Evolutionary Scientist Saad Links Human Behavior to Evolutionary Drives

The Diary Of A CEO

Dr. Gad Saad argues that modern societal conflicts and human relationship challenges stem from fundamental biological drives and evolutionary mismatches that culture cannot erase.

AI-assisted summary of The Cancelled Professor: Men Are Hardwired To Cheat! - Dr Gad Saad — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2024-09-09

Detailed notes

## Background This interview featuring evolutionary psychologist Dr. Gad Saad was published on YouTube by The Diary Of A CEO channel on September 9, 2024. The video description highlights Dr. Saad's expertise as a Professor of Marketing at Concordia University and author of books like 'The Parasitic Mind' and 'The Saad Truth About Happiness.' It outlines a wide-ranging conversation covering human behavior, mating strategies, evolutionary psychology, porn addiction, modern masculinity, wokeness, and free speech.

## TL;DR Dr. Gad Saad discusses human behavior through an evolutionary lens, breaking down mate choice, courtship dynamics, and the biological differences in relationship priorities between men and women. He explores behavioral dysregulation like pornography addiction and explains how modern societal norms often clash with human evolutionary design via the mismatch hypothesis. Saad critiques post-modernism and 'ideological parasites,' arguing for absolute free speech and deontological ethics in scientific inquiry over forced equality of outcomes. The conversation concludes with Saad sharing personal experiences, his perspective on political figures like Donald Trump, and advice on balancing perfectionism with social connection.

## Atmosphere & style The conversation is intellectually intense yet conversational, balancing rigorous academic concepts with personal anecdotes and sharp commentary. Steven Bartlett maintains an engaged, inquisitive stance, pushing back on controversial points like street harassment and political leadership while allowing Saad space to articulate his thesis. Saad's delivery is passionate, candid, and often unfiltered, moving smoothly from complex evolutionary theories to humorous, direct reflections on culture. The atmosphere feels like a high-energy debate, combining academic debate with deeply personal life reflections.

## Key takeaways - [01:28:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5318s) Mate desirability scores evolve over time, meaning couples whose values or status diverge drastically face increased evolutionary strain and higher rates of relationship dissolution. - [01:31:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5509s) Mating dynamics are influenced by evolutionary traits: men's mate value generally increases with age and status, whereas female hypergamy and specific preferences (such as partner height and education) shape courtship pools. - [01:39:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5998s) Labeling basic male courtship attempts as toxic or abusive pathologizes normal male behavior and contributes to cultural confusion surrounding masculinity. - [01:04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3874s) Mating choices operate on compensatory metrics, allowing men to offset physical limitations through adjustable traits like physical fitness, confidence, humor, and intelligence. - [01:10:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4256s) Applying the inverted U curve and Aristotle's golden mean to social interactions illustrates that social flourishing relies on proper modulation rather than extreme behavior or total avoidance. - [01:25:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5158s) Pornography acts as an evolutionary exaptation, leveraging ancestral visual stimuli; while harmless in moderation, excessive consumption leads to behavioral dysregulation and real-world issues. - [01:37:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5823s) Under the mismatch hypothesis, modern psychological and physical afflictions stem from ancestral biological adaptations conflicting with modern environments. - [01:38:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5914s) Long-term personal happiness depends heavily on fundamental choices, primarily spousal alignment on core values and professional satisfaction through creative autonomy. - [02:02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7331s) Ideological movements like postmodernism act as intellectual parasites, treating objective truth and biological reality as secondary to social justice goals. - [02:06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7595s) Free speech must be protected as a foundational deontological principle, countering bad ideas through open debate rather than censorship. - [02:38:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9511s) Enforcing equality of outcome ignores fundamental biological and hierarchical realities, whereas equality of opportunity aligns with human nature. - [02:53:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10397s) Sustaining strong social connections remains one of the strongest predictors of long-term health and longevity.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=0s) Purpose, Truth, and the Danger of Forbidden Knowledge

Dr. Gad Saad begins by framing his life’s work around two core pillars: the relentless pursuit of truth via the scientific method and the unyielding defense of freedom of speech and inquiry. He emphasizes that scientific truth is inherently provisional—requiring epistemological humility to admit past mistakes when new evidence emerges. For Saad, an evolutionary behavioral scientist, every morning brings the excitement of uncovering deeper truths about human nature. However, he warns that this pursuit is increasingly threatened by the concept of "forbidden knowledge," where certain avenues of research are deemed off-limits because they might offend someone or challenge prevailing ideological narratives.

Saad points out that social science academia often severely punishes researchers who explore group or sex differences, creating a double standard. For instance, studies demonstrating that women outperform men at a given task are celebrated, whereas findings showing male superiority on a task are frequently shelved to avoid promoting "sexist patriarchal stereotypes." Saad argues that as biological organisms, humans consist of male and female phenotypes; while the sexes share many similarities, evolution and biology naturally yield areas where one sex excels over the other. Recognizing these innate, evolved sex differences was Saad’s early "eureka moment," revealing to him how otherwise brilliant academics can deny basic biological realities—a frustration that eventually led him to write *The Parasitic Mind*.

---

[05:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=322s) What Is an Evolutionary Behavioral Scientist?

To clarify his academic discipline, Saad contrasts evolutionary behavioral science with historical frameworks like 1930s behaviorism, which viewed all human behavior as a simple product of stimulus and response (such as Pavlovian conditioning). While behaviorists asserted that all learning comes from environmental conditioning, evolutionary behavioral scientists argue that human behavior cannot be understood without recognizing how natural selection shaped the human mind. Saad notes with characteristic irony that while mainstream social scientists accept that evolution shaped human anatomy—from opposable thumbs to the respiratory system—they balk at the idea that evolution shaped the brain or mind, viewing humans as purely cultural animals who transcend biology.

Saad’s approach involves looking for "ultimate Darwinian signatures" behind human actions. He credits his intellectual turning point to reading *Homicide* by Martin Daly and Margo Wilson during his first semester as a doctoral student at Cornell University under Professor Dennis Regan. The book demonstrated that specific criminal patterns recur across entirely different cultures and historical eras, proving they are driven by evolved psychological mechanisms rather than temporary cultural or epochal factors. This realization inspired Saad to apply evolutionary principles to consumer psychology and decision-making, founding a new subfield.

---

[08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=525s) The Cinderella Effect: Predicting Child Abuse

Illustrating how evolutionary psychology explains complex social phenomena, Saad presents a stark statistical reality regarding child abuse. While people commonly attribute child abuse to factors like parental alcoholism or generational trauma, the single strongest predictor in a household is the presence of a step-parent. Saad highlights that living with a step-parent increases the risk of child abuse by a factor of 100—an effect size ("1 to 100 odds ratio") virtually unheard of in standard social science research, where a 1.2 ratio is often considered significant.

This phenomenon explains the cross-cultural prevalence of the "nasty stepmother" motif found in tales like *Cinderella*, where a step-parent discriminates heavily against non-biological children while treating their own biological offspring with care. Saad draws a parallel to animal behavior, particularly lion prides: * When new dominant males oust older males from a pride, their immediate action is to commit systematic infanticide against all existing cubs. * Because lions invest heavily in offspring, incoming males avoid wasting resources on cubs sired by competitors. * Following the infanticide, the lionesses enter estrus, allowing the new males to sire their own biological offspring.

> "In lion pride society, kill her children. So that's one example of how we've evolved the calculus in our brains to not feel as happy investing in other children than our own."

Addressing potential moral backlash, Saad stresses that scientifically explaining a phenomenon is not the same as condoning it. Just as an oncologist studies cancer without being "pro-cancer," understanding the evolutionary triggers of child abuse is essential for effectively preventing it.

---

[13:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=819s) The Most Dangerous Person a Woman Can Meet

Saad poses a provocative question to host Steven Bartlett: Who is the single most dangerous person a woman will ever encounter in her lifetime? While Bartlett initially guesses a prospective partner during courtship, Saad reveals that across all societies—from the Yanomami tribe in the Amazon and the Hadza in Central Africa to modern industrial cities like Detroit—a woman's husband or long-term male partner is statistically her greatest threat.

The primary catalyst driving male domestic violence and uxoricide (the murder of one's wife) is suspected or confirmed female infidelity. Bartlett notes that true crime statistics reflect this, showing that roughly 70% of female murder cases involve a partner or husband. Saad explains the underlying evolutionary calculus behind this grim reality: * Humans are a bi-parental species where males make an extraordinary investment in raising offspring compared to most other mammals. * Because human fathers invest massive resources over decades, men evolved intense psychological mechanisms to guard against "paternity uncertainty"—a biological vulnerability that women do not face, as maternity is never in doubt. * Male sexual jealousy and mate-retention behaviors evolved to prevent cuckoldry (investing finite resources into another male's genetic offspring).

Understanding these deep-seated evolutionary drives offers an elegant, parsimonious explanation for complex human behaviors, illustrating how evolutionary behavioral science bridges biology, psychology, and societal outcomes.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of the transcript excerpt:

[17:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1056s) Evolutionary Mechanisms and the Myth of Monogamy

Dr. Gad Saad clarifies that explaining a behavior through an evolutionary lens is not the same as endorsing or justifying it moralistic terms. Human life requires navigating competing evolutionary drives: for instance, humans evolved a desire to gorge on high-fat foods to survive scarcity, but without the counter-balancing evolved mechanism of self-control, one would become dangerously obese and risk dying of heart disease by age 42. Host Steven Bartlett agrees that viewers need this framework so they don't mistake an evolutionary explanation for a moral endorsement, though Saad quips that many of his university colleagues are incapable of making that distinction.

Steven framing the discussion around his personal observations of about 20 male friends, dividing them into three distinct groups: * **The Faithful:** A cohort who are committed, exercise discipline, and ignore temptations. * **The Strugglers:** A middle group dealing with internal conflicts like pornography or light "dabbling." * **The Serial Cheaters:** A group that cheats almost uncontrollably on their partners.

When Steven asks who is "right" from an evolutionary perspective, Saad responds that all of them are, as the underlying desire for sexual variety exists in everyone even if it isn't acted out overtly. While it is widely accepted that men have evolved a strong desire for sexual variety, Saad highlights that women have also evolved a powerful desire for sexual variety across every documented culture—even if not to the exact same quantitative degree as men. Women are far from "Victorian chased prudes."

[20:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1257s) Female Mating Strategies and the "Sexy Son" Hypothesis

Saad details situational evidence showing that women are most likely to cheat when they are maximally fertile in their ovulatory cycle. Crucially, during these periods of extra-pair mating, women are less likely to insist on contraception. From an evolutionary standpoint, if a woman is cheating to shop for superior genetic stock, using protection would defeat the purpose.

A woman typically will not cheat with a partner of lower phenotypic or genetic quality. Saad uses a vivid hypothetical contrast: a woman might want someone like Bill Gates as a long-term partner and provider, but would seek out a male Olympic swimmer "behind the bushes" for genetic material. If she can convince her primary provider partner that the child is his, she has effectively "won the genetic lottery game."

* **Phenotype vs. Genotype:** A phenotype is the physical manifestation of traits (e.g., tall height, V-shaped torso, high-testosterone jawline). * **The "Sexy Son" Hypothesis:** While a partner like Bill Gates provides resources and heritable intelligence, a physically impressive mate passes down traits that yield attractive, physically formidable offspring ("brains and brawn"). * **Mating Systems:** True monogamy is not strictly natural, though about **85%** of documented human cultures utilize institutional monogamy to support our biparental species structure.

[24:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1450s) Mating Terminology and Inclusive Fitness

Saad clarifies the precise scientific terminology surrounding non-monogamous systems, correcting common misuses of the word "polygamy":

* **Polygamy:** The overarching term for a one-to-many mating system. * **Polygyny:** One man with multiple women (the overwhelmingly common form of polygamy in human history). * **Polyandry:** One woman with multiple men.

Institutional polyandry is almost non-existent because it rarely makes evolutionary sense for men. The primary famous exception is **Tibetan fraternal polyandry**, where a group of brothers marries one woman. Saad explains this through **inclusive fitness** and the coefficient of genetic relatedness ($R$):

* **Identical Twins:** $R = 1.0$ * **Full Siblings / Parents / Children:** $R = 0.5$ * **Grandparents / Aunts / Uncles / Nephews / Nieces:** $R = 0.25$ * **Random Strangers:** $R = 0$

Because brothers share 50% of their genes ($R = 0.5$), a man who invests in his brother's children is still passing on his genetic lineage indirectly, preventing polyandry from being a "Darwinian dead end."

[25:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1543s) Paternity Uncertainty and Family Gift-Giving

Saad describes empirical research he conducted testing whether family investments align with genetic relatedness and **paternity uncertainty**. In a 2018 study analyzing real-world field data from approximately 30 Israeli weddings, researchers looked at the monetary value of wedding gifts given by guests (e.g., "Uncle Mordechai gave $180").

Even in patriarchal Middle Eastern cultures, evolutionary theory correctly predicted that the mother's side of both the bride and groom gives significantly larger gifts than the father's side. Saad explains this through the differential levels of genetic certainty across the four grandparents: 1. **Maternal Grandmother:** Zero layers of paternity uncertainty (100% genetic assurance). Invests the **most**. 2. **Paternal Grandfather:** Two layers of paternity uncertainty (his son might not be his, and his son's child might not be his son's). Invests the **least**. 3. **Maternal Grandfather & Paternal Grandmother:** Fall in the middle.

[29:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1790s) Comparative Primates and "Sperm Wars"

Saad points to primatology as further proof that human females evolved under conditions of sexual variety. Across primates, male testicle size relative to body weight directly correlates with female promiscuity within that species:

* **Mountain Gorillas:** Massive 450 lb beasts with a single dominant male controlling a harem. Because there is no internal sperm competition, males have extremely **small testes**. * **Chimpanzees:** Highly promiscuous, multi-male/multi-female mating structures where sex is used for greetings, goodbyes, and conflict resolution. Chimps are "walking testicles" with massive testes designed to win the volume battle of sperm competition.

Saad references British scientist Robin Baker's book *Sperm Wars*, which posits that human ejaculate contains specialized sperm phenotypes designed for inter-male competition: * **Fertilizers:** The classic sperm with a head and tail racing to fertilize the egg. * **Blockers:** Sperm that create physical barriers to prevent other men's sperm from passing. * **Killers:** Sperm that actively search for and attack sperm from other males.

Because human sperm remains viable inside a woman's reproductive tract for roughly **72 hours**, the evolution of defensive and offensive sperm phenotypes indicates that women in ancestral environments frequently mated with more than one male within a 3-day window.

[33:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2013s) Ideology vs. Scientific Truth

Saad concludes by sharing how ideological groups selectively embrace or reject evolutionary science based on their biases. When he presents evidence of female sexual variety to radical feminists, he is praised as a brilliant scientist because it aligns with their view of female agency. However, if he presents data showing that men across every culture exhibit a higher baseline demand for sexual variety, the same audience reacts with hostility ("Boo").

He emphasizes that scientific truth exists independently of whether it supports one's political ideology, referencing his book *The Parasitic Mind* to illustrate how bad ideas "parasitize" objective scientific inquiry. When Steven asks what ideas have gotten Saad into the most trouble, Saad notes that simply stating "humans are biological beings shaped by sexual and natural selection" still draws fierce ideological pushback, even though science eventually autocorrects over time.

[35:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2137s) Ignored Pioneers and the Battle to Bring Biology into Academia

Dr. Gad Saad illustrates how established scientific paradigms often stubbornly reject groundbreaking ideas before eventually adopting them. To demonstrate this pattern, he points to Ignaz Semmelweis, the 19th-century Hungarian physician who discovered why so many women were dying of puerperal (postnatal) fever shortly after giving birth. Semmelweis realized that surgeons were performing forensic autopsies on corpses and then walking straight into gynecological interventions without washing their hands, directly transferring fatal pathogens to the mothers. When he presented his findings and urged doctors to sanitize their hands, the medical establishment mocked and ostracized him. Semmelweis ultimately suffered a mental breakdown and died in an asylum; only decades later did society recognize his genius and build statues in his honor.

``` +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | THE EVOLUTION OF AN ACCEPTED TRUTH | | | | 1. RADICAL INSIGHT 2. INSTITUTIONAL REJECTION 3. ULTIMATE ACCEPTANCE | Semmelweis proposes Doctors laugh him out Statues erected; | | hand-washing to stop of town; dies in an hygiene becomes | | postnatal fever. asylum. baseline medicine. | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

Drawing a direct parallel to his own academic career, Saad recalls how he was treated when he first pioneered evolutionary behavioral science in business schools thirty years ago. Colleagues treated the notion that human consumers are bound by biology as outright absurd, accusing him of being a "bullshitter" or worse. Today, that hostility has evaporated into invitations to deliver prestigious university keynotes. While asserting our fundamental biological nature was his most triggering claim in academia, Saad notes that in his public commentary, discussing topics like Islam generates the fiercest pushback. Though he speaks from a Jewish context, he maintains that the analytical truths he presents hold regardless of his personal background.

* **Puerperal Fever Case:** Historical medical mortality driven by unwashed hands transferring pathogens from corpses to women in labor. * **The "Semmelweis Reflex":** The automatic rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts established norms. * **Academic Backlash:** Saad's early attempt to integrate biology into consumer psychology was initially dismissed as irrelevant to business education.

---

[38:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2308s) The Four Darwinian Drivers of Human Behavior

When asked how much of human behavior is driven by sex and relationships, Saad outlines the core framework from his books *The Evolutionary Foundations of Consumption* and *The Consuming Instinct*. He explains that human purposeful behavior is largely organized around four fundamental Darwinian modules:

``` +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | THE 4 DARWINIAN BEHAVIORAL MODULES | | | | [ Survival ] [ Reproductive ] [ Kin Selection ] [ Reciprocal ] | | Calorie-seeking, Status signaling, Investing in "I scratch | | fatty foods, mating tactics, genetic relatives your back, | | risk avoidance beautification (50% to kids) you scratch | | (natural sel.) (sexual sel.) mine" | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

1. **The Survival Module (Natural Selection):** Governs basic self-preservation and resource acquisition. For example, humans evolved strong gustatory preferences for high-calorie, fatty foods over low-calorie options like raw celery, reflecting our ancestral need to survive caloric scarcity. 2. **The Reproductive Module (Sexual Selection):** Drives behaviors aimed at acquiring mates and signaling fitness. Men and women utilize distinct products and displays across cultures to advertise their value to the opposite sex. 3. **The Kin Selection Module:** Dictates altruistic behavior directed at genetic relatives to boost inclusive fitness. An individual might risk their life to save their three children because each child carries 50% of their genes—making the genetic trade-off advantageous in evolutionary terms. 4. **The Reciprocal Altruism Module:** Explains why humans cooperate with non-kin and complete strangers. Grounded in the principle of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine," this system evolved from social grooming rituals in primates and mutual food-sharing arrangements among ancestral hunter-gatherers facing unpredictable hunts.

In modern society, these ancient evolutionary instincts manifest in routine social rituals. Saad uses the example of taking a friend out for a $70 birthday dinner: while pure economic logic suggests both parties should simply buy their own meals, the act of reciprocal exchange serves as a crucial ritual that cements social bonds and establishes mutual trust.

* **Caloric Uncertainty:** Ancestral humans lacked local grocery stores, making calorie-dense foods essential for survival. * **Primate Social Grooming:** Parasite removal among primates formed the biological foundation for human social reciprocity. * **Inclusive Fitness:** Genetic preservation drives self-sacrifice for immediate family members.

---

[44:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2695s) Mate Desirability Scores and the Logic of Attraction

Saad breaks down how sexual selection operates through the lens of a **Mate Desirability Score**. Just as a consumer evaluates a car based on a bundle of attributes—such as fuel efficiency, horsepower, and handling—humans evaluate potential partners based on a multi-attribute matrix.

While these evaluations can cover dozens of traits, Saad emphasizes that across every human culture ever studied, the single most universal attribute women look for in a man is **social status** and its associated proxies: ambition, assertiveness, social dominance, educational credentials, financial resources, or high social standing.

> "In no culture has a woman ever said the following: 'Give me a non-assertive, beta, meek man who has pear-shaped hips and a nasal voice, and I'm turning into a sexual frenzied animal.' Those words have never been uttered in the history of humanity."

To illustrate how status operates beyond raw wealth, Saad discusses the classic "starving artist" or "rock star" phenomenon. A man holding a guitar in a personal advertisement consistently receives higher desirability ratings than the exact same man pictured without one. While a surface-level (proximate) explanation might suggest women simply enjoy listening to music, the evolutionary (ultimate) explanation reveals that playing an instrument signals creativity, discipline, focus, and potential high status.

``` +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | PROXIMATE VS. ULTIMATE EXPLANATION | | | | PROXIMATE (The "How" & "What") --> "I like a man who plays music | | because it sounds good." | | | | ULTIMATE (The Darwinian "Why") --> "Playing an instrument signals | | discipline, creativity, and | | future high social status." | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

Saad points out that figures like Pablo Picasso—physically short, bald, and frumpy—or Mick Hucknall, the ginger lead singer of Simply Red, attracted lines of women due to the sheer power of high status. Beyond physical traits, men display status through luxury goods like high-performance sports cars (where 99% of Ferrari owners are male, serving as the human equivalent of a peacock's tail), while women typically signal mate value through cross-cultural beautification and aesthetic enhancements.

* **Ferrari Ownership:** 99% male-dominated consumption acting as a high-status biological peacock tail. * **Guitars as Fitness Signals:** Displaying musical aptitude communicates underlying cognitive and physical discipline. * **Multi-Attribute Choice Model:** The cognitive strategy of combining various positive and negative traits into an overall desirability score from 0 to 100.

---

[51:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3061s) Assortative Mating and the Romantic Marketplace

Shifting to how relationships form, Saad clarifies the difference between short-term hookups and long-term pairings. The common belief that "opposites attract" holds true almost exclusively for short-term sexual encounters, where complementary contrasts—such as a shy partner being drawn to an outgoing one—can create immediate sexual chemistry. However, for long-term relationships and marriage, the rule that overwhelmingly dictates success is **assortative mating** ("birds of a feather flock together"). Long-term stability requires deep alignment on core values, life goals, religious beliefs, and general worldview.

``` +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | MATING DYNAMICS MATRIX | | | | MATING TYPE GOVERNING PRINCIPLE KEY DRIVERS | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Short-Term --> Opposites Attract --> Sexual novelty, | | complementary personalities| | | | Long-Term --> Assortative Mating --> Shared values, aligned | | goals, equal mate score | +-------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ```

Beyond shared beliefs, assortative mating governs how individuals trade on their overall mate value within the romantic marketplace. In a realistic market dynamics scenario: * Everyone naturally desires a partner who scores a perfect 100—such as an elite, drop-dead gorgeous supermodel or a handsome, world-class neurosurgeon who swims in the Olympics. * However, because top-tier partners have their pick of the market, individuals are forced to settle near their own overall score. * A person with an overall score of 87 will almost certainly partner with someone in the 80s, as pairing an 87 with a 36 creates a structural imbalance that the market rarely sustains.

Saad concludes by noting that while individuals may compensate for weaknesses in one trait (like physical height or wealth) with strengths in another (like humor, athletic skill, or intellect), their total score dictates their realistic range within the romantic market.

* **Assortative Mating:** The tendency for individuals with similar phenotypes, status, and overall desirability scores to pair up. * **Market Realism:** Romantic choices are constrained by one's own offer in the mating market. * **Value Matching:** Long-term marital stability relies heavily on shared foundational values over superficial contrast.

[53:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3198s) Mating Scores and Predicting Relationship Success

Dr. Gad Saad introduces a core theoretical hypothesis—which he notes remains untested, though featured in his book *The Saad Truth About Happiness*—regarding what predicts whether a couple stays together. He argues that long-term relationship viability depends on whether a couple's overall "mating scores" remain aligned over time or begin to diverge. To illustrate this, Saad offers a vivid scenario: an 18-year-old high school quarterback and the head cheerleader date because their initial mating values are equal. Fast forward a decade: the woman is completing her third year of neurosurgery residency, putting her in proximity to smart, accomplished male peers while her own value skyrockets. Meanwhile, her former quarterback partner has gained weight, lost his hair, remains chronically unemployed, and does nothing but play video games.

Because their mating scores have drastically diverged—hers rising rapidly while his plummets into degeneracy—the marriage faces severe evolutionary strain. Saad warns that while it is vital to marry someone who matches your initial mating value, it requires continuous effort to maintain that value throughout life. Once a major rift in scores occurs, he predicts high rates of marital dissolution and divorce.

* **Key Factors in Mating Score Divergence:** Career ambition, physical fitness, education level, and lifestyle effort. * **Core Advice:** Seek a partner with a matching mate value, but actively work to preserve your own score to prevent divergence.

---

[55:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3309s) How Age, Height, and Education Impact Mating Values

Turning to the mechanics of desirability across genders, Saad addresses how aging affects mate value. From a strict evolutionary standpoint, all else being equal, a man's mate value tends to increase with age (as resource accumulation and status grow), whereas a woman's mate value tends to decrease. Saad outlines specific physical and demographic traits that drastically shrink a woman's pool in the mating market, joking that he is happy to take the "hate mail" for stating these evolutionary facts:

1. **Aging:** Decreases biological fertility cues, which evolutionary biology views as central to female mate value. 2. **Height:** Being tall is a massive disadvantage for women because women almost universally demand a partner taller than themselves. Saad cites a study of 720 real-life couples where exactly **one** couple violated the female-shorter norm. 3. **High Educational Attainment:** Due to female hypergamy, highly educated women seek men who match or exceed their status.

To demonstrate the compounding effect, Saad paints a picture of a 38-year-old, 6'2" woman with a PhD from Stanford. Because she expects a partner who is taller (e.g., 6'4") and equally or more educated (another PhD), her prospective pool collapses. He refutes the progressive notion that women's preference for high-status men is merely a social artifact of patriarchal oppression. If women only sought high status because they were denied power historically, then high-status, wealthy female neurosurgeons or diplomats would happily marry "17-year-old illiterate cabana boys." Instead, empirical evidence shows that high-status women insist even more strongly on a partner meeting or exceeding their status.

---

[59:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3598s) The Crisis in Masculinity and Modern Courtship Dynamics

The conversation shifts to the broader cultural confusion surrounding masculinity, rising male suicide rates, mental health struggles, and the emergence of online influencers offering alternative visions of manhood. Host Steven Bartlett notes that many women report feeling confused about how to raise young sons in a culture that seems to reward passive or "beta" behavior while simultaneously lamenting the disappearance of confident, bold men. Saad reveals that he frequently receives letters from women asking, "Where are the bold men?" He answers that modern culture has pathologized normal male courtship initiatives.

Saad points out that when polite male interest or compliments are labeled as "compliment rape" or framed through the lens of "toxic masculinity," men naturally become hesitant and risk-averse. He quips that under extreme interpretations of hashtag culture, "all of Italy should cease to exist," given that traditional Italian courtship relies on bold, confident approaches. He shares a personal critique of mandatory corporate/university sexual harassment modules, recounting how his employer forced senior academics to complete patronizing cartoon training modules that frame contextually unwelcome compliments as forms of sexual violence. While a mature 59-year-old academic can dismiss such administrative overreach, a timid 21-year-old college student internalizes it, making him terrified to approach a woman at a party.

> "A guy who jumps into a building to save a puppy and he's called a fireman—that's what we fantasize about. That's not toxic masculinity, that's masculinity."

---

[01:04:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3874s) Dominance, Confidence, and Compensatory Mating Choice

To show how pure confidence and presence can overcome physical shortcomings, Saad shares an anecdote about his older brother David, an Olympian judoka who represented Lebanon at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. Though his brother stands only around 5'3" (shorter than Lionel Messi or Diego Maradona), Saad describes him as walking into a room like a "seven-foot-two" giant with an undeniable aura of dominance.

During the early 1990s in Newport Beach, California, David would take Saad to nightlife venues and challenge him to pick out the most beautiful, seemingly unattainable woman in the club—specifically targeting women accompanied by physically imposing, tattooed men. On one occasion, while a woman's partner stepped away, David strode up to a tall woman wearing high heels, charmed her instantly, and walked away with her phone number, leaving Saad stunned. The next day, the woman ("Candy") called David to schedule a date. Saad uses this story to explain that mating choice is **compensatory**: individuals are evaluated on a complete "basket of goods."

* **Non-Compensatory Choice:** Selecting a partner strictly on a single non-negotiable metric (e.g., height alone). * **Compensatory Choice:** Allowing high scores in certain domains (confidence, humor, charm, wealth, intelligence, ambition) to offset lower scores in others (such as physical height). * **Actionable Self-Improvement:** Saad advises young men struggling in dating to stop spending hours on video games and instead read books, refine their vocabulary, build assertiveness, and improve their elocution.

---

[01:09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4150s) The Counter-Perspective: What It Feels Like to Be a Woman

Bringing a counter-perspective to the idea that men should simply be bolder, Steven Bartlett plays an undercover video clip from ITV filmed in Cardiff, Wales. The video demonstrates the reality facing an attractive woman walking alone through a city: within just two hours, she is approached, followed, or cornered by 20 different men, many of whom intrude upon her personal space and refuse to leave her alone. Bartlett notes that most men fail to grasp this relentless pressure, which explains why women often react defensively to unwanted approaches on the street.

Saad acknowledges the validity of the clip but stresses that human social interaction relies on proper **modulation**—knowing how to gauge context, read subtle body language cues, and adjust one's behavior appropriately rather than avoiding approach entirely out of fear.

[01:10:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4256s) The Inverted U Curve and Modulating Social Behavior

Dr. Gad Saad references a concept from his book *The Saad Truth About Happiness*, where an entire chapter addresses optimal decision-making and social interactions through the mathematical concept of the "inverted U" curve—shaped like a hill on a graph. This concept directly mirrors Aristotle's classic "golden mean" philosophy, which argues that virtue and optimal outcomes lie between two extremes. For example, a soldier who exhibits cowardice suffers from a deficiency of courage, while one who acts with reckless rashness possesses an excess; true bravery exists only in the balanced middle. Dr. Saad asserts that finding this sweet spot across neuronal, individual, and societal levels serves as the single most universal rule for human flourishing.

Applying this logic to social and mating approaches, Dr. Saad explains how men who harass women on the street fail to modulate their behavior. By acting like uninhibited, aggressive buffoons in inappropriate settings, the statistical probability of a positive reaction—such as immediate intimacy behind a tree—is essentially zero. In stark contrast, approaching someone politely at an appropriate social event (e.g., complimenting a dress at a party where mingling is expected) respects social norms and modulation. Bartlett adds that men who roll up to a vulnerable, isolated woman late at night—such as a drunk man in his 50s offering tennis lessons to a young woman—are violating every principle of timing, location, and social context. Even if such men rationalize their intrusive behavior by assuming a tiny $0.001\%$ chance of success, Dr. Saad emphasizes that an empathetic person would recognize that making a woman feel threatened is immediate grounds to refrain.

---

* **The Golden Mean:** Originating from Aristotle, it dictates that optimal choices reside in the sweet spot between deficiency and excess. * **The Inverted U Principle:** Applied mathematically across multiple domains (neuronal, individual, societal) as the ultimate rule for human flourishing. * **The "Harassing Buffoon" Fallacy:** Intrusive street harassment carries virtually zero statistical probability of romance or sexual success; it serves primarily to threaten or harass.

[01:14:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4441s) Theory of Mind and the Self-Awareness Deficit

Moving to the core reason why people execute such inappropriate approaches, Bartlett highlights a fundamental lack of self-awareness. Dr. Saad expands on this by introducing the psychological concept of "Theory of Mind"—the cognitive capacity to infer the mental states, perspectives, and feelings of others to navigate social interactions successfully. A skilled communicator utilizes Theory of Mind by adjusting their language; for instance, Dr. Saad avoids using dense academic terms like "domain-specific computational systems" when addressing a general audience. In clinical psychology, a failure in Theory of Mind tasks is one of the primary diagnostic markers used to identify autism in young children, as it explains difficulties with reading social cues and emotional reciprocity.

Dr. Saad shares his personal frustration with fans who lack this self-awareness. While he deeply appreciates people who enjoy his work and politely request a quick photo, he frequently experiences fans stopping him while he is out with his wife and children to deliver uninterrupted 25-minute lectures on their personal theories or political views (such as explaining why Kamala Harris would make a great president). Oblivious to the discomfort of his family or Dr. Saad's subtle cues of impatience, these individuals demonstrate a profound lack of Theory of Mind. Bartlett points out a classic selection bias behind this perception: the vast majority of people who *do* possess self-awareness and Theory of Mind simply choose not to interrupt a stranger who is spending quiet time with his family, leaving public figures exposed almost exclusively to the subset of people who lack social boundaries.

---

* **Theory of Mind:** The ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others, allowing people to predict behavior and adjust communication dynamically. * **Autism Diagnosis:** Early diagnostic tasks for autism often assess failures in Theory of Mind, reflecting challenges in processing social and emotional cues. * **Overconfidence Bias:** A cognitive bias where people overestimate their abilities (e.g., 90% of professors believing their teaching is above average) because they primarily receive positive feedback while negative feedback is withheld.

[01:20:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4801s) Defining Beta Males and What Men and Women Value in Mating

The conversation shifts to the colloquial term "beta male" and how high or low status is defined within evolutionary psychology. Dr. Saad explains that a "beta male" simply lacks the traits that women generally find attractive on the mating market—traits such as physical or social dominance, high status, ambition, assertiveness, and intelligence. Humor, Dr. Saad notes, is highly prized by women primarily because it acts as a direct proxy for high intelligence. He compares top-tier comedians like Dave Chappelle to university professors: holding an audience's rapt attention for 90 minutes with sharp social commentary requires immense cognitive agility, making humor an evolutionary signal of mental sharpness.

When tailoring advice for men and women seeking to increase their mate value, Dr. Saad highlights both universal and sex-specific traits. Universal traits like kindness and intelligence are equally valued by both sexes across every culture. However, evolutionary mating preferences create distinct sex asymmetries: - **Women's preferences:** Prioritize social status, ambition, and resource-acquisition potential in men across all studied cultures. - **Men's preferences:** Consistently prioritize physical beauty, youth, and physical attractiveness in women across all studied cultures.

To illustrate this asymmetry, Dr. Saad jokes that no man has ever rejected a sexually attractive woman because she lacked "alacrity to improve her GPA score," whereas a woman may instantly lose sexual attraction to a physically attractive man the moment he opens his mouth and displays complete ignorance.

---

* **Humor as an Intelligence Cue:** Being genuinely funny signals high cognitive performance, making it a powerful proxy for intelligence in mating. * **Universal Mating Desirables:** Kindness and intelligence are prized equally by both men and women across all cultures. * **Sex-Specific Mating Priorities:** Women universally prioritize social status and ambition in men; men universally prioritize physical beauty and youth in women.

[01:23:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4996s) Practical Intervention Strategies for Disillusioned Men

Addressing the growing demographic of young men who are romantically unsuccessful—often referred to as incels, who may spend their lives isolated, playing video games, overweight, and relying on pornography—Bartlett asks what actionable advice can help them escape this trap. Dr. Saad stresses that mating desirability is a compensatory process: while certain traits like height or facial symmetry cannot be altered, almost every other parameter can be upgraded through disciplined intervention.

Dr. Saad advises men in the bottom tier of mate desirability to focus intensely on actionable improvements: 1. **Physical Fitness:** Getting in shape and reducing body fat significantly boosts attractiveness. Dr. Saad lightheartedly recalls his own "soccer physique" from 1985 in San Diego, complete with an eight-pack, noting that while his wife stayed with him even after he gained weight later in life, being physically fit provides an undeniable advantage in attracting partners. 2. **Intellectual Cultivation:** Men must read broadly, expand their vocabulary, and learn to articulate their thoughts clearly. Expressing frustration over how difficult it is to get his own children away from their smartphones to read books, Dr. Saad argues that sharp conversational ability and intellect compensate for non-modifiable physical traits.

By treating mate value as a dynamic composite score, a man sitting at a score of 42 out of 100 can implement clear lifestyle changes—fitness, intellect, style, and ambition—to elevate his score to a 60, significantly expanding his potential pool of partners.

---

* **Compensatory Mating Mechanics:** Unchangeable traits (e.g., height, facial structure) can be offset by maximizing adjustable parameters like physical fitness, intellect, and social status. * **The Fitness Multiplier:** Reducing body weight and building physical conditioning immediately elevates a man's baseline mate desirability score. * **The Mate Desirability Score:** Upgrading personal habits can move a man from a low baseline score (e.g., 42/100) to a higher tier (e.g., 60/100), dramatically improving his romantic prospects.

[01:25:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5158s) Evolutionary Traps: Adaptations, Exaptations, and Pornography

Turning to the subject of pornography, Dr. Saad clarifies his evolutionary stance on whether explicit media is "good" or "bad" for human beings. He explains that pornography is a classic "behavioral trap" that exploits human evolutionary biology rather than an adaptive design itself. To make sense of this, he breaks down the crucial distinction between two evolutionary biological concepts: - **Adaptation:** A feature or behavior that evolved specifically because it conferred a direct survival or reproductive advantage in our ancestral environment (e.g., a preference for high-calorie fatty foods for survival, or displaying high-status signals to attract mates). - **Exaptation:** A trait, mechanism, or byproduct that evolved for one original purpose but is hijacked or co-opted for a completely different function in a modern environment.

Pornography functions as a supernormal stimulus that hijacks male visual mating adaptations—namely, the evolved drive to seek novel sexual partners and respond to visual cues of fertility—without offering any true reproductive payoff.

---

* **Adaptation defined:** A biological or behavioral trait shaped by natural selection to directly enhance survival or reproductive fitness. * **Exaptation defined:** A feature or cognitive mechanism that evolved for one primary function but is co-opted or hijacked by new environmental triggers. * **Pornography as a Behavioral Trap:** Explicit media exploits ancestral male preferences for visual sexual variety and novelty, creating addictive consumption patterns without fulfilling evolutionary goals.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this section of the transcript.

---

[01:27:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5234s) The Evolutionary Logic of Pornography: Exaptation and Hijacked Brains

Dr. Gad Saad begins by defining an **exaptation**—a trait or product that piggybacks on an existing biological adaptation rather than serving an evolutionary purpose of its own. To illustrate this concept, he points out that the white color of human bones is not an adaptation designed by natural selection, but rather the path-dependent byproduct of the chemical and structural engineering required to make a skeleton work. He applies this distinction to the origin of religion. An evolutionary *adaptation* argument would suggest that religious groups outlived irreligious ones because faith fostered social cohesion, community, and clear in-group/out-group boundaries. Conversely, an *exaptation* argument holds that religion does not solve a direct evolutionary need; instead, it piggybacks on our brain's pre-existing, coalitional "us versus them" hardware. Abrahamic religions exploit this built-in binary thinking: Judaism distinguishes between Jews and Gentiles, Christianity between saved believers and damned non-believers, and Islam between believers and *kuffar* (a derogatory term for non-Muslims).

Pornography works through the exact same mechanism. Our ancestors on the African savanna never evolved a specific "pornography gene" because the technology did not exist. However, human males did evolve two distinct psychological adaptations: a strong preference for visual sexual cues and a desire for sexual variety. Pornography acts as a product that hijacks these ancient mechanisms by offering an endless stream of novel, fertile, ready young women on a screen—ensuring a man never has to see the same woman twice even if he browses for 600 years. Saad notes that he has written about this concept in two of his earlier books under the framework of **dark side consumption**, which explains how maladaptive modern behaviors—such as pornography addiction, pathological gambling, eating disorders, and compulsive shopping—all share a clear biological signature.

- **Key concept**: *Exaptation* vs. *Adaptation*—pornography is an exaptation that hijacks ancestral male mating psychology (preference for visual stimuli and sexual variety). - **Dark side consumption**: Maladaptive modern habits rooted in evolutionary mechanisms include porn addiction, gambling, eating disorders, and compulsive buying.

---

[01:30:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5448s) Is Pornography a Net Good or Bad? The Dose Makes the Poison

When host Steven Bartlett cites a *Psychology Today* article detailing a study of 688 young Danish adults—many of whom reported that hardcore pornography benefited their sex lives, self-perception, and attitudes toward the opposite sex—he asks whether pornography is ultimately a net positive or net negative. Dr. Saad replies that scientific research remains mixed because pornography usage is entirely a question of **behavioral regulation and modulation**. In moderation, or when integrated openly within a relationship to spice things up, it can be harmless or even beneficial. Problems arise when consumption crosses into behavioral dysregulation—for instance, when a man spends six hours a day feverishly masturbating, misses work, and loses the sexual vitality needed to be intimate with his actual partner.

To explain how healthy behaviors mutate into clinical dysfunction, Saad draws a direct parallel to **Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD)**. Scanning one's environment for threats or washing one's hands after shaking hands at a party is an evolutionarily adaptive behavior. In a healthy individual, a threat "flag" goes up, the person addresses it (e.g., locks the door or washes their hands once), and the flag drops. In an individual with OCD, the neural flag enters an infinite, hyperactive feedback loop: they wash their hands, but the moment they step away from the sink, the flag pops back up, trapping them in an eight-hour ritual under scalding hot water until their skin bleeds. Pornography addiction operates through the exact same dysregulated loop, turning a benign impulse into a six-hour daily trap.

> "If once in a while... you decide to incorporate pornography to spice things up, good for you. If you can't get to work on time because you're spending 6 hours feverishly masturbating... then we have a problem."

---

[01:33:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5622s) The Guilt, Dopamine, and Desperation of Porn Addiction

Bartlett brings up the deep shame and guilt that many men feel regarding their pornography habits. He notes that many viewers express a genuine desire to stop, citing concerns over how constant dopamine spikes erode real-world attraction, cause erectile dysfunction, and drain the motivation required to pursue real relationships. Bartlett shares that when analyzing search trends online, the single most frequent search query related to the topic was the desperate plea: *"How do I quit pornography?"*

Dr. Saad agrees that these search patterns reflect men who are already suffering from behavioral dysregulation. Drawing on Aristotelian ethics—which emphasize doing the right thing, in the right place, at the right time, and in the right amount—Saad emphasizes that there is no absolute **deontological rule** dictating that consuming pornography is inherently evil under all circumstances. Unless one approaches the issue from a puritanical or strict religious perspective, viewing pornography once while single and between relationships does not make someone "Lucifer." However, when a married man spends hours a day consuming porn to the point where his refractory period prevents him from engaging with his wife, it crosses into a destructive disorder.

- **Most searched porn query**: "How do I quit pornography?" reflecting widespread distress and behavioral dysregulation among men. - **Dopamine & motivation**: Over-stimulating dopamine pathways via digital porn can impair real-world sexual attraction, performance, and drive. - **Refractory period**: The physiological recovery window between male ejaculation and achieving another erection, which can be completely depleted by compulsive masturbation.

---

[01:37:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5823s) The Mismatch Hypothesis and Modern Parenting

Bartlett asks what advice he should give a future son about navigating a modern environment that conflicts with his natural, evolutionary hardwiring. Dr. Saad points to the **mismatch hypothesis**, a core evolutionary principle stating that many modern human afflictions occur when ancestral adaptations collide with a radically changed modern environment.

Saad offers the human appetite as the classic example: humans evolved a strong preference for fatty, calorie-dense foods to survive unpredictable periods of famine on the savanna. In a modern world of endless food abundance, that same biological craving drives rampant obesity and chronic illness. In fact, Saad notes that many of the top leading causes of death listed by the World Health Organization can be traced back to evolutionary mismatches. By teaching a child about the mismatch hypothesis, parents give them the knowledge required to recognize and avoid these subtle behavioral traps.

> "Knowledge is power... being aware of the mismatch hypothesis, dear son, will allow you to hopefully not fall as easily into behavioral traps."

---

[01:38:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5914s) The Two Most Important Choices for Human Happiness

Transitioning to his book, *The Saad Truth About Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life*, Dr. Saad outlines the key decisions and mindsets that govern human well-being. He asserts that the two single choices that exert the greatest influence on whether a person experiences deep happiness or profound misery are **choice of spouse** and **choice of profession**.

Saad illustrates this with a simple morning routine test: if you wake up, look at the person lying next to you, and think, *"Oh god, not this one again,"* your day is ruined from the start. But if you look over and wonder how you got so lucky to pull off waking up next to such a delightful person, you start on a high note. Similarly, if your daily work gives you existential glee—whether it is writing a book, hosting a podcast like *The Diary Of A CEO*, or researching with graduate students—you have unlocked the code to a fulfilling life. Saad cautions that life is a statistical game; while no self-help book can guarantee success, making wise choices drastically stacks the statistical odds in your favor, much like not smoking lowers the probability of getting lung cancer.

---

[01:40:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6044s) Do Opposites Attract? The Reality of Long-Term Relationships

When discussing how to choose the right partner, Dr. Saad dispels the popular myth that "opposites attract." While complementary differences can create exciting short-term butterflies and romantic spark, long-term marital stability relies heavily on the principle that **birds of a feather flock together**. Over decades of marriage, shared fundamental values—not fleeting romantic novelty—keep the union intact.

Bartlett pushes back slightly, sharing that his own partner is deeply into spiritual practices, crystals, and esoteric subjects that he personally does not believe in, while he loves football and Manchester United—a team preference Saad jokingly ribbs him for as a Manchester City supporter. However, when Saad asks Bartlett to look past surface-level hobbies and factor-analyze their core life principles, Bartlett agrees that he and his partner are deeply aligned on what matters most. Saad clarifies that similarity is not about having identical tastes in sports or decor, but sharing deep deontological values. To illustrate, Saad shares that he and his wife both share high personal standards of conduct, such as never attempting to deliberately trigger jealousy in one another to "spice things up."

Saad closes the segment with a lighthearted personal story about how partners can complement each other's functional skills. Calling his wife "MacGyver"—after the 1980s TV hero famous for escaping sticky situations using random household items—Saad jokes that she completely upends typical gender stereotypes with her hands-on ingenuity: *"You give my wife an empty can of tuna and a soccer ball, she'll make a rocket!"*

- **The two biggest determinants of happiness**: Choice of spouse and choice of profession. - **Mating science**: "Birds of a feather flock together" predicts long-term marital success far better than "opposites attract." - **Core alignment**: Successful long-term couples may have different hobbies, but they share fundamental moral principles and conduct standards.

Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of the transcript section.

---

[01:43:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6217s) The Evolutionary Basis of Meaning, Purpose, and Occupational Happiness

Dr. Gad Saad marvels at his wife's practical ability to assemble and solve everyday problems—joking that while he takes weeks to figure out a lightbulb despite his academic credentials, she is effectively the "Elon Musk of the Saad household" who can build a rocket (*débrouillarde* in French). This transitions into a question from host Steven Bartlett regarding the evolutionary basis of meaning and purpose.

Dr. Saad explains that humans possess a large frontal lobe and sentience, meaning life requires more than just the basic animal imperatives of survival and reproduction. Through our consciousness and meta-knowledge, purpose and meaning serve to elevate human existence. Furthermore, story-driven nourishment like literature represents an exaptation—a mechanism feeding a brain designed to seek engagement. While about 50% of individual differences in happiness scores are genetically inherited, the remaining 50% is influenced by choices and mindset, making happiness an interplay between nature and nurture.

Dr. Saad outlines two fundamental metrics to achieve occupational happiness:

* **Temporal Freedom:** Avoiding "scheduling asphyxia." Unlike an airline pilot locked into a rigid 16-hour flight schedule, having control over one's time—such as choosing when to write at a cafe, train, or read—enhances well-being. * **Instantiating the Creative Impulse:** Jobs that allow a person to create something out of nothing provide a direct path to purpose. Examples include a stand-up comedian writing a routine, a chef creating a dish, an architect designing a bridge, or an author starting with a blank Word document and producing a finished book like *The Parasitic Mind*.

While standard professions like actuarial science are worthy, Dr. Saad lightheartedly doubts that actuarial scientists wake up amped to "spank that actuarial table" with the same creative zeal as an artist heading to a studio.

---

[01:48:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6530s) Birth Order, Creativity, and the "Born to Rebel" Hypothesis

Steven brings up a finding from Chapter 4 of Dr. Saad's book *The Consuming Instinct*, noting that younger siblings are statistically more likely to be creative. Steven—the youngest of four—wonders if this implies he is happier than his older siblings. He shares an anecdotal observation from a recent dinner with ten company founders, where eight turned out to be the youngest sibling.

Dr. Saad explains the underlying mechanism, citing Frank Sulloway’s book *Born to Rebel*. Sulloway analyzed 28 of the most radical scientific breakthroughs in history and discovered that 23 of them were initiated by later-born children.

To explain this phenomenon, Sulloway inverted traditional birth-order psychology: * Instead of viewing birth order through how parents treat children differently, it is driven by the child's need to stand out. * Under the **Darwinian Niche Partitioning Hypothesis**, firstborn children can claim default niches (e.g., the "good child" niche). * As subsequent siblings are born, fewer unoccupied niches remain ($n-1$). * Later-born children are forced to diversify to secure parental attention and resources, driving them to score higher in the personality trait **openness to experience** and become non-conformist, out-of-the-box thinkers.

Dr. Saad mentions that he tested and confirmed this framework in consumer psychology, finding that lastborns are far more likely to be product innovators and early adopters.

Steven resonates with both aspects of the theory: his older sister had a strict 9:00 p.m. curfew, whereas by the time he grew up, he was essentially allowed to "run the streets." This environment encouraged experimentation, risk-taking, and early entrepreneurial ventures—such as taking cigarettes from his mother's room to sell them.

---

[01:55:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6919s) Assortative Mating, Scientific Play, and Research Methodology

Noting that both he and his wife are lastborns, Dr. Saad proposes a potential research study on **assortative mating** (the tendency for people with similar traits to mate) based on birth order. He pitches a simple study: measure marriage satisfaction and happiness across a thousand couples and correlate it with their respective birth orders.

Steven immediately suggests executing the experiment live by targeting married individuals via digital social media advertisements (such as Meta or X ads) to collect demographic data, marital longevity, and birth order rankings. Dr. Saad enthusiastic agrees, noting how platforms like **Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk)** have revolutionized the speed and cost of scientific research by giving researchers access to targeted demographic pools for pennies per subject.

Steven commits his research and data science team to running the study on social media and displaying the live results on screen. Dr. Saad connects this spontaneous experiment back to a concept from his book *The Saad Truth About Happiness* called **"Life as a Playground."** He asserts that science is the ultimate form of play—akin to solving a complex, three-dimensional puzzle of floating variables—and getting paid to do it makes for a deeply fulfilling life.

---

[01:58:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7123s) The Link Between Evolutionary Science and "Wokeness"

Steven shifts the topic to "wokeness," asking why so many evolutionary scientists frequently find themselves engaged in debates surrounding culture and politics.

Dr. Saad explains that his own involvement began when he encountered **biophobia**—the explicit rejection or fear of using biology to explain human behavior and social affairs. He recalls the frustration of having scientific papers desk-rejected by academic journals simply because reviewers refused to acknowledge biological imperatives in consumer choices. This anti-biological mindset was his first encounter with how the human mind can become parasitized by ideological dogma, setting the stage for his broader critique of modern cultural trends.

[01:59:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7190s) The Parasitic Framework and Brain-Altering Neuroparasites

Dr. Gad Saad details the genesis of his parasitic mind framework, explaining how evolutionary scientists arrive at core principles by conducting comparative analyses across diverse animal species—much like comparing testes sizes across primates to understand mating systems. While searching the animal literature for mechanisms that cause organisms to exhibit self-destructive or irrational behaviors, Dr. Saad stumbled upon the field of neuroparasitology. Unlike common intestinal parasites such as tapeworms, neuroparasites physically invade a host’s brain and manipulate its neural circuitry to serve the parasite's own evolutionary interests.

He illustrates this terrifying biological phenomenon with vivid examples from nature. *Toxoplasma gondii* infects the brains of mice and rewires their neural pathways so that they become sexually attracted to cat urine, drawing them directly into the jaws of felines to allow the parasite to complete its life cycle. Similarly, the hairworm infects the wood cricket—an insect that naturally harbors an intense aversion to water. The hairworm alters the cricket’s brain functions, compelling the land-dwelling insect to leap into bodies of water and drown itself, purely so the hairworm can emerge and reproduce in an aquatic environment.

- **Cross-Species Comparative Method**: Evolutionary scientists compare physiological and behavioral traits across multiple species to isolate underlying biological signatures. - **Neuroparasites vs. Standard Parasites**: While standard parasites (like tapeworms) inhabit the gastrointestinal tract, neuroparasites target and alter brain circuitry directly. - ***Toxoplasma gondii***: A parasite that manipulates rodent behavior by replacing fear of feline scent with sexual attraction to cat urine. - **Hairworm and Wood Cricket**: A land-dwelling wood cricket infected with a hairworm is chemically compelled to commit suicide by jumping into water so the parasite can reproduce.

---

[02:02:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7331s) Ideological Parasites and Postmodernism

Discovering neuroparasitology served as Dr. Saad's second major "eureka moment," mirroring the epiphany he experienced when first discovering evolutionary psychology. He realized that just as biological brainworms hijack physical hosts, human minds can be hijacked by parasitic, destructive ideas. Metaphorically extending the framework, he identifies postmodernism as the ultimate "granddaddy of all parasitic ideas." Postmodernism asserts that no objective truths exist—save for the self-contradictory "objective truth" that all knowledge is subjective and bound by human bias.

Dr. Saad argues that these parasitic idea pathogens usually originate from noble intentions or lofty social goals. However, in their zeal to achieve social justice outcomes, proponents treat objective truth as mere collateral damage. He asserts that truth and scientific inquiry must be treated as absolute, non-negotiable principles rather than malleable tools used to serve ideological agendas. His work aims to trace these intellectual pathogens and provide a conceptual "mind vaccine" to restore rational, evidence-based thinking.

- **Ideology as a Neuroparasite**: Human minds can become infected by intellectual pathogens that compel individuals to act against their own rational self-interest or reality. - **Postmodernist Fallacy**: Postmodernism claims there are no universal or objective truths—a fundamentally paradoxical stance since it posits its own premise as an absolute truth. - **Collateral Damage of Noble Goals**: Ideological doctrines often dismiss factual accuracy and scientific rigor as acceptable casualties in pursuit of ideological objectives.

---

[02:04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7441s) Personal Roots: Escalating Violence and Persecution in Lebanon

Addressing whether free speech should ever be restricted if it causes harm, Dr. Saad grounds his uncompromising stance in his personal background as a Lebanese Jew. Born in Lebanon during the 1960s—when Beirut was historically celebrated as the tolerant "Paris of the Middle East"—he witnessed firsthand how quickly a society can slide into extreme intolerance. At just five years old, following the death of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (a championed pan-Arabist leader), Dr. Saad watched mob-filled streets outside his home filled with crowds chanting "death to Jews," prompting his mother to pull him away from the window.

The hostility intensified as he grew older. Before the 1975 Lebanese Civil War broke out, a classmate standing up in elementary school openly declared to teacher and student applause that he wanted to grow up to be a "Jew killer." Once civil war erupted, life became unviable for the Jewish community, forcing his family to escape to Montreal, Canada under life-threatening conditions.

- **Nasser's Death (1970)**: At age five, Dr. Saad experienced his first memory of targeted anti-Semitism as crowds marched down his street chanting "death to Jews." - **Elementary School Incident**: A classmate publicly announced his aspiration to become a "Jew killer" to cheers from peers and approval from the teacher. - **Lebanese Civil War (1975)**: The outbreak of war rendered remaining in Lebanon impossible for Jewish families, prompting the Saad family's escape to Canada.

---

[02:06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7595s) Kidnapping in Beirut and the Moral Case for Free Speech

Despite establishing a new life in Montreal, Dr. Saad's parents periodically returned to Lebanon during the ongoing war to oversee remaining business interests. During a trip in 1980, when Dr. Saad was 15 years old, his parents were kidnapped by Fatah, a militant Palestinian faction, and subjected to brutal physical torture in captivity. Family connections eventually secured their release, but his family initially hid the kidnapping from him to protect him. A high school peer whose family knew of the abduction misread Dr. Saad's jovial demeanor, assuming he was callous, completely unaware that young Gad had been kept in the dark.

Reflecting on his teenage mindset, Dr. Saad admits that if his mother had confirmed his worst fear—that she had been sexually assaulted in captivity—he would have dedicated the rest of his life to hunting down her captors to exact lethal revenge. Despite surviving these horrific trauma points, Dr. Saad remains a fierce free speech absolutist. He contends that even the most vile, offensive speech—such as Holocaust denial—must be protected in a free society, arguing that atrocious ideas must be met and defeated by better ideas rather than suppressed through censorship.

> "In a free society, I have to tolerate racists, imbeciles, falsehood spreaders. I beat them by speaking here, by telling better ideas."

- **Fatah Kidnapping (1980)**: Dr. Saad's parents were abducted and tortured by Fatah militants in Beirut before family connections managed to secure their freedom. - **15-Year-Old Mindset**: Dr. Saad recalls that had his mother been sexually assaulted during her captivity, he would have spent his adult life seeking blood vengeance. - **Defending the Undefendable**: Despite his heritage and family history, Dr. Saad defends the legal right of Holocaust deniers to speak, arguing that sunlight and superior arguments are the only true remedies for bad ideas.

---

[02:09:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7796s) The Line Between Free Speech and Incitement

Dr. Saad distinguishes between offensive expression and illegal speech, stating that the sole legitimate boundary on speech—as recognized by the First Amendment—is direct incitement to imminent violence. To illustrate this distinction, he contrasts a white supremacist declaring on a broadcast that Judaism is a "disgusting religion" (which remains protected free speech) with that same individual giving a specific time and location to attack congregants outside a local synagogue (which constitutes illegal incitement).

Host Steven Bartlett pushes back by offering a "staircase" metaphor: if influential podcasters continuously dehumanize a specific minority group using derogatory terms like "vermin" or "vultures," it inevitably leads to real-world physical violence against that group. Dr. Saad maintains that no ideology or belief system—whether religious or political—can ever be placed above scrutiny or critique to protect people's feelings, asserting firmly: "Your feelings are hurt? F*** off. Grow a pair."

- **The Legal Standard**: Speech becomes illegal only when it explicitly incites direct, imminent physical violence against specific individuals or targets. - **Ideological Scrutiny**: No political doctrine, religious belief, or ideology is immune from harsh criticism, satire, or condemnation. - **The Staircase Argument**: Bartlett raises concerns that widespread, normalized rhetoric dehumanizing a protected group creates a direct pipeline to physical violence in the streets.

---

[02:12:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7933s) Crime Statistics, Forbidden Knowledge, and Free Inquiry

To examine the boundaries of speech and group identifiers, Dr. Saad asks Bartlett about the widespread UK grooming gang scandal, noting that over 90% of the perpetrators of industrial-scale grooming of young white British girls over 30 years shared a specific cultural background and ideology. Bartlett agrees that identifying these background details provides necessary data to understand causation. Dr. Saad then addresses racial overrepresentation in American prison populations, pointing out that asserting black men are inherently or dispositionally more criminal is a claim easily dismantled using empirical science, leaving the speaker to face the social stigma of racism.

However, Dr. Saad laments that modern cultural taboos prevent researchers and journalists from even discussing objective crime statistics or investigating underlying socioeconomic and familial factors. He labels this taboo "forbidden knowledge"—the dangerous notion that certain lines of scientific inquiry should be suppressed out of fear of downstream societal consequences. He argues that suppressing facts ultimately prevents society from addressing real, complex problems effectively.

- **UK Grooming Gang Scandal**: Conservative estimates show over 90% of offenders in multi-decade British grooming scandals originated from a specific ideological and cultural demographic. - **Disproven Innate Criminality**: Claims alleging genetic or innate criminal dispositions in specific racial groups are easily refuted by empirical scientific data. - **Forbidden Knowledge**: The idea that certain truths or statistical patterns must be hidden to prevent social friction—a practice Dr. Saad strongly condemns as damaging to truth and progress.

---

[02:15:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8100s) Deontological Ethics vs. Consequentialism in Modern Society

Dr. Saad frames the debate around free speech and truth using two foundational ethical frameworks: deontological ethics (absolute, duty-based principles that apply universally regardless of outcomes) and consequentialist ethics (where the morality of an action is judged solely by its outcome). He uses a humorous everyday example: when a spouse asks, "Do I look fat in these jeans?", adopting a consequentialist approach to tell a white lie protects the partner's feelings and preserves harmony.

While consequentialism works well for interpersonal relationships, Dr. Saad argues that core societal pillars—such as free speech, the pursuit of scientific truth, the presumption of innocence, and journalistic integrity—must remain strictly deontological. He charges that over recent years, institutions have abandoned these absolute principles in favor of partisan consequentialism:

- **Free Speech**: Abandoned when people claim, "I believe in free speech, but not for Donald Trump." - **Journalistic Integrity**: Subverted during the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story to prevent an unfavorable election outcome. - **Presumption of Innocence**: Compromised during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings, where uncorroborated allegations were accepted without evidentiary backing.

[02:17:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8240s) Brett Kavanaugh, J. Philippe Rushton, and "Forbidden Knowledge" in Science

Dr. Gad Saad critiques his academic colleagues for abandoning foundational principles like the presumption of innocence during political flashpoints, such as the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He recalls how peers argued that maintaining the presumption of innocence was "too important" to apply in that specific case, effectively treating Kavanaugh as guilty without requiring evidence. Moving to the concept of truth in academia, Saad insists that there should be no "forbidden knowledge" in science, even when researching deeply sensitive topics.

To illustrate the point, Saad shares an exclusive story from the 1996 International Congress of Psychology. Early in his academic career after completing his PhD, Saad gave a presentation on decision-making strategies under time pressure. Unbeknownst to him, he was scheduled directly after the controversial psychologist J. Philippe Rushton from the University of Western Ontario, who was notorious for presenting data on racial differences in intelligence. Saad recounts feeling immense tension in a room of 1,500 people, fearing he would be "lynched by proxy." Fortunately, when Rushton finished, 1,425 audience members rushed out of the auditorium to confront Rushton in the hallway, leaving a modest, calm audience of 70 people for Saad's talk.

* Saad notes that when asking Rushton's colleagues whether he was actually a racist, they replied that Rushton maintained he simply collected data and presented findings without bias. * Saad argues that if scientific data is gathered in a completely unbiased manner, researchers should not suppress or refuse to publish it out of fear of looking racist or causing offense.

[02:20:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8423s) Truth, Personhood, and the Sanitization of Reality

Host Stephen Bartlett and Saad discuss how individuals react to unvarnished or uncomfortable truths. Bartlett reflects on his own perspective, explaining that he values truth above all else because knowing what is true allows a person to adapt effectively. He notes that if robust data showed that 31-year-old mixed-race men of Nigerian heritage from Coventry were statistically dumber, he would accept it without personal offense because he possesses a strong sense of personhood and self-contentment. He contrasts this with people who easily take offense, leading society toward a critical decision point.

Saad presents this choice as a bifurcation: society can either cultivate "anti-fragility" and encourage people to build resilience ("grow a pair") to navigate real-world stressors, or it can sanitize the world to ensure no one's feelings are ever hurt. Saad warns that choosing the second path forces society to "murder truth" as collateral damage in pursuit of a misguided sense of compassion.

* Bartlett mentions that doctors scanned his brain and diagnosed him with ADHD, warning him he would struggle with specific tasks like handwriting, to which his reaction was simply "Cool." * Saad explains that well-meaning ideologues often begin with noble goals to improve the world, but eventually justify suppressing objective reality to protect people's feelings, leading to intellectual "parasites."

[02:22:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8553s) Gender Identity, Bill C-16, and the Limits of Accommodation

Saad recounts testifying alongside Jordan Peterson before the Canadian Senate to warn against Bill C-16, which incorporated gender identity and expression into federal hate speech laws. While affirming that everyone deserves to live a dignified life free from discrimination, Saad voiced concern over government-compelled speech and the erosion of basic biological facts in university curricula. He argues that forcing evolutionary psychologists to deny biological sex undermines Darwinian concepts like sexual selection.

Bartlett and Saad discuss where reasonable personal courtesy ends and societal harm begins. Both agree that using an individual's preferred pronouns out of interpersonal politeness costs nothing and is a reasonable human interaction. However, they argue that problems arise when government compels speech, or when self-identification clashes with the rights and safety of others—such as in women's sports. Saad points to transgender swimmer Lia Thomas as an example of self-identity superseding the rights of female athletes.

* Saad describes a Canadian government policy regarding non-binary gender markers on passports as an example of erasing fundamental biological markers for a tiny fraction of the population (1 in 15,000 or 50,000 people). * Bartlett notes that he played co-ed soccer recently, but agrees that competitive sports like 100-meter sprints require clear biological categories to protect women's rights.

[02:27:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8844s) The Crossfire of Gender Debates and "Suicidal Empathy"

Bartlett expresses deep empathy for moderate trans individuals who simply want to live their lives peacefully without being drawn into intense cultural battles. He notes that passionate culture wars online often end up collateralizing the very people within minority groups who are just minding their own business and not participating in the outrage machine. Saad agrees, acknowledging the human toll of polarized public debates.

Saad then introduces the core thesis of his upcoming book, titled *Suicidal Empathy*. He explains that while empathy evolved as an adaptive emotional trait, it can misfire when it becomes hyperactive or directed toward the wrong targets. He argues that prioritizing empathy for one group to the detriment of another—or prioritizing non-citizens over law-abiding tax-paying citizens—represents an uncalibrated emotional response that hurts society as a whole.

* Saad references economist Thomas Sowell's principle that economics is the study of trade-offs and resource allocation, emphasizing that society cannot grant infinite resources without creating unfair costs elsewhere. * He argues that allowing public drug use in parks out of empathy for the homeless violates the rights of families and children who use those public spaces.

[02:31:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9073s) Illegal Immigration, the Rule of Law, and Personal Frustrations

Addressing immigration policy, Bartlett asks who is harmed if an undocumented immigrant crosses the border into Texas and improves their quality of life. Saad responds that from a deontological perspective, breaking established laws harms everyone because it undermines the rule of law. Saad draws an analogy to teaching children not to steal, criticizing policies like those in San Francisco that decriminalize shoplifting under $950.

Saad shares his personal frustration as a highly credentialed academic who has held professorships at Ivy League and top-tier institutions like Cornell, Dartmouth, and UC Irvine. Despite his contributions, he must follow rigorous legal procedures and face border scrutiny whenever he enters or seeks to reside in the United States. He finds it deeply unjust that legal immigrants must strictly follow every procedure while millions cross borders illegally without background checks or vetting.

* Saad points out the irony that his ultimate personal dream in life—living permanently in Southern California—remains unfulfilled because he strictly follows the legal immigration process. * He contrasts law-abiding immigrants with dangerous elements, such as gang members with MS-13 tear tattoos representing homicides, who cross borders without going through proper legal channels.

[02:33:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9208s) Deontological Rules and the Breakdown of Society

Dr. Gad Saad argues that when a rule of law breaks down, it affects everyone in society, even if the direct harm seems distant. Using the example of illegal immigration and retail theft, he stresses that society relies on predictable cause-and-effect relationships and deontological principles—rules that must be followed regardless of the specific consequences. Steven Bartlett offers a concrete story from his own recent experience: during a visit to a CVS in the United States, he was shocked to find basic everyday items like toothpaste, mouthwash, and deodorant locked behind glass cases. When he pressed a button and asked an employee why everything was caged, the worker simply pointed down the aisle at a man actively stuffing stolen merchandise into his socks.

``` Deontological Principles vs. Consequentialism ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Deontological Framework │ │ Consequentialist Slippage │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ • Rules enforced universally │ │ • Exceptions made based on outcomes │ │ • Predictable law & cause-and-effect │ ─► │ • Erosion of fundamental legal norms │ │ • Stable, flourishing western society │ │ • Retail collapse & lawlessness │ └─────────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Saad points to Bartlett’s CVS experience as a prime illustration of his argument. Even if a single act of theft does not directly hurt someone living across the world, it inflicts a "deontological injury" on the entire social structure. When property rights and consequences for theft are ignored, retail stores shut down, environments erode, and basic public trust collapses—just as seen in cities like San Francisco.

* **CVS Retail Security:** Basic personal care products like mouthwash, deodorant, and toothpaste are now locked in glass cages due to rampant shoplifting. * **Deontological Injury:** Breaking a rule harms society by destroying predictable legal norms, regardless of whether a single instance causes measurable individual harm. * **Cause and Effect:** Saad likens social rules to Newton's law of action and reaction; removing consequences for illegal actions destabilizes society.

---

[02:35:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9315s) Western Values, Immigrant Perspectives, and "Suicidal Empathy"

Bartlett questions whether a strict adherence to laws relies on the assumption that society is fair, pointing out that critics often argue the system is rigged. Saad responds by acknowledging that while no society is perfect, Western legal and social structures are far superior to those found elsewhere. He notes that some of the fiercest defenders of Western values are immigrants—such as Somali-born activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali—who have directly experienced living under non-Western regimes and recognize that the freedom, stability, and order of the West are anomalous historical achievements rather than default human conditions.

Saad criticizes what he terms "suicidal empathy"—the progressive impulse to grant endless second chances to habitual offenders at the expense of innocent victims. He points out the absurdity of releasing individuals who have been arrested dozens of times, asking how many chances a repeat felon should receive before society prioritizes public safety over misguided compassion.

* **Ayaan Hirsi Ali:** Cited as an example of an immigrant who spent her early life outside the West and consequently recognizes the rare value of Western principles. * **The "Buffet" of Societies:** Saad emphasizes that those who grow up in the West often take its institutional stability for granted, failing to realize it is an anomaly. * **Suicidal Empathy:** The tendency to extend progressive compassion to chronic lawbreakers until it leads to harm or death for innocent citizens. * **67-Time Repeat Offenders:** Saad asks rhetorically whether a criminal on their 68th arrest should still be given another chance when their release puts others at risk.

---

[02:38:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9511s) Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome

Addressing arguments surrounding privilege, Bartlett brings up how critics often demand that those with historical or genetic advantages pay it forward by being overly permissive to everyone, including those entering a country illegally. Saad draws a sharp line between legal and illegal entry, dismissing claims that empathy justifies ignoring the law. To satirize the concept of forced equal outcomes, Saad jokingly proposes a "communist mating" system where attractive men would be forced via an app to share their romantic partners with "incels" and homeless men who lack access to physical intimacy.

> "No one, I think, with a brain believes in equality of outcome... Equality of outcome says to the extent that we don't have equality of outcome, it must be because of nefarious reasons."

``` Equality of Opportunity vs. Equality of Outcome ┌───────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────┐ │ Equality of Opportunity │ Equality of Outcome │ ├───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┤ │ Rules & access are fair for all │ End results must be identical │ │ Rewards individual merit & effort │ Disparities blamed on oppression │ │ Compatible with human nature │ Requires totalitarian enforcement │ └───────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Saad further illustrates the absurdity of demanding equal outcomes through humorous sports analogies:

* **The FIFA World Cup:** Out of roughly 200 countries, only 8 have ever won the World Cup since 1930 (such as Brazil, Argentina, Germany, and Uruguay). Saad sarcastically asks if FIFA is anti-Semitic or racist because Israel, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, or Botswana have never won. * **The Boston Marathon:** Over the past 35 years, the marathon has been overwhelmingly won by runners from Kenya and Ethiopia. Saad mocks the idea that short Jewish men are being systematically oppressed because they haven't won the race.

---

[02:42:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9747s) Why Communism Fails Human Nature

Building on his critique of equality of outcome, Saad references the renowned Harvard biologist and entomologist E.O. Wilson. When Wilson was asked for his thoughts on communism and socialism, he delivered one of Saad's favorite quotes in academic history: *"Great idea, wrong species."* Wilson explained that social ants can sustain a communist structure because they have a single reproductive queen while all other worker or warrior ants are sterile, selfless clones working for the collective blob. Humans, by contrast, possess an evolved, hierarchical nature with varying traits, talents, drive, and intelligence.

``` Why Communism Fails Humans ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ │ Social Ants │ │ Human Species │ ├─────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────┤ │ • Single reproductive queen │ │ • Individuated drives & motives │ │ • Identical worker/warrior blob │ ≠ │ • Hierarchical & varied talents │ │ • Natural fit for communism │ │ • "Great idea, wrong species" │ └─────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────┘ ```

Saad argues that enforcing a socio-economic system that runs counter to innate human nature is as futile as trying to institute a "law of non-gravity" by throwing people out of airplanes and expecting them not to fall. Every historical attempt to impose communism over the past century has resulted in catastrophic failure because it refuses to accept basic biological and psychological realities.

* **E.O. Wilson (1929–2021):** Legendary Harvard biologist whose research on social insects provided the definitive explanation for why human communism fails. * **Biological Reality vs. Non-Gravity:** Trying to force human society into egalitarian communism ignores human nature just as jumping out of a plane ignores physical gravity. * **Kamala Harris:** Cited by Saad as an example of a modern political figure pushing equity/equality-of-outcome rhetoric that borders on economic absurdity.

---

[02:44:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9898s) The Donald Trump Defense and the "Honey Badger" Mentality

When Bartlett asks Saad if he would vote for Donald Trump over Kamala Harris, Saad answers without hesitation: "In a heartbeat... I would vote 10 times for Donald Trump." Saad admits that Trump is often his own worst enemy cosmetically—lacking polished elocution, a sophisticated vocabulary, and the self-discipline to avoid late-night fights on social media. However, Saad argues that Trump embodies the ultimate psychological trait needed in modern culture: being a true "honey badger."

> "I don't think there is a human being who's been a better exemplar of what a honey badger is... Activate your inner honey badger. Why? The honey badger has been determined officially as the fiercest, most ferocious animal in the animal kingdom."

``` The "Honey Badger" Mindset ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ • Size of a small dog, yet withstands attacks from 6 adult lions│ │ • Shrugs off venom, bee stings, and overwhelming opposition │ │ • Unapologetic, ideologically fierce, and unfazed by attacks │ │ • Exemplified by Trump standing up and shouting "Fight!" after │ │ being shot in the ear │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ```

When Bartlett questions Trump's character—pointing to instances such as Mike Pence stating Trump asked him to challenge the constitutional certification of the election—Saad draws a distinction between stylistic flaws and psychological resilience. Saad notes that after surviving an assassination attempt, getting grazed in the ear, and immediately standing up to fist-pump and yell "Fight, fight!", Trump demonstrated rare physical and mental fortitude. While Saad acknowledges he cannot read Trump's exact internal motives regarding the election, he respects Trump's relentless determination and refusal to back down under relentless institutional attack.

* **The Honey Badger Analogy:** Featured in the final chapter of Saad's book *The Parasitic Mind* as a call to action for individuals to stand up for their principles with ferocity and resilience. * **Assassination Attempt Response:** Saad highlights Trump's immediate reaction after being shot as an extraordinary display of stamina, physical courage, and unyielding vigor. * **Political Choice:** Saad clarifies that while he is Canadian and doesn't have a vote, his commentary focuses on broader philosophical principles regarding leadership, resilience, and opposition to collectivist policies.

[02:49:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10178s) Evaluating Political Figures and the Power of Unpredictability

Continuing their discussion on political leadership, Dr. Gad Saad and host Steven Bartlett debate the qualities of major political figures. Saad contends that when dealing with global adversaries—such as regime leaders in Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia—unpredictability can act as a powerful deterrent. To illustrate his point, he pantomimes picking a target using a nursery rhyme ("Eeny, meeny, miny, mo..."), suggesting that an erratic "crazy cowboy" persona keeps global bullies on edge in a way that traditional politicians like Kamala Harris or Joe Biden might not. He draws an analogy to entering a prison yard for the first time, arguing that initial projection determines whether one is preyed upon or feared, concluding that Donald Trump is the figure he would rather have managing that metaphoric prison yard.

Steven pushes back by interrogating Trump’s personal character, bringing up Saad’s earlier benchmark regarding men who pathologically cheat on their partners. Steven notes that high-status men have ample opportunity to stray, and true virtue lies in exercising self-control. He asserts that Trump likely fails this test of character and asks if Saad can acknowledge these moral shortcomings. Saad agrees completely, acknowledging that Trump does not possess the highest moral virtues or live by an exacting personal code. However, Saad argues that real-world political choices rarely offer "messianic" candidates, and between the available options, he favors the candidate he believes presents a stronger, scarier posture to international rivals.

* **World Dictators and Opponents:** Mentioned as the "nasty bullies" in global politics, including Islamic regimes, North Korea, China, and Vladimir Putin. * **Imperfect Political Choices:** Saad argues that voters rarely get a perfect figure like "Jesus" in politics and must choose based on real-world pragmatism.

---

[02:53:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10397s) Social Connections as the Ultimate Predictor of Long-Term Health

When asked what critical topic was missed in their multi-hour conversation, Saad turns to a core thesis from his book *The Saad Truth About Happiness*: the supreme value of social relationships. He points out that the quality of one's social ties is a far more accurate predictor of long-term health and longevity than one's cholesterol levels measured at age 50.

Whether engaged in high-level intellectual debate on a podcast or simply bantering with friends at a pub about sports rivalries like Manchester City versus Manchester United, maintaining rich social bonds is essential for a social species. He encourages listeners to get educated, read widely, and actively cultivate deep human connections as a foundation for living a happy life.

* **Health Predictor:** Social relationship quality outweighs traditional physiological metrics like cholesterol scores at age 50 in predicting overall long-term health.

---

[02:54:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10443s) The Last Guest Question: Escaping the "Purity Bubble"

Participating in the show's closing tradition, Saad answers a question left by the preceding anonymous guest: *"Tell me about a time in which someone said something to you, positive or negative, which really stuck with you and does still to this day."* Saad immediately recalls a piece of advice his mother gave him roughly 30 years prior. She told him: *"Gad, you better learn that the world doesn't abide to your purity bubble. And the quicker that you learn that, the happier you will be."*

Saad reflects on how this insight identified his own "moral scrupulosity" and maladaptive perfectionism. Living under an exacting code of conduct often leads him to expect others to hold the same standards—expecting total honesty, fairness, and reciprocal courtesy. Consequently, when people fail to meet those expectations (such as a stranger unexpectedly taking up his family's personal time in public), he feels intense frustration. Recognizing that the world is messy and imperfect allows him to lower unrealistic expectations and avoid constant disappointment, though he admits internalizing this mindset remains a continuous daily challenge.

> "Gad, you better learn that the world doesn't abide to your purity bubble. And the quicker that you learn that, the happier you will be."

---

[02:56:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10579s) Closing Tributes and The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards

Steven praises Saad for his courageous, unapologetic work that remains immune to political correctness. He highlights Saad’s books, particularly *The Parasitic Mind*, as essential reading for anyone seeking a clearer lens to navigate societal shifts, noting that standing up for these ideas comes at a high personal cost. Saad expresses his gratitude for the thoughtful interview, declaring it one of the best podcast conversations he has ever had out of the hundreds he has conducted.

The episode concludes with Steven introducing Version 2 of *The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards*. He explains that every prompt from the show's signature guest diary has been compiled into a physical deck of cards, complete with QR codes on the back that link directly to video footage of the guests answering those exact questions.

* **Featured Books:** *The Parasitic Mind* and *The Saad Truth About Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life*. * **Product Announcement:** The updated, limited-edition Conversation Cards are available at `theconversationcards.com`.

## Notable quotes > [01:39:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5998s) Where are the bold men? — Dr. Gad Saad

> A guy who jumps into a building to save a puppy and he's called a fireman—that's what we fantasize about. That's not toxic masculinity, that's masculinity. — Dr Gad Saad

> [01:30:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5448s) If once in a while... you decide to incorporate pornography to spice things up, good for you. If you can't get to work on time because you're spending 6 hours feverishly masturbating... then we have a problem. — Dr Gad Saad

> [01:33:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5622s) How do I quit pornography?

> [01:37:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5823s) Knowledge is power... being aware of the mismatch hypothesis, dear son, will allow you to hopefully not fall as easily into behavioral traps. — Dr Gad Saad

> [02:06:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7595s) In a free society, I have to tolerate racists, imbeciles, falsehood spreaders. I beat them by speaking here, by telling better ideas. — Dr. Gad Saad

> [02:09:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7796s) Your feelings are hurt? F*** off. Grow a pair. — Dr. Gad Saad

> [02:38:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9511s) No one, I think, with a brain believes in equality of outcome... Equality of outcome says to the extent that we don't have equality of outcome, it must be because of nefarious reasons. — Dr. Gad Saad

> [02:42:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9747s) Great idea, wrong species. — E.O. Wilson

> [02:44:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9898s) I don't think there is a human being who's been a better exemplar of what a honey badger is... Activate your inner honey badger. Why? The honey badger has been determined officially as the fiercest, most ferocious animal in the animal kingdom. — Gad Saad

> [02:54:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10443s) Gad, you better learn that the world doesn't abide to your purity bubble. And the quicker that you learn that, the happier you will be. — Gad Saad's mother

## Mentioned Dr. Gad Saad, Steven Bartlett, David Saad, Aristotle, Dave Chappelle, Elon Musk, Frank Sulloway, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Fatah, Hunter Biden, Brett Kavanaugh, J. Philippe Rushton, Jordan Peterson, Lia Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, E.O. Wilson, Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin, The Saad Truth About Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life, The Parasitic Mind, The Consuming Instinct, Born to Rebel, Suicidal Empathy, Stanford University, Concordia University, Cornell University, Dartmouth College, UC Irvine, International Congress of Psychology, Canadian Senate, Psychology Today, ITV, The Diary Of A CEO, The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards, Amazon Mechanical Turk, Bill C-16, First Amendment, Toxoplasma gondii, MS-13, CVS, FIFA World Cup, Boston Marathon

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA)

中文简报

进化科学家萨德将人类行为与进化驱动力相联系 Gad Saad博士认为，现代社会冲突和人际关系挑战根植于文化无法抹除的基本生理驱动力与进化不匹配。 Gad Saad博士从进化视角探讨了人类行为，剖析了择偶机制、求偶动态以及男女在亲密关系优先级上的生理差异。他探讨了色情成瘾等行为失调问题，并通过“不匹配假说”解释了现代社会规范为何常常与人类的进化机制产生冲突。Saad批评了后现代主义和“意识形态寄生虫”，主张在科学探究中奉行绝对言论自由与义务论伦理，而非强求结果均等。在对话最后，Saad分享了个人的经历、对Donald Trump等政治人物的看法，并就如何在完美主义与社交联系之间取得平衡给出了建议。配偶吸引力分值（Mate Desirability Score）会随时间动态变化；若伴侣双方在职业抱负、外貌自律或地位上发生严重分化，关系将承受巨大的演化压力并导致破裂几率大幅上升。 (53:18) 择偶市场深受演化规律主导：男性的配偶价值通常随年龄与地位增长而提升，而女性的上择婚配倾向（hypergamy）及对伴侣身高和学历的偏好，会使高知高阶女性的潜在择偶池急剧缩小。 (55:09) 将男性正常的求偶示好与赞美曲解并贴上“有毒”标签，导致了正常男性行为的病态化，也是当代文化中男性气质陷入迷茫和男性退缩的核心原因之一。 (59:58) 相较于短期关系中互补所产生的吸引力，长期婚姻与关系的稳定根本上取决于同质婚配（Assortative Mating），即双方在核心价值观、人生目标和世界观上的高度契合。 (51:01)

Reading summary

Evolutionary behavioral scientist Dr. Gad Saad argues that human relationship dynamics, mating choices, and societal structures are fundamentally shaped by evolved biological adaptations, which modern cultural institutions increasingly suppress under ideological dogmas. Darwinian Drivers, Infidelity, and Paternity Uncertainty (13:39) Saad explains that human purposeful behavior operates around four Darwinian modules: survival, reproduction, kin selection, and reciprocal altruism. In reproduction, human biparental investment creates distinct evolutionary pressures between the sexes. Because men face paternity uncertainty—a biological concern women never face—male sexual jealousy and mate-retention behaviors evolved to guard against cuckoldry. Saad points out that across diverse cultures, from Amazonian tribes to modern cities, a woman's long-term male partner statistically presents her greatest physical threat, primarily triggered by suspected or confirmed infidelity. While humans possess evolved desires for sexual variety, individual behavior varies between strict discipline and serial infidelity. Saad cites comparative primatology and human ejaculate biology as evidence of ancestral multi-male mating; human sperm can remain viable in the reproductive tract for approximately 72 hours, reflecting evolutionary adaptations for sperm competition. Furthermore, Saad's 2018 study on Israeli wedding gifts demonstrated that investment correlates with genetic assurance: maternal grandmothers, who face zero paternity uncertainty, invest the most in gift-giving, while paternal grandfathers, who face two layers of uncertainty, invest the least. Mate Desirability, Compensatory Choice, and Relationship Viability (44:55) Saad outlines attraction through a multi-attribute 'Mate Desirability Score.' While universal traits like kindness and intelligence matter to both sexes, evolutionary pressures drive significant asymmetries: across cultures, men consistently prioritize female youth and physical beauty as fertility cues, whereas women prioritize male social dominance, ambition, and resource acquisition. Highly educated, older, or tall women often find their prospective dating pools heavily constrained due to hypergamy and height preferences; Saad notes a study of 720 couples where only one violated the female-shorter norm. Saad emphasizes that mating selection is compensatory rather than rigid; shortcomings in physical traits like height can be offset by high scores in humor, confidence, physical fitness, and conversational ability. Over the long run, marital stability relies on matching baseline scores that remain aligned over time. Divergence—such as one partner advancing professionally while the other regresses—creates significant evolutionary strain. Saad rejects the idea that opposites attract for lasting unions, asserting that long-term stability requires shared foundational values. Behavioral Regulation, Pornography, and Optimal Floundering (87:14) Human satisfaction, Saad argues, heavily depends on two primary decisions: choice of spouse and choice of profession. In career well-being, he highlights the necessity of temporal freedom—avoiding 'scheduling asphyxia'—and expressing creative impulses. When managing modern stimuli, Saad relies on the Aristotelian 'golden mean' and the mathematical inverted-U curve, noting that optimal functioning lies between extremes. Behaviors such as threat scanning or sexual release are natural, but cross into pathology when self-regulation fails. Saad categorizes pornography as an exaptation that hijacks ancestral male visual and novelty-seeking adaptations rather than an adaptation itself. Drawing on research, including a Danish study of 688 adults noting perceived personal benefits, Saad states that pornography is not inherently destructive in low doses or open relationships. However, it mutates into clinical behavioral dysregulation akin to obsessive-compulsive disorder when users binge uncontrollably, inducing dopamine exhaustion, erectile dysfunction, and relationship failure. Ideological Parasites, Free Expression, and Suicidal Empathy (118:43) Saad contends that academic and social institutions suffer from 'biophobia'—the refusal to apply biological principles to human behavior—and identifies postmodernism as an intellectual parasite that denies objective reality in favor of moral relativism. Drawing from his childhood experiences of anti-Semitic persecution and the 1980 kidnapping and torture of his parents during the Lebanese Civil War, Saad advocates for strict, deontological free speech absolutism, arguing that harmful ideas must be defeated in open discourse rather than censored by state power or speech codes like Canada's Bill C-16. Saad cautions against what he terms 'suicidal empathy,' an uncalibrated progressive impulse that prioritizes repeat offenders over public safety or illegal migrants over citizen obligations. Pointing to retail theft, public drug use, and equal-outcome policies, he warns that replacing universal, duty-based legal rules with outcome-based consequentialism erodes Western legal institutions. In leadership, Saad argues for unapologetic resilience, contending that an unpredictable, fierce posture can act as a stronger deterrent against adversaries than polished conventional diplomacy. Saad acknowledges that his theoretical framework for predicting divorce through mating score divergence remains empirically untested. He maintains that while the world will never conform to personal expectations of perfection, societies risk systemic breakdown when they subordinate objective biological and institutional truths to emotional comfort.

精炼阅读摘要

演化行为科学家 Gad Saad 博士在访谈中主张，人类诸多行为与社会模式均由演化机制深刻塑造，而现代社会因意识形态对生物学事实的排斥正导致理性的倒退。他强调，唯有坚持无条件的道义论伦理、捍卫言论自由并直面客观真相，社会与个体才能免于被教条寄生并实现长久繁荣。演化驱动力与性选择机制 (13:39) Saad 认为人类行为在深层上受四大达尔文模块支配：生存、繁衍、亲属选择和互惠。在两性关系中，繁衍驱动与“父系不确定性”深刻形塑了心理机制。由于女性必定能确认生育身份，而男性面临被他人抚养后代的风险，男性演化出了强烈的性嫉妒与伴侣防卫行为；统计显示女性面临的最大人身威胁往往来自长期伴侣，且女性出轨嫌疑常是男性实施暴力的核心诱因。2018 年一项针对以色列约 30 场婚礼礼金的研究亦佐证了遗传确定性对资源投资的驱动：母亲一侧亲属（无不确定性层级）赠送的礼金金额显著高于父亲一侧。在择偶市场中，个体价值由多属性构成的“伴侣吸引力分值”决定，并呈现出显著的性别不对称性。Saad 指出，跨文化研究表明女性普遍优先看重男性的社会地位、雄心与资源掌控力，男性则优先看重女性的年轻与外貌。择偶选择具有补偿性，幽默感、智力、财富或自信等优势可弥补身高或外形的不足；但在长期关系中，伴侣双方吸引力分值若随着职业或生活状态出现严重分化，将大幅增加婚姻破裂的风险。灵长类比较学与相关理论（如人类精子在女性生殖道内存活约 72 小时及精子竞争假说）进一步表明，两性演化史中普遍存在追求性多样性的驱动，但这属于演化机制的客观描述，而非道德上的行为辩护。行为调节与人生核心决策 (70:56) Saad 指出，人类的许多现代活动属于演化上的“扩展适应”（exaptation），即借用既有生物适应机制而非独立演化出的功能。例如色情制品并非由专门的“色情基因”引发，而是劫持了男性对视觉刺激与性多样性的演化偏好。他强调色情或类似行为的利弊取决于个体的行为调节能力：适度使用或不会构成伤害，但在多巴胺刺激下陷入失控则会导致勃起功能障碍、现实亲密关系受损及深度负罪感，演变为类似强迫症的神经回路失调。关于个体福祉，Saad 援引其著作《关于幸福的萨阿德真相》中的核心观点，提出决定人类幸福的最关键两项选择是“配偶”与“职业”。在择偶上，他反驳了“异性相吸”的流行观念，主张长期婚姻的基石是深层的道义论价值观契合而非表面爱好的重叠。在职业上，获取时间自由（避免排程窒息）以及释放创造力是获得职业幸福的决定性因素。此外，他还借鉴亚里士多德的中庸之道与倒“U”型曲线模型，强调人类在社交互动与追求卓越时必须掌握适度调节的平衡法则。生物恐惧症与意识形态寄生 (118:43) Saad 严厉批评当代社会科学界普遍存在的“生物恐惧症”（biophobia），即学者承认演化塑造了人类的躯体解剖结构，却坚决否认演化塑造了大脑与认知机制。他指出，学术界对群体与性别差异的研究施加双重标准，甚至将挑战流行叙事的科研领域打上“禁忌知识”的标签予以封杀。这种对生物现实的压制在他看来属于学术界对客观真理的背叛。在宏观文化层面，Saad 将具有毁灭性的教条比作神经寄生虫，并认定后现代主义是“所有寄生思想的鼻祖”。后现代主义宣称不存在客观真理、一切认知皆为偏见与主观构建，这直接破坏了基于实证科学的理性根基。他主张社会必须区分“机会平等”与“结果平等”：保障规则公平符合人类本性，而强求绝对的结果平等则是违背演化事实的空想，其推行往往需要诉诸极权式的压制手段。道义论伦理与言论自由的防线 (135:00) 结合自身童年在黎巴嫩经历的战乱、反犹迫害以及父母曾遭绑架拷打的创伤记忆，Saad 形成了毫不妥协的言论自由绝对主义立场。他主张在自由社会中，即便面对仇恨或荒谬言论，唯一的应对方式也是通过更优质的思想予以公开击溃，而非采取官方审查。他区分了道义论（基于绝对责任原则）与结果论（依据结果判定行为正当性）：日常人际交往或可出于善意使用善意的谎言，但言论自由、科学探索、无罪推定与法治等文明基石必须严格遵循绝对的道义论原则，不可为政治功利所变通。针对当前西方社会的文化思潮，Saad 警告一种被称为“自杀式共情”的倾向——即过度或错位的同情心正在侵蚀社会秩序与法律权威。例如以同情为由放任公共场所犯罪或忽视边境法治，实质是以牺牲守法公民权益为代价的非理性决策。他在讨论政治领导力时提到，面对凶险的国际丛林法则，西方需要具备类似“蜜獾”般毫不退缩且不可预测的威慑型领导风格；但他也坦承，这类人物在私德与自我克制层面往往存在明显缺陷，现实政治抉择本质上是在不完美选项中权衡利弊。 Saad 的论述建构于演化生物学对人类心理机制的实证洞见与对绝对道义伦理的坚持之上。然而，关于如何将严格的演化论框架转化为具体的公共政策，以及在彻底放弃结果论考量的同时如何避免社会共识彻底破裂，源文本中仍留有诸多未展开的学术争议与现实挑战。

Detailed notes — zh

## Background 本期内容由知名播客频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人为 Steven Bartlett）于2024年9月9日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目特邀演化心理学家、康考迪亚大学市场营销学教授、《寄生思维》与《幸福的萨阿德真相》作者 Gad Saad 博士，围绕人类行为的演化心理学根基、两性择偶与出轨机制，以及当代意识形态危机等话题展开深入对话。 ## TL;DR Gad Saad 博士从演化行为科学视角切入，系统剖析了人类在亲代投资、性多样性渴望、灰姑娘效应与择偶偏好背后的深层生物演化机制。他指出，现代社会的诸多身心困境源于祖先适应机制与当代环境脱节的“进化失配”，而决定一生幸福的核心在于择偶与择业两大抉择。对话后半段，萨阿德尖锐批判了否定客观真理的“观念寄生虫”与后现代主义思潮，倡导坚守道义论伦理与言论自由底线，并基于自身黎巴嫩逃亡的亲身经历，警惕西方社会因“自毁式同情”而动摇法治与机会均等的文明基石。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话兼具学术思辨的冷峻锐利与私人叙事的炽热共鸣，交织着生物决定论的理性解剖与对文明命运的深切忧思。萨阿德言辞犀利、直率幽默，在阐述演化事实与争议议题时毫不避讳，与主持人 Bartlett 循序渐进的沉稳追问形成了极高密度的思想张力。观众不仅能感受到演化心理学揭开人性隐秘面纱时的智识震撼，也能在关于中东逃难记忆与母训反省的段落中，体会到一种历经沧桑后的反脆弱生命韧性。 ## Bulletin - [08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=525s) 演化行为科学实证显示，继父母的存在是家庭儿童虐待的首要预测指标（灰姑娘效应），其预测力比常规社会学因素高出整整100倍。 - [20:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1242s) 人类择偶与婚姻制度深受演化机制塑造：女性排卵期出轨倾向印证了“性感儿子假说”，而人类男性的睾丸重量比例介于大猩猩与黑猩猩之间，表明人类远古祖先既非纯粹一夫一妻，亦非绝对单一偶制。 - [01:37:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5823s) 世界卫生组织统计的前八至九大人类死因几乎均可追溯至“进化失配假说”，即远古适应性机制（如暴饮暴食高糖高脂）在现代过剩环境中演变为致命陷阱与多巴胺劫持。 - [02:00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7203s) 萨阿德在新书与对话中警示“自毁式同情”与后现代主义脑虫对西方文明的瓦解，主张重回道义论原则，坚守以“直接煽动暴力”为唯一界限的绝对言论自由与科学客观真理。 ## Key takeaways - [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=147s) 科学研究应遵循认识论谦逊与道义论伦理，将特定研究划入“禁忌知识”不仅扼杀学术自由，更会让意识形态凌驾于客观真理之上。 - [08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=525s) 家庭虐童首要预测指标是继父母的存在（灰姑娘效应），男性对伴侣的致命暴力核心诱因则是演化出的“父权不确定性”与深层嫉妒。 - [17:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1036s) 达尔文演化模块（生存、生殖、亲缘选择、互惠利他）深刻驱动人类行为，科学揭示生物本能绝不等于为其行为提供道德背书。 - [44:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2695s) 人类择偶市场遵循多属性补偿性选择模型与同配生殖法则，双方长期配偶价值的分化是预测婚姻破裂的关键指标。 - [59:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3598s) 过度规训与将求偶行为病理化导致了现代男性气质危机，健康的社交互动应符合亚里士多德的中庸之道并具备“心智理论”的同理心。 - [01:25:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5158s) 色情制品与现代加工食品属于典型的进化陷阱与扩展适应，通过过度刺激多巴胺受体破坏大脑的反馈调节回路并摧毁雄心。 - [01:38:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5914s) 人生幸福的基石取决于两大核心抉择：择偶需建立在深层哲学与伦理原则对齐之上，择业则依赖于时间自由与创造力具象化。 - [01:58:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7083s) 后现代主义解构客观真理如同神经寄生虫侵蚀大脑，导致西方社会在治安、移民与体育竞技中陷入失控的“自毁式同情”。 - [02:09:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7741s) 言论自由的唯一合法边界是“直接煽动暴力”，击溃错误或荒谬言论的有效手段是公开辩论而非制度化封杀。 - [02:38:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9511s) 必须严格区分“机会均等”与“结果均等”，强行追求结果均等的平均主义乌托邦彻底漠视了人类生物学现实与个体天生差异。 - [02:46:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9980s) 面对复杂严峻的现实政治与国际对抗，具备抗击打韧性的“蜜獾精神”和强硬威慑力往往比软弱政治正确的教条更具生存优势。 - [02:52:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10359s) 预测个体终身健康与幸福的最核心指标是社会纽带的质量，成熟的心态需要走出脱离现实的“纯洁泡沫”。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=0s) 访谈前瞻与核心观点集锦访谈以 Dr. Gad Saad 抛出的一个惊人提问展开：在女性一生中，谁是她可能遇到的最危险的人？答案令人震惊——是她的丈夫，而其压倒性的首要诱因正是男性的嫉妒与占有欲。作为演化心理学家，Gad Saad 致力于揭示塑造人类决策、亲密关系与社会思潮的深层生物学机制。他开门见山地指出，任何出于意识形态偏见而将某些知识划为“不可涉足”的想法，在科学上都是极度危险的。在快节奏的精彩预告中，Gad Saad 触及了多个极具颠覆性的议题： - **关于一夫一妻制与出轨**：一夫一妻并非人类全然天然的本能。跨文化研究普遍表明男性渴望更多性伴侣，从演化角度解释出轨逻辑不等于在道德上合理化它；同时，女性在演化历程中同样演变出了对性多样性的强烈渴求，甚至在特定受孕周期具有特定的出轨倾向。 - **配偶吸引力评分（Mate Desirability Score）**：择偶过程本质上是双方综合价值的匹配（Assortative Mating）。例如女性在择偶时最看重与社会地位相关的特质。如果一个综合评分为 87 分的人与 36 分的人结合，会给关系带来巨大压力，但个体完全可以通过特定策略来主动提升自己的得分。 - **学术争议与禁区**：当被问及哪些观点为他招致最多攻击时，Gad Saad 直言“系好安全带，我肯定又要收到仇恨邮件了”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 核心演化观点概述 accDescr: 展现访谈前瞻中提到的出轨演化动因、择偶价值匹配与言论学术自由三大核心板块。 subgraph CoreIdeas["演化行为科学核心视角"] A["打破一夫一妻自然神话 (男女演化出的性多样性诉求)"] B["配偶价值评分机制 (社会地位权重与择偶门槛)"] C["学术自由与反对思想审查 (抵制所谓'禁忌知识'概念)"] end ``` --- ### [01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=94s) 频道突破 700 万订阅者的致谢主持人 Steven Bartlett 插播了一条振奋人心的里程碑消息：节目频道刚刚突破了 700 万订阅者。Steven 坦言这是他未曾料想的一天，并对每周一和周四准时收看节目的观众表达了发自内心的感谢。 Steven 特别提到了幕后近 50 人的制作团队，是他们日复一日的付出才让这档播客得以呈现在观众面前。为了回馈观众，团队决定将上个月启动的抽奖活动常态化：每个月都会向订阅者送出无法用金钱衡量的专属福利，包括与 Steven 本人面谈交流的机会、活动 VIP 邀请函，以及价值 1,000 美元的礼品卡。 --- ### [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=147s) 人生使命：追求真理与捍卫自由正式对话始于 Steven 的提问：Dr. Gad Saad 将自己的一生奉献给了什么？Gad Saad 的回答坚定而明确：“追求真理（Pursuit of truth）与捍卫自由（Defense of freedoms）。” ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 真理与自由的双支柱 accDescr: 阐释Gad Saad追求真理与捍卫学术研究自由的底层逻辑。 subgraph Pillars["Gad Saad 的核心使命"] direction TB subgraph Truth["追求真理"] T1["以科学方法为核心"] T2["具备认识论谦逊 (承认真理的阶段性)"] end subgraph Freedom["捍卫自由"] F1["反对'禁忌知识'设定"] F2["拒绝政治正确思想审查"] end end ``` 在 Gad Saad 看来，“真理”是人类借助严谨的科学方法逐步逼近的目标。真理同时具有阶段性与临时性，学者必须拥有认识论上的谦逊（Epistemological humility），坦承 300 年前的认知可能被当下的新证据推翻。而“自由”则意味着在学术研究与言论领域中，**没有任何领域应该被划为禁区**。 Gad Saad 严厉批判了当下学术界愈演愈烈的“禁忌知识”（Forbidden knowledge）倾向——即某些学者认为，只要某项研究成果可能冒犯到特定群体或导致边缘化，就应当被禁止研究。他强调，只要研究是客观公正且基于科学方法开展的，就不存在所谓“出格”的科学探索： - **社科界的不平等双标**：在当下社会科学领域，研究群体差异、尤其是种族差异，足以迅速断送学者的职业生涯。即便是在性别差异领域，也存在明显的意识形态双标：如果研究证明女性在某项任务上优于男性，研究者会被奉为英雄并顺利发表；若结果表明男性在某项任务上优于女性，学者往往只能被迫将其藏入抽屉保持缄默，以免被扣上散播“男权偏见与刻板印象”的帽子。 - **荒谬的学术否认**：作为演化心理学家，Gad Saad 指出人类由男性和女性两种表型（Phenotypes）组成，生物学与演化法则决定了男女在某些领域相似，在另一些领域各具优势。然而，社会科学界中受过高等教育的精英学者却合谋否认这种连“三天大的鸽子都能识别的基本生物事实”，正是这种集体的理智倒退，促使他在三十多年前踏上研究道路并最终写下了《寄生心智》（*The Parasitic Mind*）。 --- ### [05:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=322s) 什么是演化行为科学？在解释自己的专业领域时，Gad Saad 梳理了心理学研究范式的演变。20 世纪 30 年代兴起的“行为主义”（Behaviorism）认为人类所有行为都是“刺激-反应”（Stimulus and Response）的机械结果，例如巴甫洛夫（Pavlov）的条件反射实验展示了如何通过铃声与食物的联结让狗分泌唾液，行为主义者曾妄图用这一套逻辑解释所有学习行为。相比之下，**演化行为科学（Evolutionary Behavioral Science）**坚信：研究人类行为必须深深植根于演化如何塑造人脑与心理机制的生物学框架之中。 - **社科学术界的盲区**：许多社会科学家倾向于认为演化规律适用于地球上的所有物种，唯独不适用于人类；或者退一步承认演化解释了人类的对生拇指（Opposable thumbs）和呼吸系统，却誓死捍卫“脖子以上”的领域，坚称人类心灵完全超越了生物本能，纯粹是文化与社会的产物。 - **追寻达尔文印记（Darwinian Signatures）**：演化行为科学家的核心工作，正是去破译人类行为背后跨文化、跨时代的底层达尔文演化印记。犯罪学先驱 Martin Daly 与 Margo Wilson 合著的名作《凶杀》（*Homicide*）正是 Gad Saad 在康奈尔大学读博期间的顿悟起点。该书揭示了许多恶性犯罪模式在完全不同的时代与文明中以高度一致的规律重复上演，这彻底证伪了“纯文化决定论”。 --- ### [08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=525s) 家庭儿童虐待的第一诱因：“灰姑娘效应” 为了展示演化框架解析人类黑暗面的惊人穿透力，Gad Saad 向 Steven 提出了一个课堂上的经典问题：“家庭中儿童虐待的第一大预测指标（Top Predictor）是什么？” Steven Bartlett 猜测是“缺位的父母（Absent parent）”。Gad Saad 表示这是一个极其合情合理的常识性回答，一如他在大学首堂课上学生们给出的答案：家庭酗酒、父母曾经历童年虐待导致的行为模仿等。然而，没有任何一个常规回答能触及真正的核心。演化生物学揭示出的真实核心预测指标，其预测力比任何常规社会学因素强上整整 **100 倍（100-fold）**。在科学实验中，若一种药物相比安慰剂有 1.2 倍的优势比（Odds Ratio，即效果高出 20%），就已经属于极显著的成果；而这里呈现的是 1 比 100 的断层差距。 Gad Saad 揭晓了这一残酷事实：家庭中儿童虐待的首要预测指标，是**家庭中存在继父母（Stepparent）**。这一现象在演化心理学中被称为“灰姑娘效应”（Cinderella Effect）——非亲生血缘关系的抚养环境，会由于演化投资动力的缺失，导致潜在的暴力与虐待风险发生指数级暴增。 ### [10:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=615s) 灰姑娘效应与狮群中的系统性杀婴现象加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）博士深入探讨了家庭中虐待儿童现象背后的进化动因。他指出，童话中“恶毒后妈”的形象之所以在全球跨文化中拥有如此普遍的共鸣，是因为它精准映射了一条深刻的进化心理学原则：继母只对继女恶毒冷酷，但对自己的两个亲生女儿却百般呵护与溺爱。这种亲疏有别的根本原因，在于高亲代投入（parental investment）物种对自身基因延续的精密计算。为了说明这种现象在自然界的普遍性，萨阿德博士以狮子（Panthera leo）为例。猫科动物大多是独居生物，雄性在完成交配后便离去，不承担抚养责任；唯独狮子生活在高度组织化的狮群（prides）中，雄狮必须对后代投入巨大的精力与保护。在狮群的权力结构中，通常由两到三只成熟雄狮共同统治，它们会驱逐所有正在长大的年轻雄狮。这些流浪在热带稀树草原上的年轻单身汉为了繁衍，会集结起来挑战老狮王的统治。面对岁月的无情侵蚀，老狮王最终只有两条路：要么离开狮群在荒野中孤独地慢慢死去，要么在血腥搏杀中被直接咬死。新狮王夺取狮群后的第一要务，便是执行彻底且系统性的杀婴（infanticide）。新雄狮会冷酷地屠杀狮群中所有幼崽，因为这些幼崽在遗传学上绝不可能带有它们自己的基因。雄狮无法容忍将自己珍贵的生存资源耗费在为竞争对手抚养后代上。更令人惊叹的进化机制在于，母狮虽然一开始会拼死反抗保护幼崽，但一旦落败，失去幼崽的母狮很快便会进入发情期（estrus），开始在性行为上接纳这些屠杀自己骨肉的新狮王。萨阿德调侃道，在人类社会中，男性想吸引女性通常是放巴里·怀特（Barry White）的浪漫音乐、送精致礼物；而在狮群世界中，雄性吸引雌性的残酷方式竟是杀死对方的孩子。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 狮群权力更迭与杀婴进化机制 accDescr: 展示年轻雄狮推翻老狮王、实施系统性杀婴并使母狮重新发情的完整因果循环链 subgraph PowerShift["狮群统治权更迭"] A["老雄狮统治狮群"] --> B["流浪年轻雄狮发起挑战"] B --> C{"老雄狮战败结局"} C -->|"被驱逐"| D["荒野中孤独死亡"] C -->|"被击杀"| E["当场战死"] end subgraph Infanticide["系统性杀婴与繁衍重启"] F["新雄狮接管狮群"] --> G["系统性屠杀所有非亲生幼崽"] G --> H["避免为前任雄狮浪费亲代抚育资源"] H --> I["母狮终止哺乳期并迅速进入发情期"] I --> J["新雄狮繁衍携带自身基因的后代"] end PowerShift --> Infanticide ``` - 继亲家庭（step-parenting）是预测儿童在家中遭受虐待的最强单一预测指标。 - 狮子是猫科动物中唯一具备复杂社会群居属性且雄性深度参与育幼的物种。 - 萨阿德强调，用科学去解释一种现象绝非在伦理上为虐童行为辩护；正如肿瘤学家研究癌症绝不等于“支持癌症”，只有诚实剖析进化的阴暗面，人类社会才能更精准地保护儿童。 --- ### [13:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=819s) 女性一生中最危险的人：父权不确定性与致命嫉妒萨阿德向斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）抛出一个震撼的问题：无论是在亚马逊流域的雅诺马马（Yanomamo）部落、中非的哈扎（Hadza）狩猎采集部落、两千年前的古希腊，还是两千年后的底特律市中心，一个女人一生中可能遇到的最危险的人究竟是谁？巴特利特最初猜测是“追求者”或“未来的丈夫”，萨阿德随即确认，这个答案极其精准且残酷——正是女性的丈夫（长期伴侣或准长期伴侣）。在真实犯罪案件与统计学中，当女性被谋杀或离奇失踪时，大约70%的情况凶手都是其丈夫或伴侣。驱使男性实施家庭暴力乃至极端凶杀的压倒性诱因，绝大多数情况下是怀疑或坐实了伴侣的“不忠”（infidelity）。萨阿德解释道，从哺乳动物的标准来看，人类男性属于极少数的“超级奶爸”，父亲对孩子的抚育投入极大。正因如此，男性演化出了强烈的认知、情绪和行为控制机制，来对抗基因利益上的根本威胁——“父权不确定性”（paternity uncertainty）。在生物学逻辑中，女性永远对腹中胎儿拥有绝对的“母权确定性”，但男性却永远面临替隔壁性感园丁抚养后代长达18年的潜在风险。正是这种深植于演化史中的生存压力，造就了男性在察觉配偶背叛时所爆发出的病态且致命的暴怒。萨阿德表示，当年读到进化生物学能够将如此沉重、复杂的两性现象解释得如此优雅、简约（parsimonious）时，他迎来了学术上的“尤里卡时刻”（Eureka moment）。 --- ### [17:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1036s) 进化解释并非道德背书：理解出轨与自律的张力巴特利特顺着这个逻辑发问，追问从进化角度看，“出轨是否属于一种合理行为（justifiable）”。萨阿德立即纠正了这种认知陷阱：科学解释机制并不等于在伦理上赋予其合法性。人类不仅演化出了动物本能，还演化出了同样深刻的道德罗盘（moral compass）与自我控制机制。生活的一大本质挑战，就是学会在相互拉扯的达尔文式欲望之线中航行——就像人类演化出了疯狂摄入高脂肪、高热量食物的食欲，但如果不加节制，就会变成42岁死于心脏病的相扑选手；同样的道理，抑制出轨冲动正是理智与自控演化机制的体现。巴特利特对此深表赞同，指出必须给公众提供一套思考框架：进化解释绝不等于“代言或认可”（endorsement）。萨阿德幽默地吐槽道，现实中极易因为科学解释而破防的人，往往就是他的大学同行们。 - 科学探索旨在揭示人类心理机制的客观成因，而非提供放纵行为的道德借口。 - 人类大脑中同时存在着原始的交配欲望驱动与为了群体合作演化出的高级自控机制。 --- ### [18:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1122s) 一夫一妻制真的符合天性吗？两性对性多样性的渴望巴特利特以身边的社交圈为例，提出了关乎现代人核心痛点的疑问：从进化角度看，一夫一妻制（monogamy）究竟是否自然？他观察到身边的20位男性好友呈现出三种清晰的极端光谱： 1. **绝对忠诚型**：对伴侣全心全意，依靠极强的自律抵抗外界各种诱惑； 2. **中间挣扎型**：时刻在各种欲望与力量间拉扯，沉迷色情内容或偶尔在危险边缘试探； 3. **失控出轨型**：几乎无法控制自己，习惯性且频繁地背叛伴侣。巴特利特困惑地提问：“在道德上我们知道背叛会伤害他人，但从进化生物学角度来看，这三类人究竟谁才是正确的？”萨阿德给出的回答打破了传统认知：从某种意义上说，他们都符合进化的逻辑，因为渴望背叛、渴望性多样性的冲动其实深植在每一个人的基因深处，区别只在于是否将其转化为外显的行为。更为关键的是，萨阿德指出，渴望性多样性绝非男性的专利。尽管跨文化的大规模实证研究表明，在任何已被记录的人类文化中，男性对拥有更多性伴侣的渴望程度在统计学上都显著高于女性，但这绝不意味着女性在基因深处就没有对性多样性的演化渴望。两性在繁衍策略上的博弈，远比世俗一夫一妻制的理想化构想更为复杂。 ### [20:42](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1242s) 破除“维多利亚式淑女”神话：女性的出轨策略与“性感儿子假说” 在传统文化和文学作品中，女性常被塑造成忠贞、克制的“维多利亚式淑女”，但演化生物学的实证研究彻底击碎了这种浪漫幻想。当加德·萨阿德博士（Dr. Gad Saad）询问史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）女性最容易在何时出轨时，熟悉其著作的巴特利特一针见血地指出：正是在女性处于“受孕几率最高”的排卵期窗口。更具演化玄机的是，女性在排卵期偷情时，要求对方采取避孕措施的概率显著下降。从理性自保的角度看，婚外情怀孕的风险极高，本应严防死守；但从基因筛选的潜意识逻辑来看，女性出轨的根本驱动力是“寻觅更优异的基因”，若严加避孕，演化上的“基因升级”便失去了意义。女性在挑选偷情对象时极其挑剔，极少会与外在表型（phenotype）或基因质量低劣的男性发生露水情缘。萨阿德用了一个生动而辛辣的比喻：一位女性在长期伴侣的选择上，或许巴不得挑选比尔·盖茨（Bill Gates）这样坐拥巨额财富、能提供极致生存保障与资源的男人；但在内心深处与灌木丛背后，她渴望与之暗通款曲的，却是一个体格矫健的奥林匹克游泳健将。假若她能怀上游泳健将的孩子，再回到家中哄骗丈夫：“看哪比利，这孩子跟你长得一模一样，他是你的骨肉！”——那么从演化博弈的角度而言，这位女性便在不承担长期抚养风险的前提下，同时斩获了顶层资源与顶级基因，赢得了演化的“基因彩票”。面对巴特利特的追问——“比尔·盖茨既聪明又有钱，难道不也代表了优质基因吗？”——萨阿德解释道，智力与事业进取心确实具备遗传价值，但那属于资源供给能力，而非纯粹的体格表型（Phenotype）。女性潜意识中幻想被其强行占有的对象，绝非体能孱弱的技术富豪，而是具备高睾酮面容特征（如硬朗下颌线）、倒三角体格与健硕骨骼的男性。这在演化生物学中被称为“性感儿子假说”（Sexy Son Hypothesis）：选择拥有顶尖雄性外在吸引力的伴侣受孕，能确保生下来的儿子同样英俊强壮，进而在下一代繁衍竞争中成为大赢家。萨阿德半开玩笑地自嘲道，自己有幸兼具了强健体魄与聪明大脑，如果当年身高能再多长4英寸，如今恐怕早已“黄袍加身”被尊为皇帝了。 --- ### [23:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1425s) 一夫一妻并非绝对天然：一夫多妻与藏族“兄弟共妻制”的演化逻辑无论是男性还是女性，在性策略上都具有演化塑造的“两面性与欺骗性”。因此，“从生物学本质上说一夫一妻制是人类绝对天然状态”的观点并不严谨。虽然在有记录的人类文化中，约85%在制度上推行一夫一妻制（Monogamy）——这是人类作为“双亲抚育物种”（Biparental species）应对抚育漫长幼崽周期的制度化妥协——但在其余几乎所有允许非单一配偶的社会中，存在的制度形态均为“一夫多妻制”（Polygyny）。大众常常混淆概念，将所有多偶形式笼统称为“多配偶制”（Polygamy）。萨阿德在此特别做出了学术辨析： - **多配偶制（Polygamy）**：广义概念，指一人与多名伴侣结合的“一对多”结构。 - **一夫多妻制（Polygyny）**：一雄多雌，在自然界与人类传统人类学记录中极为普遍。 - **一妻多夫制（Polyandry）**：一雌多雄，在人类制度层面上极其罕见。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 配偶制度与演化适应分类 accDescr: 解释多配偶制的演化分支及其背后的生物适应机制 subgraph MarriageSystems["人类多配偶制度分类 (Polygamy)"] direction TB PG["一夫多妻制 (Polygyny) 一男多女"] PA["一妻多夫制 (Polyandry) 一女多男"] end subgraph PolyandryDrivers["一妻多夫制的罕见特例"] direction TB Tibetan["藏族兄弟共妻制 (Fraternal Polyandry)"] KinSelect["广义适度理论 (Inclusive Fitness) 叔伯与侄辈共享 25% 基因"] end PG --> |"人类学中广泛记录 (15% 传统社会)"| Nature1["符合雄性最大化繁衍潜能"] PA --> |"制度上极罕见"| Tibetan Tibetan --> KinSelect KinSelect --> |"避免土地分割，基因并未断绝"| DarwinianSuccess["非达尔文死胡同"] ``` 在演化机制上，制度化的一妻多夫制极难自发演化形成，因为男性面临着极高的父权不确定性与巨大的繁衍资源耗损。世界上唯一著名且成规模的一妻多夫形式，是西藏的“兄弟共妻制”（Tibetan Fraternal Polyandry）。在这种制度下，由于高原本土生态资源极端匮乏、耕地严禁再分割，数名亲兄弟会共同迎娶一位妻子。这一体系之所以没有成为达尔文主义的“演化死胡同”，其底层逻辑在于威廉·汉密尔顿（William Hamilton）提出的“广义适度理论”（Inclusive Fitness）： - 个体不仅能通过“直接繁殖”将50%的基因传递给亲生子女； - 亦可通过抚育兄弟的后代（间接繁殖）来延续自己的基因库，因为叔侄之间共享约25%的基因。在生态困境下，亲兄弟共同守护家产并抚育共享基因的后代，成为了最大化亲缘生存概率的理性博弈。 --- ### [25:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1543s) 亲属投资与份子钱研究：父权不确定性如何影响祖父母的偏爱针对巴特利特提出的“我们抚养侄子侄女是否也是为了延续自身基因”的提问，萨阿德给出了百分之百的肯定答复。为验证生物在亲缘关系中的利他与投资行为，萨阿德主持了多项定量研究。根据亲缘相关系数（Coefficient of Genetic Relatedness, $r$）： - 同卵双胞胎之间：$r = 1.0$ - 亲生父母与子女、亲兄弟姐妹之间：$r = 0.5$ - 祖孙之间、叔伯姑姨与侄甥之间：$r = 0.25$ - 毫无血缘的陌生人：$r = 0$ 自然界的大量动物实验表明，动物冒死离开巢穴保护同类的概率，完全与同类之间的亲缘系数成正比。而在人类社会中，这种演化算力同样被投射到了日常消费与馈赠行为中。在萨阿德2018年发表的一篇基于约30场真实以色列婚礼礼金（份子钱）的实证论文中，研究者分析了所有宾客名单和随礼金额（如莫迪凯舅舅随了180美元等真实数据）。结果显示：遗传亲缘度越高的亲属，随礼的礼金数额就越庞大。然而，更震撼的发现隐藏在母系亲属与父系亲属的投资差异上。虽然中东文化普遍被认为是典型的父权制社会，但实际送礼金额却完全遵循演化生物学对“父权不确定性”（Paternity Uncertainty）的预测： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 祖父母亲属投资与代际父权不确定性梯队 accDescr: 展示四位祖父母由于代际父权不确定性的差异导致的投资意愿高低 subgraph Level1["投资意愿最高 (零不确定性)"] MGM["外祖母 (姥姥/外婆) 0层父权不确定性 (女传女)"] end subgraph Level2["投资意愿居中 (一层不确定性)"] MGF["外祖父 (姥爷/外公) 1层不确定性 (男传女)"] PGM["祖母 (奶奶) 1层不确定性 (女传男)"] end subgraph Level3["投资意愿最低 (两层不确定性)"] PGF["祖父 (爷爷) 2层不确定性 (男传男)"] end Level1 --> Level2 Level2 --> Level3 ``` - **母亲身份永远确定（Maternity Certainty）**：生母必然确知肚皮里诞下的是自己的骨肉； - **父亲身份充满风险（Paternity Uncertainty）**：男性在演化史上永远无法百分之百确信孩子是自己亲生。 - **跨代传递的不确定性累积**：外祖母（姥姥）经历了母女两代无可置疑的亲子确认，其父权不确定性为零，因此对第三代的资源投资和礼金投入在四位老人中居于首位；相反，祖父（爷爷）中间隔着“儿子是否亲生”与“孙子是否儿子亲生”两层父权不确定风险，其平均投资与礼金在统计学上最低；外祖父与祖母则处于中间。实证数据毫无悬念地证明：新郎与新娘的母系亲族，其随礼慷慨程度显著碾压了父系亲族。 --- ### [29:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1790s) 灵长类的睾丸大小之谜：精子竞争与女性杂交行为的生理印记为了进一步佐证女性在演化历史上同样具有寻求“性多样性”的生物学倾向，萨阿德将视野拓宽至比较灵长类学（Comparative Primatology）。生物学家在考察倭黑猩猩、山地大猩猩、黑猩猩以及人类等不同灵长类雄性的睾丸相对体重大小时，发现了一个不可思议的规律：**雄性睾丸的相对重量，是该物种雌性性乱交配度（Promiscuity）的演化反作用结果。** 以体型雄壮、体重可达450磅的山地大猩猩（Mountain Gorillas）为例，虽然成年雄性大猩猩魁梧彪悍，但它们实行高度排他的一夫多妻制。一个领地内的一只统治级银背大猩猩独占后宫，完全阻断了其他雄性与雌性的交配机会。正因雌性几乎没有机会与其他雄性连续交配，雄性大猩猩体内不存在“精子竞争”（Sperm Competition），导致其睾丸尺寸按身体比例缩到了极小。反观黑猩猩和倭黑猩猩群体，雌性在发情期会频繁与领地内的多只雄性交配，不同雄性的精子必须在雌性生殖道内展开高强度的生化军备竞赛，因此雄性黑猩猩演化出了与其体型极不成比例的巨大睾丸。雄性这一最核心的解剖生理特征，本质上竟是对该物种雌性历史行为模式的演化适应性回响。而在这一图谱中，人类男性的睾丸比例介于大猩猩与黑猩猩之间，这雄辩地印证了人类祖先既非纯粹严苛的一夫一妻，亦非绝对的一夫多妻，女性隐秘的多伴侣倾向同样在男性的生理器官上刻下了不可磨灭的演化烙印。 ### [31:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=1884s) 睾丸大小、精子竞争与《精子战争》在灵长类动物的世界中，睾丸的相对尺寸直接反映了其交配体制与精子竞争的激烈程度。Dr. Gad Saad 指出，大猩猩实行单雄多雌的后宫制，其睾丸极小；而黑猩猩简直就是“会行走的睾丸”，它们的庞大身躯仿佛纯粹是为了支撑那对巨大的睾丸而存在。在黑猩猩社会中，性行为无处不在——“打招呼时做爱、告别时做爱、打架做爱、打完架后还要做爱”，由于多只雄性在极短时间内会连续与同一只雌性交配，雄性必须进化出硕大的睾丸以产生巨量精子，从而在受精竞争中胜出。随后，Dr. Gad Saad 提到了英国生物学家罗宾·贝克（Robin Baker）及其引发广泛讨论的著作《精子战争》（*Sperm Wars*）。该书指出，人类精子的形态构造绝非人们普遍认为的单一种类——即单纯一个头部拖着一条尾巴、一窝蜂冲向卵子的“受精型精子”（fertilizers）。贝克的研究表明，男性的精液中还演化出了另外两种截然不同的精子表型：负责防守的“阻挡型精子”（blockers），以及专门搜寻并猎杀其他男性精子的“杀手型精子”（killers）。精子在女性生殖道内存活并维持受精能力的时间长达约 72 小时。Dr. Gad Saad 分析道，男性演化出由阻挡型与杀手型精子构成的生化防御系统，有力地证明了在远古漫长的演化史中，女性在 72 小时之内先后与多名男性发生性关系的概率极高——无论这种行为是自愿的还是源于暴力强迫。 - **山地大猩猩**：实行配偶垄断，不存在体内精子竞争，睾丸尺寸极小。 - **黑猩猩**：高频滥交机制驱动下，演化出与体重相比不成比例的巨大睾丸。 - **精子的三大演化表型**： - **受精者（Fertilizers）**：负责冲向卵子完成授精。 - **阻挡者（Blockers）**：改变通道环境与结构，阻碍外来精子通过。 - **杀手（Killers）**：主动搜寻并消灭其他竞争对手男性的精子。 ### [33:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2017s) 意识形态寄生与科学真理的独立性这套精子竞争理论在社会上引发了极富讽刺意味的反响，也恰恰展示了 Dr. Gad Saad 为何要撰写《寄生大脑》（*The Parasitic Mind*）。当他在大学课堂上面向激进女权主义者讲授这套理论时，起初常被捧为“天才科学家”——因为这些证据似乎证明了女性在性欲上可以与男性一样贪婪、旺盛，完美迎合了激进女权主义叙事中打破男性性主导地位的话题。然而，科学并不是用来迎合特定立场的工具。Dr. Gad Saad 接着补充道：“但与此同时，跨文化研究反复证实，男性在演化上确实拥有更为强烈的寻求多样化性伴侣的欲望。”话音刚落，台下的喝彩便瞬间变成了嘘声。他感叹道，自己从“英雄到狗熊”的距离，仅仅取决于刚说出的科学事实是否顺从听众的意识形态。科学真理独立于任何政治立场或个人情感之外，正是因为人们的大脑被有害的意识形态深度寄生，才会用立场来裁决客观事实。 ### [34:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2093s) 塞麦尔维斯效应与学术界的思想阻力当 Steven Bartlett 问及 Dr. Gad Saad 职业生涯中引起最大麻烦的观点是什么时，他的回答出人意料地朴素：“人类是受到性选择和自然选择双重塑造的生物学存在。”这一在生物学界早已成为基石的常识，在社会科学与商学院中却一度引来巨大抵触。科学的本质具有自我修正性，但颠覆传统认知的先驱往往要付出惨重代价。Dr. Gad Saad 举了医学史上最著名的悲剧之一——伊格纳兹·塞麦尔维斯（Ignaz Semmelweis）的案例。十九世纪，产褥热导致极高的产妇死亡率。塞麦尔维斯敏锐地发现，外科医生在刚刚解剖完死者尸体后，手都没洗就直接前往产房进行妇科检查与接生。当他通过实验证明洗手消毒能断崖式降低死亡率并呼吁推行卫生消毒时，主流医学界非但没有采纳，反而将其嘲讽排挤至精神崩溃，最终让他凄凉地死在了精神病院。直到多年后，人们才为他建立雕像。三十年前，Dr. Gad Saad 在商学院提出“研究消费者行为不能脱离其生理机制和激素反应”时，曾被同行怒斥为“胡说八道”，甚至被贴上极端标签：“这里是商学院，不是生物系！难道消费者吃东西时能脱离生物本能吗？”如今，学术界终于转过弯来，争先恐后邀请他发表大会主题演讲。而在学术之外的公共舆论场中，他因为公开批评伊斯兰教等特定意识形态而遭遇了更多攻击，但他强调，无论自己是否拥有犹太背景，客观事实的真确性都不会改变。 ### [38:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2308s) 驱动人类行为的四大达尔文模块探讨人类行为究竟在多大程度上由性和繁衍驱动时，Dr. Gad Saad 将其学术著作《消费的进化基础》（*The Evolutionary Basis of Consumption*）与《消费本能》（*The Consuming Instinct*）中的核心理论进行了系统梳理。他指出，人类的一切目的性行为本质上都可以归纳到四大达尔文进化模块之中： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 四大达尔文进化模块架构图 accDescr: 展示驱动人类目的性行为的四大达尔文进化机制，包括生存、生殖、亲缘选择与互惠利他。 subgraph Individual["个体适应度机制"] M1["生存模块 (Survival Module)"] M2["生殖模块 (Reproductive Module)"] end subgraph Social["社会与群体适应度机制"] M3["亲缘选择模块 (Kin Selection Module)"] M4["互惠利他模块 (Reciprocal Altruism)"] end M1 --- M2 M2 --- M3 M3 --- M4 ``` 第一类是**生存模块**，关乎人类抵御恶劣环境与获取能量的本能。例如，全人类跨文化地偏好高脂、高糖食品而非生芹菜。虽然有人偏爱多汁的牛排，有人独钟巧克力慕斯，但这种对高热量密度的渴望全都是演化刻在基因里的生存程序。第二类是**生殖模块**。人类大量的消费与社交行为本质上是性信号的外在延伸。例如，全球法拉利车主中 99% 为男性，这并非因为女性缺乏财力——像奥普拉·温弗瑞（Oprah Winfrey）这样的富豪完全买得起，却鲜少购买。昂贵的跑车在人类社会中扮演的角色，正等同于雄孔雀绚丽的尾羽，男性通过炫耀地位与资源来吸引配偶。反观女性，其性信号则强烈集中于美容与外貌修饰，全球整容手术的受众绝大多数是女性，这同样深植于生殖选择的驱动力中。后两个模块则解答了人类复杂的利他与社交合作： - **亲缘选择模块（Kin Selection）**：人类通过投资于带有自身基因的血亲来提升“广义适应度”（inclusive fitness）。如果跳入湍急的河流中救起三个亲生子女，即使父亲牺牲，其传递下去的基因总量（每个孩子各带 50% 基因）在演化计算上依然是合算的。 - **互惠利他模块（Reciprocal Altruism）**：解释了人类为何会援助非血亲甚至陌生人。社会契约中的相互还人情，其底层逻辑正是为了维系稳固的社交联盟。正如俗语“你帮我挠背，我也帮你挠背”所描述的那样，该行为直接承袭自灵长类近亲之间互相梳理毛发以清理寄生虫的古老演化传统。 ### [42:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2576s) 互惠利他：从稀树草原的生存契约到生日聚餐人类的社交互惠行为植根于深层的演化历史。盖德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）借用“你帮我挠背，我也帮你挠背”的灵长类理毛隐喻，追溯了这种心理机制的根源：在远古的东非大草原上，人类面临的两大生存核心问题是“获取食物”以及“避免沦为掠食者的盘中餐”。由于缺乏现代便利的物资供应网络，人类常年身处热量匮乏与摄入不确定性的威胁之中。为了规避饿死的巨大风险，非亲属群体之间逐步建立起一种演化上的“互助保险”：当我们捕获重达一千磅的大型猎物时与你共享，预期的前提是未来你捕到猎物时也要履行对等的互惠义务。这种远古的演化模块深刻塑造了现代消费行为与人际互动。萨阿德举例指出，在朋友过生日时请客吃饭，潜意识中都预设了对方在自己生日时也会回请；若从纯粹的传统经济学视角来看，双方各掏70美元请对方吃饭，最终财务净值为零，完全是无意义的多此一举。然而，正是这种看似低效的互惠仪式，充当了“润滑亲密关系纽带的润滑剂”。人类的诸多社交消费行为，本质上都是这一互惠心理机制的现代延伸。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 互惠利他机制的演化演进 accDescr: 展示从远古生存危机到现代社交仪式的演化逻辑链条 subgraph Savannah ["远古稀树草原生存背景"] Threat["面临热量匮乏与生存威胁"] --> Insurance["非亲属间建立跨群体互助保险契约"] Insurance --> MeatShare["共享千磅大型猎物并建立回馈预期"] end subgraph ModernSociety ["现代消费与社交行为"] Module["深层固化的互惠心理模块"] --> Ritual["生日宴请与礼物互赠等社交仪式"] Ritual --> Bond["巩固维系亲密社会纽带并防范欺诈"] end MeatShare --> Module ``` ### [44:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2695s) 择偶意愿评分与女性的核心偏好萨阿德在其著作《消费本能》（*The Consuming Instinct*）中提出了“择偶意愿评分”（Mate Desirability Score）的概念。正如评估一辆汽车需要综合油耗表现、引擎马力、抓地力以及环保排放等多重属性（多属性决策模型，Multi-attribute Choice），人类在择偶市场中同样是由多维属性构成的个体。个体最终的吸引力并非取决于单一维度的优劣，而是多重属性加权权衡后的整体得分。在择偶市场中，全球女性跨文化最为普遍看重的头号核心特征是任何与“社会地位”（Social Status）挂钩的特质。这既可以体现为野心、魄力、社会主导性，也可以是名校文凭、银行存款的位数，乃至哈扎族（Hadza）部落中拥有的牛牲数量。萨阿德幽默地调侃道：“人类历史上从未有任何文化的女性会说：‘给我来一个缺乏主见、性格懦弱温顺、长着梨形臀部还带着浓重鼻音的贝塔男，那会让我陷入疯狂的性冲动。’这种话在人类繁衍史上从未存在过。”即便部分女性会倾心于落魄的穷画家，她们所迷恋的本质上也是对方展露出的艺术野心、自信魄力，以及其未来可能成为摇滚巨星的潜在上升轨迹。 - **多属性择偶模型**：如同评估汽车性能，外貌、身高、财富、谈吐等多重维度综合构成最终评分，个别短板可通过强势长板进行代偿。 - **普遍择偶硬通货**：跨文化研究表明，女性在长期择偶中对男性的社会地位、雄心与支配力的偏好具有跨物种和跨地域的高度一致性。 - **实验佐证**：萨阿德的学生曾重复相关研究，在个人征婚广告中使用同一男性的照片，仅仅多挂了一把吉他，其在女性眼中的吸引力便呈现显著飙升。 ### [47:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2859s) 终极解释 vs 近因解释：为什么拿吉他的男人更迷人？针对“女性喜欢拿吉他的男性，可能单纯是因为喜欢听音乐”这一常识性质疑，萨阿德详细阐述了科学分析中“近因解释”（Proximate Explanation）与“终极解释”（Ultimate Explanation）的关键分野。大部分科学研究停留在近因层面，解释现象发生的“机制与过程”（How & What），例如糖尿病的病理机制；而达尔文主义的演化生物学则探究“终极原因”（Why），即某种特征在演化长河中为何会被选择保留。正如“做爱感觉很爽”只是人类繁衍的近因驱动，其终极解释则是物种必须依赖愉悦奖励机制来促成基因延续。吉他之所以具有强烈的性吸引力，其终极原因在于精湛乐器演奏所折射出的深层特质：这体现了极高的创造力、专注力与长年累月的自律品质，而这些品质在任何人类社群中都高度关联着高阶声望与社会地位。毕加索身材矮小、微胖且秃顶，却终其一生拥有无数极具魅力的女性倾慕者，原因便在于卓越才华所带来的无上地位。许多著名摇滚乐手（如 KISS 乐队的贝斯手吉恩·西蒙斯（Gene Simmons）、头简单乐队（Simply Red）的主唱米克·哈克纳尔（Mick Hucknall）等）在访谈中几乎如出一辙地坦白，自己苦练乐器并非出于幼年受到巴赫或莫扎特的艺术熏陶，而是敏锐意识到“一旦在聚会上抱起乐器弹奏，想要排队投怀送抱的女孩便络绎不绝”。 ### [50:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3006s) 择偶意愿评分与同配生殖法则针对择偶意愿评分的实际运作，萨阿德现身说法：在身高上自己并不占优，但容貌还算过得去；15岁时他便发现成为足球明星是免遭霸凌的绝佳途径，再加上后天在学术与社会层面的成就，这些强势特质成功代偿了劣势维度，最终在百分制量表上形成一个综合得分。这套量表将复杂的人格与生理特质整合为清晰的整体竞争指数。在此基础上，择偶市场遵循严格的“同配生殖”（Assortative Mating）机制，即俗称的“物以类聚，人以群分”（Birds of a feather flock together）。虽然“异性相吸”（Opposites attract）在短期的露水情缘中可能奏效——例如性观念保守内向者与奔放外向者碰撞出的短暂火花——但对于追求长期稳定的婚姻关系，价值取向、生活目标与底层心智的高度契合则是不可或缺的基石（极端的无神论者与虔诚的天主教徒注定难以维系长久关系）。萨阿德进一步提出其在乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）播客中曾探讨的假说： - **市场匹配逻辑**：择偶本质上是一个供需市场。每个人都渴望争取满分100分的顶级伴侣（如兼具健美身材与神经外科医生光环的奥运游泳健将，或绝美超模），但自身的评分构成了现实硬约束。 - **分值对等聚集**：一个综合评分87分的人，在真实的择偶市场竞争中，自然匹配的伴侣区间通常落在80多分的对等层级，而极难与36分或100分的对象形成稳态匹配。 ### [53:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3196s) 配偶价值分歧与婚姻破裂的假说 Gad Saad 提出了一个关于伴侣关系能否持久的理论假说（该假说也在其探讨幸福的书籍《The Saad Truth About Happiness》中提及）。他预测，决定一对伴侣在未来能否长相厮守的核心指标，在于两人的整体配偶价值（Mate Desirability Score）是保持同步，还是随着时间推移出现显著分歧。为了形象地说明这一动态过程，Saad 举了一个典型的高中情侣案例： - **18 岁的高中时期**：男生是风云橄榄球四分卫（Quarterback），全校女生眼中的焦点；女生是首席啦啦队长（Head Cheerleader），公认的校花。两人作为高中的金童玉女一同出席毕业舞会（Prom），此时他们的配偶价值处于高度匹配的同等水平。 - **10 年后的 28 岁**：啦啦队长即将完成神经外科（Neurosurgery）第三年的住院规培，智貌双全，身边环绕着同样年轻有为、英俊聪明的男医生，其配偶价值大幅攀升；而当年的英俊四分卫却已身材发福、头顶脱发、长期处于失业状态，整日沉迷于电子游戏，沦为不求上进的堕落者。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伴侣配偶价值随时间分歧与婚姻压力模型 accDescr: 展示高中金童玉女十年后由于价值轨迹分化导致婚姻出现巨大压力的演变路径 subgraph Phase1 ["18 岁：价值均等与匹配"] M1["明星四分卫 (帅气/万人迷)"] ---|"配偶价值对等"| F1["首席啦啦队长 (校花/高魅力)"] end subgraph Phase2 ["28 岁：轨迹分化与危机"] M2["失业/发福/沉迷游戏 (价值暴跌)"] F2["神经外科医生 (智商/地位暴涨)"] M2 -.->|"巨大价值鸿沟 (Huge Divergence)"| F2 end Phase1 --> Phase2 Phase2 --> Outcome["婚姻遭受巨大压力，预测走向离婚 (Divorce)"] ``` 当两人最初结合时，彼此的配偶价值相当；但十年后一人扶摇直上、一人持续滑坡，产生的巨大价值鸿沟会给婚姻带来摧毁性的重压。因此，在寻找配偶时不仅需要价值对等，婚后双方也必须共同努力维持自身的配偶价值；一旦差距拉大，破裂与离婚便不可避免。 ### [55:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3309s) 年龄、身高与学历对择偶市场的残酷挤压针对 Steven Bartlett 提出的“随着年龄增长，男女谁的吸引力得分下降更快”这一敏感问题，Saad 直言，从纯粹的进化生物学角度来看，在其他条件相同的前提下，男性的配偶价值通常随年龄和资源的积累而上升，而女性的配偶价值则随生理年龄增长而下降。此外，统计数据显示，现实生活中绝大多数提出离婚的正是女性。紧接着，Saad 总结了在当代择偶市场上让女性择偶池遭受毁灭性收缩的三大打击（"Death Blow"）： 1. **年龄增长**：生理生育窗口与容貌吸引力随衰老自然递减。 2. **身材过高**：女性择偶有一条几乎不可打破的铁律——“男方必须比女方高”。Saad 引用了一项针对 720 对现实伴侣的研究，其中女方比男方高的情况在全部 720 对中仅仅出现了 1 例。虽然矮个男性如梅西（Lionel Messi）凭借极高的声望和财富能娶到比自己更娇小的美女，但一位身高 6 英尺 1 英寸（约 185 厘米）的女性，如果穿上 4 英寸的高跟鞋，身旁 5 英尺 8 英寸（约 173 厘米）哪怕英俊风趣的男性都会“衬托得像她的儿子一样”，导致符合身高门槛的男性基数被极端压缩。 3. **极高学历与社会地位**：传统女权叙事常认为女性偏好高地位男性是因为历史上受父权制压迫、试图获取自身缺乏的资源。但实证数据完全反驳了这一点——自身处于高阶地位的女性，反而更加严苛地坚持男方必须达到甚至超越自己的社会地位。一个身为神经外科医生兼外交官的高成就女性，绝不会因为自己已经拥有财富就去追求一个目不识丁的 17 岁海滩度假村侍应生（Cabana boy）。综合来看，一名“38 岁、身高 6 英尺 2 英寸、拥有斯坦福大学博士学位”的顶尖优秀女性，在择偶市场上会面临极其严苛的筛选瓶颈：她必须寻找一位身高在 6 英尺 4 英寸以上、学历与成就至少同等卓越的少数顶尖男性。现代社会年轻女性在收入和大学毕业率上逐步反超年轻男性，反倒使高阶女性与广大普通年轻男性同时陷入了婚配匹配的“大龄高知困境”与“矮小低位危机”。 ### [59:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3598s) 男性气质危机与大学反性骚扰培训的荒谬荒诞 Steven Bartlett 将话题延伸到当下男性气质（Masculinity）面临的深刻社会危机：男性自杀率与心理健康问题持续高企、传统“Beta Male”（顺从型/懦弱男性）叙事泛滥引发的反弹，以及年轻一代男性对自身身份角色的普遍迷茫。许多家有男宝的母亲甚至不知该如何指导儿子在当今社会做一个合格的男人。 Saad 指出，无数女性常向他抱怨：“有魄力、有胆量的男人（Bold men）都去哪儿了？为什么我盛装打扮、释放出极易接近的信号，现场却没有一个男人敢上来搭讪？”Saad 直言不讳地指出，这正是极端女权主义与将男性特质全面病理化（Pathologize）的恶果： - **求偶本能被定罪**：如果社会长期向年轻一代灌输“上前赞美一句‘你今天看起来真迷人、裙子真漂亮’等于‘赞美型强奸（Compliment Rape）’”，男人自然会对主动接近女性产生犹豫和恐惧。Saad 讽刺道，如果按如今部分“#MeToo”的标准衡量，整个以热烈追求、浪漫搭讪文化著称的意大利都该不复存在。 - **英雄气概被污名化为有毒男子气概**：男性的果敢、主动冒险与自信本是吸引异性的核心魅力；一名消防员冲进火场救出小狗，那是迷人的男性气质担当，而非被扣上“有毒男子气概（Toxic Masculinity）”的病态标签。 Saad 还分享了自己在任教大学遭遇的荒谬现实：校方强制所有教职员工必须在截止日期前（如 10 月 15 日）完成反性骚扰在线培训，否则无法继续授课。 - 他讽刺道，自己前 57 年的人生仿佛是一个不懂如何同女性交往的“中东野蛮人”，直到大学雇主通过一系列居高临下、幼稚可笑的卡通动画小品来“教导”他做人。 - 在培训模块的测试题中，例如“当你在街上看到一名男子向女子搭讪称赞，而女子似乎不太领情，这是否构成性暴力？”，Saad 故意测试算法点击了“否”，系统随即弹出带有居高临下口吻的纠正：“虽然理解你为何这么选，但这确实是一种性暴力形式”。 Saad 感慨，自己已经年近六旬、性格强势，不会轻易被这种荒谬的意识形态说教所规训，但这种将正常求偶行为全面风险化、极端化的规训机制，正在年轻一代男性心中制造深刻的恐惧与退缩。 ### [01:04:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3851s) 气场胜于身高：大白鲨式的自信与择偶的“补偿性选择” 面对学术界和社会观念的层层束缚，许多初入社会的 21 岁年轻男性失去了果敢的气魄，在派对上面对心仪的女孩时，连鼓起勇气上前问一句“想喝咖啡吗”都要反复犹豫。为了说明缺乏魄力与极度自信之间的巨大反差，加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）分享了自己写进幸福学著作中的一段真实亲身经历。他的哥哥戴夫（Dave）自 1984 年起便在南加州生活，不仅在商业上极其成功富裕，还曾作为柔道运动员代表黎巴嫩参加了 1976 年蒙特利尔奥运会。在身体对抗和力量上，戴夫拥有压倒性的统治力，但他实际身高只有大约 5 英尺 3 英寸（约 160 厘米左右），比梅西和马拉多纳还要矮。然而，戴夫平日走路的姿态却仿佛自己有 7 英尺 2 英寸（近 2 米 2）那么高，整个人散发着“斗牛犬”般的霸气。在 90 年代初期，单身的萨阿德前往戴夫当时居住的纽波特海滩（Newport Beach）探望他。两人一起去夜总会时，戴夫总喜欢玩一个考验胆量与魄力的游戏，让萨阿德在场子里找出“最漂亮、看起来最不可企及的女人”。为了加大难度，萨阿德特意在舞池中央物色了一位穿着高跟鞋的高挑金发美女，身旁还站着一位身材魁梧、满身文身、极具威慑力的男伴。戴夫耐心地等待那位文身男去洗手间的空档，随即开启“大白鲨捕猎模式”径直走向那位女士。尽管戴夫的身高甚至只到女方的肩膀，但凭借极度强大的气场和自信的攀谈，他很快让对方展颜欢笑。戴夫回到萨阿德身边时神色自若地表示：“她明天会给我打电话。”果不其然，第二天萨阿德就亲耳听到电话那头名为坎迪（Candy）的女孩热情留言表示期待再次见面。萨阿德指出，虽然豪车与财富在隐喻层面上确实能为男人“增高”，但这个故事的核心在于戴夫散发出的那种“整个世界尽在掌握”的霸气。在择偶心理学中，这被称为“补偿性选择”（Compensatory Choice）。择偶并不是非黑即白的单指标淘汰机制；如果是“非补偿性”的，例如女性设定了“只和全场最高的人约会”的死规矩，那么幽默、学识、成就和长相都将毫无用处。现实中，伴侣价值是由一整套“商品篮子”综合评估的。即便先天在身高或容貌上不占优势，男性依然可以通过后天努力在决断力（Assertiveness）、进取心、谈吐素养以及思想深度上实现逆袭。一个人在聚会中开口讲的前几句话、词汇量的高低与逻辑清晰度，足以让人迅速判断其社会地位与魅力所在。 - **戴夫的背景**：1976 年黎巴嫩奥运柔道国手，身高约 5 英尺 3 英寸，但无论走到哪里都拥有统治全场的自信与气魄。 - **补偿性选择机制（Compensatory Model）**：人类择偶评估综合考量多维度的“一揽子品质”，短板可通过其他突出的长处弥补；非补偿性模型则由单一硬性门槛决定。 - **后天可塑的男性魅力**：相比于无法改变的生理身高，提升果断自信、拓展词汇量、培养谈吐与事业抱负是任何人都可以通过“放下游戏机、多翻几本书”主动修炼的核心竞争力。 --- ### [01:09:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4150s) 女性视角的现实：卡迪夫街头的 2 小时与 20 次搭讪面对男性应当主动出击的论点，史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出了至关重要的反向叙事：大多数男性往往完全无法体会一名漂亮女性在日常生活中承受的搭讪压力与骚扰负担。为了直观展现这一点，巴特利特播放了一段英国独立电视台（ITV）近期在威尔士卡迪夫（Cardiff）街头进行的便衣卧底调查视频。讽刺的是，当地警方刚刚公开宣称针对女性的街头暴力事件有所减少，而视频中的女记者独自走在夜间街头，短短两小时内就被 20 名互不相识的陌生男子先后搭讪。画面中，有的男子成群结队迎面阻拦，有的借打网球等生硬话题搭话；一名陌生男性甚至公然逼近，毫无顾忌地侵入她的个人安全边界，并辩解称“我不想冒犯你，但我看到你路过，就必须过来说声你好，你真漂亮”。另一名身穿黑色 T 恤的男子在远处看到她后特意加快脚步紧贴上来尾随搭讪，即使女记者明确表示自己不需要陪伴、试图脱身，对方依然久久不愿离开。巴特利特强调，当男性以为自己只是在“勇敢追求伴侣”时，却忽略了对面的漂亮女性可能在短短一两个小时内已经经历过数十次类似的被动拦截，这种心理负荷与安全防备彻底改变了互动的本质。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 街头搭讪中的男女视角差异 accDescr: 对比男性视角的低成本尝试心理与女性视角的安全威胁及心理耗竭 subgraph MalePerspective["男性视角：低成本投机"] M1["看到漂亮女性"] --> M2["抱持 0.001% 成功概率的心态"] M2 --> M3["盲目上前搭话 / 侵入个人边界"] end subgraph FemalePerspective["女性视角：安全威胁与耗竭"] F1["夜间单独行走处于弱势状态"] --> F2["2小时内面对20次连续侵扰"] F2 --> F3["私人空间被侵犯，产生恐惧与警惕"] end MalePerspective -.->|"产生冲突与误判"| FemalePerspective ``` --- ### [01:11:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4265s) 亚里士多德的“中庸之道”与倒 U 型曲线：分寸感与同理心针对街头尾随搭讪的现象，萨阿德用其幸福学著作中的核心法则——源自亚里士多德“中庸之道”（Golden Mean）的“倒 U 型曲线”（Inverted-U Curve）给出了精准的理论解答。生命的终极繁荣与行为的有效性，本质上在于在任何情境下找到恰到好处的“最佳甜点区”（Sweet Spot）。过于怯懦软弱的士兵无法作战，而鲁莽冒进、毫无风险意识的士兵同样是灾难；两者都处于倒 U 型曲线的两侧极端，唯有居中的勇敢才是美德。人类行为无论是在神经层面、个体层面还是社会层面，都必须遵循“在适宜的时间、以适度的方式、对适宜的物件做出恰当行动”的调控原则（Modulation）。卡迪夫街头那些满身酒气、在深夜尾随并围堵落单女性的男子，显然跌落到了曲线的最极端。在那种充斥着危险与不适的环境下，任何女性都不可能欣然应允与陌生人发生亲密关系；这种搭讪在统计学上的成功几率接近于零，其实质已经沦为了纯粹的骚扰与冒犯。相反，在一个明确为社交结识而设的聚会派对上，一位男士以极其得体、礼貌的语气上前夸赞一句“抱歉打扰，我只是想由衷赞美一下你的裙子真漂亮”，其性质与街头骚扰有着天壤之别。巴特利特指出，那些在深夜盲目出击的男人们，脑海中的底层逻辑往往是投机性的算计——“即便成功的几率只有千分之一（0.001），试一次又有什么损失呢？”萨阿德对此进行了尖锐的道德批判：如果一个人具备最基本的同理心，只要意识到自己的举动会让一个深夜落单的弱势女性感受到人身威胁与恐惧，这就足以成为立刻停止这种行为的充分理由。那些完全缺乏同理心、只顾自己发泄冲动的人，本质上就是缺乏自我认知的混蛋。两人由此将讨论引向了核心命题：在两性互动与日常处世中，真正区分魅力与冒犯的，正是行为者身上至关重要的“自我认知”（Self-Awareness）。 - **倒 U 型假说与中庸之道**：任何维度的行为并非越极端越好，过度的果敢会异化为冒犯与骚扰，过度的克制则沦为懦弱退缩，唯有根据情境调控的“分寸感”才是核心。 - **情境决定性质**：社交场合礼貌得体的破冰是健康交往，而深夜街头对落单女性的拦截尾随是缺乏同理心的边界践踏。 - **同理心高于胜率算计**：将求偶退化为“千分之一概率试错”的冰冷博弈，是对他人安全感与尊严的漠视，缺乏自我反思能力是引发此类社会矛盾的根源。 ### [01:14:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4447s) 自我意识的匮乏与“心智理论”的缺失史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提到了一段街头搭讪视频：一名自称网球教练、年龄明显比女方大上三四十岁的中年男子，贸然上前向年轻女孩推销网球课程。巴特利特指出，这名男子显然对自身成功的概率有着严重扭曲的认知，完全不具备基本的自我意识（Self-awareness），并由此发问：一个人究竟该如何建立对自身的清晰认知？加德·萨阿德（Dr. Gad Saad）对此深有共鸣。他坦言，自己虽不是年轻貌美的女性、不会面临被当街纠缠的侵犯，但在日常生活中同样饱受公众界限被践踏的困扰。许多路人认出他后，并不会只是简单合影，而是直接将他拦下，滔滔不绝地就某个政治或学术话题长篇大论25分钟。萨阿德强调，如果是礼貌地上前说一句“教授，我读过您的《寄生思维》（*The Parasitic Mind*），特别喜欢您的作品，能合张影吗？”，他向来都非常热情友善。然而，当他正陪着妻子和孩子散步时，被陌生人强行拉住单方面灌输长达25分钟（比如对方为什么觉得卡玛拉·哈里斯是一位伟大的领导人），这种社交失礼行为（social faux pas）令人极为抓狂。缺乏自我意识的人完全注意不到眼前的现实线索——教授脸上的勉强与不耐烦，以及孩子们在一旁无聊得来回踱步、坐立难安的局促。萨阿德将这种现象溯源至心理学中的核心概念——**“心智理论”（Theory of Mind）**。所谓心智理论，是指个体能够设身处地代入他人心智、推测他人心理状态并据此调整自身行为的关键社交能力。例如，当萨阿德向不具备进化心理学背景的普通大众做演讲时，他会刻意避免使用“领域特异性计算系统”（domain-specific computational systems）这类专业黑话，因为他的心智理论告诉他，使用晦涩术语会切断与听众的沟通。相反，自闭症（Autism）儿童之所以存在社交缺陷、无法有效识别他人的情绪线索，正是因为他们在早期心智理论测试中无法顺利通过。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Theory of Mind and Social Interaction accDescr: 展现具备心智理论与缺乏心智理论在社交互动中的行为差异与结果 subgraph Mindset["心智机制"] A["社交输入: 观察环境与对象状态"] --> B{"具备心智理论 (Theory of Mind)?"} end subgraph HighAwareness["高自我意识路径"] B -- "是" --> C["代入对方视角，识别非语言线索 (察觉对方时间紧迫、家人在场)"] C --> D["适度调整行为 (简短表达赞赏后得体离去)"] end subgraph LowAwareness["低自我意识路径"] B -- "否" --> E["沉浸在自我表达，忽视外界反馈 (无视焦躁踱步与不耐表情)"] E --> F["社交冒犯 / 强迫单向输出 (25分钟无休止说教或盲目搭讪)"] end ``` --- ### [01:18:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4682s) 幸存者偏差与大学教授的过度自信偏误当萨阿德感叹现实中绝大多数人都惊人地缺乏自我意识、懂得分寸的体面人反倒成了极少数时，巴特利特敏锐地指出了背后的统计陷阱：**幸存者偏差（Survivorship Bias）**。巴特利特分析道，那些真正具备高自我意识和心智理论的粉丝，在看到萨阿德正与妻子儿女共度家庭时光时，心里想的往往是“我很喜欢他的作品，但他现在正陪家人，我不应该上去打扰”，因此他们根本不会上前搭话。最终主动跑上去把萨阿德拦下来的，恰恰全是那一小撮毫无眼色、缺乏心智理论的人。萨阿德只能接触到负面样本，从而在感知上放大了低情商人群的比例。萨阿德对这一观察拍案叫绝，并补充道，完全相同的认知机制也可以用来解释心理学中的**“过度自信偏误”（Overconfidence Bias）**。例如，当调查问卷询问大学教授如何评价自己的教学水平属于低于平均、处于平均还是高于平均时，高达90%的教授都会声称自己“高于平均水平”——这在统计正态分布上显然是不可能的。之所以产生这种认知扭曲，原因正如巴特利特所说：那些真正从课程中获益、喜欢该教授的学生，课后会特意走上讲台称赞“教授，这门课太棒了”；而那些觉得讲课一团糟的学生则往往选择默默离开。教授的大脑最终只编码了赞美的正面反馈，进而得出“我的教学能力极其出众”的自负结论。 --- ### [01:20:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4801s) 重新定义“Beta男”：幽默感为何是智力的硬通货随着话题延伸到两性交往中自我呈现（Self-presentation）的吸引力不足，巴特利特提到了网络文化中常说的**“Beta男”（Beta Male / 乙优男）**，并询问其严格定义。萨阿德解释称，在日常语境下，所谓“Beta男”是指完全不具备女性在择偶市场所看重的那类特质的男性。这些特质包括但不限于： - **身体支配力与社会支配力**（Physical and Social Dominance） - **高社会地位与雄心抱负**（High Status and Ambition） - **决断力与自信担当**（Assertiveness）萨阿德纠正了大众的刻板印象：所谓的“Alpha”并不等于四肢发达、茹毛饮血、挥舞着大棒到处打人的野蛮粗汉，它的核心本质是**“能否散发出择偶市场上被普遍公认为具有高吸引力的信号”**。以幽默感为例，女性普遍声称自己极其迷恋“幽默风趣的男人”，但从进化生物学角度看，女性所渴望的幽默本质上是“高智商的代理指标（Honest Signal for Intelligence）”。如果一个人缺乏极高的智识水平，根本不可能成为一名顶级讽刺大师。萨阿德以脱口秀巨星戴夫·查普尔（Dave Chappelle）为例：查普尔虽然没有满墙的高等学位，但他很可能比绝大多数大学教授还要聪明，否则他绝不可能仅凭深刻犀利的社会洞察，让台下愿意掏150美元门票的观众全神贯注地听他滔滔不绝讲上一个半小时。 --- ### [01:21:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=4886s) 择偶市场的双重法则：通用特质与性别特异性建议当被问及如果给渴望提升自身价值和地位的男女提供建议时，该建议在两性之间有何异同时，萨阿德指出，策略必须区分为“跨性别普适法则”与“性别特异性法则”： | 择偶特质分类 | 具体特征与表现 | 进化偏好机制 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **全人类普适特质** | 善良（Kindness）、高智商（Intelligence） | 在全球所有已知文化中，男女双方面对长期伴侣时，对善良与智力均有着对等的极高要求。 | | **男性特异性偏好** | 外貌吸引力（Physical Beauty）、年轻健康（Youth） | 在全球范围内，男性对女性的性吸引力评价高度绑定于繁殖力与年轻外貌信号。 | | **女性特异性偏好** | 社会地位（Social Status）、资源获取力、雄心抱负 | 女性在择偶时更看重男性的社会地位与进取心，极少仅凭肉体外表就全盘妥协。 | 萨阿德用一段生动且极具讽刺意味的对比说明了这种性别不对称性：世界上从未有任何一个男性会对女性说出这样一番话：“琳达，你的身材美极了，我对你有着难以抗拒的性冲动；但你在提升大学GPA成绩上毫无进取心（alacrity），你在学业中展现的软弱缺乏魄力，因此今晚我决定不跟你上床了。”然而在夜店里，无数女性遇到身材健美、长相帅气的英俊男子，但对方一开口全是“愚不可及的蠢话（imbecility）”，女性的性冲动与交往窗口就会在瞬间彻底关闭。对话最后，巴特利特提到当代社会底层50%在性生活和恋爱中几乎处于零机会的年轻男性——他们深陷成为非自愿单身者（Incels）的风险，整日躲在房间里打电子游戏，将色情内容视作逃避生活的灵丹妙药。面对这一迷茫群体，萨阿德单刀直入地反问：“这个男人是不是还超重90磅、顶着一副梨形身材？”得到肯定的推测后，萨阿德给出了最朴素直接的第一步警告：立刻去跑步机上挥洒汗水，把身材练好；尽管外表在女性择偶标准中的权重可能不如男性看女性那么极端，但外貌身材永远是敲开社交大门的基础底线。 ### [01:23:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5035s) 择偶得分的动态补偿：从身材控制到智力提升 Gad Saad 谈到了提升个人择偶吸引力的可操作性。他分享了与妻子之间的一则趣事：他经常在网上开玩笑似地发自己 1985 年在南加州圣迭戈踢足球时的照片，那时的他拥有清晰的八块腹肌与标准的倒三角形身材（V-taper）。妻子总会打趣道：“为什么我从来没遇见过那个版本的 Gad？” Saad 笑称，即便后来自己体重增加了 86 磅，妻子依然深爱并陪伴着他，这说明外表绝非维系关系的唯一因素；但不可否认的是，拥有六块或八块腹肌肯定比大腹便便更具优势。身高是完全无法改变的先天基因，Saad 强调自己绝不会向那些想提升魅力或从事销售的人提出“请努力多长高 4 英寸”这类荒唐建议。然而，人们完全可以通过“翻开书本去阅读”来大幅强化内在。谈及阅读习惯，Saad 提到了自己的育儿烦恼：尽管孩子们在智识家庭中耳濡目染，行为得体、见识远超同龄人，但要让他们放下手中的电子设备去阅读依然极其困难。对 Saad 来说，进房间看书是一种根深蒂固的生理反射，但对年轻一代却成了巨大的自律挑战。 Saad 总结道，择偶是一个综合性的“补偿过程”（compensatory process）。一个人或许无法改变骨骼身高，也无法改变面部的对称度，但减肥塑形、广泛阅读、提升谈吐表达都是完全可控的干预策略。哪怕目前的择偶吸引力评分（Mate Desirability Score）只有 42 分，只要执行一套切实可行的策略，就有机会提升到 60 分，而这 18 分的差距将直接为一个人打开通往更高阶婚恋市场的空间。 - **不可变属性**：骨骼高度、面部对称度等先天的基因决定因素。 - **可调节补偿属性**：体脂率（腹肌与身材管理）、阅读量与智识储备、言语沟通与表达艺术。 - **动态择偶分**：择偶竞争绝非死局，后天积极干预能使评分显著跃升（如从 42 分提升至 60 分）。 --- ### [01:25:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5158s) 色情制品的进化陷阱：适应还是扩展适应？对话随后转向色情制品（Pornography）与人类进化的深层关系。主持人提到，有人认为色情内容在某种程度上可能对人有益，并询问 Saad 的观点。Saad 明确纠正道，色情制品绝非进化出来的“有益功能”，而是一个合乎进化逻辑的“行为陷阱”（behavioral trap），甚至是一种极其危险的“大脑劫持”。为了解释这一机制，Saad 引入了进化生物学中“适应”（Adaptation）与“扩展适应”（Exaptation）的核心理论区分。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 适应与扩展适应的对比及其在色情制品中的机制 accDescr: 展示适应特征直接服务于生存繁衍，而扩展适应或副产物如何利用既有适应机制形成新型行为与陷阱。 subgraph ADAPTATION["进化适应机制 (Adaptation)"] A["偏好高脂高热量食物 (直接提升远古生存几率)"] B["男性追求视觉性刺激 & 性多样性 (直接驱动最大化生殖成功率)"] C["族群部落化机制 (区分红队蓝队/我们与他们)"] end subgraph EXAPTATION["扩展适应与现代副产物 (Exaptation)"] D["宗教机制寄生 (借助既有排他心理形成教派对立)"] E["色情工业网络陷阱 (寄生于男性的视觉与多样性偏好)"] end B -->|"机制被高频无限劫持"| E C -->|"提供群体归属模板"| D ``` 适应是指直接带来生存或繁衍优势的进化特征。例如，人类偏好高脂肪食物是关乎生存的适应机制；男性使用高地位消费品来吸引异性，是服务于择偶市场的适应行为。而扩展适应（或副产物）本身并不具备直接的进化适应功能，而是“寄生”在已有的适应系统之上。Saad 以骨骼的颜色为例，骨骼呈现白色并非为了某种进化优势，而是力学结构演变中依赖特定生理路径的附带结果；同样，宗教的存在究竟是促进群体凝聚力以战胜异族的“适应”，还是单纯寄生在人脑既有的“我们 vs 他们”（红队与蓝队）部落划分机制上的“扩展适应”，在学界一直存在争论。顺着这一逻辑，Saad 指出色情制品并不是人类进化出的特定基因产物——在远古的东非大草原上根本不存在色情媒介。但男性进化出了对“视觉刺激”的高敏感度，以及对“性多样性”（Sexual Variety）的本能渴望。现代色情工业精准地寄生并劫持了这些古老的神经回路：屏幕向男性承诺只要动动手指，就有数不尽的年轻、健康、具有生育力的女性供其“挑选”，哪怕连续浏览 600 年都不会重样。Saad 在以往的著作中将其归入“阴暗面消费”（Dark Side Consumption）的范畴，这与病态赌博、进食障碍和强迫性购物一样，都拥有深刻的生物学根源与适应失调特征。 --- ### [01:30:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5448s) 强迫症循环与失控的成瘾警报主持人援引了《今日心理学》（Psychology Today）报道的一项针对 688 名丹麦年轻人的调查研究，指出部分受访者认为观看硬核色情内容改善了他们的性生活、异性观念及人生态度，进而询问色情制品从整体上看究竟是净利还是净弊。Saad 回应称，学术界对此目前尚无定论。关键的红线在于“行为调节”（behavioral regulation）的度——即是否在正确的时间、合适的剂量和恰当的语境下发生。 Saad 分析，如果伴侣之间偶尔在知情透明的前提下利用色情制品增添情趣，这属于正常的调剂；但如果一个人每天花费长达 6 个小时狂热地沉溺其中，以至于无法按时上班，甚至彻底丧失了与现实伴侣亲密接触的性活力，那就演化成了严重的精神病理学问题。为了阐明这种失控，Saad 用强迫症（OCD）的机制做类比： - **正常防御机制**：大脑在察觉到潜在威胁时升起警报旗帜（例如怀疑门没锁好，或者在聚会上握手后担心细菌污染）。当人去检查锁或洗了一次手之后，警报解除，旗帜顺理成章地降下，行为随之终止。 - **强迫症死循环**：在患有强迫症的人脑中，这一神经警报旗帜陷入了无限循环。刚洗完手离开水池，警报旗帜便再次升起。患者被困在反复洗手的强迫仪式中长达数小时，甚至洗到皮肤被滚烫的热水烫破脱落，彻底丧失工作与社交功能。 - **色情成瘾的病理本质**：色情成瘾与此如出一辙。它彻底打破了大脑的神经反馈调节，使患者在屏幕前一刷就是 6 个小时。偶尔的接触本身并不具有先天的“邪恶”标签，但一旦行为脱离了自我调控系统、滑向过量与失控的深渊，便会带来不可忽视的精神衰退与深刻的道德羞耻感。 ### [01:33:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5632s) 色情制品对多巴胺的劫持与“羞耻感”的心理机制史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）探讨了现代人对色情制品的普遍焦虑：如果给所有人一个按钮或一张纸去选择自己理想的模样，绝大多数人大概都会希望自己是一个不看色情片的人。神经科学层面的担忧尤为严峻——色情内容对大脑多巴胺受体的过度刺激，会钝化现实生活中的性吸引力和性表现，甚至引发勃起功能障碍；更关键的是，这种对多巴胺通路的劫持还会摧毁一个人在现实中拼搏、追求目标的雄心与动力。史蒂文透露，他经常收到粉丝私信，恳求他多聊聊色情成瘾，因为这些人正饱受羞耻感的折磨；而在相关搜索类别中，全球最高频的搜索词竟然是极其绝望的一句话——“我该如何戒除色情片？”（how do I quit pornography?）。加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）指出，当人们发出如此绝望的求助时，说明他们已经在成瘾曲线上滑向了“失调”（dysregulation）的一端。但萨阿德强调，必须警惕非理性的自我鞭挞，并借用亚里士多德的“中道”哲学来拆解这一问题：在正确的时间、正确的地点，以适度的分寸做正确的事。伦理学上并不存在一条绝对的“义务论法则”（deontological rule）判定任何色情消费在任何情况下都是万恶不赦的魔鬼行为。萨阿德表示自己不是宗教清教徒，如果一个单身人士已经半年没有性生活，面对自然的生理性冲动偶尔看一次色情片，这绝不等于成为了“路西法”。然而，如果一个人每天沉溺其中长达六小时，以至于妻子主动求欢时，他却因为一天自慰五次导致“不应期”（refractory period）过长而无法勃起，那这显然已经构成了严重的病理失调。核心标准在于这究竟是无伤大雅的偶尔行为，还是已经侵蚀现实功能的行为功能障碍。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 欲望调节与失调的光谱分析 accDescr: 对比健康克制与多巴胺过度刺激导致的病理失调。 subgraph Healthy ["亚里士多德中道（适度区间）"] H1["偶发性生理需求释放"] --> H2["现实生活与两性关系不受干扰"] H2 --> H3["维持健康的多巴胺受体敏锐度"] end subgraph Dysregulated ["失调与成瘾（极端区间）"] D1["高频/长时间沉溺色情内容"] --> D2["多巴胺受体下调与脱敏"] D2 --> D3["现实性刺激脱节与不应期紊乱"] D3 --> D4["勃起障碍、动力丧失与极度羞耻感"] end ``` ### [01:37:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5823s) 进化失配假说：给下一代的生存智慧史蒂文向萨阿德提出了一个富有远见的育儿问题：面对人类原始进化的底层硬件与现代环境之间的巨大割裂，未来该如何告诫自己的儿子？萨阿德盛赞这是一个绝佳的问题，并搬出了进化理论中至关重要的**进化失配假说**（mismatch hypothesis）。该理论指出，人类当今面临的许多生理与心理危机，本质上都是因为那些在远古祖先环境中具有适应性（adaptive）的机制，在现代文明社会中变得不再适应（maladaptive）。最为经典的例子就是人类对食物的味觉偏好。在远古时代，热量极其匮乏且极不稳定，暴饮暴食高脂肪、高糖分食物以储存脂肪是物种生存的最佳策略；然而，当人类突然置身于热量极度过剩的现代社会时，这种本能就变成了致命陷阱。萨阿德指出，世界卫生组织（WHO）统计的人类前八或前九大死因，几乎全部可以追溯至进化失配假说。因此，给下一代最好的忠告就是“知识就是力量”——唯有深刻理解自身进化而来的生物本能与现代环境的冲突，才能在充满消费陷阱与多巴胺诱惑的世界中保持警醒，避免轻易坠入本能带来的行为黑洞。 ### [01:38:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5914s) 决定一生命运的两大抉择：伴侣与职业结合自己的著作《幸福的残酷真相：过上美好生活的8个秘诀》（*The Saad Truth About Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life*），萨阿德深入剖析了追求幸福的底层逻辑。他将通往幸福的路径拆解为两部分：关键决策与心理认知。在所有的生命决策中，有两个选择对幸福或痛苦具有决定性的权重——**择偶**与**择业**。萨阿德用极其生动而直白的场景描绘了这种差距： - **伴侣的选择**：早晨在床上醒来，侧过头看着身旁的人，如果心里想的是“该死，怎么又是这副面孔”，那么这一天乃至整个人生就已经陷入了泥潭；相反，如果睁开眼感叹的是“天啊，我到底何德何能把她娶到了手？能在这个人身边醒来真是莫大的荣幸”，那么人生就已经成功了一半。 - **职业的选择**：离开心爱的伴侣出门后，去从事那些能让自己产生“存在主义狂喜”（existential glee）的工作。萨阿德以自己的一天为例：写新书、参加《CEO日记》与众多听众分享思想、指导研究生推进振奋人心的研究。尽管伴随着巨大压力，但这一切充满目标与意义；晚上回到家中，再次拥抱心爱的伴侣——这就是破解幸福的底层密码。针对市面上99.9%声称能“百分之百保证幸福”的鸡汤成功学书籍，萨阿德从科学家的角度进行了严厉批判。他直言，人生本质上是一场“统计学博弈”（statistical game），充满了不可控的随机性。没有任何法则能提供绝对担保——就像从不吸烟的人仍有可能患上肺癌一样。但科学决策的意义在于“大幅提高获得幸福的概率”，通过做出明智的选择，最大限度地压低遭遇不幸的统计学几率。 ### [01:40:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6044s) “物以类聚”胜过“异性相吸”：长期关系的本质对齐在谈及择偶的具体规律时，萨阿德打破了流行文化中对“异性相吸”（opposites attract）的迷思，力挺“物以类聚，人以群分”（birds of a feather flock together）。他指出，互补性或许在短期内充满新鲜感，但完全不足以维系长达数十年的婚姻；荷尔蒙激发的蝴蝶心动感终会消退，二十五年后即便性吸引力依然存在，它也无法成为维系漫长婚姻列车前行的主要驱动力。史蒂文随即提出疑问，指出自己与伴侣在许多具体喜好上截然不同：伴侣极其热衷于灵性探索和水晶疗愈，而他对此毫无兴趣；他狂热痴迷于足球和曼彻斯特联队（Manchester United），伴侣却毫不关心。萨阿德听到这里幽默地插话调侃道：“那我可能得让你重新反思一下了，因为我是曼城（Manchester City）的铁杆球迷——看来我们的播客录制到此结束了！” ``` 史蒂文：“好吧，那播客就录到这里吧。” 萨阿德：“哈哈，我道歉，请继续。” ``` 玩笑过后，萨阿德给出了极具穿透力的学术解释： - **表层喜好 vs 核心原则**：伴侣间的相似性不是指日常品味（喜欢水晶还是足球），而是指通过统计学“因子分析”（factor analysis）提炼出的**最底层人生哲学与义务论伦理原则**。 - **绝对的忠诚与真诚**：萨阿德透露，妻子深爱他的求真本色和道德纯粹性，而两人的核心价值观更是高度同步。例如，许多情侣为了给关系“保鲜”或寻求刺激，会故意去激起对方的嫉妒心；但萨阿德与妻子在几十年的相处中，从未有哪怕一次故意激发对方嫉妒的行为，因为妻子对个人品行有着极高的自我标准。史蒂文追问，伴侣身上是否存在某种他自己所缺乏、却深被吸引的核心特质？萨阿德笑着将自己的妻子形容为80年代经典美剧中的“百战天龙马盖先”（MacGyver）。在剧中，主角马盖先深陷牢房或绝境时，能用一块肥皂削成工具切断铁栏越狱。萨阿德感慨，在完全打破传统男女刻板印象的家庭分工中，他的妻子就是现实版的马盖先——哪怕只给她一个吃剩的空金枪鱼罐头，她也能凭借超凡的动手能力化腐朽为神奇，将生活打理得井井有条。 ### [01:43:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6214s) 互补伴侣与“意义与目的”的进化根源 Gad Saad 教授谈到了自己与妻子的互补特质。他幽默地形容，如果给妻子一个足球，她能用它做出一枚火箭带你飞向火星；在法语中这叫作 *débrouillarde*（极其机智、善于变通、能搞定一切的人）。相比之下，自己虽然满脑子高深学术理论，但如果让他换个灯泡，可能琢磨四周都搞不明白原理，而妻子早就把火箭造好了——她简直就是“萨德家的埃隆·马斯克”（Elon Musk）。他由衷钦佩妻子的这种实践动手能力，因为这是他自己极度欠缺的特质。主持人随后将话题引向幸福的进化基础：既然人类追求幸福，那么“意义与目的感”（meaning and purpose）在进化上究竟因何而生？为什么人类如此需要它们？ Saad 解释道，人类拥有极其发达的前额叶皮层。正如他早先提到的“适应”（adaptation）与“扩展适应”（exaptation）的区别：人类之所以如此痴迷文学和故事，是因为大脑需要通过叙事获取精神滋养，文学就像喂饱大脑的食物一样，是一种扩展适应。在自然界中，所有动物终其一生只需解决两个核心问题： 1. **生存**（Survive） 2. **繁衍**（Reproduce）然而，人类是拥有自我意识、元知识（meta-knowledge）和丰富知觉的有情众生，绝不可能仅仅满足于吃饱、做爱和生子。要提升并安顿这种高级意识，人类必须赋予生活以“目标”与“意义”。谈及幸福感，Saad 指出，个体之间约有 50% 的幸福感差异是由基因决定的，但这意味着还有 50% 掌握在后天手中。有些人天生拥有一副阳光乐天的性情，在起跑线上占了先机；但如果后天缺乏明智的选择和良好的心态，一个先天基线较低的人完全可以通过后天努力实现反超。幸福本质上是先天生理与后天培养（nature and nurture）深度互动的产物。 --- ### [01:46:26](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6386s) 职业幸福感的两大支柱：时间自由与创造力冲动对于如何最大化人生的幸福，Saad 重申了两大最关键的人生支柱：**选对伴侣**和**选对职业**。而在职业幸福感（occupational happiness）方面，他提出了两个核心评估维度： 1. **时间自由（Temporal Freedom）**：在其他条件相同的情况下，拥有时间自由远胜于受制于固定时间。Saad 以民航机长为例：舱门一旦关闭，从洛杉矶飞往新加坡的 16 个小时里，机长在时间和物理空间上都被彻底锁死。Saad 坦承这种状态对自己而言是不可想象的。他追求的是在生活中自由穿梭：虽然工作比多数人更拼命，但节奏由自己全权掌控——去咖啡馆撰写新书大纲、去健身房训练一小时、再花三小时阅读。他极力避免陷入他所谓的“日程窒息”（scheduling asphyxia）。当主持人苦笑表示自己正饱受日程窒息之苦时，Saad 建议他应尽可能设法改善这一状态。 2. **具象化创造冲动的能力（Instantiation of Creative Impulse）**：任何能够让人将创造力付诸实践的工作，都是通向意义与幸福的直通车。脱口秀演员能创作出前所未有的演出段子；大厨能无中生有地烹调出崭新菜肴；建筑师能凭空设计出宏伟桥梁；作家更是如此。Saad 动情地回顾了写书的奇妙过程：刚打开笔记本电脑新建 Word 文档时，屏幕上一片空白、一字未落，但一年后写成了《寄生思维》（*The Parasitic Mind*），按下发送键交付出版，随后成千上万的读者便能阅读到这份成果。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: 职业幸福感的两大核心维度 accDescr: 展现时间自由与具象化创造冲动如何共同导向意义感与职业幸福。 subgraph Pillars ["职业幸福感两大支柱"] TF["时间自由 (摆脱日程窒息)"] CI["创造冲动具象化 (艺术/写作/设计/烹饪)"] end subgraph Outcomes ["终极心理成果"] PM["获得目标与意义感 (Purpose & Meaning)"] OH["职业幸福感最大化 (Occupational Happiness)"] end TF --> OH CI --> PM PM --> OH ``` Saad 坦言，这并不是说从事精算科学（例如主持人的精算师哥哥）的生活没有价值，但他非常怀疑精算师每天早晨醒来时，会像奔向画室的艺术家那样两眼放光地喊道：“今天我要狠狠痛揍那份精算表（I'm gonna spank that actuarial table）！” --- ### [01:48:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6530s) 出生顺序与达尔文生态位划分假说主持人结合 Saad 在《消费本能》（*The Consuming Instinct*）第四章中写到的观点提问：作为家中四个孩子中最小的幼子，较晚出生的孩子似乎更有可能具备创造力。如果创造力直接关联着幸福感，这是否意味着幼子比哥哥姐姐们更容易感到幸福？ Saad 笑着反问主持人：“你想猜猜我在家里的排行吗？”主持人立刻猜中：Saad 本人也是家中最小的孩子。主持人随即分享了一个身边的奇妙现象：他前几天与大约 10 位公司创始人共进晚餐，席间随口调查了大家的出生顺序，令人震惊的是，其中竟然有 8 位都是家里的幼子（youngest sibling）。 Saad 指出，这完全符合心理学与进化论的预测，并向观众深入拆解了该理论的背景： - **历史渊源**：科学史学家弗兰克·萨洛威（Frank Sulloway）在其具有里程碑意义的著作《天生反叛》（*Born to Rebel*）中，系统研究了历史上推动激进科学创新的人物与其出生顺序的关系。数据显示，在人类历史上最激进的 28 项重大科学突破中，有 23 项是由“非长子/幼子”（later-borns）提出的。 - **理论翻转**：传统心理学探讨出生顺序效应时，往往聚焦于父母对不同孩子的态度变化（对待老大管教严厉，对待老二逐渐疲惫，到了老五干脆放任自流）。而萨洛威将视角完全颠倒过来——真正驱动这一现象的动力源自**孩子自身**。 - **达尔文生态位划分假说（Darwinian Niche Partitioning Hypothesis）**：从进化角度来看，孩子面临的一项基本生存挑战，就是如何将自己与兄弟姐妹区分开来，从而最大化争取父母的有限抚育投资（parental investment）。 - **长子（Firstborn）**降生时，家庭中所有生态位都处于空缺状态（如“乖乖女/好男孩”生态位、“反叛者”生态位等），长子可以优先挑选最容易获得认可的生态位（通常是顺从与符合规范）。 - **次子（Second-born）**降生时，可用生态位变成了 $n-1$ 个，好孩子生态位已被占据，次子就必须通过扮演反骨、唱反调或叛逆角色来形成差异化竞争。 - **末生子（Last-born）**出生越晚，剩余的传统生态位就越少，这迫使他们必须发展出截然不同的人格特质，尤其是大五人格中的**经验开放性（Openness to Experience）**。因此，晚出生的孩子往往拥有强烈的打破常规思维，绝不盲从正统与权威。在科学界，他们是颠覆旧范式的革命者；而在商业与消费心理学领域，Saad 自己的实证研究也证实，晚出生的个体明显更有可能成为激进产品的创新者与早期采用者（product innovators and early adopters）。因此，如果经验开放性与幸福感呈现正相关，晚出生的孩子确实可能在这一维度上展现出独特的优势。 ### [01:54:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6840s) 幼年放养带来的冒险精神与出生顺序假说斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着出生顺序的话题谈起自己的成长经历。在家中四个孩子里，作为年纪最小的男孩，他真切感受到了规则的松动：大姐阿曼达（Amanda）如果晚上九点没回家便会面临狂风暴雨般的惩罚，而到了他十岁左右，即使连续两三天不回家也根本没人管，宛如在街头“肆意放养”。正是这种高度的自由激发了他的探索欲与动手能力——他在家里拆解各种电器探究内部构造，甚至偷偷把母亲房间里的香烟拿去倒卖。这段童年经历无形中培养了他的信息库与自信心，塑造了他对风险的独特承受力，最终助推他走上创业之路。听到这番自白，加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）笑称斯蒂芬的提问团队确实挖到了连他自己都极少被问及的新鲜角度。萨阿德透露，他和妻子恰好也全都是家中的“老幺”。借此契机，萨阿德提出了一项极为有趣的实证构想：是否能在择偶中观察到基于出生顺序的“选型交配”（assortative mating）？他半开玩笑地建议斯蒂芬不妨借此写一篇心理学学士论文，若有人引用该课题必须把首创荣誉归于自己：“你只需要调查一千对夫妻，测算他们的婚姻满意度与幸福感得分，看看夫妻双方在出生顺序上是否存在某种特定的配对规律。” ### [01:55:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=6958s) 众包科研与“生活即游乐场” 面对萨阿德的提议，斯蒂芬立刻展现了媒体创业者的行动力，提议直接通过 Facebook、Meta 或 X 平台的数字广告向公众投放问卷，筛选出已婚受众，采集他们的婚龄、夫妻双方的出生排序以及满意度数据。萨阿德对此极为赞许，指出当今线上数据采集早已革新了科研模式。他向斯蒂芬介绍了诸如亚马逊土耳其机器人（Amazon Mechanical Turk, mTurk）这类科研众包平台。研究者若是寻找普通成年人填问卷，人均成本只有几分钱；但如果样本筛选条件极度严苛（例如“18岁以上、身高6英尺以下、患有糖尿病的立陶宛男子”），招募成本便会水涨船高。这类工具将传统科学研究的数据搜集效率提升了整整十倍。斯蒂芬随即当场向自己的研究与数据科学团队下达了挑战任务，承诺将设计专门的社交广告问卷并在后续节目中公布结果。萨阿德欣慰地表示，这种即兴的探索正是他在《幸福的萨阿德真相》（The Saad Truth About Happiness）中所写的一章——“生活即游乐场”（Life as a playground）的生动体现。在萨阿德看来，科学研究本质上是最高形式的游戏：“就像在拼一千块的拼图，你观察各种变量在空中漂浮，探究这个变量与那个变量是相关还是因果。我沉浸在解谜的玩乐中，甚至还能为此拿到薪水，世上还有什么比这更令人快乐的呢？” - **数字问卷核心指标**：受访者性别、婚姻状况、结婚时长（用于筛除无效闪婚样本）、受访者自身的出生排序、配偶的出生排序、婚姻满意度得分。 - **科研众包（mTurk）机制**：样本越宽泛，单人获取成本越低（仅需数美分）；交叉人口学限制条件越多，报酬门槛越高。 ### [01:58:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7123s) 从生物学恐惧到神经寄生虫学隐喻对话随后切入一个在公众视野中颇具争议的话题：为何包括萨阿德在内的众多演化科学家，最终都会不约而同地将学术锋芒指向当下的“觉醒文化”（Woke Culture）与意识形态之争？斯蒂芬直言，普通大众往往很难理解演化生物学为何会与政治文化批判产生交集。萨阿德回忆道，一切的起点正是他早年在学术界遭遇的“生物学恐惧症”（Biophobia）——主流学者对运用生物学原理解释人类社会行为表现出本能的排斥与敌意。当年他尝试将演化生物学引入消费者行为学研究时，竟遭到了期刊编辑的直接退稿（desk reject），理由是“生物学与消费行为无关”，这让他惊觉人类的心智似乎正在被某种病毒式的偏见所寄生。为了解释这种荒谬的人类非理性现象，萨阿德从演化学惯用的“跨物种比较研究”中寻找灵感。他深入检索了动物学文献，最终在神经寄生虫学（Neuroparasitology）中找到了震撼的科学模型。神经寄生虫与普通的肠道绦虫不同，它们能够侵入宿主的大脑，篡改宿主的神经回路，迫使宿主做出违背自身生存利益、却单方面有利于寄生虫繁殖的自杀性行为。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 神经寄生虫与意识形态脑虫的机理对照 accDescr: 对比生物界的神经寄生虫如何操控宿主大脑与意识形态脑虫如何操控人类思维 subgraph BIO["生物界：神经寄生虫操控"] A1["刚地弓形虫 / 铁线虫"] -->|"侵入宿主大脑"| B1["修改神经回路 / 消除恐惧本能"] B1 -->|"驱使宿主自毁"| C1["老鼠扑向猫尿 / 蟋蟀投水淹死"] C1 -->|"达成繁殖循环"| D1["寄生生物完成生命周期"] end subgraph MIND["人类社会：观念寄生虫操控"] A2["后现代主义 / 极端教条"] -->|"侵蚀学术与社会心智"| B2["否定客观真理 / 瓦解理性根基"] B2 -->|"诱导群体非理性"| C2["践踏常识与实证科学 (生物学恐惧症)"] C2 -->|"维系意识形态权威"| D2["寄生观念自我复制与扩散"] end ``` ### [02:01:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7263s) 意识形态“脑虫”与后现代主义的毒害萨阿德在现场生动列举了两个大自然中的惊悚案例：其一是著名的刚地弓形虫（*Toxoplasma gondii*），当它侵入老鼠脑部后，会重塑其神经回路，使老鼠非但不害怕天敌，反而对其尿液产生性吸引力，主动送入猫口；其二则是寄生在森林蟋蟀体内的铁线虫（Hairworm），原本极度厌水的蟋蟀在被铁线虫侵占中枢神经后，会被驱使径直跳入水中溺亡，仅仅因为铁线虫必须在水体中才能完成交配与繁衍。正是这一领域的生物机制让萨阿德迎来了恍如当年初识演化心理学时的“尤里卡时刻”：人类不仅会被实体寄生虫感染，其大脑同样会被“观念脑虫”（Ideological Brainworms）所寄生。沿着这一隐喻框架，萨阿德将矛头直指当代理念病毒的源头——后现代主义（Postmodernism）。他将后现代主义定性为所有寄生性理念的“始祖”（Granddaddy of all parasitic ideas）。后现代主义的核心主张是“世上不存在客观真理，唯一的客观真理就是‘没有客观真理’”。在后现代语境下，一切常识、实证与科学法则都被扣上了“偏见”和“主观性”的枷锁，对大写客观真理（Truth with a capital T）的追求被全盘解构为虚妄的霸权叙事。萨阿德强调，许多毁灭性的寄生思想最初往往披着崇高、善意的外衣发端，然而一旦理性的免疫系统被瓦解，社会便不可避免地滑向对科学事实与生物学现实的公然背叛。 ### [02:03:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7404s) 绝对原则与结果主义：言论自由与科学求真的底线加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）强调，追求真理绝不能为了所谓“更高的社会正义目标”而沦为附带伤害。在道德哲学层面，这代表了两种根本对立的世界观：一种是结果主义（Consequentialism），为了达成自认为崇高的结局可以不择手段；另一种则是萨阿德所坚守的道义论原则（Deontological Principle），即道德义务与法则是绝对的、不可妥协的底线。科学探索绝不能带着预设偏见进行，言论自由更是普适于每一个人的基本权利——“如果你宣称自己坚信言论自由，但唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）除外，那你就变成了结果主义者。”他在著作《寄生思维》（*The Parasitic Mind*）中追溯了这些“观念寄生虫”如何在学术界和社会中扩散，并开出了一剂旨在抵抗愚蠢思潮的“精神疫苗”。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 两种对立的道德哲学框架 accDescr: 对比道义论原则与结果主义在真理与言论自由上的处理方式 subgraph Deontology["道义论原则 (Deontological Principle)"] A["真理与科学探索具有绝对性"] B["言论自由适用于所有人"] C["绝不妥协，反对双重标准"] end subgraph Consequentialism["结果主义 (Consequentialism)"] D["为所谓'崇高正义目标'辩护"] E["真理被视作可承受的附带损害"] F["言论自由因人因言而异"] end Deontology -.->|"坚守绝对原则"| G["捍卫自由社会底线"] Consequentialism -.->|"滋生观念寄生虫"| H["导致极权与审查"] ``` ### [02:04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7441s) 黎巴嫩童年阴影：因犹太身份险遭灭顶的真实往事当主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）追问：“如果言论自由切实对人造成伤害、甚至危及生命该怎么办？”萨阿德亮明了自己“言论自由绝对主义者”（Free speech absolutist）的身份，并追溯了一段鲜为人知却充满创伤的家族流亡史。他于 1960 年代出生于黎巴嫩，当时的黎巴嫩被誉为“中东的巴黎”，表面上自由包容，但在中东语境下的“包容”与西方世界的定义有着天壤之别。童年的反犹经历如影随形，刻骨铭心： - **五岁时的惊魂街头**：1970 年埃及总统加马尔·阿卜杜勒·纳赛尔（Gamal Abdel Nasser）逝世，这位泛阿拉伯主义领袖的离世引发了整个中东的悲恸狂潮。五岁的萨阿德站在贝鲁特自家的窗前，亲眼目睹街头汹涌的人群打砸焚烧，震耳欲聋地高喊“犹太人去死！”（Death to Jews!）。懵懂的他转头问母亲发生了什么，母亲惊恐地拉住他警告：“千万别把头伸出去！” - **小学课堂上的残酷宣告**：在 1975 年黎巴嫩内战爆发前夕，小学老师让每位学生起立谈谈长大后的梦想。孩子们纷纷回答想当警察、医生或足球运动员；轮到一个与萨阿德相识多年、明知其犹太背景的同学时，对方竟直截了当地回答：“我长大后想当一名‘犹太杀手’（Jew killer）”，引来全班同学的热烈鼓掌与哄堂大笑。 - **父母遭巴解组织法塔赫绑架**：1975 年内战爆发后，局势彻底失控，全家在极其艰难的险境下逃亡至加拿大蒙特利尔。然而，父母为了打理未尽的家族生意于 1980 年重返战火纷飞的黎巴嫩，不幸遭到巴勒斯坦派系“法塔赫”（Fatah）绑架并关押酷刑。当时年仅 15 岁的萨阿德并不知道父母遭难，家人为了保护他谎称父母在处理棘手生意。他在学校里照常说笑，以至于一位同样知情的犹太同学校友一度以为萨阿德冷血无情、“整个人是由冰块铸成的”。直到父母凭借各方人脉惊险脱困返回蒙特利尔后，萨阿德才得知真相。从进化心理学和男性保护本能的角度看，他当时心头最深沉的梦魇是母亲是否在被俘期间遭到强奸。母亲为了宽慰他坚决否认，但这道阴影从未散去。萨阿德坦言，如果当年母亲承认受辱，年仅 15 岁的他定会赌上余生去向仇敌寻仇报复。 ### [02:09:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7752s) 言论自由的真正边界：容忍冒犯与直接煽动暴力的分水岭拥有这般险遭种族屠戮的人生背景，萨阿德却坚定地捍卫甚至包括“大屠杀否认者”（Holocaust deniers）在内的所有人拥有公开发表荒谬言论的权利。大屠杀否认者公然无视六百多万犹太人被系统性灭绝的铁证，没有任何言论比这更令人作呕、更具侮辱性。但在自由社会中，人们必须学会容忍种族主义者、蠢货和谎言制造者的存在，击败荒唐谬论的唯一正道不是封杀闭嘴，而是站在公开舞台上用更优秀、更具力量的思想和真实数据去击溃他们。萨阿德明确划定了受美国宪法第一修正案保护的言论自由与犯罪的唯一清晰界限——“直接煽动暴力”（Direct incitement to violence）： | 表达情境 | 举例 | 性质判定 | 处理原则 | |:--- |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **观点与信仰批评** | “犹太教/伊斯兰教是垃圾谎言，是最恶心的宗教” | 属于合法言论自由 | 允许公开表达，任何信仰体系与意识形态都不享有免受审视的特权 | | **直接暴力煽动** | “今晚在列克星敦大道与第六大道交汇处的犹太会堂，散场时大家一起去痛打、杀死那些犹太人” | 构成直接煽动犯罪 | 法律必须严厉禁止并追究刑事责任 | 萨阿德尖锐地驳斥了“批评某宗教就会制造恐惧与仇恨”的维稳逻辑：“没有一种意识形态可以免于审视。如果你的情感被冒犯了，那就收起玻璃心，勇敢坚强起来（Grow a pair）。” ### [02:11:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=7868s) 言语的阶梯与仇恨暴力：关于叙事影响力的交锋与科学辨正斯蒂芬·巴特利特提出了针锋相对的质疑，他将言论对社会现实的影响比喻为一个“阶梯”（Staircase）：言辞往往是行动的垫脚石。斯蒂芬以自己的黑白混血背景举例，如果具有巨大社会影响力的顶流播客主们——如乔·罗根（Joe Rogan）、莱克斯·弗里德曼（Lex Fridman）、安德鲁·休伯曼（Andrew Huberman）或亚历克斯·库珀（Alex Cooper）——突然在节目中步调一致地宣称“混血人群是邪恶的、肮脏的食腐动物或害虫”，这种充斥 1940 年代反犹色彩的非人化叙事，势必会在短时间内直接导致走在大街上的无辜混血个体面临几何级上升的暴力袭击与杀戮风险。言论与现实暴行之间，并非完全没有因果链条。面对这一挑战，萨阿德用两起真实案例阐述了应对言论争议与偏见的科学之道： - **英国侵害幼女犯罪集团丑闻（UK Grooming Gangs）**：过去三十多年间，在英国各大中小城镇发生了针对白人幼女的大规模、产业化诱拐强奸犯罪。根据保守统计，超过 90% 的作案者来自同一族群与意识形态背景。客观指出这一群体的特定背景并不等同于边缘化歧视，而是探寻社会问题成因不可或缺的关键数据节点。 - **美国监狱人种不成比例问题**：美国监狱中黑人男性的关押比例显著高于其人口占比。面对由此衍生出的种族主义论调（如“黑人天生容易犯罪”），萨阿德的主张绝非将此类荒谬言论列为封禁禁区，而是直接在科学赛场上正面击溃它。正确的应对方法是质问对方：“请拿出科学证据与生理机制，证明黑人男性在先天特质（Dispositionally/Innately）上比白人男性更具犯罪倾向。”在严谨的实证科学面前，这类毫无事实依据的种族偏见瞬间就会不攻自破。 ### [02:13:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8027s) 犯罪统计、禁忌知识与“道义论 vs 结果论” 加德·萨阿德（Dr. Gad Saad）在讨论言论界限时指出，如果有人发表种族主义言论，虽然社会应当允许其说出来，然后通过辩论击溃这种观点，言论者自身也需要承担被贴上种族主义标签的社会后果与污名。但若转向现实数据，例如探讨美国犯罪率模式中黑人男性的占比时，客观数据确实显示出极高的代表性。萨阿德表示，人们既可以辩称这是“白人至上主义”导致的结果，也可以去探究是否存在其他致因。然而在当今的社会语境下，绝大多数人甚至连讨论“黑人犯罪率更高”这一事实本身都不敢，认为提起数据就等于“种族主义”和“边缘化弱势群体”。针对这种风气，萨阿德明确表示自己坚决反对所谓的“禁忌知识”（Forbidden Knowledge）概念。禁忌知识的核心逻辑在于：某些知识之所以不应该被研究或探索，是因为担心它会引发负面的连锁后果（即所谓的“滑坡效应”）。萨阿德认为这种原则极其危险。为了阐明深层原因，他引入了伦理学中的两大系统： - **道义论伦理（Deontological Ethics）**：强调绝对性的道德指令（如康德定言令式），即“说谎在任何情况下都是错误的”，不因结果如何而改变。 - **结果论伦理（Consequentialist Ethics）**：以结果来评判行为的对错，即“为了避免伤害他人的感情，说谎是可以接受的”。萨阿德幽默地举例道，在婚姻中，当妻子询问“我穿这条牛仔裤显胖吗？”时，明智的丈夫必须立刻戴上“结果论的帽子”，坚定地回答“亲爱的，你从未像现在这样美丽动人”，通过善意的谎言保护伴侣的感受。日常生活中许多场景都适用结果论，但他强调，人类文明的基石性原则在定义上必须是**道义论**的。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 伦理学两大框架在社会原则中的应用与冲突 accDescr: 对比道义论伦理（绝对原则）与结果论伦理（以结果为导向），展现核心社会原则如何被结果论扭曲。 subgraph EthicsFramework["伦理学分类"] Deon["道义论伦理 (Deontological) - 绝对性准则 (康德) - 言论自由、司法推定、真理追求"] Conseq["结果论伦理 (Consequentialist) - 行为取决于后果 - 如善意谎言、保护他人感受"] end subgraph IdeologicalShift["近年来的原则崩塌现象"] Violation1["言论自由原则： '我支持言论自由，但不适用于特朗普'"] Violation2["新闻诚信原则： '为防止特朗普当选而掩盖亨特·拜登笔记本电脑真相'"] Violation3["无罪推定原则： '对布雷特·卡瓦诺大法官直接定性为连环性侵犯'"] end Deon -->|被结果论侵蚀与妥协| IdeologicalShift ``` --- ### [02:16:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8164s) 绝对原则的崩塌：从言论自由到司法与新闻诚信萨阿德直言，言论自由、对真理的追求、司法系统中的无罪推定，以及新闻媒体的客观诚信，都必须作为绝对不可妥协的道义论原则来维护。然而在过去几年中，社会充斥着将道义论原则降级为结果论算计的恶劣案例： - **言论自由被双标对待**：很多人声称“我信仰言论自由，但唐纳德·特朗普除外”。 - **新闻诚信遭到背叛**：在亨特·拜登（Hunter Biden）笔记本电脑事件中，媒体明知证据确凿、涉及巨大的政治腐败，却为了防止乔·拜登输给他们口中的“橙色希姆莱（Orange Himmler）”，选择联手压制并掩盖真相。 - **无罪推定被彻底践踏**：在最高法院大法官布雷特·卡瓦诺（Brett Kavanaugh）的提名听证中，指控者在确认程序前一天提出指控，连事件发生在 36 年前、38 年前还是上周都记不清，没有任何实证支持，但许多高级知识分子和学者却主张“无罪推定在这个案例中不适用”，直接认定其为连环性侵犯。萨阿德重申，科学界绝不应该存在所谓的“禁忌知识”。他分享了一段从未公开披露过的往事：1996 年，他刚获得博士学位不久，作为年轻教授参加国际心理学大会（International Congress of Psychology），做一场关于“时间压力下决策策略”的非争议性学术报告。报告厅内聚集了约 1500 名听众，现场气氛异常紧绷。他上台前才发现，排在他前一位发言的正是西安大略大学饱受争议的心理学家 J. 菲利普·拉什顿（J. Philippe Rushton）。拉什顿当时在屏幕上打出了关于白人女性、黑人女性与黑人男性智力差异的对比图表，全场瞬间沸腾。拉什顿讲完后，大约 1425 名观众怒不可遏地涌出会议室去追堵质问他，原本庞大的会场只剩下约 70 人。萨阿德笑称，那是他人生中唯一一次为台下观众大批离场而感到“谢天谢地”，免于遭受连带声讨。萨阿德表示，虽然拉什顿的研究引发极大争议，但若研究人员确实以完全客观、无偏见的方式收集数据，绝不应仅因结论看似具有种族偏见而遭到封杀。 --- ### [02:20:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8423s) 反脆弱的人格与“净化世界”引发的真理谋杀主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深表赞同，并坦言自己只关心事物是否真实，绝不会因为事实本身而感到被冒犯。史蒂芬举例说，即使有扎实的科研数据证明，像他这样 31 岁、拥有尼日利亚血统、父亲来自考文垂（Coventry）的混血男性在统计上就是偏笨，他也会坦然接受，内心的冒犯感为 0%。此前医生通过脑部扫描诊断他患有 ADHD（注意缺陷与多动障碍），并明确告诉他这会导致他在某些能力上存在缺陷、字迹会很难看，他的反应也仅仅是淡定的一句“挺好，我知道了”。萨阿德赞许这是一种内心丰盈、人格健全的表现，但指出当今社会存在严重的性格分歧。面对那些极易受伤害的脆弱人群，社会正面临两条道路的抉择： 1. **反脆弱道路**：要求容易被冒犯的人“坚强起来（grow a pair）”。现实世界本就充满压力源和不公，培养抗打击能力才是立足之本，日后人们会为此心怀感激。 2. **净化世界道路**：为了所谓的“善良与同理心”，不惜把外部世界过度无菌化、净化，以确保没有任何人会感到不快。萨阿德痛心地指出，第二条道路打着崇高善意的旗号，最终却沦为**“谋杀真理”**的遮羞布。所有的“寄生思想”（Parasitic Ideas）正是这样诞生的：倡导者自以为在拯救世界，为了这一自视至高无上的目标，牺牲科学真理被他们视为完全可以接受的“附带损伤”。萨阿德回顾了他与乔丹·彼得森（Jordan Peterson）当年分别被加拿大参议院传召作证的经历，他们当时严厉警告了试图将性别认同和性倾向纳入仇恨犯罪法案的 C-16 法案（Bill C-16）。萨阿德明确表示，每个人都应享有不受歧视的尊严生活，但法律绝不能强迫一名进化心理学教授在课堂上宣称“男女生物学差异不存在”、甚至推翻达尔文的性选择理论，更不能用行政与法律惩戒强迫他人违背客观事实去使用特定的人称代词。尽管当时参议院里充斥着对他的嘲讽与蔑视，将听证会变成一场荒诞剧，但萨阿德无奈地感叹，虽然自己极不情愿当那个说“我早就警告过你们”的人，但他当年所预言的种种荒谬现状，如今已全部应验。 ### [02:23:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8623s) 体育公平、性别代词与强迫性表达的底线加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）坚持认为，一旦社会丧失了对道义论原则进行道义论辩护的本能，客观真理的防线就会全线溃败。他强调，虽然自己绝对捍卫每个人享有尊严生活的权利，但这绝不意味着跨性别女性可以进入女子体育竞技。当主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）半开玩笑地插话称自己昨晚刚参加了一场男女混排的足球赛时，萨阿德立即纠正，指出休闲友谊赛与严肃竞技截然不同。他直截了当地提到美国大学游泳运动员莉亚·托马斯（Lia Thomas）的争议案例，痛批这是一种“病态的自恋”（pathological narcissism）——当个体认为自我身份认同的宣示凌驾于所有顺性别女运动员的公平竞争权之上时，这种诉求就已经越界了。史蒂芬随即阐明了自己的立场：如果一个生理特征偏向男性的人穿着裙子，礼貌地请求被称呼为女性，史蒂芬完全乐意照办。在他看来，这就像录播前询问萨阿德希望被如何称呼一样，属于基本的人际礼貌。从成本效益分析的角度来看，顺应对方的代词称谓对自己而言成本为零，却能让对方感到被尊重。然而，史蒂芬同样强调了红线所在：一旦这种行为越过了“零伤害”的边界——例如损害了其他群体的权益（如女子体育），或者政府制定法律让人因为无心说错代词而面临牢狱之灾——成本效益的天平就会彻底失衡。萨阿德对史蒂芬设定的界限表示完全赞同，指出核心就在于“不得伤害他人”以及“不得强迫表达”。萨阿德坦言，如果自己的学生私下提出代词请求，他绝不会刻意刁难，而是会配合对方；但一旦政府出台法令强制要求教授在电子邮件签名档中必须标注性别代词（如 he/him），那就是不能退让的底线。他进一步批评了加拿大政府在护照上引入非二元性别选项的做法。萨阿德指出，非二元性别群体在总人口中可能仅占一万五千分之一甚至五万分之一，但这却演变成了“极少数对绝大多数的专制”（the tyranny of the minority of the minority）。为了不冒犯这极少数人，整个社会数万年来基于有性生殖演化出的根本生物学标记（男性与女性）却被系统性抹去。他强调自己的默认姿态是对人友善，但“尊重你的身份认同，绝不等于我必须被迫登上你的庆典列车”。 --- ### [02:27:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=8844s) 夹缝中的无辜者与“自毁式同情” 史蒂芬提出了另一个现实维度的观察：在性别、宗教与种族等宏大文化战的交火中，受伤最深的往往是那些根本不参战的温和派少数群体。当前在社交媒体与公共舆论场中，跨性别议题的争吵异常激烈，但史蒂芬身边许多使用 they/them 代词的朋友只是在过自己的平静生活，既不参与网络骂战，也不强求特权。然而，极端争议引发的社会反弹，却使得这些普通人在现实街头遭遇敌意和侮辱的概率大幅上升。正如当下加拿大的犹太群体面临的艰难处境一样，这种连带伤害令人唏嘘。萨阿德对此表示理解，并借此引出了他的新书书名——《自毁式同情》（*Suicidal Empathy*）。从演化心理学视角来看，人类所有的情绪机制（包括同情心）之所以被筛选保留，都有其演化上的适应性功能。然而，当同情机制发生“走火”（misfire）时，灾难便随之降临。这种走火通常表现在两个层面： - **同情心过度活跃（Hyperactive Empathy）**：情感泛滥压倒了理性权衡与规则意识。 - **目标错配（Misdirected Empathy）**：为了对某一个极细分的弱势诉求表达无限包容，反向牺牲了更大群体的基本权益（例如为了包容跨性别选手而剥夺所有生理女性的体育公平）。萨阿德指出，当今西方社会在诸如跨性别、难民安置、药物成瘾治理等多项公共政策上的崩塌，本质上都源于这种失控且错位的“自毁式同情”。 --- ### [02:30:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9000s) 规则、边界与法律：从托马斯·索维尔到非法移民之辩在探讨同情心的边界时，萨阿德引用了著名经济学家托马斯·索维尔（Thomas Sowell）的洞见：经济学本质上是对权衡（trade-offs）与成本效益的研究。如果社会拥有无限资源，当然可以为全人类提供终身免费医疗；但现实是资源极为稀缺。面对史蒂芬提出的尖锐问题——“如果一个无证移民穿过边境进入得克萨斯州，改善了自己的生活质量，这究竟伤害了谁？”萨阿德从道义论角度斩钉截铁地回答：“伤害了所有人。” 萨阿德用盗窃的界限作为类比：父母教育孩子必须遵守“不得偷窃”的绝对规则，而绝不能认同旧金山那种盗窃金额低于950美元便不予重罪起诉的荒唐做法。未经合法程序的入境行为，本质上侵蚀了合法纳税四十年公民的社会契约与公共资源，更践踏了法治国家赖以立足的公平原则。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 移民准入与法治原则对比 accDescr: 对比高门槛合法入境与无序非法越境在法治与道义论层面的冲突 subgraph LegalPath["合法入境途径"] A["高资历合法申请者 (如学者、合法技术移民)"] --> B["繁琐合规审查 严格边境盘查与资格审核"] B --> C["恪守法治原则 付出高昂时间与法律成本"] end subgraph IllegalPath["非法入境现状"] D["非法跨越边境者 (缺乏有效背景审查)"] --> E["绕过法律程序 享受纳税人支撑的福利"] E --> F["法治契约被侵蚀 规则对守法者造成逆向淘汰"] end ``` 为了说明这种逆向不公，萨阿德分享了自身的荒诞处境： - **极度严苛的守法者待遇**：作为在康奈尔大学获得硕士与博士学位、先后在康奈尔大学、达特茅斯学院和加州大学尔湾分校任教的知名学者，当他持有加拿大国籍入境美国时，必须严格遵守每一项繁琐的签证与法律条款。即便边境官员认出他并要求合影，他也经常被带到二次审查室盘问其是否在美国境内盈利。他一生最大的愿望就是定居南加州，但因为严格遵循法律程序，至今未能实现。 - **非法跨越者的待遇倒错**：与此同时，一名刺着泪滴纹身（代表曾在萨尔瓦多杀害两人）的 MS-13 跨国黑帮成员却能堂而皇之地非法穿越边境。萨阿德质问，如果任由这种混乱蔓延，法治的权威与守法公民的尊严将荡然无存。同情心若脱离了法治与规则的约束，终将演变为瓦解文明秩序的自毁工具。 ### [02:33:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9204s) 法律秩序的崩溃与 CVS 的防盗锁柜加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）借由自己身处严寒的蒙特利尔、无法在阳光明媚的加州获得教授职位的个人感受，引申出非法移民对守法公民造成的实质损害。他强调，非法移民侵犯的是整个法治体系，而一旦法律体系崩溃，社会底线将不复存在。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 义务论法治与社会秩序崩溃流程 accDescr: 展示破坏法律规则如何引发后果主义漏洞并最终导致社会信任瓦解 subgraph 法治基石["法治基石 (义务论原则)"] A["明确法律与因果关系 (犯罪必受惩罚)"] --> B["稳定的社会信任与营商环境"] end subgraph 秩序瓦解["秩序崩塌 (自杀式同理心)"] C["对非法行为姑息纵容 (后果主义干预)"] --> D["盗窃常态化 / 零元购"] D --> E["零售业倒闭 / 商品被锁入玻璃柜"] E --> F["守法者利益受损与社会瓦解"] end B -.->|防线被破| C ``` 主持人史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）对此深有感触，并分享了自己当天的亲身经历。他当天早晨刚给朋友发了一张在美国药妆连锁店 CVS 拍的照片，困惑于为何在号称全球最富有的国家，连牙膏、除臭剂和漱口水都被锁在玻璃橱窗里： - 史蒂芬在 CVS 选购除臭剂和漱口水时，必须按下求助按钮等待店员拿钥匙开锁。 - 当他询问店员为何要将这些日用品锁起来时，店员拍了拍他的肩膀，指向货架过道——那里正站着一名小偷，正明目张胆地把偷来的商品塞进袜子里。萨阿德随即指出，即使一个人偷走一支牙膏表面上看似没有直接伤害到身在英国的史蒂芬，但在义务论（Deontology）层面上，这种行为摧毁了社会维系秩序的根本——即清晰、可预测的因果关系与法治威慑（"If you steal, you will be punished"）。 --- ### [02:35:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9315s) 自杀式同理心与西方文明的例外性史蒂芬提出反思：遵循法律秩序是否默认了“社会本身是公平的”？如果社会底层认为天平已被操控、体制本就不公，他们是否还会认同法律？萨阿德明确回应，世界上没有任何社会是完美的，但放眼全球非西方世界的现状，西方文明所建立的法治与制度已经是人类探索出的最佳模式。萨阿德特别强调，许多西方传统最坚定的捍卫者反而是移民。他举了索马里裔学者阿扬·希尔西·阿里（Ayaan Hirsi Ali）的例子： - 她亲身体验过非西方极端宗教社会的压迫，而非像波士顿韦尔斯利学院（Wellesley College）里的象牙塔知识分子那样，戴着从亚马逊买来的阿拉伯头巾空谈政治。 - 萨阿德自己同样成长于中东黎巴嫩，经历过战乱与制度崩塌。他提醒西方人，自由法治社会绝非世界的“默认状态”，而是一个罕见的文明奇迹，必须全力捍卫。当社会为了展示“进步主义”而滥用“自杀式同理心”（Suicidal empathy），放弃惩戒时，恶果便会迅速蔓延。萨阿德举例问道：“一个已经被逮捕过 67 次的重罪犯，凭什么还要给他第 68 次改过自新的机会？”正是这种对恶行的纵容，最终导致无辜女性丧命。 --- ### [02:38:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9511s) 机会均等 vs 结果均等：荒谬的均贫富假想史蒂芬提出另一种批评声音：有人会认为萨阿德和史蒂芬之所以成功，是因为拥有家庭、智力等“基因特权”与移民机会，因此应当怀揣高度同理心，“回馈”给那些没有特权的人，包括接纳非法越境者。萨阿德反驳称，如果是合法移民，他全力支持；但若是违法越境，则绝不可妥协。他用极具讽刺意味的荒谬类比抨击这种说辞：“如果因为特权就要搞平均主义，那非自愿独身者（Incel）找不到伴侣，而我们有伴侣，是不是也该建立一套共产主义交友系统，用 App 把女性平均分配出去？街头流浪汉两年没有性生活，难道你也欠他一个性伴侣吗？” 两人进而深入探讨了“机会均等”（Equality of Opportunity）与“结果均等”（Equality of Outcome）的核心差异： | 理念分类 | 核心假设与逻辑 | 现实体现与萨阿德的批判 | |:--- |:--- |:--- | | **机会均等** *(Equality of Opportunity)* | 所有人享有平等的竞争规则、法律权利与准入机会，最终成败取决于能力与付出。 | 尊重人类天生的能力、体质与努力差异，是文明与繁荣的基础。 | | **结果均等** *(Equality of Outcome)* | 假定所有人最终必须获得相同的结果；若出现差异，必定是因为系统性的阴谋或恶意压迫。 | 萨阿德抨击以卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）等政客为代表的激进左翼思想，指责其推行的均等化本质上是列宁主义与马克思主义的翻版。 | 为了证明“结果均等”在生物学与现实中的荒谬性，萨阿德列举了体育界的极端案例： - **世界杯足球赛**：全球 200 多个国家和地区，自 1930 年举办至今只有 8 个国家夺冠（巴西、阿根廷、德国、西班牙、法国、意大利、英格兰、乌拉圭）。日本、以色列、伊斯兰国家或博茨瓦纳从未夺冠，难道是因为国际足联（FIFA）种族歧视吗？ - **波士顿马拉松**：过去 35 年的冠军名单几乎全被肯尼亚和埃塞俄比亚选手包揽。难道是因为赛事对身材矮小的犹太人格外不公？萨阿德总结道，人类本质上是存在等级与个体差异的物种（有些人更高、更聪明、更幽默、更勤奋）。已故哈佛大学著名生物学家、昆虫学泰斗 E.O. 威尔逊（E.O. Wilson）曾指出，共产主义在某些物种（如具有极高社会性的蚂蚁）中能够完美运行，因为工蚁在遗传上高度一致且自身不具备繁殖利益，但在具有个体利益的人类社会推行结果均等，注定会导致灾难。 ### [02:43:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9785s) 违背人性的乌托邦：“好主意，用错物种了” 加德·萨德（Gad Saad）提到了著名生物学家爱德华·奥斯本·威尔逊（E.O. Wilson）对社会性昆虫与人类社会的精辟见解。在蚂蚁王国中，有一只负责繁衍的蚁后，而其他所有工蚁或兵蚁彼此毫无分别，犹如一个同质化的群体。正因如此，当威尔逊被问及对共产主义和社会主义的看法时，他给出了萨德心目中“人类历史上最精彩的反驳之一”：“好主意，用错物种了”（Great idea, wrong species）。萨德指出，人类与生俱来拥有固定的人性本质，而这种天性绝非共产主义式的均等；过去一百年里共产主义在众多国家反复试验，每一次的结果都是荒谬而彻底的惨败。当一套社会经济政治制度与人类生物本能背道而驰时，根本无需学者预测，它注定会崩溃——这就像有人宣称发明了“反重力法则”，狂热地把上百人从万米高空的飞机上推下去，坚信他们不会掉落，最后却震惊于所有人都摔得脑浆迸裂；因为现实受制于重力这一铁律。萨德随即直言，在他眼中卡玛拉·哈里斯（Kamala Harris）就是政治上的“反重力代表”。虽然萨德是加拿大公民，在这场选战中没有直接利益关系，但他认为自己的社会评论超越了国籍界限，关乎人类能否实现最大繁荣的宏大命题。面对各路试图推行背离人性制度的人，他感到不可理喻。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 制度与人性的契合度分析 accDescr: 展示生物社会性昆虫与人类天性在制度适用上的根本区别 subgraph 蚂蚁社会["社会性昆虫 (如蚂蚁)"] A1["单一繁殖中心 (蚁后)"] --> A2["工蚁与兵蚁无个体特异性"] A2 --> A3["天然适合绝对集体主义"] end subgraph 人类社会["人类生物本性"] B1["个体差异与自利驱动"] --> B2["亲缘偏好与阶级竞争"] B2 --> B3["违背人性的制度必然瓦解"] end A3 -.-> C["威尔逊断言: 共产主义适合蚂蚁，不适合人类"] B3 -.-> C ``` ### [02:44:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9898s) 特朗普 vs 哈里斯：为何会毫不犹豫投票给特朗普当斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提问“如果你有投票权，你会投给唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）吗”，萨德毫不犹豫地回答：“如果我是美国人，连眼睛都不会眨一下，我会投十次票给特朗普，而不是投给卡玛拉·哈里斯。”针对巴特利特追问“那特朗普有什么问题”，萨德坦承特朗普最大的敌人其实是他自己。从外表和举止层面来看，特朗普或许因年龄增长或刻意自律而略有收敛，但他以往的许多麻烦纯粹是由其粗糙的信息传达方式造成的——只要言辞稍加修饰与克制，就能避免激起滔天民愤。例如萨德认为，特朗普离开推特（现 X 平台）对他反而是因祸得福，因为从前的他缺乏自控力，身为美国总统竟然能在凌晨两点和网络喷子在网上互骂。巴特利特随即切入核心：“那他的品格（character）呢？如果你的儿子长大后具有特朗普那样的品格，你会感到自豪吗？”萨德脱口回应：“可能比养成乔·拜登（Joe Biden）那样更自豪。”巴特利特立刻指出，这正是两极政治讨论中的惯性陷阱——人们在被问及某一方的道德缺陷时，往往本能地通过对比另一方的恶劣来衡量“善良”。萨德随即收起比较，开始剖析特朗普内在的正面与负面品格特征。 ### [02:46:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9980s) 激发内心的“蜜獾”精神与抗击打韧性萨德表示自己虽然不认识特朗普本人，但特朗普无疑是一位企业家，更是自然界中“蜜獾（Honey Badger）”特质的极致化身。萨德在自己的著作《寄生思维》（The Parasitic Mind）最后一章的行动倡议中，就曾明确呼吁读者“激活你内心的蜜獾”。蜜獾虽然只有中小型犬只大小，却被公认为动物界最凶残猛烈的动物：它敢单枪匹马闯入马蜂窝被成千上万只蜜蜂围蜇只为取蜜，甚至面对六只成年雄狮的围攻也能逼得狮群后退。萨德强调，所谓的“蜜獾精神”并不是提倡暴力，而是在捍卫基本原则时展现出的坚韧不拔、抗击打能力与思想上的强悍无畏。在萨德看来，纵观近代公众人物，没有人承受过像特朗普那样密集的攻击与围剿，但他依然展现出超越常人的精力和耐力。萨德举了一个极为具体的例子：有谁在头部遭遇枪击（遇刺事件）之后，还能立刻站起来高举拳头大喊“战斗！战斗！”（Fight! Fight!）？萨德直言，这种面对绝境毫不屈服的韧性与勇气，正是他乐意传授给儿子的品质。至于特朗普是否谈吐高雅、文质彬彬或词汇量丰富，萨德反问：“他说话优雅吗？不；词汇量大吗？不大。但在任何时候，我都宁愿选择一只凶悍的蜜獾，而不是文弱书生。” ### [02:48:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10100s) 权力争议与国际威慑：监狱操场法则巴特利特对此提出异议，指出修养和谈吐只是外在风格，真正的品格关乎更深层的事物。例如迈克·彭斯（Mike Pence）在演讲中明确披露，在决定选举结果的关键时刻，特朗普曾要求副总统违背宪法推翻选举决议，彭斯因无法背叛宪法而拒绝执行。巴特利特质疑，这是否说明特朗普极度好胜乃至无法接受合法的失败？萨德从严谨的学术态度回应称，自己只在证据确凿时下断言，不能轻易将某种特定行为直接草率地归结为根本性的人格缺陷。萨德推测，特朗普当时或许发自内心地深信选举被彻底操纵和窃取了，因此他的动机不是为了当终身独裁者（毕竟他最终按时搬出了白宫），而是要求下属寻找一切机制以阻止“选举成果被偷走”。萨德强调自己并不认为特朗普是独裁者，也不认为他蓄意煽动了暴力叛乱。为了进一步阐明对特朗普领导力的考量，萨德将视角拉至地缘政治的残酷现实： - 当今世界充斥着极其险恶的恶霸政权，包括激进伊斯兰势力、朝鲜、普京以及其他对手。 - 萨德打趣地比喻：深夜面对危机时，这些独裁者更忌惮谁？是整天发出刺耳傻笑（cackler）的卡玛拉·哈里斯、脑子退化如“牛油果”的乔·拜登，还是一个手握核按钮、玩着抓老虎脚趾游戏、行为难以预测的“疯狂牛仔”？ - 萨德借用“监狱操场法则”：当你第一次走进重刑犯放风的操场，所有人都在打量你，看你会被欺凌沦为别人的玩物，还是一个令人胆寒的狠角色；你在最初一两个小时展现的气场决定了你往后的处境。萨德直言：“我宁愿让特朗普来管理我所在的监狱操场，也不要那个狂笑的卡玛拉。” ### [02:51:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10280s) 客观剖析特朗普的道德短板与不忠巴特利特向萨德澄清，自己之所以层层追问，一方面是为了在多方观点交锋中形成自己的判断，另一方面也是为了在对话中代表另一方立场，平衡萨德对哈里斯的强烈偏见。巴特利特再次追问萨德：“在特朗普身上，难道你就找不出任何公认恶劣的品格缺陷吗？” 萨德随即坦然给出了严肃的负面批评： - **两性忠诚与自律缺失**：萨德回忆起巴特利特曾提及身边有三类朋友，其中一类有病态出轨的恶习；萨德坚信，特朗普极大概率就是这种“出轨大军”的领头人。 - **高位者的品德考验**：萨德认为，许多处于社会顶层的高地位男性天然能够接触到无数年轻美貌的女性，此时真正检验一个人品格与道德高度的，正是能否拥有克制欲望、忠诚守护妻子的自控力。作为看重婚姻忠诚的传统道德主义者，萨德极度鄙视在私德上的背叛，并明确指出特朗普显然缺乏这种自控品德。巴特利特对萨德能直言特朗普的弱点表示欣慰。巴特利特感慨，在如今的政治极化环境中，许多持有强烈党派立场的人往往彻底丧失客观性，完全说不出自己支持的候选人有任何缺点，这正是萨德在书中所警惕的“寄生心智病毒”（parasitic mind virus）。萨德对此百分之百认同，并进一步总结道，特朗普绝不是一个具备最高道德情操的圣人，支持他只是基于特定危机应对和生存博弈下的现实选择。 ### [02:52:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10359s) 现实政治的抉择与被忽略的幸福要素：社交连结在谈及政治领导人时，加德·萨阿德（Gad Saad）坦言自己受到一套极其严苛的个人行为准则驱动，而他敢打赌唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump）根本沾不上这些标准。但现实世界中并没有弥赛亚般的完美人物，“那是耶稣才具备的”。面对现实中的两难选项，萨阿德表示自己宁愿选择那个让对手心存忌惮的人，而特朗普在国际舞台上显然比哈里斯（被其戏称为“打哈哈的那位 / The Cackler”）更具威慑力。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）表示理解，并认为任何选项都兼具缺陷与利弊。随后，主持人询问整场对谈中是否有最重要却未曾展开的话题。萨阿德毫不犹豫地指出，那是“社交连结（social connections）”的重要性。在他关于幸福的著作中曾深入探讨过这一议题：研究表明，一个人在长期维度上的健康状况，其最佳预测指标并非 50 岁时的胆固醇指标，而是其社会人际关系的质量。人是一种社会性物种，无论是在严肃的播客节目中展开深层次对话，还是在酒吧里和旁人为了“曼城与曼联究竟谁更强”争得面红耳赤，真正具有意义的互动都是不可或缺的。走出家门、阅读受教、与真实的人群建立深厚纽带，正是通往幸福人生的根本支柱。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 幸福与长期健康的关键驱动因素 accDescr: 展示相比于生理胆固醇指标，深层社交关系对人类长期幸福与健康的决定性作用。 subgraph HealthPredictor["长期健康预测指标对比"] A["50 岁时的胆固醇分数 （生理生化指标）"] -.->|预测力度较弱| C["长期健康与幸福感"] B["高质量的社交关系纽带 （深层连结 / 共同体）"] -->|更强预测效力| C end subgraph DailyConnection["日常社会性连结形式"] D["严肃思想对话与观点碰撞"] --> B E["日常市井互动 （如酒吧足球争论）"] --> B end ``` --- ### [02:54:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10443s) 最后一棒的提问：“纯洁泡沫”与母亲的箴言按照节目的收尾传统，上一位匿名嘉宾为萨阿德留下了一个问题：“请讲一件别人生前或曾经对你说过的、无论是正面还是负面的话，它深深烙印在你的脑海中，并且至今仍影响着你？”萨阿德惊叹这是一个极具深度的问题，并且在主持人念出题目的那一刻，答案便已在脑海中浮现。这段回忆可以追溯到大约三十年前。萨阿德的母亲曾对他说：“加德，你最好趁早明白，这个世界并不会顺应你的‘纯洁泡沫’（purity bubble）运转。你越早认清这一点，你就会越快乐。”萨阿德感叹这是他听过最深刻的一句话。由于自己内心严苛的行为准则，他长期处于一种“适应不良的完美主义”和“道德洁癖（moral scrupulosity）”之中，幻想世界应当清澈无暇——人人不应虚伪、不应欺诈，你若以礼相待，他人理应投桃报李。然而，现实往往丑陋且混乱。一旦抱持着不切实际的纯洁预期，就注定会屡屡遭遇失望。萨阿德举例说，当有陌生人走上前占用他陪伴孩子的整整 25 分钟时间，对方离开后，他会在妻子面前生上整整 10 分钟的闷气，因为按照他自己的标准，他绝不敢在别人陪伴家庭时如此冒犯。他坦言，如果自己能够真正内化母亲当年的告诫、降低对外部世界的预期，或许就不会如此频繁地对周围的人感到失望。史蒂文深有同感地补充道：“这确实是说来容易做来难，几乎需要当作每天清晨的必修心法来练习。” --- ### [02:56:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10579s) 捍卫真理的代价与思想的共鸣史蒂文由衷地感谢了萨阿德所做的一切学术与公众工作。他评价萨阿德的著作为追求真理的人提供了不可或缺的思想工具，因为这些作品“毫不妥协、充满挑战，且对政治正确完全免疫”。史蒂文特别提到，那些敢于超越政治正确、秉持勇气追求真实想法的人，正是这个时代最不可或缺的力量。在谈及具体著作时，史蒂文指出《幸福的冷酷真相：过上美好生活的 8 个秘诀》（*The Saad Truth About Happiness*）令人受益匪浅，而《寄生思维》（*The Parasitic Mind*）更是一本具有划时代现实意义的重要作品。读懂了这本书，就如同戴上一副全新的透视眼镜，能够看清周遭光怪陆离的世界象态；一旦看透了世界的本质，便能在其不完美之中安顿身心、收获幸福。尽管坚守真理伴随着巨大的个人代价，但这种坚持弥足珍贵。萨阿德对此致以真挚的谢意，并盛赞本次采访是他参与过的成百上千场对话中最出色的访谈之一。 - 史蒂文在尾声介绍了基于节目压轴提问传统衍生制作的《The Diary Of A CEO》对话卡牌第二版（Conversation Cards），卡牌收录了历任嘉宾的问题，并可通过背面二维码扫码观看对应嘉宾的亲口作答。 ## Notable quotes > [02:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=147s) 追求真理与捍卫自由。 — Gad Saad > [08:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=525s) 家庭中存在继父母。 — Gad Saad > [34:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=2093s) 人类是受到性选择和自然选择双重塑造的生物学存在。 — Gad Saad > [59:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3598s) 虽然理解你为何这么选，但这确实是一种性暴力形式 > [01:04:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=3851s) 她明天会给我打电话。 — Dave > [01:33:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5632s) 我该如何戒除色情片？ > [01:37:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=5823s) 知识就是力量 — Gad Saad > [02:43:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9785s) 好主意，用错物种了 — E.O. Wilson > [02:46:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=9980s) 战斗！战斗！ — Donald Trump > [02:54:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA&t=10443s) 加德，你最好趁早明白，这个世界并不会顺应你的‘纯洁泡沫’（purity bubble）运转。你越早认清这一点，你就会越快乐。 — Gad Saad's mother ## Mentioned Gad Saad, Steven Bartlett, The Parasitic Mind, The Saad Truth About Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life, The Evolutionary Basis of Consumption, The Consuming Instinct, Martin Daly, Margo Wilson, Homicide, Ivan Pavlov, William Hamilton, Robin Baker, Sperm Wars, Ignaz Semmelweis, Bill Gates, Barry White, Oprah Winfrey, Lionel Messi, Diego Maradona, Gene Simmons, KISS, Mick Hucknall, Simply Red, Pablo Picasso, Dave Chappelle, Kamala Harris, Frank Sulloway, Jordan Peterson, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Brett Kavanaugh, J. Philippe Rushton, Lia Thomas, Thomas Sowell, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, E.O. Wilson, Mike Pence, Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman, Andrew Huberman, Alex Cooper, Gamal Abdel Nasser, Elon Musk, MacGyver, Born to Rebel, Suicidal Empathy, The Diary Of A CEO, Amazon Mechanical Turk, CVS, FIFA, World Health Organization (WHO), Cardiff, ITV ## Video description Dr Gad Saad is an evolutionary psychologist and Professor of Marketing at Concordia University. He is also the author of books such as, ‘The Parasitic Mind’ and ‘The Saad Truth About Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life’. 00:00 Introduction 02:27 What Drives Your Life Purpose? 05:22 What Does An Evolutionary Behavioural Scientist Do? 08:45 The Top Predictor of Child Abuse in the Home 13:39 The Most Dangerous Person a Woman Can Meet 17:16 Is Cheating Ever Justified? 18:42 Is Monogamy Really Natural? 25:43 Why Do We Care for Our Families? 29:09 Why Do Children Resemble Their Fathers 34:53 What Are Your Most Controversial Beliefs? 38:31 How Much of Human Behaviour Is Driven by Sex? 44:55 What Is a Mate Desirability Score? 53:44 Can We Predict a Couple’s Success? 57:18 What Makes Men and Women Desirable? 59:57 The Confusion Around Masculinity 01:09:10 What It Really Feels Like to Be a Woman 01:13:59 How to Build Self-Awareness 01:20:05 What Exactly Is a Beta Male? 01:21:27 How to Achieve High Status as a Man or Woman 01:23:16 Struggling to Find a Partner? Here's What to Do 01:25:58 Is Porn Good For Us? 01:33:42 How Porn Addiction Affects Productivity 01:37:03 How Society Conflicts with Evolution: Parenting Advice 01:38:34 The Secrets to Living a Happy Life 01:40:44 Do Opposites Attract? 01:48:50 Does Your DNA Determine Happiness? 01:58:43 The Woke Culture 02:04:01 Can Freedom of Speech Be Harmful? 02:24:33 Speaking the Truth in Research Shouldn’t Hurt Others 02:35:26 Is Society Unfair to Certain Groups? 02:39:45 Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome 02:44:58 Would You Vote for Trump? 02:54:06 The Last Guest Question Follow Gad: Instagram - https://g2ul0.app.link/yeRHV44qFMb Twitter - https://g2ul0.app.link/USdfq27qFMb You can purchase Dr Gad’s book, ‘The Saad Truth About Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life’, here: https://amzn.to/3yZaz10 Learn more about the survey mentioned, here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f3YZdPaAg7t3TknwKfuY0OUmb0wt-b2g3_0Ct7HBzVE/edit?usp=sharing Learn more about the book mentioned, here: https://g2ul0.app.link/UwLMyD3OFMb Get access to exclusive Diary of a CEO members content here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGq-a57w-aPwyi3pW7XLiHw/join Get your hands on the brand new Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards here: https://appurl.io/iUUJeYn25v Follow me: https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb Sponsors: Fiverr: https://www.fiverr.com/diary [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g9VX34MSUA)

Source quotes

[2:27] Gad Saad: 追求真理与捍卫自由。 [8:45] Gad Saad: 家庭中存在继父母。 [34:53] Gad Saad: 人类是受到性选择和自然选择双重塑造的生物学存在。 [59:58] 虽然理解你为何这么选，但这确实是一种性暴力形式 [64:11] Dave: 她明天会给我打电话。 [93:52] 我该如何戒除色情片？ [97:03] Gad Saad: 知识就是力量 [163:05] E.O. Wilson: 好主意，用错物种了 [166:20] Donald Trump: 战斗！战斗！ [174:03] Gad Saad's mother: 加德，你最好趁早明白，这个世界并不会顺应你的‘纯洁泡沫’（purity bubble）运转。你越早认清这一点，你就会越快乐。

Source quotes

[99:58] Dr. Gad Saad: Where are the bold men? Dr Gad Saad: A guy who jumps into a building to save a puppy and he's called a fireman—that's what we fantasize about. That's not toxic masculinity, that's masculinity. [90:48] Dr Gad Saad: If once in a while... you decide to incorporate pornography to spice things up, good for you. If you can't get to work on time because you're spending 6 hours feverishly masturbating... then we have a problem. [93:42] How do I quit pornography? [97:03] Dr Gad Saad: Knowledge is power... being aware of the mismatch hypothesis, dear son, will allow you to hopefully not fall as easily into behavioral traps. [126:35] Dr. Gad Saad: In a free society, I have to tolerate racists, imbeciles, falsehood spreaders. I beat them by speaking here, by telling better ideas. [129:56] Dr. Gad Saad: Your feelings are hurt? F*** off. Grow a pair. [158:31] Dr. Gad Saad: No one, I think, with a brain believes in equality of outcome... Equality of outcome says to the extent that we don't have equality of outcome, it must be because of nefarious reasons. [162:27] E.O. Wilson: Great idea, wrong species. [164:58] Gad Saad: I don't think there is a human being who's been a better exemplar of what a honey badger is... Activate your inner honey badger. Why? The honey badger has been determined officially as the fiercest, most ferocious animal in the animal kingdom. [174:03] Gad Saad's mother: Gad, you better learn that the world doesn't abide to your purity bubble. And the quicker that you learn that, the happier you will be.

Original transcript

[0:00] Do you know Steven who is the most [0:02] dangerous individual that a woman will [0:04] ever meet in her life? Her husband. And [0:07] the overwhelming number one reason is [0:10] because of [0:10] Dr. Gadsad is an evolutionary [0:12] psychologist [0:13] renowned for his thoughtprovoking and [0:14] challenging insights into the [0:16] underlining principles [0:17] that shape decision-m relationships and [0:19] societal trends. [0:20] If you think that there is some [0:22] knowledge that should not be pursued [0:24] because it doesn't support your [0:25] ideology, that's a grotesqually [0:27] dangerous principle. So, for example, [0:29] the idea that monogamy is natural is not [0:32] true. Men are much more likely to want [0:34] more sexual partners. That's what's been [0:36] found in many studies across many [0:38] cultures. But the fact that I explained [0:39] why it might make evolutionary sense to [0:41] cheat doesn't mean I'm justifying it. [0:44] But now, here's the interesting part. [0:46] Women too have evolved a very strong [0:49] desire for sexual variety. You know, [0:51] when a woman is most likely to cheat, [0:53] it's when they [0:54] In your book, you talk about a mate [0:56] desiraability score. [0:58] Yes. So usually we end up assorting on [1:00] our mating value, which is taking all of [1:02] our attributes and then saying, "What do [1:04] you score?" So for example, the number [1:06] one attribute that women seek is [1:08] anything that's related to social [1:10] status. Now, it wouldn't be good for an [1:12] 87 to go with a 36. That's going to put [1:15] a huge stressor on our relationship. But [1:17] here's the good news. There are [1:19] effective strategies that could improve [1:21] my score. And let's break them down very [1:22] simply. First, [1:24] Dr. God, what are the ideas that you've [1:27] shared that have got you in the most [1:28] trouble? [1:29] I'm going to get hate mail for this. [1:30] Buckle up. [1:34] This is a sentence I never thought I'd [1:36] say in my life. Um, we've just hit 7 [1:38] million subscribers on YouTube, and I [1:39] want to say a huge thank you to all of [1:41] you that show up here every Monday and [1:43] Thursday to watch our conversations. Um, [1:46] from the bottom of my heart, but also on [1:47] behalf of my team who you don't always [1:49] get to meet. There's almost 50 people [1:51] now behind the D of a CEO that worked to [1:53] put this together. So, from all of us, [1:55] thank you so much. Um, we did a raffle [1:57] last month and we gave away prizes for [1:59] people that subscribed to the show up [2:00] until 7 million subscribers. And you [2:02] guys love that raffle so much that we're [2:04] going to continue it. So, every single [2:07] month we're giving away money can't buy [2:08] prizes, including meetings with me, [2:10] invites to our events, and a,000 gift [2:12] vouchers to anyone that subscribes to [2:14] the D of SEO. There's now more than 7 [2:16] million of you. So, if you make the [2:18] decision to subscribe today, you can be [2:19] one of those lucky people. Thank you [2:21] from the bottom of my heart. Let's get [2:22] to the conversation. [2:27] Dr. Gad Sad, what have you devoted your [2:31] life to? Uh the pursuit of truth and the [2:34] defense of freedoms. [2:36] And what does what does that mean? [2:38] So truth is uh what we hopefully can [2:42] achieve uh through the scientific [2:44] method. Of course, truth is provisional [2:48] in that whatever we might have thought [2:49] was true 300 years ago, we have the [2:52] epistemological humility to say, "Oh, we [2:54] were wrong. There's a new truth." But I [2:56] do wake up every morning thinking that [2:58] there are wonderful things to discover [3:00] about human nature given that I'm an [3:02] evolutionary behavioral scientist. And [3:04] so truth in that sense, [3:06] uh, liberty and freedom in that there [3:09] should be nothing that is off limits for [3:12] people to do research on, to speak out [3:15] on. So for example, you now hear a [3:18] growing intrusion of the concept of [3:20] forbidden knowledge. The idea that [3:22] there's some research that because it [3:25] might offend someone, it might [3:27] marginalize a group, it shouldn't be [3:29] pursued. I don't I don't believe in [3:30] that. So there is no research that is [3:33] off limits. As long as the research that [3:35] you're doing is pursued in an unbiased [3:39] manner pursuant to the scientific [3:41] method. So example, one of the ways that [3:44] you can end your career very quickly as [3:46] a social scientist, if you do any [3:48] research looking at group differences, [3:51] certainly racial differences, don't you [3:53] dare do any research on that. Even sex [3:56] differences is not a good idea. So if [3:58] you do research on sex differences and [4:00] it demonstrates that women are superior [4:02] to men on some task, go ahead, you're a [4:05] hero. Publish it. But if you do research [4:07] that shows that men are superior to [4:10] women on a task, you better file that in [4:13] the drawer and keep your mouth shut [4:14] forever more because we don't want to be [4:16] promulgating sexist patriarchal [4:19] stereotypes. And so as someone who is an [4:21] evolutionary psychologist who [4:23] understands that humans are made up of [4:25] two phenotypes called male and female, [4:29] uh it is expected that there are many [4:31] things on which men and women are the [4:32] same. some things that men do better [4:34] than women, some things that women do [4:36] better than men. It's called evolution. [4:37] It's called biology. Well, one of the [4:39] things where I first began seeing how [4:42] idiotic otherwise very intelligent [4:44] people can be called professors is in [4:47] the negation of what I said right now, [4:49] which is just admitting that there are [4:52] innate and evolved sex differences is a [4:57] dreadful thing to say in the social [4:58] sciences. And so that's how I first had [5:01] a kind of Eureka moment. Houston, we [5:04] have a problem. How could it be that [5:06] these educated, sophisticated professors [5:09] could negate something that on average a [5:12] 3-day old newborn pigeon should be able [5:14] to recognize? And so that's what that's [5:16] what sent me on my journey to eventually [5:19] write the parasitic mind 30 plus years [5:21] ago. [5:22] So what is an evolutionary behavior [5:25] scientist? [5:25] Right. Great question. So [5:28] you can study behavior in many ways. So [5:30] for example, behaviorism which was [5:33] something that was developed in the [5:34] 1930s argued that everything that we do [5:37] is as a result of stimulus and response. [5:40] So for example, Pavlovian conditioning [5:42] is a form of behaviorism. Right? You [5:45] associate a unconditioned response, [5:48] something that you already innately [5:50] have. The dog salivates when he sees [5:52] food. And now you condition him to if [5:55] they hear the bell to associate that [5:58] with the food. And now when I just ring [6:00] the bell, he will salivate. And so the [6:03] behaviorists of you know 70, 80, 100 [6:06] years ago argued that all learning was [6:09] due to behaviorism. So there are many [6:11] different schools of thought when it [6:13] comes to what is the best framework for [6:15] studying human behavior. An evolutionary [6:18] behavioral scientist argues that you [6:21] can't study human behavior if you don't [6:24] root the framework of how you're going [6:26] to tackle this in an understanding of [6:28] how evolution would have shaped the [6:31] human mind. Now, this should sound as [6:34] blatantly obvious, but again, for social [6:36] scientists, that's Nazi talk because [6:39] social scientists believe that evolution [6:42] applies to every single species on Earth [6:45] except one called human beings. [6:48] Or if they believe that evolution [6:50] applies to humans, it applies to explain [6:54] why we have opposable thumbs. It applies [6:57] to explain why we've evolved the [6:59] respiratory system that we have. But [7:01] don't you dare explain something above [7:04] the neck called the human mind using [7:06] evolution. I'm speaking now as those [7:08] folks. They argue that we are cultural [7:11] animals. We transcend our biology. So [7:13] all that an evolutionary behavioral [7:15] scientist does is whatever he or she is [7:18] studying, they try to look for the [7:20] ultimate Darwinian signatures. I'm going [7:22] to give you two examples. This is from [7:24] uh a book called Homicide by uh Martin [7:28] Daly and Marggo Margot Wilson. a husband [7:30] and wife team who are two of the [7:32] pioneers of evolutionary psychology. I [7:34] first read that book as a first semester [7:36] doctoral student at Cornell where it it [7:40] was an advanced social psychology [7:42] course. About halfway through the [7:43] semester, the professor, his name was [7:45] Professor Dennis Regan, assigned this [7:47] book to us. What they did in the book is [7:49] apply an evolutionary framework to study [7:52] patterns of criminality. And in a second [7:55] now, I'll I'll unpack what that means. [7:58] So there are certain patterns of crime [8:01] that happen in exactly the same way for [8:04] the exact same reasons irrespective of [8:07] which culture it happens in and [8:09] irrespective of time period. So it [8:11] certainly can't be due to cultural [8:14] factors. It can't be to era factors [8:16] because it transcends all those things. [8:18] So let me give you two examples from the [8:19] book and that was actually my Eureka [8:22] moment where I decided ah I will now [8:24] take this evolutionary framework and [8:26] apply it to consumer psychology to [8:28] psychology of decision-m which [8:30] eventually is the field that I founded. [8:32] So, two examples. Example one, and [8:36] forgive me if I put you on the spot. [8:37] It's it's it's worthwhile to [8:39] what do you think is the number one [8:41] predictor of there being child abuse in [8:45] a home? [8:47] An absent [8:49] parent. [8:50] Okay. Very, very reasonable answer. And [8:53] so, usually in lecture one, when I'm [8:55] teaching an evolution psychology course, [8:56] I'll ask this question. I'll start [8:57] putting all the students answers. And [9:00] they're all reasonable answers. If there [9:02] is alcoholism in the home, if one of the [9:05] parents had been abused in their past so [9:07] that they they they mimic that behavior [9:10] onto their children. Then all [9:12] reasonable. Well, what if I and by the [9:14] way, no one guesses what the real answer [9:16] is. So then I say, well, guess what [9:17] guys, you just listed 25 reasonable [9:20] predictors. The number one predictor is [9:24] hundfold more predictive than anything [9:27] that's on that board. I've lectured this [9:30] a million times. I'm getting goosebumps [9:31] telling it to you right now. So, let me [9:34] explain what a 100fold means. In [9:36] science, when let's say you have I want [9:38] to check the efficacy of a drug, and I [9:41] want to compare it to a placebo, a sugar [9:44] pill. Well, if it has a 1.2 odds ratio, [9:48] meaning it's 20% more effective. So, [9:50] it's 1 to 1.2, that would be a big [9:52] effect. 1 to 1.2. What I'm saying is 1 [9:56] to 100. So it is astronomically greater [10:00] effect than anything we would typically [10:02] publish in science. Well the number one [10:03] reasons Stephen I've kept you in [10:05] suspense long enough is if there is a [10:07] steparent in the family. So there's a [10:11] 100fold increase in child abuse if the [10:15] home is not made up of two biological [10:17] parents. This is why the fable of [10:20] Cinderella is such a universal fable [10:23] because it speaks to an evolutionary [10:25] principle. the nasty uh uh stepmother is [10:31] only differentially nasty to her [10:33] stepdaughter. She's actually very very [10:35] nice to her two biological daughters. So [10:39] now you would say, well, what would be [10:40] the evolutionary explanation for that? [10:42] Well, we know in many many species where [10:44] you have very high parental investment, [10:47] say for example in lion prides, lions [10:51] are the only feline group where they're [10:54] a social group. Most other uh felines [10:57] are solitary that the only thing that [10:58] the male does is the copulatory act and [11:01] then there's not then he's off. Well, in [11:03] lion pride, the males do invest heavily [11:06] in their children. What ends up [11:07] happening is there's two or three [11:09] dominant males within a pride and they [11:12] kick out all the young males that are [11:14] now coming up so that there's all these [11:18] frustrated young males in the savannah [11:20] that are now looking to take over a [11:22] pride. They will challenge the two three [11:24] dominant males and for a very long time [11:26] those older males will rebuff the [11:29] attacks. But father time eventually [11:32] catch up to you and you're left with two [11:34] choices as the dominant male. You either [11:36] leave and you end up, you know, having a [11:40] slow death out alone in the wilderness [11:42] or they will kill you. Now when the new [11:45] incoming lions come in, do you know [11:47] what's the first thing they do? First on [11:49] the agenda list, first thing they do is [11:51] what? [11:52] They attack the kids. [11:53] Exactly. They kill off in a complete [11:56] systematic infanticide, genocide every [12:00] single cub who by definition could not [12:03] have been sired by them. Why? Because [12:05] I'm going to spend a lot of energy and [12:08] resources investing because we are a by [12:11] parental species as a lion pride. I [12:13] don't want I don't want to be investing [12:15] in another male's cubs. Therefore, I now [12:18] paradoxically, incredibly, [12:21] after the females put up a big fight to [12:23] try to stop those new incoming males, [12:26] they end up losing the fight. First [12:28] thing that happens after is the females [12:31] go into estrus, meaning they become [12:34] sexually receptive to the new males. So, [12:36] I joke with my students in the human [12:39] context, you put on Barry White music to [12:41] get the ladies interested. You buy a [12:44] beautiful gift, you pay attention. You [12:46] want to get the lady's attention in p in [12:48] lion price society, kill her children. [12:51] So that's one example of how we've [12:53] evolved the calculus in our brains to [12:56] not feel as happy investing in other ch [12:59] not in other children than our own. Now [13:01] the next thing that ends up happening is [13:03] some student will say, "Oh, but does [13:06] that mean you are justifying through [13:08] science [13:10] child abuse?" And of course the answer [13:12] is no. Right? An oncologist studies [13:14] cancer. That doesn't mean he or she is [13:17] for cancer. That doesn't mean they are [13:19] pro- cancer. It means that if you want [13:20] to understand cancer, you have to study [13:23] it honestly. So if you want to tackle [13:26] child abuse and you now know that that [13:29] step parenthood is the biggest [13:31] predictor. That's that's a valuable [13:33] tidbit to have. So that's example one. [13:36] Example two. [13:38] Do you know Stephen who is by far the [13:41] most dangerous individual that a woman [13:44] will ever meet in her life? Whether it's [13:46] the Yanomo tribe in the Amazon, whether [13:49] it's the Hata tribe in Central Africa, [13:51] whether it's in ancient Greece 2,000 [13:53] years ago, or whether it's in Detroit, [13:55] Michigan 2,000 years from now, who is [13:57] the most dangerous person by far that [14:00] you will ever meet? [14:02] Um, [14:05] let me think about this. who's the most [14:07] dangerous person she will ever meet [14:12] by orders of magnitude more than anybody [14:14] else. And the minute that I'll say it, [14:16] you'll go, "Oh, no kidding." But the [14:19] fact that you don't exactly demonstrates [14:22] my point. And that's why evolution is so [14:24] important. [14:26] I think the most dangerous person she [14:28] will ever meet is [14:32] a another [14:37] You're already off. [14:38] Okay. I don't know. [14:39] Her husband. [14:40] I was going to say [14:43] there you go. [14:43] I was very close cuz my brain went her [14:45] my brain went her future husband, [14:47] right? [14:48] Because I was thinking in the in the [14:49] courtship process, that's quite [14:51] dangerous. [14:52] So whether it be her long-term partner [14:55] or prospective long-term partner, right? [14:58] So to your point, [15:00] a husband is the most dangerous. And [15:02] then the overwhelming number one reason [15:05] that might drive him to domestic [15:09] violence all the way to homicide [15:11] is suspected or realized infidelity. [15:15] Okay. [15:16] I'm a true crime addict and se the stat [15:20] is always in these true crime shows that [15:22] about I think it's 70% of the time when [15:24] a woman is goes missing was murdered [15:26] it's the husband. [15:28] Exactly. [15:28] Something crazy like that. [15:29] Exactly. Now, sometimes in those shows, [15:31] it's because I want to get rid of my [15:34] current wife so I can run off with [15:36] another one. Yeah. But notwithstanding [15:38] that potential effect, usually when I go [15:41] into homicidal rage, it's because I I'm [15:45] concerned that either you have cheated [15:46] on me or you actually I I have proof [15:48] that you have cheated on me. So then the [15:50] question becomes, why have human males [15:53] evolved the cognitive, emotional, and [15:56] behavioral repertoire to respond in this [15:59] way? Again, you're not justifying it. [16:00] You're not saying, "Oh, if I give you [16:01] the scientific explanation, that means [16:03] it's okay to beat women." But the reason [16:06] is because we are a by parental species. [16:08] Human dads are extraordinary dads in the [16:11] mamleian context. We're by far one of [16:14] the most vested dads. Well, now we don't [16:16] invest as much as human females, but we [16:19] are really super dads. So therefore your [16:22] ancestors and mine Stephen male [16:24] ancestors don't come from a line where [16:27] they said hey don't worry ladies have [16:30] have at it with the sexy gardener as [16:31] much as you'd like because I'd be happy [16:33] to then spend the next 18 years raising [16:36] go kids. And therefore we've evolved [16:39] that system to try to thwart a [16:42] fundamental danger to our genetic [16:44] interest which is paternity uncertainty. [16:47] There is no such thing as maternity [16:48] uncertainty. Right. [16:49] Mhm. So when I read that book [16:53] with such complicated phenomena that are [16:56] explained so elegantly, so [16:59] parsimmoniously, so simply so that you [17:02] go, yeah, that makes perfect sense. That [17:04] was my Eureka moment. And so [17:06] evolutionary behavioral science is [17:07] exactly what I just described the last 5 [17:09] 10 minutes, which is taking the [17:11] evolutionary biological and evolutionary [17:13] psychological lens to study human [17:15] phenomena. Before we get back to talking [17:18] more broadly, just came to mind that [17:20] with that context in mind then cheating [17:22] is justifiable. [17:24] Cheating in a romantic relationship. [17:27] So it depends what you when you say [17:29] justifiable, you're falling into the [17:31] trap of if you explain it [17:33] scientifically, it's okay. We also have [17:34] a moral compass that's due to an [17:36] evolutionary mechanism. So, one of the [17:39] difficulties of life is how to navigate [17:42] through the Darwinian strings that are [17:44] pulling me in different directions. [17:45] Right? I've evolved a desire to gorge on [17:50] fatty foods. But if I do that in an [17:52] unrestrained manner, I become a sumo [17:54] wrestler and I die of heart disease at [17:56] 42. So, I've also evolved the mechanism [17:59] of self-control. So, the fact that I [18:01] explain why it might make evolutionary [18:03] sense to cheat doesn't mean I'm [18:05] justifying it. [18:06] Yeah. No. And I I think this is really [18:08] important because we have to give people [18:09] a toolkit to think about this [18:11] conversation [18:12] so that they don't assume that [18:13] everything that's being said is an [18:15] endorsement of the thing. It's just an [18:18] explanation of the thing through the [18:19] lens of evolution. And two very And you [18:21] know what? Some people can't do that. [18:23] Some people get so triggered by [18:25] Most people are called my colleagues. [18:27] Oh, really? Yeah. [18:28] That's right. [18:29] So, I just hope everyone listening now [18:30] knows that everything here isn't an [18:31] endorsement of a thing. It's an [18:32] evolutionary explanation for a thing. [18:34] And you know, I'm sure we're both full [18:36] of biases, so nothing is ever that pure. [18:38] But but we'll try and just hope that [18:40] from here on out people understand that. [18:42] When I ask that question about cheating, [18:43] what I'm trying to understand is through [18:45] an evolutionary perspective, is monogamy [18:47] a normal thing? [18:49] I'm off and running for the next 10 [18:51] minutes. You ready? [18:52] I'm I'm ready. Let me let me give a [18:54] little bit of context. So, I've got a [18:56] lot of male friends and I see in all [18:59] honesty the full spectrum of [19:03] relationships. I've got and this is kind [19:05] of how I'll describe it. I've got a [19:06] cohort of male friends that are [19:07] absolutely faithful, in great [19:09] relationships, um committed to their [19:11] partners, and have exercised what I I [19:14] assume is a form of discipline to not go [19:17] after any temptations that they might [19:18] have. Love that group of friends. Great. [19:20] Have this middle group of friends that [19:21] are struggling with all kinds of forces. [19:23] everything from pornography to um to to [19:27] to maybe dabbling. And then I have this [19:29] other group of friends who I would [19:30] categorize as the cheaters who cheat [19:33] almost uncontrollably [19:36] on their partners uncontrollably. And [19:39] this is the spectrum of friends here is [19:41] about 20 people. Now I look at that [19:43] group of friends and I go who is right? [19:46] Because morally I can say the ones over [19:48] here are hurting people. The cheaters [19:49] are hurting people you know especially [19:51] if they they're found in what they're [19:52] doing. But who is right from an [19:54] evolutionary perspective? [19:55] Well, they all are in a sense in that we [19:58] all have the desire to stray, but we [20:01] don't necessarily instantiate that [20:03] desire through overt behavior. [20:05] Men and women. [20:05] Men. Yeah. So, that's very good. So, [20:08] usually if I were to say, oh, men have [20:11] evolved a desire for sexual variety, [20:14] most people, even if they know nothing [20:16] about evolution, would say, yeah, that [20:17] that makes sense. But now, here's the [20:19] interesting part. Women too have evolved [20:23] a very strong desire for sexual variety. [20:26] Now, not to the same degree as men. So, [20:29] there have been studies that have been [20:30] conducted across a bewildering number of [20:33] cultures. And in every culture that's [20:35] been documented, men are much more [20:37] likely to want more sexual partners and [20:40] so on. But that doesn't mean that women [20:42] are Victorian chased prudes. So now let [20:46] me give you multiple lines of evidence [20:49] that suggests that women are hardly the [20:51] Victorian prudes that we might otherwise [20:54] wish they were in a Victorian novel. [20:57] You know when a woman is most likely to [21:00] cheat situationally. [21:01] I know cuz I've read your work. So [21:03] Okay. F. Okay. So So I'll say it or do [21:05] you want to say it? [21:06] Well, it's when they're maximally [21:07] fertile, isn't it? [21:08] Very good. You've done your homework. So [21:09] when they are maximally fertile is when [21:11] they're most likely to stray. Now, that [21:13] strategy, by the way, and and they're [21:15] less likely to insist on contraception. [21:17] You would think that if I'm cheating [21:19] outside my marriage, I'm I'm speaking as [21:21] a woman now. If I'm cheating outside my [21:24] marriage, I would want to increase the [21:26] likelihood of wearing I mean using [21:29] protection because I don't want to be [21:30] pregnant. But if the strategy for why [21:32] I'm cheating is because I'm shopping for [21:35] superior jeans, then it becomes [21:37] incumbent that I don't use protection. [21:39] Right? So you seldom have a woman who [21:43] will cheat with a guy who has who is of [21:48] lower phenotypic quality, genetic [21:50] quality. So I I would love to have Bill [21:53] Gates as home as my long-term partner, [21:55] but then I want the male Olympic swimmer [21:58] as the guy behind the bushes. Now, if I [22:01] can convince Bill Gates that the Olympic [22:04] male swimmer actually looks a lot like [22:06] Bill Gates and it's really your sweetie. [22:08] It's you, Billy. you're the one who then [22:10] I I won the as a woman I've won the [22:12] genetic uh lottery game. Okay. So, it's [22:16] not that women are not interested in [22:18] sexual variet. So, that's one. Here's [22:19] another one. [22:21] If you map out, this is from studies. I [22:24] think it was in the early8s. I don't [22:26] have the exact reference, but it's easy [22:27] to find. [22:28] Sorry. Just in your work, you say that [22:29] women are more likely to cheat with [22:30] someone who has good genetic stock. [22:32] Yeah. [22:33] Is Bill Gates not got good genetic stock [22:35] cuz he's rich and smart? [22:37] So, yes. So the intelligence element is [22:39] yes. Maybe the drive element is yes. But [22:42] the phenotype is a no. I mean what's the [22:45] phenotype? [22:45] Phenotype is your physical [22:47] manifestation. Right? So if I say I want [22:51] a guy who is tall, who has a V, uh who's [22:55] got testosterone jawline, right? I mean, [22:58] I don't usually, if I'm a woman, I don't [23:01] in my uh uh deep recesses of my mind [23:04] fantasized about being ravished by Bill [23:07] Gates. [23:08] Do I? [23:08] Are those physical features just [23:10] pointing at the fact that this person [23:11] can provide for me? [23:13] Absolutely. I mean, and you're saying, [23:15] "But Bill Gates already provides." [23:17] Yeah. But it's this also what's called [23:18] the sexy son hypothesis. Bill Gates will [23:22] not produce I mean he'll produce kids [23:24] who potentially to the extent that [23:25] intelligence is heritable will give me [23:27] intelligent kids but he won't give me uh [23:30] the kids that are Bronny right and of [23:32] course some of us are lucky to have both [23:34] Bronn and brains but that's a rare kind [23:38] compliment thank you [23:39] now imagine if I were 4 in taller then I [23:43] mean that's it I would be crowned [23:44] emperor no but in all seriousness both [23:47] men and women are very duplicitous in [23:49] their sexual behior behavior. So the [23:51] idea that monogamy is natural is not [23:53] true. Now it is natural in that about [23:56] 85% of documented cultures have monogamy [24:00] as an institutional mechanism because [24:02] we're a biparental species and almost [24:04] all the other ones are have what's [24:07] called polygyny which is a term not to [24:10] be confused with polygamy. So I'm going [24:11] to do a little parenthesis and I'm going [24:13] to come back to the lines of evidence [24:15] that proves that women like sexual [24:17] variety as well. So polygamy just means [24:20] one to many. People use it as synonymous [24:24] with one man, multiple women. But that's [24:27] not what polygamy is. Polygamy is one to [24:29] many, which can take two forms. It could [24:32] be one man, multiple women, which is [24:34] called polygyny. Or it could be one [24:37] woman, multiple men, which is called [24:40] polyandry. There are almost no societies [24:44] where institutionally we have polyandry [24:49] because it wouldn't make evolutionary [24:50] sense for that mating system to arise. [24:53] The only famous case of polyandri is [24:57] called Tibetan [24:59] uh fraternal polyandri. So the word [25:01] fraternal means that to the extent that [25:04] there are ecological reasons why we have [25:06] to tolerate one woman going with [25:08] multiple guys, it'll be brothers. And [25:11] the reason for that is because of a [25:13] mechanism called inclusive fitness which [25:15] is that I can increase my reproductive [25:18] fitness through direct reproduction. I [25:22] have children and therefore they will [25:24] share half my genes but I can also [25:26] invest in the children of my siblings [25:29] who share also genes with me and I could [25:32] still be increasing my inclusive [25:33] fitness. So therefore, polyandry need [25:36] not be a Darwinian dead end because I'm [25:39] still extending my genes even in in such [25:42] a system. [25:43] So is this why I take care of my [25:44] brother's kids in part because that my [25:47] nieces and nephews are [25:48] 100%. As a matter of fact, I've done [25:50] several scientific studies where I [25:52] exactly do these kinds of tests where I [25:54] look at [25:58] what is the pattern of investment in [26:00] different family members as a function [26:03] of their genetic relatedness to me. So R [26:06] is something called the coefficient of [26:09] genetic relatedness. So me and my [26:12] brother are R is.5. Me and my identical [26:16] twin our R is one. Me and a random [26:19] stranger are R0. Me and my nephews and [26:22] nieces 0.25. Me and my parents 0.5. Me [26:26] and my grandparents 0.25. Okay. [26:28] So we wanted to test whether the pattern [26:31] of investments in this case through gift [26:34] giving whether they correlate to the [26:37] genetic relatedness between the giver [26:39] and recipient. And as you might expect [26:42] intuitively, even if you're not a fancy [26:44] evolutionary psychologist, the greater [26:46] the genetic relatedness, the larger the [26:48] size of gift. I'm much more likely to [26:50] give a bigger gift at my brother's [26:52] wedding than I am to my second cousin. [26:55] Okay? And so we've evolved this calculus [26:57] that allows us to met out these [27:00] investments in line with our genetic [27:01] rel, by the way, you see across [27:03] countless animal species. the likelihood [27:05] of you coming out of your borro to [27:07] protect people who are in the borro [27:09] increases if whoever is in the borro has [27:11] greater genetic relatedness to you. So [27:13] the other part in the 2018 paper that's [27:16] going to blow your mind because that one [27:18] you wouldn't intuitively have expected [27:20] it. The the first finding you say yeah [27:22] it makes sense I give more gifts to my [27:24] brother than to my third cousin. So we [27:27] wanted to check whether at an actual [27:29] Israeli wedding because they had data [27:32] from actual 30 I think it was 30 [27:34] weddings. So they had field data. They [27:37] had the data of all of the uh attendees [27:41] and the gifts that they gave. Uh Uncle [27:43] Morai gave $180. Rafika gave. Okay. So [27:48] what we wanted to test is whether the [27:51] mother's side or the father's side of [27:54] the bride and groom across all genetic [27:57] relatedness coefficients which side [27:59] would give more. Now in the Middle East [28:01] it's a patriarchal society but [28:03] evolutionary theory would predict [28:05] something differently and let me explain [28:07] why. So take for example your four [28:09] grandparents. Okay there's maternal [28:11] grandmother, maternal grandfather, [28:13] paternal grandmother, paternal [28:14] grandfather. In terms of the genetic [28:17] relatedness, they're each equally [28:19] genetically related to you. 0.25 quarter [28:22] of their genes they share with you. But [28:24] here's the second part. Genetic [28:26] assuredness is not the same across the [28:29] four. Your paternal grandfather has two [28:32] layers of paternity uncertainty. [28:36] Your maternal grandmother has zero [28:39] generational paternal paternity [28:42] uncertainty because there is no [28:43] maternity uncertainty. So therefore, you [28:46] would predict that the paternal [28:47] grandfather would invest the least in [28:49] his grandchildren, the maternal [28:51] grandmother would invest the most, and [28:53] the two other grandparents in the [28:54] middle. That's what's been found in many [28:56] studies across many cultures. [28:57] You might have to explain paternity [28:59] uncertainty. [28:59] Paternity uncertainty means that when a [29:01] child is born, you never know that he is [29:04] your child, right? Uh you the mother [29:06] always know that it's her child. She had [29:08] the child, right? So we wanted to test [29:11] whether the mother's side of both the [29:14] bride and groom would give greater gifts [29:16] than the father's side precisely because [29:18] there is no such thing as maternity [29:20] uncertainty but there is such a thing as [29:22] paternity uncertainty and that's exactly [29:23] what we found. [29:24] So the women's family gave more [29:26] presence. [29:26] Exactly. [29:27] Okay. [29:27] Yeah. Thank you for summarizing that [29:29] long rant. [29:29] But and why why again just to clarify [29:31] why that is because they're trying to [29:33] make sure that the male is invested. No, [29:35] there because the mother's side is [29:38] simply more vested in investing in the [29:42] in either the bride or groom because [29:44] they know that that is their infant. [29:47] Yeah. Because there's no uncertainty. [29:48] There's no uncertainty. You got it. [29:50] Okay. So, now can we close the loop on [29:52] the sexual variety? So, so far I said [29:54] that uh there's definitely evidence that [29:57] women also have a sexual variety pension [29:59] by virtue of them cheating more when [30:01] they are maximally fertile with they and [30:04] not insisting on uh contraception and [30:06] all that. Here's another one. You do a [30:09] mapping of across primates. So, here [30:13] come the bonobos, here come mountain [30:15] gorillas, here come chimpanzees, here [30:17] comes humans. So you put all the [30:18] primates and you do a uh calculation of [30:23] the size of the testes of the males in [30:27] that species as a function of female [30:31] sexual promiscuity in that species. Are [30:34] you with me? [30:34] Yes. [30:35] So mountain gorillas [30:38] phenomenal beasts 450 lbs some of the [30:41] most majestic males. They have a [30:45] territorial they they have a polygenous [30:47] arrangement. There is one male dominant [30:50] male that controls control to sexual [30:53] access to many females. So based on what [30:56] I just said, can you predict what the [30:58] size of their testes are? [30:59] They can have small testes. [31:01] Yes. Because there isn't sperm war [31:04] competition. Therefore, imagine how [31:07] unbelievable it is that a fundamental [31:11] male morphological attribute, the size [31:15] of your testes, is an adaptive response [31:18] to a female behavior in that species. [31:21] Greater female promiscuity in that [31:24] species, bigger testicles. So, mountain [31:26] gorillas, very small testicles. Okay? [31:30] Chimpanzees are just walking testicles. [31:33] Their bodies just exist to support [31:36] massive testes. Why? Because in chimp [31:40] society, we say hello sex. We say [31:42] goodbye sex. We fight sex, postfight [31:46] sex. So there is constant sex happening [31:49] so that the same female [31:52] is being impregnated by multiple males. [31:55] So the way that I fight against that is [31:57] by developing bigger testes because then [32:00] there are mechanisms where having bigger [32:02] testes solves that problem. So now here [32:06] comes Robin Baker actually a British [32:09] scientist who wrote a book called Sperm [32:11] Wars where he argued in his book some [32:14] have said it's contentious others said [32:16] that it's tight that the morphology of [32:20] human sperm [32:21] the makeup of it [32:22] the makeup of it is not simply the [32:26] standard one that we're all used to [32:28] seeing which is there is a head with a [32:30] tail and they're all rushing to that [32:33] mythical egg. Those are called [32:35] fertilizers. He demonstrated in his [32:38] research that there are two other types [32:40] of sperm phenotypes within a man's [32:45] ejaculate. There are the blockers that [32:48] don't look like the fertilizer and [32:50] defense. [32:50] Defense. Very good. And then there are [32:53] the killers. [32:54] Oh, [32:55] that go around hunting other men's [32:58] sperm. Now, let's put it all together. [33:02] sperm is viable within the reproductive [33:06] a woman's reproductive tract for about [33:08] 72 hours. Therefore, [33:11] for men to have evolved, the chemical [33:14] weaponry to have blockers and killers [33:18] means that in our ancestral past, the [33:22] likelihood of women having been with [33:25] more than one man within a 72-hour [33:28] period, whether willfully or through [33:30] aggression, would have been high. [33:33] Therefore, that's why you evolve that [33:34] response. Now, here is where you can see [33:37] what happens with ideology and therefore [33:40] how why I wrote parasitic mind. When I [33:43] lecture this in front of radical [33:45] feminists, they'll come up, Dr. Sad, [33:49] you're such a brilliant scientist. Why? [33:51] Because the research that I just [33:52] described demonstrates that women could [33:56] be just as sexually ver voracious as men [34:00] and that they've evolved a desire also [34:02] for, you know, a sexual appetite that [34:05] corresponds with my women's studies and [34:08] radical feminism classes. Therefore, [34:10] when from this side of my mouth I say [34:13] something that supports their ideology, [34:16] I become a hero. If from this side of my [34:19] mouth I say, "Oh, but incidentally [34:21] across cultures, it's been studied [34:23] across many many cultures. Men do have [34:26] much greater desire for sexual variety." [34:30] Boo. So I can either go from hero to [34:33] zero depending on whether what I just [34:36] said supports your ideology or not. [34:40] That's not how you adjudicate science. [34:42] Science truth exists independently of [34:46] whether it supports your ideology or [34:48] not. Hence eventually the parasitic mind [34:50] because you're parasitized by bad [34:52] ideologies. [34:53] What are what are the ideas that you've [34:56] shared that have got you in the most [34:57] trouble? [34:59] So in my scientific work, humans are [35:03] biological beings shaped by the dual [35:06] forces of sexual and natural selection. [35:09] Buazi. Buazi. Okay. I mean people are [35:13] coming around now because the beauty of [35:15] science is that it's autocorrective [35:16] right I mean some of the biggest works [35:20] you you now know that they're the [35:21] biggest work by how much they were [35:23] originally rejected so many Nobel prizes [35:28] the story is always the same scientist [35:31] proposes an idea that is completely [35:34] unorthodox contrary to the prevailing [35:37] whims of accepted science and is [35:40] constantly reed rejected until it's not [35:43] very [35:45] simple example. Probably the thing that [35:48] has saved human beings the most from [35:51] death over the past 100 years. Well, [35:54] it's stuff related to hygiene issues [35:57] because a lot of times you'd have [35:58] childhood mortality because of exposure [36:01] to different pathogens. Well, the [36:03] gentleman who came up with the idea of [36:06] why so often women die during [36:10] childbirth. Do do you know what the [36:12] answer is? [36:13] Um because the doctor's not cleaned his [36:16] hands or [36:17] Yes. Beautiful. Well done, Steve. So, uh [36:20] it's Seml Weiss who was a doctor who [36:23] said, "What's happening here? Why are [36:25] these women getting this post uh natal [36:29] very devastating uh fever and then [36:33] within an a day or two they're gone? And [36:35] so he said, "Oh, wait a second." So the [36:37] the surgeons have just worked on [36:41] cadaavvers. [36:42] What's a cadaavver? [36:43] Uh like a dead dead body. Okay. So like [36:45] let's say they're they're doing forensic [36:47] pathology stuff. Okay. and then they [36:50] move straight to a gynecological [36:53] intervention with the woman. So when he [36:56] said and he did the studies that that [37:00] showed, hey, here are women who we we [37:02] asked the guys to clean or didn't ask [37:04] the guys to clean it and people laughed [37:07] him out of town. He died in a sanitarium [37:09] in a mental institution. He he was [37:11] completely like today we we erect [37:13] statues of him. Right. So, so to answer [37:16] your first point, when I first started [37:18] my career, when I said, "Oh, by the way, [37:20] you can't study consumers without [37:21] understanding their physiology, their [37:23] hormones." What kind of bush is this? [37:25] This is not a biology department. Get a [37:27] grip. You should have you should you [37:28] should not be in the business school. [37:29] So, what do you mean? You think that you [37:31] can you think that when a consumer eats, [37:35] they transcend their biology? It's [37:37] outside of their biology. Well, now a [37:39] lot of them are coming around. So that [37:42] when I first promulgated this idea 30 [37:44] years ago, I was a Nazi. Today it's dear [37:46] Dr. Sad, it would be an honor if you [37:48] come and give the plenary lecture at our [37:50] university. Oh, but what happened 30 [37:51] years ago when I was a bullshitter? [37:53] Well, apparently they caught on. So, so [37:55] in my academic work, the mere fact of [37:58] saying that we're biological beings was [38:00] the most triggering thing. In my public [38:03] engagement work, that's not directly [38:05] related to my science. Well, it's a very [38:08] long list, hence the parasitic mind. But [38:10] certainly when I talk about things [38:13] related, say, to Islam, that doesn't get [38:16] me a lot of Islamic friends, [38:18] unfortunately. [38:19] You're Jewish, aren't you? [38:20] I'm Jewish context. [38:21] Yes, I'm Jewish. [38:22] But but what I say would be true whether [38:24] I was Jewish or whether I was uh [38:26] anything else. [38:28] So, how as an evolutionary behavioral [38:30] scientist, how much of what we do is [38:33] driven by sex and relationships? [38:36] uh I mean so in in my earlier books so [38:40] I'm going to answer it again in a broad [38:41] in a big way uh in my first book which [38:45] is the evolutionary basis of consumption [38:46] and then in the consuming instinct I [38:49] argue that there are four key Darwinian [38:52] mechanisms that drive much of our [38:55] purpose of behavior so that's speaks to [38:57] your point uh there is [39:02] behaviors that are related to natural [39:04] selection or our survival instinct. So, [39:07] for example, the fact that I'm almost [39:09] certain that you and I have a preference [39:12] for some instantiation of a fatty food [39:16] more than raw celery is almost a [39:18] guarantee. Am I right? [39:20] Yes, I agree. Yeah. [39:21] Okay. And I'm I'm willing to bet that [39:23] everybody who's in the studio will will [39:24] also agree. Okay. Now, we may have a [39:27] different preference. So, I I pref I may [39:30] prefer fatty steak. you prefer uh [39:32] chocolate mousse, but we both prefer [39:34] chocolate mousse and steak over raw [39:36] celery. And so there are many [39:39] consumatory acts and preferences that I [39:42] can easily ultimately map to that drive. [39:46] The most obvious of which would be our [39:48] food preferences. Okay. To your direct [39:51] question, then the next module. So that [39:53] first module I call it the survival [39:54] module. The next module called the [39:57] reproductive module. sex to your [40:00] question are all the things that we do [40:02] because they're very much driven by sex [40:04] related issues. So the types of products [40:08] that men and women use as sexual signals [40:12] are astonishingly the same across [40:15] cultures. So for example, [40:18] owners of Ferrari are 99% male. Even [40:22] though there are a million women who [40:25] have the resources to certainly buy a [40:27] Ferrari, yet they don't. Oprah Winfrey [40:30] is not stopped from buying a Ferrari cuz [40:32] she can't afford it. And yet she's not [40:34] doing it. In the human context, fancy [40:37] cars take on the morphological feature [40:40] of the peacock's tail. So all animals [40:44] that are sexually reproducing use sexual [40:46] signals. Humans, given that they're also [40:49] a consumatory animal, will use specific [40:51] products to signal, look at me, I'm [40:54] better than than Stephen. The way that I [40:57] do that is by hopefully demonstrating [40:59] cues that I have higher status than you. [41:01] Okay? [41:02] Now, women will also engage in vigorous [41:05] sexual signaling, but it'll be related [41:07] to things that are beautifification, [41:10] right? So cosmetic surgeries around the [41:13] world are almost exclus [41:17] but it's very very much of a female [41:20] domain and so there are many many [41:22] behaviors whether consumer related or [41:25] not that could be then mapped onto the [41:27] reproductive module to your question. [41:30] Then there are two other modules that I [41:32] hinted at earlier [41:34] when I talked about gift giving. So [41:36] there's the kin selection module. These [41:39] are behaviors that are related to the [41:42] fact of I increase my inclusive fitness [41:47] by investing in my kin. Okay. And then [41:50] there is reciprocal altruism module [41:53] which is why would I ever jump into the [41:56] river? So if I jump into the river to [41:58] save my three children that's skin [42:00] selection because each of my three [42:02] children on average shares 50% of their [42:05] genes with me. So if in the service of [42:08] saving those three kids, I end up dying, [42:10] the evolutionary calculus is totally in [42:11] favor of me dying. Who cares? [42:13] Okay. On the other hand, why would I [42:15] jump into the river to save Stephen? [42:17] First of all, until we met today, you're [42:19] a stranger. Why would I ever save a [42:20] stranger? If you're not a stranger and [42:22] you're a friend, you but you're still [42:24] zero genetic relatedness. So there the [42:26] argument is is that it's due to [42:28] reciprocal altruism and that human [42:30] beings have evolved the mechanism of [42:33] reciprocity to oil our social bonds [42:35] to return a favor [42:36] to return a favor. So so literally the I [42:39] scratch your back, you scratch mine [42:41] literally comes from our primate cousin [42:44] species where you engage in reciprocal [42:47] grooming. So what happens? There are a [42:49] bunch of parasites that are all over my [42:51] fur that I can't get to. And so what I [42:54] do is I come stand and I give you my [42:56] back and you will sit there and pick at [42:58] all of it. Of course the expectation is [43:00] you'll now return the favor. So I [43:02] literally scratch your back and you [43:04] scratch mine. Now where did that [43:06] signature come from originally? One [43:08] argument is that imagine we are walking [43:11] around in the savannah where the most [43:15] common threat that we face life is [43:17] basically two things. I mean other than [43:19] sex, get dinner and make sure you don't [43:22] become somebody's there. [43:24] Mic drop. That's it. That's life. Okay. [43:26] So, one of the problems that we've all [43:29] faced, hence why we've evolved gustatory [43:31] preferences for high calorie foods is [43:32] caloric uncertainty and caloric [43:34] scarcity. We don't have a neighborhood [43:37] store to go buy our food. So, I might [43:40] actually die of starvation. Well, what [43:42] if we mitigate that risk whereby we set [43:44] up an insurance policy with non-kin, [43:48] another group of folks that are also [43:50] walking around Savannah? Hey, next time [43:52] that we bring down the big prey, that's [43:55] 1,000 pounds of meat, we will share with [43:57] you, but hey, you do the right thing and [44:00] reciprocate back to us. So, now you [44:02] might say, okay, well, that's all nice, [44:03] fancy science, but how does that [44:04] manifest itself in in human consumer [44:07] behavior? Well, there are so many [44:09] behaviors that you and I engage in if [44:11] we're friends that are completely rooted [44:13] in that reciprocal module. So, for [44:15] example, when it's your birthday, I call [44:18] you and I invite you out to dinner. I [44:21] expect, unless you're a social cheat, [44:23] that when it's my birthday, you will [44:26] reciprocate. Now, from a strict economic [44:28] perspective, why don't we skip this [44:29] whole charade? I'm going to pay $70 for [44:32] your meal, you're going to pay $70 for [44:34] mine. We're going to end up at the same [44:35] spot. Let's not do it. The reason why we [44:37] have to do it is because that reciprocal [44:39] ritual is what oils our bonds of [44:42] affinity. And so there are many many [44:44] behaviors that we engage in that are [44:47] exactly tailoring that. So to summarize [44:50] much of our behaviors I argue in my [44:52] earlier books could be mapped onto one [44:54] of these four modules. [44:55] And in that earlier book the consuming [44:57] instinct you talk about a mate [44:59] desiraability score [45:01] right? [45:01] What is a mate desiraability score? [45:03] So imagine a car. A car is made up of [45:07] many attributes, right? So the car could [45:10] be what's its gas efficiency? What's the [45:13] strength of its uh uh engine? How well [45:17] does it hug the the the road? What's its [45:21] green? Is it a green car? Or does it [45:23] have bad exhaust? So So a car is a [45:25] multi-attribute product. It's made up of [45:27] many attributes. And then it could be [45:30] that the way that I choose which car I [45:32] pick is the one that scores the best on [45:34] the totality of those attributes. Okay, [45:37] that's called the multi-attribute [45:38] choice. Well, human beings are also [45:41] products made up of many attributes. So, [45:44] in the mating market, you and I, let's [45:47] say we do men now, but of course it [45:48] applies to women, too. There's a bunch [45:51] of attributes that we know that women [45:53] are going to either [45:56] like about us or not like about us. [45:58] Overwhelmingly, by the way, the number [45:59] one universal attribute that women seek [46:02] is anything that's related to social [46:05] status. Right? So, in other words, it [46:08] could be my ambition. It could be my [46:10] assertiveness. It could be my social [46:12] dominance. It could be literally the the [46:14] big diplomas I have behind my back. It [46:17] could be the number of zeros behind in [46:19] my bank. It could be how many cattle [46:21] heads I have if I'm Hadza tribe. But in [46:25] no culture has a woman ever said the [46:28] following. Give me a non assertive beta [46:32] meek man who has pear-shaped hips and a [46:36] nasal voice and I'm turning into a [46:38] sexual frenzied animal. That those words [46:41] have never been uttered in the history [46:43] of humanity. Okay. But what women will [46:46] say by the way it's not that they only [46:48] look for rich guys, right? Because many [46:50] women will be madly in love with the [46:53] starving artist. But the starving artist [46:56] is showing what? [46:57] Ambition. [46:58] Ambition. Assertiveness. There is a [47:01] trajectory of creation that's coming [47:03] around the corner. I'm going to become a [47:05] big rock star. But no, that's why by the [47:08] way if you do uh I I think that study [47:10] has been done where you and actually [47:12] some of my students in one of my classes [47:14] did a similar study for their project. [47:16] Just show a guy, exact same guy in a [47:18] personal ad. He's got a guitar or he [47:20] doesn't have a guitar. Nothing changed. [47:22] It's the exact same guy. It's Stephen. [47:24] But give me a guitar. No. Oh, with the [47:26] guitar, Steven's gorgeous. Without the [47:28] guitar, he's less gorgeous. [47:30] What's the other explanation for that [47:31] that people might jump to? They might [47:32] say, "Well, I like music, so that's why [47:34] I prefer Steven with a guitar and he's [47:36] going to play some songs and I'm going [47:37] to feel good and then I'm going to have [47:38] sex with him." [47:39] So, so that's a very good question. So [47:41] that is the difference between proximate [47:44] explanations and ultimate explanations. [47:47] Much of science operates at the [47:50] approximate level. It explains the how [47:52] and the what of a phenomenon. How does [47:54] diabetes work? What are the factors that [47:57] increase the likelihood of you having [47:58] diabetes? That's perfectly fine. The [48:01] ultimate explanation is the Darwinian [48:03] why. Why would the phenomenon have [48:06] evolved to be of that type? So you could [48:09] say, "I'm just drawn to a guy who knows [48:12] how to play music." You've just [48:14] explained proximate. It's like saying, [48:15] "Why have we evolved to have sex?" [48:18] Because it feels good. That's [48:19] approximate. The ultimate explanation is [48:22] that a sexually reproducing species has [48:24] to have a mechanism by which you're [48:26] drawn to engage in the behavior that [48:29] results in procreation. So it's not that [48:31] ultimate explanations are superior to [48:33] approximate ones. is that you need both [48:35] levels of analyses to fully explain a [48:38] phenomenon. [48:38] So what is going on there with the [48:39] guitar from an evolutionary perspective? [48:41] Why is the guitar attractive? [48:42] He's creative. [48:43] Yeah. [48:43] Uh he's got the assiduousness to have [48:47] the discipline to pi [48:50] virtuoso attractive all other or [48:53] Picasso. Picasso is a short little guy. [48:55] He's frumpy. He's bald. Yet he's got a [48:58] very very long line of very attractive [49:00] women saying, "Can can I have sex with [49:03] you, Picasso, tonight? How is that [49:04] possible?" [49:05] Is it because at some level we're [49:07] associating that talent with status? [49:10] Absolutely. [49:10] I the person that can play the piano at [49:12] the party probably has a lot of status. [49:15] They're going to have a lot of options. [49:16] 100 as a matter I mean just listen to [49:20] famous rock stars and what they say as [49:23] to why they became musicians. I mean, [49:26] literally almost to the word. It's as if [49:29] they plagiarized each other. Oh, I [49:31] quickly realized that that's how I can [49:33] get the girls, right? They never said [49:35] it's because in my childhood, I grew up [49:37] listening to Bach and Mozart and it [49:39] tickled my auditory reflex, right? They [49:42] usually said, "Oh, I go to a party and I [49:45] break out the thing and the lineup [49:47] begins." And then Jean Simmons sleeps [49:49] with 5,000 girls and the lead singer of [49:51] Simple Red, who's a rather forgive me, [49:54] whatever your name is, He's ginger guy. [49:57] He's not exactly the model of my sexual [49:59] dreams if I'm a woman. But yet he was, [50:02] you know, with tons of women, right? But [50:04] to finish the point about mate [50:06] desiraability scale. So now imagine all [50:08] of those attributes that I can cook. So [50:11] okay, God sad. Well, I'm not tall. That [50:14] goes against me. But I'm not very hard [50:19] to look at. That goes for me. I play [50:22] soccer really well. I learned very [50:24] quickly when I was 15 that the best way [50:27] that you won't get bullied by anybody is [50:30] when you're the big soccer star. Okay. [50:32] Uh I've done pretty well in my life. So [50:35] there are some traits that I score badly [50:37] on and some traits that I can compensate [50:40] on. And so we can put them all into a [50:42] basket and say, okay, well, what on a [50:44] scale of 0 to 100, what would God score [50:46] on his mate desiraability scale? And so [50:48] that's what that scale is. It's [50:50] basically taking all of our attributes [50:53] and then saying what do you score is is [50:55] Stephen a 78 or a 92. Now here's what's [50:58] very interesting to to that question [50:59] which you didn't ask. [51:01] Humans engage in what's called [51:03] assortative mating. Assortative mating [51:06] is the idea that birds of a feather [51:09] flock together. So there are two maxims. [51:11] There's the birds of a feather flock [51:12] together and there's the opposites [51:14] attract. Opposites attract only works [51:17] well for short-term mating. I am [51:19] sexually koi and shy and I'm an [51:22] introvert. You're sexually daring and [51:25] extroverted. That complimentarity might [51:28] actually result in a nice tric behind [51:30] the bushes. But for long-term mating, if [51:33] you want to assure success of a [51:35] long-term marriage, then it's [51:37] overwhelmingly birds of a feather flock [51:38] together. And usually here what we mean [51:40] is we share similar values. We share [51:44] similar goals, similar mindsets. We [51:46] really have to assort on these. If I'm [51:48] an asserbic atheist and you're a [51:50] committed Catholic who views everything [51:51] through Jesus, it doesn't take a fancy [51:53] professor to know we're not starting on [51:56] the right foot. Okay. But here's the [51:58] other part about associative assortative [52:00] mating. This is actually something that [52:02] I first um proposed as an open question [52:06] many years ago on one of my appearances [52:08] of Joe Rogan and I received like a [52:10] hundred emails saying, "Oh, I want to do [52:12] that research with you." Which I still [52:14] haven't done, so maybe it'll happen now. [52:16] So, let me repeat it. [52:17] So, I argue that people assort based on [52:22] their overall mate desiraability score, [52:26] which is the question you asked. Meaning [52:28] if I'm an 87, [52:30] I'm unlikely because the mating market [52:32] is is literally a market. It's a market. [52:36] Okay? [52:37] If I'm an 87, I can command a girl or [52:43] expect a girl in the 80s. It wouldn't be [52:46] good for an 87 to go with a 36. We all [52:49] want to get the 100. Both men and women [52:51] want to get the 100. But what stops us [52:54] is that I don't score 100. So, I want to [52:56] get the gorgeous supermodel and so on, [52:58] but maybe I'm not good enough to get [53:00] her. And and and all women want to get [53:02] the highly accomplished gorgeous male [53:05] Olympic swimmer who's both Bronny and a [53:08] neurosurgeon, but they can't get him [53:10] because he's got the pick of the litter. [53:12] So, usually we end up assorting on our [53:16] mate value. But now here's the part [53:18] where I proposed as a hypothesis and it [53:21] it it's it's never been tested although [53:23] I discuss it in the happiness book. So I [53:25] argue I predict although I haven't [53:27] tested it that what will predict the [53:31] likelihood of a couple staying together [53:34] into the future is whether their mating [53:38] overall mating scores stay in line or [53:42] they begin to diverge. So, I'm the high [53:46] school quarterback, so all the girls [53:49] think I'm hot. I get to go to the prom, [53:54] whatever it's called, uh, with the [53:56] cheerleader, the head cheerleader. She's [53:57] the hot girl. I'm the king of the high [54:00] school. That's great. At that point, [54:02] when we're both 18, we assort on our [54:05] mating value. Now, let's fast forward 10 [54:08] years later. The hot cheerleader is now [54:11] finishing her third year in [54:13] neurosurgery. Yes, there's a lot of hot [54:17] pretty smart looking male doctors. The [54:20] the hot quarterback when I was 18 has [54:23] become fat. He's lost his hair and he's [54:27] uh consistently unemployed and shows no [54:30] interest other than playing video games. [54:33] So, what's happened? When we first met [54:34] when we were 18, our mating values were [54:37] the same. But now hot cheerleader has [54:40] become neurosurgeon. Her score has gone [54:43] really up. Hot quarterback is now a [54:46] degenerate. Now there's a huge [54:48] difference in our mating scores. That's [54:50] going to put a huge stressor on our [54:53] marriage. So one of the things I argue [54:55] in the happiness book is yes, make sure [54:57] to meet someone who matches you in your [55:00] mating value and work hard at making [55:02] sure that you stay at the right mating [55:04] value. Once we get that divergence, I'm [55:06] predicting divorce. [55:09] Okay. The It's super interesting. The [55:12] question that springs to mind is [55:15] as men and women age, who tends to drop [55:18] in their desiraability score? [55:20] What do you think? [55:21] I don't know. [55:23] You want me to answer it because then I [55:25] can get the hate mail? No problem. [55:26] No, no, but I I asked that as well [55:28] because there's clearly some data on [55:29] who's asking for the divorces, who's [55:30] initiating the divorces, who's cheating [55:32] the most. That would [55:33] so women are overwhelmingly the ones to [55:35] instigate a divorce. [55:36] Yeah, [55:37] that's true. [55:38] Although from a strict evolutionary [55:41] perspective, [55:42] the mate val all other things equal maid [55:45] value of men goes up with age. Mate [55:49] value of women goes down with age. Now, [55:52] here is how you reduce your chances in [55:55] the mating market if you're a woman. You [55:57] ready? Of course, just aging. Yes. [56:01] Number one. Number two, if you're tall, [56:04] that's a death blow. Why? Because wh [56:08] it's not that women want only tall guys [56:11] because then [56:13] we all the other guys would we would [56:15] have been twiddling our thumbs in [56:16] frustrated celibacy. But women want a [56:19] guy who's taller than them. That's [56:22] what's guaranteed. There was actually a [56:24] study done a few years ago now where [56:27] they looked at 720 [56:30] actual couples. Guess how many violated [56:33] that norm? Women taller than men out of [56:36] 720. [56:37] I don't know. [56:38] One. [56:38] One out of 720. [56:40] One. Right. So, women, it it's a it's a [56:42] non-starter that a woman doesn't want a [56:45] shorter guy than her. She might I mean, [56:47] Lionel Messi is my height, but he's [56:49] Lionel Messi, and he found a gorgeous [56:50] woman who's shorter than him, right? But [56:53] what you don't want now, if I'm a 6'1 [56:56] woman, now of course they are still 6'2 [56:58] and taller men, but just statistically [57:00] speaking, we've just shrunk the possible [57:03] pool. There's a gorgeous guy, super [57:06] handsome, very funny, very educated, [57:09] who's 5'8, but I'm 6'1. I tower over [57:12] him. If I wear heels and I add another [57:15] four inches, he becomes my son. Well, [57:17] this all brings to light something else [57:19] which has been discussed a few times on [57:21] this show, which is if we said there [57:24] that men's mate desiraability score [57:27] stays pretty consistent [57:29] unless all goes up unless they do [57:32] something very bad. But the kind of [57:34] inverse conversation there is that [57:36] women's desiraability scores are now [57:39] higher than ever when they're younger [57:40] than ever. Yeah. [57:41] So you've got and I believe from what [57:43] I've been told that the male's [57:45] desiraability score is now lower than [57:46] ever if we think about income [57:50] age groups [57:51] in the lower age groups. So if you think [57:53] about income um differences, if you [57:56] think about educational differences, [57:58] who's graduating from college, who's [57:59] smarter and all these kinds of things [58:02] because of the very important changes [58:04] that have happened in society, um men [58:06] and women are getting closer and closer [58:08] to par here. [58:09] Yeah. Which means that the I mean [58:11] someone on the podcast described it to [58:12] me as the tall woman problem, but it can [58:15] also be described as the small man [58:16] problem. [58:17] Well, and it's small. It's small and [58:20] tall. Not I was going to finish. Yeah. [58:22] It's not just the height. So I said [58:24] death blow would be you get older, [58:26] you're tall and you're very educated. [58:30] So, if you are a 38-year-old [58:34] 6'2 [58:35] PhD from Stanford and you're a woman, [58:39] good luck. Why? Because number one, I've [58:43] gotten older, so there's a smaller pool, [58:45] right? Uh, number two, I'm tall. I want [58:48] a taller guy. Number three, when I'm a [58:51] PhD, I'm a woman now. When I'm a PhD, I [58:54] want a guy who is as educated and [58:57] accomplished as me or more. So now I [58:59] need to find a 6'4 guy who's also a PhD. [59:03] Right? Here's the paradox by the way [59:04] that people don't realize. People think [59:06] that oh the reason why women always [59:08] desire high status guy that this is [59:10] [ __ ] It's not true. Is because [59:13] historically they have been dominated by [59:16] the patriarchy. So they sought that [59:18] which they didn't have. And that's [59:20] completely falsified by the fact that [59:22] very high status women actually insist [59:25] more on the guy being higher status. So [59:28] if it were, so for example, if I am a [59:31] neurosurgeon and a diplomat and I'm a [59:33] woman, I don't say, "Oh, well, now that [59:36] I have all that I need, let me look for [59:38] the illiterate 17-year-old Cabana boy [59:41] who can't read three words cuz that's [59:43] what I want." No, she even wants She [59:46] insists more on the guy being meeting [59:49] her or higher in status. So if I'm if [59:52] I'm older, tall, and super educated, [59:56] it's a death blow. [59:58] What does this all say about what's [59:59] going on with masculinity at the moment? [60:01] Because um when I've said this a few [60:03] times on the show, but when you look at [60:04] the stats around suicidality amongst [60:06] men, um when you look at mental health [60:08] issues amongst men, when you look at [60:10] some of the influencers that men are now [60:13] drawn to more than ever that are [60:15] offering a new vision of masculinity, [60:18] there's clearly some kind of transition, [60:19] something going on in society at the [60:21] moment as it relates to what it is to be [60:23] a man. You you said this thing about [60:25] beta male earlier on. No one wants a [60:26] beta male. Well, [60:28] you know, it feels like there has been a [60:30] narrative that has encouraged a bit more [60:31] beta maleness in society and we're [60:34] seeing a bit of like a counter movement. [60:36] I've had so many women, some of which [60:38] have been on the show, say to me that [60:39] they've got a young son, um, and they [60:42] are confused about the advice they [60:44] should be giving their young son in such [60:45] a world. I get tons of women who write [60:48] to me and and ask me sort of the f I'm [60:51] paraphrasing [60:53] where where are the bold men, right? I I [60:56] I go to a place I'm looking super, [61:01] you know, ready to meet people. I'm easy [61:04] to look at and no one approaches me. [61:07] Well, if you inculcate over many [61:11] generations that if I approach you and [61:14] say, "My god, my name is God, you you [61:17] look lovely. What a beautiful dress." [61:18] That's a compliment becomes a form of [61:22] compliment rape. Then is it surprising [61:24] that I may be a bit ambivalent in [61:28] approaching you? I mean I I often joke [61:29] that given some of the what is now [61:32] considered hashtagme too Italy should [61:35] cease to exist because the whole country [61:37] is hashtagme too right what do I mean by [61:40] that Italians stereotypically of course [61:43] are seducers they pursue women I mean [61:46] women will say you I love Italian guys [61:48] how they approach now we're not talking [61:50] about uh you know being persistent to [61:52] the point that they're harassing you [61:54] that they're pinning you down physically [61:56] but there is a dynamic of courtship [61:58] whereby men who are bold, men who [62:01] approach, men who take chances, who are [62:05] confident are going to get the pretty [62:07] girl. Well, now imagine if you create a [62:10] dynamic [62:12] in for all sorts of reasons, one of [62:14] which is radical feminism, the other one [62:16] of which is to pathize half of humanity [62:19] called men through the label of toxic [62:21] masculinity. No, it's called sexiness. a [62:24] guy who jumps into a a building to save [62:27] a puppy and he's called a fireman. [62:28] That's what we fantasize about. That's [62:30] not toxic masculinity. That's [62:32] masculinity, right? And so, a lot of [62:35] women will write to me and say, "Where [62:37] are those men, professor?" Well, those [62:39] men are too afraid to come out. I I'll [62:40] give you a couple of examples. Okay? [62:43] At my university, we now have a [62:46] mandatory sexual training module that we [62:51] have to take otherwise we can't [62:54] continue, right? It's it's part of like [62:56] you you know you have to October 15th to [62:59] get the refresher because until my [63:02] benevolent [63:04] kind employer taught me how to speak to [63:07] women, I was clueless. So the first 57 [63:10] years of my life, I walked around as a [63:13] Middle Eastern savage, not knowing how [63:15] to interact with women. Of course, I'm [63:17] being sarcastic, right? But then the my [63:19] benevolent employer came along and [63:22] through very very cute, condescending, [63:25] and patronizing [63:27] cartoon vignettes, [63:29] they teach me how to act. So, you know, [63:33] a compliment that is in the wrong [63:35] context could be a form of sexual [63:37] violence. So, for example, uh you're [63:40] walking down the street and you see a [63:42] guy complimenting an a woman and it [63:46] appears that she's not uh welcoming that [63:48] compliment. Is that sexual violence? And [63:52] so, I will first just to test the [63:54] algorithm say no. And then it comes out, [63:57] ooh, I understand why you might be but [64:00] that is a form. Are you with me? [64:02] Yes. So now I'm 59 with a big [64:07] personality. This kind of [ __ ] [64:09] doesn't get to me. That's why I speak [64:11] openly and publicly to the chagrin of [64:14] all of academia. But the 21-year-old who [64:17] doesn't have that same strength of [64:19] personhood. Do you think he's going to [64:21] think twice before at the next party [64:23] walking up to a girl mustering up all [64:26] his courage to ask her if she wants a [64:28] coffee? Of course he is. So I think [64:30] that's where that problem of dynamic [64:32] comes from. And I'm now going to share a [64:34] personal story with one one of my [64:37] brothers which is also in the happiness [64:40] book which speaks to when you're the [64:42] opposite of the non-bold timid guy. [64:46] One of my brothers uh has been in [64:49] Southern California since 1984. He [64:52] became very very successful and wealthy. [64:54] Uh was an Olympian uh judoka. He he [64:58] represented Lebanon in the 1976 [65:01] Olympics. The reason why that's relevant [65:02] is because physically he's very [65:04] dominant, but my brother is 2 feet tall. [65:09] Obviously not, but he's he's shorter [65:10] than me. He's Okay. I'm like 5'6, 5'7. I [65:14] mean, he's maybe five three. Okay. [65:18] But but a bulldog, right? I always like [65:21] to say just because then it makes it [65:22] easy. I say I mess his height. So that [65:24] makes it easy. [65:26] Okay. So, uh, he's not Messi's height. [65:28] He's shorter than Messi's height. He's [65:30] shorter than Meridana, right? So, but he [65:33] walks like he's seven feet tall. Okay. [65:37] So, we used to in the early 90s, I would [65:39] come visit him. He he used to live in in [65:41] Newport Beach where we are now. And we'd [65:44] go to clubs. I'm I'm single at that [65:46] point. And my brother would say, "All [65:48] right, God. We're going to play the [65:50] game." I'm like, "Oh, his name is Dave." [65:52] No, David. I'm not in the mood. Find the [65:55] most beautiful and unattainable girl [65:58] here. Oh, come on, man. I don't want to [66:00] do this. Do it. Okay. All right. So, I [66:03] look around. So, now I want to find not [66:05] only the prettiest girl. I want to find [66:08] an impediment to you getting her. What's [66:10] an impediment? A really doineering [66:13] looking man that she's with. Therefore, [66:16] that makes it even less likely that you [66:18] can get her. Yes. [66:20] Okay, David. I found her. The the girl [66:22] over there with the high heels in the [66:23] middle of the dance floor. That's the [66:25] one. You sure got? Yes. That's the one. [66:27] Okay. He stands there. [66:30] Dominant tattooed guy goes to the [66:32] bathroom. [66:34] David in great white shark mode goes up [66:37] to the girl. She with her high heels. [66:40] He's coming up to here. I just Okay. [66:44] Haha. I hear them smiling. He comes back [66:46] to me complete cold. Says she'll call me [66:50] tomorrow. [ __ ] David. No way. Zero [66:52] chance. It's not happening. Next day. [66:55] Come. Come. This is kind of an Arabic [66:57] thing. Come. [67:00] Hi, David. It's Candy. We met yesterday. [67:03] The thing I'm looking forward to meeting [67:04] you. How did he do it, Stephen? He did [67:07] it because testicles this big. He's 7 [67:11] foot2 [67:13] in his aura. [67:15] Now, you might say, well, yeah, boy does [67:17] it add a lot of inches metaphorically [67:19] when you have Ferraris and so on. But [67:22] there's a more general story here. He [67:25] owns the world. He walks like he owns [67:27] it, right? But he's not of great. So, if [67:30] you ask women, yeah, it' be great if I'm [67:32] 6'2 and I walk big, but I could be 6'2 [67:35] and very meek and very tepid and very [67:39] beta. Or I could be 5'7 and I'm messy. [67:44] most are going to go for messy. So [67:46] that's what I mean by the way when I say [67:47] that mating is a compensatory choice. [67:50] Compensatory means that it to your [67:53] earlier point about made desiraability, [67:55] we are judged on a basket of goods. If [67:59] it were that we're only judged in a [68:01] non-compensatory way, meaning so for [68:03] example, if it were that women say, "I [68:06] always go out with the tallest guy," [68:08] then there's no way for me to compensate [68:10] for that. my humor won't get me higher [68:13] score, my looks won't get me, my [68:16] education, my accomplishment, I'm dead [68:18] because there's there are a lot of [68:19] taller guys. But if the way you choose [68:22] me is as a function of how I score on a [68:24] basket of goods, then I might have a [68:26] shot. So that's why I tell people, by [68:28] the way, that even though we all score [68:31] poorly on some things, but there's a [68:33] whole bunch of other things that we that [68:35] is within our possibility to improve. I [68:38] guarantee you for all that you are, if [68:40] you improve on assertiveness, ambition, [68:43] if your vocabulary changes so that when [68:46] you sit at a party, people can judge you [68:48] by the way within the first few [68:50] sentences that you say. Just your [68:52] elocution, the vocabulary that you use, [68:55] the the thoughtfulness of your answers. [68:58] I can very quickly judge where you are [69:01] where I could put you in the in the in [69:02] the pigeon hole. So there are way you [69:04] know what why don't you crack a book and [69:06] read a bit right why don't you stop [69:08] playing video games [69:09] on this point of masculinity the just [69:12] further upstream a little bit we talked [69:13] about men approaching women now I have [69:15] to present the counter narrative to this [69:17] because I don't think most men [69:19] understand what it is to be a beautiful [69:20] woman and and what they go through on a [69:22] daily basis this um ITV made a piece se [69:25] I think seven days ago I saw it on on X [69:28] or Twitter um which showed what it's [69:30] like to be a a beautiful woman walking [69:32] down the [69:33] Um, this was only 7 days ago. There's [69:35] been a variety of different videos like [69:36] this, but I'll just play it for you so [69:37] you can see. [69:40] What's going on? [69:41] I'm filming undercover alone in Cardiff, [69:43] where police recently announced a [69:45] decrease in violence against women. [69:48] Within seconds, a group of men [69:50] approached me. [69:51] I play tennis. [69:52] Yeah. [69:55] This guy didn't respect my personal [69:57] space. [69:57] I don't mean to be rude or anything, but [69:59] I saw you. I had to say hello. You look [70:02] nice. [70:04] That's kind of my friend. [70:05] That's fine. [70:07] The guy in the black t-shirt sees me up [70:09] ahead and speeds up to get next to me. [70:12] And like many others, he overstays his [70:14] welcome. [70:14] I think I'll be okay. [70:16] 20 people approach me in just 2 hours. [70:20] Now, I don't think men realize that that [70:22] that's the nature of what a woman goes [70:24] through. So, in the context of this [70:25] conversation about, [70:27] no, we do have to be on the front foot [70:28] if we are going to find a mate. When you [70:31] understand that that's what that [70:32] beautiful woman that you're thinking [70:35] about going up to has already gone [70:36] through it does change your you know [70:39] I got you but I I've got an a ready [70:42] deployed answer for that life is about [70:44] modulation right saying the right thing [70:48] in the right way at the right time right [70:51] I'm sort of paraphrasing a quote of [70:53] Aristotle which in in the per not the [70:56] person in the happiness book I have a [70:58] whole chapter that is going to address [71:01] your beautiful woman story. So I talk [71:05] about the inverted U. Uh does that ring [71:08] a bell? Do you know what that is? The [71:09] inverted U. [71:10] I can imagine on a graph. [71:11] On a graph, but not not this way. [71:13] Oh, sorry. Yeah, the other way. Like a [71:14] hill, [71:14] right? So the inverted U is basically [71:17] the the mathematical representation of [71:20] something that certainly the ancient [71:22] Greeks taught us long ago, but they [71:24] weren't the only ones to say this. You [71:25] know, everything in moderation, right? [71:27] So Aristotle in his golden mean argument [71:29] said look if you have let's say a uh [71:32] soldier who's very cowardly meek lacking [71:37] courage that's not good. If you have a [71:39] soldier who is so bold rash reckless in [71:43] his risk takingaking that's not good [71:45] either. So too little is not good too [71:47] much is not good and the sweet spot is [71:50] in the middle. So in the happiness book [71:52] I have an entire cha chapter whereby I [71:55] argue that everything in life the number [71:59] one universal rule of optimal [72:02] flourishing is to find the sweet spot [72:04] irrespective of any context that you're [72:06] talking about and then I demonstrate it [72:08] through a bewildering number of examples [72:11] at the neuronal level at the individual [72:13] level at the societal level okay so now [72:16] let's apply that principle to here right [72:20] those guys are at the other end of the [72:22] curve, right? Knowing when to act in the [72:25] right way, at the right time, in the [72:27] right measure, that they're not doing [72:30] that because the likelihood of that [72:32] beautiful girl when you come up and act [72:34] like a rather harassing buffoon in that [72:37] context of her saying, "You know what? [72:39] I'm sold. Let's have massive sex behind [72:42] that tree right now." Right? Therefore, [72:44] we know that statistically speaking, [72:46] that approach is never going to work. [72:49] It's done for no other purpose than to [72:51] harass. Whereas when I'm at a party [72:54] where we are supposed to be mingling and [72:57] I come up to you and I say, "Forgive me. [73:00] I hope you don't mind. I just want to [73:01] say gorgeous dress." Does that seem like [73:05] what I just said is similar to how [73:07] they're acting? So life is about [73:09] modulation and those guys are certainly [73:13] not modulated. Obviously, there's a [73:15] bunch of things that are clearly [73:16] violations there. Um, of everything [73:18] you've just said about the right place, [73:20] the right time, they they look drunk. [73:22] Uh, it's very late. She's alone, so [73:25] she's in a position of vulnerability in [73:26] many respects. So, rolling up to her in [73:28] such a way is But from the from the male [73:31] perspective, you said the probability of [73:32] getting a good outcome there is so low. [73:34] But from the male perspective there, [73:36] they're probably thinking, listen, if [73:37] the probability is 0.001, [73:40] why not? [73:41] I'll take it. They're probably thinking [73:43] that. Well, by the way, perhaps, but if [73:47] you were an empathetic person, you'd say [73:50] the fact that she may feel threatened is [73:53] enough reason [73:55] not to. Yeah. [73:55] Not to do it. [73:56] Therefore, to me, they're all [ __ ] [73:58] I agree. And I I at the heart of this [74:01] though is this idea of self-awareness. [74:03] Exactly. [74:03] Because the men that rolled up there, [74:05] they might in their own heads think they [74:07] have a chance. They might like have a [74:08] distorted view of their probability. I [74:11] mean, one of them rolled up and said, [74:12] "Hey, uh, do you want some tennis [74:13] lessons? I'm a tennis coach." And from [74:15] what I saw in the video, he was a good [74:17] 30, 40 years older than her. [74:18] Yeah. [74:18] And in his head, he must have thought [74:21] that the effort he's exerting there is [74:25] worth the probability that he's assumed [74:27] because there's just like no [74:28] self-awareness. And I think at the heart [74:29] of this is like, how do you build that [74:31] that self-awareness to know? Oh, I I [74:33] love that you're asking this because one [74:34] of the things that frustrates me the [74:36] most in social interactions is when so [74:41] I'm not a beautiful woman, so I don't [74:43] get that violation, but I get a million [74:46] other violations for all sorts of [74:48] reasons. One of which is that people do [74:51] recognize me a lot and they do come up. [74:52] So they don't do it because they're [74:54] trying to get me behind the bushes. But [74:55] then they'll stop me and lecture for the [74:59] next 25 minutes about whatever idea [75:03] they're having in their head. Now, I'm [75:05] polite. I'm thankful that people [75:08] appreciate my work and will come up. But [75:09] I didn't sign up while I'm walking with [75:11] my children and wife for you to lecture [75:14] me for 25 minutes uninterrupted without [75:16] me saying a word. If you come up and [75:18] say, "Oh, I read the perfect mine. [75:20] Professor, loved it. Do you mind if I [75:21] take a picture with you?" I'm always [75:23] gracious. I'm always but so all of those [75:27] social phauas almost all of them could [75:30] be linked to what you said which is a [75:32] complete lack of self-awareness which [75:35] let's break it down even more. [75:37] There is a concept in uh psychology uh [75:41] called theory of mind. Are are you [75:42] familiar with it? No. Theory of mind is [75:45] a ability that you must have in order to [75:51] have meaningful social interaction. What [75:53] does theory of mind mean? When I'm [75:55] chatting with you, I have to be able to [75:58] put myself in your mind. So, for [76:00] example, if I'm talking to an audience [76:03] that knows nothing about evolutionary [76:04] psychology, I might alter the specific [76:08] words I use because I have theory of [76:10] mind that makes me say they don't know [76:13] what domain specific computational [76:15] systems would be. If I use those words, [76:17] I just lost not because they're dumb, [76:19] but because they don't know that jargon. [76:21] So, I already exhibited a good [76:24] communicator skill, which is I put [76:26] myself in the theory of mind of my [76:27] audience and I modulate my message [76:30] depending on who I'm speaking to. Well, [76:33] autistic children, by the way, fail on [76:36] theory of mind. So, one of the ways that [76:38] you are able to diagnose because autism, [76:42] you can't give a blood test that shows, [76:45] oh, there's a marker of autism. So the [76:47] way that you typically uh diagnose [76:50] autism early is through various tasks [76:53] that they go through. So there is a task [76:55] for children that you suspect might be [76:58] autistic where they will fail on such a [77:01] test which makes sense intuitively [77:03] because you know that autistic children [77:05] don't have very good social skills are [77:08] emotionally withdrawn don't read cues [77:11] well. So, for example, if I'm sitting [77:13] with you for 25 minutes while you [77:15] lecture me about why Camala Harris is a [77:18] great president. I didn't sign up for [77:20] that. You want to shake my hand? That's [77:22] great. Now, you can tell if you're not [77:25] if you are self-aware that I'm getting [77:28] impatient. You should be able to tell [77:30] that my children are starting to shuffle [77:33] uncomfortably because they're getting [77:35] impatient. But you're just as oblivious [77:37] as those [ __ ] So so many of social [77:41] interactions are because of people's [77:43] lack of self-awareness. And I am shocked [77:46] by the extent to which most people lack [77:50] self-awareness. So it's not that 95% of [77:54] the people that I meet are unbelievably [77:57] socially gracious and it's only the 5% [78:00] degenerates that are bad. It's the [78:01] opposite. [78:02] But then there's a there's an [78:04] explanation for that. [78:04] Okay, go. Because the ones that did have [78:06] the self-awareness never came up. [78:09] Right. Okay. Oh, so therefore I'm only [78:12] exposed to the bad [78:13] instances. So the ones that have the [78:15] self-awareness in the theory of mine, [78:16] saw you walk past with your family and [78:17] went he's with his family, love his [78:19] work, but I'm not going to roll upon him [78:20] with his family. [78:22] You're exactly right. By the way, that's [78:23] the exact same mechanism that explains [78:25] something called the overconfidence [78:27] bias, which is a cognitive bias whereby [78:30] we overestimate something in an over. So [78:33] for example, if you ask most professors, [78:35] so do you think that you your uh your [78:38] teaching uh ability is it below average, [78:41] average or above average? 90% of [78:44] professors say above average. Well, [78:45] statistically that can be. Well, why [78:46] does that happen? It's exactly for what [78:48] you said. The the students who thought I [78:51] was great took the time to come up to me [78:53] and say, "Professor, love the course." [78:55] The ones who thought I was an [ __ ] [78:57] they didn't come up to me. So what did [78:59] my brain code? Only the great ones. and [79:01] therefore I must be great. [79:03] When you're trying to build something, [79:04] the problem that we all face is we need [79:07] talent and skills that we don't have [79:09] ourselves. And we can waste so much time [79:12] trying to learn a new skill when really [79:15] what we should be doing is using a [79:17] platform like fiverr.com where you have [79:19] global access to reviewed, tried and [79:23] tested, world-class talent at your [79:25] fingertips that you can access in a [79:28] flexible and affordable way. Fiverr for [79:30] me when I was starting out in business [79:31] was a real unlock. It was a bit of a [79:33] hack because I used to think that the [79:35] only way for me to add skills to my [79:37] project was by hiring full-time staff [79:40] and bringing them into the office. [79:42] Fiverr.com changes that. And if you're [79:44] in that position now where there's a [79:46] skill you're missing for a project that [79:47] matters to you, here's what you have to [79:49] do. Visit fiverr.com/diary [79:52] to learn more. And here's the great [79:53] thing. If it doesn't go well, Fiverr [79:55] offer a pretty amazing money back [79:56] guarantee. So what are you waiting for? [80:01] What if the way you present yourself [80:03] isn't appealing to the world? And again, [80:05] this brings us back to this idea of like [80:07] being a beta male. And when you say beta [80:09] male, what we're saying that what is the [80:11] definition of beta male? It's [80:12] so yes, it's used colloially. Beta male [80:15] would be none of the markers that uh [80:18] exhibit the types of qualities that [80:22] women would find attractive you possess. [80:24] So it could be social dominance, it [80:26] could be physical dominance, it could be [80:28] high status, it could be assertiveness, [80:30] could be ambition, it could be look uh [80:33] one of the reasons why women say I I [80:36] love I'm very attracted to a funny man, [80:38] a funny guy. What what they're [80:40] effectively saying is I want an [80:43] intelligent man. Because it's very very [80:45] unlikely that you could be a very funny [80:48] satist if you're not intelligent. Dave [80:50] Chappelle is probably smarter than a lot [80:52] of my colleagues, but they have a lot of [80:53] degrees. But he wouldn't be able to [80:55] stand up in front of an audience, keep [80:58] their attention for an hour and a half [81:00] on really powerful social commentary [81:03] where they pay $150 to come if he wasn't [81:06] if he weren't incredibly intelligent. [81:08] Right? So, so beta and and alpha doesn't [81:12] just mean tall and dominant and I have a [81:14] club and I beat you with it. It means, [81:16] do you exude the types of cues that on [81:20] average in the mating market people [81:22] would say, "God damn, that's an [81:23] attractive guy." Whatever that means. [81:25] That's that's how I define it. [81:26] So, if you had to give advice then to [81:29] men and women who were intent on being [81:33] higher value and higher status, how what [81:35] would that advice be and how would it [81:36] differ? Some of the advice will be [81:39] exactly the same for both sexes. Yeah. [81:41] But some of the advice would be sex [81:43] specific in recognition that not of not [81:46] all of the mating attributes are equally [81:48] desired by the opposite sex. Right? So [81:51] for example, [81:52] no man has ever uttered the following [81:55] words. Linda, [81:57] you have a gorgeous body. I'm [82:00] unbelievably sexually drawn to you, but [82:03] you're not exhibiting the type of [82:05] elacrity to improve your GPA score, and [82:09] your lack of assertiveness in your [82:11] studies suggests that I'm not going to [82:13] have sex with you tonight. No man has [82:16] ever uttered those words. But a lot of [82:18] women meet a super hot guy at a club. He [82:22] opens his mouth and what comes out is [82:26] [ __ ] imbecility and suddenly the sex [82:30] opportunity has just shut down. So why [82:33] am I saying all this? There are some [82:36] traits that if men were to work on [82:39] that's going to bring them more bang for [82:42] the buck than if women worked on other [82:44] ones both. So for example, kindness and [82:48] intelligence are universal traits [82:51] equally desired by both men and women. [82:55] So that's that's true for both men and [82:57] women across cultures. But social status [83:01] is preferred by women in men in every [83:04] known culture. Physical beauty and youth [83:07] is preferred by men over women in every [83:10] culture. So So some traits the advice [83:13] would be the same. some traits it'll be [83:15] sex specific. [83:16] I wonder because I'm trying to give I'm [83:19] trying to figure out how to give advice [83:21] to that bottom 50% of men that are [83:24] basically having no sex, [83:26] right? [83:27] Which I'm told about over and over again [83:28] that are at risk of becoming incelss or [83:31] playing video games in their room that [83:33] are turning to pornography as a [83:36] medicine, I guess, and an antidote to [83:38] their lives. What kind of advice would [83:39] you offer to those those sort of [83:41] disillusioned men? Is that guy also 90 [83:45] pounds overweight and pear-shaped? [83:47] Probably not in shape. [83:48] Okay. So, you know what? Hit the [83:51] treadmill. Looks matter. They don't [83:53] matter to women as much as they do to [83:55] men, but you know, I my my wife often [83:58] jokes with me. I don't I don't know if [83:59] you've ever seen this on on the [84:00] internet. I will often post, you know, [84:02] in a joking manner, a photo of me from [84:05] 1985 in actually in Southern California [84:08] in in in San Diego where I'm in my [84:10] soccer physique days where I have the [84:12] eight pack and the V and the whole [84:14] thing. Right? And my wife would joke [84:16] with me. She said, "How come I never got [84:18] that version of Gad?" Right? Now, that [84:21] doesn't mean she obviously stayed with [84:23] me when I was, you know, 86 pounds [84:25] heavier. So, it's not the only thing, [84:27] but boy is it better to have this six or [84:29] eight pack than not have it. So, uh my [84:32] height I can't change, right? So, I [84:34] can't tell those guys that are [84:36] potentially going to be in sales, you [84:37] know, please try to grow 4 in, right? [84:39] But again, crack a book. So, for [84:42] example, even with my own children, [84:44] right? You would think having the father [84:47] that they have, they're born, they come [84:48] out of the womb, and they're reading. [84:50] You know how hard it is for me to get [84:52] them to get away from this damn thing? [84:55] Right. It's it's it's it's one of the [84:57] biggest frustrations I have as a parent. [84:58] And and as I said earlier, they're [85:00] they're very graceful. They're very [85:01] poised. Probably compared to other [85:02] children, they're a lot more [85:03] knowledgeable. But it's not a reflex for [85:06] them to say of all things that I could [85:08] do right now, I want to go to a room and [85:10] read. Whereas it is a reflex that I [85:12] still have today with complete full [85:14] dedication. So read more, learn how to [85:17] speak better. There there again mating [85:21] is a compensatory process. There are [85:23] things that I can't change about me. I [85:25] can't change my height. I can't change [85:28] the symmetry or lack thereof in my face. [85:31] But if I'm thinner, all other things [85:34] equal. I'm probably going to be better. [85:35] So, it's never a lost cause. Wherever I [85:38] am in my mating desiraability score, [85:41] there are always effective intervention [85:43] strategies that could improve my score. [85:45] So, I'm I'm currently at a 42. I think [85:48] that if I do strategies ABC, I could [85:50] probably get up to 60. and 60 is going [85:53] to open me up to a lot more desirable [85:55] women than when I was 42. [85:58] We we talked a little bit earlier about [86:00] um pornography. I think I I said the [86:03] word once, but I found it quite [86:05] interesting. You know, we talked a [86:06] little bit about sexual variety [86:08] that [86:10] you make a case that porn in some ways [86:13] might be good for us. [86:15] Not quite. I say, so I say that porn, it [86:20] makes perfect evolutionary sense that [86:23] porn is a behavioral trap that can lead [86:26] to addiction. So, I'm not saying it's [86:28] good for you. I'm not saying that we've [86:30] evolved to specifically consume porn, [86:33] but here's what porn is doing. So, in in [86:36] evolutionary theory, there is a [86:38] distinction between an adaptation and an [86:41] exaptation. And adaptation is something [86:44] that has evolved because it confers [86:47] either survival or uh reproductive [86:51] benefits. So my preference for fatty [86:54] foods is an adaptation that's linked to [86:56] survival. My uh desire to use high [87:00] status products to impress the ladies is [87:03] a behavioral trait that helps me in the [87:06] mating market. Okay. An exaptation, not [87:10] to be confused with an adaptation, is [87:12] when there is a phenomenon that [87:14] piggybacks on an adaptation itself. It [87:17] serves no purpose. Do you follow what I [87:19] mean? So for example, the color of our [87:22] skeletal system is not an adaptation. [87:25] There were already path dependent [87:28] engineering solution that led to the [87:31] fact that our skeletal color is the way [87:34] that it is. It's it's not itself an [87:36] adaptation. How would you use this in [87:39] and I'm going to come to pornography in [87:40] a second. For example, you could say [87:44] religion is an adaptation. [87:47] If you want to say that, this is what [87:49] you'd have to argue. Groups that are [87:51] religious by virtue of their religiosity [87:55] exhibit greater communality, greater [87:57] cohesion, greater in-group outgroup [88:00] demarcation. So groups that are [88:02] religious tend to outlive groups that [88:05] are irrel irreligious. So that would be [88:08] an adaptive argument for why religion [88:10] evolved. An exaptation argument for why [88:13] religion evolved is that religion solves [88:16] no adaptive function, but rather it [88:19] piggybacks on systems that already exist [88:21] in my brain. So for example, I already [88:24] come with the brain that's coalitional. [88:26] I view the world as blue team, red team. [88:29] There's us, there's them. That's already [88:31] a mechanism that's built into my brain [88:33] for other reasons. And now religion [88:35] comes along and piggybacks on that, [88:37] right? The Jews have the Jews and the [88:40] Gentiles. The Christians have the [88:42] believers who are going to be with Jesus [88:44] in in heaven and the rest of you [88:46] [ __ ] who are going to burn in hell. [88:48] The the Muslims have the believers and [88:50] the kufur, which is a derogatory term [88:54] for non-Muslims. So all of those [88:55] religions have at least Abrahamic [88:57] religions have the same structure of us [88:59] versus them. So with that background, [89:03] pornography is not something that [89:06] specifically evolved in us because there [89:08] there was no pornography in in the [89:10] ancestral savannah. But we for example [89:13] men have evolved a preference for visual [89:17] stimuli. [89:19] Men have evolved a greater pension for [89:21] sexual variety. [89:23] Now, there's a product that piggybacks [89:26] on those innate preferences that says, [89:28] "Hey, guess what? There's a screen where [89:30] I'm going to take you where you could [89:32] shop for as many new mobile, fertile, [89:37] ready young women, and you never have to [89:39] see the same woman twice if you serve [89:41] for the next 600 years. My brain has [89:44] been hijacked." So, pornography is not [89:46] something that we've evolved a gene for. [89:49] But pornography utilizes existing [89:51] systems to trap us. That's why, by the [89:54] way, in two of my earlier books, I talk [89:56] about the evolutionary roots of dark [89:58] side consumption. Dark side consumption [90:01] are maladaptive behaviors like [90:03] pornographic addictions, pathological [90:05] gambling, eating disorders, compulsive [90:08] buying. So I explain how these [90:10] maladaptive behaviors have a biological [90:13] signature. I was reading Psychology [90:15] Today with the the study with 688 [90:18] young Danish adults who were surveyed [90:22] and respondents viewed the viewing of [90:24] porn um hardcore pornography as [90:26] beneficial to their sex lives, their [90:28] attitudes [90:29] um towards sex, their perceptions and [90:31] attitudes towards members of the [90:32] opposite sex and toward life in general. [90:35] So I guess the question here is is [90:37] pornography when we think about our [90:40] evolution and the implications of us [90:42] consuming pornography and the behavior [90:44] that it then turns into is it a net good [90:48] or a net [90:48] that's a good one and well the research [90:50] is unclear on this so I've seen studies [90:53] that have exactly to your point have [90:54] said hey you know what it spices things [90:56] up as long as you do it openly you know [90:59] uh again it's a question of modulation [91:01] remember I said doing it at the right [91:03] time right amount the right context and [91:06] so on, right? If once in a while, for [91:08] whatever reason, whether it be alone or [91:12] in the context of a couple, you decide [91:14] to incorporate pornography to spice [91:16] things up, good for you. If you can't [91:19] get to work on time cuz you're spending [91:21] 6 hours uh feverishly uh masturbating to [91:24] pornography and then you don't have the [91:27] sexual vigor to then be intimate with [91:28] your partner, then we have a problem, [91:30] right? So many psychiatric conditions [91:32] that are rooted in in behavioral [91:34] dysfunction, [91:36] if they're done at the right amount, [91:38] they're not a problem. It's when they go [91:41] on the bad side of the curve. Let me [91:43] give you a again a a big uh a big view [91:47] of this problem. OCD, [91:49] obsessivecompulsive disorder, is a [91:52] psychiatric condition and it can [91:53] manifest itself in different obsessions [91:56] or different compulsions. So obsession [91:59] could be uh I'm engaging what's called [92:02] ruminative thinking, right? Did did I [92:04] say something at yesterday's party that [92:07] was stupid and now everybody thinks I'm [92:09] a [ __ ] Now I will start to try to [92:12] speak to everybody at the party in a [92:14] ruminative obsessive way to make sure [92:16] that I didn't say anything. Now compare [92:18] that to germ contamination fear as a [92:21] form of OCD. I will now wash my hands [92:23] repetitively 600 times to make sure that [92:26] I didn't get uh infected by anything [92:28] when I shook somebody's hand. Right now, [92:31] there is an evolutionary adaptive [92:33] version of that which is scanning the [92:35] environment for environmental threats [92:38] once [92:40] is at the right level of behavioral [92:42] regulation. Right? Check the back door [92:44] that it's locked. Wash your hands once [92:47] when you shook many hands at the party. [92:49] But then what happens to the person who [92:50] doesn't suffer from OCD? There's a [92:52] warning flag that goes up in your head. [92:54] Then you tend to that flag. And what [92:56] happens to the flag? It goes down and [92:58] it's finished. The OCD person, the flag [93:01] is hyperactive in an infinite loop. I [93:04] wash my hands, flag goes down. As I walk [93:07] away from the sink, flag goes back up. I [93:09] wash my hands again. I am stuck in a [93:11] repetitive ritual for 8 hours in [93:14] scolding hot water where the skin is [93:16] coming off me. I didn't go to work cuz [93:18] I've been washing my hands since 7:00 in [93:20] the morning. That's what happens with [93:22] pornographic addiction, right? I'm [93:24] sitting and surfing the internet 6 hours [93:27] for porn. So, it is at the disregulation [93:30] part of that behavior. So, it's not that [93:32] there's anything innately evil or [93:35] diabolical or bad with surfing porn once [93:38] in a while, but it's once in a while. 6 [93:41] hours a day, we have a problem. A lot of [93:42] men that watch pornography, and I've had [93:44] this said to me a few times, um feel an [93:46] immense amount of shame [93:48] um about the behavior. They they wish [93:50] they didn't. If they could if they could [93:52] press a button or write down who they [93:54] want to be, they probably would be [93:55] someone that wasn't watching [93:56] pornography. I think that's probably a [93:58] safe assumption to make as a general [94:00] rule. And the other thing that I've [94:02] heard is that because of the dopamine [94:04] receptors in our brain, it's going to [94:06] kind of um dampen our in real life [94:12] sexual attraction and performance and [94:17] cause to lead in erectile dysfunction. [94:20] All those things are certainly uh [94:22] plausible, right? I mean uh [94:25] and also motivation. made the motivation [94:27] argument to me if you start messing with [94:28] your dopamine in such a way that's the [94:30] same dopamine and same sort of I guess [94:32] chemical set you need to go and pursue. [94:34] Exactly right. And are those people that [94:36] that you're talking about are they are [94:37] they ones that we would classify as [94:40] being in a dysfunction or even if they [94:42] watch porn once every four weeks they're [94:44] feeling great shame and they're self [94:46] flagagillating. [94:46] I don't know. It was actually was I got [94:48] told this by a I do get DMs from guys [94:50] that are continually asking me to have [94:52] more conversations about pornography [94:54] because there's shame associated with [94:56] it. When I looked at the Google search [94:58] terms, the most frequent search term in [95:00] the category that I searched was how do [95:02] I quit pornography? [95:03] And it was by by a way it was it was the [95:08] astoundingly the most searched thing as [95:09] it related to pornography, which is how [95:11] do I quit? [95:12] And the question itself is quite [95:13] desperate, [95:14] right? So that makes me think that they [95:16] are in the wrong side of that curve, [95:18] right? They're already in disregulation [95:20] mode because if it were something that [95:22] I'm It's kind of like I I eat one bad [95:26] thing a month. That doesn't seem to be a [95:29] bad issue. If I eat three bad things [95:32] every single day, I will wake up 86 [95:35] pounds overweight. Right? So again, [95:37] Aristotle taught us right thing, the [95:40] right place, and the right amount. So I [95:42] don't think that there's a deontological [95:45] rule and we can if you want explain what [95:47] that means. There is no deontological [95:49] rule that says under all circumstances [95:52] any porn consumption is diabolical and [95:55] evil. I don't think that's true. Now [95:57] maybe also I'm not a religious Puritan. [95:59] Maybe if you're a religious Puritan you [96:01] say not even watching one second of porn [96:04] you're the devil. But from a from a non [96:07] sort of judgmental, non-puritanical [96:09] thing. Hey, listen. Uh you've been [96:12] outside of a I mean, forgive me. I'm [96:14] going to be very direct. You're not in a [96:16] relationship. It's been uh 6 months [96:19] since your last sexual encounter. You [96:21] have certain libidinal drives. You [96:24] decide to sit and watch some porn that [96:26] one time. I don't think that makes you [96:27] Lucifer. But if you spend six hours a [96:30] day every day while your wife is saying, [96:33] "Hey, are we going to get some sexy time [96:35] tonight?" And you go, "My refractory [96:37] period is such refractory is what [96:40] happens when is the time between your [96:42] last ejaculation and when you can get [96:44] hard again." Well, if I just masturbated [96:47] five times today, I'm probably not going [96:49] to be up for it at night. And so again, [96:53] it's a question of is it a dysfunction [96:55] or is it part of the regular norm of [96:58] behavior. So I don't think people have [97:00] to feel so guilty about watching porn [97:02] once in a while. [97:03] What do you think I I should say to my [97:07] future son about the world that he's [97:10] growing up in in terms of the mismatch [97:14] between our evolution and [97:17] his natural hard wiring? [97:18] Wow, what a great question. So there is [97:21] a there is something called the mismatch [97:23] hypothesis in evolutionary theory which [97:26] basically says that many problems that [97:29] we face today arise out of a mismatch of [97:34] a phenomenon that was adaptive in our [97:37] ancestral past but is no longer adaptive [97:40] in our contemporary modern world. [97:42] Classic example to stick to food. We've [97:45] evolved the gustatory preferences to as [97:48] a response to caloric scarcity and [97:51] caloric uncertainty. Therefore, being [97:53] attracted to fatty foods, gorging on a [97:56] lot of food makes perfect evolutionary [97:58] sense when we don't know when our next [98:00] meal is coming from. When we live in an [98:02] environment of plentitude, then that [98:05] exact phenomenon becomes maladaptive. So [98:07] if you look at for example I think the [98:09] top eight or nine killers on the World [98:11] Health Organization thing they can all [98:13] be attributed to the mismatch [98:15] hypothesis. So I would tell your son [98:18] knowledge is power to our earlier point [98:21] of view getting that degree you never [98:23] lose in knowing more you being aware of [98:27] the mismatch hypothesis dear son will [98:30] allow you to hopefully not fall as [98:32] easily into behavioral traps. And what [98:34] are the most important because you have [98:35] a book here called happiness, eight [98:38] secrets for leading the good life. If I [98:40] was to give him advice on how to live a [98:42] happy life, [98:43] what are the most important things that [98:44] I should be aiming at? [98:45] So I I look at both decisions that we [98:48] can make for happiness and mindsets. So [98:51] let me maybe discuss a few of each. So [98:54] by far the two choices that will either [98:57] impart upon me the greatest happiness or [98:59] the greatest misery is choice of spouse [99:02] and choice of profession. Okay. [99:04] And let's break it down very simply. [99:06] If I wake up next to a person in the bed [99:09] and I go, "Oh, god damn, not this one [99:10] again." I'm not off to a good start. If [99:13] I wake up next to this to to that person [99:16] and I go, "Oh my god, how did I pull [99:19] that off? What a delight to wake up next [99:21] to this person?" Well, that's good. [99:22] Have they empirically measured this? [99:24] Have they [99:25] Not not in the way I'm explaining the [99:28] anecdote. Uh, now if I go off after I [99:31] woke up to this lovely person, I go off [99:34] and do things in my day-to-day [99:36] activities that make me do existential [99:39] glee. Oh boy, what a great day I have [99:41] lined up. I'm going to be working on my [99:43] next book. I've got uh I've got uh diary [99:47] of a CEO that's going to be super fun. A [99:49] lot of new people are going to hear [99:50] about some of my ideas. Then I'm going [99:52] to maybe have a chat with a graduate [99:54] student on some really exciting research [99:55] I'm doing. So, wow. Oh, yeah. I mean [99:57] there's a lot of stress but it's all [99:58] gives me a lot of purpose and meaning [99:59] and then at night I return to that [100:01] lovely person. I've cracked the the the [100:03] happiness code right now. Of course the [100:05] question is if the devil's in the [100:08] details what can I do to maximize my [100:11] chances that I make those right choices. [100:13] I explain in the book contrary to 99.9% [100:17] of the quote self-help prescriptive [100:20] books where they tell you exactly with [100:23] guarantee here are the eight steps. I [100:26] explained that life is a statistical [100:28] game, right? It there are statistical [100:30] vagory. So all I can do is increase your [100:33] odds of obtaining happiness. I can't [100:35] guarantee anything, right? You could [100:37] never smoke and get lung cancer, but not [100:41] smoking certainly reduces your chances [100:43] of lung cancer greatly. So earlier I [100:47] mentioned birds of a feather flock [100:48] together versus opposites attract. [100:50] Overwhelmingly, if you want to increase [100:53] your chances of a happy marriage, [100:55] remember the maximum birds of a feather [100:57] flock together. Complimentarity works [101:00] really nicely in the short term. It [101:02] doesn't sustain a long-term marriage. [101:04] The butterflies, the hormones don't last [101:07] when you've been in a marriage. That [101:08] doesn't mean you're not still sexually [101:10] attracted to your partner 25 years [101:11] later, but that's not going to carry the [101:14] train. [101:14] Okay. Okay. So, but just to give a [101:16] little bit more, I guess spec [101:18] specificity and nuance to this. You're [101:20] not cuz my partner, she's really into [101:21] like spiritual stuff. Yes. [101:23] She's really into like crystals and lots [101:25] of things that I'm not into. I think we [101:27] have a great relationship. We've been [101:28] together a long time. [101:30] And she's like I'm into Manchester [101:31] United and soccer. She's not into that. [101:34] Well, we might have to have you revisit [101:36] that because I'm a Manchester City guy, [101:37] but go ahead. [101:38] Okay. Well, that's the end of the [101:38] podcast. So, yeah. Um, [101:41] my apologies. No. Uh, look, I'm not [101:45] suggesting that there aren't [101:48] clear differences in a but if I were to [101:51] distill, if I were to to use statistical [101:53] term, if I were to factor analyze your [101:56] most fundamental life principles between [102:00] you and your partner, do you think [102:02] you're more alike or more different? [102:04] We're more alike. We're we're aligned. [102:07] That's my point. [102:08] Yeah. And this is why I say it because [102:09] when people hear it, they might think of [102:10] it as like tastes. No, it's not about [102:12] taste. It's not about the most [102:14] fundamental deontolog, right? I mean [102:17] what you know my wife loves the fact [102:19] that I'm a trutht teller. My love my [102:22] wife loves the fact that I have purity [102:24] in my right she appreciates the fact [102:27] that you know and similar with her like [102:31] for example we both have never been the [102:33] type to seek to trigger jealousy in the [102:37] other. Many people will will will say, [102:39] "Oh, you know, if when you trigger [102:40] jealousy, that spices things up, right? [102:43] My wife has never a single time done a [102:46] single thing, right?" But that's because [102:49] she has a standard of personal conduct [102:52] that's very elevated. Well, [102:53] can I ask you as well in there, just are [102:55] there things about your wife that you [102:59] don't have as much, but are fundamental [103:01] values, but you're drawn to because [103:04] she's kind of giving you them? I call [103:06] her MacGyver. Do you know do you [103:08] remember who Macgyver was? [103:10] Macgyver was a show in the 1980s, I [103:12] think, where he was reputed to be able [103:16] to put things together. He he he's in a [103:18] pickle. He's in a cell. So he takes soap [103:22] and cuts it up to cut the bar. He right [103:25] my wife at a complete reversal of the [103:27] typical stereotypes of male and female. [103:31] You give my wife an empty can of tuna [103:34] and a soccer ball, she'll make a rocket [103:37] and she'll fly you to Mars. She is [103:39] unbelievably in French you say de bruya. [103:42] Uh she knows how to put things together [103:44] and so on. And I'm just mesmerized by [103:46] her ability to do for me for all my [103:48] fancy academic stuff. Uh take a light [103:52] bulb. It'll probably take me four weeks [103:54] before I figure how it works. She's [103:56] already built a rocket. is basically [103:58] Elon Musk of the sad household. I [104:01] greatly admire that in her and it's [104:03] something that I possess very little. [104:05] I wanted to ask one of the things you [104:06] said a second ago was about this the [104:08] evol evolutionary basis of we're talking [104:11] about happiness and what it is to be [104:12] happy. You talked about the partner [104:13] part. What is the evolutionary basis of [104:16] meaning and purpose? Why do we need [104:19] that? [104:19] Right? So we've got a very big frontal [104:23] lobe. Right? So for remember earlier I [104:25] was talking about adaptation versus [104:26] adaptation. One argument for why we love [104:30] literature so much is that it our brains [104:35] need nourishment via storytelling and [104:38] therefore that's an exaptation. My brain [104:41] expects to be fed stuff that keeps me [104:43] engaged and therefore literature is one [104:46] way by which I eat that nourishment to [104:48] use the food analogy. Right? So I [104:51] suspect that because we are sentient [104:53] beings, right? We we we're not beings [104:56] that are only driven by instincts of [104:59] survival and reproduction, right? I [105:01] mean, all animals have to solve two [105:04] problems. Survive and reproduce, right? [105:08] That's it. That's the entire game of [105:09] life. But because we have consciousness, [105:13] because we have metaan knowledge, [105:15] because we are sentient, there needs to [105:18] be more to life than simply having sex [105:20] and reproducing. And therefore, the way [105:22] that you elevate that consciousness is [105:25] through purpose and meaning. So, I'm a [105:27] very happy I mean, I should mention [105:29] though that happiness about 50% of [105:32] individual differences and happiness [105:34] scores comes from our genes. But the [105:36] good news is is that it leaves 50% up [105:39] for grabs, right? So I may be born with [105:42] innately a more sunny disposition than [105:45] you. So I'm now winning at the race. But [105:47] if I don't [105:50] have make good choices, if I don't adopt [105:53] good mindsets, then even though you [105:55] started lower than me in an innate [105:57] sense, you might surpass me. And so it [105:59] really is an interaction of nature and [106:01] nurture uh purpose and meaning. So to [106:05] that I may be answering it in an oblique [106:07] way. I argue and remember I said [106:11] having a a good partner and having a [106:13] good job are the two ways that you can [106:14] maximize happiness. I argue that the [106:17] best way to achieve occupational [106:20] happiness is two metrics. One of which [106:23] is going to relate to purpose and [106:24] meaning. [106:26] Having temporal freedom [106:28] all other things equal is better than [106:30] not having temporal freedom. Let me [106:31] explain what I mean by that. a an [106:34] airplane pilot [106:36] once the door shuts the next 16 hours [106:40] from LA to Singapore it's set right I [106:42] mean literally temporarily in terms of [106:45] time physically I'm stuck right that to [106:48] me is unthinkable I float through life I [106:52] I work harder than most people but I do [106:54] it in my own way right now I'm going to [106:56] go to a cafe and work on a book [106:58] prospectus then I'm going to go train [107:00] for an hour then I'm going to go read [107:03] for 3 hours and that temporal I don't [107:06] have what I call scheduling esphixia [107:08] right that helps me [107:10] I do [107:11] you do try to resolve that if you can [107:13] number two which is going to speak to [107:15] purpose and meaning I argue that all [107:18] other things equal any job that allows [107:21] you to instantiate your creative impulse [107:25] is a direct path to purpose and [107:27] happening happiness uh purpose and [107:29] meaning what do I mean by that a standup [107:32] A comic is creating a routine that until [107:35] he came along we didn't have. A chef is [107:38] creating a dish out of nothing. An [107:41] architect is creating that bridge that [107:43] didn't exist before. An author remember [107:45] earlier we were talking I think I think [107:46] it was off air and you were saying how [107:48] long did it take you or what was the [107:49] process? I said you know there's [107:51] something magical about writing a book [107:53] right because there literally is a day [107:55] where you open the laptop you open a [107:57] word document. that word document which [108:00] eventually you're going to call the [108:01] parasitic mind save doesn't have a [108:05] single letter typed it's blank and then [108:09] through the magic of creation creative [108:12] impulse a year later I press the send [108:15] button a year later you're consuming [108:17] that book that has to be a direct path [108:20] to purpose and meaning now that doesn't [108:22] mean that the actuarial scientist your [108:24] brother doesn't have a worthy life but [108:28] surely literally a person who wakes up [108:30] who's an artist, who's an author, [108:34] by the nature of him creating says, "Oh, [108:37] I can't wait to get to the studio." I [108:39] doubt that. Maybe not your brother. I [108:41] doubt that most actuarial scientists go, [108:44] "I'm going to get into that actuarial [108:46] table today like there's no tomorrow. [108:48] I'm gonna spank that actuarial table." [108:50] Okay. Okay. So, putting a bunch of ideas [108:52] together from your work then to arrive [108:54] at a conclusion that I haven't heard you [108:55] say. I read in the consuming instinct [109:00] your your other book chapter 4 that [109:03] younger siblings like me [109:05] Yes. [109:05] youngest of four are more likely to be [109:08] creative. [109:08] Oh, you you you pulled that one out. [109:11] Okay. So, does that mean that if we're [109:13] more likely to be creative and [109:14] creativity is associated with happiness [109:16] in the in the way that you just [109:17] described that I am happier than all of [109:20] my siblings? [109:21] Do you want to guess what Dr. Sad's [109:25] sibling order is? [109:26] You're the youngest [109:27] by far. So, let me let me explain let me [109:30] step before I answer that and the way [109:32] you frame the question, let me explain [109:34] what the mechanism is. Okay. [109:36] I also just want to add one layer to [109:37] that as well. I was sat with at a dinner [109:38] the other day with my um with about 10 [109:41] of our directors really their founders [109:43] of companies essentially and I I thought [109:45] it would be interesting to go around and [109:46] ask them because I've started to form a [109:48] bit of a picture about this and I went [109:49] around the table and asked every single [109:50] one of them where do you rank in order [109:52] of siblings and eight of them ranked as [109:55] the youngest sibling. [109:55] Oh, I love it. [109:56] That was so crazy. Yeah. [109:57] Is that [109:58] Yeah, [109:59] that's psychology. So, let me tell you [110:00] the background to that theory. Okay. [110:03] Which I've done my own research on and [110:05] published work on it. But the original [110:08] theory comes from Frank Sulloway who's a [110:11] historian of science [110:13] who wrote a book which I highly [110:15] recommend to all your viewers. Uh it's a [110:18] it's a bit technical but you can get [110:20] through it. It's called Born to Rebel. [110:24] It's a book that explores historically [110:27] the the the the people who've generated [110:31] the biggest breakthrough [110:33] radical scientific innovations and what [110:36] was their birth order. And it turns out [110:39] not unlike how you did it with the 10 [110:41] and eight of them were last born. Out of [110:44] the 28 most radical scientific [110:47] innovations ever posited, [110:50] 23 out of the 28 were the the last born [110:55] later. Now, so then the question is, [110:58] okay, well fine, that that's just a [111:00] phenomenon, but what explains it? Now, [111:02] the explanation is mind-blowing. You [111:04] ready? So Frank Sulloway argued that [111:08] typically when we study the [111:09] psychological effects of birth order, [111:12] it's from the perspective of the parents [111:15] behavior to the child as a function of [111:18] their birth order. First child, I'm very [111:21] strict. Second child, I'm getting tired. [111:23] Fifth child, run the streets. I don't [111:25] give a [ __ ] Okay, so that's the causal [111:28] causality of the birth order effect. He [111:31] flipped the whole thing. He said, "No, [111:32] no, no. much of the impetus of the birth [111:35] order effect is coming from the child. [111:38] And let me explain how he said that one [111:40] of the fundamental survival problems, [111:42] it's an evolutionary theory. One of the [111:45] fundamental uh survival problems that a [111:47] child faces is to differentiate itself [111:52] from all other siblings to to etch [111:57] maximal investment from the parents. How [112:00] do I do that? So that's called the [112:02] Darwinian niche partitioning hypothesis. [112:06] When you start off your firstborn, all [112:09] of the niches are unoccupied. There is [112:12] the I'm a good boy niche. I'm a rebel [112:15] niche. I'm a right there. There are many [112:17] many there's a panel of niches that are [112:20] unoccupied. So I'm firstborn. I'm going [112:23] to pick whichever one. The second born [112:25] is born. [112:27] There is n minus one niches. one is [112:31] taken. So the I'm a good boy niche. I [112:34] got to differentiate myself. I'm second. [112:36] I'm an [ __ ] niche. I'm a I'm a [112:38] contrarian niche. Let's keep going down [112:41] the birth order. There are fewer and [112:43] fewer unoccupied niches left for later [112:47] borns, especially if the siph [112:51] argued that that forces the last born to [112:56] score differently on key personality [112:59] traits. one of which is open to [113:02] experience. So he argued that later [113:04] borns up to last borns by virtue of [113:08] having to solve that original problem [113:10] will end up being much bigger out of the [113:13] box thinkers not being stuck on [113:16] conformity on orthodoxy. Hence in the [113:18] context of scientific innovations the [113:20] lastborns are the ones who say no this [113:22] is [ __ ] I'm going this way. Okay. [113:24] And so I tested that theory in a [113:27] consumer psychology setting where I [113:30] demonstrated that lastborns were much [113:33] more likely to be product innovators and [113:36] early product adopters. So I I took the [113:39] exact framework but instead of applying [113:41] it to radical scientific innovations, I [113:43] applied it to radical product [113:45] innovations and adoptions. Mhm. [113:47] So, so all that to say that based on [113:51] that one could surmise that if openness [113:54] to experience is correlated to [113:57] happiness, then the latterborns would [114:00] score happier. I I really wonder which [114:03] one it is cuz I can attest to kind of [114:05] both being true. I probably was a little [114:07] bit rebellious to get attention, but [114:09] also by the time I was 10, the same [114:12] rules didn't apply to me. When you said, [114:14] "How many are you?" [114:14] There's four. [114:15] Okay. When you said run the streets, [114:17] that's the perfect explanation of my [114:19] childhood. My my oldest the oldest, [114:21] which is my sister Amanda, she if she [114:25] wasn't home by 9:00 p.m., she was also a [114:27] woman, so the rules were slightly [114:28] different for her. 9:00 p.m. it was it [114:29] was hell to pay. If I didn't come home [114:31] for 2 to 3 days, there was no one there [114:34] to ground me anyway. And I think that [114:37] opens you up to experimentation. You [114:39] start fiddling with stuff. You start I I [114:42] was doing all kinds of things in the [114:43] house, like breaking things apart, [114:44] looking inside them. started little [114:45] businesses selling the cigarettes from [114:47] my mom's room. Sorry, mother. She really [114:48] doesn't know that I ever did that, but [114:50] all these kinds of things which started [114:51] to build this, you know, repository of [114:53] information, but also it built my [114:55] confidence. [114:55] Yeah. [114:56] In a way, which allowed me to be [114:57] entrepreneurial and develop this [114:58] different relationship with risk. So, [114:59] it's hard to figure out which one it is. [115:01] Maybe it's both. [115:02] It's probably both. I think it's a bit [115:03] of both. Uh but yeah, I you know, I [115:06] haven't been I I know that your team had [115:08] asked me what are some questions that we [115:09] could ask that no one else. Well, [115:11] certainly pulling up that birth order [115:13] one, you've succeeded on asking me a [115:15] question that I certainly haven't been [115:16] asked in a long time. So, kudos to you. [115:19] Well, yeah, it's a incredible. We have a [115:20] lot of great researchers. So, [115:22] and by the way, both my wife and I are [115:25] lastorns. So, to to the assortative [115:28] mating, and I'm not sure if that's been [115:30] done, and if it hasn't been done, it' be [115:31] very easy to do, [115:33] right? So, here's an experiment. If [115:34] anybody steals it, I better get the [115:36] credit. You just look at a thousand [115:39] marriages, calculate their satisfaction [115:42] score, their happiness score, and then [115:44] see if there is a sort of mating on [115:47] birth or ownership. [115:48] Interesting. [115:49] Boom. There's there's your thesis for [115:51] your undergraduate psychology degree, [115:53] which you will pursue and send me an [115:55] email that I deserve the credit for [115:57] having forced. Why don't I just run this [115:58] as a advert on social media as a survey [116:01] and and so I can get a link run it as a [116:04] Facebook meta ad at people and say um [116:07] are you married? If they say they are [116:08] I'll say how long have you been married [116:10] they'll say how long I said are you and [116:11] your partner where do you rank in terms [116:13] of birth order and then I can get the [116:15] stats. [116:15] Absolutely. So many studies now [116:18] scientific studies are conducted online [116:21] and they can be conducted online in [116:22] exactly the way that you said you use [116:24] existing social portals to have a big [116:26] wave of data collection. But there are [116:28] other ways by the way you could have you [116:30] have you heard of mTurk? [116:31] No. [116:32] So mturk is a platform where people sign [116:36] up to be participants. Right. Now, let's [116:40] say I'm a researcher and I say, I want [116:45] men over 18 years old. Okay. [116:47] Mhm. [116:47] Well, that's easier to get than if I [116:50] were to say, I want men who are over 18 [116:53] years old, shorter than 6 feet, and from [116:55] Lithuania, and they're diabetic. Now [116:58] depending on how I structure my criteria [117:02] of inclusion, [117:04] the price that I have to pay for getting [117:06] those participants will go up. [117:09] Yeah. [117:09] Right. So if I'm running a study, I just [117:12] need male and female adults to run a [117:15] study on this task. It ends up being a [117:17] few cents. And so it has opened up the [117:21] velocity at which we can do research, [117:24] scientific research, not just stuff I [117:25] post on Twitter. scientific research it [117:28] has increased it 10fold. So, so you can [117:30] certainly do that. [117:31] We'll do it. So, we will I set this as a [117:33] challenge for my research team and our [117:34] data science team which is to run a [117:36] survey on social media using adverts. [117:39] So, digital adverts, Facebook ads, meta [117:41] ads, X ads, whatever. And the survey [117:43] should basically seek to answer first [117:45] their gender, their marital status, ask [117:47] what birth order they fell in, and then [117:50] ask what order their birth their marital [117:53] partner fell into. But then also [117:55] understand how long they've been [117:56] together because we want to check these [117:57] marriages are legit. [117:58] Absolutely. [117:58] And I'll put it on the screen. [117:59] That'd be so cool. And please share with [118:01] the result. Well, by the way, what we're [118:04] doing right now is what I call So in the [118:07] in the happiness uh book, I have a [118:09] chapter called life as a playground. And [118:12] I argue that science is the highest form [118:15] of play because what when you're doing a [118:18] 1,00 piece puzzle, you're putting which [118:20] puzzle, which piece goes with what. [118:21] Well, what's science? There's a bunch of [118:23] variables floating around. Does this one [118:25] correlate with this one? Does this one [118:26] cause this one or the other way? I'm [118:28] just playing now and I'm getting paid [118:30] for it. How could I not be happy? [118:33] Mhm. But the puzzle of life, [118:34] unfortunately, it's the puzzle is [118:36] three-dimensional, which means sometimes [118:38] you think you got it in the right place, [118:39] but actually it was just 100 years [118:41] later, you find out that it was [118:42] completely [118:43] wokeness. [118:44] Yes, sir. [118:47] It's it's really intriguing to me that [118:49] the evolutionary scientists that I've [118:51] spoken to have for some reason all found [118:54] themselves on the subject of wokeness in [118:56] society and it and it's hard for the [118:59] average person to maybe understand the [119:00] link between evolutionary science and [119:03] wokeness and politics. [119:04] Right. So you want me try to tease those [119:07] out? [119:07] Yeah. And what well how did you find [119:08] yourself talking about the idea of [119:10] wokeness? [119:10] Right. So it it all began as we [119:13] mentioned earlier in our chat when I saw [119:16] the rejection of biology in explaining [119:20] human affairs which is something that I [119:22] called biophobia. The fear of using [119:24] biology to explain human affairs and at [119:26] the time it was in the service of the [119:28] scientific work that I was doing. I mean [119:30] what do you mean you're desk rejecting [119:32] my paper at a journal because you don't [119:34] think that biology is relevant to [119:35] consumer behavior? How could it be [119:36] otherwise? [119:38] That's insane. So that's when I was [119:40] first exposed to the possibility of a [119:43] human a human mind being parasitized [119:46] right. Uh now let me explain why I use [119:50] the parasitic framework how I came up [119:52] with that. So one of the things that you [119:55] do as an evolutionary scientist when [119:57] you're trying to understand the [119:58] evolutionary signature of a behavior you [120:01] often will compare it across species. [120:03] Remember earlier I talked about testes [120:05] size and uh AC and across primates and [120:10] female right? So it was many different [120:11] species and that allows you to then draw [120:14] a final principle based on comparing all [120:17] those species. So I started looking [120:19] through the animal literature to look [120:21] for something that might explain why do [120:24] animals do insane things. And so that's [120:28] when I fell on the field of [120:30] parasettology, which is just the study [120:32] of parasites. But I wasn't looking for [120:34] because a tapeworm is a parasite, but it [120:37] goes into your intestinal tract. I [120:39] wanted the parasites that go into your [120:42] brain, those are called neuroparasites. [120:44] And it turns out that there's a very I [120:46] mean, it's almost like science fiction. [120:48] There's a whole field of study that's [120:50] that explores this host parasite dynamic [120:55] where the parasite is trying to enter [120:58] the host's brain alter its circuitry to [121:01] suit its interests. [121:02] What is a parasite? [121:03] So a parasite is usually I mean [121:06] literally a brain worm. So for example, [121:09] toxopplasma Gandhi is a parasite that [121:12] can infect human minds, but it most [121:14] famously infects the minds of mice. When [121:17] they are parasetized in their brains by [121:20] this parasite, they become sexually [121:23] attracted to cats and their sex and [121:25] their urine, which is not a good. [121:28] Yeah. So let let me give you a few [121:30] examples. There's a wood cricket, an [121:33] actual cricket that abhores water. Okay. [121:36] it it doesn't like it stays clear of [121:38] water when it is paracetized by a [121:41] hairmworm [121:44] needs to get the wood cricket to jump in [121:47] water because it could only complete its [121:50] reproductive cycle in water. So a wood [121:53] cricket that doesn't have the brain worm [121:55] looks at the water and says I'm staying [121:57] away. A wood cricket that is paracetized [122:00] by this hairworm jumps into the water [122:03] merely to its death because it has [122:05] altered its neurosircuitry to suit its [122:08] interest. Okay. So when I saw that field [122:11] neuroparictology [122:13] I had my Euroka Eureka moment just like [122:15] I did when I first discovered [122:17] evolutionary psychology. I said, I will [122:20] now use the neuroparacettological model [122:23] to argue that human beings can not only [122:26] be paracetized by actual physical [122:29] brainworms, they could be parasetized by [122:32] ideological brainworms. And so [122:35] continuing the metaphor, I said, so what [122:38] are these parasites? Postmodernism is a [122:41] parasitic idea. So, so postmodernism [122:44] actually I argue that that is the [122:47] granddaddy of all parasitic ideas [122:49] because postmodernism [122:51] purports that there are no objective [122:53] truths other than the one objective [122:56] truth that there are no objective [122:57] truths. So, [123:00] and the reason for that is everything is [123:02] shackled by biases. Everything is [123:05] shackled by subjectivity. So, to speak [123:08] of an objective truth with a capital T [123:10] is nonsense. Everything is subjective. [123:13] And therefore, I argue in the book that [123:16] all of these parasitic ideas originally [123:19] started with a noble goal. And in the [123:22] service of that goal, if there has to be [123:24] a collateral damage called truth, so be [123:26] it. It's a worthwhile collateral damage [123:29] in the service of that higher social [123:32] justice goal. No, it's a deontological [123:35] principle. It's an absolute. Right? So [123:38] you never pursue science in a biased [123:41] manner. Freedom of speech is available [123:44] to all. It's not I believe in freedom of [123:46] speech but not for Donald Trump. Then [123:49] you're being a consequentialist. [123:51] So that's what the book is about. It [123:53] traces the history of all these [123:55] parasitic ideas and then it offers a [123:58] mind vaccine against that stupidity. [124:01] What if the freedom of speech causes [124:05] harm? [124:06] Yes. to people and risks their lives. [124:09] That's a great question. So, I am a free [124:12] speech absolutist. And so, let me [124:14] explain what that means. We didn't get [124:16] into my personal history. I'll just give [124:18] it for the relevance of what I'm about [124:21] to say. I was born in Lebanon. I grew up [124:24] in Lebanon and we escaped Lebanon under [124:27] imminent death because of being Jewish. [124:30] Okay? So [124:32] my Jewish identity caused me to come [124:35] close to being eradicated. [124:38] Give me some color and detail to that [124:40] story. [124:40] So I was born in Lebanon in the 60s. Uh [124:43] Lebanon was historically referred to as [124:45] the Paris of the Middle East. [124:47] Progressive tolerant Lebanon. [124:49] Progressive tolerant in the context of [124:51] the Middle East, which means something [124:53] very different than progressive and [124:54] tolerant in the West. And you'll see in [124:56] a second why. When I was 5 years old, [125:00] uh, Gamal Abd Naser, who was the [125:02] president of Egypt, who was a very [125:05] popular figure in the Arab world because [125:07] he was what's called a panarabist, [125:08] meaning he was trying to unify the Arab [125:10] people under one umbrella, right? To [125:15] hopefully defeat the pesky Jews and so [125:17] on. He passed away. when he passed away [125:20] when I was five years old, as so often [125:22] happens in the Middle East, people take [125:25] to the streets to scream and shout and [125:27] burn and lament and so on. And as they [125:30] were proceeding down my street where I [125:32] lived as a 5-year-old child, the the [125:35] screaming was death to Jews, death to [125:38] Jews. So I turned to my mother and say, [125:40] "Why why are they screaming death? What [125:43] do we have to do with this?" Hi, don't [125:45] don't put your head out. Okay, so that [125:47] was my first time where I saw, wait a [125:49] minute, there there are people out there [125:50] that want me dead because I'm Jewish. [125:53] Fast forward a few years later, we're in [125:56] class and the teacher, this is pre-Ivil [125:58] War, okay? The Civil War started in 75. [126:02] Uh, sitting in class, teacher says, [126:04] every to everybody, please stand up and [126:06] say what you want to be when you grow [126:08] up. I want to be a policeman. I want to [126:11] be a doctor. I want to be a soccer [126:13] player. One kid gets up who I had known [126:16] through all the years of elementary [126:17] school who knew I was Jewish said, "When [126:19] I grow up, I want to be a Jew killer to [126:22] rockus applause and laughter and so on." [126:24] Then the Lebanese war broke out. It [126:27] became impossible to be Jewish in [126:29] Lebanon. We left Lebanon under very, [126:32] very difficult conditions. Once we [126:35] immigrated to Montreal, Canada, my [126:37] parents, [126:39] maybe they regret it now, kept returning [126:42] to Lebanon because we still had business [126:44] interest in full-fledged brutal massive [126:47] war. On one of their return trips in [126:49] 1980, they were kidnapped by Fatah, [126:53] which is one of the Palestinian [126:55] factions. Some really bad things [126:59] happened to them. But then luckily [127:02] through the connections that we had we [127:05] were able to get them out. [127:06] Some bad things happened to them [127:08] inside captivity. [127:10] I mean you can imagine [127:12] they were tortured. [127:14] Yeah. Uh my mother said and I' I've [127:18] seldom said this. I'm only saying it [127:19] because you you're asking. My biggest [127:22] fear when I found out the story after [127:25] the fact. I didn't even know they were I [127:28] didn't know that they they they were [127:30] kidnapped as it happened. I knew there [127:32] was a lot of mayhem in the house and I [127:34] was asking what's going on. They said, [127:35] "Oh, mom and dad have some business [127:36] issues." They were lying to me to [127:37] protect me. I'm I'm 15 years old. Okay. [127:40] Although there was a kid at school in my [127:42] high school who whose parents were very [127:45] good friends of my parents, also [127:47] Lebanese Jews. He knew that my parents [127:50] were kidnapped. I didn't know they were [127:52] kidnapped. And later I found out that as [127:54] he saw me in high school walking around [127:57] and laughing and joking, he thought, [127:59] "Boy, this guy is made of ice. I mean, [128:02] he's he's callous that he's taking it so [128:07] relaxed." But actually, I didn't know [128:09] that this he knew, but I didn't know. [128:11] Okay. So when they came out of captivity [128:14] and came back to Montreal, my biggest [128:17] speak about evolutionary psychology and [128:19] the male mindset, my biggest fear was [128:23] whether my mother had been raped. [128:26] Now she told me stories of whatever, but [128:28] she said that she she says I never knew [128:31] if it was true and we only discussed it [128:33] that one time and we never discussed it [128:35] again. She said that no, she wasn't. [128:38] Now, I don't know if she [128:40] lied about that. She She said some other [128:42] really bad things. I mean, I'm not going [128:43] to get into all of it, but I've always [128:46] wondered whether she said that just so [128:48] that, you know, it's not exactly, you [128:52] know, it's shame and so on. But I [128:54] remember that if she had said yes, my [128:57] thinking as a 15year-old boy was that I [129:00] would spend the rest of my life seeking [129:02] vengeance on those [ __ ] Okay? So, [129:04] it wasn't a pleasant upbringing. I could [129:06] tell you stories that you wouldn't [129:08] believe. It would be much worse than [129:09] Rambo. So now coming back to your uh [129:12] freedom of speech issue and if it causes [129:14] harm. I am Jewish with my personal [129:18] history. I support the right of [129:21] Holocaust deniers to spew the most [129:25] offensive thing possible which is they [129:28] are rejecting a documented historical [129:31] reality where 6 million people were [129:34] exterminated. Nothing could be more [129:36] offensive. No, it never happened. So you [129:38] want to talk about hurt and offense and [129:41] insult, that's it. But in a free [129:43] society, I have to tolerate racists, [129:46] imbeiles, [ __ ] falsehood spreaders. [129:49] I beat them by speaking here by telling [129:52] better ideas. So the only context where [129:56] I don't support freedom of speech, it's [129:58] already enshrined in the first [129:59] amendment, direct incitement to [130:02] violence. Okay. So, let me draw a thing. [130:06] I go I'm I'm a let's suppose I were a [130:09] white supremacist or neo-Nazi. If I get [130:12] up on a show and say Judaism is a croc [130:16] of [ __ ] it's useless. It's the most [130:19] disgusting religion. Totally okay. [130:21] Freedom of speech. If I say later [130:25] tonight at the corner of Lens, Lexington [130:28] and 6th Avenue there is a synagogue. [130:31] Let's go to when they come out of [130:32] service and beat the hell out of those [130:35] Jews, if not kill them. That's not okay. [130:38] Now, it has to be direct incitement of [130:40] violence. So, you can't say criticizing [130:43] Judaism or Islam can create [130:46] Islamophobia, [ __ ] No ideology is [130:50] above scrutiny. No belief system is [130:53] above scrutiny. Your feelings are hurt, [130:56] f off. Grow a pair. Okay? So, as long as [131:00] you don't say, "Let's kill the Jews, [131:03] spend all the rest of your life [131:05] criticizing Judaism," that's your right. [131:08] Some people will say that it's kind of [131:10] like I was thinking of it like a [131:11] staircase. As you were speaking, I was [131:12] drawing a staircase because if I sat [131:14] here and I said I consider myself to be [131:17] a black man. I mean, I'm half black. I [131:19] guess my my mother's Niger and my [131:21] father's English. But if I was to sit [131:22] here and say all mixed ethnicity people [131:26] like myself are evil, they are [131:29] disgusting, they are vultures, they are [131:31] vermin, which is some of that sort of [131:33] 1940s [131:35] narrative towards um the Jewish [131:37] population. It's not long before if if [131:41] me as a podcaster and many more of us [131:42] all got behind that narrative, you would [131:45] see this inevitable rise in people going [131:47] out there and killing people that are [131:49] mixed race. [131:50] Yes. [131:50] And this is this is where it becomes [131:52] tricky, right? So for me, Joe Rogan, Lex [131:54] Freedman, Andrew Huberman, all of the, [131:56] you know, podcasters who have who have a [131:58] significant audience, Alex Cooper, you [132:00] name them, all started hitting a [132:02] specific group of people with a [132:04] narrative. I'm convinced there'd be a [132:06] rise in violence towards those people [132:07] just walking down the street and living [132:08] their lives. [132:09] Right. [132:10] And this is where the issue arises. [132:11] Okay. So then let me let me let me test [132:13] your belief. Are you familiar with the [132:16] grooming gangs in Britain? [132:18] I'm familiar with the notion of it. [132:19] Yeah. I I know I think I know what [132:21] you're going to say. I think I've heard. [132:23] So up and down England, in every town [132:26] that you can think of, big or small, for [132:28] the past 30 plus years, there's been an [132:31] industrial scale level grooming and [132:34] raping of white British girls. The [132:37] perpetrators are 90% plus on the [132:41] conservative estimate, 90%. Coming from [132:44] one background and one ideology. Is it [132:48] marginalizing and insulting to identify [132:51] that ideology? I'd say it's not because [132:53] it's probably import an important data [132:55] point to understand the causation of a [132:58] of a thing. Okay, let me give you [133:00] another example. [133:04] Um, American prisons are predominantly [133:07] occupied by black men or at least it [133:10] overindexes with black men versus the [133:12] population ratios. So, are black men [133:15] therefore criminals [133:19] um at birth? Right. Well, that the way I [133:23] would address that is I would defeat [133:26] that statement with science. So, I would [133:29] say, can you show me the data that [133:32] suggests that dispositionally, meaning [133:34] innately? What would be the mechanism by [133:37] which uh black men are higher than white [133:40] men? Now, if you show it, great. But I'm [133:43] willing to bet you can't show it. [133:44] Therefore, what you just stated is a [133:46] bunch of [ __ ] And you know how what [133:47] you're going to suffer are the social [133:49] consequences and stigma of being a [133:50] racist [ __ ] But I I let you say it, [133:53] but I'll defeat your idea. On the other [133:56] hand, if you said uh if we look at [133:59] patterns of criminality in the United [134:01] States, are black men [134:05] exponentially [134:07] uh over represented? Yes. Now, we can [134:10] say it's because it's white supremacy [134:13] that causes black men to kill white [134:16] people. Or we could say, could there be [134:19] any positive agents that if we are [134:22] caring decent people, maybe we should [134:24] talk about openly? Well, in today's [134:27] world, I couldn't even I say I don't [134:29] give a [ __ ] But most people would say, [134:31] don't even say that that there's a [134:33] greater incidence of black criminality. [134:35] That itself is racist and you're [134:37] marginalizing people. So that's why I [134:39] don't believe in the concept of [134:40] forbidden knowledge. [134:42] Forbidden knowledge is the idea that [134:44] there is some knowledge that should not [134:46] be pursued precisely because of your [134:49] scare staircase. It's going to result in [134:52] negative downstream effects. I argue [134:55] that that's a grotesqually dangerous [134:58] principle. Why? So here I'm going to [135:00] introduce the term and explain it which [135:02] I've mentioned earlier. In ethics there [135:04] are two ethical systems. There is what's [135:07] called deontological ethics and [135:09] consequentialist ethics. Deontological [135:11] ethics is absolute statements like [135:14] contient imperatives. It is never okay [135:17] to lie. That would be a deontological [135:20] statement. A consequentialist statement [135:22] would be it is okay to lie to spare [135:25] someone's feelings. So I always joke if [135:28] you want to have a long happy marriage [135:30] when you hear the following question. Do [135:33] I look fat in those jeans? put on your [135:36] consequentialist hat really fast and [135:39] say, "No, sweetie. You've never looked [135:41] more beautiful. I might have just lied, [135:43] but I just spared my partner, my wife's [135:46] feelings." So, for many, many things, it [135:49] makes perfect sense that we all wear our [135:52] consequentialist hat. But there are [135:55] certain principles that are foundational [135:59] that by the very definition of that [136:01] principle have to be deontological. [136:04] Okay. Freedom of speech is [136:06] deontological. The pursuit of truth has [136:09] to be deontological. Presumption of [136:11] innocence in the justice system has to [136:14] be deenthological. Right? Journalistic [136:16] integrity if you truly are a truth [136:18] reporter has to be deontological. But [136:21] what have we seen throughout the last [136:22] four or five years? Let me show you [136:24] violations of these. I believe in [136:27] freedom of speech but not for Donald [136:30] Trump. the antlogical principle has [136:32] become consequentialist. [136:34] I believe in journalistic integrity, but [136:37] not when it comes to Hunter Biden's [136:39] laptop because if we release that [136:42] information, then h then Joe Biden loses [136:45] to Orange Himmler and then that's too [136:47] bad. So, it's perfectly okay to suppress [136:51] what we now know is an absolutely true [136:53] laptop where there is astronomical [136:57] political corruption, but it was okay to [137:00] lie. I believe in presumption of [137:02] innocence, but not for Brett Kavanaaugh [137:05] because, you know, he's a gang rapist [137:07] going up and down the eastern seabboard [137:09] raping everybody. Now, of course, we [137:11] have no data to support that, no [137:13] evidence. And the one who accused him [137:15] one day before the confirmation said [137:18] that she thinks it was 36 years later. [137:20] It could have been 38. It could have [137:22] been last week. I can't really remember, [137:24] but I know that he sexually assault me [137:26] and we don't really care about this [137:28] thing called evidence. A lot of my super [137:30] fancy colleagues in friends said, "Oh, I [137:34] know that we should assume that someone [137:35] is presumptively innocent, but it's too [137:38] important in this case to apply that [137:40] deontological principle." They didn't [137:41] use that word. They don't even know it. [137:43] So in this case, let us just assume that [137:45] Brad Kavanaaugh was a serial rapist. So [137:49] no, there is no forbidden knowledge in [137:51] science. I I'll give you a great [137:52] example. There's a guy called, his name [137:56] escapes me right now. He was a [137:57] psychologist at University of Western [137:59] Ontario who spent his entire career [138:02] studying racial differences. [138:06] And here's now the worst part in [138:08] intelligence. Okay. So, I remember one [138:12] time this is I don't think I've ever [138:13] mentioned this story personaliz so [138:15] you're getting an exclusive here. 1996 [138:18] I'm speaking at the international [138:19] congress of psychology. [138:21] I'm a young professor just out of my [138:24] PhD. I'm talking about something very [138:27] non controversial about what are the [138:30] types of strategies that people use when [138:32] they're making decisions under time [138:33] pressure. And I'm in a room. So, there [138:36] are four other speakers in that session. [138:39] Okay? and the room is filled with maybe [138:42] 1500 people and there is like this real [138:45] electricity and I'm and I'm not a very [138:48] nervous public speaker thinking what's [138:51] going on here why is there such tension [138:54] well I found out I had I hadn't looked [138:56] at the program the guy who gets up to [138:59] speak before me is that infamous [139:01] psychologist who now starts putting up [139:04] graphs of the intelligence of white [139:06] women black women black men And I said, [139:09] "Oh my god, I'm dead. I'm going to be [139:11] lynched by proxy." Now, here's the good [139:14] news. When he finished his talk and I'm [139:17] next, about 1,425 [139:21] out of the 1500 people rushed out of the [139:24] room to follow him and badger him. And I [139:26] was like, that was the only time in my [139:27] life where I said, "Thank God that [139:29] everybody's left." Usually, you want [139:30] more people in the audience. I was like, [139:32] "Oh, thank God." And then I have got [139:33] like, you know, 70 people there. I'm [139:36] right [139:37] now. in his case. I've asked close [139:40] colleagues of his uh and as I'm talking [139:43] I'm trying to remember his name. Philip [139:45] Rushton, that's his name. Philip [139:47] Rushton, they people could check him [139:48] out. I've asked some of his colleagues, [139:51] do was this guy was he a racist? Because [139:54] he's always said, look, I just collected [139:57] the data and I presented the data and I [140:00] offered possible explanations. [140:03] Now, even something as contentious as [140:06] potentially incendiary as that, I would [140:09] argue if you truly collected the data in [140:14] a completely unbiased manner, you should [140:18] not be not publishing it because it's [140:21] going to appear racist. Well, what do [140:23] you think? Do you think [140:23] I care if something's true or not? And I [140:26] think I have the, [140:28] you know, I have the what? I don't know. [140:30] I don't know what the word is. [140:31] Strength of character. [140:34] I don't want to I don't want to pretend [140:35] like I'm some like hero that's pursuing [140:38] truth at all costs because that's not [140:39] how I feel about myself. What I would [140:41] rather know is what's true [140:43] because then I can deal with the truth [140:44] and the truth doesn't offend me in any [140:46] way. If you told me now that 31-year-old [140:49] mixed race guys that have Nigerian [140:51] heritage and their father's from [140:53] Coventry are statistically dumber and [140:55] and it was robust, I would believe it [140:57] and I would be okay with it. 0% of me [140:59] would would suffer any offense. 0%. of a [141:02] strong personhood. [141:03] Maybe that's it. There's nothing that [141:06] I'm so happy with who I am in myself. [141:08] I'm so content with my own life and the [141:10] way that I found it that if you told me [141:12] that my brain size means that I'm weak [141:14] in X, Y, and Zed, which literally a [141:16] doctor told me cuz they scan my brain [141:17] and said, "Oh, you've got ADHD, which [141:18] means you're going to be bad at all [141:19] these things. Your handwriting is going [141:20] to be bad." I go, "Cool." [141:22] Yeah. [141:22] There's no offense taken. But I can also [141:25] imagine a world where a certain someone [141:27] with a certain disposition might just [141:28] take offense to a lot of things. So then [141:30] in that case we have we're at a [141:33] bifurcation at that point. We can either [141:35] say [141:37] to anyone who might be offended please [141:40] grow a pair because the world is [141:43] requires anti-fragility and there are [141:45] stressors in life that are going to hurt [141:47] you and you'll thank me later for me [141:50] teaching you to have to grow a pair. Or [141:52] we can take the other road which says [141:54] let's sanitize the world so that we [141:57] maximize that no one is ever hurt [142:01] because we're kind and compassionate [142:03] people. And if in that service of that [142:05] sanitization process we have to murder [142:07] truth so be it. And that's by the way [142:10] what leads to all those parasitic ideas [142:12] because as I said I'm I'm trying to be [142:13] charitable to the to the promulgators of [142:16] those [ __ ] ideas. They it starts off [142:19] with a noble cause right? They're trying [142:22] to improve the world in their warped [142:23] sense. And because that's the highest [142:26] goal, they end up if I have to murder [142:29] truth, that's that's a collateral [142:30] damage. It's okay, right? I don't want [142:33] to I don't want a 6'4 guy who's got a [142:37] stronger jawline than me and a beard to [142:40] say, "Please address me as she and you [142:43] better do so." And it's a governmental [142:45] edict, right? That that's what Jordan [142:48] Peterson and I, we were both summit. I [142:51] mean separately by the Canadian [142:52] government to appear in front of the [142:54] Canadian Senate when we were offering [142:57] our warnings against it's now bill but [143:00] at the time it was a table bill called [143:02] Bill C16 which was trying to incorporate [143:06] gender identity and gender uh [143:08] orientation or whatever it's called into [143:11] the hate law rubric. And my position was [143:14] yes, of course, we should seek to have a [143:17] world where everybody lives dignified [143:19] lives free of bigotry. But should I be [143:23] teaching in my evolutionary psychology [143:24] courses that there is no such thing as [143:27] male female that we clearly know that so [143:29] then sexual selection that Darwin taught [143:31] us is no longer true. And they all [143:33] started scoffing and mocking in a [143:35] theater of the absurd. Well, pretty much [143:38] I hate to be the guy who says I told you [143:39] so, but lit. I mean literally every [143:41] single thing that I predicted came out [143:43] to be true because once you lose the [143:46] reflex to have a deontological defense [143:49] of a deontological principle then all [143:51] bets are off. [143:52] An objective sense [143:53] objective sense. No. Of course I fight [143:56] for the right of everybody to live lives [143:58] free of dignity. But you can't play [144:02] sports with a girl. I mean in what world [144:05] do we live in? [144:06] I played sports with a girl last night. [144:08] I don't want to hear about it. co-ed [144:09] football. We played soccer. [144:10] Ah, is that right? Okay. But you know [144:12] what I mean. You shouldn't run the 100 [144:13] meters and call yourself I mean you know [144:16] the Leah Thomas case, the the swimmer [144:18] swimmer. Yeah. [144:19] I mean imagine the level of pathological [144:21] narcissism that you must experience [144:23] where you say the need for me to [144:25] reaffirm my identity even if he truly [144:28] held that identity is supersedes the [144:31] rights of all those women. [144:33] Yeah. Do you know what just to give my [144:35] position on on this? I if someone asked [144:38] me if someone had the jawline you [144:40] described and they asked me to refer to [144:41] them as a woman and they were wearing a [144:43] dress. I've got no problem with that. [144:45] Okay. [144:45] I'm going to refer to if you if that's [144:47] what you you want me to refer to you as [144:50] in the same way that if when I asked you [144:51] before the start of this conversation, [144:52] how do you want to be referred to? You [144:54] told me your name, your title, etc. I [144:56] will because again, [144:58] it's not hurting me, [144:59] right [144:59] to to refer to you as she, he, they, [145:01] whatever you want. And if that's going [145:03] to make you feel um better about [145:06] yourself then on a costbenefit analysis [145:08] in my head I go it's costing me nothing [145:10] to refer to you as that. [145:12] Yes. [145:12] If it then has implications which shift [145:15] that costbenefit analysis i.e there's [145:17] harm caused to another group of people [145:20] because of that or I'm I'm you know I [145:22] might be thrown in prison if I [145:24] accidentally make a mistake. That's [145:25] where I think I think that's a little [145:27] I think I completely agree with that. [145:29] Right. as long as you don't harm others [145:32] in that calculus in that dynamic and as [145:35] long as it's not compelled right so and [145:37] I've said it I said look if if I I I've [145:39] never had this in my classes but let's [145:41] suppose a student came to me privately [145:42] and said you know I'd like to do you [145:44] think I'm going to say no way [ __ ] [145:46] I'm going to no I will I will go along [145:48] as you said but if it's the government [145:50] who says you better do it now we're [145:52] different if the government says you [145:54] better start putting he him in uh in [145:57] your electronics signature. No. Right. [146:01] I'll give you an example. I think in the [146:03] Canadian uh government has now issued [146:06] for passports a thing whereby because [146:09] you want to be inclusive and kind to [146:12] non-binary people, which basically makes [146:15] up one out of every 15,000 people. So, [146:19] it's not even the tyranny of the minor [146:21] of the minority. It's the ten tyranny of [146:24] the minority minority minority. I mean, [146:26] it's really it's a unicorn. Non-binary. [146:29] Non-binary is I'm neither male, neither [146:31] female. So, because historically, you [146:34] know, sexually reproducing species, [146:36] male, female phenotype, that to put male [146:39] and female marginalizes the non-binary. [146:43] Now, we lose that marker. No, no, no. I [146:46] want to be referred as a biological [146:49] male. My wife is a biological female. my [146:53] children also have. So all of our most [146:56] fundamental biological markers should be [146:59] erased lest it might offend the one in [147:03] 50,000 nonb No. So that speaks to your [147:05] first point which is what about causing [147:07] harm to other people. So yes, I will [147:09] never go out of my way to be frivolously [147:11] mean to someone and my default value [147:14] will be to be kind to you. But your need [147:17] to [147:19] honor your identity doesn't mean that I [147:22] get to go on the celebratory train with [147:24] you. Do [147:24] you know who sometimes gets caught in [147:26] the crossfire on these issues? And it's [147:27] not just with the issue around gender, [147:29] it's around, you know, religion and race [147:31] and these kinds of things are the people [147:33] in that group, in that minority group [147:36] who agree. [147:37] Yeah. But because they identify as maybe [147:40] the the a sex that wasn't the sex they [147:42] were born as, they then get they get the [147:46] abuse. You talked about it being [147:48] difficult now being a a Jewish person in [147:50] Canada. Yeah. [147:51] It's it's really difficult, I think, in [147:53] this current moment to be a trans person [147:54] in this world because this macro debate [147:57] is raging, [147:58] right? [147:58] It's raging on if I go on Twitter, if I [148:00] go on YouTube, it's it's passionately [148:03] raging on both sides. And I want I got [148:05] friends that identify as they them um [148:08] and they aren't participating in this [148:10] raging war, but I I imagine I would [148:13] imagine that the probability of them [148:15] experiencing abuse now walking down the [148:16] street [148:17] has increased. And again, I guess this [148:19] is this is goes back to the sort of [148:20] consequential truth versus the objective [148:23] truth. But those are the people I feel [148:25] sorry for because [148:26] I know them. They're not in this like [148:29] screaming ex war, but their lives have [148:32] been made worse because of all of this [148:33] stuff. [148:34] That's sad. [148:34] And they're just minding their own [148:35] business, getting on with their lives, [148:36] loving whoever they love, identifying [148:37] however they want. And I feel that's [148:39] kind of I that's the group of people [148:41] that I feel most emp most empathy [148:43] towards in this current debate. [148:45] Yeah. No, I hear you. I hear you. By the [148:46] way, only because you mentioned the word [148:48] empathy. So my next book is titled [148:51] suicidal empathy. Because in the book [148:54] what I'm arguing to our earlier point [148:56] about to be properly modulated and [148:59] regulated I argue that the the emotion [149:01] of empathy has clear evolutionary [149:04] reasons right I mean there are adaptive [149:06] reasons why each of our emotions has [149:09] have has evolved the problem is when it [149:12] misfires. [149:13] Yeah. [149:14] When not only it misfires in that for [149:16] example it becomes hyperactive but when [149:18] it also misfires to the wrong target. So [149:21] if I'm empathetic to the transerson to [149:25] the detriment of all biological women, [149:28] that's a misfire, right? [149:30] Yes, it would be great for immigrants to [149:32] come in legally to experience the beauty [149:34] of the West. I am an immigrant. Elon [149:37] Musk is an immigrant. [149:38] I I guess I am. I was born in Botswana, [149:40] but [149:40] you're an immigrant, but you hopefully [149:42] came in legally. That doesn't mean [149:44] No comment. [149:45] Sorry. [149:45] No comment. [149:46] No. [149:48] Uh but opening the door to 10 million 12 [149:52] million because it's not fair for [149:54] Guatemalans and Al Salvador and not to [149:56] come in and share the experience. No, [149:58] that's not right. uh life you know who [150:01] Thomas Soil is the the famous economist [150:03] he's a [150:04] yeah you mentioned I think you mentioned [150:05] I mentioned before right Thomas soil uh [150:08] who's an economist said look I'm [150:09] paraphrasing his words and I agree with [150:11] it economics is this is the study of [150:15] tradeoffs of cost benefits right if we [150:19] had infinite resources then yes let's [150:21] give free health care to every human [150:24] who's ever lived and will ever live but [150:26] that's not the world we live in so if I [150:28] am a paying [150:30] uh taxpaying citizen who's paid into the [150:33] system for 40 years. Do I like the idea [150:36] that someone can come across the [150:38] southern border and have the exact same [150:40] rights as me? Does that seem like it's [150:42] the proper directing of empathy? Maybe [150:45] not. If if you're homeless, it's a very [150:47] bad thing. Does that mean that your [150:49] rights to be shooting up uh the drugs in [150:54] the public park where my children play [150:56] supersedes their rights? And so in the [150:59] next book, I'm going to be looking at a [151:02] bunch of policy decisions that in my [151:04] view are disastrous and argue that they [151:08] all stem from this reflex of suicidal [151:12] empathy. [151:13] If one immigrant crosses the the border [151:16] into America and they go to Texas and it [151:18] improves their quality of life, who does [151:20] that hurt? [151:22] Deontologically? Everybody. [151:24] Why? Because there are rules and laws, [151:28] right? Is it is do you teach your future [151:31] children, God willing, don't steal, or [151:35] do you live in San Francisco where it's [151:37] okay to steal if it's under 950? What [151:39] are you going to teach your kids? [151:40] Don't steal. [151:41] That's it. You answer your question. [151:42] What are they stealing? [151:45] They're stealing the money that should [151:47] go to people who've paid taxes for 40 [151:49] years. They're stealing my right to [151:52] Okay, I I did my masters. I'm I'm going [151:54] to say this not because I'm [151:57] uh signaling my CV because it's relevant [152:00] to the story. I did my masters of [152:02] science and my PhD at Cornell. I was a [152:06] professor at Cornell, professor at [152:07] Dartmouth and a professor at UC Irvine. [152:10] I'm probably one of the best known [152:12] professors around. If I want to come as [152:14] a Canadian to the United States, do you [152:17] know what I have to do? I have to follow [152:19] the law. I can't come and say I'm going [152:23] to live here and I'm going to work here [152:26] and I'm going to take this job and I'm [152:28] right I mean I I literally get stopped [152:31] and taken to another room where they say [152:33] are you making money and many of the [152:36] border recognize me will take pictures [152:38] with me because it's a country of laws [152:42] and therefore I with whatever [152:46] attributes I might bring that are [152:48] positive to the United States has to go [152:50] through a formal process. But if I'm an [152:53] MS13 gang member with two tier tattoos [152:57] on two tears tattoos that says that I've [152:59] killed two people in El Salvador and I [153:02] walk in, do you think does is your [153:04] reflex and intuition, Stephen saying, [153:06] but it's not fair to let him in. We we [153:09] understand why very dangerous 59year-old [153:12] professor Gatsad should we should really [153:14] vet him and he should go through the [153:17] legal process before my biggest goal in [153:20] life is to live in Southern California. [153:22] I haven't been able to because legally I [153:24] can't I don't have a professorship here. [153:26] That's the thing that hurts me the most. [153:28] I don't live in the luminosity of the [153:30] sun. So that [ __ ] who comes in [153:32] illegally is hurting me because I'm [153:35] freezing in Montreal. [153:36] He's not hiding. He is hurting me. [153:38] Why? [153:39] Because once the legal system breaks [153:43] down, then all bets are off. So what's [153:48] happened in San Francisco where all of [153:50] the retail shops have closed? [153:52] So crazy. I was talking to my friends [153:53] about this this morning. [153:55] Oh, [153:55] I sent a photo to my friends of a CVS [153:57] and said, "Why is toothpaste and chewing [153:59] gum locked in a glass cage in CVS in [154:01] America? America's going to be the [154:02] richest economy in the world. It's going [154:04] to be the, you know, the the apple of [154:06] everyone's eye." And I went to a CVS yes [154:08] yesterday and I asked for um some [154:11] deodorant and some mouthwash and then I [154:13] was like it's trapped behind a cage [154:16] mouthwash deodorant. [154:17] Do you see that you [154:18] you know what happened? [154:19] What? [154:19] I I so you press a button and someone [154:23] comes over to you to open the cage to [154:25] give you the like toothbrush [154:27] and they open the c and I said to the [154:29] guy why do you trap it all behind glass [154:31] cages? and he tapped me on the shoulder [154:34] and he pointed down an aisle and he [154:36] says, "Look." And as I looked down the [154:38] aisle, there was a man stealing and [154:40] putting putting stuff in his socks. [154:43] So, do you do you do you I hope you [154:46] understand that you just answered that [154:48] question, right? Because if I steal that [154:50] one toothpaste, am I really hurting you, [154:52] Stephen? You live in England. How How is [154:56] saying to that guy in San Francisco, [154:58] don't steal? No, it's deontological. You [155:01] are hurting me. You're hurting me [155:03] deontologically. You're hurting the [155:05] ability for society to have predictable [155:09] laws, predictable cause and effect [155:12] relationships. If you steal, you'll be [155:15] punished. [155:15] Does this rely on society being fair [155:17] though? [155:18] And your next point is going to be it's [155:20] not fair, therefore why should we have [155:21] laws? [155:22] Yeah. Well, just wondering because if if [155:24] people see that and they go, well, I [155:26] don't know the answer here, so I'm just [155:27] posting questions. I'm really intrigued [155:29] by this train of thought. So I [155:31] understand what you're saying. We do [155:32] need laws. And I accept that point [155:33] because if we didn't have laws, then all [155:36] systems kind of fall apart, things fail, [155:38] then people won't want to come here [155:39] anyway. The reason they want to come [155:41] here in part is because there's laws and [155:42] that's created a society. But does it is [155:45] is that theory of sort of moral theory [155:47] contingent on the fact that the society [155:49] is fair and then obviously people would [155:51] then argue that this society isn't fair [155:53] because they've got there's people with [155:54] their fingers on the scales. [155:56] No society is perfect. But as someone [155:58] who is buffeted from the sample of [156:01] societies outside of the west, no [156:04] society is better than we you have here. [156:06] Meaning that if you look at some of the [156:09] staunchest defenders of the western [156:12] tradition, it may or may not surprise [156:14] you, Stephen, to know that many of them [156:16] are immigrants, right? I often use the [156:19] example of Ayan Hersy Ali, right? The [156:21] Somali immigrant who's one of the [156:23] staunchest. She's she's Muslim herself. [156:26] She's one of the strongest critics of [156:28] Islam. Why? Because she has sampled the [156:30] buffet of that society. She didn't go to [156:32] Welssley College where it's rarified in [156:35] Boston and then she can pontificate [156:37] while she bought her kafia from Amazon. [156:40] Right? She's lived that. I don't have to [156:43] pontificate about things that I know [156:44] nothing about. I grew up in the Middle [156:46] East. So therefore people who've lived [156:48] those experiences can come to the west [156:51] and say hey guys in the west you think [156:53] that this society is the default value [156:56] of societies. No no no this is a bleep. [156:58] This is an anomaly. You should really [157:00] work hard to defend what you have. You [157:03] crack the code of the values that you [157:06] need to have foundationally for [157:07] everything to flourish. This is not [157:09] normal. This is anomalous. But once you [157:12] start having consequentialist intrusions [157:15] into those deontological systems, it [157:17] breaks down very quickly. As you saw in [157:19] San Francisco, as you saw in the rush of [157:22] millions of people to the border because [157:24] the most fundamental law of law, I mean [157:26] Newton talked about every reaction, [157:28] every action has a reaction. Let's put [157:30] it in other terms, cause and effect. [157:33] Once you break that law, you're breaking [157:35] the most fundamental laws of nature, [157:37] right? So, should a felon have a 68th [157:42] chance? So, you've now been arrested [157:45] again and then we go through your record [157:48] and we find that you've been arrested 67 [157:53] previous times. How many times must you [157:57] be arrested for you to have lost your [158:01] opportunity for another chance? Right? [158:04] Because that 68th time, that suicidal [158:07] empathy, because I'm so progressive, [158:10] led to that woman being killed, was her [158:14] life worthwhile that we might have [158:17] wanted to be a bit harder on you. So [158:18] that's what I mean at. So yes, of [158:20] course, I support the right of people to [158:23] better their lives. And we're all coming [158:26] from a nation of immigrants legally, [158:29] man. And also the other point I guess is [158:31] that [158:32] people would rebuttal and say about [158:34] their the privilege. They'd say, "Steve, [158:36] you know, um you got tremendous [158:38] privilege because of the parents you had [158:41] and they brought you to the UK when you [158:42] were a baby from Africa." And [158:44] I'm stopping you. [158:45] And they'll say you got they'll say you [158:46] got genetic privilege. They'll say, you [158:48] know, you your dad had a good brain and [158:50] he's passed some of that to you and your [158:51] mom had a good brain. And they'll say to [158:53] you, they'll say, "Gad, you know, if you [158:55] weren't brought from the Middle East [158:57] when you were younger, you wouldn't have [158:58] had these opportunities. So, you need to [159:00] pay that forward to other people that [159:01] don't have opportunities and privilege [159:03] by welcome welcoming them in, being [159:06] highly empathetic towards them, even if [159:08] they're in the in Mexico. [159:10] Legally or illegally? Legally, I'm off. [159:13] I'm let's do it. I'm all in. illegally. [159:15] No, you don't get, you know, it's unfair [159:18] that all these incelss don't have access [159:22] to sexual partners while some of us have [159:26] access. Maybe we need to set up a [159:28] communist system where using an app they [159:31] get to share with our women. Let's have [159:33] communist mating, right? Well, why is it [159:35] that you're only getting access to your [159:37] partner? That's privilege. How about the [159:40] homeless guy who doesn't have any sex [159:42] for the past two years? Don't you think, [159:43] Stephen, that you owe him? [159:45] So, equality of opportunity versus [159:47] equality of outcome. [159:48] Yes, sir. [159:48] We're saying we don't believe in [159:49] equality of outcome. No, no one, I [159:51] think, with a brain believes in equality [159:52] of outcome. [159:53] Oh, no. There is one with somewhat of a [159:55] brain. Camela Harris say that [159:58] she doesn't have a brain. So, you're [159:59] right. But she pretends that she has a [160:01] brain and she is Lenin. She is [160:04] communism. It be it it completely [160:08] paralyzes me in befuddlement [160:12] to be able to play a clip of this woman [160:15] where she's saying I'm a mixture of [160:18] Stalin and Lenon and Marx and Marx in [160:22] everything that I believe in and the [160:24] United says United States which is [160:27] technically a capitalist country says [160:30] sign me up I think you'd be a good [160:32] president. So if we define equality of [160:34] outcome is everybody deserves this the [160:37] same chance to get the same outcome. Is [160:38] that kind of how it's defined or [160:39] Well, it's it's it's equality of outcome [160:42] says to the extent that we don't have [160:45] equality of outcome, it must be because [160:49] of nefarious reasons. So, so for [160:51] example, and I've actually satized this, [160:54] you know, one of the things I do is [160:55] satire and I draw analogies to show how [160:57] stupid things are. I said, you know, [160:59] there are 200 countries in the world. Do [161:02] you know how many have won the World [161:03] Cup? [161:05] I don't know. [161:06] Any number. 200 countries. World Cup's [161:08] been going on since 1930. [161:09] I'm going to say 12. [161:11] Eight. [161:11] Okay. [161:12] That is so unfair. How come those [161:15] Japanese have never been given a chance? [161:17] What about the Jews? Israel never [161:19] winning once. Why is FIFA so [161:21] anti-Semitic? Never once in Islamic [161:23] country. That sucks. It's those [ __ ] [161:26] Brits who've won. Brazil, Argentina, [161:30] Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Uruguay. [161:35] That sucks. Laos never. [161:39] What happened? Malaysia never. [161:41] Botswana. We've never won one. [161:42] You've never won. That's racism. [161:44] I looked at the uh results of uh the [161:49] Boston Marathon over the past 35 years. [161:51] Do you want me to summarize it for you? [161:53] I'm going to do it. [161:55] Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, [161:58] Kenya, Kenya. [162:00] Ethiopia, Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, Kenya, [162:04] Kenya, Kenya, Ithrea, Kenya, Kenya, [162:07] Kenya. What a bunch of [ __ ] The [162:10] Boston Marathon. Only black guys from [162:13] Kenya get to win. What about short [162:15] Jewish guys? Never. We don't get a [162:18] deserve to deserve a chance. It's so [162:20] ludicrous that even morons like Kamala [162:23] Harris will say, "No, no, but that's [162:25] different." No, no, it's not different. [162:27] It's a deontological principle. Human [162:29] beings are a hierarchical species. Some [162:32] are taller, some are shorter. Some are [162:35] harder working, less harder working. [162:37] Smarter, less smart. Funnier, less [162:39] funnier. Communism works well for some [162:43] species. EO Wilson, who was a Harvard [162:46] biologist, recently passed away. One of [162:48] my big professional regrets is that we [162:50] were never able to have a conversation [162:52] on my show. He's one of my big [162:54] intellectual heroes. His expertise, [162:56] Stephen, was in the study of social [162:58] ants. He was an entomologist. Now, why [163:01] is that relevant to the story? Because [163:02] social ants are communists because there [163:05] is a reproductive queen and everybody [163:08] else is indistinguishable. They're [163:11] worker ants or warrior ants. They're [163:13] just a blob. Right? So when he was [163:16] asked, I'm slightly paraphrasing, when [163:17] he was asked, "Professor Wilson, what [163:20] are your views on communism socialism?" [163:22] His rebuttal is one of my favorite [163:24] rebuttals in the history of humanity. So [163:27] the answer to communism socialism, great [163:29] idea, wrong species, right? Humans come [163:35] with their own innate human nature. Our [163:37] innate human nature is not communistic. [163:40] That's why communism has been tried in [163:43] many countries for the past 100 years. [163:45] And what has been the result in every [163:48] single place it's been tried? A [163:50] grotesque abject failure. The reason for [163:53] that is because when you take a [163:55] socioeconomic political system that is [163:58] contrary to human nature, you don't need [164:01] Gatsad to predict for you that it will [164:03] fail. That's like arguing. I would like [164:07] to create a new science law. It's called [164:11] non-gravity. [164:12] So, I'm going to throw a bunch of people [164:15] off big planes, but because I'm a fervor [164:17] believer in non-gravity, I don't think [164:20] that they will drop. But then I'm [164:23] astonished when out of a 100 people, all [164:25] of their brains squash on the floor. [164:28] That's because they're we're constrained [164:29] by this reality called gravity. By the [164:32] same token, Kamala Harris is the [164:34] anti-gravity person. So, I'm Canadian, [164:37] so I don't have a direct dog in this [164:40] fight. The reason why I speak out [164:42] against it because again, my social [164:44] commentary supersedes transcends whether [164:47] I'm American or Canadian. I'm talking [164:49] about bigger issues. Is communism the [164:52] ideal model for maximal flourishing? [164:55] Nothing could be clearer, but we've got [164:56] all these degenerates trying to [164:58] implement it here. [164:58] Would you vote for Trump if you could [165:00] if I were American? Yeah, [165:01] in a heartbeat [165:03] over Camela Harris [165:06] because that's [165:08] so right now we let's assume that it [165:10] does end up being Camela Harris versus [165:12] Donald Trump. I would vote 10 times for [165:15] Donald Trump. [165:16] What's wrong with Donald Trump? [165:19] He he's his worst enemy in that [165:22] cosmetically speaking I think he's [165:24] gotten better maybe by because of age, [165:26] maybe by discipline. uh he's gotten into [165:29] a lot of snafuss where he triggered the [165:32] eyeire of many people simply because of [165:34] how he delivered messages where had he [165:37] been a bit more polished he would have [165:38] avoided those things. So for example I [165:40] think that the fact that he never [165:42] returned on X has actually been a [165:45] blessing for him because he's the guy [165:46] who at 2:00 in the morning the president [165:49] of the United States at the time is [165:51] battling with some idiot because he [165:53] can't have the discipline to stop [165:55] himself. So I think [165:56] what about his character though? [165:57] Cuz if you if your kid grew up with the [165:59] character of Donald Trump, would you be [166:01] proud? [166:02] Probably more pride than Joe Biden. [166:04] But this is what happens on the other [166:05] side. [166:05] So you don't want me to ever compare to [166:07] someone else? [166:07] Well, this is what happens on the the [166:09] reason I'm asking these questions is [166:10] because if I ask someone on the like far [166:12] left, the first response they say they [166:14] their measurement of goodness seems to [166:16] be a comparison of the other side. [166:18] Right? [166:18] So [166:18] uh [166:20] if your son grew up with a character, [166:21] okay, so here are the some positive [166:23] traits and some negative traits of him. [166:24] Okay. I I don't uh pretend to know him. [166:27] Uh he is an entrepreneur. [166:31] I don't think there is a human being [166:33] who's been a better exemplar of what a [166:36] honeybadger is. Now, let me explain what [166:39] I mean by that because you may or may [166:41] not know that now. So, in in the last [166:43] chapter of the parasitic mind where I [166:45] have a a set of call to action, okay, [166:48] calls to action. One of them is I say [166:50] activate your inner honey badger. Why? [166:53] The honeybger has been determined [166:55] officially as the fiercest the most [166:58] ferocious animal in the animal kingdom. [167:00] That's saying a lot. There's a lot of [167:01] fierce animals. It's the size of a small [167:03] to mediumsized dog, right? And yet it [167:07] can go into a hornest net, get attacked [167:10] by a million bees, and get the honey. It [167:13] can withstand an attack of six adult [167:16] lions, and they back away. It's the size [167:19] of a small dog. Why? because it is so [167:21] ferocious. It's my brother going to that [167:23] beautiful girl not caring that he's 4 [167:26] foot two, right? He's the man. He's the [167:28] top guy, right? So, when I say to [167:30] people, activate your inner honey [167:31] badger, I say be resilient, be tough, [167:33] not not be violent, be ideologically [167:36] fierce in defending first principles. [167:39] Well, who has had more things thrown at [167:43] this guy than Donald Trump? and he's got [167:46] more vigor and and [167:49] stamina than you and I combined. Well, [167:52] let's take a very concrete example. Who [167:56] has been shot in the head and then stood [168:00] up and went fight fight? Those are very [168:03] those are qualities that I am going to [168:05] teach my son. Now, is he polished? Is he [168:09] eloquent? Does he speak with proper [168:11] elocution? Does he have a big [168:13] vocabulary? No. No. No, no, but I'll [168:17] take a ferocious honey badger any day [168:19] over. [168:20] Those aren't character traits though, [168:21] eloquence and stuff like that. When I'm [168:23] talking about character traits, I mean [168:24] if someone said if someone seemingly [168:28] attempts to steal an election. You know, [168:29] Mike Pence did a speech the other day [168:31] where he basically said Donald Trump [168:33] asked me to at that moment when Mike [168:36] Pence could have I think prevented the [168:38] electoral decision. He said Michael Mike [168:41] Pence who was his his vice president, [168:43] Donald Trump asked me to go against the [168:45] constitution and I couldn't do it. [168:48] Right. So [168:49] that's a character thing. Uh so [168:51] and maybe it's linked to the focity of [168:53] the honey badger because someone that's [168:54] that ferocious when they in faith can't [168:56] accept defeat. [168:56] They can accept defeat. [168:58] As an academic, I like to be I know what [169:01] I know and I know what I don't know. So [169:02] here I would be speculative in saying [169:04] that that behavioral trait is a [169:06] manifestation of a that that behavior is [169:09] a manifestation of a character trait. I [169:11] don't know if that link is right or not. [169:13] I could easily argue and I'd be [169:15] speculating so I don't know for sure [169:18] that he was convinced that that election [169:22] was absolutely unequivocally stolen. So [169:25] when he's doing those things, it's not [169:27] he's saying I wish to be dictator for [169:29] life. I mean he did leave office, right? [169:31] But he's saying find me the mechanism to [169:34] ensure that those [ __ ] don't steal [169:36] it from me. So I'm I'm neither here or [169:38] there on this one. No, he's not a [169:40] dictator. No, he didn't incite a violent [169:43] insurrection. He did. So, these are [169:45] things we can debate, but in term I I'll [169:48] put it another way. [169:50] Do you think that the world the world is [169:52] made up of some very very nasty bullies? [169:54] Do do we agree on that? Very very nasty. [169:56] Yes. [169:57] There's all the Islamic guys. There's [169:59] North Korea. There's China. There's [170:01] Putin. [170:02] Who do you think when they sit at night [170:06] they fear more? Do they do you think [170:09] that they feel the cackler, Camela [170:12] Harris, avocado brain, Joe Biden, or do [170:15] you think crazy cowboy? [170:19] Here's the here's the uh nuclear button. [170:22] You ready? [170:23] Eeny meeny miny mo catch a tiger by the [170:29] toe. Do you see what I'm doing? That [170:31] unpred unpredictability, [170:33] that's very powerful. When you go into a [170:36] prison uh yard for the first time, [170:39] everybody's looking at you. Is this guy [170:41] going to become a punk and my girlfriend [170:43] or is this guy that I should fear? How [170:45] you act that first hour or two is going [170:49] to determine how you do your time? Well, [170:51] Donald Trump is the guy that I want to [170:54] be running my prison yard, not the [170:57] cackler. [170:57] I hope you understand what I'm doing [170:59] here. I'm trying to in there's two [171:00] things I'm doing. The first thing is I'm [171:02] trying to form my own opinion by [171:03] interrogating. Am I successful at all in [171:05] No, no, it's really interesting. No, it [171:07] is really interesting and it's not just [171:08] you I'm asking these questions through [171:09] because I ask a bunch of people that are [171:11] smart and have different perspectives [171:12] and helps me form my own, but also I [171:14] feel I feel an obligation to represent [171:15] the other side. I understand how you [171:17] feel about Kla Harris. So, I'm trying to [171:18] interrogate this this feeling of Donald [171:20] Trump. Is there any character trait that [171:21] you can point out in Donald Trump that [171:23] is overtly [171:24] I'm almost certain that he had remember [171:27] you said you've got three groups of [171:29] friends and one group pathologically [171:32] cheats on their partners. I'm willing to [171:34] bet that Donald Trump is the head of [171:36] that thing. So, as a moral person who [171:39] wishes to be loyal and honor my wife, I [171:42] don't appreciate that trait because many [171:44] high status men have access to a lot of [171:47] beautiful women. And then what [171:48] determines your virtue and your [171:50] character is to be able to have the [171:52] self-control to not succumb to that. I [171:55] value that. I don't think Donald Trump [171:57] has it. Happy. I said something negative [171:59] about [171:59] No, no, no. Do you know it's funny [172:00] because when I when I when I heard your [172:01] opinion on um Donald Trump and Camala [172:04] Harris, I was in my hotel room thinking [172:08] one of the things I observe in people [172:09] that are political have a political [172:12] opinion [172:13] is they are like incapable of saying [172:15] anything critical about their own their [172:17] own candidate or the person that they'd [172:19] vote for. And it baffles me because it's [172:20] the same parasitic mind virus where [172:23] you've lost objectivity that that you [172:24] talk about in your work. So [172:26] no 100%. So, and I I wouldn't [172:28] necessarily only stop there, right? I [172:30] mean, we we could stop there, but but he [172:33] doesn't strike me as a man that is of [172:36] the highest moral virtues, right? So, I [172:39] am very much driven by an exacting code [172:42] of personal conduct. I'm willing to bet [172:45] that he doesn't come close to that. So, [172:48] so, so, but again, you live in the real [172:51] world, right? So, in the real world, you [172:53] don't have a perfect messianic [172:54] character. That's Jesus, right? So given [172:57] those two choices, which one do I want? [173:00] Well, I want the guy who's a bit [173:02] scarier. And Donald Trump is a lot [173:03] scarier than the Cackler. [173:05] I understand. And I I see flaws and I [173:09] see [173:10] at least one upside or more in both [173:13] options. So, but anyway, um what's the [173:17] most important thing we should have [173:18] talked about that we didn't discuss? [173:20] maybe the importance of social [173:22] connections uh which is one of the [173:25] fundamental ways that you could lead a [173:27] super happy life to to the point of the [173:30] happiness book. It turns out that the [173:32] quality of your social relationships is [173:35] a better predictor of your health in the [173:36] long term than your cholesterol scores [173:38] at page 50. [173:39] That's crazy. So having these meaningful [173:42] dialogues, whether it be in a formal [173:44] setting like on a on a show or whether [173:46] it be going to the pub and interacting [173:48] with people about whether Manchester [173:49] City or Manchester United is better. [173:51] We're a social species. Having [173:53] meaningful connections with people is [173:55] crucially important. Get out there, [173:57] read, get educated, build meaningful [173:59] connections with people, and hopefully [174:01] you'll be happy. [174:03] I have a closing tradition on this [174:05] podcast, Dr. Dad, where the last guest [174:07] leaves a question for the next guest [174:08] without knowing who they're going to be [174:09] leaving it for. And the question that's [174:11] been left for you is tell me about a [174:13] time in which someone said something to [174:16] you, positive or negative, which really [174:20] capital letters struck stuck with you [174:23] and does still to this day. [174:25] Oh, what an amazing question. Uh, am I [174:28] allowed to know who that guest was or [174:30] you don't? [174:31] Unfortunately, no. No. Okay, perfect. [174:32] Well, what a what a cool uh thing to do. [174:36] And as you were saying it, I was already [174:39] answering it in my head. So remember [174:42] earlier we talked about purity and the [174:44] exacting standard of uh exacting code of [174:47] personal conduct. [174:50] About maybe 30 years ago, uh my mother [174:54] said, you know, God, you better learn [174:57] that the world doesn't abide to your [175:00] purity bubble. And the quicker that you [175:02] learn that, the happier you will be. And [175:04] I think it's the by far the most [175:06] profound thing that I've ever heard [175:08] anybody say because oftentimes what that [175:12] ends up causing is because of my code of [175:16] personal conduct this kind of [175:18] maladaptive perfectionism this moral [175:20] scrupulosity this purity bubble the [175:22] world should be you should never be [175:24] dishonest you should never be duplicitus [175:27] if I treat you well you should so it's [175:29] this like I live in this laal la land of [175:31] purity at least my expectations what [175:33] ends up happening [175:34] you you're setting yourself up for [175:36] disappointment because you are expecting [175:38] the world to abide to this beautiful [175:40] purity bubble but the world is ugly and [175:43] messy and so you end up with things [175:45] where someone comes up to you and says [175:47] for 25 minutes you know taking your time [175:51] with your children then when they leave [175:53] I'm pissed off to my wife for the next [175:54] 10 minutes because I was imposing my [175:57] expectation which is I would never dare [176:00] do that to someone else. So, I think if [176:02] I were able to lower my expectations [176:06] and and internalize that message, I [176:09] wouldn't be as disappointed in so many [176:12] people so often. [176:13] Easier said than done. [176:14] Easier said than done. Yes. [176:16] It needs to be like a morning practice. [176:18] True. [176:19] Thank you so much for the work that you [176:21] do. Um, Dr. God, I found your books to [176:24] be really, really important because they [176:28] are unapologetically challenging and for [176:32] anybody who cares about the pursuit of [176:33] truth, whether they agree with you or [176:35] not, but just the pursuit itself of [176:36] truth, they care about ideas that are [176:39] unapologetic and are courageous and are [176:43] immune from political correctness. And I [176:47] know that some people who I doubt any of [176:49] them got to the end of the conversation, [176:50] but um some people who do care about [176:54] such a thing, I think those people are [176:58] the most important of our time and they [177:01] can find I think so many of the answers [177:02] that they're searching for in the books [177:04] that you write. I love the book about [177:06] happiness, happiness, eight secrets for [177:08] leading the good life. And I I [177:10] referenced your earlier book as well, [177:11] but the parasitic mind book I think is [177:13] the most important of them all because [177:14] it's so unbelievably relevant. And if [177:17] you understand what's written in this [177:18] book, I think you have a different lens, [177:20] a different pair of sunglasses that you [177:21] can walk through the world with and it [177:23] can make sense of the things that you're [177:25] seeing. In fact, both of the books have [177:27] this sort of throughine because if you [177:29] understand the world, as you said just [177:30] then, you can be happier within it [177:34] despite its imperfections. And so, thank [177:36] you for doing the work that you do. I [177:37] know it comes at a tremendous cost, a [177:39] personal cost. I don't know whether you [177:41] see it as a cost, but it's just an [177:42] inevitability. Um, but it's incredibly [177:44] important and I'm a big big fan of the [177:45] work that you do. Not not to say that I [177:47] agree with everything you've ever said. [177:49] Um, but I I care the most about hearing [177:52] it nonetheless and it feeding into my [177:55] sort of big intellectual reservoir of [177:57] information. So, I'm really really [177:58] appreciative of you and I hope you [178:00] continue to do the important work you're [178:01] doing. Thank you. [178:02] Thank you so much. Can I end with a [178:03] compliment? [178:03] Of course you can. I've been on a [178:05] million shows and I unhesitantly say [178:08] that this was one of the best [178:09] conversations. So, thank you for that. [178:10] Oh, that's a really remarkable honor. [178:12] Thank you so much. I appreciate you. [178:13] Cheers. [178:14] [Music] [178:18] Isn't this cool? Every single [178:20] conversation I have here on the Diary of [178:21] a CEO, at the very end of it, you'll [178:23] know I ask the guest to leave a question [178:27] in the diary of a CEO. And what we've [178:29] done is we've turned every single [178:31] question written in the diary of a CEO [178:34] into these conversation cards that you [178:36] can play at home. So you've got every [178:39] guest we've ever had their question. And [178:42] on the back of it, if you scan that QR [178:44] code, you get to watch the person who [178:48] answered that question. We're finally [178:50] revealing all of the questions and the [178:54] people that answered the question. The [178:56] brand new version two updated [178:58] conversation cards are out right now at [179:01] thecon conversationcards.com. [179:03] They've sold out twice instantaneously. [179:05] So if you are interested in getting hold [179:06] of some limited edition conversation [179:08] cards, I really really recommend acting [179:11] quickly. [179:12] [Music] [179:31] [Music]