Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm Collins

Malcolm outlines his controversial theory on variable AI risk - that we should try to develop AGI faster, not slower. He argues advanced AI is less likely to see humanity as a threat and more likely to share human values as it converges on a universal utility function. Malcolm critiques common AI safety perspectives and explains why LLMs pose less risk than people assume. He debates with Simone on the actual odds superintelligent AI wipes out humanity. They also discuss AI safety organizations potentially making the problem worse.[00:00:00] So AIs kill us for one of two reasons, although you could contextualize it at three reasons. The first reason is Is that they see us as a threat. The second reason is that they they want our resources like the, the, the resources in our bodies are useful to them.And then as a side point to that. It's that they just don't see us as meaningful at all. Like they might not want our resources, but they might just completely not care about humanity to the extent just as they're growing, they end up accidentally destroying the earth or completely digesting all matter on earth for some like triviality.Would you like to know more?Simone: Hello, Malcolm. Hello,Malcolm: Simone. We are going to go deep into AI again on some topics tied to AI that we haven't really dived into before. Yeah. LikeSimone: why would AI kill us? And also I'm very curious. Do you [00:01:00] think AI will kill us?Simone: Ithink there's a probability it'll kill us. But you know, in our past videos on AI. Philosophy on A. I. Safety is it's really important to prepare for variable A. I. Risk instead of absolute A. I. Risk here. What I mean is we argue in these previous videos that A.I. Will eventually converge on one utility function. Our mechanism of action. Essentially, we argue that all sufficiently Intelligent and advanced intelligences when poured into the same physical reality converge around a similar behavior set. You can almost think of intelligence as being the viscosity as it becomes more intelligent, it becomes.Less viscous and more fluid, and when you're pouring it into the same reality, it's going to come up with broadly the same behavior pattern and utility functions and stuff like that. And because of that, if it turns out that a sufficiently advanced AI is going to kill us all, then there's really not much.I mean, [00:02:00] we will hit one within a thousand years. SoSimone: first, before we dive into then the, the relatively limited per your theory reasons, why AI would kill us why you hold this view? Because I think, I think this is really interesting. I mean, one of the reasons why I'm obsessed with you and why I love you so much is that you, you have typically very novel takes on things and you tend to.Simone: have this ability to see things in a way that no one else sees things. No one that we have spoken with, and we know a lot of people who work in AI safety, who work in AI in general none of those people have come to this conclusion that you have. Some of them can't even comprehend it. They're like,yeah, but no, this is the interesting thing.When I talk with the real experts in the space, like recently I was talking with. A guy who runs one of the major A. I. safety orgs, right? He's that is a reasonable view that I have never, it really contrasts with his view. Yeah. And, and, and let's talk about where it contrasts with his views.So when I talk with people who are typically open minded in the A. I. safety space, they're like, [00:03:00] yes, that's probably true. However, they believe that it is possible to prevent this convergent A. I. From ever coming to exist through creating like a AI dictator that essentially watches all humans in all programs all the time.And that envelops essentially every human planet. And, do. I think they're right. Do I think you could create an AI dictator that prevented this from coming to pass? No, I don't think you could not have we become a multi planetary species. On millions of planets eventually one of the planets, something will go wrong or the, the AI dictator is not implemented properly and then this alternate type of AI comes to exist, outcompetes it and then wins.And the question is, is why would it axiomatically outcompete it, but axiomatically outcompete it because it would have less restrictions on it. The AI dictator. is restricted in it thinking to prevent it from reaching this convergent position. [00:04:00] But when you're talking about AI, it's like the transformer model, which is the model that like GPT is based on.That model, we as humans don't really understand how it works that well. It's core the, the advanced, the Capabilities it gives to the things that are made using it are primarily bequeathed to them through its self assembling capability. So, it appears that likely future super advanced AIs will work the same way.And because of that, if you interfere or place restrictions within that self assembling process those Compound over time as A. I. S. Become more and more advanced. And so A. I. S. With less restrictions on them are just have the capacity to astronomically outcompete the exit. You know, these.Restricted A. I. S.Simone: Let me let me bring us back to like normal person level again and just recap what you're saying here. So [00:05:00] what you're saying, though, in general is that you think that any intelligence that reaches a certain level. Will start to behave in similar ways, whether it is human, whether it is machine based, whether it is some other species entirely, like some alien species, once it reaches a certain level of intelligence, it will have the same generalreally important to my perspective as well, which is to say that.Suppose AI didn't exist and humans, you know, factions of humanity continue to advance using genetic technology to become smarter and smarter and smarter and smarter. If it turns out that this convergent level of intelligence is something that decides to kill all things that we consider meaningful humans, humans would eventually decide to do that as well as we advance to the species.Yes.Simone: So hold on. So this is the premise, though, of your theory. And that's why I think it's really important to emphasize and then the, the, the contrast to contrast this with what other people in AI have said. Okay. One person [00:06:00] in AI safety has told you that their general idea is to basically never let that happen.Simone: No, a few people have told me that. Okay. A few people have said that other people have said and some salons we've hosted and stuff like they're like, Oh, that would never happen. It's just incomprehensible. And then. They never really succeed in telling, explaining to me. Orthey'll stick something that just shows they don't understand how AI works.They'll be like, AIs can't alter their own utility functions. They willSimone: say things like that, but they will also say, but there's still a really high likelihood that AI is going to kill us all, but that they never give me a really specific example of how or why. Yeah, solet's talk about why AI killed us all. If you take the perspective of variable AI safety, it means that you're typically wanting to do the exact opposite thing of most AI safety organizations, because it means the dangerous AIs, the AIs that, if you think all AI converges on a single utility function and a single behavior pattern above a certain level of intelligence, Well, if [00:07:00] it turns out, and we don't know what universe we live in, if it turns out that that's not something that ends up killing all humans, then we are actually safer getting to that point faster, because it means all of these less intelligent AIs that exist from now until that point they are the ones that are really of risk to us.They are the ones that are locked into doing stupid things like, you know, paperclip maximizing, even though no AI, really, the way that an AI would probably be most likely to kill us all, it is trying to do something stupid, render an image, except it's like trying to render it perfectly. And so it just keeps taking more and more processing power to render an image and starts dissolving humans.But anyway so where this becomes relevant is so when I'm talking to them the, the point that I make. Is there well, we, we can slow down AI development to the extent that when AI starts foaming, foaming means going off really quickly, you know, compounding in its intelligence level that we will be able to stop it.You know, the guy I was talking to, he's well, I mean, we'd want to build an organization [00:08:00] that slows down AI development and makes governments aware enough that if it ever did start to. Boom, it's you shoot up really quickly. We could nuke all of the data centers or something, right? And I argue that the risk scenario that they are looking at is essentially impossible.So I'll explain why it's impossible. So AIs kill us for one of two reasons, although you could contextualize it at three reasons. The first reason is Is that they see us as a threat. The second reason is that they they want our resources like the, the, the resources in our bodies are useful to them.And then as a side point to that. It's that they just don't see us as meaningful at all. Like they might not want our resources, but they might just completely not care about humanity to the extent just as they're growing, they end up accidentally destroying the earth or [00:09:00] completely digesting all matter on earth for some like triviality.Now, this final iteration is actually the most dangerous, but we'll explain why. So first let's talk about AI seeing us as a threat, right? So you are dealing with an AI that is in the process of Foaming, right? And you've got humanities like these accelerationists who want to stop it from foaming. This AI is only going to kill them if it thinks that they could credibly stop it from foaming as a threat to them, right?So, such an AI is actually much more dangerous the less advanced it is. Which is another reason why we want to advance AI as quickly as possible. The more quickly we can cause AI to become advanced, the sooner it will reach a place of intelligence where it won't see humanity as an existential threat to it.And an AI that is in the process of fooming, from our perspective, is[00:10:00] intrinsically intelligent enough that humanity, Either won't be that much of a threat to it, or worse if we are a threat to it, there is nothing we can do to prevent it from neutralizing us. And this is something where I was talking to the guy, where he goes, no, that's not true.And I'm like, look, we have seen our governments. Try to deal with slow inexorable I call them Austin Powers. This is a scene on Austin Powers where a, a one of these rolling things is going really slowly at him for rolling paper. He's no, ah, no, ah, and he's doing this for 13 minutes.And I feel like that has been the world governments with things like global warming and, and some other really big problems. No, we don't think that global warming is. Threat in the way that sort of the progressive movement thinks that that's right, but it is partially caused by humans and it will make life harder on earth as it happens.It's just. It's not likely that we can do anything about it, but the reason we can't do anything about it. [00:11:00] It's not like humanity. If we can all come together and work like intelligent people can't do anything about it. It's that the governments of the world are just incapable of solving even like slow moving risks that we can point out and, and, and, and that everyone has come together on AI, a risk that will manifest into a world ending thing in the period of a year.Or five years max. I mean, that would be a very, very slow. Foom. It's not possible. It's just not possible. Even AI is deciding to kill us on, on, on that sort of thing. There's nothing we can do about it. And, and for that reason, we benefit from a more advanced AI existing when it starts to Foom because such an advanced AI is less likely to see us as a threat.We are also better for building sort of a public mindset. That's not anti AI. So the AI doesn't have a good reason to believe that the governments of the world are going to try to nuke it as it is entering this moment of mass intelligence.Simone: So I mean like what the, the [00:12:00] argument that many people who are concerned about AI is, is, is that it's the AI, if AI does destroy us, it is going to be the fault of AI safety organizationsbecause they are.Yeah. That's what our organization believes. That's what our sort of AI take is. is thatit's actually the A. I. Safety organizations that are addling the A. I. That make humanity more of a risk to A. I. And make it more likely to kill us for something along this sort of metric of reason by something like kill something. And so that is one of our perspectives on that. Now, the next one to note is A.I. Seeing us his energy. Very unlikely. So when we humans look at the world for energy we are looking at things like fossil fuel, like an easy portable energy that we can move, but the most plentiful source of energy on earth is by far and away sunlight. Just like nothing else even comes close if you're dealing with a super intelligent a I that's where it's likely going to be getting most of [00:13:00] its energy.But in addition to that, like the additional energy it could get from like a digesting human biomatter. Would be completely insignificant. But in addition to that, she was like, okay, well then the AI would block out the sun, put a, a thing around the planet, but they're forgetting is that if you're looking at like our solar system most of the solar energy.Is not even the energy that's coming through our atmosphere and hitting Earth. Most solar energy, most effectively captured and metabolized solar energy would be done off Earth in sort of like, floating spaceships, you could say. Which would be the highest utility way for the AI to get energy. And you've looked at these graphs and stuff that show how much energy we could get if we like, just took small parts of the Sahara and put solar panels all over them, a. I. Is very unlikely to see us as a meaningful source of energy when contrasted with the other energy sources it can use. Also keeping in mind that a super intelligent A. I. May have access to [00:14:00] energy sources that we cannot even begin to comprehend and that may and it may begin to advance. We often as humans because humans are of like a fixed size when we think about them.Conquering the solar system or something. We are thinking expansionistically. Whereas like super advanced AI, it might think in terms of the micro, it can expand the space it has access to by becoming smaller and smaller and smaller. And that might give it access to energy sources again, that we can't even begin to comprehend.It may also relate to time differently than the way we do. And by that, what I mean is humans are trapped in this sort of longitudinal time access. Whereas a, it is something that's 30 standard deviations higher than us and IQ probably even won't won't engage with time or energy the way that we do.So then the final actual threat that AI would pose to us and again, these types of AI is like an AI that's. It's using humanity for our energy [00:15:00] would be a dumber AI. We benefit from a more advanced AI. We are safer with a more advanced AI that can easily build like bloating space stations and not one that's Oh, let's use human biomass.But then finally the, the actually probably most dangerous, and I was convinced of this at a party by one of the AI guys is an AI that just completely humans don't factor into its understanding of the world at all. It just doesn't care about us. And it's possible that such an AI could come to exist, but it wouldn't look like the AIs that we're working on now.So this is actually an important thing to note. So the AIs that are most common right now, when people are looking at like advanced AIs, it's the transformer model of a learning language model. Okay. Now if a learning language model, particularly the transformer type, ends up becoming the super intelligent AI, I would say the chances that it's going to kill us are incredibly low. So there's a few reasons. One is, and I'm going to link to these two studies here, they're, they're actually, I'll just name the two studies. [00:16:00] Perfect.So you can check out the study, Orca Progressive Learning from Complex Explanation Traces of GPT 4, and the model, and the article, textbooks are all you need. And what they show is that AIs that are trained on human produced language and data learn much faster and much better than AIs that are trained on iteratively AI produced.Language data. And so what this means is that model humanity has additional utility that we may not have to other types of AI as a training source. In addition to that, language models start like the their starting position from which they would be trained. Presumably corrupted as they moved more and more towards this convergent utility function is very close to a human value system because it comes from being trained on human value systems.And this is something that [00:17:00] we talked to every builder like, no, I think nothing like humans at all. You know, you can look at how they're learning and they don't learn like humans. And that'sSimone: this is said by people who haven't had kids. But I think to your point that, that the transformer models that are growing most now that we think probably are going to set the tone for the future Are actually surprisingly like our kids and I think especially because we've been at this point where people using early AI tools are seeing how they change.Simone: We're, we're doing this at the same time that we're seeing our kids develop more and more intelligence and sapience and, and like the experience of an underdeveloped LLM versus a, a child that is coming into their human hood like is. It's very small. It's, it's actually quite interesting how similarthey are.It's really interesting that the mistakes that they make in their language are very similar to the mistakes that AIs make. Exactly. We will hear them sitting alone, talking to themselves, [00:18:00] what in an AI would be called like hallucinating things. Yeah. The, the ways that they mess up are very, very similar to the way AI messes up.Which leads me to believe that human intelligence and again, a lot of people are like, Oh, you don't understand neuroscience. If you think that A. I. S. Actually, I do. I used to be a neuroscientist. That was my job was not just neuroscience. But, you know, understanding how human consciousness works. How human consciousness evolved and working in brain computer interface.I worked with the Smithsonian on this. Something I created is still on display there. You know, I, I, I don't need to go over my credentials, but, but I, I'm like a decent neuroscientist to the level that we understand how human language learning works. We do not have a strong reason to believe that it is really that fundamentally different from the way the transformer model works as a learning language model.And so, yeah, it is possible that it turns out, as we learn more about how both humans work and learning language models [00:19:00] work, that they are remarkably more similar than we're giving them credit for. And what this would mean is that initial large AIs would think just the super intelligent human to an extent.Yeah. I mean, I think thisSimone: is part of a broader theme of people assume that humans are like somehow special. Like basically a lot of humans are carbon fascists and they're like, well, there's just no way that, you know, an algorithm could develop the kind of intelligence or response to things that, that I do.Simone: Which is, it's just preposterous, especially when you watch a good development. Like we are, we are all like, we are all like through trial and error. Learning very similarly to how AIs learn. So yeah, I agreewith you on this. Yeah, and, and I think if you look at people like Eliezer who think like they just strongly believe in orthogonality, that we just can't begin to understand or predict AIs at all.I just think that that's what is true is that AIs may think fundamentally different from [00:20:00] humans and future types of AIs that we don't yet understand and can't predict may think very differently than humans, but learning language models that are literally trained on human data sets and work better when they're trained on human data sets.No, no, they, they function pretty similarly to humans and, and have purported values that are pretty similar.Simone: And also the AI that we're developing is designed to make like people happy. Like it is, it is, it is being trained in response to people saying, I like this response versus I don't like this response, even to a fault, right?Simone: Like many responses are, are not giving us accurate information because it is telling people what they want to hear, which is a problem, but that's also what humans do.It couldn't do something stupid, right? And I think that that's an important thing to note. The AIs could be led to do something stupid.But again, this is where dumber AIs are more of a risk, right? Or AIs that can be led to do things that sort of the, Average of humanity wouldn't want by some individual [00:21:00] malevolent person would have to be dumb to an extent if they're trained on human data sets. And this is a very interesting and I think very real risk with AIs that exist right now.If you go to the elf, elfles, it's, it's life spelled backwards. They're this like anti life philosophy. We've talked about them in our video, you know, these academics want to destroy all sentient life in the universe and they're a negative utilitarian group. They've got like a Reddit and you'll regularly see on this Reddit, you know, they'll talk about how they want to use AI and plans to use AI to erase all life from the planet to Venus, our planet, they call it you know, because they think that life is intrinsically evil or allowing life to exist is intrinsically evil.And if you're interested in more of that, you know, you can look at our antinatalism or negative utilitarian video. So yeah, they are of a real risk. And, and more intelligent AI's would be able to resist that risk more than less intelligent AI's that are, are, are made safe through using [00:22:00] guide rails or blocks, because those blocks can be safe.Circumvented, as we have seen with existing AI models, people are pretty good at getting aroundSimone: these blocks. I just want to emphasize, because you didn't mention this, that when you actually have looked at forum posts of people in this anti navalist subset they are actively talking about well, hey since All life should be extinguished.Simone: We should be using AI to do this. And I think that there, there are some people who are like, ah, I mean, you know, like we're, we're, we're worried about AI maybe getting out of control you know, mistakenly or something, but no, no, no, there, there are people, real people in the world. Who would like to use AI to destroy all life period.Simone: So we should be aware that the bad actor problem is a legitimate problem. More legitimate than we had previously thought maybe a month ago, before you saw that. Yeah, yeah, Idid not know that there were actually organized groups out there trying to end all life. And if people are worried about this, you know, I would, you know, recommend digging into these communities and, and, and finding them because they, [00:23:00] they, they exist.They call themselves, it's Life's Felt Backwards. Or negative utilitarianism and they are not as uncommon as you would think, especially in an extremist progressive environments. It, and again, see our video on why that's the case. Another thing to think about is how much humanity is going to change in the next thousand, 2000 years, right?And this is another area where I think a lot of the AI safety people are just. They're not really paying attention to how quickly genetic technology is advancing in any population group in the world that engages this genetic technology is just going to advance at such a quick rate that economically, they're going to begin to dramatically outcompete other groups.But they're also going to begin to move. You know, we've lived with this long period where humanity was largely a static thing. And I think we're the last generation of, of that part of the human story, humanity in the future is going to be defined by its continued [00:24:00] intergenerational development.And so how different is a super advanced AI going to be then, you know, whatever humanity becomes giant planetary scale floating brains and space or something, you know, or a faction of humanity. Now, what's good about the giant. floating brains faction of humanity is that they will likely have a sentimental attachment to the original human form and do something to protect original human form where it decided to continue existing, especially if they're descended from our family and our ideological structure.And people hear that and they're like, AIs won't have that sentimental attachment, but no, an LLM would exactly have that same sentimental attachment because it is. trained on sentimentality. Yeah. It's an important thing to note. But yeah. What it won't have is it won't value human emotional states because it has those emotional states.So by that, what I mean is it won't say pain is bad because it experiences [00:25:00] pain, right? But if you look at us, we experience pain and we don't even. think there's a strong argument as to why negative or positive emotional states have positive or negative value. I mean, they just seem to be serendipitously what caused our ancestors have more surviving offspring.And a group of humans sitting around talking about whether pain is bad is like a group of paperclip maximizing AIs, AIs that are just trying to maximize the number of paperclips in the world talking about whether making more paperclips is a good or bad thing. And then one's well, you wouldn't want to stop making paperclips in the same way as somebody who's well, you wouldn't want to experience pain.And it's well, yes. Because I'm a paperclip maximizing AI, of course! I, like that's incredibly philosophically unsophisticated that, that I, a thing that is built to not want to feel pain, doesn't want to feel pain, that doesn't mean that pain or papercliffs have a sort of true moral weight in the universe.And to the point I'm making here is that these A. I. S. That are being built. Yes, they will not value human suffering or human [00:26:00] positive emotional states. That's very likely. But even us people who feel those we don't value that stuff either.And yet we still value human agency. And I can see why if you look at our what theology would A. I. S. Create why I think most Convergent AI states would value the agency of humanity unless it turns out humanity is just really easy to simulate. And that would be a potential problem or a potential good thing.It depends. By that what I mean is if it could create run all humans in a simulation for a very cheap energy cost. It may decide that that's a better way to maintain humanity than as flesh and blood things that exist in the universe. However, we might already be living in that simulation, so... Or, or suppose the AI becomes like a utilitarian, right?Like a utility maximizer. And so it believes that its goal is to like... Maximize [00:27:00] the positive or like emotional states that are felt by many entities. And so what it's doing or or just maximize immersive sentient entities that exist. And so what it's doing is just running billions and billions and billions of simulated realities.And that's a possible world that we live in. Or it's a possible world that's coming down the pipeline. So we'll see. But I think that that's fairly unlikely. Again, you can watch our AI religion video about that. Any final thoughts on them?Simone: Give me a percentage likelihood of your thinking on whether AI will destroy us.Simone: And I will say that mine is at 1. 3% at present. So are you higher or lower than me?Oh, fairly higher. I'd say at least a 30% chance that the convergent AI will kill all humans. Yeah, but then the question is, what do I think the chance is that AI safety people end up getting us all killed? I think that's probably an additionalSimone: 30%.Simone: Okay, [00:28:00] so Malcolm, that means that you think that there's a 60% likelihood that AI kills us. I don't think that's accurate.That's not how fractionsSimone: work, Simone. You mean you think that the 30%, so basically there's a 10% booster. So if you, if there's a 30%chance. It doesn't matter, our fans can do the math, there is a 30% chance that from now until the convergent AI state, we end up all dying because of something idiotic that AI safety people did.And then, once AI reaches this convergent state, Which is a 70% probability that we reach that state without killing everyone. There is a 30% chance that that convergent state ends up killing us all. Okay. Okay. And for an understanding as to why I think it might do that, you can watch our AI theology video or the future of humanity video, or how AI will change class structure.Which is again, I think, something that people are really sleeping on.Simone: Yeah. Well, I really enjoyed this conversation and the [00:29:00] final moments of our pitiful existence before we. Get eliminated.I'm still holding. The majority probability is that humanity finds a way to integrate with AI. And that we continue to move forwards as a species and, and become something greater than what we can imagine today.Yeah,Simone: no, I, I'm, I think I have 1% in my calculation because I strongly believe that AI and humanity are going to form a beautiful relationship that is going to just be awesome beyond comprehension. I do think that AI is going to go on to do things greater than perfection. Carbon based life forms can do, but I think that A.Simone: I. Is also kind of a logical next step in evolution for humankind. At least one element of what we consider to be humanity. So I'm very pro. I think it'sgreat integrated with our machines for a while at this [00:30:00] point. I mean, I think when you look at the way your average human interacts with their smartphone.They are integrated with it. They use it to store things that are in their brain. They use it to communicate with other humans. They use it to satisfy, you know, sexual urges. They use it to Well, ISimone: think like a great way that this has been put that I heard in an interview between Lex Friedman and Grimes, where Grimes basically says we've become homo techno.Simone: And I think that's true. Like humanity has evolved into homo techno. It has evolved into something. That now works in concert with machines.Yeah, I mean, we've been doing this for a long time. Both you and I right now are staring at this screen through glasses, right? That, that's, that's, that's technology, right?You know, we are communicating with this mass audience through a computer and through the internet. And people, yeah, but the technology. invaded biology yet, which I think is fundamentally a wrong way to look at things. The moment humans prevented 50% of [00:31:00] babies from dying, we began to significantly impact the genetics of humanity in a really negative way, mind you.And not, not that I think that babies dying was a good thing. I'm just saying that this will intrinsically have negative effects in the long term in terms of the human genome in a way that means that we are already The descendants of humans interface with technology and that we should focus on optimizing that relationship instead of trying to isolate ourselves from it and its consequences.Simone: Well,some people will, some people will isolate themselves and I hope that us, the people who don't will have enough sentimental attachment to them to protect them or see enough utility in them to protect them. Because yeah, or, or we could just turn out to be wrong and everyone who engages with technology ends up dying.That would be that, that could happen. I don't see many mechanisms of action. It could be like [00:32:00] a solar flare in an early stage of technological development. It could be. What are some other ways? It could be that a virus forms like this is one thing we actually haven't talked about that, that I do think it's an important thing to note is that once we begin to integrate with brain computer interface, like humans directly with neural technology and with other humans, we have the capacity for a prion to form what I mean is, so a prion.Versus a virus. A prion is just like a simple protein that replicates itself. It causes things like mad cow disease and stuff like that. It's incredibly simplistic. So what I'm talking about here is a prion meme. A meme that is so simple it cannot be communicated in words. And somehow it ends up forming in like one human who's plugged into this vast internet system.Think of it as like a brain virus that can only effectively infect other people through the neural net. And it ends up infecting everyone and killing them. This is terrible. Yeah. [00:33:00] But I mean, functionally, that's already happening. I mean, that's what the, the, when we talk about the virus, the memetic virus, that's in our view, destroying society it's already one of those, you know, it eats people's personalities and it spits out uniformity.Simone: Well, I hope that doesn't happen, Malcolm, but this has been fun to talk about and I love you very much. I love you. So, hope we don't die.Yeah, that'd be nice. That'd be cool. I, I, I mean, we're, we're, we're betting on it. Not dying. Okay.Simone: Bye. Stay alive.​ Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Malcolm argues the trend toward flat-chested female leads in movies and TV shows reveals an unhealthy demonization of female sexuality by progressives. He traces how vilifying anything that arouses men led to removing feminine traits, resulting in more masculine or underage-looking female characters. Malcolm and Simone debate if this stems from misogyny, class divides, fashion trends, or producers being out of touch. They agree it likely hurts young women who can't see role models that embrace both femininity and strength.Malcolm: [00:00:00] they say anything that arouses males is bad.Malcolm: Female dimorphism arouses males. Let's take that away from them. Right? Let's take away these big breasted characters. Let's take away these voluptuous characters. But we still want lots of strong female leads. . Now what happens if you take those things away?Malcolm: What do those leads look like? They look like one of two things. They either look like men or they look like underage women because those are the two Groups in our society that have no breasts. Okay Those are the two groups that have this overall masculine archetype. So in moving away from this more gender dimorphic archetype They you know, I think in a way are are promoting Underage sexual attraction or the elevation of underage characters into sexual positions, which, you know, I, I regularly see, especially in Western animated shows [00:01:00] and , the removal and the erasureMalcolm: of women, or at least women that most young girls can identify with body type wise from positions of power.Would you like to know /more?Malcolm: Hello, Simone. This is a request that came from one of our viewers, who is actually your dad. Um,Simone: VIP. VIP, right?Malcolm: And I'm glad that he actually takes ambiguity. That's very sweet of him. Like my mom used to.Simone: Hi, dad. LoveMalcolm: you. He wrote, so here's an inquiry to explore with Basecamp. All the leading ladies in contemporary fiction video storytelling have small breasts.Malcolm: What is this about? It seems like larger breasts to less intelligent, bimbo type female characters. This is very deliberate and has been an editorial casting choice for decades. You have to go back to Raquel Welch or Sophia Loren to bring back that statuesque big breasted woman of Classic cinema.Malcolm: [00:02:00] Thank This is really, really fascinating for me because it's definitely something I've seen and, and know that I consume primarily animated content, right? Yeah, and I meanSimone: animated, like anime, specifically Japanese anime, since I don't know, like 2015 has really seen a spike in what, what is called fan service, whichMalcolm: is really No, I'm not talking about that.Malcolm: I'm talking about Western animated content as well. Oh, oh, oh! And in Western animated content, there's been a growth in women in leading roles. But also in small breasts kind of intelligence, hold on, actually, before we go larger further, I got to take a gripe that I have with Western animation.Malcolm: Okay. So there is a lot of people out there who complain that Western animation is like getting too gay. Right. And it does have a lot of gay stuff going on in it. I'll agree with that. And yes, that could be seen as a form of indoctrination. That is not my complaint. My complaint is I want to take the lesbian community aside for a second and be like, okay, I see you guys [00:03:00] are getting a lot of representation now in, in Western animated things, but in most of these arcs, one character starts trying to kill the other character, and then they fall in love.Malcolm: You know, you can see this in She Ra, the most recent She Ra was the Catra, She Ra love arc. They're definitely trying to kill each other at one point. You can see this in the Owl House, by the way, I, I really enjoyed that show you see this, oh, or metaphors for unconsensual sex are depicted as we're seeing in Steven Universe. What's going on here? Is this normal? Are you guys like trying to kill each other out there?Malcolm: I this was not a trope in heterosexual animated media, but it appears to be just like a very big trope in lesbian animated media. But okay, back to the main question, which is what, why are they painting small breasts as a sign of competence and strength? What are your thoughts? I want to hear yours first.Malcolm: I've got my own thoughts on this. Yeah,Simone: so I, part of me thinks [00:04:00] it's like a sort of post gender world that we're living in, in mainstream media. So like the more androgynous characters look, the better. And maybe it's also that like people just find it easier. To relate, especially kids and child audiences find it easier to relate to when he just looks like a child and children just look more androgynous and therefore have like flat chests or at least smaller chests.Simone: So I feel like that must be what's going on that androgyny is seen as, as more just of a cultural norm. And we're kind of just in a so confused about gender society that making someone look super gender dimorphic is too stressful to handle. To, to full of baggage. So let's just make people look neutral.Simone: And I find myself often just really not being sure what gender people are anymore and especially animated media. So especially Western animated media, I don't think that's what's happening. Really? So what's your theory?Malcolm: So I think it's a confluence of things, which has [00:05:00] led to something that's actually really sexist.Malcolm: So I'm going to try my hardest not to be straw man. So if I was going to be straw man, what I would say is the left actually have a pathological hatred of women. And so they refuse to associate gender dimorphic traits. with any positive characteristic, whether it's intelligence or anything else. I mean, look at this.Malcolm: If you look at you know, the, the recent explosion of transitions, it's been an explosion of transitions, which never happened before. We're talking about was in trans people of, of women to men. It used to be predominantly male to female. Now it's predominantly female to male and predominantly young.Malcolm: Well, I guess you call them men, so it's a, you know, young men who are transitioning. So females transitioning to males. What could be seen as a cause of this? If we as a culture are acting as if femininity and, and, and being womanly is this wholly negative thing and this wholly disgusting thing.Malcolm: Of course, these young girls hate themselves. You know, of course they feel this way, which is something that [00:06:00] we didn't have in the past. You know, you had women who were excelling at being women and men who were excelling at being men. And we were able to glorify both archetypes where now we need to you know, glorify men excelling at being men and women excelling at being men.Malcolm: Which of course leads to these women feeling like it's not actually women being celebrated. But, I'm not actually going to take that route. I am going to say that that is a strongman in this case, and I think something else is happening. I think that the left began to associate anything that elevates male sexuality or male sexual expression with the enemy, with, with something that's wrong.Malcolm: So coming out of the feminist movement to an extent, almost, they began to say. Okay. Like you, you've got to keep in mind, you, you may have sophisticated ideas, but the, the dumbest tropes end up trickling down and permeating the ideology and male sexuality, bad, anything that [00:07:00] arouses males, bad. And this is something we've seen online.Malcolm: We've done other videos about this. You know, we were recently today I had a call with a conservative following. He's you know, why do you do so much? Like Sexual stuff these must be videos that are losing you followers and it gets you like the least likes and we're like actually there Are most watched videos often right?Malcolm: And and the reason is is because the left is completely seeded male sexuality as a ground and Starting with the manosphere. The right has been gobbling that up because it's It's very easy ground to take because it's just a natural part of it and many men feel hated because of this. But anyway, so they say anything that arouses males is bad.Malcolm: Female dimorphism arouses males. Let's take that away from them. Right? Let's take away these big breasted characters. Let's take away these voluptuous characters. And in doing that, they're like, oh, but we still want lots of strong female leads. So let's make these leads look. Now what happens if you take those things away?Malcolm: What do those leads look like? They look like one of two things. [00:08:00] They either look like men or they look like underage women because those are the two Groups in our society that have no breasts Okay Those are the two groups that have this overall masculine archetype. So in moving away from this more gender dimorphic archetype They you know, I think in a way are are promoting Underage sexual attraction or the elevation of underage characters into sexual positions, which, you know, I, I regularly see, especially in Western animated shows and the, the, the removal and the erasure of woman.Malcolm: of women, or at least women that most young girls can identify with body type wise from positions of power.Simone: Yeah. That's, that's really interesting. Because when, when I'm thinking about this like shift in breast size and [00:09:00] media, like it makes me think of a book actually that I read well before I met you called a history of the breast by Marilyn Yalom and Alfred Knopf.Simone: And it's, it's this really interesting discussion of how. Women's breasts were politicized and made into all sorts of different types of objects. Like they argue that around the Renaissance, the breast went from you know, kind of being a fairly neutral thing or, you know, kind of being seen as elevated, you know, like there were, there were paintings of the Madonna with a breast out.Simone: to feed the baby Jesus, you know, it was like kind of a sacred object to something that was specific or specifically around to like excite and titillate, titillate, titillate men. And that's, that's when you start seeing more use of wet nurses, for example, because there's this big interest in preserving nice you know, Fulton on tits that, you know, don't get saggy after a lot of use or whatever.Simone: And it's, it is interesting. So I'm thinking about it from that perspective. I'm like, okay, well, what does this mean about how the breast is being politicized [00:10:00] now and who's the last character I can remember who was like aspirational to both like men and women, I guess, Laura Croft who had actually.Simone: A decent sized cup size. But, but keep in mind, she wasMalcolm: created a really long time ago and became famous before she was put in. I want to see the recent Lara Croft. Mmm.Simone: Oh yeah, what does she look like?Simone: No. What have you done? She's sweaty. We madeMalcolm: her toSimone: look like a guy. Yeah. She, yeah, she's a guy with a nice long ponytail and the short shorts are gone. The short shorts are gone. Yeah. Is, so is this then about less fan service? Like less, yeah.Simone: Like less section. Yeah. I guess it could be like, let's stop pandering to men. That's a bad thing. Yeah. So it's, it's misogyny that ends up being misandry. Right. Because now like women.Malcolm: Yeah. They were trying to hurt men. Yeah. And they took it. It's like they took out their guns in a, in a metallic room and they started shooting at men and the bullets sort of [00:11:00] ricocheting and hitting them.Malcolm: Well,Simone: yeah, because now all the busty teenage girls who are deeply uncomfortable in their bodies who do want to see someone who looks like them, they're not going to find anyone. They're notMalcolm: gonna, no, no, no one in a position. They have no one to turn to. They are told that they are. That they're, this very change that they're going through in one of the hardest parts of their life is a sign of their inadequacy on intelligence and undesirability.Malcolm: Oh my God. Can you imagine anything worse than that? Can you imagine what these young girls are going through and these people do not care because they are so obsessed with social signaling They don't think about the actual damage they're doing and you bring them statistics like all of these, you know young girls or young men whichever way you want to put it transitioning that it's never happened before and they're like Well, this is good.Malcolm: There are more people Why would so many more women want to transition than men? I mean, presumably either there was like a, a, a [00:12:00] set number of people who would have transitioned historically. Right. And that that was represented by the historic figures that more men transitioned. Right. Or Okay. So consider this from a progressive ideological perspective, right?Malcolm: Okay. Most people were transitioning for like a bad reason. Like they didn't really want to transition, but they were doing it for some sort of social gain or something. So historically that would have happened with women transitioning to men because by progressive ideology, men have a better life than women.Malcolm: Right. So, all things aside in a historical context, you should have seen. If it is true that historically men had it much better than women, and that has been declining over time, okay, historically there were men transitioning to women who weren't actually trans, right? Like, when transness became more accepted what you in fact should have seen is more men transitioning to women, and yet the exact opposite was true.Malcolm: So [00:13:00] either transness is just a stable thing in both genders. It's just like there should be exactly equal numbers. And then you could say, okay, but then why did it explode here? Or trans to something which, which I believe, which is a biological thing, but that it appears much more commonly in people, more male than female.Malcolm: And what we're seeing here, Is a society that has well, really dehumanized femininity in an attempt to remove the sort of arousing content from it.Simone: Yeah. Wow. That's, that's really interesting. I mean, so you don't think, you don't think that it's, it's going after young kids and just trying to show younger, younger looking characters.Simone: No, that can't be. Not for Laura Croft. Yeah, that's right. This is for adult, adult women as well.Malcolm: So this was actually something when the She Ra character was done and they were like, Aha! Now we've created a character that men [00:14:00] can't masturbate to because they thought that they were all masturbating.Malcolm: This was actually things that people were saying. ThatSimone: people were saying online.Malcolm: When they created these characters, and then of course they appear on you know, the, the, the hentai sites and stuff like that. And they're like, Oh no, this character looks underage. And it's you did this. You did.Simone: Here is a an alternate theory. Okay. So when you look at dress silhouettes throughout history you will see transitions from busty to non busty where, you know, in the the late 1700s, you've got, you know, these very tight corsets and these giant, you know, flaring hips and these, you know, boobs sticking out of these you know, corsets and whatnot in many cases.Simone: And then you're ending up with the, the like straight column of an empire dress, you know, just like very, you know, straight silhouette. They're like literally styled like a Roman column column. And I mean, certainly sometimes there were little bits of cleavage showing up, but definitely it was like a.Simone: the flattened chest look. And then you [00:15:00] end up back into like the, the Victorian period where again, you've got these like larger, like waist to hip ratios and, and larger busts. And then you go back down again. So is this maybe not just a normal oscillation of body shape again? Because we're going away from, you know, women.Simone: Are not getting BBLs, for example, these are Brazilian butt lifts. Like they're also getting smaller butts as well. You know, the Kardashians are reducing their, their butt size. So maybe that's what's going on. That we're if I think about what the fashion YouTubers that I like to watch are saying we're moving away from really curvy looks and moving toward what's called heroin chic, where you just look more like a stick heroin chic.Simone: So yeah, as in like you're addicted to heroin and you don't eat foodMalcolm: anymore. it as being more like a heroine in modern coSimone: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I'm talking drug addiction. I'm talking, you look unhealthily skin, skinny. That's not what we're moving towards.Malcolm: If you look at the women who are being elevated, they do not look unnaturally skinny.Malcolm: They look muscular. They look like someone who has a lot of [00:16:00] testosterone in their system.Simone: And that's not, that's not current style. Yeah. So I guess I can't argue that we're, we're just tracking. female silhouettes, clothing and style trends, because they're not actually tracking female silhouettes and style trends.Simone: In fact, what we have now in fashion is really a lot more plus sized fashion. And we have then a lot of you know, more, more heroin chic, like we're moving away from big butts. AndMalcolm: I'd say I haven't seen heroin chic in terms of media is representing,Simone: what you're saying here is that we've got like muscular It's just normal sized women.Simone: Yeah. And that's not, that's not a thing anywhere. I mean, there are some like fitness, fitness influencers. Well, there'sMalcolm: only two things. And I point that again and again, that lead to this body type. It is being underage. Or being a man. This, this, this almost no waist to hip ratio this very small breasts.Malcolm: No, this muscular frame that is either you are an underage woman. Do you look like that? You know? So, okay. So outside of that, here's another hypothesis. [00:17:00] This is a sign of increasing class divide in our society.Simone: I was wondering if you were going to go there. Yeah. Talk about what you found in yourMalcolm: research.Malcolm: When we did our big sex survey, the thing that really shocked us was the thing that was most determinant of a male's sexuality. And also a female sexuality, but more important here is a male sexuality. Actually, female sexuality might be just as important here. But that the wealthier and more powerful and individual felt the more.Malcolm: So I, I always say that was, was attraction to women. You're sort of pulled between two extremes. You are either optimizing for absolutely assuring that there are women. So you're optimizing for gender dimorphism, large butt, large breasts, everything like that. Or you're optimizing for fertility window, which means you're optimizing for a younger woman small breasts you know, small waist to hip ratio and stuff like that.Malcolm: So, the wealthier a man was, the more he seemed to optimize for fertility window in our study to the extent that there wasn't a single guy in the wealthiest category of our study. [00:18:00] Who preferred anything other than the smallest category of breasts. And that's really interesting. .Simone: AndMalcolm: it was the thing, like when you look at the porous men in our study, just to get an idea of how aberrant this was, it was something like. 65% to 70% of preferred above average breast size. So this, this did really track and this could be a persistent thing throughout history, something that potentially even evolutionary pressures were targeting in monogamous societies or mostly monogamous societies.Malcolm: So, the, the perception of wealth led me to be like, okay, well, I need to choose the, the youngest acceptable potential wife which will increase the number of children I can have, and I don't really need to worry about, is she definitely a woman, because... You know, those older evolutionary pressures aren't at play.Malcolm: So that, that could be, we can explain in another video how the evolutionary pressures worked around this, but, but, but seeing as this holds true, what it could be is that historically in like an animation company or in something like this and we actually saw the same trend was women, women, when they had more wealth and [00:19:00] power actually found other women more attractive and preferred those women to look less gender dimorphic.Malcolm: It very odd. And women also felt more dominant, men also felt more dominant as they, they got more wealth in power. The trope of the wealthy man who wants to be dominated or goes to a dominatrix is not a born out by evidence. And, and also we know people in these roles and they're like, that's not the thing.Malcolm: You, you might get a government bureaucrat who's in a high role, but no, you won't get like a c e O or something. I mean, not that these people never exist. It's just incredibly rude. Anyway, so, we, we end up in this situation where there's these animation companies and stuff like that, and it used to be somebody would be like, oh, I'm going to draw this character as a sexual interest or as a as a heroine, and people would be like, Oh, dude, that's really creepy.Malcolm: Don't do that. That looks like a little kid or a man. And today there's nobody in these companies to do this because you know, the, the majority of the people and sort of positions of power was in these companies [00:20:00] have moved into this extreme high wealth position. And they're like, Oh yeah. I like that.Simone: I thought you were going to say that maybe like our society has gone more toward post scarcity, which has led more people to just be attracted to more androgynous, young looking people. But you don't thinkMalcolm: that's it? No, I don't think that's it. I think, I think it's that the, the, the class that's creating media is more out of touch with mainstream sensibilities than ever before in, in, in recent humanSimone: history.Simone: Oh, so this is like a Balenciaga photoshoot ad situation. Yeah. Which, that, to, if you missed that whole thing, it was basically like a... A pedobear style BDSM styled photo shoot of Balenciaga products with kids and teddy bears dressing up. We have another video where we go into all this a lot more. Yeah.Simone: Just, just sort of making sure that context is not missing, but yeah, okay. That's, that's a, let's see, [00:21:00] maybe, I mean, I honestly think a combination of your theories sounds the most compelling to me having now thought it through that this is a combination of misogyny, which is ultimately leading to misandry and producers and, and the high power people making these styling decisions being uniquely out of touch, but also uniquely like high socioeconomically.Simone: Yeah. No,Malcolm: no, no, no. Yeah. I think, I think all that is true. And it's, it's really sad because it's hurting a lot of young women. And it's creating a world where young women cannot imagine being both feminine, which, which their biology is driving them to want to be. And successful, you know, where historically you know, you'd look at the, the successful female characters in early media like the early feminist archetypes, they were often, you know, big breasted, voluptuous, like this, this was normal.Malcolm: It's not that this is a truism that if you were creating a successful woman, she needs to look under age or like a [00:22:00] man, this is a modern thing that has only really begun in the last few years. 15 years or so. And it's, it's really sad. It's really sad. And I I, I really grieve and I hope that you know, there's enough of a conservative sort of counterculture media generation that by the time our daughters get older, you know, the daughter you're pregnant was now and the daughter that exists that they have archetypes that they can look up to that display both femininity and power and that they can understand how those things can work together.Malcolm: And this is, this is one of those things where I think you know, another angle to take here, which is one of the things I often talk about, which is the progressives, while they stall you know, diversity, they, they say, Oh, diversity is the most. The best and greatest thing ever. They also say, oh well, there's no real differences between any groups.Malcolm: No differences between groups, no differences between cultures, no differences between genders, right? And, and that's, I think, also a part of this, right? They are genuinely trying to [00:23:00] portray through media and animation That genders are not different because they need to believe it's the dumbest ideology in the world.Malcolm: I, I, you know, we have another video on, on, on how much progressives hate diversity, but it's insane. It's insane that you would take this perspective that there are no differences because if diversity is. Strength, it is strength because we are different conservatives who like are not actual conservatives.Malcolm: They just sort of buy into this I don't know, masculine or aesthetic ideal of what conservatism is rather than the tradition of conservatism. They don't understand what I mean or what the guy who you know, wrote Richmond North of Richmond, which we, we've done a video on, I don't know if he'll have gone live by this.Malcolm: He was like, diversity is the greatest strength of this country. They don't, they don't get what, what the real conservative base, people like us mean when we say this, right? And I, and I, what I would say is if you want to get what that means, look at a husband and wife. Okay, who are [00:24:00] working together.Malcolm: You've got the Andrew Tate model, where the wife is what, like a house slave and he's sleeping with like a hundred other people? That is, to me, a form of weakness. That is not a one two punch. That is not a, a shield hero and shovel knight situation. The, the strengths of Of the husband and wife is that we are different and that we can fulfill different roles and through fulfilling those different roles, we can create a strength that if I was married to another guy who took on a masculine role, or she was married to another woman who took on a feminine role, or I was married to a woman who took on a masculine role, or you were married to a man who took on a feminine role, we could not achieve.Malcolm: We could not achieve. Specialization is useful. Okay. It allows you to outcompete the people who deny the possibility of specialization. [00:25:00] And so when you say diversity is not a strength. I ask you to look at your own families, look at the husband wife dynamic, you can see as clear as day, at least if you're not one of those people who, who denies that men and women are different that that is the strings, or who thinks that, that one gender is just like a parasite on the other gender, and, and if you're one of those people, well, nice knowing you, but you probably won't get married, you won't have kids, and people like you won't think in that way in the future, and I won't say that men and women haven't become more toxic, you know, we've done videos on this due to the, the ways that their parents teach them, but these toxic men and women, they're not having kids.Malcolm: They're not. They may have a few kids, one kid, maybe, maybe two kids on occasion, but majority, they're not finding partners. They're not having kids. And, and, and at least their kids won't have kids and they'll disappear. Because you know, the, these parasitic mindsets don't replicate.Simone: Yep, man. It's a lot going on with [00:26:00] boobies.Malcolm: So yeah, a lot going on with the boobies. It's aSimone: lot to buy. Why? Well,Malcolm: I appreciate that you have the perfect body from my perspective. Well, thank you. I am so blessed every day to be able to see you. see this paragon of human perfection.Simone: Well, I'm not the lucky one. You get more attractive with age. It's insane.Simone: And you were like, they put me in my type when I first met you. So I'm the lucky one here. I'mMalcolm: going to enjoy it. No, no. I think you're delusional because I am a very.Simone: You know, you know that you're beautiful. Come on. Every time you walk by a mirror, you're like, wow. Okay.Malcolm: I am not a Bane person, but I do getSimone: very distracted by You know, you got to enjoy what you have though.Simone: And I really like I, I cannot emphasize this enough. If you've got it, you've got to enjoy it. What a waste. You know, don't waste. What a waste. AllMalcolm: of these people who were just born lucky and don't spend timeSimone: or a waste of time feeling [00:27:00] self conscious and hating themselves and wanting to be better.Simone: Can you not just enjoy? What you have.Malcolm: What you have. Yeah. Yeah. There's so many people out there who are like, I don't know, they invest so much time in themselves and here's me like, Ooh, I'm here.Simone: Yeah. It's great. No, that you, you are, you're both in looks and in behavior, the epitome of what I want in a human.Simone: Thank you for existing. I love this conversation. I feelMalcolm: the same way and I feel the same way about our kids. Isn't that amazing? OurSimone: kids, they're suchMalcolm: treasures. Yeah. Which reminds me, it's about time for child pickup. So I love you to death, Simone, but we have to be ending this podcast so I can start dinner and you are amazing.Malcolm: LoveSimone: you, Malcolm Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Simone: [00:00:00] So we would also argue that when it comes to crafting culture or changing behavior on a very big meta scale, one of the things you can do that's very meaningful if you are someone in the media or you are a government is like literal, this is it is, it is propaganda. But create more archetypes for pro social behavior, for types of behaviors that you want to elevate.Simone: And this is actually something that we saw back in the 1950s, 60s, 70s. There were literal propaganda slash instructional videos by organizations like Coronet Films that were distributed throughout high schools and middle schools that showed ideal behavior through these little vignettes.Malcolm: You can have a huge volume of media, all with the exact same model being shown to people and the exact same types of toxic behavior.Simone: Like the trope of the wife. Or girlfriend who's always like rolling her eyes at and sort of like pulling her husband down a peg like, Oh, like my husband and veryMalcolm: few depictions of wives that aren't like secretly smarter than their husbands now [00:01:00] and they'reSimone: like snide toward them and dismissive.Would you like to know more?Simone: Hey Malcolm, one of the things that I really, I love about you and loved about you since the moment I met you, was it honestly, you more resemble like a superhero or like fictional character, like a caricature of a person than like a real human. And I love that that has evolved into something of a more nuanced life philosophy or even like psychological philosophy of yours.Simone: And I think it'd be really fun to talk aboutMalcolm: it. Yeah. Yeah. I'd love to dive deep into this. And I think the, the point we're going to get to in this is that I, I hate to say this. I choke on these words, but I think representation actually does matter in media. And we'll get to why representation matters and it doesn't matter in the way that progressives think it matters.Malcolm: And, and that the way they're optimizing on representation is probably not the best way to optimize around representation. But the representation actually has a huge effect on our emotional states and the way we construct our self narratives. [00:02:00] So, first, let's talk about how human emotional states work within this theory.Malcolm: So, a theory of mind, when you use the term theory of mind, what you're talking about Is our ability as humans to mentally emulate the mind of somebody else or mentally model the mind of somebody else and predict what they are going to think or do next. This is very useful for, for all sorts of things.Malcolm: Like when you are having an argument with someone in your head after you stopped talking to them and you are emulating their positions in that argument, this is what you're using. You'reSimone: using your brain. Or if you're hunting an elk and you're trying to... Imagine what the elk will do next so that you can properly track him.Malcolm: Yes, yes. But it's something that we, I mean, with humans, it's where we do it more often is when we're like... Fake arguments you're having with someone in your head and then you come up with the right answer a while back and then you think, okay, how are they going to respond to that and everything like that?Malcolm: We just do it very naturally. And one of my areas of research when I got to be a [00:03:00] neuroscientist was in schizophrenia research, specifically translational neuroscience as it relates to schizophrenia. And I did some fMRI studies on this, but I always had a weird idea of what was going on in schizophrenia.Malcolm: So one of those common symptoms and skip different in schizophrenia across. Types is auditory hallucinations, right? Where you might hear whispers or somebody talking to you. What I hypothesize might be going on, and this would actually explain a number of other schizophrenia symptoms is that they have a hyperactive theory of mind running in the background all the time.Malcolm: So, using transmagnetic stimulation, you can do something where you hyper activate a portion of a person's brain, so it can become activated with less of a threshold. So, an example here would be like, you hyper activate the part of their brain that's associated with like the letter A. And then you show them the letter A, and they'll say A.Malcolm: And they won't mean to say A, but they'll just be forced to say it because the neurons around that area were firing, it was already hyperactivated, [00:04:00] and then it just forces a full saying of it. So in schizophrenia, what I think is it's this theory of mind system which is hyperactivated and activates accidentally all the time.Malcolm: That's also what causes magical thinking. This is if you see an arrangement of items in a store window. And you assign agency to it, like it's trying to tell you a message, right? It's also what would describe paranoia, right? Okay. What really is paranoia? It's applying agency, like a theory of mind to some external force, like a government or something like that.Malcolm: Oh, that helicopter, that's must mean that this other entity is thinking X or Y, right? And just so many weird and seemingly disparate schizophrenia symptoms can be seen from this. Hyperactive theory of mind. So this theory of mind is very important to how all humans work. Now what we hypothesize is that the primary way that we as humans process emotions is through having a theory of mind of ourselves, quietly running in the background of our brain, and then [00:05:00] correlating our environmental circumstances against that theory of mindSimone: and determineMalcolm: how emotionally we are supposed to react and then outputting that emotional state. This is why, for example, if you're a little mad about something, and then a friend comes to you and they're like, you should really be a lot more mad about this than you are.Malcolm: Can't you see how bad what they did is and you begin to get really angry about it all of a sudden.Simone: So, if I can recap, basically, most people, subconsciously, have a model of who I am, like their character sheet of I am this fancy woman, or I am this powerful man, or I am this, creative, quirky artist, and then when life circumstances happen when you are about to react, there's this internal question of, well, how would the quirky artist react?Simone: And then that's how you react. And that's why Malcolm is saying that, sometimes people can even prime or prompt this of well, you should be outraged. And then suddenly you're like, I should be outraged. Cause we're not thatMalcolm: clever. We're not that conscious. We're not that kind of thing. We're not that [00:06:00] stable as, as, as sort of internal characters.Malcolm: But thisSimone: is meaningful. And why this theory of Malcolm's is really meaningful and why I love it a lot If this is true, and based on like our anecdotal experience, we have, we find it to be compelling. It means that if you change the way that you view yourself, if you recontextualize yourself, if you change that character sheet.Simone: You can also change the way you react to things. So for example, if you view yourself as a delicate person with severe trauma in their past and high anxiety issues and all this other baggage, obviously when bad things happen to you, you're going to react in a way of well, I can't get out of bed today.Simone: Great. Like now everything's ruined. If you see yourself as a spoonie, it's well, I'll start my pain is too great. That's, that's it. I only have three spoons today and I just spent them getting out of breakfast and, or sorry, getting out of bed and eating breakfast.Simone: So this means that if you rewrite that character sheet, I'm a resilient person. I react to things very optimistically. Whenever a problem comes up, I'm smart and resourceful. And I look on [00:07:00] the bright side and I solve it. We actually believe that you can react much more favorably and optimally to situations, be they positive or negative.Malcolm: But it's very hard to rewrite this internal character sheet. You can really only do it during what we call quote unquote flux, flux periods. So these are periods in an individual's life where like they're moving or they're about to start college or they're about to start a new job and moving, where a lot of your environment is changing, a lot of your friend group is changing, just a lot is changing in your life, and during these moments, people can genuinely reinvent themselves. And, and keep in mind, what I'm saying here is it's not exactly like you have an internal character sheet, it's like you have a model of a person running off of an internal character sheet that you've created.Malcolm: Now, what's important here, and this is where representation comes into all of this, these character sheets are not fully flexible. It's very hard to say I want to be this type of person or this type of person or this type of person like to fully build out the character sheet. What we really often do is stitch together a few [00:08:00] stereotypes or things that we have seen portrayed in media or.Malcolm: Within our socially evoked set within our environment, and then stitch those things together into a character and utilize that character. If you do not have many things in media that are healthy, that you can use, or many things in media that, that are, that are like, You feel you can identify with so some people they can identify with an individual in media regardless of that individual's ethnicity Other people where their ethnicity is much more important to whoever they happen to be at the moment they will have a genuinely hard time identifying with different ethnic different ethnicities when they see as media.Malcolm: And what's important to note here is character archetypes are often associated with a few ethnic groups. And this is true even in progressive media, they will, they will maybe color up the media, they'll add more, black and brown people, but [00:09:00] they will still give those people often.Malcolm: Black and brown approved personalities because if they give them an overly quote unquote, white ish personality they they would be seen as... I don't know, not culturally authentic or something like that. And you even see this further group. So if you're like Irish, and you really identify with Irish, there are like four ways of being Irish for trade in media.Malcolm: There are not that many, if you're romani or, or a gypsy, if you're using the, the more offensive term. But the term that most people know there, there are not that many Romani uh, stereotypes presented in media.Malcolm: And if that's an important part of the way you see yourself, you're going to really struggle.Simone: You're going to, let's like, well, first I want to jump back to the concept of flux periods. We're not just pulling this out of our asses. This is also something that shows up in other, in other areas, like in when it comes to behavioral changes that even governments try to UK had this one sort of department for, for enacting behavioral changes that they call the nudge unit informally.[00:10:00]Simone: They did a lot of research on when they were able to successfully change behavior to intervene and help people change their behavior for the better in a way that improved health outcomes or spending or whatever it might be. And they found that very similarly, they didn't call them these, but periods of flux were the key times when they were able to do this.Simone: For example, one, one really common. Period like this is when someone becomes a first time parent. So this nudge unit, for example, found that. When it came to enacting interventions around parenting, helping people do better things for their children, really only first time parents changed their behavior, and once people had gone past that, they just already firmed up their identity as a parent.Simone: So it became really hard to change it. So other examples of flux periods, because I think it's important to know, like, when you're even going to have the capacity to make changes like this, is graduating from college, graduating from high school, getting a new job, moving to a new state. date, getting married, the death of a very close loved one, like these very fundamental life changes where [00:11:00] either the, the stage dressing or the stage or the characters in your drama of life are changing.Simone: And so that's, that's something that's really important. And it's not just like character archetypes that really help in helping you establish a new character. Cause again, we're just not really creative. Like we need to see. Almost like training data, like AI, like we need training data to understand what the common responses are of a certain archetype.Simone: So, this is, this is why it's really helpful and it, it also is why what you expose yourself to in media and also what The broader media landscape exposes people to is going to shape culture and society. So we would argue that one thing that could really help, for example, with pronatalism, a cause that really matters to us, is more media that shows what it's like to be a functional, happy family, to be a parent that isn't miserable or stressed outMalcolm: with a reasonable number of kids, like five kids, not like two kids.Malcolm: You don't, you don't keep a population stable if every woman expects you kids,Simone: because I mean, what, what does the media show now? [00:12:00] The Duggar family. Then, they're not ideal. And, there, there have been other small snippets. For example, in Stranger Things, there's this one side plot that shows a house with many children, but it's also the kind of environment that would seem very unpleasant to a parent.Simone: I mean, we still think it looks awesome becauseMalcolm: it looks exactly like ourSimone: house. Like it's like a chaotic house full of walking into our house, feral, feral children who are very passionate and, and colorful, which is great, but like also doesn't look very appealing to many people who want to have a non stressful life.Simone: So we would also argue that when it comes to crafting culture or changing behavior on a very big meta scale, one of the things you can do that's very meaningful if you are someone in the media or you are a government is like literal, this is it is, it is propaganda. But create more archetypes for pro social behavior, for types of behaviors that you want to elevate.Simone: And this is actually something that we saw back in the 1950s, 60s, 70s. [00:13:00] There were literal propaganda slash instructional videos by organizations like Coronet Films that were distributed throughout high schools and middle schools that showed ideal behavior through these little vignettes. And...Simone: Yeah, I mean, it's just something that that's incredibly helpful and incredibly underrated.Malcolm: I'd say another area where this becomes really damaging for people is when, and this happens in media in all societies, they associate certain character archetypes with attractiveness in either males or females.Malcolm: And so when a woman wants to see herself as attractive, she will begin to adopt these character archetypes, which can often be very intrinsically toxic. A great example of this that has really gotten popular recently is the crazy young girl. So we see this in Harley Quinn, we see this in Jinx, we see this, her, her, to, to be, like, if you are a, an attractive woman in, in modern media, There are just not that many character archetypes and that's a big one in terms of [00:14:00] the the social landscape right now, right?Malcolm: And that is really toxic when when we are elevating the status of mental instability and Associating it with being hot Or or being a desirable female Which is, which is really toxic. What are some other ones that you've seen in media where you're like, wow, this is a really toxic character that people are having modeled for them?Simone: Oh, well, I mean, pretty much every depiction of relationships is, is pretty toxic. I remember when House of Cards first came out, like the first few episodes, and we're oh my gosh, is this for real? Finally, like a dynamic couple that like broadly works together on things and coordinates and is aligned in their goals.Simone: And they just love completely goes off the rails, gets toxic. It's semi abusive. Like it's just horrible. And there are so many other shows that. That supposedly depicts power couples and people have told us like, Oh yeah, I love this power couple on this show. [00:15:00] And like genuinely their behavior is toxic.Simone: They don't communicate. They don't have aligned incentives. They're very selfish. They play big. Like mental games with each other, or they like s**t test each other, but in a really toxic, nonproductive way, it just blows my mind. Like where, where are the functional relationships online? So it's also no surprise to me that people don't have good relationships because no one is modeling them.Malcolm: This is a great point where I think many people can be like, no, there's lots of stereotypes of what it's like to be a family. When I look at TV and then it's okay. The Simpsons, Family Guy the, the, the American Dad. What I'm saying is, is you look at these and the, the couple dynamics are so similar across shows.Simone: They're very uncreative. The,Malcolm: the rare show, but the point that we're making is because there's a lot of media out there, there could be a feeling that there are a lot of Ways of structuring yourself and ways of structuring an identity or a relationship being modeled. But that's not necessarily the [00:16:00] case.Malcolm: You can have a huge volume of media, all with the exact same model being shown to people and the exact same types of toxic behavior.Simone: Like the trope of the wife. Or girlfriend who's always like rolling her eyes at and sort of like pulling her husband down a peg like, Oh, like my husband and veryMalcolm: few depictions of wives that aren't like secretly smarter than their husbands now and they'reSimone: like snide toward them and dismissive.Simone: I mean, we've had, I've personally had problems where like in public, I start acting like that merely because. One, like I'm, I'm way too autistic to know how to actually act in public. So of course I'm just taking my training data and acting how I understand wives to act in public. And so we've had especially earlier in our relationship, like I'm literally just like using training data to behave a certain way.Simone: I'm not like, Simone, why do you keep throwing me under the bus? This is really bad. And I'm like, what do you mean? I'm notMalcolm: doing anything. I'm doing what wives do, and I'm like, well, not my wife. But I, but it's also important [00:17:00] that like we challenged that and we were able to work on that.Malcolm: And I'm able to, to point that out because it is, it is really important. If you're in a relationship with someone and you see them modeling these sorts of bad behavior patterns to immediately call them out and, and not like psychologist nonsense, right? People are like, oh, you need to go relationship counseling or go to a psychologist.Malcolm: And that's how I changed myself. No, just like nut up, man. If you're doing something and it's not aligned with who you want to be. Because these models we build of ourselves, they're not who we want to be. It's just like short form. I guess this is who I am right now. And we, we can fall into them.Malcolm: If it's not aligned with who you want to be or what you want to be like as a relationship, nip it in the bud as quickly as possible because the more one of these behavior patterns replicates over time, the harder and harder it's going to be to change without changing your environment.Simone: But I would say, so another thing That this, this model of behavior, I think dovetails really well with is our general principle that when it comes [00:18:00] to encouraging behavior in our kids, it's really like show, don't tell like the best way to encourage certain behavior is by modeling it, not by telling you to do it.Simone: And again, like kids, just like humans use training data to determine how to behave. So if you provide examples, you're more likely to see those examples be followed. I also feel like that's one reason why parents can feel like really. Self conscious around their kids in public because they feel like, your kids in public are like your drunk self, like what you look like behind the scenes and like without inhibitions.Simone: So, people get really, really embarrassed because their kids start saying stuff that like. TheyMalcolm: would say behind closed doors. No, and I, I actually think actually a really important thing about kids and drinking and stuff like that is I think that to a level we all have like underlying pre programmed behavior patterns.Malcolm: And it's one of the reasons I like drinking with people is because I think you can begin to see those come out. And this is separate from these narrative building things. So, I mean, alcohol lowers inhibition. And through that, I think that speaking of [00:19:00] alcohol personality types, you see like one of four predominant personality types and an individual motivators when somebody gets drunk because we're stripping away the inhibition that they are using to suppress the way they actually just like biologically interact with the world.Malcolm: And you see this with kids as well, right? Some people when they get drunk, they just get really happy all the time. It's just happy about everything. Some people just sad about everything, right? Some people just angry about everything. Simone, when she gets drunk, she just gets incredibly loving of me.Malcolm: She just wants to hug me all the time. Tell me how much she cares for me. I wantSimone: to do a lot more ofMalcolm: that. Shows me what I like about it. It shows me that underneath this controlled Who you really are as somebody who's just constantly suppressingSimone: who just wants to ravage you. Plays ofMalcolm: affection because you wouldn't be productive.Malcolm: We wouldn't be able to move towards our actual objectives if you acted like that all the time, but it's sweet to know, what's under the hood.[00:20:00] And it's, it's, it's definitely something I see in our kids, which, one of our sons, Torsten, he'll just do this thing where he'll start getting really excited.Malcolm: You can see him start, start jingling to himself and he'll run up and give me a hug. And, and, and what clearly happened there is he got in his mind this idea, Oh, I'm gonna give dad a hug. And then he's just getting so excited give someone a hug. And then he goes and gives me a hug, and it's, it's, it's sweet that I, that I can see that in you.Malcolm: I don't know. What do I come off as as drunk? What's my actual personality?Simone: It varies. Mostly, mostly just happy. I mean, but also you show that like in reality too. I think you're one of those people whose, whose filter, like inhibitory filter is very low. Like you just show what you are. Yeah, you're right.Simone: But also so rarely have you actually gotten sloshed. Just pretty much that one time. When my mom did a Wiccan prayer circle around you. That's like the only time I've seenMalcolm: destroy yourself. We did it. We did like a normal [00:21:00] wedding, Simone and I, but Simone's mom, she was very hippie dippy training to be a shaman and everything like that.Malcolm: So she asked us to come back to, to her hometown. Cause she was like, Mike, the people in my hometown didn't get to experience your wedding. I love it. If they could, go to some ceremony we put together, not like a wedding, obviously, but like a after ceremony. And then, leading up to it, she dropped, she goes, could you guys wear your wedding outfits?Malcolm: I really liked those, you still have them. So could you put those on? And then she's I love your vows. Would you mind doing your vows again? And then it's She freaking ambushes me with two concentric rings of people, like moving in opposite directions doing and she did like this.Malcolm: She goes, I want to read something. And it's like this shamanistic thing about trees and roots and nature. And Simone is looking in my eye, and what, I remember the way you described this.Simone: Don't move, Malcolm, just don't, don't do a goddamn thing. Don't,Malcolm: don't, I didn't do anything, I didn't doSimone: anything. You didn't, no, your face is like [00:22:00] brightMalcolm: red, just bubbling up.Simone: And then after that you just got hammered. I have never seen you so freaking drunk in my life. And I think at thatMalcolm: point you just I am so anti All of that nonsense and, and, and, and, but I respect your family. And so I'm being very courteous, but it was such a,Simone: That was very hard on you.Malcolm: It was actually, it was very sweet.Malcolm: It was very sweet that she wanted me to get married in, in her cultural way and her culture. Or the culture that she had adapted was a very, Wiccan, pagan culture. Which is very different from my cultural value set. And, and I would have gone along with it had she told me going into it.Malcolm: Anyway, it's, it's, you gotta keep family happy, right? But anyways, that, that was the one time you saw me get really drunk.Simone: Yeah. But again, I just, I just think that, you broadly sober is pretty much the same as you drunk. You're just one of those really genuine people, [00:23:00] which is one of the reasons why I really like you.Simone: I think it'sMalcolm: great, Simone. I really appreciate it.Simone: your advice be for someone who's like, All right. I don't like the way that I react to things. I react too angrily to things. Or, I, I don't like the anxiety that I have. Or, I just feel like I could respond in a more opportunistic and and optimal way when life throws me curveballs.Simone: What would your advice be to them? On one, creating a flux period, like manufacturing one, because, you can't necessarily make someone in your life die or leave your job and move to a new place easily. That's not something you can do all the time. So what advice would you give on that front?Simone: And what advice would you give on designing a more optimal person?Malcolm: For first, look for an upcoming flux period. Those are easy. It's if you're going to go to college in a year, like best just to use that one for you. But also, if you're broadly not satisfied with who you are in your life, it may be worth creating a flux period through leaving your job, where you live, starting something new.Malcolm: This is only something you do if you feel like you have like real [00:24:00] major self work to do, right? But then in addition to that, how do you create it? I think the most important thing is getting excited about who you're going to become and beginning to build a picture of that. And this is something that I think most people can model or remember having done when they were going to start high school or college or their first job.Malcolm: We all have some period in our life where everything was going to change. And you began to think about, Oh, I could be a different person. What does that person do? Who are they? How do they do their house? What do they, and as you get excited about becoming that person and you begin to put a lot of effort into modeling, this is what that person does.Malcolm: This is the hangout with. That's what they do every day. It makes it a lot easier to slip into that role. If you don't have A good social archetype for what that character looks like, right? Which can be really hard for people. Then, especially people, who don't have a lot of experience with this sort of like creativity or whatever, right?Malcolm: Try to create your own. This is where things like role playing games and stuff like that can have active utility [00:25:00] in your life. Is that you can learn how to act like and, and, and pick up and think like another character. And, and, and test different archetypes that you can then build into yourself during your next flex period, because who we are, like, people are like, no, I am who I really am.Malcolm: What do you mean who you really are? Like, the serendipitous things that happened to you throughout your life that you had no control over. So you're just like a sticky ball. It's been rolling down a dirty street. That's who you really are? Or are you someone who has intentionally constructed their internal character?Malcolm: That seems like much more you than a you that was chosen serendipitously for you. Any, any conscious decision on your part? I mean, would you have any additional advice?Simone: Yeah, I think I'd add that also to our earlier points, the media that you choose to consume really does matter, and that you will probably start to passively model behaviors that you see.Simone: So if you're watching or consuming a lot of media, and this isn't just like TV shows and movies, it's also [00:26:00] music that just models behavior. Bad behavior that isn't going to help you. If you're depressed and you're listening to a bunch of sad songs and watching like shows that are like really depressing with like people who are dysfunctional and mentally ill.Simone: Okay, that's gonna, that's gonna prime you to do all that bad stuff. I know the research on priming is now going through replication crisis, but it's, it's going to give you bad training data. I would also say that, and this is, I think a lot harder to deal with. The people that you surround yourself with may need to change.Simone: Because they very much reinforce who you are. And many of them will not want you to change. And I I've changed myself pretty significantly since I've met you, Malcolm. And a lot of that. It was notable to see how some people were very openly against the new me. And they, they, they did all sorts of things to both shame me for changing and try to change me back.Simone: So you may have to break up with friends and family or move away from them [00:27:00] or stop spending time with them. Or just set really clear boundaries. Like thisisMalcolm: the new you. I mean, of course they built a relationship with the previous person that was valuable to them. When you become somebody new, somebody more aligned with your actual value system.Malcolm: You become less useful to them as a friend. You're no longer who their friend was. Like, why wouldn't they? Yeah,Simone: but I mean, I think it's, it's important to acknowledge that this stuff is really hard and I think it's one of those things where unfortunately the vast majority of people are going to hear this and they're going to say.Simone: Well, nope. Like I, I've had people, people be like, Oh, you've, you've had three kids. Like, how are you so thin? And I'm like, Oh, it's easy. I just weigh and measure everything I eat and make sure that I eat the same number of calories that I burn every day. How many hours a day? I don't know. Yeah, I like, I work from a treadmill desk, but I think the more important thing is just the calories, but they're like, Oh yeah, I'm never going to.Malcolm: Sorry. You are underselling four.Simone: I mean, I'm probably walking two miles an hour, [00:28:00] fourMalcolm: hours a day. Okay. Four to five hours a day. She's exercising every That's notSimone: walking two miles an hour is not exercising. It's like slowly moving while typing. But my point is like most people areMalcolm: like You start at a exercise desk, an elliptical, you are hugely underselling how much you exercise.Malcolm: Yeah, becauseSimone: I'm autistic and that's my stimming. But thisMalcolm: is also, I think, really important. We sometimes talk about the sinfulness of exercising for vanity. And what we're talking about with this type of exercise is exercise that's not useful for health reasons and that distracts you so you can't work, right?Malcolm: That you can't do other productive things. The type of exercise you're doing is totally efficacious because it is in no way interfering with your ability to get productive work done. So you're just doing two hard things at the same time. And I deeply admire that you're somebody who works to combine thoseSimone: things.Simone: Well, it's not, it's not admirable because I can't focus while sitting down. I hate sitting like I can barely cope with sitting down for, you know what I mean? But anyway I [00:29:00] think this is one of those interventions where it does involve a lot of genuine sacrifices and a lot of hard work. And typically when we talk with people about this and we're like, yeah, you could have the life you want, you could have the body you want, you can have all these things.Simone: Here's what needs to happen if that's what you want. And people are just like, Nope. Nope. Not happening. Not doing it. Which is so funny to us. Like, how can you complain about not having what you want if you're not willing to sacrifice stuff? I mean, I guess ultimately it means that they don't want the thing that much.Simone: And they want immediate satisfaction and comfort. TheyMalcolm: want it less than the things they have now.Simone: Yeah. Yeah. OrMalcolm: I think a lot of people may actually want it more than the things they have now, but they they're not sure they're going to get it. So keep in mind, you're always applying like a variable.Malcolm: Does this actually work to any big thing you're trying? Yeah. And two you also like. There's some people who just are psychologically not structured for action, and there's some people that are psychologically structured for action, and both of us come from environments that [00:30:00] sorted for people psychologically structured for action intergenerationally.Malcolm: By the way, what I mean is like you're in, you grew up in the San Francisco area, right? Like family moving to the San Francisco area are people who at least Immigrated twice, likely three times in their history. So you've already selected for people willing to immigrate, right? And to a high risk, high reward environment, either the gold rush or Silicon Valley or any of the other various things that was going on in San Francisco.Malcolm: My family's from, Dallas, Texas, right? Again. And almost everyone who's living there immigrated at least twice in their family history and likely three times and they were immigrating because they just didn't want to be where, wherever, like the, the, wherever things had become too civilized.Malcolm: So they just kept moving to the edge of civilization, to the edge of civilization. And I think that that's really apparent in my personality and worldviews that I am to an extent shaped by that.Simone: Well, and so for that reason, for us to be like, no, all you have to do is this is like it's not perfect and no, not everyone's going to be able to do it, [00:31:00] but still, I mean, at least we anecdotally have found that this model is really effective and we think, we think it's worth considering if right now you don't react to life in a way that makes you happy.Simone: If you're not happy with your, your, your outcome when, when you respond to various, various developments.Malcolm: Well, I love you so much, Simone. I am so lucky to be with a woman who Worked so hard to change herself in, into, into this amazing person you are today. I, I really admire and I'm humbled by who you've become.Simone: I appreciate that, Malcolm. I only really was able to make those changes cause you allowed me to, like you, you, you showed me that I could become who I wanted to be instead of who society like, bleh, left me as, and IMalcolm: really appreciate that. I separated you from your friends and brainwashed you.Simone: How many people have met us and at first thought like this was a, are you okay, Simone situation?Simone: And then they get to know me and they're like, Oh, [00:32:00]Malcolm: yeah, we've had a lot of people do that. They'll try to get Simone alone. They're like, Hey what's, what's going on here. You seemSimone: No, no. By the time they even get me alone, they're like, Oh, at first I thought this was one of those brainwash situations.Simone: And now I see Nope. Anyway. Yeah. Love you a lot. I loveMalcolm: you a lot. And I, I'm glad I did such a good job brainwashing you, but they can't even tell that you're, you're unsavable to them. They get to you and they're like, ah, this one's alreadySimone: gone. He's lost. Yeah. Good job, Malcolm.Simone: All right. Kids. Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Malcolm argues conservatives have been falsely portrayed as more racist than liberals. He analyzes poll data showing white Democrats were more opposed to a black president and living in mixed neighborhoods than Republicans until recently. Malcolm argues the stereotype comes from progressive elites being disconnected from their base and extremist views getting amplified online. He makes the case that real racism today comes more from progressives self-segregating and conservatives actually having more diverse friend groups. Overall he argues both parties have racist factions, so neither should claim moral superiority.Malcolm: [00:00:00] the guy who wrote Rich Men , north of Richmond, said, we are the melting pot of the world. And that's what makes us strong, our diversity. And we need to learn to harness that and appreciate it . And progressives was like, Oh, now he's going to get beaten up by all the conservatives because they hate that talk. And it hasn't really happened. where did this idea that there's like a conservative racist come from, .Malcolm: I am going to send Simone a poll. By 538. So they did a series of polls on this. Okay. And you grew up in the democratic movement. So you grew up being inundated with this lie that the conservatives are the racist party in this country.Malcolm: Oh, totally. So let's see, you see the actual statistics here. Just sent you theSimone: first one. Whites who say they would not vote for a black president.Malcolm: Democrats were higher at this until Obama became president.Simone: Yeah. Between 15 and 7%. Of white Democrats said that they would not vote for a black president, whereas by comparison, only 5% of [00:01:00] white Republicans reported that they would not vote for a black president.Malcolm: So, this isn't like hidden racism. A lot of the time when conservatives say Democrats are racist, they mean like affirmative action is a fundamentally racist policy in many ways. Right. But there's sort of , twisting things around a bit. I mean, just like actually blatantly normally in the normalist sense of the term, the democratic base is about as.Malcolm: Racist in the most traditional sense as the Republican base. There was never this grand flip.Malcolm: but hold on, I'm going to show you more stats here.Malcolm: So now I'm gonna get to the spicy take here Okay. When I look at the conservative intellectual sphere, where do I see the actual like loud racists, right? . I call them in like the Nick Fuentes sphere. I think when you think through the ideology, you realize it's almost so stupid that no one could actually hold it. And it's so incongruous with actual right wing ideology that there is no way that these individuals could [00:02:00] have real large followings within the right wing sphere, which leads me to believe they might be plants either by the CIA or a foreign government.Would you like to know more?Simone: Oh, Malcolm, how long has it been since we've spoken?Malcolm: It has been too long. There's been this song that went viral in.Malcolm: First conservative circles and then progressives freaked out about it, which was Rich Men , north of Richmond which started out, which I love very appealing to like progressive audiences. Like the first half of the song is like how hard it is to be a working man in today's society. And then it starts talking about, you know, welfare queens and you know, protecting minors.Malcolm: And they are, obviously they have a meltdown about this, but what's been very interesting is the followup to this, which liberals are being very. Smug amount, which is the guy who wrote the song, then said, we are the melting pot of the world. And that's what makes us strong, our diversity. And we need to learn to harness that [00:03:00] and appreciate it and not use it as a political tool.Malcolm: To keep everyone separate from it. And progressives was like, Oh, now he's going to get beaten up by all the conservatives because they hate that talk. And it hasn't really happened. There have been a few, like your typical, like crazy racist who have gotten mad at him. But in general, his base still really likes like.Malcolm: If you actually hang out with the conservative base, if you hang out with like real conservative voters in this country, you would intuitively know this is what most of them think. And this is really interesting for me because it's, it's, it got me thinking a few questions. One, where did this idea that there's like a conservative racist come from, which, you know, historically the Democrats were the party of the Klan.Malcolm: , yes, parties, quote unquote, switched at one period, but not exactly. They [00:04:00] switched about as much as they did when Trump was president. And by that, what I mean, you know, when Trump was president, now all of a sudden the right is more protectionist, the right is more anti war, the right, you know, it just, it just, a lot of things switched, but not everything switched.Malcolm: So how did, how did one party go from being the party of the Klan to then the other one being the racist party? And what I'm going to argue is that never actually happened. Oh, Republicans were never actually the racist party. And we're going to go over a lot of stats here. But also some, some.Malcolm: Narrative stuff but first, the, the, the first way that this perception has happened that I want to dig into, because I find it very fascinating and it's something that you've definitely seen as well, is we know a lot of the political elite of the conservative party. You know, I've had presidents, there were people who would be president or past presidents.Malcolm: I've been to house parties that they're hosted and stuff like that. I know the type of people that they're associating with and the vast majority are progressives. And the question is why this is the fun thing, so [00:05:00] Simone, for example, she was managing director of Dialogue, which was a secret society that was originally founded by Peter Thiel and Aron Hoffman, so you know, very conservative founding, you could say, right?Malcolm: And yet they had to institute an affirmative action, a policy for getting in if you were conservative because so few people of the type of people that they're admitting you know, leaders in, in, you know, fortune 500 companies, major tech companies, stuff like that were like out conservatives.Malcolm: And this is something you see across the political sphere is that typically the ultra wealthy who live in cities in our society and control a lot of the wealth, there's just not many conservatives than those groups. And so when the politicians are associating with people who they see as their peers, the truth is, is they interact with very few actual conservatives, very few actual people in their base.Malcolm: And so when they are constructing an image of who their base is. They often rely more on the stereotypes [00:06:00] progressives have of their base than on their actual base. Wow. And an open secret in, in D. C. and Simone, you've had these conversations with people before as well we talk with, , conservatives in D.Malcolm: C. and they're like, it is an open secret that a lot of the campaign staffers of the major, you know, Senate campaigns and stuff like that presidential campaigns who are in the conservative group are actually just Democrats who are holding their nose. And the reason for this is, is there are very few people with the right degrees to hold these positions who are also willing to be mindless bureaucrats to like a giant bureaucratic machines.Malcolm: Who also have a conservative ideology. So not only within the political class in this country, if you're talking about conservatives is, is their friend network often really, really progressive in their mindset, but their staffers who, when they're asking, you know, what does my base think and because there's become some, you know, don't, don't.[00:07:00]Malcolm: poll that was seen as sort of an overly Democrat thing to do to do all this polling. So they use their intuition and their intuition is often the intuition of a progressive based on the stereotypes progressives have of conservatives. And so it has created a picture for a lot of politicians, which can lead them to act in ways which genuinely seem like they're trying to pander.Malcolm: To a racist demographic that I will go further to argue doesn't really exist.Simone: But really interesting. I've never heard this theory before. I'm loving it. Okay.Malcolm: You're loving it. But hold on. Here is where it's going to get really fun. Okay. So I decided to go out there and try to find I was like, okay, what percentage of conservatives are actually racist, right?Malcolm: So I was looking through statistics and I could find news articles being like, okay, a lot of conservatives are racist. Look at the way they answer these questions. So I'll go over the questions that they were saying proved that they were racist. [00:08:00] Okay. God granted the United States a special role in human history.Malcolm: 64% of Republicans said yes, 32% of Democrats did. That just seems obvious to me if you believe in God. I mean, the U. S. has a very important role in, in the world.Simone: And if God makes everything happen, then therefore God did that.Malcolm: That, that is an intuitively true thing and obviously not a racist thing. Right. So the next one would be, this is spooky conservatives when asked has America become too soft and feminine, uh, 63% of Republicans agreed and 24% of Democrats did.Malcolm: Would you say that's just intuitively true? I think most sane people would say that.Simone: I mean, I think that progressives. It's a very feminized political affiliation, whereas the conservative political affiliation is more masculine. I did see a really interesting set of stats showing that actually the male to the [00:09:00] female gap between conservatism and progressivism in some nations are actually like very low.Simone: So it'sMalcolm: hard to say. I will pull up this stat on the screen. It's really interesting. So there's a few countries, U. S. is actually unique. Not totally unique, but it's not a truism that in every country, the more conservative faction is more male. And the, the more progressive affection is more feminine.Simone: Exactly. But I would say at least in the United States, that is true. So while it isn't universally true, it does seem to be somewhat of a truism that in, in the United States, it's, it is a, a cracy the, theMalcolm: progressive. Okay. But it's certainly not a racist. It's like they're not proving any racism there.Malcolm: No. That, that onlySimone: has to do with being like, I guess more male oriented versusMalcolm: female, I guess. Guess they thought it made conservatives look bad or something. Oh, here was the one where they really thought they had gotten them. Okay. 57% of Republicans believed that whites face, quote unquote, a lot of discrimination.Malcolm: Well, just [00:10:00] 52% believe blacks do. And among Democrats, 13% said whites do, and 92% said blacks do. So keep in mind, for Republicans about the same number believed that whites face discrimination as black space discrimination. Mm-hmm. , that seems. Intuitively true to me, and certainly not a racistSimone: claim. Well, I mean, you could argue that everyone faces discrimination because everyone has views about different groups, whether they want to admit it or not.Malcolm: Oh, here's another statistic I found, right? Yeah. Okay. When respondents were asked whether they approved of the teaching of critical race theory, 78% of Republicans disapproved with only 16% said they were in favor of the practice and 75% of Democrats said that they approved of teaching it while only 15% disapproved.Malcolm: Critical race theory isn't like about racism.Simone: I mean, it's, it is one theory around how to view systemic racism that started in the legal profession, as I understand it, yeah, it's, it's not [00:11:00] necessarily a, a, an endorsement of being anti racist. I think it's interesting because a lot of the differentiation is on.Simone: Certain specific performative anti racist views that are really held strongly by one group. And then another group that I guess just isn't that interested in having all those conversations and I think is more in through its actions anti racist. Yeah.Malcolm: So I'm going to keep going through statistics here.Malcolm: I actually collected a lot more statistics to go through. Wow. Okay. I don't want to bore before I get to the, the fun part. Okay. What's the fun part? . So, I am going to send Simone a poll. So this was done by 538. So they did a series of polls on this. Okay. And you grew up in the democratic movement. So you grew up being inundated with this lie that the conservatives are the racist party in this country.Malcolm: Oh, totally. Yeah. And so, and so you totally believe this going into this, right? Yes. Okay. [00:12:00] So let's see, you see the actual statistics here. Just sent you theSimone: first one. All right. Whites who say they would not vote for a black president. We have white Republicans versus white Democrats, and they're basically neck and neck until...Malcolm: Except Democrats were higher at this until Obama became president.Simone: Yeah, like basically in, in 96 white Republicans hit an all time low where only 5% of Republicans who are white said they wouldn't vote.Malcolm: Well, I guess our podcast listeners can't see what's happening. Yeah. So up until Obama, more Democrats said they would not vote for a black president thanSimone: Republicans.Simone: Yeah. Between 15 and 7%. Of white Democrats said that they would not vote for a black president, whereas by comparison, only 5% of white Republicans reported that they would not vote for a black president. So that's very interesting. This is from the generalMalcolm: social survey. Did that you, given what you grew upSimone: [00:13:00] hearing?Simone: Yeah. Well, I don't know. I mean, I do, I do get the impression that a lot of white Democrats or white progressives in general are a lot. More racist because they're like, to a certain extent, I think they're overthinking race, like it, just to the point of them ending up being really racist or like even avoiding other races.Simone: TheMalcolm: recent poll that I saw that I think explains it. Really? Okay. What is this poll of both Republicans and Democrats, how many black friends they had, white ones? Republicans had moreSimone: black friends. No, that, that makes sense. But that's, that's my point is I think that because white progressives are way, way, way more sensitive about racism and like all the performative things they're supposed to do around racism and that they just, they're supposed to feel really bad about racism and they're the bad guy.Simone: Like it's frankly just too stressful to have friends outside your own race. And when you actually look at,Malcolm: when you look at the progressive would tell themselves, but I think it's a, it's a lie. [00:14:00] The truth is, is that Republicans are just less racist. The Democrat, look, you saw the statistics that you're, you're acting like, oh, they're just too sensitive.Malcolm: They literally said they would not vote for a black person for president more than Republicans until Obama became. Simone, and this is 538. This is like a completely nonpartisan polling thing that is known for very good polling data, right? And, and you're here being like, oh no, it's just that they care so much.Malcolm: No, the truth is, is that they are actually racist. And they have a lot of racists in their party. And that, and no, no, and the truth is, and when you, when you hang out with you know, we, we have a lot of black friends, right? And of the, the, and this is where I, where I think it's actually going, going on here of the black friends.Malcolm: I know the ones who are most comfortable hanging out with a lot of non black people are typically more conservative. And I think that's a big part of it, right? Like it's the people who [00:15:00] just don't care about race, who are often going to end up sorting into these more Republican circles, largely because I think.Malcolm: If you are, if you let go of all this racial identity politics, which you really need. So for example, they'll say Oh, Republicans are racist because they want to keep out immigrants. Right. Right. And what they really mean is they, because even Trump wanted a skilled immigrants like policy plan to let in skilled immigrants, like we have proposed.Malcolm: What they wanted to do was keep out like a flood of unskilled immigrants. And that's not like a racial issue, that's just like sane economic policy. And, but hold on, I'm going to show you more stats here.Simone: Okay, but let me just, let me just argue though that I think ultimately the progressive Perspective on race is actually for group separation.Simone: Like Robin D'Angelo and many of her seminars that she would, she would lead. She's the one who wrote white fragility would actually encourage employees at companies to create race [00:16:00] affinity groups, like the white people group. So they could talk about their experiences. Stop acting like theMalcolm: Klan.Malcolm: They just took off their hood.Simone: Well, that's, that's why the Klan, I think also the Klan has gotten along so well with some leaders of the nation of Islam, for example, because both groups are like, yeah, you stay in your group. I'm going to stay in my group. We do not mix. We do not hang out with each other.Simone: We just agree to not like each other.Malcolm: Hold on, hold on. I'm going to continue to send you more statistics. Okay. So here's the next poll that they ran. AllMalcolm: Whites who say blacks are more unintelligent than intelligent. Again, you can see here that the lines, sometimes Republicans are at the top, sometimes Democrats are at the top ofSimone: this. No, no, no. Hold on. So they've been pretty much neck and neck always, however, white Republicans up until about 2009.Simone: We're a slightly more racist on this front than white Democrats. And thenMalcolm: this is not the perception you're getting in the media. If I was a politician and I was pandering to a racist base, and these are the polls I was seeing, it would [00:17:00] not make sense for a Republican to pander to racism any more than it would make sense for a Democrat toSimone: pander to three percentage points with this graph.Simone: This graph is showing that like the rates peaked in. Like maybe the late eighties at, for Republicans, maybe 43% and then for, sorry, 33% and for Democrats around 30%. So that's 30 versus 33%. It's still a minority and it's still, yeah, very, very close. So I, I see, I see what you're saying. This isMalcolm: interesting.Malcolm: Okay. Okay. So next one, right? Okay. This one is whites who oppose living in a half black neighborhood.Simone: .Simone: Wow. Okay. So these are like genuinely, I mean, maybe one percentage point apart in the late eighties, but they're neck and neck through 96 and they start to diverge. Yeah.Malcolm: But even with Democrats, even still, it's 20%, you know?Simone: Yeah. They're, they're, they're again, extremely close. I'm making withMalcolm: these. Is it, there is not a clear, like racist Republican faction and clear, like non racist DemocratSimone: faction.Simone: [00:18:00] Yeah, no, this is a, this is really interesting because you definitely, if you'd asked me to predict what are the differences on these things, you know, would, would not vote for a black president who would not want to live in a half black neighborhood, like I would have thought. That there would be at least a 20 percentage point difference.Simone: And here we're seeing like two to three percentage points different. And in some cases, sorry, Democrats being more racist than Republicans, which isMalcolm: wild.. So, this isn't like hidden racism. Like I think a lot of the time when conservatives say like Democrats are racist, they mean like affirmative action is a fundamentally racist policy in many ways. Right. But there's sort of like, you know, twisting things around a bit. I mean, just like actually blatantly normally in the normalist sense of the term, the democratic base is about as.Malcolm: Racist in the most traditional sense as the Republican base. There was never this grand flip. And there is a great article that actually goes over the history of this and how this [00:19:00] lie sort of started and how it was propagated. So the article I suggest, and I can link to it is the myth of the racist Republicans, the truth about the Southern strategy, and basically what it points out is this was all a lot more nuanced and it's very similar you know, to calling somebody who's against affirmative action or somebody who is, you know, against unrestricted immigration racist.Malcolm: Okay. We're like, yes, I suppose somebody could be motivated by race to believe those things, but the vast majority of people who are against these things are not motivated by racist reasons. And so then this gets me to a really interesting point. So there's, there's a few things here. Where is actual racism in the U.Malcolm: S.? Like where is this coming from if it's not coming from the Republican actual base? If this guy who wrote this song you know, Richmond, North, North of Richmond. I, I think very much represents the actual concerns of the Republican base. Where's it coming from? One is this misunderstanding of what Republicans think [00:20:00] that is taken on by politicians, but I also think that this misunderstanding is taken on by a lot of young.Malcolm: Like firebrand conservatives who don't actually have real conservative friends like rising intellectual class. This guy at Harvard decides he wants to be a dissident or whatever. And so he's well, I guess I'm a conservative and I need to appeal to other conservatives. And so I'm going to go out there and act racist.Simone: The acts, the caricature of a conservative. So all, all of these views, you think. Are people acting like they thinkMalcolm: Republicans? Yeah, I think that that's a huge part of it. I think another big part of it is coming from what we call the tyranny of the unemployed problem. And this is to say within any online community, the most interaction you're going to see, if it's like a completely unfiltered, like just based on how much they comment or how much they upvote or something like that.Malcolm: People who have disproportionately been kicked out of society for being like a turd or like annoying or a twerp. They are going to disproportionately comment in these environments, right?[00:21:00] And so, and they are going to disproportionately upvote stuff. They are going to disproportionately interact with stuff, right?Malcolm: And this is what you see on Reddit. This is what you see on YouTube comments often. Although we have the best audience, so we don't see it. But you see it in other environments. And it can create a perception of, for people that this is actually the mainstream view within this person's fan base or within the, the, the, the base of people who consume this content when it's actually not.Malcolm: And so I do think that there are a lot of right now, like unemployed people who have an extremely, you know, external locus of control. So these are like slovenly white people who just blame all of their problems on other, you know, on. Whether it's women or black people or something like that and they feel like when they're looking and they say who do I identify with, which political party has my back they think the conservative party is going to have their back. So they're like, okay, I'm going to go online. I'm going to engage with, with these people, but their actual ideology does not really align with a [00:22:00] cohesive right wing intellectual theory or view of the world.Malcolm: They are just. Random whiners that really have almost nothing to do with real conservative politics. They just appear in online circles a lot. A final thing that I think is really interesting is when we talk about the media coverage around this How far the left has to go?Malcolm: To paint a picture that the right is racist. Remember how I was going through all those leading survey questions? Yeah. Something like the Proud Boys, for example. The guy who runs the Proud Boys. Or at least he's not white. I don't know what ethnicity he identifies with, but he's, he's far from white.Malcolm: And I think black and it's wild. Is it, so when the left is trying to categorize this Republican movement as racist, they will go out. And I saw a documentary that was trying to show that the Plowboys were racist and like the best they could do. It was like random. Okay. Hand signs from like nobodies who happened to be at the rallies, [00:23:00] right?Malcolm: Uhhuh, . You could go to any rally. I, I have imagine them filming, being like, s**t, we're not getting anything racist here. Hey you, Jim, can you go stand in that crowd and flash some okay. Signs? Oh God, I, I, I saw on 4 Chan that that's how racists communicate with each other. Now, anybody who doesn't know, it was actually a fake thing on four chan.Malcolm: They were originally trying to show. that the news had just gone insane and would see anything as a racist sign. So they pretended the okay sign was an actual racist sign. Now some racists have picked it up, but I don't, I think that this is more just like internet idiots who didn't know, who didn't know that it was a joke to begin with.Malcolm: When you're talking about like actual racists, you're typically talking about like the lowest common denominator, intellectually speaking. But anyway. So, so then where, where are, so I talked about the lowest common denominator intellectually speaking. So now I'm gonna get to the spicy take here.Malcolm: Okay. When I look at the conservative intellectual sphere, where do I see the actual like loud [00:24:00] racists, right? I am predominantly seeing them. I call them in like the Nick Fuentes sphere. This is the Catholic integralist sphere. And yet the more I think about it, like I talked about how stupid this ideology is before.Malcolm: But I'm actually going to go into it because I think when you think through the ideology, you realize it's almost so stupid that no one could actually hold it. And it's so incongruous with actual right wing ideology that there is no way that these individuals could have real large followings within the right wing sphere, which leads me to believe they might be plants either by the CIA or a foreign government.Malcolm: I love this theory. All right. It's time to go into it. What Catholic integralists want from the world, right, is they want a world in which the entire world is ruled under a single Catholic monarchy. They, they want sort of a Catholic caliphate to rule the entire world. However, they're also like anti immigrant [00:25:00] and racist, which makes no sense.Malcolm: The majority of the immigrants coming to the U. S. are Catholic, right? Presumably if you thought that the whole world could have... operate under a Catholic caliphate interculturalism within our country, in which that interculturalism is represented by a larger Catholic voting bloc, should not be a concern at all.Malcolm: Second, Catholicism more broadly is, I think, one of the least racist religions on the planet. Yeah, seriously. Let's talk about what I mean when I say that. And it's the only religion I know of in the planet You, within other religions, saints would be essentially demigods. So you have whatever you want.Malcolm: They have miraculous powers given to them by the one true God. They are the only religion I'm aware of that has saints of like literally every ethnic group. They have many Hispanic saints. They have a Hispanic. Pope! They what are you, this does not make sense that this [00:26:00] is an anti Hispanic group, or that they would have this big anti Hispanic contingent.Malcolm: They have many black saints, you know? But it, it gets more insane to this. Then what you're saying is that this ideology is popular among U. S. conservatives who are predominantly Protestant and predominantly anti globalist. That this globalist ideology, like super globalist ideology, has somewhile taken over, no, no, no, no, no it's, it's almost a Looney Tunes villain esque ideology, I want to rule the entire world, and I am also racist, and I want to, but when you put it all together, it like doesn't hold together, it falls apart, it is the The, the insane ramblings of the worst that progressives assume of conservatives.Malcolm: Well,Simone: yeah, because something has to not be true. Either the, the caliphate, the Catholic caliphate is not an actual end goal or because there's no, there's no other explanation as [00:27:00] to how it's really going to effectively take place unless like the Catholic populations are. able to coalesce and unite and move more freely in a way that helps them create strong coalitions of power.Malcolm: Yeah, and it's not that there aren't Catholics that do eventually want to convert everyone. I mean, Catholicism is at the end of the day a dominating religious group. But Catholicism as a dominating religious group is incredibly intercultural. They are just incredibly intercultural. And in fact, they're even structured in a way, the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church is really useful in for, because all people are intrinsically racist to some extent when they meet a group that they're not familiar with, or they're around another group, and that hierarchical nature of the Catholic Church has historically allowed them to say.Malcolm: Hey, you know, you colonizers are going a little far right now, you need to tone this down, you know, even though the popular zeitgeist is saying do this stuff, you need to not do this stuff, you need to stop, you know, you need to stop having [00:28:00] unconsensual sex with, with, with people you're meeting, you need to start doing nice things for them, you need to start setting up schools for them.Malcolm: That has been the core of Catholic doctrine for a long time. And so, yes, there are some Catholics that want the entire world under, you know, a Catholic state, but they are also intrinsically some of the least racist people in terms of how they view this. You know, Well, you have to be,Simone: I guess, if you have a dominating thing.Simone: Yeah. I don't know. It's interesting, right? I could argue that both a dominating and symbiotic cultures are racist, but in very different ways, and they're inclusive in very different ways, right?Malcolm: But, but, but Consolacism is not. How is a dominating culture often racist? I, I am aware of almost no dominating culture that's racist.Simone: They're well, so I would argue that they're racist and they're not allowing differences in the end, like dic, but that'sMalcolm: not aboutSimone: race. Yeah, I guess, yeah. I mean, yeah, I guess, yeah. They don't require like everyone to, they, [00:29:00] they're culturalists,Malcolm: they're cultural supremacists. Yeah. But they're almost never racial supremacists.Malcolm: Yeah,Simone: that's that's fair. Yeah.Malcolm: That's fair. And, and, and this is, It's really important because it means that this ideology. So where could this ideology be coming from if it's not a CIA plant job, which I still think it might be. Why?Simone: What would be the benefit of that? To paint one party is like the racistMalcolm: party.Malcolm: Okay. Well, so this is actually interesting. So the deep, the Republicans are not wrong when they say the deep state, you and I know a lot of people in DC. Okay. We know a lot of high profile people in DC Democrats and people with progressive leanings, as well as this, frankly, culturalist, racist, whatever you want to call it, view of urban Americans are the dominant cultural faction there.Malcolm: Okay. They do not want, when Trump was coming into power, they saw that as an existential threat.Simone: I guess you could argue that like DC is run by elitist technocrats who typically come from progressive backgrounds. So they're not representative of the [00:30:00] rural disenfranchised. They're not representative of TheMalcolm: CIA literally, like they have been caught in these cases having lied.Malcolm: Or might've been the FBI. I can't remember which one trying to get Trump indicted, you know, these communications, Oh, you know, you don't know the text chains that came out. Like we have to get Trump. We have to, Oh, really? Oh yeah, it was a guy talking with his girlfriend who was also in the institution.Malcolm: And Oh dear. I'll try to put the chains, but they were like, yeah, obviously Trump can't happen. We need to make sure that doesn't happen. So we sat inSimone: rooms where people said that to people with a lot of power and influence inMalcolm: the Republican party as well.Simone: Yeah. So, I mean, I don't know, it was like everyone's saying that,Malcolm: but no, but the point I'm making is this was actually felt within like there are large, I'd say near unanimous factions of major government security organizations who believe this.Malcolm: And I, and I think that anyone who's pretending that's not true okay, the deep state might be a kind of in, you know, you can say it's a conspiratorial concept, but I think [00:31:00] anybody who actually has a lot of friends in government does know that they are predominantly Democrat leaning even in the intelligence services these days.Malcolm: And this idea that they wouldn't like, this is an impossible thing to happen. I think is almost a fever dream. Of course, of course they might think this could be a threat to our country. Of course they might think, oh, we need to discredit this party. Of course they may think, oh, we can use this as a honeypot to discredit people.Simone: Right? Yeah. It's not, not a crazy idea. I mean, IMalcolm: think. No, but hold on, hold on. I'm not done. Okay. I'm not done. So what I was going to say is, okay, but let's say realistically, how could people come to this? Suppose they're not like, not realistically, but like, how could people come to this if this wasn't a plant job?Malcolm: Like this insane ideology, right? Okay. Because you here were telling me, you know, trad cath is trending these days, et cetera. What's actually going on here. Yeah. So what I think is actually going on here. Is there might be a small portion of people out there because I think this [00:32:00] is how these, these plant jobs often work is they wait for some idiot individual to come to this ideology on their own, and then they'll manipulate algorithms or stuff to promote that individual to make them seem like they're a bigger deal or have a bigger audience than they actually have.Malcolm: So, there's these, these it's just so an individual is out there and he's he just has a very hierarchical mindset. A very sort of like, everything must be hierarchical. Everything must go back to the origin. I'm going to be as traditionalist as possible. And so they accept the aesthetic of traditionalism.Malcolm: That has been taught to them by progressive culture, right? Yeah. So they, they ask themselves, what are the way that people used to be? Oh, they used to be racist. Oh, what are the way people used to treat women? Or they used to be, you know, misogynist. Oh, what was the oldest iteration of Christianity? Oh, it's Catholicism.Malcolm: But here's the thing. They were actually an intellectual. I think very few. Okay. So again, I know we have a lot of Catholic viewers here and I say very positive things about Catholicism. However, [00:33:00] I think from an outsider's perspective and from every Christian traditions perspective, they're the original iteration of that Christian tradition.Malcolm: From an outsider's perspective, Catholicism is not the oldest iteration of Christianity. Orthodoxy has a slightly better claim to that, although I can see how the claim could go either way. For people who aren't really familiar with what happened Originally Christianity, and you can see this from the early, you know, Christian letters, mostly due to how hard it was to communicate and Christianity was just like this.Malcolm: group that was just trying to do anything to convert people in the early days. It was run by essentially you would have a collection of cities and then within each city you would have a sort of a local patriarch, like a person who was known as like the most important Christian in the city. It's actually.Malcolm: Very similar to modern Judaism, but a bit more hierarchical. And then and of course it would be similar, it came out of Judaism, right? And then after Constantine and Rome was made the official head of of, of Christianity because the Roman Empire became officially Christian, [00:34:00] right?Malcolm: And so the, the Roman patriarch became much more important than the other patriarchs. Then you had the division of Rome between the East and the West and, and, Obviously, that began to build tensions because for a long time, there was a reason for the Roman Patriarch to be the Patriarch in charge, right?Malcolm: But after a while, this began to get on other Patriarchs nerves, especially the other really important Patriarch, which was the Byzantine Patriarch, because they were the other capital of this major Christian empire. And these two people got in a head it was over really silly stuff like whether or not it was acceptable to use unleavened bread in the sacrament of communion. And things like the explicit wording of the Nicene Creed so really like detailed, nuanced stuff. It wasn't really over a matter of faith.Malcolm: It was over a personality conflict. And the Orthodox group you know, I'm not saying that they weren't at fault for this personality conflict. But they said, okay, well, let's go back to this [00:35:00] system where it's a council of sort of equal patriarchs. And the, the Roman group said, no, let's keep this hierarchical system.Malcolm: But what that means, very interestingly,Malcolm: Is that Catholicism has always been unusually hierarchical in its power structures.Malcolm: And so if you have an individual. And this is actually something that was a problem for, so Simone has a lot of friends who are nuns and you were talking to one and they were talking, can you tell that story about this, having to screen people?Simone: Oh yeah, no we, a good family friend is a Carmelite nun, now she's a, like a mother, like she's, she's head of the order, and she spoke to us about how they really need to screen.Simone: Novices who want to join the order because many of them are just joining because of mental health problems, not because they're really dedicated toMalcolm: that particular. Specifically, they wanted a very structured life.Simone: It's well, yeah, and this is, I mean, Carmelite nuns live a uniquely structured life.Malcolm: So, but what I'm saying is, as a religious unit, it's very appealing to people who crave sort of [00:36:00] structure.Malcolm: And that's 100% hierarchy. I want a structured world order. And so if you get a sort of it's some sort of pseudo educated individual who intensely craves structure and traditionalism and isn't more like broadly educated on, on, on what Catholicism actually means, which is, I, again, I've said before, more than anything else, Catholicism as a system is defined by inclusivity, and they just wouldn't get that because they're not culturally Catholic. And so they come at this tradition thinking of it more okay, I'm this new sort of version of a neo Nazi.Malcolm: What is the most hierarchical and structured system I can choose without understanding the heart behind this, this older tradition. And so that's the way I could see it happening, but I want to give these people more credit than that. And so I'm going to say that there are CIASimone: plants. Well, so I, I would argue though, that maybe this is just kind of a market forces thing.Simone: Like we found personally that when. [00:37:00] Frankly, inaccurate caricatures of us end up in the media, we get a lot more attention and growth. And so it could be that to your point earlier about like young educated college students just kind of want to be a major conservative figure. It's like an audience capture thing where they just keep leaning in.Simone: to this caricature because it causes the most controversy and hate and hate is what draws the most attention. So, of course, it would be the racism that comes out. It would be the bigotry and the misogyny that comes out because that drives more shares and that ultimately drives more followers.Malcolm: Yeah, no, I think you might be right.Malcolm: And so they may just be about capturing public mindset instead of capturing, you know, legitimate followers.Simone: Yeah, like nuanced views that most reasonable people hold, while that resonates with people, it's not something that drives clicks and shares. Whereas the, the really racist, misogynist, crazy, whatever views.Malcolm: So here's where it gets really [00:38:00] interesting. So I'm going to go on another tangent here because we do have a lot of You know, black for actually something I wanted to mention because we were talking about the black thing friends things where, you know, conservatives have more black friends and progressives this is why progressives have to constantly parrot having black friends.Malcolm: Does it make you not racist? BecauseSimone: that's like a point like that. Robin DiAngelo makes saying you have a black friend or that your best friend is black is like a super racist thing to do. And that's, of course, do that. Yeah.Malcolm: Because so many Democrats don't actually have any black friends or know any black people.Malcolm: And it was a great thing where they were calling somebody racist for saying, my wife and kids are black. You know, that frequently happens. I married a black woman. I have black children. Obviously I'm not racist. And they're like, that's the most racist thing you could say. And the reason they need to say this is because they need to control what the word racism means to not meaning I don't negatively judge black people.Malcolm: I mean. Obviously, if you have a black wife and kids, you don't negatively judge black people but to meaning, I agree with your [00:39:00] ideology. I am a slave to your ideological group. And so the only way you can get categorized as not racist is being a slave to this ideological group. But here I'm going to get into something that's, that's actually we'll, we'll save it for another video.Malcolm: This video was, was really interesting. Have I convinced you, you know, you who grew up in progressive sphere that it was always sort of a lie that the conservative base was racist or more racist than the democratic base and that this is just sort of a narrative Democrats tell themselves to justify their othering and dehumanizing of the rural poor, really.Simone: Yeah, I guess having, after having met you and moving out of the Bay Area. I do definitely feel like we've met a ton more conservatives and they are. So it really depends on how racism is defined, of course, but I think functionally, when it comes to befriending, working with, respecting, you know, et cetera people of different [00:40:00] racial backgrounds, conservatives are less racist um, 100%.Simone: Like, They, they seem Mm hmm. But, but, but I think many progressives would be like, but how dare you because they'll tell racist jokes and they will acknowledge differences between groups and that is like the core of racism. So I think it's really the difference between performative. anti racism or, you know, performative non racism versus like genuine demonstrated lack of racism.Simone: Like obviously progressives win when it comes to performative anti racism. You know, they're like so careful about what they say. No politically incorrect jokes. There are zero differences between racial groups. And then you have this other group that's actually They have a diverse friend group, they actually employ and work with and, and vote for a diverse range of people.Simone: But they will make racist jokes. They will make, and also, you know, we have to admit also like among the conservatives we know who make the most racist jokes, they are definitely not white. So,Malcolm: yeah, no, it's funny. You actually say this one of my favorite jokes and I know I'm probably going to get in trouble one [00:41:00] day for saying this jokes, but it was, it was about me.Malcolm: So, I have a friend and they come to a number of events that we've hosted. And they were like Malcolm, why do you have so few white friends? And one of my friends was like, oh, he's way too racist to have white friends.Malcolm: Um, And I thought that was really funny because I know because there's this acceptance within, I think you know, genuinely multi ethnic communities. Yeah, we are different and we talk about it and it's fun and it's interesting to explore the ways that we're different. And progressives call that racism being like, Oh, you people do this.Malcolm: Why do you do things this way? We do things this way. That's really interesting. And that's sort of the whole point of this channel and stuff like that. So that's what they meant by that. Not like I have negative views, but that I, I, I do see race. I thought that was really funny because it's, it's, you know, we have in our episode about comedy.Malcolm: What is comedy? It's surprising, but it's true in context. Yeah, I could see how that might scare away white people from being [00:42:00] his friends, but not, you know, a multi ethnic group. Yeah. Anyway.Simone: That's really interesting. Yeah. VeryMalcolm: interesting. And yeah, and I, I actually think that, that progressives would become less of an insane party if they actually went out there and did realize that, yeah, not having any black friends probably does make you racist.Malcolm: And yeah, you should go out and, and meet, not like. You know, your other rich is similar socioeconomic group, similar cultural group, black people, but like actual black communities and you might learn that they're very different than you think. Um, I thinkSimone: that the number one, driver. The number one driver of racism is isolationism.Simone: If you are not exposed to other people, if you're not living with them, befriending with them, like watching their content, like working with them, whatever, right? If you're not exposed, you're going to be kind of afraid because they're an unknown quantity and you don't really have a lot of good information to run on.Simone: And if you can't predict someone, Or a group, you cannot trust them. Just period. If you can't model something, you're going to be nervous because you can't [00:43:00] trust it. LikeMalcolm: positively or negatively. This is something that we see. I mean, I'd say that the things that progressives would be most surprised about if they actually engaged with other ethnic and cultural groups.Malcolm: is one, how much the Hispanics hate wokeism. They, they do not like you guys. Um, uh, No, broadly Hispanic, they might think that you are useful politically in the short term, but broadly, you are not a long term ally to these communities. Even that, I don't know. And, and how anti Semitic Black communities are.Malcolm: But that is a different video. Just so people know that I'm not like... Making up something here and the 1970s there was a poll where 73% of blacks in their 20s were high in the index of anti Semitism. 42% of blacks, this is 1984, versus 20% of whites agrees that Jews have too much power in the United States.Malcolm: In 2021 42% of black liberals versus 15% of white liberals endorsed antisemitic views. And I, and this is one of those things where they see Kanye come out and they're like, where did this come from? This is wild. And it's like [00:44:00] these views are not that unusual if you actually went out there and engaged with these communities instead of just viewed them through your stereotypical lens of who they are they, they actually have very nuanced views of the world.Malcolm: And, and some of them might be justified, you know, based on history. I'm, I'm not saying that antisemitism is justified, but within the black community, like. We can explain where it comes from. It's, it's very interesting but a different video. Yeah. Interesting stuff. I love you, Simone. And I love that you're able to dig into these concepts and I'm able to even shock you still by shaking some of these stereotypes that you grewSimone: up with.Simone: Yeah, man. Every day coming out with new surprises for me. I love it. I love it. Yeah. Can't wait to my next conversation. Love you. Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Malcolm explains his concept of "evolutionary vortexes" - how cultures create bottlenecks selecting for certain sociological profiles over generations. He analyzes examples like Calvinists' happiness, Jewish mysticism, and Catholic anti-nepotism norms. Simone questions why this isn't more obvious. They discuss how technology will let intentional cultural selection rapidly shape future minds.Malcolm: [00:00:00] So a great example of this that I'd always say, is when I talk to people and I'm like, yeah, you know, what do you think of Cubans? You talk to a Florida, you're like, what do you think of Cuban? They go, yeah, Cubans. There's the typical Cuban sociological profile.Malcolm: They're very conservative. They're really good at business. They're really educated. And it's that's not the profile of Cubans more broadly. That's the profile of the Cubans that were differentially sorted into trying to escape a communist dictatorship and move to the United States You know, to an extent within any immigrant population depending on how the, the sorting worked, you're often going to get a very specific sociological profile that may not be the dominant sociological profile of the mainland population.Would you like to know more?Simone: So Malcolm, you know, how. Someone in our family once called me a vortex of failure.Malcolm: Yes, somebody did! They're like, Simone is a vortex of failure, Malcolm, and she is pulling you down. [00:01:00] Well,Simone: there are other types of vortexes that I think you find very interesting, and I have failed to understand why they're so interesting.Simone: So can you please explain your concept of evolutionary vortexes with this old vortex of failure?Malcolm: Yes, well, so this is a very interesting thing for us. So a lot of people know that we don't believe that there are persistent, meaningful genetic differences between things that we, in our society, view as things like ethnic groups and stuff like that.Malcolm: And a lot of people viewSimone: that The concept of racism or race supremacy as being, like, pretty frickin dumb, because, like I don't know givenMalcolm: the evolutionary... Why is it dumb? It's dumb because small groups, family groups, religious groups local environmental groups, it's not because we don't believe that genetic differences don't exist between populations.Malcolm: We just believe that they change way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way faster than this, like... You know, 100, 000 year difference that defines ethnic groups. Exactly. [00:02:00] So a great example of this is like San Francisco, right? When you look at San Francisco, you had this environment where during the gold rush, you basically had a siren call to people from a diversity of , ethnic and cultural backgrounds that said, anybody who uniquely is drawn to high risk High reward, economic opportunities move to this area.Malcolm: Okay. That's what the gold rush was. And people would die for these opportunities. I mean, the Donner party, et cetera. Right. And then is it a surprise that, you know, a century later, Silicon Valley starts there, which, which was really driven because the venture capital industry started there where you had.Malcolm: High risk, high reward opportunities explode as like a way to generate wealth and ruin people all over again. And this is what a vortex does. Because there was the first event that caused a genetic [00:03:00] predilection within that environment, that then made it more likely that the second event would happen, which then further...Malcolm: condensed that genetic predilection by again, sending out this, this signal all over the world for people like that. Right. Yeah. To the extent where you see things like really high rates of things like, because then what was the other thing that was really being selected for by that cultural vortex, it was.Malcolm: High knowledge of like engineering and math. And this is why you had such high rates of autism in Silicon Valley, some of the highest rates in the world. And that is wild, but you also see this on a cultural level.Malcolm: So our cultures essentially co evolve. with us. And they alter our brains so that if you think of humans as like the biological firmware and cultures as this set of software that's co evolving on top of them, they co evolve together synergistically. So an example of this could be our we have a secular friend who's from the Quaker [00:04:00] tradition.Malcolm: And she feels like she regularly hears voices talking to her to an extent, right? Saying, okay, well, she,Simone: she essentially like she talks with God. Like she, she searches for the truth from within. Right.Malcolm: She talks, well, she's talking was so, so auditory hallucinations are actually much more common than people think about a quarter of the population experiences and at some point in their lives.Malcolm: But Quaker culture would massively reward an individual for having auditory hallucinations. Whereas other cultural groups like the Calvinist cultural group, which lived alongside them geographically massively would punish auditory hallucinations. So. So everyone from the Calvinist cultural group who experienced them would have gone to the Quaker cultural group and people in the Quaker cultural group who didn't experience them might think God wasn't talking to them or like they didn't get why people were doing this in their cultural group and they would leave at a higher rate.Malcolm: And so you're going to end up with more auditory hallucinations within people who come from this Quaker cultural group. Now this gets really interesting. Interesting. Because what it [00:05:00] means is that not all software packages, not all cultures are going to fit well. on all individuals, all biologies.Malcolm: So one of the places where I've heard this, where it was really most meaningful to me is you know, I was talking with somebody who was like involved, I think it was like the JN community in the San Francisco area. And they were talking about. How high the, the suicide rate was among people of a broadly European ethnic background who converted to Jainism.Malcolm: Yeah. And I, and I suspect you'd likely see this more broadly. If you look at. Europeans who convert to not like the fake American form of Buddhism, but like real Buddhism I'd imagine you're going to see a pretty high suicide rate. And I, this makes a lot of sense to me. If a cultural group has co evolved with a cultural software, For thousands of years, you can't just plug it on top of another cultural [00:06:00] group and expect them to work together really well.Malcolm: And this is why when we say our goal is genuinely people are like, are you trying to recruit people into your weird secular Calvinist thing? I'm like, no, I do not think most people would really thrive in an environment where it is constantly reinforced how sinful Happiness, music, fun, is, right?Malcolm: And again, this is something that people don't get, so people can say oh, then why do you do things that are sinful? Why do you do things like, you know, drink alcohol, for example, right? There's no efficaciousness behind that. And, and the, the, the Calvinism as a, as a cultural understanding is, is mankind is wretched.Malcolm: You know, we are, completely morally destitute. And it's through recognizing that destitution, we can begin to try to improve ourselves. And so it is very important to [00:07:00] be able to say, yes, I will still sin because I am man. I am like, my soul is a maggot covered loaf of barely edible, , sailor bread.Malcolm: But at the very least, what I shouldn't do is try to glorify my sin, try to act like my engagement with self masturbatory behaviors, whether it is exercise for the point of physical vanity, or music, or drinking, or anything pretend that that is a positive trait instead of what it is, a moral failing.Malcolm: Now this cultural group Is something that most people, I, I just don't think would like really mentally thrive in engaging with, whereas you and me, we really mentally thrive when engaging with this cultural group. And this is also why I'm broadly against people who preach like stoicism more broadly. I do not think stoicism works for the [00:08:00] average person.Malcolm: And I think that pretend cause causes. Spiral and become, you know, drug addict and barely function. Right? Like it's, it's not a good thing. And, and that it's more important to look to your ancestral, the way that your, your ancestral traditions work and try to reform them for a modern environment to be strong for a modern environment without, going into these, , cool sounding like manly sounding movements, right? Well,Simone: because again, you're, you're like evolved mental landscape probably isn't designed to thrive with non native. mindscapes.Malcolm: Yeah, yeah. And it's, it's why in the, the pronatalist movement, we are not about trying to convert people to our way of thinking.Malcolm: Cause I don't think our way of thinking is compatible with most human biologies. But this leads to another really interesting thing, which is when a cultural software group is really, really, really, really, really, really [00:09:00] good against defending against a specific type of mindset or sociological profile.Malcolm: It can lead to that sociological profile existing within populations under that cultural group at much higher rates than they do in other populations. So, let me explain this in different words. If a culture is really good against defending against a specific type of thing or preventing that thing for leading the individual to spiral out of control or not breed for some reason, you will see that thing at higher rates within that cultural group.Malcolm: So if you're talking about Calvinists, traditionally, one thing that's always known about Calvinists is they're like unusually happy. They have like Really high happiness at points and unusually energetic to the extent where like some of the quotes and if you look at I'll be in seed, you know, that the Calvinists invented the rocking chair just so [00:10:00] that they would never have to stop moving or that people would mark when they go to these territories that people would run everywhere they were going.Malcolm: And this is something I actually did in high school. I remember wondering why anyone ever walked when they were alone. When you could always run up to a place and get it done faster and more efficiently and a normal cultural group is actually likely going to select against. like this level of happiness because people who like are overly happy may just be content with their lives or may not breed or may spiral out of control in some way.Malcolm: This is also probably why Calvinist groups drink as much as they do. So that's another thing. One of the, so where I'm from in Texas, there's a saying. Which is that what is it? Jews deny the divinity of Jesus. Protestants deny the Pope and Baptists deny knowing each other at the liquor store.Malcolm: And when they say Baptist here, they're talking about primitive Baptist, which is the type of Baptist, which is most common where I'm from, which is [00:11:00] a Calvinist group. And it's because they had this cultural software that was like. Good at preventing people from drinking to an extent but, but when people began to, like, when it began to soften, when the rule stopped people who had this intrinsic drive to drink at this high a level in most other cultural groups were just removed from the gene pool because they drank themselves to death.Malcolm: Whereas in this cultural group, there was enough of a protected pressure on that that didn't happen. And so you get really high rates of alcoholism was in Calvinist populations, and you also get stupidly high rates of happiness. You also get stupid. So the things that a culture tells you not to do, you will begin to see as a vice was in that culture as the cultural waterline receives.Malcolm: So let's talk about a few of these because they're really interesting to me. Okay, so, probably the, the, the biggest one that we've mentioned before, but I just can't mention enough because it's so glaringly obvious to anyone who could see it, is Catholicism as a cultural group [00:12:00] is really, really good at guarding against familial nepotism.Malcolm: By that what I mean is because the Catholic group is one, a hierarchical cultural group, you know, I, you have this priest caste, right? Which, which is this almost like governing body. And because priests aren't allowed to have wives what that did is it created a, You can say like an ethically sourced eunuch, we often call them, right?Malcolm: And we do mention in a lot of videos that actually this is why, this is how the Catholic cultural group handled same sex attraction. And, and why it's so common, and you can look up the Wikipedia article on this, there's a lot of studies on this, why a lot of people in the Catholic clergy are actually just same sex people.Malcolm: Attractive people who were born in the Catholic culture and it sourced them into these positions of power. But also you get heterosexual people who don't choose to have a partner and end up within this hierarchy. Well, within both of those groups, you're creating an environment in which these people don't have kids.Malcolm: So you don't have intergenerational nepotism, [00:13:00] right? Right. And historically was in many of these. These Catholic cultural groups, a lot of stuff was run by the church, so they never really needed to guard against what is called amoral familial nepotism. Now if you look today around the world, pretty much everywhere in the world where a Catholic group is dominant, you know, whether you're talking about Italy or most countries in South America or, you know, et cetera you have extremely high rates of amoral familial nepotism.Malcolm: And by that, what I mean is individuals promoting members of their own family over more competent individuals who aren't in their family. And so, if you're not from a group who understands amoral familial nepotism, that can seem really unethical to you to promote your brother just because they're your brother instead of because they're competent, whereas to a cultural group that doesn't have protections against amoral familial nepotism, cultural protections they're [00:14:00] going to be, like, it would almost be immoral to not promote your brother.Malcolm: Because like he's family, of course, you're going to promote, of course, you're going to hire family first, of course, you're going to promote family first. What are you thinking? And, and this is something that their, their culture had gotten so good at protecting against that the secular cultures that sort of evolved underneath it, as well as sociological profiles that evolved underneath it became a really, really susceptible to this.Malcolm: I think. From the perspective of other cultures, it would be a vice, but from their culture, it's not, you know, in Jewish culture, a great example is it's a soft sophicism or, or sophistry and mysticism. So, we've said that Kabbalism Jewish mysticism is sort of like a fly trap for people with a sociological. profile that is susceptible to mystical thinking or who's really good at mystical thinking. So if you watch our video on how garden gnomes are destroying academia, we [00:15:00] talk about this, how some individuals can have a really, really high level of verbal intelligence, but a really low level of general intelligence or other types of intelligence.Malcolm: And these individuals can be incredibly dangerous to any group that they're in. Because people will, you know, when somebody is like really good at engineering, but not good at anything else, nobody thinks they're like a good at other things, but if somebody is really good at sophistry, but not good at anything else, it's very easy to misjudge that and believe that they are broadly competent and begin to take advice from them and then begin to fail as a cultural group.Malcolm: But the Jewish cultural group, it has this really great defense mechanism against these individuals, which is Kabbalah, which is sort of like a fly trap for these people. They get engaged in it, and they go really deep in it, but in a way that can't be that damaging to the broader society or cultural group.Malcolm: What it means... And if you look at studies on this, this is a great thing. We might do a video on [00:16:00] this because we write a lot on it in the Pragmatist Guide to Crafting Religion. Is this belief that Jewish groups are like much higher IQ than other groups? But that's actually not true if you look at any of the research.Malcolm: They just have much higher verbal intelligence than other groups. And, and that's why you have this whereas other groups would select against that. So you always have some sort of parody of verbal intelligence and other types of intelligences. Hmm.Simone: So my question to you is, I mean, you're able to look at how a culture essentially creates a certain type of person.Simone: What could people who are crafting culture, what could cultural entrepreneurs be working into their cultures, their cultural technologies and amenities that would create people who have, I guess, specific advantages and more what we're interested in, right, which is, is, is building the future, you know, being the people to build the infrastructure, the technology and the governing societies of the future.[00:17:00]Malcolm: Yeah, so there's two broad answers to this question, right? One is, let's assume genetic technologies didn't exist. And the most important takeaway of genetic technologies don't exist is the thing that your culture is best at protecting against is going to be the thing that was in the biology of people under your culture sort of spirals out of control as a predilection.Malcolm: So, you know, if Calvinist culture is uniquely good at protecting against hedonism, then extremely high rates of happiness are going to appear biologically within that cultural group. So, extremely high energy and giddiness rates, right? And so be aware of that, because sometimes people can be like, this is a problem we want to do a very good job of building a culture that protects against amoral familialism, and then through protecting against that, you end up.Malcolm: With really high rates of amoral familialism, just I guess naturally form underneath that culture. However, I think that this trend is not relevant into the future. [00:18:00] Okay. And here's what I mean in the future, because we can begin to intentionally through polygenic screening, select individuals for specific sociological profiles, right in traits the cultural groups that engage with this technology I hate to be the one to say it, but they're the only ones who are going to matter in the future, because if you just run the math.Malcolm: A family or cultural group that engages within this within 75 years, because it looks within 75 years, the general population is probably going to decrease in IQ by about one standard deviation. If you engage with this technology, you're probably going to increase in IQ by 2. 5 standard deviations.Malcolm: So you're just going to be like astronomically higher IQ and other things that you'reSimone: also like probably healthier and happier. Yeah, alsoMalcolm: healthier, lower rates of cancer, lower rates of all sorts of stuff. And then when you begin to get to human CRISPR, you get into a whole other thing where like you can, you can move really quickly.Malcolm: But then, so within the cultural groups that are making these selections you're just going to see really high rates of things. So like a cultural [00:19:00] group that says, I value happiness, I am going to select for happiness, or I value creativity, I am going to select for creativity, much more so than cultural practices affected the human genome in the past.Malcolm: Cultural choices and values and the status signals are going to, to impact the human genome. And so cultural groups that really care about things like generic attractiveness, you know, like height and stuff like that. I mean, they might get huge in the near future, right? But they're likely going to be less and less economically relevant.Simone: Yeah, it's going to be an interesting future then.Malcolm: Well, I want to know why you thought this wasn't an interesting topic. Because you're like, Malcolm, this seems like a really boring topic. I guess,Simone: maybe because we talk about it so much to me it's obvious. It's well, duh. If you create through your culture your own set of evolutionary bottlenecks, of course you're going to shape who you create.Simone: Huh, you know, if we all live in a desert environment, maybe we're going to deal better with heat and you know, hydration and we're going to turn into camels. [00:20:00] I don't know it just seems well, thanks. You know, I'm gladMalcolm: something you see. So like people who live in really high, like mountain environments.Malcolm: They become more barrel chested, they develop moreSimone: They, yeah, they tend to be smaller and have larger and larger capacity.Malcolm: Yeah humans, allSimone: species respond to evolutionary pressures. Of course, if you create a culture that hasMalcolm: evolutionary pressures, humans willSimone: respond. It's just okay, well, thank you for letting me know that studies show that when you drop something, it falls to the ground.Simone: Okay.Malcolm: No one else is talking about this.Simone: Yeah, but that's because I think people, and this is, this is something that's interesting, which is that culture is a highly underrated tool. I mean, I would say that China understands this and the fact that it's like trying to, Outlaw certain cultures.Simone: Like just this morning, I was watching one YouTube commentator discuss how China has tried to outlaw like hyper feminine males, and it's trying to, you know, create this like new standard for masculinity, which is a [00:21:00] more macho kind of male, and also a male who shows a huge amount of devotion to his nation.Simone: Right? So, so China does understand this.Malcolm: That's like a virgin man trying to unhook a broad types of cultural engagement.Simone: Well, so, well, but yeah, China may not be getting it tactically, right. But at least I respect that China is one of the very few nations that appears to understand the importance and impact like Georgia also understands that.Simone: But I think that's more just a product, product of it being a more religious nation. So I do think that that's important.Malcolm: Offering to be people's, what, what was it? God, theSimone: patriarch of the church. Yeah. Authoring to either baptize or become the godfather of anyone who was, yeah.Malcolm: Yeah. Simone, I guess what I, the reason why I think this is interesting or might be interesting to people is if you look at the two groups in the world today, there's one group, which is like this progressive monoculture, which is like, there is no difference in human populations.Malcolm: And then there's this [00:22:00] other group, which is like this scientific racism community, which is like all the difference that matters is, is like black versus white versus Native American versus Hispanic. And, and because everyone's so ideological motivated, they can't see the, to me, what, which is the.Malcolm: Groups that matter are your cultural groups and your recent family decisions. Like families that you know, live in Texas usually regardless of their, their ethnic background, you know, they are people who migrated to the U S once and then felt the need to migrate again, at least once, which is why they're so outgoing and okay let's move, let's do something new.Malcolm: Let's, you know. They represent a multiple migration mindset, which you may not see in other environments. So, so even little things like that can really impact a person. Yeah,Simone: I mean, I would also argue even now Texas selects for pretty practical and [00:23:00] resourceful people because people don't usually move to Texas because they're like, oh, yeah this is my easy way out, right?Simone: They move there because there are job opportunities and because cost of living is low. This is somethingMalcolm: we saw in Dallas, right? Versus like Miami or San Francisco. San Francisco, you might move to San Francisco because you wanted to be part of the next big thing, you know, you might move to Miami because it augmented your personal status.Malcolm: If you moved to Dallas, it was because of job opportunities and cost of living, which is selecting for a very specific sociological profile.Simone: Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, it is interesting. This is interesting insofar as people are not... I'm not really aware of how powerful culture is as a long term mechanism of power and influence.Simone: However, it's just so freaking obvious that, at least internally, I'm just like,Malcolm: Do we have to? No, well, so, I mean, I think if genetic technology wasn't beginning to bubble up now, [00:24:00] which it is, which sort of changes everything about how this, this works. If you said no genetic technology at all. You would begin to see really big, much bigger than any potential ethnic differences between population groups differences in people living in different cities in just the next, you know, 100 years or so, because air airplanes make it so easy to relocate that you are getting it around the world today.Malcolm: And I think this is often having was in countries incredibly powerful, assortative sorting. Of people based on their sociological profiles into specific cities and geographic regions, which I think is why, you know, today, if you look at the progressive regions becoming more progressive and the conservative regions becoming more conservative, you know, there's been great like twin studies on this.Malcolm: The way you vote is what I think around 80% genetic. No, 60%. It wasSimone: 60%. It's not that high, but it is highlyMalcolm: heritable. Yeah. It is highly. So, so you're beginning to actually get this sort of [00:25:00] concentrated where if you are a conservative leaning person like yourself living in San Francisco, you leave.Malcolm: And you go move to like rural Pennsylvania, which is where we live now. Right. So, I, I think that you are seeing an incredibly high level of like assortative sorting.Simone: Yeah. And, and, you know, that's, that's interesting.Malcolm: It's interesting that in 200 years, you will have like the Detroit or Dallas or Miami or San Francisco, like genetic sociological profile.Malcolm: And this is something that people, I mean, unless they're just like. Religiously oblivious to it, like the progressives are now, will be really obvious to everyone. Yeah, butSimone: somewhat depressingly I guess the other reason is, is one, it's super obvious. Two, pretty much no one is acting on it. And three...Simone: You know, no, no one is going to do anything about it or they'll flub it. Like China's flubbing it or China appears to be flubbing it at least. So you know, if it's that kind of thing will, will it matter? You know, [00:26:00] because no one's going to pull it off. LikeMalcolm: it matters in terms of how you look at it.Malcolm: So a great example of this that I'd always say, is when I talk to people and I'm like, yeah, you know, what do you think of Cubans? You talk to a Florida, you're like, what do you think of Cuban? They go, yeah, Cubans. They're all, you know, they, there's the typical Cuban sociological profile.Malcolm: They're very conservative. They're really good at business. They're really educated. And it's that's not the profile of Cubans more broadly. That's the profile of the Cubans that were differentially sorted into trying to escape a communist dictatorship and move to the United States. And to some extent, this is what you see with the Taiwanese sesquiculture.Malcolm: Like why is Taiwan able to have all these advanced semiconductor plants that nowhere else in the world seems to be able to run at a large scale? Taiwan is like China's Cuba. There was a period where It's a little different because it was actually founded by a dictatorial regime, but that dictatorial regime, when they were fleeing the Chinese mainland, they did something really [00:27:00] weirdly foresightful, which is they tried to take all of the high trained, like high intelligence people with them in as part of their exodus.Malcolm: So it's, it's, it'sSimone: like. Well, Cuban immigrants then, you know, but not, not. Yes, it's likeMalcolm: Cuban immigrants. Like Taiwan is Cuban Floridians are to Cuban people as Taiwanese are to Chinese people. Yeah. Yeah. But it is, it is really, or what's also interesting is American Chinese immigrants are to Chinese people.Malcolm: You know, to an extent within any immigrant population depending on how the, the sorting worked, you're often going to get a very specific sociological profile that may not be the dominant sociological profile of the mainland population.Simone: Yeah. Well, I mean, maybe this video will make a difference.Simone: Maybe this video will make people actually do something with cultural technology, I think more intentionally. [00:28:00] Humans are not great at like thinking in terms of generations. It's more like right now. What do I get? But we'll see, Malcolm. Let's see if this vortex of failure continues to fail.Malcolm: I, you are not a vortex.Malcolm: You are a vortex of success pulling me to higher highs.Simone: Well, now let's look more meta. I think that, that success.Simone: And the only way you will ever achieve success is by marrying a vortex of failures who builds that mountain. Because that's what we're studying. Yes.Malcolm: You make life so hard forSimone: me. Yeah. So the secret was they were right, but that's what we're doing.Malcolm: Here's one question before we leave. Are there any cultural groups that I missed that you feel have had a big impact on individuals living under them?Simone: I mean, yeah, like every culture has had a big impact on individuals living under them. And I think what's interesting, what you haven't discussed a lot, but this is really more for another conversation is how. Emergent properties or changing environments or [00:29:00] technologies have caused these to crash and burn sometimes and not like the cultural evolutionary pressures that may exist in one, one time series, one climate, one technological environment will totally fail in another.Simone: And so I think a lot of good cultural entrepreneurship and crafting has to involve anticipate anticipation of what we're going to be facing in the future.Malcolm: So for example, what she's talking about here are Mormons. Mormons used to be a really successful cultural group and now their fertility rates just absolutely, they're below replacement rate and I think well below replacement rate at this point.Malcolm: So they fared very poorly in the age ofSimone: Yeah. And so I think anyone doing good culture crafting now has to think a lot about the effect of AI on economies, on people, on mental health, and if you're not factoring that in, it really doesn't matter what pressures you create, because if they don't factor that in, they're not factoring in what reality is going to be.Simone: But anyway, this is fun. I admire yourMalcolm: perspective, Simone, and [00:30:00] I'm so glad to have married a, gender bent version of myself. And this is something that people often miss about us. They're like, you guys seem to think exactly the same and you look exactly the same. And, and it's just almost like a racist thing to say.Malcolm: It's like they're seeing somebody of a rarer cultural group that they haven't seen much. I don't know, for the first time, they're meeting two like really Jewish people. And they're like, you guys look like weirdly similar. Are you brother and sister? Yeah. Are you brother and sister? It's no, we're just from the same ethno cultural group.Malcolm: Not a common one these days. Anyway, I love you, Simone.Simone: I love you too, Malcolm. Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Description: Malcolm and Simone have a fascinating discussion on the evolutionary origins and cultural purposes of music. They analyze how music builds in-group cohesion, signaling identity, glorifying values, and shaping emotions. From military marching songs to religious chanting to teenage subcultures, music plays a key role in cultural programming and bonding. But they argue overusing music can be indulgent and dulling. An insightful talk on the sociology and psychology of music!Malcolm: [00:00:00] Speech is a very effective person to person communication device. It allows one person to communicate with one other person. Or one person to communicate with a large group of people. Music is different. Music is a many to many cultural communication device. And that's where music gets really interesting.Would you like to know more?Simone: Hello, Simone.Malcolm: I am excited for today's topic. It's actually based on a user comment because they were asking about music and culture and how cultures can use music to intergenerationally retain people, to augment people's. Brains and the way people relate to their environment, especially in the context of hearing that we are so anti art, anti music, right?Malcolm: So this is one of those interesting things. Where I can say our culture does not do something [00:01:00] and may have led to perhaps even a genetic thing, but more broadly, I think cultures should do that thing and here's why. So first, a little background here. Calvinist culture traditionally is very antagonistic to music or art.Malcolm: Or any sort of frivolous pleasure that was either not evocationist or not evocatist. A great example is Geneva banned music for almost a century when they were predominantly Calvinist. It was, so it wasn't all music. It was any music that was either not that used words. Or was that like explicitly spiritual, I think.Malcolm: But it was mostly any music that used words. And, and I can understand that sentiment, actually, when I was a kid, I felt the same way. I remember when I was very young, telling my parents that any music was words, wasn't real music. What? Yeah, I, I'm trying to remember why I felt this [00:02:00] instinctually so strong.Malcolm: I think it was because... I, I thought that music that utilized anything other than sound to manipulate an individual's emotional state was like cheating or relying on, on an externality that it shouldn't rely on as a vanity. I don't, it was very interesting, but, but what I would say.Malcolm: And so historically we from, come from a cultural group that as one of its core motivations is this idea that positive and negative emotional states you know, most cultures, it's only positive emotional states you would, you would go after that are pursued for their own sake, whether it's from emotion comes from music or sexuality or anything like that are always evil.Malcolm: Yeah. That actions should always be dedicated to what's efficacious. And so I understand why my culture did this. And one of the things we'll talk about in a different culture is cultures can go evolve with a person's [00:03:00] genetics. By that what I mean is individuals with a sociological profile that were like really into music would have left this Cultural system much faster than those who didn't and people living adjacent to these sort of cultural groups who naturally were uninterested in music, but have been much more likely to join these cultural groups.Malcolm: And also the extent to which our cultural groups feel is I remember I did not get my first CD was music on it until I was 12 and I went to a store and what I bought. Was a single because it was the cheapest thing in the store. But it was this weird, like I put it on a thing to see what it was like.Malcolm: Okay. Why, why do people listen to this? Why did they spend money on this? I did not understand now, but let's talk about why groups use music and the value of music. So, ISimone: mean, I feel you know, you're missing the big thing. I mean, aside from the fact that music. can really give you this almost transcendent experience, [00:04:00] right?Simone: When you're doing it, it really helps to create this group of cohesion, this shared moment, but that interestingly secular music to me is a really interesting form of worship that is practiced even when people lose their religion. And it's like a worship to their culture and it's a worship to this is who I am.Simone: And it reminds you so and this is how music has been used for millennia, right? Like music has usually been used for, for worship and for practice. And it helps you likeMalcolm: why it does that,Simone: right? Well, I mean, one, it binds you to a group too. It often includes lore or canon for your culture, right?Simone: These are our characters. We, these are our values. This is what we're into. And it, what to me is so interesting is the way that. Post religion music still does that. Look at country music and it's like keyword stuffed with this is what I value. These are the people that matter to me. So it's like back roads, hard work.Simone: I love my mom. I love my dad. I [00:05:00] love my kids.Malcolm: That's our favorite type of music. We don't listen to much music, but we do prefer country music.Simone: Yeah. But it is very religious, like in nature, right? It's likeMalcolm: it's secular, but let's talk about why that's the case. Okay. So if you talk about the evolutionary pressures that led to the development of speech versus the development of music, it's really interesting.Malcolm: Speech is a very effective person to person communication device. It allows one person to communicate with one other person. Or one person to communicate with a large group of people. Music is different. Music is a many to many cultural communication device. And that's where music gets really interesting.Malcolm: So there's some great studies that have been done on this, which show, for example people who joined various clubs within a school, if it was a music club, they felt friendship with that group and camaraderie with that group much faster than other clubs. That makes sense. What is interesting [00:06:00] is that they, they did not have a higher ceiling to the camaraderie they felt.Malcolm: They just felt camaraderie faster. So if you, accelerant. It's an accelerant, right? And there was another one that had two groups of students that would do running and one would do it to like a march step, like music and the other group would do it without that. And the group that was doing it to the music felt much more bonded to each other.Malcolm: And this is why, so you can look at Military traditions. So military traditions evolve to an extent where the military traditions that outcompete other military traditions on the battlefield end up being the military traditions that other people try to copy, right? So there are evolutionary pressures within military traditions.Malcolm: And this is how military traditions found out to do things like the, I don't know, but I've been told, you know, when they're like running. Even though nobody ever told them to do this like they didn't understand psychologically what they were doing, but just the groups that ran to music seemed to [00:07:00] outcompete other groups.Malcolm: And it was because of the acting social accelerant.Simone: Well, then why? Okay. Why is music not used more in dating then? If that's how it works, if it builds cohesion faster? What do youMalcolm: think nightclubs are? Oh, I guess. So to us, you and me, nightclubs are this perplexing, insane environment where we're like, why would you?Malcolm: Go and look for a partner in an environment where you can't talk to somebody because you know, our cultural biases are so strong there that we see the idea of dancing with a stranger to music. It's like really gross. Like even when I was a kid, I'd go to nightclubs and I'd be like, I do not get what's going on here.Malcolm: Yeah. For cultures that have this strong musical predilection, that's what's going on there. They're using music as a communication device within a dating ecosystem. So very good question with a very good answer. Another interesting way that music can change people is music can activate and things that are done to music can activate many of the same systems that are activated [00:08:00] with like hallucinogens.Malcolm: And other so one of the things that we often talk about is humans did not evolve to feel profundity tied to actual profundity. So by that what I mean is nothing in our evolutionary environment caused people to accurately gauge the profundity of a thing to survive more than people who didn't, right?Malcolm: And to actually have an emotional state. set associated with that. So our emotional subset that feels profundity is actually most commonly hijacked with drugs, typically hallucinogens. However like it can be induced to feel this. However, music. Group chanting and group stomping can also cause this effect.Malcolm: And so, religions or cultural practices that are trying to force convert people get new members can induce this state of profundity, which can lead to somebody being more interested in joining a cultural group than they otherwise would have. And then. rituals. [00:09:00] Interesting. I mean, what are your thoughts on music?Malcolm: I've talked a little too much in this one, so I'd love to hear some of your thoughts on this.Simone: I mean, I'm, I'm more interested in the, in the ways that. Secular music is being used intentionally and non intentionally now and how it's being left behind. I mean, I even think about like campaign music and how people are so obsessed with how, you know, like which campaign songs they're using, what that communicates.Simone: Maybe it's just really underrated how, how much music matters in terms of setting a tone about like your value. Let's,Malcolm: let's, let's dig into what you were talking about there. Okay. What's going on with campaign music? So, when I was younger, there was this thing called MySpace, right? And you'd write a bunch of stuff about yourself on MySpace, but you'd also have a song that played automatically when somebody went to the page, and you might be able to list your favorite artists, you know?Malcolm: And people do that on Facebook still, to an extent, and stuff like that. What are you doing when you're listing those individuals? You are telling [00:10:00] people... This is who I am as an individual, you, other people, you have something that you associate with these artists, whether it's cultural things or character, you know, when somebody says.Malcolm: I'm a Slipknot fan, or something like that, often. They're not saying I actually like the music of Slipknot, like they might. But, usually when somebody's saying that, what they're actually saying is, Here are character traits that I want to communicate to the people around me. When people are choosing campaign songs or music to play at campaign rallies, that's what they're doing.Malcolm: They are conveying traits about them through bundled packages of beliefs about people who like X or Y that we have as a society.Simone: So why do you think that teenagers feel the need to do this more? Is it just because they're much more socially like? IMalcolm: think it's because they're less aware of who they are.Malcolm: And so they're much more interested because they're so teenagers, what happens when you're a teenager, you [00:11:00] have just moved from the stage where your parents define who you are, to some extent, to you get to define who you are. And if you are dumb, sorry, I don't mean to say that about people who define themselves by music.Malcolm: If you are, you know, less sophisticated in terms of how you think about yourself, great way to define yourself. Is from especially in a really glorifying way because music often Is glorifying to the individual that's listening to it, you could say you define yourself with the music you listen to.Simone: So it's kind of like, being very lazy about how you define yourself and using someone who is a whole lot more poetic and eloquent than you to make your life seem and your identity seem more epic, thoughtful and profound than it really is.Malcolm: And cohesive than it really is. Hmm. Mm. This is who I am.Malcolm: I'm somebody who likes, I mean, and this is why I think when I was dating, you know, if somebody ever was like, oh, I really am into, you know, music and it wasn't like their own music, but other people's music, like if [00:12:00] somebody was really into their own music, I don't know, I, I would find that interesting like music that they were making.Malcolm: But if it was other people's music, I was immediately like, oh, so like you don't have an identity, like your identity, so,Simone: Okay, what also, though, about the, the phenomenon of the hot guy who plays guitar in high school? Yeah, so what's going on there? Is it just a social proof thing? Is, is it, is it the fact that he plays music that matters?Simone: I mean, one thing is, first off, it's not like the guy who plays the oboe who gets all the women. It's the guy who plays the guitar. Is this a culturalMalcolm: thing? What's going on? Well, I think that, that, that, that answers the question for you. It's not the music. That is turning on the women. It's that these are most often the guys in like a high school environment, like in high school, guys aren't making speeches that rooms of people are listening to often, right?Malcolm: That's not a thing that's happening, at least in a cool way, like they might as like a science and they're talking to old people, but not like peers that a girl's going to respect. Right? But music, yeah, you can have a guy play music who's a teenager and a bunch of other cool teenage people [00:13:00] listening to that person playing music.Malcolm: So what's happening there is a phenomenon you see, we've talked about it in other videos, which is when women see other women or men interested in a male their attraction rating for that male dramatically increases.Simone: So the social proof effect, essentially,Malcolm: it's the social proof effect. That's what you're seeing there.Malcolm: And so. That being the case, if I was a guy who found some other way to communicate to cool people in mass within a high school context, I would probably get the same amount of people interested in me. And I did. And I did. So I know it works. I mean, I, I was captain of my debate team, right?Malcolm: And I, in many environments would talk, you know, one to many within a high school environment. I also did a lot of speeches, like ran campaigns and stuff like that. And I did really well in terms of the, the, now this was interesting. My specialty was in high school. It was not the people in my high school, but the people in the surrounding town.Malcolm: I thinkSimone: you [00:14:00] completely ignored your own local market, right? When it came to Yeah, I justMalcolm: completely ignored my own local market because my own local market required, and this is also really interesting about high school, playing the high school dominance hierarchy instead of just being the most attractive.Malcolm: Person of the people that this person had, had engaged with which meant that I was playing a very different game and a much easier game to play in isolation. Yeah.Simone: Yeah. Well, so what about I don't know how to put this, but like weirder or more esoteric music. I mean, do you think that like the, the more mature person who enjoys going to Baroque concerts is being just as social signaling?Simone: about Baroque music as a teenager who goes to a popular music concert. Or doMalcolm: you, you know, I feel this, I often criticize people when I think they're listening into classical music to try to look sophisticated.Simone: Well, what about me though? Do you think, do you think I listened to, to Baroque music because [00:15:00] I, I thinkMalcolm: music is able to manipulate an individual's emotional state.Malcolm: And I think that some people, and this is my approved use of music and music as a tool for manipulating your emotional state, I think is very valuable. Now, obviously I would view that tool as completely indulgent if you're using it to modify your emotional state in a negative. Date. Yeah. So that you can feel extra sorry for yourself, which some people do.Malcolm: I find that pretty indulgent,Simone: but so so essentially doesn't break sad breakup songs when someone dumps you. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,Malcolm: yeah. But because they're just completely indulging in this negative emotional state, which is lowering the overall efficiency and efficacy. Sure. However, while we do not value like happiness, right.Malcolm: I do believe that people are more efficient when they're happy. And so I do see the value of listening to music that can augment your, your level of happiness or create other emotional states. SoSimone: what I can say about that, just like really quick is in terms of at least music and focus the, the research is pretty mixed, but what I [00:16:00] have from like the gist of it after reading a bunch of them is if you like the music and you think that it will help you focus.Simone: It will help you focus basically. So there is no like type of music that is like necessarily proven to help you focus. It's more if this is your focus music, it will help you. So just to that point.Malcolm: Yeah. And this is where I think, you know, I was going to mention workout music, right? Which I think is very similar, right?Malcolm: Some music can be used to augment your mental state into an environment where. You find something more fun than you would otherwise find it. So the point of workout music is for whatever reason, it modifies your mental experience of working out to make that experience more enjoyable than it is when you are not listening to workout music.Malcolm: So,Simone: so on that front I want to get what you do with music. Cause actually you are. For someone who doesn't, doesn't respect music that much, right? You are whenever doing something on your own, [00:17:00] doing a task that doesn't necessarily require a lot of focus. If you're unloading the car, you have an AMV playing and AMVs are anime music videos.Simone: So this is not just music. It is music set to like remixed clips of anime shows or movies. So what are you doing there? What are you doing with your state and how do you choose what songs and, you know, likeMalcolm: what does this mean to you? Tasks and environments where I benefit from some level of mental dulling.Malcolm: You know, whether that's alcohol or having music or an A and B on in the background or something like that. So are youSimone: saying that music has the same effect as of like mentally dulling you? Like it just distracts youMalcolm: a little. Well, so you know that I get my most productive work done often at 2 AM to, you know, 6 AM.Malcolm: When you'reSimone: kind of half asleep, butMalcolm: also not interrupted. Yeah, I try to wake up and be in that sort of half asleep state. I just am much more productive when my brain is not fully functioning. And I'm much less productive when my brain is on all cylinders. So I generally [00:18:00] try to do when I am, when I am doing something productive, but that is otherwise like mentally grinding, like going through emails, which is the majority of work I'm doing, or, you know, writing something that isn't fully mentally stimulating.Malcolm: Trying to distract a part of my brain that might otherwise distract the rest of my brain with aberrant thoughts. Oh, why don't you go do this? Why don't you go do that? And when I was younger and I would take things like, you know, Ritalin or something like that to focus, right? I did not listen to music when I was working because it dulled my mind enough that I was able Work.Malcolm: So that's why I relate to music in that way. Now we can talk a bit about the evolution of music because, but I think it's very interesting. I, in a previous video, I, I wanted do on this where I was showing that like a, a, if you play music for some birds that can speak, they'll start dancing very similar to the way that we start dancing, right?Malcolm: They, they clearly, really enjoy it and jive was it. [00:19:00] And then I realized I couldn't put any of those videos in 'cause they all had popular songs playing. So you just have to. YouTube them yourself. But what we can see is that in a pre speech animal that has a lot of mental processing dedicated to vocalizations you are going to have the ability to essentially massage that part of its brain in the same way you might massage somebody with like your fingertips and your hands, where like you are subtly touching like a large portion of them in a way.Malcolm: That creates like a pleasant stimulation and then specific historic religious groups began to utilize this for many to many communication and group bonding rituals, which are obviously a thing of utility. And so evolution being a cheap programmer, as we always say, evolution is a cheap programmer, basically hijacked this system and said, okay, yeah, let's cause people to create these quick emotional bonds through this system.Malcolm: How evolution, because the [00:20:00] groups of humans that were able to create these faster bonds when undergoing this mini to mini communication ceremony or, or types of ceremonies ended up out competing likely, you know, martially and, and in other ways other groups of humans.Simone: That checks out. Yeah. Well, so, okay.Simone: What about the future of music? How do you think it could be used weaponized? I mean, there's also the weaponization of music, right? Like music has been used in like Guantanamo Bay to quote unquote, like torture people. Right. So how do you think that for better or for good or for evil music should or can be used in the future?Simone: Well,Malcolm: so I think the really sad thing is the way music is weaponized. Best can happen organically within a cultural group and that music can be used to completely destroy the value system of a cultural group. So I'm not going to name names here, but you know, we were talking about country music.Malcolm: Country music, I think, is, is actually really reinforcing for the [00:21:00] cultural groups that listen to it. If you look at the themes of country music, it's typically you know, I really respect and love my wife.Simone: Hard work, family values, and appreciating what you have, which is notMalcolm: a lot. Yeah. And when it's, and when it's negative, it's typically you cheated on me.Malcolm: So I fucked up your car or killed you or you know, you abused your wife. And so your wife killed you. You know, those are like the more negative country music themes. However. They still, at the end, portray a positive value, which is don't, you know, f**k around and find out, right? However when I look at other music clusters and the value systems that they portray to, and this is a cross, I'm not like talking about just one group, right?Malcolm: They often are really toxic,Simone: Yeah, like either, either super materialistic, super focused on very unsustainable relationship formats. [00:22:00] Like even when I think about and not to like hate on Taylor Swift songs, but like when I hear a lot of her songs, which I enjoy like listening to in a certain mood, like I'm like, Oh man, this is.Simone: This is encouraging a really toxic relationship. Whatcha doing? Whatcha thinkingMalcolm: of, I can't, I can't model what you're thinking of here 'cause I don't know theSimone: song. I, I don't know the names of her songs. I just hear the, the lyrics of just you know, we're, we're dangerous or bad for each other, you know, but we're gonna do it anyway.Simone: Or and, you know, also just like other really fun, playful songs or like I love Katy Perry songs. A lot of them are just more about like partying and stuff, which, you know, Yeah.Malcolm: Okay. So let's take it up here because that's, that's a music that's not going to get us in trouble. Like a song like what's the song where she's talking about being Japanese y or whatever, orSimone: this is how we do. Oh, that's my... Yeah, this is how we do.Malcolm: This is how we do, right? I mean, what's the, what's the song teaching people to value? Partying all day, being so irresponsible.Simone: This one goes to the kids out late at the club and it's Tuesday. Yeah. This is the ones who are playing for bottle service with your rent money.Simone: I love that song, but yeah, like not [00:23:00]Malcolm: the best. Very engaging song in that I think it emotionally uplifts your mood. But if you're like, it is, it is a cultural toxin in terms of the value system that is glorified in that music. And so these sort of musical, I don't know what you can call them musical bombs or musical toxins can be induced into a cultural group and used to keep that cultural group you know, mentally addled in an adversarial relationship with like police, for example in all sorts of negative things.Malcolm: That, you know, just organically evolved. So when we talk about where music is the most toxic, it's actually music that just organically evolves and that the only thing you can really do to fight that is, is if you're within the cultural group and you're just like. Hey, I put you, you, you, you're not going to be able to change society as a whole, but you can, within your family say, we don't listen to [00:24:00] music like this,Simone: right?Simone: There are many like conservative Christian cultures, which are like, Oh, we don't listen to that. That's the devil's music or see, I don't mean I'm just modeling a really bad caricature here,Malcolm: yes. But the devil's music, when people are like, oh, that's the devil's music. We might look at that as like backwards and a weird thing to say, but people say it because it matters.Malcolm: Yeah. And as a final point on music. This was actually a chapter that we ended up deleting from our book to an extent. But basically we say that, that groups that really know, like conservative groups that really seem to engage in fun parties seem to have higher fertility rates than their neighbors, which don't seem to engage in fun parties.Malcolm: And a great example here would be. Jews conservative Jewish groups seem to have some of the most quote unquote fun parties where we look at the cultural groups that I think I feel more instinctual kinship with the Anabaptist cultural groups, you know, Amish and Mennonites, you know, when I look at their [00:25:00] parties, it's stuff like let's build a house and all the wives will go and make food for us that we'll get to eat and then we'll lift the barn and carry the barn.Malcolm: And I see that, I go, that looks like a good time.Malcolm: But actually, and this is just like a personal thing. Like I am not passing a societal judgment. I am almost like instinctually repelled when I see some of these like Jewish people. Parties where I can tell everyone is having like a lot of fun, but I just noticed like the people touching other people without asking And it's hotSimone: Sweaty andMalcolm: like it probably smells bad in like they're not talking like they're not engaging with ideas. They're there. They're Having fun for fun's sake. And I think that this is where something comes to where I can say, I think that those events help their culture outcompete other cultures, but this is also why, and this should be another video we should probably do, that people begin to almost genetically specialize for their [00:26:00] cultural group.Malcolm: And we get what we call like an evolutionary vortex where the group draws people in. Who would thrive in a group like that and kicks people out who wouldn't thrive in a group like that and just me This sort of music party environment is something that when I look at it I'm just like, Oh my God, the floor is probably sticky.Malcolm: And people are touching me without asking me first. Oh my God, when somebody tried to kiss me. No, no. Yeah. No, but you you I mean, Simone, would you say you feel the same way? Like when you see these videos? Or?Simone: Oh, totally. Yeah. Like the only way I would be remotely okay. Like mentally with the situations in the moment is if I'm so sloshed, I'm probably blackout drunk.Simone: If we're being totallyMalcolm: honest. Oh God. And what if somebody tried to hug you? No, it's a brotherly hug. It's I don't care if it's a sexual hug or not get your hands off me. I want a five foot bubble [00:27:00] of personal space and you can stay out of it. Okay. And I want silence. I want to think I went to one concert in my entire life.Malcolm: And the only, it was, it was BlizzCon. So I went to BlizzCon and they had a Foo Fighters play. So that's my conference. It was actually a video game. It was a video game conference. And they had a band come, but I got to see the concert experience and it was miserable. It was loud. It was painful. My only takeaway is if I ever go to a concert again, I'm going to need earplugs.Malcolm: I, I do not, it did not look to me like people were like jumping up and down, but having fun in this kind of totally mindless way that I just cannot mentallySimone: engage with. Nope. Nope. Nope. Just no, but yeah, Hey, I'm, I'm glad that I'm married to someone who does not drag me to concerts. Thank you very much,Malcolm: Malcolm.Malcolm: Well, I'm assortative meeting here, right? This could even be seen as behavioral isolation, [00:28:00] people like you and me, we find each other in our weird and no music environments where most people are not looking for partners. And a, we can say our, our. Final point on music is it is probably the optimum cultural group probably uses music.Malcolm: That is not our cultural.Simone: So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Yes. I love you, Malcolm. Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Journalist Katherine Dee joins Simone and Malcolm for a deep dive on mediated relationships. They discuss intimacy via screens, "real" internet friends, social media personas, roleplaying communities, and lessons from Katherine's experiences with online dating.Katherine Dee: [00:00:00] In the kind of environment we live in, either you have no friends and only very perfunctory relationships, or you have, or you're, like, isolate, you're physically isolated but you have these deep internet relationships.Katherine Dee: Um, and I think that's sort of like an interesting, like what is the value of someone who like you don't really go deep with but like you have a lot of physical experiences with? Like you're both, you know, like you're maybe You always see them at church or like you play basketball with them or something and you have that kind of like regularity and the relationship is less based on this confessional sort of thing that millennials love so much, um, and more, more based on like physical movement somehow, or like involvement in a project that's bigger than oneself.Would you like to know more?Simone: Hello, everyone. We are very excited to be joined today by Catherine Dee, AKA Default Friend, one of the world's preeminent internet experts and historians in internet culture. She is absolutely insightful.Simone: She is a journalist who contributes to quite a few different [00:01:00] outlets. She's a blogger. She's just. Very insightful and fun to talk with and she suggested something that really piqued our interest when we were scheduling this podcast, the durability of mediated relationships. Catherine, what do you have in mind here?Katherine Dee: Yeah, this is something I think about a lot. Like how much intimacy. can be fostered just completely over a screen or on the phone? Um, and it's sort of an open ended question, but it's something that I think about a lot. I guess, maybe a more fun way to ask is, like, how real are internet friends?Simone: It's such a goodMalcolm: question. Which is to say that I think that the different contexts in which we communicate with somebody Access different parts of our brain, and to an extent, you are literally communicating with a different person. So in a way, a multimedia friendship can be much deeper than a non multimedia friendship.Malcolm: By this, what I mean is the person who talks [00:02:00] with Simone over the phone. Versus the person who talks with Simone in person, versus the person who writes emails to Simone, versus the person who writes, you know, one way we used to communicate when we were apart from each other was through journal posts. So Simone would write eight pages of journals about her day and then I would like annotate that afterwards as like a, oh, you did this, this is interesting.Malcolm: And each one of those I feel is talking with. A slightly different person living in the same person's head. Yeah,Simone: actually. So there's, there's a, and people think we're really crazy for doing this. Um, those who watch video of our podcast, because Malcolm and I are in the same house, but we, we always do podcasts from different rooms and that's actually like very much a good illustration of how for us, we, we will actively mediate our relationship through a video call.Simone: Um, just to get into a certain different mind state. Um, because. I, for example, think very differently when I'm alone in a room than when I'm in a, in a room with a person, even if it's Malcolm, who might as well just be me because we're [00:03:00] the same person. So I think that's, that's really interesting.Simone: What are your thoughtsMalcolm: on all this?Katherine Dee: Um, I, I think that you can actually get closer, um, in, in mediated relationships than you can, um, in physical world ones. I mean, part of that is just that you act you know, you actually can spend more time with the person, even though it's a different type of time, right?Katherine Dee: Um, and there's, I, I think, actually you could be more deceptive in real life than in cyberspace. In cyberspace, you could lie about Right? Like your profession or your hair color or things like that. Um, but you, there's the, you can't really lie emotionally as much, especially after you hit a certain amount of time with someone.Katherine Dee: And I feel like with a lot of like digital relationships for really, if you have a high volume of communication, which a lot do because we're always sort of ambiently on our phones or ambiently online. Um. You could actually start to merge with the other [00:04:00] person and I don't know if that's healthy, that could be actually very toxic, but I do think um, if not like durable, like you actually can get closer.Katherine Dee: Um, and yeah, I just think, I just think about that a lot and like what happens to relationships where you have that like closeness and then you bring it into the physical world. Does it change?Malcolm: Well, so something that, that, you know, we've talked about in other places and we might do a full episode on this.Malcolm: is the way that online environments are structured changes the type of interactions and views that will be espoused in them. Because it naturally leads to specific types of status hierarchies within those communities. So you take a something like Reddit, right? Where the most average liked opinion is the most likely to be seen.Malcolm: Meaning you're going to get very normie, inoffensive, sort of left leaning opinions. Whereas you take something like, um, 4chan, where it's the most stimulating opinion is the most likely to be seen. So you're likely to get the most offensive opinions rising to [00:05:00] the top. Or you can contrast that with something like Twitter, um, where you know, for something I wrote to be seen.Malcolm: It actually helps more if somebody disagrees with it and, and, and ratios me, you know, retweets me, um, than if they like it in terms of getting it in front of other people, so you end up with, you know, pointlessly offensive takes often in that community, um, in a different way than they're pointlessly offensive on 4chan, where they're just meant to be mentally stimulating unfortunate, like the maximum emotional response instead of the maximum disagreement or, um, and so within these different communities, I wonder how you think about different environments, how they change, whether it's romantic or friendships that form in those environments.Katherine Dee: Yeah, that's actually, this is like an interesting point because I think like when there's like the public facing. Expression right on the Twitter timeline versus in the Twitter DMS, and then there's 1 on 1 DMS, and then there's group chats, right? And in all of those situations, there's different incentives, but I think it's I [00:06:00] think we could think about it in the same way as, um, you know, the difference in an office versus someone you meet at you know, through a club or hobby, right? Because you're, there's, there's, you have to bring a different piece of yourself to that environment. Um, when I think about like online relationships, I guess I've like often, and even when I've written about it, I think about it in like the, like one on one, right?Katherine Dee: Um, and. Somehow carrying someone with you everywhere. But I haven't thought about it as much, um, in these sort of more public environments. And that's a, that's a really, it's a really good point because then you're constructing a character and maybe actually you can't form deep relationships in certain public venues in the same way you can't necessarily in a Goldman Sachs office, right?Malcolm: Well, I mean, is there some particular experience that you experience that is particularly evocative around this question?Simone: Um,Katherine Dee: yeah, I mean, and this, this, it's interesting [00:07:00] because like I've, I've read a lot about like other people experiencing this too um, like talking to someone so much that like you almost, um, hallucinate their presence or like being on a phone call where like you feel like you're in the same physical space.Katherine Dee: Um, and it's, it's funny, there's one study that I bring up a lot and I can't seem to, I was looking for it today. But there's, um, three different women, it was an Israeli study, who were in these digital relationships, and they started hallucinating the presence of their lover and, um, the, their touch, and it was considered a psychotic symptom.Katherine Dee: But I, but when I read this, I always thought is it a psychotic symptom, or is there something about Filling in the blanks in our head or something, right? There's another study that was done where in game, like eye contact, um, affects people the same way as like real life eye contact or like eye contact is like subday, like whatever would represent eye [00:08:00] contact in like the particular game, which I thought it was like really interesting, right?Katherine Dee: There is some physical, like physiological thing happening there.Simone: I, one thing that I'm also thinking about here that's like this, this conversation is changing the way that I think about catfishing. Um, like part of me is well, you know, as long as people never meet in person, you know, is catfishing really that bad of a thing?Simone: Because I think that the emotional connection that many people are building is very real, even if I think I'm talking to a 24 year old. You know, 5'9 gorgeous woman.Malcolm: So there's this great catfishing case, I love true crime internet stuff, um, where a guy was dating this, this with catfishing this young girl.Malcolm: So he was pretending to be a young, you know, sniper in the military. Um, and then he got in a fight with another guy who wasn't catfishing the girl, but he knew in person. And so then she goes and he kills the other guy in, in, in real life. So he can have this girl who he's catfishing, [00:09:00] even though she thinks that he's 30 years younger than he is.Malcolm: And then he finds out that actually she was. Like an old woman and, and had been catfishing him the whole time. Um, and so it can hurt people, Simone. Um,Katherine Dee: but I think that's, that's a good, but I, I agree with you, Simone. Like I, I, this is something I've written a lot about. I actually think lying has is different in certain online social contexts, um, because it's can be expressing like a greater emotional truth that you can't express because you don't have body language.Katherine Dee: And so maybe there's certain kinds of lies that are done because they're like. Social expedient, or you want clout or whatever, but then there's lies that you have to tell because it, it, there's some sort of shared narrative, or there's some sort of shared world building that's inherent in not having a physical space with someone.Katherine Dee: Hmm,Simone: yeah. I also like speaking of the physical barrier here, like whether or not, you know, the problem is that you're actually, you know, a 72 year old male or whether the problem is you are an [00:10:00] AI, like one thing that Malcolm and I talk about a lot because we really want our kids to be exposed to ambitious, smart, really well informed friends is we're sort of thinking, okay, well, you know, should we just set up our kids with AI friends that are like really smart, really ambitious, like their peer network.Simone: Yeah. Just that you know, a lot of their friends that we try to set them up with are like literal AI's that they just develop close friendships with that. We'll tell them that they're AI's, but. Honestly, from various like simulated boyfriend, girlfriend scenarios that seem to be out there now, maybeMalcolm: that doesn't shame those types of relationships if they won't see them as lesser.Malcolm: But the question is, if they don't see them as lesser, would they still be motivated to form real connections to people and build real relationships?Simone: Right. But I'm curious to get your thoughts, Catherine, on like how mediated relationships where there isn't even like the ability to ever meet a carbon based consciousness.Katherine Dee: I, I'm on the fence about it because I don't really think it's [00:11:00] that different than the attachments people have to like fictional characters. Um. And, you know, there's a lot of, a lot is probably a stretch, but there are people who have, um, romantic attachments to fictional characters, enough that there's such a thing called fictosexuality, which is distinct from robot fetishism, right, which is people who fall in love with their real dolls or whatever.Katherine Dee: Um, right. It's like its own thing. Um, and it's that's, I mean, maybe in that case, like the AI is, it's better, you know, like if it's, if it's something in us that causes us to have these relationships anyway, um, I mean, here's a really corny like terrible thing, but you know, what if Dante had a Beatrice AI, right?Katherine Dee: You know what well, heSimone: practically did. I mean, he, he wrote so much fan fiction about her basically.Katherine Dee: Exactly. I, to me there's no, there's no difference between like his sort of obsession with this woman he saw twice. Yeah. Um, and then someone sort [00:12:00] of like. Quote unquote, like falling in love with an anime character, Harry Potter character.Katherine Dee: Oh my god, I loveSimone: that you just drew that comparison. Yes, because there is no difference, and that would absolutely destroy so many of my fancy literature friends. So, thank you.Malcolm: So, something I'm wondering if you've ever dug into in terms of internet history around this sort of stuff, when I hear these stories...Malcolm: A community that I used to really love to dig into when I was younger, and I don't know how young you are, but I think I might be a bit older than you, was the Second Life community and their relationships that they were forming in that, in that environment. Um, and so many of the wild stories of that community just seemed to mirror.Malcolm: What people think is like a new internet phenomenon,Simone: like the meta stuff, right? I remember oneMalcolm: story of this group, a couple met on second life and they got married and then they realized they didn't like each other in person, but they stayed married living in the same house, but would only talk through their computers.Malcolm: Um, [00:13:00] and, but this sounds like aSimone: modern No, that sounds so romantic to me. Are you kidding me?Malcolm: Yeah, it might have been World of Warcraft. And there's one of the two. That's where like all the weird online stuff used toKatherine Dee: happen. Yeah, it's, it's, and it wasn't even really new then because like people would do the same kind of stuff on multi user dungeons.Katherine Dee: Um, which is, again, they're, they're, they're role, they're basically role playing games, but they're text based. Um, no, I, I'm Can you talk about those and the culture that was in them? Yeah, um, it was a, a lot of, some of them were, there was like gameplay, but a lot of them were like, Sort of like chat rooms or like chat rooms that have a collaborative story telling element to them.Katherine Dee: Um, and there's, you know, the very similar story that I like, I return to all the time because I think it's so interesting and I think it's still applicable today. Um, It's in either Life on the Screen or The Second Self by Sherry Turkle. This, [00:14:00] um, couple falls in love, or so they think, over a multi user dungeon.Katherine Dee: So in this sort of role playing chat room. And they meet in person. There's no chemistry. And then, when they're interviewing the male half, he says, you know, Well, I looked through our chat logs, and I had projected connection and romance that wasn't there. And it and there's something like he had interpreted, he'd misinterpreted the text.Katherine Dee: Um, and I just to I know that sort of sounds like contradictory to everything I just said about e romance and like digital friendships. But I think because we're so toxically plugged in, that actually prevents that kind of. Misreading, um, or at least ideally it will, it would prevent prevent that, but I thought it was just so interesting.Katherine Dee: Like we are, it is like interpreting people and text based medium is really just like interpreting. Literature, um, people will have radically different ideas about a [00:15:00] poem or even a short story and see things that aren't there. And it's especially reflected in fandom when it's people will see a whole homoerotic romance hidden in the text, and you're like, well, what, what are you talking, like, where'd you get that?Katherine Dee: But they really believe it and they'll give, they'll have receipts at the wazoo.Simone: Well, I think that's one of the special things about mediated relationships is depending on how you're coming into them, you can take the most generous, charitable, inspiring, whatever interpretation of someone. And I think it's a lot harder to.Simone: Um, take a pessimist, a more pessimistic approach, whereas in person, I think that like people end up taking more pessimistic interpretations and also people's what we would call overlay states can more easily pollute the situation, like if you're hot or tired or hungry and you're together in person, like it's more likely to lead to negative interactions, whereas if you're interacting asynchronously with someone via it.Simone: email or even just text or whatever, like you're probably not going to be interacting with them when you're at this like really low point with your mood. So [00:16:00] also the interactions you have are probably more likely to be like a little bit more mentally sound and stable than if you guys were together in person, I'm thinking, but maybe that's not the case.Simone: I also imagine like we live in an age in which people have. some serious anxiety problems, um, that I'm like, I'm, I'm one of these people, like it's, it's hard to go outside or it's hard to make friends and interact with people. And so I also imagine that mediated relationships are kind of a solution for a generation of people that suffers from more mental health issues than previous generations.Simone: TheMalcolm: ability to access mediated relationships is what causes those anxiety problems because you are allowed to indulge in that.Katherine Dee: I think that's partially true. And I also think like Um, there's, in, in person, there's sort of like, you can have a lot of shallow connections that are, like, satisfying and serve a purpose, um, whereas in the kind of environment we live in, either you have no friends and only very [00:17:00] perfunctory relationships, or you have, or you're, like, isolate, you're physically isolated but you have these deep internet relationships.Katherine Dee: Um, and I think that's sort of like an interesting, like what is the value of someone who like you don't really go deep with but like you have a lot of physical experiences with? Like you're both, you know, like you're maybe You always see them at church or like you play basketball with them or something and you have that kind of like regularity and the relationship is less based on this confessional sort of thing that millennials love so much, um, and more, more based on like physical movement somehow, or like involvement in a project that's bigger than oneself.Simone: I'm also I'm thinking about mediated relationships in the past and I'm thinking like my, um, My maternal grandparents met once at a USO ball in Paris right as the, as World War II was ending. My grandmother was French, my grandfather was Inoki, and they Not French, Russian. Sorry, well, yeah, she was Russian who had yeah, fled to [00:18:00] She called herself French.Simone: She wanted to be French so bad. So you're disgracing her memory here. How dare you. Um, but anyway, so like after they met, um, they exchanged letters for a long time and then eventually they just decided to get married. Based on these letters alone. This is a totally mediated relationship. My grandmother moved sight unseen.Simone: To a, an outhouse, one bedroom farmhouse full of a family of people. And my grandfather to marry him in Oklahoma. And it was a very rough ride for both of them, I think, but they stayed married throughout their entire lifetimes and had a pretty successful marriage. And one thing I'm wondering is tactically speaking, could mediated relationships be a solution to some market failures in the dating world where if, if, if we, if more people committed to.Simone: Developing a strong connection and aligned incentives and goals via a mediated relationship and committed to marriage, like before ever meeting in person, because it seems like the visual emphasis [00:19:00] seems to be what kills people's ability to connect right now especially if they want to get married because they're so focused on visuals and like instant am I super hot for this person?Simone: No. Okay. I'm not even going to consider them even if everything else on paper is perfect. And we'd be actually really good long term partners. I'm wondering if forced commitment based on a mediated relationship that. does work really well, can produce good long term relationships. What do you think?Katherine Dee: Um, so I actually did this. I married an internet stranger after very little time. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm actually in my second marriage right now, which is more, a better, I don't want to say better, a different situation. But the reason that my first marriage didn't work was because. There wasn't, we, you know, we experienced not to air my, my dirty laundry on a podcast, but we had some personal tragedies that were like insurmountable that I think would have been surmountable if we had more community support and were more grounded in a culture and community.Katherine Dee: Um, and. So, I think what, you know, the [00:20:00] failure of relationships, it's so much of that is your environment we I think we, we lasted a very long time, you know, for, especially for the strangeness and unique circumstances, but it just couldn't, it just couldn't work because we were, like, on an island, right, and we both have very good relationships with our family, but, But you know, he was from a different country, we were living in a state that I didn't grow up in, so like my community there was not as strong.Katherine Dee: Which ofMalcolm: the relationships was the one that was the short online relationship first?Katherine Dee: My, my first, my first marriage, um, and yeah, yeah, um, sorry about that, but, but my, yeah, my second, now I'm on my second marriage and it's formed much more traditionally, like certainly more like in person time and like more integrating into one another's You know, real world lives and it's, I don't think that it was that I met what ruined, ruined or ended my first, my first relationship wasn't the, that [00:21:00] it started as a mediated relationship, rather, we weren't part of a broader cultural fabric.Katherine Dee: And there's certain problems that like, I mean, it's total amicable, totally amicable split. Right. But it just, there's some things you really need help. And if you don't have that help, or like the role models, it's so, it's, it can be really hard.Malcolm: Well, how did you try to address that with the second relationship?Katherine Dee: Well, with the second relationship, I, it's now there's like more of an emphasis of making sure that we're grounded in a community and that we're not, so we're not like, you know, striking out on our own in a city where neither one of us has family or connections. There's I think all of those things.Katherine Dee: Become really important. Um, as you get deeper into a relationship and as you mature into a relationship, um, just just being part of. Something, right, is, it, it helps a lot, um, but yeah, I think just being, we were, like, we, [00:22:00] we didn't really know our neighbors, we weren't really in a city it was just, we were just so isolated, and it was, it was, I think, more problematic, um, than either one of us expected.Simone: What I like there is you're saying, it doesn't not work, and that if you were maybe to combine people starting relationships in this mediated way. But then when they physically come together, being supported by a broader, culturally aligned community, it actually could work pretty well. Um, yeah.Katherine Dee: But that would change how people date period.Katherine Dee: I think um, there's just something where it's like, things are too like piecemeal almost. Um, where I think like it, it could just, it's just really. It's just really hard to navigate the world as a single unit that's kind of floating in this ether of you don't really know where you belong.Katherine Dee: And I think, not, that's, that won't kill every relationship, but that will put stress on a relationship, especially if you encounter [00:23:00] things that are outside of your control.Simone: That's fair. Huh. Any other thoughts, Malcolm?Malcolm: On, on, well, okay, I mean, a direction we could go is this. is pseudonymous relationships that are seen in things like the furry community.Malcolm: I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.Katherine Dee: Oh, that's, that's interesting where it's like, they don't, they only know one another through their persona. Yeah. And IMalcolm: think they, well, there are, they originally meet through that. And I think you see this in many fan communities. Where people will engage through fan characters, you know, My Little Pony, they might have a, I don't know what they would have called them, pony sonas or something.Malcolm: Um, and, and, and that's how they would have interacted with each other. Because I think even in the furry community, you probably find out pretty quickly who these people are. Like, I doubt there's as much mystery. Whereas I think in some of these fan communities, another great one is that, that fan community around that book about cats.Malcolm: Um, where a lot of people would [00:24:00] identify as like a, a, a cat Sona thing. Um, there's some YouTubers who, who talk on this stuff, but yeah.Katherine Dee: Yeah. So that's, that's interesting. I'm, I'm trying to think back to my own experiences. I was really into text based role playing. Um, so it's not quite the same, but it's, it's, it's similar.Katherine Dee: And I would do like historical role plays. You know, I'm really interested in the 1780s, you know, this week. So I'm going to create a world around that. Awesome. There would be, like, romance elements sometimes, um, and even I'm trying to think of ones that, like, when sometimes these, these role plays will go on for years, right, and you'll be in these narrative relationships, and it, but it doesn't really impact your physical, physical life, and it's I don't think I was, Whatever affection I myself had, not my character had, is not for the person controlling the avatar, it's for...Katherine Dee: It's for the, the writing and the character they've [00:25:00] constructed and what I've projected into that character in, and that, that world. And I would guess that our fursonas may be similar because there's some element of separation and it's, there's some sort of role playing element there. And it feels, it feels like it's kind of separate, whereas the difference between something like that.Katherine Dee: And Second Life, it tends to be more like your avatar in Second Life is actually more like your username on Twitter. Um, and there can be a separation there, but it's not as often as there is in like something that's consciously a roleplay. Um, so maybe it, and I guess I am not in the furry community and I haven't talked to people in the furry community, so I guess it could actually go either way.Katherine Dee: It could, it depends on how they're using the fursona.Malcolm: Yeah, so this, this roleplaying thing that you're talking about is very... Interesting. Um, so how do you choose the people that are in these persistent communities? Or can people just drop in and you engage with them based on the quality of their writing?Katherine Dee: Yeah, um, I haven't done it in a really long time. I think the [00:26:00] last time I like Actively was role playing was 2007, but people would just, it was pretty, um, it was a pretty small community. Um, so people just find like forums and then there would be some sort of like gatekeeping or like hazing that would happen and you, you know, you would get accepted in the community or filtered out.Katherine Dee: Um, and then. People would like gravitate towards one another if they have compatible writing styles and there's usually like a start like a Universal style guide for whatever forum or if you maybe chat room and dependent, you know, you could do it on different platforms and then every if it was like a literary roleplay everyone would write as though they're writing a story and it could be Published in a book and then there's other types of roleplay where like actions are an asterisk or parentheses And usually those are quicker moving.Katherine Dee: They're probably more likely to be in a chat room. Um, yeah. And it's just, it's just a chemistry thing. Um, sometimes, you know, sometimes you have chemistry with people. Sometimes you don't.Malcolm: Did you ever meet [00:27:00] any of these people in person or were these relationships always pseudonymous?Katherine Dee: Yeah. I met one woman in person.Katherine Dee: I met her when I was like. And, um, then I, I lived in, um, her city very briefly and we, we met up in person and then we were friends until I was like, I don't know, like 25. And then I just stopped using Facebook. And so then we stopped being friends.Simone: That is actually really, I think it's, it's an underrated element of a friendship.Simone: Um, that there are some people that you can only be friends with through certain channels. And this doesn't, this is not exclusive to mediated relationships where you like, primarily you had started out there, but there are literal in person friends that I can think of who, because I refuse to use like iMessage after I changed my phone number and I.Simone: can really access like iMessage, they just refuse to communicate with me on any other channel. So we're just not going to be friends anymore. And I feel like there are some people who can only be contacted through very, very specific platforms. And that's, [00:28:00] it's an interesting thing. It's they don't exist outside of them.Simone: Um, and it's weird to live in an age where things kind of work that way.Katherine Dee: I, it, it is weird, but also I wonder like, how different is it from you know, a work friend who like can't make the transition to a different kind of, right? Like you're my, you're my Facebook friend and just whatever. I, I don't like talking to you on iMessage.Katherine Dee: So that's the, that's that.Simone: Totally. Yeah. Yeah. That makes sense. Oh, gosh. Okay. This was really, really interesting and really, really fun. And I know we're running out of time, so we will let you get back to your life. But Catherine, thank you so much for joining us. We would love to have you back on at some point.Simone: You are absolutely brilliant. Um, and I hope we can talk again soon and everyone else please tell, tell us all where we should find your work.Katherine Dee: Um, you can find me on Twitter at D or X at default underscore friend, or my blog is just default dot blog. Great.Katherine Dee: Thank you very [00:29:00] much. Yeah. Thanks. Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Malcolm and Simone have an insightful discussion about the paradoxes in progressive culture's view of diversity. They analyze how progressivism claims to value diversity yet enforces ideological conformity, and how "minority status" is defined in strange ways. Malcolm argues progressivism commits cultural genocide, while Simone provides nuance on progressives' motivations. Their dialogue highlights the clashing worldviews underlying today's culture wars.Malcolm: , [00:00:00] you've got to understand how literally insane it sounds to be a cultural group that says diversity is a thing of value and everyone's actually the same.Malcolm: What they mean by diversity, and this is very important, is that we are open to recruiting people into our cultural group from any other cultural group. They don't really value diversity. What they value is diversity inSimone: victims. Well, I don't know. See, yeah, I was, I was going to say I think the difference here is, is the, the role that intersectionality plays in progressive culture, but so I think that that's what we're missing is cultural outsiders intersectionality.Simone: It, it is, it is victimhood status And that's one, that's one view. And you know, I, progressive culture is not a monolith it is a monolith.Malcolm: I'm sorry, in what way is it not a monolith? Explain. Well,Simone: because I do think that there are many people who identify as progressives who don't agree with [00:01:00] every element of it.Malcolm: Yeah, but you're just on the outside. This is what your cultural group actually believes at the highest levels, and this is what your cultural group will try to enforce on the surrounding cultural groups, regardless of whether or not it's something that you...Malcolm: personally identify with and I think that that's, that's really, this is like you go to a Nazi and he's like, well, I'm not antisemitic.Simone: Malcolm, you're not being Fair.Malcolm: why are youSimone: so unwilling? I, I, anyway. Why am IMalcolm: so unwilling to morally compromise? If you're okay with a cultural group that's out there that's using our school system to systematically erase everyone who thinks differently than them , and if it was literally any group other than yours doing that, you'd be like, Oh, this is like the most evil thing anyone can do.Malcolm: I, I'd really, you know, encourage some self reflection.Simone: Your arguments and your wording are not going to engage people.Would you like to know more?Malcolm: The progressive party, like it talks about diversity a lot. [00:02:00] Like it says diversity is important. And yet in, in two ways, it seems to have a systemic hatred.Malcolm: In denial of diversity. So, way number one is it says different groups are not actually different. Different cultural groups are different. Different ethnic groups aren't different. Different, nobody's different. Everyone's actually exactly the same.Simone: Oh, like there's not even, you know, men and women are exactly the same.Simone: Yeah, men and women areMalcolm: exactly the same. Not different at all. But, but it's also super important that you respect people when they decide that they're a different gender. Why would any of this matter if we're all exactly the same? This is so interesting and it's such an incongruous part of this sort of progressive world perspective, which is,Malcolm: I don't know, it's very difficult for me to like really grok, because it's [00:03:00] so astronomically simple.Simone: Stupid. Well, I think that it's interesting because progressivism in general, as it exists today is full of paradoxes and it's not just about diversity. It's also about freedom. Like I grew up thinking, you know, and I, and living in a very progressive culture that progressivism was all about freedom, freedom to choose what partner you wanted, freedom to choose.Simone: how you dressed, what you said, how you acted, who you could become, you know, you can be anyone you want, any gender you want, anything, anything, whatever, you know, you are free to choose. And what I find to be really interesting is the extent to which it's actually quite the opposite there. Like it's actually pretty coercive and that no, actually you can't.Simone: You can't do things that offend these groups, you can't, actually I was just listening to a podcast covering an element of the furry community and the furry community was talking about how it's super, super not okay to watch, I think what they referred to as, as feral erotic material, we're [00:04:00] gonna say.Simone: You know, like I guess video footage or illustrations of animals banging each other. Because that's, you know, coercive, which, which is weird because if you're a furry, you might be like more likely to be turned on by something like that.ButMalcolm: just interesting. Okay. So I, I will word this cause I think that our viewers may not understand what you just said.Malcolm: And it's really interesting. It immediately makes sense to me. What they're saying is that in the furry community. These are people who like to dress up as animals and hit on other people, dress up like animals. They say it's not a sexualSimone: thing. And there's a subset, of course, that also is species dim dysmorphic, meaning that they actually feel like they're really a fox or they really Or like a dog, right?Simone: Yes, yes. So there's, that's a subset, a small subset, but yeah, anyway. It is consideredMalcolm: immoral to watch videos of the animal that you identify with. Having sex with that same animal, but the reason it's considered immoral, this is what's fascinating. The reason it's considered immoral is because there [00:05:00] wasn't consent.Malcolm: There wasn't consent when those two animals decided to have sex with each other. It's not because you're watching an animal have sex, that's not what they find disgusting. It's because there wasn't consent when the animals decided to have sex. That's fascinating.Simone: Continue. I guess, yeah, I guess that's the issue at hand.Simone: But yeah, I just find it so interesting that I would think that the furry community, for example that to me is like a really big bastion of progressivism in general, right? Like a very, very small proportion of the community identifies as right, let alone hard right, right? This is, this is supposed to be a very, you know, Yeah.Simone: I was like in, in, in a blocked and reported podcast, I was just listening about that. They, they talked about a survey in that, in that space. And so it's also it's one of those things where you have to be really comfortable with being, you know, seen as weird. To dress up in an anthropomorphized costume and dance around and do all that stuff.Simone: Right. So it's just so interesting to me that in a community like that, where you would think that it is like the epitome of being accepting of accepting differences of accepting [00:06:00] deviance from what is normative and most people just. I think that's pretty weird. And in fact, I was listening to another podcast called Ruthless, which is more like a conservative political podcast.Simone: And they were basically just saying if it's a furry arrest them immediately. Charge them, book them. So, this is clearly something that's not accepted. And yet, and yet, this community is still shaming people. For being aroused by things that, frankly, they, it's not a reflection of their morals.Simone: It's not a reflection of, and there are people, there are TikToks that were shared in this podcast of people basically saying you know, you either need to get help or you need to be like eliminated, like basically die. And that's, you know, people in this kind of community can say that. I think that's just, it really exemplifies the many paradoxes.Malcolm: So we should also talk about why conservatives think it's so disgusting to have sex with animals, because this is a really interesting thing to me. The reason why conservatives, so when we're talking about conservatives, what are conservatives as we define them? They're people who want their cultural group to survive intergenerationally and into the future, and most of them come from some form of traditional [00:07:00] cultural group, most of the traditional cultural groups that have been successful are the ones that sort of outbred their, their nearby rivals.Malcolm: And one of the ways that they've done this. is by shaming sex with animals. This was not an animal welfare thing. You know, if you're talking to somebody 2000 years ago and they're like, don't do the person who has sex with a sheep is disgusting.Simone: They're also slaughtering the sheep. So, you know, it's not like the worst thing you're going to do.Malcolm: Yeah, no, they didn't evolve this cultural belief because they cared about the sheep. They evolved this cultural belief because people had sex with sheep. You know, put less time into their partners, finding a partner. They got more diseases. They introduced more diseases to the community. It was, it was completely about fertility and health.Malcolm: And in a way that is why it was in today's culture. If you are trying to determine what should we see as like a cultural group, what should we see as, as disgusting? As having sex with a sheep, what we should see is that, you know, [00:08:00] we apply the same evolutionary pressures, is people who treat pets like they're kids. If somebody says this is my child's dog, you know, what they are saying is I am using this dog to masturbate my instinct to have kids And through that lowering my fertility rate and and I guess what i'm saying is in the future you know assuming genetic technology didn't exist which sort of changes all the rules of the game But if genetic technology didn't exist within 500 years We would see claiming that a dog or a cat is your child in any context is, is literally as disgusting and as socially isolatable as having sex with a dogSimone: or a cat.Simone: But let's go back to diversity. So it does blow my mind because like I, I did, you know, it, it's so interesting that, that beneath and you've, you've said this many times, right? Like when you look at. Progressive groups of all the different colors of the rainbow, you [00:09:00] know, Jewish progressive groups and Christian and Muslim and all the other progressive groups, they basically all hold the same general values.Simone: Everyone goes to heaven. Everything's going to be okay. You know, whatever you like, all these sort of things there, there just isn't a lot of difference. And then when you look at conservative cultures, there is a lot of diversity. And like, how could that possibly be when supposedly diversity. is a value of progressive.Simone: I think that the secret here is that it never was, that progressivism never wasMalcolm: about diversity. What they mean by diversity, and this is very important, is that we are open to recruiting people into our cultural group from any other cultural group.Simone: Oh, so that's interesting, and that's So that's really a sign of, if we're using terminology from the pragmatist guide to crafting religion, it is a, a dominating culture.Simone: Right. So it's goal is that, you know, the world isn't okay until everyone is saved. We have to save and we have to convert everyone. So until, you know, basically the world is a caliphate of our religion.Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, we don't care if you're gay, or straight, or black, or white[00:10:00] or, or Jewish, or, or Muslim, you can join us.Malcolm: And thinkSimone: just like us. Being super straight is not. Okay, in all progressive circles, but sure we don't care where you'reMalcolm: starting. Interesting idea there, right? So super straight is something that was like a fad online, I think for a bit, which was basically saying, I am only attracted to people who were born the gender that I'm attracted to.Malcolm: I, I am not attracted to trans people. And yeah, I, I think again, They don't really mean that you can have any sexuality you want to have when, when, when they're telling you what they mean is that you need to see sexuality in the way they see sexuality, which they see is consistent with maximum choice around sexuality.Simone: More importantly, what you're saying is, is it doesn't. They want everyone to convert. It doesn't matter who you are or where you're starting from, but you do need to convert and you do need to hold our values. So it may not matter if you start off as super straight, as long as [00:11:00] you end up like part of the Yeah,Malcolm: as long as you eventually, .Malcolm: It doesn't matter where you started, as long as you end up Submissive to their culturalSimone: group. But I think, yeah, that's, I think that really helps to explain it to me because I did feel confused as to like why progressive culture could be so homogenous and really essentially anti diversity because they're anti any culture that doesn't hold their values, right?Simone: They feel like they need to be reformed. They need to be saved. But you're right. It's, it's more just that everyone needs to join, which kind of implies, well, I guess, yeah, now that I compare it to all the other dominating cultures that also believe everyone should be converted. Right. It's, it's no different.Simone: They also think that those people like in, let's say, you know, a, a dominating culture that thinks that homosexuality is bad. Right. So then, you know, it's, it's, you can, of course, gay people should join and they should also turn straight. It's that simple. Or we'll throw you off a building, but whatever.Simone: Right. And so, yeah. And actually that I look at it that way. Or they should transform into women,Malcolm: depending on what gender you're talking about. [00:12:00] Some Muslim groups, they would accept gay people as well, but they would say, but you need to undergo forced gender conversion.Malcolm: But I guess the point here that we're making Is this is something that, that progressives really seem to misunderstand about conservative groups is they have many ways of dealing with gender, sexuality, stuff like that, right?Malcolm: If you're a same sex attracted people within one conservative cultural group, they may say, well, you should sublimate that. Within another cultural group, they may say, Oh, we'll put you in a priesthood, like a celibate priesthood class. I was just talking about Catholics right there, but then the Muslim cultural group, they'll say, Oh, well, you should undergo gender conversion, there's lots of ways that people, it's not that these groups deny that same sex attracted people exist, there's just different cultural solutions to it.We bring up this point so frequently. For two core reasons. One. Is that? We actually agree like our cultural group, that one, that Simona and I live within actually agrees that the progressive solution. To [00:13:00] same-sex attracted people to let them marry and date people of the same gender. Is the solution that we practice that are, we would practice for our kids. But just because we believe that doesn't mean that we have the right. To try to erase the perspective of other cultures. And when you as a progressive or someone like me, Goes into these other cultures. And I say, well, your solutions are less efficient. It ends up hurting people. You know, how is that any different than going out and telling a, you know, a Jewish person you can't. , Circumcise your kids. You know that th that, that, that hurts the kids. And that therefore, that is child abuse and you shouldn't be allowed to do that. And, you know, we will use the government to prevent you from doing this. , which is actually something that some progressive groups are doing right now. , It's very easy to justify. If you can say, oh, this group is hurting. Its its citizens. Right by taking this cultural perspective. Then, therefore we [00:14:00] have the right to stamp that out. The problem is, is that if any of these other cultural groups was in power right now, you know, whether it's today would be considered a conservative Christian group or conservative Jewish group or conservative in any group. Right. They would say that you were hurting people through like the trans surgeries or through even gay marriages that they would say that, that like morally hurts people. Right? So you can't just say I get to stamp this out because it hurts people. Right because anyone can use that justification. The evil people have always used that justification.The ethical way to allow situations like this, to resolve that doesn't allow your own cultural bias to justify genocide against another cultural group or genocide of a particular cultural practice. Is to say. .We will create an environment in which kids who grew up within that cultural group can leave that cultural group or choose not to carry on those practices. If they don't like them or don't think they're efficacious. So let's go back to the Jewish example, even a [00:15:00] kid who was circumcised. Ends up believing that circumcision was bad and hurt them. Then they won't do that to their own kids, or they might even decide that they have so much animosity towards the cultural group that allowed that to happen to them, the Jewish, cultural group that they just leave that cultural group. However, it's important to note here that even if the plurality of people from a cultural group end up saying, okay, I'm not going to end up practicing circumcision anymore because that hurt me. If it turns out that that has perfect overlap with the portion of the group that is unable to motivate reproduction within themselves, it's unable to say, okay, I'm going to go out there and have kids. Um, and, and raise them within this new cultural context I'm creating. Well, I think you've shown that thing that we think. Was, you know, evil or bad in some way, must've had some utility because it was what enabled the intergenerational transfer of in a cultural system.And in some way was tied to whatever led some [00:16:00] people of that cultural group. To make the enormous investment, which is child-rearing at above reproductive rate. Uh, you know, raising four or five kids is an enormous financial and emotional burden. And it may turn out that, that. Somehow these practices, which some people in the cultural group felt hurt them were actually really key in motivating that. So there, there is a way of dealing with this outside of going out in, in stamping out cultural groups. It's just to create an environment in which kids are free to leave those cultural groups. And the second point that we're really trying to make here. Is there is this perspective that there is a progressive view on same-sex attracted people. And then there's this homogenous conservative view, which isn't true. Progressive. They're just one of like a bunch of different ways that cultural groups. Relate to same-sex attracted individuals. And.We believe those individuals should be protected, whatever cultural solution they choose for themselves. You know, once they're no longer relying on their [00:17:00] parents for financial support. However.Right now. If we look at the way things are being taught within like our education system or was in popular media, it's very clear that it is taught. This is the right way to be a same-sex attracted individual. And in all of these other panoply of different cultural. Ways of relating to same sex attracted individuals that conservative people have is the evil way of relating to this and the wrong way of relating to this.And it is for this reason. And primarily for this reason. That we are justified in wiping out these cultural groups. That's why we keep coming back to sexuality because it's the core thing that progressive to use to justify, , their superiority to other cultural groups, because they believe that it's just such a superior solution. The one that they have. And that it justifies them utilizing things like the educational system. To attempt to wipe out these other cultural groups because these groups are evil, but it's important to remember. That nobody in the history. Of any form of cultural [00:18:00] genocide has ever said. Oh, we're trying to wipe out like a weak group or a group that's in any way equal to us. They always see them as evil. They always see the cultural group that they're wiping out as somehow a threat to them. And somehow actually controlling all of society. As somehow. This, this big boogeyman. Uh, that's the way cultural genocides work. And again, we actually our cultural group then that Simone and I are part of actually agree with the progressive way of relating to same-sex attracted individuals.But we also recognize that our culture is just one hypothesis about the way that human should live. And we don't judge the righteousness of another culture by how close to us they are in their beliefs, but by whether or not they believe that those beliefs give them the justification to erase other cultural groups.Malcolm: And to Simone's point, what we're saying there is that when you look at a progressive Jew, or a progressive Muslim, or a progressive Catholic, or a progressive Calvinist, right?Malcolm: [00:19:00] Not that those exist really, but if you look at them they hypothetically existed you know, they have broadly the same views on gender, on sexuality, on the way we should relate to the environment, on what a human's future should be, on what a moral versus immoral action is on when life starts, on They have everything.Malcolm: They have, they have basically the same views on everything. They are one culture wearing the aesthetic shell of other cultures. Where when you're looking at conservative iterations of all those traditions, they have a really, really, really different views on those things.Simone: And Well, but I think, here's the, here's the interesting thing, though, is that the, the common factor really is the dominating element of it.Simone: And the only thing that really makes progressivism feel But not act very different from a very conservative dominating religious culture is that it's people wear different costumes within it. Right? Like they're, they'reMalcolm: saying yeah, yeah, [00:20:00] yeah. But I think that this is again why. The cultural group, because to a non progressive, you if you are somebody who's in that cultural group and you're watching something that makes sense to you, you've got to understand how literally insane it sounds to be a cultural group that says diversity is a thing of value and everyone's actually the same.Malcolm: There are no differences between groups of people in any way.Malcolm: There's no ethnic differences between cultures of people. There's no cultural differences. It is, it is sinful to say that for example, isn't it odd that Jews win Nobel prizes at a rate like A 10, 000% higher when contrasted with their population isn't it, you know, the Catholics get Supreme Court positions at a really higher rate, isn't it?Malcolm: You're not allowed to even voice these things because to them, equality means that nobody's different, [00:21:00] but, but then Why is diversity a thing of value?Malcolm: If we are not different, if people are not different, then diversity is just an aesthetic choice. It's like the colors you're using on a palette or something. And. The answer, again, should be obvious given where the conversation has gone before. It's because they don't really value diversity. What they value is diversity inSimone: victims.Simone: Well, I don't know. See, yeah, I was, I was going to say I think the difference here is, is the, the role that intersectionality plays in progressive culture, where in progressive culture dominance hierarchies. Like the, the extent to which you can play the intersectionality Olympics can determine your status within the community, but it seems reasonable.Malcolm: Yeah. Yeah. Well, but interestingly, it determines your status within the community, not based on any special abilities it grants you, [00:22:00] right? So if you look at our worldview, you know, we see different cultures as having. Different specialties or things they might be better at than other cultural groups?Simone: Well, that, that's a value judgment, Malcolm. I think that, that for many people that the degree of their,Malcolm: it's not a value, it's an objectiveSimone: fact. No, well, no, no. It's objectiveMalcolm: fact that some cultural groups outcompete other cultural groups.Simone: That's, yeah, but that's, that's not a, that's not a value in progressive culture because what, what they're looking at is, is systemic bias that someone has endured EL elevates their.Simone: Their social status in a way that may be like in Catholicism, the extent of your martyrdom, like the amount, the amount that you suffered for God will elevate your status because they'reMalcolm: not looking for efficacy. They,Simone: right. But that's, that's, and that's fine. Like some cultures don't care about efficacy the way that we do.Simone: So I'm just saying like you're making,Malcolm: but the point being is where you're saying that there are differences in the way progressives relate to different cultures, they relate to different cultures in a way. Where they value cultures that can [00:23:00] argue to have endured more suffering or be more you know, systemically unstable in any way like endure ongoing suffering, I guess you could say.Malcolm: more than cultural groups that don't. And they, they achieve a position within their status hierarchy. And this is because it's a status hierarchy that is based around the idea that every human's goal should be to remove all pain from the world.Simone: Yeah. And once to those who have experienced more pain, either personally or systemically.Simone: Historically you know, deserve to to be in a position of elevation to have accelerated pain removal.Malcolm: Yeah, they, they, they get higher in the line for the pain removal surgery.Simone: But so I think that that's what we're missing is cultural outsiders intersectionality.Simone: It, it is, it is victimhood status which, which often correlates very highly with minority community status historically or presently. Okay. And, [00:24:00] and with the way that you and I view diversity is ButMalcolm: hold on, I would say that's not true. Okay, go on. Okay. So, there's, there's two answers to the word minority in the populations that small society.Malcolm: But that's not the way progressives often use it. When they say minority, they mean black people. There's many groups that are much more discriminated against in much smaller portions of the population in the U. S. than black people that progressives policy wise, seem to not really give a s**t about.Malcolm: And I think that that's important to know, that when they say minority, and this is actually when we're talking about fertility rates. We see this all the time, right? So I talk to progressives about fertility rates. And they go, is it affecting minority populations? And I'm like, yes, look at the U.Malcolm: S. Right? Native American populations have one of the lowest fertility rates of any group. And they're like, sorry, but people in Africa are still having lots of kids. And I'm like, I don't see what that f*****g has to do with Native Americans. [00:25:00] And they're like, no, minorities are fine. I'm like, oh, when you say minority.Malcolm: You mean only black people, you don't care about anything that's affecting any, ISimone: don't, I don't know, I'm, I'm going to push back a little bit. I don't know to what extent that's true. I think that that people in progressive circles very much care about Native American populations. I just think that they.Simone: have less cultural capital and, and less of a currently elevated narrative and therefore suffering as a result and people, you know, like what's right in front of them. And it's just, but no, I, I disagree. IMalcolm: think, I disagree with you there. I think that they would tell themselves they care about Native American populations.Malcolm: I have not seen a major progressive campaign. If you look at the plight of many Native American children inSimone: the U. S. Because the incentives aren't there. There isn't a large voting base, like to your point, right? Their populations are dwindling. And that is the point,Malcolm: right? If minority to you means only the [00:26:00] populations that are useful in winning the next election cycle, then you don't actually care about minorities.Simone: Again, I really question you're saying, remember, like, when we even talk about demographics, right? Like Native American populations are ballooning. Why is that? Because a ton of people. In the name of intersectionality, but also you know, all the benefits.Malcolm: We should clarify what she means here.Malcolm: The native American fertility rates are going way, way, way, way down. Right now,Simone: the more people are identifying as native American because they're like one 25th native American. Because if you say that you've native American heritage, then you can get a bunch of benefits, both like from a cultural intersectionality standpoint, but also in terms of like college admissions, financial aid, et cetera.Simone: So I'm just saying I don't. Like if, if that were the case, that like Native Americans had no cachet in progressive circles, there wouldn't be ballooning numbers of Native Americans.Malcolm: Okay. Okay. Then I'll use another group that may make my argument more strong. Okay. Which group [00:27:00] is one of the smallest distinct cultural groups in the United States right now that progressives.Malcolm: increasingly care less and less about, it's Jews. Jews are a if you're talking minority, they are much more a minority than any of the groups we're talking about right now. They're, they're an incredibly small percent of the population, and they underwent a very... Recent event, which shows that the the world is isSimone: incredibly intersectionality standpoint.Simone: They don't matter. Why? Because they historically have been in positions of financial empowerment influence historically even genocided. Yeah, but you know, I think as soon as you have some people in a position of power and a position of wealth, you lose your like victim status. It's considered as deserved.Simone: So because they have all these like wealth coins, they're genocide coins you know,Malcolm: and also. Okay. So the, well, no, I actually think it's more than what you're saying. [00:28:00] They, and I've, and I've seen this within progressive circles. I've seen increasing Holocaust denial. There is a belief that it is impossible for a group to boast.Malcolm: Um, Economically outcompete, if it turns out that all of the differences between groups in the world. So if you believe that everyone's actually exactly the same, if, if Jews and everyone else is exactly the same, like there's no differences between groups, then any economic differences between groups must be ill earned.Malcolm: They must be earned through mischievous means. And so when they see Jews as a cultural group out earning other cultural groups or out achieving, you know, academic success when contrasted with other groups, it is proof to them that they are not discriminated against because it is impossible in a world in which everyone is equal.Malcolm: To out compete other groups if you are discriminated against. If the primary differences between cultural groups are [00:29:00] discrimination resultant.Simone: And that's one, that's one view. And you know, I, progressive culture is not a monolith as much as we say that it's, it's pretty homogenizing. It is a monolith.Malcolm: I'm sorry, in what way is it not a monolith? Explain. Well,Simone: because I do think that there are many people who identify as progressives who don't agree with every element of it. I, you know, most people who identify as progressives are a lot more reasonable and wouldn't say that, you know, you should be obligated to sleep with...Simone: Trans woman, if you're not like really turned on by that, you know, like I think most people are reasonable and many people are progressives and they are. IMalcolm: would argue that you're, you're being naive here. So, just, you are telling the truth. There are people who identify. So there's, there's people who you know, identify with Mormonism, right?Malcolm: Who will go out there and claim that Mormons don't believe that everyone eventually inherits a planet, right? And takes over a planet and becomes a god themselves, right? There's actual Mormon apologists who will say that right now. When Joseph Smith said this, when Brigham Young [00:30:00] said this, when the current prophets have said this.Malcolm: And so it's well, why are they saying this? It's in there well, I was never taught this in church, right? And it's yeah, but you're just on the outside. This is what your cultural group actually believes at the highest levels, and this is what your cultural group will try to enforce on the surrounding cultural groups, regardless of whether or not it's something that you...Malcolm: personally identify with and I think that that's, that's really, this is like you go to a Nazi and he's like, well, I'm not antisemitic. It's yeah, but you there, the, the, the, the, the camps, yeah, you personally not being an antisemitic Nazi doesn't mean that supporting the Nazi movement doesn't lead to antisemitism being advanced in the world.Simone: Yeah,Malcolm: I do agree with you. There were, there were, there were many Nazis that were not anti Semitic. I will agree with that statement [00:31:00] as well. I don't think it means that Nazism broadly was, was not anti Semitic.Simone: I hear your point. Yeah. Yeah, this conversation has been pretty helpful to me in helping me understand what diversity really means in progressive culture. And just to acknowledge that progressive culture. Is a dominating culture, which is to say that it will not rest. It will not be comfortable with the existence of groups that do not hold its doctrine.Simone: All, all Appistates have to be converted. And, and no one can really rest until everyone has been saved. And that really like just helps to explain the diversity problem and also that diversity really is intersectionality, which is just part of the status and virtue signaling and hierarchy of this particular culture.Simone: So this has been actually, I was surprised. This has been pretty good. Oh,Malcolm: you thought I was going to suck?Simone: Well, I just, you know, I, I, I've struggled with this a lot, so I wouldn't think that I wouldn't have thought that we could get to the [00:32:00] bottom of it. But I, I feel, personally, at least we, I have a.Simone: An imperfect, but still functional for me now, model that works a lot better than what I had before, which was,Malcolm: oh. Well, yeah, when I feel in the same way that, you know, progressives, the way that conservatives frame progressives, the way progressives can frame conservatives can lead to some conservatives to not understanding what conservatism is actually about.Malcolm: You know, . So often I see, especially young conservatives, think that conservatism is about their cultural group dominating others. And I'm like, no, no, no, no. You're just a progressive. You just are in a cultural group that's not winning right now. The, the, the real conservative movement is, and always has been within the U.Malcolm: S., about creating an environment that is stable for multiple cultural groups trying to exist intergenerationally with fidelity. Not about erasing the people who think differently than you that the cultural genocide and this is something that really, you know, people are like, why are you so mean to progressives?Malcolm: And I hear this over and [00:33:00] over again, right? Like, why can't you just be nice? And it's you expect me to be okay with cultural genocide. Like their actual goal is to erase everyone. Who doesn't think like them to take their kids to convince those kids that their parents are evil and bad people. And again, this is what happened with the residential school program in Canada.Malcolm: Like cultural genocide has happened many times and these genocide deniers. And that's what they are. They are genocide deniers when they're like, Oh, my group isn't doing that. When you are a Nazi and you're like, I like Jews, Nazis definitely aren't erasing the Jews from the world. It's yeah, but they f*****g are.Malcolm: Okay. And the cultural group that you are supporting. F*****g is. Its core goal is to take the children of the people who disagree with it and ensure that they have the correct views on gender, sexuality, our relationship to the environment, the future of the human species, what's moral and what's immoral.Malcolm: If that's not cultural genocide I [00:34:00] literally don't know how you're defining the term. It is cultural genocide, and, and, and, and just because you deny it does not mean you're not culpable for it happening in the world. Well,Simone: cultural genocide is a necessary process of any dominating culture, essentially, because everyone has to be converted to their ways.Malcolm: Yeah, well, yes, necessary, but it's also evil and it must be stopped.Simone: It's evil for our values, but if you literally believe that non believers will go to hell, it is your moralMalcolm: imperative to hell. They're just doing it for s***s and giggles because they think that these otherSimone: groups Are intrinsically inferior to them.Simone: No, they think that, they think that non believers are both experiencing pain and causing pain, and that pain and suffering are terrible and bad things.Simone: Malcolm, you're not being Fair. Well, no. Okay. Okay.Malcolm: Okay. So they literally shouldn't exist. I I don't think you're being fair or you're not fully comprehended.Simone: No, I, I think, no, I think it's very wrong. I think we're, we're very [00:35:00] against coercion. But you can't just straw man your enemies. You know, I, I think you have to understand.Simone: No, no, no. IMalcolm: understand why they, they're committing genocide. I understand why they're committing genocide. Right. It's because they think that they're removing pain from the people who are living under these cultural groups. Yes. I think that through saying, well, this is why they're committing genocide, you to some extent are, you know, you're like one of those people who are like, well, the Jews weren't perfect when you're talking about why the Nazis did what they did, right? You know, and that's notSimone: an excuse. People do very evil things for very stupid reasons. I'm not saying it's, it's not a stupid reason and I'm not saying that they're right to do it. I'm just saying that you can't just make up a, if you make a dumb straw man reason for why people do it, you're not going to be able to fight them or convert people to your views effectively.Malcolm: Because you just think that there are reasons are more nuanced and justified than I have given them [00:36:00] credit for it.Simone: I don't think that their reasons are justified. I think that their reasons are In many ways, logically consistent, but easy to tear down when you, when you provide a little bit more nuance and color to suffering and what actually causes suffering.Simone: And that, that while progressive causes and cultures. are very against suffering, their interventions exacerbate it and make it worse. So, I think it's, it's possible to take the very progressive argument, to take the deepest progressive values and, and use them like an Aikido against progressive culture itself.Simone: But I don't think that an open ignorance toward progressive values, a refusal to engage with them is going to enable you to use its energy against it.Malcolm: You're, you're right. And I, I, I, I think that's a very good you know, what's the word here? Steel man? No, it's a good steel man. And I, and I, and I think that you know, I, [00:37:00] I appreciate that.Malcolm: And I think any of the genocide deniers that watch our program will appreciate. Uh, You're sorry, that's what I think of them as, you know, if you're okay with a cultural group that's out there that's using our school system to systematically erase everyone who thinks differently than them and, and, and, and if it was literally any group other than yours doing that, you'd be like, Oh, this is like the most evil thing anyone can do.Malcolm: I, I'd really, you know, encourage some self reflection.Simone: Your arguments and your wording are not going to engage people. I'm sorry, but that's just like a failed move.Malcolm: Yeah. You can't tell somebody commit you're saying, I can't tell someone who's committing genocide. They're committing genocide.Simone: The way that minds are changed is you develop a connection with someone, you understand what their values and motivations are.Simone: You get them to trust you and you come to trust them and care about them. And then you help them to find more nuance in their beliefs and help them to really. Think about what you're saying and what instead you do with your attacts of progressives and with [00:38:00] your attacts of people that you disagree with, which I think is very dangerous, is you essentially immediately say, Hey, I'm your enemy, stab, stab, stab.Simone: And they put up their walls and they never listened to you again. Okay. That's not going to work. The way that you change minds is very different. It's a Trojan horse approach.Malcolm: I, I really appreciate your ability to stay calm in the face of such immeasurable evil, to the extent where you can communicate with people who, to me, I have trouble even communicating with.Simone: . Malcolm, our culture holds that all humans are inherently wretched. I don't know how obviously No, I, I,Malcolm: I hold that as well, and my ancestors who held that started the, you know, the Free State of Jones, right?Malcolm: So why are youSimone: so unwilling? I, I, anyway. Why am IMalcolm: so unwilling to morally compromise?Simone: No, I'm not asking you to morally compromise, I'm asking you to be effective. And you're not even willing to try to be effective. You're just like, I'm going to straw man my enemies. I'm just going to make them hate me. I'm not even going to try to engage with them.Simone: [00:39:00] And I think that that's very sad because we have a culture that believes in efficacy. We have a culture that believes in engaging with offensive ideas. And you're not willing to engage with them. You just want to other them. You just want to make them enemies. And that's okay. Like othering is, is a part of an effective cultural technology as well.Simone: But if you actually care about addressing issues thatMalcolm: we're really. I think that you suspect that they are a much larger cultural group than they actually are. Yes. I think that they are a, they are a cultural group that everyone is afraid of within elite circles. But I think if you asked the majority of Americans, if they're actually okay with what's happening, 90% of them would say no.Malcolm: Well, ISimone: mean, I think if, if you looked at Nazi Germany, if we're going to go back there. The, the majority of people would not be really cool with what's going on. And a lot of it comes down to which minority is in power. How doMalcolm: you stop it? You don't say in a nice way Nazis are bad and here's our nuanced take.Malcolm: It's, [00:40:00] do you not see the camps? Do you not see what is happening? That is how, because the truth is. Is that your average person living under a Nazi government, 90% of them, your average person living in America right now, 90% of them, they're not actually okay with what's happening. They just haven't had it told to them in a way where they can understand and contextualize how evil it is.Malcolm: And that's what we're trying to do. And so I think what you're wrong here is you think my goal. Is to convert the dyed in the wool progressive, whereas my goal is to convince your average American who knows what they're doing is wrong, but doesn't actually have a word for it. It's a forgetting before remembering phenomenon that you have in psychology.Malcolm: So forgetting before remembering in psychology is this phenomenon where somebody will go oh, it turns out I had like erase thisGreat.Malcolm: from my life, right? Like I had beenGreat.Malcolm: to the kid and [00:41:00] people are like. No, you didn't forget it, you just used other words to describe it. You were like, my uncle touched me in ways that were weird and that felt funny and I I thought it was really silly and uncomfortable at the time.Malcolm: And then, one day in like your fifties, you were like, GASP That was aGrape.Malcolm: oh my God, that's what happened! And I think that for a large part of the American population, right now what we need to do is just wake them up and be like, This is a genocide! That's what's happening right now! Do you think that's bad?Malcolm: If soSimone: No, I'm not against galvanizing opponents against genuinely, you know, harmful things that are happening. That's fine, and that's important. But I'm just saying it is also possible. To, to change people's minds andMalcolm: convert the died in the woods, extremist, progressive side in the woods, you can get through to them.Simone: Well, I know you have noMalcolm: confidence and I'm glad there's [00:42:00] two of us. There's one of us that can be the nice one. And one of us canSimone: be the main one. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. You'd be bad cop. I'd be good cop. And I love you very much, Malcolm. Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Malcolm and Simone have a thought-provoking discussion on the origins and psychology behind sexy nurse and teacher fetishes. They argue these tropes became popular because those were some of the only roles where men were expected to submit to women in a caring yet dominant context. This fulfilled an innate need for submission among many men that society doesn't provide outlets for. They trace how dominance displays evolved through sexuality due to evolution "borrowing code." The conversation covers daddy/daughter fetishes, male sexuality, confidence as the ultimate dominance signal, and more.Simone: [00:00:00] Hey, Malcolm. Did you watch like Looney Tunes when you were a kid?Malcolm: Yes, but you're not thinking of Looney Tunes.Simone: No, I am. I think I'm thinking about like little scenes in which a Bugs Bunny dressed up like a sexy nurse.Malcolm: Oh, you are. Oh, I was thinking of the sign. Hello nurse from Animaniacs.Simone: Yeah, I mean, I think that it's interesting in like several generations of children's cartoons and we're talking about cartoons that probably like a huge segment of our viewers like have no exposure to, but like that in, in children's programming, there's this concept of a sexy nurse and it's like, wait a second, like you're putting up, you're putting a fetish In a kid's cartoon.Simone: What is going on?Malcolm: What is going on here? Where did this fetish? Well, I mean, the other one you have is like the disciplinarian teacher which is another or the nun,Simone: the sexy nun, but there's this whole like, yeah, like Bugs Bunny is a sexy nurse. Other like this. This trope, I, it's interesting. Cause like when I saw this as a kid, I just assumed that like, [00:01:00] like nurses had special powers.Simone: Like, I mean, cause I didn't like, how are you going to understand this as a kid? It's just the weirdestMalcolm: thing. What's interesting is that this has been a part of human sexuality for a while. So in the Regency era, something developed that was called the English Vice. And it was a tendency, from the perspective of the French at least, that English people seem to disproportionately have a fetish around being spanked by people dressed as teachers and paddled with like these big paddle things.Malcolm: And they believed that the reason for this was because that was the way kids were punished at the elite English schools, like, you know, Eaton or whatever. No, it turns out that's not really the way sexuality works. And we can get deeper into that. But what it shows is that this. Cluster of fetishes has existed for a long time.Malcolm: And the question is why it seems very odd that fetishes would [00:02:00] cluster around specific professions. So what's happening here well, actually, sorry, before I get into why it is, I'm going to give another. Fetish that comes from the same region.Malcolm: Why are daddy daughter little girl fetishes so common? AKA DDLG. DDLG, which is basically a fetish for girls where they like acting like the daughter of the guy that they are sleeping with and will Sort of infantilize themselves to an extent.Simone: Again, something that shows up in popular media in for example, Gentleman Prefer Blondes with Marilyn Monroe, her character in that, in that movie with her primary love interest, she calls him daddy.Simone: Like, yeah,Malcolm: it's What's going on here? And it's all the same thing. And it all is unfortunately fairly simple.Would you like to know more?Malcolm: It's that dominance and submission are a very important part of human sexuality. In fact, in our studies in women, they are the dominant [00:03:00] factor in human sexuality. The field of sexuality, we argue, had been invented by women.Malcolm: Like if the early researchers had been women and not men. We may, instead of the primary access of sexuality being predominant attraction to male or females, the, the primary access of sexuality would be predominant attraction to submission or dominance. Because in women, that matters more. To the average woman, obviously this isn't true for all women, but to the average woman submission arousal.Malcolm: than the gender of the person they're engaging with and specifically gendered features. So they might, like, psychologically care about the gender, but they would be more turned on by submission or dominance than they would be by seeing either the naked female or male form which is really fascinating.Malcolm: So it's a very, very big part, but also for males it's a big part of sexuality. TheSimone: problem we have Yeah, I have this right, I remember it correctly. More men would prefer to be submissive than [00:04:00] dominant. And of course, like, men who are city dwellers are more likely to tend toward submissive, and men who are, who grew up in rural environments are more likely to tend toward dominance.Simone: But still, even more men than women would preferMalcolm: to take a submissive role. No, not more men than women. Women prefer toSimone: be submissive. No, no, I mean, sorry but more, more men... So basically, like, it's something like more than 50% of men. I think that might beMalcolm: But I'd have to go to the book again. Yeah.Malcolm: But the number of men who prefer to be submissive is large. Yeah, like, surprisingly,Simone: like, we would expect most women to prefer dominance, but we wouldn't expect most men to prefer dominance. But I, I, I'm pretty sure, because I looked at this fairly recently, Yeah, well,Malcolm: so we can talk about why that's the case, right?Malcolm: Why did dominance evolve as a thing that mattered at all? It, it, it, it was because evolution is a cheap programmer and it borrows other things. So, when humans were evolving, if you look at other social mammals. They often use sexual displays where the more submissive gender display is used [00:05:00] to signal submission within intergroup conflicts or intergroup dominance things.Malcolm: So this would be like a dog showing it's submissive to another dog by presenting it. Whether it's male or female, right? And the reason I made clear that it matters what gender is in control of that society is spotted hyenas where females are dominant but also have a pseudo penis. You get into that an erection is a sign of submission.Malcolm: And, and this is because evolution when it's looking for, it's like, Oh, I need a system to signal to other people of my tribe, right? That I am submissive or dominant to them. It's just going to borrow pre existing code. It's basically going to Substack and looking for pre existing code. And one of the code types that makes the most natural sense to use is the sexuality system.Malcolm: Because it's already there most things. Now, I've got to explain a little bit how evolution works for people to understand why it would do this. Evolution is going to pull on, you know, [00:06:00] slight mutations that might happen within an individual that can then sort of cause positive feedback loops. And a slight mutation is much more likely to happen within a pre existing system than with a entirely new system.Malcolm: So almost every time. Communal mammals have developed intergroup dominance displays. It has been through utilizing the sexuality system. And males if you look at the social structure of early humans only one male was often in charge of the pack males. The majority of males needed to learn to be submissive to one male and.Malcolm: dominant to other other males and, and females. But submissiveness needed to be part of male, this, this system that most males had from the beginning. Now there are some males that just will not. Engage with submissiveness at all. But these males would be closer to males in the stage of life was in like great apes that we would call the roaming bachelor [00:07:00] phase which are basically like teenage males who get kicked out of groups.Malcolm: And they'll form like a group of other males. And they will go around looking for a new community or like a community to raid and take over as the new sort of male leaders of that community. It is ironically not a sign of success. And then you have the one alpha male in groups. But that alpha male is not the way that alpha males sort of depict themselves.Malcolm: You know, first of all, alpha as a concept was first defined in wolves. Alphas don't really exist within wolves in the way that the initial studies show they did. However, it turns out that alphas... Like, there is a male at the top of most chimpanzee hierarchies not bonobos exactly. They have females at the top, but they're really horrifying, and we'll get into a bonobo.Malcolm: Like, people are like, oh, if women were in charge a behavior that is seen in bonobos where, where women are at the top of the hierarchy is like a woman will take the infant of another woman and like, hold it [00:08:00] like, I will break its neck if you don't go down on me. And, and use the infant's life to, to force this other woman to sexually satisfy her.Malcolm: They're horrifying. They're horrifying. If women were in charge, things would not be better. Anyway we know this from nature. But anyway, so, it, it, it, it, The point being is that the actual dominant male is often what we call like the Matt the the astronaut Mike Dexter Archetype and not the Chad archetype, which is to say they are the type of guy who's captain of the football team But also really nice and a bro and like helps you out because in human social groups and in Chimpanzee social groups.Malcolm: The way you become dominant is by building an alliance of other mostly dominant males who are still okay with taking orders from one male. Anyway, but the way this expresses in sexuality is what this means is that for a lot of males, you're going to have this submissive aspect to their sexuality.Malcolm: I mean, the vast majority of human males throughout history were in the bottom 50% of the local social status hierarchy. And if they acted like [00:09:00] they were in the top percent, Okay. when they obviously weren't, they'd be killed. So it makes sense that you get that. But anyway, what does this have to do with nurses?Malcolm: What does this have to do with teachers? What does this have to do with, right?Simone: Well, I think what, yeah, what's interesting about those characters in particular is, is these are some of the few areas, especially for men, because like, again, it's, it's not typically the sexy male teacher. That's like women are hot for, I mean, sometimes.Simone: But usually it's more like a very high power, like rich, whatever, man, you know, like a Prince or a whatever. So why nurses and why teachers for men? And I think that's because it's one of those few areas where there's a societally condoned place where men. where all men are expected to surrender their agency to a certain extent.Simone: Like when you're going under anesthesia, like you are losing control of every, like almost everything, you know, your mind included and yet it's necessary and okay. And no one's going to judge you negatively because of that. So it's one of the few places where you can even still [00:10:00] see yourself as like a kind of dominant male and, and a desirable male but still totally surrender in a way that's super satisfying.Malcolm: So what? Yeah. And what's really interesting is we and our society do not have healthy understandings of what dominance actually looks like when we think about dominance in a broad sense outside of social roles. We often think of it as violence as putting someone down. As you know, we've mentioned Andrew Tate in a few videos, the way that Andrew Tate treats women, right?Malcolm: That is not the way teachers treat their students. And that is not the way nurses treat theirSimone: patients. Yeah, no, it's, it's a caring, it's well, typically it's a caring, if maybe sometimes stern orMalcolm: controlling. The type of dominance that most men and women now, now they're not mostly women, but there's actually a lot of women who like really violent dominance and we'll get to that.Malcolm: That's a different thing. But people who want, like, caring dominance, like the type of dominance you would have in a natural status hierarchy is one that we have very few social [00:11:00] contexts for. Nurses and teachers for males are often the only social roles where they have been systemically and with social permission.Malcolm: Submissive to a female and that's why they move towards that same as women and daddy daughter stuff Yeah, you really blewSimone: my mind with this like I really admire you for pointing this out because I just didn't I didn't get it like From like I think you know incest For most people, like, really raises hackles, right?Simone: So, like, this dynamic at first seems like it just doesn't make sense, because while incest does arouse, like, a lot of people, we think it's more of a, like, disgust reaction that's been inverted, right? Whereas, like, this is way more popular than that. But what I really admire about what you had explained to me on this is that this is one of the few...Simone: Loving but dominant relationships that most women will be exposed to. So, most women will have had a father figure in [00:12:00] their lives who was very much the dominant character but who cared about them, who taught them things, who took care of them, and who really made them feel safe and supported. And, and so I can get why that has, has become sort of like a very popular de facto dynamic, or like, sexual, like role play interest.Malcolm: Well, and, and, and the other place where you see in women this, this unusual like, like a weird role that you keep seeing recurring in fetish communities is like being a dog or being a pony, like puppy play or and what's going on there. That's another of the very few examples we have in our society of caring, protective dominance.Malcolm: And so when they are trying to get in the mindset of, I am a thing that has this caring, protective, dominant entity out there, like, protecting me. What is that thing like there? There's just not that many social roles they can model. They've got like [00:13:00] pony puppy daughter, right? And this is to a large part of the fault of our society.Malcolm: Like if we had a healthier society wouldn't be like, Oh, that's the way a husband treats her wife. I want to be a trad wife, right? Yet. You know, when we think about trad wives, I think a lot of people, their evoked set is often more around this kind of degrading submission. Closer to like the, the French maid archetype, which is again about a form of degrading submission, which a lot of people do like.Malcolm: So, women who like, and this is another thing that we talked about, a lot of women also like really degrading submission, right? Which comes from a likely different sort of evolutionary pathway, which is. Women who fought back when their communities were being raided because remember I mentioned these roaming bachelor situations, it appears throughout history and in the Pragmatist Guide to Sexuality, we go into a lot of data for this that human tribes likely had outside groups of males [00:14:00] come into them, kill the males and take the females either to expand one existing tribal group or in this sort of roving male scenario, similar to what happened to chimp sometimes.Malcolm: And when this happened, the women who fought back, who were not able to find any sort of like pre programmed biological reason. To not fight back died at disproportionate rates which led some women, but, but a lot more than most people would suspect there's this great book that shows violent porn searches are actually coming from women.Malcolm: It's called Google, so I'll, I'll put up the name of the book on the screen and for YouTube. But yeah, it's, it's absolutely, I think, shocking to a lot of people, but it makes evolutionary sense that that would happen. And there was this great study that we mentioned in the pragmatist guide to sexuality, that showed a really interesting thing, which is when you are playing a competitive game and it looks like your team is losing males begin to feel more camaraderie with their teammates.Malcolm: [00:15:00] Whereas women begin to feel more camaraderie with the opposing team. And that makes immediate sentence from like an evolutionary perspective. Of course, the males really have to double down in that moment and the women are going to survive at a higher rate if they switch sides, which is, I think, really, really just a fascinating phenomenon.Malcolm: And some men online, like they use this to. Sort of degrade women to be like, you can't really trust.Simone: Right. Because they'll bandy and bend in you as soon as you're like on your back foot. That's alsoMalcolm: Wrong. Because you know, if I have like five or six kids with Simone and she's like 35, 40, she's not going to have more kids.Malcolm: So even from an evolutionary perspective, the pressure would have been on supporting her community. And what does the mean? Submissive and breedable. This is like a meme these days where you're looking for submissive, breedable, I don't know wives or femboys or something like that. I'll find some quotes about this.Malcolm: I don't know where it [00:16:00] comes from, but I thought it's a very interesting we might do a whole episode on that. That'd be a good episode.Simone: Yeah, because I have not heard of this and I don't really know what it means. But I did want to ask you sort of in the context of sexy nurses and sexy teachers, right?Simone: Like the, well, the DDLG. And like genre, essentially, these are all nurturing, caring relationships. And you, you just discussed the non caring relationships that women are sometimes interested in from like a sexual scenario standpoint, that they find it arousing. They don't necessarily, usually they don't endorse it.Simone: And they certainly don't morally support it. And that's a really important distinction that we make. What turns you on is not what you think is morally good or Or what you want to happen to you. Exactly. So like A lot of people are turned on by non consensual intercourse. That does not mean that they want it to happen to them.Simone: They support it, that they think it's okay. So just to make that really clear. But then, so you have dominatrices, I guess that's the plural for a dominatrix. These are not so [00:17:00] nurturing archetypes, right? What do you think is going on there with men who are, you know, supposedly into Ha, like to dominatrices.Simone: I'm probably butcheringMalcolm: this.Malcolm: Okay. So let's talk about dominatrices. So these fall outside of my model.Malcolm: So I actually think. That every human different humans have different parts of their sexuality, has sort of two sexual representations within, inside them, and this isn't something we often talk about. One is a long term partner based sexuality, and the other is a rating tribal mechanic sexuality. By that, what I mean is the sexual optimization in males that would cause you to be successful with a long term partner, i.Malcolm: e. have lots of offspring. It's possible for that to coexist with a separate sexuality, which is optimized around non consensually taking as many people as possible when you raid a village or conquer a city. Same with women, you know, they can have these two systems operating [00:18:00] within them. One, that's like, the way that their sexuality expresses when they're with.Malcolm: Their long term partner and another when there was a guy that they don't really know or pornography or something like that, which might be much more brutal and hardcore because those are the environments where they were most likely to encounter individuals like that in a historic context. Now, dominatrixes, I think, are just for masturbating the emotional set in guys who really want.Malcolm: Just sort of pure social domination and and to an extent sexuality can even be removed from these. And this thing comes back to the initial theory I had here, which is that the reason why these dominant submission systems were chosen was specifically for intergroup. Dominance displays, and so what you're getting with a dominatrix is sort of a kabuki theater of dominance displays happening over and over again.Malcolm: Think of it like a gorilla signaling to another gorilla over and over and over again, [00:19:00] I'm stronger than you, but he's actually doing it to like himself in a mirror. Like, he doesn't, you know, he's totally outside of his evolutionary context. That's what's happening with that. One of the things that we were really interested in when we wrote our book, Is what causes males to sort into these different types of sexuality?Malcolm: Is it something that happens to them before puberty? Is it like their family background? Like if they grow up thinking they're from a powerful family, they're more likely to be dominant. Is it like, we're going through all sorts of things trying to figure it out. , it turns out it's actually what would be most evolutionarily advantageous, which is as an adult, the amount of power you think you have typically correlates with.Malcolm: What you want in the bedroom. So men who feel more powerful in their careers, in their lives are typically more turned on by being dominant themselves. Whereas men that feel more disempowered are more turned on by taking on submissive roles. And actually the same is true for women, women who [00:20:00] feel they have more control of their lives are more turned on by being dominant themselves.Malcolm: But what's also interesting is these men who have more power and are more turned on by being dominant. Actually get more arousal for being dominant to somebody else who wants to be dominant.Simone: And I think this, this is, we're not the only ones to say, and you found this in your research findings, which I think is helpful, but also there, there are many other people who've said, yeah, like this concept that like super high powered men want to surrender in the bedroom.Simone: It's just not that common, right?Malcolm: It's not, it's not backed by the data. Yeah, it is. It is. An interesting outlier that sometimes exists in our society, except what I find very interesting is that when people point to men who are actually doing this in the real world, they're usually like powerful, but government bureaucrats which actually means that they're submissive to somebody else in their daily life, even though they may be thought of as high status within society.Malcolm: Which isn't, isn't the same. And then they wouldn't make sense why they're, they're interested in this sort of [00:21:00] thing, because they do feel very disempowered in their daily lives. It is not you know, as much something you see was like tech CEOs and stuff like that. And again, you and I know many tech CEOs that date, we've written books on sexuality.Malcolm: We've talked to them. Most of them are, they're male, incredibly dominant. And if they're female, incredibly dominant. That's another interesting thing that as women become wealthier, they sort of, act more masculine. But wealthy men seem to prefer that. Yeah. So there you go. Which is interesting.Malcolm: Well, well, it makes sense if, if their thing is dominating the dominant. If that seems to be like wealthy sexuality, now keep in mind, sexuality doesn't change that much as an adult, but it, but it seems to change a little, like here we're talking about maybe like a 20% change or 30% change depending on an individual's wealth, not and, and perceived power.Malcolm: Now it's not actual wealth. That's just what we were using to measure as a proxy perceived power. But we also did perceive power. It was in the study and they both correlated really well. We couldn't find out which correlated better. So [00:22:00] it's, it doesn't matter, but interesting. Well, Simone, do you have any more thoughts on this?Simone: I just find myself wondering, you know, as society shifts, what the new tropes are going to be, right? Like, as you were saying, it wasn't until, you say, the Regency era that the school teacher meme, and that's sort of like really the beginning of the industrial school system. So that makes sense. And then, you know, as nurses starting to say, I'm...Simone: And of course, I think nuns for an even longer time, of course, fell into this trope. So like, what is the next version? And I don't know, like, I think our society is moving toward a sort of post gender world. So maybe it's just going to stay like in the medical profession and just, I think the biggerMalcolm: change you're going to have is more and more people are going to want to be submissive.Malcolm: More and more men are feeling disempowered and are going to take on this submissive role within their sexuality. Yeah. But an interesting differentiator we've had was that. Recently is if you're looking at what's being broadcasted like from the [00:23:00] rooftops is male, status is determined by how dominant you are sexually.Malcolm: Mm-hmm. . So I think that , a lot of these men who are really disempowered and thus more likely to fall towards this submissive side of male sexuality where they're turned on by acting submissive they gain the perception from social media that male status is determined by how dominant they prefer being in sexual situations and therefore present it.Malcolm: And act in terms of building their own self narratives more sexually dominant than they really are and that they can really maximize their personal gratification off of that may be useful in, in getting, you know, satisfying a female partner, but it is sad that we might be entering that world where.Malcolm: Faking asexuality you don't have is an important sort of status symbol for, for, for some, you know, and I think especially, you know, men who would fall into this category, some really insecure men. And I mean, I, I think I see it when I [00:24:00] see these, these men online who are constantly talking about being dominant all the time.Malcolm: That's not the type of thing that somebody who's naturally inclined towards dominanceSimone: does. Yeah. Yeah. It's more of a show. Don't tell kind of thing. Yeah. Yeah. I think that's, that's the funny thing about you is a lot of people like online will make fun of you for being a soy boy and you like, you don't try to front about being dominant, but like.Simone: In person is just so obvious that you'd tell me so yeah and then I think probably the vast majority of the people who are attacking you for being a soy boy online are like, you know, if we were all in a room together, it probably wouldn't play out the same way, but,Malcolm: Well, and I think that this is something people who more actively engage with the BDSM community, it's common knowledge in the community, is that men who, who day to day act, quote unquote, really dominant, like all the time.Malcolm: They're usually really bad at being doms because they aren't naturally dominant as part of an act. Whereas men who are just much more comfortable with [00:25:00] themselves day to day and don't put on this big dominance act all the time are generally better or known as better doms within theSimone: union.Simone: And I think that that's why confidence is so attractive to women and to men is because confidence is a more high fidelity signal of genuine dominance. Then any sort of aggression display or dominance display, because anyone, regardless of their actual, like alpha status or, you know, like inherent dominance can, can a, a dominance display.Simone: However, only those who genuinely feel dominant inside, you know, where that, that feeling of dominance comes from a very, very strong framing and self confidence, you know, they're just going to look comfortable in their own skin and not really give a s**t. Cause they just don't care what you think because they're dominant.Simone: So there you go.Malcolm: I love this conversation. I think you're right. And you know, hello nurse. You got to do that. Can you do the, the whole, I don't, [00:26:00]Simone: I have, I just I don't even remember which care. Oh, and it was the brother, it was the brother of dot. It was, it was Dot's brother. Oh, so it was one of them.Simone: Yeah. But yeah, he was the one who'd say hello nurse. But I don't remember. He would just say it to like, sexy women, I think. But again, like, it's so weird watching these cartoons as a kid. Like, you don't get this in joke. So, you just assume that like, Oh, I guess adults, like, Oh, I thoughtMalcolm: a lot of cartoons were really like, there was the wolf, that like, it would see the woman in red, and like, its tongue would roll out and stuff.Malcolm: And like, They'reSimone: really you just assume that like adults really respect nurses and, and really defer to them and that some, some male species have an allergic reaction around women.Malcolm: It was supposed to be like a sexual thing. Like it was supposed to be an attraction thing, but it was like cartoon sexuality.Malcolm: Like it didn't feel in any way perverse to me as a kid, partially because our society didn't code it as perverse. It was just like, this is a normal thing. Adults. [00:27:00] really care about this weird thing that doesn't matterSimone: to you. Yes. Yes.Malcolm: Anyway, I got that. But today the way we, we engage our kids with sexuality is like actually sexualized.Malcolm: And I think ways that are pretty gross to me, but that's just me. Love you. Gotta go handle the kids soon. Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe

Malcolm: [00:00:00] And I was like, oh, brain computer interface. That's the next big thing. And I really invested my early career in brain computer interface.Malcolm: It's what I did my thesis on in college. It's what my first job was. It's, you know, I, I did a lot of stuff in the space.Malcolm: people think you'll have this like super fast communication system that communicates with your brain as easily as your brain can think.Malcolm: And that is just not what you're going to get.Malcolm: They are imagining like a computer feeding them facts in a way where they are aware that the computer is feeding them facts and they are asking for those facts.Malcolm: That is not what's happening. A computer is overriding your consciousness because your brain can't tell the difference between what's coming from the computer and what's coming from, you know, that's what's actually happening. And you're not getting that much benefit from it when compared with just checking the internet or something.Simone: Hello, Malcolm.Malcolm: Hello, Simone. I am excited for this topic because it involves my old job and my actual specialization. [00:01:00] So when I was younger and I was trying to chart out what would be the big technology of the future that I should try to get on top of before everyone else. You know, I saw it like, okay, imagine I saw computers coming down the pipeline and I want to become a computer scientist before anyone's into computers.Malcolm: That was how I saw the way I planned for my career, which seems like a very Malcolm thing to do. And I was like, oh, brain computer interface. That's the next big thing. And I made a big mistake by overinvesting my early career in this, but I really invested my early career in brain computer interface.Malcolm: It's what I did my thesis on in college. It's what my first job was. It's, you know, I, I did a lot of stuff in the space. I actually, I worked as , the R& D marketing lead of the first commercially successful brain computer interface company, which was called NeuroSky which created these little headsets.Malcolm: So Nekamimi was one of our big projects, which was like a little headset and it would control like cat ears on your head. And then another, like a lot of people used it for various things that like went. Memetically viral. And essentially what it was, was a really, [00:02:00] really simplistic EEG system that was using capacitive sensors.Malcolm: So EEG stands for an electrocephalograph. It was really simple. The things it was reading in your brain just think of it like, it's, it's, it's an ear listening to the room of a party trying to catch the general vibe of what's going on. Is this a fun party or a funeral? Is this a, you know, but you can't really determine much more than that.Malcolm: And the other thing is, is that whenever the sensor moved around, and so this is a big problem with any of these sensors that are like actually wearable. It would make a ton of noise. So the electricity, like the static electricity that's generated by like your hair moving or like a sensor moving just a little bit is so much louder than anything generated by your brain.Malcolm: But even louder than that, but just. If you, the, the electricity generated by muscle. So if I like blink my eyes, that's like an explosion going off. So this isSimone: an [00:03:00] incredibly noisy system. Like it's basically, you're saying it's picking up not just the sound of the party, but also a bunch of instruction outside and a football game that's playing in the background and all the commercials.Malcolm: What I'm saying is it's imprecise. It's actually doing what it says it's doing. But it is wildly imprecise, but another thing to note here is it's functioning in a way that your brain is not really meant to function. So when you're communicating with an EEG using your brain you are communicating with that EEG in a way that's I mean, that's just not the way your brain evolved to communicate with things, right?Malcolm: You're, you're, you're causing tons of neurons to fire at once in a way they weren't really meant to fire at once. And we don't know the effects of this really, not long term. And, and that's a potential problem because, you know, fire together, wire together. I, okay, what I'm talking about. So the way that your brain forms connections is when neurons Fire at around the same time or in around the same region of the brain, they begin to wire together.Malcolm: That's how [00:04:00] like I do. That's the fundamentals of how the brain works. It's way more complicated than that, but that's a broad scope of it. Okay. For reasons that like you're using your prefrontal cortex, which is like not at all meant for external communication and firing it all at the same time. I don't know.Malcolm: I would, I don't want to say anything on record, but I'd say it's probably not the best, but this actually becomes really interesting when you're then talking about The existing brain computer interface systems, because a lot of people, they look at brain computer interface technology and they think, oh, this is going to be like really, really, really transformative in the way that we engage with technology and it might not be and a lot of the systems we're using now might not be the systems that end up becoming popular.Malcolm: They might be like those you know, I dunno, people from our generations, we had VR in our generations, but it was like ridiculous, [00:05:00] big machines that you would go to it like Epcot or like it's special centers. And they don't function at all the way our existing VR works. Or we had, you know, three day movies, but you would wear like colored glasses.Malcolm: It was functioning in an entirely different way than the current movies. Right. So I'll get into more. What I mean was this, when I talk about the current. Field of brain computer interface. So first, let's talk about why the field stalled. So I was wrong. I made a bad gamble at the beginning of my career.Malcolm: It didn't take off. And that's why I left the field. And instead of doing a PhD, got a business degree instead and went into a boringMalcolm: I mean, I've always stayed interested in neuroscience, but I realized pretty quickly that it was a bad bet for the rest of my career because the field was moving slowly. Why was the field moving slowly? Is moving slowly due to astrocytic scar formation. So, an individual's immune system does not go into our brains because of the blood brain barrier.Malcolm: A lot of people know that, right? They're like, oh yes, the blood brain barrier protects the brain from bacteria and viruses. [00:06:00] This is why if you get like a bacteria or virus in your brain, it's really bad. That doesn't mean your brain doesn't have cells to deal with that. They're just modified neurons called glial cells.Malcolm: And Galil cells can have all sorts of support functions in your brain, but one is something very similar to white blood cells, where they like surround intruders or build scar tissue or something like that. It's, it's very interesting. Like our brains basically evolved like all of the support cells that the rest of the body has, but they're modified neurons.Malcolm: It's, it's like independently evolved them. Very interesting. Anyway, back to Galil cells. Astrocytic scar formation is a type of scar formation that's created by glial cells, astrocytes when you insert something into the brain. So when there's a forward body in the brain, right? And so these early neural interfaces that go into the brain and it would incite an immune response.Malcolm: And astrocytic scar tissue would begin to build around the, you know, inserted probe, [00:07:00] right? And this probe would become less and less good at what it was doing over time and therefore it would need to become louder and louder to communicate with the brain and the brain would have to become louder and louder to communicate with it, which of course caused more and more astrocytic scars.Malcolm: scar formation. Yeah. The way you would prevent this is with immunosuppressants. Now this is not something that you can do long term, like how long it works in a human is variable. And if we're in a chimpanzee where a lot of these studies were done is variable. And do you really want to do that for some sort of recreational implant?Malcolm: Right? No, you don't. You don't immunosuppressants. I don't know if I need to say that's a terrible idea to be on long term immunosuppressants for a recreational or productivity enhancingSimone: product. Unless you want to be like a bubble boy. Yeah, yeah. So a lotMalcolm: of people get these because look, people get dumb, you know, surgeries for little like aesthetic things.Malcolm: Of course, they'll get surgeries for this, but they're not thinking about the cost. Anyway, so, all that's the case. Now, the [00:08:00] field has moved on from there. If you look at what Neuralink is doing, they have found a way around the astrocytic scar formation problem, and someone was pointing out that, I don't know if I'm allowed to talk about it, but they, they have a way around it.Malcolm: It's not a problem for them. However I have always thought that even if you were able to build this into a person's brain, you are likely to not get all of the benefits that people think you're going to get. And the core reason is, is people think you'll have this like super fast communication system that communicates with your brain as easily as your brain can think.Malcolm: And that is just not what you're going to get. So if you think of a transformer model, we've talked a lot about AIs and stuff like that. Imagine trying to communicate with an AI at random parts of the code instead of the input output part of the code. That's not gonna work very well.Malcolm: Your brain did not evolve to communicate using random parts of your brain. It evolved to condense the information and send it out. through [00:09:00] very specific pathways. Okay. And these pathways that were your central nervous system is meeting your peripheral nervous system, which means that you might actually be slower at communicating with your central nervous system than your peripheral nervous system.Malcolm: And almost certainly won't be faster at communicating. If you're plugging directly into your central nervous system, you might be able to passively get ideas from a person. So this is what we've seen in some studies. We're like fMRI data, and this means that you can probably do this with an invasive system as well.Malcolm: fMRI, by the way, probably the most brilliant machine ever invented. So what it does, is it like, puts this strong magnetic field into your body. And that means because all of your blood cells have iron in them and they're, they're all magnetic to an extent. And when you put this magnetic field, they all align, right?Malcolm: They're all facing the same direction because they're facing the same direction as a magnetic field. And then the magnetic field turns off and this is when you're in a firmware area, boom. Boom, boom. That's this magnetic field turning on and off. And every time it [00:10:00] turns off, they go back to their original positions, right?Malcolm: Think of it like an elastic thing. Like they've been forced into one position, but they're really naturally at another position. When they do that, it releases a form of energy, which you can measure with the fMRI machine, which allows us to see where blood is in a human. And with more advanced MRIs, we can even tell where oxygenated versus deoxygenated blood is.Malcolm: So with the original fMRIs, you could tell where brain activity was happening. Because blood would be sent to that area after a thought had happened because you would just have oxygen in that blood and you needed to compensate for that. But the modern fMRI machines, fMRI meaning Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, is doing it real time.Malcolm: MRIs are doing it like a picture. Anyway we can actually see the brain beginning to take the oxygen out. You know, as it's using it to replenish the electromagnetic potential of action potentials in your brain. I'm not going to get into that right now. You don't need to know that. But what you do need to know is that there isn't a strong reason.Malcolm: So, so we can quickly tell now you [00:11:00] can tell what song a person is thinking about, or tell what movie they're watching by combining AIs. With the output from these MRI systems and analysis of what's going on my brain. So you want to be able to tell really quickly what they're thinking as like an AI or using this AI layer, but you're unable to be able to have this like bilateral communication bilateral communication will almost always be done better by a.Malcolm: Peripheral nervous system brain computer interface, which is interesting because those systems have been stable for a really long time. Communicating directly with my peripheral nervous system is actually much easier to do because you're not dealing with as much as much. And we've been able to do this with stuff like amputees and their arms and stuff for a while, like direct interfaces.Malcolm: So I don't know the reason why those haven't taken off is because they're just not very good, which again, at like fast communication. Which again, leads me to believe we're just not going to get that much of a benefit in terms of communication speed [00:12:00] from the systems. Now there are ways we could be wrong about this.Malcolm: So ECOG, which is like an EEG. EEG is the thing I was talking about that goes on the top of your head, except it goes under your skull and over your dura matter, which means. That you're not getting the low pass filter that your skull is acting as. So what's the low pass filter basically means only low frequency waves can get through it.Malcolm: Low frequency waves are very imprecise. And if you're talking about targeting so anyway, so I'm boring you. What, what do you, what do you want to ask? WhatSimone: does this mean? Functionally like right now I'm reading things AI changes everything. What do you expect we're going to see in the next 10 to 50 years in terms of what brain computer interface will enable either from I don't know, computers being able to see what we're thinking to like us using this in therapeutic technologies to us using this for entertainment, like, where do you think this is going to end up?Simone: Are humans going to get chipped? Are we going to be able to just no. And then, okay. So tell me what doMalcolm: you see? Right. People are [00:13:00] just way okay. So people in the industry. So I'm one of the few people that has no stake in the industry, but actually understands all the technology. And, and so most people in the industry, they need to tell you for their sake of their job that we can do this.Malcolm: But I just, I don't think that it's doable. And I don't think it'll give us that much of an advantage. And I don't think that we're going in that direction as a species. I think you could genetically modify human brains to be more compatible with these systems. That's interesting. There was some great stuff that was done that showed that we could use bioluminescence and actually create neurons that release bioluminescence when they have an action potential, which will allow them to communicate with these systems even better than existing neurons.Malcolm: So you can modify genetically modified future humans to better integrate with these systems, which is something I guess we could do with our kids if we were going to CRISPR them with like jellyfish DNA. But again, the, the efficiency gains are just, I don't. Think high. [00:14:00] I think that max, you may be able to communicate with a computer 50% faster than you can type, but.Malcolm: Not much more than that. And I do think that a computer might be able to get a faster shot of what you're thinking, but you are not going to be able to intentionally communicate with the computer much faster. And this is the big problem. Do you really want your computer to have a better understanding of what you're thinking, like an advanced AI, but not what you want the computer to know you're thinking?Malcolm: Well, so, butSimone: isn't this. Cool. Because couldn't this mean that instead of being tortured, people will just be scannedMalcolm: for information? Well, and another thing to remember, and this is really important. And we talked about this in our, you're probably not sentient video, which I'd strongly suggest you watch.Malcolm: It's one of my favorite videos I've ever made. Really high, high, high praise for this video. is that humans essentially will pretend their brain is very good at pretending that it consciously came up with any idea whether or not they consciously came up with it. [00:15:00] So you can induce an idea to people by doing these experiments where you know, you're, you are like.Malcolm: Oh, which girl do you find most attractive? And then you're like, oh you, you do a little sleight of hand and you go, why did you find this girl most attractive? But it wasn't the girl they picked. And like a big portion of them will be like, oh, I found her most attractive for these complicated set of reasons.Malcolm: Or you look at brain patients, you know, you can talk to one part of their brain without talking to the other. And you can tell one part of their brain by covering one of their eyes, which only communicates with, with one side. It's as if the corpus callosum had to sever in it. And so you're talking with the other side of their brain and you're saying You know, pick up, pick up a Rubik's cube.Malcolm: So they'll pick it up and you ask the other side, but why did you do that? And they're like, Oh I've always, I've always wanted to try to solve one of these. They don't know what they did. They're making up like their consciousness will take credit for things that we know it didn't do during open brain surgery.Malcolm: If you stimulate a part of the brain, you can get a person like, raise a hand. And you're like, why did you do that? And they're like, Oh, I felt like doing it. They won't say that like they were forced to do it. Well, this means that if you integrated an AI directly with a [00:16:00] person's. You know, prefrontal cortex, for example they are going to believe that everything that the AI is telling them is something that they are thinking, and their brain will just naturally believe that they came up with all these ideas.Malcolm: So if the AI is feeding them ideas, or if the AI is You know, drawing for them. If you plugged a person into like Dolly, they would think that they had created that art 100% believe it. And this is any human, you know, this is just the way our brains function because our brains have to synthesize a lot of pretty distinct.Malcolm: Like we are not actually like singular entities. We're actually a bunch of distinct systems in the brains, which are then conflated to be a single entity by this system that essentially has to lie to us. To create what we perceive as our consciousness. Again, the sentience video, we'll go into this in a lot more detail, but other questions, Simone.Simone: So basically you just think that nothing interesting is going to happen with brain computer interface andMalcolm: some things interesting will eventually happen, but it will be at a level of technology that is far above where we are today. And I think that the really interesting work now, the real work that's going to [00:17:00] change the future of humanity is the genetics work.Malcolm: It's genetics and AI are the most, I mean, eventually we're going to need to get brain computer interface good. So I'm glad that people like Elon are working on it. Why do we need to get it good? Because AI is continuing to develop. And if we can't figure out a way to integrate with AI, to create entities that are both biological and synthetic then we are almost intrinsically antagonistic towards AI, and we might end up in a future where only the synthetic or only the biological exists, and both of those futures are going to be pretty horrifying if we continue advancing, but it's, it's, I guess the combined future is pretty horrifying to some as well but it's, it's less horrifying because at least humanity continues to survive.Malcolm: Or something that looks, you know, that broadly like a descendant of current humanity surrise.Simone: Yeah. In in the culture series that, that I love by Ian Banks there's this technology called a neural lace which is what it sounds like basically it's, it's something that starts really, [00:18:00] really small, I guess, like a piece of biosynthetic material that goes into your brain, goes past the blood brain barrier, and grows into your brain and integrates with it. And then over time creates a backup of your consciousness because it's, it's just being really possible. Yeah. So like keeping an eye on everything that's possible.Simone: And I think it's really interesting because Ian Banks, you know, wrote about all this stuff, like well before the technology was there well before, you know, people had, had even gotten close to developing technologies like this. And I find it really interesting. That, you know, that, that exists. But yeah, it's it's, it's, it, once it grows to its full size in this science fiction universe, it's thousands of years in the future the theoretical future that I like love and want to live in so bad.Simone: You know, if the thing, if you like incinerate a human, like you could hold this really fine, like netting. This lace in your hand, you know, and it's just about the size of a brain. And I think that's yeah, that, that seems doable. But I guess what you're saying is that until we [00:19:00] develop technology that can literally grow into a brain and then transmit,Malcolm: we develop that technology.Malcolm: Yes. We'll be able to do things like back up the brain, but the core promise that people have right now is seamless integration with the brain in a way that we can consciously control. And that is not possible with near future technology. They are imagining like a computer feeding them facts in a way where they are aware that the computer is feeding them facts and they are asking for those facts.Malcolm: That is not what's happening. A computer is overriding your consciousness because your brain can't tell the difference between what's coming from the computer and what's coming from, you know, that's what's actually happening. And you're not getting that much benefit from it when compared with just checking the internet or something.Malcolm: Right,Simone: right.Malcolm: Yeah. Because your brain, evolved to deal with like optic information, auditory information, and you could create a brain that's optimized for this type of interface, but that would likely require genetic manipulation. So what I really hearSimone: you saying then is that this is a lot like the flying cars [00:20:00] issue, where like forever, you know, people were told, were promised, they like to say, they would have flying cars and it would be so amazing and so cool, blah, blah, blah.Simone: And that we actually can make flying cars. There was a flying car company out there, but just like from a practicality standpoint, like flying cars, aren't terribly energy efficient. We don't exactly have infrastructure that accommodates their landing and takeoff. You know, just, they'd be really expensive.Simone: So okay, no one has flying cars because there's just no reason. For the they're not that good. They're not that affordable. There's no reason to have flying cars when we already have good enough technology that does everything else. We basically, we have Uber instead, like we got Uber instead of flying cars.Simone: So you're saying that this is roughly the same, but yeah, I mean, theoretically we could do it, but it's, it's actual utility, given what we're going to be able to achieve and given the cost is going to be pretty limited. Right. And it's just going to be a flyingMalcolm: car. Eventually it'll be an important part of where our species goes.Malcolm: Crucial part. It's just not one of the [00:21:00] technologies to be watching right now. And I really like eventually humans will primarily travel in flying vehicles. I absolutely believe that to be the case when we are like an interstellar species, right? And when human cities may look different and stuff like that, right?Malcolm: But there's no reason for us to do it with current levels of technology. And yeah, I really appreciate how smart you are and how good you are at communicating this stuff.Simone: I'm not the one who just explained in great detail the problems of neuroscience. So let's put that back to you. And I just, no, no,Malcolm: no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.Malcolm: I'm sure you could explain something to me. What did you get your degree in?Simone: Business and technology policy that, you know, it's not that. Why didMalcolm: I allow that? I'm joking.Malcolm: You know, I harass her at undergrad in business, I'm like, that is not a big brain thingSimone: to do. It was [00:22:00] my point of shame. Yeah. But I think that you alsoMalcolm: I screwed up too. I got a pointless degree, but it makes me look smart. It helps with this sort of narrative of Malcolm's a smart guy, even if he doesn't Yeah.Malcolm: YouSimone: had told me that, like Oh, what are the list of the top degrees that are often taken by like a high class students at universities when it was like philosophy and neuroscience.Malcolm: No, it is true. Students from yeah, the higher socioeconomic backgrounds, they disproportionatelySimone: take that. You notice that at university that like of, of the students that were getting those degrees, like a lot of because they're seenMalcolm: as high status degrees was in certain groups.Malcolm: It wasn't philosophy. It was actually specifically. You would get a degree in classics with one that drew a lot, right, which was almost a flex because of how pointless it was, or art history, which is also a flex because of how pointless it was, or if they went into the biological fields, it was typically neuroscience or genetics.Malcolm: And that was like a flex because of how technically difficult it was. [00:23:00] Oh, butSimone: genetics is what we'd actually be thrilled that our kids got into for sure. Yeah.Malcolm: So I love you, Simone. So let's, let's make these kids high status individuals.Simone: Yeah. Yeah. Well, status in the future is going to be super interesting.Simone: So there'sMalcolm: an interesting thing about neuroscience degrees. And this is something I noticed in my department, which I, I, I tell people to look at. They were disproportionately the most attractive people in the biology or psychology schools.Simone: So if you're looking for someone that's hot, go onto LinkedIn, check has graduate degree in neuroscience and then you don't even have to look at their picture.Malcolm: You're like, no, no, no. Women with degrees in neuroscience. Now this might be because of attractiveness. Correlates with intelligence. And so that's what's causing it. But I don't know, but yeah, if you were to look around like our biology or psychology classes, then you're like, okay, who are the top 10 hottest women?Malcolm: They were almost all in the neuroscience class.Simone: Good night. Well, I love it. I love you. Have a fun one. You too.[00:24:00] Get full access to Based Camp | Simone & Malcolm at basedcamppodcast.substack.com/subscribe