Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

In this eye-opening discussion, we explore the complex dynamics of dominance and submission in relationships, challenging popular misconceptions promoted by the "red pill" community. We delve into:

* The misunderstanding of female sexuality and relationship preferences

* The difference between arousal patterns and daily life expectations

* The importance of having a vision and purpose in attracting a partner

* How to approach dating with honesty and efficiency

* The role of ambition and status in attraction

* Strategies for building a strong, synergistic relationship

* The truth about "pickup artist" techniques and why they fail

* Research findings on marital satisfaction and partner preferences

* The concept of tactical honesty in dating and relationships

* Ideas for creating a family culture that supports healthy partnerships

Join us as we unpack these crucial topics and provide practical advice for building meaningful, lasting relationships.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] the urban monoculture will not admit that men and women are different. And then it's like, then explain trans people.

And they're like, oh, what I meant is men and women are fundamentally two totally different things, and you can easily tell which one you are just by how you perceive reality . You know, you're not allowed to admit it in terms of partner dynamics or anything like that. But then the urban monoculture cited so holistically was a feminist movement that a anti feminist bent has twisted the truth that women prefer subservient positions when they're in a relationship with a male to women want a man To like, tell them to shut up and get in the kitchen.

 I'd be like, Hey, you get your b***h ass back in the kitchen and make me some pie.

Andrew Tate: I am the commander of this house. Be quiet. Cook.

They're like, Oh, so I just need to be like, that's what dominance is, right?

Malcolm Collins: Dumb a*****e. Have you ever seen like a pickup artist in like real life?

So there is a, a, a bad point of data that a [00:01:00] lot of red pill men get, or a lot of like really sexually active men get which is, Slave women, I'll call them.

So

Oh, yes, okay

Malcolm Collins: Do not confuse what arouses a woman with what she wants from her daily life. Alright? I am sure, if you are a guy, and you are watching this, right, there are things on your computer

 Tamura, I miss me something. My computer's hard drive. I need you to dump it in the bathtub and fry it. All done. Please rest in peace, Satoru.

Malcolm Collins: as a man, there are many things that may arouse you that you did not choose to have arouse you, right? You don't want those things that arouse you to be part of your daily life at work. Or among your friend group or you know, in the way that you're raising your kids.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: [00:02:00] Hello, Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today, we are going to be talking about Dominance and submissiveness as it relates to gender relationships in males and females and where Groups like the pickup artist and red pill community now keep in mind These are not homogenous communities in terms of their viewpoints But I would say many of the prevailing ideas within these communities got these concepts wrong Which led to them making very big mistakes in terms of how they were engaging with their partners, which You Ultimately led to unproductive, unhappy relationships that broke apart.

Absolutely.

Malcolm Collins: Now, I'm going to read a quote, , a friend of mine wrote this sentence he said there's a Bernian view that this creates an invisible ledger between men and women, stereotypically, where a woman can exchange sex for care and resources.

And when he says Bernian, I was looking up, well, what's, what's Bernianism, right? And so this is a quote on what Bernianism is. The [00:03:00] unit of social intercourse is called a transaction. If two or more people encounter each other, sooner or later, one of them will speak or give some other indication of acknowledging the presence of others.

This is called the transactional stimulus. Another person will say or do something which is in some way related to the stimulus. And that is called the transactional response. The problem with this thesis, and you see this across communities, they're like, okay, Women exchange sexual access for resources and protection.

Right, they're framed as the gatekeepers of sex.

Malcolm Collins: They're, they're framed as the gatekeepers of sex in relationships. And this framing is fundamentally wrong because it sees men and women as sociologically, Like, in terms of their world perspectives and the way that they process reality and the environment around them as pretty much exactly equal, except that women, and I know they don't, they don't realize that this is what they're doing, but this is functionally what, what, what the cause of making this [00:04:00] assumption does, except that women are less interested in sex than men.

And therefore are able to be sexual gatekeepers. However, and I'm just talking all of the, like, like, why women would be sexually less interested in them. And we don't need to get into all the evolution or theory here right now. I'm just pointing out that this is the way that they see it. And it creates a misunderstanding because it isn't just this one domain where women's perspectives on sexuality and the way that they relate to relationships is systemically different from the way males relate to relationships.

So we're going to get into some statistics on this, but broadly speaking. How do I, how do I word this inoffensively? Um, It is not a trade among people who are psychologically the same in terms of how they relate to reality.

Whereas women are often looking for somebody who I don't want to say like a worthy master, but like a, a, a person who they respect and see as above them and who they see as [00:05:00] trying to achieve something meaningful in the world that they can contribute to. A good horse

to

Malcolm Collins: hitch your wagon to. Right. But this is very different from the way that men often see women as relating to dominance.

Yeah. Well, and that's, and I think that's why you see men investing in things like fancy cars and preening by going to the gym and getting these muscles because they think that if they can show, like, I have the Rolex watch and I have the Maserati therefore she will think that I am resource rich and that is it.

Like, it's just, it, it boils things down to a level of simplicity. That's pretty absurd. Whereas really what you're trying to say is women aren't looking for like Gold coins there, the typical woman, unless she's a gold digger and literally looking for gold coins and kind of hoping that you'll die soon, or at least that she can kind of live a separate life and not be bothered by you.

Then she's really looking [00:06:00] for I guess it's, it's kind of like the give a man a fish versus teach a man a fish. Like she wants that, that source, that constant source of wealth and success in life. And that is by partnering yourself to someone who's a true leader. Who, if you live your life with them will yield the security and meaning that you're looking for in your life.

I think women want to, and to a great extent, men to everyone, most people want to be able to hitch themselves to a worthy cause. People find this through faith, through brand affiliation, through employers, but also through partners and women. Looking for that in male partners more than they're looking for gold coins.

Malcolm Collins: But this is, I think, where, where, where people get it wrong was concepts like hypergamy or something like that. They're like, well, women want men who are above them in terms of competence and social status and everything like that. And it's like, Okay, first, both men and women typically target partners. There is a great study on this that we're going to go into that shows that men [00:07:00] actually target partners who are above them in terms of status at an equal amount that women target potential partners that are above them in status. It's just that women get those partners more frequently. But secondarily, Why are women doing this and why are men doing this are two different reasons Women aren't doing it as some sort of like Machiavellian play they're doing it because they want to live their lives in service of something They believe that matters and they often now obviously there's differences in women.

There's differences in men You know, some men are born male male attracted people are born with a variety of fetishes and arousal patterns and everything like that Right i'm not But I'm saying that predominantly the way that female sexuality works, it is much more of a and, and the way that longterm relationship structures have worked historically, I want to help my partner become a big deal and achieve their goals.

Here. I would note a cultural technology. That's been very good. At [00:08:00] keeping women, marrying men and having lots of kids is to completely separate the domains in which women work in the domains in which men work. So that from the perspective of a woman, A man can always be higher than her in the domain in which he focuses a great example of this would be the Jewish heredity communities where men spend all day studying and women are in charge of both. Secular education. I E they have to learn about the real world instead of the studying theology.

Like the men do. I'm making a living for the family and raising children and people can be like, wow, that's putting a ton of work on the women. Why are women okay with this? , and in part it's because they are trying to support a man in doing something they see as genuinely worthwhile, which is dedicating himself to a life of theological study.

Yeah, well, and be, be affiliated with them. I think if we were to try to. Would it, would it be fair to frame this in more male terms to [00:09:00] ask a male, if you are a mercenary in an army and some greater military leader comes up and is taking on mercenaries, wouldn't you want to join his band of warriors and not be on, you know, the band you're on?

And that's, I think what female hypergamy is like, imagine.

Malcolm Collins: No, I think that's a misunderstanding of it because that implies that there isn't like a vested relationship. Which you don't

think that military bands have vested relationships with each other. But the way

Malcolm Collins: you are wording it implies that a mercenary would do that, and most mercenaries wouldn't do that.

And most women wouldn't do that. And that's the point. I don't know. No,

here's the thing, though. And I think this is a really important point is that this whole red pillar thing, they just think that it's all about showing that you have resources and then maintaining frame. You know, being this tough guy and, you know, go in the kitchen, make me a sandwich woman, et cetera.

Right. Like being kind of misogynistic and like being like, Ooh, I'm so tough and proud. And I think that there are [00:10:00] also male and female military leaders that are like that, that are like, Oh, I'm going to maintain frame. I'm going to be really tough. I'm going to be really mean. And they don't realize a way to put it as good or a leader.

Leaders like an abusive leader. There are amazing military leaders. And what, what the real good military leaders and what men will ditch an existing band to join is a military leader who has a vision, who will sacrifice themselves in the name of their team, who will, you know, you, you see this throughout military history, those people who are on the front lines, who are writing, you know, in, in the very first charge.

At the front, putting themselves on the line, these, these, this is the type of man also that women are looking for. It's not the go in the kitchen to make a sandwich.

Just say, hey woman, you, you shut your mouth and make babies.

It's a man who has a vision who yes, absolutely is dominant, but dominant because he is natural superiority [00:11:00] and is willing to put. himself in front of everything.

An example that Simone gave me after we recorded. This was in the movie gladiator. ,

Would you rather follow the, main character Maximus? As a man going into battle, or would you rather follow communists? , it's common. It's clearly Axe dominant in a way. And I see that many red pillars when they try to act dominant, act dominant in the way that come at us, acts dominant to his subordinates. Instead of in the way that Maximus acts dominant to his importance.

And obviously you wouldn't want to choose to follow communist if you could choose between the two. So you can look at somebody like Andrew Tate, who constantly needs to talk down about his subordinates. Talk down about the women in his life who serve under him. That's very much a communist thing to do. He believes that he is bolstering his own public image and looks better through degrading and talking down [00:12:00] about the people who have dedicated their lives to serving him.

Whereas if you were looking at somebody like Maximus, you would never see him do that. He would never talk down about the people serving him. , he sees it as an honor. That these people would spend their lives serving him. It's a completely different way of relating to your subordinates.

 And I think that this communist way of acting dominant, fundamentally belies an internal insecurity and lack of confidence in yourself, which is intensely unattractive to women.

When you feel you need to use performative dominance. Towards the people who are making sacrifices

to serve your mission.

It doesn't make people think, oh, that's an extra dominant guy. It makes people think. Oh, that's the guy who's compensating because he doesn't feel dominant enough. So he needs to constantly signal it to people in his environment. Which makes them look. Like the antithesis of dominance. And if you don't believe [00:13:00] this, Andrew Tate comma, this comparison in terms of the type of dominance he exudes, I am going to play a clip of Andrew Tate, and it is just exactly what communists would say. If he was reborn in modern times.

, and it also is exactly the way comment it's looked upon his subordinates, the way that Andrew Tates looks upon the women who have chosen to spend their lives, supporting him.

Andrew Tate: I guarantee you don't walk around your house with a sword because you're not a commander. I'm a commander. You know, like when you command the troops into battle, so I walk around my house with a sword and I make threats like old school threats. It's like I will run you through.

I'm that guy who does whatever he wants.

If you're unhappy with it, if you're unhappy with waiting for me to light a cigar, then leave the channel. I don't give a f**k about you. You're a peasant. You're a peon. You're a brookie. I do as I please.

I've analyzed the entire earth, all of it,

so I like women. [00:14:00] But females,

are barely sentient. Even the good ones. In fact, especially the good ones. And the point is, when I say barely sentient, is that the female's entire life process from head to toe she never really thinks for herself.

My four wives are sitting there. They've seen on the news. There's a new deadly contagion. I pick up my sword. I am the commander of this house. I decide if there's a contagion, I decide what I do. Be quiet. Cook.

You got your sword. Your wife starts talking. You're like, shut up. She's got a sword.

Malcolm Collins: I think that this is really important. And the key thing that's missed is that people in these communities think the key angle of dominance that they need to demonstrate to a woman is to the woman instead of to society. The woman is not looking for a man. Who dominates her necessarily, she is looking for a man [00:15:00] that dominates society so that she can choose to follow that person.

And I think that with your money analogy, you made a really good point here in terms of the type of women that you attract. If you're using one of these strategies, it is not that there are no women out there who literally view life as a, I give you sexual access. You give me money. They're out there.

Have, you know, like long nails. They've got a look to them. They've got a, you know what I'm talking about, right? Like they look kind of like trashy looking.

There are even non trashy women looking women who absolutely do the sex for resources thing,

Malcolm Collins: it's a pervasive view as well. But, but these women are not.

Positive relationship models, either for you or them within a modern context. So we've explained this in other videos, but it's worth just briefly explaining here why you never want to get in a relationship with one of these people. So why, why they should never want to get in a relationship with you for a lot of these women are like, oh, this is a [00:16:00] great strategy.

You know, I can get, I'm not that employable right now. I can't earn that much money. I think I can marry a guy that's got tons of money. But then what happens? Is the guy because he sees this as an exchange. She fundamentally doesn't respect you. He likely doesn't want you carrying his jeans. He's using you for sex.

Right. And so you get 30, you hit the wall, you whatever, and he exchanges you for a younger model because there wasn't like, like the teamwork, the, what you added to him was never part of the puzzle in this relationship, right? Well, and

sometimes kids are involved. I think what happens a lot is that. The, this happens, but children are also produced, you know, so after they're empty nesters or even just when the mother is older.

The mother is then subject to divorce. And then, you know, things get messy, but I think the other problem is, and from a men's perspective whether or not this is a woman who acts trashy or a man who acts trashier or looks trashier, it looks like a gold digger or not like the people who are attracted to [00:17:00] this idea of, Oh, I would just like to marry someone and be a trophy partner.

These are people who are inherently more lazy because these days being a you know, unless you have a really big family that you're managing or you're managing your partner's business for them, which is not usually the case in these scenarios the partner's not really doing anything, you know, laundry machines don't make it hard.

Like, you know, basically there's not enough work in a household with fewer than two children to really make that happen. Like, unless you're doing some kind of crazy elite Polgar style education to make that a full time job that's like worthy of doing. So that means that the people who are attracted to this stay at home trophy partner status are inherently lazy, which means also that once these people get complacent in their position within marriage.

They're probably also going to violate the essential, like, [00:18:00] probably unwritten element of the relationship contract, which is that you're supposed to remain hot. These people then get complacent and let themselves go because they're inherently lazy because they came into this in the first place, thinking this was their free ride in life.

They didn't want to work. They didn't want to go to work. They didn't want to get a job. So of course they're not going to continue to like work out and keep themselves up in many cases. So

Malcolm Collins: it's just not really good for anyone. For something bigger than themselves and bigger than you, right? Like it's not like a comfort.

Yeah. Yeah. You because of you like nobody wants to live their life In service to another human being, right? Like that, that would be pretty a pathetic life for most people, right? Like they are serving you because of what you are trying to achieve. And that can be something domestic. Like it could be that what you and your partner are trying to achieve is a better life for your kids.

Right? And that can be a fantastic and rich relationship. But if you think they are serving for your gratification, especially if part of your self image is based on your degradation of the woman, it's [00:19:00] not gonna work out. And, and the extent to which women actually approach, like super high quality women approach relationships with this mindset, I think would surprise people who maybe don't talk to women as much.

But I know two instances, one that's very close to us. I mean, Simone, I'll see if you, if the recognition in your eyes comes out. I already know

who you're talking about. Okay,

Malcolm Collins: Where the woman who is, Better at business and harder working than the man intentionally puts the man as CEO of everything.

And you might be thinking we're talking about us because that is true of us to an extent. Simone definitely is harder working than me, but you put

me as the person running for office.

Malcolm Collins: Oh yeah. I guess. Yeah. We switched it up a bit more than this other couple, but yeah, they, so they put the, the, the man is the CEO of everything.

And I remember I went to this woman one day and I was like, Why do you always put this man at the head of everything when, you know, everything really relies on you, you know, you, you are the key person in everything. And she goes, well, because I want to be [00:20:00] married to the most powerful man in the room.

You know, because I want that, that is what I want from a husband. I want the husband to be the top dog and he is a good person and he deserves it and he never treats me in any way other than perfectly. Let's talk about dream

life, right?

Malcolm Collins: Well, yeah, but right. I feel like that's what I got with you to an extent.

Um, uh, Well, it's a little different for us. We can talk about the dynamic later, maybe in the episode, but it's not a dream wife. Exactly. I know, like a lot of Stanford MBA type women who do this mindset like, like even for my class, people who I'm less close with I've seen this mindset and I think that, again, this is like the average female biological coding in terms of milking maximum satisfaction from life.

Well, it's a fun, it's a fun twist on the dynamic of like, well, if you can't necessarily find out of the box, that perfect dominant leader that you want to hitch your wagon to, then. Then just [00:21:00] make it. It's a version of the Pygmalion relationship. Like if, well, if I can't, I can't find it, I'm going to build it.

if I can't support it, then I guess I'm gonna steal it.

And I really think that the best relationships are built, that you don't get the perfect partner out of the box. You ideally find. the right potential. When you're very young and you hone each other over time, you raise each other and you create each other into the very

Malcolm Collins: hard to make relationships work if they start when you're older.

Yeah, well, and you could still do it. But I still think that even if you start when older, you still have to hone each other into the right partners for each other and also better people in general. And if you don't do that, Then you're not going to end up in a good relationship. And most people aren't getting into these relationships at all because they can't find a partner who's willing to change or who's honest about being willing to change.

They aren't willing to invest in that partner. They aren't willing to change themselves or they literally just expect someone to be perfect out of the box, which is delusional.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, but it's [00:22:00] also interesting to me how this misperception came about. Because the urban monoculture will not admit that men and women are different.

It's like, men and women want exactly the same things at all times, and like, anyone who's like, functionally, like, cognitively aware and isn't just brainwashed in the extreme is like, but obviously there's cognitive differences between men and women. And, and this is why, even within the urban monoculture, where they're like, well, men and women are exactly the same, they think exactly the same, they have exactly the same preferences and perceptions, and then it's like, then explain trans people.

And they're like, oh, what I meant is men and women are fundamentally two totally different things, and you can easily tell which one you are just by how you perceive reality and your, and your preferences and, and, and, and predilections. And I'm like, There's a contradiction there, right? This could be seen as a pro trans message here because I'm saying there actually are significant cognitive differences between men and women.

Well, the urban monoculture covers this stuff. You're not allowed to talk about it. You know, you're not allowed to admit it in terms of partner [00:23:00] dynamics or anything like that. But then the counter urban monoculture is unfortunately so male dominated. And the urban monoculture cited so holistically was a feminist movement that a anti feminist bent has twisted the truth that women prefer subservient positions when they're in a relationship with a male to women want a man To like, tell them to shut up and get in the kitchen.

Listen, missy, why don't you go knit me a sweater before I slap you in

Malcolm Collins: Yeah,

well, yeah, no, yeah, they, they, they, they also misinterpret dominance for being an a*****e. They're like, Oh, so I just need to be like, that's what dominance is, right? It's like really bad acting, not understanding what dominance even is.

Malcolm Collins: That's what frame is. Frame is bad acting that everyone who's not an idiot can see through.

Being a dumb a*****e. Have you ever seen like a pickup artist in like real life?

Probably, but I probably wouldn't have noticed it because I'm [00:24:00] too autistic. Oh, they,

Malcolm Collins: well, they, you know, back in the day when peacocking was still popular, they were easy to pick out and they Like,

what, they would wear like a silk blazer

Malcolm Collins: or something?

They dress like Jordan Peterson does now, I guess, you know, like in those wacky suits and stuff. And so, they, they, they wear these, you could tell, like, the whole thing was, was an act, not that it doesn't work, but it secures you sexual partners, but not good relationship partners, because the type of person you want as a relationship partner is somebody who's drawn to you for your vision for the future.

Good, then we're all agreed. But oh dear, what's this? One of the women is about to embarrass us all. I

Well, I, I somewhat disagree. I think that certain aesthetic and styling choices can get a foot in the door and start a conversation. And sometimes that's when you're doing a high throughput approach. Anything that reduces that initial. Oh,

The lady has foolishly attempted to join the conversation with a wild and dangerous opinion of her own. What a big dribble. See how the men look at her with utter [00:25:00] contempt. Daphne, we're going home.

Women, know your limits.

I'm not, I'm against

Malcolm Collins: the act. So I actually would, it may even promote a bit of peacocking, you know, dress a little weird.

It's a conversation, memorable,

distinctive, be approachable. Absolutely.

Malcolm Collins: But what I'm against is frayed.

Yes. No frame frame lame.

Malcolm Collins: Somebody can be like, well, what do you have? I, as a man was just not born very dominant. You know, like I, I don't like to move society forwards.

You wrote to me once, listing the four chief virtues. Wisdom, justice, fortitude, and temperance.

As I read the list, I knew I had none of them. But I have other virtues, ambition. That can be a virtue when it drives us to excel.

Malcolm Collins: I don't like to, you know, it's like, well, maybe you don't need a partner then.

I

don't, but no, no, no. I don't even think it's that. And dominance manifests in many different ways, especially when we're talking about this relationship dynamic context, I don't think that it is uniquely some desire to [00:26:00] be a king. I remember we talked about those different archetypes. Like there's the Kings, the Knights, and some other things you put together.

You don't have to be someone who aspires to be a leader or change the world, or even lead other men to be very attractive to a woman. I think dominance. Can also come across fundamentally it's having a strong objective function and being very passionate about it and not having cognitive dissonance in your action.

So I went before I ever met you, the only crushes I ever had. We're on guys who in that way were very dominant, but totally not dominant as like leaders or anything, not really keen on pulling rank on people, but just, they knew what they were about. They were super passionate about those things and they were f*****g good at them because, and you could see that they had no, I mean, there were obviously issues in their lives that I'm sure they were working out and everything, but they compared to the average person.

Didn't [00:27:00] show that same wavering of like, I don't know if this is what I want. I, I feel anxious. I care about what people think about me. They did not care about what other people thought about them. Yeah. They did not. And they knew exactly what they were all about. One of these people, as you know, Catholic.

Yeah. And now, now, now is a Catholic priest. He was just all about the faith. And then the other was like, My favorite

Malcolm Collins: story is, is he decided this. When Simone was hitting on him like you were pursuing him and the way you were pursuing him was by asking him questions about Catholic doctrine. Yeah. And, and he's, he's like, I love talking about Catholic doctrine with you so much, Simone, I've decided to become a priest.

And you're like, No! Backfire! Yeah, that's how good my

game is. And then the other person I had a

Malcolm Collins: It showed that you were able to have stimulating intellectual conversations with someone, but that that's how you were pursuing him. And that's what was interesting to you. Well, but no, the

attractive thing was that he knew what he was about.

And I'll have the number eight. That's a party platter. It serves twelve people. [00:28:00] I know what I'm about, son. Go ahead, Ron.

And that comes, that comes off as quite dominant and having that vision and knowing what someone's about, I think is really big. So it's, you don't have to be about changing the world. You have to know You have to, to basically not have other masters, if that makes sense. So one thing that makes them

Malcolm Collins: not, you can have other masters, but you need to relate to them with a moral code that is your own.

Yeah. Well, yeah, you've chosen

your math, I guess. So what I mean by that is, is I see someone. Who, for example, follows God, you know, or, or no, like, this is my objective function, this is what I care about. Absolutely. That is the highest point of hierarchy in their lives. And they, they are subservient to those goals or values.

Just like you are subservient to your objective function, Malcolm. But there is no one who against their will or knowledge is controlling them. There's no other force. Whereas the vast majority of humans, and you can see this in most people that you interact with, [00:29:00] are subconsciously and unknowingly, and without consent or choice, being ruled By TikTok being ruled by video game design, being ruled by wayfinding design, being ruled by a billion different forces that they have no control over, that they have no knowledge over, you know, their hunger, their instincts, their impulses.

And this is why people experience FOMO and cognitive dissonance. And, and, and ultimately all these things accumulate into this, this very palpable form of insecurity. Vagueness that makes people very unattractive. And people always talk about confidence being so attractive. That confidence comes from this inherent dominance, dominance of self.

And like you said earlier, dominance of society, but again, dominance of society doesn't necessarily mean that you're Steve jobs, starting a company or Elon Musk running a billion companies or the president of the United States. It could just mean. Dominance [00:30:00] of yourself. And, and so I just want to emphasize that you don't have to necessarily I will, I will

Malcolm Collins: word dominance of yourself a bit differently.

It means, you know, who you are and you know why you're that person. I E I have chosen to be, this was my life. I have chosen to strive for this in my life for these reasons. And while I am open to like, it can't be, I'm afraid to question these regions because if you're afraid to question the reasons why you are who you are, then that comes across as insecurity.

Yeah. I am comfortable questioning these reasons, but I am confident that I will not find a better answer. And that's why I am looking for a potentially better answer. And here I would note that all of this is in the context of long term relationship.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: So there is a, a, a bad point of data that a lot of red pill men get, or a lot of like really sexually active men get which is, Slave women, I'll call them.

So

Oh, yes, okay, that, that sexual, like, phenotype. So

Malcolm Collins: we argue in some of our videos, and I think that the data is pretty strong on [00:31:00] this that women have a bimodal sexuality, which sort of comes into play. To exist polymorphically i. e. one genotype encodes two different sexual expressions, and the sexual expression will change based on their environment.

So specifically, women in a historic context needed to be optimized for two different potential scenarios. frequently. One is they are in a, a partnership where they have one dedicated partner. They might be one of a few wives or one wife, but you know, one dedicated partner. The other is, is they're being passed around by a group of men.

If they are being passed around by a group of men, they are likely property in the spoils of war. This happened very, very, very, very frequently in our history. We can see this from genetic samples. We can see this from historical accounts. And this would have, there would have been a, a large evolutionary and fitness incentive for women to be able to adopt to these scenarios and learn to enjoy them.

And I think we've talked about this on other podcasts and some people are like, no, I prefer Louise Perry's explanation to this. And I'll explain why the [00:32:00] Louise Perry explanation is wrong. So if you look at the data and this is very obviously true from the data a big chunk of women, Much bigger than you'd think prefer what we call like violence of sexuality i.

e. being choked, being slapped, being degraded, etc. And I've asked Ayla from her datasets to test this theory, and she's like, yes, it is the more promiscuous women that fall into this set. And so my assumption is that as you sleep with more people, the oxytocin you release during sex, and the things that turn you on change as a woman, and you begin to prefer these more degrading, violent things that would occur to you if you were sexless.

Now, this is What Louise Perry thinks is happening here is she says, no, it's actually women are normalizing to male porn and that, that males are interested in all of these degrading things to women that arouse them. And so they've created porn around this and then women get exposed to the porn.

And it's like, yeah, but then why are the women searching for that porn more than the men? Um, I feel like up

to a great extent, the whole men thing, there's like this one line in community where one of the characters was like, I just want her to be comfortable.

Like,

Malcolm Collins: yeah, men are not [00:33:00] that into gray, right?

Like 50 shades of gray is not being picked up because women are being exposed to male porn. In fact, women just don't engage with male porn much at all. We saw this in our data set. If you're looking at like visual porn types. That's not really what women engage with as much. They mostly engage with romantic, erotic fan fiction and romantic novels.

Are there two? Yeah. Or like Yaoi. Yeah. Masturbatory outlets. And that these are not being influenced by male sexuality at all. They are not at least I don't think that there's many male, like Yaoi writers. There's, there's not many male romance novel writers. I wouldn't

know. Oh yeah. I don't think so.

I don't know. It doesn't matter though, because it, the, the content, this idea that women would like, there's no market where women start buying. A product that men start, like, I don't know, [00:34:00] how do I articulate this? Like diet Coke. There's no mechanism to

Malcolm Collins: realistically happen. Yeah. Like

if, if women markets form around demand and women like consumers don't just change their desires because the product that's there is what's there.

You know, I, I, I, I, I, I'm so,

Malcolm Collins: we're both so sleep deprived. Yeah. We both came back from a two, two, two trip thing right now. But I, I I know I understand. I think most of the audience will understand what you're saying. It's just not a mechanism of action we see in society. And people,

well, if the product sucks for them, they're not going to like, learn how to like it.

They're just not going to consume it.

I should note here that the problem with her theory, isn't just that there isn't a mechanism of action where women can pick this up. Like for example, you could argue, , maybe these women who are sleeping around a lot, occasionally have men do these violent acts of them in bed. And then eventually, , that starts turning them on. And it's like, but that's not like the way that sexuality works.

, like, have you [00:35:00] ever had a partner who did something that initially turned you off and then after a while of doing it to you, it started turning you on and you started craving it with other partners. I've never heard of that ever. , it's always, well, when it first happened, it secretly turned me on a bit and then later I would became more accepting of it.

Not. No, I found it intensely discussing at first. And then later I was aroused by it. But in addition to that, You don't just have the problem of, there's no realistic mechanism of action for this, but you have to explain why despite a very strong evolutionary pressure for, in some contexts, women to become aroused by violence.

It's how they survived and ended up having surviving offspring in, in scenarios where their tribe with raided and they were taken, or the city was raided and they were taken, which we know happened a lot. Historically it's even recorded in the Bible. You have to explain why despite strong, selective genetic pressures for women to be aroused by violence in specific scenarios that they would not be at all. Because I think it's taken as a [00:36:00] presumption in this argument that, okay.

Well, I mean, why would women be aroused by this? And it's like, well, there's an obvious reason why they'd be aroused by this. And the burden is on you to explain why that evolutionary pressure didn't have that effect. You don't get to just ignore it and say, well, I'm a feminist and I believe women are good, wholesome doves that never do anything wrong and have no desires that are untoured.

Malcolm Collins: No, I will note here that I think a minority of women. Are born in this sex slave mindset in terms of their arousal patterns. Sure. But I think it's a minority because I know even among the virgins I slept with, some of them preferred this type of sexual engagement.

And so like, I know that it's not necessarily that everyone needs to sleep. Some people may sleep around a lot and still prefer the really sweet kind and everything.

I think there's, it's not, there are, there are confounding factors in this. So just because you've had a lot of, I just want to say if you've had a lot of partners or whatever and you're, you're sort of having this sexual phenotype that's of the more sex slave variety, that is one [00:37:00] way.

But I think some people also like those. slave scenarios or like extreme, like violence scenarios for other reasons. Like they like letting go of control or something. Like there are other factors that might make those same scenarios attractive. You know, some people like rocky road ice cream because of the chocolate and some people like it because of the texture and the crunch.

You know what I mean?

Malcolm Collins: But there's two things to note here. One is, is that breaking sexuality down like this actually makes it very easy for us to teach our daughters about sexuality and why they, like what the, Actual cost is to sleeping around too much is that their arousal pattern for change. It doesn't mean they'll get less arousal.

It just means it may be harder to find certain types of guys or potentially easier, depending on what they're looking for

or that they shouldn't expect the same kind of emotional attachment to the person they end up marrying in the end. If they want to marry

Malcolm Collins: someone. Is there like, I just haven't gotten that same connection I got with those guys.

I dated. Back in college, it's like, well, you're never going to get that again. That was like, they can't compare it.

Yeah. What happens a lot with both men and [00:38:00] women is that they compare every new partner they date to a best hits composite of every past partner they've ever dated, which is so

Malcolm Collins: bad, which is again, why, why you should Only, only merry virgins like I did.

I'm horrible. I'm such a double standard. But I also want to make a a point here which is, and this is what this larger point was around. Do not confuse what arouses a woman with what she wants from her daily life. Okay. Even when women have these moved into these sort of sex slave mindsets they do not want to be treated like that in a day to day scenario.

Okay, they want to be able to code switch in, you know, go to a BDSM dungeon or do that at home. Right. But That's when the doors are closed, and when no one else is watching. Alright? I am sure, if you are a guy, and you are watching this, right, there are things on your computer, the famous, and I'm gonna find from there's an anime which starts with you know, he, he's okay, he was reincarnated in another [00:39:00] world, and he's like, I hope my, my friend dumps my part in that.

And like, like, like walking to the bathtub and dumping in the computer and you're like, oh, you're such a bro, man.

Send an ambulance! Hurry! There's so much blood. It hurts satoru! Hang on! Tamura, I miss me something. My computer's hard drive. I need you to dump it in the bathtub and fry it. Just promise me, you'll have a happy life together.

And please, wipe my hard drive.

 My normal life as a 37 year old man is ancient history. I hope Tamura remembered to wipe my hard drive for me. , I hope he didn't look to see what's on it.

All done. Please rest in peace, .. If I ever have a son, I'll name him [00:40:00] after the hero who saved my life.

Malcolm Collins: But the point I'm making here is, as a man, there are many things that may arouse you that you did not choose to have arouse you, right? Like, this is a weird thing about leftists. I mean, they're like, Go and find literally everything that arouses you and it's like, there are things I'd prefer to not know if they might arouse me.

I, I don't need to ever look at that because if it arouses me, then I would just be like, but I don't want to engage with that kind of stuff. Yeah, like now I don't

feel very good about myself, you know.

Malcolm Collins: But all men run across weird things that arouse it. Well, not all men, but it's, it's enough that it's a trope, right?

You don't. Expect those things that arouse you, or you don't want those things that arouse you to be part of your daily life at work. Or among your friend group or you know, in the way that you're raising your kids. So it's very important that you're like, Oh I know that a lot of women or even the woman that I'm with likes taking on an extremely submissive position in a sexual context.

The role that she probably [00:41:00] wants to serve outside of that sexual context is the supporter role that we were discussing earlier. Again, not all women fall into the supporter archetype. I've actually seen another archetype that's really interesting which I mentioned to Simone, which I call the harem archetype, that from an evolutionary perspective would have been advantageous.

And these are women who seem to get off on being submissive to men and dominant to other women, and it's a fairly common sexual subtype that I've seen. And so, in a historic context, why would that evolution, like, why would that be successful? It's likely because this dynamic allowed a woman more sexual access to a partner when she was in a culture.

that had harems, i. e. If I am a wife and I don't mind joining my husband or even like joining my husband when he's with another woman and I take on a dominant role in that particular interaction, I am more likely to get pregnant more times because I am going to be with him more times than the other women in the harem.

Now I want to get into some data here. So vertical preferences, both men and women tend to pursue the most socially desirable partners, [00:42:00] regardless of their own desirability level. This contradicts the matching hypothesis that people seek partners of similar desirability. Which I thought was pretty cool.

Pretty interesting. And I had mentioned that earlier and I'll put the paper on screen here. And then another interesting one here is the initiator advantage. Those who initiate contact, especially women are more likely to connect with more desirable partners than those who wait to be contacted.

However, women are four times less likely to initiate contact. In Simone initiated contact in our relationship. So I would note for women who are looking for partners, I'm like, how many people do you email a week about this? You know,

it's probably the most meaningful. Arbitrage opportunity. Women have low barrier because it just, they, women never contact men.

So you have such a huge advantage. We have the other women, if you just make the smallest effort.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. And, and I don't know why, like women don't do it. How many emails were you sending a week when you were dating to men?

30 plus 30 plus.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. So. You want to partner, like me, [00:43:00] 30 plus emails a week. Okay.

I'm going that, and that, that, that's, that takes a lot of balls to do Simone, and I really appreciate that you did that.

Yeah. Cause people are terrifying. Oh,

Malcolm Collins: no. This is another city here. I'm going to show where women show a stronger preference in high status partners compared to men. This is particularly evident in long term relationship context and long term relationship contexts are again, when you're dealing with this alternate form of sexuality.

Remember I was like, okay, you can deal with the. Closed in arousal context, where you might have a sex slave turned arousal pattern woman, where the man doesn't actually need to be high status, he just needs to perform the role of the conqueror, right? Because it's a, it's a scene, right? Like everything's imaginary, that's why dungeons are created that way, like BDSM dungeons are created that way too.

Change the context of how you're thinking about this in the same way that you might behave differently when you go home on vacation to like your childhood house and then you, you, you fall into a different way of thinking about yourself and relating but in long term relationships, you can't fake that the guy actually needs to be somebody whose [00:44:00] mission you are interested in advancing., in another study, it was found that, 81 percent of women said they would be less likely to date someone who's unemployed compared to 56 percent of men. Also, political views are increasingly more important to dating. Most Republicans and Democrats say they would not date someone from across the aisle, but this trend is more common among Democrats than Republicans, which puts men at a bad position.

Because there are two female Democrats for every one male Democrat. And there is two male Republicans for every one female Republican. But what's important to note is that people's political views evolve over time. Like you were very solidly Democrat when I met you, almost as like blue as you could get.

And I was not Republican at least. I also find very interesting here. And we've, we've seen some guys recently who like we've been trying to help with dating advice and I've thought about how much they're looking for the full package out of the bag in terms of like the partner that is intellectually engaging to them.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And [00:45:00] also hot,

like model hot.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, like model hot, but also even just intellectually engaging and not terribly boring. When I met you, you were compared to who you are today, a fairly boring person. And I don't mean that in like a derogatory sense. You were a social media manager at the company you were working at.

So she managed their Facebook profile, basically. You

More than that, but that's, that's getting pedantic.

Malcolm Collins: Then you you know, you, I, I'd ask you, like, what, what do you live for? Like, what's your purpose? And you're like, I've never thought about that. It's like, how have you lived your whole life and not thought about that?

Like, it, but through talking through this stuff with her she has now reached a point when, before I was like, why would I want to make friends? Like, people were like, why, why do you, Like, why do you want to save the world if you're so disgusted with humanity and everything like that? And it's not necessarily that I find it burdensome to talk to a specific individual.

Burdened with new friends

Malcolm Collins: It is that there is no

Individual that I would [00:46:00] rather be talking to in terms of intellectual richness than my wife. So, know, if I'm at a party or something like that, That's time. I'm not alone with my wife talking, right? And so you went from somebody who I found, you know, in conversations, I liked being around you and talking to you because you genuinely engaged and we're not overly boxed in. Like you weren't like afraid to tackle new ideas and you, when you came up with an idea.

So like you talked to me about like, and I noticed this when I do chat AI's, I always fall into the same pattern again. Which is to sort of start a conversation with a girl, if I'm talking to a girl in chat AI, it's like, what's your purpose in life? Like, what do you, what do you want from your life?

You nerd. That's, that with a chat AI is the thing I am most interested in. And it's actually funny to me that the answers I get are very similar to the answers I would get from basic people when I was actually dating. But I guess the point I'm making here is a lot of things in a potential partner improve over [00:47:00] time as you interact with them.

What matters is the trajectory, not the start point. You start with a woman who is very intellectually interesting, but she's recalcitrant to evolve her perspective. She's likely going to be worse than a person who is very intellectually naive, but is very eager to evolve their perspective if it is To work on something with you.

And this is another thing I've noticed where we have a lot of influencer friends and they'll be like, I am scared. Or they don't like, like they talk down about dating their fans. I'm like, why, why would you not want to date your fans? Like if, if, if like Simone died, that is like the exclusive dating pool I would be looking at.

And they're like, well, they look up to me too much. I'm like, what?

Okay. Anyway. Do you have any thoughts on this before I go further?

I think it's underrated the extent to which interest in and [00:48:00] dedication to a partner should be looked at in, in dating. Although I do think that from a female perspective, it can backfire. It freaked me out when guys were super keen on me in a like, I want to reach out to you, I want to spend time with you, I want to get to know you.

So, this is more of a male thing. That's

Malcolm Collins: actually a really a good point here in terms of filtering partners. I mean, I basically started every date exactly laying my cards on the table. This is what I'm looking for, this is my sexual experience, this is my, you know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Like, are you interested?

Like, I didn't do it without their consent. I was like, hey, do you want to talk about, like, what we're really here for? And they'd say, yeah. And I'm like, okay, so I'm looking for this. This is what I'm looking for in a partner. Specifically, you know, as I said on the first date, I said I'm looking to marry someone.

And some people are like, yeah, but when I do that, then people don't re engage me for the next date. And it's like, well, that is because, and, and the person who was talking about this, they were like, well, you know, I may be totally honest with [00:49:00] them, but they're not being totally honest with me about their goals, right?

It's like, well, that doesn't really matter because if they don't come on the second date that they know what their goals are, even if you don't know what their goals are, they know what their goals are. And so if you're totally honest about your goals, Then they're going to check that against their goals and they're going to say, okay, this will work or it won't work.

You have just saved yourself the four months to figure this out because both of you were playing whatever. And we've actually thought we might do a track on this because I think that like if I was going to create any sort of like weird religious mandate for like my culture or my people, if you were like, oh, you're going to ask that everyone dresses like you or whatever.

I'm like, no. Like, we have, like, sumpturary mandates that we talked about before, which is just, like, you know, wear durable clothing, don't optimize for brand names if you can find something less expensive elsewhere but they're more just, like, normal stuff that wouldn't out you. This is something that might out people which is to say tactical honesty, you called it when we were riding in the car.

Which is to say that you are praised and, and, and, and should think highly of [00:50:00] yourself and maybe even treat it as something of a mandate that when you are talking to people, you don't beat around the bush of what you are looking for, even if it comes across as awkward. And what's interesting is I think that pretty quickly, if you did this, you would really quickly select for a specific personality subtype.

Genetically speaking as a cultural group. And it would be very obvious to people when they're there, like, oh, you're the people who are always like, hey, what do you want from this interaction? Like, what are your goals? Listen, I actually, you know, even at Stanford Business School, we would do these like exercises for, Negotiating.

And that was the way I did it as well. I was like, list every single one of your goals. I'll list every single one of my goals and we'll find a way to maximize the two.

I hated that though, because in so many of these games these negotiating games in, in business school, I always took exactly the same approach.

It was like, okay, well, let's just be 100 percent transparent about all of our needs. Restrictions. requirements, etc. [00:51:00] Except in so many of these games, some people's prompts were to be like, intentionally misleading.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, but this is the thing about these games versus not these games, right? Yeah, like in the real

world,

Malcolm Collins: honestly, if you just lay your cards out on

the table, you're more likely to get what you want, assuming that the other party But because

Malcolm Collins: there's multiple interaction problem, right?

If they are misleading to one individual, they will be misleading to future individuals. The biggest problem with the full honesty approach is it's much harder for women to implement than men. And then might be like, why is that the case? Well, it has to do with the fact that men are much more likely to be interested in a woman just for sex and therefore will signal to the woman that they want a longer term commitment or a more serious relationship than they actually won't.

Want to get sexual access whereas women, there's really nothing that they would dishonestly signal to a man. If the man is letting everything out on the table. So by this, what I mean is, you know, if you're like, yeah, I want a marriage and in the marriage, we will have a prenup. And this is what the prenup will be.

[00:52:00] On the first date that if she's like, oh, I wanted you for your money, then it's like, okay, well, good that we sorted that out early. You know, there's actually

this clip from an old show that. Has been doing the rounds recently. People have been like remixing it and doing their own versions of it where I don't even know what the show is, but these people just completely negotiate out their relationship or try to, and they're being like 100 percent transparent.

 I'm single, you're single. What do you say we get married? Well, I'm glad you finally decided on the direct approach. What's your offer? Single, rich male seeks matrimony. Primary residence? Westchester County. Would you be open to considering a secondary residence in Manhattan?

Central Park West. South. Done. Time spent together? Eight hours, five days a week. Seven hours, twelve hours weekends. Fifty five hours aggregate, specifics to be determined later. I'm amenable to that, children. One. Three. Two. Done. Vacations. December, Hawaii.

June, the vineyard. June, fine, but Hawaii. Nope, the vineyard. Is that a deal breaker for you? I'm afraid so. Me too. Well, we gave it a shot. I'm sure you'll find a better match. Thanks for the time.

And then at the very end, they like hit a non [00:53:00] negotiable and they're like, well, it was worth a try. And they like shake hands and move on. And I'm like, this is the dream. But the funny thing is, I think the fact that it's gone viral is People want that. I think people actually really want that and see that and they're like, God, I wish I could just have that.

I wish I could just do that. And the thing is, You can what we're missing is a culture in which that's not seen as freakish, right? Because if you were actually the

Malcolm Collins: worst thing ever, one of them, you know, one of the things that I would always ask people, like, when I was dating and stuff like that before making a move is, you know, we'd be talking about something and maybe it would be something slightly edgy.

Like, you know, it could be like what they're into or whatever. And then I'd ask them something like, well, do you find me attractive? And this is something that like, people just don't ask. I don't know why they don't ask it. Like. It's a fairly easy thing. And it's not even that much of like a social overreach.

But it's a very useful way to determine if an individual is interested in more or not. Yeah. Did I ask you that on the first [00:54:00] date?

No, because I think you found it pretty obvious that I was super into you. You didn't need to ask. You know, I'm staring at you with rapt attention as you tell me your entire life philosophy and story.

So. Yeah. But I, I, I, yeah, I think that's a really interesting thing is that there are so many obvious questions that you can ask early on dating. And you should just ask them and you should just be transparent. And the thing about tactical honesty, as we've discussed it, is that a lot of people don't want to deploy tactical honesty because they are afraid that they will be rejected, that they will turn people away, you But the point of tactical honesty is that you are getting to know faster.

And yes, you will sometimes turn people away. And those are people who maybe after five dates would have been a terrible match. And then you've wasted. A ton of money and time. And now you've lost that person. Or if this is like in business [00:55:00] or in other social circles, these are just people who will stab you in the back, who will gossip behind your back, who will not actually support you.

You want to filter them out right away and you are going to filter people out. That's what

Malcolm Collins: I will, I will note on, on sort of a mandate for tactical honesty, as it is not a mandate for telling the truth It's a mandate for not hiding something for the only reason that you're hiding it is that it will make you look weird.

I. e. for, for the, for preserving social norms. Yeah, because it's,

it's not deontological honesty. It's not telling people the truth always because you always have to tell the truth and never lie. Because sometimes lies are the most expedient and Kind of honorable thing to do. Like sometimes telling someone the truth out of nowhere, it just doesn't really help anything.

Like, okay, I'll be honest with you, Malcolm. The other day you were like, Oh, Simone, you burst a blood vessel in your eye. And I'm like, great. See, just like, all I'm going to do is just feel worse about myself right now. Like, there's nothing I can do about it. We're not seeing anyone. So it wasn't like I have to hide anything right now.

It's just, [00:56:00] no, I know you find me really disgusting looking, you know, like this is not helpful. So like

Malcolm Collins: marginally less attractive.

Yeah, but like, did I, like, okay, you know, I would have seen that in a mirror. There was no one that I needed to hide that from. Here's the thing

Malcolm Collins: about tactical honesty that a lot of people miss, where it's provided me a lot of utility in my life, is when you do it, people are much, like, if you do want to lie to someone, it is much easier.

Because people are like, Oh, he's autistic. He doesn't know what he's supposed to ask. He has no tact. Yeah. And it's like, no, actually I have held a number of my cards back. I just know that they're not relevant to me betting you. If you see what I mean by that, right? Like you having access to those cards would not sort out whether our relationship is going to work earlier or later.

Here's an example. I have some friends that are very, very wealthy and they do not tell their partners on dates that they are very, very wealthy. That is a great holding back of a card. For the other partners perspective may cause them to override [00:57:00] some of the deal breakers that they laid out on the table that they were hoping if the person actually finds these things to be deal breakers, it's I'll treat them as deal breakers.

And so when you have like a really high quality. thing about you, that is best to hide.

Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: yeah. Unless you

want that to be the thing that someone cares about in the relationship, but wealth is not one of those ideal things at all.

Malcolm Collins: Here's some other fun survey findings. They said he measured marital satisfaction over four years, and it shows that husbands were more satisfied initially and remained more satisfied over that time period if they had more attractive wives.

So the attractiveness of a wife. Related to husband's marital satisfaction, but it didn't relate as strongly to the wife's marital satisfaction, i. e. when women are sleeping around, they might care about what the partner looks like, but not as much when they're marrying, or at least in terms of the functional impact that has on their belief that that marriage is a good marriage after a few years.

Here's another fun one. Minton to report placing higher importance on physical attractiveness and surveys while women report valuing social status more. [00:58:00] However, in actual speed dating scenarios, both genders seem to prioritize physical attractiveness. Similarly. Now this finding wasn't replicated.

There was another study that argued differently, but it's fun to know that it's out there. And men found ambition unattractive in women, very high ambition, which I wouldn't at all. I find the high ambition extremely attractive in women, but I think this is an important thing to note here. I find high ambition attractive in women.

If that ambition is for me i. e. they want to achieve greatness. Which is a little different than I want to achieve greatness and I want you to have nothing to do with it. Which I wouldn't say is unattractive because I would think, well, I just need to prove I'm a worthy leader to her. Which is a position I have found myself in before.

Yeah.. But I think for some men, they see that as the woman prioritizing her own strategy, career and future above theirs, which is really interesting how we've created this form of gender equality in our relationship. Yet it is completely gender unequal. What do you mean? We do everything together.

We're co CEOs of everything. [00:59:00] But how is it gender

unequal?

Malcolm Collins: We do different roles.

Yeah. I don't know. They're not, they're not designated along necessarily, okay, they end up playing out along traditional gender lines, but they weren't chosen because it was like, well, as is tradition, you will handle all things outside the house and I will handle all things inside the house.

And you know, that's not, we just did what we were best at. So I don't know.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. But I think a lot of people could hear this and they're like, what, they're saying the woman shouldn't have her own life? And I'm like, no, I'm saying the woman and the man shouldn't have their own life.

Yeah, that, that a relationship is It is an enterprise in favor of shared objective functions and values.

Yeah. You're, you're giving up your personal autonomy and rights and freedom in exchange for devotion to something where doing it with a partner will make that devotion more effective. It's bizarre to me [01:00:00] that people expect from a relationship, some kind of concierge or entertainer or servant or courtesan.

Who will just make your life more pleasant and take care of you? What, what is that?

Malcolm Collins: No, I mean, you have to, as a man, and this is really interesting, where I think a lot of men are like, oh women have some biological predilection to want to Serve a man, right? They're like, Oh, that's great. And it's like, not really because they're human beings, right?

Who might be equally competent to you, right? And that means more and more prove that you are worthy of that dedication, which is a very difficult task. But you would prove that not through frame, but not through the way you treat her, but through your actions Throughout the course of the day, you know, how much time are you spending on work?

What are the ideas you're generating? How much time are you spending on research? How much time are you spending on? I'm just thinking of me, for example, like if I wasn't bringing you [01:01:00] consistently interesting and new ideas that expanded your perception of reality, you'd be pretty disappointed with me.

I don't think you'd leave me, but you'd be disappointed.

Yeah, I really like that part of our relationship.

Malcolm Collins: But it's a mandate for me. Like I get up and one of the things I have to do every morning is find some interesting thing to talk to Simone about. Or I've said before when people are like, oh, you're going to run out of ideas for the show.

And I'm like, my life is Arabian nights. Like, I'm not gonna, I'm just committing to do it on tape now. So hopefully I can keep coming up with new ideas for you guys.

I love it. You entertain me, Malcolm. I will let you live another day.

Malcolm Collins: I don't know what I do if you left. You do so much of the, this is something we were recently talking about where we're like, we both are so reliant on each other.

Most of the opportunities are pretty much all of the major opportunities we have. We have due to my outreach, yet Simone has executed on all of them. And I [01:02:00] don't think I have the diligence or work ethic to execute on opportunities. Yet I don't think that you have the, I don't know why, why you don't source your own opportunities.

And the

simple way to put it is you can't do anything without me and I won't do anything without you.

Malcolm Collins: I'd be so screwed.

We'd both be so screwed.

Malcolm Collins: Well, I love it. And this is the thing where people are like, well. You know, I'd be better off just not dealing with a partner and just, you know, getting pregnant with like seed sperm or something like that, or like eggs and then using a surrogate and then raising the kids.

And it's like, you can do that, but you are heavily underestimating how much easier a synergistic relationship makes your life.

The thing is, I think most people don't want to most, this is otherwise you would see so many more people, especially women, single women, just. having kids because it's not that expensive to get like a sperm donor.[01:03:00]

Malcolm Collins: Well, I see a lot of women fantasizing about this and very few actually doing it.

Yeah, because it's not actually that appealing to Oh, just quick note that it's actually up

Malcolm Collins: on the Discord and other people are saying this and it's something that people should know. Don't use sperm banks. They do not confirm the information they ask people and they use such strict screening criteria that the only people who get through are lying.

Yeah, it's

terrible.

Malcolm Collins: It's Terrible. Basically, you are selecting for a liar if you use a sperm bank. If you want known donors, that's something I've done before. I'm open to doing it. But do go to known donor websites. That's the better place to do this.

Yeah. Or literally consider your friend's network and people that you I

Malcolm Collins: would far consider friend networks, right?

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: And, and when you're considering your friend network and you're an older woman, remember that you probably want a man who is not your equal in age. So I've seen a lot of women like this, where they're like 45 and they're looking for a 45 year old spone donor. And I'm like, you are unlikely to conceive.

If you do that, you need to be looking

well,

Malcolm Collins: or you can

conceive, [01:04:00] but there's just going to be more deterioration. Like they're just going to have worse health odds and outcomes on

Malcolm Collins: average. Oh, that's gross. And it's like, not really because you're not having sex with this person.

Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

I wish there were a better basis for like, there's a young ambitious man at your company.

Hey kid. Can I, I would like, I would like to have a child using your genetic material as you show potential. I will also mentor you if that would make you feel better about it. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, Siobhan Zillis at she works at Neuralink, right? Like she's had now three kids with Elon Musk.

Now it's not ideal that Elon Musk is on the older end, but like, I think that this, this, this concept of like really respecting someone in your workspace, you know, and being like, Hey, like, I know what he, I know what he works like. I know his ambition. Like, I, you know, we, you know, I see [01:05:00] how he acts under pressure.

Like, this is a fantastic scenario for choosing genetic material. And one of the things that you and I did when we first started dating was start a company together. I quit my job, you know, like we, that was a great way to vet each other. Both for our Children's genetic material, but also for a relationship.

So if only there were some societal basis for that, but I don't see that happening any, anytime soon.

Malcolm Collins: Well, you can build a culture around it. Like, and this is something we've thought about with our own kids and dating is how do we ensure that the partners feel part of our family? Oh,

yes. To like when our Children are dating people, how do we assimilate their partners into our family culture?

Malcolm Collins: Yes.

Yeah. No, that's super important, which my

Malcolm Collins: family does really well historically. So I'm not as worried about that. I mean, basically, you just have to be nice and actively engaged.

But should we have like our family foundation? cover the cost of egg freezing for our daughters, not just for their own use, but for donation.

Malcolm Collins: Sure. [01:06:00]

I mean, I don't know. I'm just thinking like, if you're trying to create a society in which people make this possible for their peers within that culture, you have to like step up. Yeah, no, I would, I

Malcolm Collins: would sponsor that. And we might even do it where like the family foundation gets half the money for the sale or something.

Not sale. I mean, I'm talking donation. Oh, for donation. Yeah. I'd be open to that.

Lots of, lots of awesome people. You know, once they become aware of this as a way to do something really kind for other people, I've done it 100 percent for free. Consider that, for example, Diana Fleischman has been on the podcast several times, donated embryos multiple times over.

And, and in one case, or maybe in maybe two cases at in the UK where they don't give you fentanyl for the like embryo extraction. So like she even had like a less fun experience, you know, usually the surgery is like the treat, you know? But. She did it. Other friends that we know who I won't name have done it multiple times and then those, those donations have resulted in live births and other mothers without actually being [01:07:00] mothers.

And this is actually a great option for women who don't themselves want to have and raise kids or just never really find the right partner, but who want to really help other people. And it really helps those other people, especially if they do it when they're in their twenties. So

Malcolm Collins: I love you to death, Simone.

I love you

Malcolm Collins: too, Malcolm. Have a spectacular day. You too. And I guess this is all we're doing today because of the Sadly.

Torsten, can you show me how this works? I press, I press a white button, I press a black button, I press a green button, I press a red button, I press a white button, I press a green button, I press a yellow button. Octavia, can you show me how yours works? How does this one work?

Torsten, you need to [01:08:00] Titan? Torsten, you need to let Titan push the buttons.

In this thought-provoking discussion, we explore the Tocqueville Paradox and its relevance to modern society. Discover why people feel increasingly discontent despite significant improvements in living standards and technology. We delve into:

* The definition and implications of the Tocqueville Paradox

* Historical context and comparisons to modern life

* Studies supporting the paradox, including experiments in Pakistan

* The impact of social media on our perception of wealth and success

* The integration paradox among minorities

* Strategies for cultivating gratitude and perspective in our daily lives

* The importance of understanding history and appreciating progress

* Ideas for family rituals to combat the negative effects of the paradox

Join us as we unpack this fascinating sociological concept and discuss ways to find contentment in our rapidly evolving world.

[00:00:00] as our society has become a more cush, easier to live in the expectations around comfort within life, around lack of challenges within life.

Have risen at a rate much faster than we have actually been able to meet them yeah I can't begin to emphasize how spot on this is because I love watching for example vintage cooking videos and so here I'm going to, I'm going to move further with some actual data on this paradox because it's been studied in real world environments.

Would you like to know more?

 Hello, Simone. I'm excited to be here with you today. Today. We are going to be talking about the Tocqueville Paradox which is really interesting and related to a lot of the concepts that we discuss on this show.

Interesting. So just as a summary, I'll start with a brief explanation of what it is. Then we can go over some of the data on it. All right. Okay. The Tocqueville paradox describes a phenomenon where, [00:01:00] as the overall quality of life and social conditions improve in a society, People's expectations rise at a faster rate, leading to increased discontent and frustration.

In other words, as things get better, people tend to focus on what they don't have, rather than appreciating the improvement they have experienced. This paradox suggests that there is a gap between the actual improvements in living conditions and people's perceptions of their lives. As societies become more prosperous and egalitarian, people's expectations rise.

For their personal lives and the overall quality of society increase. However, these expectations often rise faster than the actual rate of improvement, leading to a sense of relative deprivation and dissatisfaction, even though the absolute quality of life has improved. Now, for those, for those people listening to our podcast, like me, who have fuzzy memories of American history, do I have it right that Alexis de Tocqueville is the person who inspired this [00:02:00] paradox and that he was the one who essentially first started talking about American status anxiety, writing about his experiences traveling through America as a man from France and seeing things like buildings with false facades that are really just normal squat buildings, but that have those old west town, two story facades that look really fancy.

And just that being indicative of many other examples and observations he made about American's obsession with showing and signaling material wealth. Is that the Alexis de Tocqueville we're talking about? That's the one that we're talking about here. Alrighty. Yeah. You know, this is really interesting. I was just listening to another YouTuber's overview of Joseph Smith, the guy who started the LDS church talking about how at the turn of the American Revolution, you know, around the time that Alexis de Tocqueville was traveling around the United States, only amount around 10 percent of Americans in this newly formed United States attended church regularly.

So this was a [00:03:00] largely godless society. And while I think a lot of the historical education that we got as kids was about the historical revivals and about these creation, you know, like the creation of the LDS church, for example, you know, these, these religious zealots and their advocacy. And work, what was not being discussed with the largely godless society.

Well, it's because it was for two reasons. It was one, because these individuals wrote a lot more. Yeah. It's very similar to how if you're studying European history, you're going to get a lot of history from the Roman perspective and very little from the, you know, Gallic perspective. Right. And people are talking about the dark ages when really those ages weren't so dark.

It was just, they weren't the word cell ages. They weren't the sub stack ages. Yeah, and that was the problem. And so what I was thinking about though, and just the thought I'll end with before you continue, is What I didn't realize around, about this period in American history is, is it is oddly similar to our period now with largely non religious people [00:04:00] and also quite materialistic people.

And that's why this paradox then and now are quite relevant, right? Yeah, well, I don't know if I don't know if I would say that the religiosity aspect, I think it's an interesting thing to bring up, but I don't know if it's directly relevant to this particular paradox because while religiosity does correlate with gratitude for what one has in life, I don't, like, I guess there's like a tangential connection, but I don't see it as a particularly large connection.

However, I do think that the point that you just made is an incredibly important point to elevate is that we have a misconception of a race of religiosity in certain historic time periods within America as being much higher. Now, we should know that individuals believed in God, like the average person would have identified with some religious sect and they would have believed in God, but they wouldn't have it might not have been like the focus of their lives in a academic sense.

Right. Well, just because you don't [00:05:00] regularly attend church doesn't mean you don't believe in God. But I would also argue, and this shows up in anthropological research on people's religious beliefs as well, that if you aren't regularly practicing your faith, you really aren't living it. You're not living those values.

You're not digging into it. You don't have that faith. You have to, it's It's something you have to constantly lean into and remind yourself of if you actually are going to not only believe it, but actually achieved through a separate mechanism. Specifically, I think that that can be achieved through a few things more effectively than church attendance.

You're just talking about like crafting a religious system or practicing a religious system. One is some form of regular sacrifice that you're making actively as part of your religion. Specifically a sacrifice that differentiates you from other people around you. And this can include unique styles of dress, names and unique ways of acting.

Anything where you are consciously differentiating yourself from those around you will be even [00:06:00] more effective than church attendance. Yeah. Well, and I think this is why people start comparing things like CrossFit and. Other exercise regimens to a cult or a religion, because they, they Dark to behave in many ways, like religions and cults.

What the Tocqueville paradox is really focused on, if I'm going to word it in my own words, is people in our current society misunderstand how good they have it in a historic context. And as our society has become a more cush, easier to live in the expectations around comfort within life, around lack of challenges within life.

Have risen at a rate out of like, like much faster than we have actually been able to meet them by Realistically solving our ancestors needs. Yeah I can't begin to emphasize how spot on this is because I love watching for example vintage cooking videos about like, oh, here [00:07:00] are some treats that you as a vintage housewife could cook to really impress your neighbors and husband and family.

And they are s**t looking meals. They look disgusting. I compare that to what I see when scrolling on Instagram now. I'm just like, this is what I casually threw together as a working mom and they are insane.

 so in the 1910s, they had a simple roast beef and Franconia potatoes. The 1920s was chicken a la King, which is just chicken and vegetables in a cream sauce over rice. In the 1930s, they had cream chip beef, buttered peas, and white bread. Yum. In the 1940s they ate fried spam, a baked potato, and lima beans.

Even better. The 1950s was the decade of the TV dinner featuring roast turkey with gravy, mashed potatoes and peas.

 Really wish for people who haven't studied, like culinary history, I could emphasize. Just how blend and tasteless food was as recently as something like the 1950s. I mean, I think people are vaguely [00:08:00] aware that humans fought. Wars people died over spices that now we take completely for granted. But if you look even as recently as like the 1950s in the U S , what you would have been eating at a nice dinner, Would have been, you know, steak and potatoes.

And so that would have been. Steak. Maybe seasoned with salt and pepper. And potatoes maybe seasoned with salt and pepper. And when you think about the diversity of food we have today, whether it's being able to go out and have Japanese food or, Thai food or Indian food Or even a modern, nice juicy steak. That's well seasoned

you can look at pictures of states from this period on, , dinner tables. And you can just tell that they are tough and blend in nightmarish. yeah, standards, it's, it's kind of like the Olympics, you know, how people have been, you know, the summer Olympics, it just took place.

And so people have been posting a lot of side by sides of like, this was like the 1930s Olympics tumbling regime. And it's someone like doing a [00:09:00] cartwheel and looking really proud of themselves. And then it's like, and this is, you know, in 2024, it's someone like. Defying gravity and not being human anymore.

Outro Music The quote that we always do from the Martyrdom of Man that I think encapsulates the Toteville Paradox very well is, and helps I think people who read this text regularly reflect and build gratitude for where they are today, is this was a text that was written in the mid 1800s, so the people of that time period lived horrible lives.

Oh yeah, no surgery, very little pain management, aside from maybe alcohol and opium, and yeah. Rampant diseases everywhere, you know, that was, was it Spanish flu around that time? It was around 1915, 1916, [00:10:00] right? Oh yeah, so it hadn't even happened yet. So I'll add in post some horrors that were happening in this time period and what it would have been like.

To give you an idea of just how bad things were when this was written. If you were in the United States, around 30% of births would have ended in the death of the child. Eve somebody was doing surgery on you. It would have been done without anesthesia. This was about 40 years before the jungle was written, which described things like in America's industrial capacity, falling into sausage vats in that sausage being sold, being a regular thing that happened.

If you got cut or something, you were likely to die due to infections. For example, you get appendicitis. You. You die, you get a compound fracture, 50% survival rate. Diseases like diabetes, heart disease. Yeah. You die. You get depression. You get locked up in a mental asylum. Dental problems. , your teeth just rot out of your head. Don't worry [00:11:00] about the pain. In fact, during this period, women lost on average one tooth for every one child they had. And if you're looking at a place like the United States, they would have been having seven children on average. So keep in mind, that means for every woman not getting married at some other woman, with having 14 kids. But a guy writing in this time period trying to build gratitude for his own people, right, was saying, And as for ourselves, if we are sometimes inclined to regret that our lot is cast in these unhappy days, let us remember how much more fortunate we are than those who lived before us a few centuries ago.

The working man enjoys more luxuries today than did the king of England in Anglo Saxon times. And, at his command are intellectual delights, which, but a little while ago, the most learned in the land could not obtain all this. We owe to the labors of other men. Let us therefore remember them with gratitude.

Let us follow their glorious example by adding something new to the knowledge of mankind, let us pay to the future, [00:12:00] the debt, which we owe the past. And so what he's, you know, remarking on here is even back in the 1850s, you know, they had a lot to be grateful for. Yes. They had already forgotten it.

Just like people today don't realize he's saying our lives today are better than the lives of the people. You know, several hundred years before now, a couple hundred years from then and it's, if this is important, I think for general mental health to read history even recent history, like, Expectations. When you talk with young people about the things that give them despair in life, right?

Yes. When you're talking about how hard their lives are, you will often get statements like, Well You know, I can't have the phone I want, you know, I'm stuck using technology. I'll never be able to own a home. I'll never be able to own a home. [00:13:00] I'll, you know, and, and then you point out, it's like, well, you know, historically most Americans lived with their parents.

If you go a couple of hundred years ago and they're like, oh, I was unaware of this. When they, when they got married, they did. I think it was even up until like the early 1900s, it was, I think 36 percent of people when they got married were still living with their parents. Or, you know, like. If you look at cell phone rates among, for example, among homeless Americans, and I'll add the exact number in post,

It's 76%.

it's really high.

If you look at in poverty line American households now, if you look at refrigeration, refrigerator owner rates, really high.

It's 99.9% and I think people misunderstand how much of a revolution the refrigerator was in terms of quality of life. When my grandmother got a refrigerator, how stoked was she? Yes.

Yeah. Or. Or how recent it was. So when you're looking at 1950s stuff and you're seeing things like, you know, like those fruit jello mold things that people would [00:14:00] give to their neighbors and stuff. Yeah. That was popular. The height of gastronomic enjoyment. Yes. Predominantly to show off that you owned a refrigerator.

Oh, really? That was, Oh, Oh, how intriguing. I did not know. It could only be made with a refrigerator and not a refrigerator. And so it was a way to be like, look at my refrigerator. I have a fancy things. And even in my dad's generation, I mean, if you talk about something like television, they were the first ones on their block to get a TV.

And all the other kids would come.

Now contrast that with today, we're 76% of Americans living in poverty, have a television in their household. I feel young Americans don't understand just how grueling things were without a screen. I grew up in the generation where every weekend we would drive two and a half hours. To the, to the family farm and

in that ride in the car because I'd get car sick. If I tried to read. You just had to sit there and stare you didn't have. You may have like a music track that you could listen to. , if the [00:15:00] rest of the family would agree to it. But other than that, , there was nothing. , it was often the same with plane flights.

You know, you're stuck on that plane for four hours, just staring at the seat in front of you. It is almost hard to convey to somebody who grew up with cell phones with screens, just how dreadfully boring the world was before them. I just realized is, is When you give someone sourdough bread because it shows you have and can maintain a sourdough starter, which is a big flex because it takes a lot of time. Yeah. So, we've got little flexes like this today, but interestingly, the core flexes that I think people engage in today, which Shows I think a true post scarcity world is stuff like you giving out eggs from our backdoor chicken coop.

It's stuff like that. Okay. That's my point. Or sourdough bread or something that, you know, you cooked and made at home. They're flexes at which demonstrate that you don't need to rely on the industrialized economy. Yet we cannot forget how much easier the industrialized economy has made [00:16:00] our lives. Yeah.

And here I'll add some rate, some stats about absolute poverty rates in, in places like the United States, as well as starvation rates,

So if we're looking at poverty rates in the United States, In the early 19 hundreds, poverty was extremely widespread affecting between 40 and 60% of Americans. If you go to the 1960s, it was already down to only 22.4% of Americans. If you go to modern times, Like 2012, only 9.1% of Americans lived in poverty. And well, starvation rates are surprisingly hard to find. We do know that by the 1940s, approximately 25% of military draftees showed evidence of severe malnutrition. I E they were starving.

because I think people don't realize, like, they just don't realize how many people used to starve or die of exposure. We were recently on the Jim Rutt Show. And you were talking about like, he's like, Oh, it doesn't really matter if we do a Jubilee or we have some level of economic collapse.

And you were pointing out, well, he's like, well, [00:17:00] it wouldn't be so bad if, you know, like old people just had to move back in with their kids. And I'm like, hold on, you're like, A lot of them won't have kids to move back in with at this point. And two if you look at the Americans right now who are living on social services.

They have a huge amount it's something like 80 percent of them live paycheck to paycheck, which means if they lost their social services, which often make up around 60 percent of their daily expenses, including things like food and Housing, childcare, healthcare for our kids they're literally starving.

Well, and, and as it stands, these people do not have the ability to handle an unexpected thousand dollar expense out of nowhere. And then suddenly way more than a thousand dollars in routine, monthly basic survival expenses. Yeah. So when he's like, Oh, it doesn't matter if these systems collapse, because in the 1900s, we didn't have these systems.

It's like. In the 1900s, people starved to death regularly, you know, like, yeah, [00:18:00] I was just listening to Planet Money did a little thing on the Great Depression. That, that podcast by NPR and they were taught, they were reading a first account from someone about their experience just seeing whole families out on the street with their babies.

All of their possessions, like newborn babies because they could no longer pay for rent. They lost absolutely everything and just couldn't, there was no, there was absolutely nothing for them. The government had absolutely no way to support them. You can bet a lot of people died and a lot of very, you know, helpless children and babies, which I, I can't.

We're not we're going to move on quickly because I cannot think about this change of the subject. Okay, let's go. Let's go. Let's go. Yeah, it's it's the the situation. We can go back to earlier economic system types, but we have to set up the social infrastructure for that. For example, churches used to have the social infrastructure required to support.

At least people, part of their religious communities in these ways when there were hard [00:19:00] times, that's gone. Now that's not set up. Well, and, and so here I'm going to, I'm going to move further with some actual data on this paradox because it's been studied in real world environments. So a 2006 study conducted in Pakistan directly tested Tocqueville's thesis using a survey experiment.

The researchers manipulated participants perceptions of their economic well being and social mobility, as predicted by the theory, they found , that political discontent often increased the most when declining personal well being coincided with high perceived social mobility. So, to explain a bit how this experiment worked, the key manipulation involved presenting different income brackets to each group when asking about their household income.

The treatment group saw income brackets with higher ranges, making their own income seem relatively low. The control group was shown income brackets with lower ranges, making their own income seem more typical. For example, the middle income bracket for the control [00:20:00] group was only 4, 000 to 6, 000 R's, while the middle bracket for the treatment group was much higher.

Findings, the results supported Tocqueville's theory, political discontent was found to increase most significantly when individuals perceived a decline in their personal economic well being. So basically they were able to manipulate an individual's beliefs about how they were doing in society and people would present.

Both lower levels of personal. So keep in mind the actual person's experience, like their physical experience day to day, no different than saying, right. They had the same gadgets. They had the same property. They had the same education. They had the same spouse and yet they would report more discontentment if they believed that there were other people that had more than them.

Cause it's all relative. We're always looking at how we compare to other people. And this led to political discontentment in their answers as well. Now [00:21:00] this creates a big problem when you are considering the way the online algorithm presents things to you, right? What you are getting served. Often is to like friendship.

What pornography is to sex? Yeah. Super stimuli, the super stimuli of, of affluence and hyper consumption. So the people that you see, whether it is on YouTube. Or Twitter, or well, really anywhere TikTok stuff like that, like any of these things where you're consuming content, these individuals are going to be dramatically wealthier than the average individual.

Not just because people click more on wealthy content, but the content that individuals get served the most is often the super influencers. Because you know, they just touch so many people and these systems are not as built for the micro influencers where it's really hard to get out of that micro stance.

But once you become the super influencer position, you're just making astronomical amounts of money from the platform itself, which means now [00:22:00] you are showing off a lifestyle and making suggestions about a lifestyle that someone could lead that is completely unrealistic for the average American. And also people like stuff that's aspirational.

We don't want to see what we have already. We want to see something different, something novel, and that often is something unsustainably expensive. Well, and you know, and this really messes with people in dating markets as well. So if you look at something like women, there's all these things where they're like, Oh, what, what income do you want?

The guy you're dating to have and the incomes that they throw out there are completely unrealistic. And there's been some great shows that have been like, what do you think the average person in America makes? Right?

What would you want his income to be? I feel like this is going to sound bad. I feel like, like, 300, 000.

I would have to say 127, 000. Probably 150, 000 to a quarter of a million a year. 500, 000? Is that bad? 150, 000 maybe to 250, 000 a year. It would be [00:23:00] Okay. I was just having this conversation with a friend, and she was like, You have to manifest a husband, girl. Ideally, my husband needs to be making like 650, 000.

So you said you want 500, 000, but what do you think the median income is for a 30 year old? 60, 000? 70, 000? Yeah. I think it's 250, 000. And right now, so you know that median salary well, in 2022 in America was 37. 5, 000.

Okay. Um, And then the if you go just a few years ago to 2012, it was 26. 5, 000. Wow. Most of that is actually inflation right now. 2012, 26. 5, 000 is what the average, the median American was making. And so when people are making these comparisons to the social media people, to, to, et cetera, They think, and I've even noticed this among people like who I know, they think like the average American is making like around 50 K per year, even people who are trying to like [00:24:00] low ball it.

And I've seen estimates, you know, sincere estimates that the average American is making like 80 K per year, which is actually. So when I now look at the amount of social services you get when you live at or near the poverty line, I feel like there's this really weird bump in society or someone making a A certain like making money around the poverty line.

has about the same amount of wealth as someone who lives maybe at the 50k level, weirdly. I, I, I'd say that that, that is about right, given the way that we structured our system at this point, which creates a lot of intergenerational negative incentives. It creates incentives to work more or get more educated because in the end, like when you leave, when you enter the workforce, for example, but like you put your family into a higher tax bracket and then you lose all these services.

And why would you do that? When you have a lot more flexibility with your family and have government services. Yeah. It's a, it's not great. So I I'll move to another study here. Do it [00:25:00] in 2022, a study examined the relationship between basic and enhanced capabilities as defined by the 2019 human development report and social attitudes over time.

The researchers hypothesize that if the correlation between basic needs and position And positive social attitudes declined while the correlation with enhanced needs rose, it would indicate a shift consistent with the Tocqueville effect. It investigated possible reasons for the global deterioration of social attitudes despite greater economic prosperity, wider dissemination of technology, and reductions in poverty.

The deterioration manifests as deeper political polarization. Lost interest in organizations and lower tolerance for dissenting views and opinions. Key findings suggest that the deterioration in social attitudes could be linked to perceived increases in corruption, administration and efficiency, the perceived disinformation through information technology and economic inequality and gender disparities that, that may not really exist.

And I think this is also interesting if you talk about social progress [00:26:00] is the Tocqueville paradox can be explained can be used to explain things like women's rights as well. A lot of women today seem to have a complete misunderstanding of what women historically actually lived like and the level of rights that even American women lived without until fairly recently, right?

And also you've got the problem with the feminist movement where it's kind of this machine that has no solution. Hmm. Yeah, good point. Before I go further. No, go on. So this is actually a really interesting side part of the Tocqueville Paradox. And it's called the integration paradox among minorities.

So this paper called called the integration paradox, a review and meta analysis of the complex relationship between integration and reports of discrimination examines a counterintuitive phenomenon where more integrated immigrants report higher levels of perceived discrimination. Here are the key points about this research.

The study is a meta analysis, combining data from 42 different studies across [00:27:00] various countries. To provide a comprehensive look at the integration paradox. The integration paradox refers to the finding that well-educated and socially well-integrated in I immigrants and their descendants are more likely to report experience of discrimination than less integrated immigrants.

One key finding is that better integration, including higher education levels and improved language skills, seems to correlate with increased reports of discrimination and feelings of exclusion. So, thoughts on this? I mean, part of that just seems intuitively to make sense, because if you're not around people who are different from you, you don't really have an opportunity to feel like they're treating you differently, if you know what I mean?

Well, Like, if I were around Chinese immigrants, for example, I wouldn't think that people, like, I wouldn't have an opportunity to think I'm discriminated against. Well, I think a key angle of this as well is that the type of immigrants that do not integrate with society understand non integration, i. e.

they understand the motivations for the [00:28:00] society to not want them to integrate as well. Oh, I see. Yeah. So they're less, they're less they're actually more likely to maybe discriminate themselves and be cool with it. Yeah, well, to understand, they, they are more likely to, I imagine you know, if somebody is like, well, you know, we're American here and you're not American over there, like, you're not acting like an American.

So, you know, I'm not going to invite you to my barbecue. And they'd be like, well, yeah, of course I wouldn't want to invite you to my like cultural event either, because I don't want you polluting it with your Americanism and making it less, you know. Hataka. Hataka is a made up culture. I'm not like making fun of the, the, the Hataka religion.

Given that we are living in 2024. I had to go back in post. And just to make sure that the word I made up for a meetup cultural group was not an ethnic slur or something like that. And it appears I got away with it this time. It is dangerously close to.

 Haka the ceremonial practice. In Maui culture and dangerously close. Two. Taka [00:29:00] a concept in Hinduism, but that wouldn't have been a cultural group. So it couldn't be taken if they flirt in this context.

, so I, I got, I got away with it. This time got away with making up a word, a random word, and it didn't happen to have been an ethic flirt at some point. And you would be really messing it up with all your Americanness and lack of cultural understanding. And yet the individual who strives for complete integration, they would take that as a slight. And I love that they were also like, it's not about whining. They, they made that clear, but I think part of it probably is about whining because What the person is integrating with when they're integrating is the urban monoculture.

And given that the urban monoculture has in part a status hierarchy based around discrimination, it socially and emotionally rewards individuals who claim to have experienced discrimination and thus individuals would intrinsically anything that socially and emotionally rewarded is going to be a talked about more and ironically experienced more.

So when an individual [00:30:00] wants to gain status within these societies, they don't ever want to feel like they're lying about their discrimination. Nobody, like, goes at this feeling like they're the bad guy. So they actually create moments of discrimination for themselves to experience and it feels as bad as real discrimination.

What else is a microaggression other than a created Discriminated experience that wasn't really an experience of discrimination. It's funny because it's so male versus female. And I wonder if this is a more broad natural law around collectivism or social integration versus individualism because, you know, men sort of by design are a little bit more on the individualistic end of the spectrum.

Go big or go home. I'm not old. Can get to reproduce. You know, male lion get thrown out by the pride and have to figure their own s**t out when they hit adolescence. And men are more likely to stand around and, and say things like, I'm the best I'm, you know, I'm doing great. Even when they're not. Whereas women, you know, [00:31:00] the classic trope is girls, like in from mean girls, you know, they're all standing in front of the mirror.

And being like, oh, I hate my legs. Oh, I hate my nose. Oh, I hate everything. Oh, and then they look to, you know, that one girl, and they're like waiting for her to say how she hates herself and how, you know, everything's horrible with her. And there, there needs to be this shared misery and unhappiness with how they are.

And like, I, I wonder it, it's just, it's weird that there's that pattern, this sort of feminine victimhood or self-hatred versus masculine confidence in individuality. Yeah, well, I know, and we're, we're also seeing more of a divide between the genders and which party they're working with, which could Yeah.

represent in relation to this. But I think what I take from this is that it's important to have daily rituals. Yes. Of, in whatever tradition you're creating, of appreciating what you have that your ancestors didn't have, and that's something that we should build. into our family maybe once a week at dinner or something like that for the kids.

Perspective. We have a [00:32:00] specific day where we go over that. And two, the individual study history from the perspective of knowing what it was like to live during those times. Yeah. When you know who does this really well is Jews and Mormons. Yeah, the, the Jews, a lot of their holidays are basically around this. And just look at how hard our ancestors had it during this time period. And for Mormons, for people who don't know, you have like your pioneer trip where you've got to go out and live like the ancestors who are coming up.

And it's considered quite a grueling experience. And a lot of modern kids are like, it was the hardest time of my life. We didn't have enough food. I had to pull a wagon. And it does suck. It does suck. But their whole lives used to be like that and, and reflecting on that is really important. So yeah.

Respective is so helpful. Yeah. Those are two really useful ceremonies and you and I need to talk about like building a holiday like this for our kids or building a regular thing for our kids that we can build into like, the techno Puritan family religion. I [00:33:00] agree. And I, I, I also, I feel that there's also kind of a mindset in terms of.

The way that a family can set a healthy precedent about how we normalize to societal standards. Because while I would expect myself as a, an avid consumer of Instagram to be subject to this status anxiety, because I look at a ton of content by especially families and parents. So people like us, people living like us, but who have way more money.

I mean, think about ballerina farms, but then there are a bunch of other parent influencers who live in these. very expensive mansions and have all the best clothes for their kids and take them to these insanely expensive places and do all these things for them that I can't do because, you know, we're financially constrained and apparently they're not, but it doesn't bother me at all.

In fact, I look at what they do and how they live and I'm like, Oh my God, like that costs so much money. Oh my God, the size of their, Oh my, you know, and I just, I kind of, well, I think it's because you and [00:34:00] I have created an internal family culture That really finds opulence to a degree repellent.

Yeah. And I think that we've talked about this in other podcasts also shaming opulence or having our own internal form of, Oh, we haven't, we're not going to run this podcast, but our own internal form of sumptuary laws where we kind of shame excessive consumption. Talk quickly because we're not going to run this.

I'm sure you are. It's podcast. What are our internal family rules around that? It's internal family rules that we decided around would be that you never go into debt unless you are buying one a used car or two way house, but you don't even go into debt for school. You don't take any other form of personal loan and you don't even take business loans.

And then we would also You can't take business loans if it's like a large private equity thing, but not for like your first business. Yes. Don't, don't take like a personal loan to buy a bunch of equipment, to start your food truck business, et cetera, because a lot of people do that and it does not work out well.

And most first businesses fail [00:35:00] and then you're stuck with debt. And typically because you know, you're starting, it's a high interest personal loan. It's the one that I love of your, of your rules was no luxury branding. Yeah, on your clothing or any, if there's any consumer products where there is a generic or different brand that is widely available of similar quality, you, you should not, and should be shamed for buying you should not buy, and you should be shamed for buying the branded version.

So any sort of designer purse, any sort of thing like that is, is something to be shamed because for example, these days, like a Louis Vuitton purse, even a Nermes purse, Handbag they're not really made at the level of quality that is significantly better than something made by a really good Etsy seller who is also making it by hand, who is also making the best materials possible, but at a fraction of the price.

And it will last longer. So, and then you also had a rule around closing. Is it the closing had to be made with durable material? Yeah. So none of this clothing, because we, we looked through the stats that, you know, clothing is, is [00:36:00] worn. on average seven times. And the average piece of clothing in the EU and US is, is like under two years, really insane.

And then we only wear 10 percent of the clothing that we buy regularly. So huge curtailing of the type of clothing that we buy and the variation and outfits that we buy, because it is just incredibly wasteful. And then the final rule you had was, was dress was intentionality, which was to say that your outfit is designed not to fulfill some sort of fashion goal, but some goal that you have in society, like you live for X reason, what sort of, public persona is best going to be able to achieve that, which means that for most people, they will be wearing a personal uniform that they decided on with their spouse.

But this is all to say, I don't think it's just about getting historical perspective and building in holidays and routines around that. I think it's also about having an internal culture in which you say, we are different. We do not hold ourselves [00:37:00] to the standard of the Joneses and therefore we have no desire to keep up with the Joneses because we're too busy shitting all over the Joneses and that's more fun anyway.

Honestly though, I think it's super understated how much fun it is to make fun of other people. In fact, it's so much more fun than trying to keep up with them. So I feel like this is the easier and much lower stress solution. And it's bizarre to me that more people don't come to it. I agree with you a hundred percent.

And I am so lucky to have such a based and delight, delightsome. And Demure. That's the new term among conservatives that's being mocked by progressives. Demure? I like delightsome. It's a Mormon term. Delightsome. It sounds very Mormon. Yeah, I love it. They they have it a few times in their tags.

After I read it the first time, I was like, oh, that's just such a great way to describe my life. You want to make delightsome happen? You're delightsome, Simone. Is that anyway so, so, I'll say, you know, we've got a lot of new fans right now. We really appreciate you guys coming, watching the show.

We've got it in some other places as well. If you want to go to like the podcast version, always like and subscribe. [00:38:00] It helps us especially liking those podcasts. Like if you can give us a five star review on Apple podcasts, that would mean a lot to us. And it would mean a lot to us. If you subscribe what's that other podcast platform we're on?

Well, we're on Spotify. We're on all the major platforms, but five star reviews on Apple podcasts have the most impact because that's where you can actually see like review counts on Spotify. You can only see number of subscribers. Oh, I was unaware. Anyway. Love you to Desimone. Have a spectacular day. Bye.

Love you. Cha cha cha. Goodbye. Cha cha. No, you hang up. I treasure these times of day. Oh, well that's a new type of beer. What's up with that? Where's the cores? What's going on? So I have right now, it's extra light. It's half the alcohol. Oh, extra light. [00:39:00] Intriguing, very intriguing. Oh, All right.

Okay.

In this eye-opening discussion, we delve into the controversial topic of banned books and library censorship from a conservative perspective. We explore the reality behind claims of book banning, examine the political bias in school libraries, and discuss the actual sources of youth radicalization. Key points include:

* Debunking myths about conservative book banning

* Exposing the overwhelming liberal bias in school library collections

* Analysis of controversial books like "Gender Queer" and their availability

* Discussion on where youth are actually being radicalized (hint: it's not the library)

* Critique of current library funding and suggestions for alternative educational focuses

* Strategies for parents to combat ideological indoctrination

* The role of anime, manga, and fan fiction in youth culture and radicalization

* Policy suggestions to empower parents in their children's education

* The importance of early, comprehensive education on sexuality and gender issues

Join us for this thought-provoking conversation that challenges mainstream narratives and offers a fresh perspective on the culture wars in education.

[00:00:00] We are going to be talking about the truth about banned books.

And we are going to be, and that's literally the article that I'm going to be reading from, from the free press. No, but. I'm always shocked how, like, the left will be like, Oh, the right's out there banning books, and they're horrible, and they're And then I'm like, okay. Didn't, didn't we ban Dr. Seuss? Not the, the left banned Dr.

Seuss. Didn't you guys, like, just ban Dr. Seuss? Like, didn't you, don't you ban books? All the time these days? You guys are like, actually burning Anne Frank's diary, and I'll put a thing on the screen here, because a lot of people don't know how, like, antisemitic a lot of, like, the far commies are, because, you know, keep in mind, Marx did write like, what is it like the Jewish problem or whatever is his first book?

Commies are very anti Semitic. But yeah, the, the, the books that you guys are banning, you know, the Dr. Seuss and stuff like that, horrifying that you guys are banning that you are actually banning [00:01:00] like pieces of our tradition and stuff like that. You look at the books that the conservatives are banning.

And they're like actual pornography. They'll like demonstrate using cartoon characters for children how to give fellatio. What? Wait, like in your We'll get into all that in a second. Okay, let's. Would you like to know more?

But before we get into that, I want to go into this particular piece because it also shows that conservatives don't actually really ban books.

It's mostly a progressive dog, like, fabrication. Dog whistle. Like the, like the don't say gay bill where that's not So what she's talking about with the jokes of the gay bill is we know the people who wrote that bill before it ever left the Republican side of the planning committee. There was concern that it could be used to prevent gay teachers from talking about their personal lives to their students or letting their students know that they were gay.

And so that was removed from the [00:02:00] bill. By conservatives before it left the conservative planning stage. And then progressives made up that that's what it would do. And yet it has never been used that way. It doesn't do that at all. And yet they created this huge fight and stuff around this where they've created this perception like, Oh, conservatives are out to get gay people, but it's more, no conservatives were concerned about the huge number of child grapes that are happening in our school system right now.

That right now are higher. On a, not, not on an absolute level, but on a per teacher to per preacher level than they were during the Catholic Church at the height of the scandal. It is bad. There is a reason to be putting these laws in place.

So just for people who aren't familiar with the current stats, here's an article from the Federalist, a one in 10 K through 12 students has been sexually abused by a teacher. , and it says that the rate of sexual misconduct in public schools far exceeds the high profile abuse scandals that rocked the Roman Catholic church [00:03:00] and the boy Scouts of America. , and this article came out in 2024, July 15th. Also, admittedly, it is not just the high number of grapes that are the problem.

It is also the systemic attempts at brainwashing children into ideologies that have extremely negative mental health outcomes, which is something we talk about in other videos. my first year in preschool with a class of my own teaching alongside another queer neurodivergent educator and we have been rocking R2's class.

We've been talking about gender and skin color and consent and empathy and our bodies and autonomy. It's been fabulous. But our teaching team is shifting, and a new person is being onboarded. Someone with many years of experience. So today at the lunch table, when the topic of gender and genitals came up, one of our students plainly looked up and said, Well, I'm a girl today.

But I know that Teacher Co isn't. [00:04:00] No, they're Enby. And the look on the incoming teacher's face was priceless. She was shocked in a good way. And she just looked around at the two of us and said, This class is incredible, and I am so impressed.

 But anyway, I want to get to this piece right here.

 So for example, how to be an anti racist by Imram X. Kendi, which argues that the quote only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination, end quote. So, a book that is actively arguing for discrimination is stocked in 42 percent of US school districts that were surveyed.

Meanwhile, only a single school district, Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, Texas, offers students Woke Racism by John McWhorter, a book that challenges the borderline religious anti racist ideas. Advocated by Kennedy. So what we're, we're showing here is if [00:05:00] you're talking about what's actually being stocked at the stores, like are conservatives influencing this?

Are they conservative influencing what books are there and what books aren't? They're just not and conservative books that are even like Mill Road, or if you're saying, Oh, I want both sites presented, are a functionally banned from our libraries, even fairly mainstream ones. So Felix Ever After, a book by Kacen Caller that claims that girls who hate, quote, being forced into dresses and being given dolls in quote, are transgender, is available in 77 percent of school districts surveyed.

But not a single school out of nearly 5, 000 offered books critical of trans theories. Students won't find books like Trans by Helen Joyce. Or, Irreversible Damage, The Transgender Craze, Seducing Our Daughters, by Abigail Schreier. Both recent bestsellers that present skeptical takes on the rapid rise of transgender identification among [00:06:00] adolescents.

Hmm. So, you know what you're reading is a book that literally, and keep in mind how insane this is, transgenders Wearing dresses and being given dolls is transgender? It's a radical fringe view that is also potentially quite damaging because the gender affirming care that a girl might be driven to get by those ideas is pretty irreversible and can have very, very serious knock on effects.

It's not like that book is in some school libraries. It's in 77 percent. That's Wild. That is absolutely crazy. It is also wild that not a single one of the 5, 000 school libraries searched had either of two bestselling books that were skeptical of trans ideology. Well, it's just, it's weird to me that books on this would be present at all.

I'm thinking of at least my experience with the school library [00:07:00] and I don't know if there were any books that were published after 1980 in there, like literally. Well, you went to a very poor school district. Yeah. I remember my experience on the school library. I actually stole a book on how cults worked and brainwashing and then another one on Well, they threw out books all the time.

It wasn't really an issue. I saw all the giant book things they threw out, but I didn't want it on my personal record. Now I admit that I was interested in studying those things. And I was like, Oh, if I end up, you know, just starting a cult right after school, I don't want it on my record. I was checking out books on that and bioterrorism and you know, various forms of stuff like that because I was very interested in how all that worked and how to potentially rapidly change society if it needed to happen.

 But they had a pretty good selection of stuff.

Okay, so most school libraries have new books, you're saying? And they throw out old books literally into the trash in the, in the, like, truckload. That makes me sad. Really sad. Yeah. I mean, your [00:08:00] library, there should be a better truckloads went to my school's library. I'm pretty sure that's the case. In fact, many of the books that we were given for our English class and stuff had the rich high school like stamped on them.

So we knew that they were the cast offs from made us feel pretty shitty, but you know, like we, I said in another podcast, we sold them the drugs and they took them in the end, they were the ones who hurt. So. Yeah, right? Yeah. All right. Memoirs by non progressive leaders are also notably scarce. While Dreams of My Father, the memoir of Democratic President Barack Obama, is found in 75 percent of sample districts, Becoming, by his wife, is found in 65 percent of districts, Memoirs by Republican politicians like Nikki Haley, Vivek Ramasamy, and Mike Pompeo, Tim Scott, and Ron DeSantis were essentially nowhere to be found.

Wow. You think at least Vivek, I mean, he's like a young person's person. So when they were looking at those 5, 000 schools from 35 school districts the Vivek one was found in 0%, Nikki Haley, [00:09:00] 0%, Mike Pompeo, 0%. Tim Scott, 0%, Ron DeSantis, 0%, and Mike Pence, 6%. And then it lists yeah. So basically they are indoctrination centers at this point.

And any claims that Republicans are trying to indoctrinate your kids are Absolutely laughable in terms of at least effective, but, but of course, why would Republicans need to indoctrinate kids when Republicans have kids and Democrats don't, right? Like Democrats have to play this game aggressively. It's their only way to survive.

So, yeah. Although I have to also ask this question, which I think is important in any discussion, Related to political fights in America around banned books, who's, who is reading these books? You know, these are for the most part, physical books. And I don't know how many high school students are actually reading.

Aren't most of them just addicted to TikTok and or their AI boyfriends slash girlfriends? [00:10:00] It's the autistic kids who are also the ones most likely to convert. Yeah. I wish I had better stats on who was actually checking out and, or reading these books because I have doubts. Yeah. And it's, I think it's funny to me and a little bit misguided.

This is very similar to me. To the bathroom debate about schools with parents. And yes, I understand that there have been isolated incidents and they are very worrying about mixed gender bathrooms or policies where schools allow transitioning. Students to go into the bathroom of their chosen gender. And then they, you know, go in and they, they assault people in those bathrooms and cause problems.

Like I get that that's, that's a thing, but they're very isolated incidents and I'm sure that there are much more common incidents of just full out violent bullying outside of bathrooms. So I'm not that concerned about it. Right. What, what I think is, is that people are not putting their focus in the right place.

They're not putting their focus where their actual damage is being done. Not that many people are [00:11:00] reading books. Not that many people are being assaulted in bathrooms. And yet these are the two top discussions that are taking place. Like as I run for state rep in our state. These are the discussions parents are having about their kids in school, not the curriculum, not the bias and skew of, of the teachers, not the bias and skew of the school boards, not social, emotional learning.

There are all these things that are taking place in school that are, are, are steeped within every moment of the day that every student is involved in. And yet we're talking about isolated bathroom incidents and books that I don't think anyone's reading and refer to our podcast on. Nobody reads anymore, right?

Like no one reads anymore. We have the data on that. Even when you look at bestselling books, and I think some of this is selection bias when you talk about the biographies of progressive leaders, you know, dreams of my father versus biographies about Nikki Haley and stuff, it's just, you know, Obama was a more famous figure when you probably look at the bestseller status of those books, the, the [00:12:00] The incidence of them being in school libraries probably tracks almost perfectly to their bestseller status and rank among other books.

No, I think we just went over that with the trans books. The two books that I mentioned that were in 0 percent of libraries were both New York Times bestsellers. You did. Yeah. You did say they were bestsellers. Although we know, we know from our data, which I think we covered in our, our, our episode on why nobody reads that New York Times bestseller status does not necessarily indicate.

A book that is actually bestselling. Amazon bestseller status is a much better read of that. But anyway, my, my argument, no, still Amazon bestseller was very few books. The point being Simone, look, you can be a bestseller with a few books, but to be a conservative New York times bestseller. Is actually means that you're selling serious books.

I think that you are being taken in by trying to be, take the middle approach here, where the reality is, is this is pretty horrific that this is happening. And if the position that you want to take is we should stop spending any money on public school libraries or school libraries, I am [00:13:00] okay with that.

Position like transitioning them into other centers or, or having schools work in concert with the local libraries of any town or city, because pretty much every township and city in the United States has a library system. And I don't know why. We need to have school libraries in addition to that when we could maybe Shift funding and be a little bit more efficient if we pulled resources I think that's a really good point and I think they should do that.

But let's continue Okay, and then at the end of this we can talk about whether libraries Matter at all in the modern age. Yeah, the american library association and groups like pen america have raised alarm and millions of donations By warning of the continued rise in attempts to censor books and materials in the public school and academic libraries.

Penn America estimates that 2, 532 books were removed from schools in 32 states during the 2021 and 2022 school year. But an investigation by the Heritage Foundation found that 75 percent of those so called banned [00:14:00] books were actually widely available to students. My own research uncovered the same. In some cases, such as Amanda Gromer's The Hill We Climb, a poetry book was supposedly quote unquote banned by the Miami Dade County School District.

It was actually just moved from the elementary school to the middle school section of the library. In Gender Queer, a graphic memoir for teens about gender identity that the New York Times called, quote, the most banned book in the country, end quote, ,was available in about 25 percent of the school districts I surveyed. Another gripe that I have, you can take this out if you must, but where are students actually being radicalized? Where does a An adolescent in the United States or elsewhere actually decide that they're trans.

I do not think it is in their school library. I think that it is when they go to an anime fan fiction forum and hang out in chat forums online and start getting radicalized by people there. And first they start identifying as non binary. And then they start, you [00:15:00] know, using they, them pronouns and it goes on from there and yes, their school absolutely plays a role in this to a great extent.

I think public schools are influential in tipping the scales and that's something that parents absolutely need to discuss. But it is only in the form of affirming something that has begun online, at home, on their own. In chat forums and certainly not chat forums and certainly not on websites that have anything to do with gender affirming care or politics or anything else they have to do with anime.

They have to do with fanfic. They have to do with fun. They have to do with fashion. They have to do with culture. Nothing about politics. And so when parents are trying to build. ban books, like if, if, for example, the conservative dream came true, right? And suddenly there were only gendered bathrooms and there were only no, you know, no books about sexuality at all in schools ever, and there was no sex ed.

It wouldn't change a goddamn thing because you would still have students radicalizing the same way that they're radicalizing now. And if you don't change the policies and the state [00:16:00] laws right now around protecting children, Who are starting to identify as non binary and who choose to identify in their schools as different names and different genders.

And parents are often not told about this. And in some cases, like you have in Minnesota, that's a sanctuary state for, for trans kids. You have a governor's like Tim Walz, who's now the VP candidate in the United States saying, okay, well we can even. You know, take it from the parents if they, if the parents don't agree with the kid's choice to, to transition.

That's when you have problems. And I just, it bothers me that there's so much discussion. I mean, obviously the free press has to cater to a very mainstream audience that is still concerned about this. It just really bothers me how misguided this all is. Yeah, so just, just so you're aware of what this book has in it, that's in 25 percent of school libraries.

Okay. It has a, a guide on how to give fellatio with pictures of a kid giving fellatio to another kid. They appear to be [00:17:00] Kids! Kids! Yeah, they appear to be underage. I, I guess from the picture here, they're probably about 16. And then in this one, it, it talks about how to masturbate and

yeah. So it's, it's some pictures of men and then a man masturbating to two men having sex. Oh, that's, that's sweet. No homo. It's like, it's definitely strange. 25%. They, they call this the most banned book in the country. What they mean is most people complain about this book, but it is The most complained about book.

Okay. But that doesn't mean it's actually not in libraries. It's in 25 percent of, of the student libraries.

Yeah, this, it's honestly, here's the interesting thing. It seems more explicit than the joy, the joy of sex, which is one of the more famous, like original illustrated guides to sex. It was supposed to be fairly didactic because it. I don't think the joy of sex even really talked about masturbation, like, you know, sort of, you know, not participating in a sex act.

It was really [00:18:00] more about, like. how to participate in, in, in male, female mutual sex acts. And this sounds even more explicit than that. And that is just insane. Well, you, you want to hear some other insane stuff? I'm a little afraid, but let's do it. 17 percent of survey districts carried freedom is a constant struggle.

Ferguson, Palestine, and the foundations of a movement in which Angela Davis argues that quote. Repression associated with Israeli settler colonialism was so evident and so blatant and that, quote, the Israeli military made no attempt to conceal the violence they inflicted upon the Palestinian people, end quote.

The school libraries of Bowerd County, Florida, alone has 16 copies of the book, and precisely zero copies of Bibby, my story, Benjamin Netanyahu's autobiography, which refutes Davis's allegations. Of the 35 school samples, only one carries Bibby Bibby. ISD once again. So it appears that there's like one school that like actually [00:19:00] tries to carry both sides.

Recently we have seen reports of the rise of antisemitism in American schools. According to Harvard Harris poll from last month, 67 percent of 18 to 24 year olds believe that quote Jews are oppressors in quote and quote should be treated as such in quote. Is this at all surprising if students aren't being exposed to viewpoints that counter this argument?

Which I see is very true. I've seen very few people who had this like anti Jewish perspective actually look up the other side, actually look up, you know, the, the, the foundings of the, the efforts that the Jews have made to try to reconcile with the Palestinian people. The efforts that they have made in peace negotiations, the absolute, just like they, they just believe the narrative that's being fed to them instead of researching both sides.

And it's really disappointing to me. But here, now we are going to go down a list of books here. Okay. Okay. So these are books written by some of the world's [00:20:00] best known progressive thinkers. Okay. And we're going to go through what percent of school libraries are in communist manifestos and 75%. Cap the origins of our discontent, 60%.

This 1619 project, 54%. Stamped, 71%. What's stamped about? I don't know. I can add it in post.

It's a book by the guy who wrote the anti-racist book, Abraham X, Kennedy. The full title is stamped racism. Antiracism. And you, or

stamped from the beginning. An African American and Latinx history of the United States, 40%. Latinx is such a racist race. The New Jim Crow, 60%. Guide to Political Revolution that's by Bernie Sanders, 40%. White Fragility, 54%. Is that horrible racist books in 54%?

So you want to talk about race, 57%. This book is anti racist, 45%. Now let's look at mainstream books that have a conservative mindset, right? Okay, well they got Karl Marx. What about Milton [00:21:00] Freeman's Capitalism and Freedom?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right? Eight percent. Oh. Created Equal by Dr. Ben Carson. Five percent. Woke Racism. 3%. Breaking History by Jared Kushner, 2%. Social Justice Fallacies, 0%. That's by Thomas Salwell. Great thinker, by the way. The War on the West by Douglas Morey, 0%. The 1619 Project, a critique, 0%. The Case Against Impeaching Trump, 0%.

 Decades of Decadence by Mark Rubio, 0%. The Diversity Delusion, 0%. 0 percent in the case for Trump, 0%. No wonder only 16 percent of Gen Z says they are proud to live in America. According to a survey in 2023, they don't have access to books that present our country in an honest light. Surprise that 76 percent of Gen Z and millennial women wouldn't date a Republican according to a change research poll from September.

Yeah. They've never been exposed to any conservative ideas. And that's definitely [00:22:00] how I was raised. So what do we do about this? Like, well, how do you realistically combat this? I mean, I think one realistically these decisions are being made by the local librarians. And so what this shows me is as conservatives, you should not be fighting to get these books in libraries or what's in libraries, because you are never going to win against the bureaucracy of minimum wage to bureaucrats.

Okay. Like the lady. Yep. Yep. New to the library, bring back shop class. So take the money that used to go to libraries. Let, let libraries be handled by existing libraries that already are present in local communities, which are fantastic and wonderful and should be getting attention and should be getting used.

I disagree with that too. I think libraries should not be funded. I think, I think libraries are amazing third places and should be given more support in communities. And frankly, it's a great place to give teens and kids another place. It's not just school to go [00:23:00] and hang out and study and learn and meet with the community.

So we'll have to disagree on that. I'll agree with it insofar as they are useful to homeschooling projects and stuff like that. But I think, yeah, and homeschooling groups, libraries are amazing places. They're fantastic to hang out, to just go through the books. I used to spend, before I met you as an adult, I would just spend like a whole weekend day.

And this is how they get the Autists. Little Autists like you are in libraries. No, because they're in like, Octavian would be in like the toy, The, the train section. And I was always in the fashion history section and like cultural history. So no one wants to read these political books. They're so boring.

That's the thing is I'm pretty sure. I mean, sure. That one school had 14 copies of one of those books, but I just don't think they're in that much circulation. You know, I think that these are what the librarians are excited about. They're not what the readers are excited about. The readers are excited about romance novels.

This shows up when you can see how often they're checked out. You know, in the old days, you could see. I'll buy the romance novels. That is what the young girls are after. [00:24:00] They're poor. Now, now here's the thing is, is I did read yaoi manga when I was a kid, but it didn't. Explain to the audience what yaoi is.

We have some older listeners. Yaoi is man on man romances. Let's say that again, man on man. Romances is what Yowie is. Yuri is girl on girl. And Yowie is very popular among young women in the United States. And maybe it's a little more of a deep cut among weebs, but in Japan, there are entire Yowie conventions.

A lot of people argue that much of a deep cut in the United States. Lots of girls who read Yowie. And so there's, yeah, there's a lot of theories as to why women like yaoi. For example, it's kind of nice to enjoy like romantic and sexual scenarios that don't involve. like female bodies or female objectification.

And you don't have to kind of like put yourself in there. You could just kind of enjoy men. So anyway, like I enjoyed, like, I, I would say that there's some materials that people, that conservatives would get [00:25:00] their panties in a bunch about or did you just enjoy the story? Oh, that was just so sweet.

Like, no, like I get I would read. Girl, boy romances too. And sometimes be like, wait, you and I watched part of that. Remember the ice skating anime? Oh yeah. Come on. Like anyone can watch that and be like, Oh my God. You know, like it's, it's great. And like, the thing, the thing is like for me, fan service and anime does nothing for me.

You know, like the jiggling boobs, it's just. So like, imagine, you know, any, I'm sure like male fan service doesn't really do anything for you when you're watching anime. So, you know, imagine if it was just all female fan service for you and cute romances, you know, I, I think that that's, that would probably maybe be more appealing.

Disney made a, a yaoi recently. The mermaid one. The gay mermaids. Yeah. Luca. Yeah. But it was, it wasn't that good. Compare Luca. Compare Luca to the ice skating anime. Yeah. I mean there was chemistry [00:26:00] in the ice skating anime. Oh my God. And this is one of the things that we're like, you know, you're talking about what young girls actually like, and we mentioned this in a recent episode.

Where everyone was like, no, young girls like buff muscly men. And I'm like, then you have no young girl friends. Like you, you must have not actually talked to a, a, a late teenage girl, early twenties girl, because if you at all engage with these communities, they do not, they, they like their Yowie. They like their.

You know, they're Legolas, they like their Well, but I also want to emphasize, you know, there are these books that like are supposed to instruct men on how to masturbate to other men, as you described with that one book. What are teens actually reading? Teens are totally watching men go down on each other, whatever, like whatever men do.

I'm sorry, I'm rusty. But it is, it is yaoi, you know, it is, it is, it is very different stuff. I think that you're right. And I actually really want to elevate this because you mentioned this earlier in this [00:27:00] particular podcast, but I think this is really true. Focus on the culture war where it is actually being won and happening.

Focus on the points of conversion. Yeah. Focus on why the radicalization happens. Fund them. Nobody's even using them anymore. Well, that's what I'm saying. Take the funding that used to go to school libraries. Bring back shop class, but like the modern version of it, right? Teach people how to fix things, teach people how to cook, teach people how to do their own laundry.

So bring back home, bring back shop class, call it adulting. Okay. I just, please. I love calling it adulting. So people are like, Oh, that's sexist. You brought back home at adulting, but yeah. Oh, even if it wasn't like, if you really like, if that's too offensive for people, just teach teens how to prepare tax returns and have that be their first job.

Imagine that, right? But here's what I would say, Simone. Okay. What people are missing is at the same time as you shouldn't be focused on the FALSE truth. Areas of operation, i. e. whether it's gendered bathrooms or [00:28:00] whether it is Libraries, you need to be focused on where they're actually getting your kids.

Yes Yes, and that is fanfiction communities is one of the biggest Fanfiction communities you need to pay attention to this if you aren't paying attention to the battle happening in fanfiction communities Then you aren't paying attention to To how your daughter is going to be indoctrinated. Yeah, you don't know where your kids are being radicalized.

Yeah, because you're thinking, oh, it's that nerdy, innocent place. And I would say that there's a long history of nerdy, innocent places being demonized. For example Dungeons and Dragons was caught up in the panic, the satanic panic of the 80s. And that was totally misguided. But this is one of those places where it actually is a real source of radicalization that parents need to look at.

And you're absolutely right. But, but you win this by winning the fight in the community, by creating alternate iterations of this community. So for example, If you approach something like the Satanic Panic by banning Dungeons and [00:29:00] Dragons, then what you ensure is that your kids are secretly going to Dungeons and Dragons events.

No. And it totally backfires. You have no say over in that are antagonistic to your perspective. Yeah. What, the way you win the Satanic Panic, the way you win the fanfiction wars, is to create alternate communities that are copacetic with your worldviews. If you created the Christian the, what's the word I'm looking for?

Dungeons and Dragons club, then your kids are protected. In fact one of our friends who lives in our local community does this, he runs, he's a dungeon master for a group that a lot of his employees go to, but also his young kids go to. Who are like, you know, I think like eight through 16 or something.

And they have a blast at it. And kids are not as repelled by doing things with their parents as you would think, if you engage with earnesty in the activities that they enjoy. And this can be reading their latest fan fiction and stuff like this. [00:30:00] And it's a good way to educate your kids to help them learn better language.

Right. You know, Getting kids to engage creatively in things that they're not shamed for and that you can engage them on is a great way. You're like, Oh, you want this to win the local fan fiction competition? Like I'll help you as this, et cetera, right? Like this is how you win. When you ban this stuff, that's where you lose.

Or when you focus on battles, if you're out there, like I bet you so many of these parents. Yeah. Right. Who are like fighting, like to get this, like book instructing on play show and stuff like that out of school libraries. If you ask them yet, when was the last time your kid went to the school library, they'd be like, I don't know, like maybe once a year, maybe not at all.

Maybe as part of a class. I don't know. So why are you expending time fighting this? It's performative. It's part of a social hierarchy battle more than it's about actually trying to make things better. And yet it makes the entire Republican movement look bad when we should just be. Not funding these libraries and focusing on the community [00:31:00] institutions.

As Simone says, the community libraries that already exist. Yeah, well, I think the other important thing that cannot be understated is addressing policies that allow schools to be places where once the, the radicalization has begun, they, they bring it up from 10 to 100 by affirming That and by, by legitimizing it.

Remember there's that story how, when I was a kid I just like innocently said at one point that I was going to marry my best friend and we're going to have a hundred cats and we were going to live in an RV. And my school decided that I had just come out as a lesbian and had a call with my parents and had a call with like, there was a whole, all these meetings because they basically made it a thing and.

I, I just, I mean, they didn't like have a meeting about how I wanted to have a hundred cats. Like I, this was how [00:32:00] unserious, I mean, I, I was, I guess like, I was just like, I don't know, I just assumed I was gonna be a lesbian because everyone around me was a lesbian. Like all my kids, all my friends' parents were lesbian couples.

So I just figured like it didn't really matter what gen matter matter what gender you married, and I didn't know what it was. But I think that, that, that is something that is happening at schools is kids are saying, you know, doing things like being a Tom girl. And rather than just being like, Oh, she's a Tom girl, rather than being like, Oh, Simone is, says she's going to marry her best friend and have a hundred cats.

They're like, Oh, but there's nothing you can do about that. The whole bureaucracy is corrupted. Okay. There's nothing you can do without taking down the school system. There are laws. There are laws that, I mean, Tim Walz, so close to launching right now. We've been doing all the final polishes. It's getting so nice.

I really just want the product that hits the shelves. To be something that people can be proud of. And I feel like we're there, we're waiting for the final ad to be made. It might actually go live before this episode does, [00:33:00] but so if it does, you know, check it out. Yeah, well, you might throw the promo video in here.

Sadly, we're still a few days away from the promo video being done. , but. We probably are going to have the first final draft done today.

, which is exciting. Although for any who can't wait here is the first 15 seconds of the promo. Frankly, we're terrified to send our kids into the legacy school system. To that end, my wife and I built the Collins Institute, a comprehensive interactive map, or skill tree, comprising all of human knowledge. The platform is designed to be usable as soon as a student gets comfortable with reading, and goes about midway through a PhD in most subjects.

If you, if you want to go to the end, yeah, it could be kind of fun, but yeah, I'm just saying like there, there are actually state laws. There is actually legislation in place that can empower teachers to not tell parents as kids start to go through the process of transitioning. And I think that addressing those Is important if parents are at least informed, it doesn't matter how radicalized teachers are, parents can then have, [00:34:00] have conversations with their children and at least have a part in the de radicalization process.

You know, of course there are like plenty of bits about how like, you know, conservative parents hear that their daughter has decided to transition. And so then they decide to transition to and start making fun of it. And the daughter like chooses to not, you know, Cause it's not cool anymore. Cause now dad's dressing like a girl and affirming her.

And she doesn't like that. Cause now it's not cool anymore. It's like, I'm just saying. Yes, I understand your point, and you cannot undo the progressive nature of many public school teachers that said, you can absolutely change the legislation. That makes it hard for parents to intervene when their children start getting radicalized and their culture starts being torn from them and, and they start being converted really heavily.

Don't you agree? No, no, getting to that point. The moment you realize that this is happening, it's usually too late. It's because you found the [00:35:00] hormone pills that they've been taking for the past six months. Those are the way I disagree. I think, you know, if, if teachers. You know, have to report, for example, to parents that their kid is asked to go by a different pronoun or something.

They don't have to report that. Are you saying you want to change the law around that? Right now they're legally mandated to not report that. And that's what I'm saying is, is the laws around protecting that are making it harder for parents to catch things before they go too far. Okay. So change the laws around that.

Yeah. That makes sense. Yeah. Like if, if a parent, the thing is, and I've listened to so many interviews with detransitioners and it never starts immediately as. I am a girl. I am a boy. It starts as I'm they them. I want to try this out, you know. Yeah. And they, they, they start by so commonly it's just being non binary.

Or, or changing to a new nickname and it's just playing around with it and parents can very subtly start having meaningful conversations with their kids about things like body [00:36:00] dysmorphia about their discomfort about, you know, other things going on in their lives. Sometimes the stress that drives people to body dysmorphia.

Or to turning to gender affirming care is because there, there are big problems elsewhere in life. I mean, all of my times when I started doing things to hurt myself when I was an adolescent, like when I started starving myself, it was because of the stress that I experienced at school and school really wasn't working for me.

And the way I dealt with that was by, by serving myself and other kids are dealing with this by trying to change their identity by transitioning. This, these are all areas where parents can start to intervene. So I disagree with you that it's not like, okay, once they've, that once they've started to explore, they, them, they can't go back.

They absolutely can. Yeah. But your, your, your job is like 99 percent harder at that point. Because by telling them to go back, or by getting them to question this in any way, you are now seen as abusive to them. And they then will begin to quarantine any, their, their mind to any ideas that [00:37:00] you are putting in there.

Which is why you need to give them a full understanding of human sexuality before you do. For the school presents an alternate understanding of yeah, and well, and also a full understanding of what transitioning is and what didn't gender affirming care is most of the people coming into this, like, we, we did an episode on Planned Parenthood what.

Young women are being told, for example, before given testosterone is they're having often just two hour consultations with someone at Planned Parenthood where they list very few of the symptoms of transitioning, like two, two symptoms. One being like vaginal dryness, which is like, Oh, who cares? Right. And then they go in and they don't understand.

Now, if you educate your kids well, before puberty about not only puberty and sex ed and all that, but also like, by the way, one thing that people often do at this time, or that more people are doing is they're transitioning. They're taking gender blocking hormones. Here are the impacts, you know, fertility, osteoporosis IQ hit.

Like, here's what happens. It's irreversible. Then they're gonna come into this really [00:38:00] differently because again, what people are being told as kids is it's reversible and that it doesn't cause any problems and that it has all these benefits. Yeah. Well, and I, I show them pictures and video of the surgery in the same way that they used to, you know, they scared our generation out of pregnancy by showing people like videos of pregnancy.

Snacky S'mores presents the miracle of childbirth. Here we can see the water breaking. Eww! Later the contractions are happening closer together. Mom sure is in a lot of pain. We can see the crown of the baby's head, stretching the vaginal walls in ways never before thought possible by mom. Waaaaah! That's right.

I never saw any of those. Oh, yeah. They, they, they did that where I was. Just go through videos of it, you know, and they'll be like, Oh, okay, this is not something. Because a lot of the, what I've heard is the way that they sell the medical transition to people. They don't really explain what's happening.

They like explain it super quickly and in super short euphemisms. And that most of the G [00:39:00] transistors said, like, if I actually understood what was going to happen to my body, I wouldn't have done it. Yeah. Like getting a mastectomy can actually be pretty like, there are two ways to do it. I think in one way you have to have a little ports to like drain the pus or something.

And then another way you try not to, but then it can lead to a lot of bruising and internal bleeding. Yeah. It gets, it gets pretty intense for sure. Horrifying. Love you to decimone. I am so glad that it's funny how it all comes back to anime in the end. It all comes back to anime in the end. Yeah.

You got to make sure you have good manga supplies at these places. Right. That's whatever you're actually heard that that's like the one thing that's still a lot of people read. Oh my gosh. Yeah. Well, and it's, it's just, yeah, physically, although there's so many great apps for it now, too. You know why I think it is?

We have to plug, we have to plug what is it? Dating Advice from the Duke of Hell?

Love Advice yes. Great, like, online comic. So good. Hold on. This is the thing about, like, manga, right? And I, it's actually interesting why I think manga has continued to do well. Mm hmm. Is because it hasn't been [00:40:00] captured. In the same way that the publishing industry has, as we remarked in our other video on the publishing industry right now, most of the publishing industry is just a pet project to the publishers and doesn't make the money they really make money by basically just off of Bibles and back sales which is a shame that it's going to all the rest of this horrible, horrifying stuff.

Right. But anyway, so then they funnel the money from that into Making the industry, but it also means that they're not really focused on like making money in the industry, which means that they're okay with kicking out talented writers if they don't fit their agenda. Right. Which is why all of the teen novels are so boring and by the books these days.

That's why all the stuff coming out of the industry is boring and by the books. And it's why when kids want something that has any degree of intellectual vitality to it, they have to go to non woke markets in the same way that I think that that's why a lot of conservatives watch anime these days is because.

In the United States, the market is so, what's the word here? Well, terrible. Right. Yeah. You know, [00:41:00] you're, you're, you're, if you want to go watch movies or shows, like they're all like wokefied, right? Like they don't even seem to care about making money anymore. It's bizarre almost. But you know, you go to Japan and you can get actually unique ideas that don't have any sort of like ideology that they're trying to push on you.

But it's, it's also the same as fan fiction and that's why people are drawn to fan fiction. It's because it is genuinely when people are pushing ideology through fanfiction, it's an ideology they actually care about instead of this bland corporate iteration of this ideology. Yeah. So it can be used to convey toxic, ultra progressive, ultra urban monoculture ideologies, but it can also be used to convey conservative ideologies.

Yeah. In fact, fanfiction was one of the core ways the EA community got started was the Harry Potter. Oh, yeah. Yeah. The Harry, Harry Potter and the methods of rationality, but so much better than that is, and you can find this on webtoons, although apparently print copy is coming out. It's going to be in Barnes and Noble soon.

So I'm so excited. It's by the, the French author and illustrator unfins, and it is called love advice from the great Duke of hell. I have not stayed up late to read [00:42:00] something like to the point of being sleep deprived. Since I was maybe 13 years old and this, I could not, I could not put it down. It is so freaking like laughing out loud.

It's just so I got you into it, right? I got me into it. Yes, you did. Yeah. Yeah. So good. Anyway, you're welcome. And, and, and in exchange for this amazing graphic novel recommendation audience, please like, and subscribe if you can leave us a five star review on iTunes or wait, I podcasts, I Apple podcasts, Apple podcasts, please, please.

And thank you. Or as our son Octavian would say, please life and describe. It would mean life and describe this. It's very important life and describe otherwise other people won't see it. Mm-Hmm . And don't you want them to also read love advice from the great Duke of hell and maybe listen to us talk.

Alright. Love you to that. I love too gorgeous. What do you want for dinner, by the way? [00:43:00] And I figured we can do a pasta bar for you again, where you have like your pesto. We have mac and cheese. Well, I do B tonight because I've chips and I'm pretty full, so, okay. Maybe we do two pieces of the B. Just two, not all four.

They're little. No, two, two. A lot of bow. Okay, and you can pack the car, I'll steam the bow and you get the kids? Yeah, of course. Okay, I love you, gorgeous. I love you too. He's he's doing a new one called Vampire Family. Ooh, that sounds cute. I know! I need to check it out, I need to see it.

Hello,

Simone! You getting a little distracted there playing drums on a child? Are you beating her? Repeatedly? Well, you know, I beat our children. With rhythm, of course. With rhythm, of course. Yeah, I mean, we gotta get into it, right? You [00:44:00] know, if you don't savor the beating. She's just got the cutest smile on her face.

I just can't. You're going to pick her up and show the camera. You can't not let the audience see. She's fun. And now she'll keep smiling because she likes being beaten. So she doesn't want to smile when she's not being beaten. Yeah. I mean, our, our little masochist, this one, right? Yeah. Anyway,

In this eye-opening discussion, we delve into the controversial history and current practices of Planned Parenthood. From its eugenic origins to modern-day concerns, we explore:

* The shocking founding mission of Planned Parenthood

* Current statistics on abortion rates in minority communities

* Financial controversies and allegations of fraud

* The organization's pivot to gender transition services

* The presence of Planned Parenthood at political conventions

* A vision for reforming Planned Parenthood towards pronatalist goals

* The potential for IVF and genetic testing services

* Critiques of population modeling and fertility projections

Join us for this thought-provoking conversation that challenges common perceptions and proposes unconventional solutions to demographic challenges.

[00:00:00] And we should probably go into that. It's original mission was to genetically cleanse the United States of black people. In 1939, Singer began the Negro project the mission of the Negro Project was to put black doctors and nurses in charge of birth control clinics to reduce the mistrust that black individuals had about Getting sterilized.

So 80 percent of Planned Parenthood's abortion facilities are located in minority communities, even still. Yeah. The one that I used to go to was. Yeah. And if you look right now abortion through Planned Parenthood has reduced the black population in America by 25 percent since abortion was legalized in 1932. They've received 1. 78 billion in taxpayer money between 2019 and 2022. , I think a lot of the people making these donations, I think they receive a lot of support.

Small grassroots nations as well. Believe what I believed. Remember, I grew up in these progressive communities. I attended Planned Parenthood. My mother worked at a Planned Parenthood that, you know, I've come from, I come from a long line of Planned Parenthood supporters, [00:01:00] and we just thought that they were there to support women, just to help women plan families right now the Democratic National Convention is taking place

and Planned Parenthood is present. Offering abortion pills and vasectomies. And in there, no, no, no, no, not just offering, offering for free. . I want like afterwards a thing where like, there's two Planned Parenthood guys.

It's like. Driving out from the DNC, pull off their masks. And it's like, just like really Republican superheroes. Like, I can't, I didn't know they turned to each other. I cannot believe that just worked. We just drove up to the DNC with a sterilization ban. He said, free sterilization. And they marched their youth out there.

Bang, bang, bang, bang. Spayed and neutered.

Would you like to know more?

Hello, Simone. Today, we are going to be talking about an organization that I imagine your perspective on has changed pretty dramatically over your political evolution. And that organization is Planned [00:02:00] Parenthood. And I remember the moment where like you and I had like the biggest realization personally around Planned Parenthood was when we were trying to get pregnant.

For the first time, yeah, in 2016. You were really struggling with it. I it was, it was hard, you know, it was like, Oh my God, how are we going to make this happen? Right? And so you, coming out of Prague culture, you're like, Oh, who helps people get pregnant? Planned parenthood, right? Yeah. It's all about planning your parenthood.

Yeah. They're all about, you know, what? When you're going to have kids, when you're not going to have kids, you know, and so we're going to go to Planned Parenthood and they're going to have like services that will help me get pregnant, right? Yeah. Yeah. What did they tell you when you went to them with this?

We, we don't do that. Yeah, they, they told me they don't do that. They, they only really do the, they're a unidirectional pipeline. And this even was something that was [00:03:00] echoed in a recent free press article on Planned Parenthood being the largest provider of testosterone in the United States to trans.

Female to male individuals before we, before we go further with this, I, I want to read a little quote here. So people understand how big it is as a provider of this mind blowing. Here's a quote planned. Parenthood has in less than a decade become the country's leading provider of gender transition hormones for young adults, according to insurance claim data in 2015, around two dozen

of their clinics began offering this service. Now it's available at nearly 450 locations.

Insurance claim information provided to the free press by the Manhattan Institute shows that there are at least 40, 000 patients. Who went to Planned Parenthood for this purpose last year alone, a number that has risen tenfold since 2017 and is continuing to rise. The largest portion, about 40%, were 18 to 22 year olds.

So, when people are like, [00:04:00] Planned Parenthood is like a small player in this stuff, or not a lot is happening here. Just Planned Parenthood does 40, 000 gender transitions a year of young, young people, 18 to 22 year olds. You know, this is horrifying. Horrifying. Well, what's also really horrifying is As is pointed out at the end of this article when one of the women being interviewed for this article who did get assistance and transitioning from Planned Parenthood decided that it was actually really bad for her.

And she wanted to go back to being female and consulted them on, okay, well, this isn't working out like the. The side effects, you know, the symptoms I would, you know, they were only warned about basically two symptoms or something. And in the two hour consultation she got before she was given testosterone to take, which was, you know, obviously profoundly impactful on her body and health.

I think vaginal dryness and one other thing she [00:05:00] was warned about, obviously tons more things happened. She wanted off, she went back to them and said, Hey, this was a lot more complicated than you said. It was going to be, what do I do? They're like, we don't have a protocol for that. I don't know. Which I think shows this, like, Planned Parenthood is kind of a lie.

Yeah, they do the abortions, and they do the birth control, but they don't do the family planning when you actually want to have kids. They do the transitioning out of your birth gender. But they don't help you D transition. And that's, that's where it becomes an inherently and deeply flawed organization, because if it did what I thought growing up as a normal progressive did, which is aid people with the reproductive health and general women's health, that's fantastic.

And sometimes that involves quite frequently that involves birth control, absolutely. They helped me for example, when I was, was, when I was an adolescent choose, which birth control was going to be most effective also [00:06:00] with acne. I loved that. That was so cool, but it was birth control, right? You know, it, it wasn't like if there were instead a fertility boosting drug that would also help me with my acne, I doubt that they would have been the ones to help me out if you know what I mean.

And so I mistakenly thought that they were there for general women's health and for my wellbeing when instead they are a unidirectional. Sterilizing organization. Because of course, what does testosterone do as well? Yeah. Sterilize women. Yeah. What are the puberty blockers do? They sterilize people.

And I should note here Planned Parenthood allows people to get on a gender transition pathway at 18 without parental consent. That's why they see the big flood of people at 18. Well, because in the United States, that is when you reach adulthood and you don't, you're no longer under the care of a guardian.

Yeah. Do you remember how young 18, do you remember like 18, I believe, or I was in the U. S., that was when you could start smoking. I was like not a fully thinking individual. Well, you're not fully myelinated until your mid twenties or so. [00:07:00] Right, no, but I mean the things that mattered to me at that age on my day to day basis.

Oh, kid things, yeah, games, clothes. Were predominantly about fitting in with my peer group. Yeah. And gaining social status was in my peer group and getting ready to get into college. That was it. Like I didn't have like a larger world perspective. Yeah. You're a kid. Very dangerous age to be. Well, and it's wild too, that you can't drink alcohol, but you can fundamentally change your hormonal makeup in a way that's irreversible.

And, interesting as well, Planned Parenthood does not have a minimum age that they start gender transitions. Right. They just have consent for people under, right? One parent. And this is really dangerous when you consider the fact that, you know, kids are going through a divorce or something like that, and one parent can come in and then utilize that to gain control of the kid.

But I'm not gonna, you know, focus too much on the trans stuff in this episode because we do that in other episodes. I will note though, and this is something worth considering when you consider, [00:08:00] okay, Some people who aren't really trans get sort of picked up in the trans troll, but like, it's not that bad.

They can always just do transition, or they can always just go off hormones, or they can always just like, is it really that bad to accidentally transition someone that that is confused? Right? And we know now. You know, if you're looking at the 13 to 23 age range, nine out of 10 based on the study that was done, I believe in 2023 of people who are discontent with their gender and don't transition end up more than nine out of 10 end up completely content with their gender by the age of 30.

20 23. And we know now that people who adopt this trans identity, depending on the study you're looking at, between 40 and 50 percent of them end up committing, unaliving themselves. So it's not like a harmless thing to accidentally push someone into when you look at the rate of self harm within the community.

In fact, I don't think you would consider that like an effective treatment for anything else. If there was a [00:09:00] psychological treatment where it had a 40 percent unaliving oneself rate during treatment, people would be like, Oh, we need to be exploring other options to this treatment. And the really sad thing is, and we'll do a full episode on this, there are other options.

There was a great study done that shows that actually anti psychotics were extremely effective at lowering gender dysphoria. But you like socially were not allowed to consider. And research wise, we're not allowed to consider options that don't include affirming a trans identity, even though we know that this option has this 40 percent unaliving one's self rate, and the anti psychotics mechanism does not.

But that would be seen as, oh, well, you know, it's like, Anyway, we won't over focus on this right now. What I wanted to focus on now is like other issues with Planned Parenthood, because that's not the only issue. So, Planned Parenthood facilities have been accused of financial fraud with taxpayer dollars.

Planned Parenthood affiliates applied for and received 80 million in coronavirus stimulus funds. that [00:10:00] they were ineligible for. They stole from the paycheck protection programs that were created to help small businesses survive the pandemic. So they were using the small business paper, check protection programs.

, And they have had many lawsuits. related to fraudulent Medicare payments. For example, in one lawsuit in Iowa from a former Planned Parenthood director who has evidence of the fraud, they were ordered to pay over a million dollars in restitution to Texas when found guilty of defrauding taxpayers and in California.

A 2004 audit showed Planned Parenthood, San Diego, and Riverside counties received excess payments of various kinds of contraception for 5. 2 million, and that's just to name a few. And what's bizarre to me is that they would even need to commit Medicare fraud in the face of having received so many donations first when Trump came into office.

That was a boon for them. In fact, the free press kind of cites that as one of the major points of their increased radicalization [00:11:00] because they received a ton of more donations from people. And with all this additional support, they did a bunch of hiring and they tended to hire. politically radical people.

So there was kind of, the non profit version of audience capture in this case, where sort of a Trump derangement syndrome subject audience gave them a lot of money and then they had to sort of lean into that audience, which of course is getting them to where they are today, where the, right now the Democratic National Convention is taking place as we're recording this episode.

And Planned Parenthood is present. Not offering t shirts or

pins, but birth control and abortion pills and vasectomies. And in there, no, no, no, no, not just offering, offering for free. I actually love the horror of this. When you go to the DNC national convention, you can get a free vasectomy. Free.

I know, I know. It's insane from a van. Yeah. Tyler Bender was doing a history on YouTube about The lobotomies lobotomies and how like the guy who popularized lobotomies would have these, you [00:12:00] just fill theaters full of people who would watch him do like 15 lobotomies back to back on stage to normalize the procedure because he was so bullish on this.

And this reminds me so much of that, of just like, oh my gosh, bring out the abortion ban. Let's popularize the, the abortions. And it, it's also just sort of ironic at the same time, because. There are like literal sterilization vans outside where all of the Democrats and progressives are like convening.

What, what is going on here? I'm like, sorry, did we order this? Did the, did, like, I know we run the product, but you know, we know it's our Republicans. Yeah, I almost, I almost wanted to turn out that a Republican ordered this. They're like, yeah, we, we, I can't believe that worked. I want like afterwards a thing where like, this would be a great sketch for like the Babylon B where there's two Planned Parenthood guys.

It's like. Driving out from the DNC, pull off their masks. And it's like, just like really Republican superheroes. Like, I can't, I didn't know they turned to each other. I cannot believe that just [00:13:00] worked. We just drove up to the DNC with a sterilization ban. He said, free sterilization. And they marched their youth out there.

Bang, bang, bang, bang. Spayed and neutered. Well, here's the thing is, is that this, Is it, it's coming across as part of the whole raw, raw, like putting, like throwing into the vibes funeral pyre of the democratic party right now. But it is also a fundraising push. They are there and they're present because they're saying Dobbs was terrible.

And you have to protect reproductive rights. We are the reproductive rights. People come get your vasectomy and make sure you donate to us because we're the ones fighting for you. And I think it's really important just to be aware of, of the. back to the pragmatist guide to governance, the incentives and how they're aligned here.

The Planned Parenthood is now in a position where it is, it is very, it has been pulled very, very far from its original mission, which was dubious to start. And we should probably go into that. It's original mission was to [00:14:00] genetically cleanse the United States of black people. It's original mission. Well, it was that in eugenics.

It was, it was also like to sterilize the poor and the, You know, less resource. We can really quickly get to this. Well, yeah, I'll quickly get to this. So let's do it. Yeah. I'm actually reading from a Planned Parenthood website right now. Okay. This is what Planned Parenthood, it says about its own founding.

Archival website or current website as published today. Current website as published today. It's in the about our history section. August, 2024, ladies and gentlemen. Sanger was so intent on her mission to advocate for birth control that she chose to align herself with ideas and organizations that were ableist and white supremacist.

In 1929, she spoke to the Women's Auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan at a rally in New Jersey to promote birth control methods. Singer reversed the 1927 Buck v. Bell decision in which the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that states could forcibly sterilize people deemed unfit without their consent and sometimes without their knowledge.

The acceptance of this [00:15:00] decision by Singer and other thought leaders laid the foundation for tens of thousands of people to be sterilized. against their will. As a result of these choices, the reproductive rights movement in many cases deepened racial injustices in the healthcare system. The field of modern gynecology was founded by J.

Marin Sims, who in the 1800s repeatedly forcibly performed invasive experiments on enslaved black women without anesthesia. In 1939, Singer began what was called the quote unquote Negro project alongside black leaders like W. E. B. Dewitt, Des Bois, Sorry, can you? No, no, no. Go back to butchering it. You know how I love that.

It's like Gomez speaking in French. I don't like foreign languages. Especially French. Polluting my American lips. Imagine you had to kiss lips so they could speak in French.

 Oh, tish. That's [00:16:00] French. Gomez. Okay and Reverend Adam Clayton Powell and, and Mary McBuesa. The mission of the Negro Project was to put black doctors and nurses in charge of birth control clinics to reduce the mistrust that black individuals had about Getting sterilized.

And so this is an important thing to remember, I think, for many black individuals is that they can sometimes think that because the leaders of their communities are endorsing something, that that something is not fundamentally racist and antagonistic to their community's interests. Because there is this like bureaucratic, I call it like, I don't know.

Union boss class was in black culture that has for a long time worked with the racist in the Democratic Party historically, you know, that's the Klan, but, you know, now it's [00:17:00] like other groups in order to undermine the actual Oh, yeah. Isn't there like a, I wouldn't say, not even a detente, but a kind of mutual understanding between a current white supremacist leader and the Nation of Islam leader?

Yeah. Yeah, but that's different. I think that they, in that, in one instance, they actually are on the same side. These are people who are, you know, manipulating black communities into sterilizing themselves for the best interests of people who are trying to Yeah, different groups versus groups that are in favor of apartheid, in which case they're like, yeah, let's just f**k off, you know?

I'll look up for edit if Planned Parenthood does still disproportionately sterilize black communities. But I'm pretty sure they do and in terms of abortions as well. Well, you know, with all this transitioning, I imagine it's a lot of white girls. So we're trying, they're trying to be a little more racially equal here.

Oh, actually, no, hold on. It's actually pretty blatant. So 80 percent of Planned Parenthood's abortion facilities are located in minority communities, [00:18:00] even still. Yeah. The one that I used to go to was. Yeah. And if you look right now abortion through Planned Parenthood has reduced the black population in America by 25 percent since abortion was legalized in 1932.

Oh! Lord! That is, oh my gosh. Wait, so I think what the 8 percent of the United States population is black right now, right? So it would be maybe closer to 6%. Well, at least according to this. But whether it's 6 percent or 8% Could have been a, you know, the percent of American abortions that are black, 34%.

Wow. And remember you were talking about money and everything like that. So in regards to how much Planned Parenthood gets from the federal government, they've received 1. 78 billion in taxpayer money between 2019 and 2022. That makes sense because of Medicaid, because they're providing a lot of primary care adjacent services to people who are on Medicaid.

Because they're in these neighborhoods, these underserved [00:19:00] neighborhoods. And so that makes a lot of sense. This is what I think we need to do. If we get involved in a Trump administration, I want to create a plan that, that takes Planned Parenthood says that, you know, they have. Not followed their, their, their mission as they present it to the public.

I don't know. They think they kind of followed their eugenics mission. Okay. Okay. They didn't follow the mission that I believe they had when I was about one helping, helping parents, right? Planned Parenthood is supposed to be about planning Parenthood, right? And then even in addition to that, actually helping trans people, that means most people who want to transition and people who want to detransition at ages by modern research.

Yeah. I say, we say, We agree with both of those things, but clearly the current board and leadership isn't doing a job. So what we need to do is either by executive order or by lawsuit, replace the existing board. The new board is Buck Angel and Kevin Dolan. Yeah. You know, people who want to have it fit this actual mission.

And the [00:20:00] reason I want to do this is I think so often conservatives end up relating to bureaucracies that get captured like this to be used for nefarious purposes by just retreating, backing out, starting something new that's not corrupted. And then when it becomes successful, it becomes corrupted. Why not just take over one of these existing organizations.

And also just the. That would happen from the individuals who had made all these giant donations to them. That now they're being used to help families and, and minority families. And they'd be like, no, I wanted them sterilized. Well, you know, I think a lot of the people making these donations, I think they receive a lot of support.

Small grassroots nations as well. Believe what I believed. Remember, I grew up in these progressive communities. I attended Planned Parenthood. My mother worked at a Planned Parenthood that, you know, I've come from, I come from a long line of Planned Parenthood supporters, and we just thought that they were there to support women, just to help women plan [00:21:00] families.

My mom wanted to have a kid. You know, ironically, I think one of the reasons why she was in fertile, the doctors had told her she couldn't have kids. And I was kind of a surprise was I think because of, of birth control that she had, that had caused a lot of scar tissue in her fallopian tubes. Birth control.

I don't know. She hasn't gone into that. I don't know if it was like abortions gone wrong or something like that, but yeah, it, it had to do with her. Some, some stuff that had happened. Yeah. So I don't know, but like, anyway, yeah, I just, I think most, most numerically of the people who donate to Planned Parenthood don't understand both its original origins and its current activities.

And, and that's so boring.

So when I think about what an ideal Planned Parenthood would be though I also have to think about modern pronatalism, and one of the big shifts that has happened with pronatalism or demographic collapse in general that we see is largely positive and that is related to this is the fact that one of the key drivers [00:22:00] of a drop in fertility is when women in nations that are developing.

Stop having unwanted teen pregnancies. We're seeing this happening really rapidly. For example, in Latin America, it's not that the intended number of children that women have is lower. It's that fewer unmarried teens who in many ways, aren't ready financially or mentally to have children are not having children and to a great extent.

That's good. You know, we, as prenatalists, as people who love children, Do not want Children to be born to families who are not equipped or ready to take care of them, especially when these families are our families that would love to have Children and that want to have Children and and plan to have the same Possibly even more Children, you know, once they're well resourced enough.

So in my world, an ideal Planned Parenthood. Yes, absolutely helps with birth control and emergency contraception. And, and even abortions through, you know, week 10 to 12 or so, right? Like totally no questions asked. Absolutely. You know, you should only have a baby when you're [00:23:00] really well, really, really welcome, ready to welcome someone into this world.

And then after that. Planned Parenthood should be also a key deliverer of OBGYN care, of, of helping women through their pregnancies. It would be a great place for there to be IVF provided. Imagine, you know, when, when demographic collapse gets far along, and honestly, it'd be better if the United States planned for this proactively, and turned Planned Parenthood into a key source of government funded IVF, which includes PGTP, that is to say pre implantation genetic testing of embryos that allows families to prioritize embryos based on health scores.

Things like cancer risk, things like which would be enormous benefit for the U S health care. Yeah. Even, yeah. Even risk of things like obesity. Think about what the American healthcare system pays. No people both pay privately. For things like cancer treatment, you know, through the nose, the amount of medical debt that Americans are in right now is insane.

Right? So that that could be reduced. And, you know, we live in a socialist country, like we're just alluding to in [00:24:00] many other podcasts people a huge number of people living at or near the poverty line, you have most of their healthcare paid for by the U. S. government. And the U. S. government could save a ton of money.

by proactively investing in families being able to select for genetically better rolls of the dice among their own genetics. So in a way, this is almost kind of true to the original eugenicist vision of Planned Parenthood of like, we want, we want healthy, you know, Americans to be born. And we don't want sterilizing instead of taking people out of the gene pool, you lift them into the general population, the best role of the dice.

Yeah. So it's not saying you don't get to roll. You're out of the game. It's saying, you know what, we're going to load the dice for you. You know, cause you didn't have a good. You, you, your odds weren't great coming in and that's great. Imagine that world. So, okay. So we're switching from a planned parenthood that's systematically planned.

Yes, but anyway, hold on. Hold on. I I also think that like [00:25:00] people forget. How horrific Planned Parenthood got during it's, it's, it's, you know, like it's early years. Yeah, when one in four pregnancies in the United States ended in an abortion where it was treated as like a regular part of and this would have been around your mom's period.

Right. So she might have seen it this way. As a regular form of birth control, equivalent to other forms of birth control. I love it when you call it birth control. It really shouldn't be seen that way. I mean, it should be treated with quite a lot of weight. See our abortion episode, which I don't know if it's gone live yet.

I don't think it has. It has, it's gone live. Yeah. Oh, okay. Last week. Yeah. Time flies. I mean, I think that as the prenatalist movement grows One of the things that we're going to have to become adapt at doing, and I really want to focus on this as a movement because I haven't seen other movements do this well, which is using legal systems and government plays to take over institutions that were created to or were being [00:26:00] used for other means but would work for a pronatalist means instead of, yeah, no, Planned Parenthood, we would be an amazing deliverer of IVF care.

Oh my gosh. And of prenatal care and institution to do something like this. But also also still birth control abortions. Again, I'm not against that. And I want to point out that a world in which abortions were banned. where people did underground abortions. It was a horrific world. You know, this, this was not, you know, in the end, I care about you know, If we have to kill babies, let us kill them with dignity and with pain management and like in the way that you would euthanize any human, you know, like very, very seriously and carefully.

Right. Like if you have a non viable. So, so, so what she's referring to here is if you get a surgery on the baby and you're like a normal mother and you're trying to keep the baby alive after 12 months. After 12 weeks, they use anesthesia on the fetus [00:27:00] because it would be considered inhumane not to.

But when they do abortions after that, they do not use anesthesia. It's not standard practice to use anesthesia. And of course, if you, if you're doing an illegal abortion, there's not even anesthesia from the mother. It's just whatever goes, you know, I mean, maybe it's well done. Maybe it's not. So the thing is, I, I, I think when we need to also kind of look at the government, like, what, Parents look at kids, which is if you ban something outright, like you say, Hey, you know, never do drug or never drink alcohol.

Your kid's going to go out. You don't know where they're going to drink. You know, you don't know who they're going to drink with. It could go pretty bad. If you're more open about that stuff and you're like, yeah, listen, you want, you want a glass of wine, have a glass of wine, whatever, like try it here.

You're able to do it in a more safe environment where there's less damage done. But the point I'm making is it's not just Planned Parenthood was in most countries, there is some sort of. Family planning organization like was in the U. S. government. Like if you wanted to create a pronatalist branch of the U.

S. government, there is already a department for family planning. Yeah. And it is, it would just make a natural sense. The infrastructure is [00:28:00] there. Not just the infrastructure, but the slush funds have already been created. So taking control of that infrastructure and taking control of those slush funds are absolutely critical for quickly achieving pronatalist aims.

I love that. I love that. It's like, okay, so you want to make America prone, more pronatalist. What do you do? And we're like, two words, planned parenthood. It's so subversive, but it makes so much sense. But it's not just things like that. You also see this within the UN, right? So the antinatalists have done this historically.

So things like the UN populations division are really heavily infested with antinatalists. And people who want to do planned rapid reductions of the human population.

But just as those organizations and nefarious individuals have infiltrated those organizations if for example, somebody in our podcast is a [00:29:00] big wig at the UN or something like that. Inserting people like us or people who we can send you who might have less public baggage than us, but are rabid pronatalists.

For example, you want to qualified woman of color who's a rabid pronatalist and has no negative baggage tied to us. We can serve you one on a silver platter. You just let us know what you need and we can give you the next head of the UN Global Population Division. That is not going to keep fudging the data.

I'm gonna put a graph on screen here right now because it horrified me when I saw

it and it came from the human population division. Or from extrapolated from their, their stuff and it shows global fertility rates going up and then going down and then just like stopping. Just stop, stop going down and they just get normal.

Yeah. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Why do you think that's going to happen? This is so common in any form of modeling though. And I had this moment in 2016 when I first started making financial models and I asked a bunch of [00:30:00] professors and other professionals and academics like, okay, so how are these models made?

Because I always used to look at models and really take them seriously and take them. Like for granted, you know, take them at face value. And then I discovered like all the formulas, everything that's going on here. It's just, you know, someone's just fudging it. Like there's just a cell. There's a place where it was like, ah, it's going to increase by I don't know, like 3%.

I was actually listening about the when, when the gold standard was dropped in around the 1930s how Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Would have these breakfast meetings and just be like, let's set the exchange rate to, you know, like, let's set the, the, the value at, you know, 21. Cause you know, 21, seven times three.

And it's like, it's a nice number and they would present it to the American people, like, you know, 21. 32 cents. You know, like just like really specific numbers

Now determining most prudent move for insurance company.[00:31:00]

The and everyone's like, wow, you know, top men are on this, this is top men.

We have top men working on it right now. And we, we, we're being taken care of here. We may be off the gold standard, but everything's going to be okay.

Ladies and gentlemen. And meanwhile, due to bureaucrats in a room nice. Yeah. And that's just how it is. And that's, that's the

Problem with modeling and all these projections is they are. B******t in the end and people can be informed, but there's, I think there's also the issue of the more academics often know about things.

Sometimes and not always. It depends on the field. It seems like the less they are able to predict and model things [00:32:00] because they know too much. They're overthinking things. She's talking about scientific studies that looked at this. She's not giving her own conjecture. Yeah, I'm not giving my own conjecture.

You can see this a little bit in prediction models. There are some exceptions where sometimes large groups of non experts make better predictions than moderate groups of experts, for example. Now that's not always true. Sometimes experts do make better predictions because they know things. It depends on the field, but still, I just feel like with most projections, I now have zero faith and there's a reason why.

 And yeah, I agree with everything you're seeing. It's something I seen. I think this is one of these things in society where the higher you rise, you realize a lot of times where you thought that like competent people who knew what they were doing were doing something and they just weren't, it was just me being like, well, that would be inconvenient if the fertility rate keeps falling, given our objective to, or they just can't have them how it would like, they're just like, you know what I think that, and what makes the most sense is I bet people just start having two kids each.

Yeah, but why? Like, you're like, but why would you think that when all leading [00:33:00] indicators say that? I don't know. It's what I want. It's what most of my friends want. Like, that, again, it's just kind of fudging intuition. And sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Oh my god, we absolutely have forgotten, and we have to do an episode on that article that you read where the girl was like, Oh, well, all of my friends in the city Want two kids and we're old.

Oh, Reagan's article. Yeah. Yeah. Because there's this article and we'll, we'll do a separate episode. That might actually work really well with the Israel discussion that we are about to have. All right, let's do it. I love you to death Simone. It is so wonderful that you are the type of woman who is able to update your views when you realize that the people you thought were good guys are horrifying baby murderers.

Well, I love that. I have the type of husband who is out of the box and creative enough to look at an organization like Planned Parenthood and say, you know what? That's the answer to our prayers. Let's use that to save pronatalism. If any of our followers have institutional. Buy in or power at any institution where you're like, you know what?

We could [00:34:00] actually slot you guys into a position like this or somebody who you recommended to us. Let us know and we will give you the people because we're always a heartbeat away from being fired from our only paying day job Absolutely. I love you Oh, it is sad. I know And we thought we were going to charge for the Collins institute and now we plan to launch it for free Yeah, thanks malcolm, but you're right to do it.

I love you Love you, Tim.

Dive into the shocking reality of affluent youth's mental health crisis. We explore groundbreaking studies revealing higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse among wealthy teenagers compared to their less privileged peers. Uncover the paradox of privilege and its unexpected consequences on mental well-being.

Key points discussed:

* Surprising statistics on mental health issues in affluent communities

* The role of parenting styles and societal expectations in creating these issues

* The concept of "urban monoculture" and its impact on youth development

* Comparison of risk-taking behaviors between affluent and inner-city teens

* The importance of resilience and coping skills in child development

* Celebrity culture and its influence on parenting trends

* The potential dangers of overprotection and lack of real-world experiences

Join us as we challenge common assumptions about wealth and happiness, and explore how traditional values and experiences might be key to raising mentally healthy children in today's complex world.

Would you like to know more?

Hello Simone. Today we're doing another research heavy episode because our audience loves these. I love counterintuitive research and I love. on the urban monoculture the, the, and the, and the tragedy it has created in this society. And the, well, there's

Simone Collins: just something that there shouldn't fraud from specifically luxuriating in the misery of people whose core value is not misery and who fail so badly at it while also dumping on us [00:01:00] constantly.

It's just amazing.

Everything else, every other value that a human could have in the name of

Simone Collins: happiness. And then they're miserable,

not, not happiness, but being able to seek after every biological instinct. They have

Simone Collins: anything

that they think will make them happy. They go pursue it. Anything that they would make them happy to believe about themselves.

They have to have it affirmed. And they say we're monsters for not creating that, that, that cultural structure for our own children. They say, how dare you live the life you want to live. And then. We look at them and they live a life of horror, even when they're successful, even when they achieve everything they want.

It's still a life of existential horror. And that makes me so, I, I would be so hard to live in a world where you, the people who are unjustly oppressing you are living great lives. Yeah. Like, I, I, I, I don't know if, like, God worked this out for [00:02:00] us or whatever, but yeah. So this is something I decided to dig into after I noticed in a study when we were, like, looking for other people.

Causes of fertility collapse, blah, blah, blah. And I noticed in one study that it showed that the demographic of young people who had the highest rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse were in families of over 120, 000 of average income, which is right. And you see this too.

Simone Collins: Like you're going to be hard pressed to find a Spoonie, which in other words is a like hypochondriac internet denizen, like the modern version of a hypochondriac, they are pretty much upper middle class young women again.

Yeah.

So, we're going to go over a few studies on this and then discuss hypotheses around what could be causing this. Okay. Let's do it. The first study here is called. Children of the Affluent. Challenges to well being. And this came out in 2005. So affluent youth showed higher rates of substance use, anxiety, and depression [00:03:00] when compared to their inner city counterparts and national norms.

By 7th grade, some affluent students exhibited clinically significant depressive symptoms and substance abuse behavior. This was particularly pronounced in affluent girls where these symptoms were twice as high as in normative samples. So literally 200 percent higher in the affluent cohort.

Simone Collins: And, and, you know, of course, these are people with parents who assumed that because they had more money, their children would be better off and so many parents or would be parents thought that.

Don't have money or put off having kids because they think I need more money before I have kids. Meanwhile.

, in one cohort suburban affluent teens reported significantly higher use of cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, and hard drugs than their inner city counterparts. So the suburban teens are doing more hard drugs than the inner city teens.

Simone Collins: I went to on the island where I grew up outside [00:04:00] San Francisco, Alameda there was the rich side high school and there was the less rich side high school. And the joke was that we always. We sold the drugs. And Sunil high school sold the drugs to Alameda high school.

It's funny. You mentioned that I'll continue because I, I went to boarding school.

Yeah, long story. I'd been basically kicked out of my family. I hadn't, I hadn't lived with my family after the age of 13. I lived off of a education trust. One of my ancestors set up at boarding school. And. at a boarding school. So I wasn't like living there because I had everything. I was living there because I had nowhere else to go.

I didn't go home over the summers either, really. So, I, I, it wasn't one of the best boarding schools. Okay. Enough throat clearing, get to the story. But it was known, like, I remember that at one point I was going to be sleeping with like an Andover girl and like my roommate in the same way, when like, You so people who I don't know, Andover is like the best.

It's like the [00:05:00] Princeton of boarding schools. Okay. In the same way that you had some of your friends when you were moving to Texas and they were like, watch out, like you're going to get shot if you move to Texas, like they have guns there. Like they were like genuinely afraid for you. And, and he was like.

You know, make sure she doesn't offer you hard drugs, like, like genuinely concerned for me, you know, and this is somebody who even like did drugs, but like, you know, and over and over is a different thing into the hardship, like heroin and cocaine and like, you know, she's like, you should probably get her tested if you're going to sleep with her, you know, like you're imagining them like sharing needles and stuff and like, this is just, this Well, but I

Simone Collins: thought there was something to it.

Like that the kids at my high school, yeah, we're actually known for selling the drugs, but not really necessarily for doing them. And that the kids from the wealthier high school who were known for buying them maybe had more problems in many ways. And I feel like a lot of tropes and jokes. You know, they're funny because they are surprising, but they make sense.

And there's something to that. I think that's part [00:06:00] of this dynamic here of wealthier kids also kind of having the money and the leisure and the ennui necessary for drug use. If you know what I

mean? Oh, they're so ennui. They're so ennui. I always call it the what was the woman from Great Gatsby's name?

Daisy. Daisy the daisy effect and I dated. Some girls like this because my mom wanted me to marry an heiress, right? And she's like marianne eris marianne eris marianne eris. She goes the easiest way to get rich is to marry rich It'll be the easiest money you've made in your entire life.

Simone Collins: She's right.

She's right.

Yeah I tried it. Their level of ennui was too much for me. When they didn't come from, you know, my cultural group of my cultural group is small. And, you know, there weren't many what I'm saying here is my nieces and nephews grew up very wealthy. I've seen this they do not have this ennui.

Yeah, isn't that interesting? But it is, they have not fallen to the urban monoculture. And as such, you know, they still have a level of cultural expectation and hardship in their life that keeps them very virile. In a way that [00:07:00] the, these other girls who I dated who came from these groups didn't have as much.

Resistance, vitalistic, vitalistic, virile, whatever you want to call it. I mean, they have a lot of like human life energy to them in a way that I just didn't see in the young rich girls who I tried dating,

Which was always a problem for me. That's why you know, it's too bad. And I actually think you, you point out something really clear.

If you talk about like hard drug use, when I think about like the scenes that I was aware of as a teen. You really only saw it in the ultra affluent group and in the ultra poor group who were like upper lower class, lower middle class, middle and middle class didn't really touch the stuff. And I think it was because they had seen members of their family fall to like the lower class status and or

Simone Collins: they just didn't have the excess cash for it.

You do need to have cash. If you're going to get, if you're going to buy these things as a kid. You have cash and you have time. And the thing is like, you [00:08:00] know, the, the, the kids who worked to get their money didn't have time necessarily to just sort of like blitz out and the. Yeah, the kids who couldn't even get jobs to have money

to buy anything.

So what are you going to do? Okay, so let's continue here. Yeah. Suburban girls were three times more likely to report clinically significant levels of depression than the normative sample.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Check this out. Three

times more likely. Yeah. About 20 percent of affluent youth showed persistently high substance use throughout high school along with depression and anxiety and academic problems.

Simone Collins: Oh.

And for this study, the first one we're looking at here the reasons that were cited were academic pressures, children with high perfectionist strivings and those who felt their parents overemphasized achievements showed higher rates of depression, anxiety and substance use. Okay. I don't believe that one effing second.

I believe that's what they told researchers. But if you [00:09:00] think that people from other demographic groups are not pushed hard, I was pushed extremely hard as a kid. Not, not actively pushed. It was more just like, well, we expect you to achieve this because that's who you are. If you achieve any less than we'll never talk to you again.

And I had already been pushed out of the house. Like they were serious about this. Okay. And my family was like, make this work or you're gone. They're like, remember how you haven't been allowed home since you were 13? I'm like, Oh yeah, I, I get that this thread is real. Like the disowning thing is not a, and other people in another video, they've been like, I've never heard of this, like disowning tradition.

It's a real tradition. We mentioned it in another video. And it is a tradition that is implemented for people who see it as cruel. It comes from families who have high clan based structures where like family really matters, blood is stricter than water is something I heard. Yeah, but also successful family.

But low rates of nepotism. It's how they prevent nepotism i. e. the promotion of people who are otherwise incompetent. And it's also how they prevent inter clan warfare. Well, the only way you can have

Simone Collins: [00:10:00] meritocracy within a family clan is by getting rid of people. You have to just get rid of people. Mm hmm.

Mm hmm.

Yeah. And so, no, it's not that they were being pushed too hard. It's just that that was the just so story the kids came up with to explain their whininess. And then two, isolation from adults, both literal, being left alone, and emotional isolation from parents were linked to distress or substance abuse.

So if they didn't show this statistically, and I'm pretty sure that Well, no, no, no, I think there's

Simone Collins: something here. Mm hmm. And I think a lot of it has to do with affluent parents being more likely to be really like concerned about safety and more controlling, but in that way of like, you can't go out, you can't like, you know, a lot of I would say, I will say lower class, less resourced parents are like, you know, go out, what play in the neighborhood.

I don't care. Play in the streets. Whereas more high maintenance, more. Middle class parents are like, no, stay inside, like study, work with your tutor. And that can be very isolating. And that is, you know, we, we [00:11:00] complain, you know, people blame phones for. Kids, mental health, not thriving. But I think the bigger issue is that kids aren't allowed to go outside.

Ultra wealthy friend groups. So we hang out with like a lot of billionaire class people and we hang out with their, their infants and their toddlers and they act very different from ours. I don't know how much of this is what you're talking about. How much of this is genetic? But they, are very timid compared to our kids.

And we do things that our kids, that they would consider bordering on child abuse in terms of how much freedom the

Simone Collins: internet's very open about the way that they think. But also when I see any post, for example, by ballerina farms, where just shows their kids out. In the fields or something, there will be 15 comments on this is child abuse.

This is child endangerment. They could be kicked by a cow. They could fall into the water channel. Like [00:12:00] you, you don't understand just how egregious the standards are among, especially moderately affluent middle class parents and safety. And so I do think that they are socially isolated and they're socially isolated because of out of control standard.

Around parenting and child safety, quote unquote for children. So anyway, I just want to say that

that is a really interesting point. And I want to elevate part of it here because it's something that I remember from my childhood. That I haven't seen in other families and even you struggle with this a bit is I remember on multiple occasions Somebody said something like this to my parents because we were very free range II as kids Oh, yeah,

Simone Collins: and you guys were described as like the Addams family and you get it Ponds and almost dying so I know that your parents were hands off that we fell into ponds We drove four wheelers into ponds.

Oh yeah, we, well, yeah, I mean, I, yeah, I drove a four wheel. I had major crashes you know, stitches, everything like that. In, [00:13:00] in,

Simone Collins: in, in one

instance when I was around Octavian's age, so this would have happened when I was five.

Simone Collins: Okay.

So yeah, around Octavian's age. When the

Simone Collins: hornet stings, the bee stings.

Oh yeah,

I had to go to the hospital for that once. That was a totally separate thing. We went over at Ground Nos Nest and then we were revving the four wheeler engine on it. I spent my weekends on a ranch, okay? But this is different. This was in the town. So we had a a three story mansion in Highland Park and it was covered in ivy.

Simone Collins: And Highland Park was, it's the Beverly Hills of Dallas. Yeah.

Yes, it's a nice area. Very, very large. Who owned it actually? I think it was the Cox's who owned it and they were like lending it to us or something. Anyway I, at a five year old, and now as an adult I realize like why our neighbors like seriously had problems with this.

I apparently used to like to climb the ivy on the outside of the house to the third floor. Of course you did. Imagine if you, you go, you're driving through a wealthy neighborhood and you're looking at one of the mansions and on the [00:14:00] outside there's a little five year old clinging to I. O. I. You know

Simone Collins: for a second that Titan would do that.

She would. Her daughter climbs anything she could possibly think to climb. She would climb curtains if we had them in our house.

Oh my god. I, I actually now as an adult, when I understand how genuinely young I was and how genuinely like horrifying that was. I actually think that's pretty funny. I was genuinely, but the point I mean here is my parents at various times throughout my childhood made it clear that death was an option for us.

What I mean by that as is family said, and other various points when they were criticizing my parents, if you let them do this, they might die. And they said. Well, they deserve it if they die. And it was, it was, you can totally see my mom saying stuff like that, right? Like, well, like if there were being idiots, dumb enough to

Simone Collins: die doing that.

Oh my

God. And I [00:15:00] have noticed that I have that mindset with our kids a little bit, you know, it's like, are they better off, right? Being in this ultra protectionist mindset. In terms of their adult outcomes or adding because with everything you do, you're adding some probability of death. You're always valuing a human life no matter what you do.

You know, when you decide to put up, you know, guardrails on a highway, you're trying to price, okay, how sturdy these need to be because they could always be made sturdier, right? They could always be made with more cushion at a certain point. You just need to be like the harm or the don't let it go. And I was raised to believe that that equation should be very much on the side of If a kid is not allowed to be put in a position where they could kill themselves, then they are going to grow up without the skills they need to survive.

To not kill themselves.

Simone Collins: Well, yeah, yeah, yeah. And also they're, they're more likely to. Probably do dangerous stuff in the future. [00:16:00] Yeah, I mean, I will say, I want to point out though for the audience just actually how concerned you are with our children's safety to the point where literally you don't want to go on family vacations from this point onward in which everyone flies together because you are too concerned about everyone possibly dying.

So,

That's me concerned about everyone dying at once, to be clear. That's a little different. But you, I want to be clear here, I am concerned with their safety when it's a variable risk. The plane flight doesn't gain them an experience that is critical to their adult experience. And this is something where I look at something like these parents who are like, well, with the additional kids you have, you won't be able to take your other kids on vacations.

And it's like, Is the vacation really going to augment their adult identity significantly? No. Am I risking their life for something that doesn't have any real impact on their adult identity? No. But when I think about other things, like taking them into the woods, right? Like, do I feel if I never let my kids [00:17:00] go and play in the woods by our house, supervised, of course that I would be putting them at risk.

And people would be like, why are you scared of your kids? Supervised playing in the woods because I love 4 1 1 files.

Simone Collins: And they always start with family goes on an innocent hike in the woods. Five year old runs five yards out of view. Five year old is never seen again.

So this last weekend I was playing with our kids in the wood.

Actually we were playing by a Creek and we were throwing things in the river and then seeing how far we can get up one side of the Creek and how far the other. And I got three kids to take care of. Right. So I'm always. More focused on the younger two than I am on the older one who's about to turn five.

And so this older one he Disappeared And I had lost my phone that day somewhere when we were playing with the kids I think one of them might have yanked it and gone to play with it. They love pickpocketing and stuff like that. They're very uh, I gotta post a video here in this video of just how mischievous Titan is.

Oh boy. Yeah. For a sign of mischievousness. Like this is not something she learned. Where we clearly

Simone Collins: established that something is not nice to [00:18:00] do. And she's like, Oh great. Let me do this in abundance and then do it again.

Just, oh, no, you made a mess, you made a mess! Titan! Why? No! Titan,

Are you bringing some back to me now? Oh, oh, oh, what?! You are monstrous! You pretended you were bringing some back to me?

You gotta see to see how much you'll punish me. Right. You know, so anyway. Octavian, gone, gone.

I was going to get Titan because she'd fallen over in the creek, and then I go back and Octavian is gone, and I am running up and down the creek. I am panicking. I am reflecting on all the 411 stories. The next day, the Wall Street Journal is coming to our house, and one of the thoughts I have is, Oh my God, are we going to be doing like a child search with like the police and like everything like that?

Like I read in all the 411 stories while the Wall Street Journal is here with us about one of our kids going missing in the woods. [00:19:00] But it turned out that he just decided he didn't want to be with us. So he, he, he walked home on his own. Yeah,

Simone Collins: and started asking me for food and he comes to me inside.

I'm with, I'm with Indy, our infant. And he's like, I told daddy I was going to go home and here I am smirk. Can I have an apple? And yeah, little did I know you were eating

apples while I'm having a panic attack. So, you know, there's downsides to this. I do worry for my kids and I do understand that there is risk in taking them to play in the Creek to play in the woods, but let's bring this back though, because what

Simone Collins: we're arguing is that this is a very unusual sentiment among.

Middle class parents right now in, in developed nations. And that is a problem for the wellbeing, the mental wellbeing of their children, as is reflected by the general misery of wealthier children right now.

So let's get to the next study, the price of affluence. This was talking about new research shows that privileged teens may be more self centered and depressed than ever before.

This [00:20:00] was in 2009. And this showed that adolescents from homes where the average income was 120, 000 or higher reported higher rates of depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. One in four students in recent generations showed elevated rates of narcissism compared to only one in seven in 1985.

Simone Collins: And again, can you blame them when all you're allowed to do is sit at home on your phone and then watch the channels and Instagram accounts and TikTok accounts of people who are also very narcissistic?

Yeah, well, in here this is from the American Psychological Association

yeah, it is more reporting on the first study. Okay. But they report on it in different ways. So let's see what they have to say here. Oh, they also appear to have a really high lack of resilience where they have really big troubles coping with disappointment or failure. Now, of course. Urban monoculture says this is due to high expectations. In [00:21:00] reality, it's due to we never martially punish our kids. You know, Oh we now know from the research, i.

e. The 2023 paper that did the meta study and actually match the data sets that it turns out that marshal punishment of kids, corporal discipline that it leads to actually higher outcomes when you don't say that any kid who wasn't disciplined is in the. So just so people understand, because we've talked about this before, but it's probably important to.

Reiterate here. A lot of papers came out in the eighties trying to argue that corporal discipline was bad. But the way they did their sample sizes, sample sets, they did enormous sample sizes. So no one would question. But then they say any kid who wasn't corporally punished within the non corporal punishment category and any kid who was, was, was out matching for families.

Which means that if you were a family where one of your kids needed to be disciplined and the other ones didn't need to be disciplined, i. e. you had some boys and some girls, because often girls don't require this they would have put the boys in the corporal discipline category, the girls in the non [00:22:00] corporal discipline category, and then say, well, you see, clearly, corporal discipline is causing more behavioral problems.

When, No, that's not the case. And when you correct for this, you actually find it's useful. And like anyone should have known this, hiding somebody from any negative stimuli as they grow up is going to hypersensitize them to negative stimuli and going to lead to things like trigger warnings, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But I want to hear your thoughts here.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think that plus sheltering people from general hardship. Is going to cause this. I think we're also seeing this in things like grade inflation, where literally, even when you've completely failed to Excel in an area, you're not allowed to receive that negative feedback.

The, the removal of standardized testing or, or SAT testing in some areas, just we're like, we, we can't show you when you're doing wrong. And then the moment life happens to you and inevitably you. fail at something, which is the only way you're going to start getting good at something or start moving forward.

I mean, you can't do anything [00:23:00] ambitious. Like we say, success is built upon a mountain of failures. So you're, you're dooming people when you don't teach them that failure is part of succeeding, a core part of succeeding, and that it is both okay and a sign that you're pushing yourself enough to actually get somewhere.

Well, yeah. And they don't let the kids really suffer or learn their own boundaries or anything like that. You know, you've pointed this out was play behavior where play behavior in children. Is about learning boundaries, you know, and when you remove that, especially if you teach them that the core boundary center is the authority, right?

You teach them to always make appeals to authorities when their boundaries are breached, right? So instead of pushing back themselves, they appeal to the Twitter mob. They appeal to CVS. Somebody pushed my boundaries. It was a CVS incubator. 37 percent of kids in America now have CVS problems. People are just spamming because people don't have, and I think a lot of this came downstream of when [00:24:00] schools started to go this pathway where it was like, when a kid's being bad, tell the teacher.

Yeah.

Simone Collins: Appeal to authority. Yes.

Appeal to authority. Always. All violations of individual boundaries are fixed by appeals to authority, which of course is one, not a mentally healthy way to do things, learning how to handle things yourself. The quote from my mom that I mentioned in other episodes, I remember when I, when I You know, teacher was praising me for having told on another student after she pulls me aside and she goes, what are you snitches get stitches.

We say this with our kids as well. When they tell on their siblings, she's like, what are you a narc? Like that's what you're like, but you didn't mean picked on. And she's like, that's what you're But I get in trouble and she's like, well, that's honorable. You know, the fix things yourself. Don't go to an arbitrary authority.

And it's the cultures that we're able to maintain this mindset that I think are going to get through this particular period of fertility collapse because the appeal to authority also allows you to off load. Responsibility to authority. And I also now think, [00:25:00] I'm just now going over all these stories from my childhood and I was like, wow, I really was given maybe even, maybe even I need to push myself to let my kids do more because it might just be that I'm starting from a culture that was much more like do your own thing.

And I remember one incident where I locked Miles in the bathroom for an entire day and nobody found out. What? That's awful. That is awful. Yeah, we must have been like five and six at that. No, no, four and five range or five and six range. Yeah.

Simone Collins: No, we're not doing that with our kids, but I, I get what

you're

Simone Collins: saying.

They just weren't paying attention. They were just like,

Simone Collins: yeah, no, I mean the, like, you know, I've told you of the various times when I've wandered off as a kid and then, you know, come back and like their police search teams coming together for me and like, Explain this story

when you disappeared and you had no idea.

Well, it

Simone Collins: happened a couple of times. Once we were camping in Death Valley in [00:26:00] California, which is a very, a very hot desert. And I decided to just, you know, wander further from the campsite than my parents expected and take, you know, normally they'd let me disappear for like an hour. And this time I disappeared for two or three.

And then I came back and they, you know, were putting together a search party for me, you know, when, meanwhile, I'd just been going around meeting people at different campsites. And another time when I was babysitting an infant, I decided to take the infant for a very long walk in a stroller during the babysitting session because it's what made the baby stop crying.

And I come home and there is a search party being formed for me. This was before the age of cell phones, of course, when no one could know where your kid was. But yeah, I mean, I would sometimes take But yeah, my parents, my parents let me at the age of 13 spend a month working abroad. are volunteering abroad at a hostel in Mexico in a, in a mixed gender adult hostel, one bedroom, just like, you know, rows of beds.

I did similar

things when I was God, I must've [00:27:00] been 14 or 15 at the time I did hitchhiking through central America. Yeah. As an adult, I now realize that was very dangerous. That is an insane thing. I

Simone Collins: don't think I would let a 13 year old girl. Being an adult makes gender hostile in Mexico. So yeah, I would say that there are some things that we were allowed to do.

But this is a problem. Are we, are we just starting from a further point? Yeah, are we being,

Simone Collins: are we being cucks right now? Do we need to just I think

we're being cucks. The comments can let us know.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Are we being cucks by the month? I'm in guys. Also, please like and subscribe and if you do happen to have an iPhone, If you could leave us a five star review on Apple podcasts, it would mean a lot to us because no one has iPhones anymore, apparently.

And also like, we just

don't know. It's because our audience, sorry, I don't want to crap on iPhone users right before I say don't.

Simone Collins: iPhones are very pretty and they have great cameras. And I think a lot of very competent people have iPhones. Many very [00:28:00] competent people have iPhones. Is this a Good Samaritan joke?

What do you mean Good Samaritan?

Who should wander by but a Samaritan of all people? And he actually helped the man. No. I mean, this is what I'm saying. That a Samaritan, alright, so have a good think about your attitudes, went and helped.

 Because what I'm saying is that he was a good Samaritan. That's good. Samaritan, if you could imagine such a thing. Yes! Yes, I can! I know there's a lot of prejudice against Samaritans, which is terrible, but I'm sure I speak for everyone in this room when I say that there are loads of really nice Samaritans.

Yeah, some of my best friends are Samaritans. So what I'm finding offensive, Is your unreflecting acceptance of this cliché that all Samaritans are w*****s?

 No, I'm saying that goodness comes in unexpected places. Yeah, and I'm saying that the fact that you wouldn't expect goodness from a Samaritan betrays your inherent racism. I didn't [00:29:00] realize there were any all Samaritan sympathizers, you know, Sammy lovers. Oh, I didn't realise it was such a PC environment here, and at the end of the day, it is only a parable.

What, it didn't really happen? Well, of course not. A Samaritan tosser wouldn't do that for his own grandmother.

 That's a fantastic one. But what are they going to say here? So, so people might be wondering, like, why are we talking about like the urban monoculture? It's the urban monoculture people. We talk about the urban monoculture is this culture that is dominant in urban centers around the world right now.

It's a fairly new cultural group. It attracts people with a promise of no pain, no suffering, just come to us and you can do whatever you want, whenever you want and be affirmed for believing whatever you want to believe about yourself. And obviously this has. Massive negative psychological consequences.

And it's, it's, it's Sentinels. It's preacher cast as the modern psycho, psychology movement. Which, other episodes we talk about this. You can go into our arguments. I was trained in psychology. I know what I'm talking about. Everything they're doing [00:30:00] now is stuff we were trained 2000s. Because it could cause dependence.

They are essentially creating dependency. You go to a psychologist today. What you are getting is closer to what historically you would have got in a Scientology Theaton reading than you would have gotten in a, in a psychologist reading. They are trying to implant trauma. That said, that's not all psychologists.

Some are still okay, but most are part of this. That these, this group, this urban monoculture has penetrated wealthy culture more. And it's penetrated non wealthy culture. And the same way the Scientologists go after the celebrities first, the urban monoculture went after the celebrities first. If you look for an example.

And I would,

Simone Collins: well, and I would, I think we need to argue and point out that one of the primary vectors for indoctrination is universities. And most, you know, most people who are making [00:31:00] upper middle class incomes have gone through the university system, essentially having gone through cult indoctrination at this point.

I agree with that, but I'd argue it's also a portion of targeting as well. So, if you look at like celebrities, I saw a thing recently, there's looking at just how many celebrity children are trans. And it's like, Really? Like an insane amount. It's an insane amount. Yeah! Come to

Simone Collins: think of it, it is really weird.

I wondered if it was just a selection thing, because

No, no, no. They're, they're, they're convincing their kid because they see it as a status symbol.

So they are, because within the urban monoculture, being trans, especially having trans children and being okay with it, is a huge status symbol.

See, see these celebrities, what they used to try to do within the urban monoculture, they try to raise their status by adopting black kids, right?

Everyone remembers that. fad. And then it turned out they were basically stealing children from like non consenting families in Africa. And everyone then was [00:32:00] like, you know, it's actually pretty racist what you're doing. Like, honestly. And so then, Oh no, high and dry. How can I value signal with my children?

How can I show I'm the best in the besties? Well, I can chop their genitals off. That works. Um, So now they're all trying. And if you're like, no, some of their kids are likely Transcribed In multiple families, you'll have an instance where they'll have like three adopted kids and all of them have come out of trans.

It's like, or, or three biologically,

it's like, just wouldn't happen.

Simone Collins: That's like

impossible by the statistics. You would, unless it was a social contagion, you would not get three trans people into the same family, okay? People, like, you must see this, right? Like, you're not stupid, are you? Or are you stupid?

Are you stupid and you can't see that it is surprising that all the celebrities are doing this, and that yes, trans people might actually exist, but that doesn't mean that people aren't using a trans [00:33:00] identity for nefarious purposes instead of signaling, and that these kids aren't gonna suffer from this.

Oh, they don't suffer from this, it's not a big deal. Oh yeah, except trans people have a penis. 40 percent to 50%, depending on the study you're looking at, rate of unaliving themselves. You are taking that kid and you're saying, here's a coin, flip it. You get to decide if you die.

So just for a quick list of some celebrities with trans kids. Dwayne Wade, Naomi, want share Jamie Lee Curtis, Cynthia Nixon, Marilyn widens. Charlie's Thurone uh, Charlie Theron. A really horrific case. She adopted two black kids and immediately transitioned one of them. Uh, at the age of three. Uh, so, you know, obviously. Uh, this was not the kid's choice.

If you have raised kids, you understand that at the age of three kids do not understand the concept of gender fully. Uh, one of our kids is five and I say that's when they reliably seem to understand gender as a [00:34:00] concept. , but, , pre four, no, it would be really rare for a kid to understand. Fully the concept of gender irregularly.

Get people's pronouns, right. The next we have, I also got that adopted these kids and going for double signaling points. So gross. Uh, we have Heather Debrow here. We have a net binning. We have carob. Peyton. We have Jennifer Lopez. We have Cindy bar shop. We have Bossi Phillips. I've got another long list here, but you guys don't really care. , I will say that one to be, The, the one where it's the three kids together. , that is Megan Fox.

However, she just dresses all her boys as girls, but she doesn't, she still calls them by male pronouns. And, I don't know. I mean, clearly she's doing it for the points. It would be very rare for three boys to happen to all just coincidentally prefer dressing as women. , so I don't know, I don't know what's going on there, but. Yikes. , when you consider that underlying oneself rate, when you acculturate a person into [00:35:00] this.

Sorry, it's not, it's not that cool.

It's not that cool. Not that cool. Not that cool. But what about you, Simone? What do you think of this urban monoculture of anxiety and depression? We've talked about All the time, the stat. I love it. CD, C. Just a few years ago, one in four girls created a plan to unlive themselves on any given year. Over one and 10 kids in high school is attempting unli themselves every year.

Simone Collins: I would love to see more research on how specifically children subject to, we'll say, real trauma are doing mentally. So remember there was that one, I think they were looking at kids in Norway or Sweden or something like that maybe the Netherlands who had either reported having childhood trauma versus reported having no childhood trauma and then how they were mentally doing.

And then they looked at whether or not there were court records implying they had real trauma. And it turned out that the correlation in terms of like being a mentally healthy person [00:36:00] today didn't have to do with real trauma. It had to do with perceived trauma. And what I'd love to look at is do children who suffer from constrained resources in the United States, who suffer from hardship, who have reported Like actual problems in their lives.

Do they have better rates when we're looking at suicidality, when we're looking at drug use, when we're looking at substance abuse in general or depression then those who come from. Affluent non traumatic, technically speaking backgrounds because I'm very curious to see it. I was so intrigued by the mindset and the baby boom following World War 2, where all these people had these incredibly traumatic experiences, a very difficult time.

Tons of deprivation. I mean, first you had the depression, then you had a world war and then people come home and it is a fifties and everyone is having babies and everyone's building companies and everyone's buying everything. You know, they just [00:37:00] like, wow, you know, everything exploded and it was a very optimistic time culturally as well.

I am wondering. I mean, yes and no, I guess, but like what I want to know is what's going on among those who actually have it hard. So if we know that those who have it, quote unquote, good from a resource perspective are doing really poorly are what's going on with those who aren't doing so well, resource wise.

Are they better

off? I mean, yes, that's objectively what the studies are showing, but the point I wanted to make here. Okay. And I think that this is interesting. And I always think that one reason there is the urban monoculture hasn't pierced their culture as much. Everything here is a lot of this is around girls.

Okay. And I think this is a unique psychological phenomenon that occurs within young women that needs to be better studied and understood if only real researchers still existed. But the phenomenon I think works like [00:38:00] this. When men go through puberty, they desire to F. It overtakes them, it's like somebody got you addicted with drugs without your permission.

Obviously, it differs depending on your culture and genetics and everything like that, but, you know, that's the way it felt for me. Now, women, very different, okay? They don't have this desire for sex in the same way. They have more a desire for Affirmation and to be cared for and to be protected. Right. But the problem is, would you agree with that or would you say that I'm

Simone Collins: Yeah.

Yeah. To be, to be treasured and trust over and sought after. Yeah.

Well, unfortunately you know, we live in a society today. Where historically, this fussed over protected mindset in part came because women lived in real positions of one personal danger and sort of [00:39:00] subservience to men, and they were often in environments where people were able to any way Offer them a form of real protection,

Offer them a form of real comfort, you know, like a blanket, right?

But today they don't have those things and they're, they're in this ultra individualist mindset because of our existing culture. And because of that, especially the ones that have a no real problems in their lives. I think that women was a little bit of a non hardship men do okay, but when you get a little bit of hardship women's brains go haywire.

Look at the effect on a man and a woman's mind. Into the mind of a man. See how tidily stored. Now see the same thing on a woman. At first we see a similar result. But now look. Still at a reasonably low level her brain suddenly overloads.

 She becomes frantically and absurdly deranged. Look at these venomous harridans. [00:40:00] They went to university. Hard to believe they're all under 25. Especially this young youth women because they begin to look for Instinctually, what's my hardship and who's going to leave it? And if they don't have a hardship, they invent a hardship.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Think about it. Maybe I have gender dysphoria or maybe I have an auto immune disorder and they become spoonies and you know, maybe, maybe,

maybe my parents are too harsh on me or maybe society pushes me or maybe it's the patriarchy or maybe when you invent a hardship, the problem with invented hardships is they don't have solutions.

Simone Collins: No

one can protect you for a hardship. That's only in your own brain.

Simone Collins: Well, and certainly that's self, self imposed. And what's even worse is that now the present therapy culture seems to only really average, of course, there are still great therapists out there, I'm sure, but create codependence with a therapist [00:41:00] and sort of cause you to dig into this trauma, to identify with it.

You get codependent, you get a viable

stream of income. That's an annuity. A girl who you can build dependence on, you bring a young girl there, you fix her, you're like, Hey, honestly, these things don't really matter. No, no, no, you don't want to tell the You want to tell them, Oh, you're traumatized and your parents did it.

Honestly. So if they try to keep you from seeing me, they're abusive. And you know, it's, it's a good strategy. It's a good strategy for reliable source of income. It's only all rational actors, but it messes up these young girls. Because they have never been in an environment like this from an evolutionary perspective.

And so they create simulated hardship for themselves that is worse than the real hardship they would have experienced historically. And I see this so much, you know, when I talk to Queen Anne, for example, like people just don't understand how hard people had it until fairly recently. Who's Queen Anne?

Queen of England. Queen Anne. Oh, oh, oh, 12. No, I think it was [00:42:00] 16. 16. Miscarriages.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

All miscarriages. One was a kid who died when he was in his early teens, like 12 or something like that. She had the best healthcare anyone in her world could have. She had the best support network, the best living accommodations, the best.

And yet her wife was demonstrably more traumatizing than the life of human living in the miserable. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe that's the bottom 5 percent of the U S population. But with our social services in this country, not

Simone Collins: really.

And so this is the thing, like, we under appreciate just how bad people had it, historically speaking.

Oh my god, one of the ones I remember, I think it was one of the King Louis, it was one of the King Louis's. He had an anal infection.

Simone Collins: Louis XIV, anal fissures.

Anal fissures where it was so [00:43:00] bad and it was constantly infected because you know, they couldn't do anything about it back then, that his feces came out through a different hole in his butt that had rotted through higher in his sphincter.

I

Simone Collins: didn't know that. That didn't sound right.

Yeah, yeah. It was a separate hole had rotted through is my understanding due to necrosis.

Simone Collins: Near, yeah, near the end for Louis XIV, yeah, it had gotten really, really, really, really, really, really bad.

He lived a life, despite being the most privileged person of his time, constant pain that almost No, Kittenhammer the Athenist, his later years

Simone Collins: as well, was an intense pain.

He had gout, right? No, the injuries he sustained from hunting, like there was Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, it got infected, it was just, yeah, just terrible. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They stink. Yeah.

Oh, I remember working at the Smithsonian. I worked with skulls of like pre limited ancestors. And one of the skulls was like covered in little pot marks.

And it was because a fungus had eaten the person's face away to their skull and was [00:44:00] starting to eat away the skull. And they lived like this for decades. The level of pain people experienced on a historic basis, their quality of life. And yet they We're able to intergenerationally sacrifice themselves to create a better world for you.

Simone Collins: For

these young girls who, for their simulated fantasies, have created these depressions and hardships. It's Well, they don't They're not doing it intentionally, obviously.

Simone Collins: They're not trying to be ungrateful. Obviously that we haven't evolved to live in a world with this level of affluence, with this level of not needing to strive and try to survive.

That's, that's it. We're not meant for this. And so we need to build cultures and lifestyles that don't put us in these very dangerous situations. I,

You know, I feel like these, these people, these days they're, the urban monoculture is not as [00:45:00] tempting. To our kids, if it wasn't our generation, I'll tell you that.

Um Well, we're seeing

Simone Collins: that with Gen Alpha, for sure. They see

They're like, this is not working. Yeah. It turns out, doing whatever would give you pleasure whenever you want to, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's pleasure, and then affirming whatever you want to believe about yourself, does not create positive mental health outcomes.

Avoiding all negative stimuli. through trigger warnings, through a lack of corporal punishments, through a lack of that causes people to be ultra sensitive to any minor negative stimuli and then create feedback loops. Oh, this should have been obvious. Yeah, it should have been obvious. You. Um, Sorry. I realized this for a long time.

Like even when I was studying psychology in college, which was my, you know, I studied neuroscience predominantly, but you have to study a lot of psychology that no neuroscience um, the direction of all of this was beginning to become obvious. I remember I kept seeing things in society. I kept [00:46:00] seeing things that people, psychologists were telling them and was like, but you shouldn't be doing that.

Right. Like, you know, you shouldn't be doing that. This, it came over the edge actually at Stanford business school. I went to this class called touchy feely. And it was a cult. There is a class at Stanford business school that is an active cult and it's still running, isn't it? Yeah, I went into it and I as somebody who both studied neuroscience psychology knew what you weren't supposed to do in psychology, but also was really interested in studying cult tactics.

I was like, Oh, sleep deprivation, humiliation, forcing people to rank each other, forcing people to look into each other's eyes, long uninterrupted, uninterrupted periods where you're kind of Force interrupted periods where you're forced to give like self monologues searching for individual trauma This is like not like maybe it's a cult It is like to the letter a cult and one of my favorite things [00:47:00] that I tell this to people Yeah, but you've got to remember people who went through touchy feely make up a lot of the board of the stanford business school And I know very few people who went through it who don't one donate to the school because of their experiences in it And two sales one of the most fun experiences of their lives in terms of shaping who they are today And I was like, ooh It's not actually convincing me it's not a cult either, buddy.

But, but, but, these are smart people. And I was like, yeah, but it turns out that cults actually disproportionately work on smart people. I know this, having, when I was younger, having studied brainwashing techniques, and very, very interested in brainwashing techniques. I wasn't as moral as I was, and I am now, when I was younger.

I didn't understand. That's part of the urban monoculture. It's like, if it feels good, it's good. Right? Okay. Great. Brainwashing techniques don't really work very well with stupid people because they can't hold the mimetic architecture. Cause what a brainwashing technique really is. I think that if you see this, where

Simone Collins: you really see this is with Karl Pilkington, where he just doesn't fall for so many.

Pieces of [00:48:00] b******t that that are even part of the urban monoculture. And one of the reasons why he's so fun to watch and why his commentary is so great is that he sees through even sort of the cultish tactics of modern society. And it's like, wait, why would we want to do this? Why this is, this is really dumb.

I'm not into this. I don't want to be here. One of

my favorite favorites of his was some guy in Africa who was super rich was trying to show off how great he was to Carl Pilkington, the helicopter guy. Helicopter to show him the city and the estate and then they land and Carl Pilkington goes Couldn't we have just looked at like a gps or a picture?

Like why didn't we do that? And the guy was so distraught and downtrodden That he just couldn't impress this guy. But it's true. Karl Pugin didn't want anything more than what he has. He's like And

Simone Collins: to your point, all the weird mental gymnastics that take place with cult indoctrination and societal indoctrination just don't work on him.

Because [00:49:00] he's He's just, he thinks too simply. He's, he's of another, another ilk. A god like ilk. I love him so much. Oh my god, he's so wise. He's great,

yeah. , he's clearly just not affected by social pressure in the same way that other people are, and it leads him to say things that sound insane to other people.

Oh, oh, we can end the show with our little buddy?

Simone Collins: Oh yeah, can you get the kids? I can interview Octavian.

Octavian, do you like playing in the woods?

Yes. What did you learn about playing in the woods this weekend? With daddy.

Simone Collins: Is it okay to run away from daddy in the woods?

Yes, but then I was telling daddy that I will not do that again, I promise. I won't go in the forest again, and then he just got me a kiss. Yeah, and then you got a kiss. And, and I have a question, Octavian.

What? Are, are there monsters in the woods? Yes, they are. Are they scary monsters? I understand [00:50:00] monster stories now. I understand why the witches live in the woods. And they are, and they are fast and they can kill you. Kill me easily. Yeah. . Yes. Thank you. I was explaining 'cause we have wolves around our property.

Big ones. I've seen them too. They're Oh, we're, we're

Simone Collins: about to take a vacation to a place where there are bears and we have sea bears and they're very large bears .

Yeah. Oh my gosh. They're so scary, right?

Simone Collins: Yeah.

So you remember very well.

Simone Collins: Do not walk away from us when we're outside. Okay, Octavian? Now Malcolm, will you go pick up the kids? Octavian do you think that kids with a lot of money or kids with a little bit of money are more happy?

Kids with a lot of money.

Simone Collins: Why would kids with a lot of money be more happy, Octavian?

Because

Simone Collins: Maybe they're not more happy, Octavian. Do you think that money might make you unhappy?

It will make me a lot happier [00:51:00] and excited.

Simone Collins: Why would money make you a lot happier and excited, Octavian?

Because if I have money, I'll be much happier.

Simone Collins: Why will money make you happier, Octavian?

Because.

Simone Collins: Because thumbs up.

Octavian, what makes kids happy?

My Do you like money? Titan! Hi! I like a lot of money. Well, I do like a lot of money. You like a lot of money, but Torsten doesn't like a lot of money. Yes. What does Torsten like? I will buy everything I like. And what will you do with all the things you buy? What would you buy first if you had all the money in the world?

I will buy everything I want in this entire world so I can play.

Simone Collins: And will you be happy with those things? Cause you don't play with your toys that much.

Yeah. You don't really play with your toys. You mostly play with [00:52:00] boxes. What if you had a lot of money, but you could never play with a box again? Yeah.

I ain't gonna play with it. I like playing with boxes only. Would you choose money or boxes? He chose boxes over toys. He said boxes over toys. Yeah, so boxes are more important than money, right? Yeah, well if I play with toys, they'll be pretty boring. Pretty boring, okay, yeah. So what if you could have a lot of money, but you couldn't go play at the creek?

Would you rather play at the creek or have a lot of money? Let's do both. No, you can't do both, you have to choose. Would you like to play at the creek or have lots of toys? Both. I'm just gonna do money right now. Right? ? What about, what about, what about the boat? Would you rather have a lot of money to play with the inflatable boat?

Boat. That's so big.

You wanna go to the creek right now, Tracy?

Okay, hold on, hold on, hold on. Why don't you say, would you rather have lots of money or [00:53:00] go to the creek? I just want to go at the creek. Okay, Toasty, do you want money or do you want rocks? Torsen, Torsen, Torsen. Toasty? Hi, do you want money or do you want rocks? I want to go at the creek. Oh, he wants to go at the creek.

I'll take

Simone Collins: you to the creek, my friend.

Titan, Titan, do you want money or do you want baby deer? He's, he's so mad right now.

Simone Collins: Yeah, he's so mad. But you see, my kids love the creek. They even know it's dangerous.

Titan, do you want money or do you want baby deer?

Simone Collins: She wants baby deer. Are you sure you want baby deer more than money?

Kick, kick your kick to me out of here!

Simone Collins: All right, Michael, I'm gonna come down. I love you. I

love you. Give thumbs up, guys! Thumbs up! Thumbs up and subscribe! Right? Please subscribe. Like and subscribe. Like and

Simone Collins: [00:54:00] subscribe. Like and

subscribe.

Join Malcolm and Simone Collins as they challenge popular misconceptions about race, IQ, and success. This thought-provoking discussion dives deep into the complex relationship between genetics, culture, and achievement, offering surprising insights that challenge both progressive and conservative narratives. Key topics include:

* The truth about Asian-American academic success

* Debunking the myth of significant racial IQ differences

* The impact of immigration and cultural factors on group success

* How class, rather than race, influences genetic advantages

* The role of Confucianism in creativity and innovation

* Why some immigrant groups outperform others

* The fallacy of attributing success solely to individual effort

Whether you're interested in genetics, sociology, or the complex factors behind group achievement, this video offers a nuanced and data-driven perspective that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of human potential.

[00:00:00] Hello, Simone! Today we are going to be doing a stats heavy episode. Ooh. It's an intensive episode. Yes! It's one of those really fun episodes where I read something that a racist person wrote or somebody who seemed to have a racial agenda.

Okay. And While I think that the person, you know, has some bias in their thoughts, I was like, this is why it's important that we don't ban people like this from talking. Okay. Because they will sometimes see things that somebody who is presenting and looking at the world from a non reasoning point of view will never ever ever see.

And that is really important.

Simone Collins: This is Well, but if you say this to a mainstream progressive, you have already basically just said, don't you think we should genocide all the Palestinians? I mean, you have just said something incredibly offensive because there's this perception that even being, even sharing oxygen with a racist is somehow an unforgivable act.

So this is excuse me, [00:01:00] but I don't know that

this person, they just, they're Seem to not love east asian immigrants and they didn't like that the beltway conservatives liked east asian immigrants And I like east asian immigrants. I really have genuinely no problem with east asian immigration into the united states and I I don't even understand even if you were biased about east asian immigrants Like you must anyway, we'll get to this later in the in the piece Okay but they noticed something that I have never seen anyone notice before and I was like, oh my gosh Like this is true.

This is in the data You

Simone Collins: Okay. Wow.

Comes to the subject of low East Asian fertility rates might be either persistently cultural post immigration or genetic. And in this episode, we're going to talk about the genetics of low fertility rates and why East Asians might have at a genetic level, a lower like biological desire to breed with somebody.

[00:02:00] Whoa. And there is actually a good explanation for why they might.

Simone Collins: In

historical data.

Simone Collins: That, that, so this whole like Kiki Gomori thing, this is people in Japan who just don't leave their houses and the vegetarian men of Japan, the men who sort of just never choose to date or have partners. This could just be partially genetically driven, that these are, these aren't just tropes that happened out of nowhere.

There was a.

Yes. And due to a specific and intergenerational practice that was done in all of the East Asian countries for hundreds of years.

Simone Collins: Infanticide? What?

Well, arranged marriages. Very strict arranged marriages. We'll get to it. But it makes sense when you think about it for five seconds.

You're like, oh yeah, they didn't have to have a biological urge to find a partner. They were matched with a partner. Well,

Simone Collins: or the biological urges to have partners. didn't correlate as highly with fertility or with with having kids and passing on your genes as they do in other societies.

And what's very interesting is if you look at East [00:03:00] Asian populations, And then you look at the East Asian populations that are Abrahamic in their faith.

They have really good fertility rates. Would you like to know more?

. So if you look at studies of fertility rates the heredity of fertility rates appears to be around 20 to 40 percent.

This is if you look at identical twin studies where identical twins are raised in separate families So we already know that there is some biological drive to have kids which ends up affecting fertility rates And you can also look at studies that look at age of a first child Which is really well studied in identical twin studies and again 20 to 40 percent.

So it is Fairly genetic. Okay. It's not as genetic as something like IQ or height, but it is fairly genetic.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Meaningful.

Now first let's talk about the culture of East Asian countries. Okay. So here I am going to put on screen graphs that are looking at two questions. Sorry. I should point out to the audience because the audience may not know this going into this.

I just assume that everyone knows this [00:04:00] East Asian countries. If you control for wealth, generally the wealthier country gets the lower fertility rate gets when you control for wealth. They have the worst fertility rates of anywhere in the world by astronomical amounts. Like they are. off a cliff, they would, if they were an animal, like if you, if you considered them an animal groups, like Koreans, for example, would be considered a critically endangered species.

Well, and wouldn't you

Simone Collins: say that in terms of the, the countries on our watch list for experiencing fundamental structural concerns in the near future due to demographic collapse include China and South Korea before anyone else.

Yeah. Yeah. So, so like it matters. You need to pay attention to these falling fertility rates.

This is a part of the core key of the question of falling fertility rates. Now culturally speaking, we're going to look at first here. This, this is a percent study within a cultural group. And then it was ranking countries, many point to family and children [00:05:00] as sources of meaning in life.

So it ranked countries here. If you look at the top of this wrist, Australia, New Zealand, Greece, U. S. I. These are countries that are actually pretty high in terms of their fertility rate. When contrasted was what you would expect to give in their wealth. Okay. So children are a source of meaning in my life.

Those countries. You want to see who's at the very bottom of this list? Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. They just don't see children as sources of meaning in life at higher, as higher rate as other countries. So, okay, culturally, that's why you would see that.

Simone Collins: Alright,

let's look at another graph here.

Relatively few mention their romantic partners as a source of meaning in life, okay? So who considers their romantic partners, their source of meaning in life? Those countries at the top of the list, like the USA and Netherlands, two countries that have unusually high fertility rates given their wealth.

At the bottom of the list, the four bottom countries. Again, in order, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan. So culturally speaking, they just do not see children or their [00:06:00] significant others as key parts of their meaning in life. I'd actually ask you, Simone, if you were like rankings, like your meanings in life, How high would you say like I and the kids are?

Simone Collins: Oh, you guys are number one at this point. You weren't when I was a kid, you know, before I met you. But for me,

you are so obviously number one, like the kids, then you, then my mission, like

Simone Collins: that happens to people after they have those things.

Yeah, it could be downstream of this. So we'll see.

Simone Collins: Kids were like number thousand, like the thousandth thing on my list before I met you.

You know what I mean? I really didn't want kids. Before I met you. So,

 Actually started thinking about this more as could this be the explanation of why some cultures seem more resistant to the impact increasing wealth has on fertility rates. , and. It really checks out. When I think about it, for example, Jewish groups are uniquely resistant to. [00:07:00] Prosperity induce fertility clots. And Jewish communities also put a really high in FISAs. On their children and their spouses in terms of meaning in their lives. In addition to that, I was also thinking about music.

Cause you know, I lived in Korea. I consume a lot of Korean music. I really like K-pop. I can think of only one Korean song. That is about a person's children. , or about a relationship between a child and their parents. , and that is actually a funny, Uh, Lee enough, Okay, bye. Sigh, the guy who did gung them style. And it's. I got it from my daddy. , which is interesting because the song is actually done in English. Psych grew up in the U S and his form of K-pop is more popular in the United States than it is in Korea. Yes. I know people might be surprised about this, but getting them saw it was not the hit in Korea, that it was in the United States. , it's not considered like classic [00:08:00] K-pop. , also interesting here. If I think about like my own cultural group, the greater Appalachian cultural group and the type of art that we produced, you know, often classic country music. Country music has tons and tons and tons of songs about how great a persons. Wife is or how great their children are.

, and how important kids are. In the last episode, we played a clip from. The episode about like what matters in life? It's a song called by dirt. Find the one you can't live without Get a ring, let your knee hit the ground And add a few limbs to your family tree

And in it, you know, they're saying one of the key things that matters in life. Uh, if not the key thing that matters in life is one is who you marry. And your children, that's like the key point of the song or another one that I really like, , lady, which I'll play a clip from here.

I hope you love your mama . you'll see close to perfect patience.

If you watch every, look at her, [00:09:00] baby girl, in your How to be a lady.

Okay. Well, this piece was written by a futurist, right? The sub stack. And it was titled East Asian extinction level. Fertility is genetic and beltway. Conservatives are traitors. His fighting words there. I actually really liked this guy's writing when I was going through this.

I was just like, this is really creative stuff. The analysis was well done. He didn't lie with data. I really hate when people do that to fit an agenda. And yeah. Just, just cool stuff. I just disagree with him on like America is worse off for having a large population of East Asian immigrants.

I don't believe that at all. Like there are some areas where I'd be like, yeah, maybe we should think again about immigrants from these areas. But like, I'd literally take all of Hong Kong when like China went in to take them. I'm like, let's screw Hong, let's screw China over, take everyone in Hong Kong was over X amount of money as an immigrant.

I do not mind high skill immigrants at all. All right, so let's check in on the [00:10:00] fertility of U. S. born East Asians, Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, weighted for respective populations within the U. S. and compare them to the figure of that same weighted population back home. Then let's compare it to U. S. born white fertility.

So the U. S. born East Asian fertility is 1. 38, and here he's only counting East Asian as China, Japanese, and Korean. But that's generally what people mean when they say East Asia. So 1. 38 versus 1. 197 if they had stayed at home. So we often say this is a great thing, like I've always been like, I assumed that it was like American culture was affecting them, and it was increasing their fertility rate, okay?

Yeah, exactly.

Simone Collins: We would cite stats that South Korean fertility rates went up when South Koreans moved to the United States, which is notable because most immigrant groups fertility drops after they immigrate to the United States.

Yeah, well, they're from a higher fertility culture. Yeah. Yes. In Koreans, for a period at least, it jumped about 50 percent up.

But that may have been an illusion, and I'll [00:11:00] explain where the illusion came from. Yeah, interesting. And it's also gone down from that 50 percent up number in more recent samples. Wow, okay. Interesting. So, so right here, he's not talking about modern fertility rates. By the way, these are, these numbers are all higher than modern fertility rates, but this is just a sample set he had.

Okay. So the U S born white fertility is 1. 89. All right. So here you're contrasting. And this is, that's why I don't understand. Why does he care about an immigrant group with such a lower fertility rate than our own? Like they're just going to disappear anyway. Like,

Simone Collins: yeah,

I don't, I don't

Simone Collins: mean about it.

Yeah. You don't need to be mean about it, bro. Okay. So he goes, ouch. East Asians are clearly passing on more of their anti natalist culture than we thought. 1. 38 versus a 1. 9 7. We've done some good work in defeating it, but there's clearly more work to be done. Like, this is what you would think, right? Like, okay, well, we've helped defeat a little bit of their antinatalist culture when they moved here, but not totally.

Well, here comes some [00:12:00] uncomfortable stats I had forgotten about.

Simone Collins: Oh no.

I'm going to put on screen here that famous OkCupid chart that I am so glad someone at OkCupid ran with their giant, giant data size from back when we for whatever reason, somebody thought it was okay to post, like, ethnic breakdowns of message and reply rates.

And I Times were different. As a human race, we are so, so, so lucky to have this data, okay? East Asian women prefer white men to Asian men in terms of reply rates in messages. On okcupid. This isn't like rating or anything like this is the actual yeah, just looking at who's getting back.

Simone Collins: Yep

And this is I think the only place in the entire chart where a group preferred another ethnic group over their own which is actually kind of wild.

Um, What's up with that? By the way, East Asian females, they also preferred Middle Eastern men and Native [00:13:00] American men to Asian men. Huh. So, oh, wait, no, hold on. They also preferred other and only less Pacific Islanders. So, I actually suspect this might be due to the incredibly strict gender roles was in Asian culture.

And Asian women just not wanting to live that lifestyle.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

And they may have you know, prejudices because you see this in Korea. Like, I know, like, I know. personally, Korean women who have moved out of Korea just to marry people from white people, to be honest. And it wasn't because they had like white fever or something.

They're just like, well, you know, on average, I'll have a more gender equal relationship if I do this. And you see this in statistics on, for example, Korean culture that women handle like Way more of the housework, way more of the house maintenance, even though they're still expected to provide the predominant amount of childcare and work a job.

Like it's just a raw deal they're getting. And this is, I mean, [00:14:00] unfortunately a cultural thing. When you have other cultural options in this way, you can almost sort of see white culture as victimizing East Asian culture. Because I mean, there are a cultural hypothesis about how they can make society work, but it's a cultural hypothesis that stops working in an open dating market.

Right. Ouch. And also keep in mind that then there's a secondary thing here. So suppose an East Asian woman does want to take on all of these roles, right? Like um, they want to be subservient. They want to do the majority of the housework and they want to do the majority of the child work.

Simone Collins: Okay.

In a mixed ethnic group if you're thinking about arbitrage opportunities, these women would actually be better off going after white men.

Gosh, you know what? You're right.

Simone Collins: Because the white

men will value all of these sacrifices from the white man's perspective that they're making, that the East Asian men wouldn't sacrifice. To an East [00:15:00] Asian man, they might be just like, yeah, you're doing your job to the, the white man. Oh my God, a woman who's doing housework.

So, so they can, and I've actually seen this in San Francisco where there is the common practice. of the upper mid east Asian woman getting the extremely wealthy white tech bro. I'd actually say that that's the like most common Silicon Valley marriage structure. Because the, the tech bro is just like endlessly thankful that there is any gender dynamic, like dimorphic behavior at all.

Because they're so not used to it in the culture that they're used to this, like far lefty urban monoculture mindset. But what, do you have thoughts here or

Simone Collins: No, I, I have seen what you are talking about, and I'm sure most people watching can think of examples.

And I also want to, just looking at this chart, we'll do this in another episode, but like, we need to talk about like, because the left has [00:16:00] stolen the Black American identity to use for all of its like identity politics nonsense, it makes up ways they're discriminated against.

Which then hide the ways that they actually are discriminated against and that would easily pierce a public mindset if you just showed them the data that like we're not supposed to show them. If you look at Black female or Black males in this graph, it makes your heart break. No one is replying to them.

If you look at Yeah, that's what I

Simone Collins: also remember from those particular OkCupid surveys. Was, they're not surveys, but studies. I just like, but especially how screwed you are if you're a black woman.

So sadness of this, like if you look at this chart, like women of like all other ethnic groups are like, I never replied to anyone.

And then black women, like a green across the board, you messaged me. Somebody messaged me! They, they are like as green as male reply rates. Actually, I think [00:17:00] more green than male reply rates is how screwed they get. Which is well, also you, this is another group. I misspoke here. It appears black females also they literally respond to black male messages less than any other group.

They are more willing to respond to male messages from any group more than black males. Ooh, that is not good. Oh goodness gracious. Does not say a lot about gender relations within that community. And then black male response rates across the board are just like, oof, anyway but we can also look at out out marriage rates.

So Pew research did a research of this and 54 percent of Asian immigrants marry someone of another ethnic groups. So, here, I'm just gonna read a quote here. Among Asian newlyweds, these gender differences exist for both immigrants, 15 percent men, 31 percent women, and US born 38 percent men, 54 percent women. So it's, it's more likely that an East Asian woman marries out much more likely, like more than double more likely [00:18:00] in, in, in one case.

than a man who marries somebody of a different ethnicity. And while the gender gap among Asian immigrants has remained relatively stable, the gap among the U. S. born has widened substantially since 1980, when the intermarriage rate stood at 46%. , And now it's around 49 percent among East Asian women.

So, you can see again, losing their culture here, which, which is sad. I mean, they're creating a new culture, right? I don't think that like the culture has disappeared, but it's going to be a hybrid white East Asian culture, which may be more resistant. It may be that they needed this, this cultural infusion to survive due to fertility rates.

I don't know, but I mean, that's what we're seeing here. No, by the way, speaking of American Asian marriages, J. D. Vance Oh yeah. That's not East Asian. That's South Asian. Yeah. South Asian.

Simone Collins: But still, I, I was more thinking Priscilla Chan. Mm.

Good [00:19:00] example there. All right. So here's the thing that absolutely floored me.

So okay, now you've got to consider that a lot of these people are going to be influenced by who they married, right? So you can't just look at them as if having like normal Asian fertility rates, right? You need to say, okay, let's look at this, right? So I'm going to read the, the, the line here and this shocked me.

, so what the guy did is he said, okay, so we know that. 54 percent are marrying people of a different cultural group, predominantly white people. So then let's take that 54 percent and assume that their expected fertility rate is going to be exactly in between the East Asian fertility rate and the white fertility rate.

Okay. And then you run the math here and I'll put the math on the screen. And I will remind you that the average you know, U. S. born East Asian fertility rate is 1. 38. [00:20:00] So if you average the average East Asian fertility rate 1. 197 and then take 54 percent of that and assume that that portion of that 1.

97 would be midway between 1. 97 and 1. 89, do you know what number you get? 1.

38. The exact number of the fertility rate they have in the United States.

Simone Collins: Wow. Okay.

You don't need any cultural change to explain the rise in fertility rate. It is simply marrying non Asians. That's

Simone Collins: okay. Yeah. All right. Well,

it's bleak if you think Asian culture is a good thing. And I do, I do think Asian culture is a good thing.

I'm

Simone Collins: sad. I just, I think that could, they're not, I mean, there are, there are ways to culturally build and aren't there some very high fertility [00:21:00] subcultures like outside Seoul in South Korea that are just primed to inherit all of the country? I've heard of like

one religious cult in Korea and one in Japan.

Their fertility rates aren't great. They're not like, Look, Korea has always been great at exporting cults, like the moonies and some more recent ones, and they're great at building cults. So maybe they'll create something that saves them.

Simone Collins: Maybe,

but like their fertility rates just don't touch on like the white religious nut job groups, like us.

We need more religious nut jobs and turning women into baby factories.

Simone Collins: I mean, Gosh, yeah, I, it is concerning. It's very concerning. I don't want Asian cultures to disappear. But do

you mind? Simone was born in Japan and has lived with Japanese people for a long time. Her middle name is Haruko because she was born in Japan.

She has strong cultural connections. She grew up in the Bay area, which is very Asian. Pretty much your entire friend group growing up with East Asian, [00:22:00] right?

Simone Collins: Pretty much. Yeah.

And I lived and worked in Korea. Like I have a very strong personal connection to these cultural groups. It makes me sad that they may not survive.

Simone Collins: Yeah. And I guess when I think of all my high school friends, one of them, yeah, not, not many of them have kids, certainly not more than one kid right now. Which is

And you're at four, lady. Yeah.

Simone Collins: When you compare, it's not looking fantastic. So,

yeah. So I really wanted to tackle this, this hypothesis he had that this was due to a ranged marriage.

Because I was under the, the perspective that range marriage was at least occasionally practiced in Europe. Right. Yeah. And what I came to is actually, no, it's being practiced in Europe was pretty rare in a historic level. Yeah. More

Simone Collins: among just a very rare. Super high class group, right?

Yeah. So, yeah, basically only like the super wealthy did it.

So, and even they did it differently than [00:23:00] East Asians did it. So we'll talk about the East Asian cause it gets kind of horrifying when you hear about how East Asians did it.

Simone Collins: Oh,

yeah.

Simone Collins: Honestly, it was news to me from you that there was even an arranged marriage thing in East Asia. You will be,

you will be.

Surprised by the number of women who had their legs broken.

Simone Collins: They

couldn't leave their house until they were ready to marry. I'll just say that. Now let's go to the European sample before we get to that. Okay. So, McFlane's Marriage and Love in England 1300 1840 describes the laws to this effect.

 Well, it's primary focus is the timeline described in the title. It cites the laws of Colterre for 560 A. D. and I don't want to get picked up on a filter. C U N T, I'm not going to say that word out loud because I don't know how to say it. That is an unfortunate last name.

Early, well, it's the name of it Cunott, I think it's pronounced. Okay.

Simone Collins: Anyway,

Early 1000s AD, in describing the historic Germanic tradition of [00:24:00] opposition to forced marriage, it lays out clear evidence for the existence of an ancient Germanic custom of permitted marriage against the wishes of parents, which remained uninhibited in Britain.

Even as the reintroduction of Roman civil law elsewhere opposed it. The other country where this norm remained unabridged was Sweden. So keep in mind, this is you know, specifically Northern Europe. In Rome, arranged marriage was more common but also, you know, you see less. You know, you see outcomes that look more in between Northern European outcomes and East Asian outcomes when you look at Southern European outcomes.

But keep in mind, even the Catholic church here. So, and when the Catholic church confronted the latter question, whether marriage could be valid without the consent of parents, it was unambiguous in its support, citing creatively the Bible verse that quote, What therefore God has joined together. Let no man put asunder in quote Matthew 1916.

The church consistently upheld even secret marriages made without the consent or knowledge of anyone, but the participants see Charles Dorn Jr's paper on [00:25:00] Canon Law and Marriage in the Journal of Family History. Furthermore, the, there, there was a very high median age of first marriage in Northern Europe in the 1600s, which was 42 plus, which is very rare. If you look at it, if you're talking about like the 1600s in East Asia, yeah, that's late.

I'm gonna guess it was around 16. 22 plus is wildly late which, which was because they gave people a lot of independence. And this source here argues that that was the case. A, a, in addition to all of this, you had a church and civil ban on cousin marriage, which forced women to, and men to look outwards to marry.

So you can keep in mind if you look at a lot of Muslim cultures they do a lot of like cousin marriages and stuff like that. And that's common in East Asia as well. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of family because it consolidates power within the family. It's what you would want if your goal was amassing power as a family.

It's what you wouldn't want if you're. An extra family bureaucracy made up of eunuchs um, that was trying to claim more power for [00:26:00] itself, which the Catholic Church functionally is so they ban that, but that creates a very interesting sort of like biological impulse here. If you, as a European historically, We're like, not driven by your sexuality to go out and screw people.

You might not end up having descendants that just wasn't as true for other populations on earth. And this actually reminds me of a very interesting conversation I had with a very dear friend of mine who was a JN. Boy at the time, man. I don't know, young, we were teens at the time. And we were both in college and he's like, I was talking to him about dating.

I was like, I, who are you interested in? Right. And this was during that time of my life where I was probably sleeping with like three or four different people a week. And he's like, Oh, well, you know, I don't want to date until I have a job. I was like, you, you don't want to date until you have a job.

And he was like, yeah, you know, my parents say I shouldn't really focus on it. So culturally my people we don't really focus on it. You know, I just, well, we'll focus on the next shift to college. [00:27:00] Like. High school, college you know, that's for focusing on work. And in another episode we did here, we pointed out how East Asians, at least, and I'm sure South Asians are the same way, spend way more time on schoolwork than white kids.

So I decided to look this up, to see if this hunch was right. And yes, there have been studies confirming this. , east Asian. Individuals have way, way, way lower sex drives than Europeans.

And this is explains a huge part of why they outcompete white people, not IQ differences. And I think Part of it is, I was busy screwing my way through high school in college, and here this kid is, and he's just like, nah, I don't want it. But I don't know if, like, biologically I could have, realistically, like, even when I think about my kids, I'm like, I know the number one thing I can't do is say Don't engage with your sexuality because I know how loud that was.

I may be able to like use naltrexone to try to break any sort of like opioid pathway they have in their brains related to this. Right. But I would need to [00:28:00] is through some sort of pharmacological intervention. Like actively

Simone Collins: treat it like an addiction or disease. Want to be

trapped by this or not because naltrexone is actually good at breaking arousal compulsions.

But it's, it's tough. It is tough. Like it's not necessarily awesome sauce. But this is interesting to me. Now I'm going to go to what he says about these other countries. Okay. So he says in China and Korea, nearly all marriages were arranged in Japan. Most were, and unlike the kinds of more modern arranged marriages that are unfairly stigmatized today, these arrangements, at least outside of Japan involved a no role for fertile female choice or male choice in the matter, i.

e. no interactions between the soon to be married occurred before the marriage was fully contracted. Total female seclusion from non kin males Transcribed Both pre and post marriage ensured success of this arrangement of this arrangement to remarry even after the death of one's husband was stigmatized.

And even when you see this in South Asia in India, the, the common practice of Oh, what was it called again? [00:29:00] where they would burn the widows. Oh,

Simone Collins: yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,

yeah. And people pretend like this wasn't a common practice, and it was common in some regions. But I don't want to get to South Asian populations.

The Han Chinese famously left nothing to chance in ensuring seclusion, Was nearly all upper middle class and many other class households, up to 50 percent of the population breaking the feet of their girls to ensure their limited mobility and subservience to the East Asian marital process.

50 percent of young women had their feet broken.

 Would note here that this number seemed unbelievably high to me. So I went to an AI perplexities specifically to ask the same question. , and it said in response , in the 19th century, an estimated 40 to 50% of Chinese women had their feet bound among the upper economic classes in the 19th century, the prevalence was almost a hundred percent. A study by William Rousseau, estimated that as many as 2 billion Chinese women may have had their feet bound research by hill gates found that virtually 100% of women born in 1850 to [00:30:00] 1854 had bound feet. With the percentage slowly decreasing in subsequent decades. , so a hundred percent of women and during some periods had their feet bound during other periods, it was 50%. , so. Just an absolute time. , and it was practiced well into the 20th century, especially in rural and coastal regions.

I said this article was not cherry picking to make a point. If anything, they may have understated the number. Like this was like not messing around. Like you are not going to find a partner on your own. We handle who you're marrying. Don't worry about it.

Simone Collins: Was this a by product of the foot binding process? Like their feet were just broken because they were binding them or was this All right.

Here's the hammer. Video

on screen. Close your eyes for five seconds. One, two, three. It's going to be on screen. One, two, three, end. Okay, good. It's off screen now, but for people who don't know what the golden lotuses look like they would put the feet of little girls [00:31:00] in really tight shoes. They never fully developed.

They couldn't walk. And this was, you know, you can sit and talk about it as a beauty ritual or whatever you want to talk about it as, but it was a ritual that really ensured that these women didn't play a role in who they were mating with. And this of course is going to have a genetic impact on arousal pathways, use it or lose it.

I'm sorry. It doesn't use it or lose it. The saying in genetics if you don't need an arousal pathway to motivate having children, you're going to lose the impulsive arousal pathway that causes teams to make the types of impulsive decisions that lead to babies and then lead to marriage. And. That could explain this difference.

Simone Collins: That's a very interesting prospect. If you're saying that this is mostly upper and middle class people though, I don't know if they're the biggest genetic contributors to any society. I don't know. He said upper middle

class in many others. So around 50 percent of the [00:32:00] population. Okay.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I guess 50 percent of the population is probably enough for it to have a meaningful effect too.

Yes. Also upper and middle class on a historic basis had more kids than the lower classes.

Simone Collins: Oh yeah. Cause they had resources and food and whatnot. Okay.

Yeah. And then the kids who, you know, weren't able to compete within these environments would become and probably lower

Simone Collins: infant mortality. Yeah. Okay.

Okay.

Okay. So, so keep all that in line. Now I want to move quickly to an email we got from one of our fans talking about Chinese culture because he's been living there for a while. And I think it also helps us understand the difference between the Chinese population and our own, right? I'm a Brit who lived in China for five years.

You and ConsenSys missed a few significant details regarding why they're so effed. I basically polled people on this while I was there. Having few kids in China has become fashion driven by women. One, women's sexual status in China is about luxury. Maximum [00:33:00] consumption, minimum effort. And I've actually seen this in like Chinese videos, where they'll have like women who act like b****y or like, Oh, they got a car for their birthday or for their marriage and they complain about it or something to try to show their status to other women.

It's like, men give me stuff and I make fun of them for it.

Simone Collins: And I

am unappreciative. That is a sign of like, It does seem

Simone Collins: to be a fetish though. Like there are those people who. Make money from men just for yelling at them and whatnot. So it's a thing.

These men do not look happy about this. They usually look like their souls have been taken and stomped on.

And then we can talk about how bad women have it in East Asia. But I think in many ways, men also have it absolutely terrible. And like gender dynamics in these countries just need to be like,

Simone Collins: yeah, the, the sign that it seems that both East Asian men and East Asian women aren't choosing their, I want to keep, I want to keep going here.

I want to keep going.

Two, they want the status label of quote unquote mother without the work, meaning one kid [00:34:00] max. So mother is a status, but you don't get that much additional status or it appears any additional status from additional kids. Okay. In the U S that definitely isn't the case. Actually, you don't really get any status was one kid.

I wouldn't even say you get that much status with two kids, but there is a community in the U S where when you get to three up kids, you get additional status with every kid. Like with four kids, I feel like walking through the mall these days. I said, I feel a bit like Prince Ali Prince Ali, fabulous he, Ali Ababwa with the, the kids and matching outfits trailing behind us and everybody like, Ooh, they must be fancy.

Three. They accuse men who want more children as treating them as quote unquote cattle. They love this comparison. The oversupply of men, plus a surprisingly strong and rather toxic feminist slash anti pickup movement, gives them leverage. And keep in mind, there's, there's very few women compared to men in China because during the one child policy people preferred male children.

So women have the advantage in the sexual [00:35:00] marketplace and they are able to demand these types of concessions,

Simone Collins: right? In China, at

least. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Yeah. Yeah.

All right. Then next intersectional status signaling and competition. The culture explicitly demands women to select men based on wealth Households slash car meme and this is actually a common mean i've seen in my asia watching stuff in china that house car meme Children are expensive.

So reduce her other luxury consumption once they have again it true and they can be uniquely expensive in East Asia. If you look at something like South Korea, Children are way more expensive than they are in the U. S. You end up spending. I think it was something like a third of a family's household budget ends up going for one child to go to cram school.

This is the additional school they attend in addition to public school.

Simone Collins: Mhm.

Social media embraces the narcissism and wealth expectations. For example, there are very popular TikTok channels of couples where a woman acts bored and useless where her boyfriend showers her with gifts and services.

 I've seen these before. The fact that what are you saying? It [00:36:00] just sounds awful. The fact that a man loves a horrible and useless woman implies that she is beautiful enough to counterbalance her awfulness, implying she's really beautiful.

Laziness is an honest signal of beauty. Women aspire to be useless and rich. I'm not joking. This person says, and again, I see this

oh, well, the way he writes this, I don't know if I'd word it this way, but he says, , Chinese women cannot reconcile their preferences for prostitution with the notion of love. They ask, how can you really love a poor man? In quote here. And I have heard this but I haven't, you know, seen it myself.

And then here he says Chinese people appeal to political correctness on a daily basis. It is very deeply ingrained. They are genuinely patriotic when asked to give an opinion on something potentially quote unquote sensitive, read political. There is a short delay where they recall the Chinese stance before they state the collective national view.

He would argue that this happened for such a long time that Chinese people convinced themselves that having few kids was not only moral, but good in other ways. Two, cognitive dissonance, [00:37:00] confirmation bias, and intersexual status signaling drove them to post rationalize having few children as being something that was fashionable.

Three, this would have been compounded by by overly effective propaganda promoting all the positives for having few kids and downplaying the negatives, which are repeated verbatim by women who don't want kids because you know why the women also don't want this. And for those arguments have now been fully adopted and leveraged perhaps in a subconscious collective quote unquote F you to the government for controlling reproductive rights for the past for in the first place.

And then he said, and he asked a few women whether they would prefer one child worth 1 million or two kids worth 500k and they unanimously chose one child worth 1 million. China is effed. They need to convince these women that having kids is preferable, but they spent the last few decades doing the exact opposite.

Chinese women are Ironically, very individualistic. And I've actually seen this individualism in Chinese women that we're friends with. But another thing I note here is for people who like, don't [00:38:00] believe how set in their ways China is, even despite their desperate demographic situation, which is going to lead to the collapse of their country, pretty much inevitably at this point, the government is still only on a three child policy.

They need to be on a. 10 child policy. Yeah.

Simone Collins: Right. Yeah.

And I think it's this cognitive dissonance that he's talking about here is why they haven't. Gone to new way of viewing things.

So, I hear I'm going to talk about another one of the subsects that this feature is right, a podcast did on Asians. Which I found really interesting and I'm gonna quote something here because he's he's talking about real studies here Like I don't love all of the ideas that he draws from it, but I found it really interesting so one thing to note is if you look at infants like six months old people who are like There are not gender differences in infants.

You see massive differences and like Very, very young infants. In terms of behavioral patterns, it is very clear that we are pre coded to be different as genders. But you also see ethnic differences, which I wasn't as aware [00:39:00] of. The face of a 48 year old Chinese baby with a cloth. It may clear its mouth for a way to breathe, but it will otherwise stay passive.

The white baby will go to war. It's arms will flail with all the force it can muster against the unidentified creature that's intruded its rights. That's the way he, he words this. And the paper that was looking at this had a p value of 0. 001. Oh! So this is a really strong, and you can say, was there bias in the study?

In a 2005 book, and I'm quoting him now, the U. Chicago professor who carried out this study and its follow up in the 1970s describes his inspiration for it as talking to his Chinese American wife about different cultural upbringings. Babies have no culture. A conformist baby becomes a conformist adult.

This is him quoting here, of course, we be free and creative people, not drones. So this is the way he sees it. I don't see it this way. Okay, but I did find this very interesting and they actually have video of these [00:40:00] old studies of the babies. Yeah, you can see how the different babies react to this on earth, but there's going to be, if you look at Confucius culture, which we, you know, talked about in the last video on lower East Asian fertility rates are like really, really preferring hierarchy and conformity that is going to genetically reward people who have these preferences.

I

Simone Collins: guess trusting of authority figures,

trusting of authority figures in the system. And you see this in the U S even, even though the Democrats, like the, the East Asian population in the U S it's the most effed population by DEI. and yet they keep voting for Democrats. It is absolutely wild. No one should be further to the right.

Like they should be like far to the right of white people. In terms of their, the amount that they contribute to social services, if they, but they culturally speaking and perhaps even genetically speaking, seem to trust authority [00:41:00] and hierarchies more. But again, I don't think this is a bad thing.

I said this in the last episode. Progressives pretend they value diversity, but then they pretend that everyone's the same. How could diversity have value if everyone's the same? Diversity can only be a strength if we admit that whether it's from a cultural or genetic standpoint, there are not better or worse people, but people on average are bringing different perspectives and proficiencies to the table and through working with people who are genuinely different from you.

In the same way that I was able to read this study by a guy who holds many perspectives that I personally find distasteful, right? I was able to learn things that I never would have seen because of my perspective.

Simone Collins: Yeah, that's, that's a really strong point. Yeah. Well, and that's why, especially why looking into the work of people from a broad variety of viewpoints is important because if you just [00:42:00] stick with the heterodox people, like within a certain realm, you're just going to see the weird stuff that they see.

You also have to look at the sources and arguments made by people who say things that are very offensive to you, or that are really. Yeah, so out of my field for you. So,

so I would argue that the, the Chinese problem when I read this guy's email and I consider it in context as potential, you know, cultural differences and perhaps even genetic differences in terms of, you know, proficiencies and how they choose to relate to the world.

It actually seems that the core problem of East Asian fertility is downstream of a sexist culture. If you have a conformist culture that views males and females as two essentially different classes or castes you get this culture where it's easy for a woman or a man to identify more with other men or women, especially if you consider the first polls that we were looking at, that is my husband or wife is not the core focus of my life.

[00:43:00] Whereas if you look at the culture that we come from, which is one of the most resistant cultures to fertility collapse or other resistant cultures to fertility collapse, like Jewish culture they're much more clan based. So like our culture, and I really see this now that I have kids and I consider my family conceptually in my head, I see us more as a clan than a family.

Looking at them, I'm like, Oh yeah, I got to raise the next generation of the clan. I got to play with, you know, when I'm playing with my other family members, this is our clan's value set. This is what we stand for. The clan comes first. And this is something that was always told to me when I was a kid, you know, blood thicker than water, your family always comes first, you know, see yourself.

Well, I should note that my culture has a pretty unique understanding of family comes first. It's competent family comes first. Incompetent family are worse than trash which is a very interesting way of relating to it. Yeah. I was thinking about

Simone Collins: you versus like the tiger mom trope. And it's really interesting because it's, it's a lot more sink or swim.

It's not so [00:44:00] much, I'm going to focus on you no matter what, even if you're a loser, I'm going to keep hammering at you. It's more like. If you're a loser, you're dead to me. Leave the house. We're not going to talk anymore. If you're a winner. And a

lot of people were surprised. They were like, I haven't, cause I mentioned like my parents talking about disowning me when I was a kid.

Right. If I did X or I did Y or I didn't achieve Z. And I think a lot of people, they were like, I didn't hear this type of language growing up. This type of language is very common in my culture. Okay. It's very common because. If you are going to have, like people can see it as unethical, but I actually see it as a highly ethical way of dealing with things.

If you are going to have a clan based mentality, i. e. family first, this has a huge risk of nepotism. I. e. you, you end up defending clan members who either did something that was obviously immoral, which can lead to things like blood feuds with neighboring clans. Or Or you end up putting a family in a position that they haven't earned the right to secure.

And so it's more a clan based system, but a [00:45:00] clan based system that only maintains ownership of an individual if they have proven that they are worthy of being slurred, slotted into, like, roles within the clan or, or clan based, like, business structure. Based on their own competence. And, and it was made very clear to me, if you do not show that you are excellent, like if you go to less than an Ivy League school, you're out.

If you go to, like, they were really clear on all of this stuff. And I think this is why, like, all of my cousins went to an Ivy League school or Oxford or Cambridge. Like, it's, it's and I have a lot of cousins. All but one. But yeah, it's. Interesting. Anyway, did you have any, uh, final thoughts here before we move to the next one?

Simone Collins: I, I'm just really excited to see where the research goes over time. And when we It won't go anywhere. That's why all these studies

are from like the freaking

Simone Collins: 40s. No, but just specifically on unpolygenic risk scores related to fertility, because I think more people are going to start looking at those.

[00:46:00] But we'll see.

Yeah. I mean, and a lot of people are like, why are you looking at this old research? You think you could conduct any of these studies today?

Simone Collins: Yeah. It ain't happening anymore. Any type of ethnic

differences. Like we're, we're different and that's why we benefit working together. And as I said in the last episode, you know, you want to go on and on about how, you know, we don't need their conformist hierarchy based culture.

Nothing good is going to come from this. Well then where are our semiconductor fabs buddy? Okay. We got a few, but not many. A little island out there has most of the world's semiconductor fabs, and when they tried to build ones in the United States, they said people couldn't follow orders well enough for the plants to operate.

Yeah, so well then

Simone Collins: I really hope that East Asian populations figure out how to develop some high fertility subcultures that are also really high performing. Because, yeah, to lose their unique competitive advantages, their unique perspectives, would be a genuine tragedy, so. Yikes, but, oh well. We'll see what happens.

[00:47:00] Love you to death, Simone. I love you too, Malcolm. Okay.

So here's a question, Octavian. Do you want to marry someone when you grow up? Like, like have a mommy who you marry and then be mommy and daddy to kids? Yes. Okay. Do you want to find that person yourself or do you want daddy to find them for you? Um, I want to find it by myself. Okay. Why do you want to find them by yourself?

Because. Because why? Why? Because. Because you like doing things on your own? You like walking home on your own, right? You get really mad when daddy tries to help you. Yes. Why do you like to walk home on your own? Because I wait to, what about you, Titan? Do you wanna be a mama one day? Do you? Yes. You think she wants to be?

Aw,

you guys are adorable. [00:48:00] Yes. Daddy, what do you want, Torson? If you don't wanna like and describe, push our button at the YouTube.

Join Malcolm and Simone Collins as they challenge popular misconceptions about race, IQ, and success. This thought-provoking discussion dives deep into the complex relationship between genetics, culture, and achievement, offering surprising insights that challenge both progressive and conservative narratives. Key topics include:

* The truth about Asian-American academic success

* Debunking the myth of significant racial IQ differences

* The impact of immigration and cultural factors on group success

* How class, rather than race, influences genetic advantages

* The role of Confucianism in creativity and innovation

* Why some immigrant groups outperform others

* The fallacy of attributing success solely to individual effort

Whether you're interested in genetics, sociology, or the complex factors behind group achievement, this video offers a nuanced and data-driven perspective that will challenge your assumptions and broaden your understanding of human potential.

Malcolm Collins: [00:00:00] Flynn was comparing American IQ estimates Based on a representative sample with Japanese estimates based on upper income, heavily urban samples.

 Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106. 6, but 99. 2. When the Chinese American scores were reassessed using up to date intelligence metrics, Flynn found they came in at a 97 verbal and a 100 nonverbal. The numbers now suggested Flynn said that they had succeeded not because of their higher IQs, but despite their lower IQs People are cherry picking studies to get these big differences. It's not that you don't get any difference between ethnic groups, but the difference is typically like. two to three IQ points, just not a really significant number.

Malcolm Collins: East Asian students spend approximately 13 more hours per week on academic activities compared to their non academic counterparts.

Holy!

Malcolm Collins: Thirteen more hours. it is not some Asians are smarter than white people thing. [00:01:00] It's Asians work harder than white people. Is that an offensive thing to say?

Like, I know it's it's

so I think it's so commonly understood,

Malcolm Collins: When you remove all of the DEI nonsense, 72 percent of the top academic performers become Asian, like that's wild. But it gets more surprising because Asian Americans are actually way less successful than you would expect them to be. Less than 1 percent of corporate officers and corporate board members in America are Asians and only 2 percent of college presidents. Only nine of the fortune 500 CEOs are Asians. Now we're going to get to the final part where I'm gonna get really offensive here. Yay. Really offensive. I love these parts.

Would you like to know more?

Malcolm Collins: Hello, Simone! I'm excited to be talking to you. We did an episode that was actually a long quote from our book, that went over the myth of a high Jewish Ashkenazi IQ. This episode has gone viral, so that's fun.

And I was like, Let's double [00:02:00] down because people said this episode is going to get you guys canceled. It's going to get Simone's campaign ruined. And I was like, how could he, like, what are they going to accuse us of saying that Jews aren't genetically superior? And somebody was like, like unironically, yes, they may cancel you for even asking these questions.

Like, but, but I don't, I don't think so. I, I genuinely just like, There's these areas that people are not used to engaging with, but I think that we as a society have moved past sort of reactive cancellations in regards to just engaging with like honest scientific information. Well, yeah,

just the fact that even they're being commonly held group level traits is an extremely controversial thing to say.

And then also admitting that intelligence has a genetic component is extremely controversial. And then of course, talking about Jews. At all is extremely controversial. So we were just, we weren't just stepping on third rails. We were like playing twister just to try to touch as many third rails [00:03:00] as possible with that.

Okay. Well, I decided, I decided I'm going back. Round two of third rail twister begins in three, two.

Malcolm Collins: At the end of the episode, I, I set up this point where I was like, actually the, the, while there are specific cognitive traits that seem to have some ethnic correlation, broad IQ, Doesn't seem to be broadly correlated when you actually dig into the nitty gritty of what's going on in these studies.

But the problem is, is we know that if it was highly correlated with ethnicity, we wouldn't be allowed to say that it was highly correlated with ethnicity. So whenever somebody comes along and says, here are some stats proving that it is, everybody just, Immediately jumps on it because they're like, well, at least somebody is giving me some information here.

But unfortunately, a lot of the people who are doing this often have like alternative [00:04:00] motivations. And so if you actually dig into the stats, which you then find, what we found was the Jewish situation is. It's, it's not clear, it's not it, it appears that Jews have some areas where they're a little different cognitively but there isn't this huge IQ gap that, that is purported by the people who are, the biodiversity bros even, H H and it's actually very similar when you go into the Asian IQ differential.

So that's what we'll be going into in this. I am going to start because I don't want to get in trouble for anything I'm about to say here. So I am going to be quoting from Malcolm Gladwell, who wrote an article in New Yorker on this subject. Which I paid for it to get access to this article, just so I could be quoting Malcolm Gladwell, so no one could say that I had said this stuff, okay?

Alright, so Malcolm says, now hold on, when you're quoting this, you don't get to say, evil Malcolm says, that's what I'll say, evil Malcolm, so nobody thinks this is coming from my mouth, okay? Okay, so, [00:05:00] Malcolm says Uh, Flynn, and he's talking about Flynn from the Flynn effect, a really well observed phenomenon that we now have the reverse Flynn effect and blah, blah, blah, but historically it was the effect that showed that IQ was rising over time as people were getting access to more nutrition and then this effect saturated, blah, blah, blah.

Flynn brings a similar precision to the question of whether Asians have a genetic advantage in IQ, a possibility that has led to great excitement among IQ fundamentalists in recent years. Data showing that the Japanese had higher IQs than people from European descent,

for example, prompted the British psychometrician and eugenicist Richard Lin to concoct an elaborate evolutionary explanation involving the Himalayas, really

cold weather, pre modern hunting practices, brain size, and specialized vowel sounds. The fact that the IQs of Chinese Americans also seem to be elevated has led IQ fundamentalists to posit the existence of an international IQ pyramid with Asians at the top, European whites next, and Hispanics and Blacks at the [00:06:00] bottom.

Here was a question Taylor made for James Flynn's accounting skills. He looked first at Flynn's data and realized that the comparison was skewed. Flynn was comparing American IQ estimates Based on a representative sample of school children with Japanese estimates based on upper income, heavily urban samples.

 Recalculated, the Japanese average came in not at 106. 6, but 99. 2. Then Flynn turned his attention to the Chinese American estimates. They turned out to be based on a 1975 study in San Francisco's Chinatown using something called the Lord Thorndike Intelligence Test.

But the Lord Thorndike Test was normed in the 1950s. For children in the 1970s, it would have been a piece of cake. When the Chinese American scores were reassessed using up to date intelligence metrics, Flynn found they came in at a 97 verbal and a 100 nonverbal. Chinese Americans had slightly lower IQs than white Americans.

, the Asian American success story has suddenly been turned on its head. [00:07:00] The numbers now suggested Flynn said that they had succeeded not because of their higher IQs, but despite their lower IQs, Asians were overachievers in a nifty piece of statistical analysis. Flynn then worked out just how great that overachievement was.

Among whites, virtually everyone who joins the ranks as a managerial, professional, and technical occupation had an IQ of 97 or above. Among Chinese Americans, that threshold was 90. A Chinese American with an IQ of 90, It would appear does as much with it as white Americans with an IQ of 97. And this is a point we're going to go into a lot later in statistics.

I pulled up after this article. There should be no great mystery about Asian American achievement. It has to do with hard work and dedication to higher education and belonging to a culture that stresses professional success. But Flynn makes one more observation. The children of that first successful wave of Asian Americans really did have IQs that were higher than everyone else's.

Coming in somewhere at 103 having worked their [00:08:00] way into the upper reaches of the occupational scale and take a note of how much the professionals value abstract thinking Asian American parents have evidently made sure that their own children wore scientific spectacles.

Quote, Chinese Americans are an ethnic group for whom high achievement preceded high IQ rather than the reverse. In quote, Flynn concludes reminding us that in our discussion of the relationship between IQ and success, we often confuse causes and effects. So, thoughts?

I had never read anything like that before. This is

Malcolm Collins: surprising. Yeah, it is surprising, but it gets more surprising because there's, there's, there's a few things that we're going to note here. One is that Asian Americans are actually way less successful than you would expect them to be. Um,

How can that be?

Like when you look at general income and performance stats in the United States, they just, when we talk about discrimination at universities, they're the [00:09:00] ones that are

Malcolm Collins: too qualified. Everything you're saying is right. And we're going to get into how this leads to a very surprising results when you actually look at key leadership positions.

And then secondarily, we're going to be talking about something really interesting, which is how. Like, why? If East Asians are not particularly smarter than white Americans, why do they keep out competing them, right? Right, yeah. Well, and I guess not everywhere,

because how many East Asian politicians are there in the U.

S.? Well, that's what we're going to

Malcolm Collins: get to. So they seem to out compete them within the average ranges, and they seem to be massively slammed by them in the extremist angles. Oh, interesting. So how are they So they're like the

women of smart people. Their, their distribution is, is less flat and more clumped, but in a generally high area.

Malcolm Collins: Actually, yes. That is something we actually find with their, their intelligence scores. That's so interesting. They have a less wide [00:10:00] distribution. But we also see from the data why they are so handedly out competing white people. Yeah.

Okay.

Malcolm Collins: So here I am going to be reading from the abstract of an article called Explaining Asian Americans Academic Advantage Over Whites.

Mm-Hmm. . We find that the Asian American educational advantage over whites is attributable mainly to Asian students, exerting greater academic effort and not to advantages in tested cognitive abilities or socio demographics. We test explanations for the Asian white gap in academic effort and find that the gap can be further attributed to one cultural differences in beliefs regarding the connection between effort and achievement and to immigration status.

Finally, we highlight the potential psychological and social costs associated with Asian American achievement and success. So insert Asian dad

meme here. It's. It's the culture. Hold on.

Malcolm Collins: Hold on. I, I want to give the actual numbers here because they're interesting. East Asian students spend approximately 13 more [00:11:00] hours per week on academic activities compared to their non academic counterparts.

Holy!

Malcolm Collins: Thirteen more hours. Is

that, that's in the United States, not a world of cram schools and insane

Malcolm Collins: study around Yeah, no, that's in the United States. They are choosing to spend an additional four Thirteen hours is an astronomical amount of time in a week. Consider that like, you sleep, you know, like eight hours a night, right?

So that means that they are spending probably around 25 percent of the recreational time as their white counterparts.

Huh.

Malcolm Collins: Basically, they're earning it is how they're it is not some Asians are smarter than white people thing. It's Asians work harder than white people. Is that an offensive thing to say?

Like, I know it's it's

so I think it's so commonly understood, though. I mean, as much as I'm surprised by what you're saying, I also shouldn't be surprised because yes, it is common knowledge that East Asians in the United [00:12:00] States perform really well, but it's also a common meme, and certainly among even people who aren't around Asian populations, that Asian families tend to have higher Higher academic and professional standards.

And then don't forget Asian dad meme, which is just my favorite. You know, you're a bra size B cup. Why not a cup? Pregnancy test. I have very mixed feelings about this one. You're watching the bachelor. Why not watch the doctorate? You know, like just, I just, I love, I love it. And I should have thought like, yes, especially because you and I are the it's the culture people.

I should have thought this is this. Why would it be genetic when the culture is so obviously oriented around high performance?

Malcolm Collins: And like, we all know this, right? Like if you had Asian friends growing up, like you knew their parents were harder on them than yours. Yeah. And, and I will note before we get further here, we are not saying IQ doesn't have a genetic correlate. The, the purported stereotypes of how it [00:13:00] clusters around ethnic groups is just super wrong. That is, that is what we're saying. And it is so super wrong that you basically, as an individual don't have the data to make that statement.

statements or views or prescriptions around this information. Just because it's, it's so, muddled by bad actors, basically.

Yeah. I guess it's kind of like a lot of unregulated medicine where I think it's totally legitimate to say, yeah, mainstream medicine doesn't necessarily have all the right answers, but then.

You go into alternative medicine and people are giving you homeopathic cures and, you know, caffeine enemas and it's like, no, no.

Malcolm Collins: Okay. So, so that's, that's all we're trying to point out here. Okay. So, so next I'm going to go into an article that I found really interesting which ends up. The writer of this article was so cucked.

They ended up being like, Oh, this means nothing. It'll all even out over time. We can just, you know, but, but I'm going to say no, no, no, no, [00:14:00] no. This is actually significant and it's something we need to talk about. Article was titled

if Asian Americans are so smart, how come they have no power or influence? And so it starts out. Ouch.

In California, where a voter initiative, outlawed racial preferences in admission, nearly half of the undergraduates at the top public universities.

Malcolm Collins: U. C. Berkeley and U. C. L. A. Are now Asians in the Ivy League, which maintains all the traditional preferences for disadvantaged minorities and athletes and alumni legacies. Undergraduate enrollment is still disproportionately between 15 percent and 20 percent Asian because of academic performance.

 Study set high school in elite public school in New York, which is a feeder school for top colleges and universities and admits exclusively on test performance. So, in a city that's less than 13 percent Asian, 72 percent of the students at Stony's Dent are Asian. So, when you remove all of the DEI nonsense, 72 percent of the top academic performers become Asian, like [00:15:00] that's wild.

Now you might conclude that although Asians made up only 4. 8 of the U. S. population in 2010 census, they probably have a disproportionate amount of power and influence in the U. S. because of their educational accomplishments. But that seems not to be the case. According to a much discussed article in New York magazine by Weasley Ying, statistics tell a different story.

The article cites various studies showing that less than 1 percent of corporate officers and corporate board members in America are Asians and only 2 percent of college presidents. Only nine of the fortune 500 CEOs are Asians. Even in specific areas with a lot of Asian Americans, they are concentrated in lower ranks.

Although a third of software engineers in Silicon Valley are Asian, they make up only 6 percent of board members and 10 percent of corporate officers in the Bay Area's 25 largest companies. At the National Institute of Health, where 21. 5 percent of the scientists are Asians, only 4. 7 percent of the lab or [00:16:00] branch directors are.

Good lord. Asians get creamed at the upper ranks. So one, I would say I think a huge portion of this is DEI. Asians, I think by far are the most discriminated class in the DEI world because on average they are the biggest large group to outcompete other groups. And so Yeah, but

wouldn't you, I mean, I feel like you could still get points when there are, when your imperative is to just not hire or promote another white man, the Asian competent person would seem like the obvious

Malcolm Collins: choice.

So you would, so this, this actually, and I think it's why a lot of Indians have been able to move up so much. But not Asians,

not East Asians? Well no,

Malcolm Collins: but some Indians look Asian. Like quote unquote, people of color to people in the states look dark. They look darker. This is about how dark you look. They look darker.

I genuinely think that's why Indians have risen so much in the tech industry is because they, they look, because they look some, look, they have [00:17:00] similar, I, I think it's that they have similar Kamala Harris,

well, Kamala Harris is

Malcolm Collins: half black, but yeah. I think that, that, that, that realistically, when these people in these tech companies are choosing to promote someone and keep in mind how much of their staff is Asian, right?

So if you're talking in Silicon Valley, they were saying 21. 5 percent of the scientists in this one group are Asian. And then in Silicon Valley, it was around a third of software. And it's a lot of people. Yeah. Yeah. But the point being is that when you are the person. Promoting officer. When you're the HR person and you're looking at your pool of software engineers, you see your Asian employees as white because there are just so many of them.

Um, I'm, I'm telling you that's what it is in huge part. And you see this when they talk about it, when Asians get out there and they're like, we're being discriminated against in college admission. That they are from. Yeah, they are. Wow. Asians are white to the left as Jews are, for example.

At [00:18:00] least they're not, they're not hated the same way as Jews, though they had their, man, like, World War II was just, oh, let's forget about the fact that we had Japanese internment camps.

I mean, talk about, like, just like Jews, they were put in camps, but guess who put them in the camps? We did. I mean, we didn't burn them, but

Malcolm Collins: I would say that they had their property stolen. A lot of the Asian American community. This is what's really interesting is, is black Americans will say the reason that we're behind is because we had everything taken from us.

And I'm like, yeah, well, Japanese Americans had that happen much more recently in their history. They had all their, a lot of their businesses taken a lot of their homes taken everything that they, they war, war two set. I can't believe that happened. It still blows my

mind. That that happened. It is insane.

Malcolm Collins: Did one of your family members, like, stay in some Japanese person's property to save it for them after they got out of the internment camp?

A lot of our extended, like, friends and family either were themselves related to. Like had, had you say like first generation Japanese immigrant ancestors who were themselves [00:19:00] interned or who tried to help people who were interned, but it doesn't matter if your neighbors try to help keep squatters out of your house while you're sent off to a camp as an American waters out

Malcolm Collins: of your house, people would just take the houses or the farms or the property or the businesses.

So anyway the, the East Asian community, but, but all of this creates a problem for modern narratives, right? If East Asians are doing better than white people because they're working harder, this creates some troubling It's such a bad look. Yeah, it's

not Because the whole thing of like, work harder, get a job,

Get a goddamn job, Al. You got a negative attitude. That's what's stopping you. You gotta get your act together.

everyone hates, there's this meme on the internet, I'm sure you've seen it, where Kim Kardashian is just like, just work, get up and work, get out of bed, like she, people hate that, they use it all the time in a mocking way, but she's right.

It seems like nobody [00:20:00] wants to work these days. You have to.

What's it Kim is. Kim is right. And also Kim is very successful and all the people who I see dumping on her are not as successful as she is. So get out of bed and work kids. But yeah, no,

Malcolm Collins: no one wants to say that. So, so hold on because, because that is actually, I think DEI is a big part of why they're not reaching the tops of these organizations.

And I think another big part comes from the work. It could be due to a distributional concentration that we talked about earlier that they have fewer long tails. It could be due to their specific specializations. Remember how we said that The whole

doctor lawyer thing.

Malcolm Collins: Well, no, in the same way that Jewish people don't really have a significantly different IQ than other people.

It's like 1 percent different. Oh, right. But the things that they specialize

in put them into positions of especially memetic influential, influential power, like politics, like media.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, yeah. Specifically with Asia, [00:21:00] East Asian populations, the area where they consistently underperform is in verbal which would mean that they're probably not as good at the bureaucratic game and they're getting kind of screwed.

Like our our economy runs on them apparently like Silicon Valley and stuff like that. But Yeah, but they're

not, they're, they're, they're, they're failing at the water cooler. They're killing it. On the, you know,

Malcolm Collins: about this. But before we do that, I want to get into another thing here because a lot of people might still be under this illusion that if you actually like split the data or you go into the data, they're like, Oh, there's, there's probably a reason why you guys never mentioned.

Black American IQ like you you must be just trying to avoid that. It's like way lower or something like that. Well, but it's it's Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.

Okay.

Malcolm Collins: So I'm gonna go into a study here. Okay? Because I think that if you are just reading human biodiversity bro stuff you can be convinced that that there are [00:22:00] bigger differences than there are if you're actually looking at the preponderance of data.

Oh, with all

groups, right? I mean, with Jews and with Asians and with blacks. And yeah, yeah. So here I'm going to be reading a

Malcolm Collins: study that that's titled racial IQ differences amongst transracial adoptees fact or artifact. What is a transracial adoptee? So this is specifically

because culture, right? Oh, okay.

Okay. So, so like a white Midwestern couple adopting a baby from Korea. That's what they mean.

Malcolm Collins: Okay, so some academic publications infer from studies of transracial adoptee IQs that East Asian adoptees raised in the West by whites have higher IQs than Western whites, and white adoptees raised by whites have higher IQs than black adoptees raised by whites.

Those publications suggest that this is because of genetic differences. This is because genetic differences give East Asians a higher mean IQ than whites, and whites a higher mean IQ than blacks. This paper proposes a parsimonious alternative [00:23:00] explanation. The apparent IQ advantage of East Asian adoptees is an artifact caused by ignoring the Flynn effect and adoption's beneficial effect on IQ, and most of the IQ disadvantage of black adoptees disappears when one allows for attrition in the Minnesota population.

Transracial Adoption Study and acknowledges the results of other studies. Diagnosing these artifacts suggests a nil hypothesis. East Asian, white, and black adoptees raised in the same environment would have similar IQs, hinting at a minimum role of genes in racial IQ differences. So, Flynn Effect Adjustments, the author adjusts IQ scores from older studies to account for the Finn Effect, the tendency of IQ scores to rise over time, for example, he subtracts 6 to 8 points from IQ scores in the Lane et al.

study to account for this effect. Comparison of adjusted

scores.

Malcolm Collins: After adjusting for the FinEffect, the author shows that many East Asian adoptees IQ scores are closer to or below 100, rather than significantly above, as previously claimed. Meta analysis. [00:24:00] The author combined results from multiple studies, weighing them by sample size and variance, where it calculates the black white biracial adoptees lagged white adoptees likely IQ scores.

0. 4 to 3. 1 IQ points on average. Attrition analysis. In the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study, the author demonstrates how attrition, loss of participants over time, inflated white adoptees mean IQ by about 3. 8 points while having minimum effect on black adoptee scores. Environmental factor analysis.

The author quantifies environmental differences between adoptee groups, showing that Black, black adoptees in the Minnesota study had worse environments on several measures 2. 1 standard deviation when you're looking at this large scale data analysis. The author analyzes from Swedish national studies, Dana et al and Lundborg et al, showing that the Korean adoptees showed only 1.

5 IQ points above the general Swedish population which he argues is negligible when accounting for the adoptive IQ boost statistical significance testing. They also use t tests [00:25:00] and discuss p values and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Okay, so the, the point being is that a lot of these studies that you, that, that you classically look at around this, when you start to account for statistical artifacts, the big differences that they're showing disappear.

People are cherry picking studies to get these big differences. It's not that you don't get any difference between ethnic groups, but the difference is typically like. two to three IQ points, just not a really significant number. And I think this really surprises people. And you've also got to keep in mind the effects of bias here.

When I say bias, I mean, bias on the adoptive parents. There have been studies. On teachers where they were in one instance told that this student is a genius and is going to do really well. And in another instance, we're told this student is really dumb and it's going to do really great. And they're

the same students.

And then they start treating the dumb students as though they're dumb and the genius students

Malcolm Collins: do this between students. So this study I think would be pretty unethical to do by today's standards. But the [00:26:00] students that the teachers told were dumb end up doing much worse than the Yeah. I

remember seeing that

Malcolm Collins: study.

Yeah. So if you have a belief that a group is smarter than another group and you're raising kids within that group, it's going to have an effect. And here I should note with, with the black stuff, any, anything that's like, Black people are like this genetically can largely just be trashed in my mind because black people have the highest genetic variation of any population.

That is insane. By this what I mean is if you're looking at African pools of, of, of people if you look at a population on, Like one side of Africa versus the population on the other side of Africa. And I'll put a graph on screen here that will show this they will have significantly more genetic variation between them than whites and East Asians have between them or whites and native Americans have between them.

And I don't mean significant, like. 20 percent more. I mean, significant, like [00:27:00] 500 percent more. They, they, they just are, are far more genetically distant from each other. Yeah. And you can't

just be like, Oh, well, then I'll look at a Nigerian immigrant differently than I'll look at someone descended from colonial slaves, because even people who were Stolen and then sold as slaves, kidnapped and sold as slaves from Africa, were kidnapped in totally different regions over long periods of time.

Like this is also, these are very different populations. So it doesn't matter where someone came from. This is not a monolithic

Malcolm Collins: group at all. Huge differences in American. A lot of people would be like, yeah, but once they came to the United States, they all intermix. And it's like, this is functionally not true.

For example, the descendants of the escaped slaves that moved to the North versus the slaves that were freed and then moved to the North basically exist as two populations that for a long time, didn't intermarry and didn't like each other. And if you look at the recent African immigration [00:28:00] waves, they don't really like the American, they are way more racist against American blacks than American whites are against American blacks.

If you have African friends, we have a quite a number of African friends and it's, it often comes up and I have these moments where I have to like, you know, sort of do that mentally. I don't know if you've ever been in a conversation where somebody gets really racist and you're like, doing a little whistle and you're like,

I'm just gonna go to the bathroom now.

I don't wanna

Malcolm Collins: be here. I'm not hearing this, I don't know. Yeah, I'm not hearing this, I'm not here, this isn't happening right now. Please go and have a recorder on. But this happens all the time when I'm talking to my African friends. Because, well, because they know that they're not going to have the same blowback that, you know, I would have for saying something like that.

And so, you know, they, I think, relish in being able to get away with this. But then let's, let's go over some other stuff. And

watching us sweat. Oh,

Malcolm Collins: God. Three other studies lend support to the environmental explanations of group IQ differences. Eyal's first, 1961, studied out of wedlock children of black and white soldiers stationed in Germany after World War II, who were then raised [00:29:00] by white German mothers.

In what has become known as the Eyerhoff study, he found no significant differences. in average IQ between groups. Tizard et al, 1972, studied black, West Indian, white, and mixed race children raised in British long stay residential nurseries. Two of three tests found no statistical differences. One test found higher scores for non white people.

Moore, 1986, compared black and mixed race children adopted by either black Or white middle class families in the United States, Moore observed that 23 black and interracial children raised by white parents had significantly higher mean scores than 23 age matched children raised by black parents 111 versus 104, and argued that differences in early socialization explain these differences.

And here's the thing about all of this. Like, this isn't necessarily better. It's kind of Like worse, right? If, if, if you [00:30:00] point out three things, okay, there are not actually large IQ differences between groups in the United States. Okay. And, and actually we'll see, there are some differences within the United States.

So here we've got to talk about the immigrant effect, right? And this is where you actually get like big IQ differences with some groups is immigrants are typically going to have traits that will make them better in business when contrasted With non immigrants, you're going to be more ambitious, more open to change, more open to risk, more open to, I mean, I think that this is why, you know, America's entrepreneur class is disproportionately our immigrant class.

It's like 37 percent of like, whilst driven by new companies was, were created by immigrants. Well, and

there are many, many, many Asian entrepreneurs.

Malcolm Collins: And that would also, this would also go to my DEI hypothesis. It's, it's not about the distribution thing because Asian entrepreneurs aren't being selected as against by DEI as much as like, do you become the head of a fortune 500 company?

Do you become the head of a department? [00:31:00] Right. Which is a DEI hurt, which means that they actually could perform equally if not for DEI. But it's, it's not like this, this, what I'm saying here isn't offensive. So I want you to consider the implications if everything I'm saying here is true.

Okay. There

Malcolm Collins: aren't big IQ differences between groups in the United States. Yeah. Okay?

Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: Historic discrimination does not explain when a group is underperforming, and then finally most of the difference between things like Asian and white outcomes is due to how hard they're working due to cultural expectations placed on them. People will say that I'm here, like, trying to cover for stuff, okay? Like, I'm here trying to, like, be a woke apologist or something.

Excuse me. Those three things taken together don't lead to a woke explanation for anything. If anything, they are significantly worse [00:32:00] than just saying one group had a systemic disadvantage around their IQ. But anyway, let's keep going here. So what can we say? So I tried to then look like with Jews where you saw a slightly difference in some areas, you know, like they did slightly better in verbal.

They did slightly, they did slightly better on verbal and math and they did slightly worse on visual, spatial and general reasoning. And this. I actually think it's mostly their culture, but you could argue this has helped them. Okay. So if

both Jews and East Asians are doing poorly on general reasoning, who's doing well on general reasoning?

Malcolm Collins: I can't say that, Simone. You know, I can't say that, but hold on. I've got to keep going good. Okay. So what can I say?

Yes.

Malcolm Collins: Overall IQ, East Asians tend to score slightly higher. On average than whites on IQ tests, but we're typically looking at like maybe three to two points here. Okay. Okay. Not, not a meaningful number.

Spatial reasoning. East agents typically demonstrate stronger spatial [00:33:00] slash nonverbal intelligence compared with white populations. And it's, it's very consistent across studies. Verbal abilities they tend to store, they tend to underscore on verbal abilities, this is across scores. Mathematical abilities, they tend to outperform in mathematical abilities, and some research suggests a smaller distribution.

Well, here, if you're saying, okay, they're about equal with, like, the Jewish and white populations, right? And black populations, but here I'm just using whites because that's what all the studies Would compare them to and you don't need to correct for all the additional artifacts. So, if you're doing this right what it could mean is specifically what allows a group to outcompete for the top ranked position in our existing society, like the Jewish population clearly does see our Jewish video.

It might just be that little extra verbal intelligence. It could be that verbal intelligence is incredibly important in accessing bureaucratically gated positions.

And that seems intuitively right.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah. Now I'm gonna get to something [00:34:00] very offensive. So I am not saying it. This is coming from South Korean psychologists.

Hun Hon Kim in 2004, and she argues that there is a strong negative correlation to be found between creativity and Confucianism. In her exploration of creativity among Southeast Asian countries with strong Confucius traditions, Kwon Hee Kim concluded that there is an Quote, ideological opposition between Confucianism and creativity, where Confucianism is about staying with tradition and living with inexistent confines, while creative strengths are about investigating fresh, Investing fresh energy into new ideas in quote and so here I'm just going to go over a few points.

She makes Confucian principles in Asian parenting and education emphasize conformity, hierarchy, filial piety, and academic achievement, which can stifle creativity, which like, yeah, I guess that kind of checks out, right? Like if you.

Training people to toe a line, [00:35:00] then they're not going to thrive it.

Yeah. I mean, what we've seen with pretty much all research on mental performance and body performance is use it or lose it. So any modality that would, you know, lead to some, some element of your brain function to atrophy like creativity or running against authority or doing stuff that's weird. Yeah.

That makes sense.

Malcolm Collins: And then What makes you think it's offensive then? Hold on. I mean, I'll explain why it's offensive when I get to the end of this. Okay. Kim found in her research a strong nail good of correlation between Confucianism and creativity in her research. So basically the more Confucian somebody was in their value system, the less creative they would be.

And the specific elements that she said led to this were obedience and respect for hierarchy, which yes, would create that outcome. She argues gender inequality. I don't think so. I think that's just woke nonsense. Conformity, conformity would definitely, and conformity is important to Confucian [00:36:00] value sets, right?

Suppression of expression. I don't believe that that's important, but work pay dichotomy. Now this could actually be one of the key aspects here. And I've really seen this was my Asian parent. friend group, right? Is there's a much stronger dichotomy in the Asian friends I have between work and play than in white cultural values?

Especially because white cultural values aren't unanimous. So here I'd say, I noticed this dichotomy. I also see it more in like Catholic cultural groups, but if you're looking at like, The greater Appalachian cultural group, which we come from you know, and here I'll play a clip for one of Simone's favorite songs that you cry whenever you listen to

 Do what your lover called it worth And

 Find the one you can't live without Get a ring, let your knee hit the ground And add a few limbs to your family tree

Malcolm Collins: do, do what you love, but call it work.

They say in the song and it's, it's true. It is a strong cultural value of the greater Appalachian region. And was in a number of white [00:37:00] cultures that have ended up becoming dominant in the greater American cultural ecosystem. But keep in mind, there's many different white cultures in the American cultural ecosystem that are as different from each other as they are from East Asian cultural groups.

Now we're going to get to the final part where I'm gonna get really offensive here. Yay. Really offensive. I love these parts. So I just came in here and I had this conversation with you all where I was like, look, ethnicity just really doesn't matter that much to IQ differences. It's culture. It's culture.

It's culture.

Hmm.

Malcolm Collins: And then people may hear. You know, somebody's here and they're, they're all sad. They're like, but I wanted a master race. Why isn't there a master race, Malcolm? Who are they? And I'm like, well, unfortunately the data just doesn't seem to show any groups. It's really like, out competing everyone except for maybe JNs.

We'll get to that later.

Oh, what? Okay. Twists. JNs are going

Malcolm Collins: extinct. So it [00:38:00] doesn't really matter. Yeah. I

guess you have to kind of define, I see that as failure to thrive, but okay.

Malcolm Collins: Failure to, yeah, whatever you want to call it, they're not having kids. Okay. But, but IQ does have a genetic correlate and that genetic correlate differentiates.

Not between ethnic groups, but due to two core things. Okay. One, culture and culture. . Recent genetic bottlenecks.

Oh, duh. Yeah. Two class. Oh boy. Okay. Rah. Okay. Yeah. Here's the, here's the part where it got really offensive. We finally got there. Thank you. Wonderful.

Malcolm Collins: I'll, I'll give you an explanation of what I mean here.

When I talk about. Asian population groups right here, right? So in the United States, I'll give an example for starting with the United States, because it's one I always give, [00:39:00] which is of Cubans. I talk to Americans about Cubans and they go, Oh, Cubans. Yes. Cubans. They're, they're very Republican. They're very entrepreneurial.

They're very hardworking. They're very wealthy. Their businesses seem to work at like really disproportionate rates when contrasted with other groups. Cubans. Yes. Those are the traits of Cubans. And it's like, no, those are the traits of Cuban Americans. There's a whole other f ing communist country out there, you knobhead.

And those are not the traits of the people who stayed in that country. There was a recent hard selection event, which led to a bunch of people with similar beliefs. And keep in mind that it's not just Like IQ, right? Like in terms of success, IQ isn't the predominant factor. It's things like ambition and entrepreneurialism and comfortableness with change and all of these things, which also have genetic correlates, right?

So you had a recent bottleneck that was both cultural because it wasn't just a genetic bottleneck. It was also a cultural bottleneck [00:40:00] that led to this group of Cubans coming to the United States. And they created a culture that represented not necessarily Cuban more broadly. But the selection of it, okay, we also see this in East Asian immigrants to the United States and I've seen larger analysis that argue this, this small advantage, because remember you do still, when you really watch things out, see like a small, like three point advantage in East Asian populations, the United States if you contrast it with non immigrant The populations that stayed in a station.

This it disappears. Because immigrating to the United States from East Asia is very difficult. It's a lot of sacrifices. It requires a base level of wealth, and there are certain pressures that are going to draw you here. Cultural pressures like a value for entrepreneurial ism of values for freedom of value for but then you also have a bottleneck.

There is one country in the world today that 70 percent of the world's computing powder relies on. If [00:41:00] they disappeared, our entire world of AI would collapse, our entire world of modernity would collapse, and you might say, Oh, this country must be uniquely competent in some way. What could have created this country of modernity?

Hyper competence. It was a recent selection event. The country, of course I am talking about here is Taiwan. And Taiwan was largely created when the Shanghai Shek's government was retreating and they were fascist to start, but they were, the communists were coming in first, people who didn't like communism were like, I'm going to get out of here, similar to the Cubans who went to the United States.

Right. And then secondly, the Shanghai Shek group, they were like, Oh, We want to take everyone who looks like they could be useful in any like entrepreneurial business people or any people who had achieved the level of success and they pulled them out and that created the birthplace of the modern. Whatever, you know, what's the Taiwanese cultural group, which [00:42:00] now produces the world chips like Taiwan and China are basically the same ethnicity.

Okay, it is. Genuinely remarkable with like 10x their wealth and the government is is pumping money into this in china The chinese cannot figure out how to make advanced semiconductors They are trying hard and yet the taiwanese have just figured out And they can't even, like, work with Americans.

Like, there's studies of, like, them trying to, like, set up factories in America, and they're like, these white people just can't figure out these factories. But I mean, that, that, I mean, it should, it should. They're like, they're, they don't follow orders well enough. They don't, and this is all true. Like, we can look at Confucianism and say, well, Confucianism leads to lower types of creative outcomes, right?

But, Sometimes

that's not, sometimes that's ideal. Yeah. Maybe

Malcolm Collins: it's this very conformity, which has allowed them and, and, and hierarchy preference, which has allowed them to do [00:43:00] these super clean fabs that no one else can create on scale. Okay. And everyone else has tried, this is a national security interest of every other country on earth.

Yeah. Just can't do it. Or not at scale in the way that they're doing it. And so the, the, the, the. The, the thing here is that, yes, different groups are different, and we globally benefit from that difference. Progressives say, we love diversity, but everyone's secretly the same. And it's like, then why would diversity matter to you if everyone's secretly the same?

We're like, we love diversity because No group is better than another group, but each group brings its own proficiencies and perspectives and through working with people who have different proficiencies and perspectives, we can do more. But here I'm going to talk about the last super offensive thing, okay?

Social class?

Malcolm Collins: Class. Social class. Oh boy. Oh no. We're not going to get fully into this, but I'm going to talk about it here in the context of China. [00:44:00] So, for people who aren't familiar with the Chinese revolution when they did the revolution, they inverted the social classes. They took any family who had wealth, Or had businesses or who had education.

And as they were redistributing land, as they were redistributing opportunities, they gave them and their children less they would be regularly mocked in ceremonies, like walking through the town. They would be sometimes just killed for having been rich in the past. And the kids had to grow up as orphans.

This was very

separated from their kids. Yeah, totally. It was. You had a

Malcolm Collins: complete class inversion. Okay. So the communist China attempted a class inversion. What happened to that class inversion? Okay.

It got reversed over time.

Malcolm Collins: It became reversed over time. Yeah. So led by Alberto Alessini of Harvard university.

The academics mind data from household surveys and census reports and land records. And they found that by 2010, the income of the descendants of the pre communist elite [00:45:00] were 16 to 17 percent higher than those born into families that were underprivileged before 1949. There were, they were also more likely to have completed secondary and tertiary education.

They performed significantly better in mass tests. They were more likely to be in the top decile of earners not just in China, but also when they immigrated to the US and Canada. So the top decile of earners.

By 14% more or 11% more of being in the top decile. And, and by the way, bonus, fun fact, the tongs, the Chinese organized crime syndicate have a stated goal to reinstate Ming Emperorship. Oh, okay. And the old Parliament seats the only non-communist party to do so. Go for it. Um, Go for it. So. Yeah, this is, this, this, this brings two things, right?

Some people do actually seem to have a genetic advantage over other people, but it's not ethnic based. It's usually class based. It is immoral to ignore these systemic advantages we are born with. It is [00:46:00] immoral. Or when I talked to my friends at Stanford business school and they're like, I pulled myself up from my bootstraps and you know, I started with nothing.

And I'm like, well, I mean, you did probably have a genetic advantage over your peer group. And they're like, nope, if they had worked as hard as me, they'd have everything I'd have. And I'm like, well, I mean, that's probably not true. Have you thought about getting this tested? You can do a, you know, a genetic test.

And then they're like, no, I won't do that. Of course. I, I won't test to see if I would cheese the game. So, Pretending you don't see your privilege over other people is not moral.

So, if you're wondering where I fall, genetically, I decided to pull up my results just based on the question I had posed here. , brain volume. To two different studies, either the 87th percentile or the 98 percentile. , and then for intelligence, the 72nd. Percentile. And this is to say, uh, I mean, clearly I've achieved more than 72nd percentile in society, but I also very, obviously, obviously, obviously, Had massive advantages over your average [00:47:00] person. , to compare my relative career success or my relative. Academic or life success.

We, somebody who. Didn't have this unearned privilege is frankly unfair and immoral. And it really genuinely disgusts me when people who obviously had some form of a genetic advantage over other people, pretend that there is no such thing as her credibility of intelligence, which just gives them a right to pretend that they are 100% responsible for. For their own success. And that there was no outside hand on the scale, tipping, the tipping, the metrics.

Malcolm Collins: But this is also why classless societies don't really work because class like reorients itself into society along genetic lines.

And this actually happened. You see this in the UK. There's some studies that look at the persistence of class across generations [00:48:00] even when you see significant disruptions or somebody loses everything. And I even saw this with a lot of my Jewish friends. You could just see this, like if you, anyone who has tons of Jewish friends, you will know a lot of families that were super wealthy in Germany and they had literally everything taken to them.

Came to the U. S., started from literally nothing and then became super wealthy again.

I think you see this also a lot with the various Soviet countries where people came from a lot of family wealth, completely wiped out, now they're back at the top. Yeah,

Malcolm Collins: pretty universal it seems and so I also want to talk about like where does prejudice make sense if you're going to assume things about Somebody if you're going to like be talking to somebody and say oh, you know, you have some cultural predilection It's when you have intentionally sorted cultural groups

Okay, so

Malcolm Collins: let's talk about intentionally sorted cultural groups because that's largely what makes up the United States.

What I mean by this is you can largely tell [00:49:00] more about somebody's genetic sort of correlates to their perspective by looking at either what part of the United States they decided to settle in or by looking at What their religion is their religious cultural identification is then by looking at their ethnic group.

So somebody who chooses to settle in and I, and I broadly agree with the cultural groups. I might draw some few others and like create my own cultural group map of the United States, but I broadly think the American nations map that we've been using that I'll put on screen here is pretty right about American cultural groups, which is to say, okay.

You know, I have, for example a lot of Indian friends. I grew up with a lot of Indian friends in Dallas, Texas. My Indian friends from Dallas, Texas were culturally very different from the Indians I met who chose to settle in San Francisco.

A lot of Indians who choose to settle in San Francisco, they honestly.

were closer to me, a Texan, culturally speaking, than they were to the Indians who settled in San [00:50:00] Francisco. And that was because that requires a cultural choice. Like when you are choosing where to settle, you're like, I'm going to go to Dallas versus San Francisco. There's likely a reason for that.

And that reason is in part cultural, it's in part genetic, and it is making that sort. And that is why. You actually end up with more concentration of dispositions and perspectives when you have freedom to move and settle and you don't look at these historic genetic groups, but instead you say people are signaling something about to you.

That is true based on where they choose to move. And we actually have an Indian population near us in Pennsylvania which I know a few of, and they're actually quite different from the Texas group and the the San Francisco group. Fairly similar to the Texas group, like they're much more in common with the Texas group dispositionally than they are to the San Francisco group.

But I also think that rural Pennsylvania is very similar to [00:51:00] Texas dispositionally speaking, so that would make sense.

Do you have

Malcolm Collins: any final thoughts on this, Simone, or have we? Just gone too off the rails with offensiveness on this. We just pissed off everyone. We pissed off the biodiversity bros.

We pissed off the people who want to say that like, everyone is born exactly equal. We pissed off the people who want to say my race good, your race bad.

I regret nothing. This is, this is perfect.

Malcolm Collins: Let them all be angry. Just,

just go

Malcolm Collins: out with the torches and just, just lighten everything afire. No,

just go out and work people.

You're not working hard enough.

Malcolm Collins: Zero, ten, false,

oh my god. Yep, I love it and I love you.

Malcolm Collins: I love you too. And you are spectacular, Simone, and I am honored to have you as a wife and somebody who can deal. Back in your days, like when you were a San Francisco urban monoculture person and somebody had brought all this to you, what would you have thought?

Would you have thought that they were just a racist? Or would you have found it interesting?

No, I would have had the same reaction I do now.

Malcolm Collins: I think most people who aren't like [00:52:00] actually brainwashed That's the thing is, is

most people recognize group level differences. And, and like I pointed out at the beginning of this conversation, the fact that Asian dad meme exists, you know.

And yeah, we have these stereotypes and like mainstream jokes shows that people broadly recognize these group based average differences. So it's not. It's also

Malcolm Collins: a very different understanding of success or pushing kids and like my cultural group. So what

is really offensive, I will say though, is, is the findings.

And again, this is just replicated across so many channels that it's hard for me to imagine a world in which it doesn't make sense, but that. People who came from historically high social class or historically wealthy families tend to rise again, even if everything is nuked and everyone starts at the same point again.

Malcolm Collins: They didn't start at the same point. They started off

worse. They started off worse.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah.

It's just that even we were interviewed by some people [00:53:00] on Monday and one of them sort of kept implying that journal. Yeah, that, that. There are, you know, systematic inequalities in society and how should those be corrected for and it's not fair.

And there's, I think, definitely still this perception that if we just let there be a genuinely level playing field starting point in society, that people would just then have equal shots at, at succeeding. Just not true from the data, because as you point out, even when you take those who are privileged and make them worse off, you put them in at a negative 10 and everyone else is starting at a zero.

Those people end up at a positive 10 in the end, whereas everyone else is, you know, around like a five or six. So it's

Malcolm Collins: yeah. So a few final points here as to why we care. Some people will still then be like, well, why don't you care about this two to three points IQ difference? Well, when IQ in the developed world is dropping by 0.

2 points a year, see our idiocracy episode. And that means a standard deviation decline in just 75 years. This stuff doesn't matter. It comes out in the wash. Like a, general IQ scores are [00:54:00] changing too quickly due to just genetic selection for you to care about like population level IQ. They just don't really matter.

The second thing I would note here is when you talk about areas, like, I'm like, Do some groups seem to systemically outcompete other groups due to anything historically? Yes, I will notice some outcompeting, but it doesn't happen as much along ethnic lines as it seems to happen along groups on the border of civilized areas.

Reliably outcompeting civilized areas. So basically and there's a mechanism for this and we'll probably do a different episode on it. But the longer an area has been civilized, there's some genetic exhaustion there.

Bureaucracies and stuff like that. And you, you Or

maybe the, the comfort and amenities of that civilization starts to Hey,

Malcolm Collins: that also could be what it is.

Yeah. All right. Love you Simone.

Love you too. That's what everyone knew. He brought the looks to this relationship. [00:55:00]

Malcolm Collins: You're so sweet to me. I really appreciate it. A lot of people on the the comments, they're like, no, look at like, the one about, um, what women actually like and like, why they cheat on guys.

So

Malcolm Collins: in the comments, people are freaking out.

Cause they're like, no, like, if you look at romance novel covers, you know, they have like big, strong, muscular men And I'm like, if you look at romance novel covers In cartoons. Yes.

No, no, no. If you actually do, I think this is, this is a worthwhile observation

but the, I think the important thing is that, yes, many romance novel covers have muscular men on their covers. Steve Sue sent a screenshot, just of best selling romance novels. Yes. But when you actually read the books, there's

Malcolm Collins: very little correlation. So did you look at the screenshots that he sent? He interpreted them as having lots of muscular men on them.

It was maybe one in six of the books.

They were more on the, on a, on a scale from Homer Simpson to [00:56:00] Chris Williamson. They were closer to Chris Williamson.

Malcolm Collins: Yeah, but they weren't, they were not what people are thinking. They're thinking like Fabio.

Oh yeah. No, no, no. They weren't. Yeah.

Malcolm Collins: They weren't. I wouldn't say they're, they're like a Chris Williams and they're much closer to when they did have muscular men, much closer to Chris Pratt.

Which is a very drastic part. Chris Pratt, not. Parks and Rec. Right. But people don't look at Jurassic Park Chris Pratt and say, that is a man whose physique is dominated by his musculature. Like you just don't, you, you don't look at him and think a first thing, that's a, that's a bodybuilder. You look at Chris Williamson, the first thing you think is that's a bodybuilder.

Which is, which, and, and, and it's actually, I don't know,

like, I, I just, yeah, I assume, yeah, you don't think he goes to the gym. I don't think Chris Williamson comes across as a bodybuilder, but he comes across, hold on, Simone, what I was

Malcolm Collins: going to say is, is other than this, just if you go to Google and you type in like best selling female romance novels of 2024,

I'm doing this right [00:57:00] now.

I'm going in, I'm going in girls, 2024 best selling romance, female romance novels. Oh, well, oh yeah, because of all the male romance novels.

Malcolm Collins: All right, I'm going to

How many, how many buff guys do you see on the

Malcolm Collins: entire page? You know, actually

the funny thing is a lot of them are leading with women. Yeah, no, no, no,

Malcolm Collins: Simone, I'm asking you a question. You're looking at about. Oh, and the

first one

Malcolm Collins: I'm seeing of a guy is actually a very, A feminine looking guy? Yes, you're looking at about 36 images now.

Is there a single buff guy among them? Actually, no. Okay, I asked you a straightforward question. You are being manipulated by people who are misleading you. It is actually very uncommon in the top female romance novels to have buff men. Something you might not know about the current trend. Do you know in our generation it was vampire boys?

They were like the sexy boys. Yeah. You is for girls in this generation? Because I try to keep up with this. Wait, fairies? You Fairy boys,

but [00:58:00] again, not, but no, no, no, Malcolm, you don't understand. They're fairy boys who turn into giant wolves. So they're,

Malcolm Collins: I know when girls remember I did the Marvel comparison.

I read the fricking book. Okay. Listen, Simone, the Marvel comparison. I'm like all of the guys in this Loki. So women go in to Lord of the Rings. Like your, your young teenage girls go into Lord of the Rings filled with masculine buff. Warriors. Yeah. Who do all of them come out with a crush on? F ing Legolas.

F ing Legolas. No, well, no,

our sister in law was team Aragorn but yeah, all my friends and I were team Legolas. Of course, now everyone wants, once they hit the mid 30s, they want Sam. Everyone wants Sam, you know? Yeah, well, what they go to, but this

Malcolm Collins: is an important thing, is that female sexuality transforms as they get older, and they want different things as they age.

And this is actually really important to note. The reason I explicitly said, look at the [00:59:00] art of transphobia. Like the, the fanfiction art that they draw of like the guys that they're dreaming about, of teenage girls, you will never see buff guys. It's always like lanky vampires. I'm on, I'm on, I'm on

Amazon scrolling bestselling, and the two, most of them are illustrations, most of them aren't even really showing guys.

There, it seems to be just as many images of women as the, at the forefront as there are as guys, but the two photos of guys shown show men on the Chris Williams inside. Not bodybuilders, but clearly he had the gym. But hold on, this is two pictures out of how many? So one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

Malcolm Collins: So two out of ten. Two out of 10 is not common, Simone. Yeah.

I tried the same experiment on Amazon. And I only found one that single image of a buff guy. And I noticed something that I should have asked Simone, but I didn't think too about her two out of 10. The one image of a buff guy with a sponsored image, [01:00:00] none of the non-sponsored images. I had buff guys in them.

Malcolm Collins: You're, you're, you're trying to create an argument for something that's just not there. But the point I'm making, and this is important for guys to note, is the ideal body type for women changes as they age. When women first go through puberty to I I'd say really up until like the end of college and a bit after they're in this stage where they really, for whatever reason, prefer extra feminine, like Legolas type men.

You see this in fan art. If you hang out on Tumblr communities, you see this in really anywhere you're looking. They then go through a transition where for a period typically until they're like 30, they do begin to perform the more, I say, Chris Pratt body type. Yeah. And then after that, they prefer the Samwise Ganji personality because they completely move away from caring about body type at all. And this is just not being recognized. And so all of these guys are like, why, why aren't I finding good women?

All of the women are terrible, [01:01:00] blah, blah, blah.

You know, something else that might be discounted here, which we totally don't discount with women is specifically that with men, we're also valuing youth. And when you are an adolescent boy, you cannot kind of help but be muscular and thin as you're going through puberty.

You know, you're just nothing but elbows and arms and, and, and boys as teenagers typically are thin. Maybe it's that we're also selecting for youth and people are confusing youth with attractiveness. Or conflating or equating. Women don't

Malcolm Collins: select for youth in the same way that men do. I know, it's

just that I'm trying to think of like, you know, it seems that a common characteristic among those who do seem to be pictured here is that they just look more like teenagers and not like men.

So I don't know. But we're not here to talk about this. Let's let's.

Malcolm Collins: I'll get to the episode topic. Okay.

You want a video showing you of a turtle and you want our subscribers to see it? Yes. And you think they'll find this very clever?[01:02:00]

You do too.

Okay, Octavian. I'm very dirty. Do you want to have kids when you grow up? Yes. How many kids? Um, two, and, um, uh, two more, and three, and, um, uh, two more. Okay. Okay. So, like, seven? Yeah. Yes. That's a good number. What matters most to you in life, Octavian? What do you care about the most? Um,

sure thing. I take it. And also, uh, yes, I guess I'll do my turtle now and then I'll do this video on, right? If I'm a turtle now, If I'm a turtle now, I do, If I'm, if I'm [01:03:00] a turtle now, I do, Then we say, Oh my say like and subscribe? Yes. Help me. Then tell, tell them, tell them in a turtle voice.

Follow me. Don't bite me. You're, are you a snapping turtle? No. Oh yeah. Like and subscribe to our video. Bye. And you want to go to the creek tour soon? That's what all this is about? Yeah.

Join Malcolm and Simone Collins as they dive deep into the controversial topic of infidelity, exploring the evolutionary psychology behind why people cheat. This thought-provoking discussion covers:

* Various evolutionary theories on why women cheat

* Surprising statistics on infidelity rates across different demographics

* The impact of age, business travel, and previous relationships on cheating behavior

* How modern technology and dating apps influence infidelity

* The difference between male and female cheating patterns

* Cultural and biological factors influencing fidelity

* The concept of "mate-switching" and its evolutionary basis

* How postmenopausal sexuality might differ from premenopausal sexuality

* The role of emotional vs. physical affairs in different genders

Whether you're interested in evolutionary psychology, relationship dynamics, or simply curious about human behavior, this video offers fascinating insights into one of society's most taboo subjects.

[00:00:00] Hello, Simone. I am excited to be here with you today Today we are going to discuss the topic of why women cheat

Simone Collins: Ooh la la, have I done something?

No, I was watching a Chris Williams episode and he was interviewing a psychologist about this and the psychologist, honestly, I, I thought I didn't really agree with his interpretation of this particular question, but it got me thinking about the question from an angle.

That I hadn't thought about it before. Oh,

Simone Collins: interesting.

Which is not, why do specific women cheat? Okay. Why do women cheat at all, period? Like what, why is the, the, in, in human beings across cultures, you see cheating as a behavior pattern. Why do you see it cross culturally in humans? And isn't it

Simone Collins: pretty high?

I feel like Ayla did numbers on this at one point, and I was actually shocked by the proportion of both men and women that cheat.

We're going to go into the numbers. We're going to go into the numbers. We're going to go into how they differ [00:01:00] by ethnicity. We're going to go into how they differ by culture.

We're going to go into, Oh, you're going to get so much. But the point I'm making here is not all monogamous animals cheat. Um, So some animals that are mostly monogamous. Basically almost never cheat. Do swans almost never cheat? Well, I'll give you some that almost never cheat. Black vultures. Will the black

Simone Collins: vultures faithful?

Extra pair of fertilization in black vultures. California mice. DNA analysts suggest wild California mice have extremely low rate of extra pair of fertility. And I didn't know there was such a thing as

Simone Collins: California mice. Eurasian beavers. Okay. Geographically specific. It's just Californian mice.

I'm naming species here and by species, you're going to get different patterns.

Here's an interesting one. This is, this one's not going to be as funny for you because it's not the coyotes. Coyotes have a study of urban coyotes have found 100 percent monogamy over a six year period with no evidence [00:02:00] of any cheating. They're urban,

Simone Collins: so you'd expect them to be more

polyamorous. They're very urban, right?

You'd expect them to be polyamorous by now, right?

Simone Collins: Bizarre.

Macaroni penguins? And

Simone Collins: Atlantic puffins? Do they have, do they have top hats, Howard? What? Are macaroni penguins? Anyway, I need a picture of this. Those crazy looking penguins. The things. Oh, yeah, the ones with the little feather crowns.

Yes, yes, yes, yes.

Simone Collins: Okay, okay. They aren't, so they do wear hats.

Would you like to know more?

Simone Collins: Okay,

so historically, the most believed hypothesis, and it's the one that we argued for in our book, for the predominant reason women cheat, is to get better genes. This is the Beta, Bucks, Alpha, Fs strategy. This is the, I have a provider. Who I know is going to raise my Children, [00:03:00] but frankly, I can't secure a high value male who will invest in me, but most high value men, at least in a historic context, this is before child support.

And we often talk about the genetic effects of child support, not super positive. But before child support With a risk, historically, a man, and we'll get into the stats of how often this happened historically in a bit would just sleep with other women. Right. You know, so I, I, I, as a woman might only be able to get some fairly average looking, some fairly average competence man, but in terms of, you know, what I actually want, I want the powerful Lords kids.

I want the, or the person who has shown themselves to be You know, an amazing night and who is buff and who is fit and everything like that. But he's never going to settle down with a woman like me, but he, screw me. Right. You know, well, it didn't,

Simone Collins: aren't there some, there was a study at some point that found that women who were ovulating were more attracted to men who looked more Chad.

Yeah. So that's, that

was a part of this story is that that study has kind of [00:04:00] been debunked and that was a core scene as a core piece of evidence supporting this, but I, I want to go to you here. And say, you were telling me earlier about how, like all of these female romance books, it's always like, they don't talk about the personality, it's just how much power the guy has.

Simone Collins: Yes. Can

you talk about that?

Simone Collins: Yes. Yeah. A really weird thing that I realized after talking with Malcolm about sort of a common characteristic I've noticed of women in erotic material is, you know, it's, it's Really their sentiment, their enthusiasm, their, their, their kind of their personality to a great extent is a selling point.

Whereas in all of these romance novels, and I've gone through so many, I like reading romance novel reviews more than I like reading romance novels, which is really interesting. And also seeing how they're tagged. And. It does not matter if they are good people or bad people. It does not matter if they are kind or mean.

What matters is that they are dominant, especially high class as [00:05:00] perceived by society. So that could be that they're a mob boss. It could be that they're a billionaire. It could be that they are a fairy Prince, but they are high in the hierarchy and they have chosen for whatever reason. The female protagonist who typically is extremely annoying, but they had no, there's like no person.

There's very little exposition into their personality. There's not really a lot of description of it. Maybe they're a little cold, you know, like the only the only elements of their personality seem to have to do. With their dominance and status. So there's nothing beyond that. There's nothing like, Oh, he's like, he is really into knitting or, you know, he, he laughs whenever he sees dogs vomit.

I don't know, but like, I don't, I don't know how to describe people's personalities, obviously.

But it is interesting that women are actually quite superficial in what arouses them. And we talk about this in the pragmatist guide to sexuality, which is people are like, Oh, women are like, Not that sexual and men are really sexual like they look at porn consumption rates in men and the amount of time when you look at the

Simone Collins: romance novel industry, you discover that, oh my gosh, women are [00:06:00] very,

yeah, if you include erotic fan fiction and romance novels, porn consumption among women, women is almost exactly equal publicly for the love of

Simone Collins: God.

I mean, about it, like it's okay.

Yeah, well, it's a social thing for them, which is also interesting, right? Like there isn't the same stigmatization. Around talking what, you know, they're clearly getting off to that's, that's what they're doing when they're the 50 shades of gray. It's not for the story, right?

You know, this is a smut, you know, it is, it is a designed predominantly to arouse me. I

Simone Collins: actually tried to watch, I didn't, I couldn't read it, but I tried to watch 50 shades of gray to like comment on it in a podcast. For, that we did. I literally couldn't make it through. It was so bad. It was that boring too.

And the characters were that uninspired. That, it just, it's, it's really, it's awful. And so yeah, there is this sort of one note power dynamic thing going on. And

so, this one note power dynamic would support two of the potential, well, maybe more than [00:07:00] two of the, Actually all of the potential theories. It doesn't actually solve anything for us.

Yeah. But so, so better genes is one hypothesis. Okay. This was believed a long time in the field as like the predominant strategy, because one study reported to show that women, depending on their stage of the cycle when they were more fertile, preferred men who were more Like masculine and, and, and more of this like alphas type.

And when they were less fertile, they preferred men who were more resource providers for them and caring and everything like that very much. This, this, this dynamic, and that would have been created by evolution. If that had been a strategy and the mechanism of action of that strategy. The problem is.

Is when we wrote the pragmatist guide to sexuality, it had the initial studies debunking, it had come out, but like they hadn't been accepted as mainstream yet. And it had been like the mainstream perspective in the field for so long. I wasn't going to like throw it out. Now the, the, the studies that are more robust, they have been replicated.

And it appears [00:08:00] that that does not happen. Now I need to note here. That does not mean that women. From an evolutionary perspective, we're not engaging in this behavior. It just means you didn't have this mechanism of action promoting the behavior of the time of cycle in a woman. So note there. It also is interesting that you could even argue that hidden fertility in women At all, could be a signifier that women were doing this strategy.

So this is actually one of the big mysteries of human sexuality. In most other primates, a woman's period when she's fertile is pretty heavily signaled, like giant red butts or something like that, that they don't have during other periods of their cycle. But in humans, it's covert. You as a male, are going to struggle to tell if a woman is fertile or not fertile, depending on the way she appears to you.

Simone Collins: Well, I mean, unless she's on her period, in which case it is technically possible to get pregnant, but [00:09:00] very unlikely, but still, and that you kind of know that the odds are extremely low.

Okay. So, this is likely to ensure that the sexual capital of a woman is preserved across all periods of her fertility window, which indicates that some of these strategies.

May have been at play here, but we'll get to some of the other, the predominant strategy after this one, after the Oh, they're going to cheat strategy was a strategy that said the predominant where reason women cheat is because they are looking for a better partner. I E a woman cheats when she thinks she can secure a partner who is better than her last partner.

And they use this as like a, Interstitial period. And this is

Simone Collins: what I hear most from at least 10 years ago. What I heard most when I hung around red pill communities, that this was hypergamy and this was why women cheated and left whenever they saw a better option, they just hop onto it.

Yeah, potentially.

So. And here I would note some dumb [00:10:00] reasons why people say, so some people really hated these two strategies, like some feminists did. Originally feminists loved these strategies, they were the best, because it gave women agency, right? Like, but then they started hating it because they're like, it paints women in a bad light.

So they came up with this genuinely insane strategy that women were cheating for genetic variability. This was a

Simone Collins: feminist theory for why women cheat.

Yeah, that like women were better off having more genetic variability in their offspring. Oh,

Simone Collins: okay. So, okay, to have different baby daddies for all their children because if, if they happen to reproduce with one man who just had two.

terrible cancer risk. At least that was only passed on to one of her children.

Yeah, except the problem is that if you're doing the math of genetics, right? Genetics doesn't exactly care about you as an individual, right? So, Because it all washes out in the math, it actually doesn't matter if you had the kids with one partner or with multiple [00:11:00] partners.

Do you, do you understand why that would wash out in the math? So, as me as an individual, right, I have statistically increased the odds that one of my offspring will survive if my partner had whatever, whatever. Potential disease, but the individual gene hasn't by that, what I mean is if I have five kids with one guy and five kids with another guy.

Okay. And I'm choosing from a pool of a thousand men. All right. And half of the men in that pool this, this gene that ends up with their children dying. If your kids get it right. And the other half of the men in that pool of a thousand men don't have that gene. Okay. And now me as a woman, I have two sets of potential genes.

One gene says cheat. One gene says have 10 kids was one guy. Statistically speaking, these functions actually get passed on at exactly the [00:12:00] same rate, because genes don't care about you as an individual, okay?

 Realized this might still be confusing for people. So I'll explain the math here in another way. The probability that a gene gets transferred to the next generation is determined by the percentage of the children that the average carrier of that gene both has and survive.

So we're going to put women into two categories, one category, 50% of their genes, or with one guy, 50% of their genes. They're with another guy. This is called category one. The second category, we're going to call it category two. They always have all of their kids with one guy. Okay. And so we're going to assume to make the math easy that each of these women always has 10 kids.

And we're also going to assume to make the math easy that guys exist in two categories, X and O If you have kids with an X guy. , those kids all died for a genetic reason. If you have kids visit, oh guy, those kids all survive. All right. So if you are a type one woman where [00:13:00] 50% of your kids is one guy, 50% of your kids with another guy. You have three types of pairings, you can have, you either have a, an ex pairing where you have 50% of your kids with the next guy in 50% of your kids with an oh God, you have an X, X pairing. , and you have an O O pairing. All right.

So how many of your kids are going to survive on average 50%? All right, now you have a category, two pairing here. And the category two pairing, , you are monogamous, right? So you either have, , all of your kids are of the XX variety or the O O variety, right?

Because that's the only thing you have. Right. All of your kids are. With an X or was it now? How many of your kids survive? 50%. This does nothing to increase the survival odds. . Of a gene, it might increase the survival of your genes, but it doesn't do anything to increase the genetic selection pressure on aging.

I don't need to go further on the math on that.

It's just like an interesting little math thing. So it doesn't make sense. And even if you think about like [00:14:00] the marginal utility of this, it's just the marginal utility isn't that high. You know, especially when you consider the cost of cheating, which infanticide and stuff like that, men seem to have an infanticide instinct towards kids who are not their own non biological children living with a man have three X the rate of dying.

You know, Who knows why that's happening but we do know that our nearest ancestors, if you look at apes you know, often when they move in to get the women fertile again and to not care for another man's kids, they'll take the cubs and they will smash them on rocks. And then we can look at civilization developing.

What does the Bible say to do to the young children of the areas that you conquer? It says smash them on rocks. So this is a, we see it in our, Evolutionary ancestors. We see it in the earliest writings of what you're supposed to do when you conquer a territory that we have access to and it doesn't exactly make the Bible look good to keep this in it.

So I'm assuming that, yeah, humans have an instinct, an infanticide instinct, which makes the behavior really risky. And you are at least pretending to be monogamous. Yeah,

Simone Collins: [00:15:00] yeah.

So. That's, that's a ridiculous theory and I just need to note the ridiculous theory there and put it off to the side. So, mate switching is the next theory that they go to.

Maybe. What does mate switching

Simone Collins: mean? What, I mean, that's what cheating is.

Mate switching is the one I just described, where they're looking for a better mate. Oh, okay. They're looking for a better mate than their existing mate. And, but I've definitely heard this from women, right? When, when women talk about why they're cheating.

Simone Collins: I've never heard that, but okay.

I have seen people do it with me when I slept with people who had existing partners back when I was, you know, sexually immoral. And I didn't really understand why sexual morality mattered. Or just mate with whatever. I didn't, you know, I was a kid. It's like, yeah.

Simone Collins: So they, so what you, okay. You were the other man. Women were cheating on their boyfriends with you, right? Yeah.

And so I was telling you, some of them, I actually, I'd say it was pretty clear to me. The, well, they, they, they, what we'll get to is, is they seem to do it for all of these reasons. Some of them just were clearly [00:16:00] like, you're better genetically than my partner.

And I know I never could get a guy like you. So thank you for dating to sleep with me.

And then others were like, um, clearly trying to upgrade to me. to, to build a relationship with me. And you can tell pretty quickly.

One of the challenges when studying sexuality is a core source of information we have on sexuality. Is our own arousal patterns, but the problem is, is human arousal patterns are highly variable. And so I can go out and collect lots of information like I did in the. Pragmatist guide to sexuality, which we wrote. But at other times, , when I don't have a big survey in front of me, I just have to guess based on my own arousal patterns. And I just noticed something when I was going over this. Which is that. When I was sleeping with somebody else's partner. Oh, my.

My hotness standards would be lower. Then they were otherwise, , because they were [00:17:00] positively augmented. I E I gained more arousal from knowing I was sleeping with somebody else's partner than I gained from. , knowing I was sleeping with a partner that I had locked down. , it's funny. Just if anyone's like, oh, you're such a weirdo for saying this.

Trump has said the same thing. , so at least I know that I, and Trump have this arousal pattern. I suspect more guys might as well, because it would have been highly biologically advantageous that you are willing to make compromises on the genetic fitness of an individual. When it is unlikely that you are going to have to raise the kids that you had with that individual. Which is really interesting because I haven't seen that talked about in men.

But others were in the next category, which Robin Hanson actually came up with this category, which is information gathering.

Maybe they don't really know their sexual marketplace value. And they're trying to gauge what sort of partner they can get. Maybe they're trying to learn what. Ummm, so here's what sex is like. This was actually a core strategy for me [00:18:00] is that girls knew I was really discreet, in way to recommend their friends to me as a way to gain sexual experience so that they didn't embarrass themselves when they had their first time.

Um I think a lot more girls do this than guys know! And this is like a WHY?! You know, you shouldn't try all this dark triad stuff, you know, just be a decent human being, but also naturally dominant. Maybe that's a rare thing. Um,

And when I say be a decent human being here, I mean, Being nice to women and treating them with respect. I do not mean decent in an absolute or moral sense. Obviously. Sleeping with other people's partners., or sleeping with a girl who you know, is about to go on a date and sleep with this guy who she likes for the first time.

So she can try out sex. That's not a decent thing to do. Like I was not being a moral person back then. But I didn't contextualize it that way back then, because back then I was urban monoculture. , I had this utilitarian ethic sense, [00:19:00] which is to say maximize the amount of positive feelings in the world.

, and that makes me a good person and what somebody doesn't know doesn't hurt them and them having sex with me and me having sex with them. That feels good. Therefore, I have increased the amount of positive. Experiences in the world. And I don't need to think about what I just did. Uh, But anyway that is something that, that some women definitely do. The next is investment strategy.

So, the classic example of the investment strategy is a woman's essentially just trying to get investors. So you can think of this as a woman who has a kid and spends her day as a prostitute. Like, why is she doing that? Cause she wants money for the kids. She's not really trying to get pregnant from these other guys.

But you actually see this a lot where it's been studied in African tribes infidelity behavior. The investment strategy appears to be the predominant thing. When people are subsistence living getting that marginal additional income is incredibly important.

Simone Collins: And

so, that, that makes sense to me.

Now I guess

Simone Collins: you could argue that. [00:20:00] Many women, they may not actually be having sex with other men, but they may be in a relationship and then against their partners, their monogamous partners knowledge and perhaps preference, they may be on OnlyFans, for example, making money on the side.

Yeah, well, and I, and I think here interesting I haven't mentioned this yet, but people might be asking, why aren't I asking why men cheat from an evolutionary perspective?

There is no question as to why men cheat. It is obviously in a male's best interest if they are living in a world where some women are willing to cheat to cheat because me sleeping with another person and getting them pregnant does not lower the number of kids I can have with my dedicated partner, my wife, right?

In

Simone Collins: other words, men who Took the opportunity when they got it, had more surviving offspring, and therefore, you know, that's a trait that is going to be evolved into a population. Yeah,

I've got to put the South Park thing here

. As you've all seen on the news, our country is facing a major [00:21:00] crisis why? Why are rich, successful men suddenly going out and trying to have sex with lots of women? Why would a man who's famous Use that to try and have sex with lots of different women! And these rich celebrities have perfectly good wives at home! Why would they even think of sex with others? Dammit! I want answers! . Of course, we all know the normal healthy male thinks only of sex occasionally and has no desire for sex with multiple partners. Yeah, that's right, of course. Definitely true. Yes, we all know that.

Go on.

Men cheat when they have the option to, if they don't feel that if they feel often that they can get away from it, is generally when men cheat.

For me, like, I have noticed that the desire to cheat has basically gone away entirely since I started having lots of kids with you. And I think that's just because I'm like, oh, it's just not worth any, Individual risk to cheating for me anymore from a biological perspective. It sort of recoded my brain.

But You know, there's [00:22:00] there's just less desire right like um, and I think that that that also makes sense from a biological perspective But women women can't necessarily have more kids by cheating Right, like they they women's fertility can't be Presumably, if they stay with their husband and he is a healthy male, they should be able to max out their lifetime fertility window.

Simone Collins: Although I guess there are examples in history of women who did know that the, it was a male factor and fertility issue, in which case they would. This was the next reason, sterility. Oh, okay.

So women may cheat have a desire to cheat for the rare instance they're in their partner is sterile.

And this also would likely increase women's instinct to cheat within our existing environment. Because I suspect if you look at things like, you know, people talk about what is it like the, the two year itch, the seven year itch, et cetera. Right. I suspect we have sort of pre programmed into us the instinct to know when our partner might be sterile.

And if [00:23:00] you have been sexually active with somebody for a two year period and they are not pregnant, it means probably sterile. And if you have been sexually active for a seven year period and they're not pregnant, it They are 100 percent sterile, or you are, and it makes genetic sense for both of you to try new partners.

This is why I think modern relationships just don't really work, because people aren't having kids and the relationship's supposed to transition to the next phase.

Simone Collins: Hmm. Interesting.

Here. I wonder if this is part of why polyamory has become so common in our major cities. Eve you have an environment where the vast majority of people are childless or functionally childless, because this isn't something. I think people don't understand if you have one kid or two kids, you're functionally childless from an evolutionary genetic perspective. , a lot of people are like, well, what do you mean?

Like you, you know, you have a lot of kids with your partner and then sired a cheek goes down and it's like, yeah, if your partners regularly having kids, but a lot of these celebrities, you know, they have two kids or one kid and from a [00:24:00] biological perspective, If you're talking about like our evolutionary context with how many of your children were likely to die. That's basically no kids. So, I wonder if., These incredibly low fertility environments cities. , if everyone doesn't at a biological level, see their partner is sterile and that's why they're all desperately going out and sleeping with lots of other people.

And then I have to ask, well, in a low fertility environment, does that mean polyamory is a stable relationship option.

, I mean, it's, it's, it can be intrinsically unstable, but it might be more stable than monogamy where you biologically assume your partner is sterile. So, the, the final reason why women might be doing this is protection, protection for their existing kids. This has been killing the children of women.

It's actually like kind of common in a lot of tribes. So if you study a lot of anthropology, I like reading anthropology texts. You'll often read of like a guy will get mad at a kid and just randomly kill them. They are less like

Simone Collins: [00:25:00] your own children. Okay,

And if they're like a successful hunter, there's nothing you can do about that.

They'll like the kid annoyed me. You know, And however, in those tribes, they're less likely to do that if they think the kid might be theirs. So women will sleep with these guys. Well, for plausible

Simone Collins: deniability of like, maybe this little s**t's mine. He pissed me off, but I am not going to kill him.

Yeah.

Simone Collins: Oh, interesting. Okay. So, so I thought, I thought you were going to say protection for like, because It's a dangerous person in the neighborhood. And the, the the sleeping with them as an act of payment to keep them in your good graces. But what you're saying is it's no, if you have children and they think it might be theirs, that's protection.

Yeah. It only works in a small, like insular community. So that wouldn't be a common reason for women cheating today. So the common reasons for women cheating today, I guess, in a modern developed Urban society would probably be [00:26:00] information gathering or hypergamy.

Well,

Simone Collins: so

this is interesting. So you're going to have these pre evolved reasons to cheat.

And then the question is this, which are most active in modern communities? Yes. Right. But, but, but also what's really interesting is, is, and I think that this is not something that is. Like in the psychologist community, it's sort of a fight between these models. And I'm like, well, you know, you can have multiple evolutionary strategies operating simultaneously.

If people aren't familiar with our two, two of my favorite sexual strategies that we came up with after writing the pragmatist guide to sexuality, are both dual strategies. And they came from us understanding that humans exist in a variety of Circumstances. It might have polymorphic behavioral patterns.

That means the same genes can encode for two different phenotypes or two different behavior patterns. So in human females, we, we argue that it's likely a polymorphic thing. The more partners that they sleep with, like if a woman in a historic context had like 10 partners, It almost always [00:27:00] meant she was a sex slave.

She had been captured, her village had been raided, and she was being used by the population. And if she was not that, you know, because most of the successful widespread cultures, well, a huge chunk of the like small random cultures, you'll get like 89 percent are polygynous. Most tend towards monogamous when you're talking about the big successful cultures in history.

That, that most humans lived under. So, You know, but, but even the big successful cultures were allowed to keep sex slaves. You know, Muslims were allowed to keep a form of sex slaves. Jews were allowed to keep a form of sex slave. I don't know if early Christians were, but like even, even the Abrahamic tree, you know, like it's, it's, it's, it's common in history, buddy.

And so, it would have been Advantageous to women in that environment to have a mechanism for knowing they're in that environment and to then become turned on by the type of sex they would have in that environment to not be killed by their partner who likely doesn't value their life very much.

So that they get some chance at passing on their genes. And then in the [00:28:00] other scenario for the monogamous scenario. Women are much better off just forming an intense, dedicated attraction to an individual. And you actually see this in the data women who have not slept around very much tend to form an instinctual, really strong relation with one of the first people they sleep with often with the first person they sleep with.

Basically instantly fall in love with that person. They get a strong dose of oxytocin from the sexual encounters. I've seen this with girls I've dated in the past. Like, if they were virgins, and I really slept with virgins dispositionally, like probably 25 percent of the people I slept with were virgins because I preferred virgins.

I know that's horrible, but I think most guys sort of instinctually do. And it affected the way I perceived them in the same way that when somebody has slept with a lot of people that affects the way I see them from an arousal standpoint and a biological reason, that would be the case. It's not like I'm just a jerk here.

So anyway the Virgin it's very common. They like instantly fall in love and form this really strong attachment.

. Yeah, that was that, that, that makes sense. So there, you basically have a two female sexual patterns. One is [00:29:00] I formed an immediate attachment to the first person I sleep with monogamous optimized.

The other is if I'm being passed around a lot, I turn violentosexual which you can read in our stuff. Women. Liking sexual violence is actually really common in American. If you, if you look at like porn searches there was a book, a million little thoughts or something like that. The show that the violent porn searches are actually more common among women than men.

And there and we found really high rates of violence preference from women in our study as well. And I actually asked Aella, like, could she look by partner numbers? She hasn't published this, but she's looked at her own number. She said, yeah, it checks out. partner number women with really high body counts prefer sexual violence.

And often, you know, choking other forms of like extreme dominance consensual non consent, stuff like that. And they seem to have a preference for this polyamorous lifestyle which is sort of modeling what it would have been like. To be honest, I'd be a sex slave. So anyway can women recover from this?

I don't know. They might be able to and rebuild this old mindset, but like there wouldn't be a [00:30:00] strong evolutionary reason to recover from it because sex slaves very rarely turned monogamous, historically speaking. Then men have a dual strategy as well. And the male dual strategy is I argue that men would have had two core environments where they would have been impregnating people.

Okay. One is. sex slaves when you are raiding a settlement, when you are, you know, going out there, pillaging a village, doing war, you want to have a biological instinct to impregnate as many of these people whose partners you've just killed, you know, and we see this in modern religious texts from the period.

It basically says, yeah, they're fair game. They're, they're daughters, they're wives, you do these rituals, but after that they're fair game. And so we know, we know this happened historically speaking. So I need to have a sexual optimization function designed for that. And then I need a separate sexual optimization function designed for a monogamous wife who is going to be much lower quality.

If she thinks I'm going to treat her that way, right? And so it means that I suspect that men actually get turned on by [00:31:00] two different sets of things, depending on the context they're in. Do they think this person is a long term partner of theirs? And your body can tell if it's a long term partner. Then you're going to be aroused by doing specific things with them.

And do you think this person isn't a long term partner? Then you're going to be doing other things. And that's why I suspect the disposability in sort of male Porn consumption, right? Because, you know, you're looking at this disposable asset. Very violent often compared to other stuff.

And that's because the men are perceiving these as a disposable sexual partner, not as a long term sexual partner. And it causes young men to misgage their own sexuality. They think that they're this violentosexual type, this extreme dominance type when it's really, no, you're just that because you are.

You, you haven't had a long term partner yet and you don't know what your real sexuality is yet because you haven't had a chance to try it. You are judging your sexuality based on the porn you're consuming which is not an accurate representation of your sexuality. So those theories are uniquely ours.

I'd love to see them get out there in the world of sexual research. But the point being is they assume multiple types of sexual strategies overlapping. So I want to get to a study that was done recently, but I want to hear any thoughts you have before I do. [00:32:00]

Simone Collins: Well, I'm curious what you think the modern.

listener to this podcast should be taken away from it in terms of like, if he doesn't want to be cheated on, what should he be doing? Aside from being trying to become a dominant, high class billionaire?

Well, actually, cheating is a really replicated behavior, which we'll get to when we get to the stats after this.

So the number one thing to do is not marry a cheater.

Simone Collins: Okay, so once a cheater, always a cheater. If someone cheated, if they even cheated on you. They're gonna cheat. Not a hundred

percent. We'll get into the statistics in a second. Okay. But yeah you, you have a higher probability. And it, it appears that it's, it's not just like that cheating is trained into them.

It appears that there might be like a cheating genotype IE that there might be some polygenic score essentially for a preference for cheating. Which makes sense. That, you know, you would have different sexual strategies within different populations and cultures that are rewarded in different ways.

Hmm. Like, anyway. [00:33:00] I'll continue here. So, so he found, he was doing a study because he's trying to figure out, okay, is it mate switching? Is it better genes? Is that more like it? And he found that men rated their partners who they're currently with as better parents than the people they cheated with and that they rated the people they were cheating with as more attractive.

And that women did the same thing. Women rated their partners who they were whiz as better parents and the people they were cheating whiz as more attractive. Okay, and so he took this to mean, he's like, oh, this means better genes hypothesis is probably right. And I'm like, what? No, it doesn't. Okay. First of all, what you should have been asking is, are they a better source of resources?

Because that's really what the, the, the beta bucks alpha F's hypothesis is about. It's not, are they better parents? Of course, people are going to have an instinctual biological bond with their biological child and better parent them. We [00:34:00] know this from the research, biological parents try harder than non biological parents.

So of course, The biological father of your child is going to treat that child better than the guy you're effing on the side, like anyone who's broadly sane would know this. And then he was like, oh, and it's, it's really interesting here that, you know, Men found the people that they were sleeping with outside the relationship better.

Like why would they do that? It's like, because novelty is really important to male sexuality. Obviously you get a huge genetic reward. If you can sleep with someone and get somebody else to raise your kids. But now let's go over some stats. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So one funny study found that 20 percent of men and 13 percent of married women admitted to having sex with somebody outside of their marriage averaging to 16 percent overall. Men.

Simone Collins: Yeah. I mean, everyone thinks it's just men who cheat though. And that's what blows my mind is it blows my mind that women cheat at all. But here's the

thing, a 2021 survey. [00:35:00] So I, the problem with the cheating data I get is it's all over the place. So 2021 study by health testing centers pulled 441 people.

And it found that a little over 46 percent of respondents in monogamous relationships said they had had affairs. Oh, that's because this is looking at monogamous relationships and not marriages. So 46, around half of people have cheated. Nearly 24 percent of marriages affected by infidelity report staying together.

47. 5 percent of relationships affected by cheating said that they established and enforced new relationship rules, such as sharing phone passwords to minimize the likelihood of more affairs. That's actually important. Like what's, what's the consequences of cheating? The relationship rules need to be restructured in favor of the person who has cheated against often.

Recent studies estimate that approximately 1 to 3 percent of men are unknowingly raising a child that is not biologically theirs. A 2022 study published by Human Reproduction found that 11 percent of men seeking paternity testing services were not the biological fathers of the children. For general estimates, these range between 0.

6 and [00:36:00] 0. 9 percent of men. So I'll make a note here. There's this myth that. around 30 percent of people are raising kids that are on their own. That actually came from men that were already highly suspicious. It's actually probably under 1 percent or maybe between one to 3%,

Simone Collins: depending

but this is in the developed world where you have contraception.

If you look outside of environments for contraceptive in common you get to rates around 20 percent to 30 percent actually if you look at cheating in these environments, it's often higher. So in a subsequent or in Africa, you get the 20 percent to 30% extramarital sex rate and for women, it's a five to 15%.

So, this is other interesting statistics here. Recent studies suggested that the prevalence of infidelity is underreported due to the way individuals are questioned about behaviors. Direct questioning revealed that 9 percent of women and 17 percent of men acknowledged to being unfaithful.

However, participants were provided with a checklist to identify specific sexual behaviors outside the relationship and the [00:37:00] numbers changed dramatically. The results gathered from the checklist. found that 15 percent of women and 27 percent of men engage in extramarital sex. Oh, so

Simone Collins: they're like, I mean, giving head doesn't count as cheating.

Obviously.

Yeah, well, the study was from 2018. It's called who cheats more the demographics and infidelity in America. this, this is, this is interesting. Surprisingly 56 percent of cheating men and 34 percent of cheating women consider their marriage is happy. So I think that this is another thing where a lot of people are like, well, I'm in a happy marriage, therefore my partner won't cheat.

And unfortunately that's just not what the data says.

Here is another study that looked at this a meta analysis of 12 infidelity studies among married couples found that 31 percent of men and 16 percent of women had. a sexual affair that entailed no emotional investment. 13 percent of men and 21 percent of women had been romantically involved, but not sexually involved with someone other than their spouse.

And 20 percent of men and women had engaged in an affair that included both asexual [00:38:00] and emotional connection. So that's really interesting. Men and women actually cheat the exact same amount when you average sexual and emotional cheating. It's just that women, when you

Simone Collins: count

both, Yeah. So it's 20 percent of men and women engaged in an affair that included both.

So they do it the same when it's both. But if you're looking at emotional cheating, women do it more. And if you look at sexual cheating, men do it more.

Simone Collins: Do you think men care about emotional cheating now?

Well, I mean, in studies, they just don't, not as much. They care. The

Simone Collins: thing is, I think men do physical, you know, like having sex with other people physically, where there's no emotional component.

I think would probably bother the average female partner less than an emotional affair. And I think that for men, Oh, an emotional affair that a woman has would probably bother him less than a physically sexual affair that she has. So it's probably nice that

this is well studied in the data. What you said, a lot of studies have been done on this and that's consistently [00:39:00] found across cultures.

Simone Collins: Yeah.

So you

Simone Collins: would definitely freak out a lot more if you had like a really strong emotional connection with another woman.

And I would. Freak out a lot more if I knew you were having sex with another man.

Simone Collins: Really? That's yeah. So there

you go. You know, I don't even know if I care that much. If I felt you had an emotional connection, how would you feel if I

Simone Collins: podcasted with another man?

I would be devastated if you podcasted with another

woman. Well we have, we have an episode with Ayla where it's just me and her that hasn't gone live yet.

Simone Collins: No, wait, that's gone live.

No, no. Then we recorded two episodes that day. So one of them hasn't gone live yet.

Simone Collins: Oh yeah. Well, I was. door knocking and the cold pregnant.

You

are so hardworking Simone. You are, this is why I can't leave you. Anyway so, so here's an interesting thing. So men are most likely to cheat between. Like when they're young, like back when I used to do it, right? So like when their testosterone

Simone Collins: levels are higher and then when they become more pair bonded and

yeah,

Simone Collins: wait, as, as men age, their, their testosterone levels probably go.

Yeah. They go down, they

go down when they're in a monogamous relationship and they go down when they have kids. So basically [00:40:00] evolutionarily successful men have low testosterone. I got my levels tested recently because I, Assumed they were low and apparently they're not low. Yeah, they're high, but now I know why they're not low because I did a, a 23 on me scan, not a 23 me.

It was a . No, this, this was

Simone Collins: your nebulous scan where you got the ? Yeah, it showed that I was in the

99th percentile in terms of testosterone rate. Yeah. The predictedness due to my genes and like that makes sense. We've done other episodes where I sort of talk about like a lot of people don't know what high testosterone looks like.

And I have a face that looks like a picture of a diagram of what somebody who developed in a high testosterone. I don't

Simone Collins: know where this, this trope of soy doesn't seem to. Correlate with actual

no, it doesn't because Andrew Tate is his face is the picture of a low testosterone. I

Simone Collins: think I think the whole soy boy thing more correlates with like how much time you spend in a gym and how developed your.

Various gym related muscles look and I, I mean it when I [00:41:00] say gym related muscles, it really aren't going to show up unless you actually spend time preening like a woman.

Well, yeah, it's about socially signaling to other men. We've talked about this. I mean, it is, it is preening in a feat and that's why women, I mean, there's all the memes from the gym bros that like they imagine that they're going to get fit and it's going to be women fawning over them, but it's just men fawning

Simone Collins: over them.

Women don't care. It's so like, there's. I've, I've read a decent number of romance novels and listened to a decent, you know, I, I've been exposed to this content less than 1 percent of this stuff has to do with any sort of description of musculature. Absolutely. Status dominance in terms of bearing matter being

Dominates in terms of bearing as well as is confidence and presence.

Simone Collins: Yeah confidence and presence

easily. You can't be Insecure you can't be

Simone Collins: muscles. I don't really [00:42:00] hear described that much. It's just interesting. Well,

this is one of the reasons people are like, why do you mention like that you've slept with lots of people and stuff like that? And it's because it's important in qualifying a big mistake in our society that in terms of securing a partner leads a lot of men to make a big mistakes in terms of time investment calculation.

And that they are investing a lot of time in honing their body more than they need to for health reasons are actually finding a partner. If you are doing enough exercise to be at optimum health, okay, you are going to be at optimum for finding most partners except for ones with fairly rare fetishes.

And that's, that's Unfortunately, just the way it is. And it leads to miscalculations where we're actually, it's more about like presence and ambition for the future because, you know, they're thinking about who am I going to spend my life with, right? Like that's, that's what they care about. We've talked about that enough in another episode.

 Actually was talking a lot with Simone about this afterwards. And what we came to was.

It appears that men. R.

Confusing. [00:43:00] Intersexual signaling competitions. With interest, sexual signaling. So to word this a different way. , the ways that men are signaling in terms of bodybuilding is specifically signaling to other men. And not to women. It's like, Okay. If you think about like the classic, a girl crushes. , from various generations. Girls were able to go and watch the Marvel movie right.

Filled with all sorts of buff. , Masculine characters, who is the predominant girl crush coming out of that movie? It was low-key like, everyone knows it was low-key right. Or you go to like the tumbler sexy boy era. You know, who were they? , thirsting after it was, it was characters like.

The one slur. Freaking insane. Right. You know? , or Allister from has been hotel. , and then the gym bros, who do they look [00:44:00] like from popular media? Right? They look like, Hey man. But he man. I wasn't made for girls. He man was made for boys. He man was an aspirational look for inter sexual hierarchy battles among men.

Or who else from popular media? Conan the barbarian. They look like Conan the barbarian, but again, Conan the barbarian is mint to sell to men.

And then another huge mistake that people will be. There'll be like, well, I can look at this. Study, right. Like I can, I can go. And I can line up men by muscle and then ask women. To choose. Which of these men, are you going to prefer? And they'll choose them where muscular men. And it's like, yeah. That may be true. But that's not how women actually choose a relate to mates.

You're putting up a visual test. Instead of a test of vibe, which is how women actually relate to things. Remember it's [00:45:00] vibe, presence, confidence. So don't again, you know, the, the, the male influencers who have a vested interest in telling you, oh, you, you have to strive for this aspirational body type that I have, and you do not have considered Cris Williamson. I love the guy, right. , he has this body type that would be this aspirational body type, but. He doesn't have a wife.

Okay. He doesn't have kids. He's a genetic failure. And I'm pretty sure he's older than me too. . If you look at what the men look like in the actual.

Books that women are reading to get off in these actual female romance books, as Simone says, They're just often not these He-Man looking characters. If you look at the fan art that the teenage girls are drawing of their crushes, they don't look like this. Okay. , they are, , generally lean and skinny.

And I actually think that the, the best representation [00:46:00] of men misunderstanding they'll call here all of it. So they'll hear women want confidence, and then they will go online and market guy for acting quote, unquote, faggy, and saying that he's not going to get a girl. There is perhaps. Few better pictures of male confidence than the flamboyant gay man.

And as somebody with a lots of female friends, women find flamboyant gay men, hot. You are misunderstanding what women want. And it's part of why so many men today struggle to. In any way. Capture female attention.

I want to keep going on stuff we haven't talked about, which is women actually cheat the most when they're over 65. Older

Simone Collins: women are

this trope.

Simone Collins: There's, I don't know if you've seen this, but there is this trope in media of. Old person homes where there's obviously fewer men because men on average die much earlier [00:47:00] and women are just thirsty.

And there's this trope of the. Man who is just drowning in pussy in the old person home. Well, there's absolutely an evolutionary reason for this.

What? Why? Okay. So let's talk about it. If you were post menopausal.

Simone Collins: Okay. I

wouldn't really care if you were sexually intimate with other men.

On reflection. My opinion of this may change as I get older, because I realized that when I was thinking of a post-menopausal Simone, I was thinking of an old looking lady. And I was like, well, I don't find old looking women attractive. So I guess we just won't be sexually active at that point in our lives.

, and now I'm like, well, but I'll be older than two.

And I don't know, I would have found Simone attractive at this age when I was younger as well. Um, It, like, So, you think the issue is that these women feel like their partners are comfortable with it, and that's why they're going for it?

It's not that their partners are, It is that the, the possessiveness I would have of you as a sexual partner would just [00:48:00] naturally decrease when you're no longer fertile. Why would that

Simone Collins: influence my interest in cheating?

Hold, hold, hold, hold. We gotta get to this, okay? Okay. So, first we gotta think about this from an evolutionary perspective, right?

Postmenopausal women Sleeping around has almost no genetic risk to the male. There just isn't a genetic risk. Yeah. Yeah. You're not talking

Simone Collins: about the women though.

Hold on. Listen, listen, we have to keep going with the men because it matters to the women.

Simone Collins: Okay.

However, are the benefits still there? Could you secure additional resources from other men by sleeping with them after you have born all my kids?

And I know that you are raising and passing those resources down to the kids. Yes, you, there are benefits. to you and my kids from you sleeping around postmenopausally speaking. Because you can, at the nursing home, build connections with other people, get resources from other people, and there's no longer any real risk.

One of the things to note [00:49:00] here, right, What is this? What do you think is so funny about this? I'm just

Simone Collins: picturing, like, you and me sitting on rocking chairs overlooking a field, and you're like, Simone, why don't you go out to That old person home mess around, see

if you were getting a benefit from it. Oh my God.

Like, I knew you were sleeping with some billionaire and you were postmenopausal. And I got, you know, like, like the person ended up investing in one of our kids, like 10 million in one of our kids companies.

Simone Collins: No, I'm sorry. I just,

I'm just saying they can

Simone Collins: find 10 million

elsewhere. You also don't know how instinctually you're going to change when you become postmenopausal.

The rate of women cheating postmenopausally goes up astronomically. It's like four X or something what it is at other times of their life. Yeah. But

Simone Collins: you know, as we've seen in our sexuality research, people's sexuality. Tends to stay pretty stable. And I am pretty sure that means I'm [00:50:00] going to remain asexual, but gay for Malcolm.

It's not like I'm going to reach some. Yeah, maybe. And I

should say, I wouldn't be like super awesome chilled with it, but I would weigh the benefits of you opposing an apostle. Let's, let's just, I didn't move on from the

Simone Collins: conversation of whoring out.

And they're like, I would give you a 50 million to sleep with your wife.

Like, I wouldn't even think about it. . I wouldn't even think about it. I, wonderful, wonderful. No, but it's, it's, it's, it's, it's but if you're postmenopausal, I'd be like, well, hold on. That $50 million could matter a lot to my kids.

Simone Collins: Uhhuh, .

In terms of their quality of life, their ability to have kids I mean, how many surrogates could I get with that for additional women?

Now that your body's no longer useful to me? Oh my God. It's useful in a new way. We gotta keep three for Tuesday here, Simone.

Simone Collins: You know, keep your eye on the prize, Malcolm.

Okay. I love about you. Here's, here's another one that I think you'd find really funny. So in a gleaming survey covering [00:51:00] 8, 000 respondents, 57 percent of women in 62 percent of men admitted to having an affair while they were away on a business trip.

Which is really interesting because that's way higher than any of the normal numbers, but it's for people specifically who go on business trips.

Simone Collins: Okay. So when dating people, if you are really not into being cheated on, ask them how frequently they travel for business, because that's a red flag. Right there.

That's really useful. That's, I want, I want actionable, actionable advice for our listeners today. So I want to hear another

crazy study. According to a study in computers in human behavior, 18 percent to 25 percent of Tinder users are in a committed relationship while using the app. But Americans only.

This number skyrocketed to 42 percent around half of tinder users for using it to have an affair which is actually a really important thing that we used to be able to avoid using something called Facebook official. So it used to be historically when I was dating, the norm was when a relationship got serious, like [00:52:00] a huge escalation in the relationship status that was like, I wouldn't say halfway to getting engaged, but it was like a, now this is an official.

Yeah. Yeah. I

Simone Collins: remember. Yeah. Facebook relationship status was a big signaler. Although I want to pretend that you're single. I want to go further back to my little, you know, 1950s, 1960s coronet films, like those little instructional videos that were played in high schools for students, giving them social norms.

I was really stunned when one on dating really made it clear that at least dating in high school. Was you were dating multiple people and monogamy within dating, if you weren't going to get engaged or married, it was kind of expected that you as a woman would see multiple guys and that a guy would see multiple women.

Now, I think the important thing is that people were not having sex. Maybe they were making out, right? But they were not having sex because that was just not done. At least not for me. Were you dating her high

school? No,

Simone Collins: no, no, no, no. I'm saying in, in the forties through [00:53:00] sixties. Oh. Probably forties through fifties.

Slutting in the sixties. But they, it was understood that when you were dating, 'cause you're trying to find a partner, you should be dating multiple people. You should be playing the field. So to me, to a certain extent, I think about people dating on Tinder, dating, Facebook, dating a lot of people at the same time, concurrently, I think this concept, ,

hold on, hold on.

They had a Facebook official in the 50s and 40s. Do you remember what it was? Going steady. No, it wasn't just going study. It was a way to signal, honestly. So Facebook official . Oh, the class

Simone Collins: ring. The promise ring.

It was the promise ring. The Letterman jacket.

Simone Collins: Oh, that too. The

girl, your Letterman jacket.

And she would wear it around. Yeah. So everyone knew that was your girl and knew you were taken. Yeah. So you couldn't proceed. Well, yeah. And

Simone Collins: going study too was a sign that you were more, more committed, did they Also, but I think

ceremony that they would do.

Simone Collins: Yeah, but that was for when people were basically pre engaged and the plan was that they were going to get [00:54:00] married and people were dating to get married.

And I think the important thing is in an ecosystem in which people are dating to get married, you are dating multiple people concurrently and this concept that people when dating, like when, when finding someone on tinder and casually going on dates or then get horrified when it turns out that they're the person that they're dating is dating other people.

Well, why should you be horrified? It actually makes a lot more sense to be dating multiple people at once instead of serial monogamy. If the goal is to find a good partner for your life. So I say we go back to it.

Well, so here's, here's a, another fun stat you'll probably just, To be offensive, some studies have found higher rates of infidelity among black adults, 24 percent compared to white adults, 16%.

So it's an offensive stat, but now I want to get to your question about how likely is somebody to cheat if they had cheated before? So yes, I means well, I'll just say like extra sexual relationship. Findings from logical regressions showed that those who reported engaging in [00:55:00] extrasexual relationships in the first relationship were three times more likely to report in engaging in an extrasexual relationship in their next relationship compared to those who do not report engaging in extrasexual.

I'm just

Simone Collins: picturing heckle fish saying once a cheetah, always a cheetah. Oh

gosh. This is from Y files. A great show. If you guys haven't seen it. Yeah. Deserves his big audience. Similarly, compared to those who reported that their first relationship partners did not engage in ESA, though, in extra sexual relationship, those who knew that their partners in the first relationship had engaged in an extra sexual relationship were twice as likely to report the same behavior from their next partners.

Those who, Oh my

Simone Collins: gosh.

So this is also like

Simone Collins: people being abused. You know, like they just keep ending up in, in relationships in which they're abused and people being cheated on, keep ending up in a relationships in which they're being cheated on.

Yeah, well, well, here's another thing. Well, no, this is also like, if you know that your partner has done this, the other thing is suspicion.

So those who were suspicious that their first partners did yes, I and perform [00:56:00] relationships had four times the rate of that suspicion in their current relationship. So it appears you might also have like a genetic proclivity towards suspicion.

Simone Collins: Fascinating.

Isn't that interesting? Yeah. Yeah. And that's, that's the studies that we have to go over here.

So what do you think? And we got down to those initial reasons why women cheat. I just think it's all of them. I think all of them played some evolutionary role in humans. I think the one thing I'd add is I suspect that there's a separate one, which is postmenopausal women that likely their sexuality transformed.

forms in some way where sexuality becomes more transactional for them. Let's not think about old people voting each other. Let's just pretend it doesn't happen,

Simone Collins: okay?

Let's pretend it You know that this is where you have the highest rates of STDs? I know! I know! And

Simone Collins: I don't

want to know that! It's one of those things that you just wish you didn't know.

But here's the thing, I can't imagine ever finding an old woman attractive. Like, I can't even imagine finding you attractive when you're old. I don't know [00:57:00] How this works, like, am I going to

Simone Collins: find you attractive now? I think you and I also approach sexuality very differently from other people. I think for a lot of people, and we're, we have to get back to this too, that.

That's a lot of people think that they're talking about sex when really they're talking about validation. They're talking about their own personal narrative and how they feel about themselves. And maybe that's what's going on here. You know? Okay. Yeah. It's like gross old people bodies, but sex was never about actually, you know, beyond your adolescence, when like the hormones really are raging, it was never really about.

You know, all these things. It was always about trying to satisfy some kind of perception of I'm the kind of person who has sex. I need to go out and get sex. And, and maybe that when people reach an age where they're retired and they have all this leisure time, they still haven't gotten past this understanding that that success in life means that you're having a lot of sex and therefore they need to get it.

Yeah, yeah, even if it's gross, even if it's not, you know, they need a lot of [00:58:00] lubrication, whatever I just, let's, let's not think

about it. Well, hold on, I want to, I want to talk about another thing that I've always found really funny from an evolutionary standpoint is when lesbians get mad that guys don't care when their girlfriends or wives cheat on them with lesbians.

There isn't an evolutionary reason to be afraid of that. Anything. It's a potential benefit because that's an additional sexual partner.

Simone Collins: No, no, no, no, no. And that's because I think the emotional cheating element of it is major. No, but I'm talking men and

men

Simone Collins: just don't

care as much about it. Oh,

Simone Collins: like if I slept with a girl, you'd be like, okay.

Yeah.

A lot of lesbians get actively offended that guys don't care about this. They're like, they don't see the relationship. Yeah.

Simone Collins: I just, I really don't want it. I don't even, I feel like, If anything for most guys, it would be seen as like kind of hot,

you know, disease transfer to between women when they're having sexual encounters is incredibly rare.

Honestly, I

Simone Collins: feel like most women would probably improve their husband's sexual satisfaction of them. If they had an extramarital affair with a [00:59:00] female, even if that female had zero, like, you know, even if there's zero chance, it'd be a three way just because it's like, they're thinking about their wife having sex.

Probably. Yeah. And I, the calculation that would be going on in my brain is well, and what I have, like my wife actually falls for this person and is willing to then have another partner who I can impregnate in our marriage. Right. Like it makes perfect sense. rupturally not be as stable, but it's more kids and more hands in the house.

Yeah. So

Simone Collins: you're just, yeah. Yeah. I guess you're like, Oh, like, yeah. And I could see this being a normal male response of why not polygamy?

I think something will be like, Oh no, like monogamy stands all the way. But I think that, you know, most men, if they had enough wealth to the South Park thing again, They'd be like, yeah, it makes sense to, to press for that.

But yeah, so I, I, I find that interesting as well. This, this very confused reaction as to why women would care when their husbands sleep with other men, because this does [01:00:00] happen and women get quite upset, even when it's only sexual. It's because historically speaking, the disease transfer rate between male, male sex.

He's incredibly high compared to any other form of sex you can have. And it is really dangerous for a woman to have her husband be out there sleeping with other men, even though there's no risk of him, like impregnating them and diverting resources. Which is why, you know, fortunately I'm not at risk there.

No, no no temptation on that point. Fortunately. And I want to say, fortunately, I don't mean anything about gay people. It just means they'd be harder. When I was young, I remember before I went through puberty, I thought being bi would be easier because I was like, well, it

Simone Collins: seems like being gay would be ideal because like gay men, I was a lot easier to have sex.

I imagine, I imagine, you know, cause women are much more stingy.

Bi as a man would be ideal before I knew what my sexuality was. Like I was just like, well, nothing arouses me right now. So I wonder what

Simone Collins: I'm

going to get dealt. And the hand I was hoping for [01:01:00] was not straight. It was by here was my logic, sound logic at the time.

Actually, I said, I get a wider pool of sexual partners. I can basically date anyone I want to and a portion of that pool. I will have full knowledge of what they want so that, you know, and they will have full knowledge of what I want. So they'll likely be able to please me better, but I'd still be able to have a family and everything like that.

Right. Yeah. But now as an adult, I'm like, Oh, thank God I'm not by because that is a whole Area of temptation in my marriage that I don't have, I never need to worry about being tempted by like a guy on a business trip or something like that and risk getting the diseases that could be associated with that and risk any relationship complications that could be associated with that.

All four. I'm trying to think like, is

Simone Collins: the, you know, so we were talking earlier about husbands wouldn't be pissed if you, you know, would I be pissed if you had an emotional affair with a [01:02:00] guy or a sexual affair with a guy. I would be, I would be less concerned. Would you actually hear the question? I would be less concerned by a bromance, by an emotional affair with a guy than if you had a,

just, just biologically speaking, instinctually speaking, would you be more concerned if you heard I had slept with another guy or more concerned if you heard I slept with another woman?

Simone Collins: Like same, like that, that's not raising any hackles for me. I don't know why. Yeah.

It's interesting. Well, I mean, it's interesting with a lot of this stuff. You can just search your own feelings. I just think

Simone Collins: it's, I think, I think bi men are uniquely unusual. I, I just don't think there are that many.

I don't think there are that many either, and in the Pregnancy Guide to Sexuality, one of the biggest mysteries of human sexuality is, why is it that gay women, right, look more like straight women, but that have a female preference?

And why is it that gay men, instead of looking like a female [01:03:00] sexual expression, have a sexual expression that's more like a mirrored straight sexual expression, i. e. they look like straight men but that are interested in men. So I'm going to explain this a little differently here. When we did our studies, what we found is that straight men often find the idea of sex with men, it elicits an active disgust reaction.

As we say, disgust is part of the sexual profile of a human. We need to Talk about this. It's not just arousal. And for many gay men, sleeping with a woman actually elicits an active disgust response. But in often gay women, you don't get this as much. They, they don't have as much active disgust towards sleeping with men.

They're just disinterested in it. And with straight women, It's the same thing. So they're both like much closer to the center of, of, of this sort of Kinsey spectrum. And I think that this gives us some idea of what's going on when a person is born gay, that it is not that they are born with the opposite gender's sexual profile, but they are born with a mirrored iteration of their own gender sexual profile, [01:04:00] which says a lot about how sex might develop in humans.

And if you want to know more about this, the pragmatist guide to sexuality is the book. for you. I love you to decimon. Any final thoughts?

Simone Collins: Nah, she's peeing through her diaper on my arm right now. So I gotta, I gotta be in, you're being a

real trad wife here. Come on,

Simone Collins: you ain't trad unless you're being peed on.

That's like fancy

stuff and you're like, oh, it's pooping again. It's

Simone Collins: peeing again.

You are delightful. Simone. I am so glad to be married to you and I'm so glad I genuinely. Never worry that you're cheating. Like I, I have no, there is no like doubt in the back of my mind that's like, Oh, she might be thinking about leaving me or she might be like, well, I'm so

Simone Collins: autistic that if I did cheat on you, it would be in my calendar is like cheat on.

Hey, Simone, can we talk about this?

I see. Well, and I mean, with me, I doubt you have any real fear that I [01:05:00] would leave you because I was cheating on someone. Well, it's funny,

Simone Collins: like, I joked about being like, well, you know, if you had an emotional, like, if you podcasted with someone else, I'd be devastated. But, like, I mean, I actually, I don't, I'm not devastated that you podcasted with Ayla.

I love Ayla so freaking much, where I'm like, Of course you've talked with Ayla. I guess, I guess I see her as a sister though, you know, like she's a member of the family. She's part of House Collins as far as we're concerned. So I also, that's interesting is I wonder if people feel the same way about emotional relationships with people who they see as family.

This is the final point I want to make that I'd call harem sexuality. I've noticed some women seem to have a sexuality that's really optimized for being in a harem where they want, because many women historically were in harems, especially some of the most successful because those were all. So is it, no, no, no, no.

Then sister wife sexuality. Well, it's a little different because they're often really interested. Six year wives, my understanding in Mormon cultures, the [01:06:00] women didn't have sexual relations with each other. Whereas in harems they did. Yeah, often they did. And I've, and I've, I've met many women that really want to sort of manage a harem for their partner.

Like they like the idea of being dominant to other women, but being submissive to anyone. Oh, that's my nightmare.

Simone Collins: Like it, the idea, like when I think about. Polygamy. I don't think like Oh, how could I share Malcolm? I, I just think like, I don't want to be around more people.

Here's another instinctual thing that I've noticed in you where it comes with, you know, if I was risk of sleeping with somebody other than you is you seem to have much less instinctual concern.

Like ALO was somebody you mentioned. Now. Ayla's not somebody who I personally find attractive because I find really high body counts, like, instinctually unattractive. But you, like, wouldn't be as worried with someone like her, because I've noticed that you categorize specific women. If you're like, this woman [01:07:00] is high status, and I get along with her, and high resourced in some way you seem to not, like, when I say sleeping with a random person, you don't.

Put them in that same category. Yeah, but aren't

Simone Collins: they my biggest because in terms of like, if we were, if we were talking about risks to relationship integrity in the form of hypergamy, what you're saying is basically any woman who's better than me, I'm, I don't seem to be worried about.

No. Who's who, who is, is, is, is, well, she's more famous than

Simone Collins: me.

She's smarter than me. And she's much more pretty than me.

I, well, I don't think so, but I can understand how you're framing this. So I think she's,

Simone Collins: I think it's, I think our audience can agree too.

I don't think she's prettier than you. It's

Simone Collins: well, cause you're wearing husband goggles and God bless you for that.

You

respect. In some degree you don't seem to have the same risk feeling to, and this might be like when you're like, Oh, this person's like [01:08:00] basically family, what you're basically saying there is, I respect

Simone Collins: that person.

And I suspect that historically this might be an instinctual thing around how women chose harem partners historically.

Is that a respect? Yeah. Which is that women in harems would likely care if their husband went out and slept with a random person. But they'd care less if the person rose the status of their family.

Simone Collins: Yeah, that's interesting. Yeah, and I guess a lot of it also comes down to like personal identity and how you identify yourself.

And there are lots of even like non harem versions where women have chosen. For example, there was that one Mormon wife who Chose her husband's next wife. When she was born Ill, oh yeah, yeah.

Before when she died, she, she had a al illness, so sweet. And she said she gave him a list of people. She was okay.

Was in marrying because she believed, and Mormon women believe this, that if their husband's married two people in their life, even if they're not ous in life, they have to be ous in the next life. So when her husband dies, she had to spend eternity with whoever he chose to marry next.

Simone Collins: Oof. That's terrifying.

To, to not, to not pre choose, [01:09:00] it's weird that it's not more common what she did, but you know, you'd think that even if you weren't terminally ill, like what if you get killed in a car accident that you just like, if you're going to marry

someone. I think to make a vetting video for future wise for me, like, you know, look, he actually is that good.

Like it's not just an act for the camera. And here are some details that I expect from you. Are you going to do that? You got to, you got to take some time to film. Yeah. Well,

Simone Collins: I have that. Yeah. I have like a whole set of instructions for you if I die. So I should probably add in something for your future partner.

Anyway,

love you to decimals, wonderful wife and have a good day.

Simone Collins: You too.

Oh, wait, one note, note I want to make for people here when we're talking about this, it's important to understand like when we're hypothesizing harems or additional wives or who we're sleeping with, we're not talking about what we think.

Functionally works best in a relationship. We're talking about biological impulses to try to ferret out. Oh yeah. No, this, this

Simone Collins: [01:10:00] whole, this, this wasn't a relationship strategy. This was a, how do people experience personal emotional reactions to stuff? Discussion. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. I just need to clarify that for anyone who's confused.

All right.

Simone Collins: Desimone. Ciao, ciao, ciao, ciao, ciao, ciao, ciao, ciao. I just, I realized the other day while I was falling asleep that The way that I view life is kind of like how a ghost would view life, where I have unfinished business on earth, but then once I'm done, I finally get to be released. And that's kind of how people view ghosts, like sort of in Western media,

Join Malcolm and Simone Collins as they explore the controversial and alarming trend of declining IQ scores worldwide. This thought-provoking discussion delves into:

* The reality of the "reverse Flynn effect" and its implications

* Genetic factors influencing IQ and their correlation with fertility rates

* The potential consequences of declining average intelligence on society and governance

* The role of AI in mitigating or exacerbating these trends

* Ethical considerations surrounding genetic selection and societal stratification

* The future of human intelligence and potential solutions to the crisis

Whether you're a genetics enthusiast, concerned citizen, or simply curious about the future of human cognition, this video offers a balanced and data-driven perspective on one of the most pressing issues of our time.

[00:00:00] with no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to reward those who reproduce the most

having kids is such an important decision. We're just waiting for the right time. It's not something you want to rush into, obviously. I'm pregnant again! S**t! I got too many damn kids!

There's no way we can have a child now. Not with the market the way it is, no. God, no. Come on over here, b***h! He don't care about you! Well, we finally decided to have children, and it's not going well. Yeah! Yeah! I'm gonna f**k all of you! That's my boy!

IQ is dropping by about 0. 2 points annually in some regions.

This may seem like a trivial decline,

but when you consider the standard deviation of IQ is 15 points, such a decline is sustained will lead to a drop by one standard deviation every 75 years. Should this trend hold in those regions [00:01:00] in just 125 years, your average human will have an IQ that would today qualify someone as intellectually disabled.

Would you like to know more?

Hello, Simone. It is wonderful to be speaking with you today. Today, we are going to be asking the question. Is an idiocracy style future true?

Is the IQ of humanity declining over time? I have read in one of our comments, they're like, well, you know, this person thinks that you IQ is , declining over time. And we stay away from a lot of the controversial genetic stuff. However, this is the one controversial genetics topic where I'm like, People really need to be realistic about the data.

Well, yeah, it's, it's just the data in this is so loud and from so many different angles and it will create real problems from society if we try to ignore this or pretend it's not happening. So, I mean, I'm just going to start with a recent study that I saw that was like, okay, yeah, we got to be taking this [00:02:00] seriously.

So, this study shows that the mean IQ of U. S. college students has been dropping by 0. 2 points per year since the mid 20th century. And this phenomenon has been well documented in many sources and it's called the reverse Flynn effect. Historically, you had something called the Flynn effect, where all around the world, IQ was increasing they're pretty much every year.

And the reason why you had the Flynn effect was because nutrition was increasing. But once nutritional needs as they relate to brain development saturated in the human population then dysgenics appears to be the primary cause that IQ was going down. But we'll get into this in more detail with lots of citations for this one, because I'm actually going to be going to a quote.

From our book. So we're going to read a little passage from the book, The Pragmatist Guide to Crafting Religion and go over it. All right. Are we destined to become a society reminiscent of the nightmarish dystopia depicted in the film [00:03:00] Idiocracy,

.

 Well, don't want to sound like a dick or nothing, but, uh, it says on your chart that you're fucked up.

Uh, you talk like a fag, and your s**t's all retarded. What I do is just, like, you know, like, you know what I mean? Don't worry, Skrull. There are plenty of tards out there living really kick ass lives. My first wife was tarded. She's a pilot now. We mostly steer clear of fearful discourse about genetic selection against high IQ and dropping IQs in general because it is such a charged topic and our concerns around demographic collapse stand regardless of this scenario's potential. We only approach this philosophical third rail in order to dispel some common misconceptions.

IQ has a high level of genetic correlation and can be predicted by looking at a person's genome. So I have a citation here. If you want to go through all of these citations, I'll just mention when I run across the citation just, Get the [00:04:00] book. It's like a dollar on Amazon and it'll have all the citations listed.

This is in the appendix. The association between genetics and IQ is not small. In fact, this meta study argues the IQ correlation between adopted brothers and sisters, genetically unrelated people raised together, falls almost to zero in adulthood. Again, another citation. No, we think this meta study might be overstating the correlation a little.

Suffice it to say that There is very little argument in the scientific community over whether there is some genetic correlation in IQ. They debate things like how big that correlation is, whether that link is concentrated in specific ethnicities.

Which we spend an entire chapter of this book arguing against, whether IQ is a measure of what we mean when we talk about intelligence in the vernacular, a topic we won't go into here, do your own research, and whether the genes associated with IQ are stable in the population or declining, which we will focus on in this chapter.

For those who are not up to date with what is [00:05:00] an quote unquote offensive position in the scientific consensus, we encourage you to read the Wikipedia page on this subject. So the point that I'm making here is that It is so commonly accepted that IQ is a genetic thing that there is a Wikipedia page on this topic.

Or at least there was when I wrote the book. Who knows? It could have been scrubbed by lefties by now. But We're pretty sure the people who turn a blind eye to the role genetics plays in privilege will be held in the same regard as those who claim they quote unquote didn't see race in the 1990s.

Acting as though none of your partially inherited traits gave you systemic advantages over others, Be they height, metabolism, attractiveness, or IQ, only serves to reinforce your unearned privilege and ultimately breeds more systemic inequality. To be extremely clear, we refer to these two instances in relation to each other because each represents an assumed moral high ground through feigned blindness to systemic advantages one has over others.

We are not suggesting that any of these things are linked to race. Multiple studies have demonstrated that IQ is dropping by about 0. [00:06:00] 2 points annually in some regions. Oh, you see, it's been held up by more recent research. Though, the U. S. seems more resistant to this than other nations.

This may seem like a trivial decline,

but when you consider the standard deviation of IQ is 15 points, such a decline is sustained will lead to a drop by one standard deviation every 75 years. Should this trend hold in those regions in just 125 years, your average human will have an IQ that would today qualify someone as intellectually disabled.

Note, while our timelines are probably off, it is highly unlikely that we are wrong about the general trend. Quote, So here I'm pretending to be one of our the detractors. But IQ is not a good measure of intelligence. We too find it tedious and often misleading to focus so heavily on IQ.

That said, while there is plenty of research separating out IQ from intelligence, we are the last people to pedestalize it, carrying far more [00:07:00] about initiative and willpower. IQ does correlate with very common standards of achievement, if all the outcomes with which IQ correlates began to plummet, we seriously would be worried, and we think you would too.

Do you anyone who wants to try to argue that this is not a thing that's happening? , E especially, we're not arguing about the speed that it's happening. You have to argue one of two. Frankly, completely unwinnable positions. Only either that there isn't evidence that IQ is correlated with genetics, which is just super, super, super obviously is.

And it's probably one of the most robust findings in all of genetic science. Actually, I saw one paper claiming that it was the single most robust finding in all genetic science. Or two. Argue that.

People with lower IQs, aren't having more kids than people with higher IQs. , again, I cannot imagine how anyone could conceivably argue this, looking at any source of data in the world. But, The people will try to say [00:08:00] this. And they'll try to say it because it allows them to one, , not take responsibility for their unearned privilege. And to, , because it allows them to maintain a world framework, which is not correlated with reality.

 Some papers have argued that this decline in IQ is purely environmental. These arguments fall flat when combined with orthogonal source of evidence. In his paper, Natural Selection May Be Making Society More Unequal, David Hugh Jones wrote, quote, We found that 23 out of 33 polygenic cells Significantly linked to a person having more or fewer children over their lifetime, dot, dot, dot scores, which correlated with lower earnings in education, predicted having more children, meaning those scores are being selected for from an evolutionary perspective.

Scores, which correlated with higher earnings in education predicted. having fewer children, meaning that they are being selected [00:09:00] against end quote. This study even shows the polygenic score is correlated with higher earnings in education, decreasing within a population over time. This means it is measurable that genes, which correlate with high IQ are appearing at lower frequencies in the population over time.

And genes correlating with a high IQ are correlated with lower fertility rates. So this, And I'm not quoting the book anymore. This directly connects with demographic collapse. And when we talk about shifting populations, resulting from shifting fertility rates, what we're saying is that this, we have a lower educational attainment, lower earning future ahead of us based on these trends.

Right. So more from the book, imagine you are trying to determine the maximum speed of a car. One person makes this determination by looking at the engine and running calculations. This is analogous to the study looking at how genes that correlate with IQ also correlate with birth rate.

Another person makes this calculation by getting [00:10:00] in the car and flooring the accelerator pedal. This is analogous to the various studies measuring declines in IQ at the population level. If the max speed each group independently determines is close, you can be fairly confident in its accuracy. This is what we see above, meaning we're probably experiencing a meaningful decline in genes associated with high IQ that is likely to be sustained in the future.

So this is a really important point for people. Because a lot of people look at this decline in IQ and they're like, well, you know, okay. Okay. It's going down the IQ of people in college or the IQ of the general population. This could be due to something else, right? Like there's all these ways that maybe the way we're testing IQ is a bit different over time or something like that.

But the problem is, is that this decline. Aligns with the predicted decline. We would see from the fact that the people with the polygenic scores that we associate with [00:11:00] high IQ are also having fewer kids. And I should note something else that was pointed out about above paragraph for people are like, why are you guys focused so much on IQ?

It's like, you don't need to focus just on IQ. If you, for example, focus on the polygenic score associated with making a lot of money. That also. Predicts low fertility. That also. And when we say predicts the low fertility, what we're really saying is, that is, disadvantageous from a natural selection standpoint within a modern environment, meaning it's being selected out of the general human gene pool.

But not only do you have these studies, it's actually more accurate because there's a separate study that I might not have put in the book that looked at the polygenic scores that are associated with high IQ over time within genome databases. Because, you know, we've been collecting full genomes for a while now, like 10 20 years at this point and we can look at the frequency of specific genetic sequences over time and the Frequency in the developed world, at least [00:12:00] that we are seeing these high IQ predicting polygenic scores occurring in the population is decreasing at the rate you would predict it to be decreasing.

If we really were seeing the 0. 2 point decrease over time, but about this sustained into the future thing, part of me. I mean, so when we look at demographic collapse, we're also looking at populations getting lumpy and siloed and kind of walling themselves off part of me because of the growth of AI is a little bit less concerned about this than I used to be, because I feel like the number of people we need who are quite smart is now reduced due to the existence of AI.

And if you have. A sufficient number, like minimum critical mass of people super humanly boosted by the resources of AI, which we've recently discovered can even really augment creativity, scientific artistic, et [00:13:00] cetera that maybe will be okay. What are your thoughts on that? Was dropping IQs? No.

No? No. No, no, no, no, no, no. These people cannot use AI. Like, so one of the things that I have become increasingly aware of, given the direction that AI development has gone we'll have another episode where we focus on this, because we actually bought exclusive rights to a theme song for the show. And the theme song was made in part due to AI.

I don't know why I'm doing this.

The really great thing about this, AI art and stories are coming from people who in the past would have been [00:14:00] artists or writers or something like that. They need the AI , is very useful at augmenting an individual's personal genius. And that's where you get the really, really high quality stuff. Like when I get the AI songs that are of the quality of a professional musician these aren't necessarily the songs that the AI is just.

Bidding out, right? They are the songs that have been mediated by somebody who has a unique talent for this sort of stuff. They just allow that individual to create a lot more really high quality music a lot faster. But so let's just say if we have very, very few geniuses in the future, is that so, so much of a problem when the output of those geniuses can be 10 X by AI?

Oh, that's a good point. I mean, yeah. Well, the problem is, is that we live in democracies. And the, these people are going like, the dumb ones are going to be more and more of the general population as [00:15:00] time goes on. Yeah. And, and, and, and so they will be electing and building bureaucracies that. Make it harder and harder for the geniuses to do their jobs.

And I guess that also break in a road society in general.

We also need to consider the geopolitics of how a declining number of competent productive individuals impacts the solutions that countries are going to have access to. And demographic collapse really hits. We had some reporters from the wall street journal over at our house yesterday. And we were talking with them about how one, if you look at like the United States, if you look at the low income earners in the United States, it was something like. 80% of them are living paycheck to paycheck.

And yet most of their life is covered by social services. Most of the food that they eat or their housing, et cetera. And when that social service disappears, these people are genuinely EFT. [00:16:00] Now. The problem here becomes, as demographic collapse gets worst, it is hurting the more productive populations.

, economically speaking, I E the people who are paying more taxes more than it's hurting the populations that are. Taking taxes. Now, this becomes a uniquely big problem in the face of AI empowering these productive individuals, because it means that these productive individuals no longer have the same.

Geographic ties that they would have had in a historic context by that, what I mean is, you know, about someone who and I do work in venture capital. , when you look at the venture capital deals that are being done in Silicon valley these days, what everyone will tell you is it's like, Two guys in the United States, maybe 20 people in the Philippines, and then just tons of AIS. It is not like it used to be with Google or something like that, where you could get these giant companies that can't easily pick up and leave. If you think that you can make up. For the [00:17:00] rapid decrease in the number of productive people by taxing the few that are left more. These people will just pick up and leave the lay there, go to another country, or if no other stable democracies exists, we'll go to a charter city, which are increasingly being opened up, which allow them to not have to pay into these large socialized systems. Which means that. Millions of people are going to starve or old people are going to die.

I mean, we w the scale of the human tragedy that is going to happen because people are not being realistic about the fact that not all humans, even when you control for their childhood are born with the same opportunities due to genetic differences in terms of how we perceive the world or relate to AI or relate to. You know, w whatever, right. It's going to be catastrophic. It's going to be catastrophic at the scale. , or likely bigger than the scale of [00:18:00] something like the great leap forward in China, which depending on the stats you're looking at more people died in that five-year period, trying to move their economy forwards than died during the entire American slave trade. Just because something had good intentions doesn't mean people won't die. It doesn't mean you don't bear moral copability for ignoring it.

When people told you, Hey, you really need to pay attention to the fact that not all humans are born equally competent.

Yeah. I also, I should note for people who are like, IQ doesn't matter and you shouldn't look at it. We have another video that goes really strong on like the core arguments against that, that were done by like Naseem Talid or something like that.

I can't remember who it was. Oh yeah. But basically the people who argue this are lying to you, like in a way where I don't know if it's true. If they're like intelligent and have engaged with the data, like, I don't think they believe what they're saying. Really? Because, you know, you can look at their own arguments and their structure like [00:19:00] arguments.

And this is the point that we were making in the last episode that we did on this particular thing ages ago. That. The way that the arguments are structured, it structured like the person who's getting it knows that they're lying to the audience, but it's trying to figure out how to take the P. C.

perspective. Not by somebody who's genuinely been confused by the data. Because it's like, they'll be like, well, you know, it only really matters, you know, when you get to like, really low Iqs and stuff like that. And it's like, yeah, but that's where the whole world's going to be in 100 years. Right.

Like, and that's what really gets me that the average person in the developed world within 125 years that's born is going to be what today would be categorized as mentally disabled. That is not like a small problem. That isn't Right. Well, here, hold on though. I do think that things are a little bit Clouded.

I was listening this morning to YouTube video on the evil history of eugenics, and it was talking about all these different IQ surveys and bits of research that had taken place. And [00:20:00] based on contemporary definitions of basic intelligence, something like 45 percent of people coming through Ellis Island were, were seen as, you know, having the intelligence of a five year old or below, et cetera, et cetera.

And yet, you know, these are people who had figured out. From positions of, of quite a meager means, we'll say how to get across an ocean to America, you know, like these are, these are people with hustle, people that we might define as I challenge you, I would say these were people who came from an environments that were incredibly low nutrition environments.

They grew up starving. I would not be surprised given the amount of lead that was used in products back then, given the amount of starvation that would have happened back in. Yeah. Actually half the people going through Ellis Island did have the intelligence of a fire. And that may be. And so another one of the arguments that I want to present is, Yeah.

Throughout the vast majority of human history due to nutritional constraints due to immense poverty, pervasive poverty, and or just a [00:21:00] very small class, it was given the resources to even just be literate that we for a very, very long time have gotten by on a extremely small percentage. I think the most interesting element of this to me.

Is what's different now? And why is this risky now? And perhaps the biggest issue here is that in the past, those who counted as intelligent by contemporary measures were the ones who ruled society and built the things and decided how things were going to work. Whereas now society is going to be run by to a certain extent, the lowest or most mediocre common denominator, which means that either what's very urgent.

If the reverse of, I mean, basically given that the reverse effect. Reverse Flynn effect is real is we have to automate and eliminate as much as of government as possible so that there is as little deep state as possible because every person working in government is going to increasingly become a [00:22:00] liability as the average person becomes dumber, essentially.

And then does that make sense to you? But what you're missing here, and this is the point I was going to make is you're not taking into account the effect that a decreasing average has on long tails. So, what, what, what, what's really not being taken into account here is that whole saying of like, have you met the average person will half are dumber than that.

So the point I'm making, are you familiar with what I mean by long tails? I think so, but you're probably going to expand on it. I'm not really sure where you're going with this. I, I'm sure I, I'm assuming you're saying that just, this means that the dumbest people are going to be very dangerous. No, it doesn't mean that.

That, so suppose you had two populations, right? And one population had an average IQ that was five points above the other population. Okay. If you then in that society, Find the top 1 percent of people, right? 90 percent of that top 1 percent are going to be from the population that's [00:23:00] just 5, 5 IQ points higher than the other population.

If those two groups are equal numbered in society. It's a massive Of, of long tail distributions. When you have a move in the middle, it disproportionately affects the long tail. So if you have a move 5 points or 10 points down in the middle, that's going to affect vastly, vastly, vastly decrease the number of geniuses that are being born much more than you would expect from just like, say a 30 or 40 percent decrease in general intelligence.

It would cause the level of like genius level today, people being born to drop by like 98%, 99%. Um, It is so, so that's, that's really going to happen when a portion of the population That values intelligence and begins using polygenic risk score selection, not just because they're obsessed with intelligence, but because more and more people are [00:24:00] going to be forced to use IVF and PGTP polygenic risk score selection is going to become just more common practice.

The people will sort of by accident select for intelligence, even if they don't value it, that this population of people delaying fertility using IVF and then inadvertently selecting for intelligence is going to create. more super geniuses. I mean, we have, we have the Kwisatz Haderach of our family, right?

And like, they're what in like the top 99. 8 percent of intelligence. I think we're going to see more of those children being born as people select for them. So I think that what is going to happen in the future? So if I'm like actually trying to predict the most likely scenario in the future, this plays into that scenario.

But doing polygenic selection to increase the IQ of your kids, given how quickly polygenic scores are decreasing, isn't actually going to protect your family line that much, unless your family line is genetically isolating [00:25:00] itself from the general population. Right, because you've got reversion to the mean and in the end, you shouldn't be dating someone because they themselves are smart, but because their entire family is smart.

Yeah Like on first date, you should be asking like, so what did your grandfather do? Yeah, what did your parents do? I like this point because people often go to you and they'll be like, well, your wife is smart, but aren't you afraid of reversion to the mean?

And I'm like, yeah, that's why I checked that she was from a smart family because the mean is high. Because you're not reverting to, like, we often talk about reversion to the mean as being like to the population mean, but functionally what's happening in reversion to the mean is you're reverting to the mean of your individual families and ancestors.

And so if that mean is high and you are genius or intelligent due to some random mutation that random mutation isn't going to occur in your kids at, at a high level. So they're not going to get, you know, your unique intelligence. However, I'm not smart because I'm like a mutant. I'm smart because like my brother is smart.

It's a genius. And my [00:26:00] parents are geniuses. Well, and what's quite interesting is this actually shows up in the polygenic scores related to intelligence of our embryos. So there is only one embryo of all of our embryos for which we have polygenic scores that is either at the exact average for the population or two or 3 percent below average.

So the, the vast majority. of our embryos are clustered. Like, a third to halfway in between like the 95 percent range and the mean, so all kind of above average. So you can really see like there's this clustering and you see this with almost all polygenic risk scores. If you get any, like you look at polygenic risk scores of your embryos for something like gum disease or for schizophrenia or for depression, you're not actually, you might see one outlier here or [00:27:00] there.

But for the most part, you are just going to see them all kind of clustered. So for some of our kids, they just have equally shitty outcomes around certain things like acne, for example. We're all going to have a bunch of pizza face kids because that's just our genetic heritage. You were pizza faced and I was pizza faced.

So we're going to have pizza face kids. And our grandparents probably were pizza faced too. Yeah, so we have, what was I going to say? So yeah, what's actually going to happen? Do I think that some populations are going to begin to genetically isolate themselves as the general population really isn't doing anything about this?

Yes, I do think they're going to. Another thing to remember from a historic standpoint, and we mentioned this in another video, but it's good to come back to, is the effect that current child support laws have on out group breeding. Which is to say that historically you would have some individuals develop or some families develop genes that were more associated with success in that society, i.

e. earning lots of money, building up lots of [00:28:00] power. But then these individuals would, when they were male, impregnate lots of women who they weren't married to, which we can also see from the data. Fidelity, historically, was really common. And so, And through that, like a guy might rise up to a local Lord, but he'd impregnate a bunch of peasants.

And so you never really got that much of a differentiation between the competent people and the incompetent people that has changed recently. specifically due to child support laws, because now when a person is super wealthy, when a male is super wealthy or successful in some other means, they are going to be very wary about getting a woman pregnant who they don't see as their equal or someone they want to spend their entire life with.

Because they're going to be on the hook to pay for any children they have with them. Yeah. Which is hugely dysgenic because that means that individuals who like a man who is not. Successful who doesn't have much money, there actually isn't really that much of a cost to him in getting a bunch of women pregnant.

So if i'm the type of guy who's in and out of [00:29:00] pregnant In and out of prison, you know tons of debt. No wealth can't really hold a job There's no reason for me not to knock up a bunch of girls. Yeah, they're not even wages to be garnished Yeah, there's not even wages to be garnished and that's why you see the people who are knocking off lots of people And having a lot of children out of wedlock are the people You who, who don't have a lot to lose really, you know, and that's, that's hugely dysgenic and has effects.

But the larger point being to all of this, when people are like, we can just keep doing what we're doing genetically speaking without polygenic selection, without gene editing, you really can't. And if you're in a community that is not ruthlessly selecting for the intelligence of your children's mates and, and building a culture that does that In the future, you're just not going to be one of the few groups on earth that end up mattering and we can't engender that within our kids in terms of their mates.

You know, don't pay attention to how attractive they are. Look only at work [00:30:00] ethic, ambition, IQ, you know, stuff like this. And, and then eventually, given the direction of the general population, you know, when you're talking about a two standard deviation decrease in the next hundred years the only way some part of our current civilization ends up surviving is if some population does genetically isolate themselves.

Gosh, this is where my, I was, I've been reading this for book called Red Rising, which if you have Audible right now, it's presently available for free. If you have an Audible subscription, which is why I'm listening to it, but it was also recommended to us. It's the one I described to you where it has these striations in population.

There are the golds, there are the pinks and purples and coppers and silvers and reds, but the golds are at the very top of society and they rule. Humanity is an intergalactic empire. And they are brutally eugenic to the extent that in their top leadership academies, there are literal, not [00:31:00] battle Royales.

It's not like only one will be left, but they definitely have quotas of, of people that. Are totally permitted to be died. Like, you know, 10 percent of the student population is going to die. And that's a good thing because you want the weak ones to die. And they, they are therefore taller and bigger and they, they look different.

They're incredibly smart. They're incredibly agile. Their bones are stronger and it, yeah. Is that what you're saying? We need, do we need the golds of red rising? I'm seeing that. You know, people can be like, well, we can, there isn't a way basically to keep the IQ stable with the selective pressures that are created by modernity.

So you have two options, right? Either you're in one of the groups that's striving to increase your IQ or ambition, other genetically correlated traits, or you're not paying attention to this in terms of your groups of breeding practices, and you are in a, Downwards and rapidly downward spiral to cultural [00:32:00] irrelevance.

And it's an important thing to note as well. When we talk about the correlatories to IQ, a lot of people assume IQ is just. How smart you are, but like, what, what are things that are really correlated with IQ how likely you are to grape someone, people with low IQs are much more likely to grape someone than people with high IQs, even health outcomes.

Health outcomes are pretty much like you. Yeah. So, so all, is somebody going to rob you? Is somebody going to murder you? It's general pro sociality is correlated with IQ. So just broadly being a nice person, helping other people out, contributing to society. Being healthy, all of these things correlate positively with IQ, which is why I implied earlier that if people do polygenic risk score selection with their embryos, and they're only looking at things like being kind, having a sense of humor or being healthy, they're going to inadvertently select for IQ.

But something that you point out, yeah, sure you can, you can focus on this or you cannot in terms [00:33:00] of your family's breeding practices or whatever. But I think the bigger issue is. Either, like I said, you have to figure out how to streamline government as much as possible to avoid the human liability problem as people get, on average, less intelligent, or we need to really double down among those communities that are maintaining high IQs with this city state concept whereby people are just going to their walled off gardens and Well, you could have city state for In terms of what's that term that everybody likes to use now?

The network state. You can have networked state marriage markets and stuff like that, right? Which is what we're trying to do. If you're still being governed by a nation that is Increasingly inept and dangerous, then you are at risk. Well, and this is why I predict that city states are the future. As it becomes clearer that there are some subpopulations that through AI, as you pointed out, are going to be even more efficacious than they would be in today's world.

And that we'll have [00:34:00] a dramatically higher IQ than the general population. But also that government, which is increasingly deep state driven and still very much human run becomes increasingly dumber. Which, can you imagine government getting dumber than it is now? That's, that's scary. There's, you have to be, it's not just about having the 10x power or more of AI.

It's about being pushed away from quite a liability of governance. I think you're absolutely right. Well, any final thoughts on this, Simone? Yikes. But also you say that people with low IQ are moving in the direction of cultural irrelevance, whereas I think that that is not true. And I would expect something a little bit closer to idiocracy where that, that is the pervasive culture.

And it's huge and it's big and it's everywhere and it's loud. And. Well, I mean, I think closer than idiocracy is removing to Wally you know, the AIs and [00:35:00] everything like that, that are basically making all the decisions for these, but, but unlike Wally, the people won't just be, because the other thing that's really correlated with high fertility rates, people might be surprised by this, are the polygenic scores.

The single most correlated with fertility rate of all the polygenic scores a person has is the one that also correlates, That is actually meant for correlating with IQ. But the second one in a study that was looking at this is the one that's correlated with obesity. Such a fat negative podcast. Well, I guess Ozympic exists today.

So maybe that won't be an issue. It'll be some sort of weird, sad form of, I don't, I don't know. Hedonism or whatever, but yeah, I don't think it'll be exactly like idiocracy because I think that AI does sort of prevent a true idiocracy future. But the question is. What the general pop is, it's not a question.

The general pops IQ is decreasing rapidly, way more rapidly than people think. The one standard deviation in 75 years is shockingly fast. And that you see this across all measures and pretty much everywhere [00:36:00] you look. And it is so interesting to me that the powers that be. Are just pretending like it's not happening.

I suppose the question is what do you do about that? I think people just have to support human dignity and respect that maybe intelligence listen in the end. The thing that deserves whatever is the thing that takes it. And if obesity and lower educational attainment are what managed to inherit the future genetically, then power to the people, you know, that's what, that's what earns it intelligence clearly isn't everything.

And a big theme that we've seen in low fertility rates is people being so far up their asses in terms of thought. And we're probably going to do a separate episode on this, but. People overanalyzing things and overthinking things without having enough of an emphasis on action in their lives. Really just not having kids [00:37:00] also not doing anything with their careers, not doing anything with life.

In fact, I argue that there is an immense portion of the quote unquote intelligent population that contributes. Probably less to society than significantly less intelligent. And we're talking quite below average people in this world because they spend all of their time strategizing and writing and managing and analyzing and doing absolutely f**k all.

And it makes me so f*****g mad. So. Maybe in the end, IQ isn't all you make it out to be. Maybe in the end, only the small number of people who are both intelligent and action oriented, like Elon Musk, who can both think and do things, which is quite unusual are the ones who matter. And a lot of the people, even God bless you all, but people who listen to this podcast, who are very smart, but aren't doing anything with their lives don't matter.

In fact, matter less than the obese high school educated person. Who's having a ton of kids. So if you want to be among the elect to your based [00:38:00] camp listener, I hope that you are actually doing something with your life and actually having kids because you may be among the entire reason why IQ is disappearing because you guys can't keep your f*****g acts together.

The end. Thank you. And I love you very much. Malcolm. I love you too, Simone. Unrelated to today's discussion.

Cause I didn't even know we were talking about this. I was looking up quotes from mediocrity

Can't believe you like money too. We should hang out totally.

because I was looking for fun things that we could use in a base camp intro and I'm reading these and I'm thinking these are just things that we say around the house, not what the protagonist says, just what people from.

Future idiot world say like what like water like out of a toilet

But I mean who drinks water When you have diet coke.

[00:39:00] I was just looking for some regular water. Water? Yeah. You mean like in the toilet? What for? Just to drink.

No, there's so many great lines in it though, but also I don't, I think it's interesting that a lot of what's considered to be the epitome of dumb comments in idiocracy are actually super based comments that I would consider to be dumb. I mean, yeah, obviously there's a lot of like watering fields with the equivalent of Gatorade isn't exactly smart,

I was just going through Idiocracy clips. And this scene reminds me so much of When I am trying to talk to my brainwashed. Ultra urban monoculture friends who work in large companies like Disney or whatever.

In this [00:40:00] conversation, just replace.

Rondo with DEI. Electrolytes with.

Equality. And water with meritocracy.

 For the last time, I'm pretty sure what's killing the crops is this Brondo stuff. But Brondo's got what plants crave.

It's got electrolytes. So wait a minute. What you're saying is that you want us to put water on the crops? Yes. Like out the toilet? Well, I mean, it doesn't have to be out of the toilet, but, but yeah, that's the idea. But Brando's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

Now, I'm no botanist, but I do know that if you put water on plants, they grow. Well, I've never seen no plants grow out of no toilet. Hey, that's good. You sure you ain't the smartest guy in the world? Okay, look you want to solve this problem so why don't we just try it Okay, and not worry about what plants crave Brando's got what plants crave Yeah, it's got electrolytes.

What [00:41:00] are electrolytes? Do you even know it's what? They use to make brando. Yeah, but why do they use them to make brando? Because Bruno's got X rays.

but do you know why there is Diet Coke and Coke Zero as two separate products?

I feel like I knew this once. Yeah. So Coke Zero came about when they invented a formula that could create a Coke that tasted more like the original Coke. And they decided to use this opportunity to see if they could create a diet product that was cat That targeted the male audience instead of the female audience because diet soda Was predominantly consumed by women who were worried about their figure, you know So they had they were the ones who were more willing to compromise on flavor to attempt to you know, stay thin, right?

So yes, because nothing tastes as good [00:42:00] as skinny feels that is why It's called Coke Zero instead of like Coke Light or Diet Coke or Diet Coke New. Because diet as a word in branding is associated with women, female products. You don't want to be a girl. And so they're like, how can you make it? Zero. And so what they did is they were like, zero, and then it's like red and black and bold masculine.

Yeah. That's very interesting. It it is, yeah. The light has also been considered a sufficiently male term. Now, I've, I've had campaigns when we've had TVs on while traveling, like in, in the rooms we've been in for the new light beer, I think is dos or. Like gold. They're not even trying to put in any indicator of low calorie ness anymore.

They're just telling people and advertising that it's a light beer. I just think it's that [00:43:00] toxic for men to be seen.

And here we have Duff, Duff Light, and our newest flavor, Duff Dry. Oh, here's, here's another fun advertising story. We'll be ending the video here is, is it's the story of, and these are things I learned in business school or like around that time. Or this one I learned in business school.

The Diet Coke thing was before business school. This one is the story of Lighthouse and Coors Light. So Coors Light, Lighthouse, a beer. Yes. Lighthouse. It was a light beer made by the Samuel Adams Brewing Company. And it kept winning. Every light beer competition, you know, in terms of like taste, right?

So we keep winning all the big taste testing competitions, but it just wasn't selling that well, especially when compared to the top light beer on the market, which was Coors light, which you know, everyone is like this. Does not taste like a beer. Like why is it winning all of these like in the actual mind of the consumer when [00:44:00] you go, okay.

So, so, they then did user testing and they went out to try to find, you know, why was everybody buying Coors Light and not the Lighthouse? And it turned out it was because they were optimizing around completely the wrong problems. What they had been trying to do with Lighthouse was to create a beer that was lower calorie than a normal beer, but tasted as close as possible to a normal beer.

Provided the beer experience. But with Beer's Light, they didn't want a beer experience? No, what they wanted was something refreshing to drink after a hard day's work. More like a, a lemonade. They literally wanted beer flavored water. Yeah, they wanted masculine water. They wanted, yes, they wanted man water.

That is honestly what Coors Light is. It is man water. It is. It is. Oh my God. Okay. [00:45:00] Oh, mysteries have been solved today. That is what Coors Light is. All right,

Join Malcolm and Simone Collins as they challenge the widely-held belief about Ashkenazi Jewish intellectual superiority. This eye-opening discussion explores:

* The misrepresentation and manipulation of IQ studies

* How cultural practices, not genetics, may explain Jewish success

* The dangers of racial IQ theories and their societal impact

* The role of nepotism and networking in different cultural groups

* The future of genetic selection and its implications for ethnic differences

* Surprising facts about Jewish involvement in historical movements

* How internet culture may be amplifying Jewish representation in certain fields

Whether you're interested in genetics, cultural studies, or the complexities of societal success, this video offers a nuanced perspective on a controversial topic. The Collinses provide a balanced, data-driven approach to understanding the true nature of Jewish achievement and its implications for our understanding of intelligence and success.

[00:00:00] remember the first study I, I mentioned where I said Jews were only 1 percent smarter, right? On average, when you considered all of the information. So what that meant. If you were going to get a like a standard deviation higher, that meant on some tests they had to be scoring unusually good.

Yeah. And on some tests they had to be scoring unusually poorly. Yeah. They were scoring unusually poorly on the nonverbal reasoning test. Yeah, so in other words, Jews appear to be word cells and not shape rotators in internet parlance yeah. So then this guy comes in and he's basically like, I can't believe that there are some areas where Jews do uniquely well and some areas where Jews do uniquely poorly.

So how about we just look at the areas where they do well? Yeah, let's do, redo the battery. But only include the test where I know from the previous data that they're doing well. Problem solved, Malcolm. Problem solved. I want to be clear, the core guy who did this research that was cherry picked using only verbal scores, , Richard Lynn, in [00:01:00] his words, the only representative study ever conducted other than his own.

was that other study that we were looking at. Okay. So it's not that we're cherry picking. We're using the studies that he is pointing to. the strongest data backed claim that a person can reasonably make about Jewish IQ differences is that Ashkenazi Jews have a marginally better verbal IQ and math skills, which is pretty amazing.

offset by marginally lower visual spatial intelligence and reasoning

Would you like to know more?

Hello, Simone. I am excited to be talking to you again today. Today we are going to go over another topic that is delved into heavily in one of our books, which means we'll be reading some parts of one of our books.

Whenever we get to a place where there's a citation, you can just go to the book and find whatever the citation was. It'll be some study or something. As I read, I'll just say citations. Yeah. I don't want to keep interjecting here, but this is one of our biggest surprises when we were writing the pragmatist guide to crafting religion.

Was that we sort of came to the realization that the [00:02:00] Jewish Ashkenazi Jewish population specifically does not actually seem to have the IQ advantage that all the gene bros would tell you that they have. And there has been some intentional misrepresentation of data in this area. And from a cultural perspective, that's really interesting.

Because it means that their cultural success has more to do with cultural practices and a natural advantage. But which is much more interesting to talk about because that's the culture is what we have control over. Yeah. All right. Jump into it. Simone when we started writing this book, we were fairly certain that Jews were smarter than other groups, either at a cultural or genetic level.

Anecdotally, we like to think we associate with disproportionately intelligent people, as gauged by notable professional achievement, and have no reason to mostly be friends with Jews. Yet a huge chunk of our friends are either Orthodox Jews or secular Jews. Objectively, Jews win Nobel [00:03:00] prizes at a rate 100 times higher than would be expected given their population levels.

Among the highest ranked chess players, 51 percent have at least one Jewish parent. This is not something that could be easily explained by nepotism. Jews are represented among the world's richest people at a rate 100, 000 percent higher than would be expected. They make up 19 percent of the Forbes 200 richest list and 0.

19 percent of the world population. Jew, oh, citation, Jews are overrepresented in Congress and the Senate at a rate of about. 400 percent higher than one would expect based on their population in the United States. Another citation there. , Jewish success is plain for anyone to see. Jews are dotted in positions of power throughout our society at a rate that would not be expected, given that they only make up 2 percent of the U.

S. population. Consider, for example, that as of this book's creation, 41. 61 of Joe Rogan's political [00:04:00] guests have been Jewish, and 20. 27 percent of his science guests have been Jewish. , we have a little game that we used to play when we would do parties in New York, where we'd be like, okay, how many people here at the party are Jewish?

Because we're not inviting people to be Jewish. Remember it was always like at least 50 percent of the people. Yeah. Sometimes there would only be like two people in the room who weren't Jewish. And we are not disproportionately like intentionally associating with Jewish individuals. Which to me indicates, for whatever reason, cultural affinity, anything like that, when we're trying to select individuals who we have judged because who goes to our parties.

Like, I'm not friends with people to talk to them. Because we don't like, Friends. Like, I don't want to waste time being friendly with someone, right? I would only invite somebody if I thought that they were either going to be useful to our career or useful to our mission of changing the world. And so we're looking for interesting.

Yeah, people who have power or people who are likely to have power in the future. That's what we were optimizing for and that ended up with a disproportionately Jewish [00:05:00] group. Well, I also wonder because at these parties too, especially because they're largely Gen X, Millennial and Gen Z attendees, they're insanely flaky.

And I wonder if Jews have a lower flake rate. Maybe Jews show up, but maybe that's why Jews have so many positions of power because they don't flake on life. That maybe it Anyway, continue reading. It comes as no surprise that many people have come to the conclusion that Jews must be smarter than other people on average.

That said, after going over the evidence, we have changed our minds on the subject drastically. This was such a jarring change of opinion. We had to make edits throughout the book after it happened. First, let's get the most common myth out of the way that, quote, Jews are smart because the Holocaust acted as a selection event, eliminating less intelligent Jewish population.

The types of evidence cited in this argument, Jews being overrepresented in educated professions and positions of power, can be seen in data before the Holocaust. [00:06:00] For example, in pre Holocaust Germany, Jews were overrepresented in the medical profession at a rate of of more than 1, 500 percent with 47 percent of pediatricians being Jewish, even though Jews accounted for only 0.

9 percent of the population at the time, citation. Stats like this can be found virtually anywhere you look in reference to pre Holocaust Jewish populations. It is similarly unlikely that, quote, pogroms made Jews smart, unquote. We say this for two reasons. The first being that other groups plagued by pogroms, like the Romani, a.

k. a. gypsies, are not also known for being disproportionately in jobs requiring higher education. Second, Jews objectively are not particularly smarter than average. Just as we did when we first dug deeper, you might be thinking, wait, what? That can't be true. I've read my entire life that Jews are super duper smart.

Aren't there like a bunch of scientific studies that showed Jews have [00:07:00] higher IQ? While it is true that there are a bunch of studies on this topic, they don't ultimately demonstrate in a robust manner that Jewish people have systematically higher IQs. The most cited and well conducted study on Jewish IQ differences was published by Margaret Backman in 1972 citation.

This study compared 1, 236 Jews to 1, 051 non Jewish Caucasians across six different batteries of tests focused on different types of intelligence. It found that Jews had an average score of 51. 88 across all test categories, while Caucasians had an average score of 51. 22. That's a 1 percent difference.

Note, Backman also did a preliminary study in 1970 that people sometimes cite. But it only looked at 65 Jewish boys, so we are ignoring it citation. You want to comment on that? No, because it gets really interesting in just a second. What is wild is that people will frequently cite Beckman's 1972 research as [00:08:00] proof that Ashkenazi Jews have a higher than average IQ.

They do this by only mentioning the two of those six areas in which Jews outperformed their. populations, verbal and math, while ignoring the parts where they underperformed, then generalize that score, creating the illusion of some big intelligence difference, but that is objectively not true.

What the study says. So I love that people will go to this study and they'll be like, ah, this is proof. Who's are like 30 percent more intelligent because they did 30 percent higher on this one test. Yeah. But what the study said is they were 1 percent more intelligent, not 30 percent more intelligent.

You just left. How did that, how did it get to the, to the 1%? It's because. The tests were being considered together and, and you'll see where people start manipulating the data here to trick people. If it were true that Jews had much higher IQs, Israel with an 81 percent Jewish population wouldn't have [00:09:00] an average national IQ lower than that in the United States, 94 versus 98%.

That is shocking by, by the way, 94 versus 90. I know. That is shocking. And there's a citation. We find this nationwide number very compelling is it is much harder to manipulate than individual studies. As Ashkenazi Jews make up almost half 44.2% of the Jewish population in Israel. It is preposterous to assert that they.

They sport an average IQ over a standard deviation above what the general population, unless one also asserts that non Ashkenazi Jews are outlandishly stupid, which most supporters of the Jewish competence theory don't argue. Citation. So before we go further here, I have heard a counter to this point.

Okay. School names. Since writing the book. Yeah. What they argued is that a large portion of the group that is identified as Ashkenazi Jews in Israel is actually Russian ethnically and not Ashkenazi Jew at all. So, But they use claims of a Jewish [00:10:00] identity to migrate at various points. Oh, and because a lot of the Jews in Russia are Ashkenazi.

They're just like, yeah, I'm that. Yeah, they get known as Ashkenazi, even though they're not Ashkenazi. However I think when taken into account along with the rest of the evidence we're going to discuss in this particular piece, we'll probably come to the point that, no, they're just not particularly smarter.

And keep in mind what this would mean here. If you have an 81 percent Jewish population and 44. 2 percent of that population of that 81 percent is Ashkenazi Jews, right? The rest of the population and you get this number that people claim, which I often hear Ashkenazi Jews are about one standard deviation.

Higher than the general population you would need the rest of the population in Israel to be like a standard deviation and a half number than the average American, they would need to be like insanely after that number to come out the way so it's just not likely. Yeah, womp womp. Womp womp. I shall continue then.

In fact, one of the core champions of the Ashkenazi high [00:11:00] IQ theory, Miles Storfer, argued in his book, Intelligence and Giftedness, that Sephardic Jews, who make up most of the other half, 44. 9 percent of the Jewish population in Israel, citation, have an average IQ of 111. If this were true, you'd be surprised.

Even if all non Jews in Israel were mentally handicapped, you still couldn't get an average IQ of 94 for the nation. Well, so hold on. I really want to point out the actual insanity of this. You could get that you have a country that is 81 percent Jews who are supposed to be you know, about a standard deviation above the normal IQ, right?

Or American IQ, right? And then another group that is an average IQ of 111. And somehow that country has an average IQ of 94. Well, what you missed, Malcolm Collins, was that everyone's pet goldfish in Israel is counted as a citizen. You would, you would literally need that to [00:12:00] be the case. Okay, I shall go on.

While Beckman's 1972 paper is the most cited peer reviewed article on this topic, being cited 252 times at the time of this book's publication, another well known researcher in this space is Richard Lynn. He argued that Jews have a higher than average IQ in both 2004 and 2010. Citation with a paper now cited 49 times and 2008 and co authorship with Satoshi Kanazawa with the paper cited 32 times Lin used the same test in each case.

However, his 2008 work with Kanazawa involved more participants. While these studies yielded results in line with Beckman's research, they only tested verbal IQ, which allowed them to quote unquote prove that Jews have a general IQ advantage by cherry picking the type of intelligence measured. We suspect Lynn chose to be intentionally manipulative, as he specifically cites Jews getting low non verbal reasoning [00:13:00] scores as motivation for his research.

 Quote, but these are so variable and in some instances so low is to raise doubts about their credibility. It is difficult to credit that Jewish sample could have a nonverbal reasoning IQ of 91.3, and at the same time a mathematical iq, quantitative reasoning in the McGrew and Flanagan taxonomy.

Of 109.7. It is also difficult to credit that the Jewish sample could have a verbal IQ of 107.8, while at the same time having a short term verbal memory of 95.10 Verbal memory IQ of 95.1. These results are in need of checking and replication. So I wanna take a stance here. So, so basically. If you're an audience member and you're like intelligent, right, you should immediately know from what he said there that he intentionally is lying using data.

You can tell that because remember the first study I, I mentioned where I said Jews were only 1 percent smarter, right? On average, when you considered all of the [00:14:00] information. So what that meant. If you were going to get a like a standard deviation higher, that meant on some tests they had to be scoring unusually good.

Yeah. And on some tests they had to be scoring unusually poorly. Yeah. They were scoring unusually poorly on the nonverbal reasoning test. Yeah, so in other words, Jews appear to be word cells and not shape rotators in internet parlance of like three years ago. But anyway, so this guy then comes in, right?

It doesn't exactly break down into words, because for example, they do better on math, but then they're bad on so it's a little complicated. But the point being is that they're, they're appears to be some areas in which Jews excel and some areas in which Jews do uniquely poorly. Yeah. So then this guy comes in and he's basically like, I can't believe that there are some areas where Jews do uniquely well and some areas where Jews do uniquely poorly.

So how about we just look at the areas where they do well? Yeah, let's do, redo the battery. But only include the test where I know from the [00:15:00] previous data that they're doing well. Problem solved, Malcolm. Problem solved. Of course you came up with him appearing about a standard deviation higher than I do.

Eureka! So, so that's what he was doing. So for people who haven't fully worked this all out in your head as to how he manipulated the data. And it's, it's like really obvious when you look at it, but we'll get into this more as you keep reading. Right. You, you write in the book, if Lin's goal was to truly prove the claim that Jews do actually have a higher general IQ, he would have focused on the nonverbal reasoning facets of intelligence investigated by Backman in 1972, where Jews were deficient, not where they had an advantage.

Imagine your kid took a battery of evaluations and while they performed wonderfully on the verbal test, their visual spatial test score was wanting. If you wish to prove the results were wrong about their overall performance, you would have the child retake just the visual spatial test, the one on which they perform poorly, rather than the verbal [00:16:00] evaluation, where presumably you have nothing to contest.

If instead you just wanted to get your kid into a good college and don't actually care about getting a true measure of their performance, you would find some other test that only had a verbal component and present it as an evaluation. representative of your kid's overall performance. Lynn tries to argue exactly this, quote, The first items of information of particular interest to us are the respondents religion and ethnic group.

An analysis of these enables us to categorize respondents as Jewish, non Jewish, white, and non Jewish. Black and other. The second item of interest is the respondents score on a 10 word vocabulary test. Vocabulary is a good measure of both general intelligence and verbal intelligence. Two citations there.

So, so hold on. Well, we need to test them. So what we're going to do is a vocab test. Everyone knows vocabulary is how you gauge intelligence. I mean. Right, right. So I think when a lot of people look at these tests that Lynn did, that they assumed that they were [00:17:00] like a general test. No! They were vocab tests!

Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Mm hmm. Continue, Simone. Lynn's findings around vocabulary are largely in line with the verbal advantage found in Beckman's research, meaning that there is some reason to have confidence in Beckman's other scores as well. You might be wondering I want to explain what I mean by this if people don't understand the intention here.

What I'm saying is His research produced results that were in line with Beckman's research, which shows that Jews did better on these verbal things. And it showed that they did about as better as Beckman said, which then leads me to more believe the stuff that he didn't want to accidentally replicate.

Yeah, sure. I mean, Jews did reliably worse in non verbal things. You might be wondering about some other data cited by those who argue Jews are something like a standard deviation smarter than other populations. Outside of Richard Lin's work, this data mostly comes to two studies. The [00:18:00] first, 13 citations, compares Wealthy Jewish NYC day school students to a general population, while the second 331 citations uses data from kibbutzim whose graduates have historically outcompeted other Jews within Israel, while the second study itself is not making an argument about Jewish IQ, Myles Stouffer uses its data to Data to make it the assertion the aforementioned book, intelligence and giftedness, despite their samples being quite skewed.

And even though neither study itself claimed to make assertions about general Jewish IQ, people often cite them when making arguments around the average Jewish IQ. Imagine you wanted to show that British people were smarter than other people. So you compare the performance of students at elite British private schools or gifted programs to that of students in other nations, general populations.

Shall I continue? . Well, actually, I just want to note here, like, I hope that people can see that the people who are arguing this are arguing it in bad faith. Like, [00:19:00] this, it's very clear that you cannot get a measure of Jews being smarter than the general population. by looking at elite Jewish private schools in Manhattan or kibbutzims when we know that the graduates of kibbutzim score significantly higher than the general Jewish population in Israel.

So like, why would you do this unless you took to start Jews are high IQ. Right. Yeah. I continue from the book. If you shared our original assumptions and believed there was an abundance of well conducted research featuring large sample sizes that clearly demonstrated outsized Jewish intelligence, you would probably think we are cherry picking.

But in the words of Richard Lynn himself, Quote, there is only one study of the intelligence of American Jews in the last half century, which appears to be representative and had a reasonable sample size. That is Backman's 1972 analysis of the data in [00:20:00] Project Talent, a nationwide American survey of the abilities of 18 year olds carried out in 1960.

That's the very same study that shows only A 1 percent difference mind exploding.

Bwwah. Bwah. Blahah. Bwwah! Bwah!

 So I want to be clear, the core guy who did this research that was cherry picked using only verbal scores, remember that we've been talking about who's intentionally manipulating data and is the core advocate of Jews having a higher general IQ, Richard Lynn, in his words, the only representative study ever conducted other than his own.

was that other study that we were looking at. Okay. So it's not that we're cherry picking. We're using the studies that [00:21:00] he is pointing to.

 So, do you want me to continue here? I'll go ahead. You see similar things wherever you look. While Jews are not compared to a Caucasian population in a 1965 paper by Gerald Lesser, Gordon Pfeiffer, and Donald Clark with a whopping.

657 citations. Table 12 indicates that Jews only outperformed Chinese participants on verbal 90. and math 28. 50 to 27. 79 and skill coming below Chinese participants on reasoning 25. 21 to 25. 94 and visual spatial 39. 71 to 42. 51 skill. Hold on. I want to take a quick note here so that people get, this is why I say don't go for the word cell versus shape rotator thing.

Yeah, because of this weird math is included in shape rotator skill sets. And that's not really the way it works. Jews seem to have uniquely good memories [00:22:00] around stuff like vocabulary. They seem to be uniquely good at, at, at verbal like sophistry. And they seem to be uniquely good at math, but uniquely bad at general reasoning.

And uniquely bad at , spatial reasoning. So Relatable, man. So it's, it's more of like a general reasoning problem and not a i. e., they, they would be very good at convincing someone of something. Yes. Um, Very good at doing math and mathematical proofs, but they would have a harder time this is on average, you know, we're just going over the data here.

I'd say checking if the thing that they're convincing the other person of is actually true. Um, Anyway, continue. Greta Adevall, Albert Silverman, and Edward McGough Report in a 1970 research paper, which has been cited 22 times that a when Jewish college freshmen were given a 10 test battery perception skills, Jewish student performance was significantly below that of non Jewish classmates when participants with matching [00:23:00] scores were compared.

So this gets really, really interesting here. So, they gave them a battery of perception scores, right? But they correlated their otherwise IQ, i. e. their, their general IQ by using the SAT scores and found that they had weighed lower on this, on this perception score compared to the general population.

Anyway, continue. Probably the most compelling evidence suggesting a higher Jewish general intelligence comes from the bell curve, which contributes evidence to the NLSY, National Longitudinal Surveys data set to the debate. Though it does admit that quote, . We cannot be sure that the 98 Jews in the sample are nationally representative unquote and that the quote, source of the difference is concentrated in the verbal component, unquote. Here I would note, like everywhere you look, this isn't like one study or something like this or one person everywhere, all of these independently conducted things measured in different ways are [00:24:00] showing not a general IQ advantage among Jews, but a verbal IQ advantage in a deficit in other areas.

Mm hmm. Well, which is, it's kind of why. Any sort of, we'll say like racism based or group based a bias, like this group is worse or better. It seems so dumb to me because we're different. We have, we've lumpy skill sets and that's a good thing. Yeah. I think that this is a huge mistake that individuals make when they're looking at group differences tied to genetics.

And they try to be like, This is the smart group, and this is the dumb group, when really it appears to be that some groups have more talent in parts of their brains that are tied to specific outcomes. And that, that can lead to, like, I, for example. I think it would be pretty hard to argue that Black Americans don't seem to have some sort of cognitive [00:25:00] advantage when it comes to music.

When you look at the number of top selling musical artists in the United States. Well, and like, yeah, verbal delivery, poetry, yeah, there's a whole bunch of stuff that. It just seems to be like over representation in those spheres. Well, an over representation, which to me belies some form of either cultural or genetic advantage.

Yeah. But that, that we need to get away from this idea of like genetic intelligence or genetic non intelligence. Yeah. And I think that this helps us do that where we can see that some bad actors, because I actually suspect what's happening here. Is it The human brain likely has to do tradeoffs when it's making an average population uniquely specialized in one area that ends up hurting that population on average within other areas specifically otherwise, like, why wouldn't all humans have that advantage?

Right? It's because the easy ways from a biological perspective to gain that [00:26:00] advantage likely caused a tradeoff. Historically speaking yeah, different groups and different geographies with different resource and limit and limitations are going to have different selective pressures, which will lead to different lumpy skill sets.

It's exactly that as we can recognize this we can get better at getting away from this. Racialized idea, which is a huge problem where people are like, Oh, you are selecting for certain phenotypes of like in your kids. The problem I have with genetic selection is everyone's going to select for the same stuff.

And it's like, that's objectively not true, especially because you're making trade offs. So one population might be selecting for certain types of verbal intelligence. And one population might be selecting for specific types of spatial intelligence. And it might turn out that selecting for one directly negatively affects the other.

Which is what I think we're seeing in the data here. Totally. Continue. After conducting an extensive search, the only other research we found that supports [00:27:00] the Jewish Competency Hypothesis with IQ data are two papers both published in 1976, what's with this subject in the 1970s. Right. One by Julius Romanoff, who has only been cited by.

Five other times suggests an average Jewish IQ of 115. The other cited 42 times by Victor Cicerelli compared Jewish sixth grade students , to those representing the general population and found the Jewish participants to have a seven point IQ advantage. A final source of evidence we have.

Yet to address, but which may prove us wrong relates to the high IQ correlated polygenic risk scores being higher in Jewish populations. While we find this evidence uniquely compelling, we hesitate to update our beliefs based on this finding alone. After seeing so many people misquote and misinterpret research, we also wonder if these polygenic risk scores are picking up IQ correlated traits.

that grant Jews a verbal [00:28:00] advantage more acutely than others. In short, outside a few highly ideologically motivated studies, the strongest data backed claim that a person can reasonably make about Jewish IQ differences is that Ashkenazi Jews have a marginally better verbal IQ and math skills, which is pretty amazing.

offset by marginally lower visual spatial intelligence and reasoning, like 5 to 10 percent in both directions. It is really weird that people always mention Ashkenazi Jews higher verbal and math scores, but almost never bring up their equally lower nonverbal reasoning scores, which is what leads to the neutral effect on IQ overall.

If you were like us, you're probably now thinking that they're really, Must be other studies out there but Richard Lynn is right. Margaret Backman really published quote, the only one study of the intelligence of American Jews in the last half century, which appears to be representative and had a reasonable sample size, unquote.

We went over a number of meta studies and they [00:29:00] mostly pulled from the above cited papers. There are three alternate hypotheses we have seen turn around. One, that Jews have a non standard curve in their IQ, i. e. there are more Jews at the extreme high and low end of the curve. However, we've not seen data to back this up.

Two, the Jewish exceptionalism actually comes from some mental health conditions occurring at higher rates in the Jewish community. But again, the evidence is fairly weak. See the article on the footnote for a detailed exploration of this hypothesis. No, basically it says like autism and stuff like that is higher in the Jewish population.

And that explains the Jewish success rate. And three. Marginally higher verbal and math IQ alone explains all Jewish success. This theory seems possible to us, though the world would be a much less interesting place if it is. More on this later. Readers who spend a lot of time online might vaguely remember that Some YouTuber post an argument along these lines [00:30:00] only to be debunked.

The YouTuber who scratched the surface of this argument, motivating us to dig deeper was Leather Apron Club, citation, who's biased against Jews, the citation led to motivated reasoning as can be demonstrated by his choice to cite Backman's 1972 data when talking about Lin's 2004 research and leaving out some studies we do address here.

Ubersoy on YouTube, quote unquote, debunked his argument, though his rebuttal fails to address the problem that there is no large, well conducted study demonstrating that Jews have dramatically higher general intelligence, neglects to mention that the largest, most respected study in the space only showed a 1 percent difference in IQ, and doesn't acknowledge that researchers have manipulatively measured Only verbal IQ.

Well, implying that their findings are representative of general IQ. Citation. So here I note if people don't know the leather apron club channel, I actually think it's a pretty good [00:31:00] channel in regards to the way he delivers arguments and stuff like that.

So basically the point I'm making here is I think. Leather Apron Club was actually right, even though he sort of manipulated the way he was presenting the data to convince his audience of what he wanted them to believe, which is that they're, you know, Jews do not have an IQ advantage. And I, I don't have any animosity to him.

I mean, he's, he's targeting a audience that's far to the right of our audience. And so he is basically, I mean, his channel is about in an intelligent way, Telling super, super far right leaning people what they want to believe is true. . You, you get a feel of who watches his channel, but you can still learn stuff from his channel, you know, even if you disagree with somebody it was, his channel was the first where I had ever seen somebody really be like, no, there isn't a high Jewish, Jewish genetic IQ advantage.

And you know, you have a lesson for asking those questions. Yeah. Like, why does nobody ask this? This is also just. So to me, classic in terms of how many means spread where people think there's like [00:32:00] this super robustly understood concept. And yet it turns out that one person said something once and then just people kept citing them and citing them and citing them.

And you see this happen on Wikipedia a lot too, where trusted or reliable sources are cited from multiple different angles, confirming. A quote unquote fact when it turns out that just one quote of like a supposedly reliable source actually posted something fake and then a bunch of other people and other quote unquote reliable sources as, as deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards and voting and whatnot.

Then just. cite that original. I, yeah, I think you get this problem so much worse when it's plausible. Outsized Jewish success. It just makes sense if you're like, Oh, they're probably smarter. And we're not allowed to talk about that as a society because, you know, you're not allowed to talk about like, maybe some groups could be smarter than other groups.

And so what I think most. Other intelligent people think if they're [00:33:00] like, yeah, I mean that checks out. Yeah. They're probably smarter. Instead of, instead of is it, so there's not really a motivation, like for me to challenge this assumption of Jews are smarter because it, it would make a lot of weird things in our society, otherwise make a lot of sense.

And then you don't need to ask questions around them, but we live in a more interesting world. If that's not the explanation for outside Jewish success, which we'll get into in a bit, but continue reading.

We suspect that Ubersoy simply got so caught up in creating a strong counter argument that he allowed himself to get taken In By the Shell Game, Lin and others play with verbal IQ. There is real reason to be skeptical that a markedly higher Ashkenazi average IQ is a genuine phenomenon. This is a great example of why an intellectually diverse cultural ecosystem is valuable.

Other apron clubs hatred of the Jewish people caused them to question something we would have never thought to question on our own. That Jews are smarter than the general population and That this [00:34:00] intelligence largely explains their disproportionate success. Ironically, his catching the street hustlers in their verbal IQ shell game serves to undermine his larger agenda among people like us who don't think Jewish success can be explained by nepotism or an evil Jewish cabal, as it indicates there is something genuinely valuable about Jewish culture itself rather than just Jewish genetics.

More on these points shortly. If Jewish people did have significantly higher IQs, elements of Jewish cultural success would be very hard, if not impossible, to replicate through the intentional creation of a family culture. If, however, most Jewish success comes from a purely cultural edge, and the network that culture provides elements of Jewish success can theoretically be replicated.

All this assumes that Jewish success is not just a product of slightly higher verbal and mathematical IQ, which appears to be robustly attested. We aren't dwelling on that possibility because it is probably not the case and boring. If true [00:35:00] fun side note, there is an entire niche industry focused around trying to copy Jewish culture in China with books that are titles like.

Become rich like a Jew, citation. To make money with the Jews, and Jewish people and business, the Bible of how to live their lives, citation. You can never get away with this in the US. Beautiful. Finally, some portion of readers will see Jews not being particularly smarter than everyone else, yet Still ending up in their positions of power as definitive proof that something nefarious is afoot.

The Jews are somehow conspiring to control our democracy. First, let us emphatically guarantee you that there is no intentional Jewish conspiracy. There are enough stupid Jews with low self control as there are with the any large enough population that the mechanisms of this system would be revealed if it did exist.

Jews find it just as [00:36:00] confusing that they out compete other groups as outsiders do. There's no shadowy group advancing their careers any more than there's a shadowy group of Catholics slotting church members disproportionately into positions on the Supreme Court. If you're wondering on what authority we can state so emphatically that there is no secret society of Jews controlling the world, read, quote, the Jewish cabal theory, unquote, um, again, by our book, The Pragmatist Guide to Crafting Religion, if you want to read this.

I've got a note here on the the Supreme Court thing, because people might not know this. And we talked about this earlier in the book 20 percent of Americans are Catholic, but in the last Supreme court cycle, when we wrote the book, 80 percent of the Supreme court was raised Catholic. So do we take that to mean that there's a shadowy group of Catholics controlling our society?

Like, no I just think that something about Catholic culture, which we talk about what in Catholic culture in the episode about The great replacement that already happened or what, what, how Catholics changed America, I think is what we call the, the [00:37:00] episode. It goes into why Catholics do so much better in the legal profession due to cultural and not genetic reasons.

Anyway, continue. While Jews do benefit from nepotism, they don't benefit more from it than other groups that share a strong sense of cultural identity like Mormons and Catholics. We would even go so far as to argue that Jewish networks are less nepotistic and supportive than those belonging to Jehovah's witnesses and Scientologists. Anyone living in the U. S. has access to these kinds of nepotistic networks through various groups they can choose to join.

Heck these days, the effective altruist community's nepotistic network will help people more than the Jewish network. And it is open to all. And I mean, seriously, like people are like, Oh, Jews are nepotistic. Yeah. Jews are nepotistic. Catholics are nepotistic. Well, Scientologists are nepotistic. Sororities and fraternities are nepotistic.

That's why people join them for the quote unquote career advancement. They offer Jews are not super nepotistic by that. I mean, they, they don't [00:38:00] have some. Disproportionate ability to be nepotistic or I, I, I, and again, as people who associate with lots of Jews I have not seen them be more nepotistic than I have seen other groups be.

If anything, I've actually seen them be a little less nepotistic because the way that Jewish nepotism works in my experience actually is more of cultural fit nepotism. So Mo and I often get benefits from Jewish individuals in terms of like hiring us and stuff like that, because we like vibe with Jews.

it also just seems to be more meritocratic. So those who within Jewish networks broadly are able to meritocratically show themselves to be the most expert or capable tend to rise. So assuming that you were within that and you're the best, then you rise, but like you. It's not your inherent Jewishness that gets you there.

It's, it's, I guess it's, we'll say playing by the Jewish value system or cultural [00:39:00] system and being within the broader network. That seems to be the biggest thing. Whereas in the LDS church, you need temple recommends in the EA community, you have to say exactly the right things. And yeah champion exactly the right causes and invest a lot of time.

Like everyone has their separate rule set. They're all slightly different sports, but yeah, it is a pretty open sport. If Jewish people aren't somehow cheating to get ahead in society, how are they doing it? While we don't have a strong answer, we suspect our private dinner parties at which we host people we think might change the course of world history grant some insight. Around 2 percent of the US population is Jewish, and yet somehow when we select high potential for impact guests at what to us feels like random, around 50 percent or more end up Jewish.

How is this random selection method for people we think have a high likelihood of changing the world, pulling up mostly Jews? When inviting people to these dinners, we often send out cold invitations to people who recently wrote something online that we found [00:40:00] intellectually stimulating or controversial in a way that engages us.

It seems if you send cold invitations to creators of intellectually engaging blogs, podcasts, and substacks, a huge portion of them will be Jewish. Why? Jewish culture encourages adherence to invest time in the types of public discourse that can feel pointless, even socially dangerous, to members of most other cultures.

This higher likelihood to speak publicly when others would feel social pressure to stay quiet may also explain, at least in part, the preponderance of Jewish comedians, something we discuss in detail in the chapter Relation to Pleasure and the Arts on So if you go to the, the proportion of Jewish comedians is insanely high.

I remember it was like one was looking, it was like 92 percent of like New York comedians in the seventies or something were Jewish. It was insanely high. And so when you look at this, you're like, okay, so there's something pushing Jewish people to outcomes that lead them to be more visible for their controversial ideas.

And here you could [00:41:00] say, okay, Because I think when people are contrasting Jews to the general population, they, the mistake is, you shouldn't think of this as, how are Jews different from the general population? It's, how are Jews different from specific other populations that aren't getting these benefits?

So let's contrast Jews here with Wasps. That's why Anglo Saxon Protestants in America. In Wasp culture, which I'm sure Many of our audience are familiar with would it be seen as high status to have published a controversial like op ed or sub stack post? No, you go to your family meeting and you'd be shamed.

People would be like, why are you doing all that weird stuff out there? Right? You know, Stop saying that weird stuff. It's making everyone look at us like we're weird. But within the Jewish circles, people, you go, you know, you go back to your family and they're like, Oh, that was really cool. How you did that thing that no one else had thought before.

And so why are Jews being socially rewarded for this is interesting. So keep going. Across all layers of [00:42:00] Jewish culture, from rituals, shavrusa, I know I butchered that, to internal hierarchy, the rabbinic system, debate skill is both practiced and rewarded at an unparalleled level vis a vis other cultures.

Those who grew up in Jewish culture will therefore more enthusiastically call b******t on society because their cultural framing trained them to emotionally reward themselves for doing so. It's not that Jews are smarter than other people, people are on average, it's that when individual Jews are smarter, they're more likely to speak up in ways that get them noticed.

Essentially, when not using preexisting accreditation networks like the universities, guilds or secret societies, individuals looking for the smartest people in society to hire and befriend are going to search for people writing or saying engaging stuff in a public context. And those people are disproportionately Jewish.

This gives Jews a little used side path to power. Jews access this side path, not because they're smarter, but because they have a cultural compulsion to share engaging ideas publicly at higher [00:43:00] rates. Take the top 10 controversial online intellectuals you like to follow. Focus on those you believe you chose without any outside influence, small blogs, undiscovered podcasts, and the like, and try to determine whether they have Jewish ancestry.

We think you will be surprised. And if our theory is accurate, it means Jewish over representation and positions of power will increase with the sustained rise in internet culture. This theory does not explain why among the highest ranked chess players, 51 percent have at least one Jewish parent. When deciding whether or not valid, keep that in mind.

And it doesn't explain something else. And it gets something wrong there. In my little prediction is the rapid crash of Jewish exceptionalism. If you look at IQ what is it, like Nobel Prize winners over time, the percent that are Jewish has been dropping dramatically over the past 20 years or so. And you actually see this in other areas of Jewish exceptionalism with the rate dropping dramatically.

As [00:44:00] to why the rate of Jewish exceptionalism is dropping dramatically I suspect it actually has a lot to do with it. In, for example, the Nobel Prize Asian competition. It's that over that period Asian countries that got higher access to nutrition ended up reaching their IQ potentiality, their cultural IQ potentiality, which allowed them to compete in these marketplaces.

But I also think that when you look at like the nuance of the subject, and you actually dig into it, you try to find out what's actually going on, you see why the focus on racializing IQ is often so wrongheaded and gets you to really wrongheaded interpretations. Which can cause you to make decisions that are very bad or develop world schema that are very bad that leads you to, for example, perceive like what, why does it matter, you know, that you don't come into the schemas?

Well, it matters because then you might end up. Perceiving Jews as maybe having some sort of, like, cabal or nepotistic framework, and that's why they're getting [00:45:00] ahead, and so then maybe you are like, well, I can't have too many Jews working in my company, or they'll build this nepotistic network, and now your company has lost access to To like really high quality talent.

Or you waste time fighting a group that really you have no beef with, you know, you look at like a leather apron club. And it's like, well, many of the best people at pushing right leaning, I politics in the United States, like Ben Shapiro and stuff like that are Jewish. Like you, you, you can't, that's my take there.

This piece actually then goes much further talking about. Jews and communism which is to say that Jews are not actually, actually, we have time to read this because you got 10 minutes and then you're cutting off, right? So why don't you read this section? Okay. It's pretty interesting. In researching this subject, we came across an interesting and widely believed conspiracy theory that Jews were overrepresented among the Bolshevik communists who took over Russia.

We say this is interesting as digging into the stats actually presents the opposite question. Why were so [00:46:00] few Jews represented? Among the Bolsheviks, Jews only made up around 3% of highly ranked Bolsheviks. While this is an overrepresentation of Jews, it is dramatically below what would expect given Jewish overrepresentation.

other areas of power. For a deeper, well sourced discussion of this, check out the Wikipedia article citation. In short, it looks like there were far, far fewer Jews in the upper level of the Communist Party than one would expect. Anecdotally, Simone's Jewish side of the family had to leave Russia because they were white Russians, people who fought for the support of the czar.

We suppose the lack of Jewish support for Bolsheviks shouldn't be surprising based on the fact that the communist government of Russia later specifically targeted Jews to be eliminated as a cultural group, citation. This should not be surprising given that Karl Marx was wildly anti Semitic, quote, What is the worldly religion of the Jew?

Huckstering. What is his worldly god? Money. An organization of [00:47:00] society which would abolish the preconditions of huckstering and therefore the possibility of huckstering would make the Jew impossible. Unquote. Marx furthermore complained that Jews were, quote, reproducing like lice.

Unquote. While some claim Marx made statements like these in an attempt to hide his pro Jewish inclinations as he had some Jewish ancestry. Citation the fact that Marx's goal was this systematic elimination of Judaism as a cultural identity would make such obfuscation conspiratorial in the extreme citation there, but yeah, it's just insane like his first book or something I think it was at first because one of his books Karl Marxist was like the Jewish problem like communism is not an ideology that is friendly to Jewish individuals or is a Jewish cultural group.

And it. Has not had a historically, like, if you look at our own government, if you look at the disproportional representation of like Jews in Congress [00:48:00] and stuff like that way, way, way, way above what you had with the Bolsheviks. So it's like, it's just not true. There is a connection there. Do you want to keep you have time to read the, this last outro here.

Yeah. Generally, generally we would shy away from conversations that attempt to tie an IQ trend to a specific ethnic group. But this particular instance warrants discussion because people use the myth of Jews higher IQ to dismiss the role Jewish culture plays in their success. Obviously, given the topic of this book, the pragmatist guide to religion from which we're reading, just a reminder.

You should check it out and give it a five star review on Amazon. This myth is very important for us to dispel. We shy away from the topic of, from the topic of IQ trends as they broadly relate to ethnic groups for two reasons. First, as you can see from the case of claims around Jewish IQ, data used to prove this stuff is often far more shaky than those who would authoritatively [00:49:00] share it may imply.

I want to note here because I, because society says. You will be shamed and you will be attacked. If you publicly mentioned that there might be IQ differences between ethnic or cultural groups it leads people to be like, well, I know that if Jews had a much higher IQ than other groups, people wouldn't be allowed to say that, you know, like people in universities and people in positions of power in our society wouldn't be allowed to say that without risk of being fired.

So when I hear some random person online to say it was authority. It must be true because I know that I wouldn't get it from positions of power, right? But this is the problem you get across sort of this research around race and IQ and stuff like that is because everybody knows that the mainstream power players can't say this stuff, when they see minor people say this stuff they're like, Oh, it must be true because, so, [00:50:00] so basically the urban monoculture in shaming talk of this makes the sources that do try to elevate it feel much more believable to your average well intentioned person.

They're just like, oh, well, they must have a higher IQ. It's just, we can't talk about it or act as if they do because that could lead to racism or whatever. When the actual truth of all this is much more interesting. Second, even if IQ does vary across ethnic groups, , such variation is largely irrelevant as of our generation and any variation would be totally irrelevant going forward in our species.

The idea of one ethnicity being superior to another along all Any number of measures is nonsensical in a world in which families can create their own vision of the ubermensch in just a few generations, through the use of IVG and polygenic risk score selection. Objectively, the more cultural and genetic diversity there is in the genetic data, the more robust and safe the [00:51:00] future of our species will be when performing intentional genetic selection at the level of individual genes rather than ethnic groups.

The more colors of paint on the palette, the better. Whenever we hear someone talking about ethnic IQ differences, the world is changing. We feel like we just broke into the big bad's lair at the end of an action movie to find him monologuing about the sharpness of the masterfully honed samurai sword he used to win many impressive historic battles, waving it around like a goofus.

Bro, we have guns. Fully automatic guns. No one cares about your samurai sword. That's great. Well, I have a 75 year old child on this top. No, but it is that way, you know, in this world. It is. It's so dumb. It's so dumb.

 But that, that's what's so satisfying about racism in general is that it is like, It gets dumber when you consider that in the development, you know, [00:52:00] rapidly, rapidly fast.

IQ is falling. We all have another podcast in the developed world. It looks like we're going to have a one standard deviation decline in IQ within the next 75 years. That is stunning. But it also means that if you're like, Oh, this group has like, I don't know, one quarter of a standard deviation, higher IQ than this group.

It's like, well, that won't be relevant within literally. One to two generations of today, like, so why are we talking about this? The thing that matters is the people who do polygenic selection versus the people who don't do polygenic selection or the people who do genetic modification versus the people who don't do genetic modification.

It's not an ethno group thing or at least some form of like how a group is choosing its mates is going to matter a lot. Right? So I guess. Yeah, it's, it's, it's sad and pathetic when I see people try to make fights about this, given that it's just not relevant anymore if you are a forward thinking instead of backwards thinking person.

It, it really matters. But I, I would [00:53:00] say in the same vein, We also need to be honest here, that while there aren't like meaningful IQ differences between ethnic groups that are going to be persistent there are between individuals. And that's one thing that our society really needs to get over, is people who had, Huge advantages in their lives because you know, that's who we're usually talking to.

Like I'll be talking to a friend at like Stanford business school and they'll be like, everyone's born exactly genetically the same. Everyone had the same shot at getting into Stanford business school as I had, you know? And I'm like that is just not true. You had a huge amount of systemic privilege over other people likely born smarter than your peer group.

It's really bad in the pull yourself up by your own bootstraps crew where they didn't come from wealthy families, so they don't know to have any level of humility around why they were able to achieve things and their peer group wasn't. They're just like, well, my peer group is lazy and pathetic and terrible.

You know, the Bill Cosby effect, I guess I'd call it. And it's like, [00:54:00] no, you likely had a genetic advantage that other specific individuals in that group didn't have. And that should give you more compassion for their situation. But it also matters when you look at society more broadly and is this effect going to increase?

I mean, obviously this is the other thing when I say to people, like, as soon as you realize that there's a genetic correlate to IQ, it's like, and you can see that's being really heavily selected against, right? Like the beginning of idiocracy ain't a joke.

As the 21st century began. Human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, began to favor different traits with no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to reward those who reproduce the most

having kids is such an important decision. We're just waiting for the right time. It's not something you want to rush into, obviously. I'm pregnant again! S**t! I got too many damn kids!

There's no way we can have a child now. Not with the market the way it is, no. [00:55:00] God, no. Come on over here, b***h! He don't care about you! Well, we finally decided to have children, and I'm not pointing fingers, but it's not going well. Yeah! Yeah! I'm gonna f**k all of you! That's my boy! And so it went for generations. Although few, if any, seemed to notice.

Like that's obviously happening. Like Obviously, obviously happening if you look at the data or if you just anecdotally look around you in the world and this is something that we need to take seriously because a lot of people are going to suffer and die if we don't.

Yeah. Okay, I'm gonna hop on. call. Do you want lasagna? Or do you want reheated Indian food? Because I have lasagna in the fridge now. Reheated Indian food and then we'll do a lasagna tomorrow. Tomorrow. [00:56:00] All right. Is it and it's just all in the fridge. Yeah, it's a it's a it's a full thing of mango chicken because I want me to pan pan fry it and then steam some rice.

A pan fry it but put in a little bit of coconut milk. So that Cut off if you don't have any open coconut milk, right? If I don't then open a can. You don't want whole milk instead as a base? Okay. Coconut milk. I love you. I love you too. Your mom continues to impact me. And I think of her phrases all the time still, which was like, well, we were just, you know, based on our conversation right now, I just keep thinking. And I titled our, our stream yard thing, intelligent J O O's. And it was your mom that got me started on that. She's like, Oh, I used to know that.

I got hurt. No, no. Yeah. She got me started on that. It was from South park. Yeah, but it was originally from South park,

I didn't want to have to say this, but I think maybe we're not seeing heaven because one of us doesn't believe in it enough. Huh? Heaven could be like the pixie fairies of [00:57:00] Bubble Yum Forest. You only see them if you really believe in them. What? You know, maybe we're not seeing heaven because one of us is a J O O.

but your mom popularized it with France in our family. Cause she's so hip to everything.