your audience and I'm pretty direct about my criticism. But on the other hand you do have a lot of people that are very strongly devoted to defending you in ways that you might not approve of they get them right defensive about criticism. I'm not blaming you for that. I just want to point out that they're there
as Crusader. Don't think you give the appearance of a
tempting to cultivate a kind of manipulating controlling Cult of Personality. It's more about the point that when we intertwine these different roles. There's this natural para sociality that goes, along with them audio meditation, app and podcast like ours, which we're aware of. So it kind of helps the people don't take us seriously, but then, at the same time, when you're acting as a personal guide to self growth, and if not Enlightenment than a kind of Greater self awareness,
Also explicitly linking that kind of state of mind, to being able to have an accurate view on political and social issues. Well, let me clarify that point. I remember that being a real sticking point for you. So I said at one point on my podcast that unless you understand what I'm doing over at waking up, you be in the audience at many points, you are not going to understand why I take some of the positions. I take on other topics social justice issues might be.
Some of them, you could questions of race and identity politics Etc. I was not arguing that my practice of meditation gives me some kind of special access to political truths. I was more arguing that some of the positions I take are of a piece with what I believe I've experienced and know to be true, ethically and psychologically my basis for taking those views or holding tenaciously to those views despite.
What may seem like counter-evidence. It'll just seem inscrutable to people that say that, they just don't have all the data because if I'm not referencing it, they just don't know. What is informing my thinking on those points whether I'm right or wrong, if you want to understand something, that may otherwise be inexplicable. My core values and the most important experiences I've ever had as human being are informing, these seemingly distant topics to some degree. Some of the time for better or worse, perhaps. But anyway, that's Jay was just an
Counting of kind of the phenomenology of, you know, why it is. I say what I say on certain topics.
They point that wanted to ask you that relates to some of the things that you said on the episode is I wasn't sure from what you were saying. If you alive for the possibility that somebody could do, the introspective practices, followed the things in the app and they end up essentially having conclusions that are very different from you. Both of my introspective experiences self.
And determinism more free will. But also in terms of wider views. Do you see it as essentially, that if you do it, right? You will reach those conclusions or is the room for different perspectives and reasonable people can disagree.
There's certainly room for disagreement on many points, and there's specific points. Where if you came to a different conclusion, I just would be so mystified, as to what you think you've experienced that the conversation can go.
Where if I was asserting the impermanence of phenomenon, right, you know the things arise and pass away, thoughts arise and pass away and itching sensation comes. And then it goes. If I was faced with someone who said no, no, all that stuff is permanent. Nothing ever leaves. I have no theory of mind to account for that utterance. Right? It's just so at odds, with what is demonstrated? Every time I pay attention to anything. So modulo, a few things like that. There can be disagreement on all kinds of major points and certainly the types of points. I was
Kane my practice Sue like your social justice identity politics stuff. The best example of this is in my friend, Joseph Goldstein, who I have several conversations with on the app. He's also been on my podcast and he and I disagree about some fairly esoteric points in meditation practice, not so much about the Ultimate Reality of things, but just to kind of the pragmatics of teaching, people specific things and consequences of doing
Doing that, but there's substantial disagreements. And they're very fun to debate. And people can hear literally hours of us doing that, what they can't hear. But what I've referenced in various places, is that Joseph and I totally disagree about these culture War issues. Me. Joseph is about as woke as AOC as far as I can tell. I'm here, you know, in my mind. He's been brainwashed by more than a decade of social justice activism that has been internal to Americans.
ISM and is, as bad as the vociferous. Is it ever be on any college campus? He and the rest of American Buddhists in teaching roles have something akin to Stockholm syndrome. And so there's that, there really is a debate to be had there. And I've had it with Joseph privately and maybe we'll do that publicly at some point. But Joseph understands emptiness and selflessness certainly as much as I do and he's one of the best meditators and teachers of meditation I've ever met. He is an
Since proof of the fact that you can get the point of meditation and all the other esoterica that I discuss in waking up and not see eye, to eye with me about how to talk about racial Injustice in America in the year 2021. So yeah, I say yes to your to your question, I think
so that yes, I teach especially with the linkage to
politics that you would say. It's not as
strong as we interpreted in the episode, but how about the nature of self that you
Identify, it sounds like including a nap when I was doing the introspective practices with you. Having virtual you your view that if You observe your thoughts and the way that they arise and you do introspect the practices to me, it sounds like you are essentially arguing that the interpretation as specifically Buddhist interpretation of the kind of the nature of Consciousness, and I know you've had similar discussions about
This with Evan Thompson, and this may be a point quite as so tarek, but it would be useful to clarify. I'm unsure, when you're discussing the topic. If you're, when you're talking about like, say awareness, the ground of awareness or Buddha nature, like whatever you labeled you give to it that it's unconditional and it's pure this thing which always is which doesn't change and which is capable of unconditional love in those descriptions. I'm unclear. If you're describing.
Being something, which you see is a psychological feature of the way, the human minds work, just a quirk of cognitive architecture. Or whether you're talking about being put in contact with a nature of reality and Consciousness, which is in transcendental unchanging
Eternal. So there's a few things I would claim here or true or we have every reason to believe that they're true or and, and
There's just, there's an inconvenient fact here that these truths requires some efforts and maybe even talent to bring into view, an analogy would be something like the optic blind spot. Right? I mean the optic blind spot, is there to be found and if you're in the presence of someone who is skeptical about that. There's an experiment to recommend to them, right. You can get out of piece of paper and a pen and you can make the marks and you can hold here you get tell them to hold it in the right place and move it back and forth. But if
Still can't see it and they insist that you're a liar or they you're just diluted or that, you know, you've got a blind spot, but they don't you. As someone who has more experience on this front. I think our right to come away from that encounter saying well, they just don't get it. Right and it's just I couldn't get through that person. But the very unlikely that their retina has a different structure until proven. Otherwise, I'm going to assume, they just couldn't see it and not that they have a magically different retina and
And geometry of their optic nerve, right? And there are analogous claims. I'm making about the nature of conscious experience from the contemplative, or meditative point of view that are as strong as saying, no, the optic blind spot is just is there, but there are many other surrounding claims about which various Traditions are unequivocal, but various Traditions also disagree with other Traditions, right? So, they're obviously their topics of debate even within Buddhism and certainly between,
ISM and advaita vedanta or any other tradition. And there are claims that I'm uncertain about. For instance. I'm never making metaphysical claims. I'm never saying that because you can have this experience of Consciousness without a center. And because the sense of self can drop away leaving, just this to open, expanse, of cognizance and its modifications, as are various sensory, channels, and objects of mind. Because that cannot
Non-dual experience is available in each moment. That gives me license to say something like what Deepak Chopra would want to say about this? Is the Consciousness that was here before the Big Bang, or this is his, this Consciousness pervades, the whole universe, or that is just pseudo-scientific bullshit to my mind. It's not that. I know it's not true. I'm just saying. You can't make those moves on the basis of those experiences, but there are other moves in making claims about the nature of experience the important.
To recognize here is that every very experienced meditator who agrees with me about the nature of mind, or who's kind of gone through this experience of looking closely enough and then finding that they're not who they thought they were right. Or that the sense of self is a construct or an illusion that can dissipate the moment. It's clearly looked for every person. Like that knows exactly what it's like to have not seen that originally.
Right to there's there's a course of disenchantment or deepening understanding that a person has moved through sometimes very suddenly sometimes over the course of years of trying. So they know what it's like to not see it rhetorically. This doesn't have much force because it sounds like I'm asking you to take something on faith, but that's not the case. Just like the optic, blind spot. Just imagine if the optic blind spot were harder to see and it took real perseverance and you had to get over.
Restlessness and you had to put 10 days aside and go on a retreat in silence and do it. Like it wouldn't make the optic blind spot, any less real. The just be more controversy about whether this was a thing in the first place. And so it just would be harder to convince a skeptic to even do the experiment. But there's nothing that I'm suggesting you. Take on faith. It's just it. It does. Require unless you're an unusually talented, it can require a fair amount of looking to be able to cash out any of these claims. Yeah, I guess there's two aspects to
to the general view that might make people like me and Chris a little bit uncomfortable and I guess one is and I'm not sure if this what you're thinking that this state of consciousness or awareness is sort of out there like this eternal constant that we can participate in Verses that very materialistic way of thinking, which is that Consciousness and the mind is purely an emergent phenomena, you know, come on. Alright, then let me just clarify that matter. I'm not saying that. I'm not taking a metaphysical position at all.
On the mind-body problem. So if everything I'm saying about the nature of the self and Free Will and the possibility of self-transcendence experientially and the psychologically auspicious knock-on effects of doing that, the relief from certain kinds of suffering. All of that, which is very much resonant with Buddhism. None of that, entails a claim about the relationship between Consciousness and the brain or cut the Consciousness, in the physics of things. I'm still agnostic about
All that. Yep. Yep. Got it. And you know, you can still have a lot of commonality and common experience amongst humans, because as you said, we all share things like a optical blind spot, it would make entirely plausible that that we can have similar experiences. I guess. The other one is epistemic, which is that let's assume this thing is completely true that if one does a particular practice then one will indeed get to a certain point of clarity and so on that is
Only special. Now. The problem is one of verification in that in order to see it, you have to do it and do it properly and supposedly. If you don't do it properly then and you say well I did it that I don't have that experience where I don't agree, then it could well be because you haven't done it properly. So even in the case where it's completely true, and it's completely right. It's not possible for an independent Observer to verify those claims and even though I'm completely
Billy opened actually to the position that it is entirely true, right? It I'm just from a specific point of view. It's impossible to verify independently and I think that's the sort of Catch-22 we find ourselves
in just one point that add Sam. You had a conversation on your app, which was you discussing with somebody called Jim Newman. Your your who heads a very strong non duelist position, right? And listening to that conversation, I think.
People are listening to this won't have heard it. But to summarize the
two of you got into that exact issue where he was repeatedly saying to you, that you basically haven't got it because of the things that you are saying that are different. And if you if you did get it, you would know that he was right, but you were saying, no, I do get it. And I just disagree that, you know, the things follow and it seemed to me that you basically got stuck at an impasse that you're both claiming introspective validation of your
Dip. So how to overcome that.
Yeah. Well there was a very interesting conversation that many people found infuriating. I'm one of them
but but enjoyable as
well, but I found it pretty fascinating. They've been several conversations like that about. I'm bringing on people in some cases who I know are going to going to agree with me and we're going to see eye-to-eye on more or less everything, but I'm also bringing on people who I have a sense. The conversation may run off the rails for one reason or another.
And often actually in almost, every case, it will run off the rails. Not because I think these people are frauds or they think I'm a fraud, but there's something that, that, our mutual experience of these things, doesn't resolve? So I don't actually haven't done a proper post-mortem for myself and what I think went wrong there, but I found it an interesting conversation to come back to the general point. There is just this problem that we have to rely on.
Why on self-report to understand so much of what interests us about the human mind, right in this is and that we have an illusion of getting off the gold standard of self-report in various areas. In psychological science. We haven't tracked the moment where we got off the gold standard and claimed that it was valid, but it really is. There's so much to take cognitive neuroscience and neuroimaging is one method of studying the mind. We rely on self-report for almost everything.
We study, you know, will say it's anxiety or depression or the phenomenology of schizophrenia, you know, if schizophrenic is coming to the lab and they say they hear voices and we dignify their reports with our credulity. And then we do some other follow-up testing that makes sense of their claims, right? So if you scan their brains, you see that auditory cortex is active and that seems to make sense of the claim. But if auditory cortex wasn't active either, we would think they were lying, or we would think auditory cortex is not the only
Reporter of hearing things. We would question our maps of our statistical maps of the brain. And so it is with any other third-person marker of an internal State. We associate cortisol, with stress, only because so many people have come into the lab saying Jesus Christ. I'm so stressed out, draw my blood. And we find that their cortisol is elevated. But if that broke apart, we would no longer associate cortisol, with stress. We would just say, well, some people have high cortisol and they're stressed out. And some people have low cortisol, more stressed out. We rely on
Self report for so much. That interests us that is just an inconvenient fact of what it's like to be siloed within our own minds and brains and to be communicating with one another not telepathically, but with these small mouth noises that are really the only basis for us to share our thoughts in real time, but that doesn't invalidate, the experience at all. You may have heard it but as another analogy is another intuition pump, essentially, but just imagine what the world would be like if
If remembering your dreams was much harder to do than it is for most people, right? I mean, what if only one in a thousand people remembered their dreams but everyone dreamed just as much as they do. Anyway, I'm actually one of these people. I almost never remember my dreams. Presumably, I dream every night based on EEG evidence. I'm sure someone would say listen, you're probably dreaming every night. You just don't remember it. And we've all had this experience of waking up from a very Vivid dream and forgetting it over the
Of ten seconds. So enough of us know that the mind can do this. You can have a very Vivid experience while you sleep and then forget all about it in a matter of seconds. Even while you're trying your best to remember it. What if we lived in a world where only one tenth of one percent of people remember their dreams, and they kept talking about. Every time they go to sleep at night. They had these Vivid experiences in there talking, the famous people, and they're going on trips, and they're even flying. And we would think these people are crazy, but they would be no more crazy than any of us is right now, remembering
Last night streams, that is something you run into in this space of where you're talking about rare experiences, that can be hard one. You do have to take people's word for it, at least, to the point of becoming interested enough to look into it for yourself. I should plant a flag here though, that there really is an analogy between this and a, truly faith-based claim that one meets in conventional religion. God exists. You just going to have to believe it on faith. Jesus can save you. You just had to take
That unfazed. No, it's not the same kind of claim. Those are specific claims about history and about miracles that no one currently alive, was around to witness. As, you know, I think most of those claims are terribly implausible and these are claims about what you can experience, if you perform certain experiments. And if you do perform those experiments and they fail, there is a conversation to be had about why they fail. There's that there's a phenomenology of failure there that if you're interested, the conversation can
An be had and you can see. Okay, actually this person this so-called expert is describing my experience of not getting it pretty. Clearly. This is intersubjective terrain that we really can speak intelligently about and help guide people across and come to a kind of consensus, even though at the margins there will be debates about the validity of any specific experience or how it links up with other experiences. Yeah. Well Sam, I look I think this different
Spectrum there. I can imagine something like the claim that exercise regular exercise. Cardiovascular exercise makes you feel good makes you feel happy. Now. That's pretty much indisputable empirically, even though it does rest on self-reports of awareness and there are other ones that are a bit more difficult to verify but Chris, I think you. Yeah. Wanted to move on to something.
So the sound one thing that struck me there is like I think probably we can all agree that, you know.
No miracles about flying horses
or people raising from the dead. Are, at the very least, implausible in a different degree by
people discussing the ability that you might have to be able to become aware of your thoughts, but I'll return a little bit to the conversation. You had
with Jim Newman because
the relevant fact to me there is that the both of you talked about your experiences with various
meditation teachers in
India, right? And and also Jim's
Following certain charismatic introspective teachers. Now, my concern is first of all, that in both legitimate communities, like say the Tibetan Community or the Zen Buddhist Community. We have lots and lots of cases. Now of teachers who are regarded as having been very spiritually Advanced and very aware. And yet we know that they were engaged in sexual abuse or drug abuse and that essentially,
Lee, you can detach those two things, but it looks like the insides that they're claiming that they've reached or not reflected in the behavior and an issue. I have those one that you can detect that in advance, right? People didn't know the chögyam, trungpa was doing what he was doing. And to that, like, you talked about the example of how a woman who you knew in India, who thought that she had reached in, like, a kind of enlightened steer from her experience with one Guru. And then she went
To zen teacher who made her realize that. No, she hadn't. Right. But so, my one point I would make there is that there are plenty of people around who make the exact same claims that you would that you can validate this. And you can test that using the introspective practices that I sat. And if it's not true, you know, you'll find out and you can grip, but those are manipulative. Gurus who have these personality Cults and kinda
Things attached to them. And that these are in communities that also you have experience in. So it isn't just that, you know, those l.ron Hubbard and there's on shinrikyo, but but the the way that those groups operate and the kind of epistemic justification that they use for their views, its is exactly the same inform as what you're suggesting that we can use to disown valuable.
Introspective practices and the Believers of those groups, certainly think that the practice is validate their teachers near. So like I'm wondering from that sounded how we claim that. Well, they're just alluded. Yeah, but the people who are following, you know what I say. I'm not deluded player that getting the real
deal. Yeah. The truth is, it's even more confusing and dangerous than you're suggesting there. This is something. I do speak a lot about in waking up and there's a section on gurus and Cults and it comes
Zup in more or less in most of my conversations with other teachers in the conversations track. I bring this up a lot. The fact that the connection between so-called spiritual experience or your contempt of insights and ethical behavior is not as direct as we might hope. We all of this suggests that there's more to the project of living a good life and certainly more to the project of being a good teacher for others, a good, you know, a good company for others than just having meditative insights.
This is what's interesting about this topic. Know, part of it is as black and white, as you would want to just finally, clarify your thinking about it. It is not true to say that all of these misbehaving gurus have been frauds. That's just to my, I obviously not true. Many of them have given their life experience and given how they talked about the nature of the mind and meditation practice. Most of these guys. I mean not all of them, but but certainly many of them have had real deep.
Senses in meditation and some of them are some version of spiritual athlete. Where if you know the terrain and you hang out with these people, you recognize your in the presence of somebody who has real experience. And real. In many cases, real talent for inducting other people into these experiences and a dangerous level of Charisma. What you often find in this case, as you also have someone who is coming from a tradition that doesn't play especially well.
Modernity, they might, that becoming essentially from no tradition where they just, they're coming from some Asian context rather often, but they're issuing all tradition, but they and they haven't picked up any explicit ethical code that is giving them any kind of guard rails for how they behave with other people, or they're coming from some tradition. That is functionally recommending that we live in some kind of medieval theocracy with them with with the Guru at the top of the hierarchy. So that leaves them open to all kinds of possible misbehavior with people.
Who who are projecting onto them. But also receiving real benefits from. This is why this is such a strange area. It is possible to be genuinely abused by a malignant narcissist. Who also has really interesting esoteric experiences to draw from in his experience because he was raised as a tool coup and spent years in meditation, or is he? And I spent years in a cave. Practicing meditation.
Just had a real talent for it. So he's not merely a fraud but he's also a dangerous asshole
and you can also get
benefit from that encounter. Even while you're being abused, the cash value of all abuse isn't just bad outcome, psychologically for people place of reference. This is in the account of osho's Rush, niches cult, that Frances Fitzgerald in her book cities on a hill, wrote about and Russian. He's the perfect example, I think he was a
A genuinely insightful, genuinely smart person, who was also genuinely dangerous and started a genuinely crazy cult. And yet when you actually hear the experiences of ivy-league-educated lawyers, who went over there to fall at his feet and then we're told to clean latrines with their toothbrushes and dig ditches in the hot sun. There was an ego, canceling effect of that Demand on them that self-abasement which is
Jiggly, interesting, their experience of devotion, even to the wrong Guru. They experienced as freeing. I'm not disregarding the reality of abuse that goes on and Cults and it's critical of these scenes as anyone, but it is just a real quirk in the landscape of possible. Experience that someone can be treating you badly for genuinely bad reasons and you can derive benefit from it. We if you're framing it in the right way. Mmm, there's just a ton of testimony to that. So it's just a very confusing thing.
NG to think about and talk about, but to go all the way back to the starting point here, I am not claiming to be fully enlightened. In fact, I'm very clear about what I view to be the limits of my own experience here, but I have enough experience that I feel qualified to draw the line in the sand, wherever you find me, doing it in dialogue. With other teachers, some of whom are claiming to be fully enlightened. Jim Newman is one of these people who claims to have solved the whole riddle of existence. He may well.
Be right that there's something that I don't see that. I should see a need to see. I'm agnostic as to whether his criticism of me was valid. He has enough user interface issues as a person that I'm discounting some of what he says, but I know what, I know. I know what I think, I know, but I, but I, but I bracket all of that with the understanding that there's a lot that I may yet discover about the nature of my own
mind. So the point you make is, is well taken, and it's also concerning that, you know, Tom
Rick Masters throughout history, have claimed that their
abuse sometimes physical, sometimes sexual, and so
on can be part of a
path and your
reaction against it is part of your conditioning. You need to break through. So, I don't know. It's true
and nothing is that yeah, I discuss that in my book, waking up. And in this section in the app on gurus and Cole's. This is a game that has no exit. The guru is always in a position to say. Oh, the reason why you're
Having this traumatized reaction to the thing. I just did is your ego. The reason why you're here is to get over your ego. So you should just let me have sex with your wife or your daughter, or you should have sex with me. Oh, you're not gay. Well, I still want you to have sex with that man or woman over there and we're going to film it. There is no limit to what a crazy Guru could say and they would be right in saying that you are recoiling from this nastiness, that's being foisted upon you.
It's a symptom of your hangups. Yeah, you're not free with hit the limits of your freedom right here, when I just pushed on this particular button. Oh, you don't like the idea of having your wife sleep with the fully enlightened teacher. Well, that's your problem. Isn't it? Yeah, you're not as enlightened as how Coke and some skepticism is definitely advised for 81 days and I'm getting into those slots for lunch shifts, but, do let me just add one piece here that you guys could be useful to people. I think so, all of this goes under the rubric of
Crazy Wisdom in Tibetan Buddhism in this area generally. And so these violations of cultural norms and conventional ethics that are thought to be a kind of enlightened display of Freedom compassionate, demand of, you know, for self overcoming, coming from the guru. I can't rule out the possibility that that's ever true. It may see in some cases, be, in fact, genuinely as advertised. This is a fully enlightened being who's not bound by normal conventional ethics, and
Is acting at a pure compassion, and if you could only see it, you would be freed in this next Moment by doing the otherwise objectionable thing or submitting to it being done on you. But I have enough experience here to have a very strong sense that, while that's possible. It's never necessary. You don't actually have to be this chaotic Norm breaking figure to help people recognize the nature of their minds through meditation. While it may be on the menu and
Actually, I can understand how it could be on the menu. It just creates so many obvious harms. So much of the time. It's a terrible thing for Less enlightened people to think they could ever emulate and it's just not necessary. So I would always advise people to get out of that situation and find a situation where you're dealing with an honest, obviously more straightforwardly compassionate better, self regulated human being. Okay, so it's like in a bit about the podcast and meditation and the things
We race in our episode. Are you fine Sam? With maybe moving on to some of those broader issues? Sure. Sure. Happy to go any direction you want, but I don't want there to be any sense on your side that I've dodged anything. So please, if there's something, I've said, so thus far that was deeply unsatisfying. Please let me hear that.
No one point that I think we would happily
concede that some of our listeners pushback on specifically related to the app and stuff. Is that we made the point that the one year three offer I
offer
Candidly compared to 30 day money-back guarantee, but I understand
it significantly more generous than that. And also from the things that you've said about it, that it's genuine and that you don't mind if people indefinitely sent an email. Once a year saying for whatever reasons I can't do it. You'll give access. I completely just want to make clear that like, understand that's generous that you don't need to do that. My point was purely that I would imagine. I don't have the internal things for your app, but the majority of you
Users can't be doing that.
I don't tend to talk about these things. It feels self-serving. But I mean, this is, this is just a great example of you just not having certain facts to happy to yesi transparent on this point. And I think one thing you said, which you seem fairly convinced was true is that it's a marketing technique and that, you know, even people who are taking it free, a very high percentage of them, wind up pain. In the end is kind of like the freemium model of giving out digital
Goods. I wouldn't make it that claim. Okay, that the majority of people
Switch from a free version to not free version. I guess the claim I would have anticipated and I'm happy to be corrected. If not is that. The majority of people will not Avail themselves of that offer. They will be outnumbered by the amount of pain subscriptions,
but I don't have any data to support that
so good. You can correct me. I'm happy to give you the data. So that's not true. In fact, there's some weeks where it's been ten to one free to paid. Oh milord.
Literally days where a thousand emails come in asking for free subscriptions to the app. I have the same policy on my podcast. So there have been days where it's been a thousand on each, but I mean the general matter. It's in the matter of hundreds on each every day of the year and I literally staff because now an eight-person full-time, customer service team in the Philippines and 95% of their duties is to deal with free accounts. So I literally spend hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Year just to deal with how many free requests come in for the app and for my podcast that's just the reality of it. And in terms of the percentage of people who move from free to paid, ultimately, it's in the single digits people who take it, free, take it free and they stay free. And the reason why I have the policy is, as you alluded. I feel deeply that money shouldn't ever be the reason why someone can't get access to this work. But the reality is that many people abuse the policy. There's no question. There's not much.
To do about that. And so I've just decided to keep it as it is. What makes me uncomfortable about this policy is I look at many successful, digital businesses. And I know that if they had my policy they'd be destroyed. Like if Netflix had my free policy, everyone would steal Netflix, right? So you just you feel stupid to be paying for Netflix. When all you have to do is send an email to get it, free for life. So it's odd to have a policy that I actually can't recommend in any kind of straightforward way to other people, but I do feel like it's the right.
Policy for me. The only modification of it now is that we offer people a partial scholarship, option in addition to the full scholarship option, right? So they there now seen a way to pay less if, in fact, they want to go through that door, but otherwise, you know, we we Grant a hundred percent of free request.
So it responds. I'm entirely happy to say that. That was not a strong criticism of other people took it as a strong one. I didn't mean it in that respect. And
I'm happy to be advised of the data that we can't know from the Eternal thing. And I will also say I've never got the impression in general that you are someone primarily motivated by profiting from
the various Endeavors that you do. So that
isn't the criticism that I warm up would want the level as you know, the primary issue in any
respect is like, you know, you're you're just seeking
to profit from the app. It's clear that this is like a passion
project. Perhaps you've heard my window.
About this in other contexts, but I do have a very strong sense that ultimately we get what we pay for in digital space and the pressure to drive everything down toward free based on the ad model of generating Revenue that everyone is adopted. I think we made a catastrophic mistake in how we anchored everyone to free plus ads on the internet. And so I'm fairly vociferous on that point that I think people should pay for content and they should get over there Hang-Ups around that.
At, because we're living with what I consider to be the disastrous consequences of people thinking everything's free. And yet our societies are being torn apart by what is in essence, just a badly. Incentivize information
economy. Yeah, and I think certainly with sub stack and
pitch on your sort of getting your wish
that people are not paying for Content. Creators. Maybe not ideal. Yeah, but, okay. So this is a point some that I think straddles both the episode and gets to wider issues and it's
He wanted the stronger critiques and wider critiques, that have been leveled at you. In particular. It's the issue of tribalism and the extent to which you've transcended it and similarly with relevant group identity markers. And in our episode, we basically I mean you made comments that you've made elsewhere about how little importance you attach to any group identity and that trying not to be.
Non-tribal is not the same like in the same way that being non-religious is not the same as having a religious identity. Right? And I want to push back there that they experienced myself and also many of the other people that have argued with you in the path. They see in your behavior online. And otherwise that there isn't the Transcendence of group identity and the reason it kind of equal distribution of charities.
There are people who are closer to you. Ideologically, that you extend the lot of Charity to to the point where it's LED you to defend, people who have went on quite dark paths that we might discuss. On. The other hand. You are quite reactive to criticism from certain people who you consider bad faith or to be coming
from the left walk side of things.
So it's basically there's a substantial reserve of generosity.
Tea for Douglas Murray the wine stings. Even figures that are quite extreme on the right and general disdain and lack of Charity. Towards figures on the left, particularly the social justice left
row, row
and hide that gels with the claim to not be invested in tribal identities. Yeah. So,
let me see if I can get it with the claim is. So there's other things going on. The reason why I
To disclaim because it that the way it's it's been made. I mean to people who made it, I think most clearly maybe many people have made it, but I'm aware of Ezra Klein, making it, and I'm aware of Robert Wright making it that I'm, I'm tribal, you know, I am claiming not to be playing identity politics, but I'm playing it as much as any social justice Warrior. I just have, I can live with the illusion of not playing it because I'm a white guy. And as a white guy,
Just take yourself as the kind of the generic standpoint of Truth and objectivity and Science and you're not you're not seeing that you're being tribal in the same way that someone is says I'm a lesbian and I need to talk about gay rights here. Just to
finesse summed up gunpoint there. I would say that there are people who make that claim that it specifically your white meal sis, were privileged to leak, that makes you unaware of it, but I think that's a subset of the more General critique that
You
are not aware of biases in the sense that it isn't because you're a white male. It's just like you're in group, particularly is not identified as an in-group by you or that you're identifying that you're extending charity. So it doesn't matter for that critique whether you're white or black or whatever color. It's just in not identifying the right? Like the scary.
Okay. Well, so then I think we have to leave Ezra Klein aside because he was definitely arguing with the color of my skin. I'm a white guy who is just obtuse on these issues of in particular, racial Justice and systemic racism. Because I'm a white guy in my view that that's obviously wrong. We don't spend time on it because you're not Prosecuting that case. But it's just there if that were true. I should have a lot in common with Ezra Klein and much less in common with someone like Ayaan hirsi Ali, right? Whoo.
Is very much on my team. I perceive her to be a feel her to be. I there's no impediment between me and her apart me. I'm sure we disagree about a few things, but it's just like she's my sister as recline for the purposes of that conversation is showing up as the enemy, right? And yet by his analysis. I should feel really comfortable with him and not very comfortable with her. So I'd ask you just what is my tribe?
Yeah. So your tribe, I would put in the kind of anti.
The woke critical of social justice Miller. So you've handed in your ID W card recently. Right mud before you did. So, and even still after that, you may not want for example, to be associated with the people who are advocating that voter ballot fraud is likely, or that the coronavirus vaccines, that we should be promoting Ivermectin, like Brett Weinstein has argued and stuff, but I
I would say that that's a particular group within the broader category of people who fall into the Gandhi walk outside and it would include people like Douglas Murray and Titania McGrath all over and there's an entire ecosystem. There, which is it's pretty cool hearing if you type into Google Sam Harris and it'll say I love people like Sam Harris. There's a set of people, readily identifiable
will but it, but it
Thing is not coherent and that's why I disavowed the label in the end. The reason why it was never comfortable with him. And one is his is Superfluous to name a movement of people who were just attempting to have honest conversations. But what became immediately evident is the people who are getting grouped under this rubric or people who I want nothing to do with in many cases and the only common point of agreement was that we were allergic to whoa Chasm. So
They're people who are in this group of my, I don't know that I should break my practice. If not, really naming names here. But there's every version of this. There are people who I initially agreed with and admired who have become dangerous, imbeciles, based on whatever the Dynamics of their own political Journeys. Have been in defense of some, of these people, those of us who are on the left or started out on the left. We've had a common experience, which is the most dishonest, and the most vintage
addictive assaults on our reputation that we've ever encountered have come from the left. The impossibility of conversation that has caused us to despair of even ever making an effort to communicate about anything substantial to anyone that has been encountered when we're facing to the left, not to the right as somebody who has spent a lot of time fighting with the far. Right at least on religious points. And I started, as among the new atheists, with my first couple of books that was throwing up to Bates and mr.
Some debates with people on the left, but most of it was with people on the right who were essentially fundamentalist Christians for the most part. None of those encounters have ever been one-tenth as poisonous as what I've gotten from the left, both performative lie on stage and behind the scenes in private emails. And in green rooms. This is an experience people have had of socially being extruded from the body of the left by some kind of crazy rhetorical immune.
System that has gotten tuned up in response to very specific ideas, you know, and and
some before you move on from that point. I just want to highlight that. That's actually part of the issue that I would argue is why you would be likely to have a kind of bias
towards those people
because you feel that you have being treated. Unfairly like people in this category that you've had a similar experience.
And it meet you weary, when you see somebody demonized like Charles Murray, is that maybe it's not justified, which you've quite clearly
stated. What was just the can see certain things coming from a mile away now and I have less and less patience for the dishonesty. And what I would call bad faith in terms of my political convictions. I am left of center on certainly, most points and really have not been pushed right word on any substantial.
No point in me, wherever I'm more toward the center than toward the left. I think I was always in that spot. So, if you're going to accuse me of bias based on having had dispiriting experiences with people on the left. I can just show instances where I counter that bias, right? And
let, Let me Give an example what I mean. Sure, I would say a lot of people identified relatively early were D of Rubens partisan bias.
Les.
Whereas the way that you spoke of item and maybe the way to do it is if you don't mind I have a clip from a conversation. You had a couple of years ago with Ina persistent critic of yours. Right here also is not super fond of us.
She went a little crazy in my view. But yeah,
well, there's a conversation. You had a bike dad side and Dave Rubin and they I just want to play this little clip of it, and then I'll tell you what. I
Here from it and you can tell me why I'm reading this wrong if that's okay.
Yeah. I mean I'm happy to do this. But the reason why this might be a waste of time is is now a few years old and I'm sure what you're going to play. There is born of the fact that in the case of Dave, in particular. I'm being asked to talk about a friend in public. I've been reluctant to do that in many cases. And, and it's like, all I have social relationships with many of these people, right? Or I had social relationships with many of
these people, I entirely ground.
Some, but I think it will help the player and it's not intended as a gotcha. Okay, go for it. I just want the user to illustrate a point. Okay, and then that will allow you to respond. Okay.
Now that's a different problem from Gad and reuben, reuben, who I think is unfortunately an opportunist. I don't know if he believes that, these are his friends. Now the of the old right or if he's just playing to an audience that happens to be supporting him and paying him.
Pretty well, you know, you know, I don't think again. Do you know I think Dave to answer that either because I mean you can if you want I don't want you to feel like you have to answer for them because I you're not responsible for them at all. Well, yeah, well nobody interested in so far as I think you have the wrong idea about them. I think it's useful to say so because Dave seems to me to be an extremely ethical person who would check all the right boxes in.
Terms of, you know, gay rights and women's rights and I think you're so wrong about that. Okay. Well so but I mean so then that's that's something that I think you're wrong about and I wouldn't know how to resolve that apart from, you know, getting, you know, getting him on your podcast or you want Hayes and how do you think I'm wrong when I've shown you like a list of the people that, well, I just want to call out. Why do I just think? He is what you're reading into the refusal to call them out.
I mean, so there's what could be functioning there is
He has a very journalistic agenda, or much more journalistic agenda than I do.
And I feel that God in
Ruben have gone too far to the other side. Right? Well, it could, it could be in terms of their public work. That may be the case. And again, I'm speaking somewhat from ignorance because I haven't seen even anything close to the majority of their, their interviews, but in just in terms of my interactions with them privately,
Lee that's not going on at all. So that that's at least you know, and again, I mean, these are not people who have spent a tremendous amount of time with, but, you know, I've it's just a, you know, insofar, as you can get the measure of another person's mind by having dinner with them. Yeah, it's, that's certainly my view of them. Okay. I'm not sure what my view was there that will let the predicate out somehow.
And I'm not sure what I was claiming about them. I guess I was claiming that their more liberal than she was alleging or
something. She was making the point that they have a clear partisans Curie and that, they are platforming a bunch of right-wing. People without giving push back. And you were essentially arguing that, well, they're just having discussions and that you from your experience with dif. That he is a very principled journalistic person night. I get entirely the issue about interpersonal connections, but two things here one is your
The personal connections tend to be directed around the certain group of people. So I don't think you can categorize that off that like an unwillingness to criticize directly, a certain type of people. He's a tribal bias. And then the second part of that is that you in this period before essentially you're arguing the Gad sad and Dave Rubin are not partisans. I think no, I clearly from your interaction to a degree that they are and
Similarly people have been legend for a number of years that people like the wind Stein's have a tendency towards conspiracies. Mm. And sympathy for various right-leaning people and I would put Douglas Murray in the same category and it's essentially that your charity, there was extended towards a certain group of people and like noise, I think at when you handed in your card and stuff, you're admitting that noise. You see the bias, but all of people
recognize their bias before. So it isn't always the case that the people alleging that there is a skew or bias or just like social justice run, amok, misidentifying things. They identified something you didn't see and you didn't see it because of your sympathy and the interpersonal relationships, which is a tribal bias. No,
I don't agree with the diagnosis. As I said In that clip. I was not in the habit of watching or listening to me.
Of what Dave and Gad were putting out rice. I was claiming ignorance even while I was saying the few times I had dinner with those guys. I didn't detect any right-wing allegiance. That was basically the extent of what I said there. Now things have changed in the intervening years. I don't know if you notice what God says, about me on social media, but the guy has is working very hard to make a permanent enemy of me, right? He's just attacking me by name as a gutter hypocrite and sell out and I don't recall the specific.
Allegations. But he thinks my reaction to Trump has destroyed my mind and made me, it totally dishonest person. So that's what he thinks of me. So if we're in the same tribe, how durable was that tribalism? If the guy hates me and he's expressed, it Ad nauseam. Yeah, but that in itself, has had been an interesting episode. I mean you mentioned before and Dave, just to close the loop on this. This is one episode of Dave's podcast. I did see recently he had gadon and Michael Shermer and
To bogosian two other men, who I think you would put squarely in My Tribe and they didn't attack me by name, but it was clear. They were at mean, I don't think Peter and Michael knew what was being talked about there was on the, on the agenda, but Gad and Dave, clearly referenced me without naming me and they just shat all over me in that episode. Yeah. Yeah. I saw that episode to send look just a quick comment, which I don't think you disagree with which is that, like you and actually
We many people on the moderate liberal left from time to time. I find other people more hard on the left extremely annoying, the moral posturing, and the kinds of attacks can be quite mean so I can kind of appreciate reactivity to that. And also reactivity to that kind of Purity policing and wrecked against anyone who doesn't follow the line. But more and more. I'm seeing it on this sort of heterodox right side, and I think your experience has been
A good example of that by doing the right thing and criticizing the weinsteins for instance and other people, very heavily for play pushing Ivermectin and going down this anti covid measures route. You have not Walked the Line, which you were supposed to walk amongst this Clique, and you're experiencing the consequences of it. So, I'm just making the point that I think it can happen across the Spectrum will see what you're calling. It your disposed to call a tribe here. I'm calling.
I think more accurately, a set of social relationships that are highly variable and in some ways just purely contingent. I mean, there are people who I really agree with, who would be the core to My Tribe who? I'd be very surprised to disagree with in the future. Well, I've just never met because I just never met them. You know, I just was never at a conference with them. We just, you know, we've just we may not have even exchanged emails or
We have a whole relationship that is entirely based on email and their people who have had a face-to-face encounter with it was entirely Pleasant Where I Come Away saying like I've got nothing bad to say about the guy, he or she is just very nice and yet they're committed to something or will be committed to something six months from now that I'm going to find odious. It's hard to know what the rules are when you have a face-to-face relationship with someone that the general principle here is not of tribalism. Is that face-to-face relationships can be distorting.
Of one's willingness to publicly attack someone for their bad ideas, right? And especially when you push it into the level of actual friendship or some simulacrum of friendship. So, I've had that with a few people in this space and a few people. I haven't had it with and that's the difference that sometimes makes a difference. I had less restrained going after Candace Owens on Twitter at the outset of covid because she was tweeting some truly diabolically stupid.
Things and still does? I did it in public? I did it in private. I did every version of this to no avail in the end, but I've never met Candice and person. But if I had had, you know, five dinners with Candace under my belt, at that point, I might have been a guarantee. You I would have been more hesitant to have gone after her on Twitter for her dumb tweets, but
that is not tribalism. Candice was
never part of my tribe. I didn't sign up for the IDW knowing Candice was going to be put in it. Candice is a bitch.
Blowhard and an ignoramus of mythological proportions at this point and also a very charismatic and cool person. I'm sure if you get to hang out with her, so who would I be if I had hung out with her, maybe
there's two things that we need to disentangle. So one is and I think you probably would agree with this that in addition to interpersonal, relationships existing, and if someone is a friend for many years, it's much harder to criticize
them than an anonymous person online or somebody you've never
met granted.
And you don't have to call that
tribalism because it could just be an
individual interpersonal level. Now your point, I would want to make there is that that's a very potentially distorting thing. Whereby, somebody could have very terrible ideas. But you've had an interpersonally, nice relationship with them. And you say, yeah, I've heard all these bad things about them, but they were Charming to me. And I find that potentially dangerous thing because most people are not villains interpersonally. No matter what. Ideology, they're promoting the vision of
Of a snarling Neo-Nazi who spits, whenever he encounters a black person is rare, but that doesn't mean that people who can be went to personally nice that they are not people who have Sinister ideologies and appointed. That would relieve the bad ways that you were able to call candies as I recall, because, Eric Weinstein put you in contact and he encourage you to do so, so there is an issue anywhere. If you don't want to call tribalism into personal networks, come into
A one point here that I want to attach that if you had a longtime collaborator for, you were close to who became an advocate for Islam has became an outspoken islamist. I don't think you would have an issue publicly criticizing them and you might even say I respect this person. I've worked with them, but I don't endorse this ideology. It needs to be critiqued. And I don't think you would have that much hesitation to need him.
Someone that was an islamist. Is that fair? Just as an assumption, but it's a hypothetical, it's
a little hard to porous but it's because I just don't know who and to what extent and how extreme and all that. But it's not. I think there's a generic. Let me first of all, it's balanced On The Other Side, by my willingness, to go after someone like Brett Weinstein for, you know, finally saying too many stupid and dangerous. Things about Ivermectin and the covid vaccines, right? So it's like there we had
those
Before you get off the hypothetical go for the point. I want to make with that is I'm crediting you, that you, you would be willing to criticize someone who was openly advocating, an islamist agenda. If and night, if the person was advocating like with Bret Weinstein, as you mentioned something, which you consider a conspiracy or a claim which has the potential to do harm, you did directly call might completely do your credit and provide clearer. Hesitation you, you indicated
that you respect them, but you think he's dead wrong
and doing harm and you're not you don't know how much you don't know how much hesitation was there. You don't know how long I waited to do it, right? You don't know how you don't know what process I engaged before. I did certainly right. Once I did it. I basically rip the Band-Aid off. But yeah, there was a fair amount of hesitation.
Yes, and I would expect her to be because he's been pushing up for a long time. But the point there is that, you are recognizing the potential harm but say somebody had become an I'd spoken.
Advocate for right-wing partisan. Conspiracies about covid, vaccines about election fraud but was a past collaborator.
So I think, you know, it's quite obvious that the name that is floating around, would be magic. Now was, and you haven't said anything about him, and you have personal relationships, but why not? As you often Advocate that you can take out the ideas from the person and they've Margie, there's advocating ideas that are harmful wrong conspiracies partisan. Then why can you not attack the idea?
Provide the man if it isn't the bite bias or that kind of thing.
Well, so this is just an interesting ethical problem. And I don't think it's worked out. It's definitely not worked out in my head and I do so, I don't know which way the balance should swing in these cases. I mean, generically if you have a friend, whose brain goes haywire, and they have some kind of public platform. What is the ethical thing to do? Is my responsibility only to the promulgation.
Ation of sound criticism of bad ideas? Or is there, some scope for personal loyalty to a friend? I don't actually know what is true there. Ethically, and I haven't spent enough time thinking about it. And so, I'm so in each one of these cases. I'm trying to just figure it out. Intuitively as I go along, and in most cases, I'm averting my eyes, because I don't even want to deal with it. So, in modulus case, I have seen very little of what first of all, I've stepped back from social media to an
Degree, so, I miss a lot of what's happening on Twitter where I can seem to be paying attention because occasionally, I pay attention. Then I react to something, but then I'm gone again and I'm not looking for days at a stretch sometimes. So, I'm missing a lot of it and most of what's module has been doing during covid. If I've seen it at all. It's in the kind of the corner of my eye and I'm just hearing Echoes of the reaction to it. So I can't even say I know all of, if you give me a Litany of his transgressions, some of them are going to be of his half of what you just
I said is unfamiliar to me, but part of what explains my ignorance here is part of me hasn't wanted to to do a deep dive on it because I don't want to have to deal with it and there's a limited number of things I can deal with in a day. And this is not, I mean, I guess you could call that hypocrisy, but it's not. It's just triage. It's just me deciding what's worth my attention. And when I have dealt with it, I mean, so far, as I've dealt with Brett Weinstein, and to a lesser degree, Joe.
Again, in public and private and Dave Rubin and Gad sad. Now, they're coming for me. I've said very little about either of them publicly. But this is just a huge hassle as far as the benefits of doing it. They're fairly indiscernible to me at this point. So it's like, oh, what is it? Actually, the project? What is the right thing to do? What is the rewarding thing to do? What is the skillful thing to do? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that overlaying tribalism as a concept here is the wrong frame because yeah there yeah there.
Are people in some cases, these are friends and colleagues and some cases. These are kind of Quasi friends or Associates or just people I've met take, like, Jordan Peterson, you know, majority in is someone who I disagree with fairly stridently on certain topics, but I had a fair amount of experience with him now, doing events and and he's someone who I grew fond of because of that. And yet, I'm sure we will disagree in our next conversation about a fair number of things. And hopefully it's all very good-natured.
And it's also true that in many of these cases, what has been said about these people, from the far left is
at best a
half-truth and rather often a tissue of malicious lives. It's just very mixed and I
do the same thing with people who are on the far
left to, you're just not here, but some of it you don't notice but it's just there to be done. Someone like Kara Swisher who's pretty far left. Disagrees with me about a lot doesn't think woke. Miss is
Really a problem. You know, it's just, it's just accountability culture. It's not count cancel culture on her account. She had me on her podcast and tried to read me, the riot act about my position on Islam, and the link between actual Islam and jihadism and terrorism. And felt that that went so badly for her side of the debate, that she immediately needed to invite. Mehdi Hassan on to clean up the mess. I had made, I never even listened to that our because, you know, Medi is about as dishonest. And interlocutor is,
I've ever encountered on the planet, but care is someone who despite the fact that in half her moods. She would doesn't want to touch me with a ten-foot pole, because she thinks I'm at least toxic adjacent. I like a lot, and I've reached out to her in private. I just spoke at her code conference because I wanted to support her and Scott Galloway at that event. But whenever she talks about me, she gets something of significant consequence wrong, and yet, I don't feel the same animus toward her. That I feel toward Robert Rider as recline.
Because honestly, I find her more likable as a person. So this is bias, but
tribalism doesn't enter into this. I
overcame my desire not to be associated with Vox for the code conference because what box has done to me and what Ezra Klein did to me in the pages of ox just to do. Kara Swisher a favor and Scott Galloway a favor and I would never have done. It had Ezra asked me but I did it because care ask me and that's just an interpersonal phenomenon you do.
The psychological math on that, but tribalism just doesn't help you figure it out.
Okay, I hear all of that, and I can see why in the way that you're conceiving it, that those might not be associated with tribal biases, but let me try to give another illustration because I think I can give you some examples, where the Dynamics that you're talking about aren't really in play. And yet, there is a degree of Charity extended which seems
unwarranted listen.
We just just put a few more pieces in play. I extend an enormous amount of Charity to Osama. Bin
Laden, right? I have said publicly that I think Osama. Bin Laden
was almost, certainly a better person than Donald Trump. So square, that with my tribal bias, that there's no force on Earth. I find more repugnant than jihadism. I think my Bona fides on that point. Stack up pretty well against anyone's right? Like I have banged on and on about
How dangerous and delusional the worldview of the jihadist is, but that said, I think Osama Bin Laden, very likely was a deeply normal person. Psychologically. He happened to be extraordinarily religious, but that's fairly well subscribed. I think he's probably a very conscientious and ethical person within the framework of his dangerously bullshit, addled, belief system that informed his ethics. I couldn't.
Say, any of those things about Trump. Trump is immoral lunatic as far as I can tell.
I find Trump as the
low, some human being, as I can think of. But he hasn't created nearly the harm that some much better people have created. I think, so small, but line created, much more harm than Trump.
Trump is an insignificant
person, right? Despite the being the most famous person in human history at this point. So I'm not going to
say that you are unable to extend charity to Osama Bin Laden Brooker as a human or even.
To Trump. I wouldn't make that argument. What I would make is that whenever you've been asked, for example, in the past about Stefan, molyneux about whether you would have them on your show, or when you've discussed. Tommy Robinson are various people, the stance that you tend to take is that, you don't know, you've heard bad things, but you're not going to pass judgment. And you know that people have misrepresented positions in the past and this applies not just the people at you.
Have interpersonal connections with, but people who are recognized as an anti-war guard, particularly islamophobic that are tarred with that, obviously, because you think that people are tarred with that brush unjustly, but the point here is that lots of the people that you have extended charity to. There's a, there's two things. One is that it isn't clear. Why? If you've discussed them over multiple occasions for lengths of time that you don't,
The time to look at the material. I'm form an opinion like we're Stefan molyneux. There was lots of material already available that if we'd only take a night or two to review and you would come across quite quickly that there's a lot of really, really serious material are. But even on that, the people that you've granted charity to, they all tend to fall within the certain set Stefan, molyneux and deep Ribbit outside,
but this is not true.
Let me just let me just take your foot out of my mouth on this particular point because this is just not accurate. So for I have not spent a lot of time talking about Stefan molyneux or Tommy Robinson and as you'll notice neither have been on my podcast. I obviously have a policy of not having them on my podcast for reasons that you would. I think support the thing was to find was born of a, did a live event with this former pretty or not. See ya, Christian giulini who said a few things
Here, the former Neo-Nazi but now he's a woke social justice activist. So he's has as far a pendulum swing politically as any person in living memory. This is one of these classic cases of hanging out with someone liking them interpersonally, feeling like that. Encounter. Personally gave me some information about the person's Integrity only to discover. This person has no Integrity. So I had a very disconcerting experience with Patchouli knee. It was just a
Bro, Fest on stage at that event. We really did like each other, it was nothing. But Rapport, he said a few things from the stage that got pushed back from the audience that I couldn't fact. Check in real time one was about Stefan molyneux and one was about James to more, both of which members of the audience declared Falls, where he said this to Van was a holocaust denier who was a friend of David dupes. Those are two claims about Stefan. So we aired that. I just threw up my hands and said, sorry, guys, I can't figure this out on stage, but
This bracket that is your objections to noted, then we release the audio and I get a letter, a lawyer letter from Stefan. And I get an email from James to more. Both objecting to what was said about them. And I looked into it and as to the specific charge is that Christian made. He was flat wrong. I'm right. The these were these were baseless charges
now satellite. Now, I am familiar with this into that and I question that because, okay, you
I know the argument that you make that sorry, but you had no, I mean you
have no but I'll tell you I have no basis to question it because what played out in private between me and Christian was me going to Christian saying, okay. Well you seem to be mistaken about Stefan. He's not a holocaust denier. He just told me that he agrees it, six million Jews died and blah blah blah and he doesn't know David Duke and the only connection between him and David Duke. Is that David Duke once? Retweeted him.
And so I went back to Christian with that and what Christian gave back to me, purporting to be evidence was a deranged word salad of non evidence, and then increasingly threatening emails where he's actually. If you read between the lines, threatening me with violence, if I edit my own podcast, so that was my experience with Christian. So it's a yes, I cut those false statements in the podcast because there was no reason to accuse.
Too fond of a crime in Canada. Holocaust. Denial is a crime apparently when he wasn't guilty of that specific crime, but no, I fully agree that to Van did so far as I've looked into his stuff seems shady and performative enough that I've never been tempted to have a public conversation with
it. Okay. So some points at first, I'm not gonna endorse everything the Christian did. I don't even know all the interpersonal ins and I'd spot. I did see the evidence that he provided and he shared various parts of the email.
And I think there's some things that I would push back on and I would say like first of all, I think it would be good to make it clear to your audience that you received the legal threat from Stephen and that was
relevant to you removing
the criticism. But the
second because it wasn't it wasn't because if it were a legal threat that I disagreed with. I would have told him to fuck off. Sure sighs look do not like it's
Very easy, it's very easy to imagine. This is a, this
is something that you can
disconfirm in real time with someone. If you're a holocaust denier, you deny the Holocaust. But it's a very specific charge Z. Yes, but I don't know whether he's an anti-semite. I don't like all kinds of other charges that are adjacent to that. Let, but if he doesn't deny the Holocaust, he's not a holocaust
denier. Some, let me make an analogy for you is brat anti-vaccine.
Hmm. Well, that's clever but different but yeah.
These functionally out of it. I like these anti Copa. He's anti anti covid backside.
Okay, that's a distinction. He makes that's a distinction. All out. The Vox people make. If you ask them. Are you out the boxing? They'll say, no. I'm just proceed vaccines. I'm Auntie, the specific vaccine. I've got concerns. Well across tonight was such a
specific thing. The people are Holocaust deniers make claims like
they might have juice that that I'd this
is a lot. It's all a lie.
You know, foisted by the Jews on the
world. Yes, Guilt Trip. The whole world. Millions of people were not sure, but in that area of Holocaust denial is the claim that the Holocaust was brought a boy died. Because of Jewish Communists leading like that. This was a reaction to. That's not what that's not denial. It know that it's just, that should say, perhaps
an odious belief about. It's one of its causes or, or an inaccurate rightly. So, you kiss causes or a half-truth that is
M'lady, but in the same way, you could tell the others. I
am going to take this or here's another, here's more evidence of my tribalism, right? I'm Jewish. I have written that the Jews are in part responsible for the Holocaust. Howhow tribal is that. Now that's put as part of my denigration of belief of faith based religion. It's like, if the Jews defining themselves as Jews for 2,000 years, insisting upon a living insular lives.
Among communities, that believe, antithetical things about God and thinking, that it's important to Marry within their Community, because of the, you know, the profundity of their religious beliefs and their unique. Covenant With God, all of that device of bullshit is part of the backdrop that gave us the, you know, centuries of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. So yeah, I'm someone Houston. Who had who is said, who's made Judaism itself somewhat culpable in giving us the Holocaust. Now that what am I in?
Not see, what's, what's my tribe? No, by the okay. Time. Here's the difference. Right? So Christine identified these tropes, which he lumps into the category of Holocaust denial, far-right Holocaust, denial, anti-Semitism, white, nationalism and staff. And told you, he doesn't deny the Holocaust. I'm for you. That settles it because it specifically that issue. But if you look were staffing, has gone. Stephen is noisy and white nationalist. He's with her, he is hanging around with more people.
People than David Duke that are concerning. He's been removed from most platforms. So the person that had the kind of read of staff and more accurate was not you. It was Christian. He wasn't Magnum not with respect to Hollywood to because this is the
crucial point. And this extends to everybody, this principle of Charity. You have to Target your criticisms of people precisely, even if they are bad, people, given what I just said about Trump, you
I think I would tolerate sloppiness with respect to allegations about all the reasons why he shouldn't be president or all the reasons why he is deceptive are all, we're all the evidence. Will, you know what that suggests? He might be racist. Right? But I don't tolerate imprecision there and I have taken
pains to be precise even when it
cost me, even when I appear to be talking about how many trumpy and Devils can dance on the head of a pin when I'm saying, okay, this claim about his race.
Tourism is plausible. This claim is obviously woke nonsense, and I've just had to parse it that way, because I think that if our staff we lower our standards here is just where return to some kind of horrific. I mean, not returned. We're going to be plunged into some newly, horrific dystopian state of nature where everyone is permanently cancelled, right? Where no one is pure enough to be associated with and everyone is content to spin 1/2.
Suzanne lies to their political Advantage just in this internecine, war of all against all on social media. And I want no part of that. So, it, like, it takes take a genuine. Enemy. Like, Glenn Greenwald. Glenn. Greenwald has screwed me over, every chance. He could be publicly. When I've gotten something wrong about one of his views. I have publicly apologized immediately. I think it's only happened once but I went on Jank Yorkers crazy.
Young Turks show for three hours. So submitting to his lowly Asians in what seemed to be a debate. And I said something about Greenwald believing something and I recognized, I got that wrong afterwards. And so I immediately went on Twitter and and apologize right now. Greenwald has never apologized to me about anything, socially speaking. It would be so easy for me to just say, fuck him. He's never apologized to me. Why, why do I have to be such a rabbinical obsessive about my own honesty? That
need to go back and clean up the record to his
Advantage. Right? But it's important.
It's important when you get things wrong and you notice it to own it. Even when it may be, especially when the person is someone who you're going to be attacking the next day for all of your differences.
Again, this isn't okay. So completely
orthogonal to tribalism. What we're talking about is just that they were confusing nature of interpersonal encounters and what it's like to be sparring on dozens of fronts on very fraud
issues.
Okay, let me, let me try that to go out a little bit and take some concrete examples. Not in the camps, that people would usually talk to you about. I'll link these points up. So just bear with me for a minute. So one of our first interactions online and I'm perfectly willing to accept. I'm not the most agreeable person online. You know,
you're way more disagreeable on Twitter than you are on your podcast. So you should just know that about yourself like that. There's no way you and I would be having this conversation if all
I'd seen from you was you what your sniping at me on Twitter? He knows or sure
sure. I'll accept that I do. I think part of it is to do with Northern Irish sarcasm and highly compatible those with Twitter. But in any case, so, one of our first interactions and you actually ended up talking about me on the podcast and I'm not taking this as a personal site. I don't mind because we were disagreeing but the particular disagreement doesn't matter. What matters is.
Is that you saw my profile and you read Anthropologist and you assume
from that they're you're dealing with some of the Legacy effects of my collisions with Scott at ran and Richard shweder and a few other anthropologists. We don't know which end is up on the topic of jihadism
Scott. It round is going to figure here. So first was that because of your negative experience with certain anthropologists. You assume that it's my mom in the
tribe of nine am.
Apologists. Yes, right. Yes, but that the thing is that, you know, Anthropologist tend to have a particular kind of bias. If there's a discipline that is likely to be strongly influenced by social justice and that kind of stuff, it's time for apologist, especially social Anthropologist. But so one thing is that you did what you would probably say is a bad thing to do. You saw the word Anthropologist and you made assumptions about me which don't apply because I'm a cognitive Anthropologist and
I generally don't agree with some of the views that social Anthropologist have, but the other point is Scott at hren. I know about your disagreements with him. And I've heard you recently mentioned that he dismisses the role of ideology because of conversations that you've had with him, both in the be informant, interpersonally night over six years ago. He's Advanced a model for extremism and terrorist acts as well. That's called the
Actor model, and that model has two key components. To one is Devotion to secret values. And the other one is gay identity, fusion, and social bonds, within groups, but the Devotion to secret values includes Devotion to ideology and I kind of thing. So when you're saying that he doesn't recognize any role for ideology. It's currently a misrepresentation because his model has that as one of the core components night. I'm not
Saying that you're intentionally misrepresented him because I get that you you haven't unlikely to have read that document who is
holding aware of what he's doing in recent years, but I would bet I'll bet you so I done seen. I'm willing to play poker with his Evolution as a intellectual. I would bet you that he still discounts the propositional content of those ideologies and does not think that jihadists expect a wind up in Paradise with 70.
Virgins and rivers of milk and honey, really right?
Like I think he's discounting
the the propositional content of those beliefs and if he's not then he has fundamentally changed his view of the problem with any show that I'm just unaware of it.
So if you read it, you would probably consider that. He's capitulated to hear your viewers to a certain extent, but I
just sent me an email and and apologize for all of this. The Slime he's put on me on
that point. I would say that distinction would were me and that you're right there.
That you wouldn't put the emphasis that you do on the specific beliefs, about virgins, and then afterlife. And I would add that in that respect. It's not just him as an anthropologist. There are people like area Krug, Lansky, who have probably the most dominant models, for understanding extremism and are not anthropologists with Scott at trans politics or views and their Model includes a very big emphasis on the search for meaning and that includes religious commitments and so on.
But they see the constellation of effects and I would put myself actually kind of in the middle between Scott Ian's old position and yours where I think ideology matters and is important. We should consider it but the social dynamics and so on play and you would I suspect find yourself somewhere there, but I wanted to make the point about the Assumption based on an identity marker that you are not formed off or that you've had trouble with and that to me is undoubtedly tribalism, but even
And it would think that, but it's not, it's not try, but it's not
tribalism it. You can't put me in the tribe of academics and public intellectuals, but just not anthropologists,
right? No, I was just, I would put you in the tribe of people who are critical of out-of-touch humanities academics of who are more devoted to
social justice programs, but I'm also so but, you know, but I'm this is an artifact of just the fact that Academia is so
Captured by social justice leftist thinking, I mean, it's like 95% left left left of center in almost every College on Earth, or at least every College in the west at the moment. So there's just not there's not Viewpoint diversity in Academia, but I'm as much a child of the humanities as I'm not, you know, an engineer who's criticizing everything that's focused on writing and reading books. Undergraduate degree is in philosophy and Humanities inform my
My view of the world as certainly as much as science. It's just that anthropology as a discipline of starting with its disavowal of the very concept of Human Rights. I think was 1948 mean literally like Auschwitz was not even a memory. I mean there's we're still cleaning up the site and the Anthropologist of America told the world that you couldn't come up with a universal Declaration of Human Rights, that would be to impose our Western values, gratuitously on the rest of the world. That's just it
Is so mistaken from my point of view, ethically and and ultimately scientifically. Yeah. I have a bit of a hobby horse to ride on that particular point with with respect to that discipline, but you're reading too much into the fact that I said on Twitter. Oh, another Anthropologist doesn't get jihadism, you know, it was rise.
Well, whatever. Yes, so okay, we can step off that just quick comment. The one on for apology Sam is that I think the cultural relativism
ISM strand that you're talking about is dominant in certain spheres of anthropology. But like classical anthropology is very much universalistic. Identifying cross cultural, patterns, and stuff. So, like, I think there's a lot of diversity in half body. It's a
minor minor Point have decided, just my yes. I've just spent, I'm sure what I'm doing is unfair to the field, but I have had just a few memorable collisions with anthropologists at conferences. Me too. Yeah, and it's, it's left an indelible impression,
and I will probably share a lot of your
This is Adams of the field, so I don't want to dwell on that. But the whole point with raising the issue with Scott, Adrian is that I want to highlight. That's a topic that you talk about fairly frequently extremism, political islamism, and so on. But I'm often surprised at the relative lack of interest that you show in the research. And I'm not talking about endorsing Scott. It turns model. I mean, the general more mainstream Fang and I want to make a related point and you can respond and tell me why.
Joan here. This is a good point to just
connect it to the thing you found inscrutable and objectionable early on which is based on my contemplatively experience. If you don't understand what I've been up to there, you're going to miss the basis for some of my convictions on seemingly, very distant points, and there's a relevant piece here, which is, I believe I understand from the inside the spiritual convictions of somebody like Osama Bin Laden or
Any jihadist or somebody who could be a suicide? Bomber? I know, what it's like to have a range of experiences, you know, through meditation through psychedelics. Where if you were framing those experiences with a belief system that alleged and you were convinced of the truth of this, that the Quran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe. And all you have to do is understand the contents of that book. You add those experiences. And that propositional
Attitude jihadism and a religious ecstasy anchored to. It is a, I would say, almost a necessary outcome. So, I'm not saying all jihadists fit this description, but certainly some do, and I say this as confidently, as I say that people who become Buddhists and spend their lives as Buddhist, monks are doing it on the basis of their spiritual experiences, framed by very different beliefs. So what I object to in so much of this research and you take someone like Robert,
Papé who's always thrown at me as your retort to my views on the connection between religious ideology and terrorism. Is that we're talking about
secular people who don't
appear to have a spiritual bone in their bodies or at least they have no experience. So when they're hearing someone talk about an expectation of paradise and a willingness to just view death as no Factor at. All, right, only to view this world as just, this polluted weigh station on the way to a much better place, which will be at
Eternal and that you have got secular academics for whom that kind of thinking doesn't resonate at all. It resonates so little that they assume, it's just all for show. Like, no one actually
believes that. It's just, they're just
pretending to believe it. Whereas they're really motivated by economics and politics. It's just not true.
It's not true.
And you can know that from the inside if you've really made contact with the existential concerns and spiritual yearnings of people and their apparent gratification.
The call to prayer, the call to prayer, is a genuinely beautiful sound that I can hear with the ear of real spiritual interest and faith. Not actual Muslim faith, but I can do the correction and know what it would be like to really believe the ideology at the back of that sound and that's one of the most captivating experiences a human being can have. It's every bit as captivating as sex and we've got a bunch of
of academic saying people aren't really having sex because they find it pleasurable. And all this talk about orgasms. I don't know what they're talking about, but can't be all that interesting. What they're really doing is just trying to procreate even if they're using contraceptives. It's just it's so out of touch. So that is not worth taking seriously. If they're discounting this piece of it. I'm never denying that politics and economics can be part of the story sometimes somewhere, but if you're going to ignore the core of
Story that some people really believe what they say. They believe I don't even know how to have a conversation on the
topic. So I think you're preaching to the choir in the sense that I wouldn't disagree with any of the points that you made about potentially being a bias amongst secular type academics
who don't appreciate the religious
convictions of people can hold. That's definitely true. And I also think that ignoring it as a motivating role. That's a limitation that you
can reuse at various people who think within that space But
I
I'd say you're doing a
disservice to the general field
because overall a lot of people take conviction seriously, but not just politics and social interactions and other factors are sometimes at Factor there always a factor and that applies even in the case where you model and it
always is there, no not always necessary. They're not necessary and they're not sufficient. So they're not always if I mean, there's like, you
know, it's girl then we're going to drop it
medical school in England.
Go join, Isis politics and economics, real political concerns. First person, political concerns, and economic concerns were not the overriding factor you had another in knightliest.
Those are from the research people do with those people. A lot of what they talk about is the feeling of the
integration, the desecrations within the world is not dominated by islamist theocracy. The only way for the were. No, no, right. Is for no. Not like I'm being a lien, a
feeling of alienation.
Nation and the feeling in some cases where there are associated with Muslim backgrounds, whatever it can be a feeling of anger at the status of Muslims, in the west. He can be. I think that what you want, just like that. You have to know if the true the promise. There's there's
every version of this is every case. They're people like sure, he right hook left, my background who convert to Islam and become
jihadists react. I became
I became a quasi Buddhist sitting, Meditation Retreat to my 20s. I could have been a jihadist had, I believe.
Moved that. The Quran was definitely the greatest hope.
So, Sam, there's no point that disagree about that because, like, I don't say that you can't have people that become devoted to a certain Creed. And that, that is the primary motivation. It isn't the economics. It isn't a political pieces that they've developed. It's primarily a religious devotion, that definitely happens. I'm just pushing back at the centrality of which you apply that, for most jihadists across most of the world, but let's, let's table for a second because I've got him.
A point that connects to it, and it relates to the applying different standards, the Christ Church shooting, you had various conversations with people relating to the motivations of the Christchurch shooter in. Those conversations was a couple things first. Was that even a number of months after the event. I was quite surprised when you were talking with Kathleen, Balu that you mentioned. You hadn't read the manifesto.
Esto. But yet you had a strong feeling that because it had some ship posting content in it that we essentially couldn't rely on. Identifying the Buddha,
didn't he blame like you can disown this one for radicalizing number seven,
but Sophia here and that document, if you look at it, I mean the title of it is the great replacement. He shot up a mosque at targeting Muslims and if you read the document, the shitposting the net because he was
4chan troll but there's no confusion about him being a white nationalist concerned with the right radius and he's also an Eco fascist but there's a deep square of white nationalism at night. When you discuss that, the two things I have is one, you didn't want to ascribe so quickly that ideology as a motivating factor you wanted to look at potential other explanations. And the second point was and this was my mid June 4.
The women, wait a minute, but if you're going to say that, I don't do that for jihadists, you're wrong.
I am
when we extend the same principle of skepticism. It is absolutely not. True of me to say that whenever a Muslim goes and kills people. I assume it's jihadism. That is absolutely untrue.
But if you have an issue of the beak that this Grimes, the motivation, you say we should heed that motivation. What?
That says when there's no
ambiguity only only if it's credible, made certain the problem with this case. And again, I didn't read the manifesto. But what I read was secondary coverage
habit, which about specific point. Why didn't you read the manifesto? Given that you've talked about this on several occasions?
There's so many other things to read and I don't, I haven't talked about it that much and it just came up in this conversation with. We were talking about domestic, white nationalism, and whether it what degree that's a problem.
But I didn't read the Anders Breivik Manifesto. I didn't imagine, I glanced those like 1500 pages. I think, I spent 10 minutes searching it with keywords, but I didn't read that either, but like, that was that was a very different case. The problem is that human violence is over determined, right? So, there are there cases, where someone is genuinely mentally ill and they're expressing their mental illness in the context of also paying lip service to various ideologies, but it's pretty clear.
R that no, this is not real. Jihadism, or real white supremacy. Merely, this person is nuts. Then there are people who are completely sane and motivated by an ideology. Then there are people who are just trolling on some level and this is what I didn't know whether or not this was true in the Christchurch case, but this is the secondary coverage. I had read of it suggested to me that this is new variant where you spend enough time on 4chan and your nihilistic enough and your detached enough from the general project of
Of staying alive. And you could be essentially a shit poster
to the killed, sumos
rides, rise at her straight into the grave. A he could be someone who's racist could be someone who hates Muslims, but this is what I read that again. I have not Revisited this topic since I did the podcast, you reference. What I read at the time was that there was a delight in creating a document that was going to be widely, misinterpreted the legacy of this.
Static, you know, pseudo martyr was going to be to create a document that would be widely misinterpreted. But at leave enough Clues to his to his insincerity, as to be a great goof on the normies who think they're in the presence of normal white supremacy, whereas, this is just the 4chan application of everything. I don't know whether that not that's true. I just read a seemingly intelligent opinion on that point before. I happen to find myself on a podcast with Kathleen volcano.
White white nationalism. Yeah, but that so that's my point because I know I think I know the Articles you're talking about. Probably Robert Evans one on Belling cat about the gamification of mass shootings,
but I don't I don't actually know. Yeah,
but I but my point there would be so when you were just discussing white supremacy or white nationalism. There's a general hesitancy for you to describe that. It is not widespread. You hear the subtext of this is that I have some
affinity for white supremacy.
Er, white nationalism as a
Jew. That's the only possible
subtext to read into this. No, no less - it might bias is my bias is to give them the benefit of the doubt. But I'm not going to give the far-left version the benefit of the doubt, it
isn't that. So Sam, you've said, for example, in an older conversation, you wouldn't be surprised. If in 20 years. There was a Civil War in France. You said, if somebody said it was 50/50 that wouldn't be as surprised.
You and this was in the context of the shooting in the Bastille. I think and concerns about immigrant populations and what the destabilizing factor in France. Now, I'm not saying that therefore you want a white ethnos there, but I would say that those sentiments certainly put you closer to people on the right and like, Douglas Murray, but I need the dollars. And so when people that should not
true of my few things have happened.
My first of all, some of the demographic trends that were forecast for France. In particular, have not been borne out. There was a time where totally sober. People in the New York Times were anticipating France, becoming something like a majority Muslim Society in our lifetime. I don't know where the demography is now, but that was, I mean, you could read like, you know,
right? That was Ross about that op-ed in the New York Times on that top.
A stone path is it's right wing, right? And like the figures that you cited, in. One of the books was bought yours, who he's a new that you're not about a
topic to talk about a topic. That was so ill dignified on the left, that no one left of center would talk about it. It was pure plutonium Ayaan hirsi Ali, who should have been a genuine hero to? The left was blackballed from every left-of-center think-tank in America when she was looking for a home, when she left home.
Island. And it was only the American Enterprise Institute that would give her a position and give her security. It was not because she had an affinity for libertarianism and limited government. It was because no one left of center would take a Critic of Islam. Seriously, even if that critic was obviously being hunted by theocrats. It was a complete failure of a safeguard against freethought in our society left of center and it remains to this day. Yes, you do.
Find yourself talking to people who are more concerned or green with people who are more concerned. This is a point. I've made to my enduring disadvantage in a colorful way. This quote, is always taken out of context by dishonest people, like mehdi Hassan, but I wrote a column. I think of the title was the end of liberalism question mark where I worried about the rise of fascism in Europe. And one of the reasons why I gave to be worried was that on this
point?
Only fascists or quasi fascist only
neo-nazis are willing to even talk about the nature of the problem.
And so to people who want to slander me. I seem to be expressing some sympathy for Neo Nazis. And fascists on the contrary. I was saying, this is how dangerous the
situation is. If we have a genuine, social
problem that can only be acknowledged by truly evil, people, given the nature of the social pressure because everyone else is so concerned about their
And to not be called racist, or bigoted in any way. That only really malevolent sociopathic people who are not concerned about their reputations will step forward and call a spade, a spade or say that the emperor has no clothes. That's a completely unsustainable situation. There are variations of that that explain some of the alliances and associations your we're noticing like let me literally like someone like Douglas Murray. Maybe this is change. I doubt it, but for the longest time
Time someone like Douglas Murray couldn't go on CNN to talk about his book. There's no one on CNN who wants to talk to Douglas Murray. So he gets invited on Fox. I'm sure what his next book comes out. His publicist is going to send the book all around and the only people who will say, yeah, we want to give you access to our audience to promote. Your book will be people like Tucker Carlson and certain podcasters who you will identify as being highly non woke.
Some, I paid attention to Douglas Maris.
And and I think part of the partisanship is bi-directional in the way that the coverage goes right. Wing people being treated, more kindly by right-wing media. It stands to reason, but I
was right wing people on this topic. If you're going to say something critical about Islam, as it's an ideology and say that it's not an accident that they're more Muslim suicide bombers than Amish suicide. Bombers. You are not going to get on Anderson Cooper to do that. You're going to get on Tucker Carlson to do that. And that is
Is pernicious, right? So it's true and it should be able to say it
anywhere but then, okay, so it's safe. I completely ground that there are people on the left who are overly sympathetic towards non-western islamist people, but particularly because of a kind of Anti-Imperialist stance, which makes them uncritical to other regimes or to look over their fault whether or not they actually have any ideological sympathy for them, but I think the overriding dislike of the West can disguise
So I'll completely grant that and I'll set aside the issue of the extent to, which that is the dominant View and left-wing media, which I'll even concede if you want to argue that, that is the dominant Theory. But the point I would make Thomas you say often that people are categorizing you with a bunch of people who you don't belong with because politically, you're not aligned and you're just talking about things in the kind of objective fashion, but so make your something clear, likely, or is me be clear.
This is why the details actually matter. I say, what I say about Islam. I have all of this concerned about the ideas that anchor jihadism to the real religion of Islam. But I also say that the first people I would want to let into this country when we're going to have an immigration debate or secular Muslims, and sure. And moderate Muslims. You'd think. If I'm so worried about Islam. Maybe I've got this anti-immigrant, keep the brown people.
Without bias, but that's absolutely not what I have. Right? So I'm so I seem to be agreeing with whoever the Stefan molyneux has of the world who are worried about Islam, but then you get me on immigration and I am Zeno file. And also I feel a special commitment to support the voices in the Muslim world who are actually liberal. Right? Right. Those are the people that should be saving from that from theocracy.
But so Sam, how does your position? Like, for example, you use the figures from eurabia, right use?
And your night, I think would say that those projections like you just did were likely hyperbolic or turned out to be a issue or just not borne out. I
mean, they were whether they were held, whether they were projected accurately at the time and then just things changed. I don't know. I mean, I'm not a demographer and at the truth is, I don't even know where I got. Maybe they're in Arabia as well. But I feel like I got those stats from somewhere else or those projections from somewhere else. I don't know the source, but in any case, there were a lot of people in mainstream media, assuming that those
Directions were going to be born out and we're forecasting, something like 25 years in the future. But now we're 25 or now. We're 20 years in the future.
But so would your concern and be not that it's with skin color, but you are concerned about the West changing into something which like, you know, that was very happy pedestal where it right, but it's not just the
worst.
I'm worried about losing the enlightenment.
I'm worried about. I'm worried about rationality and chance to get something like a universal conception of Ethics to which we can all
converge. Well, where's the
distinction? They're worried about a global civilization
with. So here's my issue. There's a lot of people that have these concerns about the fall of the, you can call Western, or you can call it the enlightenment civilization, but then they don't display the same concern with right wing.
Or rotarians your friends. Douglas Murray. Jordan Pederson have been with Viktor Orban and displayed very little concern by day, and not to me strikes that, but if
you would agree, it's a problem.
If there are people who they are world view, is that we need to be very concerned about preserving the culture of the West. And that immigration from countries, which are far from Western values, are going to degrade that and
They free is that as a great replacement and that it's valid to be concerned about those cultural changes. I'm wondering where you see the distinction from the argument that you're making just without using the words like great replacement or those kind of things like in France, falling in 20 years to a Muslim be civil war. Seems not just wrong to me. It seems extremely unrealistic and in the same way, I can be perfectly.
Article of the people on the left who are being apologetic towards islamist regimes, but I can see on the right that there's an equal. The injure about people with hyperbolic claims and, with a tendency towards partisanship, which is based on either a fondness for the West devoid of risk or one, which it could easily disguise that preference just not using those terms. Well, again, I'm not
provincial.
The slander on me. The cultural slandering me that someone could have would be that. I'm a globalist. I'm a Cosmopolitan. I'm someone who's not rooted enough as an American or as a member of Western culture. My interest is to pick, and choose among the best ideas Humanity has ever produced and where those happen to be Western. Well, then I like the West, if they happen to be Eastern, as is true for virtually everything. I find spiritually in.
Motive. Then I like the East and then we can figure out how to reconcile. The fact that Eastern wisdom has not translated into terrestrial progress for many of these cultures. So I view myself as someone who is, keenly aware of the dangers of ascendant, bad ideas and insofar as allegiance to those ideas gets leveraged by tribalism. I'm really worried about the enduring problem of tribalism. I simply do.
Do not see myself as part of any tribe. I'm liable to disagree with someone who seems to be whatever tribe. You're going to assign me. Just let the conversation go long enough. And if that person stops making sense on issues of real importance, that person is no longer in My Tribe for the purposes of that of that conversation certainly and I'll be agreeing with someone who tripped the purpose of some other conversation will seem very distant from me. Try police creaking. I think the allegation just doesn't track with my psychology.
Not the same, never biased. I can certainly be biased in too far. As there's quasi tribal biases, that have gotten grandfathered in, and I've got a male bias or a, an American bias or like I've got cultural blind spots based on my upbringing, no doubt, but in terms of the ideas that I talked about publicly in the things that I fight for, if you see, if you've listened to what I've said about Trump and you look at what that's done to these quasi tribal, allegiances, in the so-called IDW. I have no tribe. I'm an exile.
All from all of those people who couldn't see what a danger, Trump posed to some, to
America's it. Does it concern you that you have been? Let's say you've been good at identifying the blind spots that the left wing has and calling the my and maybe this is a strength of the candy IDW is feared that it focuses on that point, but does it concern you at all that? Amongst those people? There is a growing sympathy for right wing.
Populism and partisanship. And when you've talked about it before, as The Fringe Of The Fringe phenomenon from where I'm standing, it doesn't look like the populist, right? Is a fringe phenomenon or that the people who you would have identified in previous years, as people that we should heed and who have got their finger on judging these issues correctly, that they've been right? Like they went in on voter fraud conspiracies the wrong on coronavirus. They, they always both
Sides with Trump and that includes people could not utilize a little bit of a
few people. You're talking about a few people who I happen to have been thrown into a group with.
I love you by the lotto ball that time. Do you have sympathy with fright? Like I am hirsi Ali. Douglas Murray to. It isn't just a random assortment of people. It's a kind of it. I have it so small today. I have not
heard. Okay, but your again did the the specific claims are important so for
For instance, someone like Douglas. Now, I again there's just not enough time in the day and I have I have not seen his output of late. So if he said something egregious that, I'm unaware of. Well, then obviously I can't defend that, but I was watching fairly closely. When I was getting more and more worried about Trump and I was seeing some of the people you've named become Trump Ian's, the clearest bright line for me, was when Trump would not commit to a peaceful transfer of power in the
20/20 election, then when the votes were still being counted, declared himself the winner, and ask for the votes to, you know, no longer be counted. Yeah, and then we had the whole stop the steel movement that happened after that. What did people say in those few days around? Trump's patently obvious attempt to steal the election in November. There are people on your list who said Nothing useful and pretended. None of these terrifying things were happening.
Douglas was not one of
them. Douglas very clearly said, I forget where he was. He was on somebody's podcast. He said that he absolutely should not have done that. That was that's where things end for us. And so does someone like Ben Shapiro, mean, Ben Shapiro is someone. I don't agree with and maybe bet at and I don't follow very much. So maybe Ben has gone on to say Despicable things since I don't know, but I was watching at that moment and Ben said what he needed to say to put some daylight.
Between him and Trump, been said, he should not have done that. When Trump claimed to have one when the votes are still being counted, been was on Twitter. If memory serves saying he should not have done that. That's totally unacceptable. Now, Dave Rubin is not someone who said anything useful at that point or sins. And that's one clue as to why you don't see much going on between me and Dave Rubin these days as much as I've tried behind closed doors to get Dave to make some reasonable.
Session 2. How unacceptable and dangerous that moment was and subsequent moments were around this. Stop the steel fantasy. He hasn't made any of those reasonable noises. So there's no, there's not much to talk about on that front. But I think there is significant daylight between even someone like Ben Shapiro and Dave on that point, as much as they may seem to agree about everything else. And so anyway, I can't you know, I can't own anything that's happened since but I was watching at those moments and both Douglas and Ben.
I did something that Dave very pointedly didn't do at that moment. And and that was the difference between Madness and Insanity in my view.
Yeah, I agree that there is distinctions unlike that there are people who did directly criticized Trump for his actions. And like I'm I regard that as a very low bar even for people on the right or left. We should all be able to do that. But but you're right that many people didn't they just slammed into that hurdle, but people like those Murray did overcome it with
Is good and praiseworthy, but I would add some that. There's an issue. I think I think you recognize that on your recent episode, you talked about that, we're like to beat up on, Trump is no great achievement, especially for anybody that wants to identify themselves anywhere on the left, right? It should be obvious. There's so many personal feelings. It's not an achievement. If you're liberal, and any sense to say, Trump is a terrible person, and his politics are terrible, and he just seems like a terrible to amazing help. How many people can't do it?
It. Yes, they all over thing. That amazes me go is. There's a lot of people who will grant that they'll grant that because they see that as like a pretty simple thing to do, but then they'll immediately switch to both sides in or they'll add in strategic disclaimers where they'll basically say Trump is a bore and he's an idiot and all of these things. But he's right on this point and a lot of the times it ends up. That what happens is people say, look, I criticized Trump.
Not saying you do this because I know you have devoted significant effort and unpin stood President Trump, but then they will pivot always but two years the problem you're seeing on the left.
Okay? Yeah. Yes, and those people infuriate me as well. But but here's the problem Trump and this this goes back to your point about my talking about white supremacy, being The Fringe Of The Fringe, whereas the the extreme left woke ISM isn't The Fringe. Has captured our institutions. That's an asymmetry that still concerns me, but don't
Concentric circles modeled with moderate to extreme Muslims. I think that applies with white nationalism as well that The Fringe Of The Fringe of neo-nazis with its fast because on their hand, that's a tiny, tiny minority, but Tucker Carlson is not a minor figure and he is talking to millions of mobile. I
haven't know whether he's been slimed unfairly or not. I mean, maybe he is one of those concentric circles, but the problem is like someone likes
Trump and the attacks on. Trump has a white supremacist and a racist in the after Charlottesville. We're so dishonest. And so sloppy, that even, I couldn't support them as much as I hate Trump. And as much as I'm convinced, he's actually a racist. I believe, I know Trump is a racist based on private conversations. I've had with people who know that Mark, Burnett suppressed tapes of him on The Apprentice, using the n-word in Earnest, you know, they do something like, they are environment, and
I'll steam enough, right? Like but the problem is his comments after Charlottesville, where he talked about good people on both sides, those were widely distorted, but universally distorted by mainstream media. There is a genuine hoax there and this will be like this Scott, Scott Adams refers to it as the good people on both sides hoax,
and if you play the
tape of what he said in that press conference. He very clearly said that he was not
Talking about the white supremacists in the neo-nazis. He said exactly what he should have said and needed to. Say to say, listen. I'm not talking about the white supremacist and the neo-nazis but there were other good. There were other people there. They weren't all white supremacist and
neo-nazis everyone who has
commented on this from Anderson Cooper on down, has elided that detail and made it seem like when he was saying good people on both sides, one of those sides were the obvious.
Nazis with the tiki torches,
that was absolutely. Not the
case and it's easily convert this confirmable and yet,
everyone just ran with it. And the
people who know what's true just lied about it. And this is literally, this is everyone. This is the New York Times is a CNN. This is everyone in mainstream journalism. And that is so crazy making that people like Dave Rubin and Scott Adams and every other Trump supporter just threw up their hands and said, fuck it. There's no, there's no talking to these people. There's no reason to even like this.
You they're going to call you a Nazi, no matter what you do.
So none of this matters. This is all just woke ISM hysteria and you have to treat it like a mental illness. And so there's
that's what that's where we are. Right? You would call that an over extrapolation. Right? Like, even if people misrepresented that individual example, no bumps. It broader did
such heavy lifting that did such heavy lifting for the mainstream media and it was likely Covington Catholic kids hoax to writer.
Or delusion where they forget that kid was spun up as the face of white supremacy, but whereas it was a completely different situation and just an awkward social encounter. And he happened to be wearing a Maga
habit, probably exploitation in the New York Times, never apologizes for a child right
here. Be, they need, they never correct the record. And that's, that's what's so, is making conversation on this open impossible, because Trump should be cancelled, right? Trump is guilty of 10,000 things. That should have.
Nye elated him as a politician should have made his presidency impossible and should certainly reveal him. Now, to be the most dangerous cult leader on Earth, and yet, even though they're those 10,000 Things, the left is so sloppy and so unprincipled that they're going to lie about 5,000 other things. For some reason, 10,000 things aren't enough. That's the problem. I'm trying to deal with. So I get it from both sides, and this is again, why I think considering me tribal just
Doesn't make any sense because I go hard against Trump. I go hard against woke ISM. I go hard as hard as anyone against jihadism, but then we'll say something. Seemingly totally charitable about Osama Bin Laden and very invidious against Trump. But
then, when you get too
sloppy with Trump, will say, no, actually, he's not a white supremacist and he didn't say what you thought, he said at the press conference,
and I get endless hate mail from all conceivable
sides of every one of these
situations, right?
There's no
and is from, every is from every tribe is from every conceivable triple called tribe.
But look, just the here in this conversation. The point the by Tucker used said, you know, I don't know about Tucker. I don't want and you can just don't, I don't watch him watch him. And so,
I don't know. I just know that. I know that you I, you know, I would be I'd be willing to bet money that you were taken in by the good people on both sides. Hope know, so, I don't know if there's some analogous problem with the coverage of Tucker.
That I can't like their land mines everywhere here. Yeah, but
Sam I brought my I might I can't sign a blank check against Tucker Carlson. You just don't want condemnation of left-wing. Media is unequivocal and it's pathetic talking about because Rim that's because you are on the
left and I care. The only the only legitimate media for the most part is left-wing media. I don't care about Breitbart Breitbart and fox are not
Journal them because they're dead. They are here. I care. I care
about them. No. No, you get your reading me wrong.
Care about them as destructive forces in our society, but they're not there pseudo media. I mean, they're pseudo journalism,
but they are huge. These implants are,
of course, but that's what's so terrifying, and that's what that's what's. So
terrifying about losing the New York Times to woke ISM, right? But some like here by the second you so we you definitely I don't think you would make this claim that like you attract criticism in recent years primarily from Fox and Friends.
Some people like Tucker Carlson because if so, I haven't noticed, what the criticism you get. I think there and the people on your resurrected form you. They're not the right wing, right? It's left and your attention is focused. They're the most known that you know, the truth
is. No, no, it's not really. I don't think Tucker, Carlson notices, what I'm up to and I don't think people on Fox tend to notice what I'm up to and the left does notice more, but insofar as anyone who supported Trump noticed.
I was up to, in the last five years. I've gotten at least as much criticism from trumpets tan, as I've gotten from Locust, and it's just, it's been non-stop, but it's more, it's probably is even more decisive. It's just, these are people who will never listen to my podcast again. These are like, so, like if I tweet something that these people agree with, like, if I tweet something that is against, whoa, Chasm, I will hear from the people who are basically. This, I'll hear from Gad sads audience or Dave, Rubens audience, who will say, well,
Who cares what you're saying about them, even if you're accidentally write about. Whoa, Chasm here. You're such a colossal moron for what you said about Trump that no one's ever good. No one cares. What you think, right? This is this is the kind of thing. I get Ad nauseam from trumpet Stan. This is a discovery. I made. Now A couple of years ago. The last, I think it's a couple years ago. Yeah, certainly before covid. The last time I went on Dave Rubens podcast.
I discovered that his audience hated me to the last man.
They hated me.
I rarely look at YouTube comments, but I decide for whatever reason, I decide to look at YouTube comments after that appearance, and it was just pure pain because his audience has been fully, captured by Trump supporters, and Jordan Pederson devotees. So, insofar as I disagree with Trump and disagree with Jordan Pederson, and that's pretty far. I was absolutely reviled in that office at. That's not my tribe. That is absolutely not my
tribe. I'm not saying you're gonna need to go read the you to go, read the YouTube
comments after that.
Russian with a reuben and you'll see what whatever my tribe is its. It has no overlap with that drive as much as we mutually spend time criticizing woke -
where were you would be feted and samnite as like we have Helen Clark roads and Cafe young, and Jesse single. And okay, that's fear. Were there has been something of a Civil War and these are not tribes. That's so I have you
here. You keep split people up and read it.
You have to keep shuffling the
deck want to try Bays. It's a group of people that share common ideas. When am I
going to break? When is the daylight going to emerge between me and Jesse, single, or Helen pluck rose on there?
They carry my for something to be a group or tribe. It doesn't have to be Eternal and unchanging. In fact, there's no group without apply
should be. There should be more than five people in
it. There are there's a massive audiences for all of those people and there's an entire ecosystem persuasion and like, you know, you talk
About you talk about western or liberal media being captured entirely by voltage Dogma. But there's an entire ecosystem of very popular one either, which caters to people who do like what it your
view sleep. Hits truly heterodox is, it's a group of people who can be classically right of Center and classically left-of-center politically their IE from different tribes, people who can be religious and they're people who can be
This is from different tribes and yet they can have civil conversations on various
Topics by quoting Chasm about wokers out about Trump isn't primarily. Yes, and that's it. Just do you not trusting on your but you're not focusing on the areas where you differ? That's the point. You're not focusing on all these nights worrying. I disagree. It
is not a crisis. Whoever is left. We've had a shattering or of our society, a trail Grant you. We have a tribal shattering of our society.
Are some people who have not been captured by that shattering, see what's happening on the left in that tribe and are worried about it and they see what's happening on the right in that tribe and they're worried about it and capable of different conversations. And so yeah, I mean if you're going to call that a tribe, it is analogous to play playing The Language game that gets played on me as an atheist. They say, well, you know, that's just your faith, right? Atheism is your faith, you know, collecting stamps is your hobby, these visions adric.
I don't see this analogous because there's a core of beliefs which tend to reoccur. It's shown some in the fact that lots of people from that sphere. They don't spin off into the far left and the progressive spheres. It isn't around them, constellation of views that people hold weight and to add our exceptional
as the wrong guy. You gotta find that. It keeps were clearly hear. You mean, you're alleging, that the persuasion community and Helen pluck Rose.
Those types of people are now part of this new tribe criticizes. Whoa. Kazama lat but also criticizes trumpism a lot. They're not spinning off into trumpets tan Yasha. Monk is not becoming a trumpet and then height is not becoming a trump pist righties. And what? Me? No,
I'm not saying they are all in it all, but none of the none of, if
they become a trumpets, they can't be part of this group. They're out of their Exile from this particular tribe. It's because it's antithetical to him as it's antithetical to walk his mm. The thing that's
Infusing. You is that is an asymmetric focus on woke ISM because whoa, Chasm has captured fucking every institution. We
care about that. Skymaster
journalism is captured media is captured Hollywood is captured Tech is captured Academia. Bism, hasn't trumpism has captured the hearts of the country's Supreme
Court in America. Yeah. Okay, fine. Political and situation. It's the right wing Lee not media, the right the right right wing. Yeah, but that's not that's not
Media that anyone any real intellectual cares about the kids of people. So have no, no, I'm not saying it's not consequential. You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying it's consequential, it's times elections and not the audience. The right wing has, they're all actuals, Douglas Murray is one
no pitcher. Douglas Murray isn't Douglas Murray is well, I don't think you're putting him in the persuasion Community, right? So that whatever the daylight is between Douglas and persuasion, you know, but let's say he is in that Community. He's in that Community for me. I don't know.
Isn't that Community for Yasha, it's a little hard to place Douglas on this map because he's European. He's a validly conservative and has been forever so that he doesn't hasn't that he hasn't. He hasn't had to care about how he's perceived by the left because he thinks the left is insane and he thought that for as long as I've known
him, right, so he doesn't, he hasn't had to play. He hasn't had this
Awakening of oh my God these people who are so reasonable on all these other points. Can't see that. The Taliban are bad guys, right? What's going on?
He knew that was good going to happen, right? For whatever reason, but if you're talking about the core set of people, who are your now, you're calling a tribe. Let's take it. The persuasion audience record, equivalence of my
client, and look at the editorial board on koala. Is there any put slight lean that you might detect? Okay there? Okay, but no, but but the asymmetry
there is
when you're talking about the
intellectual work to perform an exorcism on our Institution.
On our real institutions of knowledge science when the Lancet start stops, referring to women and starts referring to bodies with vaginas,
in a single, who is in this, in a single issue on the cover. And they usually woman in at very article of people are complaining about abiding Museum, but it's all fight magina. It's this is over peace with what
all these other journals have done is of a piece with all of these other institutions have Diamond it right. But it has
the key is that you can't say woman and
In like liberal spaces are Academia. I teach in Academia. Nobody is impossible. It's impossible to
live by that rule, right? It's literally impossible and I would but I'm
not arguing right? Like so Sam, look I'm a point
this has to land because this actually explains it. The reason why there's an asymmetry here is culturally speaking. The institutions were losing right? The institutions that are no longer trustworthy. The institutions where you have to pause before believing the
Where you never had to before, because you understand how much ideological capture is working in the background. We're talking
about the most
important sources of information, Humanity. Has we're talking about, Princeton, and Harvard, and Stanford, and the New York Times and nature, and, and Science, and the Lancet and New England. New England Journal of Medicine, but they're not lost and Jama. We're talking about all of it all at
once, captured by a
Real Panic right now. If you don't, if you don't perceive that to be true, you and I have a disagreement about the nature of the problem, but just grant me that I perceive it this way and Claire Lehman perceives it this way. And John McWhorter, perceives it, this white
completely and that's why they're focused on the left more than on the
right. Sure, because what's wrong with the right is so obvious. It's been obvious for our entire lives, right? Fox News was always dangerous bullshit. The
New York Times was
The New York Times was the news and that's why it's so
disastrous to see pure woke. Pablum ever. Get published in the New York Times. The 1619
project is a complete
subversion
of our intellectual life in the way that Fox News isn't. That's what's important. So a sound what's important is. You cannot, you cannot
find a high school, a private high school in America. Now to send
your kid where they're not.
I'm going to be told to read
Ibrahim X, candy
sympathetically. That's true. That is that's a yes. That's a moral
emergency. But that that is that is
true level. I'm talking about Los Angeles and New
York. That is that is if you're talking about the the cities that people that intellectual Global is Cosmopolitan, liberals academics care about. That's true.
Well, it's um like load. So first of all, like on the woke stuff and the
You're slightly Miss understanding like because I'm critical but like I would collect myself as within the general sphere of people critical of orgasm, critical of the extreme, right? And it like sympathetic, the heterodox TX. I'm in that field. And so it's going to do is what you're telling me
you and I are in the same tribe and yet we're spending all this time disagreeing.
Yes. Yeah. In on lots of ways visit. This is this what? It feels like to be in a tribe back and
Library hours of non-stop disagree.
Emma.
I'm an I'm an old man, but I'll grab. I'll grant you that. But like, I just like this, just like
this, just just be a get getting shit on endlessly on your podcast and then getting sniped at it on Twitter. That's my experience of being right in the tribe. Would you
have let your specifically say that? That's what a good person does with the groups that they belong to, right? They criticize. This is not a tribe. It's not it's yours. This
is the tribe of. You're only as good as your last
sentence know it.
Nothing wrong and then we definitely and now I'm in a different tribe.
It's not that bad. That's the way it's functioning. That is the way it's function. It Douglas says something, sufficiently stupid. I'm going to say, all right, Douglas you and I can't talk
about this anymore. If unless we can get over this problem right here. No one is saying we
and we are not in the same tribe and I would say not say that lots of people are saying you can't talk to people. My point would be, you can talk to whoever you want, it matters what you say and what you don't say, and what you criticizing.
What you don't criticize and you, I've heard your voice the same sentiment elsewhere, but you've talked about Sam the pornography of Doubt amongst anti-establishment voices. And you didn't. Yeah, I mean, you were talking in the context of Brett Weinstein, but I would imagine the point. It stands Farlow, and what you just outlined, right? This complete capture of all, instruments of science, all media, all liberal, sources of information, all political parties. I would guess. And the means,
Mm. Laughs. Hi, is that different than what the people that you were saying? Who are casting that we can't trust anything. The institutions are saying because I hear that with me,
implicitly complete. It's not, it's not complete. It's everywhere, but it's not complete. It is everywhere. It's not, it's absolutely not complete. It's, in fact, it's a lie. I mean it what it is, is, it's a seeming capture because it is a minority people who believe this device of bullshit, the rest of the people who don't believe it have.
Been cowed into silence because they're afraid of being called racist or transphobic or misogynistic or whatever it is. So no, it's not complete capture, but
it is a
moral and intellectual emergency. Absolutely. So that's why so many of us keep returning to the topic as boring as it is. It's less boring. It's harder to parse. Then what's going on on the right? When what's wrong with white supremacy? What's wrong with Donald Trump? These are questions. That is two in my world answer themselves.
But accept that yet what's wrong with it? Except you didn't anticipate print. What some people going that way who you were forward? Yes, like, you know actors, of course, that's a whole so there isn't flabbergasted. Yes. Flabbergasted and that surely doesn't that indicate that the might be something in your picture, which is important. And which like explains for example, why there's such a widespread distrust of waxing which is politically violent, right? And like
those is no, but it's not.
It's multivalent is a bit of distrust, of vaccines is multivalent. It's not just, it's all, it's also on the left. It's also on the
lever over it, but it's like, it's not evenly distributed. It's also on the left. I
mean, it's in trumpet. And but what, if you're talking about, true, anti-vaxxers mm, you know, the anti-vaxxer community, the preak Ovid. That's very, I mean, I don't know why, maybe there's a far-right variant of it too. But in my world that was always a leftist phenomena. Those are, those are yoga mom's we, you know, and
Paths and people go to chiropractors.
You should be paying attention to those communities sound because now there's a massive overlap with those communities and my gas tank, you annoying, get you? Yes, and
Q and on all yes, it's crazy out there. I will grant you that. Listen guys. I'm at the end of my not my interest in this conversation. But at the end of my allotted
time, sorry Sam, right? I hope we got some we're worth going. Maybe my, can you like kick us to wrap up and I'm sorry, Sam like at these are
questions that have been bubbling for years. I think it's frustrating as it might be the deal with it. I think it actually will be useful for you to give a response to someone putting these points. And
so, so I look forward to hearing the name of my tribe after all of this. I would, it's we're in, get some set theorist out here to give us the diagram. Yeah. Well, I'd the whole time of the list thing. I've just been thinking about how we've gotten hung up on these words and partly on the assumption that
This some terrible ideological blind thing where I think where someone like Chris and I would come from. It's just that it's it's kind of inescapable. Like we know where we sit. We we know it's hard to criticize our friends and people who are aligned with us and but that
but that's not tribalism. That's how that
the friends are that. I'm loathe to criticize our people in different tribes. If they mean that I will grant you that there are people in tribes, right? The people who will never say a single bad.
Edward about Trump. That is a cultic I would call it a cultic phenomenon even more than a tribal phenomenon. But that is a social experiment, run amok, whether you call it tribalism or occultism
fine. Yeah, same with woke ISM. I have woke people in my
life who I don't want to criticize publicly, right? I have trumpets in my life, who I don't want to criticize publicly. I'm pretty clearly in neither of those tribes. And I reject, I mean, and I'm not a Buddhist being yet, obviously Buddhism.
Informs my life, but the only thing I've written it all, you know, for a Buddhist magazine is kill the Buddha, right? So it's just I await the person who can pinpoint the tribe. I'm actually in and demonstrate that it's full of other people just like me acting tribally and the set of all people who don't act tribally. Can't be yet another tribe but there's a fantastic podcast called cultish which emphasizes that there's a spectrum here at that. We're all we don't have to be in a cold but it's rather that what we think is important what we think is the sort of
Of larger issues, the larger dangers. It tends to give us a selective attention and turns us to pick out and find out. If what you think is important is universalism and intellectual honesty and transcending tribal divisiveness. If those are your master of values to call that yet, another divisive provincial. Tribe is just a semantic game. Now I could be deluded about. I could be claiming those are my values but those
Really my values. I'm really a closeted because I am a cheat code, Jewish cultist or whatever it is. But if those were my master values, right? Yep. To call that yet. Another species of tribalism is just bullshit. It's just like calling atheism, another religion. Well, I do my monologue, I've accidentally reignited, the debate, but I mean, I do disagree because I have the same value thereabouts, like, cosmopolitanism and stuff like that, and I like you, I'm sure was outraged because I'm old enough to remember the fatwa.
On Salman Rushdie and my motivations. There were in time we
see cars, but but,
but you can't say, cosmopolitanism is another form of nationalism. You just got her husband Paul. This is happening with this tribalism on site, then I'm saying that that's that's analogous to what's happening. I'm not saying that I'm saying that not what I was saying. I'll send that a good or what I think is a good principle. A good value. Could easily lead me to be focused on Pat's what?
I'd be relatively isolated flagrant incidents is against it and adopt a kind of myopia there. If the allegation is that I'm myopically fixated on the problem of whoa, Chasm most days. And then also myopically fixated on the problem of trumpism on other days. And I don't have my priorities straight and I should be just thinking about climate change on all those days. That's just an argument about priorities, but
that's not a claim about tribalism.
No, but it can, it can lead you into a like like I said, the thing.
Look, you guys were talking before about how the thing that unites. All of these characters is the anti work kind of thing. I mean it can create what is essentially a cold include go with a tribe or whatever. You want? Oh My modes. I know I said, I got to go, but now I really have to go. But in all my modes about where I criticized Trump, I am perceived by the trumpets who are anti woke as being in a decidedly
different tribe criticizing. Trump, totally unfairly and I'm
aligned with the Scheels the
Shills of the New York Times and CNN who are, who are just here in hysterics about the Russia gate hoax and you know, other spurious things, right? Yes, so that you're just noticing the fact that I seem to be making the same noise as people right of Center some of whom I can't even talk to you anymore. And you're not noticing that I sound just like Kara Swisher when I'm talking about Trump. Mhm. Yeah, actually all of us liking Reflections on all of us. Not not. Not.
Not you in particular. Actually, I just think a lot of us get criticized from both ends of the spectrum. But yeah, anyway, let's let's well, I'm I wrap it up with the question. Just a nice open kind of question.
Okay. Sure. And and Sam. Can, I just says, well, I genuinely appreciate the time that you've given the willingness to deal with somebody annoying, you young persistent with criticism. You definitely deserve credit for it. So, yeah, like I know it hasn't been a pleasant experience, but I hope it's been user.
All I'm
To do it even though I don't always sound happy. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. That's all I want to say. Thanks. Chris is like this with everybody's anyway, I guess because it comes with the drive. Okay, said this has been fantastic and it's been fun listening to you two guys debate with each other. I can't usually get a word in with Chris. But this time, I think it was fine. So, just stepping back a bit taken, a bit of a bigger View.
You leaving yourself in your own position in this landscape. Totally out of it. What do you think about what's going on? I mean because you know, you know what we do, we sort of focus on these heterodox online figures that are cultivating, I guess some sort of influence or followings outside, of of Institutions outside of mainstream media, you've heard us making points. That many of them are indeed taking anti-establishment arianism to the degree of conspiracy theories and things like that. And
Fun sort of promoting a worldview that is somewhat catastrophic. Like they had this sort of acting like Cassandra is warning of the dangers that are come at the other hand. You've made good points. I think about the institutions like the New York Times or the universities are have become more ideologically rigid as well. So we've got this new Dynamic. We've got these online things going on. Where do you see the future? And where do you see the dangers? Well, I'm personally very happy to be functioning where I am, you know, outside of
oceans and hence on cancellable. I feel very grateful to have found the gig I have as a podcaster and someone who's just kind of controllers on platform, but generally speaking in terms of the effect on the culture of having a million-plus podcasts and institutions that people no longer trust. I think it's a terrifying circumstance, epistemologically and socially. I think it's totally dysfunctional and we have to figure out
Way to reboot or institutions. We need our institutions. We need the New York Times. We need good universities. We need the best scientific journals to still be the best scientific journals, though. I think they should be readable by everyone because our taxes pay for the research. So I think what is becoming the status quo here is really unnerving, even though I seem to be participating in it. We need real journalism and the bureau in London or Beijing, can't just be some guy.
Guy or gal with a cell phone was just going to hang that out the window and show us what's happening. That's why. Hence hence, the seemingly disproportionate focus on the irrationality of the left because the rationality of the right has, as far as I can tell, no, serious influence. Over the real organs of knowledge and sense-making in our culture. It it's been incredibly destructive to our society, but in these fake,
World of fake of, you're genuinely fake news, you know, but opinion that that masquerades as news, you know, Fox Breitbart, Etc. That for now more than at least two decades. It was widely understood to be violating every Norm of real journalism. But now the left, the real journalists are violating these Norms so often I think it's appropriate to be especially worried about what's happening in the mainstream. So yeah. Yeah. I'm worried. I'm worried The General.
The general message should be. I'm worried. Yes. Well, it's not, it's not a positive message, does probably correct one and a good one to kind of finish on, I'll let Chris comment, but I'll just say for myself. It's been a lot of fun to listen to you guys to buy it and credit to you. Again, Sam for coming on and having what sounded to me. Like a pretty good robust discussion. So that was just good to hear. We're probably going to be criticized will probably gain some profile by talking to you, but we're also going to be be criticized by people.
For talking to you and by being associated with me, being associated with people, which tribe, I'm a part of and all I would love to hear it. Yeah, and and also by your kids,
whether you want to or not Sam, we are not in the same tribe from
this episode so good. Yeah, good luck to you. And
that's very last thing just to say despite the political disagreements and the various differences of opinions by tribalism. The app is good and despite.
The things that we said in the previous episode. In this one, I would recommend that. Okay. Well,
good luck with the podcast, guys. Have fun with it, and it was great to talk to you.
Okay, Chris, so that was a big Love chat hoof.
How do you feel after that? I don't know. That's, that's like, it was done weeks ago or something that. Yeah, you know. Yeah. It's pay ya. I feel strangely detached from the conversation and yet, here we are. We just finished it.
Well, I haven't listened to it actually, since since we recorded. So, what do
you mean?
Just took place, but don't destroy the wheel but we didn't intro and that doesn't work. So yeah, it's been a while.
It's been a while, so yet. Cool. But, yeah, I thought it was a good
talk. I am sure. We will hear people's opinions of it one way or the LA.
And yes, I'm sure both both the, the Sam Harris fans. And the same hair has haters, will both enjoy it and respect us all the more for having done
that.
Indeed where I'm sure we're gonna be warmly received by both sides for this so cat. There we go. Something for us to look forward to
speaking of feedback.
Oh, you're gonna need to do. Say, okay. Yeah,
speaking of feedback. We love getting feedback, and we have some feedback. Don't worry, L our traditional reading of the feedback and responding
to review other.
Reviews that the segment that everyone
comes from that's sort of cool. That's right. Yep. Repeat over here is like a good one or a bad one first.
Eric. Why do we go with a bad one? And then we'll wash out that bitter tears with a good one. How's that sign?
That sounds good? Yeah.
Okay. I have a bad one. Shall I read it? You can read it. It's titled disappointed. Hi often feel.
I like my
damn it and it's by Emoji car, you know, cheetah could use in him. I find this podcast when I was annoyed with the wine Steins. However, I find the actual criticism here. Empty superficial just off point at that's why it's simply not funny. So, listen to this. Only reinforce that the wine Stones, love them all.
Hit them have a far superior intellect. The most liberal shells who we jeer at them. At least the wine Stein's know how to construct a logical argument, even if the validity of the information. They plug into that argument distributable.
So
well, well Chris, I would I would like to say to emerge either that Brett Weinstein thinks that you shouldn't use sunscreen because it does it is no need to protect yourself against UV radiation. That is not the mark of a superior intellect. I am. Sorry
that. I don't know what to say, map. They signs like a liberal shil. Hi much other. Hey, the
Sunscreen industry, paying you to to keep up this facade.
Your yes. This is. So this is a famous of famously partisan, work opinion that you should use sunscreen. Yeah. Now they're actually not, I don't think that that's why. And that's because the people that is fart. Don't get so much stuff. So, obviously wrong. So I reject this one. As for
us, superficial.
One of knew it, you know, all opinions are available. So I just I like the fact that somebody, you know, listen to the critique. Seems like no, the weinsteins. All right. Look, you're just demonstrating High. How much? They're on point. Like? Wow, that's that's that's an achievement. I mean, I have a problem. I have one.
More problem with this
cuz they they say that a criticism directly superficial and just off point, which is okay. Let's grant that. But then the next point is and that's why it's simply not funny. But that that's a non-sequitur, you know,
wet. And we don't be, we're not funny it, particularly you, for completely different reasons, its
guidelines to do with being right or wrong.
Yeah. They don't you can be funny and wrong. Yeah. It's my the logic is bad. Do you know? It's just a VIP stand standard.
For critical reviews, they need to try harder. And so three stars though. I was that. Yeah, we get was to sighs. Anyway, okay. Thank you. Anyway, Emoji te you you were wrong. But but you know, that's okay. Yeah.
Thanks for trying. Thanks for playing Nia.
He hears someone. That's right, Ma. I've got someone. That's right. And which makes a nice pair because this person said, we reinforced their love of the wine signs and
And here's a contrary view to that. It's by builds sauce. Keep it up. For the last few years. I've been a big fan of the IDW types and I've been following them closely. Your podcast has done a tremendous job of showing me the flaws in their worldview and style of thinking. Honestly, it's been a relief to hear your analysis and to disregard some of the paranoid and conspiratorial thinking that I've been enamored with, for instance, as a former fan of the Dark Horse podcast.
Could have become someone. We tried to find Ivermectin instead of taking the covid facts. It feels good to give taking the covid fox with confidence and to trust the scientific consensus. How do you being mean-spirited and unreasonable in your critiques? I don't think I would have given your analysis a chance. Thank you for the great work. And please keep it up PS. I Love the BBW crossover, but I'm adamantly team Tumblr in the coast argument.
Yeah.
Electing something here, which very much, you know serves our purposes in what we're trying to do and reinforces what we might claim, that would be a positive effect of our material. But as well as say that like we do get this kind of feedback and it's hardening it inside me. Yeah. I was just scrolling. I haven't ever
read any of the feedback except for the ones that you read that I did for the first time now and there's heaps of once is
That refers to us as a leprechaun and a kangaroo is one. That says yea though, Chris Cavanaugh, please remain very spicy forever. Thank you for your service. But this it's a treasure
Trove is what the calls me, Batman. I think, it calls me like an annoying Batman or something. But if you did and yeah, it might be tongue-in-cheek, but it doesn't matter. My I got referred to as but the Batman of the our Duo, which meet you Robin,
that makes me real bad idea.
He didn't tell me, I had a sneaking suspicion for looked
at about an hour people. On Twitter have been presenting. Your is like a lovable Labrador. Like kinda with your tongue hung, right? Just a hair.
It's right. And you're like a grumpy cat. Yo, you like
it?
You like it? Yeah, that's why there's lots of fun, eyes of a dog and a cat together. You presume, they're friends. The cat's not impressed. That the cat looks tacky
and I do
In the cat. And I'm thinking my cat. I'm not just like him up yet. And angry.
Do you know, you're not a labrador? That's for sure. You could be that great dog. Maybe I will. Maybe I can
talk my Angry, Dog M. So last thing, Matt, that's paying because we're running out of time and we need to give some shoutouts to our patrons lovely, lovely patreons. So let's do it. Let's do it. So we we have some conspiracy hypothesize errs.
We have Nina, Davis, William Carpenter, GM's loner, and Becca, Thomas, all all conspiracy hypothesize. Would he say that Matt? I
said, thank you for being a conspiracy. I bother sir sighs. Ooh. Yes. So here's your reward, every great idea starts with the minority of one. We are not going to advance conspiracy theories.
We will advance conspiracy hypotheses and revolutionary Geniuses my
We have a couple of those carry out the sun, one woman artist, Alex all all conspiracy. I know. Sorry, they're not. Oh, they're all Revolution are geniuses. That's what
they are. Hey fantastic. Soak a woman artist and Alex.
Okay. Thank you very much.
Thank you. All revolutionary Geniuses.
Maybe you can spit out that hydrogenated thinking and let yourself feed off.
Off of your own thinking, what you really are is an unbelievable thinker and researcher a thinker that the world doesn't know. So lastly, my a couple of galaxies Bringers to mention the the biggest Brilliance in the guru's fear. So one is Bhai Nick to who, I believe we've spoke to in the monthly Hangouts before. So
Give me high and Carolyn Reeves. That's another person and then I've got mine, the gender gap, mind, the gender gap,
Sydney, High, mind, the gender gap, and Carolyn. Sorry Caroline. Yeah, that's good. Are we going Q
ml? Thank you. All, you big Galaxy being gurus here, you're sitting on one of the great scientific
stories that I've ever
heard, and you're so poor.
Light and hey, wait a minute. Am I an expert kind of L? Yeah. I don't trust people at all. Thank you Scott Adams for that useful information. So there we are my and you know the patreons because we probably don't mention like we put extra content. We put like durometer episodes where we code the guru's recruit episodes. I didn't Advance, we'd sometimes do.
The episodes and put them up and their stuff up in the picture on the clips from the episodes and whatnot. They did Sphinx there. There's, you know, lots of extra content if you want.
There are things there and we got our monthly really cool tonight. Yeah, hang up. I am a is, but Hangouts and they could to
so join up if you are interested, and otherwise, hopefully you enjoyed the extended interview with some Harris, will be back next time with a brand a
brine, bye-bye.
Rather, what the video? Your Martial Master?
Yes,
bye-bye, bye-bye.
