Ever felt like your thoughts are not entirely your own? Our latest episode is a deep-dive into critical thinking, where we peel off the layers of societal expectations and navigate the maze of logical fallacies that cloud our judgment. Our guide through this journey is none other than provocateur Tom MacDonald, whose music challenges us to question the structures that dictate our choices. We open up a candid conversation that spans censorship in the workplace, the complexities of navigating sensitive communication, and how embracing skepticism could shield us from Web3 scams and ransomware.
We've all seen how a single misstep in communication can escalate into a full-blown controversy. Today, we take a closer look at the psychological nuances shaping our daily interactions, discussing the perils of false attribution, causality, and the importance of context in understanding each other. From the workplace to our personal lives, we grapple with how to strike that delicate balance between sensitivity and authenticity. Plus, don't miss our fascinating insights on how omission bias and our tendency to prefer inaction can lead to unexpected moral conundrums.
Join us as we wrap up with an impassioned call to action, urging you to arm yourself with the tools for personal and collective growth. We highlight the system's psychological manipulation and the importance of standing firm against partisan allegiances. As you prepare for the week ahead, let our message of awareness and empowerment resonate with you, reminding us all of the power we hold when we are critical, informed, and united. This isn't just a conversation; it's a movement towards a more thoughtful and discerning world.
FYI OUTRO
Ever felt like your thoughts are not entirely your own? Our latest episode is a deep-dive into critical thinking, where we peel off the layers of societal expectations and navigate the maze of logical fallacies that cloud our judgment. Our guide through this journey is none other than provocateur Tom MacDonald, whose music challenges us to question the structures that dictate our choices. We open up a candid conversation that spans censorship in the workplace, the complexities of navigating sensitive communication, and how embracing skepticism could shield us from Web3 scams and ransomware.
We've all seen how a single misstep in communication can escalate into a full-blown controversy. Today, we take a closer look at the psychological nuances shaping our daily interactions, discussing the perils of false attribution, causality, and the importance of context in understanding each other. From the workplace to our personal lives, we grapple with how to strike that delicate balance between sensitivity and authenticity. Plus, don't miss our fascinating insights on how omission bias and our tendency to prefer inaction can lead to unexpected moral conundrums.
Join us as we wrap up with an impassioned call to action, urging you to arm yourself with the tools for personal and collective growth. We highlight the system's psychological manipulation and the importance of standing firm against partisan allegiances. As you prepare for the week ahead, let our message of awareness and empowerment resonate with you, reminding us all of the power we hold when we are critical, informed, and united. This isn't just a conversation; it's a movement towards a more thoughtful and discerning world.
FYI OUTRO
Thank you, Welcome to the world, baby boy. I'll paint you red and white and blue. The indoctrination starts as soon as you come out the womb. Pretty quick, we'll make you stupid with curriculums at school and if the classroom doesn't do the trick, we'll make you watch the news. Pick your team, right or left. Pick the red pill or the blue. You can vote. But even if you instill, everyone will lose. Don't forget to buy designer, because Gucci makes you cool. We prioritize material belongings over truth. Get a job that you can't stand so you can buy some cancer food. Go overseas and die for freedom. There's some oil we can use. Our democracy exists so that you think that you can choose, but our algorithms make you do what we want you to do. What's the problem? Your depressed society has you confused. We got medication for you that you'll probably abuse. Go, get married to a lady who also don't have a clue and pump on a few babies that are just the same as you.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the system, everyone's a victim Doesn't matter if you're black or white. It hates you all. Here inside the system, violence is a symptom fighting for what's right, but somehow everyone is wrong. Welcome to the system.
Speaker 3:Everyone's a victim victim Doesn't matter if you're black or white. It hates you all. Parents are the system. Violence is a symptom Fighting for what's right, but somehow everyone is wrong.
Speaker 1:Welcome to the world, baby girl. I'll paint you pink, if that's okay. We'll encourage self-destruction through the music that you play. We divided out of men by trying politics and race and honestly, it's working awesome. So for you we'll do the same Never teaching you to love yourself, inject you full of hate, objectify your sexuality, then blame you for the rape and weaponize the differences that make our men and women great, and just to screw with you. Erase the genders, everyone's the same. We'll empower you with rights to vote and fight for equal pay. Then have the men turn into women and you'll fight for them again. Bet, you thought you had it figured out, but everything has changed. Welcome to the system, bitch. Please enjoy your stay. Here's a Bible and a bottle of the cheapest booze we make. Find a man who can take care of you to fill the holes we make.
Speaker 1:Buy a house to settle down, fulfill your duty, procreate and make a couple babies who will also do the same.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the system. Everyone's a victim. Doesn't matter if you're black or white. It hates you all here inside the system. Violence is a symptom Fighting for what's right, but somehow everyone is wrong.
Speaker 3:Welcome to the system, everyone's a victim Doesn't matter if you're black or white. It hates you all. We're inside the system. Violence is a symptom Fighting for what's right, but somehow everyone is wrong.
Speaker 1:Welcome to the world, everybody. I'ma paint you black and white.
Speaker 1:I'ma make you hate each other so that everyone will fight. I'ma give you all religion Let the righteous find the light, but I will also give you science to oppose the word of Christ. And I'm going to give you borders. They're imaginary lines. If you cross them, go to war and win when everybody dies. And I'm going to give you money that you'll value more than life, and let the 1% have everything while you fight to survive. And then I'll give you politics. I'll call it left and right, and while you divide yourselves, I will conquer both the sides, can't you see? I'm the system. My whole purpose is to buy. What you choose will never matter, because everything is mine.
Speaker 2:Welcome to the system. Everyone's a victim. Doesn't matter if you're black or white. It hates you all here inside the system. Violence is a symptom Fighting for what's right, but somehow everyone is wrong. Welcome to the system. Everyone's a victim, doesn't?
Speaker 3:matter if you're black or white. It hates you all here inside the system. Violence is a symptom. Fighting for what's right, but somehow everyone is wrong. Welcome to the system. Everyone's a victim. Doesn't matter if you're black or white. It hates you all. Here inside the system, violence is a symptom fighting for what's right, but somehow everyone is wrong well, wasn't that a spicy song?
Speaker 5:So we're talking about thinking clearly, we're talking about critical thinking, and before we catch hate for playing a controversial song, I want anybody who listens to this space to take the controversial hat or the you know oh my God, I'm offended hat off and just look at the lyrics of the song without getting offended and just basically see what he's saying and see the kind of critical thinking aspect of it behind it. You have to think that the message that he's trying to perpetuate with his songs this, this artist is tom mcdonald. Um, he sings very controversial songs that go against the narrative that's out there in today's society, whether it's coming from conservatives or liberals or whoever. Uh, you know he's, he's saying that you're, you're being indoctrinated either way. Um, and that's basically the gist of what the system is for is. You know, we're being told this side is right or that side is right, and you end up getting divided and we don't have these conversations that we're having in this space like this, and so I'm going to play some more songs of his throughout the remainder of the spaces for this. I was going to do them earlier, but we've had some messed up timeframes and I think just listening to his lyrics above, what the controversy behind it is, might help some people who lean one way or another. Help them kind of see what the middle ground is like and see what the message is. Because there's one, there's one song that he sings, um, which I'm gonna say, I'm gonna put it on at one point, um, where he talks about him not being liberal or conservative and, and you know, I think that's the the problem with society in today's world is everybody seems to be on one side or the other. There's no such thing as coming together and having discussions like we're going to have in the space today. So obviously, we're here for book time, but this is part of um.
Speaker 5:What I'm here for, as well, as, is the critical thinking aspect of things and um, having people think before they react to things, using your, your logical brain. And, again, thinking clearly, thinking critically, can be more beneficial than getting emotional behind something because there's a word in the sentence that you don't like, words or words. One of the fallacies that we talk about in this, this chunk that we're in, is the um it's, it's not how it's said, or it's not what is said but how it's said, and um, I think that it's not so much that, but we'll talk more about that in in in depth when we get into this. But, um, I think, uh, I think a lot of people are reacting to not so much like what is said, but and not so much how it's said. But you know, a word in a sentence is what they react to, more than the actual thing itself. So I'll say more on that later.
Speaker 5:But, uh, I've taken up too much time from the introduction. Welcome to bamboo book time. Uh, we're talking about the art of thinking, clearly, and I'm not even the host, so I'll shut up now hey, that was a great intro and you know what I think?
Speaker 4:I don't want to put words in tom's mouth, but I think he is open to a discussion with anybody lovingly, respectfully. He's a good question asker, I think he's. He plays a great devil's advocate and asks good questions, points out interesting things and I think he he loves the idea of having a conversation and getting to the point where, just like uh, sparky was talking, hopefully two people, even if they disagree and and I'll tell it straight up, there's a few things I disagree with Tom on. And who cares? I still love the guy. I love that he's talking about free speech and interesting topics and opening up the conversation.
Speaker 4:And, funny, I guess I do have a little bit of bias towards Tom because I know his girlfriend. Are they married now? I don't even know. But Nova and I go way back and I don't know if she'll admit to it, but I had an all-night risk game in her living room and I took the game. I won. That was a very intense game of risk and she took it real serious.
Speaker 4:But, knowing Nova, I have not met Tom I'd like to and I'd like to just have a great conversation. That would be a really fun book time. To get Tom on one of these Maybe I'll see if I can't work that up because I think he is essentially trying to preach logical thinking and that's where it's like it would be fun to have someone with differing ideas or viewpoints from Tom speak and see how they could interact. I bet it would go beautifully and I bet by the end of it there might even be like, still opinions that differ from one another, maybe even different political stances. But yeah, that's, I think, the beautiful idea. The goal at least is to at least try for that and shake hands afterwards and be able to at least see through your differences and get closer to understanding where someone's coming from. But at the end of the day I'm really coming to enjoy having kind of a baseline meter for bullshit, if that makes any sense.
Speaker 4:This book is a really good reminder of just like here's some good baseline thinking ways to go about making decisions and thinking about stuff and uh, to have that kind of baseline, uh, it really puts into perspective some people's moves and decisions and thinking patterns, uh, just more glaringly obvious. And it does make lyrics like tom mcdonald's very fun to listen to because I you get a pretty good grasp on his logical thinking. So I I do like that. You played that, sparky, so I I was just adding a little bit more rambling onto your, your, uh, your good intro was not rambling, it was great. Now I'm just messing it up, uh, but no good intro. And uh, I'm really glad that you're here, sparky, because I'd love to get your thoughts on on where we're at in the book. Uh, the first pages one to 50, uh, you were, you were.
Speaker 5:I'm behind like crazy.
Speaker 4:That's okay. That's okay Because we we had you for pages one to 50. Last week we did pages 50 to a hundred and then now we're we're up to page one, 50, but every space I've I've been reminded like we can go back to chapter one and discuss that if that's what we want to discuss. This one's so hard to nail down, just up to page 150. I'm like crap. There's so much good stuff I don't know what I want to talk about and it's not even like.
Speaker 4:This book is great. I like the book, I'm fine with it. It's not too harsh for me anymore. I guess I'm just in the rhythm with it now and I'm biased and I like it. It's healthy. It's a healthy read for me.
Speaker 4:My mind just goes everywhere with this damn book. I don't know if anyone else is experiencing the same thing. I think crypto, I think NFTs, I think my uncle just died. I went down to his funeral. I think about all sorts of stuff with this reading. It's really kind of a little portal for me into some deep thinking and as surface level, as logical thinking is, I love it. It's so just like cut and dry, like yo. Here's a fallacy, recognize it? Yeah, pretty easy. But your mind, I guess with me, just goes everywhere with it. So I went to a lot of web three topics in my brain. I went to a lot of relationship topics. So I'm just excited to kind of uh, last week we didn't hear from you, sparky, so I'd love to open it up with you. Uh, daps here. Thank you, my friend. But yeah, go go ahead and we'll give dap some time.
Speaker 5:We heard from him last week and then we'll come back to him my biggest issue is that the formatting for me is off because I'm I'm doing it from a pdf, so, like page 150 isn't necessarily the the fallacy that you guys will be on with the book. Um, the the spacing is all weird. Like I wasn't even at page 50 when we were at number 18, um, and then when you guys finished that, I think it was number 34 last week, that's like page 88 or something for me, so it's not even page 100.
Speaker 4:So I'm so far off, so we should be around. We're around the 50th, the 50th.
Speaker 5:So I mean, I read through some of them and obviously you can kind of again going back and looking at just the titles, um, you can see what each fallacy basically is, on the gist of it, by the title.
Speaker 5:Some are harder to understand without reading the context, but it's very interesting, especially starting off with, like the ones that were from the Curb, your Enthusiasm, winner's Curse, fundamental Attribution, error, and all those ones, false Causality, like.
Speaker 5:There's so many things that you can see take place on a day-to-day basis in your own life, in your own different sectors of your life, whether it's web three or if it's your work or your job or whatever, and it's very interesting to go through, like the, the winner's curse, for instance, like the winner of an auction is actually the loser and that's such a great concept.
Speaker 5:But there's there's other aspects of that that are just so interesting in terms of like, look at, look at web3 again, look at, look at, uh, all the, the nfts that people buy into a lot, a lot more often than not, the winners being the people who minted, wind up being the losers, because the second that you mint everything fucking tanks even if it's like a really good project. Now there are the odd ones that go up, and some people actually do become winners in that sense, but not all of them are this, you know, quote bad, but it's. It's just such an interesting concept to kind of break things down based off of these fallacies. Um, you know, there's the halo effect one, where they talk about how people get so blinded by one aspect of something being so great that they forego all the red flags that are there. How often do we see that?
Speaker 4:on a regular basis was that the one with the orchestra or the symphony? Or maybe it was close to that chapter where he was talking about. Like a lot of famous figures will take credit for huge, important events like greenspan, it was during that greenspan chapter. That's the fundamental attribution error okay, okay, okay there's, so there's also close and I kind of uh mix them in my mind.
Speaker 5:I love this keep so the, the final attribution one is um, basically, there's a single person who's attributed with being the, the, the, whatever.
Speaker 5:Like you know, he talks about the, the symphony and the orchestra and how they always are like oh, the conductor was such a great conductor, but the composer is the one that made the music and the soloists are the greatest, but you have the entire band that are playing.
Speaker 5:You factor out so many aspects and you focus on one person that it winds up, or one thing, that you wind up giving this false attribution to the wrong entities, and it happens throughout history. It's a constant, um, constant thing that we see regularly. So it's it's very interesting to see these, these different fallacies and how they tie into each other, because you do have like look at, um, well, fuck, look at. Look at crypto again, like you know, we have so many things in in the crypto space that we attribute oh, this is great because this person did this thing, and it's like well, there's a whole team behind that person, so it's not just that person or um my mind also went to influencers or shot callers yeah I don't know there's so many things that they go into play with like bro, come on, that would that had nothing to do with your call.
Speaker 4:I don't know there's so many things that they go into play with like bro, come on, that had nothing to do with your call. I don't know.
Speaker 5:I thought about a lot of the influences of Tate Calto and funny things. They're just riding the waves too. Trudeau's or, yeah, trudeau, fuck, I'm not gonna say Trudeau Trump. Trump is bad because of this and it's like but. Or Trump is great because of this and it's like but some of those things were in place before he even took office. He just finalized them, so he's not even the one who did that good or bad thing. Same with Obama People blame Obama for all this shit.
Speaker 5:It's like there's, there's people out there who you know you can watch videos on YouTube like Obama was the devil because of this thing and it's like Obama wasn't even in office when that happened. You're just attributing it to Obama. So again, I'm not taking either side, but it happens so often in politics that nobody's looking at the actual like thing that caused that or whatever. They're not looking at the actual like thing that caused that or whatever. They're not looking at the bigger picture. Um, it's, it's. It's so interesting when people start and it's it comes back to the anecdotal aspect of of you know, people giving out false anything. It's. Anecdotes are essentially a false attribution thing because they're they're making shit up without actually any fact behind it. Um, but I mean, there's. There's so many, like even the we could talk about literally the first three files, these for like three hours just because of how much is covered to them. But like the false causality one was one that I I thought was really well, well as well because, like you know, just just the start of this for those who haven't read this, the false causality and his example is for the inhabitants of the Hebrides Islands, a chain of islands in Northern Scotland, head lice were part of life. If the lice left their host, the host became sick and feverish. Therefore, to dispel the fever, sick people had lice put in their hair intentionally. There was a method to their madness. As soon as the lice had settled in again, the patient improved. In one city a study revealed that in each blaze or fire, the more firefighters called out to fight, the greater the fire damage was. The mayor imposed an immediate hiring freeze and cut the firefighting budget. Both stories come from a German physics professor.
Speaker 5:In the book unfortunately there's no English version of the book, but in the book and I'm taking this from the novel or the book I'm trying to cut down some of the stuff, but in the book they talk about the cause and effect stuff and how it gets muddied. If the lice leave the invalid, it is because he has a fever and they simply get hot feet. So, basically, the lice people are attributing oh, the lice are leaving, so they're actually helping the person stay well. Well, no, the lice are leaving because the person's sick and they don't want to be on the person. So the lice aren't actually helping, but there's this false causality that's been attributed to this. So if the lice leave, you know the person's, they're actually getting away from a sick person. They're not actually the ones helping keep the person healthy. And then, when the fever breaks, they return.
Speaker 5:And then, with the fire, one and the bigger blaze, the more firefighters were called out. Well, it's not of it's, it's not, of course, the opposite, where the more firefighters, the more damage. It's. You know, the fire was just bigger, so they needed more people. And we do that so much in in reality as well, where we put these false, false causalities that, like, even in a space that I was in yesterday, we're talking about critical thinking and we're talking about stuff, and, um, I, I was talking about my whole correlation, and that's what he says at the end of this, which makes it tie in very where he says correlation is not causality, which isn't true entirely, but it's like okay, so we were talking about the end of the empire, stuff that I've mentioned in the past the conspiracy theory that every empire has a life cycle of 250 years and there's seven stages, and this historian who correlated the data tied all this stuff together. Now the difference between correlation and causality is that if you can correlate the data over multiple instances, you can see that it does tie into each other. So it's not necessarily a false causality, but you can also see that it's not entirely guaranteed to happen.
Speaker 5:Again, which goes into the other prediction, one where we talk about false profits the forecast illusion. People predict shit all the time and they get it wrong. So the forecast illusion fallacy is making a prediction on something you're not necessarily going to be correct and more often than not, the predictions that are made are false. And the way that you can see that this is a true fallacy without actually having to do the studies or read the studies, is the people who are making these predictions aren't making a killing, they're not super rich and you know there are certain aspects of people who are making these predictions where you know, some are the gurus who are trying to make a buck off of it by selling you books and stuff like that. Which are these self-help gurus and the financial advisor gurus and all that shit? But then there's the people who are doing it just because they're employed to do it. It's like, look at the.
Speaker 5:The worst one that I could take as an example is a weather person. It's the one job that you can be wrong more than 50% of the time and still have a job, because you're predicting the weather based off of this data. But the data is not always correct and you know we're going to have 25 centimeters of snow and we get four, and you're like, what the fuck? Like, where do they get this data from? So, even though that's actually based off of science, it's still. It's kind of a forecast illusion that we have in our world. And he didn't even talk about weather in that one, which was kind of interesting. He didn't talk about global warming and oil prices and exchange rates being the impossible to see ones, but, um, you know, weather's kind of tied into that um, so it's.
Speaker 5:It's interesting how easily these slide into each other and they tie into each other as far as the um, the fallacies are concerned, I think, because I, like I only got through like five or six of them on this this time frame. Um, you know the alternative paths. One is one that I I live by which is fucking blows my mind, um, because he talks about how people don't think about alternative paths. You do stuff and you sometimes weigh the risk, but you don't also look at what the alternative path could be. And I think that's something that I've tried to do in my life a lot more than not is look at all the different outcomes of a of a like possible instance that you're going to go through, whatever that instance is. You look at all the different outcomes that could happen that you can foresee, which is impossible to see all of them. But if you see five, you see 10, you see 20 different outcomes. You think, okay, what's my best course of action? And you try and plan for the best sort of outcome. Now, it's not obviously going to happen that way, but you try and do everything in your best to perpetuate the one that you want to see the most likely to happen, and sometimes you have to also anticipate the worst, which is something that he doesn't talk about, but it's it's.
Speaker 5:You have to understand that there are all these different options that are going to happen if you do something. And the example that he uses is russian roulette. I mean, you put one, you have a five cylinder revolver, you put one round and you have a one in five chance of getting offed. Um, and you know. His example is you get 10 million if you don't and you know you die if you do, and so he spins it and the guy pulls the trigger and he lives and he gets 10 million dollars.
Speaker 5:But he's not thinking of all the other five options that could have happened if he hadn't. Like there's obviously death and there's four other instances where he could have survived, whereas, like everything in your life, there's so many things like look back at everything that you've been through and think about if this didn't happen, where would I be? If that hadn't happened, where would I be? And that's something to help you move forward in things where you think about I'm going to do this thing, what is going to be the outcomes? Not just outcome. What are they going to be the outcomes, not just outcome. What are they going to be the outcomes? And you think, okay, it could go this way, it could go this way, it could go this way, it could go that way. Is it worth the risk based off all those outcomes, yes or no? And that's like I've done that for years at this point and it's just. It's something that I've tried to help with things, but it also can be a bit of a hindrance because he talks about um another fallacy, that.
Speaker 5:So the action bias he talks about is you, a goalie has a one out of three chance of um a shot going to either the left, the right or the middle of the net and a penalty kick in soccer. Now he could stand in the middle and not risk two-thirds of the chances and protect one-third of the chances. But either way he goes, whether it's right, left or standing in the middle, he has one-third of saving. It's a 30% chance that he will stop the ball where it goes. Now, him standing there is not going to do anything, it's not going to look impressive, it's not going to look like he did anything, but it still gives him the same odds if he dives left or if he dives right. Um, but it looks better if you dive left or you dive right. So action isn't always the best, sometimes weighing out your, your actions is good too.
Speaker 5:The problem with this one is weighing out all your options and, like I said earlier, is you can also get into a kind of fallacy on its own. I don't know if it's a fallacy that'll come up, but you can kind of get in a fallacy on its own where the inaction that you're taking on trying to make the decisions and weigh all your options can actually create a problem in itself where you're literally sitting there contemplating things and not making a decision, and that's just indecisiveness. So not only is action bias a fallacy in itself, where if you're taking a jump, it's not necessarily going to be the outcome that you're seeking, you're also in the in a sense. You know I'm going to sit there and take forever, but like all, the, all, the, all the fallacies that I've read through, just in this small take alone, I think I got to page one, oh five on mine, which is number 44. It's just, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's in.
Speaker 5:There's so many interesting things about these fallacies that it you, you really need to look through this book and and read through this on a regular basis to kind of keep up with things. But I also feel like, and I, I think we, we said it in the first space. I listened to part of the the space yesterday or last week where even you said you could go through like one thing could take three hours, and even today you said we could go back to number one and keep going over things. It almost feels like it should be a space in itself, this book, and a constant discussion of going over all the um, the different fallacies on their own, like just talking about fallacy number one and and diving into it and not having to take too much time outside of it and everything Like it's. It's quite an interesting thing if you look at how many there are and how brief of of a time that we're giving to them and discussing them. Even like I went through six fallacies just now in rapid succession. We didn't really dive into them and we didn't really discuss them. So they're they're super interesting stuff and I think that it's all helpful in helping people think critically. It's just, you know you have, you have to um, take time to kind of digest it.
Speaker 5:Um, framing is another one that I didn't really talk about, but um, it's again, it's it's not what you say but how you say it and I mentioned it in the beginning. Consider these two statements hey, the trash can is full, or, instead of that, it would be great if you could empty the trash, honey. Hey, the trash can is full. Doesn't tell the person that you want them to empty it. It's not, and you're expecting the person to read your mind, whereas it would be really great if you could empty it is telling them the exact fucking thing that you want them to do. So it's not what you say, but it's how you say it, and I talked about this in the intro because it's not entirely true either.
Speaker 5:In today's society, being so heavily text based. It's not so much how you say it, but how it's interpreted and the example that I wanted to give on this and it's going to be controversial how I say this, but I want people to again critically think and hear what I'm saying, because it's in no way meant the way that people might take it. But let's say I have a friend. Let's say, let's say DAP has a sick sense of humor. He's a very twisted individual, he makes very grotesque comments on stuff and he's just very weird. And he sends me a joke and I look at it and I'm like what the fuck. So I decide to tweet at Dap. On Twitter At Dap, you're a dark motherfucker. On Twitter, at Dab, you're a dark motherfucker.
Speaker 5:Now, how many people are going to mistake that? As me, being racist, like the words that you use, is not so much the problem, but how people interpret it. And I've seen that happen on so many occasions on Twitter, on YouTube, in the comment section, where someone reads something and immediately see a word and, instead of understanding the context behind it, are like oh, you're racist or you're a bigot, or you're phobic of whatever phobic they want you to be. It's absolutely ridiculous, because it's no longer about what you're saying, it's how someone's interpreting what you're saying. So there's more to this fallacy than just the framing of it. I mean, it's different when it's in person, because body language inflection, there's so many ways that you can say something, even just like hi. You can say hi a million different ways and it can be heard a million different ways. And that's just verbally. It's not necessarily by text, whereas text it can be misinterpreted a billion different ways, like it's. It's so ridiculous the way this fallacy goes and it's not, again, not so much about, um, how things are said in that sense. So I kind of read this one and went a little further in depth with it. It's a very interesting fallacy. It's something that is very difficult to discuss because of how it is like like you can say something and intend for it to be interpreted one way, but somebody's going to interpret it the way that they want and you have no control over that. And we're getting to a point.
Speaker 5:We discussed this in the space that I was in last night. We were in that space for like six hours, but we discussed a lot of stuff and one of the things we discussed was talking about just the fact of like words being canceled. I mean, we talked about etymology, where they were talking about just just the evolution of words, right, and the words themselves like changing from over time. Uh, you can look at the definitions and look at how they've changed. I mean, the one that the person uses, black used to mean white and over time it's changed to be what it, what it is today and you know it it's.
Speaker 5:It's so crazy how we got to a point where you know you, you can't say retarded anymore without it being offensive, but retarded was a word that we created to replace the word moron, because moron became offensive and like there's this whole evolution of how we use these words to uh, basically describe someone who had mental deficiencies from birth and they were clinical terms that they had created, that then got adopted by us as a society to then basically make fun of our friends who have no control over it. And in no way were we ever intending that word to be used to make fun of the people who were afflicted with it from birth, whatever it is, whatever condition they had. We were using it to make fun of people who had control over that and it was never, ever made to be intended to be used to insult someone of that demographic. But it's now to a point where you can't say that word because it's offensive and you're going to get canceled if you do. Even if you use it in a way that's not discussing any person in general, you use it to describe something else. And again, looking at the word retarded, it's like we use it for things in the essence of like fire, retardation and other things in that that, like you know, uh, electricity.
Speaker 5:I unplugged my headset. Hopefully people are understanding. What I'm trying to get across with this is that it's it's not so much about what you say anymore, even though this book has a great point behind it, it's or it's not so much how you say it, but how someone interprets it, and and you could literally say a syllable wrong or a punctuation wrong or whatever it it's. It's crazy to me how you were and again going back to what I said in the beginning of my initial spiel with the spaces it's, it's more about emotion behind stuff than it is about logic and um, using critical thinking. People aren't using their brains, they're being reactive.
Speaker 5:And again, we could get into so many spicy topics, but one of the ones that I mentioned yesterday in the space when we were discussing similar stuff, was there's a little comedy thing done by burt kreischer about him going to a coffee shop and the the teenager or whoever, the kid, young person behind the counter he's, he's black, he's and, uh, he's, you know, you're burt kreischer. And they're having this whole tete-a-tete about who he is and and he's like yeah, I like your friends more, they're funnier. And he's like well, screw you, now I've got to basically like kill this joke or whatever. So he's like okay, well, what are you having? He's like I'll have coffee and the kid's like room for cream. And he said he makes a racial joke about the cream, like basically, he wants his coffee black, so he wants coffee not to know his father, or something along those lines the joke. And, um, the kid laughs, the kid finds it hilarious.
Speaker 5:So then he goes back another time and the kid's there and he says another racial joke and the kid laughs and burke kreischer's obviously like a big white guy. Um, and you know, he goes back several times. And then one time he goes back and the kid's there and the kid's getting all the other people who work there hyped up because they're all anticipating this joke and they're all getting ready for the, the hilarity that's going to ensue because they're all laughing at it, they're all having a good time. And so he gets up to the counter and the kids like about to burst out laughing and he says room for cream. And you know the bert says his line and the kids, like you know, absolutely laughing.
Speaker 5:And these two white liberal women who are like next to him are like excuse, excuse me, what did you say? And they get offended by it. And you know all the other people that are working there are having a good time and laughing. But these people are getting offended and it's again, it's because the words that he used made them feel like it was offensive, but not even to them, to the person who's behind the counter who's laughing hysterically at it.
Speaker 5:So, again, it's not necessarily what you say, it's not necessarily how you say it, but it's also how it's interpreted and it it can throw off so many things in our world right now with that and and people can get so bent out of shape for nothing, especially when it has nothing to do with them. Uh, it's, it's absolutely crazy. So, um, I don't know, I think there's so many fallacies that we could dive this depth into, but at this point I've I've talked for like 30 minutes, so, um, I'll, uh, I'll shut up and let somebody else chime in, because clearly I didn't touch on half of the subjects that we needed to touch on.
Speaker 4:I honestly think it would be a fun challenge to like give anybody the mic. I mean, just let's make the challenge easy and clear cut. Read this book, the Art of Thinking. Clearly, you got 30 minutes to try to present something on this. It's really hard. Minutes to try to present something on this, it's really hard. Every single one of these chapters are short and to the point and can produce all these thoughts and just like Sparky was talking about, from all these different categories of life, this book really, I think is a good base that human beings can build their integrity and decision-making process off of. And even if you disagree, it's like at least that knowledge of the idea of that fallacy is in their mind and they understand it. And maybe they disagree with it, maybe they choose to utilize it on a daily basis. And before I go to that, I do have kind of a take that I wasn't planning on.
Speaker 4:But I watched this documentary, the Antisocial Network. It's on Netflix. I don't know if you guys have seen it. It is wild and it's like so glaringly in my face that I've grown up with everything in this documentary and I've seen it birthed in front of my face on the internet. It's everything from 2chan to 4chan to 8chan, to Anonymous, to the July 6th, to Donald Trump it's this whole crazy spider web. And you guys have to understand where I come from. I was a Ron Paul conspiracy theorist. I was like a conspiracy theorist before. It was cool, and then I kind of like fell out of my religion and then, like my whole world blew up. And so I've got an interesting take on things and they might not be right, but one thing I will tell you is like I don't know. I'm right, I've got takes, but most of the time I'll like end it with like, but I'm not really sure that's like. So opposite from what I used to be, which was I know everything, I know A to Z, I know where we came from, why we're here and where we're going, and that type of like life and mentality is really really stressful and hard to live up to. I tell you what? Because deep down inside, I think most humans will agree we don't know shit. But another topic for another day.
Speaker 4:What I'd like to take my take on is that documentary and how I think this book should be understood by all, because I think trolls know this really well and if we don't have some idea about what's going on with logical thinking and decision making. We will just get trolled all day, every day, the rest of our life. It's so important that we protect ourselves from some really scary types of tricks out there and in Web 3, I mean that's an easy one All these scams and all these ponzies and you know a little challenge with yourself. Take a second to critical think and just go through these steps and like check it off, and I don't know like you can really protect yourself from some dangers out there and in this 2024 world where the Internet can leak into real life and affect voter results and stuff. It's a really, really important thing I think that we all need to be savvy with Doesn't matter who's right or wrong, but at least if we can understand these principles, we can sit down and have a better conversation about things. I think DAP.
Speaker 4:I really want to know before I go on any kind of ramble about that stinking documentary. I won't, I won't even do it. You guys have to check it out. It might not even it's a documentary. Take it for what it is. Take your principles from this book. Watch that documentary.
Speaker 4:Ask yourself all the right questions. Who's behind this. Who's got something? There's all sorts of biases and agendas everywhere. There's all sorts of biases and agendas everywhere. But if you want to know a little bit about being a degen in Web3, we kind of do have ancestors and it is creepily, eerily similar to the whole 4chan world that led to Anonymous like what's the word Mesh mix spillover from that whole world into the degen world of crypto. So I think it's a really relevant documentary you guys should take a look at. That's my pitch. I won't touch on that anymore.
Speaker 4:It was crazy. It blew my mind. Ok, I'll just tell you, qanon, I was wondering is that really still a question? Are people still wondering if this guy, the guy, came out? I didn't even know that. It's like the guy came out and his own community crucified him. Funny little simple stories behind these crazy internet phenomenons that happen and people. Just I think in that realm can even get so good and understand these theories of critical thinking so well that they'll turn it on people, they'll troll people, they'll scam people, they'll wreck you man.
Speaker 4:I just think it's a really good little book to have in your tool belt ready to make better decisions. But that's it. Check out that documentary, read this book. I think they're really good baselines of like oh, how should I do? Do I need a change up in my decision making process? I think we all do on a daily basis. Sparky, that was such a good point and I'll kind of use that to go over to DAP. Sparky, that was a really good point. You made that. On a daily basis, you can read this book once. I think you should probably pick it up again and read through it twice and the next year refresh it and a couple of years down the road refresh again. You're absolutely right.
Speaker 4:This is one of those books, kind of like my Bruce Lee book. I tap into that one every now and then. They're just good fundamental life stuff that it's like oh man, I forgot about that chapter. This is one of those. There's 99 of them. I guarantee after I read through them I'm going to have to read through them again and create flashcards to really know them. So just reading through it it's going to become kind of one of my I don't know quote-unquote canons in my daily book appreciation. Like, yeah, the art of critical thinking kind of set me right on getting to this book and this book. I think this will be a good one for more good content and choosing content for me. So yeah, there's another extra ramble on top of Sparky. You at least have concise, good thoughts. I truly ramble Dap. I'd love to hear what your thoughts are, man.
Speaker 6:Yeah. So what I said last time, it's a decent benchmark to have.
Speaker 4:Bro, that's the word. I've been saying a bunch of stupid words. Baseline, benchmark that was the word I was actually looking for. That's a good one.
Speaker 6:Yeah, I like using it as a benchmark to compare what's happened in real life recently or in the past, to prepare myself a little better for the future on what to do in certain circumstance at least you know, to give me an advantage. So, yeah, I'm still liking it. But uh, yeah, in other news too, I met edward yeah, bro, you've got to give us the the story.
Speaker 4:Let's take a break oh god the content real quick and tell us how that went. We've got to know. It is book club content and it's relevant. We've got to know about it.
Speaker 6:Yeah, so I had an on-site that was in Nashville. It just so happened to be the same day that he was visiting Nashville. He drove all the way down here, and so I met him. I drove up to Nashville and had lunch with him and we had Jamaican food and, yeah, that was pretty much it. I sent him home with some local stuff of mine. So, like, there's a drink here called Sundrop it's a type of soda that's made in Tullahoma, and I gave it to him. And then another thing in Tennessee he's known about is moon pies from Chattanooga, so I gave him some of those too. So, yeah, we have them left over for the eclipse. You know Sundrop, moon pies, so we have those for our kids and stuff. Yeah, that's cute, yeah.
Speaker 5:Did he sound as new fee in person, as he does on spaces?
Speaker 6:Uh, yeah, you could tell you. Yeah, yeah, he said the weirdest thing so far was, uh, how we sign here for like transactions a lot for uh like credit card. I was like, yeah, I guess well, but I used to be thinking canada, but everything's tapped now, so you don't have to sign anything.
Speaker 6:Yeah, he said that too. And then, yeah, it was taller than I expected. It was taller than me. So, yeah, but yeah, I could tell that. You know he had a hoodie on. I didn't have a hoodie on which I thought he would. I don't know, maybe I just didn't dress appropriately, but yeah, yeah, it was nice. I totally forgot to bring my Keepers of the Light house, but oh well, it was on. That Seems like things are going good for Edward right now. I'm glad he's happy.
Speaker 4:That's awesome. That's a good report. And yeah, how tall are you then?
Speaker 6:I'm 5'10" and he had to have been at least like 6'2 or 3".
Speaker 4:Oh wow, he's got some height. Nice, that's what's up. I've pictured you, dap, as like a 6'1 guy for some reason.
Speaker 6:5'10 tall though that's still tall.
Speaker 4:It's just barely above average, but yeah so do you know anything about that documentary that I was telling you about, or do you have you?
Speaker 6:seen anything? No, but I did. It reminds me of a few things I have watched on on netflix. There was, uh, oh man, I forget what the name of it is, but it's about cambridge analytica. There's some interview of like there's a woman that was mainly in charge over that and it shows how I think she ends up going to like prison and stuff over the whole thing.
Speaker 6:It was wild, um and it. I guess it kind of goes along with what you guys were talking about. Um, it was talking about how. It was talking about how so I don't remember the name and influence some small country that was like around India Africa area and there was. There's like mainly people I mean there's Indian people and African people that are there and then how, like African population was the one that had always won the vote for like whatever. I guess it's like a presidency type thing or whatever, but whatever it is for that place and how, the Indian people had never won or people, you know, indian descent or whatever it is.
Speaker 6:I I'm not big on the, on the. I don't know the specifics of, I don't remember what country it was, but it showed how they ended up putting in like influence to make the, the African people, to not want to vote and like voting wasn't cool. And they put in these campaigns and all kinds of stuff and had like influencers and everything and people were like tagging stuff on the walls and things different areas. There was like some sort of symbol that they made and it was something where like voting wasn't cool and they ended up leading that entire thing this, this uh entity, the cambridge analytica thing and they ended up swaying the vote through just their targeted influential power, through like just strategizing on how to do it, and they ended up swaying the vote to where the other type of uh culture ended up winning.
Speaker 4:So I don't know if maybe breezy has heard anything about something like that, but I don't know where. It's a great hack, right. Yeah, it's the great, yeah, that's it, yeah, yeah, another great example yeah, it can spill over into real life, and it it's really. I mean, I remember when it was like, oh, facebook is affecting the elections, and it's like, yeah, right, what.
Speaker 6:Yeah, and then they ended up talking about how you know it's like a surface level one, you know, there's things going on all over the world.
Speaker 4:It's crazy. You'll love this other one, bro. It'll blow your mind, so relevant to our culture you'll. You'll start to see all these stories. Just, I mean, it's so recent, it's all based and leading up to, like recent events. So it's really interesting how, yeah, logical thinking, they, they take your, they take your data, they start to take your thoughts, they start to take your decision making.
Speaker 4:It's slick, it's sly, I don't know man, just in web 3 alone, uh, I'm sure, maybe, maybe not, but they're you know the trade ai, uh, bnft with stacks, I don't know. There's this whole recent ponzi 100 million dollars, bro, and it's like a drop in the bucket of scams, just a drop in the bucket of scams. Zach xbt was even just like ah, really you want to, you want me to. It was hilarious, bro. He's like maybe he will look into it, but he was like, oh, you want me to investigate, like an obvious ponzi, get out of here. It felt so harsh to like anyone that got taken because it was really complex. I saw it. I got offered trade ai, shit, I was just like what, yeah, let me watch this for a second. I I mean it was like 69 interest and it was like that feels like a troll, like right in my fucking face. So I don't know, I I lucked out. Know, yeah, you can easily give myself like a pat on the back, like good job, like logical thing, like no, I just, I just kind of sat back on that one. This is what my mom told me about these things type thing. You know, like too good to be true, let's, let's watch for a second. If it's still good, it'll be there in a minute. But like like, uh, uh, they're slick and they're sly and they really know these principles and they know how to play people and I don't know.
Speaker 4:I highly recommend anyone to watch documentaries like these and read books like these, just to keep a good swivel on your head, be aware of your surroundings and, uh, ask a few questions before you dive into things, type stuff. And I don't know, we work in such a fast-paced mentality, especially in Web 3, where a green candle can turn red back to green in seconds, to where it's like you really feel pressured and that's their advantage. They will play that all day on you and FOMO you into the craziest of things, and not just Web3. I mean, there's scams and there's dating scams and there's phishing man. I've watched some documentaries on people getting themselves into some just terrible situations through dating apps and it's like, yeah, people just need to be equipped with a few steps like of what to ask yourself before you move forward with something. So I don't know, does your, does your mind start to think like that when watching documentaries like that and now reading this book at all?
Speaker 6:yeah, I mean.
Speaker 4:I mean, there's scams.
Speaker 6:I mean I'm, you know, like it's like ransomware. I mean I've had to deal with it firsthand. I mean that's the worst thing that you can have happen in my industry. The only thing you have in place is you have to have something in place already. You know a backup. So if you don't have a backup, then you're screwed because you either pay the ransom, you either pay the ransom, and if you do it, uh, you're supporting it to continue because they're going to go hell. I got paid, let's do it again. And then, uh, there's the chance that it may not unlock and it may have been their fault, uh, that they may have programmed the stuff wrong to not accept it Right. And then you've got the person. That's just like, well, why does it really matter? Because I mean, I'm not going to get caught, so why do I care? If it works, just give me your money, I'll run.
Speaker 6:So you got three outcomes that's the fallacy that we talked about earlier honestly, you're better off just spending less money on a backup and having a backup in place in that scenario, and then you know, just hope that it works, because I mean any time it ever happens, right. I mean I've had people that have paid it just due to you know what they have in place, but luckily they had insurance in place and the insurance ended up covering that the ransom, which I thought was crazy. I can't believe that they would cover something like that. But I guess they get to put it underneath as software expense or something. I don't know. It wouldn't happen if it was a gunpoint.
Speaker 5:They wouldn't be like hey, insurance well, we experienced a um, an interesting web3, um, type of ransomware, or whatever you want to call it um yesterday. So the cougar community that we're in, um, this user tried to blast them on twitter about how he they owed the community.
Speaker 4:The founders owed him money and oh hey, quick, quick question that before I sorry, interrupt. I already interrupted. You have your new not new, but your profile picture. Didn't you used to have a cougar?
Speaker 5:This is my custom cougar that I made.
Speaker 4:This is still cougar the dinosaur.
Speaker 5:There's a trait in cougar of a green gator and a dark gator. This is a dark gator when it's a headwear sort of.
Speaker 4:Thing.
Speaker 5:It's a helmet or a hat, that is this face. So I took different pieces from the collection and vectorized them and then turned them into this character. And then the founders took this character and put it as a boss in the game. So they, they made because they're they're making a game for their community that's going to be on steam and whatever they actually turned my custom character into an enemy, like fight in the in the game, which is kind of cool. But so kuga they, the, the founders, um, they had this guy basically say that they, they owed him money. Um, he did some work for them and they agreed on an amount of 20%. But then people were like, no, we only agreed on 10%. But me being me, I dig into things and I find things out. So I did my due diligence and dug through all this stuff and found out that this guy is basically extorting communities, or he's not so much extorting but he's like ransom, wearing them to some degree, where he tells them I can get you x amount of dollars, you just have to, um, guarantee that you're going to give me a percentage of that and I'll tell you how to get it. And so he goes through this process of it's basically optimism. I don't know if you guys know what optimism is, but a lot of people were given free optimism. I had it dropped into my account and I got 260 or 270 optimism, which at its peak was worth about 1600. It's currently worth probably half that 800, whatever um, because everything fucking tanks.
Speaker 5:Yesterday, anyways, uh, he went through several communities, several um projects, one of them being eight elements or whatever the fuck it's called, one of them being coug, a couple of smaller ones that nobody's heard of. And he went to them and did this and basically said you know, I'll help you get this money or I'll tell you how to get this money if you give me a cut of it, me a cut of it. And because he was pissed off at whatever reason that he didn't get his extra 10, he was supposed to get 20 or he wanted 20, and then they said 10 and they agreed to 10. He even agreed 10. We found out that he was conning people because it's money that sure. He had the, the knowledge that they would. They qualified for this because they had to go claim this optimism.
Speaker 5:Initially I thought it was already in their wallet, because it was in my wallet. When I got it. It was just there, but they actually had to physically go claim it. But he basically was like if you don't guarantee me a cut of it, I'm not going to tell you how to get it. And with Kuga it was like $20,000. So he made 10, know ten percent of that, which is two grand.
Speaker 5:But he's trying to tell them I'm not going to tell you how to get this money if you don't give me a cut of it, which is absolutely ridiculous as far as I'm concerned. And some people are like you know, people make more money doing less in in this space and it's unfortunate, but as far as I'm concerned that's like a scam. If I saw that Lane was guaranteed a certain amount of money in his account because of some airdrop or something that he could claim, I'm not going to be like yo, I can get you X amount, you just have to give me a cut. But I guess that's my honor in play with that, I don't know, but I just think it's absolutely ridiculous. This guy made at its peak of $4.50. He made close to $2,500 optimism, which works out to be $11,000 if he sold at its peak for doing nothing.
Speaker 5:And it's just a scam in the space like he's. It's not like he had insider knowledge. It's knowledge that is available. It's just clearly they weren't told about it or they didn't hear about it, because how often are you told about stuff that you, like, you didn't do anything to a crew? It was literally just you minted something on ETH so that you now qualify for this, but you're not a part of the circle, so you don't know. And he didn't have knowledge that you know somebody else wouldn't have had. It's it's just that he acted on it first and I just found it absolutely sketchy.
Speaker 5:But it's kind of a scam in a sense because, again, the money was already there. The money was theirs to take. It's not like he did anything special in that sense, although I guess some people might argue he did. Anyways, that was just my example of something. There. He wasn't anything special, but he ended up folding because we went through a whole process of digging through his, his um account and seeing how many people he had done this to and he was trying to basically bully and, uh, extort the cougar community to give him more money. And you know, we didn't essentially fold. I, I fucking went through my due diligence and shut him down and he deleted his whole posts. Ran with his tail between his legs, but it was quite funny.
Speaker 4:It was quite an ordeal I think the space needs as much vigilante work as possible. Bro, that's so cool. I think it's really. Just as we're talking about this, a a space popped up here. Update on the TAI Stacks UA3 CRT situation. There's 2,000 people in this damn room and I'm recognizing some faces this Jim guy. I listened to a space the other night. He was sitting there swearing at people saying, yo, listen, I'll get the meeting on Tuesday with Binance. Apparently, they just keep putting these push-off announcements. So now I'm trying to wonder, like, okay, is this talky guy? Is he in on it? He keeps getting this Jim guy some space time. Oh man, what a mess. Scams are crazy and ruthless. I got Ryan up here. I'm sure we can get some angry, angry, uh scam talk from ryan. What do you think about all this, ryan? How? How do you think we should uh move in this space and how careful do we need to be? And is it important to learn some logical thinking? And how can we mix this back into the book also?
Speaker 7:oh yeah, happy sunday. Sorry I was late. This is uh out touching grass in my garden. I realize what time it was as you should.
Speaker 4:Yes, oh, beautiful out here right now that's what I'm looking at right now. I'm like itching to get outside and do some yard work. That sounds crazy to people, but that's no, no I love it.
Speaker 7:Yeah, yeah, I'm feeling the pain now. Agree and disagree on both of his takes Exactly what he was saying. How scandalous. But at the same time, there are ways for people to kind of do that in a healthier, more beneficial way for everybody, instead of feeling scammy. Right, I did come across a guy recently well, not recently.
Speaker 7:A few months ago in January. He came into our Discord and was like hey, has anybody claimed this? And you know, long story short, the conversation was like, hey, well, you have this to claim, you know and he wasn't wanting to give us the information, right, and I was. I just did my good diligence, looked it up, realized what it was the same thing you're talking about and, um, I was like, oh well, is this the link you're referring to? And he was like oh yeah, that yep. You know he was like, oh yeah, that yep. You know he was like yep, How'd you find it? You know, I already know, and so, you know, I was able to claim a little bit.
Speaker 7:And a couple other people in the community claimed it, and our buddy Tony, he was just like so ecstatic, you know, he just asked the guy. He's like hey, would you, should I send you something for bringing this to my attention. You know, I probably wouldn't have even heard about it I might have, but you know, and he was just kind of grateful for it. So there are some ways to do it in a way of healthiness and for everybody, instead of being scammy.
Speaker 4:And then, yeah, this that's what I hope for is that those people are out there and they exist. Yeah, yeah. Thank you, and tip.
Speaker 7:Because it is a skill to be able to know how to go look that stuff up and find out if a wallet has claimed Right. And it does take a little bit of time to do that. And some people value their value, their time Right, so, and to them their time is money. So in hindsight, yeah, do we, do we knock on mechanics for making a thousand dollars an hour? You know when your car is running and you just got to pay that bill just because you don't know how to do it. Yeah, we do. We pay that bill. But does it feel like we've been scammed? Yeah, a little bit. So I kind of feel like that mentality a little bit in this hindsight of the conversation. So like, yes, but no, you know, I agree with it. So I hope that makes sense. Yes, but no, you know, I agree with it. So, um, hope that makes sense. And then to this topic about whatever's going on with this. Uh, tia crap, I don't. I don't even know what's happening now. There's so much stuff.
Speaker 6:I was just diving into this thing with that zach xbt and this other.
Speaker 7:It's called intro one, intro something, ai, whatever, I don't even know what they did to pre-sell, stole people's art and then people that have invested or already got investments early, blah, blah, blah. Long story short. Big old scam I was going to get, you know, put like 40, 40 bucks into it. I'm glad I did it. I'm just like God. It's just like no matter what kind of protocol, technology, it's just like so many scams, so many fricking ways to get screwed over in this space and it's just I'm tired of it.
Speaker 7:I've been calling people out on the timeline lately. I'm getting rats. I keep getting the same thing from Twitter. It's like, oh, you have to verify if you're a human. I'm like dude, like who am I pissing off like what's going on now? But um, yeah, and then um, towards that, towards the book, um, yeah, fallacies, okay, I was, um, I'm so lost into a couple of them.
Speaker 7:I was like really, uh, digging the conversation that sparky was kind of talking about with the you know wordage and the verbiage, the understanding people perceiving, because that's one thing that I do as a volunteer for a diversity, integrity and quality group and that's kind of what we do is try to help the state use key words instead of words when they're, you know, speaking to foreigners, and Hispanics or blacks or whites or Indian words that are basically are triggering words, right? So we kind of like build those like portfolios of words for the state to kind of use, kind of use um, and then like it's to be able to get those past. It's just like, you know, because what we have is people within those like areas, that are those that can identify and use those.
Speaker 7:hey, like how you're using that analogy with the with um, you know just how you use that analogy through your story. You know, some people just boom, it's just like a trigger word, right, and how can we use other things to be not so triggering to individuals, even though, if we don't know what triggers them? So, and that was kind of like identifying those key points those are. It goes into so many fallacies right there. It's so, oh, man.
Speaker 7:And then I was like this is a perfect book actually that I would like to tell and offer to my you know group because it would help, though. You know, I'm working with some people from Romania, people from Afghanistan. They're refugees and stuff, right, and so, like, when I'm speaking to them, some of our interpretations cause they're just fresh, they're like you know, not not a hundred percent understanding, like the you know the ways, and it's like trying to get those things to kind of work together and mesh together. It might help them and help, you know, because it's helping me with those fallacies being like oh, maybe that's where they could be. Like, oh, that that's what these people mean, that over here and over there, it means like this and give that interpretation of something greater. So yeah, I was thinking that would be kind of a cool and see what the took away on it when I our next meeting comes up and let them know about it and let them look it up and see what they think.
Speaker 7:But yeah, that was kind of where I was at and it was a beautiful Sunday, Beautiful Sunday.
Speaker 5:See, I'm of the opinion currently that I think jobs like you're in are absolutely ridiculous, in the sense that we're having to find words to censor ourselves, to protect snowflakes. I think it's absolutely ridiculous that we're going to trigger someone and we need to be prepared for it. No, your words are words. They're not meant to be derogatory or whatever. And if someone's getting offended over it, I think that's absolutely asinine because if they're the type that's getting offended over it, they're not the type of person you want to deal with in the first place, like, let's be honest, because they're going to get offended over every little thing and they're just going to be a nightmare to have on your staff, whether whatever you're doing. So I think it's just absolutely ridiculous to have this thought process of we need to start watching what we say. It's one of the reasons why again and I mentioned it in the space yesterday, I've mentioned it in space with us in the past. So one of the reasons why I don't go around my brother or talk to my brother, because I'm always on eggshells, worried about what I have to say, what I'm like I could say hi to him the wrong way and I'm going to get in trouble for it from him. It's going to create a problem and that's narcissistic. That's the like we. We talk about personality, narcissistic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder. It's a. It's a psychological condition. Borderline personality disorder it's a psychological condition.
Speaker 5:They're finding a reason to be pissed off at you, even if there's no reason to be pissed off, and I think that's a stupid kind of fallacy in itself that we're catering to this psychosis by censoring ourselves. I just fuck them. I have nothing to do with those people because of it. I'm, I'm. You know, if somebody is going to get offended by something I say, then that's that's their problem, not mine, because I'm not trying to be offensive with the stuff that I say, and it goes back to what I was saying.
Speaker 5:With critical thinking, you have to use your logical brain and be able to critical think around the stuff that's being said, the messages that are being perpetuated, and not get offended using your emotions. When you start using your emotions in a conversation like this sorry, I'm cooking steaks while I'm doing this If you're using your emotions to get offended by a word in a sentence, you're the problem, in my opinion, and that's going to offend someone right there me that, because that's. That's just a fact of it, like the, the, the fallacy or whatever you want to call it but there's no difference to you getting offended by that too.
Speaker 7:I'm not getting offended, I think it's just stupid that it bugs you, but it bugs you.
Speaker 5:It bugs me because it does offend you it bugs me because it's such a prevalent thing in society and it's because you realize there's two sides of the streets.
Speaker 7:right, there's a way you said it they might not have had and grown up with consciousness or a way to be able to think rational.
Speaker 5:That's the problem. Is because that right there is, we cannot punish those people for not having that. We have to help them grow to be helping them is not catering to them by by censoring what we say. Helping them is by not censoring what we say.
Speaker 7:Well, if I just said fuck you, then you get offensive right? No, some people don't get offended, but some people do. So it's different than saying a word like like well, I know, but but some people do so. It's different than saying a word like like well, I know, but like. What I'm trying to get at is is it's easier to make things work if you work together and try to work against each other and if you're but you're working against each other.
Speaker 5:If you're censoring your words to not trigger people, that's working. Do you go?
Speaker 7:to church. Do you go to church and swear no, because you know it's wrong. Son, you hear me swear in front of my, but do you go?
Speaker 5:to church and swear. I don't go to courthouse and swear, no, because you know it's wrong. But do you go to church and swear? Do you go to courthouse and swear? Do you go to courthouse?
Speaker 7:and swear in front of a judge. Do you swear in front of a teacher? Okay, well, there you go. I'm just saying it might be acceptable to you, but some people it's not. So you're the one that has a problem too.
Speaker 5:That's what I'm trying to bring up, and this is the whole reason I'm part of this group is to be able to bring that up.
Speaker 7:I'm on your side. I get what you say because I agree with you, but there is two sides to it and I want to be that person that helps instead of being the person that beats them down.
Speaker 5:If you're censoring because of someone's triggering, that's not helping them. Hel, helping them would be getting them to to see a psychiatrist or to learn, not censor and cater to their their psychosis, that's that's not.
Speaker 7:Everybody has medical, you know.
Speaker 5:Then we got the medical deal if, if you're getting triggered by a word like, let's say, the word retarded, as we mentioned earlier, if you're getting triggered by the word retarded, you have a mental problem because there's nothing offensive about that word. It was a clinical word that we used back in the day, same with like there's so many other words that we could talk about that are not offensive exactly that's what I'm totally agreeing with you on, but some people might not have been brought up or have those fallacy of that word in their mind right.
Speaker 5:So trying to change our words to cater to them my point being trying to change our words to cater to them isn't helping them either. You're, you're, you're babying these people. It's it's not creating, it's not critical thinking. In that sense, you're not creating an environment that's helpful. You're just catering to their, their psychosis, their problems, whatever that problem is.
Speaker 4:I think you both are actually speaking truth here and you're both right. I'll give you an example of how this is. So I love my mom dearly. There's probably a very little chance she'll listen to it, but I will probably even phrase this in a way that if she does hear it, it's nice to her. I disagree with my mom from A to Z. I love her so much she's my mom.
Speaker 4:I was on a road trip with her hours in the car. So many things I disagree with so many things. I want to say so many things that you know I've tried it before I've. I've done it so many different ways. I finally got to a point in my life where I was like you know what I will deal with the quote unquote psychosis. I love her and I don't care. It sucks, it sucks.
Speaker 4:I wish I could talk about things that I actually think. I wish I could share my thoughts, but it will just take me down a path that will lead to argument. We won't agree on anything. It will be an awkward drop off. I just want to have a peaceful time.
Speaker 4:I will return for hours on end now to my mom and I don't have this desire anymore to try to correct her thoughts or point out things that she said that I thought were offensive, or, you know, like, whatever it may be, I am, I'm part of the problem. I recognize that. I recognize that I am not helping humanity move forward and, in my opinion, again, someone could look at how I view things and be like, bro, you're, that's not even part of the problem. The problem is your thoughts and your beliefs to begin with. But it's like I have two daughters that are a part of a really, really strict line of thinking and I've had to deal with the idea of, like, how do I cater this relationship to this truth of differing thoughts based on absolute nonsense? And it's so hard for me, uh, but I I've had to kind of pick the lesser of battles and like, do I let the the illogical thinking go on, or do I make a fuss about it, cause a scene and drive my, my daughters away from me for the rest of my life? Because I have to be right, you, you know so, I agree, but it's one of those things where it's like, sparky, I wish so bad in so many scenarios.
Speaker 4:I could just lay it out, but I have to, like, pick and choose with people's mindsets and knowing that they refuse to look at the chapters that I want them to read in this book, the title alone will be so offensive and against the doctrine of their beliefs that they won't give it a chance.
Speaker 4:And I'm okay with that because, like at the end of the day, I'm going to go to my mom's funeral someday soon and she'll be gone, and I wish that I could just sit and listen to my dad talk about Abraham Lincoln and Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, and just listen with a smile on my face, knowing that I disagree with a lot of what's coming out of their mouth about a lot of their heroes, and it's like so it's. It's such a battle I think in, uh, living in. We're a culture of needing humans to survive and that's in our blood, and so it is a really hard thing to to bring cultures and races and and differing thoughts and political spectrums and and try to work it all out. But my I guess my take is uh, I think we can get there somehow. I don't have the answer, though. I'm dealing with it with my family.
Speaker 5:I think the biggest difference here in the scenarios is you're dealing with people that you, you live with on a day to day basis, right, and the what? What I'm talking about is this, this fallacy that we have to cater to people we don't talk to regularly. People you're going to interact with, maybe like once in a blue moon, that you have to cater everything that you say and do to their beliefs and their lifestyle and their way of living. No, you don't, because that's not your life. Like, if you want to live your life a certain way, like when they're not around you, they can live their life all they want, right, but you shouldn't have to cater to them every time. Are they catering to you? Are they changing the way they live, their beliefs, their wording, their whatever, when they're around you? No, so then why should you have to do the same for them? That's my point. Why are we going through this process to change our verbiage around people? We're going to be around once, twice maybe, maybe 10 times in our life. Not, spend a lot of time around these people? Hell, if you're working with them, you're going to see them a fair amount, sure, but still, that's their life. They can live their life how they want. You're not going to see eye to eye, you're not going to have ideologies that mix. It's part of society. We shouldn't be catering ourselves to them Now.
Speaker 5:If it's your family, it's different, because if you want to spend time with them, that's a different scenario. They're people you're going to see on a regular basis if you choose that. But you grew up with your mom. You know how she is, you know the things that you should do and shouldn't do around her, because it's a completely different scenario. But for you to have to think I'm going to this place tomorrow, I don't know who's going to be there, I should watch my language. I should watch my language, like in some scenarios, sure, but it's largely. You don't have to change who you are, because then you're being a completely different person. So they're going to see you in one scenario and if they see you in a different scenario and see you as like you're behaving differently, they're going to think you're a different person again. So be yourself. Don't censor how you are. Maybe just tone it down some.
Speaker 5:I mean, I've made friends with parents from my son's school. We swear in front of each other, we have conversations. Do we do it on the school ground when we pick our kids up? No, do we do it at the park when our kids are playing? Yeah, but our kids are not within earshot. Do I swear in front of my son? Yeah, but I've also taught him that these are adult words and you don't use them.
Speaker 5:So it's about teaching, sure, but it's also about not having to cater yourself to people you don't know, you've never met, and you don't what their, their thought processes are and all that stuff. Who cares if they get upset with you and you're there, like once they're upset with you. If they, if they continue to be upset with you because of something you said, that's their problem, they have to live with it. It's not your problem, it's not your life. And if it upsets them, that's their again, their psychosis.
Speaker 5:Now, as I said, like you can live your life trying to do this, trying to cater to everybody and trying to.
Speaker 5:That's going to be exhausting, that's going to be absolutely ridiculous. But when it comes to like there's literally people who have jobs, who are designed to figure out what words to change other words to so that you're not using the improper verbiage, and that's that's just so crazy, we're catering to psychosis. At this point we're catering to small percentage of individuals who get upset over the verbiage when, again, going back to what I said earlier earlier, it's how people interpret it and you can't stop that. I could literally text you the word high and you could interpret it one of a thousand different ways and get upset over it because I didn't say it in a loving manner or whatever. That's your problem if you're reading it that way. I don't know how many times I've been accused of being aggressive or angry because of something I typed when I never typed it with me, like smashing my keyboard, like oh, I hate this motherfucker, but that's the way the person interpreted it, because that's the emotion that they were reading it with.
Speaker 5:That's their problem, not yours. So you shouldn't have to change how you're typing because they're interpreting it some way. They need to change the way that they're thinking. Anyways, that's my point.
Speaker 4:Well, and I think, uh, maybe a piece of the equation that might be helpful is to understand that uh, sparky has a passionate and pure heart with good intentions and that's hopefully where everyone would take their logical thinking and the things they say and the words they use from right and you can feel safe that, like yo, shit that came out of my mouth that's not what I meant. You know where I'm coming from, bro. Like that type of atmosphere can really lend itself to productive, loving conversations, even if disagreements are there. But I think Ryan comes from a world also understanding that people don't have that benchmark or baseline and they need to kind of like well, his case literally like welcome to america. Like here's how you're not going to get beat up. That that's kind of. I think the better approach to take with this is like yeah, okay, but like here, watch out for some things you say, because you'll literally get a fist in your face if you're not too careful and they might be wrong. But this is kind of the culture and we kind of have a reading on what words will piss people off and end in fistfights, and that's kind of how I think about it is like society is violent and upset and looking for a reason to throw a fist upset and looking for a reason to throw a fist, and so I think that I wish we could have that benchmark and baseline, but I don't think we do. I think people are pretty irrational and pretty quick to jump to feelings and fists, and I do agree with having some kind of like. But I do agree with having some kind of like. Where are we at, guys, as a culture? Where are we kind of at? I don't know. I kind of like having that.
Speaker 4:When I go to a new country it's like yo, where are we at here? What do I need to watch out for? Is my money better in my belt or in my shoes? What do they know? What do they go for first? Do they know about the hidden belt trick? Like I, literally in terms of safety, just like how do I keep myself safe around here? Here are some things to kind of look out for.
Speaker 4:So I, unfortunately, it's like I wish humanity had a collective benchmark or baseline that we could just be like no, we don't have to write that down, that's just built into our code, but it's just not there and there's always going to be a different code amongst different cultures and different people, and it can be neighborhood to neighborhood, really. Uh, at the end of the day, it can be business next to business and it can be the words spoken there that will piss off another competitor in town. It's like whoa, what competitor do we not want to mention on the phone? It sucks that humans have to compete with one another to make it to hopefully make world peace with each other. It's such a weird equation that we have to compete with each other to get to that goal of loving loving each other. And it's a. It's a hard equation to. So I don't know, it's it's a tough one.
Speaker 4:And that's where I I ultimately agree with both sides, to where it's like yeah, we kind of do need a few people like gathering what is? Because 2024 is different than 2020. 2014 is way different than 1993. And so I see the predicament. I guess I'm not sure how to say I agree or disagree. It's not even that. It's like there is a huge predicament, unfortunately. I guess that's so. I would love man, I love that. But again, sparky, that's assuming good intent, right, can you kind of see it from the angle of like, yeah, bro, but you're a good guy. Look at all these other shitheads that need to watch their mouth because they're going to get a fist. You know what I mean.
Speaker 5:It's one thing like okay, so you said each year is different, basically right. It's one thing like okay, so you said each year is different, basically right. But if you look at the data from year to year, as we've gone from the 90s to the 2000s to now, we're becoming more and more oversensitive for no reason. And that's the stuff that I'm talking about is this oversensitivity and censoring our words because it's offending people. And people are getting canceled for stuff that they said back and like there was. There's a whole thing where people were trying to cancel um, certain movies because, like Mark Wahlberg and Donnie Wahlberg and them were in and because they said fag a lot in the movie and it's like at that time frame it was not a big deal. They used it all the time and we've become way more and more sensitive as time has gone on, over stuff like that. And it's absolutely ridiculous because that's a movie that is meant for like how people talk, essentially in that time frame. It's a movie that is meant for how people talk essentially in that time frame. It's a Boston accent. They're talking like look at the movie, what do you call it? Fucking the Departed and the stuff that they say in that movie. So we're trying to cancel stuff from decades ago and getting offended from things that were made in a time frame where things were different, and I think that that's just uh, you know indicative of the time that we're in and how ridiculous we are becoming with how sensitive we're becoming. It's not so much about oh, I need to watch what I say in this scenario like, okay, let's be realistic. No white person's going to drop an n-bomb around a bunch of black people because you're going to die and you, in theory, shouldn't say it on your own in any way, but that's still. You know, that's not the same as what we're talking about, because that's been a thing that is known since, you know, I was even in kindergarten. You don't be racist, you don't be prejudiced in that sense, but it's completely different than somebody getting offended for you saying the word retarded or saying the word fag or saying any word that is offensive in today's vernacular Because some person is a snowflake or is hypersensitive over this verbiage. It's like let's stop nitpicking on specific words and start just, you know, the sure, the, the overarching stuff that has always been deemed bad. Let's stop doing that. But it's even to the point where look at, look at YouTube. You watch anything on YouTube. You can't say the words like they sent. They censor sexual assault. They censor the word rape. They censor the word murder. If you say any of that stuff, you get demonetized. You don't get anything. That's absolutely ridiculous. So you could say fuck on your channel all you want, but you say murder and you're demonetized. You say rape, you're monetized, demonetized, like.
Speaker 5:That's the type of stuff that I'm talking about as well as is oh, we're going to trigger someone by saying these words, but a lot of these videos that you see, that they talk about this stuff, are talking about statistics or talking about a case that happened with it and they're like they. Literally I'm watching cam footage from police, like body cams or dash cams and they're they're talking about like shots fired and they can't say the word shots in the video. So they censor the word shot out. Or you know, person murdered and they can't say the word murdered like.
Speaker 5:Come on, we're getting to a point where it's getting absolutely ridiculous the stuff that we're having to censor out of our daily lives because this person's going to get offended over it or this person's going to get triggered over it. It's it's almost as as bad as whatever it's. It's. It's absolutely ridiculous. The stuff that we're doing and we're canceling people over it. We're canceling people over saying the wrong word and you're like, but they're not meaning it the way that you were interpreting it or so it's, I don't know.
Speaker 5:I I'm I'm highly frustrated in the, the way that society is because of this stuff and it's. You know, instead of us having a conversation about stuff and having a discussion, it's these emotions are getting involved for no reason, because of someone's psychosis or whatever, and they're getting overly sensitive over it. It's like this stuff never used to be overly sensitive. You could have a conversation and you didn't have to walk on eggshells about whatever words you use. You could literally just have a conversation. And we and we can't do that anymore, and that's the case in point is everything that we're discussing right now is is there's a literally a career out there of people trying to discuss which words that they can't use and find replacement words so that they're not offending people Like God forbid If it makes you feel any better.
Speaker 7:I volunteer for the service to help my children get into class so that when they're getting education, they're not only being shoved down other ethnicities, and not just that, that, they have an equal opportunity at a fair education purpose. And that's the whole point being able to have a state that hires equal people, not singled individuals. And it's a big difference when you volunteer your service to make the place a greater place instead of just sitting behind your desk and doing nothing but what is equal?
Speaker 5:because there's. There's this whole thing of equality that's out there right now, but it's affirmative action is, is what's you know, blinded by equality, and we're actually hiring the wrong people for jobs because they're not um, qualified. Like there was a, a fucking air airline that was like, oh, we're gonna be hiring through equality from now on and we're gonna do diversity hiring and stuff like that. And it's like rob scheider made a joke about it in a comedian or a comedy special or whatever, basically saying, oh yeah, I'm tired of these white pilots landing the plane safely. Like sure, that's racist if you read it the wrong way, but at the same rate, it's like okay, it's not about race, it's about hiring the right people for the job. And if this person is the right person for the job but they're white, we're going to hire this other person because of their skin color, even if they have lower test scores or lower piloting scores. That's not right, that's not equality. That's you're hiring based off of the wrong factors and that goes through the entire system. And that's again the whole song that I played in the beginning system talks about that. It's more about division than it is about inclusivity. You're dividing us based off of race, even though you're saying that it's inclusivity.
Speaker 5:I'm a white person, a white male. I don't have a job. I haven't had a job in 15 months. Why do you think? Because I'm a white male, they're not hiring white males. They're hiring different ethnic backgrounds and women, every job I go for. That's the problem and it says so in the thing. We're a diverse hiring group and we believe in equal hiring. That's not equal if you're segregating this group because of their skin color and their gender. Had I said I was a female, I may have got the job. Hell, me, being trans in that instance would have gotten me the job too. It's not inclusivity anymore, and this is again going back to the critical thinking side of things. This is segregation on a different level. We're segregating people based off of their race and their gender and their ideologies. And you are bad because of this thing and you are better because of this thing, not because of your intelligence, not because of the ability to do the job.
Speaker 5:My wife's job she had a hiring process and they went from okay, we're going to do a whole hiring process for external hires and whatever. And then they said no, you know what we're going to do it, just internal hires. So anybody who works within the company is going to be looked at only hires. So anybody who works within the company is going to be looked at only. And the person who was doing the hiring was my wife's manager, and my wife's manager said this is not right. We're literally scraping the bottom of the barrel and getting people that should never qualify for this job, as opposed to the people who were way better qualified and would be better to do the job. We're way better qualified and would be better to do the job and we've excluded them because we're only sticking to internal hires, like we're again. We're not dealing with inclusivity.
Speaker 5:You want to talk about inclusivity and teaching children, right? Don't start segregating based off of race. Don't start segregating based off of whatever. My son doesn't see race when he's playing with his friends. He's got a friend who's from Pakistan and they're best friends in school. He even injured another kid at school on Friday over this. He pulled the chair out from underneath him because he took his friend Veer's chair. Like he doesn't see his skin color, he sees him as his best friend and that's what we should be teaching.
Speaker 5:There's a video that came up on Twitter and YouTube the other day of this mom asking her son what color is your skin? And he says peach. What color is so-and-so's skin? Brown. They're not seeing white and black, they're seeing peach and brown. And she goes what's the difference between you? And he goes nothing. And she's like, exactly this stuff is not, it's not ingrained in us, it's taught. And if you start teaching the separation because of this, that and the other, that's the problem. How do we get rid of racism? Stop talking about it, stop making it a big deal, because it isn't. We're the human race, we're all the same race, but we need to stop segregating ourselves based off of this, that or the other thing. That's where the problem lies. So it's not about inclusivity or equality. It's never been about that. It's more about segregation. Again, all you have to do is listen to the lyrics of the song that I played at the beginning, with a non-emotional backing and a logical critical thinking, and you'll see. This is exactly what he's saying. Is what I'm saying right now.
Speaker 4:I appreciate both of you guys being brave to to give your thoughts. I I think that's healthy to to have. Uh, even if we have differing thoughts, to talk about them, give them thoughts and come back for some more. I, you know, here's kind of my philosophy Uh, treat others like you want to be treated. Someone doesn't treat you like you you want them to like, you'll eventually kind of cut them out of your life and if not, it'll probably get toxic and I don't know like. Protect your space. Uh, you know, I I think a key component.
Speaker 4:If anyone's having a hard time listening to Sparky, he has said that there are different circumstances and you know, a friend moving in next door is different than the politics of an entire nation. I think it's a really easy day-to-day living in your own personal life, in your own personal space, to treat others how you want to be treated and the nitty-gritty, fine details of how that is and what that written or unwritten law is, of how relationships happen. It'll be nice and it'll be smooth and you'll protect each other and love each other. And growing up, if anyone talked about my height, it was game on and they better apologize to me. We were wrestling and I was tapping you out and you better get out of my house because you didn't apologize and I was a real touch-and-go little hothead and I didn't know logical thinking. I didn't, and I wish I could go back in time and give myself a little bit of credit but at the same time like teach myself some logical thinking, just to chill out a little bit and find strength in myself, all these deep principles that I could go off on and like why getting upset with someone talking about my height would trigger me like that. But the friends that loved me and helped me get through this phase they were patient with that and they were careful with talking about my height and I was tiny but I beat the fuck out of them and so they obviously were afraid of that too, but they liked me and they liked being around me and that was never an issue unless height got brought up. So it was like I'm at the end of the day. I really like that.
Speaker 4:Ryan mentioned patience and teaching people and I am guilty of being that psychosis in so many different chapters of my life where my wife and I she'll cut people off real quick and I'm just like, just hold up, hold up just one second, like remember what they've been through. They're like God, like maybe we can like don't burn this so quick. That's your so-and-so relative or best friend or you know, and she's trying to tell me to cut someone off. And I'm like, wow, hold on. So I have a real hard time not kind of being the pushover and respecting people's space, however silly it might be. But that's because I do kind of have a hope that people snap out of things sometimes and I've been there to where I snapped out of it and I stopped getting triggered and I stopped getting triggered and I stopped also triggering because after a point of me breaking out, I was real angry and I'd make a point to trigger other people in hopes that it would teach them how triggered I was and how I don't know.
Speaker 4:It's a. It's a real hard question to deal with. Free speech, this whole app that we're on right now. Elon's making a big deal about it. I don't think this conversation that we're having right now is much different than that.
Speaker 4:What goes on in a lot of people's heads? Um, I don't really have this conversation much in my head anymore because I guess and this might be a bearish sentiment on humanity, but people kind of suck and I just kind of expect that now and I really really hope for the good ones, that I can find them and we'll work it out. Work it out and I don't know. That makes this logical thinking and going through life really hard to sit here and read it and be like hell, yeah, I'm going to be a logical thinker.
Speaker 4:When I just spent six hours in a car with my mom not saying a word to a lot of things I disagreed with, it's so illogical and broken. And will it fix humans thinking more clearly? Like no, I've, I've been a drunken rage, beat the shit out of my mom's mailbox. You guys, I can't tell you how hard I've tried and I've done it drunk, I've done it sober. There is no battling, a lifelong and obsessive state of mind with certain things. That it's not even her. She has been born into a mindset and belief system that goes well beyond her and I'm up against a really, really tough system of thinking and I've just kind of given up. I'm not right for that. I'm not wrong.
Speaker 4:I don't know how I should feel about a lot of the ways I handle my relationships with people that I just terribly disagree with on a really, really sensitive personal level. I love them and I give them gifts and I give them my time and I call them. There's so much of my personal life, of like bro, they're thinking means like what you know the math here, what the fuck are you doing? And it's like it's okay Deep down. I hope I can reach some human part of them and I don't know, it's all illogical and being human is so fucking hard.
Speaker 4:We I think we stuck together for so many years and hundreds of years and thousands of years in cold caves, huddled up next to fires, where we didn't talk about politics or silly preferences of who your favorite basketball goat is. That can lead to fistfights, what. That's crazy, but it happens. And it's like we, huddled up next to fires for so long, just surviving, watching the buddy that was closest to the entrance of the cave get picked off by a bear, that it's like yo, bro, I don't care what your thoughts are, I'm saving you because tomorrow I'll be the outsider next to the opening of the pit.
Speaker 4:Life was terribly difficult to be a human for so long, but it also kept us free from fighting with each other and once we developed into being so capable of fending for ourselves without groups. We can build our fortresses and we can have our guns and we can kind of protect ourselves and live that American dream of having your own plot of land and your own little life, like it's not even in our blood. We're having a hard time even like understanding that still, and it's. I don't know if we can because that's not even as an animal, and again, this might go against a lot of your beliefs, but like there's nothing that I believe in my mind, where, like plop human ready to go, boom.
Speaker 4:I do think we lived for a really long time. You can even toss in some conspiracy theories in there, or computer program or simulation whatever. Like a human isn't as simple as just plopping them here and we're ready to go. I think we're built off of surviving like a lot of animals. And even if we were quote-unquote human, we didn't have these big houses and central air conditioning and gas in a car for a long time and we really quickly as humans like adapt to this new level of thinking and living.
Speaker 4:But deep down inside I truly think, like we, we are all scared and huddled up to these fires and we depend on each other and we should, uh, in celebration of our ancestors, of what they did to get us here, I think we need to celebrate that and love that and be patient with each other. Uh, and it sucks, sparky, I don't know how to even deal with that with, uh, living, living, like I want to preach things from the top of the rooftops but, um, I choose not to and it's probably terrible for humanity. But I feel like I'm also going to give myself a little bit of credit, that I'm kind of like a transition piece and I've started something that hopefully carries over, that does make a difference, that does break the mold and I don't, you know, maybe the the win with my mom, like I don't have to have.
Speaker 5:You know what I mean, I don't know well, um, I don't know kind of where to go with with everything that you said, because it was, it was a lot, um, uh, and I don't. I don't know the easiest way to like, try and preach stuff, but trying to tie things back in the book. At least everything that I was saying ties in with one of the fallacies that we read through, which was the halo effect, and the end of the chapter actually says you know, the halo effect obstructs our view of true characteristics. To counteract this, go beyond face value, factor out the most striking features. World-class orchestras achieve this by making candidates play behind a screen, so that sex, race, age and appearance play no part in their decision.
Speaker 5:That's like logic, right there, it goes back to my point. Like logic, right there, it goes back to my point. So I think I think like there's to some degree as, as you're saying, you you have a, a challenge because you're dealing with your mom, obviously, who you, you know, grew up with, and you she's not going to change and everything, and that's kind of like the teaching and old dog new tricks. But I think we are but then I've got.
Speaker 4:I've got the new little dogs, little pups, free of any tricks. You know what I mean. That's. That's kind of the struggle too is, are they though? Because you you and your ex were.
Speaker 5:You and your ex were in that same world and they've already been indoctrinated to some degree. So it does become a bit of your own mission to teach them your way of thinking. Not that I'm trying to tell you how to do things, I'm just saying like you already got them being indoctrinated to something. And again, this is stuff that's taught, not like go back to what you were saying about us being cavemen or whatever and animalistic. Even go back to before. We had different segregating factors in society religion or whatever, like as as a one-to-one basis there you don't have these preconceived things that you're, you're that we have in in society, whether it's, you know, whatever ideology that you believe in or have been ingrained in, and you have to kind of try and get back to that with your kids. The whole and at least in my opinion, the whole point of having kids is to help them think freely, not teach them your way of thinking. But and even though I said I said that you have to teach them your way of thinking but that's because your way of thinking is different than what you had been taught in the past and your way of thinking is more free thinking at this point. But I mean that's kind of where I'm at with my son is I want him to be his own individual, point. But I mean, that's kind of where I'm at with my son is I want him to be his own individual, I want him to be able to critical think on his own, and I think that's where, again going back to the whole point of this book and the whole point of us doing this critical thinking subject is we need to be helping the next generation get outside of the current fallacies of the world, the current predicaments of the world. Not doing a blind screening, not like do the blind screen sort of thing. Not looking at a book, judging a book by its cover, because you do get into a problem when you start doing that. Befriend someone because of their actions and their personality, not because of things that they've been taught or they have no control over in the sense of their skin or their gender or whatever. Befriend these people, be nice to these people, as you said. Treat them as you want to be treated. You want to teach your kids too. If you have someone in your class that's treating you like a piece of shit, what do you do? You don't treat them good. You go and tell the teacher that they're treating you bad sort of thing. I mean, the whole snitches get stitches is not a good thing because you don't want the kid to continue to get treated that way, but it also doesn't help the other child to grow and evolve. If they're, they think that that's okay, because if nothing's being said and nobody's witnessing it, they're going to keep doing it over and over because they think it's okay. They're taught. But if you have your own child that you're trying to teach, I don't know.
Speaker 5:It's a different kettle of fish altogether, because we have a little bit more going on in our society. Going back to kind of the boredom that Dap talked about in previous books how, as a society, we get bored, so we started doing stupid stuff and more ridiculous stuff. It's kind of the the, the. Hitting the nail on the head is if, if we didn't have like, if we were more focused on hunting or gathering like we didn't have like, if we were more focused on hunting or gathering like we used to be, you wouldn't have time to sit and think about all this other bullshit that's going on. And I think that's a pretty apt observation on his part of what we're currently having to deal with in our society. One of the chapters that we deal with in this current um thing did talk about, um, you know, ancestry and and huntering and gathering and that sort of stuff, and I can't find it right now, but it was trying to tie into kind of what you were saying a bit and I don't maybe that's what put it.
Speaker 4:Maybe that's what put it in my brain. I don't even know where that came from, but I think you're. I think you did talk about it.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I think it's something to do with the fundamental attribution. Yeah, I don't remember. I can't find where it is, but it's oh, yeah, here, it is, here here. We shouldn't judge those guilty of the fundamental attribution error too harshly.
Speaker 5:Our preoccupation with other people stems from our evolutionary past. Belonging to a group was necessary for for survival, reproduction, defense and hunting large animals. All these were impossible tasks for individuals to achieve alone. Banishment meant certain death, and those who actively opted for the solitary life of whom there were surely a few fared no better and also disappeared from the gene pool. In short, our lives dependent on and revolved around others, which explains why we are so obsessed with the fellow, with our fellow humans. Today. The result of this infatuation is that we spend about 90 of our time thinking about other people and dedicate just 10 to assessing other factors and contexts. So, in conclusion, they say as much as we are fascinating by the spectacle of life, and people on stage are not perfect, self-governed individuals. Instead, they tumble from situation oh my God, from situation to situation.
Speaker 5:If you want to understand the current play, really understand it, then forget about the performers. Pay close attention to the dance of influences to which the actors are subjected. So it's it's more look at what's going on and not the people who are doing the things, and that's kind of a better observation. So again, do you really want what's going on in the world today to be how you teach your kids not who's teaching your kids or who's uh, who's involved, but more so what is being done? I'd say that majority of people would probably say that the state of the world today is an absolute shambles. And no, you don't want your, your children or your loved ones being involved in to any degree, and I think we definitely need to change how things are going. I don't know. I'll shut up, though it up, though.
Speaker 4:No, those are all good thoughts and, and, uh, I think we all need to question everything. And, man, I, I, uh have, I guess it just dawned on me there's I'm dealing with like this pendulum, like this, uh, not a pendulum, like a balance where I have to delicately play by these rules that are that are, that I know of that. There are things that I can and can't do that can drive them, swing them further away from me and, like a magnet, just repel them, or hopefully I can find something that flips the magnet and attracts them, because I'm dealing with a systematic. They know and I know and they know, and so they're being taught how to, even before I approach them, how to defend it. To where I, you know it's a tricky balance to where I can really quickly drive someone away from me if I don't play by their silly rules, and in no way am I condoning or agreeing with or even supporting, I kind of allow it, but even that is like whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Am I pushing too hard, too quick? You know what I mean? It's this fear level that they've built within me of how good they are at what they do. And so it's this tricky balance of yeah, gosh, I wish so bad I could just flip some switches, but there's real, real tight, heavy guarding around that that they don't even know is there switch. It just gets shot down and and they run and it's, it's uh, or they have a pre-scripted reason of of uh, how to avoid that situation. So it's really, um, a complex kind of micro uh.
Speaker 4:Look into humanity, what I'm dealing with. Of like, yes, I don't want to just sit here and let this bullshit happen, but if I fight or if I push against it or if I do anything, it can crumble any chance that I have of having a fight, and so I guess I'll just deal with the bullshit. I guess it's not even hard compared to what a lot of humans have gone through throughout time of just dealing with bullshit in hopes that, like, the system fixes itself and I can be some sort of help in that. But can I do it alone? Like fuck, I can't. The more I try, sometimes it makes it worse, and so I guess that's what brings me back to like being human is real hard, but I love it.
Speaker 4:I love the challenge, I love the feeling of playing the human game well and relationships that come out of that and trust and love and I love the challenge, being a human and having friends and like trusting each other it's with my pessimism towards humanity. It's like, nah, that shouldn't exist. So to like find love or to find friendship or to find good, it's like, fuck yeah, we are beating this game. So I don't know. I appreciate the idea that we can disagree, still live with each other, but just keep trying. You know what I mean. Man, we've got a few more spaces with this book. I think next week I'll probably reflect back on this space and be like last week we were talking about this. This week I saw da-da-da-da-da. That was pretty cool. I just love the idea of consistently just trying to do better tomorrow.
Speaker 4:This book is really giving me confidence to feel good about good logical thinking. I don't need to have a vote one way or the other. It's not like which decision do I like better? It's like just make the logical decision, bro, that one plays out better. Maybe not financially every single fucking time, because 100Xs don't come from that, but you will have friends. You will have pets, you'll take care of them. You'll live happy, you'll wake up, you'll go to bed. You'll make smart decisions. You'll have pets, you'll take care of them, you'll live happy, you'll wake up, you'll go to bed, you'll make smart decisions, you'll stay hydrated and you'll have a life hopefully free and clear of any panic attacks and anxiety attacks and depressed moments, and you can just keep fighting. I don't know to nice, to not like in terms of, like business decisions, friend decisions, web three decisions, investing all of this. It's like so many times we have this guilt trip within ourselves. It's like, oh, what's the best move? Who is it going to be? Then we play it and we do the stats. I don't know.
Speaker 4:Most of the time, there's probably going to be a pretty logical answer that you should probably go with I mean that comes down to the omission bias to some degree too oh yeah, I keep saying things like I'm making this shit up, but you guys have to remember I'm reading this book full of this, these fallacies, so I'm I'm like mixing all these into my rambling well, tell us about that one well, the emission bias talks about how like there's, there's, you know, a drug that could kill somebody.
Speaker 4:Um, let me see if I can find it here Cause it's oh hey, while you're looking for that, I'm going to drop a giveaway in the general chat. You guys, for five, 10, 5 minutes from now for vip listeners repeat so chat five minutes. I am posting it right now and I'm doing that because I gotta head out the door to take my daughter, so I'm going to be in the car the next time I unmute myself.
Speaker 5:So this says suppose you are the head of a federal drug administration. Of the the head of a federal drug administration, you must decide whether or not to approve a drug for the terminal ill. The pills can save or can have a fatal side effect that kills 20% of patients on the spot but save the lives of the other 80% within a short period of time. What do you decide? Most would withhold approval to them? Period of time. What do you decide? Most would withhold approval to them? Waving through a drug that takes out every fifth person is a worse action than failing to administer the cure to the other 80% of patients. It is an absurd decision and a perfect example of the omission bias. Suppose that you are aware of the bias and decide to approve the drug in the name of reason and decency, bravo. But what happens when the first patient dies? A media storm ensues and soon you find yourself out of a job as a civil servant or a politician. You would do well to take the ubiquitous omission bias seriously and ever foster it. Case law shows how ingrained such moral distortion is in our society. Active use euthanasia even if it is the explicit wish of the dying, is punishable by law, whereas deliberate refusal of saving life measures, measures of life-saving measures is legal. So you know someone who has a dnr on their card. They can allow that you don't have to resuscitate them if they have a heart attack or something. Meanwhile we have terminally ill patients who are dying, who we can't assist in killing them because it's morally wrong, like the two are equally the same but are not treated the same. It's, it's a weird thing, and so that's kind of what they're talking about is, especially with the 80 20 thing. I mean, you talk about such this again. I'll just read from the fucking chapter.
Speaker 5:Such thinking also explains why parents feel it is perfectly acceptable not to vaccinate their children, even though vaccination discernibly reduces the risks of catching the disease. Of course there is also a very small risk of getting sick from the vaccine. Overall, however, vaccination makes sense. Vaccination not only protects the children but society too. A person who is immune to the disease will never infect others Objectively. If not vaccinated children ever contracted one of these sicknesses, we could accuse the parents of actively harming them.
Speaker 5:But this is exactly the point. Deliberate inaction somehow seems less grave than a comparable action, say if the parents intentionally infected them, which some parents do. Some parents have a uh, a chicken pox party and intentionally infect their kids with chickenpox, which could literally prove fatal for those kids who were not vaccinated against it. It's a questionable area and if you think critically on it it's like where would you lie in that? So the emission bias lies behind the following delusions we wait until people shoot themselves in the foot rather than taking aim ourselves. Investors and business journalists are more lenient on companies that develop no new products than they are on those that produce bad ones, even though both roads lead to ruin. Sitting passively on a bunch of miserable shares feels better than actively buying bad ones. Building no emission filter into a coal plant feels superior to removing one for cost reasons. Failing to insult or insulate your house insult, fucking. I can't speak sparky are you still speaking?
Speaker 5:yep, I am. You got cut out by the internet. Failing to insulate your house is more acceptable than burning the spirit I might be rugged.
Speaker 4:Can someone tell me if they can hear me?
Speaker 5:yeah, so basically what the problem is is you left your house sparky, ryan can you hear me you'll hear this on the podcast if you ever listen to it. But you basically left your house when you transferred from wi-Fi to cell network. It screwed up your ability to hear people. He can't hear me, so whatever. Either way, he was basically talking about the emission bias to some degree was my point, and clearly he can't hear a word I'm saying. So the problem lies with him, not with me. The problem lies with him, not with me.
Speaker 4:It's a problem that you run into if you leave a. Wi-fi network and go to a cell network.
Speaker 5:Hey, are you guys still?
Speaker 4:there, yep. Oh, my goodness, I can't hear us, I couldn't hear you and, uh, I had to reconnect to the space. I apologize for that yeah.
Speaker 5:So what I was explaining when that happened because clearly you couldn't hear me and I knew that, but I was just saying it for everyone else's sake was when you transfer from wi-fi to cell network on the space, when you're actively on a space, it cuts out the ability to hear everybody. So it's, you know, problematic for most spaces. So if you're a host, it fucks up the hosting ability that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 4:I'm so sorry, um, so I missed. I missed what you said, though do you have?
Speaker 5:a recap. I was just going over all the uh omission bias and basically talking about some of the uh. I read the the gist of it from for everybody and kind of touching on stuff that you're talking about is like it's it's basically inaction that people are doing on things because of the problems that they're seeing. You see the problems so you decide not to act on it, the one being vaccines. Some parents feel it is perfectly acceptable not to vaccinate their children, even though vaccination discernibly reduces the risk of catching the disease. Of course there's also a small risk of getting sick from a vaccination. Overall, however, vaccination makes sense.
Speaker 5:Vaccination not only protects the children but society too. A person who is immune to the disease will never infect others. Objectively. If non-vaccinated children ever contracted one of the sicknesses, we could accuse the parents of actively harming them. But this is exactly the point. Deliberate inaction somehow seems less grave than comparable actions, say, if the parents intentionally infected them. And my point was there's parents out there who have, you know, chickenpox parties to get their kids sick with chickenpox, but that is still potentially fatal in some instances. So it's you know, it's much more dire than actually injecting them with a vaccination, but they'd rather not inject them with the vaccination for the fear that they might get sick. So it's, you know it's. It's kind of like what you were saying, in the sense of there's a lot of these problems that you see out in the world and you could act on them, but you'd choose not to, and that, in in itself, is a bit of a bias or an omission, bias on itself.
Speaker 4:And um is part of another fallacy. So, yes, oh, thank you, that's pointing it out for me. For sure I gotta learn how to deal with that man. That's a, that's a big one for me right now, because I choose, I deliberately choose it, you know, and it's again I was preaching to myself earlier. Maybe I just need to stop that, just make the good choice and teach that, stop worrying about so at the end here he says in the previous chapter we met the action bias.
Speaker 5:Is it the opposite of the action bias? Is omission bias the opposite? And it's not quite. The action bias is caused by us. It causes us to offset a lack of clarity with futile hyperactivity and comes into play when a situation is fuzzy, muddy or contradictory. The omission bias, on the other, usually abounds where the situation is intelligible and a future misfortune might be averted with the direct action. But this insight doesn't motivate us as much as it should. So basically, it's like you see this problem that could potentially come from the way that your daughters are being taught, or your, your kids are being taught or whoever's being taught, but you don't want to do anything about it because it could create a problem in your immediate time frame or it could create more controversy, even though you know in the long term, your long term, you're averting some sort of potential problem because of it. So you're basically not doing something because of fear that the potential future is going to be not as good as the immediate time frame, or whatever you want to call it I like this.
Speaker 4:Oh, you know I'm not calling for us to uh pull a group therapy session or anything, but hey, I'll volunteer myself to lay out any problems I'm dealing with and like run through logical thinking fallacies and and analyze what the hell is going on with my decision-making. You know what I mean. I think that would be really fun if, if, uh, obviously I'm I'm not saying we do that, but for practice with yourself, like run through with yourself, be brave enough to ask yourself like okay, am I breaking this fallacy? Why am I breaking this fallacy? Why am I breaking this fallacy or I guess that's not even the way to uh state it breaking a fallacy? Am I performing? I don't know how do I, how do I say that? But okay, am I doing this? Why am I doing it? Why am I allowing myself to do it?
Speaker 4:Is there a payoff that I'm actually hoping for by committing this logical fallacy? Maybe that's the right way to say commit, but yeah, it kind of comes down to I do like not, I do like taking action, I don't like not taking action. That seems like a really, really big fallacy in and of itself of like, oh, it'll get worse before it gets better. That fallacy ties into that a little bit, where it's like I don't know, I'm playing odds at that point. I'm gambling at that point with my decisions. I've just got to make the logical decision, not put it off in hopes that timing works out.
Speaker 5:I don't know, this fired me up, got me motivated the problem ends up being the action bias as well, or some other, some other fallacies as well. Because are you doing this because of the potential outcomes being 50, 50 or 30, 30, 30 or whatever, and are you putting yourself in a situation where you're acting because it looks better as opposed to not acting and it looking bad, but you're still getting equal result, sort of thing, and it's tough to explain to some degree. But are you okay? So not that I'm trying to bring it up on you, but are you in my situation? Am I actively looking for a job to make it look better even though nobody's hiring?
Speaker 5:Or am I not looking for a job because I know that I'm not getting hired and you're the same result either way, but the action you're doing is to appease the look from somebody else. So, like I'm looking for a job so that my wife sees that I'm actively trying to get hired, sees that I'm actively trying to get hired, even though I'm still having the same result, and you know me sitting on my ass doing nothing at home is producing the same result, but I'm, you know, doing it Now. Obviously there's still the odd chance that I get hired and I have an interview and whatever, but so far the fallacy exists in the sense that I've been looking for a job and I'm not getting hired. So I could have just been sitting at home literally doing nothing, and it would have provided the same results.
Speaker 4:That's fun to think like that. I know we're beating ourselves up type thinking, but I think that's the healthy way to approach this book right. The only way to grow is to actually apply it and look at it. But at the same time, I think in analyzing things like that, we will get better at approaching decisions the more open we are with ourselves or, even better yet, with other people. I think that makes for some tremendous opportunities for growth and anybody that's willing to do that not just like on stage here with us, but just in your own life take a decision. That's kind of tearing you apart and analyze it.
Speaker 4:This book would be great as a checklist for every decision. Like what should I do in X situation? Oh, read the book, read the whole damn thing, every single chapter, analyze if that fallacy fits in. You might find the and, before we know it, you know you're, you have the book memorized and you can do that quick checklist with every decision. But man, that's's a. That's a heavy practice and that's a a real painful practice. It can be, but I think my goal is to make that less painful and and more open and, uh, celebrate my shitty decisions because now I know better. I don't know. I think it's a really good opportunity for growth to kind of beat yourself up, but that's where I think you might be careful and sprinkle in a few self-help principles and, you know, keep yourself alive. And imagination is good sometimes and self-belief and all those practices I really don't want to like lose sight of. Of. Again, not magical thinking, but, yes, positive thinking and goal setting and working hard towards those. But again, if you approach that with a logical, logical thinking mindset, I think that whole positive thinking journey will be much more effective and much better and more fun. In my opinion, if, uh, if you're not setting goals that are outrageous and outside of of logical thinking, you know, and so I don't know, this is this is a good practice of uh, going through a couple of decisions of our own. I'm sure I could. I could sit here for hours and get therapy from you guys and from the principals. I think that's good for all of us to do. So you guys should do that for yourselves.
Speaker 4:If you have someone in your life that you're willing to sit down and make some notes about your decisions maybe the most recent one that you just did and it messed up some things in your life. Go through and see if you're at fault. Go through and see if you're to blame and if you gave up such and such for another, such and such, hoping that it played out better, and really just have to own up to the fact that you gambled and you made the wrong decision and you are where you are and you'll make a better decision next time. And I don't know. I think that's a tough practice, uh, especially for someone like me. That is competitive. I do like to win, I do like to all of that. I I struggle with ego and human shit as much as everyone, but, man, I guess I'm more committed to sit down and really really beat, beat up my logical thinking.
Speaker 4:And this isn't just new. I've really kind of been awakened with this book from the get-go of just like, oh boy, this is good, I have a good again. Bringing it back to the word that DAP use benchmark. I have a better benchmark for analyzing my decisions before it's like okay, let's analyze a decision, where do I start? Like now I can at least start at fallacy one and like am I breaking this? Am I breaking this and why? I don't know? I like that.
Speaker 4:I feel much more equipped, uh, even with with my children and with my wife of like, okay, this happened, let's figure it out. Sometimes it wife of like, okay, this happened, let's figure it out. Sometimes it's just like man, I don't even know where to start with this issue or this problem. Like, where do we start? At least now I can, and again, that's, I guess, what a lot of people.
Speaker 4:What leads people to religion or to certain politics or certain parties is that nice benchmark and something to base their teachings off of. But, man, logical thinking has no owner, it has no leader, it has no author, it has no one claiming that they are the logical thinker and they, you know, and I'm not even. How often have we talked about this guy? Rolf, is that his name? We haven't even talked about him much. We just talk about the fallacies, almost like he's not even writing this. You know, it's like no one really owns this.
Speaker 4:I don't, I like that. This is just good old, basic logical thinking. I don't have to promise anything to anyone or subscribe to any channel or any philosophy or religion. I can. Just this is a checklist owned by all type feeling feels really good to me. So crap, I'm driving and missing turns. Nora, where do I go left? Sorry, nora, uh, but uh, yeah, good, good, uh, I didn't even look at the the time we've been on here for longer than we usually have. I appreciate that you guys. Thanks for letting us talk this out. I really like where this book can lead in terms of discussion. A lot of this was just a few of us and a lot of times it is, but whether it's in the comments or in the Discord, or coming up on stage or shooting me a message, whatever it may be, I love that. This does get people thinking and, at the end of the day, if we can always bring it back to love, of course, nothing superficial or artificial or fake, just learning to love better and be better, I I love it. So thank you guys so much. And I did see that dap took the ten dollar win.
Speaker 4:Guys, if you are coming to these spaces, I noticed adam nft, my guy. I don't know if you have a vip listener, do you? If not, uh, let's get that fixed. I know there's people that come into these spaces on a regular. All we require is 10 spaces, uh, to get that role in the discord and the nft. Which way bud straight. Okay, you can. You can say it louder. Yeah, they know you're here. So, yeah, let's get anyone that is a vip listener coming through to our spaces. You can enter those giveaways and have that role in the discord as well. Oh, I know where I am now. Gosh, I'm so sorry trying to do multiple things here at once. I'll just be waiting right here, okay, bud. So, uh, congrats to dap for taking the 1010, and thank you to everyone who comes through.
Speaker 4:I think this is a good book. You guys, if we're getting this back to the book club, I guess at the end of the day we can kind of become critics. I think this is a good one. If it's not this one, find a logical thinking book and get after it. If it has anything to do with logical fallacies, you're on the right track and it'll get your brain thinking. And it might be hard to break out of any kind of superstitious decision making, and I don't mean that offensively. I love the idea of superstitious decision making. It's not for me, but there's a lot of people that make it really far with that, and that's okay. It's just. I feel a lot better with a decision that I can, like systematically, come back to and measure and you know, winning a baseball game, because I've got my socks on that I haven't washed all season, I don't know. It just really does not mathematically have a lot of power to it, to me anymore. So I, I, I like, uh, I like having this benchmark and so that's, yeah, that's my, my recommendation. We're not even through it yet. We probably won't even dive into a lot of the fallacies.
Speaker 4:You'll hear a lot of rambling from us because it starts to get your mind uh, thinking from left to right and web three, to sports, to politics, to everywhere, and human race. I start to think just as a whole, and you know, macro, human, micro human. How is that different? How do I treat that? Should I treat it different? This is a good one to if you want to ask yourself some questions and take that journey. This, this is a pretty good one, and it's not spiritual, it's not financial. He talks a little bit about finances, but it's, um, it's just decision-making. I think it can be pretty revolutionary for humans as a whole If we adopted this practice a little bit more, had discussions like this, uh, with ourselves and with other people. I think it's really, really healthy.
Speaker 4:So I appreciate you guys letting the time go a little bit longer and uh, obviously I I went a little bit longer than expected. I'm still, I'm in the car now, but uh, next Sunday let's get after it again. We'll read to page 200. And I'm not too concerned.
Speaker 4:Most of all of you can probably come to the space and bring some, bring some thoughts and ideas just off of some of the discussions we've had, or any deep dives into logical fallacies that you find on your own on websites or blogs or whatever it may be. This is a good space for you to bring some deep philosophical and ethical issues, questions, if you dare. I don't know, I was okay with letting us kind of veer into some scary territory. I think we can handle it okay and I think we can ask questions and beat things up and I'll leave here, hopefully, friends and willing to try it again. That's my goal. But, ryan, I don't want to pick on you, but are you still there? Do you have some closing thoughts that you could share with us? I always love hearing some closing thoughts from everyone with us. I always love hearing some closing thoughts from everyone.
Speaker 5:Sorry, I'm just in the middle of giving my son a bath I'll give. I'm just filling the tub right now, but I'll give my closing thoughts after, if Ryan has some. But I've also got a song queued up on the other account, that Spotify I can link to my computer downstairs and hit play. So whenever you're ready, just let me know.
Speaker 4:Well, I think that's perfect timing to wrap things up. And yeah, ryan, are you still with us? If so, we'd love to hear your final thoughts and, if not, go ahead and take it away, sparky. Ryan, ryan, we love you and miss you. Thank you for being here. Go ahead, sparky.
Speaker 5:I think, ultimately, we need to start using critical thinking a lot more, start using a critical thinking a lot more, and I think that's this book is definitely a good benchmark, as as Dap said earlier, for us to start using that. And again, with the song that I put at the beginning and much like the song that's going to play at the end, don't try to listen to it with emotion, try and listen to it with with the ability to separate what controversial side effects you might have, and listen to it more from a logical, critical thinking side of things and hear the message that's being said. Sure, it might sound abrasive, but that's kind of the point in some instances is for it to be abrasive. And I think that ultimately, as a society, if we can and this is kind of, I guess, in my, my attempt at going against the omission bias is me, or me at least, trying to do something about the state of the world and the state of society and the, the potential future that my son could have I'm trying to do my own part in how I can uh hopefully change the trajectory of what, the way things are going, by helping him uh grow as a human and helping myself grow as a human in that we we can critically think and see the issues that are going on, based off of all the fallacies that are currently being perpetuated by everybody in society, and I think that the fallacies that we're learning on a day-to-day basis.
Speaker 5:In this book, even if you're not reading them entirely, you can kind of read the list of fallacies and get a grip of what they might stand for, and to to your point of getting the book and reading the book, it makes more sense to read it regularly, but for anybody who's listening, go, go, get it, like you can get a PDF offline, online for free, and read, read it and understand, kind of, some of the fallacies that you're dealing with on your own life, in your own life, on your own time, and you know the decisions you're making. Why are you making those decisions? Does it have this fallacy? Does it have that fallacy? The problem, though, is, if you try to make every decision based off of every fallacy in the book, you'd become more of an inaction and indecisive, because you're weighing every option. It's kind of like you were saying, lane, that the superstitious fallacy, or whatever you want to call it, the one that they talked about in the first grouping that we read basically, it's stupid and it doesn't make sense that you're not washing your hockey socks. But if it makes you feel better, at the end of the day, that's your own prerogative, right, like it's not really hurting anyone and it's still. It's an illogical fallacy, um, illogical in the sense that it makes no sense, but um it it's still. It's not like a harmful one, but that's that's kind of the point of weighing the different fallacies and seeing which ones are the more problematic ones.
Speaker 5:And I think, like some of the ones that we talked about today wind up being the the more problematic ones because the how you say it and what you say and and things in that nature, it can create a lot of problems because of how we're going as a society and that again fills in the inaction and the um or the action bias and all that stuff. You're you're you're having to, you're acting on something because you think it's going to produce a better result or whatever, but it really is producing the same result or, if not, making things worse, and the omission bias and all that stuff again is is what you're doing really altruistic or is what you're doing pointless, really not helping and actually making a worse scenario for yourself. Um, that's kind of the stuff that we talked about today and those are the sort of the ones that you really need to touch on. But I think the cool thing about this book, too, is kind of trying to tie everything together. When you get to the end of a chapter, it tells you all the fallacies, that to kind of link to it, and you can kind of see the spider web that this whole book weaves, because they all try to link to each other essentially at some point, and it's not just like this is a standalone issue and it's tied with this issue and it's tied with that issue and it's tied with 50 other issues that you are perpetuating on your day-to-day.
Speaker 5:So I think, I think ultimately, everybody could benefit from this, even if it's somebody who's an old dog that can't learn new tricks. I think that they could benefit from it because you don't have to give the context and what you're giving it to them. For, uh, in case of lane's, an example in lane's predicament with what he's dealing with with his mom and her um, old ways of what she's been indoctrinated through in her whole life, you know he doesn't have to say this is the reason I'm giving it to you. Just give it to her and have her read it and hopefully she can start to see kind of the reality of the stuff that that she's doing and and that's that's all you can hope for. It's the point of it is to show the fallacies that we do not, not the reason why you think they're doing these fallacies, like, ultimately it shouldn't matter, it should just be.
Speaker 5:These are what you need to read up on. Not that I'm wanting you to read up on this because it's something that I have an issue with, it's. I want you to read up on this for your own growth and your own ability, and if they grow, great. If they don't, oh well. But anyways, that's my final thoughts on everything that we've talked about and where we've gone with this chapter and these books and everything. That being said, that's the same artist, same kind of music. Take it with a grain of salt. If we're good to go, I will just hit play lane and we can listen to it and go from there. Thank you.
Speaker 1:I am not Republican, I am not a liberal. Why the hell can't I just be American without getting political? The system gonna suppress us all. They don't care about the cost. How is this a democracy when we got communists in charge? Cancel culture, nazis. All they're missing is the swastikas. Honestly, this is a psychological holocaust, pumping propaganda through the screen and straight into your brain. You ain't on a plantation, but you definitely still a slave.
Speaker 1:Race theory is indoctrinating children. Tell blacks they're disadvantaged. Tell whites they got white privilege. What a brilliant way to reinforce division. If whites believe they have it easy, they will never help you fight the system. And now they burn in books in untraditional ways.
Speaker 1:It has traded newspapers for the digital age. Now the facts can be deleted with no physical flames. They just change the information and the truth gets erased. They keep screaming to wake up, but they're all woke, not awake. We know the system has failed us and all the media's fake. I swear the government hates us. Having opinions is dangerous. The system's built to enslave us Only works if we're afraid.
Speaker 1:I am not Republican. I am not a liberal. Progressive and traditional are hitmen hired to kill the individuals. They label people red or blue, divide us. They don't ever help. They want you thinking left or right, so you ain't thinking for yourself. Go ahead and vote, because both the parties are the same side. Two teams, one coach, controlled by the same guys, left wing, right wing both help the same bird fly, brainwashing everybody at the same time.
Speaker 1:The internet was once a place that we could get our facts from. Now it? Now what's been monopolized? It's Google or it's Amazon? Who fact-checking the fact-checkers? I can answer that one the people who control the narratives through the platform.
Speaker 1:Let me break this down for you simple as I can, kate. They use social conditioning to put you in the rat race. It doesn't matter if you're first or third or if you're last place. You're still a rat and they're the cats who kill you, so you can't escape. They keep screaming to Take over them. I won't nod away. We know the system has failed us and all the media's fake. I swear the government hates us. Having opinions is dangerous. The system built to enslave us only works if we're afraid.
Speaker 1:I am not a publican. I am not a liberal. I am just a man who knows they're scared of a nation that's thinking critical. They kill us or they lock us up for nothing like we're criminals. Divide us because they know that unified we are invincible. Questioning the government's agenda is controversial, but promoting guns and liquor in our music is commercial. They're confusing us with pronouns they made up to make us triggered. You can call me what you want, but just don't call me late for dinner. School teaches you to think so you absorb misinformation. Then you practice what they preach. You ain't free, can't you see? That's how they want you to act. That's called conforming to the norm. You don't need freedom for that. I'm not republican or liberal or left wing or right leaning. I took the red pills because that's who's fighting for my freedoms, and you don't need to choose to be accepted. They both fake teams. Evil runs the world now like hell. Ain't got no vacancy. They keep screaming to wake up, but they, they're all woke, not awake.
Speaker 1:We know the system has failed us and all the media's fake, I swear the government hates us and in opinions it's dangerous.
Speaker 5:The system built to enslave us only works if we're afraid everybody, take your critical hats and listen to the lyrics and try not to get too emotional. Behind it it's not meant to be, uh, triggering. It's meant for you to hear the lyrics and think about them and and understand that he's trying to send a message that we're being fed a bill of lies, regardless of what side you're on. So try to digest that a bit.
Speaker 4:Much love. My friends, be careful out there. Go after your decisions with a plan of attack. I like it Everything you just shared as well, sparky. Thank you guys, have a wonderful evening, have a good rest of your weekend. Let's get ready to kick ass this week. Appreciate you guys, take care.