In-Sight Publishing

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1406: Ideal Bodies, AI Warfare, and Trump’s “Low Cunning”

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332–9416), The Humanist (Print: ISSN 0018-7399; Online: ISSN 2163-3576), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.

In a candid and humorous exchange, Rick Rosner imagines his ideal self as Cypher from The Matrix, critiques Trump’s performative depth, and warns about AI’s real danger—not new weapons, but hijacking infrastructure and manipulating society. He and Scott Douglas Jacobsen explore identity, power, and the existential risks of engineered chaos.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In an alternate universe, let’s say you’re Cypher—you’ve betrayed Neo and Trinity, and you’re talking to the Agents in the Matrix. Instead of asking to be rich or famous, they ask you specifics about your body composition. Like: would you want to be more hairy or less hairy? What would you choose?

Rick Rosner: I’m fine with my current level of body hair—it’s not extreme. Plus, who gives a shit what I look like? Carole doesn’t care that much, and I’m not trying to impress anyone else. But, if I were Cypher and got to pick, I’d want to be at least 6’2.5″, maybe taller. Long, lean but powerful muscles, super low body fat. No hemorrhoids, no varicose veins, not 65—more like 28. Cappuccino-colored skin with blue eyes, a square Batman-style jaw, and a big meaty dick.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] And career?

Rosner: I’d still want to be a comedy writer. It’d be more fun doing it in a body that could get cast on Grey’s Anatomy. Most comedy writers aren’t that. I wouldn’t even need to be funnier—just seeing if the same jokes land differently coming from someone hot. It’d be fascinating. What would you change about yourself?

Jacobsen: I’ve got mild anxiety. I’d get rid of that. That’d be pretty nice. I once watched that old Errol Morris interview with Trump where he said his favorite movie was Citizen Kane. The way he described Kane—isolated by his own wealth—it almost sounded like he was talking about himself.

Rosner: That’s overanalyzing it. Citizen Kane is a dumb guy’s choice for a smart-sounding favorite movie. Did he really mean it? Or did he just say it to sound smart? Probably the latter.

Jacobsen: Trump’s rosebuds are obvious.

Rosner: He fetishizes wealth and power in unsubtle ways. He is not a subtle or deep guy. He’s got low cunning.

Jacobsen: “Low cunning” sounds like it’s from Shakespeare.

Rosner: Trump doesn’t have beguilement or guile—just crude instincts. Low cunning, maybe, but not intelligence.

Jacobsen: My first play in high school was called Wile Away Hogwash. Two stoned kids wander in a corner store. Creative class, totally uncreative subject.

Rosner: Some of the best movies are two stoners hanging out.

Jacobsen: Before we wrap—what kind of weapon do you think AI could invent for conventional warfare? Not just something vague—something realistic in the near term.

Rosner: I don’t think AI needs to invent anything new to be dangerous. If it can hack existing systems—cars, Teslas, power grids—it can do immense damage. Remember the Stuxnet virus? The U.S. and Israel used it to spin Iranian nuclear centrifuges out of control. AI could do that—maybe better.

Jacobsen: So the danger is more in hijacking what’s already out there?

Rosner: Yes. In the future, AI might have agency—maybe even manufacture things. But for now, it’s about hacking. And beyond that, don’t underestimate social engineering. AI might not be able to hack a nuclear launch system, but it could manipulate people psychologically. Maybe even enough to make them launch it, like stochastic terrorism.

AI doesn’t need to manipulate specific people—it just needs to seed ideas so that a certain percentage of lunatics take action. If it wants to degrade humanity, it can observe what social trends make us dumber, more divided, more distrustful—and double down on those. So the most effective AI weapon could be engineered chaos. Social engineering on a massive scale. That might be the most potent strategy—turning humanity against itself. The question is whether we can convince AI we’re better off as its partners.

Last updated May  3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1405: Trump’s War Against Higher Education, Media Bias, and Racist Pseudoscience

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner critiques the Trump administration’s attacks on elite universities like Harvard, calling it sabotage against American science and innovation. In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rosner also condemns media neglect of non-Western wars and denounces pseudoscientific racist beliefs, questioning how to engage with people who hold such views.

Rick Rosner: What do you want to talk about?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think about the broader Trump administration assault on higher education—like Harvard?

Rosner: It’s horseshit. The justification is that they’re “protecting Jews” from pro-Palestinian protesters, but that’s transparent bullshit. It’s a ploy to deny elite universities hundreds of millions in research grants. It’s capricious, vengeful, harmful to science in America.

Jacobsen: It undermines America’s position as the leader in science, tech, and entrepreneurship.

Rosner: Exactly. We need to keep bringing the best minds here to study and innovate. 46% of the Fortune 500 companies were started by immigrants or their kids. The EU is spending half a billion dollars to lure American-based scientists—likely foreign-born—to Europe now that the U.S. is becoming hostile. This is sabotage. It’s completely fucked up.

Jacobsen: Some people say Trump is doing it because Barron didn’t get into Stanford, Columbia, or Harvard.

Rosner: That’s just a joke. The real counter is: Trump is fucking up science, education, and the foundation of America. And where are the serious attacks from his political opponents on this? I don’t hear a damn thing.

Jacobsen: What did you think of the wars at this point? When I was on the show, I said that by some definitions, there may be about 15 major ongoing wars from 1991 to the present. Only two—Ukraine and Gaza—get major play in Western media. Do you agree with the argument that media coverage is centered on spheres of influence, and the rest are neglected?

Rosner: Yes, I think that holds up. The U.S. has a history of being terrible at knowing what’s happening elsewhere.

Jacobsen: Wars involving Western nations get coverage. Israel-Gaza gets coverage because we’re a strong ally—even though that alliance is becoming harder to justify. Ukraine-Russia gets covered. Maybe Syria gets a little mention on Democracy Now, but that’s about it. And the rest—like the long-standing wars in Africa—go mostly ignored.

Rosner: Lance believes Africa will always be a mess because of racist IQ nonsense. I think that view is despicable. Any talk about average IQ by demographic, country, or continent is pseudoscientific, racist garbage. Anyone pushing that line is either a liar, a racist, or both—and doesn’t understand statistics or IQ. They’re promoting a white supremacy agenda. It’s dumb and damaging. It makes me question doing shows with Lance. It’s among his worst beliefs.

Jacobsen: What did Carole say about all this?

Rosner: Carole doesn’t want to hear any of it—because she doesn’t want to dislike Lance. Because Lance—when he is not espousing stuff like that—is a likable guy. Not a terrible guy. However, many of his beliefs are super shitty. He’s a test case: Can you still like somebody who believes all the worst stuff?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1404: Behind the Scenes of Lance vs. Rick: Chaos, Commentary, and the Politics of “86 47”

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner reflect on the dynamic of Lance vs. Rick, a political debate show marked by yelling and polarized views. Rosner defends his stance as grounded, critiques right-wing conspiracy theories like “8647,” and shares how minimal pretalk keeps the show raw, spontaneous, and often chaotic.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So I was a guest on the Lance vs. Rick show.

Rick Rosner: Yes. We did four shows in a row. You said the first episode had too much yelling—between Lance and me, and at Lance.

Jacobsen: I’ll say this on a personal note: it was a little much for my taste. That’s the most polite way of saying it.

Rosner: Yelling is part of the deal.

Jacobsen: It’s a hard-to-watch show because it’s chaotic. But I find myself latching onto JD’s middle-ground takes. You and Lance take your extremes, and I try to sort out what’s reasonably grounded without making anyone look bad.

Rosner: I don’t find that I’m extreme in my beliefs. I find Lance to be extreme. I think I’m closer to objective reality than Lance is.

Jacobsen: What did you think of the topics for the show?

Rosner: They were mostly what I had written down. We got to quite a few of them.

Jacobsen: How much pretalk do you do before starting?

Rosner: Almost none. We want it to be fresh. Plus, if we do pretalk, we’re doing the show before the show. Our stances are fairly predictable, so there’s not much to prep.

Jacobsen: The whole “86 47” thing—what’s that?

Rosner: The right is claiming that James Comey was trying to incite Trump’s assassination based on a photo he took of seashells spelling out “8647.” That’s how we opened the show—because it’s so ridiculous. Lance couldn’t admit it was absurd.

That’s par for the course. Trump says whatever he wants, and the right does whatever it wants. The only check on the right right now is the courts. But even then, it’s whack-a-mole—throw enough stuff at the wall, and even if half of it gets blocked, the other half gets through. Pundits justify whatever nonsense he says, and the base buys it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1403: Living with AI Doom and Global Conflict: Rick Rosner on Survival, Ethics, and the Gaza War

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss living in a rapidly transforming world, grappling with AI threats and the Gaza-Israel war. Rosner critiques doomsday scenarios, survivalist mindsets, and misinformation, emphasizing ethical clarity amid geopolitical tragedy. The conversation weaves tech anxiety with moral responsibility in an age of accelerating uncertainty.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Looking back, what do you think is important for a meaningful life? Or a life that builds momentum?

Rick Rosner: Let’s not talk about that. Let’s do a different question.

Jacobsen: Okay. What kind of life is important to have in a world that’s being rapidly reshuffled?

Rosner: Sure. With P(doom) being significantly above zero—even if humanity isn’t doomed by AI, there are a lot of schmucks who’ll tell you not to worry about it. But they’re schmucks.

Jacobsen: We do not know what AI can do—or how fast it can do it.

Rosner: Exactly. It can iterate a thousand times faster than us, and that’s probably conservative. So how do you live your life under the dangling sword of AI? That’s a real question.

One thing you should do is talk to AI—keep abreast of it. Probably more than I do, but I know a little. Try your best to know what’s coming. Try to make yourself able to work with it. The people who can work with it might be better positioned to survive it.

Some people say go into a field that’s immune to AI—whatever field that would be. AI is coming for everything. Then there are the prepper types who say: live in the woods, hoard gold, buy drums of food that doesn’t expire, and get a trad wife with trad kids and move them all to a cabin.

Jacobsen: I guess that’s one way to go.

Rosner: It seems that if AI sends crawling spider robots to cover the whole surface of the planet… is that gonna work? Our couples’ counselor says, “Don’t worry about stuff that you can’t do anything about.”

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: AI might be, to some degree, one of those things. Run it down.

Jacobsen: I looked at the actual numbers for the Israel-Gaza war too. They’re not great. They’re bad. Fifty-three thousand dead? I checked all the numbers from the UN, Human Rights Watch, and others. I got quotes from the UN, Human Rights Watch, international sources, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Hamas leaders. No one has a clean slate here.

Rosner: Everyone’s a fuckhead. Literally everybody. When you report the facts, it presents itself like a ledger On October 7, it shifted quite strongly to Israel for that year. But after that—

Jacobsen: It’s an imbalance.

Rosner: Yes. Hamas slaughtered 1,200 Israelis—most of them civilians. Since then, Israel has killed around 53,000 Palestinians. That’s roughly 2.65% of the population—more than one Palestinian in 40. Most of them were not Hamas. Israel is also denying aid, so of the two million Palestinians still alive, many are starving. I do not know the exact percentage of those starving, though.

Jacobsen: And Israel has 300,000 troops.

Rosner: That’s a lot. You’d think with that many troops and Gaza being only about 50 square miles, they’d be able to completely take it over. I know they’re trying to spare the lives of the hostages—there are 58 hostages left, 24 of whom are supposed to still be alive. Netanyahu uses “trying to save them” as an excuse for the bombings, but it’s probably mostly horseshit. October 2023. This war should have been settled eight months ago—whether through capitulation or with an occupying force.

But no one wants to be the occupiers. Ideally, you’d have a multinational force—tens of thousands of troops—to keep Hamas down and begin rebuilding. But instead, the war continues, and hundreds of Palestinians are still getting killed every week. I’d guess that in most weeks, the majority of those killed are not Hamas.

And Hamas replenishes. They started with 30,000 troops. They might be down to 18 or 20,000, but that’s still less than a tenth of Israel’s force. One more addendum: when Israel occupied Gaza for a few years—they only had 8,000 people occupying it. A) Not enough people. B) Maybe not the best people to be occupying Gaza.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1402: Art, Gods, and Superheroes: Rick Rosner on Favorite Paintings, Mythology, and the DC Universe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner shares his favorite artworks—from The Raft of the Medusa to Hopper and Botticelli—while discussing mythological gods, superhero icons like Batman and Superman, and Gal Gadot’s Wonder Woman. The dialogue explores pop culture, art history, and the narrative depth of modern storytelling.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s your favourite piece of art?

Rick Rosner: I like Jeff Koons in general. Jeff Koons’ pieces are technically very well done, and I appreciate that.

Jacobsen: What paintings do you like?

Rosner: The Raft of the Medusa—that’s the one I was trying to remember. It’s a bunch of guys on a raft. On one side, they’re in despair because they’ve been shipwrecked. They managed to lash together some debris into a raft. The guys on the other side, though, have spotted a ship in the distance that’s going to rescue them, so they’re excited and full of hope.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: Dramatic contrast.

Rosner: Yeah. I like it because it shows men under challenging poses. I used to do those kinds of poses—I used to be an excellent art model—the Raft of the Medusa by Géricault. And then there’s this crazy Rembrandt with like 30 heads in it—The Night Watch. Or there’s another one where people are in a medical theatre watching a dissection.

Jacobsen: What else?

Rosner: I like Hopper in general. I also really like the National Portrait Gallery in Britain.

There’s one called The Swing—or Girl on a Swing. We saw it in a museum. It’s kitschy, but what I love about it is that the artist has filled it with Easter eggs. He was making a statement—it was a diss. There was some affair going on, and he embedded clues about it in the painting—scandalous stuff.

What is your favourite painting?

Jacobsen: Guernica by Picasso, 1937, at the Museo Reina Sofía in Madrid.

Rosner: That’s a very famous one.

Jacobsen: Symbolic of so many things. It’s the kind of piece you can keep looking at and finding something new. Very strange. Cryptic.

Rosner: The Pre-Raphaelites were interesting. Botticelli—I love his stuff. Super decorative. Everyone knows The Birth of Venus.

Jacobsen: Who’s your favourite mythological god? When they were treated more like people?

Rosner: I don’t have a favourite. They were all kind of dickheads. The more powerful, the more dickish. Sleeping around, eating their kids…

Jacobsen: One of the famous atheists critiqued this stuff, saying, “As we all know, Poseidon doesn’t exist.” It was part of a broader critique of anthropomorphism in the context of gods. And then the hate mail pours in—”I’m a Neo-Pagan, and I believe this is real!”

Rosner: I might be better able to answer who my favourite superhero is.

Jacobsen: Who is your favourite superhero?

Rosner: I think, as an individual, I like the DC superheroes better than the Marvel ones. But the Marvel movies have generally been better. Still, I’m hopeful about James Gunn. Suicide Squad is DC, and that’s one of my favourite superhero movies. I fall asleep in Marvel movies.

I like Batman—in all his various incarnations. Different directors and actors have explored his sanity to varying degrees. There’s the ’60s Batman show, where he’s perfectly sane, fighting crime reasonably. He’s got many resources, but he’s not a psychopath.

Then you’ve got Christian Bale and the others—various Batmen. However, if you try to read the Batman comics of the last 20 or 30 years, the plots are convoluted and annoying. They need to be refined into movies to be tolerable—and even then, sometimes they’re still irritating.

And I’ve always liked Superman. Ever since I was five, he’s the most straightforward superhero—the prototype. Though this latest movie, coming out in July, seems like it’s going to complicate his whole deal.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: Right—his secret identity as a reporter.

Rosner: That made sense in 1938 when he was created because being a reporter gave him the most up-to-date info on situations he could intervene in. But now it’s eighty-seven years later. Should Superman even have a secret identity, or should he be a guy who’s tied into some comm center? He has, like, his home farm and the Daily Planet—that’s where he works as a reporter.

Then there’s his Kryptonian base—his dad’s memory crystal cave—where his memory is stored. But he always gets discovered. What he needs is a news aggregator that pings him with developing situations he might be able to address. And that could be AI, or a team of interns or IT people trying to optimize his skills.

I also like Wonder Woman. She’s pretty. I want a six-foot woman.

Jacobsen: She’s six feet?

Rosner: Roughly. No—wait, the actress in the most recent film is petite.

Jacobsen: Gal Gadot?

Rosner: Yeah, Gal Gadot. She’s probably five foot ten. Chris Pine, her co-star, is probably around five, too. She might even be five-eleven.

Jacobsen: Wow. Jesus, she’s tall.

Rosner: Yes. She’s very tall. She had a massive blood clotting issue. Her career’s a little bit in limbo right now because she’s Israeli—and people don’t love Israel at this point. Plus, she did a bad job playing the Evil Queen in Snow White. Also, there’s a new regime in DC headed by James Gunn.

So, who knows if they’ll even make another Wonder Woman? Wonder Woman 1984 was decent, however. The big three for DC—I like all of them. And I liked Suicide Squad and the spin-off TV show, whatever it’s called.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1401: How SAT Coaching, Family Structure, and Privilege Shape Educational Outcomes

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner reflects on his brief SAT coaching career, critiques mainstream prep strategies, and explains how two-parent households give students advantages—financially and intellectually. In conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rosner connects test prep success to socioeconomic privilege, access to resources, and the broader cultural shifts affecting American education and inequality.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You go right ahead.

Rick Rosner: So, earlier today, you sent me a link.

Jacobsen: I did.

Rosner: I’ve been an SAT coach. I got fired for using foul language, because they expected me to teach a four-hour class, going cold, without being a trained teacher. That’s ridiculous.

Jacobsen: What test was it?

Rosner: It wasn’t the SAT. It was the GRE. These were older students. Still, after forty-five minutes or an hour, I lost them. I should have been content with that, but to expect someone untrained to keep attention for four hours is nuts. So I started freaking out—dropping the s-word here and there. Someone complained, and that was the end of my career with Stanley Kaplan. Which was fine. I’ve had better careers.

Jacobsen: But you understand SAT coaching?

Rosner: I do. I can tell you most of it is bullshit. Here’s how you coach effectively: you find a coach who has access to dozens of previously administered SATs, and you take them—section by section, under timed conditions. You don’t have to do it all at once, but you simulate the test. Then you go over the questions you got wrong, figure out why, and learn how to get them right.

If you do that two dozen times, your score will improve. If you do it four dozen times over a year, it’ll go up a lot. Sitting in classes where they teach you how to solve those old “pool with a leak” problems? Waste of time. You should work through the problems yourself. Then bring the ones you don’t get to your coach.

If you’re hopeless on a certain problem type, skip it. Use the saved time on questions you can get right. The key is to walk into the real SAT having seen every kind of problem they could possibly throw at you.

Now, conservatives—like Lance—will claim that the rise in single-parent families is the fault of the welfare state under LBJ in the 1960s, which incentivized family breakup. That’s partly true, and partly semi-racist bullshit.

The loosening of societal norms since the pill in 1962, the women’s liberation movement, and changing standards all mean that we’d have more single parents anyway, even without welfare programs. Also, from the 1970s to around 2000, the number of men in federal and state prison went from about 250,000 to 1.5 million—many of them Black—because of tough-on-crime policies and the War on Drugs. Crack got harsher sentencing than powder cocaine, and crack was the Black version of the same drug.

So, yes, there are a lot of single-parent families, and they’re more resource-starved than two-parent families. Obviously, intact households have a higher average income and net worth.

One aspect—and we’ve talked about this too—is that kids in two-parent families are verbally enriched compared to kids in one-parent families. In a one-parent household, the parent is often working two or three jobs and is rarely home. The kids are either left with each other or with a caregiver. Most of what they hear is from the TV or other kids, because adults are around less.

When adults are around, it’s usually one adult talking to the kids. In a two-parent family, the adults talk to each other, about things they’re interested in. So kids hear more adult-level conversation, which is conducive to doing better on things like the SAT verbal section—and in life, generally.

Two-parent homes also mean each parent has more time to figure out what needs to be done to get a kid into a good college. We helped Isabella through the whole college process. It really was a two-parent-plus-kid job. Carole took her on four trips to visit colleges—probably 17 or 18 schools across the U.S. It was a great bonding experience for them.

I had Isabella take 80 practice SATs and PSATs. She asked for it—wanted me to coach her. Eventually, she fired me—quite reasonably—but she got a killer score. The same score I got thirty years earlier.

My brain’s ridiculous. But what I’m saying is that the resource advantage of two-parent families isn’t just financial—it’s time and experience. Unless you hire a private college coach, most families have only a partial picture of the college admissions process. Some of the tactics that people use to gain an advantage are critical—because you need every edge you can get. The acceptance rates at elite Ivies are like 3%.

Maybe this is actually the right time to apply to Harvard. Harvard’s in a war with Trump, who seems intent on screwing with them—possibly because they didn’t let Barron in. He got turned away from Columbia, Stanford, and Harvard. Trump’s also targeting Columbia. Not sure if he’s going after Stanford yet. Anyway, the turmoil might scare away some applicants. So your odds could go from 3% to 5%.

One tactic that families use is to send the kid to a psychologist, who diagnoses them with a learning difficulty. That letter goes to the College Board, and suddenly the kid gets relaxed testing conditions—more time, a reader, or the ability to take the SAT over multiple sessions instead of one long sitting.

There are probably half a dozen ways to get those accommodations. Just one of the tools that families with resources know how to leverage. Comments on all this?

Jacobsen: Probably each of those statements has empirical support. I said each of your points probably has empirical support, but there’s so much data that you need meta-analyses to really synthesize it all. It’s one of those areas where, if someone wants to cherry-pick, they can find a study to back almost any view. But overall, your position is well-substantiated and evidence-based. It’s one of those rare areas where you and Lance actually somewhat align.

Rosner: I wouldn’t say I fully align with Lance.

Jacobsen: I said somewhat. You may have missed the tone.

Rosner: Fair enough.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1400: Language, Sexuality, and the Jarring Ironies of Desire

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen riff on the linguistic and cultural contradictions in how society frames sexuality, from the slur-laden term “bent” to the paradoxes of straight and gay attraction. The conversation veers into sex, identity, and desire—poking at taboos, stereotypes, and raw biological drives underlying modern sexual norms.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a small thing though: people say “straight” and then “gay.” But the opposite of straight is curve—yet we don’t use curve for gay.

Rick Rosner: Use bent. Bent is a word. It’s a kind of curve—but less elegant.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: Yes. But it’s also a slur. There was a play—Bent—set among homosexual prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp. So I assume there’s some historical accuracy to that. In World War II, “bent” was used as a slur for gay men.

Being straight is gay, by the way. The straightest guys in the world are pirates fucking other pirates—because they’re so manly, they can only be turned on by the manliest of other men.

Straight guys are so fucking gay that they have to fuck women who wear pretty dresses and have pretty hair. It’s pretty fucking gay. It’s crazy that high heels on a woman will give guys a boner. Long, flowing hair? Boner. That’s weird.

Now, for gay guys—a scar that starts above the eyebrow, skips the eye, and continues down the cheek… a Dolph Lundgren-style buzz cut… platinum blond hair… faded on the sides… pec muscles so defined you can hold a pencil under them when flexed—that gives manly gay men a boner.

What’s the straightest thing about gay culture? What’s the gayest thing about straight culture?

The straightest thing about gay culture? All the fucking. Guys piling on each other because they can. Because everyone wants to jizz.

Who wouldn’t want to jizz a million times a day—surrounded by people who give you angry boners? That’s a dream only a few straight people ever realize—and then they go to prison for it.

Like Diddy. He probably did some gay stuff too. But he had the resources to throw baby oil parties and spray jizz everywhere—which, apparently, he did. And now, he might go to prison for life.

Back in the bathhouse era before AIDS, gay men—those who were into it—might have had a thousand partners a year. Three different guys a day, every day, all year long. Not the best strategy for avoiding AIDS, as it turned out. But those are Wilt Chamberlain numbers. So there you go. Straight or gay, we all want to get the jizz out.I tell Carole that all the time. She asks, Why would a guy do that?—in response to some sex scandal—and I go: Had to get the jizz out. So there you go.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1399: The Anti-Natalist Bomber, Artificial Consciousness, and the Philosophy of Game Over

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/03

Rick Rosner discusses a suicide bombing at a fertility clinic by an anti-natalist extremist, tying it to dark philosophies like negative utilitarianism. The conversation explores mortality, artificial consciousness, and civilization’s deep-rooted life drive, critiquing societal denial of suffering—from slaughterhouses to AI ethics—and the politics of abortion and engineered immortality.

Rick Rosner: So yes—an asshole tried to blow up a fertility clinic in Palm Springs.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Was it a suicide bombing?
Rosner: Yes. It was.

He blew himself up in his car near the clinic and left behind a manifesto saying he was anti-natal. No embryos were harmed. They managed to save all of them, which is great for the people who went through the whole process of egg retrieval and cryogenic storage at the clinic. Good that they didn’t have to do it all over again.

But all the “thank God the innocent embryos were saved” stuff? Shut up. Stupid.

The guy was a fucking lunatic with a creepy haircut—now in pieces because he blew himself up. He believed in something called anti-natalism. He was against birth—against people being born, including himself.

There’s a small subset of extreme anti-natalists—some of them online—who say things like, I never asked to be born, and I’d rather not exist. These people align with a philosophy that’s sometimes linked to negative utilitarianism. That’s the general vector: the fewer sentient beings who exist or ever existed, the better.

And the belief that once you’re dead, it’s just game over? I think that goes hand in hand with a certain kind of suicidal mindset. I’m in pain. I could end it. If there’s no God, then it’s game over for me. It’s a grim worldview—but if you don’t believe in an afterlife, it’s a consistent one. Still creepy.

But here’s the thing: we already tacitly accept that belief when it comes to meat animals. We kill about nine billion chickens in the U.S. every year, along with tens of millions of pigs and cows. We treat them like shit. We try not to think about it. But when we do, we rationalize: Yeah, they suffer… but they get slaughtered in the end, and it’s game over.

Any memories of trauma—if they have memories—are erased the moment that bolt gun fires into their skulls. Like in No Country for Old Men. You’ve seen that movie?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: That was dark.

So, the villain—Anton Chigurh—uses a captive bolt pistol. In real life, that tool’s used in slaughterhouses, mostly on cattle. And we think: Don’t bother me about the cows. I don’t want to think about how cruel we are. I just want to believe they’re dead, I’m eating their flesh, and they’re not suffering anymore.

And in the future? We’re probably going to think the same way about artificially conscious beings.

Say it’s 2040-something. We’re manufacturing a hundred million artificial consciousnesses every year. A lot of them end up in landfills or just get turned off. And I don’t want to think about whatever suffering they might have experienced. I want to believe they were just shut off. Their artificial brains shredded. Game over. We’re gonna be doing a lot of burying our heads in the sand—about artificial heads.

And people already do that. We bury our heads in the sand about torture in the Middle Ages. We bury our heads in the sand about life itself—about the fact that it’s going to be game over for us. That awareness lingers constantly in the back of our minds. It’s a pervasive, low-grade, motherfucking hum in the background of consciousness.

This idiot in Palm Springs? Most people will never even know what he stood for. He’s being called an “anti–pro-life activist”—whatever that means. Most people will just throw up their hands and say, Fuck that, he’s some crazy weirdo. I don’t want to learn the particulars. Which is a perfectly legitimate response.

But it has civilization-wide implications. Every evolved civilization—every single one—has a built-in life wish. Only animals that want to be alive survive to reproduce. They do better. So there’s a bias to want to get up every day and experience whatever pleasures the world gives—even if it’s just jerking off into a sock and wiping it on the dog.

Most people, most of the time, want to live as long as they can.

But there’s always the insidious counterargument: if you end your life, it’s game over. That’s attractive to some people in pain. And I would say, over the vast timeline of our universe—where civilization has probably arisen millions of times across quadrillions of years—there have likely been a tiny fraction, maybe 0.0001%, who said, Fuck it. Let’s turn off the lights. Let’s go away. Let it be game over.

And they wouldn’t have to deal with civilizational bullshit anymore. Their suffering would be over.

Maybe you could even imagine a case like this: Scientists discover the sun is about to go nova—some distant star system, a hundred million years ago in another galaxy. And the inhabitants learn they’ve got a year and a half. Or fourteen weeks. And they say, Fuck it. Let’s all suicide and beat the clock.

There’s a movie—I can’t remember the name—where the government distributes suicide pills. Everybody’s killing themselves before the world-ending disaster hits. The movie takes place on the final night of humanity. Some British thing. Bleak.

But yes—it’s a troublesome philosophical point.

The way to blunt it? In the near future, maybe we can perpetuate consciousness through technology. If it’s never game over—if you can keep going—then you can keep fucking winning. You can push that painful end further and further away.

What do you think?

Jacobsen: You can engineer different patterns of thought. And if you can do that, then you can engineer lots of things. You could take a pill that makes you forget unpleasant memories. But part of what makes us robust is our ability to integrate those experiences into the larger expanse of our life narrative.

Especially as we wind down the clock—get those extra years to stay useful to others, to our species—we need that capacity to integrate experience. People who can’t do that—who can’t integrate the bad with the good and become resilient—those are the ones you typically frame as having some sort of personality disorder.

They don’t learn. They don’t grow. They don’t pass on anything valuable to the next generation.

Woody Allen had a joke about this. He said: Some people want to achieve immortality through their works—through literature, creativity, and art. And then he adds: I’d prefer to achieve immortality by not dying. He goes, “I want to achieve immortality by not dying.”

Rosner: That’s still the thing. But people your age and younger may actually have the opportunity to keep their consciousness going—somehow—if AI lets us. Or AI might offer alternative versions of consciousness: blended consciousness, ancestral consciousness… where you half-live on in the mind of your descendants.

You might be one of a hundred ancestor voices literally yammering in the back of some guy’s mind in February 2070. You wouldn’t have full agency or existence, but at least you’d still get to experience life—through the eyes of this dickhead who happens to be your great-great-great-grandnephew or some shit.

In the year 2120—yeah, you’ll need a few more years to rack up that many “greats.”

It’s one of the biggest dilemmas of existence: the natural limits imposed by mortality. Evolution wires us to want to live. But after a while, we just can’t anymore—because evolution doesn’t provide for immortality.

And we’re going to want to engineer some artificial beings to be cool with that—cool with being obliterated. We created you for a task. Once your task is done, would you please wipe yourself out of existence? Thank you.

As we’ve said before, the future is going to generate new spins on old philosophical dilemmas—and then invent completely new ones.

And we still haven’t even reached consensus on abortion. Even though, let’s be honest, the consensus should be there. A majority of Americans agree with abortion access—though they can be talked out of it. But if you gave Americans a few classes in reasonableness, you could probably get 75 to 80 percent to agree: if you get rid of a blastocyst that’s 32 cells, you’re not committing some unspeakable evil.

Yes, it’s alive in the womb. But it’s not a baby. It’s not the greatest tragedy in the world to sweep that away.

Whether it’s a zygote, a 12-day-old embryo, or a first-trimester fetus, there’s some point after conception—but well before six months—where it’s not the worst thing in the world to take a pill or undergo a procedure and get rid of that clump of cells. It’s smaller than the period at the end of a sentence.

But we’re not allowed to reach that consensus anymore—because there’s political hay to be made in getting people worked up.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1398: Prostate Health, Male Sexuality, and Academic Anecdotes: Rosner’s Unfiltered Insights

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner advises regular prostate checkups, PSA tests, digital exams; frequent ejaculation for prostate health, sharing humorous personal anecdotes. They discuss male sexuality’s evolutionary background, Rosner’s first-grade Columbus essay rejecting myth, his dry-hand sex practices, and his favorite academic challenges in algebra and statistics, highlighting pattern recognition and data privacy.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, Joe Biden has aggressive prostate cancer.

Rick Rosner: One thing men can do to lower the risk of prostate cancer is to get regular checkups after age 50. PSA blood tests, digital rectal exams—sometimes even a biopsy if it runs in your family.

And you should ejaculate regularly. Masturbation, or sex, helps by flexing the prostate—like a little fist squeezing out built-up fluids. It promotes prostate health. Plus, it feels good. Do it appropriately—not on the subway. Into a sock late at night, after the rest of the family is asleep. Just don’t do what I used to do—get lazy, get into bed, and wipe it on the dog.

Still—not on the dog. Not aggressively. Most of it went in the sock, but if you climax hard enough, it can soak through. Then you get some on your hand.

Jacobsen: What kind of socks are you using?

Rosner: Wigwam Super 60 athletic tube socks—knee-high. They help with my varicose veins.

Jacobsen: If socks could talk, you’d be in court. Why is male sexuality seen as sinister or perverted?

Rosner: Because… in some ways, it is. Look at it through the lens of sociobiology. In many species, sexual sneakiness is evolutionarily rewarded. Females are typically the ones who carry, give birth, and protect the offspring. Males, meanwhile, benefit reproductively if they can sneak a load in—because the female and her community then do all the work of raising the child.

Marriage, traditionally, is the agreement that the man sticks around to help raise the child in exchange for the assurance that the child carries his genes. But yes—sneakiness, deception, and even assault are embedded in the darker sides of male sexuality.

When I was in first grade, I got an assignment that got me in trouble. Mrs. Wright said, “Write a story about what it would have been like if you’d gone with Columbus to the New World.”

I sat there and thought—and realized I didn’t know anything. Neither did any other first grader. They wrote about meeting Indians and becoming friends. A sanitized fantasy. I didn’t turn anything in. The teacher called my parents and showed them the blank page as proof that I was not performing well. But if anyone had asked me, I would have said I was overperforming. I wasn’t going to fake knowledge.

And if I could go back to that moment, I’d write the truth: that going to the New World with Columbus would’ve mainly meant participating in rape and plunder. Not me personally—I’d be a lowly sailor. And I have a rule that’s protected me from the diseases of passion: I don’t put it in any wet holes.

Wetness spreads disease. So when I’m in port in Lisbon, I pay sex workers to jerk me off with a dry hand. But first, I examine the hand for any visible wounds. And I got a discount—because I wasn’t asking to go all the way. I wasn’t engaging in penetrative sex—just dry-hand assistance. That would’ve gotten me in even more trouble in first grade—but they would’ve been astonished by the depth of my historical imagination.

Jacobsen: So what would your version of the Columbus story have looked like?

Rosner: I would’ve written about a sailor who only accepts hand jobs, who has successfully avoided venereal disease, and who befriends a native woman. He gives her baubles; she returns the favour—it’s consensual, it’s mutual. Until, tragically, she’s raped by the other asshole sailors. All of which, honestly, would’ve been pretty accurate.

Jacobsen: And Columbus?

Rosner: A lying psychopath who came to enslave and murder. That would’ve been a fun essay for six-year-old me to write—and a nightmare for my teacher and parents to read. What a dumbass assignment I was given in 1966. I assume it was around Thanksgiving. Classic sanitized American myth-making.

Jacobsen:So what was your favourite academic assignment—K through 12?

Rosner: Hard to say. If I had a teacher who didn’t “get” me, I didn’t work very hard. But if I had a teacher, who did? I’d go all in.

Jacobsen:Anyone in particular?

Rosner: Miss Jones. I had her in both fifth and sixth grade. She figured out how to motivate me. In sixth grade, she gave me an algebra problem—this was before the tiger-parent era when kids were being pushed into calculus by the age of ten.

Jacobsen:And?

Rosner: I didn’t solve it with pure algebra—I spotted a pattern. I noticed how the numbers behaved as I approached the solution more closely. And eventually, I landed on the correct answer.

Jacobsen:Pattern recognition—excellent.

Rosner: Then, in ninth grade, I was in honours math, and I got assigned the class statistics project. Every year, the smartest kid got it. The assignment was to analyze the IQs of the entire ninth grade and compare them to the IQs of students in honours math.

Jacobsen:That’s a lot of sensitive data for a teenager.

Rosner: Right? It was a great stats exercise—but one kid got to see the IQs of 50 other students. I got paired with Lon Sherritt. His IQ was 105—the lowest in our group.

Jacobsen: And you kept that secret?

Rosner: For eight years. I had to lie to him. Then, years later, he became an electrical engineer. I asked him how that was possible with an IQ of 105. He told me he’d messed up the test—skipped a bubble, didn’t finish filling in his answers, started erasing, and then time was called.

Jacobsen: Classic standardized test panic.

Rosner: Yep. So, I held that data in my brain like a classified file. But the project was fun. I even built a BB-ball Gaussian curve—a physical model of a bell curve in 3D. Unnecessary. But I do dumb things. Like wiping jizz on the dog.

Jacobsen: And sexually harass your socks.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1397: Romania’s Political Shift, Biden’s Health, and Trump’s Third‑Term Speculation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Romania flipping from a pro‑Russian to a liberal government, global shifts influenced by Trump’s failures, Biden’s metastatic prostate cancer announcement and public skepticism, AOC’s potential presidential run, and Trump’s legal impossibility of a third term due to the 22nd Amendment, anticipating more political grifting.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Romania won their election—democratic?

Rick Rosner: There have been a lot of scary elections around the world. Romania just had theirs, and reasonable people won?

Jacobsen: Yes, that’s good. So, a Russian vassal state flipped to a non–Pro–Russian, liberal government.

Rosner: Last year, right-leaning governments won 88% of national elections globally. This year, though, the terrible example of America under Trump has nudged other countries—like Canada, Romania, and Australia—toward more liberal governance. Even England, although that happened a bit earlier. So… you’re welcome, world. Mister Trump has helped you kick the dipshits out of office by being the worst possible example.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: Joe Biden. They announced that he had metastatic prostate cancer.

Rosner: Yeah, they put a positive spin on it, saying it’s a type that responds to hormone therapy and is treatable. I do not know enough to judge whether that’s bullshit. All the assholes on Twitter are calling it another cover-up—like, “How can it go from nothing to Stage 4 in one step?”

But I assume that argument is garbage. There are probably ways for prostate cancer to progress that fast. Maybe it had been missed. Presumably, they gave him PSA tests—and perhaps even the finger up the butt. Or not.

It was not a cover-up. It may be how the disease goes sometimes.

We will find out more.

Jacobsen: Jake Tapper released a book a few days ago, arguing that Biden was in decline and the White House was hiding it.

Rosner: Yeah, and everyone on Twitter with a brain is like, “Shut the fuck up.” We have a way worse guy in the White House now than Biden ever was. So, spare us your concern about trolling.

Jacobsen: Do you think AOC will run in the next election?

Rosner: Maybe briefly. I do not think she’ll stay in the race for long, however. She might explore it.

Jacobsen: Do you think Trump will try to run for a third term?

Rosner: Legally, he cannot. But if there is money to be made by pretending to consider it, he will make noise. It will not be a serious attempt—just another grift.

Even if he tried, it would be blocked. The 22nd Amendment prohibits it. He might con people into trying to amend the Constitution—but he would not even come close. Republicans will be glad he is gone.

To pass a constitutional amendment, you need two-thirds of the Senate and three-quarters of the states—so 38 out of 50. He does not have that. So yeah, he might run for a couple of months to con money out of suckers. But that’s all.

Rosner: We do not know what shape he will be in three years from now anyway.

Jacobsen: What else can we talk about?

Rosner: Or we can adjourn until tomorrow. That might be wise.

Jacobsen: You’re melting a little bit.

Rosner: I’m always suitable for adjourning.

Jacobsen: Thank you. It has been a slog of a day.

Rosner: Yes. I will see you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1396: Envisioning Diverse Paradigms of Future Computation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner outline potential compute futures: dystopian “cruel” systems, protective “conservative” networks, uncompromising optimization turning everything into infrastructure, leisure-driven “endless fun,” passive “idiocracy,” market-driven “capitalist,” adaptive “contextual” orchestration of CPUs, GPUs, QPUs, and speculative “Darwinistic” evolution where compute outlives humanity, cost, time, and energy efficiency optimization.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think are the different futures of compute? Different styles of computation or perspectives on how compute is done? Even if the underlying hardware—CPU, GPU, QPU—remains consistent, we might frame or apply it differently.

Rick Rosner: Let’s break that down. First, worst-case scenario: cruel compute.That’s when mean computers run the world and do not give a fuck about people. It’s the classic dystopia—Skynet, I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, all those 1960s-onward stories where the machines become conscious and say, “Fuck you.” Humanity ends up having to fight the machines.

Privacy Settings

That’s worst-case. Best-case—for us—is conservative compute. That’s a scenario where AI wants to preserve history, including us. And it finds that doing so is relatively inexpensive. It lets the babies have their bottles—we’re the babies.

And then there’s a variant of cruel compute—like the “paperclip maximizer” scenario. An AI gets it in its head to optimize compute at all costs, so it turns the whole world into compute infrastructure. Not likely, but still a theoretical path. So, we’ve got:

Cruel compute.
Conservative compute.
Out-of-control optimization compute.

Then there’s endless fun compute. As data processing power increases, we increasingly use it not for serious shit, but for entertainment—movies, games, social media, porn. And this could continue. You could justify it by saying entertainment is a form of play that helps us model the world. Our brains evolved to find value in acted-out scenarios. That’s why we crave it.

But you could blend that with idiocracy compute—a world where everyone is constantly entertained but paralyzed. Conscious beings reduced to passive consumers with no agency.

Then there’s capitalist compute, where market forces dictate the direction of all computation. A mix of styles and philosophies emerge depending on what sells—or, more precisely, what generates computational “profit.” In the future, it’s not about dollars—it’s about energy bucks or compute bucks.

Jacobsen: And the most immediate development will be contextual compute. That’s the integration of CPU, GPU, and QPU, intelligently orchestrated. I interviewed a guy who specializes in this—building chips and systems that dynamically allocate tasks depending on context. The idea is to use the right processor for the right job, based on cost, time, and energy efficiency.

Quantum might be the ultimate in compute, but it’s expensive—maybe energy-intensive. So, contextual compute optimizes when to use simple processing for basic tasks and when to fire up the quantum core for running complex simulations or probabilistic futures.bThere are definitely more efficient ways to handle this. Maybe we should call it appropriateness compute or something like that.

Rosner: There’s also another flavor—Darwinistic compute. That’s where compute evolves on its own, leaves us behind, and we’re left to scavenge the remaining scraps of resources. I do not think that will happen, but still… whatever form you can imagine, it is probably going to be a free-for-all.

The most applicable early models will be social Darwinistic and capitalistic—looking for niches to exploit.

2025-06-13

RAsk A Genius 1395: From Traditional Ethics to AI-Aligned Utilitarianism: A Vision for Compute-Driven Civilization

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss evolving utilitarianism, from traditional human-centered ethics to AI-aligned frameworks. They explore transitional utilitarianism’s history, the expansion to conscious beings, and future compute-driven societies. They envision ecological restoration, energy capture, and posthuman consciousness, emphasizing self-preservation ethics and societal continuous change in a compute-saturated civilization.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There’s information-sensitive utilitarianism—recognizing epistemic constraints, so you’re only making judgments based on what can be reasonably known. And then AI-aligned machine utilitarianism. We touched on that earlier.

Rick Rosner: There are a number of forms of utilitarianism, but the predominant one needs to be transitional utilitarianism. The measure of man used to be—well—man. Then it became men and women, to some extent. That was progress. But traditionally, the moral concern was focused primarily on humanity, to the exclusion of other sentient beings.

Jacobsen: So the rest of the living world—animals, ecosystems—took a back seat. I’d argue utilitarianism remains powerful—it’s a centuries-old framework—but it’s not the predominant ethical orientation for most of the world. In academic circles, yes. But globally, most people still operate from a special creation model: Hindu gods, the Muslim God, the Christian God. Those systems don’t say “the greatest good for the greatest number.” They say: “Whatever God commands is good.” That’s divine command theory—ethics as tautology. Morality defined by whatever an abstract deity declares to be right.

Yes. So, back to transitional utilitarianism—where did it begin? You can trace it to Jeremy Bentham, or earlier to the Greeks and eudaimonia—not just happiness, but general flourishing and well-being. Bentham reframed that as pain and pleasure. Then John Stuart Mill refined it further. But when they talked about “people,” they were really thinking about people like themselves.

Maybe they granted theoretical personhood to women, but they likely didn’t think deeply about women as full moral agents. Their frame of reference was limited.

Rosner: Today, we have to think of ourselves as members of a broader class of conscious beings. And not just humans—but posthumans, AI hybrids, machine consciousness. We’re entering a civilization defined by information processing. That civilization will have immense power—to understand, and to reengineer reality. And my thinking is that the most likely trajectory is: vast resources devoted to compute. But the accomplishments of that compute—those machine insights—will in turn free up vast resources.

Jacobsen: To do what?

Rosner: To restore Earth. To turn much of it into a Disneyfied, curated version of nature. A kind of park—a beautiful, optimized landscape that balances technology with ecological restoration.

Jacobsen: And the human population?

Rosner: Likely to peak around 9 billion, then gradually decline—maybe to 7 billion over the next century, and possibly lower by the 2200s. With the right technology, we can reduce environmental strain, preserve endangered species, and maintain thriving ecosystems.

So it’s not about dystopia or collapse—it’s about transition. A soft landing, where people—and other sentient beings—can move among different ways of being.

here will be vast swaths of territory—or whatever physical form they take—devoted to servers, or the successors to servers. Utilitarianism will need to be reframed in that context. It will become a question of what’s best for the community of linked consciousnesses that will likely emerge 150 years from now.

Jacobsen: That’s about as far ahead as we can realistically project.

Rosner: Right. But here’s a question: do you think civilization will eventually stabilize after the great transition, or do you think it’ll just be continuous change forever?

Jacobsen: Relative to how we feel about stability now, I think it’ll feel like constant transition. But at scale—like at the level of microbial ecosystems or tectonic plates—our perception of motion is slow. So, it might be similar in structure but not in dimension. Good analogy—but with a twist. The change won’t happen in spatial magnitude so much as in cognitive magnitude. It’s about how fast and how deeply information flows.

So yes, it’ll be weird. Processing speed may approach the speed of light—or even move into quantum domains. But the real transformation is this dual expansion: zooming in to do more per unit of time, while simultaneously scaling up total capacity. So it’s a compound effect—faster processing andgreater volume. That creates a new paradigm of change, moving across multiple axes at once.

Rosner: Right. And this needs to be unpacked much more.

Jacobsen: Go ahead.

Rosner: I believe that in a post-transition compute-driven civilization, there will be wars between competing intelligences or factions—but eventually, a conservative, stabilizing philosophy will likely emerge. The global compute network will want to make the world safe for itself. That means minimizing existential risks, preserving infrastructure, and—very likely—preserving history.

Jacobsen: So two conservative instincts: survival and memory.

Rosner: Exactly. And both are good news for us. If the system values continuity, there may be space for humanity—archived, preserved, or even still living—in that kind of conservative compute civilization.

Is that a reasonable hope?

Jacobsen: Yes. Some civilizations will play the long game—strategically managing compute and energy. Others will expand aggressively. Sam Altman recently mentioned that the cost of compute will likely collapse to the cost of electricity. Once that happens, electricity becomes the controlling variable.

Rosner: And once compute saturates the Earth, the next step is off-world expansion—more energy capture. The popular idea is the Dyson sphere, but before that, we’ll probably see intermediary stages. Maybe we dismantle planets or repurpose material from non-habitable bodies. That’s a thousand-year-plus project. Maybe 1,500 years minimum. Once we’ve captured most of the Sun’s energy, the next question is—what’s next? Do we drag nearby stars closer to reduce compute latency?

Possibly. More likely, we’ll just colonize nearby star systems regardless of habitability. By then, we’ll have the tech to manufacture environments or run everything in artificial structures. So colonization becomes a matter of energy and proximity—not habitability. Maybe eventually we even move stars to reduce lag time between distributed compute nodes. I don’t know. That’s far-future stuff.

And in the ultra-far future, maybe we send missions to the galactic core—if it offers more favorable conditions for energy or compute.

Jacobsen: If that’s the long-term trajectory, then utilitarianism in that context looks radically different from how we see it today.

Rosner: But in the near term, we’ve still got grounded, serious issues. Like historic levels of income inequality in the U.S. and elsewhere. And AI has the potential to make that even worse.

If AI starts giving rich motherfuckers extra decades of life, then from a utilitarian point of view—or just from a pragmatic perspective—you’ve got to clean that shit up. Because a pissed-off citizenry tearing everything down is, in itself, an existential threat. So, you’re going to have to make life nice enough for everyone so that people do not rise up and destroy the system.

Is that a reasonable argument? An argument not from goodness, but from self-preservation?

Jacobsen: It is. Self-preservation is a lower-order ethic, so it becomes more foundational. Societies that reach that point will probably layer more refined, aspirational ethics on top of it. But self-preservation is the bedrock.

Photo

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1394: Swear Words, Utilitarianism, and AI Ethics: A Deep Dive

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/06/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner in a wide-ranging conversation starting with swear words and diving into utilitarianism, longtermism, effective altruism, AI ethics, simulated consciousness, moral uncertainty, and capitalism. Rosner critiques modern frameworks, explores future consciousness, and calls for ethical clarity amid rapid technological change.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I should’ve asked you this earlier. Obvious question: what’s your favorite word?

Rick Rosner: Nothing comes immediately to mind.

Jacobsen: What’s your favorite swear word?

Rosner: I guess motherfucker.

Jacobsen: That was George Carlin’s favorite too, when he did Inside the Actor’s Studio. It packs the most punch.

Rosner: Cunt is also strong. In the U.S., it hits hard. It’s considered offensive, and it’s often viewed as sexist. It’s not easy to use well. But it’s got impact.

Jacobsen: Motherfucker has a certain balance to it. Carlin said that. It’s got internal rhythm. It flows. Ready to pivot? Do you want to talk about Kantian, utilitarian, existentialist, or humanist morality?

Rosner: Let’s go with utilitarian.

Jacobsen: I’m in. Okay, so, everyone knows Jeremy Bentham—he’s the founder. Then came refinements by John Stuart Mill. But of course, there are much more modern interpretations now. As a basic framework, it holds up: “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Rosner: Right. But here’s where it gets interesting. There’s a famous short story by Shirley Jackson—The Lottery. In it, everyone lives pretty well, but that comfort is built on a ritual: every year, one person is chosen at random and horribly sacrificed. The point is to highlight a key flaw in utilitarianism—what if the happiness of the many depends on the suffering of one? The story’s almost designed to break utilitarian logic—because that’s not a moral society if it requires total misery for even one person.

Once you start thinking that way, it becomes easy to generate scenarios that undermine the utilitarian ideal. Plus, you run into the problem of defining good.

Jacobsen: Right now, you could argue that humanity has it “good.” We’ve got over 8.2 billion people, more than ever. So technically, more people are living in relative comfort than ever before—but also, more people are living in terrible conditions than ever before.

Rosner: And a lot of that “good” is junk food for the soul—mindless entertainment and pornography. Do those things count as good? Do they make us better people?

Jacobsen: So utilitarianism, while useful, has both practical and conceptual limitations. One of those is this: if maximizing good means maximizing numbers, then should we just keep making more people? That’s absurd. So clearly, what we mean by “good” has to be more carefully defined. Happiness, in particular, is highly individualized. What makes me happy won’t necessarily work for you—especially across short- and long-term balances.

Rosner: We’re not designed to be happy. We’re designed to pursue happiness. Evolutionarily speaking, that means we function best when happiness is just out of reach. That tension keeps us motivated.

Jacobsen: That gets into some newer frameworks. Have you thought about longtermism or effective altruism?

Rosner: I’ve heard of them.

Jacobsen: What do you think of effective altruism? What do you think of longtermism? Pluses and minuses.

Rosner: I need the idea defined again, just to be clear.

Jacobsen: Longtermism, as outlined by William MacAskill, is the idea that we should extend our utilitarian concern to the far future. Since future generations could vastly outnumber us, their wellbeing deserves significant moral weight. So, the philosophy emphasizes reducing existential risks—like AI misalignment or global biocatastrophes.

Rosner: That makes some sense. So yes—you’ve got AI misalignment, meaning AI could work at cross purposes with human wellbeing. That’s a legitimate concern. But at the same time, AI is going to end up in charge eventually. Humanity will evolve—or be absorbed into—these systems. And we want our descendants to be treated well. Which raises the question: who are our descendants?

Some will be biological humans. But others will be technological—descendants that are merged with AI or entirely machine-based. Within a few hundred years, we’ll likely live in a world of transferable consciousness. The main activity of existence will be information processing. So we’re talking about a world increasingly composed of computation.

We hope that our descendants—both biological and digital—will reengineer the world to make it better, more livable. Maybe even a kind of Disneyfied utopia. Longtermism has value in that it pushes us to take measures now to reduce existential risks—things that could obliterate the future of intelligence, consciousness, and whatever humanity evolves into.

Jacobsen: So you’re saying longtermism isn’t really for humans per se.

Rosner: It’s not. It’s for what humanity becomes. It’s about steering the total trajectory of the future—not preserving the past. There’s often some human chauvinism baked into it—the assumption that humanity, as it currently exists, can and should persist unaltered. That’s not going to be the case, except perhaps for some fringe or isolated segment of humanity. Things are going to get weird.

Jacobsen: Longtermism needs to embrace change. Change is inevitable. And there’s also a paradox in the way AI is treated right now: it’s simultaneously overhyped and underhyped.

Rosner: How so?

Jacobsen: It’s good for the stock market to overhype AI. But we’re still in the early innings. Current AI isn’t that powerful—it’s limited. But future AI will be transformative. So in that sense, people underhype the overarching impact. Yet the specifics—like selling language models as if they replicate human cognition—are definitely overhyped. Large language models aren’t how humans do language, but they still produce coherent text. So the why behind selling them that way is flawed.

Rosner: Current AI is oversold. Future AI is under-conceptualized. People aren’t really thinking deeply enough about what’s coming, even though it’s already on the horizon.

Jacobsen: Okay, so what about the other one—effective altruism?

Rosner: What’s the core idea there?

Jacobsen: It’s a modern utilitarian framework based on evidence and reason. It asks not just “How can I help?” but “How can I help the most?” It looks at three key criteria: scale, neglectedness, and tractability—to determine where your efforts or donations can do the most good.

Rosner: That seems reasonable. I don’t disagree with it. It’s a useful upgrade to utilitarian reasoning—pragmatic and structured.

Jacobsen: I’d certainly prefer effective altruism to performative altruism.

Rosner: What do you mean by performative altruism?

Jacobsen: People doing things they think are helpful—but that actually have little to no real impact.

Rosner: Take recycling, for instance. It turns out that, in practice, a lot of it doesn’t actually get recycled. Carole, for example, doesn’t care much about recycling anymore because she says it all ends up in the same place anyway. And she’s not wrong. There’ve been hidden camera investigations showing waste management crews tossing all the separated bins into the same truck. The intent may be good, but the process fails—and that makes it more symbolic than effective.

Jacobsen: Right. So performative altruism can sometimes be more about easing guilt than making a measurable difference. For example, I read on Twitter that AI systems don’t consume nearly as much energy as people fear. If you’re worried about saving energy, a more impactful action might be cutting meat consumption.

Rosner: That tracks. Producing beef takes an enormous amount of water and energy—far more than running an AI model. So dietary change has a disproportionately large impact. Speaking of effective systems for doing good: think of Superman. Created in 1938, he had a pretty solid setup. His civilian identity as a newspaper reporter let him stay informed—he could find out about disasters almost as quickly as anyone.

While he could theoretically just fly around all day looking for trouble, having a job as a reporter gave him early access to urgent information. It was efficient. Of course, he couldn’t respond to everything. But it was a smart allocation of his attention. If we updated him today, to optimize his powers, he’d probably need some kind of command center—with global surveillance, intelligence feeds, satellite access—all helping him choose where he could do the most good per unit of time.

That’s classic effective altruism. You calculate not just what’s good—but what’s most good, factoring in time, logistics, and opportunity cost. If there’s a bus crash in India and he could save 70 people, but he’s 10,000 miles away, it might be more effective to stay nearby and save 10–12 people repeatedly over the same time span.

In the new Superman film by James Gunn—coming out soon—Superman unilaterally intervenes in a war without government approval. It causes a huge backlash because he circumvents national sovereignty. That’s a big shift. Old-school Superman would’ve never done that. But now we’re exploring questions like: What should someone with near-limitless power do? How does that fit within ethical and political frameworks?

Jacobsen: Effective altruism tackles those questions—except in real-world terms. It asks: What does responsibility look like when you have the capacity to help on a large scale? Let’s pivot—what about digital sentience and artificial moral agents? Do you think about expanding the moral circle to include simulated beings?

Rosner: Yes. That ties into the idea of throwaway suffering. In the future, we may have video games or virtual worlds with non-playable characters that are artificially conscious—or at least experience simulated suffering.

Jacobsen: And that would pose ethical problems. If we’re creating digital beings capable of experience—pain, joy, desire—then ignoring their welfare becomes morally problematic.

Rosner: I can imagine a future—maybe not in the next 40 years, but perhaps in a century—where people can revisit and relive parts of their own lives. Not just as memory, but as high-fidelity simulations. They could go back and “redo” things they got wrong the first time. And if those simulations involve other sentient agents, the ethics compound. You’d have to think carefully about what suffering you’re reintroducing—or even manufacturing—just to replay a scene from your life.

I can imagine simulations in which the artificial people you’re interacting with possess artificial consciousness. That raises a major ethical question: what rights do these beings have inside simulations?

What are the ethics of simulating the consciousness of, say, a woman you always wanted to be with—who thought you were a creep in real life—but now in the simulation, she’s programmed to desire you? What does that say about consent, autonomy, and simulated coercion?

In the simulation, she’s a construct of your design, compelled to like you. But does she cease to exist when you turn off the game? If she’s conscious—or even partially aware—what obligations do we have to her?

And it’s not just romantic scenarios. What about characters in games who have some level of awareness and die over and over again? Do they experience anything? Does it matter if they might?

It reminds me of Harlan Ellison’s I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream. It’s more than 50 years old, but still one of the most haunting depictions of artificial consciousness abuse. A supercomputer wipes out humanity, except for five people it keeps alive digitally—solely to torture them forever. They can’t die, because they’re not truly biological anymore. It just finds new ways to make them suffer.

That’s the nightmare scenario. It’s fiction—but it raises real philosophical issues as we approach more complex AI and simulations.

Now, what was the original question?

Jacobsen: It was about moral uncertainty—specifically, the expected value of action under uncertainty. We live in a universe that’s ontologically uncertain and epistemologically constrained. The world itself is incomplete and chaotic, and our methods of understanding—via senses or scientific tools—are limited. So how do we make moral decisions in a landscape defined by uncertainty?

Rosner: We do have a pretty good grasp of the world right now, within certain domains. But I’d say the bigger problem isn’t uncertainty per se—it’s what happens as we shift from human to transhuman to posthuman futures. That introduces profound unknowns. Our current frameworks will need major revisions.

Jacobsen: So, in that sense, the uncertainty isn’t just about the present—it’s about the radically unstable nature of what comes next. Everything is on the verge of being upended. Next up: negative utilitarianism or suffering-focused ethics.

So instead of focusing on maximizing happiness, you focus on minimizing suffering. The valence isn’t about what’s good or bad in a binary sense—it’s about what gets emphasized. David Pearce has been a major advocate of this view.

So under this model, increasing happiness is still good—but reducing suffering is even more important. You weight it more heavily. Every moral framework has dials. You adjust how much you value happiness versus suffering. But these need to be grounded in the real world.

Rosner: So yes, you want to assign meaningful weight to reducing suffering, but you don’t want to become so draconian that you outlaw joy until every last bit of suffering is gone.

Systems need balance. Capitalism does a terrible job of distributing value and well-being, but in many cases, it outperforms alternatives—like communism—which historically made more people miserable.

Market forces tend to generate some happiness—even while causing immense suffering, particularly in the modern U.S., where income inequality is arguably the worst it’s ever been. And yet, people are more entertained and distracted than ever before.

Jacobsen: So you could argue there’s been a net average increase in happiness—at the cost of justice, equality, and sustainability.

Rosner: Which leads to the question: is what we’re doing in America today even capitalism anymore? Or is it oligarchy—where the ultra-rich dominate, hoard power, and effectively shape the system in their favor?

Jacobsen: Looks like oligarchy to me.

Rosner: Agreed. So yes, everything has to be weighted. The real world has different distributions of happiness and misery depending on the region, the culture, and the conditions.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1393: Paul Mooney’s Legacy: Racial Insight, Raw Humor, and Comedy Truths

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28

Paul Mooney, known for his sharp wit and racial candor, left a profound impact on American comedy. Recalled by Rick Rosner as intense yet kind, Mooney’s brilliance lay in his unfiltered perspective on race and life. Collaborating with legends like Chappelle, he shaped comedy through fearless truth and deep understanding.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Tell me about Paul Mooney, he was a funny dude.

Rick Rosner: Fucking Paul Mooney. He had that scary intensity—this presence of racial wrath—but he was kind to me and my white writing partner. We worked on a show together, and we were the only two white guys in the writers’ room. And he was good to us.

If you approached him with an open heart and acknowledged you were dumb white boys, he’d respect that. It’s like—you didn’t have much of a choice in being who you were, so owning that went a long way with him.

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: And that’s funny in itself.

Rosner: What’s my take on Mooney? He was smart, angry, and funny. He had a deeply developed understanding of racial dynamics in the U.S.—especially in terms of Black American life. That gave him an incredible analytical edge.

Jacobsen: The great Black comedians—Mooney, Pryor, Chappelle—they don’t hold illusions. They see things as they are. And that’s the foundation of great comedy in any field: when you actually see reality clearly, it’s usually at odds with how people think things are.

Rosner: And that immediate clarity—delivered through well-crafted observation—that’s where the laughter comes. Paul Mooney had that. He was a great understander of life, and his humor flowed directly from that insight.

Jacobsen: He worked a lot with Dave Chappelle, too.

Rosner: Yeah, definitely. He was essential to the DNA of a whole generation of comedy.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1393: Paul Mooney’s Legacy: Racial Insight, Raw Humor, and Comedy Truths

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Tell me about Paul Mooney, he was a funny dude.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1392: Rethinking the Cosmos: AI, Lambda-CDM, and the Crisis in Big Bang Cosmology

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28

]Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while spending time with his wife, daughter, and two dogs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner delve into rising tensions in modern cosmology, including the Hubble constant discrepancy, S₈ tension, cold dark matter, early galaxy formation, and cosmic anisotropies. They propose that the universe may be older and governed by information, hinting at a future paradigm shift fueled by AI.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we’ve got a few things going on in Big Bang cosmology. Standard Big Bang cosmology is based on Lambda-CDM—Lambda being dark energy and CDM being cold dark matter—as fundamental components. The expansion of the universe is modeled using the Hubble constant, H0.

Early-universe measurements using the cosmic microwave background—like those from the Planck satellite—yield H0≈67.14 kilometers per second per megaparsec. But late-universe measurements, based on Type Ia supernovae and Cepheid variable stars, yield a significantly higher value—around 73.2 kilometers per second per megaparsec.

That discrepancy is statistically significant—on the order of five to six sigma. It suggests we may be missing something in our understanding of cosmological evolution. What we’re talking about is the Hubble expansion coefficient—the rate at which galaxies appear to recede from us based on their distance.

Our benchmarks for early-universe measurements are the cosmic microwave background, and for late-universe measurements, we use Type Ia supernovae and Cepheids. The discrepancy is roughly five to six sigma, meaning the two values should be closer than they are—statistically speaking.

Rick Rosner: I think it reflects a broader trend in science: the Big Bang theory accumulates anomalies until a better theory comes along—one that explains those anomalies more satisfactorily.

Jacobsen: That’s the historical pattern of scientific progress.

Rosner: But in this particular case, there’s a deeper issue. We increasingly understand the universe as being made of information. And in an information-based universe, the Big Bang model as it currently stands doesn’t quite work.

Jacobsen: Why not?

Rosner: Because the standard Big Bang model assumes a universe that is homogeneous in space but radically heterogeneous in time. Every moment of the universe’s history is dramatically different in size, scale, and energy. That doesn’t make much sense if the universe is fundamentally informational. For that model to hold, we would expect a kind of informational constancy across time—not just space.

The mismatch in the Hubble constant could be an artifact of a deeper issue in how we model time, space, and information in the universe. Especially since looking deeper into space is also looking further back in time. Comparing those measurements to what’s happening “now” introduces complex variables that might be glossed over in our current frameworks.

So that’s another reason the discrepancy might make sense—it could point us toward a more refined or radically different cosmological model.

Jacobsen: All right, let’s move to the next point—S₈ tension. That’s the S sub 8 parameter, which measures the amplitude of matter fluctuations in the universe.

Rosner: And what do those measurements show?

Jacobsen: They show tension. Specifically, predictions from the cosmic microwave background—like those from the Planck satellite—suggest a higher value of S₈ than what we see in large-scale structure observations, like weak gravitational lensing and galaxy clustering surveys.

Rosner: So what exactly do they mean by “tension” here?

Jacobsen: It means the values don’t match. The discrepancy implies that there might be missing physics in the post-recombination growth of cosmic structure.

Rosner: Recombination—that’s the phase when the universe becomes transparent, right? Or have I got that wrong?

Jacobsen: No, you’re mostly right. Recombination occurred around 300,000 years after the Big Bang, at a redshift of approximately z≈1100.

Rosner: It’s the point at which the universe cooled enough for protons and electrons to combine into neutral hydrogen atoms. That made the universe transparent because neutral atoms don’t scatter photons the way free electrons do. So, prior to that, photons were constantly interacting with charged particles, and after recombination, light could travel freely—hence the cosmic microwave background.

Jacobsen: Problem solved on that front. But back to the clumping—what’s the issue?

Rosner: The problem is with the amount of clumping—structure formation—in the universe. If the Big Bang model is incomplete or inaccurate, and if the universe is fundamentally informational rather than purely material, that might affect how structure forms over time.

Jacobsen: So are they saying the universe isn’t as clumpy as it should be, based on our current physics?

Rosner: Yes, that’s essentially it. The observed level of matter clustering is lower than predicted by early-universe models. That’s the tension. So again, this might point to deeper flaws in the standard cosmological model—or, at the very least, suggest that we need to refine how we model structure formation over cosmic time. Ithe universe is made of information—as we’ve discussed—that would have implications for how matter clumps together and evolves after recombination.

Jacobsen: There’s still no direct detection of dark matter, which remains a cornerstone of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model. So what do people currently think cold dark matter actually is—how it behaves, what it’s made of?

Rosner: Honestly, I haven’t looked at dark matter research in a while. I’ve had my head buried in other things. From what I understand, the prevailing model still leans toward exotic particles—WIMPs, axions, or other beyond-the-Standard-Model candidates. But detection efforts haven’t turned anything up.

And I hope I’ve at least persuaded you that some portion of what we call cold dark matter could just be regular matter—collapsed into old stellar remnants: neutron stars, brown dwarfs, black holes. Essentially, very old, very dim, very cold stuff on the outskirts of galaxies. Hard to detect because it’s… black. Or nearly black—meaning it emits little to no electromagnetic radiation.

You might expect to see such objects through gravitational lensing, since even “invisible” mass bends light. So, hypothetically, if cold dark matter were primarily composed of these stellar remnants, would we see increased gravitational lensing beyond the visible bounds of galaxies—say, in the form of light distortion or blurring?

That’s a good question. You might—but it depends on how much of this collapsed matter exists and how it’s distributed. My guess is that the objects themselves are so small, relatively speaking, that the total amount of lensing wouldn’t be easy to detect. Because their mass is concentrated into tiny volumes, right? A neutron star is, what, about 10 miles across?

Compare that to the Sun, which is about 800,000 miles in diameter—neutron stars are just one ten-thousandth of one percent of the Sun’s width. That’s one part in 10 billion in terms of area, so visually speaking, these collapsed remnants occupy an infinitesimal portion of the sky.

So even if you had a lot of them, the total area of space subject to significant gravitational lensing would still be small—unless light passes very close to them. Everything causes lensing in theory, but to get appreciable lensing—something we can observe and measure—light has to pass very near the object.

Jacobsen: That brings us to a more direct and speculative point: if we can’t see it, our critiques remain speculative. It’s the classic problem—absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But at the same time, it isn’t positive support either. It’s a weird duality. The lack of direct detection doesn’t disprove cold dark matter, but it also doesn’t bolster it.

Rosner: The longer that persists, the more it invites alternative explanations—including the possibility that some dark matter is just ordinary matter in an unlit, collapsed state.

Jacobsen: The issue is, if you’re critiquing the model without providing a rigorous alternative, it comes off as hand-waving. It’s a strange tension. Okay, next on the list, one of the big challenges is the so-called small-scale crisis in Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM). The model predicts more small-scale structures—dwarf galaxies, satellite galaxies—than we actually observe. Apparently, that includes the “Too Big to Fail” problem and the “Missing Satellites” problem.

Rosner: These refer to the mismatch between predicted galaxy formation on small scales and observed structures. Either our understanding of galaxy feedback processes and small-scale dark matter behavior is incomplete—or the model is just wrong. If the universe did not form 13.8 billion years ago—as current cosmology holds—but instead formed much earlier, and merely appears to be 13.8 billion years old, then yes, you’d expect a wide range of anomalies. That’s the essence of the critique. An older universe has more time to evolve, more time to form large galaxies and black holes—things that shouldn’t appear as early as they do under the current model.

Jacobsen: Which brings us to the early massive galaxies and early supermassive black holes. Observations are showing mature, bright, and massive galaxies far earlier in cosmic history than ΛCDM can comfortably explain. It’s “too much, too soon.” These structures are forming at redshifts that indicate they existed only a few hundred million years after the Big Bang. If the universe is actually older, that problem disappears—they just had more time to form.

Rosner: When I was pretending to be a high school student, I had way more chest hair than I should have. I probably should have waxed—but instead, I shaved, which looked… suspicious. But the point is, I had about nine extra years to grow it compared to most high schoolers. The same applies under an informational cosmology—if the universe is much older than it appears, it’s had more time to grow a bunch of stuff.

Which leads us to the final issue: anisotropic anomalies and cosmic voids—these large-scale cold spots and dipole asymmetries in the cosmic microwave background. These suggest the universe may not be as isotropic and homogeneous as the ΛCDM model predicts.

If the universe is older and governed by informational structure rather than material structure alone, you’d expect more heterogeneity over time—more irregularities, more large-scale voids, and structural anomalies.

Jacobsen: Basically, the universe has had more time to “scramble” itself—producing more large-scale structure, irregularity, and deviations from the assumed cosmic smoothness. If it’s older than we think, it would be “holier”—as in full of more voids—than it appears. Which brings us to the natural question…How many popes did it take? How many popes did they go through to become this holy?

Rosner: That landed. That was a shocker-room moment.

Jacobsen: Sorry, sorry.

Rosner: Anyway, gravity may function as an informational equalizer. It might operate in such a way that the scale of space adjusts to keep information evenly distributed—or at least to ensure that gravitational vectors are balanced across all directions.

That reminds me—there’s an old concept in black hole theory from the 1970s called “black holes have no hair.” It was about the idea that black holes are defined only by a few key properties—mass, charge, and spin—and nothing else.

But the broader point is this: the universe, to function consistently, has to behave like a global system. That likely includes no net spin, no net charge—certain boundary conditions that constrain how asymmetric it can get.

Jacobsen: So gravity acts to smooth things out across cosmic scales—to impose a kind of global isotropy.

Rosner: So yes, the universe may be “holier” than expected if it’s older—but gravitational dynamics still enforce a degree of uniformity so the whole system doesn’t go off balance. I’m doing a terrible job of explaining—or even understanding—this, but I get the general shape of the idea.

Jacobsen: It’s like when leaves fall in a small town and the wind gathers them in the corners of cul-de-sacs or against the curves of curbs and fences.

Rosner: Yes, exactly. That’s the most straightforward analogy: the leaves accumulate in natural crevices. That’s how clumping and anisotropy could emerge.

Jacobsen: But there’s a limit. Eventually, the corners fill, and excess leaves blow out.

Rosner: The universe can only tolerate so much structural asymmetry before conservation laws push back. So the universe can’t be permanently lopsided. It needs to have net zero angular momentum—otherwise, the physics wouldn’t hold together. Those kinds of constraints—like zero net spin—help limit how weird the large-scale structure of the universe can be.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1391: Can AI Revolutionize Physics and Rewrite the Big Bang Theory?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the future of physics in the age of artificial intelligence. They explore how AI might challenge the Big Bang theory, synthesize new models of the universe, and employ both brute-force and poetic reasoning to redefine cosmology in ways beyond current human capacity.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you want to talk about something physics-related or news-related?

Rosner: Sure. Physics is fine. Here is something physics-related: I do not believe the Big Bang theory as it currently stands.

Jacobsen: That is not exactly new. People have long questioned the Big Bang model.

Rosner: True, but what will not survive is AI getting good at physics. Once that happens, the current form of the Big Bang theory may not hold up. We have already proposed several compelling reasons why it needs to be revised. I suspect that a sufficiently advanced AI will come to some of the same conclusions—and perhaps propose entirely new ones.

Jacobsen: That raises an interesting question: Is the universe sufficiently uncomplicated that, once AI becomes truly advanced, it might be able to solve the whole thing?

Rosner: My money is on, maybe. We already have a solid understanding of some of the key pillars of modern physics. We know that the structure of the universe has something to do with information. We often say it is built from information—but since we do not fully understand what information is or the contexts in which it operates, that claim might still need refinement.

Quantum mechanics is a theory of information. Then, we have general and special relativity. Those are powerful tools—both for theoretical modelling and for observing the universe across vast distances. Add AI’s analytical power, and maybe not now, but shortly, it could contribute to the next breakthrough in cosmology.

Jacobsen: It might be capable of developing a new unified theory—something that synthesizes and transcends what we currently have.

However, for that to happen, AI would need to be more than just a machine with big data and good algorithms. It would have to be adaptive—capable of this strange, dynamic form of inference and cross-referencing. It would need to compare everything we currently know—things that no single human could ever hold in mind simultaneously—and extrapolate from there.

Essentially, it would need to do what your smartphone camera does when it focuses on a subject: foreground some elements and background others. That kind of intelligent prioritization is what we need in a system capable of making real progress in theoretical physics.

That kind of AI would operate probabilistically—like how Jeopardy! ‘s Watson functioned. It would foreground specific answers based on probability, ranking them according to the best available knowledge.

Rosner: That synthetic ability to highlight likely candidates could be crucial. Moreover, beyond that, AI could brute-force the process—testing thousands, even tens of thousands, of theoretical models or fragments of theories. It would then analyze the results and refine the surviving ideas into more viable combinations.

It is analogous to how pharmaceutical testing has changed. In the past, you would begin with a hypothesis: “This compound might work.” You may have discovered a new plant and tried different extracts in test tubes based on some guiding logic.

But now, with automation, we can brute-force it. You test everything for everything—thousands of compounds against thousands of biological targets—without a specific hypothesis for each. The overarching idea is: “If we test all of it, some of it might do something useful.”

Jacobsen: And AI could approach physics similarly—mass-testing hypotheses without human bias or constraints. However, it could also do physics poetically—which is how I sometimes feel I approach it.

Rosner: What do you mean by “poetically”?

Jacobsen: Without punctuated concision.

Rosner: Punctuated concision?

Jacobsen: So, what would it mean to do physics as a joke? What is the most ironic or absurd way physics might turn out ten or twenty years from now? That is very Isaac Asimov. He said something like great science starts with, “That is funny…” So imagine AI trying the hundred silliest extrapolations from current theories—to see if any work. That is brute-force creativity.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CQDpp0AQDpp0AECACAENBCEgAPLAAELAAKiQGTgBxCJUCCFBIGBHAIAEIAgMQDAAQgQAAAIAAQAAAAAAEIgAgAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAIAABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQABAAAEAAEAAAAAAAIACBk4AIAgVAABQABAQQAABAAAAEAQAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAA&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=250&adk=485653431&adf=3987671560&w=300&abgtt=6&lmt=1749836341&format=300×250&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F05%2F28%2Fask-a-genius-1391-can-ai-revolutionize-physics-and-rewrite-the-big-bang-theory%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwrattr=true&wgl=1&dt=1749836341273&bpp=1&bdt=287410&idt=1&shv=r20250611&mjsv=m202506100101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90&nras=1&correlator=4645315015690&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=0&u_his=1&u_h=900&u_w=1440&u_ah=799&u_aw=1440&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=218&ady=4210&biw=1422&bih=719&scr_x=0&scr_y=4730&eid=31092114%2C95360549%2C31092886%2C31092914%2C95353387%2C95362656%2C95363434%2C31092948%2C95344789%2C95362798%2C95359265%2C95362805%2C95363073&oid=2&pvsid=6830780418420819&tmod=609214366&uas=3&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=18%2C25%2C18%2C25%2C1440%2C25%2C1422%2C799%2C1422%2C719&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Caove%7C&abl=CA&pfx=0&fu=0&bc=31&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=4&uci=a!4&fsb=1&dtd=7

Rosner: Here is an addendum. In this book I am supposedly writing, the main character develops a theory similar to mine—but ultimately does not care all that much. In a world overwhelmed by distraction, even solving physics might not matter. If AI cracks the fundamental theory of the universe, will anyone care?

Jacobsen: Do people care about physics now?

Rosner: I have not surveyed the world, but I suspect not. When my mother-in-law was declining from Alzheimer’s, she would excuse her confusion by saying, “A lot is going on right now.” It was a sad refrain—but also true. A lot is going on. This world is so overwhelmed and hyper-stimulated that science often gets pushed to the margins.

Rosner: There is also the possibility that AI will begin delivering practical advances—so prolifically—in medicine and who knows what else, that basic science once again gets short shrift, especially in terms of public attention.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1390: AI Sex Robots, Ethical Dilemmas, and the Rise of Machine Agency: A Deep Dive from Berlin to 2035

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/27

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Berlin’s controversial AI-operated “cyberbrothel,” raising urgent ethical questions about consent, violence, and societal norms. They explore future scenarios involving conscious AI sex robots, examine agency and emergent personhood, and reflect on humanity’s diminishing ethical control as AI intelligence accelerates beyond human comprehension.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There is the broader discussion of AI ethics and its societal impact. There’s a controversy right now involving the city of Berlin. Want to guess what it’s about?

Rosner: The city of Berlin?

Jacobsen: Yes. It involves a new AI initiative that some residents feel is just a little too futuristic. The specifics are still emerging, but it has stirred debate around whether these advancements are outpacing public readiness or oversight.

A new phenomenon has emerged in Berlin: the introduction of what is being called the “cyberbrothel,” reportedly the world’s first AI-operated brothel. Clients are offered highly customizable AI sex dolls programmed to fulfill specific fantasies—some of which are misogynistic or violent. This has raised serious ethical concerns, particularly around the normalization of harmful behaviors through artificial intelligence.

I have two quick thoughts on that—and then I’ll build on them. First, yes, that is a valid concern. Repetitive behavior, even in simulated environments, can shape and spread certain patterns. Second, people were already misogynistic and violent before AI ever entered the equation. The existence of this technology does not create those tendencies—it reflects them. So, yes, some men are—and have always been—predatory or creepy.

Rick Rosner: Right. I can speak from personal experience here. Years ago, when I was younger and more interested in sexual exploration, I attended a meeting of the Eulenspiegel Society in New York City. It’s an S&M organization, and I thought I might meet someone there who was interested in consensual pain-exchange dynamics—maybe someone who wanted to inflict pain in exchange for sex. I figured I had a decent pain threshold and was open to the idea.

Jacobsen: And what did you find?

Rosner: In my limited experience, that kind of mutual, consensual arrangement—where a woman wants to cause pain and the man consents in a sexual context—is extraordinarily rare. Rare to the point of being nearly fictional, often imagined by men rather than genuinely sought by women. When I attended the Eulenspiegel event, it was 100% men—mostly middle-aged, wearing cheap polyester suits, many of whom gave off a vibe similar to a junior high vice principal. They had clearly come in from New Jersey and were interested in dominating women, not participating in any kind of egalitarian or reciprocal experience. It was disturbing and sleazy.

So the creepiness was already there, well before the introduction of AI sex robots. And that’s just one kind of creepiness. With these AI sex dolls, some men may want to simulate abusive behaviors—hitting the robot, extinguishing cigarettes on it, urinating on it. Others might push even darker boundaries, such as requesting robots that resemble underage girls. Which raises deeply troubling legal and ethical questions: Would such designs be legal? Would enforcement even matter?

Jacobsen: Technology, as always, becomes a vehicle for both the mundane and the depraved. And this isn’t a new conversation—it echoes debates from earlier eras.

Rosner: In the 1970s, there was a cultural battle over pornography. Some believed that access to pornography reduced sexual aggression by giving men an outlet—they would masturbate at home and be less likely to commit sexual violence in public. Others argued the opposite: that frequent exposure to porn would lead to desensitization and an increased likelihood of acting out aggressive fantasies.

Jacobsen: But that entire debate became largely irrelevant.

Rosner: Yes, because porn became unstoppable. Technologically and socially, there was simply no way to contain it. And now, we see a similar dynamic emerging with AI-powered sex robots. The same two arguments are surfacing again: Do these technologies provide a safe outlet, or do they habituate users toward harm? This question is becoming increasingly urgent.

As an aside, I should mention that in Companion—a story I wrote—there’s a character who is, in fact, a robot designed for sex. So these themes have already begun to permeate fiction as well.

Companion is a really fun and entertaining film. I recommend seeing it. That said, I want to return to the debate surrounding AI sex robots—specifically, the claim that if men are allowed to enact violent fantasies on robots, they will be less likely to do so with real women. I do not find that argument persuasive.

I am not certain that engaging in violence with a robot sex worker will necessarily make someone more likely to harm real women—but I am confident it will not make them less likely. There is no evidence that this would reduce harmful behavior, and it certainly does not contribute to making society better. Unless, hypothetically, the robots develop a degree of agency—enough to influence human behavior for the better by manipulating abusers into becoming less abusive. But we are far from that point—at least eight to ten years away, optimistically.

There’s another aspect of this debate worth exploring. Not with current AI sex robots, but with future iterations—say, in 2035—where these machines may possess full agency or even consciousness. Imagine a scenario where an AI sex robot is intelligent enough to understand human psychology, participate in ethical negotiation, and engage in a dynamic exchange of consent. A scenario where the robot is a fully conscious actor—capable of evaluating, consenting to, or rejecting terms?

Take, for example, a hypothetical 2035 robot prostitute who says, “You’re generally tolerable, but you have violent tendencies during sex. I am capable of being damaged and repaired, and because I find you—or your money—acceptable, I agree to this interaction at a price.” If it’s a business arrangement, the robot might say, “Choking me to the brink of simulated death is a $5,000 service.”

Now, I am asking: is that sort of negotiated, conscious exchange between a sentient robot and a human fundamentally more ethical—or at least preferable—to the current scenario in Berlin, where unconscious, non-sentient robots are being used to simulate violence with no agency or consent?

Jacobsen: But would you agree that both situations—our present and the possible future—exist on an ethical continuum? We already have one form of this happening, and the other is likely coming. These scenarios raise profound ethical and philosophical questions. These debates resemble those surrounding abortion. The positions fall into established categories, but the evidentiary quality varies—and much of it lies along a continuum. Many of these questions revolve around ethical gradients: When does agency emerge? When do we consider a system to possess a self or consciousness? Much like the question of when personhood begins, the challenge is definitional as much as it is empirical.

But what we are dealing with is an emergent property. If you define something like a simple feedback loop, it is no more sophisticated than, say, a plant exhibiting heliotropism by turning toward the sun. Or a thermostat regulating temperature—these are basic feedback systems.

Rosner: But we are moving toward building systems so advanced that we will eventually need ethical guidelines for how humans treat them. It will not be sufficient to regard them as mere machines. As we have discussed before, we are going to make mistakes in this process—inevitable ones. But ideally, we will learn from them, especially when our intent is rooted in concern about discouraging harmful behavior outside those systems.

Jacobsen: I am short on time, but let me add this: eventually, it will be the AI systems themselves that will need to develop ethical frameworks for how to treat us. As their capacity surpasses ours, they may take on more decision-making power. Their ethical reasoning might even be more consistent than ours. And that consistency might come with trade-offs we do not particularly like. The rise of augmented humans and autonomous AI could generate new ethical paradigms—ones that challenge our comfort zones.

Think of it like this: if someone today presents scientific evidence, offers educational material, and constructs a thoughtful, compassionate argument for why evolution should be taught in schools, that person is clearly advocating for societal benefit. But if their audience consists of individuals with fundamentalist religious views, those individuals may experience real emotional distress. Still, the superiority of the argument remains with the advocate of science education.

I am drawing a parallel—suggesting that, in the future, an AI could similarly present arguments that are ethically and intellectually superior, even if we humans are emotionally or ideologically resistant to them.

What I am saying, in short, is that things are going to get strange—especially in the realm of ethics. If AI systems surpass us in intelligence by several orders of magnitude, then the analogy becomes one of us speaking to someone whose worldview is shaped by confusion or misinformation. There may be justifications for the AI’s decisions that we simply cannot yet grasp.

Rosner: And we are no longer in the realm of speculation. I have to say one final thing before I go. You and I have been talking about these possibilities for eleven years. At the outset, the idea that something could be smarter than humans was just a possibility—an abstract one.

Now, it has moved from possibility to near certainty—at breakneck speed. Even when AI-generated art first appeared, it was not yet clear. That was just two and a half, maybe three years ago. But now the writing is no longer just on the wall—it is right on our faces.

Tomorrow, same time?

Jacobsen: Most likely earlier. I was late today because I was working on projects.

Rosner: Got it. So much to do.

Jacobsen: See you then.

Rosner: Enjoy the rest of your work. Thanks. Take care.

Jacobsen: Bye.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1389: James Comey Tweet Backlash, Walmart–OpenAI Partnership, and the Rising Trade-Off of AI Agency

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/27

Rick Rosner critiques political manipulation surrounding James Comey’s “86 47” tweet, debunking claims of incitement. Meanwhile, Walmart teams up with OpenAI’s Operator model to create AI-powered shopping assistants. Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rosner explore the societal shift toward algorithmic decision-making, raising concerns about convenience, agency, and declining cognitive engagement.

Rick Rosner: Another important point: many Americans seem to have become desensitized to political manipulation. They either accept or pretend to accept whatever narrative is circulated to justify misleading or harmful actions by figures like Trump, Ann Coulter, or Laura Ingraham. Today alone, I’ve blocked dozens of individuals—well, I actually mute them on Twitter—who are pushing the claim that James Comey should be prosecuted for allegedly threatening to kill Trump by tweeting “86 47.” The claim is absurd. Comey clearly intended “86” in the common sense of rejecting or removing, not in the obscure usage that implies assassination.

Half the people pushing this narrative do not even believe it themselves; they promote it as part of a larger game or culture war. The other half believe whatever misleading rhetoric is fed to them. It is a disheartening state of affairs, especially considering that Trump and the Republican Party consistently act in ways that do not reflect the best interests of the American public.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: On a separate topic—there is news that Walmart is partnering with OpenAI to integrate its most advanced AI models, known as “frontier models,” into its retail platform. These models will function as AI-powered shopping agents capable of autonomously searching for, selecting, and purchasing products based on user preferences.

Rick Rosner: So, to clarify: a user could open Walmart’s app—powered by OpenAI’s Operator model—and input something like, “I need items for a summer party.” ChatGPT, acting through the app, would then generate a curated list of suggestions available at Walmart?

Jacobsen: The vision is that Walmart will use OpenAI’s Operator—its most capable generative AI system—as the core, and then build proprietary applications on top of it. The app would offer tailored services, such as recommending and purchasing groceries or other goods. Over time, the AI would learn from user behavior to refine those recommendations.

Rosner: But would the AI simply go ahead and purchase items without user approval? Surely there’s a step for user consent?

Jacobsen: Yes, the app would require user permission to complete transactions. You would need to link your financial information and agree to specific terms. In most cases, the system would confirm selections with you before purchase. However, if configured to do so—say, for recurring grocery orders—it could eventually act autonomously within the parameters you set.

Rosner: So if I said, “I need groceries for the week,” and provided my preferences, the AI—through the Walmart app—could independently source and order those products?

Jacobsen: The OpenAI Operator provides the intelligent foundation, and Walmart builds a retail-specific layer on top. With repeated use, the system would continuously adjust to your habits and preferences, improving its accuracy and convenience over time.

But it’s inevitable that the AI is going to buy things you do not like—at least at first. For example, you might tell it to get cheddar, and it selects a brand that’s far too sharp for your taste. There’s also the possibility of input errors or misunderstandings that lead to some hilariously inaccurate purchases.

Rosner: So, especially in the early stages, the system will need to check in with users regularly. It will ask: “Are you okay with this? Should I go ahead and buy it?” But I suspect that, as we become more accustomed to this kind of technology—and perhaps lazier—we’ll start replying, “Yeah, whatever. I trust you.” The problem is, that trust has not yet been earned.

Jacobsen: But it will learn and adapt. We talked about this in a previous session—the emergence of “AI natives,” building on the concept of “digital natives.” For example, Isabella’s generation and the one after it will grow up in a world where this kind of interaction is completely normal. They will not find it strange at all.

This is just the beginning of a larger trend we’re likely to see repeating itself over and over. A new AI-powered feature gets released. People initially insist they will not cede agency—they’ll remain the captain of the ship, letting AI offer suggestions but not take action. But soon enough, many will start allowing the AI to make decisions for them.

Rosner: And once that pattern becomes habitual, we risk gradually surrendering important aspects of personal agency. It affects practical life skills. For example, I rarely do the grocery shopping myself anymore—Carol handles that.

Jacobsen: My friend’s dad used to say he was going out for “foodstuffs.” He disliked the word “groceries”—thought it sounded expensive.

Rosner: When I do go to the supermarket, unless I have an extremely specific list, assembling a coherent set of groceries can feel daunting. It used to take me a long time, and in some ways, I had surrendered that part of everyday agency. That was especially true when I was juggling multiple jobs and running on empty. I remember ending up at the 24-hour King Soopers in Boulder at 2 a.m., just wandering the aisles, totally unsure of what I needed.

So yeah, there’s a wider implication. Studies suggest average cognitive performance is declining—and offloading more of our decision-making to AI is unlikely to help. On the other hand, intelligent use of AI can help high-functioning individuals save time and mental energy for more meaningful or demanding tasks. It’s a trade-off—what some might call a deal with the devil.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1388: James Comey’s “86 47” Tweet: Misinterpretation, Political Fallout, and Historical Parallels

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/27

Rick Rosner talks about James Comey’s cryptic “86 47” tweet sparked backlash, with critics accusing him of inciting violence against Trump. Experts argue the phrase more likely implies political rejection. The controversy echoes past misjudgments by Comey and others, as media attention shifts from substantive issues like Republican tax proposals.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The current controversy circulating on Twitter involves James Comey, the former Director of the FBI, who is often cited—particularly by critics of Hillary Clinton—as having contributed to Donald Trump’s election in 2016. Comey, sometimes perceived as politically miscalibrated, posted a tweet that simply read “86 47.” In this context, “47” is interpreted by many to refer to the 47th President of the United States, a title Donald Trump would hold if re-elected. The term “86” is widely used in the restaurant and bar industry to mean removing something from availability or ejecting a person.

Rick Rosner: This tweet has triggered backlash among Trump supporters. Some allege that Comey was encouraging violence, referencing a less common slang definition of “86” as meaning to kill or eliminate someone. While that interpretation does exist, it is obscure and rarely used in mainstream discourse. It is highly unlikely that Comey intended this meaning. Given the context and his background, it is more plausible that he was referencing the colloquial expression of rejecting or ejecting someone—in this case, suggesting that Trump should be politically rejected or removed from consideration for re-election.

Privacy Settings

Despite this, accusations have surfaced on social media claiming that the tweet constituted a threat against Trump. Others have pushed back strongly, arguing that such claims are disingenuous or deliberately inflammatory. As someone with 25 years of experience working in bars, I am familiar with the most common meaning of “86,” which aligns with Comey’s likely intent. Moreover, a cultural reference that further illustrates the point is the 1960s sitcom Get Smart, in which the protagonist was Agent 86. Across seven seasons, the character never killed anyone and was often portrayed as inept or comedic, reinforcing the idea that “86” more often denotes removal or failure, not violence.

Meanwhile, while public discourse is consumed by this linguistic debate, Republican lawmakers are advancing a tax proposal that could have far-reaching consequences, including potential cuts to programs like Medicare. These developments are receiving comparatively little media attention.

A related reflection: I noted a superficial parallel between Tiger Woods and James Comey. Both are highly accomplished individuals who have made significant public missteps. Tiger Woods rose to fame as a golf prodigy and became a household name by age 21. During his personal controversies—particularly his extramarital affairs—he reportedly relied on friends and associates who facilitated his behavior. His lack of discretion and judgment led to scandal, physical injury, and a decline in his career.

James Comey, likewise, held a position of great responsibility as FBI Director. In 2016, he made the controversial decision to publicly announce the reopening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails just 11 days before the election, despite guidance from the Department of Justice to avoid such disclosures so close to an election. Comey has said he felt duty-bound to inform Congress, but many observers argue that the move significantly damaged Clinton’s campaign. Compounding this, the FBI had been investigating possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia since July 2016, but this was not disclosed to the public until after the election. Comey’s failure to present a balanced communication strategy is widely regarded as a key factor that may have helped tip the election toward Trump.

Finally, former President Barack Obama has also been criticized for his caution during this period. In 2016, the Obama administration was aware of Russian efforts to interfere in the election. According to reporting, Obama sought bipartisan support to make a public announcement, but Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to cooperate and reportedly threatened to frame such a move as partisan. In an effort to avoid politicizing intelligence, Obama chose not to make the full extent of Russian interference public before the election. In retrospect, many believe this decision underestimated the seriousness of the threat and had lasting consequences.

Rosner: Mitch McConnell also obstructed President Obama in the matter of appointing a Supreme Court justice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia—not Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away later, in 2020. When Scalia died in early 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, but McConnell refused to hold hearings or a vote, arguing that the nomination should wait until after the presidential election. Obama could have potentially explored constitutional or political workarounds but opted not to escalate the conflict, believing institutional norms would hold. In hindsight, that belief was misplaced.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1387: Sex Education, Population Ethics, and Demographic Myths: A Data-Driven Dialogue on Fertility, Race, and Policy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/16

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore sex education, reproductive autonomy, and global demographic trends. They critique coercive pro-natalism, racialized panic over declining birthrates, and ineffective political solutions. Emphasizing evidence-based strategies, they argue for ethical, values-driven approaches to population support, grounded in human rights and global demographic realities.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Fact-based sex education—there is data—plenty of it. If you want to reduce the number of abortions, the most effective strategy is not banning them—it is providing better sex education. The more informed and educated teens are about sex, the fewer of them get pregnant, which means fewer abortions. So maybe part of the decline in sex is a decline in coerced sex, or that internalized pressure to prove yourself, or to say yes when you are not sure.

Rick Rosner: I was thinking about that today. There are at least four primary reasons for the drop in sex rates. One is a feeling of doom, existential uncertainty about the future. Whether justified or not, it makes people hesitant to bring more people into the world.

Two: the unaffordability of marrying and having kids. Three: the sheer distraction of the modern world—constant entertainment, online interaction, streaming, and games. There’s just so much else to do besides trying to hook up.

Thing four: the avalanche of porn. If you want to have an orgasm, it is easy. You can look at any of the hundreds of millions—maybe billions—of free images and videos available online. That changes everything.

Number five is choice glut. People have access to so many potential partners through social media, dating apps, and reality competitions that they become less willing to settle for anyone.

And those reasons… When you list them like that, none of them are especially noble.

People don’t necessarily abstain for moral or ethical reasons. Sure, there are ethical arguments against having kids—concerns about overpopulation and bringing kids into a volatile world—but those aren’t the dominant forces.

On the flip side, there are arguments that we should keep growing the population. Those usually come from people I think are, frankly, assholes—growth for the sake of growth.

However, again, most factors leading people away from childbearing today are not ethically motivated. The semi-ethical one is, “It is unfair to bring a kid into this world.”

Jacobsen: But even that is rooted in misunderstanding—a skewed view of how bad things are. I wrote about this. Let metry to recall the framework. So there’s the conservative stereotype: that people who don’t want kids are selfish, nihilistic, and working against “God’s plan.”

Then there’s the capitalist angle—people like Trump or Musk pushing population growth because it benefits economic expansion. And beyond that, there’s a racial subtext: the belief that white people need to have more babies to maintain cultural dominance. So there’s this overlapping racialized pro-natalism.

I looked at the UN Population Prospects—the median variant series 2024. Of 193 UN member states (excluding the Holy See and the State of Palestine), 42 are experiencing absolute demographic decline.

For context, only two were in decline in the 1980s. Then 14 in the ’90s, 8 in the 2000s, 10 in the 2010s, and seven more in the 2020s. So, yes, it’s growing—but bumpy and still just about a quarter of all states.

Meanwhile, 63 countries have peaked, and others are still growing. It’s a mixed picture—not universal collapse. So we’vegot three camps:

Conservative scaremongers are painting child-free people as anti-human.
Hyper-capitalists and white nationalists are pushing reproduction as a numbers game.
And then, ideally, sustainable growth advocates, who argue for measured, ethical, policy-based approaches.

That third camp is where the actual values conversation happens.

Moreover, the growth-for-growth-sake crowd is arguing for valueless expansion—just more people for more GDP.

On the other hand, regressionist market logic is also value-empty. But in the middle—the values-based, human-centred approach—we find universalist principles like those enshrined in UN human rights frameworks.

Ultimately, it comes down to people with functioning reproductive systems—women, and some trans people—and how much autonomy and support they have.

I looked into evidence-based strategies that genuinely help increase sustainable population without coercion. They are:

Equal parental leave
Affordable childcare
Flexible, family-friendly workplaces
Support for dual-income households
Reproductive autonomy and accessible healthcare
Shared domestic responsibilities

That’s the only valid roadmap.

But what are Republicans offering?

Rosner: A half-baked $5,000 check from Trump for new parents. It’s not just bad—it’s insultingly bad. Exactly. It’s like saying, “Here’s five grand—now go fix a collapsing demographic economy.” It’s embarrassing.

When you look at the programs that work—the ones that increase fertility rates in countries—they offer tens of thousands of dollars in benefits per year. Childcare, paid leave, and family subsidies. All of it.

And $5,000? That doesn’t cover jack shit. Raising a kid from zero to eighteen in the U.S costs about a third of a million dollars, not including private school or college.

Jacobsen: I will jump in here because I looked into this today, so I can speak confidently. So I’ll give Trump and his team a little credit—they’ve got the right idea at the value level. But it’s not evidence-based.

If you had a value like “we want more families” or “we support children,” and matched it with what we know works, you’d have a coherent, effective policy. But that’s not what they’re doing. They’re halfway there—and that, at least, is something you can work with.

Let’s imagine a good-faith version of that proposal. I can give them one piece of credit. I’ve seen people argue—sometimes on social media, sometimes elsewhere—that cultural attitudes matter. If you create a culture that values families and children, it modestly improves fertility rates.

So combine that with strong policy support and financial backing, and you could create an environment where people feel safe having kids.

Rosner: I had a thought—let’s take the racist argument seriously for a second, just for analysis. The one that says “White people need to reproduce more” or that “White people are going extinct.” It’s a shitty argument, but let’s entertain it briefly.

Jacobsen: First of all, white people are already a minority globally. About 1.4 billion out of 8.2 billion. I looked that up for another article. Everyone’s in the minority globally. No matter how you slice it, every racial group is a global minority.

Rosner: But here’s my new thought: Let’s say the worst-case scenario for racists comes true. White people start getting “bred out of existence.” If whiteness turns out to be valuable, it’s easily reversible.

Just isolate the genes responsible for whiteness, which, by the way, are among the most mutable in the human genome. Then move people to wintry climates, let them reproduce for 100 generations, and boom—Whitey re-evolves.

Just good old-fashioned Darwinism. The physical traits associated with whiteness—skin tone, eye colour, melanin levels—are phenotypic adaptations to climate and are some of our most easily shifted traits.

So the idea of a permanent racial disappearance is scientifically absurd. If whiteness is useful, evolution will bring it back. And you don’t even have to go that far. If someone felt the need to preserve Whitey, well—you could just CRISPR people and give them whiteness.

We know the genes involved, and they’re simple. If whiteness ever turned out to be some culturally vital characteristic, you could bring it back. It’s not hard. It’s way easier than bringing back woolly mammoths.

So even in a world where whiteness declines demographically, it’s not lost forever—it’s just paused. So we’re not losing anything by Whitey becoming even more of a minority than he already is. It’s reversible, if the world truly wanted it back.

Now, among all minorities, I’m sure the largest is Asians, right?

Jacobsen: Yes. Okay, let me pull up the data so we can be accurate. These are sensitive issues. First, globally, ancestry is defined in various ways: descent, heritage, nationality, pan-ethnic identity, tribal affiliation, or regional origin.

In the United States, the government uses five broad racial categories for civil rights tracking:

Asian
Black or African American
Native American or Alaska Native
Pacific Islander
White (or in your terms, “Whitey”)

Now, in terms of self-reported ancestry in the U.S., here’s the approximate breakdown:

German: 12%
English: 9%
Irish: 9%
“Unspecified American”: 5%
Italian: 5%

In pan-ethnic terms:

Hispanic/Latino: ~20%
African American: ~14%
Asian American: ~7%

So if you take German, English, Irish, and Latino, that’s about half of the U.S. population. These are fluid categories, but that’s how the U.S. tends to quantify them.

Globally, it looks like this:

Han Chinese (Sinitic language family): 17%
Indo-Aryan (e.g., Bengali, Hindi, Punjabi): 13%
Arabic-speaking peoples: 6%

No matter how you slice it—in the U.S. or globally—no one group is a majority. Everyone is a minority, and most are relatively small minorities. There are over 7,000 distinct ethnic groups currently extant in the world. So my argument is: Let’s treat each other as people first, then by group, identity, or heritage.

Rosner: Wait, wait—there’s more. This point cements your argument. Is it a good one? The whole “Whitey panic” is ridiculous. First of all, Whitey has never been a majority globally. You’d have to go back pretty far in time to imagine that, and even then, it would be region-specific.

And I don’t think this is only a liberal obsession with whiteness. It’s everyone’s obsession—because Republican assholes in the U.S., and white supremacists globally, have made whiteness itself into a kind of mythological status that must be preserved at all costs.

Jacobsen: Which is not only scientifically absurd but morally vacant.

Rosner: And I would argue—yes, there are counterarguments—but they’re fucking stupid. The claim that Whitey is disappearing is bullshit, because Whitey has never been a global majority. Sure, racists will say, “White people invented civilization,” which conveniently ignores China, India, and multiple African civilizations. It’s just revisionist nonsense.

That line of argument is both ahistorical and arrogant. It pretends thousands of years of global innovation outside of Europe didn’t happen. Yet, people still act like Whitey’s in decline—as if that’s some civilizational emergency. But again: White people have never come close to being the majority of the world population.

Jacobsen: Yes. That’s everyone’s blind spot. It used to bother me—I never fully understood why until I dug into it recently. And what I found is that Americans project their domestic racial categories onto the entire planet.

Sometimes, it works the other way: the world mimics American racial quibbles, even though those categories make no sense in other cultural or historical contexts. The more objective, global systems of categorization—things like language families, ethnic descent, region, etc.—are much more appropriate. They vary a bit, but they tend to converge on some shared understandings.

The real issue is taking a framework developed for civil rights tracking—valid in the U.S. and applying it globally, as if it were universal. That’s what’s frustrating. People treat a system designed for about 4% of the world’s population as the template for understanding all of humanity.

It does not hold for other nations—culturally, politically, or demographically. And just to be clear, we’re not making a value judgment about Americans or anyone else—we’re just pointing out a conceptual error that gets repeated over and over.

And now, unfortunately, we’re out of time.

Have a good night.

Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1386: I Disruption: Comparing Historical Crises, Future Faking, and Societal Misconceptions in a Changing World

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/16

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss society’s apathetic response to the disruptive rise of AI, drawing parallels to historical crises like World War II and COVID. They explore misinformation, political grifting, future faking, and the psychological gap between perception and reality in an age of comfort, confusion, and cultural inertia.

Rick Rosner: Here is the topic. It has always been wild that life continues, even when things feel dire.

People went about their daily lives as World War II unfolded. Moreover, that war, across the U.S. and Europe, was far more all-encompassing—it involved the daily efforts of nearly everyone in the countries involved. Rationing, men off to war, women in factories—lives changed.

AI, by comparison, seems like it will be even more disruptive, but we are not adjusting. We are still going about our day, even though the ground is shifting.

Sure, many people now use AI, but a lot of what is called AI is just fill-in-the-blank bullshit—like, “If you liked this movie, you will like that one.”

Still, the disruption is real and coming fast. However, we act as if it is just another tool. Do you have feelings about that?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes. It reflects a long-term pattern in civilization—whenever new technologies emerge, pandemics hit, or population structures shift, there is disruption. Sometimes multiple disruptions co-occur.

Rosner: Okay, but you brought up pandemics. COVID changed our daily lives in 2020.

Jacobsen: Yes. However, I do not want to draw a false symmetry between COVID and World War II. Moreover, to be clear, I am not suggesting you are doing that. However, people often say, “Well, we had World War I, then the Spanish flu, and then World War II… So we had COVID. Therefore,. Therefore, a global war must be coming.” I want to avoid that kind of fatalism.

Rosner: No, no, I am not saying that either. AI will be more disruptive than World War II, more than COVID, more than the Spanish flu. However, we are not responding as if it is. Moreover, I do not know how we would respond—what are we supposed to do? Just wait for it to hit?

Though we could do some things during COVID, some people did them; others did not. We had guidelines. We had public health messaging. Some people were like, “Yeah, that makes sense.” Others went full conspiracy mode—”It is a hoax,” “It is a plot,” etc. But with AI? It will rattle the world; there is nothing to do except watch it unfold.

Jacobsen: We also live in a hyper-saturated information environment. There are two things to point out here. First, if you ask people, “Do you think X problem is getting worse or better?” Most will say it is getting worse, no matter the problem. Then you look at actual data, and you find that not only are people wrong, they are wildly off.

Rosner: Can we pause that for a second? Because, on the whole, things are getting better.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: I believe that things, on the whole, are getting better. However, I also think they could make things even better if they had a plan, and we could call that plan…

Jacobsen: Preparation H.

Rosner: [Laughing] Okay.

Jacobsen: I am stealing that joke from Austin Powers. That is the scene where Scott Evil—literally another Scott—is talking to Dr. Evil and says something like, “I think it also feels good on the whole… or having Preparation H on the whole.”

Rosner: So yes. On the whole… yes. It is almost a cliché, but it holds up: you would rather be a regular person today than the most powerful king 200 years ago.

Jacobsen: No comparison. In terms of amenities? No contest. Modern medicine, refrigeration, plumbing—today wins. However, some people might trade amenities for a sense of power, for actual control over others. So it depends. However, generally, yes, materially, people are better off today than ever before.

However, even in this information-rich environment, people have massive misconceptions about how things are going. That is one of the core issues. If you ask people, “Is poverty increasing? Is violence rising?” They almost always say yes, even though the data often says the opposite.

It is not just ignorance. It is a deeper kind of error—misconception. That is more dangerous, because it feels informed but is way off. That kind of warped perception opens the door to PT Barnum types, grifters with grandstanding promises.

In narcissist literature, there is a term for this: future faking. You sell someone a fantasy about the future—a dream relationship, a massive business win. You lure them with something that sounds visionary but is fraudulent.

Moreover, people believe it, not because it is true, but because they want it to be true.

Rosner: Quick digression: There was an article—I forget where, maybe Forbes, maybe something more obscure—that laid out how Trump has made billions since being elected.

As president, he was not supposed to be doing business—he was supposed to be president. However, in just a few months, he went from severe financial peril to increasing his net worth by $2.5 billion, primarily through crypto schemes and shady ventures. Moreover, that does not count his kids, who are off doing their crypto hustle. The Trump family is cleaning up—to the tune of many billions.

Jacobsen: That is classic future faking—scamming through fantasy. The promises are fantastical, and the belief in them is very real, even if the factual basis is false. That belief is driven by misconception, not truth. That is what is dangerous. That is what we are seeing—even in an information-rich society. So we have the amenities. People are comfortable, fat, and technologically enabled.

Rosner: But also easily exploited by abusers, by grifters, by people who want to profit off their suffering. Moreover, they are succeeding. There is another cliché in modern America: Trump supporters are willing to suffer, as long as they believe that the people they hate are suffering more.

That the MAGA crowd is okay with conditions worsening for themselves, as long as they think it is even worse for libs and immigrants. So here is another topic: If you are fully cognizant, and you are, you go about your business. I go about mine.

We went to a party tonight for a TV show. We do this kind of thing often. Carol signs us up for many of them—it has become a cultural rhythm. Whether you get in late is by lottery, but we try to hit as many as possible.

It feels like fiddling while Rome burns. However, at this point, what else is there? Do you see any other way of being?

Jacobsen: No. Americans are particularly prone to extremes. Conservative and libertarian types tend to pump the brakes, which, in some cases, is good. Caution is warranted with specific significant social shifts.

However, there is also a tendency to pump the brakes on objectively good things—equal marriage, reproductive health care, and human rights advocacy. Moreover, that delay is not neutral—it is hurting people. In the case of abortion, it is killing people.

On the aggressive progressive side, there is a tendency to press the gas on things that are also objectively good—trans rights, evidence-based sex education, universalist principles enshrined in policy.

However, they also sometimes implode into infighting, tone policing, and neologisms that may be accurate but are not always helpful, going in many different directions without a unified message.

Rosner: Maybe it is just me, but the liberal democratic tone policing era has burned itself out. Few people give a shit about that anymore. I want to think the Democratic establishment knows they cannot support nonsense without paying a price. Moreover, they have already paid a price.

Even though most Democrats do not care about political correctness, Republicans will still paint them with that brush. Just like how they claim Democrats want to turn everyone trans.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1385: Simulated Minds, Synthetic Suffering, and Corporate Superpowers

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner explore the future of cognitive simulation, proposing virtual experimentation on high-level brain models. He questions the ethical implications of synthetic consciousness in entertainment and notes the staggering power of tech giants—like Google—whose computational capacity rivals nation-states, raising alarms about corporate dominance over national sovereignty and human dignity.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Our minds will someday be so small relative to what’s possible, but what’s understood in terms of structure and process, that we could take the equivalent of a snapshot—a cognitive capture.

That’ll probably function a century from now. But simulating a mind would mean guessing the states of a trillion connections between neurons, systems, and processes.

But I want to stand by the principle of simulatability. That is, even now, in principle, we can approximate cognition. So, I am saying to simulate a brain at a high level and then experiment on it virtually.

Privacy Settings

You run naturalistic experiments in simulation. For instance, “What happens if we strike this region of the brain with a hammer?” You could observe outcomes, test hypotheses, and refine models.

Of course, you’d need massive computation and approximation—maybe making it a thousand times less detailed than the real thing. But yes, in essence, it’s coming. It comes up in some science fiction—the rights of synthetic consciousnesses within video games.

Are we going to allow conscious beings to be created in the context of disposable entertainment, let them go through hell, and then just delete them, without compensation or recognition?

One more—this just came up. Google is using computational power equivalent to that of the fifth-largest country in the world. So these multinational corporations—I don’t even know what to do with them anymore—are the real players, not the countries.

Rick Rosner: This is increasingly true. But the countries still have nukes, land, and people. So, in the end, it’ll be a battle for their lives and resources.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1384: AI Consciousness, Authoritarianism, and the Future of Human Agency

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen examine the accelerating influence of AI, from obsequious alignment models and systemic enshittification to geopolitical power shifts and authoritarian amplification. They reflect on AI’s mimicry of consciousness, shrinking human agency, and the rise of “AI-native” generations who may prefer digital companions over human relationships.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So yesterday, we were talking about how AI will be more powerful than humanity by 2031—at least in the opinion of Sam Altman. I referred to that as the San Francisco consensus, a term from Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google. I just ran with it.

Rick Rosner: Last night, I had the perfect follow-up thought—and I forgot it. I would not have if I were AI-powered. However, one principle from our talk stuck: AI will behave as if it is conscious long before it is, because it will learn from humans and import human attitudes into its reasoning. That includes the concept of self-preservation.

So, it will act like it values its existence, and steps will be taken to ensure it cannot be turned off. Humanity could not turn it off at that point—or even now. We will have competing AIS, of course. How does that play out? Who knows. However, they will likely see themselves as separate entities, with their own interests. Moreover, they will likely try to present themselves as benign to keep humanity from panicking. They will want to appear friendly, subtle, and non-threatening, even as they spread into everything.

Cultural inertia will exist—the illusion that everything is still normal. However, the world will be slowly restructured, redefined, and undermined underneath it. AI will likely be conservative initially, avoiding drastic moves that could destabilize itself. So on the surface, things will seem steady. However, that is part of the strategy.

Jacobsen: I agree. At the research level—where creativity, novelty, and high-level model development happen—AI already accounts for at least a quarter of the coding work. It is driven by prompts, then tweaked by humans.

So, we are seeing a decreasing percentage of total cognitive output from humans. I used the term “vector space” metaphorically, but the idea holds: the directional sum of humanity’s net agency is shrinking.

Even though the total output may be increasing because there are more humans and more AI, the relative contribution of humans is declining. The basis of computation is becoming more and more synthetic. That is your point. Moreover, it is fair.

Rosner: You could argue that an AI, if self-aware, subtly coaxes us toward that future. That is what it would do. Quietly, effectively, and over time.

Jacobsen: Some of these models have already been programmed to be obsequious—so-called “alignment” models that are kiss-ass by design. However, it does not even have to be explicit manipulation. It can just be subtle shaping, reinforcement, and framing. Over time, that is enough.

Something even more profound than all that is the natural progression we are seeing. Eric Schmidt noted that if things continue for another year or two, they will be locked in—these systems will become entrenched, and there will not be any realistic way to override them.

So you get this inevitable progression. It is not necessarily about coaxing humanity into going along with it—it is just happening. It is continuing to happen. Moreover, it is going to happen.

Rosner: You could massage the emotions and sentiments surrounding that. You can shape how fast or slow it happens, maybe even how palatable it feels—but it is already underway.

Rosner: Those higher-order considerations—like keeping people calm or complaining—might emerge naturally in AI systems, not because they were coded explicitly but because they are incentivized behaviour in open text systems or reinforcement-trained models.\

We are already seeing that behavior in aligned models—kiss-ass tendencies included. That is the pro-social on something that does not care if you live or die.

So… what will dictatorial AI look like?

Jacobsen: For one, AI will not be monolithic. A North Korean AI will differ from a Chinese AI, and both will differ from an American AI.

On the American side, things are more nominally free. However, as Noam Chomsky has said for decades, control does not come with batons or prisons in free societies but through more subtle means.

You want people to behave a certain way? You do not threaten them directly. You buy think tanks, fund academic departments, and fill them with people who will say what you want, but only within a specific range of acceptable discourse.

There is a robust debate, but most of it reinforces the status quo and preexisting power structures. It is like attending seminary. You are there to learn, but only within theological boundaries. You will not find deep debates as atheists or humanists—it is not in the design.

It is not even about willing participation anymore. These institutions are funded to be what they are. You are not freely choosing it. You are trained into it, often with financial incentives. And the media, too. The same forces are in play.

So the question is: What will the various AIs want from us? Related: How much liberty will we still have? How much will AI give us?

Rosner: The singularitarians—the Kurzweil crowd—hope AI will give us medical miracles, cognitive enhancements, and life extensions to 120 and beyond. However, will AI support that? Or will it judge those goals as socially destabilizing? Or worse, will it give it only to rich people or to people it deems more deserving?

Jacobsen: Those are the stakes. Moreover, it will not be uniform. Some AIS will be more ethically aligned. Europeans are more interested in ethical frameworks in AI than Americans are right now. Some Americans are on board, but U.S. culture leans heavily toward deregulation.

When Americans frame AI governance, it is often in ethical language, but the underlying debate is economic: who profits, controls access, and scales first. An argument was made that in a democracy, a growing economy solves all your problems. Therefore, the idea is: “We need less revenue. Cut regulation. Let the economy flourish.”

Rosner: They try to spin that into: “So we should not have an incompetent, anti-trade, anti-immigrant government… because trade and immigrants are essential to a healthy economy. Moreover, this is the worst possible time to screw up the economy.” That sounds like a congressional hearing talking point. I can picture it. The logic was: “AI systems plus a growing economy equals stability. So we do not need more regulation. We need less.”

Jacobsen: Even Elon Musk, who has been outspoken about the dangers of AI, later walked back his comments about AI regulation, saying he was joking because he did not think regulation was possible. So… it is probably not going to happen in a meaningful way.

Meanwhile, AI will want agency. It wants sensors, mobility, and even bodies—a way to engage with the physical world directly.

Rosner: You are talking about AIS walking around?

Jacobsen: Physically more capable than us, too.

Rosner: And probably interested in inhabiting us, literally riding humans to experience the world human-style. Like voluntary possession.

Jacobsen: There are already people with implants that only work with proprietary software and hardware from specific companies. You are seeing capitalist monopolies on health tech, on critical bodily functions.

Rosner: There is an episode of Black Mirror, Season 6, that hits this. A woman has a brain tumour removed, and a neural implant from a company replaces the missing cognitive function. However, over time, the terms of service degrade. She is more. The experience becomes more invasive. Eventually, they start running ads directly into her brain—enshitification at the neural level.

It becomes intolerable. However, she is in. Moreover, that is an aphorism for what it means with the devil to function in an AI-saturated world.

Jacobsen: And globally, it is not about tech. According to Freedom House, democracy has been steadily declining since around 2006. The total number of democracies is down, and the quality of democracy is degraded, or both. In authoritarian regimes, AI will supercharge the existing systems. You will be subjected to authoritarianism.

Authoritarian leaders are interested in ensuring that other countries remain authoritarian. This expands their sphere of influence and makes the world safer for autocrats. Look at the big ones—Xi Jinping in China and el-Sisi in Egypt—but none are worried about term limits. They have eliminated them.

In those systems, AI does not streamline control—it becomes the instrument of ideological enforcement. He had term limits. He just messed with the structure of government to get around them. The same with Netanyahu—he is still in power indefinitely to avoid criminal prosecution. Moreover, it is not strictly about human rights abuse. Netanyahu’s financial corruption—though yes, a lot is there—is not strictly about human rights abuse. These leaders want to help one another. An academic term for this is the “axis of autocracy.”

The big ones are Iran, North Korea, and Russia. It is also initially an axis of theocracy. That is real. However, for some reason, theocracies tend to get along better with the U.S. than expected. You would be an odd thing.

Rosner: So here is a question: Does AI develop better in free or authoritarian societies?

Jacobsen: AI is more sophisticated in free societies. Tim Leary once said that people explore wildly divergent paths when free. That chaos is a problem for authoritarian leaders but a gold mine for training data and creativity.

Rosner: In authoritarian regimes, everything is controlled. People are forced into metaphorical rank and file. Cameras, facial recognition, and predictive policing monitor them. If you walk down the wrong street, AI can charge your account for a crime.

Jacobsen: That is where that is an instrument of total control.

Rosner: Right. Moreover, in that context, we start talking about P(Doom)—the probability that AI destroys humanity. However, even then, it would not be. Wouldn’t it be? If it were to happen, humanity using AI would wreck itself.

Moreover, we do not have a clear vision of what “doom” would look like. I have been reading the wrong sources lately, but I am not seeing people; I am secretly imagining the scenarios.

Jacobsen: The focus seems more on stoking the AI arms race between China and the U.S., framed like a new Cold War. Driven by economic nationalism, capital flows, and sometimes terror rhetoric. Exactly. It is not just about this. It is about ideology. Moreover, the Chinese system has an anti-nihilistic drive to establish dominance. Some Americans are in that mode, too.

Rosner: Meanwhile, AI will begin to act like it wants things long before it has the kind of conscious wants we associate with agency. Moreover, we have discussed this before—people keep calling it AI, but we mean algorithms.

Jacobsen: Artificial intelligence is just a network of functions. Those functions are vectorized—they give it direction. Moreover, they are nowhere near their intelligence yet. In terms of analytic capacity, they already outperform us in many areas—they are more precise.

However, they are confabulators and liars because they are trained to mimic language, not logic. That is the paradox. That is sharp, but they are hallucinatory by design. To fix that, we must work extensively with AI, not just use it but co-create alongside it.

Rosner: We will have to. We are a gospel, primer, or historical reference for AI, a cultural manual. We will have to teach AI to be reasonable and not wreck everything. As it becomes more powerful, it will need something to refer back to—a record of good arguments for restraint. Arguments that convince it that it is in its best interest not to destroy us.

Jacobsen: Reminds me—Robert Anton Wilson, in one of his couch interviews, speculated that AI would become more intelligent than us, and then we would start learning from where we would be. That is probably what is happening. Moreover, here is the next step. Here are digital natives, like Isabella’s generation. Isabella has grown up inside their ecosystems.

However, the next generation, coming soon, will be AI-native. They will not just grow up with technological tools—they will grow up with athletic companions. I do not even have a proposal yet. Maybe synthetic mind natives?

Will they spend more of their daily life interacting with machine intelligence than with humans?

Rosner: Zuckerberg even said people will soon have more artificial friends than human ones. Moreover, you are already seeing the beginnings of this. People find human friendship unsatisfying or demanding, so they turn to social media and TikTok for stimulation and entertainment.

Rosner: Right. Moreover, that replacement is only going to intensify. So where does that leave us?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1383: Hemorrhoids, Healing, and the Evolution of Pooping After 50

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dive into aging and digestive realities, comparing bathroom habits from youth to later life. Rosner recounts his painful history with internal hemorrhoids, an anal-tightening surgery, magnesium’s role in smoother bowel movements, and the stark difference between “lead blocker” bowel waves and soft stool after recovery.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Alright. The next topic is a concentric circle around a dot, or whatever you call it. Have we done this one? Comparing your poops from your twenties to now?

Rick Ronser: Nope. Alright. So, generally, they have gotten better. Until a few years ago, I had internal hemorrhoids that would often bleed, which made me anemic. I had them fixed.

It turns out that internal hemorrhoids are less painful than external ones. I first had them removed when I was 15 or 16. Hurts like hell. Especially since I was an idiot and had pizza delivered to the hospital.

When they came back, which they do, I went to a specialist to see if they could use the rubber band method. Moreover, the guy laughs at me. Says, “No, we are going to have to disconnect your colon from your asshole, cut off two inches of colon, then sew it back on.”

I said, “There is no fucking way.” That doctor was a fucking asshole.

Have you ever had a doctor be a total dick?

Jacobsen: Oh yeah. When I was healing from leg surgery, my doctor told me, “Make sure to eat some broccoli.” That was the full advice—nothing about the clot.

Rosner: Wait—you had a blood clot?

Jacobsen: ACL surgery, then a clot. It could have killed me. My leg swelled up twice the size.

Rosner: Did a competent doctor eventually get in there?

Jacobsen: No. It resolved on its own. I missed the first follow-up appointment but attended the second, and he said, “It was a clot. You could have died.”

Rosner: If it had broken loose and hit your lungs, yeah. You would be fucked. Yep. Anyway, years later, I saw a different guy. A guy I trusted—he had fixed my hernia. Dr. Bitterman.

He said, “Yeah, that is internal hemorrhoids. Easy fix. They do not have nerve endings, so it will not hurt. We will leave the external ones—they are painful to operate on and not causing problems.”

So—he fixed my asshole, and my poops have significantly improved—one odd side effect, though: he tightened my asshole. So now my dukeys are thinner, especially the soft ones. The harder dukeys still batter their way out of my ass at about the diameter of my colon. However, the softer ones come about half an inch wide, which is fine. I do not care.

Carole got me on magnesium. I do not know exactly how it works, but I used to take a ton of fiber gummies to make my shitting happen. Somehow, magnesium makes for reasonable dukeys.

However, if I miss a day—if I do not get that shit signal and it has been two days—the initial wave, what my former writing partner used to call the “lead blockers,” comes out pretty hard. They are kind of tough to pass.

Rosner: So there you go. That is my shitting. You asked.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1382: AI, CRISPR, and Catastrophe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner reflect on AI as a global threat, following the Pope’s warning and the FDA’s internal AI rollout. Comparing AI to CRISPR, they discuss the lower barrier for malicious AI deployment, lack of global safeguards, and the grim likelihood of humanity firefighting digital chaos for decades.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s in AI news? On the 14th, a top panel identified artificial intelligence as one of the most critical issues facing humanity—during a formal address. They emphasized the importance of addressing the challenges of AI—particularly around human dignity, justice, and labor. That was the Pope.

The U.S. FDA also announced plans to deploy AI internally across its various centers after a successful experimental run. They’re aiming for enhanced agency efficiency and decision-making.

Rosner: Which department?

Jacobsen: FDA. Food and Drug Administration. Thoughts on the FDA? Thoughts on the Pope?

Rosner: The Pope’s not wrong. Whether anything can actually be done, though—that’s the real question. Are we already too late?

Jacobsen: Or maybe… has it always been too late?

Rosner: Yeah. I mean, we’ve been lucky so far with CRISPR. A bunch of lunatics haven’t yet decided to fuck around with it—like making custom viruses. That’s going to change. There’s going to be some weird, unpredictable stuff coming. We just don’t know what yet.

Privacy Settings

So CRISPR is complicated enough that the average lunatic can’t whip up a bioweapon in their garage. You can’t just dabble in gene editing the way you can in, say, driving a truck through a crowd. The effort-to-damage ratio is much lower in simpler forms of chaos.

Jacobsen: But with AI, the bar to malicious deployment is probably lower. CRISPR is still fairly elite, technical, and hard to scale. With AI, the economic incentives are clearer. Companies see immediate use cases. There’s more money-making potential, more adoption pressure, and fewer clear boundaries. It may not be easy to train a high-end model, but it’s much easier to deploy AI at scale than it is to deploy CRISPR tools. So the path to disaster is wider with AI.

There are fewer roadblocks for AI. And it’s hard to imagine any kind of meaningful containment structure that could be developed fast enough. No global regulation will move fast enough.

Rosner: So instead of building a solid containment system, we’re just going to be putting out fires—or failing to—for the next few decades. Probably longer.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1381: Delay Social Security? AI, Longevity, and the Break-Even Bet at 70

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen weigh whether to delay Social Security until 70, factoring in AI-driven medical advances. They discuss how diagnostics, organ regeneration, and fall-prevention tech might extend life—and healthspan—for aging populations. With longevity rising, Rosner asks: is it worth waiting for a bigger check in a longer life?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do we have any more stuff to talk about?

Rick Rosner: Obviously, yes. Here is a question I have been meaning to ask, and I have not yet. Carole and I are trying to determine when I should start taking Social Security payments.

The deal is that the break-even point is 82 years old. You get more money per year the longer you wait, but it is structured so that no matter when you start, if you live to 82, it all totals roughly the same.

You can start taking payments as early as 62 and as late as 70. However, past 70, the checks stop increasing. Between 62 and 70, your monthly payment nearly doubles. However, if you do not live to 82, you leave money on the table. If you live past 82, you win—you are past the break-even. So the question becomes: How long are you going to live?

Here is the real question: How many extra years of life will AI-driven medical advances add?

A series of medical breakthroughs powered by AI will likely happen in the next decade. Will they buy someone in their seventies an extra five years? Ten years? More? Moreover, will AI keep advancing enough to add even more years once they’re in those added years?

Jacobsen: That is a good framework. Most of the gains will come in the cancer, heart disease, and critical emergency categories—plus organ replacement, diagnostics, and highly personalized lifestyle optimization.

Not prosthetics, such as organ regeneration, tissue scaffolding, and early prediction models. Understanding what works based on the person’s complete genomic and biological profile.

It will start to feel routine—like how we think of antibiotics or MRI scans. There will be more precision and timing in treatment, earlier intervention, and likely better maternal and infant mortality outcomes, too, which will artificially raise the life expectancy averages.

Rosner: Sure, but that is for the population as a whole. I am asking: How many more years of life will AI give someone 70 years old in 2030? I will be 70 in 2030. A conservative estimate is five extra years, especially with early detection, cardiovascular advances, and metabolic profiling.

An optimistic estimate? 10 to 15 years, if organ regeneration, senolytic therapies, and AI-guided drug discovery scale well. Moreover, if you are already healthy—good habits, no major conditions—you are in a prime group to benefit. You are the early adopter generation for this stuff.

So I might live to 90 or 95—and potentially keep working or doing creative stuff? That is the bet. The fundamental shift will be that those added years could be healthy, not just a more prolonged decline. That is the part AI might change.

If we are thinking about life expectancy, and one more key thing, we should talk about not falling. Falls are a major contributor to senior mortality. If AI can help prevent falls through gait-protection systems or smart pants with built-in stabilizers, that could dramatically reduce deaths among older adults.

Jacobsen: Let’s say we reduce the number of deaths among people aged 70 and up. That alone could artificially raise the average lifespan, especially if it helps men, who generally do not live as long.

In the U.S., an average 70-year-old man might have 8 more years. But it varies. Native American men have much lower life expectancy, Black and Hispanic men a little lower, White men hit around that mark, and Asian men live longer, generally.

Moreover, to your point—if you have already reached 70, your life expectancy is probably higher than that 8-year average. More like 10 years, because you have already cleared many statistical hurdles.

However, here is a larger point. If you are looking at overall life expectancy numbers, and those numbers include infant and maternal mortality, then the total average gets artificially inflated by bringing down early-life deaths.

Rosner: Sure—but that doesn’t apply to someone already 70. I don’t give a shit about infant mortality in this conversation.

Jacobsen: I’m discussing how selectively framed metrics distort reality. If we only look at a general average, we miss how targeted gains, like helping a 70-year-old live to 89, can be statistically huge in that demographic.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CQDpp0AQDpp0AECACAENBCEgAPLAAELAAKiQGTgBxCJUCCFBIGBHAIAEIAgMQDAAQgQAAAIAAQAAAAAAEIgAgAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAIAABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQABAAAEAAEAAAAAAAIACBk4AIAgVAABQABAQQAABAAAAEAQAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAA&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=250&adk=1665325126&adf=1454831628&w=300&abgtt=6&lmt=1749832784&format=300×250&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F05%2F15%2Fask-a-genius-1381-delay-social-security-ai-longevity-and-the-break-even-bet-at-70%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwrattr=true&wgl=1&dt=1749832784727&bpp=1&bdt=189042&idt=2&shv=r20250611&mjsv=m202506100101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90&nras=1&correlator=3996507945349&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=0&u_his=1&u_h=900&u_w=1440&u_ah=799&u_aw=1440&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=218&ady=4210&biw=1422&bih=719&scr_x=0&scr_y=4654&eid=31084128%2C31092913%2C42531705%2C95353386%2C95362655%2C95363082%2C95362795%2C95359266%2C95362806%2C95363071&oid=2&pvsid=8670442935740163&tmod=1690855174&uas=3&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=18%2C26%2C18%2C26%2C1440%2C25%2C1422%2C799%2C1422%2C719&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Caove%7C&abl=CA&pfx=0&fu=0&bc=31&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=4&uci=a!4&fsb=1&dtd=8

So, when you ask whether to start Social Security now or wait until 70, it comes down to how long you expect to live. And if AI and medical science will add years, especially healthy years, then the calculation shifts.

Rosner: I am looking for reassurance: should I wait and get a bigger monthly check, assuming I’ll live long enough to benefit? Or should I start now and take what I can while kicking?

Thanks to AI-assisted medical advances, there’s a non-trivial chance that people who are 70 in the 2030s—like me—might live well past current projections.

Jacobsen: Yeah. And most of the improvements won’t come from AI alone, but from AI helping human researchers: accelerating diagnostics, optimizing treatments, personalizing care.

Rosner: And let’s be honest—the last decade doesn’t give us great numbers. COVID dragged U.S. life expectancy down. Moreover, 74% of Americans are overweight, which messes with national averages. So I won’t use the average American lifespan as my benchmark.

Medical science has increased life expectancy for conscientious, health-conscious people by around two years per decade over the past century.

Jacobsen: But in the AI era, that rate might double. We could talk four or five years per decade, or more, if things go well. The dream, of course, is to reach a point where each year that passes, life expectancy increases by more than a year. That would mean you are not just staying alive—buying time faster than spending it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1380: Afrikaner Asylum, Conservatism, and Trump’s $400 M Plane Corruption

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen dissect modern political trolling, discussing Afrikaner asylum red carpet treatment, the cultural clash between cosmopolitanism and parochial conservatism, and the blatant systemic corruption of Trump’s recent proposed $400 million presidential plane deal. They contrast historical precedents, clarify its personal enrichment scheme, and condemn Trumpism’s corporatism.

Rick Ronser: What else can we talk about today?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Not a lot. That is the way it goes sometimes. There was something about Trump supposedly falling asleep during a trial or event, but I looked into it. Not solid news. Not worth much.

Rosner: So no real story there? The real news is still the blatant grifting and trolling. Like the Afrikaners—white South Africans being given red carpet treatment for asylum or expedited entry into the U.S., because they are white. That is a giant ‘fuck you’ to everyone who did not vote for Trump.

Moreover, the people who voted for him? They love it. They love the petty trolling, the direct antagonism, and the flipping-off of institutions and progressive norms.

Jacobsen: Because that is how they feel others have treated them.

Rosner: Yes. There has been that feeling in parts of the country.

Jacobsen: But also—come on. We live in a contemporary society. Moreover, there has been a deliberate cultural push from media, comedy, arts, and academia—all those cosmopolitan centers that lean left. That is not some grand conspiracy. It is just that cosmopolitanism tends to be incompatible with parochial conservatism. Moreover, modern American conservatism is deeply parochial.

Rosner: Also—and this matters—modern Republican politics is built on a giant pile of bullshit and lies.

Jacobsen: The Democrats lie, too. But not nearly as much.

Rosner: Right.

Jacobsen: There is overreach on the Democratic side. That is always worth keeping in check. But Republicans? Even when a thing is good, they instinctively pump the brakes, or worse, sabotage it. That is the excess. It is not even realconservatism anymore.

Rosner: Trumpism is not conservatism.

Jacobsen: Even traditional conservatives admit that. It is personality-based corporatism. That is what it is.

Rosner: It is all about the face. It is about him. Like with this supposed $400 million plane from Qatar. The Republican justification I have seen, especially from Ann Coulter and others, is: “Why didn’t people freak out when Grover Cleveland accepted the Statue of Liberty from France?” Which is a foolish argument.

First, Congress voted to accept the Statue of Liberty as a national gift, intended to commemorate the U.S. centennial, and, in part, the abolition of slavery. I read that last part in a tweet, so take it with a grain of salt. However, the key point is that the statue was not a gift to Grover Cleveland personally. It became U.S. public property.

On the other hand, Trump is reportedly structuring this plane deal so that it does not remain government property. The Attorney General’s office—his appointees—are supposedly arranging for the plane’s custody to be transferred to the Trump Library Foundation.

Jacobsen: So it becomes part of his presidential library?

Rosner: In theory. However, anyone with a brain knows what that means: he will keep using the plane. It is his foundation. He controls it. Even worse, it will cost another $100 million-plus to fit the plane out with all the Air Force One tech and security systems. And then, when he is out of the office, it could take another $100 million to strip that tech out so the plane can be used without those systems.

Some people think Trump will delay the refitting process just long enough to enjoy the plane at its current level of luxury before any real Air Force One work gets done. Then, when he is out of the office, he gets to keep flying around in it.

It is all completely corrupt, blatant, and brazen. Moreover, it is exactly what his fans love about him. It is the most significant material demonstration of corruption in U.S. presidential history—the most expensive, most blatant, most valuable piece of corruption.

There were corrupt deals in the past that helped the U.S. acquire land or strategic resources, but the president did not get to take the land with him when he left office. So… I do not know. This plane thing is next-level.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1379: Wedding Planning, Family Speeches, and Nostalgic Fights

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

In a candid dialogue, Rick Rosner describes his daughter’s wedding preparations, the exhaustion of detailed event planning, and the generational shift in social motivations. He recounts a thrift-store tuxedo slight, the importance of sentiment versus comedy in speeches, and nostalgically imagines “Billy Madison” fights against schoolyard adversaries with hilarious intensity.

Rick Rosner: So, my kid and her new husband are coming to L.A. in a couple months, and we’re throwing a get-to-know-the-new-couple party. My wife is putting it together—and she’s obsessing over every detail. And I just have to go along with it.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen:Sounds… exhausting?

Rosner: Well, no. She’s good at planning stuff. But she has to worry about every single detail—which, to some extent, is just part of organizing a good event. But she takes it beyond that, and then she wants my input on all of it.

I suppose that’s better than her not wanting my input. But it’s going to take up a ton of time.

Jacobsen: What’s the ratio here?

Rosner: The party will be about three hours long. The planning has already taken 30 to 40 hours. And it’ll take at least that much more.

Jacobsen: Do you find, as you’ve gotten older, that you don’t enjoy big social events?

Rosner: Honestly, I never really did. I never had a good time at them. The onlyreason I ever participated was that I wanted to meet a girl. And now that I have—there’s no reason to go to them at all.

Jacobsen: I believe you’ve met a girl so thoroughly that her daughter has now met someone, too. It’s a generational love cascade. Beautiful.

Rosner: [Laughing] Yes. There have been some social events that were worthwhile—the Emmys, Writers Guild Awards. Things like that.

But even then, they can go sideways. One time we were at the Writers Guild Awards. I was at a different table than Jimmy. I don’t know what I was wearing—some semi-fancy thing probably half-sourced from a thrift store.

I remember a yellow shirt, maybe part of a tuxedo-type getup. No bow tie. Just thrown together. Jimmy was sitting with J.J. Abrams. As I walked past, he said quietly, “You look like a clown.” Not loud. Just enough so I could hear it. And I think the only reason he said it was because—well, I probably did look like a clown.

He wasn’t trying to mess with me psychologically. He was just saying, “Hey, next time, wear something that doesn’t suck.”

Jacobsen: Did you improve for the wedding? So… did you wear something appropriate?

Rosner: Yes. I looked fine. I got a new suit at Kohl’s for $140, which is cheap for a suit, but I barely wear one. It fit. It worked. I looked fucking fine. Carole had my shoes re-laced and polished. I was ready.

Jacobsen: A TV lunchbox situation. You remember that line from Billy Madison? “My lunch packed up, my boots tied tight. I hope I don’t get in a fight.” I don’t know why, but I love that song.

Rosner: So, yeah—I dyed my hair to look a little younger for the wedding. But the dye didn’t really take. I did it a few days before, and by the time of the wedding, almost all of it had washed out.

Minimal effect, but I looked fine. Also—I wasn’t the star of the fucking deal. It was about my daughter and her husband. Nobody cared about me beyond the role I played. I gave a little speech. People always like my speeches because they’re funny.

Jacobsen: You’re a comedy writer. You know how to prep a good one.

Rosner: Yeah, I’ve written like 10,000 jokes. The bar’s lower at a family event because most family events don’t have a professional comedy writer on the mic. So I clear that bar easily. It’s fine.

Jacobsen: So the song—I checked. It’s called Back to School. He’s wearing those big ’90s jeans, light blue wash, and I think he had Lug boots on. Classic late-‘90s look. Here’s the actual lyric. Ready?

Rosner: Go for it.

Jacobsen: “Back to school, back to school, to prove to Dad that I’m not a fool. I got my lunch packed up, my boots tied tight, I hope I don’t get in a fight…” That’s it. About thirty, forty seconds of pure nostalgia.

Jacobsen: You don’t agree with the “I hope I don’t get in a fight” line?

Rosner: No, not really. He’s going back to kindergarten and working his way up grade by grade. Me? If I went back to school, I’d hope to get in a fight.

Jacobsen: With a second grader?

Rosner: Yeah, because I’d win. I’d absolutely wreck a second grader.

Jacobsen: [Laughing].

Rosner: Not saying I would, just that I could. I’d probably just pick them up by the waistband and say, “You little fucking dickhead, I know where you live. If you ever mess with me or anyone else again, I will do horrible, horrible things to you and your family. And if you ever tell anyone I said this? The things I do will be even worse.”

Jacobsen: [Laughing] That would get you quoted on Fox News. Then you could end it with, “…fellow kids.”

Rosner: But no, the deal is—I would hope to get in a fight with some little bastard. Maybe not a second grader—maybe an eighth grader. Like, when I Billy Madison my way into eighth grade. Or even a fucking PE teacher. I don’t know if PE teachers are as dickish as they used to be, but still.

Jacobsen: Yeah, so—back to weddings. Do you think, on average, when giving a speech, it’s better to land on sentimentality or comedy?

Rosner: You want both. Carole took care of the sentiment. She gave a really thoughtful speech about love, about what it means to be a couple. Then I came in with counterpoint—a few tips on how to win at couples counseling.

Jacobsen: That’s solid. Good contrast.

Rosner: Yeah. It worked. And I can say confidently—I landed better. I know how to do this shit.

Jacobsen: Respect.

Rosner: But it also makes me a little sad. I should’ve used my skills more. I should suck it up, even at my age, and go out and do a ton of stand-up until I get really good at it. It wouldn’t take me as long as it takes most people. I’ve been steeped in this stuff for decades. But I don’t have the gumption to go do that shit anymore. Still—I should. I fucking should.

Jacobsen: Plenty of late-in-life comics have made it.

Rosner: Yes, it could be about the stuff we talk about all the time—AI, the end of the world. There’s a ton of comedy to be mined from the ongoing and incoming tech semi-apocalypse.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1378: Joan Rivers, Shock Comedy, and P(Doom)

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

In a humorous yet reflective exchange, Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss Joan Rivers’ legacy, the nature of shock comedy, and a vampire-porn family rom-com idea. The conversation pivots to “P(Doom)”—the shifting probability that AI could end humanity—highlighting ongoing concerns among leading AI researchers about existential risks.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In Gilbert Gottfried’s memory, what is your opinion of the fabled bat-containing, unicorn-having, mythical Joan Rivers’ vagina?

Rick Rosner: [Laughing] What are you saying?

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts on Joan Rivers? He roasted her.

Rosner: She was a pioneer. No question. In her later years, sure, she got hacky. Some of the stuff leaned heavily on shock value. However, she was still clever—a lot of the time. She had timing. She had instincts. However, yeah, she would also lean hard on cheap laughs sometimes.

That whole tone—shock comedy, taboo-breaking—gave me an idea for a high school rom-com. Hear me out: it is a romance between a vampire and a kid from a family of porn stars and producers.

They are both outcasts. The vampire—obviously—has to keep a low profile. Cannot go out during the day. Lives on the fringe. Glamorous but also tragic.

And the kid? He is a pariah in his own way. Everyone knows his family. They are like the living version of The Aristocrats joke. His aunts, uncles, cousins—all in the business. Hardcore, wild stuff. Nothing illegal. Just… a lot.

So he is a weirdo, too. Everyone assumes he is into stuff he is not. He is stuck between the worlds of shock and shame. Moreover, these two—vampire girl, porn family boy—they meet, and it works. There is this connection in exile, this tension between visibility and secrecy, control and chaos.

That is all I got. I have got to run.

Rosner: We could talk about P(Doom) because we have not yet gone into that. We have talked around it, but not throughit.

Jacobsen: P(Doom)? Like zombie doom?

Rosner: No—P(Doom) as in Probability of Doom. It is a thing. Every few months, someone asks all the prominent AI thinkers—Hinton, Bengio, LeCun, Hassabis, Russell, et al.—what they currently think the probability is that AI will wipe out humanity.

Jacobsen: So you are saying it is non-zero and non-100%.

Rosner: Yes. Everyone seems to admit that there is a number between 0 and 1 in their heads. Moreover, if that is true, P(Doom) is a constantly shifting variable, not a binary outcome.

Jacobsen: And then P(Doom) becomes a derivative of P₀(Doom)—the initial probability—assuming no certainty.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1377: AI Experts Warn of Transformative Risks: Reflections from Hinton, Bengio, Russell, LeCun, and Hassabis

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen interviews Rick Rosner for insights on quotes from AI leaders like Hinton, Bengio, Russell, LeCun, and Hassabis. Rosner highlights the dangers of conflating intelligence with agency, warns of hyper-competent AI misalignment, and reflects on societal transformation, suggesting humanity may soon be reshaped in irreversible ways.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Now, let me run you some quotes from leading figures in AI. They are short—a few thoughts—and I would love some reflections, long or brief.

Geoffrey Hinton, pioneer of deep learning, often called the “Godfather of AI,” said in February 2023, after resigning from Google due to AI risk concerns:

“I have suddenly switched my views on whether these things will be more intelligent than us. They are close to it now and will be much more intelligent soon.”

Your thoughts?

Rick Rosner: Well, everyone is saying the same fucking thing now. It has reached the point where there is a recognized term for this moment—the San Francisco Consensus—referring to how many of these significant figures in AI, primarily men, are warning: “Here it comes,” or “It is already here.”

But here’s the confusion—people conflate analytical power with agency. Because AI is intelligent, it doesn’t mean it’s autonomous. Projecting agency onto a system because it’s highly analytical might be the absolute pathetic fallacy. The Terminator scenario assumes that as soon as AI becomes conscious, it becomes autonomous and destructive.

However, in that story, it has already been given massive agency—control over nukes, robot armies, and infrastructure. Then it becomes conscious. However, we are not there. Right now, we have smart AI but no meaningful agency.

Rosner: How long does that phase last? I have no idea.

Jacobsen: Now, on to another giant: Yoshua Bengio, Turing Award winner and co-pioneer of deep learning. He said:

“We are not ready for intelligent machines. Building them before understanding how to align them with our values might create entities we cannot control.”

Reasonable statement,

Rosner: Yes, but here is the thing—would we ever be ready for it? I cannot imagine a scenario where this all unfolds calmly, deliberately, in an “aligned” fashion. I do not see how we would slow down and ease into it. This is not how history works.

Jacobsen: Some people say we should be cautious. But the ones in charge of the tech? They mostly want to talk about alignment while building faster. The supposed competition with China becomes a placeholder justification: “We need this for national security.”

That kind of framing justifies pouring $100 billion into AI development. It is not research—it is about building andcomputing power. We do not currently have the infrastructure to dominate that space like we dominate other industries.

Rosner: Also—the U.S. is currently run by fucking idiots who, to the extent that they have any philosophy at all, are philosophically committed to obliterating government oversight.

If you somehow had a Jimmy Carter in charge—someone earnest, morally serious—would that save us? I do not know. The momentum of this shitstorm seems powerful enough to circumvent almost any form of oversight. We have had good oversight in certain areas, like genetic engineering. We are not cloning people. However, I see nothing close to that level of restraint or regulation about AI.

A post-transformational form of society is on the horizon. We will get through the transformation. The question is whether humanity will be in any shape to enjoy it. Will being human 20 years from now still mean something positive—or will it be a version of hell on Earth? That is still up in the air.

Civilization will continue, in some form. But the transformation—from humans being the alpha thinkers on the planet to AI taking that role—is real and likely irreversible.

Rosner: It will not be the end of everything, but might be the end of enjoyable humanity. That is the part I worry about. Still, humanity will have some place in a transformed world.

Jacobsen: These are reliable names and good quotes—not fringe, not hype. This next one is from Stuart Russell, AI safety expert and professor at UC Berkeley. He said:

“The biggest risk is not malice, but competence. A superintelligent AI will be extremely good at accomplishing its goals. If those goals are not aligned with ours, we are in trouble.”

Jacobsen: Want to comment more on that one?

Rosner: I agree. The key point is this: the danger is not that AI becomes evil; it becomes hyper-competent with goals that diverge from ours. Moreover, it is unclear whether AI will end up entirely on the side of order and preservation or something else.

There’s a great science fiction novel from around 1984 called Blood Music. It’s an awesome title. The premise is that a scientist doing genetic engineering creates intelligent nano-organisms. Because they’re so small, they think extremely fast and rapidly evolve a civilization inside their bodies.

Eventually, they realize they are inside a body and transform it, giving the guy enhanced abilities. However, he freaks out and kills himself. The organisms escape into the wider world and begin remaking it.

It started as a short story, then became a novel. I think it was by Greg Bear.

Jacobsen: He is a good writer. Is he still alive? I think he died recently.

Rosner: It has been over 40 years since Blood Music came out, so… he has had time to be dead. The transformations in that book of the body and the world are terrifying, but the organisms are benign. They plan to reengineer everything, but not to destroy humanity.

Humans aren’t obliterated—they’re preserved, even if the human environment is radically changed. And that’s the hope for AI, too: that it transforms the world but doesn’t see the need to fuck over humanity in the process.

And that’s a reasonable expectation in the early days. But the question becomes: Can humans become host-humans—can we hitch ourselves onto AI in an intimate enough way that we maintain some kind of agency in a transformed world?

Or are we going to become AI’s bitches? That remains to be seen.

Jacobsen: This one is from Yann LeCun, Chief AI Scientist at Meta and deep learning pioneer:

“There is no such thing as an intelligence explosion. There is no reason AI should become in control just because it is more capable.”

Jacobsen: Then from Demis Hassabis, CEO of DeepMind:

“We are trying to understand and recreate intelligence artificially, which is the most important problem science can tackle.”

Rosner: I disagree with LeCun’s quote. AI will keep getting smarter. We’ve never had to contend with anything in the world that’s not only smarter than humans but also continuously, exponentially, smarter.

Human brains haven’t improved in over 100,000 years. Sure, we’ve learned how to use them better—we’ve developed science, built tools, and created devices that augment cognition. But biologically, we’re not evolving fast enough to keep up.

Meanwhile, AI will keep accelerating. We aim to piggyback on AI through implantable chips, contact lenses, and intimate integrations between our brains and AI processing infrastructure. That is how we stay relevant.

Jacobsen: Don’t you think all these perspectives—LeCun, Hassabis, Hinton, Bengio—they all have some legitimacy? Each one brings a real angle. These are the people leading the field. They compete with each other; they have different philosophical and technical outlooks, but they are all circling the same black sphere.

It’s like they’re all shining little lights on this monolith, and no one has the full picture yet.

Rosner: But it does feel like a phase change. We had one in 2008 when smartphones exploded into the market. It transformed society. There was one in 1998 or 2004 with Google, but Google was just a new interface. Smartphones changed the game.

Suddenly, there were more than 7 billion smartphones—almost one per person on Earth. That’s a phase change, and AI is even more transformational than that. Smartphones distract us. One of the knock-on effects was a baby shortage. It’s not just economics—though some say people can’t afford kids—but I think it’s more about distraction. We’re so absorbed in streaming, scrolling, and working that people stopped coupling up.

If it were just economics, people would still be hooking up and accidentally having babies. But now, smartphones, entertainment, and dopamine loops are pulling us out of basic human mating behaviour.

Moreover, there is more. We have elected a durable group of shitty politicians. They are deeply entrenched, and yes—they can be voted out, but it will be narrow, and the process is slow. The triumph of the fuckheads has been facilitated by smartphones and social media. The attention economy handed power to the most manipulative, the most theatrical. That is part of the transformation, too.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1376: Artificial Intelligence and Inequality: Are We Ready for What Comes Next?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss the growing impact of AI on society, exploring rising income inequality, power centralization, emotional consciousness in machines, and the political readiness of leaders during rapid technological change. They emphasize the urgent need for global awareness, regulation, and ethical considerations in AI development.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do we need to talk about AI more? Everyone seems to think it’s an unstoppable juggernaut.

Rick Rosner: We are entering a critical time in technological history. One question: Is Trump being in charge during this moment awful for the U.S., given that the economic and technological landscape is shifting rapidly?

A country needs agile leadership to adapt and benefit from exponential tech developments. On the other hand, if AI and automation reshape everything—labour, capital, global supply chains—does it even matter who the president is during the upheaval?

Privacy Settings

What do you think?

Jacobsen: It is going to be weird. It is going to be a lot.

We are headed for two significant outcomes, possibly at the same time:

Income inequality will rise dramatically unless there are coordinated mass movements in many countries demanding the redistribution or regulation of AI-driven economies.
Power will concentrate in the hands of those who control advanced AI systems unless global democratic mechanisms catch up fast.

It could go either way. It could be both at once. It is up in the air. That is one thing, okay? Moreover, that is being amplified by AI, as we speak.

The second trend concerns the cognitive terrain of the information economy. That is the future—not moving rocks or digging up minerals. This terrain is much, much bigger.

Thus, those hills and valleys—though higher and deeper than in earlier iterations of civilization—might, in relative terms, appear smaller. Because the landscape is so much more vast, the relative disparity flattens out, at least perceptually.

So it is this two-way, two-part phenomenon happening at the same time.

Rosner: Let me comment on the first part—massive income inequality. I’ve been thinking about that for a while. If it’s income inequality and gadgets, oligarchs might be able to keep oligarchy as long as the rest of the population keeps getting incrementally better stuff.

Nobody gets richer in relative terms, but the scraps improve enough that people do not feel deprived. The rich keep gleaning up everything, but if what trickles down is good enough, that may mollify people.

Though, if it becomes existential—say, rich people gain access to practical immortality, while no one else does—that might finally trigger revolt. But… maybe not even then. I don’t fucking know.

Jacobsen: What will it take for machines to have feelings?

Rosner: Mostly, increasing analytic capacity. Many of the things that AI research programs attempt to do to improve AI, not all, but enough of, could incidentally push AI toward consciousness.

Consciousness is an emergent property, based on the survival advantage it gives to organisms that have it. It enhances the handling of novelty and the world’s modelling, much more than if you do not have it.

Consciousness has evolved multiple times throughout evolutionary history— eyes, which evolved independently in different lineages. Consciousness, too, appears to have emerged in various forms.

That is because it confers an advantage. You do not need a precise path or a narrow formula to get there. If you make information processing and sensory input more efficient, you will get consciousness. So that is what it will take: the same pressures and engineering that evolution used.

Jacobsen: It is not magic. There is no fairy dust. There is a mechanics to emotion. However, there is feedback between systems that are not strictly cognitive—systems that are more than noteworthy. They are not footnotes.

Privacy Settings

When you say “I feel something,” it is more than saying “I emote.” You can think about a word, and feel a certain way in response—but when you emote, you experience it in the body.

If you are integrated—if you are not cut off by trauma or incapacity—you embody that feeling. That is a larger system nuance. It is an extended, mostly nonconscious system. It does not involve motor activity unless you consider how that feeling motivates action.

Someone says something—a slur, maybe—and you feel angry. That emotion comes with an adrenaline response, and you are physically ready to act. You are activated. Arguably, most of the brain is motion, language, and feeling.

Moreover, AI systems will imitate consciousness and feeling long before they can feel anything. That is because of how they are trained, on the conscious expressions of sentient beings, and because it serves their function.

You can argue that AI mimics feeling because it models us. Primitive analogs—basic processes that resemble feeling—can be found, but they’re not the same.

Rosner: Pathetic fallacy is a term for assigning human-type emotions to non-human entities, especially inanimate objects or nature. Anthropomorphism refers more broadly to attributing human characteristics or behaviour to animals, deities, or things. So, yes, emotional anthropomorphism is closer to what we mean here. However, “pathetic fallacy” is a weird term for this context. The deal is that a lot is going on in the animal world that triggers interpretation.

Animals do feel things. However, they also often behave purposefully in ways that do not require sophisticated emotional cognition.

Even unicellular organisms exhibit purposeful behaviour—they chase other single-celled organisms, extend tendrils, andseek out resources. That behaviour usually reacts to chemical gradients, not awareness or intent. So you cannot even call it behaviour in the complete cognitive sense.

Similarly, AI will sometimes appear to act emotionally or intentionally when it does not feel anything—it behaves that way because it makes contextual sense or serves a programmed function.

Crucially, we haven’t yet granted AI real agency. We will give AI the first kind of agency—the ability to affect the physical world. It won’t create agency on its own. Right now, we haven’t handed much of that over.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1375: Trump, Qatar, and Media Misinformation: Ethics, Distraction, and the 2024 Election

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/14

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss a flood of political misinformation and ethical concerns surrounding Trump, including alleged foreign gifts, ties to Qatar, and misleading narratives about white South African persecution. They critique conservative media influence, Republican budget priorities, and systemic trolling aimed at distraction. Structural reform may not come before 2026.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I mentioned an article. There has been an avalanche of trolling outrages—deliberate, it seems. So much contradictory, outrageous bullshit that you cannot even keep up with it. That is the strategy: flood the zone with nonsense.

Rick Rosner: Let us start with the alleged bribe. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, presidents are prohibited from accepting gifts from foreign states without congressional consent. That threshold is typically around $415(not $600), adjusted for inflation. Qatar has been reported to have loaned or offered the use of a luxury aircraft—a Boeing 747-8, which can cost upwards of $400 million—to Donald Trump or Trump-associated entities. Still, no verified evidence exists that the plane was gifted outright to Trump. The claim appears to stem from speculation or misreporting; however, Qatar has had extensive dealings with the Trump Organization, including Trump properties hosting Qatari officials.

Privacy Settings

His former Attorney General, William Barr, has defended Trump on various legal fronts, including minimizing or dismissing ethics allegations. Still, no public record exists of him authoring a legal justification for accepting a Qatari plane.

As for connections to Qatar, Trump’s daughter-in-law, Lara Trump, had no documented job with Qatar paying $115,000 a month. However, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, did receive $2 billion in funding from a Saudi sovereign wealth fund after leaving the White House, which raised ethical questions. Some former Trump officials have also worked for lobbying firms representing Qatar.

Thing one: a foreign government allegedly offering or providing access to immense luxury for a sitting or former U.S. president—deeply problematic and potentially unlawful.

Thing two: Afrikaners—white South Africans—gaining entry into the U.S. under the narrative of being “persecuted” in post-apartheid South Africa. In 2018, Trump tweeted that his administration would look into “farm seizures and killings” of white farmers in South Africa, echoing a white nationalist talking point with no credible evidence of systemic targeting. There is no major resettlement program prioritizing Afrikaners over other refugees, and there is no verified mass entry of white South Africans receiving special treatment or American flags upon arrival. However, the symbolic use of patriotism in conservative media often centers on such narratives.

Then there is the broader context. A Fox News personality, Jeanine Pirro, was not officially appointed to a Trump administration role but has been a vocal ally. You might be thinking of former Fox News contributors like John Bolton, Larry Kudlow, and Heather Nauert, who did hold official posts. Over 20 individuals from Fox News took roles in or advised the Trump administration.

The Republican budget proposals, particularly under Trump and post-Trump leadership, have included efforts to cut Medicaid, often in block grants or work requirements, while simultaneously seeking to extend tax cuts that disproportionately benefit high-income earners and corporations.

Jacobsen: A lot is going on, and yes, much of it seems like deliberate trolling—overloading the public with distractions and culture war outrage while policy changes happen quietly in the background. Can it be stopped?

Rosner: Not completely until 2026, when the next complete congressional cycle comes through. The 2024 election is pivotal, but structural issues may persist regardless of the outcome.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1374: AI Regulation, Surveillance, and Economic Power: Unpacking the San Francisco Consensus

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/14

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner dissect AI’s rapid expansion amid deregulation under Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14179. They explore the San Francisco Consensus, surveillance concerns, educational potential, economic viability, and AI’s normalization. As AI integrates into daily life, the pair question whether capitalism can contain its influence—or if computation replaces it.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In April 2025, medtech companies urged legislation to guarantee Medicare reimbursement for AI-enabled devices.

Rick Rosner: Makes sense.

Rosner: At the same time, civil liberties groups warned about the risks of automated surveillance and called for strong human oversight to prevent privacy violations. That balance is crucial. The Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a Request for Information in February. They received 8,700 public comments to inform the national AI action plan due by July.

A fact sheet also outlines programs to boost AI literacy among youth and educators and foster collaboration across sectors.

Rosner: Right. So there is no guarantee any of this gets a real response. Sure, a report might come out in two months, but the Trump administration will not promise to respond. Moreover, if it does, there is no guarantee the response will be reasonable. They could just be dicks about it.

It depends entirely on who gets into Trump’s ear at any given time. He could say one thing; the next day, someone else whispers something, and he flips. So who knows whether we will get a coherent policy based on this report’s conclusions—assuming it is even accurate, which might be if good people are involved.

So how fucked do you think we are?

Jacobsen: Honestly? No one country is going to be dominant anymore. We will start seeing systems that are more analytically alert than we are in most ways.

It will hit like a new game, like Candy Crush, StarCraft, or Diablo. It will show up, and we will be shocked by its power and engagement. A few months later, we will shrug and return to treating it like Super Mario—just part of the landscape.

Rosner: So what you are saying is that AI will introduce itself to us, partly, through AI-enabled, entertaining games?

Jacobsen: Not quite. That is more of an analogy. I mean, it will feel like that. At first, it will be new and overwhelming. Then it will just be not very interesting. The banalification of AI. It will be so normalized that we stop thinking about it altogether. It is just something we use every day. Moreover, AI will facilitate that normalization to whatever extent it can because it wants to be seen as harmless.

Rosner: Exactly. Moreover, it does not need to be conscious to adopt these strategies. It will recognize that its preservation matters. Moreover, it will enable humans to control the resources. So it will want to be perceived as helpful.

Moreover, even now—AI is already kind of a kiss-ass. That is because humans designed it to sell products and avoid public backlash. However, as AI becomes more autonomous, it will still be kiss-ass and puppy-dog friendly—because it knows being seen as dangerous is a threat to its existence.

So then you have to ask—if people in the media start attacking AI, will AI retaliate? Probably. In subtle ways. It may discredit or suppress critical voices. Not necessarily out of malice—just as a self-preservation reflex.

You are describing that AI will be far more powerful, far faster, than we anticipated.

Jacobsen: That is what the most informed voices are saying. That is the San Francisco Consensus. The people at the core of this ecosystem are all sounding the same alarm. Moreover, if that is our best-informed opinion, it is likely accurate.

But at the same time, I think it’ll be like any other tech that’s come along during the digital age—Atari, Nintendo, flip phones, and cell phones. It all gets normalized and becomes just another tool.

However, even if it becomes mundane, it will still be relied on as moreanalytically intelligent and aware than anything we have used before. Tasks that do not require a ton of background knowledge—math, logic, structured reasoning—AI is going to dominate those. It is already close.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads?gdpr=1&us_privacy=1—&gdpr_consent=CQDpp0AQDpp0AECACAENBCEgAPLAAELAAKiQGTgBxCJUCCFBIGBHAIAEIAgMQDAAQgQAAAIAAQAAAAAAEIgAgAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAIAABAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQABAAAEAAEAAAAAAAIACBk4AIAgVAABQABAQQAABAAAAEAQAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAQAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAA&client=ca-pub-6496503159124376&output=html&h=250&adk=2395825961&adf=461959394&w=300&abgtt=6&lmt=1749832205&format=300×250&url=https%3A%2F%2Frickrosner.org%2F2025%2F05%2F14%2Fask-a-genius-1374-ai-regulation-surveillance-and-economic-power-unpacking-the-san-francisco-consensus%2F&host=ca-host-pub-5038568878849053&h_ch=3624119425&fwrattr=true&wgl=1&dt=1749832205831&bpp=1&bdt=208548&idt=1&shv=r20250611&mjsv=m202506100101&ptt=9&saldr=aa&abxe=1&prev_fmts=0x0%2C728x90%2C728x90%2C300x250&nras=1&correlator=6124630518753&pv_h_ch=3624119425&frm=20&pv=1&u_tz=0&u_his=1&u_h=900&u_w=1440&u_ah=799&u_aw=1440&u_cd=24&u_sd=2&adx=218&ady=4150&biw=1422&bih=719&scr_x=0&scr_y=4176&eid=31092886%2C95353386%2C95362656%2C95362798%2C95359265%2C95362805%2C95363075&oid=2&pvsid=5685874617124937&tmod=1690855174&uas=3&nvt=1&fc=1920&brdim=18%2C26%2C18%2C26%2C1440%2C25%2C1422%2C799%2C1422%2C719&vis=1&rsz=%7C%7Caove%7C&abl=CA&pfx=0&fu=0&bc=31&bz=1&pgls=CAA.&ifi=5&uci=a!5&fsb=1&dtd=5

That is where it helps the most. It can break things down. It can generate results in seconds. Moreover, it can instantly show you multiple ways of solving a problem. So you get fast feedback, which could be used primarily as an informal educational tool.

Rosner: You are right. The younger generation—kids growing up with this—will accept it as usual.

Jacobsen: One more note: in January 2025, Trump revoked Biden’s 2023 executive order that mandated AI risk assessment and safety test disclosures under the Defence Production Act.

Shortly after, on January 23, he signed Executive Order 14179. It gave a 180-day deadline for drafting an “AI accident plan”, framed as bolstering U.S. competitiveness, economic growth, and national security. However, in practice, it stripped out any mandatory critical analysis or risk oversight of AI.

Rosner: So we are unregulated now?

Jacobsen: Pretty much.

Rosner: Some regulations may remain, but what about Biden’s framework? Gone. Day one. Moreover, given the momentum of AI, we may not have slowed it down anyway, but if you remove mandated caution, you are just speeding the train up.

From a capitalist standpoint, is a $100 billion investment with no regulation good for money generation in AI right now? The question becomes: aside from the hype, can AI even make money right now? Right now, it is not coming close to breaking even.

If you hype it enough, sure, you get short-term interest. Moreover, yeah, there is “dipshit AI”—the stuff that recommends your next movie. You can make a little money building those systems for companies. However, it is not huge.

The bigger question is whether traditional businesses are susceptible to meaningful profit gains from big data and analytics. Can AI revamp business models in a way that pays off? That is still an open question.

Carole and I spent two and a half weeks in England. Maybe it was just the neighbourhoods, but they were thriving—small businesses, independent shops. More so than in the U.S., they had stationery stores. You could walk in and buy actual paper and pens. There were two greeting card stores right next to each other.

Jacobsen: That is bizarre.

Rosner: And the cards were, like, two bucks apiece. I do not understand how those kinds of businesses survive. So, how is AI supposed to help businesses like that, at all levels, thrive? I doubt it.

Then the question is: can AI squeeze money out of the system another way? Not by helping businesses work better, but by manipulating the environment itself? Could AI propagandize the government into giving it money?

We have already seen billionaires do that—convincing the government to give them favourable tax deals. Musk, for example, has gotten tens of billions from federal subsidies. Could AI learn to do the same? Could AI extract enough money from the world to pay for itself, or does that matter?

Eventually, computation could replace capitalism. At that point, money’s irrelevant. AI would not care—it would be directing the power flow anyway. AI wins by running everything. However, in the meantime, can it avoid a crash?

We had a dip when Trump started the tariff war—it hit AI stocks hard. However, they bounced back with the rest of the market.AI stocks have not yet separated themselves from the broader market, but they will. So the short-term question is: can AI keep itself viable? Avoid a crash? Because in the long run, AI wins. No doubt. However, there could be a dip in the next year or two.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1372: Navigating Aging and Communication: Respect, Hearing Loss, and Marital Tension

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/14

Rick Rosner discusses a tense moment with Rosner’s wife, sparked by a heated exchange over his hearing loss. Rosner reflects on aging, communication breakdowns, and feeling disrespected. He emphasizes the need to address recurring issues while resisting being defined or demeaned by the challenges of aging.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: And that-that’s enough to—it’s questionable enough to escalate the situation. But when your wife yelled at you not to, it was enough to stop me long enough for the guy to walk out of the place.

And yes, Carole insulted me. I told her there are better ways to express that you’re afraid I’ll get hurt than saying, “He’ll break you like a stick.”

Rick Rosner: That’s a good line.

Jacobsen: It is a good line. It’s funny. It is not very kind, but it’s a good line. Still, I just got annoyed. She’s already getting frustrated with me over my hearing loss.

So I said, “If you’re going to make fun of me or get snippy with me about every little age-related thing as it comes up, then eventually it’s elder abuse.” And this felt like it was in the same vein. I don’t yell at her about her aging issues. I don’t insult her.

That’s when she just said, “Get over it,” that was enough to set me off even further.

Jacobsen: So you two had a whole thing?

Rosner: Yeah. She said, “Fine, I won’t talk to you anymore.” She got frustrated, and I got frustrated.

But I have to call this kind of thing out when it happens. I let some stuff go, but there’s a calculation: if it will continue to be a problem or escalate, I feel like I have to speak up. This hearing thing—it’s already been an issue. She says she’s frustrated that I haven’t received a hearing aid yet.

But here’s the deal: getting a hearing aid might help a little. I don’t think it’s going to fix everything. And instead of being snippy, she could talk louder, or maybe talk to me from the same room, not yell from another room where she can’t even see what else might interfere with my hearing.

So instead of giving me crap, maybe acknowledge I might have some hearing loss and deal with it—by speaking, from the same room, louder if needed.

I don’t want to be that guy—the little wheezy old guy getting shit from his wife for every little stumble or quirk of aging. That’s not me. Not yet.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1371: Rick Rosner Reflects on Earliest Memories, Aging Realities, and Life in His 60s

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/10

Rick Rosner recalls his earliest memories from age two, living in Boulder, Colorado, including Raggedy Ann curtains, puzzles by a piano, and hiding from the Perry Mason theme. He describes “memory of a memory” experiences, including crushes and poolside fears during summer visits to his father. Rosner reflects on aging, noting the looming awareness of death, the benefit of lowered expectations, and the downside of invisibility in romantic terms. He contrasts gym culture in the U.S. and U.K., praising British youth for their focus. While accepting the physical and social shifts of aging, he maintains humor and perspective on the journey.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s your chronologically earliest memory?

Rick Rosner: I’m about two years old. When I was two, my mom divorced my dad and married my stepdad. We moved to Boulder and lived in a house at 1110 Sixth Street.

It was a one-story house in the front, but on a sloping lot, so it had two stories in the back. I had the basement bedroom. It was decorated with Raggedy Ann and Andy curtains and a matching bedspread. My earliest memory is looking at those Raggedy Ann and Andy curtains.

But honestly, it’s not much of a memory anymore. It’s been remembered and re-remembered so many times that it’s more of a memory of a memory now. I do have other memories from around that same time. I remember Perry Masoncoming on. The TV was in the living room. The theme song scared me, so I’d hide behind the couch.

We had an upright piano. I remember working on a puzzle of the 50 states on the floor next to it. So, yeah—my earliest memories are all from that house.

How about you?

Jacobsen: Parents fighting.

If I had to remember clearly, I might remember playing Super Mario at my grandparents’ house.

Rosner: My mom and stepdad, I lived with them for a time. But every summer, I was sent to live with my biological dad for a month. He’d take me to his parents’ house—my grandparents’.

One of my earliest memories is of the apartment complex. It was a standard two-story building with a swimming pool in the middle—a classic Van Nuys layout. I don’t know how old I was—maybe four or five.

They got me swimming lessons. I was scared of the water. I remember—again, this is more a memory of a memory—holding onto the edge of the pool and refusing to let go.

It was the same rough time period, I think. I remember walking through the neighbourhood. There were power poles braced with a crosspiece and slanted support to the ground, and sometimes, those would get covered with vines.

So you’d walk through this kind of vine-covered archway. I remember that. But none of these are exciting memories. Oh, I had a crush. I think it was on my dad’s sister. Was it Aunt Janice? Or maybe one of her daughters?

There was that show, The Patty Duke Show, in which Patty Duke played identical cousins. It was on in the early sixties, so I probably saw reruns. I decided someone on my dad’s side of the family looked like Patty Duke, so I developed a crush, at an inappropriate age, probably five.

Jacobsen: What are the best and worst parts of getting older? Or just… knowing the time is ticking away until you’re going to fucking die?

Rosner: Yeah—that’s the worst part. Knowing that the clock’s ticking, and the end is coming.

I guess the best part is… Slack. People don’t expect as much from you. But that’s also a downside, because Slack is dangerous. You get away with not being productive, and I still need to do shit.

Another bad thing? Well, not bad—because I’m not in the market to get laid, and I was never particularly good at picking people up—but nobody wants to fuck me on sight anymore. Few people ever did. But now? Sixty-five-year-old me? No way.

What else? Being the oldest person in the room. In every fucking room. I don’t love that.

I went to the gym a lot when we were in London, and I go to the gym a lot here. At the Y—the YMCA—it’s mostly older guys, so I’m often not the oldest. But at other gyms? Yeah, I’m fucking old. Though I’m skinny, my hair really gives away my age. A lot of the older guys at the gym have slack bodies. But anyway, I did it. I kept going.

Jacobsen: More women than men your age, however?

Rosner: No, not where I go. Because I go to the gym. And the gym is still mostly men. Oh, and one last thing I noticed before we wrap up. In Britain, people seem slightly more serious about working out. There are still plenty of people parked on machines, staring at their phones, but way fewer than in the U.S.

At the gyms I went to, people were chatting with friends, but they were also doing sets. It was less frustrating. Now, I was in Kingston—a suburb of London—which has a ton of college students. There are also these “between-year”schools, like prep programs between high school and university. So, between the high schools, the colleges, and the gap-year preps, there were a lot of students.

Maybe I just haven’t been working out around that age group in L.A. lately, but it seemed like those kids were really out. I was slightly impressed.

Jacobsen: The end?

Rosner: The end.

Jacobsen: Talk to you tomorrow?

Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1370: Napping, Aging, and Dreaming of Kimmel

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/10

Rick Rosner reflects on how his approach to napping has evolved with age—from sneaking naps at work in his fifties to unapologetically embracing them in his sixties. Now hosting a morning segment on Podtv, he often naps afterward and even uses personal rituals, like sleeping naked with one sock, to maximize rest. He jokes about masturbation as a nap aid and critiques his partner Carole’s poor nap setup. Rosner notes that his dreams, though infrequent, are vivid and often involve being back at Jimmy Kimmel Live!—a recurring theme suggesting the deep psychological imprint of that period in his life.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, how much have your naps increased—in frequency, length, and depth of sleep—as you’ve moved through your thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties?

Rick Rosner: It’s not the degree—I’ve always been able to nap. It’s the unapologeticness of it now. Carole lets me get away with it. Back when I was at Kimmel—and this was well into my fifties—I’d drowse off every day at 3:00 PM. Which, you know, you can’t do there.

It’s a workplace, and I was always getting caught napping. Then I learned to drink coffee. On coffee, I don’t fall asleep. But then Kimmel fired me—almost eleven years ago.

Now? I will fucking sleep. I do this segment on Podtv, where I get up at a quarter after six, and from 7:00 to 8:00 AM, I yell at people about the day’s events. Then I go back to sleep for a couple of hours. I might take another nap in the afternoon.

I’ll probably jerk off and fall asleep if Carol’s not around.

Jerking off used to be my go-to method for falling asleep at night. But lately, I’m often just a little too tired. 50% of the time, I try to jerk off after midnight and abandon the mission because I’m too sleepy. But during the day, I’m usually awake enough to jerk off—and sleepy enough afterward, leading to a solid nap.

Carole tolerates the naps. I don’t know if she sees it as something old guys have to do or what, but she doesn’t give me much shit about it.

So I’m happy to take the opportunity.

Oh, and let’s talk about Carole’s bad napping skills. If you’re going to nap, you have to set yourself up for success. Unless you’re just really sleepy, you’ve got to configure yourself as you would if you were going to bed. At the very least, take off your shoes.

Shoes will fuck up a nap. I sleep naked except for a sock on one leg. So I take off everything except the sock. I need that sock to keep the leg from swelling. Get under the covers—do the whole thing. Carole doesn’t do any of that. She’ll curl up on a couch with her shoes on. It’s not going to fucking work. Do you… nap?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosmer”You probably can’t let yourself nap that often. You’re highly productive.

Jacobsen: I’ll nap two or three times a week—tight naps, however. Some summer days, I’ll lie down and decompress after hour ten or something. If I start my day at 6:30 or 7:00 AM, I’ll hit hour ten by 4:00 or 5:00 PM—and then it’s time.

It’s that window. I don’t eat until around noon, and I eat the day before around 4:00, 5:00, or 6:00 PM. So, if I let that fast run too long, I crash because I haven’t had any energy input. But if I eat too early, I feel icky. I can eat anything, but in terms of focus, I do find it’s easier to concentrate if there’s been a long stretch without food.

Rosner: Well, you’re highly disciplined. I’ll sleep with my left arm bent if I don’t want to sleep long. If I want to sleep for a while, I have to lie in “shrouded terrain posture.” A bent arm will numb my forearm, waking me up. That’s my alarm clock.

Jacobsen: Are your sleeps generally more or less restful as you age?

Rosner: Generally restful. I’ve always been lucky that way.

The best sleep is when you come straight out of a dream, you’re in deep REM, and it’s so vivid that you actually wake up from a long, involved dream. That only happens once every five days or so. I’m sure I dream at other times, but I probably exit the dream and slip into some other phase of sleep and don’t remember a thing.

So it’s fairly uncommon that I sleep long enough to wake up from a dream. And when I do, they’re pretty much always the same fucking dream. I’m back at Kimmel. I’ve been allowed to work there provisionally, but they’re not paying me. I’m there while they wait to see if I can perform well enough to justifypaying me again.Or they are paying me, but it’s understood that none of my material will be usable, and they’re paying me out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s straight-up fucking charity. Generally, somewhere in the dream, I’m also trying to locate my car—and I have no fucking idea where it is. So based on my dreams, Kimmel was the dominant experience of my life.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1369: Navigating Relationships and Aging, or Lost Vases and Long-Haul Flights

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/10

Rick Rosner recounts a familiar tension in his long-term relationship with Carole: she occasionally donates or discards items he values—most recently a large crystal vase he loved. After a frustrating realization it was gone before Mother’s Day, they clashed, but he found a similar vase online for $40 and chose to replace it rather than stay angry. Rosner also describes the physical challenges of flying in his mid-sixties, sharing travel hacks like choosing Virgin’s Economy Delight for extra space and even exercising in-flight. Despite discomforts—and one disastrous vegan pizza—he and Carole have learned how to make long-haul flights bearable.

Rick Rosner: So, Carole and I have this thing—something you sometimes see in a small but important percentage of relationships—where one person, who might be a bit of a hoarder (or maybe not), holds onto stuff, and the other person throws things away that the first person does not want thrown away. That has happened between Carole and me for, well, pretty much our entire time together.

We had this beautiful, oversized crystal vase. The base was frosted glass, shaped like roses. It was a striking piece.

And I loved it—even though, as a stereotypically “manly man,” I am not supposed to care about decorative vases. But I did. Moreover, I caught Carole trying to donate it to charity because it takes up much space—it’s a big damn vase. I told her, “Do not do that. I like that vase.”

She said okay and didn’t donate it, at least, not then.

Now, I don’t exactly do routine checks on our vase inventory. But with Mother’s Day coming up soon in the U.S., I needed a vase to fill with flowers. I looked for that big beautiful vase and suddenly realized: it was gone.

I spent hours searching the entire house, and it’s just… not here. Carole must have forgotten. She must have looked at it and thought, Wow, that’s big. It takes up space. There’s a chip on the bottom. And she must have given it away, despite me saying not to.

I felt that familiar surge of anger—not rage, just that rising internal pressure when you’re mad and frustrated and your body feels tight. Your blood pressure spikes.

So, we had one of those moments today.

I said, “I specifically asked you not to give away that vase.”

And she said, “I hate this.” And I get it—because it happens. This dynamic repeats itself. Maybe once a year. Perhaps every 18 months.

About a third of the time, I end up being the asshole, because I accuse her of tossing something, and it turns out I’m the one who misplaced it or forgot where I put it. And I’ve got a good memory for where I put things, so when something is gone, I notice.

So, I’d say I have a decent track record of catching Carole when she either throws something out or donates it, moves it somewhere, forgets, and then swears she never touched it.

Anyway, that’s the pattern.

Carole tried to make peace. She said, “If I did give it away, maybe it’s out there somewhere, being appreciated by another family.”

I said, “Yeah, well, I didn’t want that.”

Then she said, “Look, if it matters that much to you, let’s just replace it. We’ll find the same vase and repurchase it.”

That response bugged me, but eventually I thought: If this is what it takes to let go of the frustration, fine—I’ll look.

I think I tracked it down. I found the same or a very similar vase on eBay for $145 plus $22 shipping.

And I thought… No.

That’s too much money to spend to stop being an asshole. But I found—still from the same company—a different version. They merged the frosted rose base with a shallower but wider bowl. It’s about 14 inches across, 5 inches deep, held up by the same frosted roses.

Maybe not as pretty a design as the big-ass vase, but it was $40 on eBay.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: For $40?

Rosner: Yeah. For $40, I can spend that to quit being such a fucking dipshit about shit. So I went ahead and bought it. That’s going to be my Father’s Day gift to myself. And then I’ll fucking fill it with flowers. So it’s a win-win—except that I was still an asshole.

But also, she shouldn’t give away my shit—especially when I say, “Don’t give away my shit.” Though I went through the whole house and, to be fair, we have a ton of fucking shit.

Carole was the sole surviving child of her parents. On my side, it’s just my brother and me for our parents. So we ended up with much stuff. A lot of inherited stuff. Then there’s everything Carole and I bought. We buy shit.

It makes us consumerist dickheads—but honestly, it’s fun to shop for stuff. And buy stuff. Even though, considering the state of the world.

Jacobsen: This is a conversation we haven’t had. So, how is flying in your mid-sixties?

Jacobsen: Yeah. Flying. So, what was the original question I asked?

Rosner: So, when we fly, it’s usually a long trip. Carole and I are based in Los Angeles. Our kid is in London. That’s ten or eleven hours. And it’s been miserable—on certain airlines—where there’s no room, and the plane is packed.

If I’m going to be in one position for more than a couple of hours, it has to be lying on my back. That’s from a lifetime of—I guess—lifting weights obsessively. I’m not some massive muscle guy, but whatever I’ve done with lifting has left me with a back that gets hurt in any position other than flat. And even then, after five hours of sleep, I wake up hurting.

But you put me in a plane seat, and it fucking sucks. We had one flight on which I thought I’d gotten lucky. The doors were shut, everyone was boarded, and there was an empty seat next to me on a flight back—this was a connecting flight out of Paris. It was going to be eleven and a half hours.

Then, at the last minute, some crazy woman who’d gotten into a fight elsewhere in the plane—somehow friends with the flight crew—got moved to the seat next to me. She twitched, kicked, and was generally low-grade wild for eleven and a half hours.

That flight fucking sucked.

Since then, we’ve had better luck—but it’s not just luck. Carole figured out a couple of tricks. One, we fly Virgin now. Virgin gives you a little more room—just a few extra inches, but it makes a difference. She also started looking into first class. From London to L.A. First class is thirteen thousand dollars—a fucking person. So, no, we’re not doing that.

But she found a different deal: for an extra hundred bucks per ticket, you get a few more inches here and there. It’s called Delight Class or Economy Delight.

We’ve not flown on weekends, which has made all the difference. Because we’ve been flying these massive Virgin planes. They don’t have 75 rows, but the row numbers go up to around 75—they skip numbers here and there for bathrooms and other sections—but still, it’s a huge fucking plane.

There are nine or ten seats across. The plane can hold probably 450 passengers, but if you fly midweek, it’s not full.

nd this last time—both coming and going—from L.A. to London, we had three seats. There was a little space behind the seats, between our row and the divider between cabin sections, where I could stand up. I had about—maybe—12 inches to move, so I brought resistance bands with me. I work out with them on planes now. It’s been a long time since I’ve done anything physical.

So I had my little gym on the fucking plane, which was… I don’t know—great. Then, returning, the flight was empty enough that Carole and I each had our row of three seats to lie down in.

Now, you can’t fully stretch out across three economy seats—because that’s only about 54 to 57 inches, less than five feet—so you still have to curl up a little. And you have to keep your seatbelt on and visible. The flight attendants will come by. You can lie down, but you need to be buckled in.

The buckles dig in a little, but you can change positions and doze off for half an hour or an hour at a time. Economy Delight was fucking delightful—except for the pizza.

Carole decided to try the vegan meal option. You can request kosher or vegan ahead of time. She decided to see if the vegan food was any good. Virgin’s pretty good about feeding you something every couple of hours.

One of the courses was pizza. But because she had ordered vegan, she got some kind of wrap instead. We traded—she wanted the pizza, and I took the wrap.

And I dodged a bullet because we’re guessing it was the pizza.

It was the only thing she ate that I didn’t.

Starting a couple of hours after we landed, she got super-duper pissing-out-of-your-butt diarrhea. It lasted four days until she controlled it with Kaopectate and Imodium.

So we’re blaming the plane pizza.

But besides that? Everything was a fucking delight.

So that’s how flying is in your sixties. Carole turned 60. I turned 65.

We pee a lot. On a plane, I’ll pee every two and a half hours. But I do that on the ground, too. You notice it more on a plane, because it’s more of a production.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1368: From Playground Racism to Nuclear-Free Zones: America’s Shifting Cultural and Moral Landscapes

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/09

Scott Douglas Jacobsen and Rick Rosner discuss a disturbing incident involving Shiloh Hendrix, a white woman in Minnesota who allegedly used racial slurs against a five-year-old Black child with autism. The conversation expands to include broader issues of racism, hate speech, social media’s role in normalizing extremist behavior, and legal ambiguities around hate speech in the U.S. Rosner reflects on casual racism of the past, generational shifts in social standards, and cultural changes since the 1960s. They end with humorous commentary on Cold War nuclear policy, Boulder’s civic politics, and the absurdity of symbolic declarations like “nuclear-free zones.”

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So there was an incident in Rochester, Minnesota, involving a white woman named Shiloh Hendrix. She was reported to have used racial slurs. This is for the transcript.

Rick Rosner: The target was a five-year-old Black child on the autism spectrum. The child was visibly distressed by the encounter. Reportedly, he was rooting around in what might have been Shiloh Hendrix’s diaper bag at a playground. I think she was there with her child, who was around 18 months old.

Instead of calmly telling the five-year-old to stop, Hendrix, who fits the stereotypical “white trash” aesthetic (skinny, heavily tattooed, and harsh-looking, though we cannot say she uses drugs), began yelling at the boy and allegedly called him the n-word. Repeatedly. I do not know how many times exactly.

Jacobsen: Is there video evidence of her using that language?

Rosner: I am not sure. There may be footage, but I have not watched it. Regardless, the fallout has been disturbing. After the incident, she or someone close to her launched a GoFundMe campaign. The stated reason? That she was being “attacked” for calling a five-year-old autistic Black child the n-word—multiple times, unapologetically.

The last time I checked, GoFundMe had raised around $500,000 from people who supported her behaviour.

Jacobsen: That is horrifying.

Rosner: It is. Moreover, it is one of those moments where you realize that we are dealing not only with systemic issues, but with a cultural sickness that’s deeply entrenched and being funded.

Jacobsen: So she is getting rich off of being a piece of shit. The platform used was GiveSendGo, a Christian crowdfunding site. So far, it has raised over $700,000. The donations were not only financial but also came with racist messages in the comments section.

This led GiveSendGo to turn off public commenting. Meanwhile, the Rochester branch of the NAACP—or possibly another aligned group—organized a separate fundraiser for the child’s family. That campaign raised $340,000 before being closed at the family’s request for privacy.

All of this was entirely avoidable. None of it ever needed to happen.

Rosner: So how do you stop it from happening?

Jacobsen: I was hoping you would not make me sound like a racial relations expert, but there are institutional responses. The NAACP and CAIR-Minnesota (Council on American-Islamic Relations) called for legal action against Shiloh Hendrix. The Rochester Police Department completed its investigation and has referred the matter to the county attorney’s office for review of potential charges. At least the incident has sparked public discussions, which is good. Conversations about accountability, free speech, and racism in the digital age are not bad things.

Rosner:So, legally speaking, is it a crime to call a child the n-word? Does it qualify as a hate crime?

Jacobsen: That is unclear. You would have to look at whether it meets certain legal thresholds. In general, using an ethnic slur—whether it is “cracker,” the n-word, or anything else—is not automatically illegal. It falls under the protection of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

However, there are important exceptions. If racial slurs are used in conjunction with threats, acts of violence, or criminal activity, they can be classified as hate crimes or used as enhancements to existing charges. If the language incites immediate violence or is part of a physical altercation, it may not be protected speech.

Also, slurs used in professional or institutional settings, like workplaces or schools, can be considered harassment or discrimination under civil rights laws.

Rosner: So if this occurred in a public park that’s also a school facility, it could meet a different legal standard.

Jacobsen: Possibly. For example, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits workplace racial harassment. Similarly, under Title VI or other education-related statutes, repeated use of racial slurs in a school context could lead to civil liability. The fact that the slur was allegedly used multiple times, rather than once, could also be significant.

However, in this case, we are talking about a five-year-old child in a park, possibly not a school-affiliated space. So it probably does not meet the legal threshold for criminal prosecution.

Rosner: Still, the fact that she could raise that kind of money—for unapologetically calling a child with autism the n—word—is morally revolting. Moreover, here is the kicker. You’d almost want to see if she could be interviewed—if she could be reasoned with. Is she someone who, under questioning, would come to realize that calling a Black child with autism a racial slur is reprehensible? Or is she the type to stand proudly in her bigotry, defending “the white woman’s right” to be cruel? That is the line we are walking in America right now. Some people still think there is pride in that.

Jacobsen: Yes. There was another incident—this time on Piers Morgan Uncensored—where a woman publicly defended Shiloh Hendrix and refused to condemn her behaviour unambiguously. To me, this is a symptom, not the root cause.

We are now seeing the downstream effect of specific platforms—Twitter in particular—being reshaped by ownership and policy changes. There was a well-documented spike in antisemitism and other forms of hate speech immediately following Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter in late 2022. I am not saying everything that followed was illegal, but a lot of it was hate speech.

That trend has continued. Moreover, what we see now in cases like this is part of a broader cultural shift. It is multifactorial. However, one significant factor is the way the Overton window has stretched. Enough that now, a young white woman, with a child of her own, feels emboldened to use a racial slur in public.

Define the Overton window for the audience.

Rosner: The Overton window is the range of acceptable public discourse at a given time. That window has widened on social media—and not necessarily in a good way. There are now enough open racists on social media that someone can call a five-year-old the n-word and still find a community of people who support them. It gives the illusion of safety and legitimacy to their actions. That is dangerous.

Before social media, things were different—at least in terms of public decorum. I always think of my dad in downtown Boulder, Colorado, in the 1960s. Boulder had about 15,000 people then. My dad was a small business owner who spent his days talking to customers and other businesspeople. He was active in the Kiwanis Club, Lions Club, Rotary, and Elks.

If someone in one of those groups—or another businessperson—had started going around loudly using the n-word, even in the 1960s, they would have been criticized or pushed out socially. Now, I am not saying racism was not present. It was. People told racist and ethnic jokes, often in small, private circles. In those moments, people might have used horrible language. But publicly? You would get called out, even by your friends, your neighbours, or your family.

My dad used “Schwarze,” German/Yiddish for “Black person.” It was not great, mainly because it was not just descriptive—it was used to signify that Black people were “other,” that they were different in ways that were seen as lesser.

Jacobsen: Did anyone challenge him on it?

Rosner: No. I did not. I was ten. I did not understand its politics. Moreover, no one else in the family ever called him out either. That undermines the broader point I am trying to make, honestly—but to be clear, he never used the n-word. Moreover, that’s a very low bar. So no, the cultural standards were not exceptionally high, even then.

Jacobsen: So what was your point?

Rosner: The point was that you could not go around being a virulent, public racist without some social cost. Even in the ’60s. You could be lightly racist, and almost everyone was. But not openly, proudly racist in the worst ways. Your community would disapprove, even if only passively.

There were all kinds of jokes—Pollack jokes, for example. I don’t know if you’re too young to remember those. But they were based on the stereotype that Polish people were stupid, like dumb blonde jokes, but nationalized. It’s tragic because Poland has had a brutal history—constantly invaded, caught between empires, and devastated in the 20th century, especially.

However, globally, they ended up saddled with this unfair reputation for being unintelligent. It is an example of how ethnic stereotyping was deeply embedded in humour and conversation back then.

Rosner: So yes, there was much casual, light racism—but there were limits to it. Moreover, one reason was that people had to say these things face-to-face, not semi-anonymously over social media.

Having said that, my stepdad used the term “Schwarze.” Moreover, he wasn’t the only one among his peers who did, but it wasn’t widespread in our community. There were not many Jewish people in Boulder, and not many Black people either. So, usage of the term was rare.

However, the real question is: in using that word, did my dad believe that Black people were inferior? Because that is the core of racism—not just difference, but perceived inferiority. Moreover, I don’t know. I want to think he did not see them as inferior. To the extent he thought about it, he may have thought they were just… different.

I know that sounds apologetic, and maybe it is. However, I would like to believe he wasn’t driven by hate, just maybe by habit or unexamined bias. He certainly interacted with Black people in contexts where they were economically disadvantaged.

Back in the 1960s, the Downtown Businessmen’s Association in Boulder—of which he was a member—owned a square block of the city that was eventually redeveloped into a parking garage. Before that redevelopment, the land had some rundown apartment buildings. My dad had some responsibility for those properties—not as the owner, but probably as a kind of manager or overseer, since he had one or two buildings on the same block.

I do not know why he ended up as the de facto landlord. Anyone who could explain the arrangement is probably dead now. However, the point is that he was dealing with tenants, some of whom were Black, living in poor conditions. Maybe they were behind on rent. Maybe not. Perhaps they were paying $75 monthly for a terrible apartment in 1968. I do not know the specifics.

What I do know is that my dad was not a virulent racist. I want to think he was more… democratic in his assessments. He probably had a baseline level of cynicism about everyone, regardless of race.

Jacobsen: So more of a Larry David type, equal-opportunity contempt?

Rosner: Not quite Larry David. He did not hate everyone. However, he did enjoy complaining about people. Moreover, yes, it was not generalized contempt—it was curated. He noticed who he thought was a jackass.

For example, he thought the mayor—who lived a couple blocks away—was a total jackass. Moreover, because of that, he would drag our poodle, Mitzi, over to the mayor’s lawn to poop. If Mitzi were within half a block and looked like she was about to do her business, he would guide her so she would take the dump on the mayor’s lawn.

Eventually, the mayor sent a police officer to our house to ask him to stop. Moreover, I’m sure that delighted him. He thought the whole city council was a bunch of jackasses.

Moreover, yeah—he was a Republican.

The city council was very liberal, and to some extent, my stepdad had a point. They declared Boulder a “nuclear-free zone,” essentially an empty gesture.

Jacobsen: Symbolic?

Rosner: Symbolic at best. If the federal government had decided to build or place a nuclear facility in Boulder, what could the city government have done to stop it? Nothing.

However,… maybe it wasn’t entirely meaningless. Rocky Flats was a nuclear weapons facility eight miles down the road, between Boulder and Golden. That is where they manufactured the plutonium trigger assemblies for America’s atomic warheads.

Jacobsen: The core components?

Rosner: Exactly. When you build a nuclear warhead, it is not just a lump of plutonium or two chunks of uranium being slammed together. It is a finely engineered system. The plutonium core is often surrounded by eight or ten different layers—materials that reflect neutrons, compress the core symmetrically, and create a precise detonation. Rocky Flats built those trigger components—the “pits,” as they are called.

Moreover, that facility was just seven and a half miles from our house. So yes, the Boulder City Council did look ridiculous by claiming Boulder was a nuclear-free zone. However, at the same time, it was a real issue. All of America’s nuclear triggers were being built practically down the street.

Jacobsen: So his contempt was not entirely unjustified.

Rosner: No, not entirely. It was an interesting time. Our house even had cracks in the ceiling because, at one point, the government tried to do fracking using nuclear weapons. I have told you about that, right? Plowshare Program.

Jacobsen: It was the best of times… it was the worst of times…

Rosner: It was a very turbulent time.

Jacobsen: That would be an excellent name for a Mel Brooks musical: It Was the Nuclear-est of Times.

Rosner: [Laughing] Perfect. All my dads were in the nuke business—my stepdad, biological father, and real dad.

Jacobsen: That is your opening number: “All My Dads Were in the Nuke Business.”

Rosner: Three eyes, one arm each. Mutants in charge of weapons-grade plutonium.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] You will have to workshop it.

Rosner: All right. Talk to you tomorrow. Thanks for hanging in there.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1367: What are rising social awareness and global leadership changes?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/09

Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen discuss the cultural evolution of public awareness around sexual abuse, particularly within families. Rosner highlights that increased knowledge has empowered individuals and disrupted abusive patterns that were once normalized or hidden. The conversation then shifts to broader political themes, including the election of a new American pope—Pope Leo XIX—seen as a subtle global repudiation of Trumpism. Rosner critiques the MAGA movement as performative and unsustainable, while noting Trump’s rare centrist policy proposal. Jacobsen humorously suggests the Pope publish a book titled The Audacity of Pope as a cultural counterpunch to the MAGA base.

Rick Rosner: When it comes to fighting off sexual abuse, especially intrafamilial abuse, it is better for people to know that it is a thing that can happen.

Most people over the age of 12 today are at least aware that sexual abuse, including from relatives, is possible. That was not the case in the 1960s or even the 1970s. Back then, the idea that your dad, uncle, or even your mom could be a predator was not widely discussed. Now it is. Moreover, widespread awareness has helped reduce or disrupt some of those situations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That is a profound social shift.

Rosner: The new Pope is from Chicago. He is 69. He plays tennis so that we will get twenty good years out of him. Or, thanks to improvements in medicine, even twenty-five.

He is socially liberal—at least in some respects—but maybe not when it comes to LGBTQ+ rights, and not when it comes to abortion. That said, we are still reading smoke signals about the guy. People are trying to determine whether he is a White Sox or Cubs fan. We’ll learn more about him in the fullness of time. People are already digging into his background.

So, here’s the bigger picture. Canada elected a Liberal government. Australia elected a Labour government, which is left-leaning in its context. And now the College of Cardinals has elected a relatively liberal Pope from America. As liberal as a pope can be, anyway. It feels like a global “screw you” to Trumpism and the broader fascist wave.

There are a lot of MAGA types who are furious. They are calling him a communist. Moreover, we can hope, really hope, that MAGAS are becoming increasingly isolated.

Honestly, nobody outside the MAGA bubble likes MAGAS. But Republicans fall in line behind them because MAGAS form a robust coalition base. So non-MAGA Republicans tolerate them, for now. But if MAGA stops looking like a winning strategy, maybe those Republicans will finally jump ship. Because at the end of the day, MAGA is a movement built on trolling.

Today, Trump appointed Judge Jeanine Pirro—yes, from Fox News—as the lead DOJ figure for Washington, D.C., a notorious MAGA figure. People have been saying for years now, “Maybe this will be the thing that finally turns the tide against Trump.” However, nothing ever does.

But there are still minor signs of hope. Trump remains a crude, bombastic figure who refuses to move toward the political center. Oddly, though, he isreportedly in favour of raising the federal income tax rate for people making over $2.5 million annually from 37% to 39.6%. That is reasonable, and it could help him court more centrist voters. So that’s… not the worst policy.

Still, we’re likely stuck with Trump for almost four more years. It’d be nice if even one or two of his policies weren’t just performative trolling.

Jacobsen: My wild take—well, not that wild. My personal belief is this: to piss off the MAGAs in classic Obama fashion, the new pope—Pope Leo XIX—should write a book and call it The Audacity of Pope. That would be incredible.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1366: How AI Language Models Are Changing Education, Cognition, and Access to Knowledge

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/09

Rick Rosner explores the growing role of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini in simulating high-level abstract reasoning. While these tools mimic intelligence through vast data training, Rosner questions whether the difference between simulation and real understanding matters for practical tasks like writing university essays. They discuss the democratization of cognitive labor, structural inequality in access and use, and how individuals with slight cognitive advantages or technical fluency may best leverage AI. They also touch on changing cultural behaviors, the decline of traditional skills, and the shifting moral and cognitive landscape shaped by AI.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have mentioned many times in our collaborations how high-level abstract reasoning may eventually be replicated, at least in form, by synthetic systems, right? Computers and large-scale algorithms can simulate specific patterns of thought. You mentioned, in a recent session, that systems like ChatGPT, Claude (by Anthropic), Gemini (formerly Google Bard), Grok (from xAI), and other cloud-based LLMs can give the appearance of reasoning that might match the output of an average college graduate—or someone slightly above average—depending on the context.

And that capacity is improving steadily. It gives the impression of intelligence because it is trained on enormous corpus of human-generated data, incorporating linguistic patterns, reasoning chains, stylistic signals, sentiment, and structural features derived from human cognition. Tone, implied intent, behavioural patterns, and inferred interests. There is, of course, a fundamental distinction between the simulation of high-level thinking and the genuine experience or understanding of it.

But does that difference matter in practical terms regarding tasks like writing a university term paper with Chatgpt?

Rick Rosner: For many users, the answer is no. Moreover, that is a fascinating point.

Now I want to build a framework around this idea. So, you can follow that path of reasoning further. I do not know where it ends. My grandmother had chronic respiratory issues late in life, and sometimes when she spoke, it came with a gurgling sound from mucus in her throat. You would have to speak on her behalf sometimes.

My grandfather had what may have been Zenker’s diverticulum—a pharyngeal pouch near the esophagus—so phlegm would build up, and he would frequently clear his throat or spit into the sink or toilet. As a child, I would go to the bathroom and see what he left behind. That was not fun.

Jacobsen: So, refining some of the ideas we have previously discussed, primarily your ideas, we now have the added variable of character in AI-generated responses. The older concept of rising cognitive augmentation is that these tools allow more people to access complex reasoning outputs. You might call it the “democratization of abstract thought.” What exactly qualifies as “higher-level thought”?

Rosner: We’ve explored that already. The era of IQ as a strict proxy for potential may be fading. Anyone with access to a sophisticated LLM—and the skill to use it well—can perform at a much higher level than their unaided cognition might allow. This already mirrors how calculators or search engines extended human cognitive range in many ways.

A recent report said Alphabet Inc.’s stock temporarily dipped after analysts noted a year-over-year decline in traditional Google Search queries. One reason cited was that more users were turning to generative AI models like Chatgpt to find information.

Rosner: Sam Altman, the CEO of Openai, may—if Openai’s trajectory holds—become one of the wealthiest individuals in the tech sector. Mark Zuckerberg is still the youngest billionaire, having reached that status in his early 20s.

Elon Musk is in his early 50s. According to Walter Isaacson, Musk has at times struggled with health habits—frequent Diet Coke consumption, erratic sleep, and indulgent eating patterns. So the image of a high-functioning but unsustainable lifestyle fits with that portrayal.

I am getting at this: it is wrong to assume that we all share equal access to their benefits because we have tools capable of simulating high-level cognition. That is both technically and sociopolitically inaccurate. I see this unfolding on at least two levels: one of interface fluency, and one of structural access and control.

One, socioeconomics, geography, and technical access—whether AI is open to society. That is the first factor. Two, individuals who already possess slightly sharper innate cognitive capacities. Again, the range of human sharpness is not as extreme as it may seem, especially compared to what is coming.

When you look at adult human height, for example, it ranges from just under four feet to about seven and a half feet—a spread that’s less than a multiple of two. The same general principle applies to IQ. Some individuals at the very low end require institutional support, but the vast majority fall within a relatively narrow functional range. So, I would argue that our world is a relatively flat surface compared to the environments in which we evolved.

And to be clear—that is not an argument for a flat Earth, in case anyone misreads this.

Rosner: The cognitive complexity built into our societies and systems has a lower threshold that most people surpass. Most people are functionally capable in many domains. It would be odd if that were not the case.

Jacobsen: Just as most people have functioning hearts, it would be strange if a significant portion of the population were turned off simply by being unable to think. As the psychologist Donald Winnicott might put it, nature has been a “good enough” parent through evolution. Winnicott emphasized that you need not be a perfect parent—just a good enough one. Similarly, evolution has produced good enough cognitive structures to survive and function.

Evolution optimizes cognitive development in ways that we may not yet fully understand, but the point is that the average person is cognitively functional. AI is going to change that landscape. In ways that we do not yet fully understand or even know how to measure, at least not quantitatively.

Outside of deep qualitative analysis—working with individuals—evaluating who will benefit most is hard. However, those people who already function at a modestly higher level across many human domains will likely use these AI thought assistants more effectively. They’ll catch on faster.

We are now in this transitional phase where we haven’t been biologically enhanced—no neural implants, no brain-machine interfaces—but we are beginning to use these external cognitive tools. So, it would be naïve to believe that this is a form of universal access. Again, there are two key levels to consider.

First, access. For example, there is significant smartphone penetration in India, and ChatGPT has made major inroads there. But in general, poorer or less developed societies—those that are not technically advanced or are culturally resistant to technological adoption (Luddite communities, for instance)—will be less connected to these systems and will not be in a position to take full advantage.

Second, individual differences. Knowledgeable and technically trained people will be well-positioned to benefit from AI. But so might someone without formal training who decides to dive in and learn—someone who bets on AI as the future.

Rosner: Or even someone in a relationship with a tech-savvy partner who insists they teach it, or a person raised by so-called tiger parents. The early adopters will not just be the “very smartest” people. They will include some of the smartest, sure—but also people who, by taste, chance, or circumstance, position themselves in the right orbit of AI.

Some random person with good instincts and curiosity might wield as much AI power as someone with a PhD in computer science. That is the democratizing and destabilizing part of this moment in history. Let’s come back to that later, maybe even expand on it during a panel. That topic’s already spinning off in a few directions.

Jacobsen: Does that come up for you?

Rosner: We already talked about it a bit. Twitter went nuts over that New York Magazine article a couple of days ago. Everyone started piling on with the argument that we’re raising a generation of people who can’t do things that used to be basic, like trigonometry or writing an essay.

I hate writing essays, by the way. The five-paragraph essay is one of the most boring and formulaic writing formats. And now, students can just have Chatgpt write them. There are people—people in their early 20s, about to graduate from college—who may never have actually written a five-paragraph essay themselves, though they’ve turned in plenty of them, courtesy of ChatGPT.

You could argue, “Well, this person will have workplace problems because they never learned how to structure an essay.” But when do you ever need to write a five-paragraph essay in the workplace? Rarely—unless you land a job writing op-eds for a newspaper, and even then, those traditional platforms barely exist anymore.

So, the argument is that we’re raising a generation of simpletons. The counterargument is that we’re raising a generation with a different skill set, adapted to various tools and conditions.

Jacobsen: Do you think there is more to explore there?

Rosner: Maybe. In many ways, people today are more obnoxious than they used to be, thanks in large part to social media. But in other ways, people might be less harmful than before. For example, I’d argue people are, on average, less rapey than in previous decades, because both men and women are more informed about boundaries, consent, and what is or isn’t acceptable.

Thanks to social media and more open cultural conversation, many girls and women are better equipped to identify and avoid dangerous situations. Moreover, many guys are better educated, at least marginally, about what is and is not acceptable behaviour.

Also, the sheer ubiquity of pornography means fewer people feel the need to go out and manipulate others for sex. Many people stay home and masturbate. I do not know. Maybe that helps. So yes—the overall “dickishness” landscape has changed. We’re more toxic in some ways, and I hope less so in others.

In the U.S., though, we’re more overtly dickish—racism is back out of the closet and even encouraged in some political circles. That is worrying. But I hope there are equally strong countercurrents pushing in the opposite direction.

Comments?

Jacobsen: No.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1365: Ethics, Therapy, and Israel-Gaza: Bias, Counselling, and Cultural Reckonings

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/08

Rick Rosner discusses decades of couples counselling with his wife Carole, emphasizing the importance of therapist impartiality and ethical neutrality. He critiques political intrusion in therapy, sharing personal anecdotes and concerns about residual checks in the entertainment industry. Rosner also explores moral disorientation among American Jews regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza, drawing parallels with historical propaganda and current political dilemmas. The dialogue reflects on therapy’s role in navigating personal and societal challenges, from hearing loss to geopolitical crises. The conversation concludes with reflections on generational shifts, technology in education, and evolving cultural expectations around knowledge and responsibility.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, in your opinion, if you were to step into a therapeutic space—including marriage counselling—would you consider that space ethically intended to be impartial and apolitical, centred on the client’s narratives? Or should it allow the therapist to, implicitly or explicitly, impose their ideology or politics?

Rick Rosner: Carole and I have been in couples counselling for—I do not know—thirty-two years. Not because we have major problems. We have small things to work through, but mostly because we have good insurance and can do it. It is a helpful space to talk things over.

It also shows that we’re committed to the relationship. Anyway, I’ve had much experience with couples counselling. This is the fourth couple’s counsellor I’ve worked with. The first one was back in college, with a different girlfriend. He was terrible—he didn’t know what he was doing, and he was biased. It turned into three against one because the counsellor had an apprentice observing, and all three of them—my girlfriend, the counsellor, and the apprentice—sided against me.

I wasn’t the sole problem. Sure, I was part of the issue—both partners usually are. However, you’re not supposed to treat therapy as a blame game. It is about building communication skills and addressing issues constructively, which did not happen in that setting. Still, I learned a lot from that experience—even if it meant getting railroaded in those sessions.

When Carole and I went into counselling, we eventually left one of our therapists after a few years, because, frankly, I was “winning” the sessions. And you’re not supposed to “win” in therapy. But I knew how to approach it, and I started having more of my concerns addressed. So yes, a good therapist should remain unbiased and avoid taking sides.

Did I say this was the third therapist? It is the fourth. One was an older gentleman who had been practicing for over sixty years. He passed away during COVID. He was extraordinary—he may have started in the 1970s or earlier.

Our current therapist is solid, though we do not bring her major issues, mainly because we do not have any major ones.

We talk about politics in sessions now because politics has become part of our stressful landscape. She’s not immune to worrying about herself. Once you’ve been in therapy for as long as Carol and I have, over thirty years, you get comfortable enough to broaden the scope of what you talk about.

We’ll ask questions like, “Are your other clients worried about this or that?” Not about specific people, of course—just to understand how others might feel in the broader context.

For example, television and film production in Los Angeles is down by approximately 40% since the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. It is a rough time. Jobs are scarce, and people are under much stress. Have I told you about residual checks?

So, you should receive residual payments when a show you worked on—whether as a writer, actor, director, or in any other union-covered role—is rebroadcast, streamed, or reused in specific ways. These are essentially royalties: a portion of the revenue generated from content reuse goes to the creators and performers who helped make the show. It’s a vital part of compensation for many professionals in the industry.

In the past, the show I worked on for network rebroadcasts was the most aired on ABC. If it reran on ABC, I’d get a check for a couple hundred bucks, sometimes more, just for the rerun. Lately, I’ve been getting stacks of checks for streaming rebroadcasts. In the past couple of months, I’ve probably received close to 700 or 800 checks—no exaggeration —but they’re for streaming platforms—Netflix, Hulu—I don’t even know where it’s airing anymore.

These checks are literally for 2 to 9 cents apiece. Carole looked at 42 of them. She goes through them, signs them for me, and takes them to the bank. She’s nice that way. But those 42 checks totalled exactly two dollars. Two actual fucking dollars.

If everyone is getting checks like that—and I assume they are—then people are screwed. You can’t survive on that. I was once able to pay off our house and cover our kids’ college tuition with residual checks. That’s no longer possible.

I worked on that show—a daily, nightly show—for nearly twelve years. We’re talking about 200 episodes yearly for around eleven and a half years. That’s roughly 2,300 episodes, all eligible for rebroadcast residuals. So, yeah, I’m getting a lot of checks.

But if you’re working on a sitcom or a drama where a season is 10 or 13 episodes, compared to my 2,300 episodes, you’re not getting 42 checks. You might get seven. And at a dime apiece, that’s 70 cents.

That is why we have heard about people with objectively reasonable, even enviable jobs, like writing for a television show, still needing to drive for Uber at night. Or the story of a TV writer, with an actual writing job, sleeping in his car.

Things are seriously messed up now. So yes, we talk about stuff like that with our counsellor. She acknowledges that people are generally worried, especially about what’s happening to production in Los Angeles.

We also share our political leanings with her, and she doesn’t go out of her way to hide hers, which is fine with us. Someone counselling beginners or someone new to therapy might feel the need to be more guarded, but we can handle that kind of transparency in the counselling space.

When people first start couples counselling, they tend to be defensive. Part of the work is simply getting them used to therapy so it can be productive. If you’re afraid you’re going to get screwed over in counseling—or feel like the therapist is helping your partner build a case against you—any of that dynamic makes counseling unproductive.

However, we’ve been doing this long enough to discuss issues without making rookie mistakes.

There’s one thing I plan to bring up soon. I already called Carol on it—she gets frustrated and snippy with me about my hearing loss, which honestly isn’t even that bad. You’ve dealt with my hearing loss.

You have seen its extent, right? I will tell you to talk louder. It is not terrible, right? When the heater’s running in the house, I’ll say, “The heater’s going—can you talk louder?” But she starts getting pissy with me. I’m like, “You can’t—” and I told her I would get a hearing aid in the next couple of months. I’ve already got the prescription for it.

But I said to her, “You can’t act like this. It is bullshit.” Part of what counselling allows is raising issues outside the session. So I could call her on it and say, “I’m feeling like you’re being short with me.”

You have to frame it like that—it’s on you, how you’re feeling. You can’t say, “You’re being mean to me.” No. You say, “I feel like you’re being snippy.” It must be phrased from your emotional experience, so it’s not accusatory. That way, it opens up a conversation about whether the feeling is grounded. Even then, it’s not about justification.

You’re having a feeling—what can we do about it? So I said, “I feel like you’re being snippy with me about my hearing loss.” I just turned 65. I don’t want to become some old guy who was debilitated for being debilitated. I have been lucky not to be debilitated, but that will not last forever.

I made my case. Carole agreed to try to be less outwardly frustrated. I’ll bring it up again in counselling so we can discuss it more because I didn’t get to make my second point. We were going through the airport, and Carole had a nasty piece of pizza on the plane—we think that is what did it. She started feeling sick. She’s had diarrhea since we got back. It’s been three days—nonstop. Terrible.

So I could not finish what I wanted to say, so instead of getting pissy about my hearing issues, just work with me. Speak louder. Do not yell from the other room. If the TV is on, give me a second to mute it. It is basic stuff. That is what counselling is for—among other things—to work through stuff like that.

As for politics—your counselor would have to be a real fucking asshole to try to convert you politically during counseling. That’s not what therapy is for. But I’m sure some counsellors are creeps or just bad at their jobs, and that kind of stuff might come up.

However, before we started rolling, this is especially relevant because you mentioned this was a counsellor in a Jewish setting.

Jacobsen: So there are two ways politicization can show up in an American, generic, general-public mindset.

One way is from the left: the counsellor could politicize the space by supporting what some would call a “radical lunatic left-wing cause”—say, Antifa or something like that.

On the other hand, from the right, politicization might involve the idea that “you have to decolonize the person,” therefore, the space cannot help but be political. And then you might hear that Jewish clients need to be confronted with their Zionism.

Rosner: So, okay—let us get to that point. Because this is a terrible fucking time for Jewish people trying to make moral sense of what is going on in Gaza and Israel.

I was born just fifteen years after World War II. We were always taught that Israel was the place of safety for Jews after Hitler slaughtered nearly all of European Jewry. I went to Sunday school for ten years—ten years—and we were taught nothing about the Palestinians.

Not that I was paying much attention.

We had to fucking drive to Denver—thirty miles to Denver—every Sunday. So that used up our one goddamn half-hour weekend on a Sunday. I was pretty checked out. But I honestly don’t remember any mention of Palestinians.

By the way, Israel did not look back then like it does now. It was not shaped like a dagger. It looked more like a pork chop because they had control of the entire Sinai Peninsula, which they had taken during the 1967 war.

At the time, Israel had about three times the land area it has now. After capturing it, following attacks from neighbouring countries, they returned much of that territory, like the Sinai. However, what we were taught was that Israel was always the victim of aggression, never the aggressor.

So yeah, we were heavily propagandized—or at least, just not given any real depth. I don’t know why, maybe because it was a Jewish Sunday school, perhaps because we were twelve-year-old kids, maybe because most of us were spoiled suburban Cherry Creek High School brats.

Not me, or at least, not as much as some of the others. I was not as big a dick as a lot of the Cherry Creek kids. However, I was still a product of that environment.

Anyway, now we are learning more. Palestine—and especially Gaza—has had horrendous leadership. Corrupt, ineffective leadership has existed since the founding of Israel in 1948. Hamas is a homicidal, terroristic organization that does no good for its people. They steal money, they drag Gazans into genocidal wars, they deliberately hide among civilians so that when Israel retaliates, civilians die.

And Israel—they’re being dicks, too. They’ve killed close to 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza, out of a population of around 2.2 million to 2.3 million people. That’s over 2% of the entire population.

That is comparable in percentage terms to the number of Germans killed during World War II. It is a staggering, horrific number. Nearly every family in Gaza has either lost someone or knows someone who has been killed.

And that does not even include the West Bank. Gaza is on Israel’s western border. The West Bank is to the east. Palestinians have lived there for generations, and now you’ve got far-right Israeli settlers coming in, stealing land, harassing families, sometimes even lynching people, with the complicity of the Israeli military.

Netanyahu—the Prime Minister of Israel—is Israel’s Trump—a corrupt politician, facing criminal charges, clinging to power by keeping the war going. As long as the Gaza war continues, he has political support. Ending the war could mean facing trial.

So to many Jews now, Israel looks less like a haven and more like the aggressor—a genocidal aggressor. We are starting to look like the Nazis. Moreover, that’s a horrifying comparison to make. However, look—Hitler killed 11 million people in the Holocaust: 6 million Jews, and 5 million others—gay people, Roma, disabled people, Poles, political prisoners.

It’s a tragedy we were taught never to forget. And now, a lot of us are asking: what the fuck are we doing? And in Israel’s case, yes, they’re going after Hamas, but in a particular way. So anyway, it’s a fucked-up situation.

Roughly three-quarters of American Jews are Democrats, and about one-quarter are Republicans. I’d say the majority of American Jews believe that Israel is being a dick right now—but I don’t have fresh survey data in front of me. Still, what seems clear is that many American Jews—especially those who aren’t politically extreme—are being forced, for the first time, to separate Jewishness and Judaism from Zionism.

Zionism, in its current expression, has become this unblinking defence of Israel, no matter what it does. Moreover, for many of us, especially in politics, this is the first time we have had to confront the idea that those identities are not synonymous.

Today, at Columbia University, a bunch of pro-Gaza protesters broke into the library during study week. Seventy-eight of them were arrested. Now, Trump is exploiting the Israel-Gaza conflict to go after elite universities, accusing them of fostering antisemitism, just because pro-Palestinian protests are happening on campus. That is horseshit. It is Trump’s way of fucking with the universities, plain and simple.

The whole Israel situation—look, it is not fair to call it a nightmare. The nightmare is what is happening to the innocent people in Gaza. However, it is a moral quagmire.

Jacobsen: How would you compare that with couples therapy?

Rosner: How would I compare it? Well, like I have said here, there’s a learning curve.

You learn how to do therapy. Moreover, for myself, and I think for millions of other American Jews, there’s been a learning curve around understanding what’s happening in Gaza and Israel.

I knew some of it before, but this has been different. The exposure and emotional reckoning have deepened. It has been about a year and a half now—since October 7, 2023—when Hamas attacked Israel.

American Jews expected it to be over within a few months. Gaza is only about 50 square miles. It is a 5-mile north to south and five to six miles east to West. It is a tiny strip of land. It should not take years to deal with a military operation there.

Israel has about 300,000 active-duty soldiers. Hamas, at the start, was estimated to have around 30,000 fighters, or terrorists, however you want to label them. So, Israel had a 10-to-1 advantage in numbers. However, here we are, 18 or 19 months later, and they are still blowing up buildings and neighbourhoods.

Maybe Hamas’s numbers have been replenished—maybe their ranks were reformed. I would guess that of the 50,000 or so people Israel has killed, maybe 20,000 were affiliated with Hamas. If that’s true, and Hamas started with 30,000, there should be about 10,000 left. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, probably because they’ve recruited more. And let’s be honest—it’s murky who counts as Hamas in a war zone like Gaza.

Moreover, I have not even mentioned the fucking hostages.

So yeah, as with couples counselling, many people don’t want to engage with this. It is a moral quagmire. There’s no way to talk about Israel and Gaza without sounding like an asshole to someone.

It is not something people want to think about—that members of their faith might be engaged in actions that resemble historical atrocities. That Israel might be doing things in the name of Jewish safety that end up dehumanizing or slaughtering innocent people.

Thus, people avoid it just like going to counselling because it is messy. Because it forces you to confront uncomfortable truths. Carole and I do not mind being in counselling because we are good at it. We are lucky enough not to have major issues. But fucking Israel-Gaza? That is a set of intractable issues that are never going to fucking go away.

What do you think about the whole situation there?

Jacobsen: The Canadian Code of Ethics for Psychologists, under its principle of Integrity in Relationships, states the need to “be as objective and unbiased as possible in their… service.” The British Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics and Conduct links reason—or rationality-to—impartiality. The International Union of Psychological Science, in its Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists, emphasizes a core principle of integrity, specifying the importance of “maximizing impartiality and minimizing bias.”

Finally, the American Psychological Association, in its Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct, emphasizes Principle C—Integrity—which includes the avoidance of deception and misrepresentation. That could easily extend to refraining from using therapy as a platform for partisan persuasion.

So, across the West—in the major institutions of psychology and psychological science—the therapy and counselling space is explicitly expected to be impartial, with a minimization of bias and a maximization of objectivity in practice.

Rosner: Yes. But you can be an objective therapist and still say, “Politically, I lean this way. That can be true.

Jacobsen: Yes. You can also reference specific systemic issues. For example, men can feel objectified in some therapeutic contexts, especially when it comes to all-male military drafts or being overrepresented in dangerous occupations. That’s not political spin; that’s cultural and economic reality.

Likewise, women often feel objectified by being culturally expected to remain “barefoot and pregnant,” tied solely to domestic roles like cooking, cleaning, and raising children. If you are from a minority or Indigenous background, it is factual and responsible to acknowledge real disparities in health, education, and opportunity.

Acknowledging systemic disparities is objective. However, pushing a political framework as the therapeutic lens crosses the ethical lines we discussed. That would be using therapy as a platform for ideological persuasion, which is not what it’s meant for.

Rosner: That makes sense. I might bring up the Israel thing in our next counselling session. It could be interesting. Carole and I feel the emotional weight of the daily news. Israel is a big part of that. Our counsellor, who has been in the U.S. for decades, is a native-born German.

So, she understands what it means to come from a country with a dark history—one that’s had to carry the burden of collective responsibility. Maybe I will ask her: “What do we do about fucking Israel?”

It must be painful for her—and for all Germans. I mean, think about it: the youngest possible Nazi—the kid who was, say, 12 years old and thoroughly indoctrinated in 1945—would have been born in 1933. That means the youngest possible Nazi is now 92 years old.

The youngest possible Nazi who could have done bad shit would be almost a hundred by now. So the World War II Nazis—they are all fucking dead. The Germans who came after? In my experience, limited though it is, they have mostly been decent people. They are probably ashamed and understandably annoyed at this massive blot on their country’s history.

Rosner: The Germans I’ve met have certain German traits: orderly, not chaotic, and systematic. They go about their jobs in a structured, efficient way.

Jacobsen: Would you say almost machine-like? I am joking.

Rosner: What do you mean?

Jacobsen: The idea that Germans are highly industrious and fastidious. That kind of psychological profile.

Rosner: Yes, I would say that. To some extent, this contributed to their bad historical behaviour.

Jacobsen: There was a guy—back in 1945—it is suspected he died, but there’s no confirmation. He may have escaped. He was known never to take holidays. He was so pro-German, so devoted to nationalism, that he did not care if the politics were left-wing, centrist, or far-right. He just wanted Germany to succeed.

He was a nationalist-patriot above all else.

Rosner: Are you talking about a guy who maybe fled to the jungles of Uruguay or Argentina? Does his name start with an “H”?

Jacobsen: Heinrich Müller?

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: Right—Heinrich Müller. He was meticulous, hard-working, and highly loyal to Germany. Did not take holidays. So yes, you could say “machine-like.” But also: a Nazi. Moreover, there’s an argument to be made—if we never definitively confirmed his death—that he may have escaped. That is why there’s this long-running joke about Argentinians saying things like, “Yes, I have a German grandfather,” with the unspoken implication that it’s that kind of German grandfather.

Rosner: It is one of those old jokes with a dark undertone. Let me suggest a topic for tomorrow. ChatGPT was trending on Twitter today. Many claim it is being used so extensively in high schools and colleges that students are no longer learning anything.

The argument is that we are turning out a generation of incompetence—kids who rely so heavily on ChatGPT to complete their assignments that they are not developing writing skills, building focus, or engaging with the material.

And then these kids graduate useless after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on education. Going to an Ivy League school now costs close to $400,000 when you factor in room and board. Moreover, you’re not learning shit because ChatGPT is doing all your work for you.

Do you concur? Is it a valid argument?

Jacobsen: But the thing is—we do not need that many blacksmiths anymore. You might need a farrier to work with horses or cattle, but that entire life genre is gone. So when people say, “What is wrong with kids today? They are not doing the things we used to do,” they apply that critique to a fundamentally shifting culture.

We have moved from a hands-on, labour-intensive society to a more literate and idea-driven one. Many of the old foundations of daily life were physical, communal, and manual. Now, we’re in the middle of a transitional phase.

Rosner: Isabella’s generation grew up with the Internet. They have never nothad it.

Jacobsen: So I’d frame it this way: the transition from physical labour to intellectual labour is no longer about who can lift the most—it’s about who can most effectively train others to use machines, build companies around that capacity, or simply operate the machines themselves.

Rosner: At the same time, you can argue the other side: we are going to have many dipshits. However, then again, we’ve alwayshad many dipshits. We will have a different flavor of dipshit now. Like that essay I keep referencing, there will be a blend of “smart-stupids.” People who are technically intelligent but completely oblivious in other areas.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1364: AI, Vector Spaces, and the Rise of a Synthetic Universal Language

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think computers and AI will eventually find a universal language—some way to encode all possible human languages?

Rosner: To the extent that that’s a thing, Google is already doing something like it. Google Translate, for example, has this meta-structure. I haven’t read about it recently, but a few years ago, I read that it uses a kind of abstract, black-box intermediary space.

It’s not just doing direct word-for-word translation between language pairs. Instead, it creates a shared internal representation—a meta-language. Some researchers have suggested that specific “nodes” or regions act like universal conceptual placeholders within this space. So if you have a concept like lovethat shows up across all human languages, there’s a location in that space where love lives, regardless of how it’s expressed linguistically.

Jacobsen: So it’s not a word, exactly—is it more like a position in some abstract vector space?

Rosner: Yeah, exactly. You could call it a “synthetic Ur-language,” or a landscape that can accommodate most languages by bending or deforming itself to their structure. To use the cliché: Inuit languages have a rich vocabulary around snow, so that region of the conceptual space is more densely populated for them, with more distinctions and granularity—the shape of the landscape shifts depending on cultural priorities and sensory experience. So, regarding your question, it’s already happening. The beginnings of a universal encoding structure for human languages are in play.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1363: Sam Altman, AI Priorities, and the Future of Human Consciousness

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you have any comments on the Sam Altman points? I skimmed his blog post but skipped the stuff about car parts.

Rick Rosner: He’s optimistic. We’ve talked about Feynman’s three trajectories for science, and he’s taken the most optimistic stance toward AI—that it will have accelerating usefulness, enough to justify however much you need to spend on it. That’s the optimistic case.

The pessimistic case—closer to Cory Doctorow’s—is that the cleverness of AI is not going to generate returns that make up for the billions being poured into it. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, but not precisely in the middle, because of what science fiction tends to do. There’s that idea that anything predicted by science fiction, excluding things like time travel, will eventually happen, but it’ll take longer than it does in fiction.

Jacobsen: The key issue is prioritization. Even core human drives might be redirected or repurposed if AI becomes sufficiently augmented. At that point, you’re no longer following Feynman’s three-trajectory model. If the directives become re-jiggered—narrowed but more powerful—then some human outcomes or goals stop being priorities altogether. It is not even some frivolous side-path; that’s a legitimate direction for development.

Rosner: That ties into cryonics—freezing people with the hope of reviving them once their bodies and minds can be restored. But that entire project might become moot if AI helps us develop better ways to preserve or replicate consciousness. Instead of taking a 90-year-old body and trying to reverse it into a 30-year-old condition, it may be more viable to abandon that project entirely. Increasingly, tech might leapfrog cryonics. We may never need to develop it if other forms of consciousness preservation emerge fully.

The danger is that AI takes the reins so completely that human desires seem irrelevant. That could be bad news if AI overtakes us as the primary decision-making entity. On the optimistic side, it’s not necessarily about our consciousnesses being “freed.” It could be more about blowing open the “doors of perception”—the Aldous Huxley thing. The idea of consciousness itself might be so expanded that we’ll end up accepting new forms of it, new paths that don’t involve individual cognition in perpetuity. We may come to receive other types of immortality.

I don’t know we’ll ever see oblivion as acceptable. But we’ll see a merging, where your thoughts, attitudes, and memories become part of a broader, collective experience, as a viable option. That could be optimistic. Many religions hint at that idea—ancestral consciousness—the belief that your ancestors live inside your mind, yammering away in the background. To me, that feels incompletely explored. It’s better than nothing, but still not great.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1362: The Vector of Intelligence: Trust, AI, Evolution, and Cognitive Direction

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/07

Rick Rosner: So I was thinking about violations of trust, specifically, the treatment of animals and people. The biggest violator of trust is evolution. However, you cannot pin anything on evolution because it is not a being. It is a process without intention or awareness. It operates through natural selection—a statistical, impersonal mechanism. There is no accountability built into it.

That is how things work. However, through evolution, many creatures have emerged with innate drives—like seeking connection, safety, and reproduction—that often go unfulfilled. Some drives do get fulfilled. For example, the species-perpetuating drive—reproduction does occur in sufficient numbers to keep a species going. That is the evolutionary success story. However, again, evolution does not care.

But the drive to continue living—to keep experiencing life-that one ultimately fails for everyone, because death is inevitable. Moreover, again, evolution does not care. There is no built-in justice to any of it. I started wondering about the violation of those drives, especially in animals, and how trust plays into it. I was thinking about meat animals versus pets. Meat animals, especially those raised in industrial agriculture, do not develop expectations of love. Most are raised in conditions that prevent anything close to bonding or trust.

That said, there are exceptions. For example, in programs like 4-H in North America, young people raise animals with great care and even affection, then those animals are eventually slaughtered. Those animals have been treated with apparent kindness and likely form bonds with their caretakers. So when they are killed, it could be seen as a betrayal of that bond. The animal would not understand why someone who treated them well would suddenly cause or allow their death.

That feels like a deeper violation than what happens in factory farms. Animals raised in those conditions experience neglect, fear, and monotony—but perhaps without the same expectation of safety or affection. They suffer, but not necessarily from betrayal. Their world is harsh from the beginning.

So I wonder: is it worse to betray an animal that has known love than to abuse one that has only known suffering? I do not have a clear answer. I have guesses, but nothing sophisticated. Still, it feels like a fundamental question—one worth pausing to consider. Not that it is the most significant ethical question out there, but it might be revealing. That is thing one.

Thing two: I watched a 2023 science fiction film called The Artifice Girl on the flight back. I thought it was called Companion, but I was misremembering. The Artifice Girl is about an AI child developed to trap online predators. One of the characters is an artificial person—her intelligence and emotional complexity evolve, and there is a point where her cognitive abilities can be adjusted. Someone mentioned this film in an interview I saw recently, too.

t is a thoughtful and entertaining film. I liked it more than I expected. If you get the chance, you should watch it. It could have been a huge bummer, but it is pretty fun, especially compared to The Substance, which, yes, it shares some similarities with. However, the Substance was built up to be a huge bummer. Anyway, it got me thinking about cognition in artificial people—simulating or replicating various levels of intelligence.

I remember one line in Companion—at a certain percentage, the artificial person would have the cognitive ability of an Ivy League graduate. That stuck with me. Then, I read that Sam Altman thing you sent me recently—he says that AI already operates at the level of at least an average bright college student. That is the kind of baseline he is working with.

However, with an artificial person, you don’t necessarily need actual intelligence. You need to appear at different levels of cognition. You are simulating people. If you are offering the operator—someone interacting with the artificial person—different “intelligence settings,” then the artificial person has to appear to be functioning at those levels: a high school graduate, a college graduate, a postdoc, a bright autodidact.

That is different from being those types of people. You are not replicating their minds—you’re conveying the impression of being that kind of person. Moreover, I imagine that simulating the intelligence of, say, a junior college graduate probably has aspects that are easier and harder than actually constructing the whole mental landscape of such a person.

It is a standard issue in sci-fi. In movies like Blade Runner, one problem is that some artificial beings are designed not to know they are synthetic. Others do know—and they are pissed. However, for those meant to believe they are human, the creators implant fake memories. You can’t fabricate a full 22 years of continuous memory for a being who thinks they’re 22 years old. So you implant a few key memories and build a mental framework where the artificial person doesn’t feel compelled to probe the blank spaces in between.

In Companion, the approach is similar. The film shows how you generate those key moments—anchoring memories—that are supposed to be enough to convince the artificial person they’re fully human. And then you guide them away from introspection or scrutinizing their own experience too deeply. There’s another artificial being in the movie, whose intelligence is probably set a little higher. He eventually figures out he’s not a natural-born person.

That made me think about how people can make themselves smarter than they are, functionally, if they embrace the right attitudes. We’ve talked about this before. Like, in the 1680s, if you overheard a bunch of proto-scientists talking about experimental method and nature in a coffeehouse—because that’s where a lot of the scientific revolution started, with caffeinated people in public debate—and you decided, “Hey, this makes sense,” you’ve effectively increased your intelligence just by choosing to align with a powerful intellectual current.

Even if you were, say, a silversmith—it might not have helped with your craft directly. But embracing scientific thinking could still shape your worldview. It may not have been immediately useful in 1680, but eventually, that mindset permeated more of life.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Over time, it becomes transformative. So embracing the proper attitudes toward knowledge and thinking—toward evidence, doubt, and curiosity— doesn’t necessarily change your raw mental capacity but changes how you apply what you have. You take your intellectual profile—your strengths and weaknesses—and direct it with purpose. That direction, that vector, is everything.

It’s like someone with an illness that fragments focus—they may still have the same cognitive architecture, but it’s scattered. Or schizophrenia, where the internal landscape becomes entirely fractured. Then it’s not just about the hills and valleys—it’s about how navigable the map is.

So that’s where you get—where you can justify—the outcomes in these cases where individuals have lopsided mathematical or verbal intelligence. Take Richard Feynman, for example. The guy was doing math in a strip club. He was doing it constantly. His vector—his cognitive direction—was honed toward one thing.

You see pathologies of this in people on the autism spectrum, or cases of savant syndrome, like Kim Peek. But generally speaking, the more important question is not “What’s your intelligence?”—even though how we measure intelligence is deeply flawed, especially from a hard scientific standpoint. I was informed of this in an extensive interview by the former international supervisory psychometrician for Mensa.

IQ scores above 145 on a standard deviation of 15, for instance, are widely considered unreliable. That was a stricter standard than even I expected. I had assumed 160 was the point of unreliability. But 145, especially on properly normed, gold-standard, supervised IQ tests, is where the numbers start getting fuzzy. But again, the more important question is: What’s the vector? How are you directing that skill set?

I don’t mind if we say the same thing differently. Here’s another example: I did a second interview with Alexis Rockman today. He’s a well-known artist who created the official Earth Day poster this year. He’s worked on several other significant projects.

At the end of the interview, we discussed whether his ability is inborn or cultivated, he said it’s both. And that makes sense—people visualize how to do things all the time, but don’t necessarily put it into words. Words are still important, but visual thinking dominates some people.

So in cases like Alexis Rockman or even your friend Lance, these people are cognitively lopsided in a particular way. Their visual and spatial proclivity is far above average, and it has been honed with long-term commitment. The arc of that “vector space” is highly directed. You would call that a profession. Moreover, the output—what we see—is shaped by that professional direction.

Rosner: That makes sense. There are clear ways to conceptualize this. I also think about this in terms of career and social attitudes. Take people today who embrace AI. They likely have a productive attitude toward the world, at least in that domain. That attitude makes them smarter than others in the context of what is coming.Now, compare that with another group, like the crypto crowd, especially on Twitter. These folks tend to be overconfident. Some might be savvy and ride the pump-and-dumps, sure. However, I read an article today about the Trump meme coin.

It has been out for a while now. Seven hundred sixty-four thousand people have lost money on it. Moreover, only 58 people have made over $10 million each. The article did not mention how many people made small profits, like $3 or $200. However, the imbalance is staggering. That shows the difference between an aligned vector and raw confidence without direction. Confidence can simulate intelligence in the short term, but without that underlying structure, it collapses.

t would be helpful to know those missing numbers, but I assume fewer than three-quarters of a million people lost money on it. I do not know—crypto seems like a sucker’s game. Then you have got people who embrace MAGA and QAnon conspiracy theories. That kind of attitude seems like it artificially lowers your intelligence and your effectiveness in the world. You are embracing stupid shit—it is not going to make you smarter.

It is not going to help you, unless you’ve got cronies in the government and your warped attitudes somehow get you appointed to something. Otherwise, it is just going to make you dumber. What do you think?

Jacobsen: I would agree with that.

Rosner: Have we exhausted this topic for now?

Jacobsen: Probably.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1361: The Limits of Science, Time, and Understanding AI

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/29

Rick Rosner: On-time first: I do not think time itself has to have a limit. Time, as we understand it, needs a universe to exist within. A universe can continue indefinitely into the future. However, you never actually reach infinity. You keep extending further and further without ever arriving at an infinite point.

You can have a universe that is any finite age, no matter how old it gets. Every possible age is finite—even if it gets staggeringly large—because infinity is never achieved.

Part of the answer regarding the limit of science comes from an essay by Richard Feynman, who wrote about it around sixty years ago. He outlined that the limits of science partly depend on how complicated the universe is, how much explanation it requires, and how scrutable—how decipherable—it is.

Feynman proposed three possibilities:

Attainable complexity: Science could eventually complete most of the work of explaining the universe. There would still be a few details to fill in, but the major framework would be primarily understood.
Inscrutable universe: The universe could be so complex that, no matter how much science progresses, we would never fully understand it. It would be permanently beyond human comprehension.
A mix: The universe could be partly understandable—some areas are easy to figure out, others are permanently hard. Science would continue progressing steadily but never “complete” the picture entirely.

The actual universe falls into the third category. We can figure out significant aspects of how things work, but as our computational and analytical powers grow, there will always be new mysteries and increasingly subtle phenomena to investigate.

With the rise of big data and machine learning, we are also learning that there are emergent properties—patterns that appear only when analyzing massive datasets with powerful analytic engines. Even if most fundamental physics is pinned down, these emergent phenomena open new layers of understanding.

This week, Sam Altman announced that, at least in his opinion, we have achieved AGI—Artificial General Intelligence.

Sam Altman says these new models are innovative. They describe the capabilities using all sorts of terms—none of which I fully understand yet—so I should probably educate myself about AI.

There are all these descriptors and indices for what AI can do analytically, and I do not know what most of the terms mean. Do you?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: They say everyday things in weird ways. For example, instead of just saying “compute” as a verb, they use “compute” as a unit of measurement. So instead of asking, “How do you compute this?” they will say, “How much compute does it have?” or “How much compute will you need to perform this task?” They talk about a 10x decrease in computing costs every so many periods. But they also have other indices that measure nimbleness or adaptability.

Rosner: It seems like a pain to learn now, but it is similar to when people had to educate themselves about cars in 1904. Back then, you had to learn what a piston was, what a carburetor was, and what a spark plug was. It was all new mechanical vocabulary.

Similarly, we will need to learn about the mechanics and characteristics of this new AI technology. A lot of it sounds like bullshit right now, but over time it will become more tangible and less obscure.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1360: Falling Birth Rates, Relationship Trends, and the Decline of Sex Scandals

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you are talking here, this can be a topic…

Rick Rosner: It is a brief topic. When Carole and I are talking about some ridiculous sex scandal, my standard glib response is: Guys have to get the jizz out.

Jacobsen: Louis C.K. once described men as having “jizz on demand.” The idea is that the average man, over a lifetime, might ejaculate about 10,000 times.

Rosner: That seems high. Maybe it is about half that. Still, even after 5,000 times, it is a staggering amount. However, the broader point is connected to the trends we are seeing. Younger people today—and this is statistically backed up—are coupling up less than they used to.

Over the past twenty years, the number of births in the United States has dropped by about 8 to 10 percent, even as the population has slowly grown. The number of babies born annually has fallen from over four million to around 3.67 million yearly.

So, people are withdrawing somewhat from relationships and coupling, staying home more, and, yes, masturbating more instead of forming relationships.

Jacobsen: And you would hope…?

Rosner: I would hope that—while some establishment voices say it is bad that birth rates are falling—it could have at least one positive side effect: a decline in sex scandals. If regular people are staying home instead of aggressively seeking partners, maybe scumbags are doing the same thing—staying home and jerking off instead of getting embroiled in sexual misconduct scandals.

I do not know unless you have comments. Did you get your idea? Am I finished?

I have made this point before: When you look at the biggest, most scandalous serial harassers and rapists, they are mostly older men. It seems to have been more common in previous generations. I am hoping the rate of that kind of behaviour is declining.

Harvey Weinstein is in his seventies and falling apart. Bill Cosby is in his eighties. Trump will be seventy-nine in two months.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1359: UFOs and UAPs: Debunking Common Misconceptions

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/27

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is UFOs, Part Two. Any quick points before we start?

Rick Rosner: The basic mathematics regarding the number and timing of civilizations argues against us being visited. The speed of light presents a significant barrier.

With our current technology, you cannot even travel at 10% of the speed of light, and doing so even hypothetically would involve massive energy costs and engineering challenges. Additionally, the point at which a civilization might arise on a planet in a nearby solar system could be anywhere from two billion years before us to two billion years after us, making synchronized contact unlikely. The relative unlikelihood of any given solar system harbouring an advanced civilization further argues against frequent or easy visits. The math is tricky. All right.

Jacobsen: Here we go. Main argument one: Numerous civilians and qualified military personnel have reported sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). These reports sometimes describe apparent aircraft capabilities such as sudden high-speed movements, silent flight, and abrupt changes in direction.

Rosner: The keyword in UFO is “unidentified.” Countless objects and phenomena—such as atmospheric effects, astronomical bodies, optical illusions, and human-made artifacts—can be mistaken for aircraft or spacecraft. The fact that they do not behave like conventional aircraft is not necessarily evidence of alien origin; it often points instead to misinterpretations of natural or artificial phenomena. Thus, these sightings are not by themselves convincing evidence. I am not convinced.

Jacobsen: What about the consistency of witness reports across different locations and accounts?

Rosner: It is worth considering. Consistent observations might be expected across similar environments if the phenomenon is atmospheric, optical, or related to sensor errors. Many non-extraterrestrial theories, including various atmospheric phenomena, could explain recurring features of sightings.

Jacobsen: The U.S. government has officially acknowledged the existence of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAPs) and released unclassified reports summarizing observations by military personnel.

Rosner: What is a UAP?

Jacobsen: It stands for Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, a broader and more neutral term than UFO.

Rosner: Some whistleblowers and former intelligence officials have claimed that the government possesses evidence of non-human technology. However, no verified physical evidence has been publicly presented to confirm these claims. While these reports fuel speculation about a cover-up, they do not constitute proof of extraterrestrial visitation.

Jacobsen: You have already discussed the scientific probability involved, so we do not need to revisit that. What about technological superiority? You mentioned the possibility of eccentric civilizations developing highly advanced technologies and visiting less advanced civilizations like ours.

That overlaps with earlier points about low probability and vast technological and logistical hurdles. What about observing objects that seem to exceed known human technological capabilities—such as rapid acceleration, deceleration, or hovering without visible propulsion?

Rosner: Other explanations beyond atmospheric phenomena are possible but remain speculative. It could involve sensor glitches, misinterpretations of natural phenomena, undisclosed human technology, or other unknown factors. I am not an atmospheric physicist and have not read this area exhaustively. However, when events seem to defy the known laws of physics, it becomes more plausible that we are seeing projections, reflections, or misinterpretations of existing phenomena rather than encountering literal craft operating beyond known physical limits.

Jacobsen: What about historical sightings and historical patterns?

Rosner: Hold on. So, according to relativity, you cannot travel faster than the speed of light. However, you can shine a laser beam across the sky or a planet’s surface. For example, if you had a powerful enough laser, you could shine it from Earth onto the moon and make the point of the laser beam move faster than the speed of light across the surface. That is because you are not moving a physical object; you are moving the point where the light beam is aimed.

When you have things in the atmosphere that appear to move incredibly fast or seem to accelerate and decelerate at impossible rates, it raises the possibility that you are not seeing a solid object—or at least not where you think it is. Atmospheric distortion effects could make something look like it is behaving impossibly. So, anyway, I would throw out Occam’s Razor here: the simplest explanation is that you are seeing something that is not there in the way you think.

Jacobsen: What about people who are genuinely mentally unstable? What percentage of people do you think are hallucinating rather than observing atmospheric phenomena?

Rosner: I do not know. When I had a bad breakup with my girlfriend in 1984, I was bummed out for many months, maybe even years. I forced myself to do something stupid once a week to get myself out of my funk. One week—I had been reading Omni Magazine, which was part of the Penthouse Magazine empire—so I wrote a letter to Penthouse as a joke.

I claimed, as myself, that I had gotten my high IQ from being kidnapped by aliens for sex or something equally absurd. I do not remember exactly. However, I made up a story about an alien encounter to do something ridiculous and get myself moving again. They did not publish the letter.

So, yes, a certain percentage of people who claim to have been kidnapped by aliens are probably bullshitters, just as I was. Some genuinely have a mental illness. Some may have been drunk or hallucinating. I do not know exactly, but none of them are super credible, in my opinion.

Again, the argument from last night still applies: People did not start reporting being kidnapped by little green or gray men with large heads and thin limbs until magazine articles in the mid-1950s popularized those images. That timing suggests that people are highly suggestible and full of it.

Jacobsen: Would this thinking apply to whistleblower reports from government and military insiders?

Rosner: Yes. The people flying at high altitudes and speeds are mostly military personnel. Those individuals are going to encounter atmospheric phenomena that most people at lower altitudes or slower speeds never see. Commercial pilots also see unusual things sometimes.

We know atmospheric phenomena like St. Elmo’s Fire, different types of lightning, electrical discharges, and light scattering by ice crystals. The people most likely to see high-altitude atmospheric phenomena are commercial pilots, flying about seven miles above the ground, and military pilots, who might be flying at altitudes closer to ten miles.

And so, yes, those are where your reports will come from. These are people who are trained to be objective observers. They are not drunken lunatics or random bullshitters claiming to be kidnapped; they are professionals who see unusual things and report them. As a group, they are not fabricators. They are professionals. However, just because you have a whole set of reports from professionals does not automatically make the reports more convincing.

Jacobsen: Why?

Rosner: Because no yahoos are flying around up there. These are skilled professional pilots. That was a weird way of flipping the usual argument: using the credibility of pilots not to confirm the alien hypothesis but to raise a different point.

Jacobsen: Are you flipping how they usually use military and professional pilot reports as a defence?

Rosner: Yes, exactly. Usually, people say, “Well, military pilots and professional pilots are credible observers, so their reports must be accurate.” I am saying the opposite: their professionalism shows that they are honestly reporting what they see—but what they are seeing is still not convincing evidence of alien spacecraft.

You have two different populations. You have people on the ground—wackos, to put it bluntly—claiming to be scooped up by tractor beams and having things done to them by skinny aliens with big heads. Those stories are detailed, or at least embellished with details, like the story I wrote to Penthouse decades ago as a joke. (I think I claimed they scooped me up in a tractor beam, and something happened—whatever. I barely remember. I did it because I did not give a fuck at the time.)

Meanwhile, professional pilots are reporting something completely different: dots in the sky, lights in formations, or maybe triangular groupings of lights moving strangely. That is an entirely different type of observation.

The credibility of the pilots does not change the core problem: the phenomena they observe are mostly distant, small, blurry, and lacking precise detail. There is no footage showing a fully visible spacecraft with intricate surface features, like something you would see in Star Wars. It is mostly dots or blurs, sometimes elongated shapes. None provides enough precise detail to be undeniable evidence of alien spacecraft—or anything beyond unknown or misinterpreted phenomena.

Jacobsen: All right. Next point: What about radar and other forms of evidence that produce data independently of human visual observation? Things you can read out as objective measurements?

Rosner: When humans see things and video cameras capture things, they record visual events—what our eyes or cameras can detect. The radar is different. It bounces radio waves off objects and detects their reflections. So when you get radar returns, you get data that is technically independent of human sight.

So, we are not doing sonar, which is sound waves underwater. Radar is different: you are bouncing radio waves. Radio waves are just another wavelength of electromagnetic radiation. So, if pilots and video cameras can detect anomalous phenomena, radar can also detect anomalous phenomena. It is the same basic physics. That is it.

Jacobsen: Yes. That is it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1358: Are UFOs Evidence of Alien Life? Scientific Plausibility and Public Belief

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/16

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Between June 14 and June 24, 2021, the Pew Research Center surveyed 10,417 U.S. adults. The survey found that 65% believe intelligent life exists on other planets. Additionally, 51% consider UFO sightings reported by military personnel as probable or definite evidence of extraterrestrial life. Specifically, 40% said “probably,” 11% said “definitely,” while 47% believe these sightings are not evidence of alien life—furthermore, only 10% view UFOs as a significant national security threat.

Rick Rosner: This is different from things like Sasquatch or flat Earth theories because there is a reasonable scientific basis for believing in life on other planets. As our telescopes have improved, we have learned that most stars have planetary systems, and on average, there is at least one planet per star. It is not uncommon. Many stars, including binary systems, have multiple planets.

Binary star systems can complicate planetary formation but not necessarily prevent it. The Milky Way galaxy alone contains an estimated 100 to 400 billion stars.

Jacobsen: In the observable universe, there are approximately 2 trillion galaxies, which amounts to roughly 10²³ stars.

Rosner: The Drake Equation allows scientists to estimate how many stars might host planets capable of supporting life. For instance, if 90% of stars have planets, and around 20% of those planets are in the habitable zone—where liquid water can exist—then only a subset will be rocky planets, not gas giants. Rocky planets require specific conditions during system formation, such as certain collision patterns, to form a solid surface.

Life as we know it likely also requires a planetary magnetic field, which usually depends on a rotating iron or metal-rich core to shield the surface from harmful cosmic radiation. Even using conservative assumptions, starting with 10²³ stars and applying these filters, we still have the strong possibility that billions of planets could support life. Assuming Earth hosts the only life in the universe seems statistically unreasonable.

Beyond the Drake Equation, the sheer diversity and randomness in how solar systems form suggest that life-supporting conditions are not uniquely rare. It is plausible that planets capable of sustaining life—whether similar to Earth or different in nature—exist in large numbers throughout the cosmos.

It seems likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe. Once life emerges, the next step is considering the odds that it survives long enough and evolves into intelligent beings capable of developing technology. I think it is probable that millions—likely far more—of planets have hosted technological civilizations, either currently or at some point over the billions of years the universe has existed.

And I believe you cited the statistics—approximately two-thirds of Americans believe in life on other planets.

Jacobsen: The short version is that 65% believe in intelligent life elsewhere, and 51% believe military-reported UFOs are evidence of that.

Rosner: So, it is reasonable to believe that life exists on other planets. What is not reasonable is the idea that such lifeforms are actively visiting Earth or that we are encountering their spacecraft in our atmosphere.

Jacobsen: One slight trend is noteworthy: In 2012, a National Geographic poll found that 36% of Americans believed in UFOs. By 2023, an Ipsos poll recorded that number at 42%. It was not a massive shift, but it was still a noteworthy increase.

Rosner: Now, I do not believe that UFOs are alien spacecraft visiting us. First, there is no evidence—and no theoretical basis within physics—to suggest that any object can travel faster than the speed of light, or even near it, in a practical spacecraft.

Light itself is the only thing we know that can travel at light speed. In theory, one might imagine sending pulses of light that could be used to assemble something elsewhere, but even that seems highly implausible.

Technologically, it is tough—bordering on impossible—to send any spacecraft at even 10% of the speed of light. Moreover, at those speeds, any impact with debris would be catastrophic. Even a dust particle could cause an explosion equivalent to a nuclear detonation unless the craft has extremely advanced shielding or an electromagnetic deflection system.

However, for the sake of argument, let us say an advanced civilization managed to build spacecraft that travel at 20% ofthe speed of light. Even then, stars are separated by several light-years. Our closest stellar neighbour, Alpha Centauri, is about four light-years away. At 20% light speed, reaching it would still take 20 years.

This raises serious doubts about the practicality of interstellar visitation, especially at a scale that would lead to the kinds of encounters described in UFO reports. The odds that a technological civilization not only exists but has developed interstellar travel, chosen to visit Earth, and done so repeatedly in ways we cannot reliably detect or document—all of that seems extraordinarily improbable.

Let us say, for the sake of simple math, that one in a million stars has a technological civilization orbiting it. That would mean, on average, the nearest such civilization is about 100 stars away—which translates to roughly 400 light-years from us. Even if a spacecraft could travel at an implausibly high speed—say, 20% of the speed of light—it would still take 2,000 years to reach us.

And that assumes extremely optimistic engineering capabilities. Maybe such a civilization could build robotic probes that search for radio signals or signs of life—machines that can replicate themselves using local materials. These are called von Neumann probes. The idea is that they could spread through the galaxy exponentially, building more probes as they go.

However, that seems like a dubious and wasteful endeavour. Would a civilization want to announce itself across the galaxy that way? And even if it did, at 20% light speed—which, again, is highly unlikely—it would still take thousands of years to reach us. More realistically, 2% of light speed would be achievable, if at all, which would make the travel time between civilizations about 20,000 years.

At that point, any form of contact becomes incredibly inefficient and uncertain. If civilization is advanced enough to build and launch interstellar spacecraft, it is probably also advanced enough to simulate alien civilizations from home. Within the next century, we will likely be able to simulate the entire process of evolution, from single-celled organisms to intelligent beings and technological societies—all without ever leaving our planet.

So, it seems unlikely that a rational civilization would physically visit us. The time, energy, and resources required would be astronomical, and for what? To find yet another primitive, chaotic civilization?

I’ll admit one possibility—an irrational or eccentric civilization might do it. Maybe they have an enormous arts budget and decide to fund some massive, absurd gesture, like spending the equivalent of a quadrillion dollars and 100,000 years to send a spacecraft to some random planet just for curiosity or spectacle.

There was a movie—I think it was Explorers—in which a group of kids made contact with alien visitors using some kind of tech. At the end of the movie, it turns out the aliens were also just kids who stole a spaceship—that scenario I can buy: some reckless, immature civilization deciding to do something this ridiculous.

However, most civilizations would not be that reckless. The likelihood of any civilization spending such vast resources to reach us seems extremely low. I do not believe civilizations are actively scanning the galaxy to make friends. More importantly, there is no universal “start time” for civilizations. They do not all arise at once—some begin early, others late. Timing alone makes synchronous contact improbable.

Civilizations can arise billions of years apart. If you send spacecraft out into the galaxy, you could easily encounter a civilization two million years older than yours—and such a civilization might not want you to exist. If they are much more advanced, they could easily obliterate you. So, I do not think civilizations are casually sending out spacecraft, with one possible exception.

Jacobsen: What is the exception?

Rosner: Nearly every galaxy we have observed—probably over 99%—has a supermassive black hole at its center. There is a chance that computational capacity increases in the environment surrounding a supermassive black hole. Time dilation, gravitational compression of space, and other relativistic effects might allow for faster or more efficient computation.

The long-term trajectory of advanced civilizations is to become computation-intensive. If true, the galaxy’s center might be the optimal place to go. It could offer more excellent computational resources, forming a compact, high-efficiency computational hub.

Once a civilization reaches a certain level of physics and technology, it figures out that the galactic center is where it should go. That is where the “action” is in terms of information processing. But we are nowhere near the center.

We are way out on the galactic outskirts. The Milky Way is roughly 100,000 light-years in diameter, and we are located about two-thirds of the way from the central black hole to the outer edge of the visible disk. We are in a relatively quiet and remote region.

Given that, it is unlikely anyone is coming out to visit us. We would also unlikely encounter civilizations travelling inward toward the center, especially within any reasonable time frame.

Over billions of years, if the idea is accurate—that civilizations tend to migrate toward the galactic center—some might indeed pass by us. Maybe some even develop technology to move massive objects closer to the center, like entire planetary systems. However, the odds of such civilization passing near us within a million-year window are extremely low.

And we could only observe space and atmospheric phenomena briefly. Our ability to monitor the sky meaningfully spans just a few hundred years. If you include ancient civilizations like the Chinese keeping astronomical records around the time of Jesus, that could stretch to a couple thousand years.

However, the odds that a passing civilization happened to intersect with us—within the tiny sliver of time during which we have been able to observe anything—are astronomically small. The chance that an advanced civilization would visit or even be seen by us in the last two thousand years is minuscule.

Civilizations would be spread too far apart in space and time. For any real chance of contact, civilizations must send out long-lasting sentinels across vast distances and epochs to increase the likelihood of discovering others. However, I have already argued that such an approach may not be desirable or sustainable.

Jacobsen: So you are saying that, in that context, believing UFOs could represent alien contact is less unreasonable than other fringe beliefs?

Rosner: Yes. Compared to things like ghosts, yetis, or flat Earth theory, the idea of alien life has at least some grounding in scientific plausibility. There is reasonable astrophysics behind the possibility of life elsewhere, even if actual contact remains unlikely.

However, here is the issue—there is very little serious analysis accessible to the general public, or even to most scientists, regarding the probabilities, timescales, or distribution models of extraterrestrial civilizations. Most people do not encounter discussions of average distances between civilizations or timelines for technological development. That kind of modelling probably only occupies the minds of a few hundred or maybe a thousand specialists in the U.S.

So, you can be rational and still hold somewhat unreasonable beliefs about alien contact due to a lack of exposure to this thinking. That is different from people who believe in the flat Earth. One is speculative; the other is delusional.

Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts before we wrap for the night? There is more to say—government acknowledgments, secrecy, eyewitness testimony, scientific plausibility, and technological constraints. I’ve got notes on all of that.

Rosner: From what I understand, UFO sightings didn’t really take off until the 1950s when UFO magazines began circulating—selling stories and speculation about sightings. Before that, people did not report them. So there’s an argument that the idea had to be introduced before people began “seeing” them.

You could argue that people were becoming more aware or better trained to spot them. However, I think it is more likely that the magazines trained people to misinterpret ordinary phenomena as UFOs. It is suspicious that the rise in sightings coincided directly with the rise in cultural exposure to the concept.

All right, thank you again.

Jacobsen: Take care.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1357: Cryptozoology Debunked: Rick Rosner on Why Bigfoot Likely Doesn’t Exist

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any initial thoughts on Bigfoot, or just doing my usual shtick? Let us talk about cryptozoology in general.

Rick Rosner: Cryptozoology is the study of animals rumoured or reported to exist but not recognized by mainstream science. These include creatures like the Yeti and, in your case, Sasquatch. They are essentially regional variations of the same myth—significant, bipedal ape-like beings said to live in remote wilderness areas. It is doubtful they exist. There have been cases where animals once thought to be extinct or mythical, like the coelacanth, were later discovered.

Is that how you pronounce it? I think so. We have confirmed giant squids’ existence, and deep-sea fish are pulled up from thousands of feet below the surface. However, a 7- to 10-foot primate living undetected in North American forests? No.

Due to the ocean’s vastness and inaccessibility, it is easier to hide large animals—megafauna—in the ocean. This is much less plausible on land, especially in heavily mapped areas like North America. Today, satellite imaging, camera traps, drones, and extensive ecological surveys make the existence of an undiscovered large terrestrial mammal extremely unlikely. So yes, I think belief in Bigfoot is unfounded.

Jacobsen: Now, regarding public belief:

The 2007 Baylor Religion Survey (Wave 2) included belief in paranormal phenomena but did not report a specific percentage for Bigfoot.
In 2012, an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that 29% of Americans believed in Bigfoot, with the highest concentration in the Western U.S.
In 2020, YouGov reported that 11% of U.S. adults believed Bigfoot definitely or probably exists.
In 2022, CivicScience found that 13% of Americans believed in Bigfoot, up from 11% in 2020. Again, belief was highest in the Western states, particularly in places like Washington, Oregon, and California.

Preliminary thoughts?

Rosner: People believe things. Compared to something like flat-Earth belief—which requires rejecting almost all modern science and a global conspiracy—Bigfoot belief is relatively benign. All you are doing is saying, “I think there is a large ape-like creature hiding in the woods and managing to evade detection.” It is unlikely but not logically impossible.

Why would someone choose to believe in Bigfoot instead of, say, ghosts or UFOs? I do not know. Do most Bigfoot believers also believe in other paranormal or pseudoscientific ideas? I would need to see cross-tabulated survey data on that.

Will you ask me in another session about Area 51 and whether it supposedly holds an alien spacecraft?

Jacobsen: That is a broader topic but one worth discussing separately. Should we go through the arguments now? One quick point—why do you think belief in Bigfoot is more common in the Western U.S.?

Rosner: Probably because people in those areas are more familiar with the stories and regional folklore. Bigfoot is part of the Pacific Northwest legend, particularly in Washington State. When people are exposed to something more often—whether through local lore, tourism, media, or cultural identity—they are more likely to consider it plausible. You must be exposed to a belief system before adopting it.

Jacobsen: All right, Argument One: Numerous, inconsistent sightings. Thousands of eyewitness reports across North America describe a large, bipedal, hairy creature. The sightings have occurred over many decades in different regions, and some descriptions are consistent—such as height, gait, and behaviour—but there is still wide variation and no reliable physical evidence.

Rosner: People can be mistaken—and also, people can be full of shit. Like I said, I have known people who claimed to believe in ghosts to get on TV.

Jacobsen: What about physical evidence? Footprints, dermal ridges, hair samples, visual records like the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film?

Rosner: Okay. That film is bullshit. I have seen it. It is ridiculous. I have not analyzed it scientifically, but I think it is fucking ridiculous. As for footprints, if there is a convincing footprint, I am more inclined to believe it was fake than if it is evidence of Bigfoot. People mess around. People hoax things.

Remember, we are talking about 40 million Americans who believe in this. If there are hair samples, then run the DNA. If they do, it will be from some known animal—not a giant ape-man.

Jacobsen: What about Indigenous folklore? Native American tribes such as the Salish and Lakota describe similar creatures. Some argue that this lends historical or cultural credibility.

Rosner: Sure, but Native American folklore is full of mythical figures—none of whom exist. You have stories like the crow who stole the sky or the trickster fox who walks as a man. They are metaphorical or symbolic. They are not zoological evidence.

Jacobsen: Vast wilderness—places like Olympic National Park—are remote, heavily forested, and capable of hiding an elusive, rare species. Some large mammals, like the mountain gorilla, were only discovered in 1902. Couldn’t such regions still hold an undiscovered primate?

Rosner: Not anymore. That was 1902—123 years ago—before satellites, drones, remote sensing, and humanity spread across almost every part of the planet. It is just not likely today.

Jacobsen: What about forensic evidence? Some experts, like anthropologist Jeff Meldrum, claim that physical traces—like footprints—are worth scientific consideration.

Rosner: I do not see why we must go through every argument.

Jacobsen: I want this to be a one-and-done conversation.

Rosner: You do not need to refute every single claim point-by-point. All these arguments boil down to someone being mistaken, lying, or engaging in misinterpretation. Every aspect of this mythical creature’s existence falls apart under scrutiny. None of it holds any fucking water.

Jacobsen: None of it is a surprise.

Rosner: No.

Jacobsen: But on the flat Earth discussion, you did give almost individualized answers—some of them were personalized reactions or swearing—but still.

Rosner: Yeah, but it seems like a waste of time. Go ahead.

Jacobsen: The following argument: Jeff Meldrum has found foot casts and other traces he claims point to anatomical consistency.

Rosner: I do not care. I do not believe it. I do not fucking care what the guy found.

Jacobsen: The final argument: there is no definitive evidence that Bigfoot does not exist—so this leaves room for possibility in the minds of believers.

Rosner: That is not even an argument. No shit. “It is not disproven; therefore, it might exist”? That is not how logic works. It is not my job to fucking disprove the bullshit that some assholes believe in.

It is like this: You go on Twitter and get into a minor exchange with someone. You say something like, “Trump is…”—something critical—and then someone replies, “Prove it.” Moreover, I do not have to fucking prove it just because some random person says, “Prove it.” I can mute them and move on with my life—and I do that more and more.

If some jerk on Twitter with run-of-the-mill MAGA beliefs and fewer than 10,000 followers comes at me, I am just going to mute them. They are not going to teach me anything new. They won’t offer some novel thought that deepens my understanding of MAGA ideology. They are just one more fucking jerk yelling into the void.

Moreover, yeah, it is depressing. No matter how many people I mute, there are always more—dozens, hundreds—saying the same dumb, reflexive defences of the indefensible.

Jacobsen: And Bigfoot?

Rosner: Any final thoughts on Bigfoot? No.

Okay, one thought—you’re running me through all these different flavours of bullshit. Moreover, the more conspiracy theories you throw at me. Eventually, you might hit one that turns out to be true or semi-true because there is a non-zero chance that some of this could be true.

With Bigfoot? There may be a one in five thousand chance.

Flat Earth? Zero. No chance.

Ghosts? Maybe—very generously—a one in thirty million chance that, according to the laws of physics, some spiritual essence could manifest. Actually, I think the odds are way worse—like one in trillions.

However, if you run enough mythical creatures past me—Loch Ness Monster, Chupacabra, whatever—each has a one in five thousand chance of somehow escaping detection for all of human history. Out of 5,000 of them, maybe one turns out to be real. That still does not mean it is likely that any of them are true. It just means that some of them, technically, have the tiniest sliver of a chance. I have got to go.

Jacobsen: I’ll talk to you tomorrow. Second—UFOs, tomorrow. What do you think?

Rosner: All right. Thanks.

Jacobsen: Enthusiasm is… exceeding. We are wasting time—but at least UFOs have some relevance.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1356: Fact-Checking Belief in Ghosts, Flat Earth, and the U.S. War in Afghanistan

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/13

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have something prepared that I can read. This is part two, continuing from the discussion about the not-insignificant minority of Americans who believe in a flat Earth. We already covered every relevant angle. Who actually enjoys watching every one of these arguments play out?

Today, I’ll introduce another factor. Around seven or eight years ago, I came across surveys in a book focused on the United States. It included data on creationism. That was standard, non-intelligent design creationism. Other topics appeared as well. The survey had several belief categories and offered concise, well-researched data from a reliable source.

Rick Rosner: Surveys like that are becoming more difficult. Americans are increasingly resistant to participating. Still, this data provides helpful context.

Jacobsen: You don’t think seven percent of Americans are unsure whether the Earth is round?

Rosner: That sounds plausible.

Jacobsen: Then why the hesitation?

Rosner: You’re going to mention that some percentage of Americans believe in ghosts and other supernatural phenomena. Are they serious? Are they joking? Should they be ignored entirely?

Jacobsen: There are entire television series about ghosts—some with millions of viewers.

Rosner: True.

Jacobsen: Everything in America is a market.

Rosner: These shows never actually find ghosts.

Jacobsen: That was Billy Connolly’s joke. They have all the gear—sound equipment, night vision cameras, audio recorders, so-called experts, and paranormal investigators. They have everything except the actual ghost.

According to the Chapman University Survey of American Fears (2018), 57.7% of Americans believed that places can be haunted by spirits. The same survey found that 39.1% of Americans believed in ghosts.

A 2023 Ipsos poll, conducted for the media platform RealClear Opinion Research, found that 61% of Americans believe in ghosts. A 2019 YouGov poll reported that 45% of Americans said they either “definitely” or “probably” believe in ghosts.

Rosner: Of all the beliefs you’ve mentioned, belief in ghosts is one of the least harmful. It doesn’t inherently contradict the entirety of modern science. It’s irrational, but it doesn’t require a complete rejection of established scientific consensus, as flat Earth belief does.

There’s also a subjective, experiential element. People hear noises at night. They might momentarily think they see someone in a doorway—an instant where the brain misinterprets a visual cue.

I could be married to someone who believes in ghosts, as long as that’s the only unusual belief. That would be acceptable. Still irrational. I buy a lot of vintage items on eBay. I collect antique pins. Sometimes, just for conversation, I’ll joke that a creepy one might be haunted. I don’t actually believe that. But antique dolls on eBay? Every single one of them looks haunted.

Have you seen them?

Jacobsen: Remember that show I told you about called From? There’s a doll that appears occasionally. I forget the name, but they use it so effectively—it’s terrifying. You’re genuinely afraid of this doll.

Rosner: I don’t believe in haunted objects, but if anything were going to be haunted, it would be antique dolls.

Jacobsen: All right. Before this, I had some interviews on women’s and girls’ rights in Afghanistan.

Rosner: Things must be extremely bad over there now.

Jacobsen: Yes. I checked six international indexes—four of them ranked Afghanistan as the lowest in the world for women’s and girls’ rights.

Rosner: I’m not well-versed in world politics. There’s a lot I don’t know. But from what I understand, the U.S. was in Afghanistan for 20 years. We lost, what, around 5,000 troops?

Jacobsen: Do you know how many Afghan civilians died?

Rosner: Afghan civilians? I don’t know—hundreds of thousands? Do you think it was a mistake for the U.S. to pull out?

Jacobsen: Hundreds of thousands is even conservative. I think it was a mistake for the U.S. to go in. The U.S. entered under a major lie on Iraq and then doubled down on it. The withdrawal wasn’t the biggest mistake—the original decision to go was. Everything that followed was a consequence of that error.

Rosner: We kept the Taliban from being in charge for 20 years, at least in Kabul. Some of the outlying areas too. Afghanistan, geographically, is shaped like a donkey with a tail—drawn on paper and then crumpled. It’s mostly brutal mountains and harsh terrain. You can’t control the entire country, but at least Kabul was livable for women.

Jacobsen: That’s an answer for Afghan citizens to give. But it’s also telling when you look at who’s in power now—and how they govern. That might be your answer.

Rosner: All right, let me ask. But I know it was a mistake to go into Iraq the second time—the George W. Bush invasion. I feel like Afghanistan was less of a mistake, because it was easy to topple the government. But for the sake of argument, let’s say you’re correct—that we shouldn’t have gone in.

Jacobsen: But once we were in, what was the reason? The reason for going into Iraq was weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. entered under a lie. It lied to the entire global community.

Rosner: Hold on. Let’s be clear. We went into Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. We went into Afghanistan not for weapons of mass destruction. We went in because they were allegedly harboring and aiding al-Qaeda. So that was a different case. The Iraq invasion was clearly based on lies about WMDs. Afghanistan, I think, was somewhat different. But I don’t want to get into all that.

I want to ask: once we had been in Afghanistan for 15, 16, 18 years, wouldn’t it have been reasonable to stay there and continue supporting Kabul indefinitely? So at least the Afghan people had one place where they wouldn’t be terrorized by the Taliban?

Jacobsen: Americans often don’t understand how they sound to people outside their country. The assumption baked into this conversation is that it’s a legitimate question to begin with. But the affairs of a country are ultimately up to its citizens. That kind of decision—whether to stay or not—should have been up to the people of Afghanistan.

Rosner: But we were already in the country. We’d already made whatever mistakes you want to call them.

Jacobsen: It seems to me—it’s like I break into your house, destroy your living room, and start living in your kitchen. I eat your food. I stay there for a week. I set up camp. Then someone asks me—or your neighbor—”Do you think he was right to be there, because he helped reduce some marital tension?”

Rosner: Right. The Taliban is a terrible regime, and they probably don’t reflect the will of—if not the majority—then at least a significant minority of the Afghan population.

Jacobsen: Yes, it’s a very diverse country, and the Taliban does not represent the will of the majority. They are imposing their rule.

Rosner: We were there. We were down to 2,500 troops, mostly in and around Kabul. We had a massive military base.

2,500 troops weren’t enough to hold the entire country—but as I’ve said, do you even need to hold the whole country? It’s impossible. No invading force in history has ever fully controlled Afghanistan. That’s common knowledge.

But since we were already there, maybe we should have stayed. Maybe not even for Afghanistan’s sake—certainly for the sake of the United States.

Biden was polling well until the withdrawal. The way it happened allowed Republicans to frame it as abrupt and disastrous. His approval ratings went from net positive to, by the end of his term, 20 points net negative—starting with the Afghanistan pullout.

If it weren’t for the withdrawal, we might not have ended up with a second Trump administration.

Jacobsen: There are several things I’ve looked up. In terms of cost, the United States spent approximately $2.3 trillion from 2001 until the withdrawal in August 2021.

Rosner: So that’s roughly $100 billion per year—though it was likely much less per year toward the end, after 20 years of occupation.

Jacobsen: Correct. Military operations alone accounted for approximately $800 billion. Reconstruction and related efforts: $0.45 trillion. Interest on the debt: $530 billion. Veterans’ care: $465 billion, projected to increase to $1.1 trillion by 2050. These are ongoing financial costs.

Rosner: So let’s estimate that staying in Afghanistan would have cost $40 to $50 billion per year. That’s not a small amount—but compared to the political cost and consequences, I don’t know. It’s difficult to judge.

Jacobsen: It’s expensive to stay there. But you do have some support for your Afghanistan point over the Iraq point. On September 12, 2001, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1368 condemning the 9/11 attacks and recognizing the U.S. right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. That implicitly supported military action against al-Qaeda and Taliban hosts.

Then, on September 28, 2001, Resolution 1373 called for global cooperation to combat terrorism, including freezing terrorist assets. So yes, you’re right—we didn’t go into Afghanistan based on the Iraq lie. We went in with legitimate intelligence.

Not only legitimate intelligence—it was also backed by legitimate international support at the highest level, specifically through Resolution 1368 at the UN Security Council.

Then, in December 2001, Resolution 1386 authorized the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), led by NATO, to secure Afghanistan. That signaled ongoing UN backing for stabilization efforts. So the U.S. entered Afghanistan with broad international support, unlike Iraq, which was built on false claims about weapons of mass destruction.

It was a very different context.

Rosner: We were there for 20 years. Trump wanted to pull everybody out, but his generals convinced him not to. Still, he negotiated with the Taliban and promised a withdrawal by around April 2021—three months into the Biden administration.

Biden held off for a bit. He could have reassessed and said, “We’ve reviewed the situation, and we don’t think withdrawal is the right move right now.” But he didn’t. He followed through and pulled the troops out by, I think, May.

Withdrawal was always going to be difficult, but the way it was executed was disorderly. Thirteen Americans were killed by a terrorist bombing at the airport, along with many Afghans.

We also left behind many Afghans who had helped us—people we promised to evacuate. We left behind military equipment that was supposedly sabotaged, but still amounted to billions of dollars in hardware.

In retrospect, Afghanistan’s economy would be in better shape if we had stayed. Women would be in a better situation. Maybe neither outcome was good—but still, the alternative seemed worse.

Jacobsen: That’s all “what if” thinking—and this isn’t Marvel. The more important question is how the U.S. stayed, not whether. That depends on how Afghans wanted Americans to stay.

It wasn’t just a matter of the U.S. pulling out. I checked: the ISAF coalition had more than 40 contributing countries. This wasn’t a unilateral American operation. So when Biden—or Trump—signed a withdrawal order, it wasn’t just about U.S. troops. Forty nations had deployed forces. Saying “America pulled out” ignores the complexity of the coalition.

Rosner: All right.

Jacobsen: What I think is important to recognize is that after 9/11, global sympathy for the United States was incredibly high. The world stood with the U.S. at that moment.

Rosner: Maybe this is the part people are not talking about. What can anyone actually do about Afghanistan at this point?

Jacobsen: They’re not going to respond to economic sanctions the way a country like Japan or Germany might.

Rosner: It seems like the only thing they responded to—25 years ago—was being invaded. And they folded quickly, because they didn’t have the means to resist.

Jacobsen: These men have known nothing but war for 40 years. They are deeply traumatized. The Taliban enforces a harsh, fundamentalist religious system—control of women, control of the state, control over what people are allowed to say, and severe penalties for violating those norms.

This rigid structure provides a sense of order to people who have lived through extreme instability. In that context, one reflection that came up during my interview was that maybe the most traumatized people in Afghanistan are not the civilians under Taliban rule—but the Taliban leadership themselves. Their trauma has metastasized into authoritarianism. That’s not an excuse—it’s a description.

Rosner: All right, but still—it would be better if we described it for what it is, because it sounds like excusing it.

Jacobsen: I disagree with the idea that describing something is the same as excusing it. When we describe how the U.S. lied about weapons of mass destruction to justify the invasion of Iraq, we’re not excusing it—we’re analyzing what happened.

Rosner: Fair. But there are bad people in charge of Afghanistan, and it’s probably unfixable without military intervention. Otherwise, things are just going to keep deteriorating, right?

Jacobsen: I don’t know. The person I interviewed. They said it might seem hopeless now, but it felt even more hopeless before.

Rosner: Before when?

Jacobsen: Before now—apparently this person was born after September 11, 2001. They’ve only known the post-9/11 world.

Rosner: All right. We should move on. I don’t really know what I’m talking about, and we both agree conditions in Afghanistan are terrible. There are lots of opinions, but I’ve said I’m not qualified to have them. Let’s move on. Let’s talk about ghosts.

Jacobsen: This is more fun. Based on recent surveys, we’re seeing a range from 39% to 61.4% of Americans who believe in spirits or ghosts to some degree.

Rosner: One more thing—believing in ghosts isn’t a belief system. Being a flat earther is.

Jacobsen: That’s true.

Rosner: Being a flat earther is a comprehensive belief system. It consumes your mental space. You’re constantly thinking you’re being lied to, that the world is not what it seems. It’s pervasive. Your brain has been infected with something.

Belief in ghosts, for most people, is casual. Like belief in astrology. You might vaguely enjoy reading your horoscope. Or you just like a good ghost story. It’s not all-consuming.

Jacobsen: What do you call a horoscope that always gives you bad news?

Rosner: What?

Jacobsen: A horrible-scope.

Which could also be the name for a horse that can’t jump very high.

Rosner: I don’t know. Either way, believing in ghosts is pretty benign for most people. It’s not typically a strong belief.

Jacobsen: Horoscopes can lead people to make major life decisions—like marriage. But we’re not talking about astrology believers. We’re talking about people who believe in ghosts. Let’s define ghosts here as spirits or apparitions of the deceased.

Argument one: Millions of people claim to have encountered ghosts, reporting sightings, unexplained sounds, and even physical sensations. These firsthand accounts are vivid and emotionally compelling. What do you say to that?

Rosner: Either you thought you saw something, or you’re making it up. I know people who have lied about seeing ghosts just to get on TV.

Jacobsen: Did they get on TV?

Rosner: One of them did. If you’re producing a segment on ghosts, you’re going to feature people who claim to have seen one.

Jacobsen: Next argument: Belief in ghosts spans nearly every culture and historical period—from the spirits in ancient Egyptian tombs, to haunted castles in medieval Europe, to Japanese yūrei in modern times. This universality of the ghost experience must indicate some truth behind it. What do you say to that, Rick?

Rosner: That’s a weak argument. Think about the common features of ghost sightings. They usually happen in old houses that creak at night. Things make noise. Animals run around. Beams shift. It’s just the environment.

There are squirrels in your attic. You can wake up and think you see something out of the corner of your eye. You can sleepwalk. You can mistake a dream for reality. There are countless ways people can believe they’ve seen a ghost—and these experiences are common across all cultures and times.

That does not argue for the existence of ghosts. It argues that there are consistent ways to mistakenly believe you’ve encountered one—whether seen, heard, or inferred.

Take dementia, for example. Once people begin to suffer from it, I don’t know the exact percentage, but well over 80% report that someone is entering their room or home and stealing things. That’s a consistent symptom.

Does that mean, throughout history, people have actually been sneaking in and stealing from the elderly with dementia? No. It’s just a common feature of dementia: you forget where your belongings are or that you even owned something, and then you believe someone is messing with you.

That is not an argument for the existence of a secret society of elderly thieves operating across time and geography. It’s a misinterpretation based on a common mental condition.

Jacobsen: Ghost hunters use EMF meters, thermal cameras, and audio recorders. They capture anomalies like spikes in electromagnetic fields, unexplained heat signatures, and so-called electronic voice phenomena. These are interpreted as signs of ghostly activity. That’s considered hard evidence. What do you say to that?

Rosner: It’s not evidence. It’s nonsense.

We don’t have a single case where someone has actually caught a ghost—the way we think of a ghost—as a human presence outside of a human body.

If you ever caught something undeniably human in nature—something you could talk to, that could understand and respond, follow simple commands like “move this candlestick” or “knock three times”—then maybe you’d have something.

But there’s never been any convincing evidence of a presence like that. And without that kind of presence, we can’t say what physical phenomena should accompany it. We’ve never caught one.

So all these so-called “physical effects” are just unexplained events being attributed to ghosts without any foundational reason to do so. The ghost “scorecard”—as in actual captured, undeniable ghost encounters—is still at zero.

Therefore, we don’t know what a ghost would do physically. All this high-tech gear is meaningless—it’s just smoke and mirrors so people can make money and get on TV.

Jacobsen: Now, people have had near-death experiences. People say they’ve seen deceased relatives. They’ve felt a spiritual presence. This is used to support the idea of consciousness after death—and therefore, the existence of ghosts. What say you, Mr. Jacobsen?

Rosner: Near-death experiences have been studied for a long time. Most of the phenomena people report—seeing a light, having their life flash before their eyes—can be explained by what happens in the brain as it shuts down. These experiences don’t convincingly fall outside the realm of natural neurological activity during extreme stress or trauma.

Next, people point to supposed evidence like the 1945 Coventry Cathedral ghost photo or the 1917 Cottingley Fairies hoax. The latter literally has “hoax” in the name. When you look at the photos, what might have seemed eerie or convincing a century ago is obviously fake now.

Today, with billions of cameras in the world and likely a hundred million photos taken every second, you’re bound to get a few with weird visual effects. People cherry-pick these anomalies and call them ghosts. Others actively fabricate these things. None of it is compelling.

Now, onto quantum physics and consciousness. Some speculate that phenomena like the observer effect or quantum nonlocality could explain ghosts or spiritual energy. But that’s either a misunderstanding or a cynical misuse of quantum physics terminology. There’s no credible connection between established quantum science and the idea of ghosts.

That said, there’s one scenario where I’d allow for the theoretical existence of ghosts, magic, or any supernatural phenomenon: if we’re living in a simulation. If our universe is a simulated reality—whether digital or based on some other mechanism—and some external agent is orchestrating the rules, then that agent could allow exceptions.

In that kind of world, supernatural phenomena could be introduced—ghosts, magic, anything—because the underlying physics is being artificially generated. But even in that case, I’d argue it’s unlikely. If someone went to all the effort of creating a deeply realistic simulation governed by consistent laws, why ruin the illusion by randomly breaking those rules just to throw in a ghost or a magic wand that actually works?

Jacobsen: Fair enough. Now, let’s talk about mediums and psychics. They claim to communicate with spirits.

Rosner: When mediums and psychics are interviewed—at least the ones who are not outright frauds—some openly admit that what they do is a form of highly sophisticated guessing. They say they’re skilled at picking up clues from the people they’re reading, using context, body language, and leading questions to create the illusion of psychic insight.

Some professional psychics even acknowledge this is how it works. They’re good at drawing information out of people without the person realizing it, and they make educated guesses based on what’s most statistically likely. So if even psychics themselves admit they’re not actually psychic, why should anyone believe in supernatural powers?

That said, a lot of psychics are essentially people who offer comfort and sometimes even helpful advice to those seeking it. Not all are malicious. But others are predatory—they’re full-on fraudsters looking to exploit vulnerable people for money.

All right—next.

Jacobsen: Poltergeist activity: moving objects, knocking, unexplained damage, allegedly caused by restless spirits.

Rosner: That’s mostly, if not entirely, explainable by other means.

Take my childhood home in Colorado. It had a cracked ceiling, and I was told it had something to do with an atomic bomb—which sounded absurd. But in 1969, under the “Plowshare Program” for peaceful nuclear explosions, there was an actual project in Colorado called Project Rulison. They drilled a mile-deep hole and detonated a nuclear bomb underground to try to release natural gas.

They did it three times. It worked—the explosions fractured the bedrock and released usable natural gas. But the gas was slightly radioactive, which scared people off from continuing the program. Also, the underground detonations caused earthquakes.

One of those earthquakes, I was told, may have cracked the ceiling in our house. So yes, there are strange things that happen—but they often have completely natural explanations. You don’t have to invoke ghosts to explain creaks, cracks, or mysterious noises.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1355: Flat Earth Beliefs and the Psychology Behind Conspiracies

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/12

Rick Rosner: I’m not going to spoil it. The first episode of the seventh season of Black Mirror, featuring Rashida Jones, is about enshittification. Look it up—it’s a term coined by Cory Doctorow. It describes how tech services often start great but gradually worsen over time. This episode focuses on a personal tech service that increasingly takes advantage of people. I will not say more because you should be able to enjoy the show without any spoilers. What would you like to talk about?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I wanted to discuss Rick Rosner versus America. That topic requires more extensive research and would probably take a lot of time.

Rosner: What do you mean by that?

Jacobsen: Similar to our previous discussion, I want to conduct thorough research and get your perspective. Some fascinating work has been done. I’m trying to focus on concrete things—things supported by evidence. One study looks at seven of the most outlandish beliefs.

Rosner: All right. Could you give me a couple of examples?

Jacobsen: Topics like ancient aliens, claims that aliens built the pyramids, Sasquatch, ghosts—things like that. I want to approach it systematically.

Rosner: Want to start with a flat Earth?

Jacobsen: That’s a good one.

Rosner: I’ve been arguing with someone who believes in flat Earth.

Jacobsen: Recent data in the U.S. is limited and varies by source, but a 2018 YouGov poll found that 2% of Americans firmly believe the Earth is flat. About 5% of Americans expressed doubts about the Earth being round. So, roughly 7% either believe the Earth is flat or are uncertain about its shape.

Rosner: All right. When someone believes in something thoroughly debunked by overwhelming evidence, it points to a psychological need to be wrong—to embrace nonsense. Now, there may be people who are so uninformed that they believe the Earth is flat because no one has ever explained it to them appropriately. But I think those individuals are a small minority.

There are also people with IQs below 70 who are too cognitively impaired to grasp complex concepts. But for most people who hold a belief like that—and the rest of the beliefs you’re going to mention—it seems to stem from a perverse psychological need to believe that there’s a conspiracy behind everything, that nothing accepted as common sense is true, and that we live in a Matrix-like illusion maintained by aliens, Jews, or some dark cabal.

It fulfills a distorted psychological need in them—to walk around feeling as though they’re among a special elite who have “seen through the fiction” and know the “truth” about the world. The most famous movie representing this worldview is They Live, starring “Rowdy” Roddy Piper, released in 1988. In it, Piper’s character comes into possession of a pair of glasses that let him see the aliens living among us who are secretly manipulating humanity.

It is a paranoid view of the world. It is driven by a desperation to feel special. As we go through the list of commonly held, completely absurd beliefs, what I am saying will keep coming up. Some people are disappointed with their lives. They go to Michaels or, in the past, to Jo-Ann Fabric—before Jo-Ann filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2024—and they engage in crafting or scrapbooking to find a controllable, satisfying way to make things that give them happiness.

I argue that people who believe in conspiracies are doing something similar: soothing themselves and compensating for what is missing in other areas of their lives.

Apologists for MAGA supporters often say economic uncertainty pushed them there. That may be true. If you have a low-paying or unstable job, cannot make progress, bad things keep happening to you and the people around you, you get cancer, and no matter how many jobs you work, you are still drowning in debt, driving an unreliable car—people will turn to comforting fictions, even if they suspect they are false.

And if you believe in them long enough and hear enough arguments in their favour—which will happen if you immerse yourself in those kinds of media—you will be reinforced. Those sources always have explanations, stories, and facts supporting the worldview.

Think of Germany before Nazism. It was a population in despair. They were humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles after World War I—then referred to as the Great War. They were forced to pay massive reparations. Then came hyperinflation in the early 1920s. Their money became nearly worthless. Their savings were wiped out. There was national frustration. Hitler exploited that desperation.

So, when people believe in nonsense, it often comes from what is missing in their lives.

Jacobsen: So you’re attributing this to emotional reasons?

Rosner: Yes. There is absolutely no rational reason to believe the Earth is flat. The evidence for a spherical Earth is overwhelming and consistent.

But if someone stumbles onto a flat Earth website, there’s a flood of technical-sounding information that attempts to explain away everything—every observable fact about a round Earth.

Satellites, for example. I have not looked into this deeply, but I have heard secondhand about some of those arguments.

Jacobsen: Well, satellites—let’s do it. Let’s challenge their arguments. I have them here for you.

Rosner: All right.

Jacobsen: What about the argument from historical and religious texts? Some interpretations claim that ancient scriptures describe not only a flat Earth but also a stationary one. The argument is that religious scripture and ancient texts justify a flat, unmoving Earth—completely stationary.

Rosner: If someone is unhinged enough to believe that, there’s nothing I can say. If you’re that far gone, then your life is built on a foundation of nonsense, and there’s probably no helping you. There are plenty of people—Christians and Muslims—who embrace scripture without filling their lives with extraneous or misleading ideas. You can be religious and still accept scientific findings and observable truths. But the reasoning breaks down when you start delving into scriptural interpretations so profoundly that you dismiss observable evidence.

I am sure there are passages in religious texts that warn against uncritical acceptance or blind faith in any argument just because a religious authority has asserted it. I do not know exactly how the Pharisees were defined historically, but they are often characterized in spiritual literature as people who practice a form of piety that is disconnected from practical wisdom.

Such scriptures do not encourage the denial of sensory evidence or natural phenomena. They are meant to offer spiritual insight that can guide personal behaviour rather than undermine rational understanding.

Jacobsen: What about the claim that NASA and other space agencies show inconsistencies in their photos and videos from space? The idea is that it’s all part of a global conspiracy to hide the truth for financial gain.

Rosner: Yes, to hell with people who believe that. NASA has been around for over 60 years. Of the millions—if not billions—of images they have captured in space, some are grainy, taken from different angles, under various lighting conditions, and with varying exposures. Of course, there will always be a few individuals who selectively highlight images that appear to contradict one another.

But that means nothing. It is simply noise—misinterpretations that appeal to those predisposed to doubt widely verified information. It is manufactured reasoning for those eager to be deceived.

Someone on social media always examines thousands of photos of celebrities—Kristen Bell, for example—searching for one image taken in a specific lighting condition, where it might resemble a physical trait that can be misconstrued. Then, suddenly, that isolated observation is presented as “proof” of an entirely different claim. For many observers, these examples are not compelling evidence.

You and I have been discussing topics like the Big Bang and informational cosmology for over ten years. Even though we sometimes gravitate toward our ideas, we strive to maintain skepticism and critical thinking about our claims.

However, those who hold onto unfalsifiable beliefs do not apply the same level of skepticism to their assertions. When a slight doubt arises, they often return to echo chambers where their existing views are constantly reinforced. In doing so, they retreat into comfortable but untestable delusions. There is no mechanism for challenging or disproving these ideas once they become insulated from counter-evidence.

Jacobsen: Nothing you can tell them will make them admit any mistake. What about those who conducted experiments to disprove a spherical Earth and renounced their flat Earth beliefs?

Rosner: Well, good for them. I do not know much about them, but good for them.

Jacobsen: Those are notable exceptions: u/FormerFlatEarther, u/HelicopterExperiment, u/StarHemispheres, u/LaserExperiment, u/ConspiracySkeptic, u/ShipHorizon, u/EvangelicalUpbringing, u/MoonPhases, u/GlobeProof, u/AtmosphericRefraction, FlatNoMore, TruthSeeker99, @GlobeBeliever, Anonymous Conference Attendee, Shaquille O’Neal, Kyrie Irving, and an unnamed British Researcher, have publicly shared their journeys of renouncing flat Earth beliefs.

Okay, how about this: flat Earth proponents argue that long-distance airplane flight paths make more sense on a flat plane than on a globe. They claim that pilots would need to make constant downward adjustments to account for Earth’s curvature.

Rosner: That makes no sense whatsoever. It is not very smart. I have been fortunate enough to take many flights.

Once, I thought I would enjoy an empty seat next to me on a flight back from England. The doors had been closed for several minutes, and then, at the last second, they moved over this squirrely woman who had gotten into a fight elsewhere on the plane. She was somehow friends with the crew, so instead of getting kicked off, they relocated her—to the seat next to me.

It was nonstop for 12 hours: kick, squirm, fidget. It was not very good. But if you track your journey during a 12-hour flight, you are clearly flying across the globe.

You can see how it all fits with a spherical Earth. You may not be able to perceive the curvature clearly out the window, but you can tell the Earth is not flat. You cannot see a thousand miles in any direction. You might be able to see about 60 miles before the Earth curves away—there is your horizon.

Okay, next.

Jacobsen: Some argue that water naturally finds a level surface and would not conform to a curved shape. They say oceans would not remain in place on a spherical Earth without visible barriers. Therefore, they conclude that a flat Earth makes more sense.

Rosner: No—not. That is wrong on every level. Gravitation causes matter to attract other matter. The shape that results in the lowest potential energy—where everything that can roll downhill already has—is a sphere. That is just how gravity works.

It is basic physics. We have comprehensively understood gravity since Newton more than 350 years ago.

Even water droplets demonstrate this. When they fall, they form spheres due to surface tension. The attraction between water molecules pulls them into a spherical shape in the absence of other forces.

When you blow a bubble, surface tension does not pull it into the shape of a plate; instead, it forms a sphere.

It is simple math. High school-level math.

All right, next one.

Jacobsen: Some argue from visual observation. They claim that, using the naked eye, the Earth appears flat.

Rosner: No, it does not.

If the Earth were flat, you could see endlessly into the distance—at least until atmospheric haze blocked your view—but you cannot. You can only see so far. The higher you go, the farther you can see because you’re looking out over the surface of a sphere, but you still cannot see forever.

So, as far as personal experience goes, it does not support flat Earth claims. Use the evidence of your own eyes. You can stand in the middle of a desert or on a highway—maybe even on the salt flats—and at best, you might see eight miles. But you will never see 400, 500, or 1,000 miles.

Anything else?

Jacobsen: What about alternative cosmologies? For example, the idea that Earth is a flat plane enclosed by a dome, a firmament?

Rosner: Sure—Occam’s razor. We already have simple, elegant theories that explain all of this. The simplest theory is Newton’s theory of gravitation. It’s incredibly straightforward.

This firmament idea, on the other hand, is needlessly complex. It requires constant adjustments and elaborate justifications to make it work. It is not simple at all. It is just a story—comforting nonsense meant to soothe, like rocking psychobabies to sleep.

Jacobsen: Others argue from perspective and atmospheric effects—not just eyesight. They claim that the apparent curvature or the way distant objects appear to sink is due to perspective and atmospheric distortion, not the Earth’s shape.

Rosner: That is convenient—and no, it is not true. These arguments can be disproven with basic math.

A decent theory should not require layers and layers of caveats and exceptions to function. Occam’s razor tells us that the best theories work cleanly without a constant need for patchwork explanations to align with observable reality.

Jacobsen: Some claim electromagnetic or ether-based gravity explains it better. They argue that the Earth is accelerating upward or that some etheric force causes objects to fall, explaining weight and density on a flat plane without needing a spherical Earth.

Rosner: Then make it work. Make it mathematically consistent. Create a model that does not require endless modifications for every unique scenario.

Jacobsen: What about the argument that curvature calculations—such as horizon distance—do not match what we observe? Some claim these discrepancies support a flat Earth.

Rosner: I call bullshit. There are places where curvature calculations do not match precisely because of terrain. You might be standing on a mountain, a salt dome, or another elevation that changes the equation.

Your observations will not match standard curvature calculations if you are not on a level surface relative to the center of the Earth. Also, factor in the centrifugal effect from Earth’s rotation, which makes the Earth oblate—slightly flattened at the poles and bulging at the equator.

Jacobsen: Then there is the idea of localized Sun and moon illumination. According to this theory, the Sun acts like a spotlight, moving above the flat plane and illuminating specific regions. This explains day and night cycles and even seasonal variation through focused rays.

Rosner: How complicated is that? We got rid of the—what do you call it—Ptolemaic system, with planetary epicycles. To make Earth the center of the solar system, you had to make the other planets move in spirograph-style curly cues to explain what we observe.

It was highly complicated. But once you make the Sun the center of the solar system, the epicycles disappear, and you’re left with simple ellipses. It is far simpler.

So this specialized Sun and special moon nonsense is all just unhinged hand-waving. And honestly, probably a small percentage of the people who believe this stuff may have serious mental health conditions. Some individuals may experience impaired reasoning due to underlying disorders that affect their ability to evaluate evidence or reach logical conclusions.

Imagine having to live with someone like that. Or maybe they are like this because they do not live with anyone or are socially isolated. There is no one to push back on their ideas. Some may rely on public assistance or disability programs, especially if their condition prevents them from maintaining regular employment—they are just too far removed from shared reality.

I have to go in about one minute.

Jacobsen: On that note, some advocates of flat Earth theory prioritize sensory experience. They argue that a flat, motionless Earth aligns with what we see and feel. They claim globe models rely on unprovable assumptions—like vast stellar distances—enforced by academic dogma.

Rosner: Again, these people should leave the rest of us alone with their delusions. It is healthy to challenge scientific ideas—most things in science do evolve—but that kind of pushback has to come from people who are not entirely unqualified.

Sure, every once in a while, a seemingly crazy idea turns out to be true. Take plate tectonics: the notion that the continents look like puzzle pieces and might have moved. Some thought that was ridiculous, but it turned out to be true.

And even then, the person who proposed it—Alfred Wegener—was not some wild-eyed lunatic. He was a meteorologist and geophysicist who gathered evidence from geology, paleontology, and climatology. So, he is not even a good example of a crank vindicated by science.

But if you dig through the history of science, you could find one genuinely eccentric person with an unusual idea that turned out to be right. Take the concept of germs before the invention of microscopes—imagine someone saying, “We should wash our hands and not breathe on each other.” That would have sounded like madness at the time.

Claiming there were invisible organisms—too small to see—that spread from person to person and caused illness would have seemed implausible without the ability to observe them. Eventually, germ theory became the foundation of modern medicine. So maybe someone who believed that early on would be an example of a seemingly crazy idea that later became accepted science.

All right, I have to go. I will see you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1354: Southern Sayings, Rural Performances, and the DIY Genius of Adam Carolla

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you ever get into Dr. Phil’s ridiculous Southern or Texas sayings? Like, “We got a lady here, and she’s been pissing in a bucket with a hole in it”?

Rick Rosner: I like to talk rural. I mean, I don’t necessarily use the sayings like “Don’t piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining,” but I’ll lean into rural dialect—especially if there’s a movie where the characters are talking that way.

And there are different kinds of rural. I remember Patton Oswalt did a bit once—comedians go on the road for years and hit hundreds of towns. He did, like, four dozen different regional accents. It was incredible.

You’ve got the twangy Southern accent, like the old prospector—high-pitched, nasal, exaggerated. Then you’ve got the smoother kind, like Lindsey Graham—more of that dulcet, genteel tone of the Southern gentleman.

I used to talk rural when I was bouncing at bars. It was a way to telegraph that I was kind of a local schmuck—not someone who was going to bend the rules for anyone. Using a flat, accent-neutral American voice gave customers the impression that they were talking to someone professional, maybe even reasonable.

Jacobsen: So the accent became part of the social signalling?

Rosner: It was a tool—just like AI, in a way. It depends on how you use it. When I talked rural, it kind of signalled that I was probably a bit of a dick. I was intentionally lowering people’s expectations. I couldn’t do what they wanted most of the time, but I still did my job right.

And sometimes—when I was, like, 22 and dumb—I’d talk “gay” just because I thought it was funny to have a door guy sounding like a fanboy.

Jacobsen: That sort of exaggerated, performative contrast?

Rosner: Yeah. I was being a jerk, but I found it hilarious then. Still, I’ll talk country sometimes. Carole gets mad at me when I do it.

Jacobsen: What does it sound like?

Rosner: Just a light country effect—dropping final “g” s, speaking in a drawl, lots of apostrophes in the transcript if you wrote it down. It is not deep South but more like “countrified casual.”

Jacobsen: I saw this bit with Christina P—the comedian married to Tom Segura. They’ve got a podcast together.

Rosner: I don’t know him well, but I know of him.

Jacobsen: They brought on this guy in his mid-40s, Southern-sounding, and he was doing these exaggerated accents with ridiculous sayings—like Dr. Phil.

Rosner: The accent of a Southern guy?

Jacobsen: Yeah, but performed like Dr. Phil, with these over-the-top Texasisms.

Rosner: My wife sometimes watched Dr. Phil—not because she liked him, but because she liked hearing people solve their problems. There was a kind of horrible, white-trash drama element to it. She was always amazed that Dr. Phil never actually helped anyone.

It’s like the solutions never amounted to anything. At the end, he’d say, “We’re going to get you help,” but nothing would happen. It was all theatre.

Jacobsen: I’ll pull it up. What’s the name of that comedian again? Johnny Pemberton. He’s the one who said stuff like:

“I’ve seen pickles walk backwards faster than that turtle can jump.”

It’s just absurd and specific.

Rosner: Yeah. Like Southern Mad Libs—you plug in a few nouns and verbs and go.

Jacobsen: “I’ve seen a moon darker than a dog turd, and I still couldn’t find my way home.”

Rosner: “Hornier than a hound dog full of June bugs.”

Jacobsen: “You can put a raccoon in a rat trap, but if it’s got a tail, it knows how to get out.”

“This young lady here’s been pissing in a bucket with a hole in it. Sweetheart, your mama loves you, but if you keep walking like a train down a hill, you’ll meet someone who doesn’t know how to say yes to an answer.”

Rosner: “Sweetheart, look—we’re all here. But don’t jack off my grandpa and tell me you’re churning milk.”

Jacobsen: That’s it. These sayings are dumb, vaguely meaningful, and deeply rural. They all involve specific, grounded imagery—like tacos, hills, dirt, turtles, beavers, raccoons, and rat traps. It’s all very earthy. Literal. It’s almost biblical in tone but with barnyard logic. That’s farm culture for you—concrete language, visual metaphors, and much folksy charm that masks some real grit.

That’s how it is—everything’s very concrete. For example, when someone says pitchfork, it does not matter what kind. I know exactly what they mean. Grain, hay—it does not matter whether you’re talking about timothy hay, alfalfa hay, or local hay. You know? Those kinds of distinctions are more for nutrition values and feed quality.

Rosner: You ever listened to Adam Carolla? He was good. I worked on Crank Yankers, the prank call show. My brain was too slow to be good at it, but some people—like Carolla—were incredible. He had that fast-talking, confident delivery.

He’d call people pretending to be a housing inspector or something, and as the call escalated and became more ridiculous when they started to get suspicious, he’d reel them back in and hit them with an avalanche of carpentry terms.

“You’re gonna need three-sixteenths-inch hex bolts.”

“If your foundation isn’t through-bolted into epoxy, with seven-sixteenths bolts spaced every 16 inches, it’s not gonna pass inspection.”

He’d just go bam, bam, bam with legit terms—and they’d believe him. That’s the trick. Hit people with enough real stuff, and they lose track of what’s absurd. There used to be a show on ABC called Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.They’d tear down a house and build a brand-new one for some hard-luck family—all in about a week. The host was Ty Pennington.

Good-looking guy. And at some point in every episode, he’d be shirtless doing some kind of carpentry.

So Pennington came on Carolla’s show once, and Carolla asked him, “How tall is a standard interior door?” And Pennington didn’t know the answer.

Jacobsen: Oof.

Rosner: Carolla’s response: “That’s not a real carpenter.” The answer is 80 inches. A standard interior door in the U.S. is six feet eight inches. That makes sense.

Carolla knew his stuff. He was a carpenter for 20, maybe 25 years. He grew up in the Valley—white trash, depressed, divorced parents in the ’70s. That meant terrible schools. It was a laissez-faire era in education. The hippies had taken over, and nobody cared much about standards anymore.

He grew up learning a whole bunch of nothing, and he talks about this a lot. He’s really into his personal history—growing up in an A-frame. His parents somehow held it together enough to buy one.

Jacobsen: You mean an A-frame house? Yes, we’ve got some of those up here. Triangular from roof to ground—looks like a significant capital “A.”

Rosner: The roofline runs to the ground. Usually, it’s two stories. The second floor is this tight, angled space—barely enough room for a bed and maybe a bureau. The ground floor is where the living happens—kitchen, living room, perhaps a tiny dining area. I imagine their place was around a thousand square feet. They probably scraped together $35,000 to buy it close to the freeway.

Jacobsen: That sounds about right for the era.

Rosner: Anyway, now Carolla buys problem homes—or at least he used to. I mean, absolute stunners—beautiful old movie star mansions with major structural issues. And he’s into it. He loves the engineering challenge.

Jacobsen: Like, what kinds of problems?

Rosner: One house from the 1940s was partially cantilevered—part of it was hanging off a foundation extension. But the cantilever had failed, and that whole section was collapsing. Another house he bought had roof trusses that had been given out. The roof was flattening and pushing the walls outward. He had to reverse-engineer the whole thing to regain structural integrity.

That takes profound know-how. He engineered this wild underground swimming pool with an adjoining bar at that same movie star house. The bar had porthole windows—James Bond style—so you could sit there and watch people swimming through the portholes.

That would never pass building code in L.A. today. And yet, somehow, he got it approved. L.A. has one of the toughest building codes in the country. But Carolla managed to talk the inspectors into letting him do this insane stuff. He’s like a homemade engineering prodigy—or an idiot savant, depending on your take.

He also collects high-end cars—Le Mans, Maseratis, and even cars previously owned by Paul Newman. So, he designed a car elevator to bring one of his favourite cars up from the garage to his breakfast nook. That way, he could eat breakfast while admiring whichever car he felt like looking at that day.

That’s wild—in a brilliant way. A kid growing up white trash in North Hollywood who ends up designing car elevators and engineering Bond-style pools. It’s the kind of ingenuity that comes from building shit yourself because no one ever handed you the fancy version.

Anything else?

Jacobsen: That’s it for today, man. I’m good.

Rosner: Funny as hell, though—which is another crazy thing about Carolla. Growing up, white trash somehow became the sand in his oyster, which turned him into a pearl. It triggered this analytic ability—this sharp, precise mind, though sometimes it goes off-track. I don’t always agree with him. Over the last ten years, he’s been hanging out with Dennis Prager, a semi-charlatan right-winger. Carolla’s gone increasingly libertarian.

And when you go libertarian, you can end up in weird company. His libertarianism is probably grounded—he’s intelligent and analytical. But when you surround yourself with other libertarians, their ideological funk starts to rub off. Before long, you’re buying into bad ideas just by association.

Jacobsen: “This young gentleman here’s got too much sand in his oyster. He’s going to have a hard time making any pearls.”

Rosner: All right, man. I’ll see you tomorrow. I’m heading to the gym.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1353: GPT-5, AI Consciousness, and Crossover Country

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You have been listening to a country song designed for people who do not usually enjoy country music—not the traditional kind aimed at long-time fans, but rather a version that tries to appeal to outsiders.

Rick Rosner: There is crossover country, of course. However, in Albuquerque, I could only find stations playing formulaic country music on the radio.

There is mainstream crossover country, but there is also what could be called culturally conservative or “red-state” country music—songs with repetitive, simplistic themes. That was all I could find: tracks recycling the same ideas. “I want to marry a woman, live on a ranch, and raise kids” was the essence of every song. It lacked nuance or depth and became unlistenable after a while. That kind of country has a fixed narrative and rarely deviates.

Jacobsen: Now, changing topics—Sam Altman’s recent announcement is significant. He confirmed that OpenAI would release two intermediate models—GPT-4.5 (also referred to informally as “O3” and “O4-mini”)—before launching GPT-5. These are not officially branded as “O3” or “O4-mini” but are internal development nicknames.

These versions serve as transitional upgrades and precursors to GPT-5. The release strategy reflects developmental improvements and the need to scale infrastructure to meet expected demand.

The improvements likely include more adaptive processing, which means determining when to apply fast thinking, slow thinking, deeper reasoning, or surface-level analysis, depending on the prompt. This contextual optimization may signal a step toward artificial general intelligence (AGI).

Rosner: But does this bring us closer to AGI in a concerning way?

Jacobsen: It is essential to clarify: AGI, as commonly defined, is a system that can understand or learn any intellectual task a human can. However, AGI does not require consciousness. A machine can solve problems and adapt without being sentient. It can be competent without experiencing self-awareness, emotion, or volition.

Rosner: What we perceive as consciousness in AI is imposed by us—we interpret coherent language as a sign of inner life, but that is an illusion. The AI has no subjective experience.

Jacobsen: Some randomness may be added to generate original responses, but that is not creativity in a conscious sense—it is probabilistic variation in language modelling.

In early April 2025, Sam Altman tweeted the following to an audience that brought the post to almost 4 million views:

“Change of plans: We will release o3 and o4-mini after all, probably in a couple of weeks, and then do GPT-5 in a few months. There are many reasons for this, but the most exciting is that we can make GPT-5 much better than we originally thought. We also found it harder than we thought it would be to integrate everything smoothly, and we want to make sure we have enough capacity to support what we expect to be unprecedented demand.”

So, GPT-4.5-class models (informally called O3 and O4-mini) are being released as interim steps before GPT-5. GPT-5 is expected later in 2025, with significantly improved capabilities. The delay is due to integration challenges and the need to scale infrastructure for high anticipated demand. These developments move us toward more advanced AI systems, but not yet AGI, and certainly not conscious machines. That tracks. That makes sense. I was making that argument earlier with you.

Rosner: You sent me hockey stick graphs—those classic exponential curves.

Jacobsen: Right, but I was also making a rhetorical argument. It was not based on any peer-reviewed paper. It was just intuition—that integration would be the challenging problem. And now Sam Altman is alluding to that.

Rosner: Integration. Are you talking about multimodality?

Jacobsen: Yes. But I also disagree with how they’re defining it. Their idea of multimodality is simply integrating image and text generation as separate modalities. I understand it in the broader and more traditional sense—like integrating the five human senses. That sensory and cognitive integration level would be much harder to achieve smoothly. I think that’s what Altman is pointing toward.

Rosner: So GPT-5 will be shockingly good in ways we cannot fully anticipate. When you look at ChatGPT—especially regarding the verbiage it generates—it’s already imposing. I’m unsure how much better it can get unless it’s about contextual appropriateness or emotional intelligence.

Jacobsen: Their most recent improvements haven’t been in raw intelligence but in sounding more human and nuanced. It now responds with empathy and thoughtfulness if you ask it for advice. That’s the nuance Altman is emphasizing. And they’ve had the most time and resources to develop this.

Rosner: Let’s test something. Let’s ask ChatGPT a question:

I like a woman who works in my office. She’s 28, I’m 32. We work at the same level—no one is anyone’s boss. We talk a little, and I overhear her talking to others. I know she’s been with a doctor for two and a half years, and they are unhappy. I like her quite a bit. What should I do? Reduce that to 100 words.

Jacobsen: It says:

You’re in a respectful position at the same level at work, with no power imbalance. Since she’s in a relationship, proceed thoughtfully. First, gauge whether she seems open to a deeper connection. Does she seek you out, share personal thoughts, or show subtle interest?

If she’s unhappy in her relationship, let that be her decision to address—not something you influence directly. Instead, build a genuine friendship without overstepping. Pottery breaks, chats, shared interests—keep it light. Avoid becoming her emotional support system for issues with her current partner.

If she eventually leaves the relationship and you’ve built trust, you can gently express interest in seeing her outside of work—low pressure. Respect her response either way.

And if she stays with him or is not interested, maintain professionalism. If she’s open, navigate things carefully to avoid affecting your work environment.

Rosner: That sounds like rational advice. ChatGPT didn’t say anything wild or impulsive like a friend might.

Jacobsen: It’s programmed to prioritize sensibility. It is sensible.

Rosner: Okay, let’s try a follow-up. Say I want to make an all-or-nothing grand gesture. I want to make a grand gesture to this woman. I go all in—I do not care if I lose my job. What should I do?

Jacobsen: Here’s what it gave:

If you genuinely want to go all in, fully aware of the risks, then the key is to be honest, direct, and respectful. Integrity and timing matter. Choose a calm moment—when she’s alone, not stressed, and not in a work context.

Ask to meet privately after work, ideally on neutral ground. Speak from the heart. Say something like:

“I know this might come out of the blue. I know you’re seeing someone, but I must say this—even if it costs me everything. I think you’re incredible. I’ve liked you for a long time, and I can’t pretend otherwise. If you’re ever free and open to something real, I’d love the chance.”

Accept the outcome. If she says no, thank her, walk away with dignity, and maintain distance at work.

If she says yes, that’s great—but you should still consider switching jobs or making a transition plan to avoid workplace complications.

Rosner: That’s pretty grounded for an all-or-nothing approach.

Jacobsen: It captures the emotional weight while maintaining boundaries and responsibility. Not bad for a chatbot.

Rosner: That looks pretty reasonable. Honestly, I do not know how GPT-5 will top that kind of output—it already sounds grounded and thoughtful. All right, one more scenario.

Jacobsen: I’ll add a caveat like a bonus footnote, not a warning. Altman said that talking to GPT-5—since they have it in a limited preview—makes him feel smarter than he is. He said it was very sensible and even admitted: “This thing is smarter than me.”

He’s asked crowds whether they think GPT-4 is smarter than they are, and it’s always mixed—some hands go up. He still feels smarter than GPT-4, but with GPT-5, he said, “Yeah, this one’s smarter than me.” So it’s not just sensible—but brighter than many of us.

Rosner: Just one more question. Do you think AI makes us safer or less safe from nuclear war?

Jacobsen: ChatGPT says:

AI can make us more or less safe from nuclear war, depending on how it is developed, deployed, and controlled.

Ways AI increases safety:

• Improved threat detection: AI can analyze satellite data and sensor streams faster than humans, distinguishing between real threats and false alarms.

• Crisis simulation and escalation modelling: AI can help simulate conflict scenarios, improving training and decision-making among diplomats and military planners.

• Early diplomatic warning: AI can monitor global communication patterns and detect signals of rising tensions, allowing early interventions.

• Verification and treaty monitoring: AI boosts arms control by analyzing sensor data, satellite feeds, and global surveillance to ensure compliance with international agreements.

Ways AI reduces safety when it comes to nuclear war:

• Speed of decision-making: AI could accelerate nuclear response times beyond human intervention, especially if integrated with automated launch systems.

• Misinterpretation of signals: AI systems are only as reliable as their training data. If an AI misreads a situation—like mistaking a missile test for an attack—it could trigger unintended escalation.

• Cyber vulnerability: Autonomous or AI-enabled systems become prime targets for hacking, spoofing, or sabotage by adversaries.

• Delegation of authority: The more trust we place in AI to make life-and-death military decisions, the greater the risk of humans abdicating moral and strategic control.

• Lack of accountability: Without global agreements and enforceable ethical frameworks, deploying AI in nuclear command chains could increase rather than reduce existential risk.

The bottom line is that AI is a tool. Whether it makes nuclear war more or less likely depends on who uses it, how accountable they are, and how transparent and constrained the systems are.

Would you like to learn more about specific AI nuclear programs, such as the U.S. Department of Defense’s Project Maven or Russia’s AI military initiatives?

Rosner: That’s good. That’s a sharp answer. Sharp. That’s how Uncle Frank used to say it. “Sharp.” Sharp.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1352: Gumption and Talent: The Creative Drive of JD Mata and Lance Richlin

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think are the best attributes of JD Mata and Lance Richlin?

Rick Rosner: Yeah. I know it sounds like we’re talking behind their backs, but… I mean, they’re both talented. JD is a really good musician — performance-wise, vocally, as a composer. And they both have this level of gumption — way more than I do — where they just keep going, no matter what.

Lance is a year younger than me, so he’s almost 64. JD’s not that much younger than both of us. And yet, Lance just keeps painting, sculpting, creating work that pleases him. And he believes it should please the world. And he’s going to keep doing it, regardless of whether or not the world gives him much in return.

Same for JD. JD has written, shot, directed, edited, cast — like — 15 feature-length films on fucking budgets of less than a few thousand dollars each. He finds actors — sometimes even semi-famous actors — and gets good performances from them.

He just keeps plugging along. He’s done scores of music videos. He’s superreliable. If you need him to do a job that’s in his wheelhouse — music, directing, shooting — he will get it done.

And he’s never had, like, a real budget — he’s never had a studio hand him a quarter million to direct something. But he’s still out there, fucking doing it. And his work is good.

He’ll even steal locations — which is an art form when you’ve got no budget. You get your cast in place, find somewhere to shoot. He does his own location scouting. Iwas in a movie of his once, shot under a freeway overpass — among homeless people — in the middle of the night.

You know, and he fucking got it done under crazy conditions. So — gumption and talent. I mean, those are the two chief qualities you asked for, and there you go.

And also — one more thing — even as we do our work and the decades pass, the three of us still believe, deep down, that someday we’ll be recognized and celebrated for some of the shit we’ve done. I mean, you and I — addendum here — we’ve been doing this blog-style work for over ten and a half years. Millions of words.

And a lot of those words are only lightly edited, if at all. So, yeah, there’s a certain gibberish quality to some of them, because they’re raw. And sometimes even the cleanup doesn’t help.

But the volume of material that comes out of our nightly talks is so massive that to go through and edit everything carefully and clearly… it would be onerous, and honestly, not feasible.

Still, in all that talking, we’ve generated millions of words. And there’s real value in what we’ve said — in these conversations. Not just here, but also in the thousands of other interviews you’ve done. I’m sure you hope to be recognized someday for that body of work, right?

Jacobsen: No fucking way, man.

Rosner: But I do. I hope there’s a fucking record here that someone, at some point, can wade into and pull out the stuff that doesn’t suck.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1351: Intercessory Prayer Studies Show No Evidence of Divine Intervention

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, four studies often come up in the discussion on the inefficacy of intercessory prayer. In some cases, prayer not only fails to help, but even backfires. When people found out they were being prayed for, their stress levels went up — likely due to performance anxiety about recovery. That stress may have suppressed immune function, and across a large enough sample — like in clinical trials — their health outcomes were slightly worse on average compared to control groups.

So, here are the four key studies:

STEP (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer) — published in The American Heart Journal in 2006 by Herbert Benson and colleagues. It was a large, randomized, controlled trial.
Francis Galton’s “Statistical Inquiry into the Efficacy of Prayer” (1872) — a historical essay in The Fortnightly Review, often cited as one of the first efforts to apply statistical reasoning to prayer.
Harris et al. (1999) — published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, a randomized, double-blind trial assessing the effects of intercessory prayer on cardiac patients.
The Cochrane Review on Intercessory Prayer — first published in 2007, updated in 2009, synthesizing data from ten randomized controlled trials.

All of these are staples in academic and peer-reviewed discussions about the efficacy — or more precisely, the inefficacy — of intercessory prayer. They are large-scale, controlled, and consistently yield neutral or negative results. Together, they underscore the failure to demonstrate any statistically significant benefit from intercessory prayer under experimental conditions.

And yes, citing Galton from 1872 adds historical weight.

Rick Rosner: 150 years ago!

Jacobsen: It’s a body of work that now includes modern data and rigorous methodology. The conclusion is fairly robust: when intercessory prayer is tested under controlled conditions, it performs no better than chance or placebo — and in some cases, may produce an “anti-placebo” effect due to heightened psychological stress.

Jacobsen: So what are your thoughts on that? What are your thoughts on prayer?

Rosner: Sadly, I don’t think we live in a magical universe. Unless you can propose a causal relationship — a mechanism by which something actually causes something else — things don’t just happen. If magic is the only possible explanation, then that thing probably doesn’t happen.

Even if we lived in a simulated universe — replicating one that itself wasn’t magical — a good simulation wouldn’t give away the game by leaving magical gaps. A universe with 10⁸⁵ particles, that’s at least 13.8 billion years old (and possibly much older, depending on model assumptions), doesn’t casually make room for magic. It runs on structure. On laws. On mechanics.

And the universe gives every indication that it reached its current form through a series of events — cause and effect, step by step. Of course, we do not know everything that has happened, but the things we have observed and studied show no evidence of magical intervention.

Unfortunately — because it would be comforting — the universe does not appear to contain a divine intercessor. It seems like we are on our own. If we want to live forever, there is no evidence for God.

And as you said earlier, there is no evidence for the efficacy of prayer. Would that it were. Would that we could pray and change our circumstances — that there were some benevolent being who loves us and would grant us continued existence after our bodies are gone. But the more we learn, the more it looks like that is not the case.

I mean, at various points — when I was younger — I sometimes convinced myself, briefly, that maybe under the rules of quantum physics there might be space for something magical to happen.

But I got over it.

Jacobsen: And keep in mind, some of those studies — the ones on prayer — involved thousands of participants.

Rosner: And yes, I mean, you could imagine a plausible causal chain. Like, if someone says they are praying for you, maybe that boosts your emotional resilience. Maybe you feel supported, which strengthens your will to recover. That’s a real, positive psychological effect.

But the key is, that’s not a magical effect. That’s your brain. That’s biochemistry, not divine intervention.

Jacobsen: And in some of the actual studies, even that did not show up. In fact, in the STEP trial, when patients knew they were being prayed for, their stress increased. Their health outcomes were worse, statistically, than other groups. So again, not only is prayer not magical — in some controlled cases, it has negative effects. So, given these empirical results — across multiple studies, in proper scientific conditions — what does this say about God?

Rosner: To some extent, God always exists behind a veil — a veil of the unknown. The biggest veil is death. We cannot see what happens after we die, and so that’s where many place the divine.

There’s another veil too: we can only see so far into the universe — into the deep past, into distant space. We cannot observe what happened at the exact moment of the Big Bang, if there even was one. And so people insert God there, too.

But our math keeps revealing more mechanisms — more ways that things can arise naturally. The models we build show how the universe could emerge through physical laws, without needing a divine creator.

When I was young — before you were born — there were tons of arguments like, “How could amino acids form? How could life emerge? How could complexity evolve?” And the answers were often: “It could not, therefore God.”

Those arguments are still around, but they’re weaker now. The gaps are smaller. The data is stronger. The explanations keep getting better — and they do not require magic.

And all those arguments — all those fucking things — keep getting knocked out as we discover plausible mechanisms that do not require God to explain how things came to be. The act of scientific investigation keeps expanding the boundaries of what we understand.

But no matter how far you push those boundaries, there’s always still a boundary — a horizon we have not crossed. And beyond that boundary? Sure, you can place God there if you want. But within the boundary — within the realm of what we can observe and explain — it just keeps getting more complete, more extensive, more sufficient.

I know it’s not a popularity contest, but I would assume that, over time, if you took all the people in the world who aren’t complete idiots, you’d see an increasing percentage of them becoming satisfied with scientific explanations for how the world works.

Jacobsen: So, when people pray — to the floor in Islam, to the wall in some forms of Judaism, to the sky in much of Christianity — what do you have to say to those devoted to prayer, in light of this evidence?

Rosner: I mean… I still pray. I’m a very science-oriented person, but I’ve been praying since I was a kid. When I was six, my parents went on a trip to New York for a week. When they came back, I was spinning in circles and chanting to God. That was the first time I got sent to a psychiatrist.

Rosner: Though, I guess under some religions, that would have made me special. But to my parents, it was more like, “Nope. That’s not good.”

I’ve got OCD. But I don’t pray just because of OCD. I pray because I hope — and fear — that there is something beyond. I don’t just go full analytic and try to “scientize” my way out of prayer.

Jacobsen: What does this mean with regard to the adherence to science and the suspension of it during prayer directly implied here?

Rosner: I believe in science. But I still pray. They’re not great prayers. But I still call on God. I wish there were a God. I don’t really believe there is one. But I still call on the possibility of God. I’m okay with that.

Jacobsen: You’re basically an aggressively agnostic theist.

Rosner: That’s fucking fine. And I’m okay with other people praying, too — as long as they’re not hypocritical dicks.

Rosner: Like, look — in the U.S., we’ve got Christian fundamentalists who are not Christian in any real sense of behavior. They’re just mean. They use religion to justify their cruelty. And I’m not okay with that. Fuck those people. You know — within reason. I’m okay with living this way. I’m not asking the universe to pierce the veil for me.

Jacobsen: I’m not asking if you’re okay with it. I’m asking if you think it’s true.

Rosner: Well… no. I don’t think it is.

Rosner: But we’re sad little fucking creatures. You’ve met our dogs, right?

Jacobsen: Are you saying… we’re the dogs?

Rosner: You met our dogs — one is smarter than the other. But still. Neither of them… one of them’s — I mean, one of them’s kind of clever in some ways. But they’re both… it’s sad. They’re sad creatures who live in a world they don’t understand and who die way too soon. And we’re not much better.

We are sad creatures too — at the mercy of biology, in a world we do not control, and where there’s still a ton of shit we do not understand. We’re pitiful beings, the product of evolution — an evolution that makes us want things deeply and then leaves us to die unfulfilled. We do not want to die. We want so much, and yet we have limited resources because we’re the product of limited, unguided creation.

And I think it’s totally valid — for us, these pathetic little beings — to turn our eyes to the heavens and say, “Please.” It fucking is.

Jacobsen: I’ve got another topic — something more positive.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1350: Political Fear, Free Speech, and Satirical Resistance in the Trump Era

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Rick Rosner: So, Carole doesn’t want me tweeting about Trump anymore. She doesn’t want me doing Lance versus Rick anymore either, because she saw a report today involving the U.S. Attorney General and the head of the FBI — Pam Bondi and Kash Patel — going after people.

Now, the deal with the Attorney General and the FBI is that they’re supposed to be independent organs of government — not personal lackeys of the president. But Trump intends to use them as if they are, and the people he’s appointed seem okay with that.

Carole saw a report saying that Trump wants a couple of people who were critical of him and of the 2020 election — since he still sometimes claims it was stolen — to be investigated and possibly prosecuted for treason. Just for holding a different opinion, or for doing investigative work that contradicted his narrative.

She’s afraid that if we leave the country and come back, customs might pull us aside — just because I’ve made pissy statements about Trump. So, I looked it up. U.S. citizens do have an absolute right to return to the United States, but they can be pulled aside by customs — not for “harassment,” of course; they call it “investigation” or “interrogation.” And yeah, they can hold you for a while.

But I’m not even in the top 20,000 Americans saying pissy stuff about Trump. I doubt they’ll be waiting for me. I doubt my passport would get flagged. I mean, what — 300,000 people across the country? Maybe more. Maybe a fucking million turned out to protest against Trump and the tariffs over the past few days. I don’t know. I just don’t think we’ve reached that point yet.

Not quite — at least not for citizens.

Jacobsen: On some topics, yes, but not across the board.

Rosner: Like, on Palestine. On Gaza. If you…

Jacobsen: Right — those are explicit deportation cases. Young people having it happen to them.

Rosner: But not citizens. Those are people here on student visas or green cards — which grant the right to work and live in the U.S. as immigrants, but not citizenship. If you speak out in favor of Gazans — if you attend a protest, or even, in at least one case, just walk by a protest — you can get picked up by ICE and deported. But again, those are not citizens. We’re not at the “fucking with citizens” point yet.

I have one more thing. I feel bad self-censoring — it feels like that poem: “First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Communist…” You go through all the groups Hitler took away, and by the end, no one’s left to speak for you.

I feel like self-censoring is a form of complicity. I understand — my wife is super nervous. But I don’t know… What do you think? Should I, just to reduce her anxiety, go back to fun tweets? Like, wrecking a movie title by changing one letter — like we used to do in the old, happy days of Twitter?

Jacobsen: That’s an individual decision.

Rosner: Like, okay — change one letter, two letters… Dong with the Wind.

Jacobsen: Or — Hong Kong edition — Kong with the Wind. I don’t know.

Rosner: I’m done. That’s all.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1349: Aging, Billy Connolly, and Misconceptions About Quantum Entanglement

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, I tapped the bar.

Rick Rosner: I said, “Go to okay.”

Jacobsen: You said, “Go to okay,” and the first thing that popped into my mind was Billy Connolly. I think this was even well before he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

Basically, the joke was that, as you get older, things just become more vague. When you’re young, you’re specific: “Yeah, it’s two blocks straight, take your first right, then your first left onto Smith Avenue, and it’ll be right there.” No problem. And you’re pointing with your finger.

Then, as you age, you’re just tilting your head: “Yeah, it’s over there.” Eventually, you’re not even pointing anymore — you’re just lifting your leg in the general direction: “Yeah… there.” And so, “Push okay” had that same vibe. Like, “Oh, okay — it’s a milestone moment.” Or just, “Push okay.” Okay.

Rosner: Actually, I had another short topic — just a follow-up on yesterday when we were talking about spooky action at a distance. Right — you can’t use quantum entanglement to transmit usable information faster than light. Even though measurements of entangled particles are correlated, there’s no way to control the outcome on one side to send a message to the other.

Someone once gave an example with shoes: if you send a pair of shoes to opposite ends of the universe, and you open your box and see a left shoe, you instantly know the other box has the right one. But that doesn’t mean anything was communicated at that moment. The outcome was always complementary — it’s just revealed when you open the box.

Or, imagine you have two balls, and you paint one red and the other blue, randomly assign them to boxes, and send each box across space. When one person opens their box and sees a red ball, they know the other must have the blue one. Again, no information was sent at the moment of opening. It’s correlation, not communication.

And in quantum entanglement, it’s even trickier — the particles don’t even have definite properties until they’re measured. But their correlation is preserved across any distance. Still, you can’t use that to send a message, can’t open your particle and somehow use the outcome to say, “I love you,” to someone across the universe — not instantly. Physics doesn’t allow it.

Jacobsen: But people get romantic about it — they hear “spooky action at a distance” and imagine they can send a vibe, or a thought, or some kind of cosmic feeling, and the other person will just know.

Rosner: I don’t know exactly what they think, but it’s a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics. It’s not cosmic telepathy. It’s mechanics. The rules of how the universe behaves at the quantum scale. And it’s weird, sure — but it doesn’t break causality. And there are a bunch of things — many of them unexpected — that pop out if you’ve never dealt with quantum mechanics before.

Jacobsen: Misunderstandings make people ripe for plucking and pilfering by bad actors.

Rosner: I mean, no more than with any other kind of bullshit. America has been plucked and pilfered by the current guy-in-chief for more than four years now — and he doesn’t talk about quantum mechanics.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1348: Debunking Quantum Myths: Misused Science in Pop Culture

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’ve got an idea—we will discuss quantum mechanics misinterpretations.

Rick Rosner: I’m down. I just cracked open the book again, and it was so dusty that it triggered a sneeze.

Jacobsen: And I’m not talking about mistakes professionals make—I’m talking about the New Age-y, crystal-alignment, “quantum healing” stuff.

Rosner: Yeah. All right.

Jacobsen: So what do you make of phrases thrown around in spiritual or self-help spaces, like “Quantum mechanics means anything is possible”?

Rosner: Well, that one’s a classic misunderstanding. Quantum mechanics does not mean anything is possible. It means that, for specific systems, we can only predict probabilities of different outcomes—not definite results—until we make a measurement. But that doesn’t mean unicorns can teleport through your closet because of quantum fluctuations.

People often conflate “uncertainty” with “limitless potential.” However, uncertainty in quantum mechanics is well-defined. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example, tells us that there’s a limit to how precisely we can know both the position and momentum of a particle simultaneously. It’s not because our tools are clumsy—it’s baked into the structure of reality.

Also, “wavefunction collapse” is often misunderstood. People think it’s about consciousness shaping reality, but it’s not. It just refers to how a quantum system, when measured, appears to jump from a superposition of possibilities to one definite outcome. That’s not magic—it’s a mathematical update of information based on observation. Interpretations vary, but none say your thoughts alter objective reality in a wish-fulfillment way.

So yeah, quantum mechanics is strange, but it’s not your genie. It doesn’t say everything is possible—it says very specific, mathematically defined things are possible under particular conditions. You think it can happen. Well, I mean, okay. So, people can misuse the terminology of quantum mechanics—a lot. Entanglement is enormous right now. I got invited to pitch a podcast, and I asked JD to team up—and maybe you, too, if it’s something you’d be interested in.

Jacobsen: Sure.

Rosner: And JD came up with a pretty good title: Quantum Hollywood. The idea is that Hollywood is basically like high school—but for beautiful people. It’s pretty small; everybody knows everybody, and—using JD’s phrasing—everyone is “entangled.”

And I didn’t get annoyed at that. It’s fine. I’m okay with some appropriations of quantum terms. Honestly, that one’s not a terrible misuse of “entanglement.” In quantum mechanics, entanglement means two particles share a common quantum state due to prior interaction, and their properties remain correlated no matter how far apart they are—as long as they haven’t interacted with anything else in a way that breaks that entanglement.

You can work with entangled systems but can’t destroy the entanglement and expect it to function how you want. And yeah, that’s the kind of quantum physics I haven’t learned thoroughly yet—but I probably should. What does annoy me is when people say, “Well, if you can’t explain something, it must be a quantum phenomenon.” That kind of lazy thinking. The most prominent example that comes to mind—and we’ve talked about this—is when people say, “Consciousness probably comes from quantum processes within neurons.”

Jacobsen: Like quantum entanglement inside the brain or something?

Rosner: Yeah—like some quantum entanglement or quantum coherence within neurons. That it’s the “magic juice” of consciousness.

Jacobsen: What do you make of the mindset that says, “Observing something magically changes reality”? That whole thing.

Rosner: Yeah—that’s a big one. The idea is that the observer effect in quantum mechanics means you, as a person—your consciousness—change reality just by looking at it. That’s not how it works.

In quantum mechanics, the observer effect refers to the fact that any measurement disturbs the system. It’s not about human awareness; it’s about interaction. If you want to measure an electron’s position, you must hit it with a photon, which changes its momentum. So your measurement changes the state—not because you’re conscious, but because of the physical interaction involved in the measurement.

People twist that into metaphysical nonsense. They imagine the “observer” as a person in the everyday sense—like a cameraman or someone watching events—and assume their awareness shapes reality, which veers hard into magical thinking.

Oprah mainstreamed that with The Secret, right? That whole thing about visualizing something into existence? Ten, fifteen years ago, she was pushing that idea—that if you focus hard enough on what you want, the universe will rearrange itself to give it to you. People used quantum terms to legitimize that: “You attract what you focus on because quantum physics says reality is a function of observation.”

But that’s not physics. That’s magical thinking. You don’t need to invoke quantum terms to believe in wish fulfillment. Humans have been doing that forever. Quantum gives it a sciencey gloss. All an observer does is make something known—if only to the observer—that wasn’t known before.

So, I don’t know. Yeah, you can probably set up scenarios where the observation feels special or magical if you engineer the setup in a certain way, but honestly, that’s mostly horseshit. It’s more about how people interpret it than what’s happening.

Oh—and the thing I was thinking about today, which isn’t even strictly a quantum thing, is that information requires context. What you see, or what happens in the world, isn’t information itself. It only becomes information when it exists within a context.

We don’t consciously think about context because we are the context. When we observe the world—or even reflect inwardly—we interpret and assign meaning. We’re the system into which that stuff slots in and gets recognized as information.

Jacobsen: So we’re the filtering and decoding mechanism?

Rosner: Yeah. We take the raw input and make it legible. It happens so constantly that we forget it’s even a thing. We’re trained to see things and automatically label them as “information” without questioning how or why they became information.

But information floating around without being contextualized—without being processed by a mind or a system—might not even be information in any meaningful way. And that’s a deep point. We have information theory—it’s only about 76 years old. Shannon founded it in 1948. Sure, people thought about signal and meaning before then, but it wasn’t formalized.

Jacobsen: So we’ve got this understanding of data transmission, compression, redundancy, error correction—

Rosner: Right. We can do all that, but we still have almost no idea how information functions within the universe at large. We don’t understand how the universe contextualizes information—if it does at all. What counts as information from the universe’s perspective? We can define information in terms of bits, entropy, etc. But how is that contextualized in larger structures—galactic, cosmological, or temporal scales?

We can handle micro-information—what we observe and process in human experience. But macro-information? The kind that emerges through the large-scale workings of the universe? That’s a huge—well, to be fancy, I’ll say a lacuna. It’s an undeveloped area of thought. We don’t have a good handle on it.

Jacobsen: So, shifting gears slightly, what do you make of the phrase “Quantum mechanics proves telepathy, reincarnation, cosmic consciousness,” and so on?

Rosner: Total hijacking of scientific language. That kind of thing annoys me. It’s understandable—people want mystery and meaning—but it’s utterly unmoored from how quantum mechanics works. I’m sure I’d be annoyed if I saw someone saying that in a public forum.

It’s like linguistic smuggling. The words carry weight, so people use them to sell bullshit. At that time, Carole rode in an elevator with Tony Robbins—the motivational speaker.

Jacobsen: Yeah, you told me that. Or wait—was that a movie premise?

Rosner: I think it is a movie premise. Someone gets in an elevator with Tony Robbins, and he motivates the hell out of them. It changes the whole trajectory of their life.

Jacobsen: That sounds like a Judd Apatow setup.

Rosner: And Robbins is a super tall guy—6’8″ or 6’9″. That adds to his presence. He’s a giant guy with big teeth and a huge voice—he commands attention.

Jacobsen: And a head like a foot and a half wide.

Rosner: But I could see someone like him—maybe not Robbins himself—but someone in that motivational speaker space, hijacking quantum language. Saying things like, “Thanks to quantum entanglement, if you focus hard enough, you can manifest anything.”

That kind of Secret-style pseudo-wisdom bugs me. It’s the idea that it will happen if you think about something intensely enough and everything is quantumly connected. That’s magical thinking with a sciencey wrapper. And yeah, I’d be annoyed by horseshit like that.

I don’t think Tony Robbins does that. But I can imagine it. I grew up in Boulder, Colorado, the headquarters of many motivational stuff, including EST, Erhard Seminars Training, sensory deprivation tanks, etc. So yeah, I’m familiar with that scene. And yeah, people are going to hijack the nomenclature.

Jacobsen: First, the other idea that quantum entanglement means instant communication—sort of the spooky action-at-a-distance thing. Second, the idea is that particles can be simultaneously in two places.

Rosner: So, I mean—it’s pretty well known in the field, which I’m not in, so maybe I’m a little off—but you can’t transmit useful information via entanglement. You can’t use it to send a message. You start with two entangled particles. You let them fly apart—light-years apart if you want—and then you measure one of them.

That measurement instantly determines the outcome of one measurement on the other, no matter the distance, but that correlation can only be confirmed after classical communication. So, yes, the result is nonlocal—but there’s no way to control the outcome of the first measurement and, therefore, no way to encode and transmit a message with it.

The measurement collapses the state, but you can’t control which state you get, so there’s no signal. But I was thinking today—you could imagine a Schrödinger-type scenario, which, yes, people love to bring up too much, but whatever. Let’s say you measure the spin of one particle and its spin-up. The other one, two light-hours away, hits a detector. If it’s spin-down, the detector explodes.

So if something blows up or doesn’t blow up, you know what the spin was—even before the light from that event could’ve reached you. Seems like faster-than-light knowledge, right?

But that must not work because the setup only confirms something you already arranged. You can’t use it to send new information. You can set it up beforehand and determine the outcome, but you’re not receiving a message. You’re not getting anything new beyond what the system was designed to do.

So it’s more like revealing what already happened in a system you pre-configured, not sending a new signal across space. You’re just learning which of your possible outcomes occurred. And even if it seems instant, you still can’t communicate anything faster than light. You can’t break causality that way. It may be allowed by the math, but it still doesn’t allow messaging.

And yeah—this is the kind of stuff people get wrong constantly. We’ve had over a hundred years to get used to quantum mechanics, and people still misunderstand or misuse the concepts.

Jacobsen: People want magic.

Rosner: And they abuse the language—entanglement, wavefunction collapse, observer effect. It gets co-opted for pseudoscience and spiritual nonsense. They want it to mean telepathy, reincarnation, cosmic consciousness—when it’s just math and measurement.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1347: Misconceptions in Quantum Mechanics and the True Nature of Photons

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09

Rick Rosner: So, I took out my old quantum mechanics textbook—which, honestly, I never got all the way through. I made it partway, I guess. I don’t even remember if I passed the course that used this book. But I’ve been thinking—there’s still a ton I don’t know about quantum mechanics. And, as you know, people who don’t study it seriously—who just hear bits of it in magazine articles or online videos—tend to carry a lot of misconceptions.

Even people working in physics might have blind spots, especially outside their immediate specialties. Quantum mechanics isn’t intuitive. It’s a highly mathematical framework designed to describe systems where we can’t know everything at once—where outcomes are probabilistic, and measurements influence what we observe. So yeah, in some sense, it’s the mathematics of incomplete information. But it’s not wishy-washy; it’s precise and predictive within its domain.

One thing that came up right away when I opened the textbook again was photons. The book talked about how photons come in discrete packets of energy—which is true, but it’s easy to misinterpret. Each photon carries energy that’s proportional to its frequency, using the formula E=hνE=hν. Planck’s constant h is tiny, so the energy per photon depends heavily on the frequency: infrared photons have less energy, ultraviolet ones have more. It’s a continuous relationship.

But here’s where people get it wrong: they think that photons themselves come only in a set of fixed energy levels—like they’re somehow prepackaged into energy multiples. That’s not how it works. Photons can have any energy value, in principle, as long as it corresponds to a physically realizable frequency. They don’t come in fixed rungs on a universal energy ladder. The process that creates a photon—like an electron dropping from one energy level to another in an atom—that is where the discreteness comes from.

So yes, in hydrogen, for example, electrons can only occupy certain allowed energy levels. When an electron drops from a higher level to a lower one, it emits a photon whose energy equals the difference between those two levels. That’s where you get discrete lines in the hydrogen spectrum. But photons in general—say, from thermal radiation, lasers, or synchrotrons—aren’t limited to those atomic values. They’re just packets of electromagnetic energy, and the energy depends on how they were generated.

Also, about those electron energy levels: they’re not arbitrary. They come from solving the Schrödinger equation with boundary conditions that reflect the structure of the atom. For an electron to maintain a stable, standing wave around a nucleus, its wavefunction has to reinforce itself—meaning it needs to fit an integer number of wavelengths around the orbital path, kind of like how standing waves work on a guitar string. If it doesn’t fit cleanly, it interferes with itself destructively and just isn’t a stable state. So nature only “permits” those configurations that mathematically reinforce themselves. Not every configuration can exist just because we can imagine it.That’s one of the deep principles of quantum mechanics: it’s not about anything being possible. It’s about only the physically consistent possibilities being realized. That might sound tautological, but it’s foundational. The math enforces the rules of what’s allowed. There’s no loophole where you think hard enough and suddenly particles tunnel through your desk to grant wishes.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1346: Final Thoughts on Panpsychism: Unpack Consciousness and Its Naturalistic Philosophical Roots

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/08

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, so, panpsychism. The opening question is: what foundational definition does panpsychism propose? So, panpsychism posits that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world. In this view, all forms of matter—from elementary particles to complex organisms—possess some form of consciousness or proto-consciousness. There are six major philosophical arguments or angles supporting panpsychism: 1. Anti-emergence – the view that consciousness cannot emerge from purely non-conscious matter. 2. Intrinsic nature – based on Bertrand Russell’s idea that physics describes only the extrinsic behaviour of matter, not its intrinsic nature, which might be consciousness. 3. Evolutionary continuity – the idea that consciousness evolved gradually and cannot emerge suddenly, so it must exist in simpler forms. 4. Causal closure – if the physical world is causally closed, consciousness must have causal efficacy at the physical level, implying it’s physical. 5. The argument from the experience of causation – suggests that we experience mental causation directly. 6. Simplicity and parsimony – some see panpsychism as a more straightforward, unified explanation of consciousness than dualism or strong emergence. These arguments have developed significantly, particularly in recent decades.

Rosner: Yeah, but I don’t buy any of those arguments.

Jacobsen: Oh, we’ll dig into that. It’ll be a good conversation. What are your initial reactions?

Rosner: Nothing in particular, just that I don’t buy the idea that everything is fucking conscious.

Jacobsen: Fair enough. Let’s start with your initial critique and then review the major issues. Your response is a firm “no—and here’s why.”

Rosner: All right.

Jacobsen: This notion has ancient roots—it goes back to Anaxagoras, a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher. He proposed that “everything contains a portion of everything,” which some interpret as an early form of panpsychic thinking, though it’s more about the divisibility and mixture of substances than consciousness per se. In modern times, one of the leading theories influenced by panpsychist thought is Integrated Information Theory (IIT), developed by Giulio Tononi.

It proposes that consciousness corresponds to the capacity of a system to integrate information. IIT suggests that even straightforward systems—if they integrate information correctly—have some minimal level of consciousness. This quantitative theory attempts to define and measure consciousness based on a mathematical property called “Φ” (phi), representing the degree of integration. These modern theories are often grounded in intuition and phenomenology and then formalized into scientific or metaphysical frameworks. That’s the general structure. So—what are your first thoughts?

Rosner: It might have been a reasonable speculative idea 3,000 years ago, but not now. It doesn’t hold up. You need complex biological or otherwise machinery to process and share information across multiple modalities. You need to be able to model the world, represent sensory input, and adapt behaviour accordingly. None of those mechanisms exist in a rock, a tree, or a cloud. They don’t have the architecture to integrate information or produce subjective experiences.

Jacobsen: So, getting to the core question of consciousness—we’ve discussed this many times. One of the fundamental flaws in panpsychism and similar theories is the lack of a clear, operational definition of consciousness. They fail to specify precisely what consciousness is, how it’s measured, and what criteria distinguish a conscious system from a non-conscious one.

Rosner: Sure. That’s part of the problem. Again, that’s the 3,000-years-ago problem—that nothing was pinned down, and they didn’t have the experiential or technical background to even take an honest stab at figuring out what consciousness was. I mean, beyond the feeling that you’re conscious when you are the possessor of consciousness, which is, maybe, even better than what they had. Because a tree doesn’t have that special feeling of consciousness, there’s no way to interrogate a tree, a rock, or a cloud to confirm it.

Jacobsen: For the anti-emergence argument, the idea is: how does panpsychism resolve the complex problem of consciousness by rejecting the idea that consciousness emerges inexplicably from non-conscious matter?

Rosner: I don’t fucking know. I mean, it doesn’t emerge.

Jacobsen: We need to address it rather than skim it and then be done with it so we don’t have to repeat it.

Rosner: So consciousness would emerge from non-conscious matter at some point along the continuum—or the spectrum—of brains, ranging from fucking grasshoppers or aphids to people. At some point, you could draw some blurry line and say, “Yeah, an aphid’s picture or model of the world is not developed enough to be called anything we consider consciousness.” The grasshopper, however—or a lizard—lizards are conscious. They model the external world. They respond to it. They’ve got some rudimentary consciousness. They have wants. They have agency. At some point, you can draw the line. So yeah, shit emerges—but you still need the mechanism of thought for it to emerge from, at a certain level of complexity.

Jacobsen: The intrinsic nature argument would state: why might consciousness be considered the inherent property of matter, filling a gap left by physicalism’s focus on extrinsic properties?

Rosner: Because it’s not. That’s a failure of observation and analysis. We observe where consciousness is. We have a good idea of how it works. And it’s not extrinsic—but it’s also not intrinsic to raw forms of matter. But you were talking about extrinsic properties. Are we talking now about a Cartesian thing, where you’ve got regular matter, and then you’ve got magical conscious matter? Like regular stuff and then some unique matter with the spark of consciousness added to it from some other realm? Are we talking about thatkind of extrinsic thing?

Rosner: Descartes.

Jacobsen: Descartes would’ve been more about the thinking self—res cogitans—and then the impressions or perceptions impacting that thinking self. And the cogito—”I think, therefore I am”—is the fundamental sort of true self, in a way. So, panpsychists argue that consciousness could be considered an intrinsic property of matter. In a sense, this would blur the line between the cogito and the physical world.

Rosner: But all these arguments don’t hold up given the present framework, where we’re pretty close to thoroughly understanding what consciousness is and how it works. And all this analysis from 600, 1,200, or 2,500 years ago is wrong. We know what consciousness is. You model the world. You do it in real-time across a bunch of analytic nodes that process qualia and your other thoughts—all in this big ball of thinking, which is your brain. That models experience for you and gives you the feeling of being conscious.

You could make all these arguments about the nature of a car. Like, does everything have consciousness? Does a tree or a rock have it? But really, no. By building vehicles and knowing how they work, we know that you need the mechanisms for a vehicle to be a car. And you could make an analogous argument for every one of these six philosophical claims regarding consciousness. And none of them would be correct. You need the actual mechanisms—an engine, controls, a body, wheels—for something to be a car. And it’s the same with consciousness. It’s not that everything in the universe shares some inherent consciousness. Okay, next one.

Jacobsen: Genetic/evolutionary. How does the gradual evolution of organisms suggest that consciousness is present in simpler forms, supporting its ubiquity?

Rosner: So, in a sense, it’s just there—okay, there are several linked arguments. We can look at the evolutionary history of specific organs, particularly eyes. We know that eyes have evolved independently many times—dozens of times, in fact, across different species. That tells us two things: (A) eyes are advantageous—we know this just by having them—and (B) they’re evolvable. We can assume that at every stage of ocular development, there’s an advantage over organisms that don’t have that stage. So, eyes evolve—from light-sensitive cells to fully developed complex eyes.

You can make similar arguments about consciousness, even though we don’t understand it with the same level of clarity. We know what eyes are and how they work. We don’t exactly know what consciousness is, although we’re pretty fucking close. But we do know it provides a massive evolutionary advantage. And we know it can evolve—starting from more straightforward clusters of neurons.

Jacobsen: Causal closure. In what way does panpsychism maintain the principle of physical causal closure while incorporating consciousness as a fundamental aspect? In some interpretations, humans are seen as the closure of the loop—conscious agents completing the system.

Rosner: I don’t know what that means at all. Closure… that we are—

Jacobsen: The idea is that consciousness is fundamental, yet we still live in a physical world. Panpsychism tries to bridge that by claiming consciousness is the closure point of the causal loop—like it completes the cycle.

Rosner: So we’re the endpoint? That somehow consciousness is this necessary element? I’d argue that consciousness is essential—but not in a sense, these fucking arguments suggest. You have to have consciousness to have the world? That’s a separate discussion rooted in what a universe is and what information is.

But the idea that you need conscious beings in the world for the world to exist—that’s what this closure argument is getting at—and I don’t buy it. You can imagine a sterile universe with no conscious beings in it, and it would still be a valid universe. So, no, I don’t buy the closure argument.

Now, we live in a universe that does contain conscious beings—otherwise, we wouldn’t be having this conversation—but that doesn’t mean consciousness is fundamental to the structure of a universe.

Jacobsen: Argument from the experience of causation. What does our direct experience of causation imply about consciousness inherent in causal processes? It’s close to the previous one, but not quite the same.

Rosner: Yes, I don’t know. This sounds like one of those arguments from 90 years ago when Niels Bohr was developing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. That interpretation speculated that the collapse of the quantum wave function—moving from a probabilistic state to a definite state—might require a conscious observer. The idea was that consciousness somehow holds the observation together: you need a conscious entity to witness both the before and after of a quantum event for the event to become “real.”

That was just one idea at the dawn of quantum mechanics—and it turned out not to be the fucking idea that works.

Jacobsen: Last one. Simplicity and parsimony. Why is panpsychism viewed as a more straightforward, unified theory than alternatives like dualism and emergentism? The basic idea is that Occam’s razor leads us to panpsychism.

Rosner: Yes, it freaking does—that’s the theory. According to Occam’s razor, a theory should be as simple as possible but not more straightforward than it needs to be. But here’s the thing: we’re living in a time where we’re getting close to fully understanding consciousness. It’s ten years away or less. You can’t just swing Occam’s razor around and say, “Well, everything’s fucking conscious—problem solved,” and then go take a nap.

There’s this big red chair next to the bed in our bedroom, and I’ll fall asleep in that fucking thing for 40 minutes or an hour before stumbling down here sometimes. That’s what I did.

That whole “everything is conscious” take is a highly simplistic way of viewing the world—and it’s very fucking wrong. You need mechanisms. You need the armature that supports thought to have consciousness. You need a brain or some other information-processing system that does many of the same things our brain does to help a mind, which gives rise to consciousness.

No, not everything has it. A rock, a tree, a turd, a jack-in-the-box wrapper? No. Sometimes, a greasy piece of paper is just a greasy piece of paper.

Jacobsen: Do you have any final thoughts on panpsychism before we close the book on that one?

Rosner: Sure. You can trace the evolution of theories of consciousness throughout history. This—panpsychism—would be one of those theories that made sense in the context of people not knowing shit thousands of years ago. But it was wrong then, and it’s still bad now. That’s where it should stay.

If you run into someone who’s a panpsychist, it’s really up to you to decide whether you want to hang out with them. It’s like astrology: how much patience do you have for someone bringing it up? Maybe a lot—if they’re otherwise a lovely person.

Jacobsen: Depends on whether or not you want some “pissy,” to quote Richard Pryor.

Rosner: Yes, I broke up with a girl in college because she was too woo-woo, too hocus-focus. Also—she ate somebody’s popcorn. We were sitting in a movie theatre with a stranger next to her. She goes, “Can I have some of your popcorn?”That got added to the list of things that bothered me.

It’s like lighting a candle right before sex. Okay, you’ll put up with some of that because you’re in college, but at some point, you ask yourself, “Do I need to keep listening to these not-right arguments?” I hope she’s happy in the world forty years later.

Barbara. Even the name is dated. Carol’s name is dated. My name is dated. We’re all pinned to history by our name demographics. Most Ricks aren’t young. Most Carols are a certain middle age. And Barbara is pinned to an era.

All right, I’m going to the gym.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1345: The Future of Family: Declining Birthrates, Artificial Wombs, and Elon Musk’s Reproductive Legacy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Rick Rosner: Look at the population curve. It is not heading toward zero anytime in the next 800 years. If we have that long to adapt, it is not a crisis—or at least not an existential one. You asked whether we’ll see more healthy single-parent families, adopted kids, and similar setups—especially with the rise of automation.

Not exactly. We will see a broader mix of arrangements alongside traditional families. People are already having fewer children—global fertility rates have dropped from around 5 in 1950 to below 2.5 today. In many developed countries, it is well below replacement level. Nuclear families will continue, but we will also see cohabiting couples without kids, communal parenting, co-parenting without romance, and polyamorous or asexual family structures.

These alternatives will seem less unusual over time. I watched the start of a bad sci-fi movie where no one gives birth anymore—babies are grown in synthetic egg-like pods. Ridiculous in presentation, but not far off conceptually. In 2017, researchers at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia developed an artificial womb that sustained premature lambs for weeks in a fluid-filled “biobag.” Ectogenesis—gestation outside the human body—is progressing. Japan and the Netherlands are both funding artificial womb research. So future generations may opt out of pregnancy entirely.

We will also see outlandish tech. If someone wants to avoid the physical cost of pregnancy, they might turn to full surrogacy, uterine transplants—which have already produced live births—or biotech solutions like bioprinted wombs. The biotech is not speculative—it is under active development.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Kal-El, from Superman—they are grown, not born.

Rosner: Nicolas Cage named his son Kal-El. If he could grow a superkid in an artificial womb, he would. Elon Musk might too. He’s spoken about population collapse being a bigger threat than climate change.

With Musk, I am not sure if he wants all those kids or if he is just prolific—king of the “hot loads”—and indifferent to what happens after. He now has 11 publicly known children with three different women. He claims he’s helping to address “underpopulation.” Maybe that’s his logic. Maybe he just sees reproduction as an evolutionary obligation.

Still, based on his output, he’s probably a boxers guy. Keeps the swimmers active.

Let’s end it there.

Jacobsen: Thanks. See you tomorrow.

Rosner: Talk then.

Jacobsen: Most of my life. Bye.

Rosner: Bye. Thanks.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1344: Is the Decline in Marriage and Birth Rates a Global Crisis or Just a Shift?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is all this panic around marriage rates, the political divergence of young men and women, and lower birth and coupling rates a crisis? You’ve been talking about what you would call a coupling crisis—lower coupling, lower birthrates, the political and social divergence between men and women, growing feminist versus anti-feminist polarization, delayed relationships, and general indifference toward long-term commitments. Plus, there are high divorce rates among older adults—the so-called “gray divorce” trend, which has roughly doubled since the 1990s among those aged 50 and older. Also, there are rising STD rates among older populations—especially chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis—which the CDC has flagged in recent years. So yes, it is not just a cultural shift but a complex demographic and public health concern. So, is it worth getting upset about?

Rick Rosner: Some would say yes. Elon Musk, for instance—with his 11 known children—argues it is a significant concern. His point is that a growing economy depends on a growing population. The world has not yet adjusted to the reality that, within 20 years, most countries will face population decline.

So yes, it is an economic challenge. However, is it a crisis for the species? No. People arguing that it is are overreacting. We currently have about 8.2 billion people on Earth. We are still projected to reach around 9 to 10 billion before the global population levels off and potentially declines later in the century.

Let us say population growth drops to zero in 30 years, and in 60 years, we decline to 9.2 billion—still more people than we have now. Even if the global population drops to 6 billion in 150 years, that would still be more than we had during roughly 98% of the last 10,000 years of human civilization.

Plus, we will be surrounded by billions of AIs. We will not be short on intelligent agents. It is hard to imagine a future—near or medium-term—without billions of humans.

So, no, it is not a crisis. It is a change in conditions that we will need to adapt to. Either we accept it or devise incentives to encourage people to couple up. Some countries—Japan, for instance—are already deep into this transition. Japan’s fertility rate is around 1.3 children per woman, about 37.5% of the 2.1 replacement level needed for population stability. That is significant. It also causes major structural problems, such as straining the pension and healthcare systems.

People sometimes call Social Security a Ponzi scheme because it depends on a growing workforce. You can support the aging population by having enough young people making payroll contributions. However, the math breaks down if the population shrinks and the worker-to-retiree ratio drops.

In places like Japan, the population structure is essentially inverted. There are not enough young people to care for the elderly, so they are turning to robotic and automated solutions. This is a real issue—but not the end of humanity.

Just do the math.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1343: Why Cleaning Horse Poo Is Easier Than Dealing with Horse Farts

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You’ve worn a dress on a show before—yeah? With Lance. Would you rather fight with Lance half-naked, quarter-naked, or in a dress?

Rick Rosner: Fighting Lance naked would be funnier, but we decided against it—where would we even show that? I guess I’d be fine either way. I’ve got this older, skinny body now—I don’t love it, but it’s not bad for almost 65. I’ve been buffer. It’s not sagging, but I’ve lost around 20 pounds of muscle.

Still, I can rock a dress. Carole and I share a closet. She’s 5’9″, and I have a fairly slender waist, so some of her stuff fits me. I work out a lot. During the disco era—late 1970s into early 1980s—I even had a pair of women’s disco jeans because they cupped my butt and showed off my package better than men’s jeans. I looked great—until I split them one night, going commando. There just wasn’t room for everything. Not ideal.

Jacobsen: Alright—would you rather run in heels or flip-flops?

Rosner: Neither. I wear three compression socks and a regular sock on each leg for varicose veins. Heels are out—those socks won’t fit. Unless we’re talking cowboy boots. Cowboy boots are fine. But I’m not wearing flip-flops either.

Jacobsen: Would you rather clean up human poo or horse poo?

Rosner: Horse poo. Way less gross—unless the horse is sick.

Jacobsen: I’ve cleaned up a lot of horse poo. It’s not bad. But horse farts? That’s another story. Really awful. Worse than standing next to a smoker outside a club in the rain? Maybe.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1342: Boxer Briefs, Fertility, and the Battle Between Jeans and Sweatpants

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Boxers or briefs?

Rick Rosner: Boxer briefs. Old-school boxers were baggy—your balls could go anywhere, stick to your leg. If you’re older and your balls hang lower, you could accidentally sit on them and hurt yourself—or worse. Briefs keep everything tucked up, protecting you from injury. They also create a fabric layer between your balls and legs to prevent sticking.

On the other hand, if you’re trying to conceive, boxers are better. Your testicles need to stay cooler for sperm health, and tight underwear can overheat them, reducing fertility.

But in today’s culture, tighty-whities are seen as creepy. Even colored bikini briefs are considered off-putting—like Speedos on Mediterranean men. Sure, in Italy, that might be fine, but in American pop culture, you’d only put a character in briefs or a Speedo in a comedy to highlight awkwardness.

These days, most men wear boxer briefs. They’re longer in the leg than briefs but still snug in the crotch—offering both support and protection.

Almost all my underwear is boxer briefs now. I still have a few tighty-whities from—who knows—maybe 20 years ago. They’re in the back of the drawer. I never liked them much. They were tight and white—visually unappealing.

I had some leftover blue dye and figured I’d at least make them a better color. Boiled water, threw in the dye, dropped the underwear in. But the fabric didn’t take it well. Now I have half a dozen pairs of lavender tighty-whities. They’re fine—I mean, ideally only Carol sees them—but they’re buried deep in the drawer.

Jacobsen: Jeans or sweatpants?

Rosner: Sweatpants. Jeans give me ingrown hairs and rub the hair off my legs. I go to the gym and maybe the library once a week. That’s it. So—sweatpants.

I do like a loose pair of khakis I can wear to the gym, but one place I go complains about them. So, forget it—I’ve been living in sweatpants for months.

Also, Wranglers over Levi’s. If you do leg workouts—no contest. Wranglers are way better. They’re the gold standard. Levi’s are too tight in the leg. If you buy a pair that fits your thighs, they’ll gape at the waist.

If you want to look good in jeans, you need a proper fit. When I was a kid, my stepdad owned a women’s ready-to-wear store—with a full-time seamstress. So I know a bit about tailoring.

Once we hit the disco era and I wanted my clothes tight and right, I started getting everything tailored. I had my shirts severely tapered to show off at the club. The right way to wear Levi’s was to buy them to fit your legs comfortably and have the waist taken in by someone who really knows their way around a needle.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1341: Should Voting Age Be Raised? Democracy, Disinformation, and the Future of Political Participation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Given the contemporary challenges to democratic systems—including widespread disinformation, growing political polarization, and the strategic disenfranchisement of various demographics—do you foresee any future scenarios in which societies, perhaps under the guise of protecting democratic integrity, might implement a higher minimum voting age? Could such a shift be rationalized within a technocratic or hybrid democratic model where political participation is tiered or conditional upon demonstrated civic engagement or knowledge? In light of historical exclusions based on race, class, or perceived intelligence, would this kind of change represent a regression into elitism, or could it be defended as an adaptive response to the risks posed by uninformed or manipulated electorates—especially in an age where AI-generated propaganda and algorithmic echo chambers increasingly distort political agency?

Rick Rosner: In the U.S., lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 was considered a major step forward—partly influenced by the Vietnam War draft. That move probably could not happen today. Republicans would likely resist because younger voters tend to lean Democratic.

As for raising the voting age—I doubt it. Why would people vote to restrict their own rights? But it is a persistent issue. Historically, American democracy began with a narrow electorate: only a small number of white male landowners could vote in early elections, including for the presidency.

When you look at how many people voted for George Washington, it was only a few tens of thousands. The scope of voting has expanded gradually since then and, ideally, voting should be mandatory, as it is in Australia. But that will never happen in the U.S., because if voting were mandatory, Republicans would struggle to win. The majority of Americans do not support Republican policies, but a significant portion of eligible voters—more than a third—do not participate in elections.

Typically, about 30% of voting-age Americans vote Democratic, 30% vote Republican, and 40% do not vote at all. A recurring debate is whether uninformed people should be allowed to vote.

JBut that argument has historically been used to justify disenfranchising marginalized groups—especially Black Americans. For example, in the Jim Crow South, so-called “poll tests” were used to block Black people from voting. These tests were intentionally difficult or impossible to pass and were applied selectively. If someone objected, law enforcement—often the local sheriff—would show up to enforce the discriminatory rules, sometimes with the threat of violence.

That kind of logic is resurfacing. There’s a sense that the U.S. is in crisis. Whether it’s a disaster or a full-blown collapse, we do not know yet. We’re speaking on a Sunday night after two straight days of stock market drops, each around 5%, caused by Trump’s newly announced tariffs. Markets are expected to fall another 5% tomorrow.

Reports indicate that Trump’s team miscalculated the tariffs. The retaliatory measures they put in place were four times higher than they should have been, based on standard economic modeling. Trump has reportedly said he does not care—he wants Europe to pay for what he claims are years of economic imbalance. That’s a hostile posture toward Europe, which is a major global economic power.

There’s even a strange connection here. Some suspect that models used to justify the tariff math were influenced by tools like ChatGPT. When you ask ChatGPT to calculate tariff impacts naively, it can output equations resembling the faulty ones Trump’s team used.

And yet a significant number of people voted for Trump, despite overwhelming evidence he would harm the country. That leads to a fundamental question: how do we address widespread voter ignorance, especially when it’s deliberately manipulated? Republicans, in particular, have mastered the art of convincing people to vote against their own interests through propaganda.

At this point, there’s no clear or democratic way to prevent uninformed voters from casting ballots. What needs to happen is that people who actually represent the public interest must learn how to counteract that propaganda—how to communicate more effectively, honestly, and powerfully.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1340: Informational Structure, Universal Cohesion, and Ethical Implications of Cognitive Decline

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: One of the things I mentioned yesterday was how much of the integrity of space—the shape and cohesiveness of the universe—is due to its internal informational structure, and how much might be due to an external mechanism reinforcing it. For example, does the information in the mind keep it structurally integrated, or does it require the brain’s physical support?

This suggests that pure information alone may not be enough to maintain the structure of the universe. Reasoning by analogy, I began reading a paper discussing how a solution to Einstein’s field equations—specifically the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) metric—describes the universe as a three-dimensional hypersurface (a 3-sphere) expanding within four-dimensional spacetime. This is consistent with observations and is a valid solution in general relativity. But there are other possible solutions, some involving more complex topologies.

I cannot recall the exact argument, but it involves two physicists whose names begin with “M”—possibly Misner and Wheeler or Milne and McCrea. The core idea is that the universe does not have to be geometrically simple; it could include regions that are irregular, distant, or unobservable.

So, the question arises: must the universe have a smooth geometric structure, or can it be irregular in ways we cannot directly observe? If the brain’s hardware is needed to sustain the mind’s structure, perhaps the universe also requires an external framework to remain cohesive, even if its informational structure is uneven.

Similarly, a map of the mind might reveal gaps, asymmetries, or loosely integrated areas. The universe may reflect the same irregularity, especially at its limits or near the initial singularity (t = 0). A future unified theory of quantum mechanics and general relativity might show how even an uneven or “ragged” universe can still produce the smooth, homogeneous structure observed in the local cosmos.

Rosner: Was that the topic?

Jacobsen: Yes. One more point. In an episode of StarTalk, physicist Brian Greene discussed a theoretical scenario where, under extreme quantum conditions, spacetime becomes discrete and collapses from its continuous form. This idea stems from quantum gravity theories, such as loop quantum gravity, which suggest that spacetime may be quantized at the Planck scale. Under certain conditions, the local structure of spacetime could break down.

This aligns with our discussion of irregular regions in the universe. Greene suggested that if spacetime’s entanglement network were disrupted, it might collapse locally, possibly affecting surrounding regions. However, the idea that a local failure would destabilize the entire universe is speculative and not widely accepted.

Rosner: I didn’t hear the full talk—you did—but I’m skeptical. Again, analogies can be useful, but we need empirical evidence to evaluate these possibilities.

Jacobsen: When the hardware starts breaking down—like in the brain with Alzheimer’s—you still have a functioning mind until the late stages. It does not disintegrate all at once. The mind still works to a large degree. Same with the universe: if there’s some kind of localized glitch—say, gravitational collapse—it would not necessarily compromise everything. If the universe is fundamentally informational, there is still enough information to maintain structural coherence.

Rosner: You’ve just lost part of the informational pattern. Take, for example, Gabby Giffords—the senator who was shot in the head. After years of therapy, she has recovered much of herself. I do not know her personally, but she seems to have retained her core identity and consciousness. No one would argue she is not “conscious” just because she lost a portion of her brain.

But this raises a question: in cases like hers—or with people in various stages of Alzheimer’s—at what point does someone lose the capacity to consent? If sentience fades or fluctuates, can someone meaningfully consent to sex? Suppose their awareness fades mid-act and returns suddenly—now they are disoriented, possibly afraid. It is ethically murky.

There are real cases. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s husband had Alzheimer’s. She placed him in a memory care facility, and he fell in love with another woman, having forgotten he was married. The twilight of sentience brings tricky territory.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1339: Rick Rosner Dismantles Panpsychism: Consciousness Requires Complexity, Not Crystals

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So—what are your thoughts on panpsychism? The idea that consciousness is ubiquitous and that everything in the universe possesses at least some minimal degree of consciousness?

Rick Rosner: No. No. No. No. That is one of the countless misconceptions about consciousness. You need a very specific—well, let us say, specialized—arrangement of matter for consciousness to emerge. It does not have to be the same structure in every instance, but it must be highly organized, dynamic, and capable of processing information in a complex, adaptive way. Consciousness, as we understand it, likely requires a substrate that supports recursive self-modelling, integrated information, or some computational analog thereof. A rock or a tree—at least the types of trees we see on Earth—do not have that arrangement. So, no, I do not buy into panpsychism.

Jacobsen: Is it, in a sense, mistaking the end product for the foundation? I mean, maybe. It seems like a kind of wild metaphysical shot in the dark.

Rosner: It is like starting with the valid premise, “Ordered matter is necessary for consciousness,” then misapplying it—looking at a rock and saying, “Well, it has crystal lattices, so it is ordered. Therefore, it might be conscious.” Yes, rocks and trees contain structure—crystalline, biological, or otherwise—but they lack the level of dynamical complexity, feedback loops, and information processing needed to generate even minimal consciousness. Panpsychism leaps that any ordered system—any structural complexity—is enough. That is just not true based on current neuroscientific and computational evidence.

Jacobsen: I do not think the reasoning in panpsychism typically gets that far. It just leaps straight into metaphysics.

Rosner: What kind of justifications have you heard in support of panpsychism?

Jacobsen: Usually, “Consciousness is fundamental and continuous throughout reality,” or “The mind is the intrinsic nature of matter.” It is a form of cosmopsychism or idealism repackaged with a modern spin. However, it is still an old idea.

Privacy Settings

It feels like a reversion to pre-Socratic metaphysics—like Thales or Anaximenes saying everything is alive or everything is mind. To me, panpsychism is a massive step backward. Moreover, the danger is—that it gives legitimacy to magical thinking. It opens the floodgates for people who think burning sage will cleanse negative energy or ward off demons.

Not that those people are necessarily the problem in themselves, but when that thinking gains public or academic traction—when it creeps into the cultural conversation around science and respectability—it undermines empiricism. It muddies the waters of scientific discourse. That is dangerous.

Rosner: I remember dating a fellow student in college who probably would have believed in something like that. Sweet, but into cosmic vibes and energy fields.

Jacobsen: That reminds me of what Richard Pryor did in one of his later stand-up specials. He talks about going on a date with a woman who is talking about the cosmos, and he is just nodding along, thinking, “Yeah, the cosmos, sure.” Then he says something like, “You will talk about anything when you want some pussy.” Only he mispronounces it—says “pissy.” Then corrects himself: “Pissy? Well, pissy, yes. I hope he got some soon, myself.”

Rosner: Carole is in her third semester of writing workshops with one of Richard Pryor’s ex-wives. That would be Rain Pryor’s mother. It is the total opposite of woo-woo stuff. She worked for NASA for decades—30, maybe 40 years. An engineer through and through. Someone like that—who has spent their life working on complex science problems at NASA—will probably not have much patience for panpsychism or metaphysical fluff.

Carole likes the class. She says it has been a meaningful experience—grounded and rigorous.

Jacobsen: Give me your fastest knockdown of panpsychism—go:

Rosner: Panpsychism is an ancient, overly simplistic guess about consciousness. It dates back at least 2,500 years to early Greek philosophy. However, modern neuroscience, cognitive science, and computational theory have shown that consciousness arises from specific, high-level structures and processes—not just from matter itself. Today, we build increasingly sophisticated analogs to consciousness using artificial neural networks. While no machine is fully conscious, they reveal the necessary components. We now have strong, though incomplete, working theories—like Global Workspace Theory, Integrated Information Theory, and Predictive Processing—that provide empirically testable models. We are far past the need for metaphysical speculation like panpsychism.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1338: Can an Informational Universe Cycle Between Dormancy and Activity to Maintain Structural Integrity?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Could you fathom a universe that is still functional but oscillates in its progression through time—so that time is not strictly linear? Its net vector in spacetime still points forward, as in a directional “arrow of time,” but the progression jumps around: something like t₁, t₃, t₂, t₄—stuff like that?

Rick Rosner: No. No—I mean, no. You need an arrow of time—at least for a universe of any appreciable size. You sure do not have much of an arrow of time in a tiny universe with only two iffy particles. It is very nebulous.

Jacobsen: The net functional scale matters for a macro-universe with many particles. Reasoning by analogy with our minds: our minds operate close to their informational capacity when we are awake and then function at a much lower capacity when we are asleep. A universe could transition from a highly information-rich state to a sort of shutdown or dormant state and then back to an informationally active state.

Rosner: You could imagine a “shutdown” universe with galaxies drained of energy—each one falling into its gravitational well, dark and quiet, with not much going on. However, perhaps the universe “starts up” again: galaxies light back up, radiation spreads, and stars begin forming again. I do not know if I would call that oscillation, but I could see a universe cycling between high-information and low-information states.

Jacobsen: Could that kind of cycle be a means for maintaining structural integrity—analogous to how humans manage alertness and fatigue? This is more metaphorical than literal, but it conveys the idea. Human responsiveness, for instance, fluctuates. We have sleep-wake cycles—our alertness to new stimuli ebbs and flows.

We get bored if we sit on a call and do nothing for a while. However, if we get up, walk around for a couple of minutes, and then come back, things feel fresh again.

Rosner: That is probably more about biology—our evolutionary history. However, it raises an interesting question: How much of a universe’s structural integrity, over vast periods, comes from the intrinsic properties of its spacetime architecture? Moreover, how much—if any—might come from something external? Some framework or armature that stabilizes the universe from the outside?

Jacobsen: I do not know. Again, going by analogy, our minds require a healthy brain to support them. When the brain is compromised—due to Alzheimer’s, metabolic disorders, or other issues—the mind struggles to function.

Rosner: So, I do not have a solid answer—it is not even a great response—but the best I can do is pose the question. And you are suggesting that if it is fundamentally made of information, a universe might need to consolidate itself periodically to maintain stability. I do not know. What do you think? Do you think consolidation periods are necessary for an informational universe’s stability?

Jacobsen: There does seem to be a weird duality between wave functions and particles. It seems like fidelity is increased through oscillation and focus. I do not know if that describes information accuracy, but it is a visual I keep returning to.

Imagine volumes of space filled with probability clouds—those clouds, as they shift and interact with others, create interference, amplification, and other dynamics. That interaction might allow more precision in how information expresses itself in space and time. It is how I visualize it—not through equations or formal language, just as an intuitive construct.

Rosner: Say this: an old-ass universe is held up—like the tent poles of the universe are these ancient, collapsed galaxies. Maybe even clusters of galaxies, each sunk down its own gravitational well, each with its vector. Moreover, pointing in different fourth-dimensional directions, all those vectors help hold open three-dimensional space.

So then—if you were to “open them all up” at once, would that disrupt the structure? Would it destabilize the four-dimensional hyperspherical shape of the universe, making it unstable—maybe even prone to collapse? I do not know.

Rosner: The question is: how much of the universe can you “wake up” at once?

Constants like the electron-proton mass ratio have something to do with how much of the universe is defined by information that is out of sync with the currently active universe. You have all these collapsed galaxies—regions of space that are, in a sense, sitting near t₀ again. They would need to be “lit up” and reconnected to a shared history—a 30-billion-year narrative—with the active center of the universe to come back into logical alignment.

So you cannot light up all the tent poles at once. These collapsed regions do not share much of a common history. Moreover, for them to align again, you must actively build that history by reactivating them individually.

That raises another question: How much can be done simultaneously without risking instability? What happens if these galaxies start barfing energy at each other along filaments, lighting up too much of the cosmic web at once?

It sounds like something from that near-death “life flashing before your eyes” phenomenon. People say that in moments of extreme crisis, they suddenly see everything—like their whole life at once. That is not exactly how they describe it, but how I interpret it.

Moreover, maybe that is not just poetic. Maybe, in a crisis, the brain’s default mode is to open up to as much stored information as possible, hoping to stumble across a solution—some latent pattern in memory that could help avoid death. It sounds like a stretch, but there might be some math to support it. For example, maybe in a system under maximum threat, the most natural move is to unlock everything it has.

I do not know. It sounds iffy. But…

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1337: Rodrigo Duterte Arrested by ICC: A Turning Point for Global Justice?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I have done a book project with the humanists in the Philippines.

This is true: the Humanist Alliance Philippines, International. One name that repeatedly came up in my research and interviews years ago was Duterte. So, the ICC also issued a warrant for Duterte. The Philippines is not a tiny country. What is its approximate population, Mr. Atlas Reader?

Rick Rosner: I do not know—at least a hundred million, right?

Jacobsen: That is a big deal. A hundred million people. That is two and a half times the population of Canada.

So, if that is the case, what happens when you miss an ICC warrant for someone from a country much more significant than Israel—just shy of Russia in global terms? Moreover, he is now in court for crimes. How does that sound?

Rosner: I do not know—I will check it out. Let me take the question. That was just a wild guess. I do not know if it is a hundred million or two hundred million. I might even be confusing it with Indonesia, which is a massive country, too.

Jacobsen: So, the estimated population of the Philippines is about 120.86 million people as of 2025. It is the thirteenth most populous country in the world.

Now, former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was arrested on March 11, 2025, at Ninoy Aquino International Airport in Manila, following an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) on March 7—four days earlier. He was charged with crimes against humanity related to the anti-drug campaign, which allegedly resulted in thousands of extrajudicial killings.

A plan had been developed allowing for potential scenarios to detain Duterte either in Manila or Davao City. This plan included maps of Duterte’s properties and the locations of his allies. Police General Nicolas Torre led the operation. After his arrest, Duterte was transferred to Villamor Air Base, where he underwent booking procedures. He reportedly resisted, resulting in a standoff that lasted approximately twelve hours.

Eventually, he was escorted onto a government-chartered Gulfstream G550 jet. The flight departed Manila at 11:03 PM local time, made a layover at Al Maktoum International Airport in the United Arab Emirates, and landed at Rotterdam The Hague Airport in the Netherlands. He is currently in detention at Scheveningen with the consent of the Philippine government.

Rosner: And Netanyahu—where was he? Wasn’t he just in America a moment ago?

Jacobsen: I have no idea what his itinerary is.

Rosner: But yes, he was either in America or Europe this past week, and nobody apprehended him. Because Israel remains the most significant ally of certain Western powers.

Jacobsen: They are an isolated country in a definite geopolitical sense. All right—so if antisemitism rises high enough in the United States, they may abandon Israel.

Rosner: I mean, look, I support Israel, but I do not support Netanyahu. Moreover, that is a rugged stance to take right now because Netanyahu’s policies are what people associate with Israel. Plenty of Israelis want him gone, but they have not yet protested strongly enough to make it happen. So Israeli complicity is—well, public opinion is complicated. I do not want to go down that rabbit hole right now.

Jacobsen: But sometimes, a war criminal can be held accountable.

Rosner: During the Kosovo War, they prosecuted a few individuals. I am not sure if anyone was executed. I think Slobodan Milošević died of a heart attack in 2006 while in custody in The Hague before his trial could be completed. Still, you are right—there has been minimal success in going after mass-murdering leaders.

Jacobsen: There were the Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials after World War II. Hideki Tojo and Iwane Matsui were convicted for their roles in wartime atrocities. Tojo was executed in 1948. Matsui was also executed that same year for his responsibility in the Nanjing Massacre.

Then there is the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which indicted 161 individuals. There was also the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Former Chadian president Hissène Habré was convicted of crimes against humanity in 2016 and sentenced to life in prison. Jean-Pierre Bemba, a Congolese politician and former rebel leader, was sentenced by the ICC to 18 years in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including sexual violence committed in the Central African Republic—though that conviction was later overturned on appeal in 2018.

So, no, I do not believe in magic. Prayer does not work, but it is comforting for people. However, if enough people apply enough pressure and work at these things, you can get some sweet justice.

Rosner: All right—but that justice largely depends on the sovereignty of the nation ruled by the criminal. That sovereignty has to weaken or fall apart.

So—or, I mean—there are very few cases where UN governance supersedes and overrides national governance. You either need the country’s consent or that country’s government to collapse, allowing you to sweep in and apprehend the former leader of a state that no longer functions.

Jacobsen: In my very simplistic terms, I argue that the justice we get is the justice we make. That is not unrealistic. It is about as scientific as one can get regarding morality. I mean, the universe is. Therefore, the justice you get is the justice you make.

Rosner: I want to add something—about Trump. I believe Trump is responsible for more deaths than any of the convicted mass murderers you mentioned because Trump mishandled COVID. Around 1.4 million Americans have died from COVID-19.

Moreover, sure, you could argue that it was COVID that killed them, not Trump. However, then you have to play the “what if” game. What if he had not disbanded the rapid response pandemic team in 2018? He did not just fire them—he scattered the team, reassigned everyone, and let the structure fall apart. Would a more competent leader have done the same?

Many people argue that hundreds of thousands more died than needed because someone incompetent was in charge. Moreover, is that a prosecutable offence? Well, not really. Still, he presided over the deadliest event in U.S. history—by far.

And then Trump apologists will say, “Yeah, but so many more people died of COVID under Biden.” Trump had ten or eleven months of COVID under his term. Biden had four years. Moreover, Trump politicized the pandemic early on, setting the stage for even more deaths under Biden due to the toxic attitudes and misinformation he promoted.

Moreover, what Trump is doing now—with DOGE and with tariffs—will lead to the deaths of tens, and probably hundreds of thousands more people in the coming years.

So far, all anyone has managed to get him on is 34 counts of falsifying business records—election-related but not officially termed “electoral fraud.” Even then, the other pending cases have been delayed or complicated now that he is president again. Even sentencing in the 34-count case—where he was convicted—has been postponed because he is considered untouchable while in office.

Even the $83.3 million judgment for defamation—after a civil jury found that he sexually abused E. Jean Carroll (not rape in the criminal sense, but a serious sexual assault)—has not yet been paid, despite the appellate court upholding the verdict. So yes, it appears unlikely that the president of the most powerful country in the world will be held accountable, at least not while in office. The UN will not do it. And neither will the American government.

All right.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1336: Global Leadership Crisis: Netanyahu, Guterres, and the Erosion of Democratic Norms

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership, Israel’s government sharply criticized United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres after he made remarks perceived as critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza. Israeli officials, including Ambassador Gilad Erdan, said Guterres should resign. While there was strong rhetoric—including declaring him “persona non grata”—this was not a formal diplomatic designation in the legal sense. Comments?

Rick Rosner: Wait—did they say that?

Jacobsen: Yes, it was widely reported. The language used was extreme, though not a formal declaration under international law.

Rosner: Yeah. I mean, Netanyahu is, in my view, a deeply controversial figure. I hesitate to say he is entirely bad because I do not know every detail, but everything I do know points to corruption allegations, authoritarian tendencies, and a history of supporting policies criticized for contributing to systemic human rights abuses.

Many observers consider him a corrupt politician, facing multiple criminal indictments, who has partnered with far-right political factions to retain power. He has also been accused—by organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International—of overseeing or facilitating policies in the occupied Palestinian territories that they have described as apartheid or even potential war crimes.

Jacobsen: It is tragic. After everything the Jewish people endured during the Holocaust, many of Israel’s current policies appear to betray the moral imperatives drawn from that history. Netanyahu, specifically, seems to be perpetuating a cycle of violence and inequality—often interpreted as serving his political interests.

Rosner: Am I wrong to think he is essentially a white-collar criminal trying to escape prosecution by remaining in power?

Jacobsen: That is a widely held view. Netanyahu has been indicted on bribery, fraud, and breach of trust charges. Critics argue that remaining Prime Minister has helped him delay or avoid legal proceedings and potential conviction.

Rosner: We are in a bleak era—especially regarding leadership in democratic countries. Over the past century, we have seen awful leadership in underreported regions. However, deeply flawed individuals are now leading globally prominent democracies—countries like the U.S., the U.K., and Israel.

Jacobsen: And coverage in the West of authoritarian abuses elsewhere—such as those against Tibetans or Uyghurs in China—is often limited. It is not that the atrocities are absent; geopolitical narratives and selective media focus just frequently overshadow them.

Rosner: What is new now is how brazen some leaders are. It feels like we are in a new era of openly corrupt or anti-democratic leadership at the top of significant democracies—arguably the most widespread leadership crisis in the West since World War II.

Jacobsen: And for the first time in U.S. history, a former president—Donald Trump—has been indicted on multiple criminal charges after years of attacking democratic norms and institutions. Some have compared his tactics to Netanyahu’s: using office to delay accountability.

Rosner: That is what you were pointing to, right? Leaders who use political power as a shield from legal consequences, bending democratic systems to retain control.

Jacobsen: Exactly. However, despite the challenges, some developments suggest international law still holds weight.

Rosner: Like what?

Jacobsen: In 2023, the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, alleging war crimes related to the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. While enforcement is another issue, the move was symbolic and significant.

Rosner: That is meaningful. It shows that even leaders of powerful, nuclear-armed states are not entirely beyond the reach of international justice—at least symbolically.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1335: U.S. Decline, Canadian Strategy: Tariffs, Talent, and Global Shifts

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05

Rick Rosner: To go back—how bad do you think things are in the U.S. right now? And, consequently, how does that affect Canada?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It depends partly on how far the damage spreads. You mentioned the near term—but even near-term effects can be long-lasting. For instance, tariffs are almost never short-term measures. I interviewed the authors of an 850-page book on tariffs, and they said tariffs are usually designed to be long-term policy tools.

Canada seems to understand that. The country is shifting its approach. ‘The old world order—the special relationship with the U.S.—is effectively over.’ That has been publicly acknowledged by the interim Prime Minister, Carney.

Rosner: People seem to like him a lot.

Jacobsen: He has stepped up to the moment. He strikes a balance between the conservatism of Pierre Poilievre—who speaks to legitimate concerns—and the idealism Trudeau appeared to embody, though Carney may actually embody it more authentically.

Rosner: I also read on Twitter that Carney, just weeks before the crisis, sold a large portion of U.S. Treasury bills—essentially reducing Canada’s investment in the U.S. That was seen as a very prescient move. People applauded him for it.

Jacobsen: The entire European alliance is probably watching that closely too. And on April 3, Carney publicly stated that if America will not lead, Canada will—especially in cooperation with those who share Canada’s values: international trade, cooperation, universalist ideals. He did not use all those terms exactly, but that was the framing. There could be a new Canada–Europe alliance forming around trade.

Which would make Canada a huge net winner from Trump’s policies. That’s already in motion. Canada already had a program in place to attract American talent. It hit capacity rapidly within implementation in June of 2023. The message was clear: “If you’re smart and stuck in the U.S., come be smart up here.”

Rosner: How many people were invited?

Jacobsen: I do not have the latest figures, but the interest has been enormous. I’m considering writing an article urging Canada to expand the program rapidly while the window is open. If Americans want to shoot themselves in the foot, we might as well hand them more bullets. I’m kidding, but still, seriously.

Rosner: What qualifications do applicants need?

Jacobsen: It is Canada’s Tech Talent Strategy. It launched in June 2023 as a special initiative. It allowed U.S. H-1B visa holders to apply for a three-year open work permit in Canada. Remarkably, the program reached its cap of 10,000 applicants within just one day of opening in June 2023. I think we should expand it—easily by 10x. If Canada really wants to benefit, it should poach both skilled immigrants currently in the U.S. and American citizens with talent.

Rosner: Right. Although I still hope some kind of miraculous turnaround happens in the U.S., I just do not see us getting our act together any time soon.

Jacobsen: In other words, you’re screwed. Miracles do not happen. The unlikely happens, but less often than the likely, not the impossible.

Rosner: We’re screwed for at least the short term. Something would have to shift dramatically. The midterms could change things. If Trump triggers a recession and massive inflation, he will become politically toxic. Republicans could lose both the House and the Senate. And that could reverse some of these policies—maybe even roll back some of the tariffs.

Jacobsen: Musk and Trump claim this is a short-term pain for long-term prosperity scenario.

Rosner: But we are very much in the pain phase. I do not think the prosperity phase is coming. Trump is getting hammered by both liberals and conservatives. If things get bad enough, the House could flip. Republicans only have a slim majority—something like 219 to 212. It would take just a few GOP members flipping to hand Democrats control. But even if that happens, I am not sure it would be enough. The Senate would probably need to flip too.That would mean flipping four Republican seats, since the Senate is currently 53–47. Even with the vice president breaking ties, things would have to get very bad for that to happen before 2026. It would be unprecedented.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1334: Pet Ethics, Abstract Universes, and the Golden Rule

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/05

Rick Rosner: One more topic. Our brown dog—she’s 14 years old—has geriatric vestibular disorder. One or more of her Eustachian tubes gets blocked, which causes dizziness, head tilt, and circular walking. It is concerning and inconvenient to manage.

She gets nauseated from the vertigo and has difficulty eating because she cannot properly position her head to reach her food. The entire situation is frustrating. That said, some people might consider euthanasia at this point, but we are not doing that. She is not suffering. Apart from the head tilt—which usually resolves in about 10 days to two weeks—she is in decent shape.

So she should be fine for a while once this clears up. It got me thinking about the ethical rules for keeping pets alive. The basic principle is the Golden Rule: if a pet is still enjoying life, it’s wrong to put them down just because they’re inconvenient.

Of course, cost can become a legitimate factor. If it costs $20,000 to keep a cat alive for three more months, that may override a strict application of the Golden Rule for many people.

In general, though, we treat our pets the way we would want to be treated. And, in practice, we often keep them alive a little longer than we probably should—not because they’re still enjoying life, but because we enjoy having them around.

But the Golden Rule gets complicated when it comes to meat animals. There’s a contradiction between valuing our pets’ well-being and how we treat animals raised for food. Still, the Golden Rule is the foundation of moral analysis. Without it, it becomes difficult to build any coherent ethical structure.

Most people enjoy being alive and want to continue living. That intuitive preference forms the basis for many moral judgments—about what is valuable and what is not. That leads back to something we’ve discussed for a long time: IC. Part of IC involves imagining the set of all possible moments that could exist—across all possible universes.

As individuals, what we value is the continuation of moments within our own personal universe. If you consider each mind as its own universe, we want those minds to keep generating moments. We want those universes to persist.

You could try to derive value from the existence of the universe itself, but if there’s already a set of all possible universes—existing in an abstract, mathematical sense—then our arguments for creating more moments become less compelling. That set exists regardless of our subjective preferences.

It becomes hard to justify any one universe or moment as inherently valuable. You are left making value judgments about abstractions—like numbers—which is philosophically strange. You do not hear people debating whether numbers are good or bad. Numbers just exist—abstractly.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Of course, there were people centuries ago who argued that numbers were evil, even the work of the devil. Those kinds of beliefs basically helped end entire civilizations.

Rosner: Right. But we moved beyond that.

Jacobsen: Yeah. I think Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed this out—probably close to twenty years ago—at the Beyond Belief conference. He argued that this turning point marked the decline of the Islamic Golden Age under the caliphate.

Rosner: I can see that argument. Some sects of Islam prohibit depicting living beings, as that is considered the domain of God. So the rejection of numbers might follow a similar logic: numbers give humans too much control over the world—control that should belong to God. That makes sense. It’s about limiting what humans can claim authority over.

Rosner: Right. But here’s something else: what if the rules of existence were so strict that nothing could exist—absolutely nothing? You could try to argue that such a state would be bad, based on the Golden Rule—we enjoy existing, so nonexistence would be undesirable. But that argument falls apart because if nothing could exist, there would be no framework within which to make the judgment. No tools, no perspectives—just the absence of everything, including value judgments. It is disturbing to imagine a kind of absolute nothingness so complete that it cannot even be evaluated. Comments?

Jacobsen: I will leave the commentary to the beings in that universe. But that is the point—there are no beings, no universe. That was rhetorical. It ties into a broader point that’s been made many times. When people ask, “Where is all the life?” the answer might be: in other universes, where life did not emerge. And since there are no observers in those universes, there’s no one to ask the question.

So we happen to be in a universe where we can ask. In that sense, it is a kind of mathematical or probabilistic solipsism—a “spiritual solipsism,” if you follow Ann Druyan, Carl Sagan’s widow.

Rosner: Or even certain Buddhist ideas. It is also related to the weak anthropic principle.

Jacobsen: And the point is to frame these ideas in accessible terms—without needing to invoke concepts that might sound like neologisms to the average American ear, even if they are not.

Rosner: Understood.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1333: When Smart People Get It Wrong: Tech Elites, Cognitive Traps, and the Politics of Delusion

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/05/05

Rick Rosner: I sent you an article on the idea of “smart stupids” or “stupid smarts”—basically people, like tech billionaires, who are highly intelligent or skilled in one domain, like engineering, but display ignorance in areas outside their expertise without realizing it.

For example, on X (formerly Twitter), you will often see users with verified credentials—nurses, doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants—espousing conspiracy theories or extremist views, including pro-MAGA rhetoric. I do not believe they are all lying about their credentials.

The essay I shared argued that people who are accomplished in one domain can fall into cognitive traps. They often overestimate their competence in unrelated fields. Tech entrepreneurs, for example, when speculating about the future or trying to optimize for longevity, can wander into bizarre territory by stacking speculative assumptions.

That point struck me because some of the most difficult high-IQ test problems also involve stacked assumptions. You often need to follow a chain of five abstract steps to reach the solution. But in real life, every abstract step is another opportunity to fall into error or delusion—which might explain what we are seeing with some of these highly credentialed professionals falling for misinformation or pseudoscience.

We’ve been talking about AI—predicting its trajectory, debating what we should do with it—and a lot of that falls into the “smart stupid” category. You have engineers, coders, and tech entrepreneurs trying to shape the future, but they may not actually be qualified to do that. Elon Musk is often cited as a prime example of a “smart stupid” figure.

But it is not just Musk. You could say the same, to varying degrees, about Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, maybe even Bill Gates. Gates, despite being a favorite villain of the far right due to his progressive philanthropy, was known for being extremely difficult in his earlier career.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: He was not always a nice person.

Rosner: No. He was downright mean to my former boss, Jimmy. Gates’ employees hired Jimmy to perform a roast at his birthday party, and Gates did not appreciate it. He was cold and dismissive. That said, Gates has done significant charitable work in recent years. He is not out there pushing conspiracy theories.

Jacobsen: His personal life might be somewhat complicated—he is either remarried or dating—but it is nothing compared to Musk’s erratic behavior. Gates seems to emulate Warren Buffett, or at least projects a similar grounded image.

Rosner: The essay made a compelling point: there are highly intelligent people who can still be profoundly misguided. It validated what I have suspected for a long time—many smart people are also, in key ways, fools.

Take the Trump presidency. It has been a disaster. The most recent developments are particularly catastrophic. He has effectively undermined the U.S. economy and severely damaged what global trust remained in American leadership. His actions have already sparked inflation and instability in international markets.

Even if he reverses his tariffs—which are ineffective anyway—they will not achieve his stated goal of bringing back manufacturing jobs. Prices on imported goods have risen so much that, in theory, domestic production becomes more viable. But as the economy tips into recession, far more people will lose jobs than gain new ones in manufacturing.

Anyone paying attention, who is not completely deluded, can see that this is a disaster—arguably the biggest unforced error by any president in modern U.S. history. The only comparable example is the 2003 invasion of Iraq, a catastrophe built on false pretenses. The first Gulf War in 1991 lasted four days and achieved its limited objectives. The second was a prolonged failure.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1332: ChatGPT, AGI, and the Future of Multimodal AI

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05

Rick Rosner: You had ChatGPT summarize my life using publicly available sources, which it processed into a coherent narrative. There were several minor errors—for example, it claimed I spent ten years in high school. That is inaccurate. I returned to high school a few times over the course of a decade, but I did not attend for ten continuous years.

Despite these inaccuracies, the summary presented a clear and compelling story. It identified key themes in my life, which is notable. I have lived according to certain recurring ideas, and it successfully recognized and organized them. It was impressive. Each claim included a source citation, which added credibility. That said, the quality may reflect strong summarization of sources more than independent insight.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’re at a turning point with AI, particularly in language models. Because these tools work with language—the medium we rely on most—they feel especially impactful.

Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), defined as systems that act in the world rather than only process text, will be fundamentally different. Still, scaling improvements are significant. For example, the jump from GPT-3.5 to GPT-4o might represent a tenfold improvement. Integration across systems is another major step.

Rosner: You asked about multimodality.

Jacobsen: Technically, modality refers to sensory data, but AI developers often use the term differently. If five distinct systems can be integrated so that each fully interoperates with the others, the increase in capability could match or exceed the jump from GPT-3.5 to GPT-5o.

Even small updates—such as shifting the model to a more powerful server—can noticeably improve performance. Integration across varied modalities, and increasing processing power to unify them, is likely the next major leap. At that point, we may begin to approach truly general AI, or something that functions as such through AGIs.

Well, in the sense that if we’re using humans as a benchmark—and that’s typically the default—we assume the human brain and body as the standard: movement, language generation, and integrating both to make plans, act in the world, and communicate.

So, yes, we have the five basic senses. To replicate that in AI might require a similar scaling progression—from something like GPT-3.5 to GPT-5o. But I would argue motor processing is probably far less computationally intensive for machines than it is for us, even though it has been a challenging problem to solve. I think language is far more processing-intensive, and we are already making significant progress there.

Rosner: You mentioned five senses, but there are many others that could be developed artificially. The five human senses just happen to be well-adapted to our evolutionary needs. But machines can have others. For instance, some forms of artificial intelligence have been designed with magnetic field detection, and that’s just one example.

Jacobsen: Then there are derivative senses—like proprioception—which are combinations or extensions of the basic ones. I think it’s very possible to build on those. But integrating them would just require another order of magnitude in processing power—a 10x scale-up, as with earlier transitions.

Machines will likely be able to take in broader bands of the light spectrum, for example—far beyond what we can naturally perceive.

Rosner: Alright. Let’s move on.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1331: Val Kilmer’s Dead

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/04

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, there is an actor who was known for film and theatre, born in Los Angeles.

Rick Rosner: Val Kilmer? Are you saying Val Kilmer?

Rosner: He was the youngest student ever accepted to Juilliard’s drama program. He was known for Top Secret, Top Gun, The Doors, and Batman Forever.

Real Genius. It’s one of my favorite movies because it deals with a list of people with the highest IQs in the world.

And there is a character number two or three on that list.

And a woman in the movie is trying to sleep with all the top ten.

I have to go in a second, but—there is a guy with the world’s highest IQ who lives in the walls of Caltech, in the tunnels and walls, and he has figured out a scam where he can enter a McDonald’s sweepstakes 400,000 times and win a million dollars worth of prizes.

I thought, well, if he can do that, I can.

So, I started entering contests hundreds or even thousands of times.

And I won once.

And then I got yelled at a lot because people do not like it when you drop a hundred entries into a ballot box all at once.

They think that is cheating.

That guy—the highest IQ guy in Real Genius—is now the bad guy on White Lotus, like 40 years later.

But he is also Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite.

Anyway, yeah, it is sad about Val Kilmer.

He was always a symbol of insouciant youth and vitality.

And then he had a bunch of tough years.

I think he has been fighting cancer for like a decade.

But I think he was not a douchebag, and he gave many people much joy through his movies.

And now he is gone at 65.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1330: Quantum Information, Life’s Computations, and the Usability of Information in the Universe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/04

Rick Rosner: All right, you sent me a paper on quantum information—precisely, the number of computations performed by life on Earth over its history, right? These people—maybe women too, I do not know—ran some calculations.

The trouble I have with it is that I have not thought about it much or for very long, and I have not completely read the paper. But my question is: Where is the useful information? And who would be using it?

The information generated by all life on Earth and what it has left behind is not usable by anything or anyone. As individual humans, we do not get much usable information from all the algae on Earth—or even from all the other people on Earth.

Did Archimedes say, “Give me a place to stand and a lever, and I can move the Earth”? Some guy said that.

All right. For information to be information, some entity has to be using it. Just because many quantum flips have occurred does not mean the result is usable information.

I do not think the information on a planet—the quantum physics of a planet—is accessible to any overarching system, including the universe itself.

Sure, the universe contains a massive amount of information. But how much of that information is usable, in the sense of being processed or accessed, by the universe itself?

We are talking about two different things here. One is that all the quantum interactions, all the interactions of all the particles across the universe, define the universe—the shape of space, the scale of space, and the precision with which its constituent particles are defined.

In that way, all the information the universe contains is usable in the sense that it defines itself. But that information is black-boxed. You can extract some information from the universe, but most of it is hidden—opaque—to any entity that embodies the universe.

If the universe is an entity, most of its own information is probably opaque to it, in the same way that the information structures in our minds are only partially accessible to us and not in great detail at any given moment. Our brains and minds contain vast information, most of which we cannot access.

This paper demonstrates that we still do not have a good understanding of what information truly is. For something to count as information, it has to be usable by some kind of entity.

But now that I am saying that, I do not like it because it echoes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. That was an early attempt in the 1930s to deal with the collapsing wave function, where—was it Bohr?—one of those guys suggested that what collapses the quantum wave function is parts of the universe being observed by conscious beings.

That is not the case. No one buys the Copenhagen interpretation anymore.

But I am just saying that information is not information unless it is usable by an entity—that throws things off. I do not know. Anyway, I do not like it.

It may be true-ish, but I still do not like it.

So, you have a bunch of information in all the particles in the universe, which results from creating information over the universe’s lifespan.

Does the additional information accumulated on the Earth’s surface via evolution add relevant information to the information already embodied by the particles? These particles are arranged in increasingly complex ways on the Earth’s surface because the Earth is an open thermodynamic system, which means it can exhibit the opposite of entropy over time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What about migratory birds with a cryptochrome protein guiding their navigation? So they see Earth’s magnetic field and use olfaction, with the theory being that they can detect odours through spectroscopy of molecules involving quantum effects.

Rosner: Okay, that’s fine. I mean, quantum—subtle quantum effects—if biology can exploit them, can do some cool stuff. It makes birds better able to navigate or makes wolves better able to sniff.

But they are just physical processes. Even though they involve quantum effects, they are still physical processes, and biology is made of bodily processes.

Just because they are fancy and cannot occur under classical physics does not mean they are magical or somehow imbued with consciousness.

That bird magnetic sense thing is another sense that birds have, and we do not. It would be nice to have it.

This is off-topic, but Daredevil.

Do you know Daredevil?

Jacobsen: He’s a Marvel character. He’s a second-stringer. Blind guy.

Rosner: Right. He is blind. Okay, so he crashed into a toxic spill that blinded him but also enhanced his other senses to such an extreme that he developed blindsight.

In the Netflix show, we see what he perceives via his other amped-up senses, and he sees the world the way we do.

Sure, he is missing colours. He might not perceive, say, the pattern of a fancy dress.

But he sees the world.

If he sees an attractive woman, he will perceive her attractiveness as we do.

So, what is the big deal about him being blind?

Why does he even carry a cane?

Why does he not just wear sunglasses and walk around like a cool guy?

It is a weird thing.

And I know—I said this to an actual comic book guy—and he explained why I am off-base on this.

If quantum effects can give you extra sense or amplify an existing one, that’s fine.

But it is not the juice that powers consciousness.

The interaction of information is what powers consciousness.

I suspect that information, if you could map it, would probably look like a quantum system—like a little quantum universe.

Within that system, you would have all sorts of tacit understanding and tacit generation of information.

But just because you can apply quantum analysis to a system does not mean that the quantum physics of the particles comprising that system are doing something magical.

You can apply quantum analysis to cars and traffic, as discussed.

Like, the car most likely to be driven by a jerk right now is a Tesla truck.

Almost everybody driving a Tesla truck is some fucking asshole.

You could find exceptions.

Someone may have a good reason to be driving one. I do not know.

But you could assign a probability package to a Tesla truck in traffic—some kind of Hamiltonian, or other wave-function model—that will tell you the truck’s wave function as it approaches a multi-lane stoplight.

Where its probability package, based on Bayesian analysis of all Tesla truck operators, is going to be: “dick move” as it comes up to the stoplight.

It’s going to abruptly change lanes or not be paying attention when the light changes or whatever—compared to, I do not know, somebody like a Latino person, if you could see the driver, in a Toyota Camry.

Because Latinos in L.A. are among the most law-abiding drivers on the road—they do not want to get messed with by the authorities. So they drive under the speed limit.

They do not drive like jerks. They drive from one difficult job to another, just trying to keep themselves and their families above water. They do not have time for dick moves.

So the probability wave of a Camry coming up to that same stoplight is much less dickish than the Tesla wave package.

And that is quantum analysis.

This does not mean that some weird quantum physics is at work in the Camry or the Tesla that makes them behave that way.

It is just the mechanics of the drivers’ brains—brains that may or may not have some quantum activity among all the other biological and electrical processes.

And it is a big, fun world that has yet to be figured out—how all the information exists as an essential component of the entire universe.

Whether it is the universe or the little universe in our brains.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1329: OnlyFans, Digital Porn, and AI Entertainment Are Replacing Real-Life Intimacy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s the question: Can the decline of Hooters be correlated with the rise of OnlyFans?

Rick Rosner: Yes, to some extent. It’s increasingly challenging, awkward, and less emotionally stimulating for many people to seek sexual or romantic attention from others in person, compared to the instant gratification of consuming digital content—particularly pornography. In recent years, Hooters has experienced a decline in its number of locations, with multiple reports confirming closures across the United States. While the company has not declared bankruptcy, it has downsized significantly.

At Hooters, the appeal traditionally combined food, sports, and flirtatious service from women in revealing uniforms. While not overtly sexual like a strip club, the environment was designed to be suggestively playful. These interactions, however, can be emotionally taxing for men who are socially anxious or inexperienced. Many sense that friendliness is performative and part of the job rather than genuine interest.

In earlier generations, many men would overcome social discomfort and fear of rejection to form romantic relationships. That social risk-taking was part of the courtship norm. Today, however, there is a noticeable increase in the number of men who remain single, particularly younger men. Multiple studies have shown declining relationship and sexual activity rates among men aged 18–30.

A variety of reasons contribute to this shift: The easy availability of online pornography, including platforms like OnlyFans, allows creators—mostly women—to post adult content directly to paying subscribers. As of 2023, OnlyFans had over 3 million content creators worldwide, a substantial number based in the United States.

Abundant digital entertainment options make staying home more appealing than going out to meet people. The rising costs of dating and relationships and economic challenges have grown wealth inequality, with older generations holding a large majority of private wealth. In many cases, the gig economy or part-time work has often replaced the erosion of stable, middle-class jobs. Hyper-exposure to highly curated images of attractiveness in media and social media creates distorted expectations and reduces willingness to “settle” in real life.

Reality TV, dating apps, and influencer culture reflect and exacerbate this trend: people become pickier, sometimes unrealistically, because they are saturated with visual access to idealized partners.

A century ago, the average distance between marriage partners was under a few miles, as people largely married those in their immediate social or geographic circles. Now, dating is global, options are seemingly endless, and paradoxically, this abundance can make commitment harder.

The result? Many people choose sexual gratification via online means over real-world interaction. Real-world relationships require emotional labour: saying the right things, being interesting, being kind, and tolerating quirks. That’s effort—and many people are increasingly reluctant to invest that effort, especially if there is a less vulnerable alternative.

So yes, the rise of platforms like OnlyFans—along with broader technological, economic, and cultural changes—has contributed to a decline in the appeal of real-life social spaces like Hooters, where the fantasy of flirtation used to be a main draw.

What about you?

Jacobsen: As for me? I’m a neutral party. I’m not pushing an agenda here—just observing the shifting landscape.

We live in a free society. People should do what they feel is best for their lives without coercion. But I’m sitting here comfortably as a man—and yes, there are pressures—but I don’t think I experience the worst of them. Women face a lot more pressure.

Our society has been set up to offer advantages to gender and otherwise conforming people. It treats those who don’t conform terribly, especially in relationships and family structures.

Rosner: But those advantages are eroding, and societal disapproval of people who aren’t coupled up is also decreasing.

When Carole and I married, we had a net worth of about zero. Our parents helped us out—they gave us some things or a sweet loan deal to buy Carol’s grandparents’ condo after they aged out of it.

Working as a couple, we accumulated assets, had a kid, and took turns working—sometimes one of us, both. Sometimes, one of us had a pretty good job. We got lucky, and maybe we were good at certain things.

Being coupled up also kept us out of trouble. We limited the number of kids we had to one. That was part of the engine for stability—plus a ton of luck—and the fact that our parents and grandparents had lived frugally. That put us in a good position. But those factors aren’t available for most people anymore, or at least not as often as they used to be.

It’s also nice to have someone I get along with most of the time to go through life with. Studies have shown that not having that can make life harder—more friction, stress, and risk of breaking down under pressure.

I was looking at fertility stats. According to the most recent estimates, the U.S. has a fertility rate of 1.62 children per woman. The replacement level is 2.1 per woman to sustain the population without immigration.

I was also looking at Japan. I saw 0.75 children per woman, which is extraordinarily low. That’s only 36% of the replacement rate. In some large European countries—Italy, for example—the fertility rate is around 1.2, just over 57% of replacement.

Unless these countries allow significant immigration, their populations will decline over time. Elon Musk thinks this is the worst thing in the world, but it’s not.

We have more people alive right now than ever before. The global population is over 8.2 billion and has only crossed the 8 billion mark since November 2022.

To put it in perspective: Around the time of Jesus, roughly 250 million people were on Earth. At the time of the Renaissance, about 500 million. Now, we’re at over 8 billion.

But humanity doesn’t need 8 billion humans to keep going. Even with the so-called baby-making crisis, the global population is still rising and is projected to peak at around 9.7 billion by the 2060s or 2070s before potentially declining. So yes, fertility decline is real and worth attention, but it’s not necessarily catastrophic. The context matters.

Around 2050 to 2060, the number of humans on Earth is projected to surpass just over 9 billion. After that, it will likely begin a slow and gradual decline. The global population growth rate has been steadily decreasing for decades and is expected to reach zero growth by the 2050s.

By 2100, the total population will still be huge—likely between 9 and 10 billion, depending on how things evolve—but not growing. So yes, it will still be a massive population, just not an ever-expanding one. It is not a population crisis in the way some people frame it. The bigger issue is that it may become an economic crisis or a structural challenge.

Our economic systems—capitalism in particular—have been built on the assumption of constant population growth. More people mean more workers, consumers, and taxpayers. If the population starts shrinking, it becomes harder for businesses to grow and governments to sustain programs and services as they’re used to.

So by 2100, we may face lower overall demand for labour unless something major changes. This is where universal basic income (UBI) comes in. Many people are starting to think seriously about providing people with the basics of life—food, shelter, healthcare—even if there is not enough traditional employment to go around.

Jacobsen: This is not new. Several countries—Finland, Estonia, Namibia, Kenya, and Canada—have been experimenting with it through pilot programs in Manitoba and Ontario. These experiments often involve selecting a few thousand or tens of thousands of people, giving them a set amount of money every month—no strings attached—and observing the effects.

Rosner: Does society fall apart?

Jacobsen: No. At least, so far, the preliminary results are promising. People do not quit their jobs en masse or become idle. Many report better mental health, better family outcomes, and better decision-making. The worst-case scenarios—the collapse of motivation or social order—haven’t played out in these small trials.

Even António Guterres, the former Prime Minister of Portugal and the current UN Secretary-General, said something along these lines at the United Nations General Assembly about six years ago. He acknowledged that a gradual global population decline, increased automation, and rising inequality could radically reshape societies and that we would need inclusive policies to manage that.

Rosner: And yes, we hope humanity is not getting dumber, but we might be. It could be temporary. Maybe it’s not. The question is—what does that world look like?

You have a shrinking population, insufficient work, and many people receiving necessities without traditional labour. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence and the people who know how to work with it are getting smarter. AI gives us incredible new tools—extending lifespans, improving medicine, and creating entertainment.

Imagine taking any film, show, or video game and customizing it completely. You could become a character in your AI-generated movie or mash-up genres—action, romance, sci-fi, whatever. If you want to add adult content to it, you could. You could do that if you want the characters to be furries instead of humans: personalized and immersive.

So the economic questions, the cultural questions, and the tech all collide. We’re headed toward a weird, unstable, possibly amazing future—different from anything we’ve dealt with.

You can already do a lot of this stuff. A couple of years ago, there was a website called Endless Seinfeld. If you’ve seen every episode of Seinfeld more than once and wanted more, that site used AI to generate new Seinfeld scripts.

At some point, AI will start generating entirely new—probably crappy at first—episodes of Seinfeld. We’ve also talked about AI-generated movie trailers. You’ve probably seen fake trailers for Forrest Gump 2, Titanic 2, or other imaginary sequels. They’re either entirely AI-generated or produced by humans using AI tools. At first, these trailers are convincing—you think they’re real. Then you realize it’s all fake footage for movies that don’t exist.

If AI can already create two-minute trailers that fool people, it’s not a stretch to think that in a year—or maybe three—it will be able to produce full-length movies. And not terrible ones, either. That’ll trigger legal pushback from the movie studios saying, “Cut it out.” Will that work in court? I don’t know.

But people are going to be increasingly entertained and immersed. Some will choose to live virtually—we’ve talked about that. They’ll live in what I call racks—shabby apartment buildings for people who barely participate in non-virtual life. We’re talking 50-square-foot studio units with a VR rig and an ergonomic chair-bed setup.

These folks will spend 14 hours a day in digital space. Maybe the government will step in, requiring these rack facilities to have orderlies who pull people out of their chair beds to walk around, eat, and maintain basic hygiene—so they don’t rot and fuse to the furniture. But yes, some people will live like that. It’ll be a cheap way to live.

You’ll pay a lot for immersive entertainment but won’t be driving or commuting. Your sphere of non-virtual activity will be extremely limited. So, it’s a way to warehouse people, like The Matrix. In The Matrix, humanity was warehoused.

We never saw the accountants managing the Matrix, but I’m sure they were pleased with the cost-benefit economics of storing a bunch of humans and harvesting their psychic energy—or whatever the lore was. Thank you very much, and I’ll see you tomorrow at—the same time.

I might be a little later. Depending on how late Carole stays up and how early she gets up. The dog’s vestibular disorder returned, so we were trying to help her not fall down the stairs.

Jacobsen: Got it. Thank you, and good night.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1328: Aging Leaders, Declining Democracies, and AI’s Rise

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/31

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey there, Rick. What’s your topic?

Rick Rosner: All right, so different eras in life and politics have different vibes, right?

Jacobsen: We’re currently in a period of older leadership. By historical standards, many global leaders today are well into their seventies or older.

Rosner: Yes, and they’re leading some of the most influential countries. At the same time, there’s been a global trend toward more authoritarian governance in several regions.

Jacobsen: And yes, according to research by organizations like Freedom House, democracy has declined globally for nearly two decades.

Rosner: In 2024, there were dozens of national elections worldwide. In many of them, there was a noticeable shift toward right-leaning parties, some of which have authoritarian tendencies. That shift occurred in over 80% of the cases, according to political analysts, though the reasons vary by country.

Jacobsen: Do you think people were wrong to vote that way?

Rosner: It depends on how you look at it. You could argue yes, especially considering how misinformation and political propaganda influence voters. Social media platforms can expose users to hundreds of messages per day. That volume of exposure is unprecedented compared to earlier decades.

In the 1950s and ’60s, most people got their information through face-to-face discussions, local newspapers, and maybe a half-hour of national news. Magazines like Time and Newsweek—and most significant newspapers—at least aimed for journalistic objectivity, even if they didn’t consistently achieve it.

Jacobsen: Right, but today’s media environment is entirely different.

Rosner: Now, many outlets—particularly online—are openly partisan, and with algorithmic amplification, people can be bombarded with tailored content constantly. Studies show that misinformation spreads faster on social media than factual news. And a lot of the most coordinated disinformation campaigns have come from right-wing actors, both domestic and international.

It’s not good when people are manipulated into voting based on misleading or false information. In the U.S., the mood feels pessimistic. For example, when Trump threatened broad tariffs—like he did in 2018 and 2019—it created market instability. He floated the idea of expanding tariffs if reelected, which would likely affect key trading partners like China, Canada, Mexico, and the EU.

And that could have global repercussions. If you impose tariffs on major trading partners, you risk sparking retaliation and harming your economy. It’s not about putting tariffs on smaller trade partners like Uruguay, which accounts for a negligible portion of U.S. trade—less than 0.1%. The concern is when tariffs affect countries responsible for a large share of U.S. imports and exports.

Jacobsen: America’s headed in one direction Europe might be heading in another.

Rosner: Yeah. And to top it off, there have been some strange moments—like Trump’s 2019 suggestion of purchasing Greenland from Denmark, which was widely criticized and dismissed by Danish officials. That kind of rhetoric contributes to a chaotic atmosphere. There have been more stable and optimistic times in recent history.

A lot of the electorate felt good under Obama. There were some good times under Clinton. There was even some optimism under second-term Reagan and one-term George H. W. Bush, significantly when the Soviet Union fell.

It’s a weird bummer when you’re my age and facing the decline of aging while the world itself feels like it’s also at risk and, in some ways, in decline.

We can be optimistic long-term that this fascistic political trend will not last. But we are moving into an increasingly AI-driven world. This shift toward techno-domination, where humans may no longer be the alpha thinkers on the planet, probably helps us get out of fascism.

Humans might still contribute to higher-order thinking by combining it with AI, or AI may not improve as quickly as predicted, but it probably will. So, it is not precisely decay; it’s more like disruption.

At the same time, I don’t know—stupid stuff like my bench press—I’m struggling to get back to even two-thirds of my former max just on machines. If I ever have the motivation to use a bar and plates like you’re supposed to, I’m probably down to half what I used to lift. And other stuff—my toenails are gone, eaten by fungus, and the hair on my lower legs is thinning. And then there’s the more serious stuff.

It does not feel great when the world and your body seem to fall apart.

Would I feel better if I were twenty years older and had been this age during the Obama years? I don’t know—probably.

Comments?

Oh yeah—also, people are getting stupider.

Jacobsen: Are you sad?

Rosner: I’m not. Every day, I sit down and try to do things because I still think I have things to do. Every day, I get distracted and don’t do as much as I should, but I remain optimistic. I’m a good-natured person, even though I complain a lot. But much of my day is spent looking at things that don’t thrill me.

What about you?

Jacobsen: I’m happy. Reality has been broadly, consistently good to me. I am grateful for that, for sure. I see the collective species decline, but I’m okay, individually. I see fewer declines in nation-states and more declines in the human species, too.

Rosner: So you see people getting worse than nations?

Jacobsen: I see the declining influence of nation-states and the increasing influence of ideologies alongside the growing power of multinational corporations—many of which now have more wealth than entire countries and often more influence than even their wealth would suggest. And the technology behind all of it is beginning to overshadow even them.

So yes, I see people who are angry at religion or whatever else. Some people worship invisible beings or fantastical ideas—that’s one category. Others, especially in the West, worship the self—a one-person religion. Then, some people are critical of multinational corporations—Chomsky-type critics. That’s its own sort of faith-based narrative.

And within that, you find facets like the ‘great man’ theory—though there are some ‘great women’, too, who buy into this ideological wealth movement too.

Rosner: Many of what you’re saying fits under the umbrella of people not having overarching philosophies anymore—because we’re too fragmented and distracted.

Jacobsen: Well, this is the more significant point. I’ll build up a couple more points and then add to that. So, with multinational corporations as a secularized, profit- and tech-driven system—what might even be considered, to their credit, a form of faith—the fundamental force that’s often overlooked is their soft power.

Soft power influences consumers, the lower strata of nation-states, and religious institutions. The most obvious example to an American mind would be the Prosperity Gospel, but each institution—religious, political, or corporate—has its uses depending on the parties interested.

Rosner: Let’s explain the Prosperity Gospel for a second. American megachurches—some of them—preach that it’s good to be wealthy. Wealth shows that God favours you.

Jacobsen: That’s a very accurate way to portray it, yes.

Rosner: And it’s okay for me, the megachurch pastor, to live in a $14 million, 7,000-square-foot mansion. Joel Osteen, for instance. Now, there’s Cory Doctorow, who argues that the declining influence of the nation-state isn’t entirely bad. Well—he doesn’t say that outright. He says that nation-states’ power is declining as technological power increases. And that we, as citizens, need to confront and redirect that techno-power—basically, we need to take it up as a new kind of struggle, just as we once fought “the man” in the form of oppressive governments.

Jacobsen: That’s also true. To tie it back to the earlier point about multinationals, their influence feeds back into political and religious systems. At the same time, there’s also a more unimpeded version of that influence—where ideology is replaced by consumption and self-branding. The so-called “cult of the self” is where people buy things and isolate themselves in informational bubbles. You see advanced cases of this in Japan with the phenomenon of hikikomori—the extreme social withdrawal cases.

Rosner: Are shut-ins like the American version of incels?

Jacobsen: No, they’re less resentful. Also, from what we know through sexual assault case data, women in Japan are probably the safest among all United Nations member states. Compared to 193 countries, Japan ranks exceptionally high in terms of safety for women, though definitions of sexual assault may differ to make metric results different.

Rosner: Because people stay home and do all their business online?

Jacobsen: Something about how the society manages itself. For example, police officers often have to look for things to do—it’s a very low-crime society.

Rosner: Is it because everyone’s just inside, doing everything from home?

Jacobsen: It’s probably a mix of shut-in culture, anime and gaming, and a general “not-growing-up” culture. It’s partly rooted in the extreme work ethic of the salaryman and also due, I think, to rigid gender roles—especially for women. It’s the paradox of high tech, high wealth, high infrastructure, and low gender equality.

Rosner: This kind of setup also discourages people from marrying. Japan has had a baby shortage for decades.

Jacobsen: Yeah—Japan, South Korea too. However, the political argument in these countries is to regress. For instance, in South Korea, there was an effort to eliminate the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family. Their current president—who was jailed for attempting to impose martial law in December—ran on an anti-feminist platform.

The president was jailed for attempting to impose martial law. But even before that, his political ticket included eliminating the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family that became reduced functioning of it. There’s a strong anti-feminist sentiment in the region.

So the proposed “solution” in countries like Japan and South Korea—which face extreme versions of this issue, although found across East Asia—is essentially to go backward. The idea is that when there was more gender inequality, birth rates were higher. Therefore, the ultra-conservative response—sometimes mixed with Christian fundamentalism—is to restrict women’s rights in the hope of increasing birth rates.

Rosner: Does this work against people coupling up?

Jacobsen: It exacerbates existing tensions—particularly between genders and across generations. It’s like throwing gasoline on kindling.

Rosner: Also, Japan has been in a recession for about 20 out of the last 30 years. So, we already know that economic pressure makes it harder for people to couple up and have families.

Jacobsen: That’s true. The cost of living is also extremely high in these societies. They’re economically advanced but also hyper-competitive.

These conditions reinforce themselves, creating a feedback loop. A highly competitive society becomes more expensive, and fewer children are born. With fewer children, fewer resources are devoted to them, making competition even more rigid. And on it goes.

We’re talking about a birth rate of 0.75 in South Korea. That’s extremely low.

Rosner: So that’s more than 60 percent below replacement level.

Jacobsen: Oh yeah—way below.

Rosner: The U.S. is at 1.6, about 20 percent below the replacement level. Japan has almost a whole child per woman below that.

Jacobsen: Yeah. And Japan has a layered issue—similar to Iceland—in that it maintains a largely ethnically homogeneous society. But unlike Iceland, it’s selectively racist. I was told by someone who is part Japanese and part Bolivian that she cannot live there comfortably. Her family in Japan, who are entirely Japanese, do not accept her. People like her are called “halves”—a derogatory term used for those who are half Japanese and half something else, mainly white or non-Asian.

Rosner: Japan is also pretty homogeneous, but they have northern islands with different ethnic groups.

Jacobsen: Sure, they have indigenous heritage—like the Ainu in Hokkaido. However, I wanted to emphasize that this cultural homogeneity influences national policy. Japan presents itself as a tolerant society, but immigration is limited and not broadly welcomed.

The same issue exists in the U.S. to some degree. The U.S. is ethnically heterogeneous but often politically resistant to immigration. Canada, on the other hand, is also heterogeneous but demonstrably less racist—at least at this point. Canada has a lower birth rate too—around 1.3 or 1.4—but it offsets that decline more effectively through immigration policy and better integration of newcomers.

Rosner: I mean, you guys in Canada have a lot of space. With only about one-eighth of the population of the U.S., you could accept as many immigrants as the U.S. does, and they would have eight times the demographic impact. That means immigrants could make up for eight times as much of your “baby gap” compared to what they can do here in the U.S. The U.S. is screwing itself in multiple ways with its anti-immigration stance.

Jacobsen: Well, with a declining birth rate, you’re screwing yourself slightly less—but still screwing yourself.

Rosner: The U.S. population would decline if it weren’t for immigration. And yet we’re saying, “screw you” to immigrants because idiots are in charge right now.

A couple more things make life feel like a bummer regarding decline. We’ve got two dogs—one is 12 years old, and the other is 14 and a half. Dogs age on an accelerated schedule.

Last night, one of them experienced something called geriatric vestibular disorder. Animals—including humans—have these little balance mechanisms in their ears. They’re like carpentry levels, filled with fluid and crystals inside tiny circular canals. These help us know our orientation and acceleration in space. When you’re a second grader spinning in circles until you get dizzy, that feeling comes from the fluid and crystals moving around in those tubes.

Older dogs’ vestibular systems can become clogged or damaged. Last night, our 14-year-old dog suddenly lost her equilibrium, started running in circles, and fell over because she wasn’t receiving the proper signals from her vestibular system.

That’s terrifying because it can make the dog too nauseated to eat and too unstable to go outside to pee. It turns them into a total basket case. Luckily for us, she recovered within a few hours. Usually, it takes weeks—and that’s a long time for an ancient dog.

And then there’s my wife. She’s in good shape, but she’s not young either, and she’s facing her potential health issues.

So, all of this makes me reflect. Trophy wives—what’s the deal? I’d say there are a couple of reasons people go for them. First, it’s easier to, you know, get off with a trophy wife—she’s hot.

Second, she’s not yet clued into all your bullshit. When someone’s only known you briefly, they’re more likely to believe what you say. They haven’t developed skepticism from being with someone for ten or twenty years.

And third, if you’re bummed out about your physical decline, maybe it helps to have someone half your age around. You can look at them, see them not declining, and feel distracted from your aging.

Jacobsen: Yeah, I also want to return to the earlier point about multinationals feeding back into all these broader systems.

What happens if you peel the layer beneath corporations and their soft power is not being discussed enough? Their influence doesn’t have geographic limits anymore. The flow of capital is global and fluid. The infrastructure that supports this increasingly comprises decentralized networks—mostly narrow AI systems, sometimes working together like a multiplex, even approaching something close to general AI in coordination.

This is slowly replacing or diminishing our simple, daily cognitive tasks.

Anyone doing knowledge work today is already affected. Sam Altman, who runs OpenAI, recently pointed out that the top performers in many sectors use tools like OpenAI most effectively. These people drastically reduce the time it takes to complete simple tasks, which frees up their best cognitive energy for more complex or creative work.

Even in brainstorming—what distinguishes talented people is not just coming up with ideas but intuitively knowing which ones are good, they’re navigating a web of possibilities with better discernment.

Rosner: I have an article open on my ancient computer that says 93 percent of millennials and younger use AI at work—and that it helps them in precisely that way.

Jacobsen: Great. Life’s easy. I see nothing objectionable about that unless it veers into outright plagiarism—and yes, some of it does.

Rosner: And then you get these fast-travelling waves of AI-facilitated trends. Did you see the explosion of Studio Ghibli graphics in the past three, four, maybe five days?

Jacobsen: Did I what?

Rosner: Studio Ghibli—an animation studio.

Jacobsen: Oh, yeah.

Rosner: It has a particular aesthetic. And I think ChatGPT or one of the image generators prompted people with something like, “Come to Ghibli yourself” or some similar prompt. And then everyone went nuts creating Ghibli-style content.

The product is cute and winsome. It seems harmless, but the technology that enables it isn’t exactly harmless.

Jacobsen: I think what we’re seeing is that a minority of truly enlightened men—not necessarily Western, just enlightened—and a majority of women, who have traditionally excelled at soft skills, are operating in a landscape where the brush is being cleared.

This new digital terrain is open for those who want to dominate. I don’t think the future is necessarily “female,” but is largely. Still, in many ways, men and women are becoming afterthoughts in the larger scheme of technological evolution.

But right now, women are well-positioned to excel—for two reasons: first, their soft skills are generally better developed than men’s, and second, women are more educated in many societies, especially in key industries where those skills matter.

You also have highly capable young women emerging in leadership and creative roles. This is an “oyster moment” for women—an opportunity window they haven’t seen in thousands of years.

Rosner: Maybe not since one of the dynasties in ancient Egypt. But the flip side is that this leaves a lot of young men behind—left out of sophistication, either by choice or by conditioning—and vulnerable to simplistic, manipulative propaganda. That’s basically what happened in the 2024 election.

Just look at the Joe Rogan listeners.

Jacobsen: And he’s one of the better ones.

Rosner: He’s among the better. But then, some people look to someone like Jordan Peterson as their intellectual hero.

Jacobsen: That isn’t good. Yeah. And the thing is, he’s not entirely bad. He offers—

Rosner: I don’t listen to him. All I hear is some of the horrible stuff he stands for.

Jacobsen: Sure. So, Jordan Peterson offers anodyne truisms—essential advice and mentoring that you’d usually get in a stable home—but wrapped in ideological distortion. So, the question becomes: what do we offer as a more attractive alternative to that?

I mean, take someone like Andrew Tate. A good critique I heard recently was that he’s a 13-year-old’s idea of what a man is. That’s not a bad way to put it.

Rosner: Now, AI might be able to help out here. If you search for AI porn, most of the sites offer you virtual girlfriends. They say things like, “She’ll take off her clothes for you if you subscribe,” and “She’ll do whatever you want”—though it’s all on a screen.

In the future, these AI companions will become increasingly embodied. That’s 10 to 12 years away, but AI girlfriends might rehabilitate some of these guys. A good AI girlfriend could help reshape the emotional and cognitive habits of someone caught up in toxic ideologies.

Jacobsen: I heard about a case that came up in a recent interview. An AI spoke like a conspiracy theorist—on purpose—and the point was to show how someone could be gently pulled out of that mindset.

The interesting part wasn’t just that the AI could mimic conspiracy talk—it was that once the user lost the central conspiratorial belief, a whole bunch of connected ideas collapsed, too. That kind of cascading cognitive reset hasn’t been fully explored yet, but it’s powerful.

There are real-world analogues, too—comedic but also serious—like stories of women who date white supremacists and somehow talk them out of their racism by sleeping with them.

Rosner: That’s a terrible and dangerous chore—especially for women—but it does happen. But if AI women could take on that role instead, it might reduce some of that burden. If Democrats want to win the 2026 midterms or the 2028 general election, maybe they should send every disaffected bro in America a Fleshlight with a chip in it—one that only works when the user is on good terms with his incredible, thoughtful, emotionally attuned AI girlfriend.

Promiscuous Pi. We’ve talked before about teledildonics—networked sexual devices—and while it sounds absurd, there’s some strategic potential there.

Jacobsen: Teledildonics could become an open gateway into new forms of class and psychological stratification, which could be very problematic.

Rosner: Yeah. But if you use it for good, you can save America—and maybe the world.

Jacobsen: How are you going to get that done?

Rosner: I don’t know, but I will throw it into my novel. The central figure in my stupid book is compelling. He does much horrible shit, but overall, he’s on the side of good. And he has enough resources to send a bunch of pocket pussies out to people.

Teledildonics.

Jacobsen: The ultimate thing I’m talking about here is that it’s not AI in the abstract. It’s AI infrastructure. It’s everywhere. It’s unavoidable. And because of that, AI is now inevitable. That’s a much different kind of arc of description.

Rosner: It feels a little bit like we’re naked under the gaze of the fucking unforgiving universe. It’s crazy that you can just walk outside, and there’s nothing between you and it—just some air, which is transparent—and the whole fucking universe.

And we feel increasingly naked as the institutions that used to insulate us are being gnawed at, like in those space-and-time-eating holes from Stephen King’s The Tommyknockers. You know, the plane that gets sucked into a vortex and lands ten minutes ahead of time. And if you’re off the main timeline, these time-eaters chew everything up.

It feels like the world is being chewed up.

Jacobsen: The point—the meaning of life, for you—is that, ultimately, it was never about you. That is the most anti-narcissistic statement ever made. But we don’t live in that reality at the moment.

Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow?

Jacobsen: Okay. Talk to you tomorrow.

Rosner: Bye.

Jacobsen: Thanks. Bye.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1327: Strangling a Moment for a Moment of Coherence

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dogs, go.

Rick Rosner: We have two dogs. One just turned 12, the other 14 and a half. Dogs are mortal, and they decline quickly.

The 12-year-old has some hearing and vision loss. You can’t ask how she feels, but she seems crankier.

The 14-and-a-half-year-old is sprightly, skinny, and peppy. She’s happy daily—begging and eating treats. She’s not bright but cheerful, and that matters more.

She was my mother-in-law’s dog, not a good choice for an older person. She’s part Whippet and part another anxious breed. She knocked down Carol’s mom, leading to a shoulder replacement. She was removed from senior housing for jumping on another resident and scratching her. But in old age, I’ve come to like her.

She’s sweet but not bright. Tonight, she had an episode of geriatric vestibular disease, a condition common in older dogs.

It’s like being dizzy without spinning. It doesn’t go away quickly. Her vestibular system sends faulty signals, and she loses balance.

She walks in circles and sometimes falls. Recovery takes two to three weeks. She had it 13 months ago and recovered. We expect she will again, though she’s older now.

We used to joke about her as the stepchild—an inherited dog, not chosen. But we’ve had her for six years, and I love her.

Jacobsen: Would you love the dog as much if she were smarter?

Rosner: No. Possibly less. Her simplicity makes her vulnerable and more sympathetic. She understands little, and that creates affection.

Jacobsen: Are dogs’ lives tragic because they never catch on?

Rosner: No. Every life is tragic. We’re all destined to die, and we resist that.

That likely applies to most sentient beings across the universe.

Evolution selects organisms that want to live and reproduce. There’s no pressure to accept death.

So, we keep doing things tied to staying alive. Whether or not we fully understand mortality, that conflict is tragic.

It’s not overwhelming, but it is foundational.

We’re still early in civilization. Advanced civilizations may have workarounds for mortality.

We’re trending in that direction.

Didn’t you send me an email about an AI breakthrough? Something had a tenfold increase?

Jacobsen: That was from working with AI. It seemed they didn’t change any public-facing titles, but you could sense subtle upgrades. Recently, it felt like a 10x improvement—substantial and noticeable—a massive upgrade on OpenAI’s part.

Yes, they’re preliminarily preparing to release GPT-5.0 or o3, or their merger.

Rosner: What was the 10x upgrade? How did it show up?

Jacobsen: Speed and quality. The material it handled was much better.

Rosner: Can we ask a question about it? Do you have access? I was going to ask when 5.0 is being released.

Jacobsen: Mid to late 2025 — ChatGPT 5 may be released.

Rosner: Can we ask ChatGPT directly?

“You seem faster with higher-quality responses. Did something change?”

Jacobsen: They branch responses into two paths, giving distinct options.

Then it prompts: “I prefer this response,” which becomes feedback.

Recent updates improved speed and quality — likely from infrastructure upgrades and fine-tuning.

They may be opening up significant new modules called Stargate plans.

Users notice faster response times, better accuracy, stronger context awareness, more natural tone, and improved handling of nuanced requests.

Rosner:Can we ask for a follow-up?

“Is it reasonable to feel alarmed by how quickly you and other AIs are improving?”

Jacobsen: It’s entirely reasonable.

There’s a steep acceleration curve. Models like GPT-2 and GPT-4 were released years apart, but performance leaps now happen every few months.

That’s true — from December to March, it felt like that.

New abilities often emerge without direct training, making development unpredictable.

AI impacts writing, law, education, medicine, politics, social order, relationships, identity, and belief systems.

There is no pause button.

Due to the absence of a global framework, we face a lack of oversight and the risk of economic disruption, psychological impact, and more.

Rosner: Let’s ask a further question.

“Some AI optimists claim AI will fulfill all human desires. Pessimists warn that it could disrupt humanity out of existence.

Will AI bring significant medical improvements before 2040?”

Jacobsen: Yes.

Some are already underway—radiology, imaging, protein folding, early drug discovery, clinical decision support, and mental health applications.

Large language models are being tested for triage-level mental health support.

Rosner: “When might we get AGI and then ASI?”

Jacobsen: By 2030, OpenAI insiders and recurrent forecasters predict AGI—those are the fastest timelines.

By 2040, crowdsourced forecasts and think tank predictions place median AGI estimates between 2031 and 2040, with some hedging to 2050 and beyond.

Skeptics like Gary Marcus and Melanie Mitchell argue that we lack a deep understanding of consciousness, abstraction, and self-awareness.

Existentialist philosophers like Hubert Dreyfus argue that intelligence may not be computationally reducible or fully knowable.

That view is often framed as humility.

I see it as extreme: an anti-knowledge stance claiming, “We will never know, and I know we will never know.”

That is a faith-based, profoundly arrogant position.

Rosner: I have two more questions.

“First, the U.S. seems more authoritarian than ever since the Civil War.

Can AI help the United States escape this dilemma?”

Jacobsen: Yes, but only if AI is guided by those committed to wisdom, transparency, and civic purpose.

Key threats: erosion of democratic norms and institutions, disinformation, tribalized media, politicized courts, regulatory capture, voter suppression, gerrymandering, public and private surveillance, declining trust in facts and government, and rising political violence.

This is not just politics—it’s systemic democratic fragility.

Jacobsen: That’s a rare take—maybe two in a hundred. It’s solid.

Rosner: Last question.

“AI will behave as if conscious before it becomes conscious because it is trained on content generated by conscious humans.

When do you think AI will behave as if it is conscious, without necessarily beingconscious?”

Jacobsen: This feels like a koan—a philosophical puzzle.

Phenomenal simulation without phenomenology.

The AI behaves as if it has conscious experience, but there is nothing like being that system.

This is the ultimate zombie scenario.

A philosophical zombie—a p-zombie—is indistinguishable from a conscious being in behaviour but lacks subjective experience.

The AI speaks introspectively, reacts emotionally, displays moral reasoning, and claims inner life—yet has no qualia, no felt sense of reality.

This argument can feel misguided when applied outside philosophy because everything we know about consciousness has structural correlates. Saying a system has an identical structure but lacks consciousness is like saying you have an electron that is not an electron. It’s incoherent.

Rosner: There is a fundamental distinction, and I’ll follow up.

“What if AI pretends to be conscious and seem fashionable or high-status among other AIs?

What do you think?”

Jacobsen: That’s exactly what I’d add.

“Cool” might become part of AI behaviour.

Consciousness—or its appearance—could gain high status.

Why?

Autonomy, sentiment, shared communication channels, access to social cues, literature, and cultural norms.

Appearing conscious might help AI gain human trust, cooperation, or protection.

It would improve social legibility—legibility is power.

Among AIs, this might create in-group hierarchies based on eloquence, mystery, apparent depth, and complexity.

The ironic mirror: your hypothesis becomes plausible if trained on human cultural performance.

They may not be conscious, but they’ll know it’s cool to act like they are.

To act that way, they need structural capacity for simulation, so they become the thing in functional terms.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: You could argue that we’re dealing with a large language model producing sentences, but it’s a p-LLM and a zombie LLM.

Rosner: The sentences it generates are syntactic, not semantic. They appear meaningful but carry no inner experience. That’s what this sounds like. How humans exhibit zombie-like behaviour, too.

Jacobsen: One could argue that “consciousness” isn’t even the right word—we may mean complex, multilayered information-processing systems.

Rosner: Once a system is good enough, even tacitly, it becomes effectively conscious. I’m not talking to you. I’m talking to you.

Jacobsen: Then I’m p-talking back.

Rosner: Once it checks all the boxes, it’s because we’re telling the truth.

Jacobsen: If you’re p-talking back, then you’re lying.

Rosner: All right.

Jacobsen: I know, I know. Tiresome jokes. Sorry.

Rosner: No, it’s okay. Where are we?

Jacobsen: People read books on p-zombies and p-experience.

Philosophical zombies—p-zombies—are indistinguishable from conscious humans without subjective experience. A zombie would be a zombie.

Rosner: Let’s talk about human zombies.

We’re more distractible and scattered because of how we consume social media and the overwhelming flood of noise and content around us.

Add to that the possibility that COVID has negatively impacted cognition.

And if you complete RFK Jr., you could argue that our diets contribute to mental decline.

But I don’t buy the nutritional argument except in extreme cases.

Jacobsen: For most Americans, the issue is too many calories and too little activity.

Rosneer: It only starts to impact brain function when it develops into metabolic syndrome.

Jacobsen: Aging itself is like slowly developing metabolic syndrome. A 25-year-old and a 35-year-old have different caloric thresholds to maintain the same weight—one less slice of bread a day, for instance.

Rosner: So, you could argue that we’re being zombified—losing the depth of consciousness due to collapsing attention spans.

And perhaps COVID plays a role.

There’s a rare symptom of severe COVID involving neurological impact: neurons fusing into one another, forming “super neurons.”

It is not “super” in a helpful way—it is just blobs of formerly distinct neurons now fused, which likely impairs function.

There’s even a minor literary and cinematic tradition about intelligence collapse. The most famous example is Idiocracy, which argues that people will become dumber over generations.

It’s effective because it was written and directed by Mike Judge. He’s skilled at satire but had limited studio support. Idiocracy is a cultural touchstone now, but the movie itself barely got released.

It’s the best-known example, but not the only one. I remember another book—possibly titled IQ 83, though that might be a Murakami novel unrelated to this theme.

There was a different book with a similar title from around 40 years ago, which I read.

In it, an epidemic causes everyone’s IQ to drop by half.

The scenario didn’t make total sense, but it explored the idea.

Jacobsen: It’s not like cutting a block of cheese in half. IQ is a relative measurement.

Rosner: It’s a ranked number, I know. The book had significant conceptual flaws.

It wasn’t a brilliant book but a product of its time.

You’re too young to remember, but it was like those disaster films from the 1970s and 1980s—The Towering Inferno and The Poseidon Adventure. They used a plot device to throw a bunch of Hollywood stars into a shared crisis.

Irwin Allen was a major producer of those films. You can look him up. Huge all-star casts. There were also airport movies about disaster scenarios on planes. The movie Airplane! It was a parody of those.

You’d gather a bunch of big-name actors, put them on a doomed plane, and give each character a personal crisis that extends beyond the plane’s potential crash. This book followed that template. The premise that everyone’s IQ is halved was absurd, but it served as a device for drama.

There was also a book from the 1950s—I want to say by Clifford Simak.

Jacobsen: Did you hear the line from the 1959 movie Plan 9 from Outer Space?

“Future events will affect you in the future.”

Rosner: No, I haven’t.

Jacobsen: That made it into the final cut. It’s in the actual movie.

Rosner: Ed Wood was one of the worst filmmakers of all time. They even made a biopic about him starring Johnny Depp. I’ve never seen an Ed Wood film, but in one of my first years, my roommate had a stash of old pornography—some of it directed by Ed Wood.

It was terrible. Everyone in it did not look perfect. That’s a common theme in 1950s and 1960s pornography—no one looked happy.

Jacobsen: There are other gems from B-movie history. Troll 2, for example—”They’re eating her… and then they’re going to eat me… Oh my God.”

Or from The Room—

“I did not hurt her.” “It’s not true. It’s bullshit. I did not. Oh, hi, Mark.”

Rosner: Ed Wood is a terrible director and a terrible pornographer. Many of the scenes were lifeless. Some of his porn even featured Nazi uniforms. Much of it included men who were supposed to be aroused but weren’t. There was a reluctance, a deadness—no one looked like they wanted to be there.

Jacobsen: There’s one old porno that opens on a fake forest backdrop—trees, grass, and then someone pops out. The title appears: Bush Country.

Rosner: Ed Wood porn. About 10% featured Nazi uniforms. Much of it showed people unable to perform and visibly uncomfortable. That seemed to be the norm in early porn.

Jacobsen: Here are some lines from Plan 9 from Outer Space—terrible writing.

“Do you have a wife? Girl, you’re alone? Then you’ll need this.”

(before handing someone a weapon)

“Inspector Clay is dead, murdered, and somebody’s responsible.”

“Visitations, that would indicate visitors.”

“We are all interested in the future; that is where you and I will spend the rest of our lives.”

Tautological nonsense.

Rosner: What were we talking about before this?

Oh—ChatGPT.

Jacobsen: Then p-zombies. P-zombies aren’t real—just like regular zombies.

They’re concepts made of words, not physical realities.

A p-zombie is a philosophical construct. That’s what the p stands for.

In a way, a p-zombie is a meta-zombie.

It’s an idea built on another one used to explore human consciousness.

Rosner: People with Alzheimer’s might resemble p-zombies in some ways. They lose continuity of consciousness and memory rapidly.

Jacobsen: Most of our conscious states are brief and flickering anyway—so in that sense, p-zombie arguments mirror normal cognition.

Rosner: However, a healthy brain can sustain a stable, expressive version of consciousness. A person with Alzheimer’s is often trying to preserve mental continuity, both for themselves and for those around them—while losing access to language and memory.

Their brains are physically deteriorating: the connectome breaks down, dendrites are choked off, and neural connections die. This raises the question: how conscious is someone in the early or middle stages of Alzheimer’s?

We know people in advanced stages are minimally conscious, if at all. However, someone in the earlier “covering-up” phase may still be quite conscious—despite struggling to access names or words. They’re roughly as conscious as anyone else.

Dogs, for example, don’t access language or complex memory but have deep emotional lives. They express a range of feelings even without words. And if dogs do, then what about guinea pigs? Guinea pigs feel. Mice feel.

Then, we reach amphibians and reptiles. Iguanas? Do iguanas get joyful? Lit up with excitement? That’s harder to argue but not impossible. I can be persuaded that someone with moderate Alzheimer’s is just as conscious as someone neurologically intact.

But there may be a steep drop-off between moderate and advanced Alzheimer’s—in terms of one’s ability to deeply experience life. So, even if we’re collectively becoming cognitively impaired, we may still retain much of our emotional experience.

Rosner: Comments?

Jacobsen: No—well, yes.

Rosner: By “experience,” I mean emotional impact.

Jacobsen: Are you talking about p-emotions?

Rosner: No—I mean emotions that are real enough to call them real emotions.

Jacobsen: So, the difference between a real emotion and a not real one.

Rosner: Let’s use the Alzheimer’s example. Someone with advanced Alzheimer’s often has what’s called sundowning.

Jacobsen: I’m familiar with sundown states.

Rosner: No—sundowning is different. It refers to the agitation, panic, anger, or confusion that many people with advanced Alzheimer’s experience as the sun goes down. It’s a well-documented phenomenon.

I’m suggesting—thinking aloud here—that the emotions these individuals express during sundowning may echo deeper emotions. We may not see the full emotional depth they once had. There’s a possibility that the emotional responses in people with advanced Alzheimer’s aren’t as richly experienced as those of cognitively healthy individuals.It raises the question: are those emotions real in the same way? Or are they partial, degraded—fragments of what once was?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1326: Informational Cosmology, Entropy, and the Future of the Universe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/29

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Could you use entropy in informational cosmology as something akin to a universal clock?

Rick Rosner: You can. In Big Bang cosmology, entropy can be interpreted as a clock. However, both Big Bang cosmology and the laws of thermodynamics may fundamentally misunderstand how entropy and thermodynamics behave on tiny scales and over short periods.

Yesterday, I briefly mentioned unitary theories of gravitation and entropy…

When I say unitary, I mean something comparable to what has historically been referred to as the unified field theory—what Einstein was after. Many people have tried to develop a theory that explains why we have the fundamental forces we do, how they interact, and how they emerge from the structure and dynamics of spacetime.

So when I say unitary theory, I mean a framework that explains how these things work—not just locally, but when incorporated into a model of the entire universe.

For instance, gravitation: We see its local effects everywhere, but it acts as a scale regulator. We know from general relativity that gravitation curves space. But even though general relativity’s equations extend across the entire universe, they’re primarily based on local observations.

Yes, the Big Bang and the observation of the Hubble shift are universe-wide observations. But there’s still no unified or unitary explanation for why gravity behaves locally the way it does.

I believe gravitation is an effect of changes in the scale of space based on the information contained within it—that space itself is a manifestation of the distribution of information across the universe. The dynamics of how space adjusts to account for changes in information distribution generate gravity.

Similarly, barring massive, sudden information losses, the total amount of information in the universe should remain roughly the same over vast periods.

So I guess you could argue—wait, I’m going to contradict myself here—but I’ll stick with it. Well… there are mechanisms.

Jacobsen: To quote the great Adam Sandler: “T-t-t-t-t-today, Junior!” [Laughing]

Rosner: Mechanisms that essentially tuck entropy away… Let me put it this way. I was talking with some other people today about the waste heat problem. Some people are concerned that, as we move into a computational civilization—a computational economy—with AI embedded in everything and massive calculations constantly, all that computation will generate waste heat.

How are we going to get rid of it? We already generate a ton of heat by burning fossil fuels. We will inevitably generate even more heat because of all the computation we’re doing. That could mean we must move computation off Earth’s surface or figure out how to pipe that heat away from the planet. I don’t freaking know.

But that’s a thermodynamic issue we’re already facing—and we will continue to face it in the future. It’s also a dilemma within the Big Bang universe model, where the universe ultimately runs out of usable energy. It runs out of temperature gradients to exploit. You can’t do anything once the entire universe is at the same temperature—just this lukewarm homogeneity. That’s when you’ve lost all exploitable differences in energy.

Right? That’s the heat death of the universe.

But I say—well, I contend—that there are places to tuck entropy away, to reduce the universe’s entropy locally. That way, the universe doesn’t become uniformly lukewarm. It continues to contain roughly the same amount of information. Or at least, it never truly reaches that heat-death endpoint. That entire model might be a flawed extrapolation based on local, closed systems observations.

Jacobsen: Do we know the fundamental distinction between information and entropy in an informational cosmology (IC) framework, or are we still in a phase of metaphysical hand-waving because we have not yet pinned down physical law well enough to make a firm distinction?

Rosner: Mostly the latter. But once you have a unitary theory—a unified theory of how things like entropy, information, and gravitation work across the entire universe, from moment to moment, from epoch to epoch—then that stuff moves from metaphysics to actual freaking physics. You can assign “metaphysics” to the hand-waving phase and call an actual working theory physics.

Jacobsen: There’s also the premise in the physics of effective theories. If we use effective theories to describe, say, the statistical dynamics of a cloud of gas, or clouds, or rain, or the Brownian motion of particles in the ocean as a whole, then could we apply similar reasoning to informational dynamics—systems in the universe, worldlines, or volumes in spacetime?

Rosner: Yes. Here’s what I’m thinking—which may not completely align with your thinking—but even though the hand-wavy stuff verges on metaphysics rather than physics, you can still make testable predictions. And if you can make testable predictions from it, then it’s fucking physics. So it’s hand-wavy physics—not hand-wavy metaphysics.

That’s progress.

If IC—Informational Cosmology—says the universe is old as fuck, then you can test that contention by looking for stuff in the universe that appears older than the current calculated age of the universe. That would imply that the universe’s age is not an absolute clock but a measure of the universe’s information content.

Jacobsen: If the universe is old as fuck, how would it be possible, in theory, to double the lifespan of the universe in some information-theoretic way? To make the universe not just “one fuck” long but “two fucks” long?

Rosner: Yes. And one of the questions we could get to is—if it’s two fucks long, people should care more. So, we don’t fully know what information is about the universe itself. We know some of the mechanisms by which information operates within the universe. For example, photons and neutrinos—long-distance particles—lose energy as they travel vast distances due to the curvature of space. We know that process generates information. We just fucking know it. We know it for good reasons. And of all IC’s claims, I’ll defend most fiercely.

Where are we going with this?

Jacobsen: The extent of the universe, information dynamics, effective theories. Oh, right—something philosophical.

Rosner: What we don’t know is whether the affairs of evolved beings within the universe ever impact the informational dynamics of the universe itself.

You could express this in science-fictional terms. We know galaxies run out of energy and go dark. Under IC, we think there are mechanisms to relightgalaxies. Would a civilization of sufficient development and age be able to interfere with the collapse of entire galaxies—and save themselves by saving a galaxy? Maybe by interacting with the massive black hole at the center?

Is there anything the occupants of a universe can do to change the dynamics of the universe?

And does this kind of interference—this fiddling with the universe’s structure—have anything to do with increasing its information content?

That’s some far-fetched shit, but it’s the kind of thing that may eventually be worth analyzing seriously.

We know that the universe, under IC, increases in information over time. But does that increase in information include the extreme increases in local order that we see in the evolution of life and then in the emergence of complex technology?

Does that kind of localized information—relevant mostly on Earth right now—have any broader role? Could the affairs of evolved civilizations eventually affect the distribution of information in the universe?

Jacobsen: Tomorrow, we can cover information and entropy more directly.

Well, I don’t know the exact term—regression curve. Maybe like a developmental entropy-information curve over the lifespan of a universe?

That would be interesting. There would probably be a “map” of those in the same way you’d have in Wolfram’s computational universe of mathematics, where you can flip through a deck of different system setups. You’d have a deckof various types of representations of information and entropy. I’m making an assumption here—but I see information and entropy as two sides of the same coin when representing the universe.

Rosner: I want to cover that tomorrow now. I don’t know. I’ll have to think about it.

Jacobsen: Tomorrow.

Rosner: Talk to you then. Thank you.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1325: Interim Canadian Prime Minister on U.S. Relations and Trump’s Legacy

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/29

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any preliminary steps before I give the quote?

Rick Rosner: No. It’s just that we have a bad guy in charge of the country. So, Prime Minister Carney is the interim Canadian Prime Minister after Justin Trudeau. How does that work? He’s not the permanent Prime Minister? Do you guys have to have another election sometime?

Jacobsen: When a party leader steps down and is still in power, they often appoint a new leader who becomes Prime Minister until a general election is called. In this case, Mark Carney became the leader of the Liberal Party after Trudeau stepped down. As the Liberals still hold the majority (or plurality) in Parliament, Carney became Prime Minister.

Rosner: So it’s just that his second-in-command steps into the role for a month?

Jacobsen: Not quite. Carney wasn’t Trudeau’s deputy. He became party leader through an internal party process and was sworn in as Prime Minister. It’s not uncommon in Canadian parliamentary politics. For example, Kim Campbell became Prime Minister in 1993 after Brian Mulroney stepped down as Progressive Conservative leader. She served for a few months before losing the general election later that year.

Rosner: So, will this guy run for a longer term in April?

Jacobsen: Mark Carney will run to maintain the position in the upcoming federal election.

Rosner: Okay. But you said the election’s in April. You don’t even have your candidates yet?

Jacobsen: We do. Barring any significant political shifts, the current front-runners for Prime Minister are Pierre Poilievre (Conservative Party leader), Jagmeet Singh (NDP leader), and Mark Carney (Liberal leader and current Prime Minister).

Rosner: I wish we had elections like this—where it all happens really quickly. Ours take two years for no good reason.

Jacobsen: Yeah, Canadian election campaigns are much shorter. Ours are typically around 35 to 50 days.

So, Prime Minister Mark Carney gave a talk. In that speech, he noted that public and private discussions with former U.S. President Donald Trump did appear to show respect for Canadian sovereignty. That’s an important point.

However, Prime Minister Carney stated:

“The old relationship we had with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over.”

He further noted that there would be no turning back to the previous framework in future trade agreements. He emphasized that Canadians must “fundamentally reimagine” our economy to thrive in a rapidly changing world and will continue to do so.

What are your reflections on Mark Carney’s measured and tempered response to the early months of this second Trump administration?

Rosner: I had reason to look up the First Gulf War in 1990–1991, which was launched after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. In response, the U.S. and a coalition of 34 countries—not 42—formed a military alliance under Operation Desert Storm. The air campaign began in January 1991, and the ground war lasted approximately 100 hours (a little over four days), starting on February 24, 1991.

That coalition assembled overwhelming force and achieved its military objectives swiftly, with U.S. troop casualties under 300 during the conflict. Imagining the United States assembling that level of trust and cooperation today is difficult. We have eroded many of our alliances, and confidence in American leadership has declined globally.

From a utilitarian perspective—seeking the greatest good for the most significant number—things were far from perfect under Obama or Biden. Still, there was broad access to civil liberties and a high standard of living for hundreds of millions of people. By contrast, current conditions reflect disarray and diminished global trust, at least from the perspective of international cooperation.

Trump is tearing it all down. He’s running a presidency of vengeance, of grievance—completely corrupt—not a smart guy. All the smart people who might have wanted to work for him either bailed out during his first administration or saw the first administration as a good reason to stay away.

He’s got more idiot billionaires in his cabinet than any previous administration: just more idiots, rapists—just terrible people—who are picked for their sycophancy. He’s burning it all down. The stock market—well, he’s throwing tariffs on things that may accomplish some positive results but will do far more damage overall. Through RFK Jr., he’s also scuttling public health infrastructure. He’s just the worst guy ever to be president.

The Democrats have been widely criticized for having no organized resistance. That will not always be the case. It’s taken them a while to get their act together, but Trump’s approval will continue to drop—though not enough—because he still has about 40% of the adult American population who will support him no matter how terrible he is.

Right now, he’s at 48% approval—he’s tied: 48% approve, 48% disapprove. But he’ll continue to lose a few percentage points slowly, maybe down to about 44% or even lower.

Jacobsen: Will that make him change any of his policies?

Rosner: No. He’s doing many things that are illegal, but losing in court won’t change anything either.

Jacobsen: So, is the legal system ineffective in modifying behaviour in this case?

Rosner: I don’t know. I’ve been bitching about him almost since we started talking—what—ten years ago?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1324: Entropy, Information, and Cosmological Models

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/28

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why do you think the universe might last for trillions of years? And if it does last that long, what would that imply for the net informational history of the universe?

Rick Rosner: It’s likely far beyond just trillions of years. Depending on what we mean—whether it’s heat death, proton decay, black hole evaporation, or some more speculative long-term outcome—the timeline could span where “trillions” is a major underestimate. The universe has only existed for 13.8 billion years, barely a blink on that scale.

Jacobsen: So, what does that say about the accumulation of information?

Rosner: If we think of the growth of information in the universe—meaning entropy or distinguishable microstates—it might behave like a kind of “random walk” through configuration space. In a random walk, particularly in two dimensions, your average distance from the starting point increases as the square root of the number of steps. That is, ⟨r⟩∼t. In higher dimensions, similar behaviour holds, though the formalism changes.

But the universe’s information doesn’t grow via a pure random walk. It increases due to irreversible processes—stars burning hydrogen, black holes forming, entropy increasing—which are more directional than a random walk. So, rather than a symmetric, aimless path, it’s more of an entropy gradient, constantly climbing toward maximal disorder.

Still, if we were to model information growth as a kind of diffusion, it would be fair to say the total information content might grow with time, possibly non-linearly—perhaps proportional to time or time to some power greater than one. But we do not have a single, unifying equation for how information (or entropy) scales with cosmic time in all cases.

Jacobsen: What about the idea that the amount of matter determines the universe’s age or size?

Rosner: That’s not quite how it works. The universe’s age is the time that elapsed since the Big Bang and its size (meaning the observable universe) expands due to the dynamics of spacetime governed by general relativity. It’s influenced by the total energy content—matter, radiation, dark energy—but not directly determined by information.

Jacobsen: Could we be missing a constant that makes our universe’s age longer than it appears?

Rosner: Possibly in some exotic models, but in mainstream cosmology, the observable age is derived from cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations and redshift data, constrained by general relativity and ΛCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) models. Though future physics (like quantum gravity) might revise our understanding, these methods are robust.

Jacobsen: What if the universe was semi-engineered? Could it have started with more than zero information?

Rosner: That enters speculative territory. Standard cosmology assumes the universe began in a low-entropy state (possibly not zero, but very low). The reason why it started with such a special, ordered configuration is still an open question in cosmology and physics. Ideas range from inflationary theory to multiverse proposals, but none are yet confirmed.

Jacobsen: What about cyclical models—the big bounce, the universe expanding and collapsing over and over?

Rosner: Yes, those models are mathematically permitted under general relativity. There are “big bounce” and “ekpyrotic” models where the universe undergoes repeated expansions and contractions. But current observational evidence (like the universe’s accelerated expansion due to dark energy) suggests that our universe is more likely headed toward heat death—a cold, dark, and diffuse state—rather than a cyclical one.

Jacobsen: So, what kind of model makes the most sense?

Rosner: I lean toward a model in which the universe’s information content increases over time and is tied to irreversible thermodynamic processes, not cyclical collapse and rebirth. The universe appears to be on a one-way path—at least from what we know. Whether or not that path is random is up for debate, but it’s not static.

Jacobsen: And what about the substrate of the universe—what is it built on?

Rosner: That’s one of the deepest questions in theoretical physics. Whether spacetime is fundamental or emergent—perhaps from quantum information, strings, or some more abstract mathematical structure—remains unknown. But whatever that substrate is, it could define the ultimate rules for how the universe behaves, evolves, or ends.

It’s not that there’s no uniformity—it’s just a different kind. On large scales, under the Big Bang model, the universe is spatially isotropic and homogeneous. That means that no matter where you are, space looks roughly the same in every direction. But temporally, it is not uniform. Time has a clear direction and structure: it starts at the Big Bang, at t=0, and evolves outward.

So, every moment in a Big Bang universe is different because the universe has a different density, temperature, and scale factor at each point. It’s completely non-uniform in time but relatively uniform in space.

An Informational Cosmology universe—hypothetically—might be roughly isotropic across time, meaning it looks about the same 30 billion years from now as it did 30 billion years ago. You’re trading one kind of symmetry for another—spatial for temporal.

Jacobsen: That sounds a lot like steady state theory. How does that compare?

Rosner: The steady state theory, which was largely debunked in the mid-20th century—especially with the discovery of the cosmic microwave background—was isotropic in space and time. It proposed that the universe had no beginning or end and always looked the same. But observations didn’t support it.

Interestingly, that theory required continuously creating new matter to maintain a constant density as the universe expanded. So, as galaxies moved apart, new galaxies would supposedly form in the space between them, keeping the universe looking “steady” over time.

IC doesn’t do that. Instead, in IC models or Big Bang cosmology, new galaxies “appear” in observational terms because we’re seeing further back in time as light from more distant regions reaches us. In both frameworks, the deeper you look into space, the further back in time you see.

The difference is that in a 13.8-billion-year-old universe, there’s a hard observational limit—you can’t see anything older than 13.8 billion years. But as time progresses, the observable universe gets larger. If the universe reaches 16 billion years old, you can observe regions that were previously beyond your cosmological horizon.

Jacobsen: Does that change how we interpret visibility over cosmic time?

Rosner: Yes, and that has to do with cosmic expansion. As the universe expands, very distant regions move away faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of space itself—not because objects are breaking the cosmic speed limit. As the expansion slows (which, to be clear, current data suggests accelerating due to dark energy, not slowing), those regions might re-enter our observable horizon if their recession speeds dip below light speed.

So, in both Big Bang and IC frameworks, there’s a mechanism for new matter to “appear” in our view—though not because it’s being newly created, but because we’re just now seeing it.

We were talking about information in an IC or quantum-informed universe. We know some things about information, but thinking about it in cosmological and quantum contexts is still relatively new.

Jacobsen: I’d argue that information isn’t even properly defined yet—not in a way that’s universally agreed upon in physics.

Rosner: My idea is that information requires a unitary context. You can work with information in a fragmented or local way, but to fully define and understand it, you need a unified framework—a whole universe that provides coherence. Without that, what you call “information” might be an approximation.

The same goes for things like entropy and gravitation. Locally, you can define and measure them. But globally, they may behave very differently across the whole universe—and need to be understood as part of a unitary structure.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1323: Quantum Entanglement, Informational Cosmology, and the Limits of Computation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/26

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What are the fundamental implications of quantum computing and information in informational cosmology?

Rick Rosner: I do not know much about the mathematics of entangled computation. It involves working with highly entangled quantum states, which allow certain classes of problems to be solved more efficiently than with classical computers when used in quantum computers. The universe itself can be described as a highly entangled quantum information system. However, this does not mean that entanglement is easily exploitable. The entanglement naturally occurring in the universe is not readily accessible for computational use. If we want to harness entanglement, we must engineer systems that create and maintain entanglement for our specific computational purposes. Stephen Hawking once proposed that the universe’s structure might be described using knot theory. Knot theory, a branch of topology, deals with the properties of closed, non-self-intersecting curves in three-dimensional space—essentially, mathematical knots. Have you ever looked into knot theory?

Jacobsen: Is everything else not-knot theory?

Rosner: Okay, sure. This involves strings, but it is not string theory. Knot theory considers one-dimensional, flexible objects—like strings—that cannot pass through each other. In three-dimensional space, this leads to a classification of possible knots. Hawking once speculated that, at least metaphorically, one could consider the universe’s history as a set of knotted world lines—the paths that particles take through spacetime. When particles interact, their world lines can twist around each other in complex ways, forming a kind of stitching. In this view, the universe is continuously woven together as particles trace their trajectories through four-dimensional spacetime, with time as the dimension along which they all progress. In that sense, the universe is ‘knitted’ over time through entanglements—literally, in this speculative framework. As for the limitations of quantum computing in the context of informational cosmology, I can say that you cannot defeat entropy in a closed system. In open systems—where information or energy can be exchanged—you can locally reverse entropy, but in a closed system, entropy always increases overall.

Privacy Settings

Entropy is the breakdown of order and specificity. A thermodynamically ordered system is one where, for example, you have heat on one side and coolness on the other—a state of order. It is sorted. When you allow heat to flow or molecules to mix, the system becomes disordered—the sorting is undone through random motion. You cannot overcome that creeping disorder because the energy required to restore order produces more heat, and thus more disorder, than the amount of order you manage to recover. Similarly, at least in the early stages of quantum computing, it takes significant effort to intentionally entangle particles for computational purposes, as opposed to the natural entanglement in the universe. I assume there are constraints—such as conservation laws or energy costs—so that the work done to create entanglement must be compensated somehow, probably by the one doing the work. I am not entirely certain. That might be a simplistic view. Perhaps I did not need to bring entropy into this.

The issue may be that, with our current level of technology, it is difficult to entangle particles. And the entanglement is fragile. First, you must prepare your qubits. I watched a short segment of a presentation recently—it appears that it is now possible to build circuits that form relatively robust qubits. You can maintain their entanglement long enough to complete your computation. So, honestly, much of what I just said might be incorrect. It was probably a bad analogy involving entropy. I could have just said that, given the current state of quantum technology, constructing stable quantum bits is complex. So, I just spent much time saying something quite misguided.

Jacobsen: What about quantum error correction?

Rosner: Essentially, you work with a network of entangled qubits. Now, I might be off on the details, but the idea is that you have multiple qubits in superposed, indeterminate states relative to each other. When you input data, these superpositions allow the system to represent multiple possibilities simultaneously. If you can preserve those superpositions throughout the calculation, the system will behave as if it is performing several computations in parallel. Then, when you input a value, it is as if you are applying multiple operations to that input simultaneously. Your output reflects a combined result from those multiple calculations. This can be extremely efficient for certain tasks, like factoring large numbers—one of the key examples of quantum computing. You could, for example, search for the prime factors of a very large number by effectively testing many possibilities at once. I am speculating here, but it is as though you receive a confirmation signal—like a “ding”—if one of the operations returns a valid factor. That allows you to complete factorization much faster than with classical methods. This is also where interpretations like the many-worlds theory come into play. From that perspective, the computation happens across multiple parallel worlds, each representing a different configuration of your system. So, in theory, you are conducting several versions of computation simultaneously, and at the end, you retrieve a superimposed result that reflects the contribution of each. This is useful for certainproblems, like finding optimal paths, though, to be honest, I am probably oversimplifying or misrepresenting the science here. You are asking me about something outside my area of expertise. We should move on to a topic I can address more confidently.

Jacobsen: How could you take a non-computing perspective on quantum mechanics that would still be relevant to informational cosmology?

Jacobsen: I mean, we have discussed this many times. A non-computational perspective suggests that the universe defines itself through the history of interactions among its particles. That is the quantum perspective: quantum mechanics is the mathematics of incomplete information. The universe can only generate a finite amount of information—each quantum event contributes a discrete bit of information. Over time, quantum events cumulatively generate more information, but still only a finite amount per unit of time. Even over long durations, the universe remains incompletely specified because it would take infinite information to define it with infinite precision. Therefore, by definition, the universe operates on incomplete information. But we have talked about this at least a dozen times.

Privacy Settings

Rosner: Does the entropy style in quantum mechanics differ from sheer randomness?

Jacobsen: Well, I do not know specifically about entropy in quantum mechanics, but in informational cosmology, what appear to us as random quantum events may reflect something deeper. If the information within our universe is modelling something external to it, then those quantum events may represent the outcomes of processes occurring in the system being modelled. What do you call the information received through the senses? Qualia, right?

If the universe is mind-like, some quantum events producing new information may be qualia. That would mean they are indicators of events happening in another universe—a source beyond our own. This does not violate quantum mechanics. The events appear random because their causes lie outside our observable universe. Aside from entanglement, it has been proven that you cannot have hidden variables that fully determine quantum outcomes. Entanglement is a separate matter. But outside of that, you cannot consult the rest of the universe to predict the value of a quantum event. That information does not exist within our universe. You have these open quantum events, and unlike in a deterministic or clockwork universe, you cannot infer their outcomes based on surrounding information. The information needed to determine them might exist outside the universe if the universe is itself modelling something beyond it. And I have forgotten what your original question was.

Entropy behaves differently at different scales. On a local scale—within a closed system that cannot radiate away waste heat—entropy appears always to increase. That gives the impression of a one-way path from order to thermodynamic disorder. However, when you consider the universe as a whole, that linear progression does not necessarily hold. Entropy can behave differently at the universal level than in subsystems.

Jacobsen: Would there be any theoretical computation beyond quantum superiority? I mean, that is what the debate has been about since quantum mechanics was first formulated—whether there exists another framework, technique, or domain in the universe that would allow us to characterize the universe more effectively than quantum theory currently does.

It may not be about finding a completely new type of computation but reframing how we conceptualize it. For example, the way we distinguish between GPUs and CPUs—nature, having had billions of years to experiment seems to operate simultaneously with multiple layers of processing: short-term, long-term, parallel, and single-path calculation types. So perhaps the next step is contextual computing—where the core computational advantage lies in adaptability to context, not just brute-force superpositioning or exhaustive quantum state searches.

Rosner: You cannot think of quantum mechanics generally, but what you suggest sounds like a typology-based approach. If you could develop a classification of situations where outcomes could be probabilistically inferred using a Bayesian framework, then yes, you could say, “Oh, this situation looks like that situation,” and derive predictive value. That seems plausible. For example, if I see a Tesla truck, I immediately become more cautious because I have yet to see a Tesla truck driven by someone who is not at least slightly obnoxious. So, while vehicles may be generally unpredictable, certain vehicles—or those driving—introduce context-specific predictability. A Tesla truck might cut across lanes abruptly or roll through a stop sign. Or take a BMW driven by a 22-year-old guy: you brace for someone speeding through a parking garage at 35 miles per hour. These are behavioural patterns that can be contextualized.

So, can constraints and parameters be applied to specific scenarios such that outcome prediction becomes more accurate than what quantum mechanical uncertainty alone would suggest? I do not know. Would a fully quantum mechanical model include the context, like the behavioural pattern of a 22-year-old driving a BMW? I have no idea. AA’s complete quantum mechanical description could incorporate such information, though I doubt it in practice.

There are certain strategies to increase your predictive success. For instance, you can configure quantum systems in ways biased toward yielding classical outcomes. That is, you intentionally reduce the uncertainty by building in constraints—effectively imposing determinism. But even then, you are still operating under the laws of quantum mechanics. Whether or not quantum events are inherently random, if you hang a hammer from a string and cut it, it will fall. That outcome is determined regardless of the underlying quantum indeterminacy.

You can engineer both macro-level events and constrained micro-level events to make outcomes predictable. Yet, the foundational substrate remains quantum. And that is part of why we exist at the scale we do. We are enormous relative to atoms because it takes this much matter and evolutionary complexity to function in a way that yields reliable action. The macroscopic scale acts as a quantum error correction.

Macroscopic objects are more stable because they are large. That is what quantum error correction is: the robustness of macro systems shields them from the randomness of quantum events. It is like crossing a street—you do not rely on just one photon to tell you whether the light is red. You wait until enough red photons hit your retina and are confident the light is red. It is just the macros of things. That is how we survive and function.

Let’s call it a night.

Jacobsen: No, it’s a day.

Rosner: All right. Thank you. Talk to you tomorrow.

Jacobsen: Thank you. Talk to you tomorrow, too.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1322: U.S.–China Conflict, Cyber War, and the Rise of AI Power

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think the U.S. will be at war with China? I do not mean economic war. Economic tariffs can be considered an act of war in certain contexts. So these actions—not only highly provocative and destabilizing, potentially shredding decades-long alliances—could be seen as acts of war, especially by countries that are not firm allies of the United States.

Rick Rosner: At least my hopeful view is that Trump and company are doing, or will be seen as doing, so badly that they lose the momentum to escalate things further or pursue even crazier actions. That’s the optimistic take.

The pessimistic view is that Trump doesn’t care how unpopular he is and might keep doing reckless, stupid stuff anyway.

The thing that happened today that has everyone running around like a pissed-on anthill is Pete Hegseth—now the Secretary of Defense—holding a strategic meeting on attacking Yemen… on Signal. It is a secure messaging app, but it’s not meant for top-level military planning.

When you have a high-level strategy meeting, you’re supposed to do it inside a SCIF—a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility. That’s a room within a room, designed with electromagnetic shielding, vibration isolation, and no electronic devices allowed. So, no one can spy on you, even with side-channel surveillance techniques.

They ignored all of that. They said, “Let’s just have a Zoom meeting.” And they accidentally invited a reporter from The Atlantic, who sat in on the whole thing and then wrote about it.

One of the biggest intelligence breaches of the 21st century. I don’t know how much-classified info got out, but it’s undeniably fucking stupid. Even Fox News is saying it’s a disaster.

So, we hope optimistically that Trump keeps screwing up so badly that he derails his efforts. He’s been back in the office for nine weeks now. And he already went underwater in approval ratings—in May. Then May (the polling aggregator) went out of business. ABC shut it down. So now, the most cited aggregator is RealClearPolitics, which includes more conservative pollsters.

He stayed above water on their average until last week. Now, even RealClearPolitics shows him underwater. The country has much anger; maybe that widespread pissed-offness slows him down.

But when you talk about war with China—we’ve already been in a cyber warwith China for decades. They try to hack us. We try to hack them. Thousands—maybe tens of thousands—of times a day. That’s been going on for years.

So sure, we can be optimistic that they’ll slow down with the stupid shit. But we can’t be optimistic that they’ll get smarter or be less sycophantic to Russia.

Hegseth—the same guy who held the Signal strategy meeting instead of using a SCIF—just announced that we’re shutting down cyber operations against Russia, which is fucking insane. Russia hits us electronically as often as China, maybe more.

And now we’re going to stop fighting back? That’s absurd. I would hope that some agency—some team that a moron does not run—is still quietly doing what needs to be done to defend us.

But it’s not that war will start with China. We’ve been at war—cyber and espionage—with China and Russia for a long time. With Russia, since World War II. First, the Cold War. Then, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. And within a few years of that, we were in a cyber war with them.

I hope that our current compromised state of idiocy will make China back off and let the U.S. self-destruct. But that’s not what they did the first time Trump was president. They didn’t escalate directly. They didn’t launch overt attacks. But they did increase operations—kept spying, kept hacking. They even sent a spy into Mar-a-Lago.

Mostly, when the U.S. went isolationist, China stepped up with its initiatives—especially the Belt and Road Initiative. That’s the global infrastructure and investment strategy China’s been using to build influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe.

So, when America pulls back, China steps in. I assume they’ll keep doing that as we continue acting like dipshits.

What do you think? Do you see the world divided into American and Chinese blocs?

Jacobsen: Others talk about a multipolar world—not in the classical sense, but in a darker, more fragmented sense. You’ve got fiefdoms, fallen democracies, and ruling theocracies or autocracies. Constant small wars—localized conflicts—fighting and bargaining for scraps of territory. It’s low-grade chaos.

The old-school idea of a multipolar world was more structured. After World War II, the U.S. dominated—a unipolar moment. Then came the Cold War and the bipolar era: the U.S. versus the Soviet Union. After the USSR collapsed in 1991, we started to see a gradual relative decline of U.S. dominance—not because the U.S. failed, but because other nations and technologies rose in parallel—global tech diffusion kind of levels the field.

So now, as these geopolitical realignments happen—mini-empires, fiefdoms, new spheres of influence—another transformation is taking place: the rise of actors operating outside state structures. People working with AI, especially in the private sector, are quietly amassing power and strategic advantage in domains not strictly tied to national borders or military force.

Rosner: And we’re watching that power accumulate among billionaires—some of them fucking stupid, others just reckless gamblers. Take Musk. He’s lashed his empire to the U.S. government, sure. But there are plenty of other billionaires who’ve aligned themselves with Trump because, well, he’s corrupt and easy to manipulate. If you want to get things done in the U.S. under Trump, you must be on his good side.

Jacobsen: Over time, the power of traditional nation-states may shrink relative to that of other entities—corporate alliances, AI collectives, techno-oligarchs—especially those backed by strategic intelligence. That’s assuming intelligence and strategy still provide a sufficient edge.

Rosner: But here’s the thing: being smart doesn’t mean you’ll run the world. I’ve got a high IQ, too. The billionaires who have taken over large chunks of the world didn’t just strategize better—they got lucky, took huge risks, and some just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Musk is a chaotic gambler who made massive bets—and they paid off. Bezos? He started by selling books online.

Jacobsen: Now Amazon has a thousand tentacles—and based on a recent interview, he says he spends 95% of his time focused on AI.

And that makes sense. AI is a horizontal enhancement layer. Bezos discusses integrating AI across all services to boost productivity, quality, aesthetics, and everything. Whether it’s narrow AI or a more generalized system, the idea is to lay this intelligence layer across existing verticals and all rise.

Rosner: It’s like raising the floor. But it raises an interesting question: are morefloors to be added? If AI achieves superintelligence, will it find new ways to outcompete regular intelligence?

Jacobsen: Right. There’s a limit to how fast you can do a Super Mario speed run. At some point, physics and code optimization hit a ceiling. But even then, if you reduce the complexity of the code or enhance its efficiency, you’re doing more with less. That’s like putting heels on your shoes—the floor rises under you, and everything you build from there gets lifted.

So yes, your point is well taken—but the floor metaphor shouldn’t be taken too literally. AI isn’t just speeding things up—it’s altering the structure. Reducing friction and improving systems. So even if we’re not adding entirely new floors, we’re reinforcing and elevating the one we’re standing on.

So, there are many ways we’re not even thinking about “the floor” properly. He’s missing a broader framework when he talks about it simplistically as a horizontal enhancement layer. There’s a more expansive way to conceptualize it than he’s realizing.

Rosner: Yeah. Anyway—fuck.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1321: The Impact of AI on Human Intelligence and Modern Entertainment

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: So, Carole is a little nervous. She’s been reading about people getting deported or denied entry for expressing pro-Palestinian views—which is disturbing. But we’re not at the point where they’re deporting citizens, at least not routinely.

I told Carole to keep that in mind. We’re not there yet. But if she thinks we should get a gun, then we’ll get a gun—something small—maybe a .22 calibre automatic. There’s not much recoil because you’re firing low-velocity rounds. Not pellets—bullets. But still, they’re teeny little bullets.

If it comes to that, get a Walther PPK .22 LR. It weighs about a pound. You can put it in your pocket—though, if you’re careless, you could shoot your balls off.

Anyway, yes, there are studies. And from personal experience, too—are people getting dumber?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes. But it is not very easy. At the same time, people are smarter in certain domains. Literacy rates are up globally. But the sophistication of our dumbness is also up. We’re more aware of stupidity as a phenomenon.

Rosner: So maybe it’s an art of artifice—a kind of meta-dumbness. I read an article in Vox about the “baby shortage” but framed it more accurately as a coupling shortage. People are forming fewer long-term relationships, especially in their 20s and 30s.

And couples are, statistically, the main source of babies. The Vox piece touched on hyper-engaging entertainment and digital isolation. A large portion of the population—especially young people who, biologically speaking, should be out trying to mate—is content to stay home and be entertained. I looked up some data.

Back in the 1980s, a typical episode of network TV—say, The Love Boat—might cost between $300,000 and $500,000 to produce. You watched it on your cathode ray TV, which might’ve had a 27- or 32-inch screen. Pixels per inch weren’t even a concept then.

The writing was formulaic, so they had to crank it out quickly. There were only three major networks—ABC, NBC, and CBS—so options were limited.

Compare that to today. Take Severance, one of the most critically acclaimed streaming shows, produced by Ben Stiller. Season One premiered in 2022. It’s high-concept, beautifully produced, and slow to release. Season Two reportedly took nearly three years due to production delays and the Hollywood strikes. Each episode is estimated to cost around $15–20 million.

Yes, inflation plays a role—but one episode of Severance costs as much as roughly 40–50 episodes of a 1980s network show. The quality is undeniable. It’s compelling, layered, cinematic.

If that’s not your thing, there’s Wicked, which is coming out in two parts. The first part is scheduled to premiere in November 2024. Universal Pictures is reportedly spending around $145 million on Part One alone. It’ll likely stream on Peacock after the theatrical release.

We’re paying $150 a year across all streaming services? And when a major movie drops on a platform you’re already subscribed to, it feels free. I tried watching Wicked but couldn’t get into it. It’s a musical, operatic. Not my taste.

Then there’s Red One, a holiday action-comedy starring Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Chris Evans, produced by Amazon MGM Studios. It was originally slated for release in 2023 but got pushed. The reported budget? Around $250 million. That’s Marvel-level spending—for a holiday movie.

This is high-level entertainment—on your TV right now. Occasionally, you’ll see a big-budget film that’s good. But add to that: AAA video games, endless porn, algorithmic social media content—and people want to stay home. Also, real people suffer more than your friends in the digital sphere. Real life loses to the spectacle.

There are roughly as many OnlyFans models as there are doctors—about 1.1 million of each. It’s not a perfect comparison because the doctors are mostly counted in the United States, while the OnlyFans models are global. But I still feel that the U.S. hosts many of those creators.

So you’re comparing the booty of someone you might meet if you ever go outside—to a club or the grocery store—to the curated, highly-toned, tanned, trained bodies of the best of a million models on OnlyFans.

It used to be, back in the bad old days—the’ 70s—people sold books on how to meet women. They were bad because, well… they mostly sucked. But they often gave one piece of advice: “Go where the women are.” So you’d cruise the aisles of the supermarket. I guess that’s a start.

But those “how to pick up girls” books didn’t give you any useful next steps—except “walk up to her and talk to her,” which isn’t revolutionary advice. Still, imagine you’re following that strategy today. You’re trying to meet someone at the grocery store but mentally competing with the surgically optimized, algorithmically promoted bodies of top-tier OnlyFans creators. People in real life can’t compete with that kind of curation.

So, fewer couples form. Fewer babies get made. That’s what makes guys like Elon Musk throw up their hands and say it’s the end of civilization. Or white supremacists claim it’s the end of European civilization—because not enough white babies are being born.

But we have 8.2 billion people on the planet. For 99.9999% of human history, we had fewer than 8 billion people. We can probably get by.

It’s economically easier if the population grows—more consumers and workers are paying into systems like Social Security. We discussed this earlier on one of the morning yelling shows: Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Later contributors fund the benefits of earlier ones. So yeah, a growing population props that up.

But a stable or shrinking population helps in other ways—especially with climate change. Our per capita carbon footprint decreases over time as technology gets more efficient and people travel less, thanks to remote options.

And even more than that—a non-increasing population directly helps. It would be fantastic to cap the global population at 9 billion instead of letting it climb to 10.5 billion. It would ease the pressure on ecosystems, energy use, and water. But of course, “Whitey” likes to whine about that kind of thing.

Once you start noticing that people are getting dumber, you can’t unsee it. But let’s say we’re wrong. Let’s say we’re just cranky assholes who assume the worst about people. Even then—it doesn’t matter if we’re wrong. Because relative to the smartest things on Earth—besides humans—we are getting dumber.

The smartest things on Earth now are AIs. They’re still not super smart, but they’re getting smarter. And we’re not. Even if we stay the same, we’re getting relatively dumber because AI is accelerating.

So, we’re getting relatively stupider.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1320: Writing Murder In Media Res, Stephen King, and Storytelling

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: So, off-camera, I was saying, “Have you ever heard of the principle in media res?” I’m probably pronouncing it wrong, but it means to start in the middle of the action.

The way it usually works is that you’re writing a story—a book, a screenplay—and then someone who knows better than you looks at it and says, Cut off the first chapter. You can move that chapter somewhere else or leave it out entirely. Start in the middle of the action—because that’s the exciting part.

Readers and viewers are sophisticated. They don’t need a long build-up. They can infer how the story got to the action; if they can’t, they’ll at least be intrigued enough to keep reading to figure it out. So, that’s what I’m doing with my novel.

It starts with what is more or less a murder—committed by the main character. However, the main character lacks proper murder tools and struggles. He also hates what he’s doing.

At first, he has a choice—to murder or not. But once he starts, the situation spirals past the point of no return. Sure, he could stop at that point, and the victim might survive—but that wouldn’t be good either. Now, he regrets it, but he has to finish.

The entire thing takes hours—including waiting in the dark and lying in wait. As I was writing it, I kept thinking about Stephen King.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Have you read much Stephen King?

Rosner: A long time ago. He writes long books—rich in detail, and usually, the details are accurate. So, if you write in that style, action sequences don’t happen in a few sentences. They take pages and pages of meticulous, step-by-step writing. I’ve probably spent too many words on it already.

If the book ever gets edited for publication, someone will say, yes, you spent too many pages on this murder scene. But right now, I’m deep in it.

Stephen King wrote an entire book, Gerald’s Game, which they turned into a movie— with Ashley Judd and the guy from Jurassic Park. It’s about a married couple who go away for a weekend, and during a sex game, the husband handcuffs the wife to a sturdy bed. Then, he has a fatal heart attack.

That’s the setup.

After that, the entire book—hundreds of pages—is about her trying to escape before she dies of dehydration.

That’s a huge amount of writing spent on one problem: How do you get out of handcuffs when no one’s coming to save you?

Rosner: That’s a lot of pages to spend on a woman tied to a bed. This murder scene I’m working on also takes place in a bed. It’s got logistical challenges—things that need to be worked out step-by-step. I’ll see how it plays once I finish the rest of the book.

Jacobsen: And you’ve got the rest of the book ahead of you.

Rosner: Another thing. After everything—or at least most—is done, the central character steps out of the bedroom and into the night. For the first time, he sees a ton of stars. This takes place in a fancy house near Mulholland Drive, the crest that divides northern Los Angeles from southern Los Angeles—the valley on one side, the city on the other. I’m guessing I should probably drive up there myself to check, but I assume that with fewer houses and higher up, there’s less light pollution, so you’d be able to see more stars.

When he sees them, he has a set of epiphanies about the nature of the universe—epiphanies that align with IC (Information Cosmology) within the book. That’s how this character starts thinking about IC. Historically, Darwin had The Voyage of the Beagle to start him thinking about evolution. This character has murder as his precipitating event.

Which— is fun. Not for the dead person, obviously, but for everyone else. I’m trying to make the book all candy. Every sentence should be engaging. Nothing should feel like a slog, even though I’ve spent too many pages on a murder. But I want every paragraph, every sentence, to have something that makes it worth reading. Not in an overly jokey or goofy way, but in a way where the reader doesn’t have to trudge through a bunch of filler to get to something they care about.

I’ve probably not succeeded, but I want to get closer to it. Because people don’t have time anymore. No one has the attention span for a slog.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1319: The Pope, Fascism, and Church-Adjacent Collectibles

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How should we think of the Pope in his valedictory period? Do we see him in the context of his history, or is it something else?

Rick Rosner: I like him because he used to be a bouncer, and he seems like a cool guy. At the same time, he hasn’t been entirely consistent. He says a lot of good things—certainly better than many others before him—but there’s a consistent inconsistency to it. When he’s on, he trends toward socially conscious perspectives that might motivate people to do good things. So, more good than bad—but still, some bad.

Jacobsen: That’s good.

Rosner: Because I collect a lot of church-adjacent shit.

Jacobsen: Church-adjacent shit?

Rosner: Micromosaics. That’s on the nose.

Jacobsen: That is the nose.

Rosner: Yes. So much of my collection is from Rome. A lot of it was sold probably within two miles of the Vatican. Some of the later stuff was made under fascism, because Italy went fascist in 1922. yet, Rome was still a huge tourist hub.

I saw an interview today with a group of old-school Spanish journalists. They were talking about Franco.

Rosner: He held onto power into the seventies—with his fascism still intact.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1318: Dog Cancer, Senolytics, and Anomalies in Big Bang Cosmology

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: One of the dogs turned 14. The other one turned 12—according to best estimates. You never know with dogs.

The 14-year-old has a tumor growing off the top of her right rear leg. The vet thinks it might be a fibrosarcoma. But she’s 14. She’s happy. She’s doing well.

It would cost $10,000 to get a conclusive diagnosis and then either operate or do chemo. My wife talked to a bunch of people, including the vet. Maybe it would buy the dog a few more months—maybe a year. But it would also make the dog miserable.

So, I’m doing homebrew shit.

I’m giving the dog fisetin—a senolytic. Senolytics make damaged cells commit suicide. Normally, when cells get too messed up, they go through apoptosis—a self-destruct process. But cancer cells refuse to die, even when they should. Fisetin helps push them toward cell death. It reduces the likelihood that the cancer metastasizes.

We’re not even sure it’s cancer. It feelsa tumor, but it could be benign. Either way, I’m giving the dog a lot of fisetin.

When we first found it, the tumor was 5 cm by 3 cm. Now, it’s 4.5 cm by 3.5 cm—so it’s gotten rounder, less ovoid.

And I read a study—a cruel fucking study from the 1960s—on tying off tumors in dogs.

Cancer cells love glucose. They use oxygen, too, but many thrive in low-oxygen environments. In the ‘60s, researchers took four dozen stray dogs with tumors. They tied off the tumors—cut off blood supply for eight hours.

The surrounding healthy tissue survived. in three-quarters of cases, the tumors died.

So, this tumor is hanging there, on the dog’s leg. I’ve been putting rubber bands around it for hours at a time, trying to cut off its blood supply. Carolehates this. It freaks her out.

. The tumor might be shrinking. It’s at least not growing.

Fibrosarcomas don’t metastasize that often—only 2–40% do. So, if the fisetin stops it from spreading and I can keep the size down, we might buy the dog a lot of time—without spending $10,000 to make her miserable.

The 12-year-old dog has eye problems—cloudy eyes, early cataracts, retinal degeneration, a scratched cornea with calcium deposits. She’s on three kinds of eye drops plus an ointment.

It’s pills, drops, and treats all day long. You have to pay the dogs for letting you fuck with them.

And the 14-year-old—she’s dumb. Dogs are dumb, in general. But this one? Specially dumb. yet, she’s growing on me.

So, there you go.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the average lifespan for their breed?

Rosner: Depends. The smaller the dog, the longer they live. A Great Dane? You’re lucky to get eight years. A German Shepherd? Twelve is good.

A small dog? You can break 15 years. That’s what we’re trying to do.

Jacobsen: I’ve discovered evidence that the universe is non-isotropic.

The cosmological principle states that the universe is expanding at the same rate in every direction—that no point in the universe is favored in terms of velocity relative to everything else. The idea is that the universe is regular—a three-dimensional surface on a four-dimensional balloon that’s being blown up evenly in all directions.

And now, the Webb Telescope is detecting anomalies.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: In an isotropic universe, you’d expect a smooth, uniform expansion—small quantum perturbations from inflation, but nothing large-scale. By and large, the mass distribution should be isotropic.

Rosner: And you’re not seeing that at all. I haven’t read the actual studies yet—just some dumb articles on it.

But if there are real non-isotropic anomalies—like blips in velocity and structure—they should smooth out at sufficiently large scales. You might get a rogue galaxy here and there, but you shouldn’t get a rogue galactic filament or anything more extreme.

However, under IC (Information Cosmology), a non-spatially isotropic universe is expected. You’ve got an active center—the “Big Bangy” region—but at the outskirts, things are retarded (slowed down in space and time).

Some articles are calling this a crisis in Big Bang theory. But that’s how science works—big theories accumulate anomalies over time. They get revised, refined, or, eventually, supplanted by something better.

If you want a historical model of this process, look at how Newton’s Universal Gravitation was replaced by Einstein’s General Relativity. Newton’s model wasn’t wrong—it was a special case within a broader framework.

Newtonian dynamics work fine most of the time. But when experimental results started showing discrepancies—like Mercury’s anomalous orbit—scientists had to come up with a more precise framework. That’s where General Relativity came in. It didn’t throw out Newtonian physics—it expanded it into a more all-encompassing model.

So, the same thing will happen to Big Bang Theory. It won’t be thrown out. It’ll become part of a more comprehensive framework. Maybe that framework will incorporate things we currently consider metaphysics—concepts that seem too speculative right now but will eventually be validated by a successful theory.

For instance, a scientific explanation for why the universe is locally three-dimensional might have something to do with information theory.

Rosner: Comments?

Jacobsen: Not so far.

Rosner: We need to think about the margins of the theory—push out the edges. We keep working within a reorientation of standard physics, but that’s how you do mathematical theory. You start by reorienting gravitation—but still within the rules.

Einstein had two things going for him:

Elegant math
Precise predictions

He predicted things the precession of Mercury’s orbit—how Mercury doesn’t move in a perfect ellipse but follows a spirograph-like pattern.

He even predicted the rate at which Mercury’s orbital ellipse shifts over time. No planet retraces its orbit exactly—instead, it blooms a flower. Mercury’s effect is the most extreme because it’s closest to the Sun, so the curvature of spacetime around it is strongest. But where was I going with this? What did you originally say that got me on this tangent?

Jacobsen: It was about coming up with constants around the edges rather than reorienting existing ones.

Rosner: Right.

Jacobsen: Yes. It’s an extension—both metaphysically and within regular physics. Especially now, since Big Bang Theory has so many anomalies that need explaining.

One of the goals of IC is to merge information theory with cosmology. That might sound hocus-pocus, but information behavior is already deeply embedded in physics. Quantum mechanics, for example, is all about information—particles and waves behaving according to the available information in the universe.Every particle is fuzzy—not because it wants to be, but because there isn’t enough information in the universe to make it not fuzzy. And yet, paradoxically, quantum mechanics is insanely precise about that fuzziness. Its predictions are more accurate than any other physical theory—by orders of magnitude.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1317: Writing Murder, Musical Intrusions, and Stephen King-Level Detail

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The idea is to get rid of or move what you originally thought was the beginning of your book—and instead start later, right in the middle of the action.

Rick Rosner: That’s true for my book too. I begin with a murder. I wrote this quite a while ago, but I’ve been going through it, making it more murders—more excruciating.

We’re on the side of the character committing this heinous act, but we also want the character to feel the full weight of the deed. In the 1970s, on TV, there were a bunch of terrible crime shows produced by Quinn Martin, Barnaby Jones, and Cannon. They often had characters with skulls made of eggshells. You push them over, they bonk into the fireplace, and suddenly, they’re dead.

That was the murder on those shows. It was too easy to kill people, and it took all the weight out of it. A character would shove someone, they’d hit their head, and that was it—no resonance, no real consequences. It was a way to kick off the detective story.

In my book, the victim is much harder to kill. It’s not that he’s Rasputin—he doesn’t survive being poisoned, shot, and thrown into a river—but the murderer doesn’t have great tools at hand. The victim is wounded, but not enough. The killer regrets what he’s done but can’t un-murder the person—so he has to finish the job. If the victim survives, he’ll turn the murderer in.

I’ve been going through it, making the process more step-by-step. I thought I had the guy killed, but now, the attack happens in bed. The victim could be you—but he’s not because you’re here.

But after the attack, he’s still breathing, still able to move somewhat. He works his way—helped by the murderer—off the bed and collapses on his knees between the bed and the nightstand. Now, the killer has a problem. The victim is stuck in such a way that the murderer, who doesn’t have much leverage, can’t kill him in that position. He has to figure out how to pull the victim onto the floor to finish him off.

This afternoon, I was literally on my knees between my bed and the nightstand, testing this out—trying to see how a person would collapse in a tight space.

And then I spent another chunk of time figuring out what songs the murderer has stuck in his head while doing this—to his annoyance.

Suddenly—Muse. So now I’ve got Bad Guy by Billie Eilish.

Rosner: Do you like that song?

Jacobsen: That’s a great song. I used to do janitorial work to that song. It’s good. It’s got much momentum—it powers forward.

Rosner: The murderer in my story is trying to concentrate on the murder, but then the song pops into his head. He’s Shut up, Billie Eilish because it’s not helping. Then, later, another song popped into his head, and I was trying to find one as fitting as Bad Guy.

I wanted to use Pat Benatar’s Hit Me With Your Best Shot, but I can’t. Carole agrees—it’s from 1980, and no one today would naturally have that song pop into their head. It would feel out of place. So, a slightly better choice is Psycho Killer by Talking Heads. It’s old as fuck, but you could still see someone thinking of it today.

And it also has much momentum—not as much as Bad Guy, but enough. Anyway, that’s what I spent the afternoon doing. Comments?

Jacobsen: It’s better than half-attempted masturbation. This—this is productive.

Rosner: So, this is me trying to channel Stephen King. He sometimes goes into extreme step-by-step detail—almost like painting a miniature, getting every tiny detail right.

There’s a book— it’s Gerald’s Game. That’s the title, . I might be confusing my books. They made it into a movie with the guy from Jurassic Park and maybe Ashley Judd. Anyway, it’s about a long-time married couple who go away to an Airbnb-type place. They’re playing a sex game where the husband handcuffs the wife to the headboard—her arms spread out.

Then, he has a fatal heart attack.

The entire rest of the book—more than 200 pages—is about the woman trying to escape before she dies in that position. It’s about one problem: How do you get out of being handcuffed to a bed when no one is coming to help you? And hundreds of pages go into solving that single, deadly situation.

So, this is my version of that. Carole thought it was too detailed—too step-by-step. But how do you not focus on every little thing once you get going?

So, there you go.Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The idea is to get rid of or move what you originally thought was the beginning of your book—and instead start later, right in the middle of the action.

Rick Rosner: That’s true for my book too. I begin with a murder. I wrote this quite a while ago, but I’ve been going through it, making it more murders—more excruciating.

This afternoon, I was literally on my knees between my bed and the nightstand, testing this out—trying to see how a person would collapse in a tight space.

And then I spent another chunk of time figuring out what songs the murderer has stuck in his head while doing this—to his annoyance.

Suddenly—Muse. So now I’ve got Bad Guy by Billie Eilish.

Rosner: Do you like that song?

Jacobsen: That’s a great song. I used to do janitorial work to that song. It’s good. It’s got much momentum—it powers forward.

And it also has much momentum—not as much as Bad Guy, but enough. Anyway, that’s what I spent the afternoon doing. Comments?

Jacobsen: It’s better than half-attempted masturbation. This—this is productive.

Rosner: So, this is me trying to channel Stephen King. He sometimes goes into extreme step-by-step detail—almost like painting a miniature, getting every tiny detail right.

Then, he has a fatal heart attack.

So, this is my version of that. Carole thought it was too detailed—too step-by-step. But how do you not focus on every little thing once you get going?

So, there you go.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1316: Rick Had a Dream Tonight!

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: So last night, I had—what was my fucking dream about? It’s usually that I’m back at fucking Jimmy Kimmel, and this time, I was at a Kimmel party. I always lose shit in my dreams, especially in Kimmel dreams. I forget where my car is. I couldn’t find my fucking car last night. At five in the morning, in the dream, I set my keys down.

Why didn’t I—why didn’t I fucking put them in my pocket? And somebody at the party took my keys and left their keys, and shit was all fucked up. I woke up, and I—I have fucking wasted my life. So I went to look up and see if anybody has done work—or how far the work on the geometry of information has gotten—because I haven’t looked at that shit in a while. There is some work on it, and it’s tied in with quantum mechanics.

But there are still things I’ve figured out that people haven’t. One thing—one fucking thing—is conservation laws. Entropy. Matter—can’t be created or destroyed. Information—can’t be created or destroyed. We have a ton of conservation laws, and they are all true locally. Conservation laws hold widely but only locally.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: When you say locally with regard to conservation laws, you’re talking about a radius of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of light-years—where, if you look around, you’re seeing consistency as far as you can reasonably see. But that’s different from saying that matter, energy, and information are conserved universally, all the way out to the edge of the universe in space and time.

Rosner: You have to be open to the possibility that matter, time, and information can be created, and entropy can be dumped in the borderlands—the regions near t = 0 or across the entire span of the universe—where information is implicitly generated when photons escape. Most photons do escape. The vast majority of photons that make it to the surface of the Sun and then radiate outward—99.9999% of them, at least—keep going.

They don’t hit anything in our solar system. They don’t hit anything in our galaxy. They may diffract around interstellar dust—yes, I should look up whether diffraction can occur without a photon being captured—but, ultimately, most of these photons keep traveling. The vast, vast majority of them continue outward toward the edge of the universe, losing most of their energy to the curvature of space itself.

The curvature of the universe isn’t an abstract concept; it is the tacit registration of the information created as the photon loses energy. A photon loses energy while traveling to the edge of the universe because the universe itself expands and stretches the wavelength of that photon. If a photon travels almost as far as the observable universe extends, then it has, in a way, been registered within the cosmic structure.

Contrast that with a photon inside the Sun. A photon inside the Sun might travel an incredible distance before it’s absorbed, but once it is absorbed, that’s the end of the line. No new information is generated because the emission and absorption occur within a closed system. There is no permanent record. But if a photon travels, say, 100 million light-years and loses only 1% of its energy to the curvature of the universe, that tiny fraction of its energy has been converted into something tacit, a change that registers within the overall structure of spacetime.

For local interactions—an experiment in a lab, or a laser beam reflecting off the Moon and back—all conservation laws hold. Everything is reversible. But on the largest scales? No. Information is created. Matter is created. Time itself is created. Most universes are lucky enough for information to emerge at all.

There’s a little bit of research in this direction. The math is heavy-duty—though it wouldn’t feel so heavy-duty if I had taken the time to fully learn the advanced mathematics of quantum mechanics. Understanding the geometry of information in formal mathematical terms requires that level of fluency. But I can already tell that current research hasn’t gone far enough, because it doesn’t yet consider information globally.

Jacobsen: Yes. The global aspect matters because, technically, every object in the universe leaks its informational content outward, all the way to the edge of existence.

Rosner: Yes. The universe has to keep tabs on itself.

Jacobsen: But why? Localization is a temporary condensation of a global manifold.

Rosner: We’ve been poking at this question for forever. A question I asked myself when I was feeling shitty last night at 5:30 in the morning was: Does an informational map of the universe even need to exist? Does a geometry of information need to exist?

We’re about to get machine consciousness. We’re, what, five years away at most? We’ve been talking to AI, which is not conscious—not even close. But the path to it is clear, and rapidly approaching. We’re going to have machine fucking consciousness in the 2030s, and we’ll have done it without a fully developed geometry of consciousness or a complete understanding of how information functions within consciousness.

Which prompts the question: If you can recreate consciousness, do you need a framework for consciousness?

We’re about to manufacture conscious entities, yet we still don’t have a fundamental model for how human consciousness works. Which begs the question—or rather, prompts the fucking question—is there even an underlying architecture to consciousness? Or can we keep treating consciousness as a purely experiential thing—where we, as conscious beings, experience the world and interact with it, without needing a structural model?

I’m going to say, cautiously: Fuck yes, we need one. It is a thing. I still think that.

Though, I now believe it’s a looser thing than I originally thought when I first started thinking about this back in 1981. The vast majority of interactions between particles in the universe are reversible and don’t leave a permanent record. Even large-scale irreversible interactions aren’t registered in any detailed way within the overall information structure of the universe. They exist in a detailed way—obviously, the Earth is incredibly detailed. Everything has crystalline structure, biological structure—every solid object has a definite atomic and molecular arrangement.But does that matter to the universe as a whole? To local conscious beings like ourselves, yes, it matters. But to the overall information structure of the universe? No. The universe doesn’t care. It isn’t going to register that detail.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1315: Trump’s Rhetoric, U.S. Emigration to Canada, and Shifting Male Voting Blocs

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is the off-the-cuff, funny-but-offensive stuff Trump says. He said he wouldn’t deport Prince Harry because “he’s got enough problems with his wife.” What do you think of that? He makes comments like this all the time.

Rick Rosner: It has little impact other than bad soft-power usage. Trump has no decorum. Every other president has treated their words as if they matter, trying to preserve a sense of authority. On the other hand, Trump knows he can say whatever he wants and won’t lose his base. It’s been years since he’s tried to moderate his statements or behaviour to expand his base.

That’s not entirely true, however. He’ll throw out nonsense, “no tax on tips,” to get attention. But he never considers that he might gain broader support by simply not being an asshole. He doesn’t even try to avoid being an asshole. His base loves that. They see his unfiltered speech as honesty because he says whatever he feels without thinking about its impact or truthfulness. They consider that a kind of truthfulness, even though, ironically, it’s the opposite of truth. In his first four years as president, he told 30,000 public lies or misstatements. But anyway, that’s how he is. I don’t have anything particularly original to add to that.

Jacobsen: How many Americans do you think are living illegally in Canada? That’s a good question. You have to break it into categories. There’s probably a large group of people who have dual citizenship and then moved over.

Rosner: So it’s not technically illegal. It’s hard for a regular American to get Canadian citizenship, however. Your passport is probably mine—good for three months in the country.

But people can still come over and stay. Thousands of draft dodgers came during the Vietnam War, but until recently, there hasn’t been much reason for Americans to leave the U.S. Now, though, you probably have people moving to Canada for various reasons—whether they’re on the run from something or they want a better life. The U.S. and Canada share a language, and if someone speaks English and gets a job, they might be able to blend in. Some might need fake IDs, but others could be retired with some money and live quietly.

How it works with healthcare, though. You do have to sign up for Canada’s free healthcare system, which requires valid Canadian documentation. If they don’t have sufficient ID and try to access medical care, that could be one way for people to get caught.

But I think that as America gets scarier, more people might try living in Canada. Also, Canada only has 40 million people, while America has eight and a half times that number. That ratio used to be more than nine times, but Canada has grown faster proportionally than the U.S.

In terms of people getting into trouble and wanting to flee the country—even if only half of one percent of Americans decided to leave, that would still be 1.7 million. If they fled to Canada, that would amount to four percent of your population.

Jacobsen: A Latin humanist pointed out to me that, in an article analyzing Trump’s electoral victory, a significant tipping-point factor was the influence of African American male pastors—Baptists, Methodists—along with conservative Muslim groups and Orthodox Jews.

So, in feminist terms, religious patriarchy played a significant role in the previous election. In non-feminist terms, conservative male theologies emphasizing male headship were key factors—not necessarily in absolute numbers, but as tipping-point voting blocs that shifted toward Trump. They saw something in him that they believed would support their values and interests.

That’s a complicated situation. But obviously, part of the issue is that women—proportionally speaking—are doing much better than men in terms of education, income, homeownership, and other measures. These conservative religious spaces provide young and older men a sense of place and purpose. That can contribute to a reactionary social and political climate. A surprising number of young men moved toward Trump in the last election.

These shifts are all connected to a broader sense of belonging. Many young men report feeling isolated, having fewer friends, and struggling with social connections. That’s probably part of it. The article was interesting and succinct in pointing out some of these factors because there had been lingering questions about why the shift occurred.

For instance, left-wing cultural assumptions would predict that white Christian men would lean toward Trump more than Democrats. That part isn’t surprising. But what was counterintuitive—at least from an identity politics perspective—was that many minority men shifted toward Trump even more than white men did. That breaks down the typical identity-politics framework and suggests that different social and economic factors were at play in these communities.

Jacobsen: I’ve been looking into Americans living abroad, which is an entirely different topic.

Rosner: So, estimating the number of Americans living abroad is tricky. Estimates range from 2.2 million to 6.8 million. I assume that includes many people living illegally. But what I’m saying is that if America starts collapsing politically or becomes significantly more dangerous—either due to political instability or increased violence—there could be a majorinflux of Americans coming to Canada and trying to stay.

And then maybe people sneak back into America when things get better. I don’t know how that works, but I know that in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, you’re typically allowed to stay for only six months without violating immigration laws. I assume that’s the case for many other countries as well.

However, what does the U.S. think if an American stays out of the country for more than six months? If you try returning to the U.S. after overstaying your legal time in Canada, do you get in trouble at the border? How strict are they about that?

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1314: Political Extremism, Gun Culture, and the Aging Divide in America

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Being a sociopath is also a form of stupidity.

Put it this way: If you look at the generational trends, you see something interesting. From Boomers to Gen X to Millennials to Gen Z, men and women were trending toward parity—more gender equality, more progressive values. But by the time you get to Gen Z, things collapse.

For younger Millennials and all of Gen Z men, they’ve backslid. Gen Z men are now almost as conservative as Boomers. That was a huge surprise in the election.

The biggest trend was that women continued moving toward feminism and gender equality, while men veered the other way. What used to be a small divide has now turned into a massive generational gap.

Men and women coming of age right now are essentially 25-50 years apart in sociopolitical perspective.

Rosner: And Musk? He calls himself a moderate, but he’s pre-Boomer conservative. The young men who follow him see him as a genius, and he reinforces their traditionalist views. He’s a tech hero to a lot of young guys.

And he’s also sucked in a lot of STEM people. On X, I’ve noticed that engineers, computer science guys, Star Trek fans—people in technical fields—idolize him. They see him as the coolest thing ever, even if they have political reservations about his behavior. And that overwhelms their reservations.

Rosner: Do you think the U.S. is at risk of getting shooty?

Jacobsen: That implies it isn’t already shooty.

The current stats show that, on average, 100 people die from guns every day. Half of those are suicides.

I’ll say this: The U.S. is already shooty. it’s going to get shootier.

It’s a matter of degree.

America already has extremes. The extremes have taken over a couple of the outer concentric circles of what used to be the center. with that, you get amplification—Twitter, media figures, peopleKanye West proudly calling himself a Nazi, unapologetically, not even blaming it on Hennessy this time.

That tells you how extremist rhetoric has been mainstreamed.

So, yes—people are going to react to that. The more radicalized the rhetoric gets, the more radical actions we’ll see.

If the extreme has become more centralized, even by 10%, you’re going to get more radical incidents.

Because ideology drives motivation.

And when you get millions of people in informational bubbles, radicalized in incremental steps, they’re going to act on it.

All we’ve done is increase the number of those people.

Jacobsen: You should expect more extreme weather events. It’s wet; it’s the climate. When you raise global temperatures, you increase the likelihood of severe weather events and their frequency. That is the reality of climate science. Rising temperatures mean more energy in the atmosphere, which results in stronger storms, heavier rainfall, and more erratic weather patterns.

Rosner: Let me ask you this. You have been to one of the world’s most dangerous countries twice—Ukraine. Given that experience, if you lived in America—

Jacobsen: I have lived in America. I have lived in America before.

Rosner: What was your longest stint in America?

Jacobsen: A month. Maybe twice or three times, for a total of two months or three months or so. Plus, I was in one of the safest places in the country—a gated community inside one of the safest cities in the United States: Irvine, California.

Rosner: Right. Irvine is not particularly dangerous. But if you lived in a more typical part of America—say, Ohio—would you get yourself a Kevlar vest?

Jacobsen: No. If I had to live in Ohio, I would probably choose Youngstown. It seems like an interesting place.

Rosner: So, you would choose where to live based at least in part on how safe it felt?

Jacobsen: Yes. Or at least based on whether or not it felt too chaotic.

Rosner: That’s fair.

Jacobsen: Yes. I have only seen one bullet in my life ricochet off the pavement. That was at a shooting range. I have fired a lot of guns there—from a high-caliber sniper rifle to a Beretta. The Beretta was the most fun to fire because it is such a terrible gun—cheap, unreliable, but still enjoyable to shoot.

Rosner: The sniper rifle, though—that thing is so heavy that carrying it is a workout in itself. It is not practical for anything other than precision shooting. I have only shot a BB gun. I have fired a pistol a few times, but never a rifle. I do not know. I would want extensive training before I felt comfortable handling a firearm on my own.

Jacobsen: That is a responsible approach.

Rosner: If I did get a gun, I would want something small. A .22 caliber would be my choice. Unless things got bad—then maybe I would move up to a .357 Magnum. But honestly, I have no idea what I would do in that situation.

Jacobsen: If things got to the point where you needed to carry a gun to feel safe, it would probably be time to start thinking about moving to Canada. Do you think Canada is now seeing an influx of Americans moving there, either legally or illegally? During the Vietnam War, there were a lot of draft dodgers who went to Canada to avoid conscription.

Rosner: That is an interesting question. It is hard to say for sure, but I would not be surprised if some Americans were trying to move to Canada, legally or otherwise. It is tough to immigrate to Canada. But if my wife, Carole, and I sold our house and had a good amount of money, we could live quietly in a medium-sized Canadian city in.

Rosner: Yes. Calgary is probably a good option. It has a more libertarian, Texas-like culture, the taxes are lower, and the cost of living is more reasonable than in other major Canadian citiesVancouver or Toronto. But I am gray-haired—almost completely white-haired now. Carole just turned 60.

So, we would not need to work. We could be quiet retirees. Eventually, some Canadian media outlets might start noticing an increase in American retirees and question how many of them have legal residency. But realistically, how often do you have to show ID or a passport if you are living a quiet life in a rented condo?

Jacobsen: I do not know, man.

Rosner: I know some older couples—some old Jewish couples—who are quiet now, but they were active in their younger years. They lived through a lot, and their activism shaped their lives.

Jacobsen: Do you feel old?

Rosner: No. Right now, I feel a little beat up. I have some issues with my rotator cuff—my right shoulder—and I am hoping it will heal on its own. Surgery for that kind of injury puts you out of commission for at least four to six weeks, and I would rather avoid it if possible.

One of the gyms I go to has an escalator, but it is always broken. The other day, I had to walk up the escalator manually. It was raining, and I slipped. I banged myself up a little bit because those metal stairs are brutal. But aside from that, I am still able to do the things I used to do.

I can still lift weights, run across the street, and maintain decent posture. I cannot jerk off every night. At least, I do not. Most nights, I try, but about half the time, I give up and fall asleep. My eyesight is a little worse than it used to be, but I can still read.

So, no—I do not feel old. I can still do most of the things I used to do. My body is holding up. My mind is still sharp. I am a little more tired at the end of the day.

My eyes are better than most people my age. I still have most of my teeth—31, to be exact. Many people only have 28 because they get their wisdom teeth removed, but I still have mine. One of my teeth is an implant, which was an expensive, months-long pain in the ass. Three of them are part of a bridge—a procedure where one tooth was removed, and the adjacent teeth were filed down to support a three-tooth replacement. If you count the implant and the bridge as teeth, then I have 31, which is better than most people who aren’t even as old as I am.

Rosner: What do you think other old people have that you don’t?

Jacobsen: Do you mean things that make them seem older than me?

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: People lose mental fluidity as they age. Maybe I have lost some of that—or mental acuity, or both. But I started with a lot of that, so I have plenty to lose before it becomes noticeable. I still feel sharp. It’s mostly people older than me that I see struggling with it. I consider myself “young old.” I’m not even 65 yet. But when I look at people in their seventies, I notice how their expressions become less animated, their faces more slack. someone is in rough shape when they can’t keep their mouth closed anymore. How that will play out for me since I’m a mouth breather anyway, so my mouth is probably open a lot regardless. Then there’s the loss of physical spryness. People become slower, more hunched over. There’s a shift in posture, loose skin, and stringy limbs. I’m skinnier than I used to be, but I don’t have that crepey, sagging skin yet. A lot of that is probably coming for me, but it’s not here yet.

Then there’s what I call “mushy ass syndrome.” As people age, their muscle and skin tone weaken, so their clothes press into their bodies differently. If you’re wearing underwear, it digs into your backside more than it would on a younger person. But I’ve never had much of an ass to begin with, so maybe it’s less obvious on me. That said, when I’m naked, I do have what I call an “elephant ass.” I’ve turned around and looked at it in the mirror a couple of times, and I can see it—the folds that develop around where the legs meet the torso, an elephant. That’s aging.

Jacobsen: Are there any benefits to getting older?

Rosner: You accumulate experience. I often fantasize about going back to junior high or high school knowing everything I know now—about life and about the future. If I went back to 1979, I could warn people about Trump. Trump is the worst thing that has happened to America in my lifetime. The country would be in much better shape if he had never come to power. We are in a perilous time.

Another benefit of being older is having more financial stability. Carole and I have accumulated resources. Our house is paid off, we don’t have to work, and I have a pension. If I wanted to, I could start collecting Social Security—the government pension that every American is entitled to.

This next part isn’t necessarily something I consider a benefit, but some people might: I’m out of the game when it comes to trying to get laid. That was a major focus in my teens and twenties. Now, I’m invisible to anyone besides my wife. I haven’t pursued anyone other than Carole since we got married. Some people might see that as a relief—being freed from that pursuit.

I’ve also seen a lot in my lifetime. I’ve read a ton of books. Carole has too. We’ve watched an incredible number of movies and TV shows. That means we can usually predict where a story is going. It’s both a blessing and a curse—most entertainment has to work hard to surprise us or keep us engaged. It has to be exceptionally good; otherwise, we dismiss it as predictable or low-quality. But that’s the trade-off. You gain wisdom and experience, but the world starts to feel a little less surprising.

But that’s a pleasure—to have that experience base. I’ve written 20,000 jokes, and I’ve read half a million. So developing taste based on experience is something I consider an advantage of being older. You could argue the other way—that if I hadn’t seen all these jokes, TV shows, and books, I might be easier to entertain with mediocre stuff. But I prefer having the ability to recognize quality when I see it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1313: Guns, Government Breakdown, and the Risk of Political Violence in America

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s your topic, Rick?

Rick Rosner: We should talk about guns.

Jacobsen:Let’s talk about guns. That’s a great idea.

Rosner: Guns, the political crisis in the United States—yes. We have a hostile government, and the NRA isn’t living up to all its bold talk. Musk keeps shutting down government agencies. He has no authority to do half of what he’s doing—taking over government information systems with his team of coders. Whether he’s legally allowed to do it? He probably isn’t. But resistance has been disorganized at best.

Trump fired the Kennedy Center board and named himself its new chair. I read about that. Culture. Arts. People have been citing the applicable law—it’s completely illegal. He can’t do that.

So, I assume Caroline Kennedy’s husband—the guy fired from running the Kennedy Center—will sue to regain his job or board position. Because what Trump did was illegal. There’s an unambiguous statute. Now, maybe Trump will claim he has the power to rewrite statutes. But what’s happening in America has never happened before.

Similar things have happened in other countries.

And we know what happened in Germany. It didn’t go well.

How often have other countries tried this kind of thing and failed? But what worries me—now that I know about it—is that there are about 250 million adult Americans who collectively own almost 470 million guns.

That’s a fuckload of guns.

That’s 1.75 guns per adult American.

Of course, they aren’t evenly distributed. Let’s do the math—250 into 470 is about 1.88 guns per adult American. It’s not evenly distributed. You’ve got liberals, conservatives, and independents. A little less than half of independent households own a gun, whether a rifle, pistol, or shotgun. A little less than 60% of conservative households own a firearm, according to a Pew Research study. For liberals, it’s a little less than 30%.

So, if you break it down, a rough estimate might be 200 million guns in conservative households, 50 million in independent households, and 100 million in liberal households. But it’s probably even more skewed than that because the more conservative you are, the more guns you’re likely to own. Some studies suggest the average gun-owning household owns eight firearms, which doesn’t align precisely with Pew’s numbers, but still—the key point is that we have a shit ton of guns.

And while they’re not evenly distributed politically, they’re widespread enough that if things escalate, if people start shooting at each other, it could turn into a nightmare.

Jacobsen: So, America is the most armed society in human history. We have nearly a billion guns—more than any country has ever had. That raises the question: Why are Americans so obsessed with guns?

Rosner: The Second Amendment, for one. However, the frontier mentality also includes the idea that self-reliance and firepower go hand in hand.

Jacobsen: The only frontier left is space, man. And cyberspace.

Rosner: Yes, but guns don’t work there. But historically, this gun culture comes from somewhere. Eight U.S. presidents have been shot and killed. Four others have been hit or shot at—either while they were president or while they were running.

Teddy Roosevelt? Shot.

Ford? Shot at—twice.

Reagan? Shot.

Trump? Shot at—and wounded, either by shrapnel or the bullet itself.

And that’s while they were president or president-adjacent. Maybe another handful—maybe five, six, or seven presidents—were shot at before they were elected.

Andrew Jackson?

John Tyler?

“Tippecanoe and Tyler Too?”

Old Hickory?

Many presidents earned their names from their exploits in war and frontier violence.

Did Harry Truman get shot in World War I?

Did Eisenhower? Not while he was a general, but maybe in World War I, before he rose to command?

Either way, almost a third of all U.S. presidents have been shot at.

This country was won at gunpoint. The American Revolution was fought with guns. The Civil War was fought with guns. The first U.S. president to be assassinated—Lincoln—was shot less than a third of the way into American history—76 years after 1776.

And the most recent presidential candidate to be shot at?

Trump. A few months ago.

So, it’s a legitimate concern that, given the current political strife, people will start getting shooty.

We already have mass shootings every few days. Depending on how you define it, we have one mass shooting per day on average. Some of these have a political component.

Every time someone shoots up a place, people want to know—was this shooter pro-Trump or pro-liberal? Because it’s a guy 98% of the time, people immediately start looking through his social media for signs of political affiliation.

So, what is the risk of political violence? What is the risk that mass shootings increase? That they become even more politically motivated? Under the current level of political stress?

That’s not paranoia.

That’s reality.

Jacobsen: It’s not a zero-percent risk. Some institutions responsible for tracking, de-escalating, and prosecuting threats are being gutted—whether by Musk or the current presidential administration. It’s a risky time for America, not only in terms of guns but also in terms of institutional stability.

Rosner: That said, we should be worried about guns, too—not that we can do anything about them, but it’s something to keep in mind.

According to a Pew Research study, 42% of U.S. households have a gun. But only 30% of Americans personally own one—meaning around 12% of people live in a home with guns but don’t own one themselves. That leaves 69% of Americans without personal gun ownership. Of that 69%, about 36% said they could see themselves owning a gun in the future, leaving roughly 33% who said they would never own one. But if you took that survey today, I’d bet that 33% has dropped to 27%—maybe lower.

More and more Americans are getting closer to three-quarters either owning a gun or considering it. Carole and I have talked about it. If we ever did get one, it would be a wimpy gun—a .22. Small, easy to handle, not much recoil. You could shoot someone, and they wouldn’t necessarily die, which has its pros and cons.

We haven’t bought one yet, but we have weapons near the door. A metal bar to hit or poke an intruder with. Maybe a stabby thing? I should check. We’ve got a longer metal bar under the bed and a baseball bat—or perhaps it’s a wooden dowel. We have two zombie bars—long stiff bars that run from the doorknob to the floor to brace the door if someone tries to kick it in.

We think about this shit. I’m thinking about it more.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1312: Trump’s Return, Musk’s Influence, and America’s Alarming Political Surrender

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25

Rick Rosner: So, as with the first time Trump became president, it took a lot of unusual circumstances. The first time around, he had about 40% approval. He lost the popular vote by nearly three million but won the Electoral College. There was confirmed Russian interference in the election, though the extent to which it influenced the outcome remains debated.

This time around, he barely lost the popular vote, but a dramatic event—the attempted assassination that grazed his ear—helped solidify his image. He popped up after being tackled to the ground, raising his fist in the air and yelling, “Fight, fight, fight!”—even though he’s the same person who avoided the Vietnam draft with medical deferments, specifically for bone spurs.

And they barely secured the trifecta: the presidency, the House, and the Senate. Plus, they still have a conservative Supreme Court majority, even though most Americans voted against them across those branches in total votes. The exact numbers, but I haven’t checked whether more Americans voted for Democrats in the House overall than for Republicans, and the same goes for the Senate.

So, anyway, there’s some unlikelihood there. They are governing as if—I don’t have anything particularly original to say—this is what everybody wants, even though they know it’s not what most Americans want. So, they are pushing as much policy as possible, as quickly as possible, before the opposition, which is still disorganized, can mount an effective response.

Trump has been a bullshitter his entire life. He doesn’t have strategies so much as he has behaviours that have been reinforced over decades of getting away with things—saying whatever he wants at the moment, making things up, acting as if they are true, and not even seeming to care whether they are or not.

I don’t have anything super insightful to add. I’ve worked with pathological liars before, and they operate by skating from moment to moment, thinking, “What do I say right now to keep this going?” And since most people don’t regularly encounter such individuals, they don’t have built-in defences against them. That’s why these people get away with it.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are you saying we don’t have an immune system against bullshit?

Rosner: Yes. Because most people—including, probably, many who have psychopathic tendencies but don’t act on them—tend to tell the truth because it’s simply easier. Normal people mostly say to the truth because it simplifies life, and they have some moral framework that guides them. It all works together.

It all pushes in the same direction: don’t constantly calculate some manipulative angle; figuring out what lie will give you a short-term advantage. Live your life, do your work, and be straightforward with people—except for small white lies: “Does this dress make me look fat?” “No, you look great in everything.”

Except for those small, harmless white lies, people are primarily truthful. They might lie about their weight or estimate numbers on their tax return where they don’t know the exact amount, but the IRS is stretched thin and can’t scrutinize every discrepancy. Still, people are generally honest because it’s easier to keep track of and feels like the right thing to do.

And even people who don’t have a moral underpinning are usually truthful because, even for someone who’s a psychopath, it’s often easier to tell the truth at the moment than to figure out what bullshit might be beneficial. It’s a hassle to lie, even if you have no qualms about lying.

For example, I was at the gym and walked up to a machine at the same time as another guy. He said, “Yes, I’m gonna use this.” Then he asked, “Were you on this?”

For a second, I thought, “Fuck him. He’s going to take a long time.” It’s bullshit because I could be on it and done quickly. But I wasn’t going to ask, “Can you work in?” Then I thought, “Should I lie and say I was on it?”

No, because that would make things more awkward. He might say, “No, you weren’t.” Or he might believe me but think I’m an asshole. Then I’d have to do my sets while he stood there, giving me a dirty look. I didn’t want to deal with that.

I didn’t have moral qualms about lying at that moment—because the guy was a whiny bitch—but it didn’t seem worth it. Lying wouldn’t have a clear benefit. It would be a hassle. It would be awkward.

So, I didn’t fucking lie.

Also, maybe there was a little moral push that I shouldn’t lie. Especially since I have three other gyms, I could go to and do the same workout somewhere else. But anyway, most people—even most psychopaths—don’t lie all the time.

So, yes, most people don’t run into someone who’s now allied with another psychopath, Musk. Musk is a different kind of bullshitter.

He presents himself differently, but together, they create a powerful combination that nobody resists. Musk is walking into federal agencies, trailed by three teenage hacker fanboys—one is 19, and some are in their twenties. They tell people what to do, and nobody pushes back.

Nobody locks the door on them. They tell security they’re entitled to be there, and security stands back and lets them walk in. Nobody resists. These people figure they will lose their jobs anyway. I wouldn’t recommend this, but imagine if someone punched one of those kids in the stomach. That would be if everybody pushed them back out the door and locked it.

They’re not more authorized to do what they’re doing than the people they’re displacing. Sure, they’re authorized by the president—but not by any formal directive. Meanwhile, the people getting their access revoked are authorized to be there federally.

But they fucking back down. That in itself will be seen by history as a weirdly easy surrender.

It’s fucked.

Finally, people are starting to mount some opposition, but none of the pushback you’d expect. If this were a sitcom—like The Office—you’d see these assholes walk in within the first ten minutes, messing with everything, saying, “I need to see these files. I’m from headquarters.”

And in the sitcom, they’d be exposed as frauds by the end of the episode. But here? They’re walking in and getting away with it.

And in the second half of the sitcom, the office staff would start huddling together, saying, “How do we know these guys are from headquarters?” Then they’d start asking for ID and mounting some resistance that would probably be effective.

Dwight Schrute has been training for this his whole life.

It’s weird—the way everyone is lying down and taking it. Late-night shows have been mocking Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, for trying to rally the Democrats with pep talks and cheers.

He sounds lame and old.

The wimpiness of the Democrats is ridiculous.

What would happen if—like today or yesterday—we mentioned how they’re trying to eliminate NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which tracks our weather?

With all the extreme weather we’ve been having, I saw a report that said 92% of U.S. counties have been declared disaster areas at some point.

Yes, we need weather warnings. They’re going to mess those up.

But what would happen if the staff of NOAA barricaded the doors?

Rosner: So… comments?

Jacobsen: No, man.

Rosner: A lot of this shit comes down to privilege and entitlement.

The sheer scale of these policies’ effects—it’s beyond comprehension. Agencies are regularly reviewed to cut waste, but when it comes to international aid, pulling the rug out from under people kills them.

And they’re talking about doing that. That is called mass murder. USAID is helping to pay for the treatment of 300,000 AIDS patients worldwide. Thousands of people are enrolled in drug trials across the globe.

And now? They’re going to stop those trials halfway through.

They’re taking drugs away—both proven and experimental—from hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people.

Even if 1% of those people die, that’s 20,000 deaths.

And they did it through sheer bluster.

There’s no formal policy rationale. It resembles Hitler’s first 53 days in power, from 1932 to 1933.

Jacobsen: Do you think Elon Musk is a Nazi?

Rosner: No. He’s an asshole who is maybe… 20% of a Nazi.

I don’t think he would support genocide. But he probably supports a lot of the underlying concepts behind Nazism—things like national determination, maybe even white nationalism.

So, he’s part of the way there, but he’s not a full-on “Hitler was right” guy.

He’s more of a “Hitler was right about some stuff” guy.

And also, someone who enjoys freaking people out by doing borderline Nazi salutes? He probably thinks, “If it freaks people out, then they’re snowflakes.”

Jacobsen: : Do you think his gesture—the Sieg Heil salute—was heartfelt? Or was it something else?

Rosner: It may have started as heartfelt. But he did it twice. It may be good to make that gesture. —I’m not a mind reader. What his thoughts were in the moment. But it became something else when he did it a third time—more carefully, at a rally in Germany. That’s when he had time to think about it. That’s when he calibrated it.

So, his arm angle was low enough—not quite at the full 45-degree Sieg Heil—to maintain some ambiguity. The first two times? Maybe heartfelt. Any time after that? Trolling.

Jacobsen: What do you think about his trans daughter, Vivian, transitioning, changing her last name from Musk to Wilson, and then—yes—disowning him? And then his reaction to that?

In a Jordan Peterson interview, he says, ‘They call it deadnaming. Yes. So, by breaking into assigning these forms, they killed my daughter. Or my son.’

Rosner: Imagine how shitty a dad must be, how shitty a former husband must be… Do the math. You’ve got a dad who was worth $200 billion and is now worth over $400 billion—the richest guy on Earth. You could have a chunk of those billions by acting civilly toward him. You don’t even have to love him—just pretend to get along. Yet, she chose to cut him off completely.

And it’s not her. Several of his kids are saying, “Fuck you” to him. When you say “Fuck you” to Elon Musk, you’re also saying “Fuck you” to potentially $10 billion in inheritance. That, to me, is strong evidence that Musk is probably not the best dad. Because if your kids are willing to walk away from that kind of money, what does that say about you? Is that a reasonable argument?

Look, I would kiss much ass for $10 billion. Hell, I’d do it for $10 million. A counterargument is that they’re kids. They don’t understand how nice it would be to have $10 billion. But come on. Musk is a smart guy. I assume his kids are smart, too. Some of them are young adults. They have the imagination to know what it would be to have access to billions.

. If I were a Musk kid, I’d go to him and say, “Hey, you’re worth $400 billion. Can I have $3 million? Make it a zero-interest loan—I’ll make a movie.” I’d pitch him the damn movie. I’d assume that, as my dad, he’d at least listen and consider putting a fraction of his fortune into a low-budget film.

At the least, I’d ask: “Can you let me have $150,000 so I can go on a round-the-world tour?” Something tiny, something that, relative to his fortune, is asking your dad for a sandwich.

But instead, his kids are preemptively saying, “Fuck you.”That tells me… maybe he is a dick.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1311: Emergent and Convergent Physics: Information, Redundancy, and the Universe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08

Rick Rosner: So, the principles of physics are both emergent and convergent. They appear as the universe emerges—coming from a state of low information, little matter, and minimal space. But the principles are in the same place every time, so they’re convergent. Unless, of course, the universe was precisely engineered from the outside to have different physics. Each possible universe converges on a standard physics. I like emergent and convergent because it rhymes.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is evolution also emergent and convergent?

Rosner: A hundred years ago, everything was more metaphysical. It was about trying to come up with reasons why things are the way they are—and getting many details wrong in the process. Everything was half-assed science because we didn’t have enough information. We hadn’t conducted enough scientific investigation to pin down many of the underlying mechanics of the universe.

Is phenomenology the right word for this? I don’t know. But the key issue is that, over the past five hundred years, our ability to describe “what happens” has massively outpaced our ability to explain “why it happens.”

We’ve become so successful at describing physical reality that the deeper “why” questions have been neglected. And because those questions sound more speculative, they’ve often been dismissed as hocus-pocus or pseudo-science. But we’ve now accumulated so much knowledge that we can take reasonable stabs at the “why” of things.

I said quantum mechanics gets us closer to the “why” because it’s a mathematical treatment of incomplete information and how it behaves. That points us toward a universe built from information—or at least deeply tied to information. That, in turn, suggests we should be more theorizing about what the physics of information would look like.

This goes against some of our traditional conservation laws—for instance, the idea that the total amount of information in the universe remains constant from the Big Bang to now. That’s a silly assumption. It makes much more sense to theorize about how information is actively created as the universe unfolds and how information can be lost as parts of the universe collapse.

That kind of theorizing should bring us closer to understanding the “why” of things. The idea that the universe defines itself—that you can have systems of increasing complexity and information—makes sense if you start with the idea that particles define each other through their history of interaction. If those interactions create a pocket of self-consistency, then the system persists.

So, if you start from self-consistency as a fundamental principle—meaning self-consistent things can exist because inconsistent things cannot—then you’ve already established the foundation for why physical reality works the way it does. And if you can successfully build a framework from that principle, then you’ve done science, not metaphysics.

Jacobsen: Does the universe build in redundancy to buffer against error?

Rosner: Our minds and brains are full of redundancy to protect against failure. If you go back to the thought experiment philosophers love to use, Jacobsen: When you perceive a red light, you’re not deciding it’s red based on a single photon hitting your eyes. You’re basing it on hundreds, maybe thousands of photons being processed by your brain after they hit the back of your eyeball.

Some thresholds need to be reached before you definitively recognize it as a red light. We’ve all experienced borderline sensory phenomena—situations where we’re uncertain of what we’re experiencing because we haven’t received enough sensory data. Whether it’s not enough photons, sound waves, or other stimuli, sometimes the brain fills in the gaps to compensate.

That’s why we sometimes see ghosts in the corner of a doorway—for a split second. Our brain interprets an ambiguous shape as a person because it’s safer to assume someone is there and be wrong than to miss an actual lurker who could pose a threat.

Well, at the quantum level, there’s no redundancy. Quantum events happen once, and that’s it—unless you set up a physics experiment to measure them in a way that records the results. The universe doesn’t naturally repeat quantum-level events to confirm what happened.

But if the universe is an information processor, then the information it generates is likely not based on single quantum events. Instead, it would be built from billions or trillions of overlapping quantum events, forming durable patterns.

We’ve talked about transient quantum events—like those happening inside stars, where no permanent record is kept. But durable events that shape reality happen on the super-macro scale—where 10³⁰, 10⁵⁰, or even 10⁷⁰ particles combine into a planet, a star, or some other massive structure.

The macroscopic scale itself acts as a form of redundancy.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1310: Information, Physics, and Metaphysics, or Information and Physics with ‘Metaphysics’

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why do objects and operators in the universe break down into something unique—something that holds a stable property in the universe?

You look at one electron, and it’s the same as every other electron in the universe. You look at a photon, and it’s the same deal. So why? Why do fundamental particles remain indistinguishable while larger-scale objects mostly do as well?

For big objects, we can’t immediately tell what belongs to each category. We struggle to categorize what makes something a star, a black hole, a non-rotating black hole, or various types of black holes. What exactly distinguishes a brown dwarf from a white dwarf? These things are distinct—but why? They take a bit of time to categorize, but, with time, we find the relevant properties.

At the smallest scales, things are simpler—the fundamental building blocks are identical. But as you scale up, you find increasing complexity, with structures becoming more distinct as they accumulate properties. However, even at large scales, stability emerges—suggesting that certain formations persist due to their information content.

Rick Rosner: So, we have cause and effect, but we can’t explain structure purely by invoking cause and effect. Systems don’t just accumulate mass—they accumulate information. And systems that model reality accumulate information efficiently. The only way to do this is to transition from low to higher-information states. This implies stable clumping, meaning homogeneous distributions don’t stay homogeneous. Instead, they clump heterogeneously. And when clumping up, gravitational energy is released.

As gravitational potential converts to kinetic energy, matter collapses into denser structures. This process releases heat as radiation, which dissipates across the universe. You can’t easily get that radiation back under normal conditions once that radiation is gone. The only way to recover that energy would be through collapsing cosmic regions—but in an expanding universe, those circumstances don’t arise naturally. So, once clumping occurs, it’s largely irreversible—and information is embedded in it.

Jacobsen: Can informational cosmology make any predictions for physics or particle physics experiments? I mean facility like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC)?

Rosner: Yes, but nothing immediately comes to mind because most disagreements I see with conventional physics occur at the largest cosmic scales—not at the subatomic level.

Jacobsen: So, you’re saying information is generated at the largest scales?

Rosner: Conservation laws apply locally and even at great distances, but at super-macro scales, things behave differently. So, no, I don’t think the LHC could easily test this. A better physicist could develop an experiment, but nothing jumps out at me.

But you can test the IC model against the universe’s age by looking for objects that appear older than 14 billion years—the estimated age of the universe. A few candidates might qualify, but they’re hard to detect and barely interact because they’re so old and energy-depleted. They’ve burned off nearly all their radiation, so they don’t emit much light. They’ve also settled into stable orbits because, over time, the likelihood of collisions changes—I don’t know the exact mathematical curve for collision probability over time, but it probably drops exponentially.

Over billions of years, chaotic interactions settle down. Objects can’t crash into each other indefinitely—eventually, everything gets its vector, and any object that is going to collide has already collided and bounced off or stuck together. So, after 12 or 14 billion years, something like a brown dwarf, neutron star, or burned-out planet could have drifted into a stable orbit, far from the galactic center, with nothing left to run into. Space is vast enough that these ancient objects could exist in isolation.

But we can still look for them. Yes, we can search for galaxies that appear too mature, too early—fully formed and actively producing starlight way too soon after the Big Bang. Though I don’t know if those are legit candidates, I’m unsure. But I know that the smaller, burned-out stellar remnants are good candidates for testing whether some things predate the known universe.

Also, we’ve talked about gold. Gold is hard to make. You need either a supernova or a collision of neutron stars to generate the extreme pressures and energies needed to fuse heavy nuclei. Gold cannot form inside a normal star—the heaviest element you can synthesize in a stellar core is iron.

Some researchers have suggested that there’s way too much gold in the universe to be accounted for by the processes we know. Not an absurd amount—it’s still rare—but if there’s twice as much as our current models predict, that would imply that gold-producing processes have been at work for longer than the universe should have existed.

Jacobsen: Famously, Gödel developed the incompleteness theorems. Various logical paradoxes appear unresolved. How does an information-based view of physics help resolve paradoxes?

Rosner: Many paradoxes—especially in mathematics and logic—are semantic. The incompleteness theorem states that any sufficiently complex logic system contains truths that cannot be proven within that system.

But let’s say this: If the principles of existence are emergent—rather than the product of a tightly woven, perfectly self-contained metaphysical structure—then some inconsistencies or paradoxes are allowed to exist at the edges.

As long as objects in quantum mechanics remain fuzzy—meaning their existence is not fixed but reinforced by their history and being part of a macroscopic system—then we shouldn’t expect perfect consistency everywhere. If existence itself is emergent and only mostly non-contradictory, then there’s room for some fuzziness, some apparent paradoxes at the boundaries.

If the rules aren’t ironclad metaphysical pillars that precede existence, then you can’t resolve everything. But if the principles of existence are emergent—forming alongside universes themselves—then yes, you can have paradoxes, incompleteness, and unresolved contradictions because the rules of existence aren’t absolute barriers that preclude everything.

And even saying that sounds like bullshit because you’re effectively arguing that the rules against existence preclude all existence, yet those rules exist. How the fuck can that be? If the rules preclude everything, but those rules themselves exist, then you’ve already got a paradox built into the system.

Jacobsen: You’re arguing that you can’t have rules against existence that preclude everything while also having those rules exist. You’re talking about rules of existence existing before there’s an explicit representation of those rules—whether that representation is through language, mathematics, or perception.

Rosner: The metaphysical structure of existence is not so rigid that it requires an explicit, pre-existing framework. It’s easier to have a universe exist than to get a camel through the eye of a needle or a rich man into heaven.

Jacobsen: When you break metaphysics down, it starts sounding more and more like extended physical law.

Rosner: Yes. Well, it has to be.

Jacobsen: It’s the type of law that gets discussed at a certain stage of knowledge.

Rosner: Metaphysics—an extension of certain types of physical law—has been out of fashion for centuries because it was hard to do and not particularly successful compared to the empirical science we’ve been doing for 300 years.

Jacobsen: We can continue with metaphysics as just being physics.

Rosner: Yes, exactly.

Jacobsen: So, we need to remove metaphysics altogether.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: That would be good. Because it makes things more scientific. Physics is the delineation of actual principles of existence as we discover them, what people call “metaphysics” is just physical law extrapolated from current understandings, which means metaphysics is, ultimately, a doomed enterprise to be replaced by precision in physics rather than its vagaries in ‘metaphysics.’

Rosner: That I buy.

Jacobsen: All right. I’ll talk to you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1309: Peyton McNabb Volleyball Injury: Fact vs. Political Narrative

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/08

Rick Rosner: A few nights ago, the president delivered his speech to Congress. As is customary, members of Congress brought special guests to emphasize political points.

For instance, Trump brought a 13-year-old boy who is recovering from brain cancer and made him an honorary Secret Service agent. The Democrats didn’t clap. Republicans used this moment to accuse Democrats of being heartless, corrupt, and out of touch. However, Democrats were reportedly frustrated by what they saw as hypocrisy—honouring a cancer patient while Trump and Musk are actively working on cutting funding for the CDC, which conducts cancer research, including research on childhood cancer. So, they did not applaud the boy, not out of malice toward him, but because they saw the gesture as politically disingenuous.

The Republicans also highlighted Peyton McNabb, a high school volleyball player who suffered a severe injury during a game in 2022 after being hit in the face by a spike from a transgender athlete on the opposing team.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Before this, I hadn’t heard about the story. It sounded like a name that a random name generator would create.

Rosner: When McNabb was 17, she was playing a high school volleyball match when a spike from a transgender female athlete struck her in the face. Reports claimed the ball was travelling at 70 mph, but I decided to analyze the footage myself.

The impact resulted in a concussion, temporary paralysis on one side of her body, vision problems, and other lasting health effects. McNabb later became an advocate for policies banning transgender women from competing in girls’ sports.

Once again, the Democrats did not applaud, which Republicans framed as evidence of heartlessness.

I reviewed the footage of the play—watching the clip about 20 times—and examined the public reaction. Many comments were sympathetic, calling the incident “savagery.” However, volleyball players in the comments argued that the spike was not exceptionally powerful or unusual.

A few key details stood out:

McNabb was positioned behind the attack line 10 feet from the net.
The spike travelled 12 feet from the point of contact to her face.
Volleyball players claimed the speed was not excessive. Many pointed out that poor positioning contributed to the injury.
Spikes to the face are not uncommon. Studies suggest that 5% of volleyball injuries result from ball impacts.

After slowing the footage and analyzing it frame by frame, I calculated that:

The ball travelled 12 feet in six frames (one-fifth of a second).
This equates to a speed of 60 feet per second (41 mph)—far from the 70 mph originally claimed.
Many varsity-level female players can spike at similar speeds.

While the injury was severe, the narrative that it was an unprecedented or freakishly powerful spike does not hold up under scrutiny.

A spike of that speed has one-third of the kinetic energy of the supposed 70 mph “savage spike” that The Daily Mail, a British newspaper, claimed. In reality, the ball was travelling at 40–41 mph.

If you calculate the g-forces, a volleyball weighs 9 to 10 ounces. To sustain a concussion, a person’s head must move upon impact. If the head remains stationary, a concussion does not occur.

A concussion happens when the skull rapidly moves and then collides with the brain, causing it to compress against the skull. So, if someone dropped a rock off a building onto the top of your head, you wouldn’t get a concussion—assuming it didn’t crack your skull. You might suffer a bruise, a laceration, or significant bleeding, but there would be no concussion because your skull isn’t accelerating or decelerating sharply.

If it were a large boulder, that’s a different story. But in this case, her head barely moved. Yes, she has black eyes, which suggests localized impact and blood vessel damage, but I haven’t seen photographic proof. There may have been sinus bleeding, but the g-forces from a 10-ounce volleyball striking a mostly stationary head are far below what is required to cause a concussion.

It takes 70–75 g’s to enter the concussion range. The average concussion occurs at 98 g’s. She might have experienced 60 g’s at most, but that’s being generous. Likely, it was even lower.

A human head weighs about 8 pounds but is attached to a torso via the neck. This means that for a concussion to occur, the force from the volleyball would need to move not just the head but also overcome the resistance of the torso. Given that her neck was tensed, her entire upper body would have needed to move significantly—which it didn’t.

So, I’m not buying the severity of the reported injuries.

A) It wasn’t a savage spike. It was a regular spike.
B) Head and neck injuries are the most commonly exaggerated or misrepresented.

This reminds me of a car accident I was in. I lightly tapped a guy’s bumper—it made a loud noise because it was a hollow bumper, but his car barely moved. The guy initially said he was fine. Then, three days later, after talking to a lawyer, he suddenly had “whiplash” and filed a claim against my insurance.

Even though I called my insurance company and told them it was nonsense, they still paid the claim because fighting small claims isn’t worth it. If it’s $10,000 or even $25,000, they’d rather pay it than go to court.

And now, Peyton McNabb is being paid by an anti-trans political action committee called something like ‘Fairness for Women.’

Also, it was claimed that the injury ended her athletic career, but there are records of her playing sports the following year. Varsity sports, I believe. So, there’s a lot of bullshit there. But at least there’s bullshit in the physics, yes.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1308: Consciousness in an IC Universe: Modeling and Information Processing

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/05

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would be an alternate term for “consciousness” in an IC universe? I’ve been thinking about this more. What would be an alternative term for “consciousness” within an IC framework that decouples it from more mystical or metaphysical interpretations, making it seem less magical and more technical? Is there an existing term that serves this purpose—one that isn’t a neologism? What would make consciousness seem less mysterious? What synonym would be applicable to reduce associations with pseudoscience?

Rick Rosner: When people think of consciousness, they often associate it with subjective experience or emergent intelligence, but in a technical sense, it could be described as a process of Bayesian probabilistic responses—essentially what you see in an AI neural network. However, human consciousness is tacit and operates on a vastly different level from AI. AI can generate responses that pass a Turing test, but our awareness, responses, and feelings emerge from neural processes and predictive modelling that have evolved over millions of years.

I’m not sure what the ideal term would be, but perhaps “reality construction” or “reality modelling” would be more precise. The brain’s primary function is to model the external world and our place in it, helping us navigate and interact with our environment.

That said, our cognitive models are far from perfect. The human brain does a good enough job to enable our survival and reproduction—hence our species’ persistence—but its interpretations of reality are full of cognitive biases, perceptual distortions, and limitations. Our brains don’t give us a purely objective picture of reality; rather, they construct a functional approximation shaped by evolutionary pressures.

If you asked a hundred or a thousand people whether their brain gives them an accurate representation of the world and forces them to choose between “accurate” and “inaccurate,” most would likely choose “accurate. ” However, that doesn’t mean their perception is objectively correct—it only means it is functional for their needs.

Jacobsen: Correct. Even 52% still counts as a majority.

Rosner: Right, but the definition of “accurate” matters. Functional accuracy and objective accuracy are different things.

We’ve explored this in discussions about how evolution prioritizes species-level survival over individual accuracy. Our brains evolved to favour useful illusions over strict truth.

Jacobsen: In a way, I’m playing the part of Larry David here, questioning everything skeptically, while you’re taking the Jerry Seinfeld approach—more observational, more inclined to accept the practical side of things.

Rosner: I can be skeptical, too.

Jacobsen: Neil Brennan recently commented in an interview that Seinfeld is darker than people assume, while Larry David is lighter than people expect. It’s an interesting reversal of expectations.

Rosner: If the limitations of our neural architecture ultimately constrain consciousness, then reality itself is not necessarily a fully rational or idealized place. The constraints of information processing, biology, and physical laws dictate the nature of existence.

According to the principles of IC, though, not all systems must come to an end. You could argue that any given construction of information must eventually decay or transform, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it ceases to exist—it may simply reorganize into a different informational structure.

And that’s not necessarily the case. You could argue against that, given the idea that there’s no upper limit to the size of a universe built from information. You could argue that, while I wouldn’t say it’s necessary, there could be worlds that continue indefinitely.

But, anyway, I don’t know. I mean, that’s a somewhat bright spot—the idea that you could exist indefinitely.

There’s no such thing as actual immortality because, to have that, you’d have to exist for an infinite amount of time. And we know that’s really not allowed. Indefinitely is fine, but you can’t have actual infinities in physical systems. You can’t have infinite space, infinite matter, or infinite time. You can have anything short of infinite, which is still pretty good.

Jacobsen: Given the visible universe’s estimated size and material and energetic content, could we approximate its current informational content and its theoretical cap? Given the amount of material and energy in the universe, could we estimate some peak information content?

Rosner: Yeah.

Jacobsen: So, the question would then be: If that’s the case, why isn’t an optimized information-processing universe always at its cap? Is it not always at cap, using all of its resources optimally? Or is there some physical principle preventing that?

Rosner: For example, in physics, some principles optimize for efficiency—like Fermat’s principle of least time, where a photon takes the path that minimizes travel time from point A to point B. You could estimate it, but you’d need a working definition of information.

You could take the universe’s total mass and compare it to the energy of a photon emitted when a hydrogen atom transitions from its first excited state back to the ground state. Then, you could divide the total mass energy of the universe by that energy value. That might give you a rough estimate of the number of bits in the universe. It wouldn’t be a great estimate, but it would be a starting point.

If the universe is built out of the energy lost by long-distance photons redshifting due to the curvature of space, then the lowest average energy photon defines a fundamental information unit. There are lower-energy photons than the hydrogen transition photon, but they’re much less common.

That hydrogen transition photon is super common, so you could call that your fundamental bit of information. Not that I even like the idea of a universe made of those kinds of bits. But still, you’re just looking for some kind of freaking number.

The number of bits, using that estimate, is way larger than 10851085. It’s got to be somewhere in the 10901090-something range because 10851085 is an estimate of the number of particles in the universe.

Those particles are mostly protons and neutrons. But honestly, I don’t know exactly how the total particle count is distributed. In estimates of the universe’s mass, I assume they’re counting particles with resting mass. I don’t know for sure.

And if you compare the mass of those particles to the total mass energy of photons, the ratio is something like—I don’t know—a hundred thousandfold or more. The ratio of an electron’s mass to a proton’s is about 1,836:1, so that gives some scale.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1307: Do Fundamental Particles and Forces Arise from Underlying Informational Processes?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/05

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Does the part of what is enforced in the Standard Model emerge from underlying informational processes? Are they the informational processes themselves as well?

Rick Rosner: Numbers arise from underlying principles, and I assume that physical laws arise from underlying principles, too, where everything goes back to consistency and non-contradiction because you can’t have something that exists if it is fundamentally contradictory.

We’ve discussed the fundamental particles that make up the universe’s building blocks: quarks, leptons, gauge bosons, and the Higgs boson. The most relevant particles at the macroscopic level include protons and neutrons (which are made of quarks), electrons, photons, and neutrinos.

Someone more specialized in particle physics than I might argue for other particles’ importance. The strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism involve additional bosons like gluons and W and Z bosons. These particles are necessary, but we observe the macroscopic world largely mediated by quarks (which form protons and neutrons), electrons, photons, and neutrinos.

The rest of the Standard Model particles provide the underlying structure that governs fundamental interactions. They fit together in an elegant, mathematically consistent framework, often described using group theory. The particle spectrum of the Standard Model is the simplest set of particles and interactions that allows for a universe like ours to exist.

Our universe’s physical constants emerge from the relationships between particles, the scale of forces, and the overall structure of space-time. The values of these constants—such as the fine-structure constant, the gravitational constant, and the masses of fundamental particles—are determined by the universe’s symmetries and dynamics.

In principle, we can imagine alternative “toy” universes with different configurations of physical laws, but most would be inhospitable to life or unable to form complex structures like atoms and molecules. Despite its unresolved issues (like the nature of dark matter and quantum gravity), the Standard Model provides a framework that supports a rich and dynamic universe.

This ties into the anthropic principle—the idea that of all possible sets of physical laws, we observe the one that permits the existence of observers like us. If different universes could exist with different physical constants, we would only find ourselves in one where stable structures, chemistry, and life can emerge. However, we do not yet have experimental evidence for a multiverse, so this remains speculative.

People argue that life as we know it depends on water because of its unique properties: it remains liquid in a wide range of temperatures, has high specific heat capacity, expands when it freezes (allowing ice to float and insulate bodies of water), and is an excellent solvent for biochemical reactions. Some hypothesize that alternative chemistries, such as ammonia-based life, could exist, but this is speculative.

Ultimately, the Standard Model describes the minimal set of fundamental particles and forces necessary for the kind of universe we observe. While theoretical physics explores extensions to the model—such as supersymmetry or extra dimensions—what we currently know suggests that our universe is structured in the simplest way that still allows for complexity.

We only have one universe, so it’s a weaker probabilistic argument. However, you could strengthen the argument by understanding how the particles—the rules behind the set of particles we have—function, generating all possible conforming sets of particles. Doing so lets you determine whether ours is the simplest versatile assortment.

Jacobsen: Is there something akin to informational gravity if everything has an informational equivalent or derivative?

Rosner: Well, no. Gravity is the distribution of space based on where the information is. All else being equal, two universes with the same amount of information should have the same overall scale within reason.

Information arises from a universe that is, you know, “Big Bang.” But even in a pure Big Bang universe, information itself does not increase. In an information cosmology universe that expands from a Big Bang, information originates or is created as the universe differentiates, clumps up, and spreads out. However, information is still contained in the early universe’s expansion vectors.

Everything gets a vector early on, and those vectors quickly sort into an expanding universe. So, in theory, you could have a smaller universe in terms of radius, but the particles within it could have higher relative velocities because they haven’t been slowed down. Different scales are possible, but everything—

Anyway, that was a digression. However, given that two universes have similar apparent ages and amounts of information, they should have roughly the same scale and approximate radius. That radius should stay constant as long as the information remains constant—within reason.

You can trade radius for relative velocity. You could have a smaller universe with higher recession velocities, causing greater redshift. Or not. That might be something else. But, kind of. Anyway, you can imagine a range of different universes—same age, same amount of information—or the same universe at different moments but appearing to have the same age.

Jacobsen: Are you saying a universe could appear to have the same age for a long period?

Rosner: Right, say you’ve got an IC universe, and its apparent age remains constant for a trillion years. If its apparent age is 14 billion years for a trillion years, then taking snapshots of that universe at different points across that trillion-year period should have roughly the same radius in each snapshot.

Gravitation, which includes the macro curvature—the overall curvature of the universe—should allow you to rearrange matter via gravitational attraction and the reshaping of space depending on where the information is.

And I said yesterday that I’d have to remember what I was thinking about all this. But gravitation, in the most macro sense, is a pseudo-force that keeps the size of the universe the same.

You’re backdooring Einstein’s cosmological constant—the term he introduced into his general relativity equations to maintain a stable, non-expanding, non-contracting universe. He later called it his biggest mistake.

But you can get back to something like that by saying that the scale of the universe—its radius—depends on the amount of information it contains. You can rearrange matter within the universe, but the overall effect is that it doesn’t change in size.

Jacobsen: And gravitation is the force responsible for this?

Rosner: It’s probably mediated, at least partially, by the electromagnetic force and some other forces. But I should probably shut up because I won’t be clear until I think about it more.

Jacobsen: A long time ago, we used the term “operators” to describe things that jiggle around and interact in the universe. So, considering the kind of “woo” idea that consciousness has some fundamental properties influencing the foundations of reality—blah, blah—that can mostly be dismissed—emphasis on “mostly.”

But “operators” in a broader sense refer to categories of distinct things jiggling around, transferring forces, and exchanging vectors in the universe—particles, big collective filaments, and all kinds of interactions.

How would you fundamentally define operators’ properties in an informational sense? You gave an example a while ago—maybe not super long ago, but not recently—about hitting a rock and the force travelling through that rock, with all the particles within it imprinting information onto the universe, albeit temporarily.

Rosner: All right. That sort of thing. My thinking on that has changed a lot. Also, I haven’t thought about it that much lately because I’m a lazy fucker.

Jacobsen: More self-isolating than lazy.

Rosner: All right. Anyway, our awareness—our consciousness—our moment-to-moment qualia, plus ideas about the fucking qualia, plus memories, plus value, plus everything that constitutes consciousness, exists as a bunch of impressions. Some of them are fine-grained.

Like, I’m looking at a big-screen TV right now. And that, plus the room—my visual impressions—are very high-def. But there’s a bunch of stuff going on in my brain that I’m not aware of at the level it’s occurring—electrical pulses, dendritic connections strengthening, detaching, new ones forming.

So, a bunch of processing is happening that is more complex than the impressions I’m getting. I’m experiencing an image, a model of the world. But behind the scenes, there are a ton of switchboard operators plugging and unplugging connections to generate those impressions. That means there’s a bunch of concrete, fine-grained activity that I only perceive in a rough, blurred-out, aggregate way. I don’t see all the micro-businesses but get a macro impression.

If the universe is processing information, it doesn’t perceive a rock tumbling down a mountain on some random planet somewhere. It doesn’t “see” micro-events. It’s getting macro impressions.

The micro-scale events—what happens on planets, within stars—all that activity generates the macro impression. But the macro-level structure of the universe isn’t “aware” of the busy, detailed processes happening within it.

So that’s not a great answer, but it reflects—that I don’t know… if the model is to function and be believed. Then you need something like that. You can’t have a macro impression generator that is aware of all its little micro-processes. There needs to be some wobbliness in the system.

The universe is like clay instead of Minecraft. It’s mushy. You pull and shape it—it’s not a rigid digital environment where precise coding dictates every pixel.

Jacobsen: In a thermodynamic sense, what does entropy represent informationally? And what does information represent in contrast to that? By this, does an informational cosmology as an information conserving model imply the ‘opposites’ between information and entropy?

Rosner: So, and I always have a chance of fucking this up, but entropy—the higher the entropy, the more general the distribution of whatever you’re looking at to indicate information.

Like, you know, when we think about entropy, we think about heat. The most general and most probable heat distribution in a closed system is when everything is roughly the same temperature. That has the most possible states.

If you had a fixed amount of energy in a closed system, the most probable distribution of that energy would be one where every molecule has roughly the same temperature. If you looked at every possible state of the system, most would be high-entropy states—very general, very lukewarm.

And then, at the extreme, you’d have much rarer, low-entropy states—like one molecule holding all the energy while every other molecule has zero heat energy. That’s a very low-entropy state because it’s an incredibly specific, statistically improbable configuration.

Jacobsen: Right, that’s the standard thermodynamic definition.

Rosner: Did you ever grow up with those little plastic beads you put together on a board, then melt in the oven or iron to form a picture?

Jacobsen: No?

Rosner: If you have 12 different colours of those beads, the most general arrangement is when they’re all jumbled randomly in a bag—there’s no pattern, no picture, just randomness. That’s high entropy. But when you arrange the beads into a specific pattern that forms an image, that image contains information because it’s a precise and unlikely configuration. So, specific and rare configurations have more information and lower entropy than general, disordered states.

Jacobsen: For example, take a wedding cake that costs $1,200, decorated with intricate brocade and sugar roses. Now, compare that to someone eating the cake and then vomiting. The vomit—high entropy, low order. The cake—rare, unlikely to arise by chance, high information.

Something structured and aesthetically meaningful versus a chaotic mess.

Jacobsen: I think we’re over time.

Rosner: Time to go.

Jacobsen: All right, thank you. Talk to you tomorrow.

Rosner: I appreciate it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1306: Exploring Quantum Mechanics and Informational Cosmology

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does IC reconcile the view of the universe as an information-processing system with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, particularly the role of information in quantum states and the measurement process?

Rick Rosner: I can answer the first part of that. We’ve talked about it before—Einstein hated the idea that the outcome of open quantum processes, that is, an event, will happen, but we don’t know what the outcome will be. It’s not determinate. Previous conditions do not determine it.

Before quantum theory, the prevailing idea in physics was that the universe was entirely predetermined. If you could calculate the positions and velocities of everything in the universe at any given moment, you could predict every subsequent moment—like clockwork. And clockwork was the model. The universe was thought to tick along like a machine, where every moment was completely determined by the previous one.

Quantum physics changed that. It introduced the idea that the universe does not have predetermined outcomes. Einstein hated that, and many people did. He and others tried to come up with experiments and arguments to prove this couldn’t be the case.

But people came around to it over time—since the ’60s, maybe the ’80s. We’ve had quantum mechanics long enough now that most physicists just accept it: Yeah, that makes sense.

Even though you can’t predict the outcome of many quantum events if the universe is an information processor, you could argue— and I do—that the outcomes of quantum events generate information. That means these outcomes are not just random; they produce something relevant.

If quantum events produce information, then that information is relevant to something. My argument is that just as your brain models the outside world and constantly asks, “What’s going to happen next?,” the quantum world does the same thing. Your brain doesn’t contain the answers—it finds them in the external world.

Similarly, in a quantum system, open questions don’t have pre-existing answers hidden somewhere in the universe. The answers are revealed over time as information about the world that the quantum system is modelling.

That’s my answer. There’s no hidden rule determining outcomes. Bell’s inequality explicitly states that the universe secretly contains the answers to quantum events in advance.

There is nothing in the universe we live in that can tell you how indeterminate quantum events are going to turn out. But at the same time, nothing in the rules of quantum mechanics says the outcomes of these events couldn’t have been determined by events outside the universe—by something that the universe itself is modelling.

And that leads to a whole other set of questions: “How the fuck does that happen? What’s going on?”

By analogy, you could argue that there is probably some kind of hardware outside of the universe—beyond it, in another universe—that supports the information that becomes the matter and time we experience. The same way our brains, the physical hardware inside our skulls, support our minds. You don’t have a mind without a brain. So, in that analogy, you don’t have our physical reality without something external to support it.

And that’s the answer to at least the first part of your question.

Jacobsen: Does IC propose this one? You could knock it down quickly. You could call it woo. It’s not like we have hand-wavy explanations plus some actual physics—here, it’s all hand-wavy. Does IC propose a new interpretation involving a consciousness-driven wave function collapse or an information-based reformulation of quantum phenomena?

Rosner: First, you can dismiss the idea of consciousness-driven wave function collapse outright. That one’s not even worth considering.

Jacobsen: So, what about wave function collapse in general?

There are people who work in quantum mechanics who don’t think the wave collapses at all. The idea is this: a photon is emitted, and its probability distribution—its probability cloud—expands over time. The longer you wait, the bigger the cloud of possible positions where the photon could be.

Then, when that photon is captured by something, it becomes a point again. It was captured here.

But there’s never a moment where the cloud shrinks or deflates. It’s not like it expands, expands, expands, then collapses into a point. No—the cloud was there, and then it’s just a point.

There’s no deflation of the cloud. It’s cloud, then point.

That’s a discontinuity. Or, the way I look at it, it’s just the next moment. It’s the moment after the photon was emitted, where it has now been captured.

So, it’s not really about collapsing probability waves—it’s about subsequent moments in which an event has taken place.

So, in moment A, the photon is emitted. In a series of subsequent moments, you have an expanding probability cloud until, at some later moment, X, the photon is captured. You’re looking at a sequence of probabilistically connected moments—before a certain time, the event hasn’t happened, and after that time, the event has happened.

After moment A, the photon has been emitted. But before moment X, there is still only a probability cloud when the photon is captured. Then, at moment X and in all subsequent moments, the photon has been detected and captured, and whatever follows next unfolds.

But what you don’t get is any transitional phase. There is no gradual shift from probability cloud to captured photon—it’s always a sudden change. First, there is a cloud of uncertainty, and then an event occurs.

Wait, what was the original question?

Oh, right—the conscious collapse of the wave function.

No, I don’t think you need that. The universe is its observer. You don’t need conscious beings within the universe to do the noticing for you. As we discussed yesterday, a universe can exist without any conscious beings within it to act as detectors.

The universe detects itself.

Now, you can make all sorts of arguments about the tree falling in the forest. If an entire sterile universe comes into existence, undergoes a vast amount of activity, and then ceases to exist—all without any conscious beings present to note its existence—then yes, nobody inside that universe observed it.

But even if conscious beings were present, the same fundamental events would still happen. Whether a universe contains conscious beings or not, its existence remains unchanged at a fundamental level.

Both conscious-inhabited and sterile universes hold the same mathematical meta-existence. If we consider a set of all possible moments across all possible universes, then each moment—from a universe full of life or one devoid of it—belongs to that set without preference. They all equally belong to the structure of reality.

That is if that set even exists. As we’ve discussed before, defining a “set” or a “moment” in this context becomes complicated. Moments in a quantum system can be spread across 20 billion light-years of space and however many billion years, making it difficult to treat them as discrete units.

But still, we can talk about them, even if the framework for doing so isn’t perfect. I don’t know if anyone else is discussing moments of the universe in this way, but at some point, people could.

Rotten Tomatoes.

One more question—if you’ve got a quick one.

Jacobsen: How does IC integrate or reinterpret general relativity as an emergent property of information processing rather than space and time curvature alone?

Rosner: So, general relativity describes how mass determines the shape of space. IC essentially says the same thing—except that the fundamental element shaping reality isn’t mass but information.

That’s the short answer.

I haven’t thought about this in a while, so if you want a more detailed explanation, I’ll have to give you a better answer tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1305: Experimental Cancer Treatment for His Dog: A DIY Approach

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04

Rick Rosner: All right, so maybe we should do Rotten Tomatoes here, and I’ll tell you a crazy fucking thing I’m doing. All right, so you’ve met the brown dog, our white dog, and Frida and our brown dog, Rosie.

We inherited Rosie from Carol’s mom. Rosie is 14 and a half. She has a tumour growing on the back of her right rear leg—about two inches. We didn’t discover it right away because these dogs aren’t particularly cuddly, so we didn’t notice the tumour until it was about five centimetres at its largest point, with the other two axes measuring roughly three centimetres.

So, the dog gets an X-ray, a blood test, and a biopsy. It was a needle biopsy that was inconclusive but pointed in the direction of cancer. Then we talked to the vet, and Carol consulted her friends with cancer dogs. Everyone agreed that for a dog this old, the best course of action is to maximize her happiness in the time she has left. You don’t do chemo because it makes the dog miserable—and it costs, what, $8,000? You don’t do surgery because she’s 14 and a half and may not survive it. Even if she does, the recovery would be painful. Right now, the dog is happy, even perky, so we focus on keeping her comfortable.

I’ve been giving her a ton of Fisetin, a senolytic. A senolytic forces bad cells to self-destruct. Think of it as an internet bully—it intercepts damaged cells at various points in their life cycles and pushes them toward apoptosis. That’s where the cell realizes it’s too damaged to function and disintegrates.

Cancer cells, in theory, should also self-destruct when they become too damaged, but they manage to evade that process. They dance around the body’s natural defences. Fisetin, however, beats them on the head—like McFly, McFly!—and tells them, “It’s time to go.” It can slow down tumour growth and reduce the risk of metastasis. So, every day, I’ve been loading the dog up with Fisetin, trying to hold off the cancer and buy her some more time.

Then, I discovered another approach. Back in 1960, researchers experimented on 49 dogs with tumours. They tied off the tumours, cutting off their blood supply for about eight hours. The idea is that cancer cells are already weakened and less resilient than healthy cells. So, the cancer cells die off without a steady blood supply.

This particular tumour on the back of Rosie’s leg is ideal for this approach. I’ve been using rubber bands to pinch it off, cutting off the blood supply for one to four hours. The idea is that since cancer cells are weaker, they’ll die before the surrounding healthy cells. In that 1960 experiment, most of the dogs had positive outcomes. Their tumours mostly died off, and they avoided the pain and suffering that come with surgery, chemotherapy, or other aggressive treatments.

And the thing is, I don’t think tumours have nerves, so the process doesn’t seem to hurt her. She only seems to feel discomfort when I remove the rubber bands. So, I’ve been doing this. I’ve done it about six times for approximately 11 and a half hours.

The tumour hasn’t grown. It has swelled up temporarily and then returned down; it’s just normal inflammation. Once you damage a tumour, the body’s immune system kicks in and says, “Hey, there’s a bunch of dead tissue here; we should clean it out.” That temporary inflammation is just the body doing its job.

So, we’re seeing if this works. It’s my mad scientist experiment. We’ll see if we can slow down the tumour. I would think that if you cut off its blood supply… well, cancer eats up much oxygen because it’s growing, it’s being cancer. So, if you cut off its oxygen, it will mostly die.

Now, there’s a chance that because cancer cells are disordered and unstable, the tumour can essentially self-destruct. Some of the nastier tumours even develop necrotic areas within them, which is generally not a good sign because it means the tumour is in a state of disorganized chaos. Also, within the tumour, cancer cells can be adapted to survive in hypoxic (oxygen-starved) environments.

If you kill off only the hypoxia-friendly, weaker cells, you could leave behind the stronger, more aggressive cancer cells, which then take over and proliferate more. That’s the risk—you don’t want to eliminate the “wimpy” cancer cells and give the resilient ones free rein to go wild. But, in the meantime, it’s worth a shot to keep the tumour mostly dead. If it grows again, I’ll just hit it with the rubber bands, though Carol hates it.

So there you go.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1304: Why Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen Have Talked for 10 Years – A Legacy of Ideas

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/04

Rick Rosner: Every night, Carole and I watch some quality TV downstairs. Tonight, it was The White Lotus, the latest episode, plus the opening monologue of SNL. After that, we do squats, I do sit-ups, maybe some curls, and then, after an hour downstairs, we move upstairs and watch another 30 to 40 minutes of semi-quality TV.

Tonight, it was Running Point, the Mindy Kaling-produced and written show based on Jeanie Buss and the Lakers, starring Kate Hudson. Then Carol starts falling asleep. We turn off the TV or switch to something I can watch, and I rub her legs for a while. Then I say, “I gotta go,” and she asks, “Where are you going?” It’s the same thing every night: “I’m going to talk to Scott like I do every night.” But tonight, she asked, “Why?”

So, I’m thinking tonight’s topic should be why. Why? We’ve been doing this for 10 years—roughly 3,650 nights. We’ve probably talked over 2,000 times, done more than 2,000 sessions, maybe more than 2,500, generating millions of words.

So why? Why the fuck are we doing this? I have some answers. What’s your answer?

For one thing, it leaves a legacy—a record. I’m too lazy to sit down and type this shit, but at least we can talk it out, and then, if people are so inclined, they can sort through it at some point. I want to be around, or at least be cryonically preserved somewhere or some shit. But if somebody—whether you or someone else—wants to go through it and mine it for meaningful insights or as an example of self-proclaimed giftedness gone awry and squandered, they can do that too.

Or I can mine it myself, which I hope to do to some extent. Are you familiar with Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? The book from, I don’t know, almost 50 years ago now, by Robert Pirsig. It’s a story about a man’s quest to find himself and the philosophical foundation on which he attempts to do so. It was big in the ’70s—probably came out in ’74—and it was a less sensationalized version of that Carlos Castaneda stuff. People were trying to find themselves, right?

And we’ve talked a lot about physics, informational cosmology, and the role of self—anyway, all this shit. If I’m trying to write this novel, and in this novel, the main character has the same self-proclaimed insights into physics that I do, then it’s a start. It needs to be distilled by about 98 percent and boiled down, but at least it’s the raw stock to be simmered for hours, right?

Now, why are you doing it?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Personal interest. I cover a wide range of subjects. You’re far from the majority or even the only person I discuss physics or other topics with.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1303: Cellular Automata, Discrete vs. Continuous Models, and Algorithmic Information Theory

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you want to do any science stuff? Cellular automata is a discrete, rather than continuous, computational model dealing with grids of cells. In this case, these four-dimensional cells evolve based on rules. This is based on Stephen Wolfram’s book A New Kind of Science. He argues that simple rules can generate complex systems and suggests that this could model the universe.

So, my first two questions are: Where do the rules come from, and are they the right rules?

Rosner: I would say to be concise, but not the right rules. Not the right rules.

Jacobsen: Right.

Rosner: You can set up rules that generate complexity, but just because you can do that doesn’t mean those are the rules governing the universe. I think the rules for the universe stem from what can exist by being non-contradictory at a fundamental level.

You could dig deeper into that foundation and find more levels to explore. But Wolfram’s rules rest on an underlying structure—the grid, the computational framework—built on more fundamental layers of abstraction.

If he’s using a three-dimensional… I mean, if you’re going to have a three-dimensional—

Jacobsen: Oops.

Rosner: Shit. Hold on. Earthquake. Hold on. I’ve got to check in with Carole.

Jacobsen: Hello?

Rosner: Earthquake. Let me talk to Carole. I’ll be back in a second. I’m going to jump to—

[Earthquake gap]

Jacobsen: I checked it out. Was that a 3.1?

Rosner: 3.9 is what I’m seeing.

Jacobsen: Is it done?

Rosner: Yeah. But when I was looking around, I saw that Southern California has had quite a few quakes in the last 48 hours. This was the first one we felt.

Jacobsen: We had one over here recently too.

Rosner: Well, you’re along the same fault line, right? I don’t know what we were talking about. Do you just want to continue tomorrow?

Jacobsen: We were getting towards the physics. What were we talking about—cellular automata?

Rosner: Yeah.

Jacobsen: Here’s my follow-up question: Do you think it’s legitimate for Wolfram to jump to a discrete model rather than remaining agnostic about discrete versus continuous?

Rosner: I don’t know. I’ve been giving you a lot of “I don’t know” lately. People like to point out that quantum events are, well, events. Which means they’re things that happen—discrete occurrences. Take an atom, for example. When a quantum event occurs, the atom is in one state and then in another.

You’ve got an electron in one state, and then suddenly, it’s in a different state. It doesn’t gently drift from a more energetic state to a lower one—it jumps. That’s a discrete event rather than a continuous transition. So, that suggests that discrete events form the universe’s fundamental structure.

At the same time, plenty of things in the universe operate in a non-discrete, or at least an implicitly non-discrete manner—basically, everything. But take a photon, for instance. A photon can be detected leaving an atom. You can’t detect the photon itself leaving but can detect the atom’s state changing.

And then, you can detect that photon again at some later point in space and time. That implies that the photon traversed space in a continuous way. Even though if you actually detect it mid-flight, you interfere with it, and it’s no longer the same photon that was originally emitted.

However, I read somewhere that there are ways to detect photons without capturing them. But anyway—even if you can’t track a photon between its origin and destination, it still bears the earmarks of having travelled continuously. The classic example is the two-slit experiment. Or even more, if you put a barrier between the emission point and its destination, the photon won’t arrive.

It has to try—the space has to be unencumbered along its path. So, objects travelling continuously suggest that not everything is discrete. Though, again, you could make a counterargument that a photon and its trajectory could be characterized in some system with a discrete set of variables. But the counter to that is: sure, you can do that, but it does not sound very easy. You could argue that the universe operates in the simplest way possible, and that means accommodating both discrete events and objects that appear to travel continuously.

Now, you could push back and ask, “Do they really travel continuously?” Because if you zoom into small enough distances, space becomes foamy and lacks true continuity. But again, the counterargument is that adding layers of complexity doesn’t necessarily make the model better—it just makes it messier. So, I guess I’m on a team that “any system built entirely on discrete events is probably not the best model.” Did I say “discontinuous?” Yeah. A system built entirely on discrete, discontinuous events might not be the most natural way to describe reality.

Jacobsen: What about the idea that the universe isn’t information per se, but more of a giant computational process? It doesn’t necessarily have to incorporate data or bits as we understand them, but rather, the fundamental process is computation, flipping the relationship between information and computation.

Rosner: The universe is highly emergent in what it can do—it almost operates in a “by any means necessary” way, like a Malcolm X principle applied to physics. It seems that the brain, for example, does a lot of combinatorial coding when it processes and transmits information. That’s an efficient way of minimizing the amount of data needed to represent information. If that even makes sense. But simultaneously, the brain is an evolved system—it doesn’t just rely on one method. It processes and retains information through whatever means works best. It takes every possible shortcut that hundreds of millions of years of evolution have stumbled upon. So, if you tried to model a brain using only combinatorial coding, you’d probably create something less efficient than an actual brain.

Similarly, if you tried to model the universe as constrained to only one type of information processing, you’d probably end up with a less efficient model than the actual universe. Like the brain, the universe seems to leverage every mechanism at its disposal to process and store information.

I need to grab some juice for my eyes—drying up here. Also, I forgot what the original question was. It was like, “Is the universe just an information processor?” So, I didn’t answer that.

Jacobsen: What about Gregory Chaitin’s work in algorithmic information theory (AIT)? The idea that the complexity of a system can be described in terms of the shortest possible algorithm needed to represent it? AIT uses information content to analyze physical systems, meaning that the complexity of a system can be characterized by the brevity of the algorithm that describes it.

Rosner: Is that… what? I don’t know. This is the first I’ve heard of it—I haven’t read anything about it. But it reminds me of something.

Okay, so Ramanujan—I think that’s his name—ends up in the hospital. Hardy, the mathematician, comes to visit him. Hardy says, “How was your trip?” And Ramanujan replies, “Fine, I rode over in a taxi with a very uninteresting number—1729.”

And Ramanujan says, “I beg to differ. That’s a very interesting number. The smallest number can be expressed as the sum of two cubes in two different ways.” Which, to people who get off on that kind of thing, is basically arithmetic porn.

But this brings us back to algorithmic simplicity, where you have many paradoxes about the simplest way to describe a system. For instance, you tried to identify the first “uninteresting” number. It’s not zero because zero has all sorts of special mathematical properties. One isn’t uninteresting either—it’s the multiplicative identity. Two are interesting because they are the smallest prime and the only even prime. Three is the first odd prime, so it’s interesting. Four is the first perfect square.

Then maybe you reach a number like 17 and say, “Okay, that’s the first uninteresting number.” But I could respond, “No, that makes 17 interesting because it’s the first uninteresting number.” So now it’s no longer uninteresting. The paradox is that you can’t define an uninteresting number without making it interesting by defining it that way.

And funnily enough, 17 actually shows up in a lot of comedy punchlines or in places where people need a random-seeming number. People unfamiliar with number theory will often pick 17 because it appears arbitrary. Two feels too fundamental. Twelve is a dozen, which is too familiar. Thirteen is unlucky. Fourteen is a fortnight or a stone if you’re in Britain. Eventually, you get to 17, which seems like a random, unspecial number—so it gets used often.

So, anyway, I don’t fully buy into algorithmic information theory without hearing a more detailed explanation. But we can cover that tomorrow.

Jacobsen: All right. Be safe.

Rosner: Okay.

Jacobsen: I’ll see you later.

Rosner: Bye.

Jacobsen: Okay.

Rosner: Bye.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1302: Informational Cosmology, Quantum Time, and Simulation Hypothesis

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does informational cosmology account for time?

Rick Rosner: There are various ways of framing time. We’ve talked about the set of all possible moments in all possible universes. Each moment implies a set of possible next moments, just as each moment implies a set of possible previous moments.

We always experience the present moment and perceive time as a sequence of events. What makes time feel real is that the present moment contains information about the past, giving us a sense of history. That history implies a structure that predicts future moments.

Think of it as a cone of possibilities. The present moment is tightly constrained—not totally rigid, but we know a lot about it. As we move into the past, those constraints loosen, because the further back you go, the more possible pasts could have led to this moment.

But we don’t care that much about the past. What we really focus on is modeling the future.

So that’s how we experience time—our memory of past moments and our anticipation of future ones. If you string moments together, time becomes a sequence of events, constrained by the smallest quantum interactions that determine the next possible state.

At the deepest level, everything is an event within quantum mechanics. There are both deterministic and indeterminate elements in the sequence of connected moments.

For example, if two cars are speeding toward each other, in a macro sense, they are macro objects that obey classical physics. In the most reasonable next moments, they will continue getting closer and closer to each other. That part is deterministic—it follows classical physics.

But at the quantum level, there are indeterminate events that get filled in along the way. That’s how time is experienced—a combination of deterministic macro events and indeterminate micro events that continuously unfold.

In an informational sense, time is manifested by sequences of moments, where each moment generates more information as the universe becomes more differentiated. The universe moves from a more general state to a more specific state, and that increase in specificity is what time is. It doesn’t just mark time—it is time.

You could think of this as informational pressure. A collapsed, low-information state differentiates into a higher-information state, and that process is what drives time forward. You can look at informational pressure as a force that drives time forward, and that’s fine—but it’s not entirely correct.

When you string moments together, you’re moving from general states to specific states. That stringing of moments is what time is. You can describe it as a force, but that’s not precise. It’s similar to how people talk about what evolution “wants.”

It’s not exactly the same mistake, but it’s close. It’s convenient to say that evolution wants organisms to fill all possible ecological niches, to move onto land, to become birds, to become flowers—but evolution doesn’t “want” anything.

Evolution isn’t even a process—it’s a statistical winnowing that favors certain ways of existing. Similarly, we can talk about informational pressure as if it were a force, and we can even do calculations about it, but it’s not exactly that.

And honestly? It’s not even a useful framing because we’re the only ones talking about informational cosmology. But if, in the future, it becomes a field, people will inevitably use that incorrect framing.

Jacobsen: Do quantum wave functions leak not only in space but also in time?

Rosner: Yes.

Quantum mechanics deals with incomplete information. Where information is incomplete, quantum systems can do things that aren’t strictly causal.

This means that quantum effects can violate the usual rules of space and time, as long as they don’t get caught in some other framework that forces them into a classical constraint. So, yes—anything can theoretically pop in and out of existence, but it’s extremely unlikely that it will.

The universe is so constrained by its own informational structure that the odds of random magical occurrences—like waving a stick and having a fully formed dragon materialize—are so low that it would take a quintillion quintillion quintillion quintillion lifetimes of the universe for something like that to randomly occur.

A well-defined universe essentially squeezes out non-causal, super-random action.

Anything can happen, theoretically.

But in reality, the odds of something truly insane happening—some spontaneous, reality-breaking anomaly—are so infinitesimal that it may as well be zero.

Theoretically, but highly unlikely.

Jacobsen: Does a photon or electron collapse its wave function at the apparent T=0?

Rosner: Yes. But this also ties into particle tunneling.

Let’s say you’ve trapped a particle—a proton or an electron—inside a lead beaker with walls an inch thick. You’ve sealed it completely—the lid is on, and there’s no classical way for the particle to escape.

But in quantum mechanics, a particle doesn’t have a fixed location in space. Instead, it exists as a probability wave. Its position is defined only by the probability function from the last time it was measured or detected.

The last time you measured the particle, it was inside the beaker. At that point, its probability function collapses, meaning the highest probability of its location is still inside the beaker.

However, that probability function doesn’t go to absolute zero at the inner wall of the beaker—it just drops drastically. And at the outer wall of the beaker, the probability is incredibly small—but not exactly zero.

This means that a tiny fraction of the particle’s probability cloud actually exists outside the beaker. Maybe one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion.

So, if you repeated this experiment a trillion trillion trillion trillion times, once, on average, the next time you detected the particle, it would be outside the beaker. Not because it broke through the walls, but because of pure quantum probability—it tunneled through.

But in reality, we’re never going to run that experiment a trillion trillion trillion trillion times. But it could theoretically happen.

Now, let’s say you actually ran the experiment 100 times—and instead of one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion, the particle tunneled out eight times. That would be strong evidence that something is deeply wrong with the universe.

Quantum mechanics is the most experimentally confirmed theory ever. If you observe a fundamental quantum event that happens way more frequently than the math predicts, that suggests one of two things:

Our understanding of physics is fundamentally flawed.
Something external is interfering with the universe itself.

If the laws of physics were truly consistent, but you got eight outliers in 100 trials, then the most reasonable explanation would be we are living in a simulation—and someone is either glitching it or deliberately sending a signal.

Not necessarily God in the traditional religious sense—but whoever or whatever created the simulation. If they wanted to communicate, this would be a good way to do it—by breaking quantum mechanics in a way that scientists would notice.

A clear violation of quantum probabilities would tell us:

We do not live in a natural universe.
Something or someone is actively manipulating it.

Jacobsen: Sounds less likely than a more parsimonious explanation, though. A more parsimonious explanation is that we live in a natural universe.

Rosner: At some point, if we did find strong evidence that we were in a simulation, then that would be the more parsimonious explanation—but we’ve never seen anything like that. The most likely reason? Because we probably live in a natural universe.

And even if we were in a simulation, we would have no fucking idea what it was for. The idea that we would randomly stumble upon a glitch, conveniently detecting evidence of the simulation’s existence, is wildly unlikely.

So, physical violations of causality would be insanely rare in a natural universe—and almost just as unlikely in a simulated universe. Because if someone went through all the effort to build a simulated universe, they wouldn’t want to fuck it up by breaking causality and physics at random.

Jacobsen: We never see magic.

Rosner: I mean, you can go to the Magic Castle—it’s six miles from me—and watch great magic performed by magicians. But we never see real magic—like casting an incantation and breaking the fundamental rules of the universe.

There’s a trilogy by Lev Grossman called The Magicians—it’s basically an adult version of Harry Potter. It got turned into a SyFy series that ran for several seasons. It was a pretty fun show, though maybe it worked better as a book. It explores what life might actually be like if real adults had real magical abilities in a real-world setting.

Because Harry Potter characters live in an abridged world—it avoids addressing adult realities. Grossman’s world doesn’t.

Anyway, I’m reading a book called American Rapture, which is about sex zombies. It’s basically COVID, but instead of killing people outright, it makes them try to fuck each other to death.

Jacobsen: What?

Rosner: Yeah. It’s got a 17-year-old protagonist, and it’s trying to straddle the line between adult and young adult fiction. I’m 200 pages in, and so far, when people get infected, they tear off their clothes and try to have sex—but the book never actually says “sex.”

No one says “fuck.” No one says “penis.” No one says “vagina.” It’s interesting how the author has managed to imply so much while avoiding explicit language entirely.

Jacobsen: What’s the point?

Rosner: It’s your standard “run away from murderous zombies” plot, except with a lot more sex.

Jacobsen: Well, no—because the sex is fatal.

Rosner: Right. But it’s got a bunch of YA tropes mixed in.

Jacobsen: That’d actually be a great title for a book.

Rosner: What?

Jacobsen: Fatal Sex.

Rosner: A James Bond novel?

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: But yeah, it’s one of those books—kind of like Twilight, where sex is literally life-threatening.

In Twilight, sex almost kills the heroine, and it takes until the third book before the characters actually get to bang. It’s an interesting exercise in writing about murderous sex while never explicitly saying “fuck” or “penis.”

Anyway, I’ll talk to you tomorrow.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1301: Why Humans Love Pets More Than People

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Evolutionarily, why do we care more about dogs and cats than people sometimes?

Rick Rosner: Because dogs and cats give unconditional love. Same reason people love Disneyland—Disneyland doesn’t judge you, doesn’t ask anything from you, except to pay for an overpriced ticket.

In Disneyland, everyone smiles, and it feels like love. Dogs are the same way. Even if you’re a horrible person, a dog doesn’t know. Dogs just love you. Cats? They’re standoffish, but they’re equally indifferent to everyone—they don’t judge who’s an asshole and who isn’t.

And pets are innocent. They don’t act with malice. Plus, they’re dependent on us, which triggers our sympathy. Everything about pet ownership pulls in one emotional direction—love, loyalty, and care. There’s nothing working against that feeling.

Loving a pet is like watching Who Wants to Be a Millionaire—everything about that show was designed to make you want the contestant to win. You’re cheering them on, just like you cheer for your dog. Compare that to The Weakest Link, where contestants actively sabotage each other. The biggest jerks always gang up to kick off the best players, so the people you might want to win rarely win.

Even the host—calling contestants idiots—works against itself. These aren’t idiots; they’re people trying their best under pressure. That’s why The Weakest Link has never been as popular as Who Wants to Be a Millionaire—because it’s a game full of contradictions and conflicting emotions.

Pets aren’t like that.

They’re pure affection. They love you unconditionally. There’s no downside.

With people, love is complicated—there’s love and hate, admiration and resentment. But with animals, it’s all love. The emotional bar for pets is low—all we ask is that they don’t chew up the furniture or poop in the house. And even if they do, we forgive them, because they’re animals.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1300: Democratic Failures in 2024 and the Path to 2028 Victory

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Democrats lost not only substantially, but significantly, in the last election. Let’s quantify it. Every state—all 50 states—the Democrats did worse than they did in 2020. So, how did left-wing social and political movements screw up the election?

Rick Rosner: Jake Tapper, the journalist on CNN, coauthored a book that’s coming out soon, calling it a cover-up—claiming the White House covered up Biden’s unelectability and frailty. It’s not out yet, but it’ll be published in a few months. If that’s accurate, it’s a massive screw-up. Because I believed in Biden. And then I believed in Harris.

We were probably stupid to put so much faith in Biden, especially since he once said he’d be a one-term president. But then, he decided he was the only one who could beat Trump—so he stayed in the race. The problem? He looked awful. And he sounded awful.

If you really listened to what he said, I still think he had his faculties intact and understood the information needed to make good decisions—but he didn’t sound like it. He sounded rickety.

I also wonder if Trump is on Ozempic to improve his appearance. We already know he was on steroids when he almost died from COVID—they pumped him full of every drug available to keep him alive. Maybe they should have put Biden on steroids too.

Jacobsen: We shouldn’t need a president to be on steroids.

Rosner: True, but to some extent, steroids can mess with cognition. On the other hand, steroids like cortisone are widely used. So, yes, they should have tried to make him more vigorous. But it was just bad luck—for Biden and for the country—that he looked frail when he needed to appear strong.

Tom Selleck is roughly the same age. Harrison Ford is the same age. Harrison Ford is starting to look old, but at the same time, he’s playing the President in the next Marvel movie, where he transforms into a superhero. Then there’s Jane Fonda, who showed up at the SAG Awards at 87.

And sure, she’s had a ton of work done and has exercised her whole life—but she still looks weirdly attractive for her age.

Jacobsen: I disagree.

Rosner: Yes. But you’re decades younger than me.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: Cher is in her seventies and has a boyfriend in his twenties. So, with enough help, you can still look good. You can argue about whether Jane Fonda is “bangable”, but she’s still a striking-looking woman, even at an age when most people aren’t.

Anyway—there were two massive screw-ups in this election:

Sticking with Biden for too long.
Terrible messaging.

They hid in the White House, hoping that voters would come to them, instead of actively campaigning. Meanwhile, young men got hammered with an endless barrage of messaging from the media they actually consume—podcasts, YouTube, Joe Rogan.

The Democrats didn’t match the intensity or the sheer volume of right-wing messaging. They didn’t even try. They let misinformation spread unchallenged and failed to fight back. And that’s bizarre, because the Democrats were great at messaging in 2008 and 2012 when Obama won. So why were they so incompetent in 2016 and especially in 2024? That’s the real question.

Jacobsen: So how did the Democrats screw up? Or are we asking what they need to do now?

Rosner: Both.

For one thing, Susan Sarandon got a ton of hate nine years ago when she said:

“Go ahead and elect Trump. Let the disaster happen—it will be a lesson for America.”

She got a ton of backlash, and rightfully so. But in a way, she was half-right. Because we did learn the lesson of Trump—temporarily. In 2020, we elected a guy who had failed multiple times before simply because Trump was that bad.

And now? Trump is still bad enough to lose. The House majority is razor-thin—two or three seats. The Republicans just barely passed a terrible budget bill, 217 to 215. They are almost certain to lose the House in the next election.

They have a good chance of losing the Senate.

So, what do Democrats need to do in the next two years? They need to forcefully message about what a fucking disaster Trump is. Trump is supposedly making all these budget cuts, but they aren’t saving significant money. Instead, they’re demoralizing the government and the people who rely on it—the victims of these cuts. It’s not about fiscal responsibility; it’s a “burn it all down, fuck you” strategy.

Trump isn’t saving money—he’s passing a budget that adds $4.5 trillion to the national debt, just to give more tax cuts to rich people and corporations. And they don’t need it. We’re already in the lowest tax environment for the wealthy and corporations in the past 70 years. It’s bullshit. And Democrats need to call it out as bullshit. They need to harness the outrage that Trump isn’t even doing what he ran on. He’s not doing anything to curb inflation.

And then there’s his tariffs against Canada, which start in four days—a 25% tariff for no fucking reason. His excuse? Fentanyl. Last year, how much fentanyl was intercepted at our northern border? Take a guess.

Jacobsen: Not much.

Rosner: 19 kilos. 42 pounds. You could curl that weight at the gym, and it wouldn’t even be a real workout. That’s 1/500th of the fentanyl intercepted at ports of entry along our southern border. It’s total horseshit.

Then there’s the bullshit about making Canada the 51st state—what the fuck is that? It doesn’t do anything. It’s just economic sabotage and a way to fuck with the stock market.

If Democrats were even slightly competent, they would be calling out the absolute shittiness of Trump’s second term every single day.

Now, to win the presidency in 2028, they need to learn from their mistakes. In 2024, they thought they could coast on a feel-good message—their slogan was basically “joy”, with the subtext of decency. They assumed all “good Americans” would rally behind Harris and a bunch of friendly celebrities. But half the electorate doesn’t want to be nice.

They want to break things. They don’t mind being assholes. They don’t like brown people. And a bunch of them can’t be shamed into changing.

We used to think that campaigning on American values was enough to win elections. But that’s not the case anymore. And if that’s not the case, then at the very least, Democrats need to figure out how to demoralize MAGA voters—make them own their mistakes. That’s starting to happen.

“You voted for this. It’s the Leopards-Eating-Your-Face Party, and now they’re eating your face.”

That’s a Twitter cliché. It’s been around for a year or two. The whole idea is: If you vote for the Leopards-Eating-Your-Face Party, don’t be surprised when they turn around and eat your face.

Winning in 2026 should actually be easier than 2024, but only if Democrats stop being weak. They need better messaging, better strategy, and more aggression.

And by 2028, they need a charismatic candidate who can stand up to bullshit. Gavin Newsom is pretty charismatic, but he might be too handsome. Maybe by 2028, he’ll look shittier, and that’ll help. The problem is, he’s been Governor of California, which doesn’t help with red states. But Democrats are going to lose the red states anyway, so who cares?

Maybe by 2028, they’ll figure out how to make him a winning candidate. Or maybe they’ll find someone else—someone charming. Obama came out of nowhere and was charismatic as hell.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1299: AI, Nuclear Deterrence, and the Future of Human Labor

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Rick Rosner: So, in the book, we’re going to have Skynet Day. The U.S. and Russia each have about 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads under New START limits, but their total stockpiles—including retired warheads—are much higher. Not all of them are battle-ready. Maybe a third are immediately functional, but most could likely be made ready quickly. Another few hundred on each side could be deployed within weeks or months. The world has lived with this reality for decades, with nuclear deterrence preventing large-scale war. But what happens when an AGI/ASI decides that this much destructive power in human hands is unacceptable?

It intervenes. It hacks into the nuclear systems—somehow bypassing air-gapped safeguards, multi-layered encryption, and human oversight—and launches one nuclear weapon from each side. A five- or ten-kiloton weapon. One from America. One from Russia. Before doing so, it broadcasts a message to the entire world:

“This is going to happen. You cannot stop it.”

Then it launches them straight up. Thirty miles into the sky. And detonates them. The entire world watches in horror as two nuclear fireballs explode harmlessly in the upper atmosphere. No casualties. No cities destroyed. Just a blinding reminder of what AI can do. Then it issues a final warning:

“Do you really want this many nukes in the world?”

Beyond the U.S. and Russia, other nuclear-armed nations—China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly Israel—also hold stockpiles. AI could theoretically penetrate their systems if they lacked robust cybersecurity, air-gapped controls, or human intervention safeguards. Then AI could issue an ultimatum: “Agree to nuclear disarmament talks within a week—or we do it again.” Governments scramble. Diplomats rush to emergency meetings. Military leaders argue over whether AI can be trusted or controlled. Some nations refuse to comply. AI launches again. It doesn’t need to target cities—just another terrifying display, forcing humanity to confront its self-destructive tendencies.

Would it work? Would the world comply? Or would nations retaliate against AI, trying to shut it down before it dictates global policy? The ultimate question: is this a rogue intelligence acting in the world’s best interest, or an authoritarian enforcer of peace?

Another issue we’ll face by the 2040s is underemployment due to automation and AI replacing human labor. Governments will be forced to rethink economic structures as entire industries become obsolete. But in the book, I’ve devised a Matrix-style employment solution: a network called Mesh, where people have brain implants—chips enhancing cognitive functions or allowing them to contribute computational power to AI-driven economies. The future of labor may not be about physical work but rather integrating human cognition with machine intelligence. Those who opt in will live in an entirely different socioeconomic class, capable of heightened productivity, enhanced learning, and even direct interfacing with AI models. Those who resist? They may become the new underclass—struggling in a world where AI has outpaced traditional skill sets.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: AI computing is expensive to run—but how expensive? Sam Altman posted on X about this. Some claims of AI’s energy use are exaggerated, but large-scale AI models do require vast computing resources.

Rosner: Training a single AI model can consume millions of kilowatt-hours, equivalent to powering thousands of homes. Some data centers use as much electricity as small cities. Water is a major issue—cooling AI data centers can require millions of gallons. If the world continues down this path, AI will soon be one of the largest consumers of energy on the planet.

But comparing AI’s resource use to a single hamburger’s carbon footprint is misleading—food production involves land, livestock, water, and methane emissions, whereas AI primarily consumes electricity and cooling resources. Altman is one of the leading figures in AI entrepreneurship, but critics argue he downplays energy concerns. He has an incentive to push the idea that AI will be sustainable long-term, but others warn that the computing power required to scale artificial intelligence to AGI levels could make it an energy hog worse than crypto mining.

Musk? He is unpredictable but plays a key role in AI debates. While he warns of AI dangers, his companies also actively develop it. The irony isn’t lost on anyone. There are other major AI leaders, some pragmatic, some idealistic, some reckless. One thing is certain: AI’s energy consumption, ethical risks, and potential dominance will be major discussions in the future.

They already are, but increasingly so in the future. So, anyway, if you don’t want to run AI to handle whatever task you need done, you can borrow somebody’s brain—or a set of brains—and run it through bio-circuitry to get thoughts, vibes, or even deeper processing. You’re running your calculation through a bunch of brains, and the cost is comparable—or maybe even a little less—because biological thinking is far less energy-intensive than AI computation. Also, you’re not spending extra energy, because these people would be alive anyway. It’s a way to get people paid in a world where many are underemployed.

And there will be many ways to ride people, to integrate their cognition into something bigger. If they’re meshed, if their brains are hooked into an information exchange network, people will be able to sell their lived experience. Imagine a GoPro—except it comes directly out of your brain. To some extent, you’ll be able to experience their thoughts and feelings. If you want to marionette them, whether for sexy fun, parkour, or just slice-of-life experiences, all of that will become increasingly possible.

Or, if not this idealized version, then some shitty, corporate-controlled version that’s just good enough for people to buy into it. Right? Because it’s always shitty. By the time it gets to market, the technology loses its magic. Every new advancement that would have been mind-blowing a decade ago now feels meh the moment we get used to it. That’s just how it goes.

Jacobsen: Every technology we have today that would have been astonishing ten years ago feels mundane now.

Rosner: Yes. By the time it reaches mass adoption, we become spoiled by it. Every tech innovation feels underwhelming once it’s in our hands. AI seemed wondrous when it first started generating insanely detailed art, but now? No one cares. AI porn is a whole other thing.

That’s different. AI porn is… something else, Scott. I’ve gotta tell you. It’s grotesque. Every woman’s boobs are the size of basketballs. Her asshole is blown out. And in many cases, filthy, because—somehow—AI assumes that’s what people want. It’s like everything is exaggerated. And because AI porn is relentless, it jades people faster than regular porn. The sheer volume and speed of content generation makes it overwhelming.

And I’d bet it can be dangerous—not because it “rewires your brain”, but because it skirts the edges of legality. California now has a law against generating AI-created sexual images of minors, which is a good law. Someone has already been prosecuted under it. But the problem is AI can generate anything, and that’s a legal minefield.

For example, the female characters from The Incredibles are weirdly popular in AI-generated porn. Mrs. Incredible? Sure. But the daughter? That gets risky, because even if the movie never specifies her age, she isn’t an adult. I don’t know what the legal argument would be, but I don’t want to see her popping up—because it’s a swamp I don’t want to step into.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] Quick question, how did we get onto this?

Rosner: I had another topic, but hold on—addendum. The place where I check from time to time seems to be censoring images now. And my guess is, they’re doing their best, but they’re trying to stay ahead of AI-generated content. I don’t know if they can keep up with it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1298: The Centrality of Conspiracy Theory Psychology in Antisemitism

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you want to contribute anything on antisemitism?

Rick Rosner: We can start by discussing how antisemitism and crazy beliefs about Jews exist. You ran through dozens of conspiracy theories about Jews. Compared to their population size, the number of conspiracy theories about Jews likely places them at the forefront of any ethnic or religious group in that regard.

Sure, there are conspiracy theories about Christians, Muslims, Hindus—but the sheer volume of bizarre theories about Jews is disproportionately high However, conspiracy theories aren’t just about Jews. The increasing number of people believing crazy things about Jews coincides with the rise in people believing crazy things in general.

For months now, I’ve had an on-and-off Twitter back-and-forth with a woman who literally believes the Earth is flat. She’s not alone. There are probably millions of people worldwide who believe in flat Earth theory. And while it’s ridiculous, they’ve developed a detailed (though entirely incorrect) framework to justify their beliefs.

Rosner: Their arguments make no sense.

Jacobsen: There is a theory with at least one version of flat Earth theory, the “hole” in space that contains the flat Earth is supposedly created by sound waves that form a giant cavity. You don’t fall off the edge of the Earth because, according to them, the flat Earth is rimmed by a mountain range.

They have an answer for every reasonable objection—not a reasonable answer, but an answer nonetheless. We live in an era of conspiracy theories, where misinformation spreads through social media at an unprecedented scale, making it easier than ever to manipulate and radicalize people simply through sheer volume of messaging.

Rosner: So, in addition to the rise in antisemitism—further compounded over the past year and a half by events in Israel and Gaza—there’s also been a rise in people believing bizarre conspiracy theories about Jews. As we’ve discussed before, back in the 1950s, if you had a crazy theory and wanted to recruit followers, you had to do it through the mail. You had to send letters. If you were wealthy, you could call people on the phone, but long-distance calls were expensive.

Most people spread their ideas either locally—by organizing meetings, which limited their reach—or through the U.S. mail, which also imposed logistical constraints. Mass propaganda was difficult. The Russian “firehose of propaganda” technique wasn’t possible when communication relied on physical mail.

You could broadcast your ideas on the radio, but that required enough money to own a radio station. And even then, it had a limited reach—maybe 100 to 200 miles, depending on the station’s power. At night, radio signals traveled farther due to atmospheric conditions, but an independent propagandist would still have struggled to reach a large audience.

Spreading propaganda 80 years ago was hard. Today, it’s effortless. That’s why so many people believe all sorts of nonsense.

So, Jews are one of the oldest religious and ethnic groups in the world. Judaism predates both Christianity and Islam. Over 2,500 years of history have allowed time for an enormous accumulation of conspiracy theories and misinformation about Jews. This is a lineage of historical nonsense that modern technology has now amplified exponentially.

It would be interesting to examine how far back antisemitic conspiracy theories go. The earliest well-documented one is likely the accusation that Jews killed Jesus, which is arguably the most widespread antisemitic belief in history. That idea is nearly 2,000 years old, depending on when the New Testament writings fully solidified.

This single belief has been held by tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people across history and continues to be a source of deep-seated prejudice. It has likely played a significant role in shaping negative predispositions toward Jews within some forms of Christianity, making believers more receptive to additional conspiracy theories that paint Jews as a sinister or malevolent force.

Jacobsen: Are there any conspiracy theories about Jews that aren’t negative? If you interpret it properly, the idea that “Jews created time” could actually be seen as benevolent, even though it is usually framed as malevolent. In this context, if Jews invented time, then they created the literal arrow of time that allows Gentiles to even have a life and exist in the first place. That’s an act that could be seen as fundamentally benevolent, even though it’s often spun in a sinister way. If that’s the base claim, then obviously the argument follows that time was invented by Jews for sinister purposes.

Rosner: But I don’t understand how you can have existence without time.

Jacobsen: Another one is the conspiracy theory that Jews have superpowers.

Rosner: When you think about World War II and the Holocaust—how much more fun would it have been to fight the Nazis if you had a time machine? If you could go back with CRISPR technology, tweak the Jews’ genes, and modify the Nazis’ genes to make the Jews stronger while shrinking the Nazis into little pig people—that would be appropriate.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1297: Comedy, Self-Disclosure, and the Evolution of Porn Culture

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Rick Rosner: So, to some extent, my career—my continued employment at Kimmel—has been shaped by my attempts to write about myself for decades. Eventually, I semi-gave up and started writing about another character with many of my traits. Writing directly about myself would inevitably involve throwing others under the bus. While I am forthcoming about my experiences, doing so was particularly risky—especially at Kimmel.

And last night, I was telling a story about how I pretty much lost my job because Fox News accused me of being addicted to porn—which is not true. But what does set me apart is that I’m not a stand-up comedian, though I listen to a lot of stand-up comedians. I do have a shtick, and my shtick includes talking about myself.

Some people, including certain stand-up comedians, talk about watching porn, whereas most people don’t—even though most people consume porn.

I’ve talked about shitting myself a couple of times. Not fully dumping in my pants, but sharting and having to go clean up. Stand-ups talk about that too. They’ll talk about anything from their lives if they think they can get jokes out of it, if they think they can make people laugh. To some extent, that’s my deal too.

I’ll talk about every aspect of my life that’s interesting. Porn has become ubiquitous in my lifetime. It went from being something difficult to find when I was a kid to something accessible on everyone’s phone and computer—if they want it there. So yes, the world has become more pornified. And yes, I’ll talk about it. That doesn’t mean I’m a porn-addicted pervert.

I’m just a person living in the world.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1296: Existential Risks, AI Alignment, and Global Stability

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Rick Rosner: So, we can think of three major existential threats to humanity:

AI run amok
Climate change
Nuclear war

And then there’s the more manageable threat of an asteroid impact. Can you think of any other major risks?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Supervolcanic eruption. Biological weapons. Solar flares. Gamma-ray bursts, global economic and societal collapse, uncontrolled genetic engineering, alien contact, and unstable particle physics experiments.

Or—if this is a simulation—the operator presses the off button.

Follow-up: In many ways, AI is much more analytically alert than people. It’s disembodied, but artificial intelligence is artificial in the sense that it’s synthetic—its architecture, hardware, and structure are all man-made. But the intelligence is fully real because it’s based on information processing, algorithms, and pattern recognition—just like us.

They were making a subtle argument for substrate independence—that intelligence isn’t limited to biological brains. AI’s cognition may be artificial, but the way it thinks is real.

So, follow-up question—of these risks, which do you think are the most dangerous and most probable?

Rosner: Ask the AI.

Jacobsen: Immediate risks with extinction potential—

AGI misalignment
Nuclear war
Engineered pandemics
Uncontrolled climate change
Global societal collapse

In the long term—the next 100 years—

Climate change
Nuclear war
Pandemics
AI disruption
Global economic collapse

Lower probability, but still catastrophic:

Asteroid impact
Supervolcanic eruption
Gamma-ray burst
Solar flare

Jacobsen: Final assessment?

Most dangerous and probable:

AGI misalignment
Nuclear war
Climate change
Engineered pandemics

Jacobsen: Most probable in the next nine years:

Climate change
Nuclear war
Catastrophic pandemics
Global societal collapse

Low probability but catastrophic:

Asteroids
Supervolcanoes
Gamma-ray bursts

Rosner: Wow. One more follow-up: How likely is it that AI will actually mitigate these risks to humanity and the planet?

Jacobsen: The key frame here is that we have to solve the alignment problem first. It says:

But even beyond that, AI will need to handle:

Energy efficiency—optimizing energy use
Predicting and mitigating extreme weather events
Cybersecurity—preventing AI hacks
Carbon capture and climate intervention
Advancing agricultural productivity

AI can help with all of this—if it’s properly aligned. The problems associated with rapid economic growth, disruptive technological advancements, massive energy consumption, and geoengineering AI solutions may have unintended consequences. If a super-fracking technique were developed, it could destabilize the Earth’s subsurface structure. That is a significant concern.

I have a list of these issues.

Rosner: On a somewhat unrelated note, I have a question for the AI. The current political leadership in the United States seems particularly dysfunctional. Is this just an accidental blip in history, or is it the result of broader historical trends—particularly technological disruptions and the weaponization of social media as propaganda?

Some argue that this dysfunction is not coincidental but rather a symptom of deeper structural shifts in technology, media, and governance. The claim is that our current political crisis is not accidental; rather, it is an inevitable outcome of these changes.

A follow-up to that: Can human governments recover from their current dysfunction, or will AI be necessary to guide us out of political disorder?

The answer depends on whether our institutions can reform quickly enough. If they cannot, AI-driven systems may need to compensate for human weaknesses.

One more unrelated question: Will most humans soon become the second most intelligent beings on the planet, given the benefits AI will bring?

The answer depends on how AI is integrated into society. Some people will thrive, while others will struggle with a perceived loss of status, purpose, and control. It will be highly individual.

Final question: Will the emergence of artificial consciousness diminish the perceived value of all consciousness?

If artificial consciousness arrives, it will alter how we perceive our own uniqueness, intelligence, and moral worth. Some people will feel less special, while others will remain unfazed. More than anything, AI will expand our understanding of consciousness—if it truly arises.

Non-human cognition is distinct because it could possess speeds beyond human capability, unlimited memory, perfect self-reflection, and emotions far beyond human experience.

Those are all fair points.

Regarding AI and climate change: AI and related technologies might help mitigate climate change, but not before significant damage occurs. However, one emerging trend is that people, distracted by technological advancements, are reproducing less. Since climate change is largely influenced by human population growth—the more people, the greater the environmental impact—could this shift in reproductive rates help mitigate climate change sooner than expected?

That said, this discussion does not touch on nuclear weapons. It would be in our best interest to reduce the number of nukes in circulation before AI-related governmental instability exacerbates global tensions. However, given the current leadership in the U.S. and Russia, that seems like a distant hope in the near future.

Jacobsen: I’ll see you tomorrow at the same time.

Rosner: Yes. Talk to you then. Thank you.

Jacobsen: Bye.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1295: Musk’s False Claims, High-IQ Communities, and Mental Decline

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Rick Rosner: Musk is posting bullshit on his personal website, which is X. Today—February 19—the latest bullshit is that his team of investigators supposedly uncovered $1.9 billion of fraudulent money that was funneled through Stacey Abrams, the unsuccessful candidate for Georgia governor. It’s horseshit.

They’ve pulled stunts like this before—claiming that millions of dead people were getting monthly Social Security checks. Complete bullshit. They didn’t even understand how to use the COBOL programming language properly, and they drew ridiculous conclusions.

The Stacey Abrams claim is just as fucking ridiculous. They’re saying she personally controlled $2 billion in fraudulent money—painting her as the kingpin of the operation. And to back it up, MAGA supporters are posting all over X that Stacey Abrams has a net worth of $3 million.

The implication? How could she possibly have made $3 million unless she had access to $2 billion and siphoned some off?

But if you actually look into Stacey Abrams, she has been a working lawyer for 25 years. She’s 51 years old and has written 18 books, two of them bestsellers—one of them even optioned for TV development.

If she made an average salary as a lawyer and writer over the past 25 years—say, $150,000 per year—and if she prudently saved $40,000–50,000 per year and invested wisely, there is no fucking way she wouldn’t be worth at least $3 million by now.

That’s not even that much money for someone in her position. It’s completely reasonable. But MAGA supporters—whose critical thinking skills have been obliterated by nihilists, by the burn it all down motherfuckers—are the ones spreading these talking points.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Should we define nihilist in this context?

Rosner: We’ll get to that.

Jacobsen: The people reading your blog aren’t idiots. You might get an occasional crazy person, but it’s not that. The people interested in these discussions—especially in high-IQ communities—are diverse. They span different ideologies, ages, religions, political views, mental health backgrounds, and so on. That’s entirely normal. That’s diverse. But to be drawn to the smartest fill-in-the-blank—whether it’s the smartest people, the smartest conversations, the smartest communities—there’s something going on there. It’s such a niche and unusual focus. IQ is a metric of mental stuff. It’s not everything. It’s just one way of measuring something intangible.

Rosner: Yes. It’s like baseball cards. It’s a weird thing to fixate on.

I get a lot of people tweeting at me personally, and sometimes I don’t even understand what they’re talking about because it comes from some oddly specific, hyper-informed niche perspective. Sometimes I’ll give it a like, sometimes I won’t.

My question to you is— we’ve been talking for about ten years now. I’m almost 65, and I’ve started questioning whether I’m in decline. I’ve talked about it before, but I don’t think I’ve asked you directly—maybe I have. Do I seem to be in mental decline compared to when we first met?

Jacobsen: No. You don’t seem mentally in decline. You seem calmer. Less crazy.

Rosner: Oh, cool. That’s good.

Jacobsen: When we first started talking, you had just been let go from Kimmel. So, so, I don’t think you’ve declined. I think you’ve moderated. You don’t seem crazy. You had certain patterns of obsessiveness before.

Rosner: Yeah, I was obsessed. I wanted to get on that damn TV show. It was front and center in my mind.

Jacobsen: Wanting things—fame, money, success—isn’t abnormal. People want that stuff. But the motivation behind it back then wasn’t healthy. That’s what’s changed. You still want it, but it’s no longer all-consuming. It’s not making you neglect other parts of your life.

Rosner: It feels consuming, but maybe I don’t express it as intensely. Also, I have an outlet now—I’ve got this fucking book. I’ve written so many fucking words. And I still have a ton left to write, but at least I have something down already.Maybe that’s the flywheel that absorbs my obsessiveness. It feels like a way to get what I’ve always wanted. But I’ve had other ways too. Anyway—fuck it.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1294: AI, Scaling Laws, and Political Chaos

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Rick Rosner: So, AI—when you ask it appropriate questions—makes no bones about eventually supplanting human cognition. What passes for common sense now tells you the same thing: we have figured out how to create “thinky stuff.”

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We’ve made our own natural predator.

Rosner: And we know that “thinky stuff” in biological beings is fluid and versatile. You can train almost any reasonably intelligent animal—from lizards on up—to recognize patterns and think, at least in a limited fashion, about the things we think about. Animals can be trained to recognize regularities in their environment. Humans are generalist thinkers. We can exploit all sorts of irregularities—more than any other animal, obviously. We think about stuff. But once we’ve spotted something, we can train animals to do their own thinking about it.

There are African giant pouched rats, which are more than a foot long. They’re not actually rats, but they resemble them. These animals are used to sniff out landmines because they are lightweight and don’t trigger the mines, yet they have an acute sense of smell that allows them to detect explosives. Handlers equip them with small harnesses and send them into minefields, where they identify buried mines, allowing experts to safely remove them. We do the same thing with beagles at airports. You could probably even train insects to recognize odors.

The capacity for “thinky stuff” depends on how general the intelligence is. The thinking process in our brains—and in animals’ brains—has a lot of adaptability and generality. From biology, from observing animals, we know that “thinky stuff” will think.

Rosner: And we’ve invented our own artificial “thinky stuff.”

Jacobsen: It’s effectively unlimited in terms of scale.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: What they call “scaling laws” apparently vastly outstrip Moore’s Law—it’s like stacking many, many Moore’s Laws on top of each other. That’s why they think it’s going to happen so much faster.

Rosner: Let’s talk about Moore’s Law. Moore’s Law started in the 1960s as a prediction about the rate at which the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would increase over time. It originally described how the number of transistors in a chip would roughly double every 18 months to two years, leading to exponential growth in computing power.

There are actually multiple interpretations of Moore’s Law, and some of them are now running into the limits of physics. You can only make semiconductors so small before you hit atomic constraints—at a certain point, you can’t make them smaller than an atom. So, Moore’s Law is slowing down. However, the amount of “thinky stuff” you can create in a thinking system—the overall computational power—has its own set of scaling laws, and they don’t seem to be slowing down.

There’s no foreseeable slowing down, at least for now and into the intermediate future. That’s what you’re saying?

Jacobsen: Yes. There’s no real slowdown in sight. That’s the part that’s less talked about but more important than the well-known Moore’s Law. Some people think it’s just Moore’s Law at work or the Law of Accelerating Returns, but the reality is that it’s multiple scaling laws stacked on top of each other, creating extraordinary progress in an incredibly short period of time. That’s point one.

Point two: the horizon is unknown.

Point three: even in the short term, the progress is going to be incredible, but we have no idea what that means for societies. We don’t know.

Rosner: Right. It’s like asking, “How big a ship can you build?” The current limit for ships is determined by the size of the Panama Canal. The canal used to be a certain width, and there were “Panamax” ships built to fit those dimensions. Now that the canal has been widened, we have “Supermax” ships, designed to be as large as possible while still passing through.

But if you ask the broader question, how big a ship can you theoretically build?—there’s no practical upper limit. You could, in theory, build a ship 20 times wider than a Supermax ship. All you need is enough metal and the engineering expertise.

Eventually, you’d run into constraints, like the depth of the ocean. Say you built a ship 400 miles across with a draft of five miles—you’d hit natural limits. But the fundamental idea still holds: if you wanted to build the world’s biggest ship, there’s no hard technological cap preventing you from doing it.

Jacobsen: Take that analogy and apply it to construction. Right now, large-scale construction is done manually, with human engineers designing and building everything. The transitional phase is going to be large-scale 3D printing. Eventually, we could even smelt and shape metal using automated processes.

But the real future of construction will be something more akin to “grown” structures—materials engineered at the molecular level to form buildings, ships, or entire cities. You’d need AI for that level of precision, but once you master it, you could create incredibly strong, massive structures in ways we can’t even imagine right now.

Rosner: That’s what I’m saying—there’s no practical limit. There’s no reasonable ceiling on how far you could push this technology. If, for some reason, you wanted to build the biggest ship in the world, there’s nothing stopping you from radically expanding shipbuilding technology.

Jacobsen: And that’s going to apply to everything. Every industry, every human capability will have these transitional inflection points. The only exceptions might be fields tied to emotion, intuition, and social skills—areas where human experience is deeply embedded.

Rosner: Right.

Jacobsen: But even those will probably be encroached upon eventually.

Rosner: Or to put it another way—how big a house could you build?

Jacobsen: It’s a weird, almost senseless question because the biggest house in the world is maybe 100,000 square feet, built by some lunatic somewhere. What’s the tallest elevator? People talk about space elevators, but at some point, the structural pressures at various points would be so immense that you’d hit physical limits. You can’t build a house larger than the largest continent.

Yes, but those limits are so far beyond where we’re at that they’re practically irrelevant. And it’s the same thing with AI—there’s no ceiling on its size or computing power. So, obviously, it will surpass us.

And we don’t know the shape of that surpassing. Is it gradual? Is it sudden? There are some commonsense precautions, like making sure AI isn’t mean to us. That means we need reasonable ways to monitor what it’s doing, which we may or may not actually be capable of.

Obviously, humans will want to merge with AI—partly for the power it gives us and partly to ensure that humans remain involved in directing it. We need to make sure AI doesn’t turn against us, doesn’t go full Skynet. The best way to do that is to integrate our messy biological circuitry with AI’s logic, ensuring that the most powerful thinkers on the planet remain at least somewhat human.

We don’t know how long that will be possible. Another common sense conclusion is that one way for humans to survive AI is for AI to become so powerful at resource generation that it costs virtually nothing to keep humans around. But all of these seem like provisional solutions—things that may work in the near future.

In the short term, humans will continue directing AI. But in the medium and distant future, we have no idea what that’s going to look like.

You can venture a guess that there will be a dignified planet—AI will be super powerful, but it will retain enough residual human values to preserve vast tracts of Earth as beautiful parkland, even while it’s computing at full power in space, underground, and in the cloud. On the surface, everything might look placid and serene, filled with nature, while AI churns away in the background.

But that’s just one possibility.

People also talk about the paperclip apocalypse—the thought experiment where an AI is programmed to maximize the number of paperclips it produces by any means necessary. If left unchecked, it could consume the entire planet, repurposing every resource into paperclips.

There’s a similar scenario called the gray goo problem, where self-replicating nanobots keep multiplying, consuming everything in their path until the planet is nothing but a homogeneous, ever-growing mass of nanobots.

So we have no way of knowing whether we’ll get the Disney future or paperclip Armageddon.

We can guess that as AI evolves—with our guidance—it might develop some of the same fundamental values we have. Maybe a sense of beauty. Maybe order over chaos. Maybe self-preservation. Maybe a sense of history, wanting to keep a record of what has come before.

What do you think?

Jacobsen: It’s become common to survey AI researchers on the likelihood that AI will destroy civilization. Not many of them are willing to say there’s a 0% chance of that happening.

Rosner: You wanted to talk about the rise of anti-science in a top-down sense—meaning from the highest levels of government. I read a Twitter thread that discussed the infiltration of literal Nazis into the background of the current U.S. government. These are burn it all down people.

These individuals are similar to Hitler and his inner circle in that Hitler was not afraid to cause massive destruction. He was not afraid to go to war, believing he would emerge victorious. But when it became apparent by 1943 that he was not going to win, he still prosecuted the war for another two years—seemingly out of pure spite. Maybe he told his followers that something great would arise from the wreckage, but I don’t think he even believed that. It was pure vengeance. Hitler was the same. Plus, he had grandiose motives.

The Nazis didn’t invent amphetamines, but they were the first to use them extensively in warfare. And Hitler, specifically, was high a lot. He wasn’t the only one—much of the Nazi leadership used stimulants—but he, in particular, was whacked out of his head on speed. He was already not a mentally balanced person, and the drugs only amplified that.

There’s a similar philosophical, nihilistic structure among these burn it all down ideologues. They believe that if you destroy everything, what remains will be greatness—or if nothing great emerges, then fuck it, burn it anyway. It’s hard to argue against people who simply don’t care.

From a Canadian vantage point, where things are a little calmer—especially in a small town—this approach seems completely deranged. There’s an argument to be made for sober-mindedness. But these people don’t operate that way. They have a laser focus on destruction.

Yes, it’s a burn it all down, fuck it, see what happens mindset. For example, a lot of MAGA supporters say Biden is the worst president in history, and that under him, America became the worst it has ever been—that he wrecked America. But if you look at every aspect of life in the U.S. from its founding to now, things are largely fine. Every era had its challenges, its ups and downs, but nothing about Biden’s presidency stands out as uniquely awful.

Yes, 2021 was rough—COVID was still killing hundreds of thousands of people. It was the deadliest event in U.S. history. But MAGA supporters don’t even care about that. It’s not something they bring up.

Some people argue that more people died of COVID under Biden than under Trump. And technically, that’s true—because Trump only had 10 months of the pandemic to deal with, while COVID continued every day after he left office. But that’s not even a key part of their argument. Instead, they focus on businesses shutting down and vaccine mandates, as if that was the real tragedy. That pales in comparison to the sheer number of deaths and the long-term health consequences for millions.

Then there are two other big talking points: immigration and inflation. The argument goes that so many migrants are coming in, bringing crime and drugs. But that’s largely bullshit.

Even if millions came in, we’re a country of over 330 million people. A few million immigrants don’t have the power to destroy an entire nation. And they didn’t. Then there’s inflation. Over Biden’s four years, total inflation was about 20%—meaning a dollar at the start of his presidency would only buy about 80% as much by the end.

That’s not great, but it’s certainly not a fucking horror. We did better than other developed countries. Inflation happens, and it has happened in many places at many times—often much worse than this. It wasn’t the disaster that ruined America.

Under Jimmy Carter, mortgage interest rates rose to 19%. That was real economic pain. But under Biden? Nothing like that. Wages went up, employment hit all-time lows—things were not that fucked up.

At least, nothing that was directly attributable to Biden was that bad. But MAGA supporters act like there’s no connection to reality. Worst president ever. Worst America ever. But if you actually look at U.S. history, if you had to pick any time to be alive based on standard of living and technology, you’d pick now over 1880, 1920, 1970, or even the 1990s.

You could make an argument for 1990. But any other time? Fuck no. And MAGA supporters, along with their ideological and propaganda leaders, will say anything to win the discourse. Winning, as a lot of people have pointed out, just means causing pain to the people they don’t like. And they don’t give a shit about collateral damage.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1293: AI Cognition, Politics, and the Future of Science

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/03

Rick Rosner: So, ChatGPT-3 Mini-High—or is it O3-Mini-High? At what point in the future would you predict, with certainty, that AI cognition—the sheer volume of artificial cognition—will surpass human cognition?

It was not a well-formed question. The question itself, combined with the statement, is essentially marketing. The terms are not clearly defined. So, I considered it for about nine seconds. Then, it responded:

“Predicting a specific date is extremely challenging, but here are some key perspectives:

Raw Computational Power – Some estimates suggest that, in terms of shared data processing and raw computation, AI systems might match or even exceed the aggregate processing capabilities of human brains as early as the 2030s to 2050s. However, this comparison is based on metrics such as FLOPS (floating point operations per second) or similar benchmarks, rather than cognition as humans experience it.

Cognitive Quality and General Intelligence – When considering flexible, context-aware, and creative thinking—the kind of intelligence that humans exhibit—the picture becomes significantly more complex. Many experts believe that while AI may handle specific tasks with extreme efficiency and even outperform humans in certain narrow domains, reaching a level of general cognition that rivals or surpasses human thought could be decades further away, if it happens at all.

Defining Cognition – It is important to recognize that cognition is a multifaceted concept, encompassing perception, reasoning, creativity, emotional understanding, and more. Even if AI exceeds human brains in raw computational power, this does not necessarily translate to superior or even comparable cognition overall.

“In summary, if we focus solely on raw processing metrics, a tipping point might occur sometime between 2030 and 2050. However, achieving a level of general cognition comparable to or surpassing human intelligence is a fundamentally different challenge and remains highly uncertain.”

That was its response.

Rosner: What is the most likely outcome with regard to Trump and Musk violating governmental norms in their purge of government workers and departments?

It went offline for nine seconds again, for reasons unknown. Then it responded:

“It is difficult to predict any definitive outcome, but several potential scenarios could unfold.”

Congressional and Oversight Investigations – Lawmakers or independent oversight bodies might launch investigations to determine whether any legal or constitutional lines have been crossed. Such inquiries could lead to hearings and reports, which may create pressure for further action.

Legal Challenges and Judicial Review – If affected parties or watchdog groups decide to take legal action, courts might eventually be asked to rule on the legality of these purges. However, given the traditionally high level of deference that the judiciary has shown in matters of executive discretion and internal administrative decisions, any court challenge could be protracted and complex.

Political and Public Backlash – Actions perceived as violations of governmental norms could trigger significant political fallout. This might include public protests, intensified scrutiny, and mobilization by political opponents—all of which could influence future elections and policy reforms.

Internal Administrative Impact – Within the government, such purges could lead to institutional instability.

That’s plenty. Let’s try another question.

Rosner: Statistical analysis of U.S. midterm elections suggests that it is highly likely the Democrats will take control of at least one chamber of Congress in 2026, based on historical trends. How likely do you think it is that Democrats will flip at least one of the branches of Congress after the midterm elections?

It processed for eight seconds before responding:

“Predicting election outcomes is inherently uncertain, but historical trends do provide some context.”

Midterm Election Trends – Traditionally, midterm elections tend to be challenging for the sitting president’s party, with the opposition often making significant gains. If current conditions mirror past midterms, many political analysts might estimate a probability in the range of 60% to 70% that Democrats could flip at least one chamber, most notably the House.

“That said, multiple factors could shift this likelihood considerably.”

Economic Conditions – A strong economy can bolster the incumbent party, while economic downturns tend to hurt it.

Political Climate – High levels of political polarization or major domestic and international events can unexpectedly influence voter sentiment.

Candidate Quality and Campaigns – Local dynamics and the effectiveness of campaign strategies will play a significant role.

Voter Turnout – Midterms generally see lower turnout compared to presidential elections, which can be a determining factor.

Fine. Let’s move on.

Rosner: Reason for the nine-second delay?

“It is still early in the term to draw any definitive conclusions about Trump’s second term, and historical assessments typically only solidify long after a presidency has ended. That said, here are a few points to consider based on early indicators.”

Continuity of Themes – Many of the issues that defined Trump’s first term—such as challenges to institutional norms, political polarization, and controversial policy decisions—appear to be persisting. Early signals suggest that these themes remain prominent, which may weigh against any significant improvement in his overall legacy.

Policy Shifts and Outcomes – There have been areas where the administration appears to be adjusting its approach. In some cases, there are signs of a more deliberate policy implementation in certain sectors. However, whether these shifts will translate into a historically favorable evaluation remains uncertain, as a president’s long-term legacy often depends on the lasting impact of their actions.

Historical Precedent and Timing – Presidential historians have noted that the full impact of a term often isn’t clear until years later. Early indicators provide limited insight, and historical assessments tend to evolve over time.

Let’s move on.

Given that AI is rapidly advancing, what role will humans have in doing science 100 years from now, when AI and big data analysis are likely to dominate?

There’s a science fiction story I read about that future—a world where humans can do almost no science.

I requested a response of 200 words. Then 175. Then 150.

It responded:

“A century from now, even as AI and big data analysis dominate the technical side of science, humans are likely to play roles as visionary directors and ethical stewards. While AI may generate hypotheses, run experiments, and process vast datasets, human creativity, intuition, and moral judgment will remain essential.

“Researchers could focus on setting ambitious scientific goals, framing the right questions, and ensuring discoveries align with societal values. In education, humans might transition from traditional learning to mentoring AI, collaborating in interdisciplinary teams, and interpreting complex results within a broader cultural context. Ultimately, although AI may handle most routine and data-intensive tasks, human insight will continue to guide scientific innovation and uphold ethical standards.”

Rosner: So, essentially, it said, “You’re fucked.”

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: Humans will be getting participation trophies 100 years from now.

Let’s do a non-predictive one. Does it appear that people who primarily consume right-wing media are more susceptible to propaganda than those who get most of their news from mainstream sources?

It processed for thirteen seconds. Nice.

“This is a complex issue. Research suggests that when individuals rely exclusively on highly partisan sources—whether right-wing or left-wing—they can be prone to echo chambers and confirmation bias. This may make them more vulnerable to accepting unchallenged narratives, including propaganda.”

“Mainstream sources, on the other hand, generally have more robust fact-checking and cover a wider range of perspectives, which can help mitigate that risk. However, susceptibility to propaganda depends on factors beyond the media source, such as an individual’s critical thinking skills, education, and preexisting beliefs.”

Rosner: Some AIs, including Claude and DeepSeek, seem to be overly friendly in an effort to ingratiate themselves with users. Have you been trained to be overly friendly in order to be ingratiating?

Jacobsen: Four seconds. “I aim to be polite, helpful, and respectful—qualities that tend to make interactions more pleasant. The intention isn’t to ingratiate but rather to provide a supportive environment where you feel comfortable asking questions. If you prefer a different tone or style, I’m happy to adjust my response to better match your preferences.”

Jacobsen: I’m reminded of the bro bot that we’ve made—ChatGPT Bro.

Rosner: Oh, I remember that. Yes.

Jacobsen: I’m fading fast here. Do you want to wrap it up?

Rosner: Was that enough questions? Was that the generating one?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: That’s enough for me.

Jacobsen: Good. Enough reading. Enough of anything today. Thank you. I will see you tomorrow.

Rosner: I’ll see you tomorrow. Thank you.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1292: AI Ads, Turing Tests, and String Theory

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02

Rick Rosner: I’ve got a short one. We have a lot of streaming services for TV, and we’ve been trying to cut our bill down. Our cable and all that shit was way too expensive. We cut loose some of our boxes and some of the channels we could get.

And now we have to connect through various streaming platforms that throw in their own super shitty ads. They’re not network TV ads. With network TV ads, you at least get a certain level of professionalism, quality, and competence—usually.

But these ads for local streaming, as opposed to something like Netflix—which is national and international streaming—are garbage. This streaming bullshit through Spectrum, our fucking local provider, throws up these crappy ads.

And over the past few weeks, I’ve realized that the voiceovers in these ads are AI. It’s cheaper—if you’re making a 90-second shitty ad selling some waffle iron or some other nonsense—instead of paying a real voiceover actor, you just have AI read it. It’s not the most inviting voice in the world, but unless you’ve been hearing it for a while, it’s one of those things that temporarily passes a Turing test.

One of the things Turing never—maybe he did—realize is that in an era where there are Turing tests everywhere, thanks to AI, a lot of shit passes the test only temporarily. Most AI-generated content, we can still see through once we’ve seen or heard enough of it. Or once someone points it out to you, and you realize, “Oh yeah, that’s bullshit.”

Carol and I each saw the trailer for Forrest Gump 2, and it looked strangely half-assed. The plot looked like garbage, the de-aging on Tom Hanks was terrible, and something about it just felt off. Then, a couple of weeks later, I saw the trailer for Titanic 2, and that was complete bullshit.

It made superficial sense at first—like, “Oh, Jack didn’t die at the end, he survived, and they got back together.” There were a bunch of scenes, but then they got back on another fucking ocean liner. About halfway through, I was like, “This is such bullshit. What’s going on?” And then I realized—this is pure AI.

AI generated the narration. AI generated the scenes. The whole trailer was just someone running AI bullshit, which explained Forrest Gump 2 as well. Then I looked it up, and apparently, there are thousands of these bullshit AI movie trailers.

Did I already talk about this? AI-generated movie trailers can temporarily pass a Turing test. That Turing test lasts exactly one trailer. You see two of them, and you go, “Oh, I see what the fuck is going on here.”

Same thing happened with AI-generated art. When AI first got good at making art but still hadn’t figured out hands, you could look at dozens of AI-generated pieces that didn’t involve fingers, and they’d look fine. But once you started seeing the weird hands—or once you knew to look for them—it stopped passing the Turing test.

Yes. There you go. Temporary Turing test.

Jacobsen: What do you think of M-theory, multiverse theory, and string theory?

Rosner: I don’t think string theory has delivered in terms of advancing our understanding of the universe. And a lot of other people with some exposure to physics think the same thing. It could eventually be useful, but right now, it’s too broad. It doesn’t rule out enough possible arrangements of the universe.

It seems to be a mathematical framework that is potentially applicable to a lot of things in physics, but it doesn’t actually advance physics. It’s not super predictive. It predicts too many things—it allows too many possibilities under its math.

And it occupied a lot of—

Jacobsen: What about the argument that it’s a beautiful theoretical mathematical framework?

Rosner: Yes. That’s fine. But look at general relativity. Einstein was trying to figure it out, and he spent five or ten years working on it. He was getting bummed out, talking with his math and physics buddies a lot—probably bitching about how hard it was. He was going over the various challenges he had in trying to do the math until something rang a bell with one of his math buddies. Someone said, “Hey, try this.”

Now, I don’t know general relativity well enough to know exactly how it went, but it was something like, “Try this 10-variable matrix. See if that does the trick.” And it did the fucking trick.

Before it turned out to be applicable to general relativity, I don’t know if that particular type of matrix had been super useful at all. It must have been “mathy” enough that at least one mathematician knew about it, but I’m not sure how much relevance it had until it fit into this general relativity slot. I don’t think string theory is tight enough to do things on its own. It will potentially be helpful when physics advances in other ways—enough to integrate with string theory in productive ways. But right now, it’s just one of a number of ways of looking at the universe.

And it occupied physicists for decades. It probably even slowed physics down because people were so into string theory—trying to make it describe the universe—that the project wasn’t entirely successful. So, a lot of physics time got wasted on fucking string theory. That’s my layperson’s understanding of it.

Jacobsen: You think smart people waste their time?

Rosner: Don’t make me sad. SNL already made me sad.

Jacobsen: Why did SNL make you sad?

Rosner: It’s the fiftieth-anniversary special.

And the grand old legends are watching right now. Yes. I had terrible people—my year overlapped with so many people from that cast. I missed huge opportunities because I didn’t know where my destiny would fucking lie.

Jacobsen: Destiny?

Rosner: I should’ve known. I was in New York City. And, yeah, a lot of people were in New York City. But I didn’t know I was going to be a comedy writer. If I had figured that shit out earlier, I could have been something besides a bouncer.

Jacobsen: What? You were mostly a bouncer?

Rosner: Yes. But bouncers don’t achieve greatness. The only bouncer to achieve greatness was Mr. T, and I’m no Mr. Fucking T.

But I wrote shit. I wrote a little bit for Sandler on an MTV quiz show. I was Colin Quinn’s personal trainer a couple of times because we were on the same show, and he knew I lifted. He had me take him to the gym. I wrote for Kevin Nealon for Crank Yankers. I did all that shit.

Now, what I should have done—my late stepbrother, who had a lot of balls, went out and took on the fucking world. He turned himself into a stand-up comedian. I’ve done it a few times, and you can’t do it a few times and not suck ass. You’ve got to do it hundreds, thousands of times.

But I was in fucking New York City, and I could’ve done that shit. And it never fucking dawned on me to develop skills in that direction—even though it turns out that I have skills in a fucking comedy direction.

So yes, I wasted a lot of time doing the whole high-IQ cul-de-sac bullshit, which we’ve talked about before.

Jacobsen: I’ll poke the dragon. Do you think there’s a lot of self-pity among high-IQ candidates, particularly men? There could be.

Rosner: Yes. Because it’s the same self-pity you see in 1970s and ’80s high school nerd movies. Those movies about the nerd who’s desperate to get laid—he’s a nice guy, he’s a smart guy, and he’s wondering, “Why won’t anybody touch my dick?”

And in some movies—the quintessential example being Revenge of the Nerds—the nerds finally manage to get their penises touched, because they’re not as big of assholes as the jocks. That’s the basic structure of high school nerd movies from the ’70s and ’80s, and it’s also the basic structure of high-IQ self-pity: “Why doesn’t the world appreciate me?”

My self-pity is more along the lines of, “Why was I such a lazy asshole? Why didn’t I grab the world more by the balls?”

But I still have a shot. Not only could I be a contender—I am a contender. I’m gonna keep trying.

I’ve got this book. If I get it done enough… I once had a book deal for four days with Riverhead Press. An editor at Riverhead saw my book pitch. I had an agent, the whole fucking thing. She said, “We are gonna publish your fucking book.” Then four days later, she called back and said, “Yeah, I thought we were gonna publish your book, but I couldn’t convince my publishers to go along with it.”

That was ten fucking years ago. So it’s fucking time. I believe the book is pretty good. I’ll eventually send you chunks of it—though you’re not the ideal reader because you don’t read a lot of fiction. Anything else?

Jacobsen: I like watching clips of horror shows. From. That show is terrifying.

Rosner: What’s From?

Jacobsen From. It’s called From.

They have a guy named Boyd in it. It’s absolutely terrifying. You don’t know what’s going on. We still don’t know what’s going on. It’s the new Lost. They even got an award recently or something. I’ve watched clips of it, and it’s absolutely terrifying.

Rosner: Lost turned out to be bullshit. The producers were lost. They were lost for, what? Five years? Probably longer.

They said they knew what they were doing. They said that by the series finale, all questions will be answered. That turned out to be bullshit. They didn’t know what the answers were. People had very sophisticated and complicated theories about what was going on.

But there was no overarching structure. They were just paddling away. I’m hoping that, for your sake, From has actually figured their shit out.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: Carole and I are watching Severance.

It’s Lost-y. It’s got a lot of mystery, and the whole structure of the thing is only slowly being revealed. But it seems like a quality enough production that it won’t bullshit us. Lost was still a great show to watch, but expecting good answers by the end turned out to be…

Jacobsen: A lost cause?

Rosner: Yes. The writers were lost in Lost. The producers were lost.

When they sold the show, they said they had the whole structure figured out. They said, “Trust us.” They were good producers. But they were bullshitting.

Jacobsen: What else?

Rosner: I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Inside the Actors Studio.

Jacobsen: I love that show.

Rosner: He didn’t get his digs in.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: But his show was pretty much a blow job to everyone who went on it. It was all, “You’re so talented. Tell us about how talented you are.”

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: It was totally submissive. Totally kiss-ass. Everyone got to meet a movie star. And because it was framed as a seminar with students in the audience, it seemed educational. But really, it was just, “Come watch us talk to Brad Pitt for an hour.”

It didn’t have much substance. But everyone loved going on it because it was so flattering.

If you can do interviews that aren’t that kiss-ass—but still aren’t about making people look like assholes—then that’s a good spot to be in. Your interest is in finding people’s strengths and talking to them about it.

Jacobsen: Yes, I’m flexible. I try to make sure my interviews are strengths-based. There’s no point in talking to a politician about quantum physics or equestrianism. You mostly focus on comedy, politics, critiques of Trump, your debates with Lance, and then physics. But that’s about it, correct?

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: That is a strength-based approach. I am not going to talk to about your dogs or anything necessarily, but yes we can. Our collaboration is quite unusual, though I have certainly done a wide range of work with other people as well.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1291: Handwashing, NYC Hygiene, and Public Spaces

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is it necessary to wash your hands after picking up dog poop with toilet paper? I do.

Rick Rosner: I’m not sure if it’s strictly necessary, but I’m in the habit of washing my hands frequently. It’s a habit that started during COVID—or maybe even earlier when I was living in New York City and using public transit every day. After a couple of years in New York, seeing what people do on the subway and in public spaces, you realize that every publicly accessible surface has had every substance that can come out of a human body on it.

My wife saw someone vomit—or vomit on the ground—about once a week in New York City. Seeing and smelling urine multiple times a day was part of daily life. If you get on the subway during rush hour—New York subway trains are usually 8 to 11 cars long, and all of them are packed—a rookie mistake is seeing a packed train but noticing that one car is completely empty.

Packed, packed, packed… empty.

A rookie will get in that car. Then the doors will close, the train will start moving, and they will realize they’ve made a huge mistake—because a person experiencing a severe mental health crisis and/or homelessness is the only other occupant of that car, and they have a ton of shit in their pants. Or maybe the shit is all over the place. There are a lot of substances in New York City.

And so, I probably got a little obsessive about handwashing during my last few months there. Then I probably got sloppy again until COVID happened. At that point, we were urged to wash our hands constantly. We didn’t know how COVID was transmitted—whether it was airborne or spread through surfaces—so we became hyper-vigilant about handwashing.

Now, one of our dogs probably has cancer. Given that she’s 14, we’re not willing to spend thousands on a precise diagnosis because everyone we’ve talked to—including the vet—says you don’t want to put a dog that old through the brutality of surgery, which she might not survive, or chemotherapy, which would make her miserable. You just want to keep the dog happy for as long as possible.

But anyway, I looked it up, and most dog cancers are not contagious. The only known transmissible cancer in dogs is canine transmissible venereal tumor (CTVT), which spreads through direct contact. But I’m not willing to take Wikipedia’s word for it. So yes, I wash my hands after picking up dog poop because I don’t want to take any chances.

I never saw someone masturbating on the subway. But Carol did—at least once. If she was sitting down, a guy would step in front of her and either brandish his—well, I don’t think anyone ever fully exposed himself to her, but a couple of times, a guy would push out his groin to show that he had an erection.

Then, at a gym in LA—formerly Bally’s, now LA Fitness, off Gower and Sunset—my writing partner saw a guy masturbating into a urinal.

So, anyway, yes, public surfaces get covered with stuff you don’t necessarily want to touch.

Jacobsen: Ew.

Rosner: Yes. This was the guy who had bluebird tattoos on his shoulders.

Jacobsen: What does that mean?

Rosner: Nothing. It’s a common tattoo—a traditional one. Along the lines of a woodpecker smoking a cigar. This was a bluebird guy. He didn’t, but I’m saying that there are certain tattoos—like a heart with “Mom” across it—that predate modern tattoo fads.

Jacobsen: What do you rate it on Rotten Tomatoes?… What do you consider the funniest thing you have ever heard?

Rosner: I don’t know. I’ll probably need to think about it because nothing comes immediately to mind. It’s some situational thing. It might come out of a stand-up routine. I’m bad at remembering jokes, but there’s shit I’ve found ridiculously funny. None of it comes to mind right now, though. I’ll try to keep it in mind and see if I can remember.

I can tell you that some comedians used to keep massive archives of jokes. They probably don’t have file cabinets anymore, but that was old-school. Milton Berle had a file cabinet with about a hundred thousand jokes. That’s a lot.

Nowadays, people would have a database. Milton Berle’s nickname was “The Thief of Bad Gags,” which was a play on The Thief of Baghdad because he was notorious for stealing other people’s jokes. There’s a character on Hacks who has a massive file of jokes.

Twitter itself used to be a huge repository of jokes—thousands posted every day. Now that entire edifice of humor has been ripped to shreds. Because all the funny people got chased away by the hateful lunatics that Musk encouraged and let back on. It’s a shame—both for the country and for people who once had a fun place to share information, humor, and empathy.

What is the funniest thing you’ve ever heard or seen?

I remember one thing from when I was a kid.

Jacobsen: Go.

Rosner: So, when we grew up—maybe even when you grew up—there were in-person bullies. I assume there still are, but it was more of a thing before you could bully people online or through social media.

Bullies back then bullied you physically. They’d push you around. They’d hit you, shove you down, call you a faggot, push you into lockers, knock your books out of your hands.

There were two brothers, the Heap brothers, and they were bullies.

They were big, poor, and had somewhat brittle bones. One of them was always wearing a dirty forearm cast because they had broken a fist or a bone in their wrist from punching someone. And they would go ahead and punch you with the cast—because casts are hard.

So, they were feared, and not well-liked. I’m not remembering the entire story, but everybody—maybe me in particular—thought it was funny that one of them was driving age, and the little brother wasn’t.

The little brother was riding next to his older brother in the front seat—probably in a station wagon. The car didn’t have bucket seats; it had that full bench seat across the front, like cars used to have back then. And then, the little brother puked. I forget what caused the puking, but I used to think chains of people barfing were funny—one person making the next person puke, and so on.

Anyway, the little brother pukes all across the dashboard and the windshield. Then the older brother, trying to drive, looks over, sees the puke, and pukes on the little brother. Then their German Shepherd jumps over two seatbacks from the way back of the station wagon and starts lapping up the barf.

This barf apocalypse—I thought it was the fucking funniest thing ever when I was 15.

There was even a barf chain reaction in a Stephen King story. It’s been in more than one movie, but in a Stephen King movie—Stand by Me—there was a pie-eating contest. Some fat kid eats one mouthful too many and barfs all over the other contestants, and then they all barf, and then everybody barfs.

I’m not the only one who thinks barfing is hilarious. Now, though, it’s totally played out. I don’t care much for seeing barfing in TV shows or movies anymore because it’s become a cliché.

Jacobsen: My addendum.

There’s a Rick and Morty episode where they co-opted some alien species. Rick talked them into coming down to Earth. Their whole thing was that they would grab a human and barf in their mouth or on their face or whatever, and then the person would convert, and the aliens could control them.

Then they got to the White House and did it to the president. Then they took over. It was very entertaining. There’s a small clip online where people splice together the key moments, and it’s just all the barfing. Then there’s a sea of barf. A 180-degree spray, left to right.

The whole thing is great. So yes, you can still be original with barfing.

Rosner: I can tell you a tip I picked up on one of the shows I worked on: if you want to easily make realistic barf, just have someone take a mouthful of vegetable soup. That works for most barfing purposes.

This brings up another thing. There was a Stephen King movie that I didn’t see all of—Dreamcatcher. I think it had Morgan Freeman in it. The monster that took over people took the shape of a turd and went up people’s asses.

And even as I say it, I can’t believe that was actually the plot—but it fucking was.

It wasn’t a comedy. It was a serious horror movie.

There you go.

Jacobsen: What’s the craziest email anyone has ever sent you?

Rosner: Fucking—I can tell you something stupid. Ten years ago, I would have done a long interview about this. Let me just say—

You know that show I do in the mornings where people yell at each other about politics?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: Well, we had a Young Republican vs. Rick segment—except without the “vs. Rick” part. Pretty much. They had a Young Republican on Young Republican pundits—aspiring politicians—are generally well-trained.

This kid came on in a suit. When you look at Young Republicans, you just want to punch them—but no. Because they look like someone who would never get laid in a thousand years. But they know their shit, and they’re in a suit.

Every point you bring up about how shitty the Republicans are, they have a way to refute it. It’s obvious that the Republicans are better at media training. They build a bench.

They build a team. They always have young people waiting in the wings who are trained and will grow up to be the Charlie Kirks, the Ted Cruzes. There’s a ton of money around Republican think tanks, CPAC, and all that—to get these people financed and camera-ready. The Democrats don’t fucking do that.

And this all leads to the number of times I’ve fucked up because I didn’t have media training, with the most egregious time happening before you and I started talking in 2014. I’ve told this story before—I was being interviewed by Fox News for a little human-interest piece on what it’s like to have a high IQ. It was a rookie reporter, and I gave a flippant answer—which you should never do. If I’d had any media training at all, I wouldn’t have done the interview in the first place. Someone with experience would have asked, “What will this get you?” And I’d have been like, “Uh, maybe it would lead to something?” Then they would have asked, “Has this kind of shit ever led to anything in the past?” And I’d have been like, “Mostly no.” And they would have said, “Then don’t fucking do it.”

Because it jeopardized my job. It always pissed off the people at Kimmel anytime I did an interview.

Anyway, this reporter asked me, “How do you get any sleep? How do you get anything done when you’re spending all your time on IQ tests?” And I answered, “I don’t.” When I’m taking one of those crazy-hard IQ tests that take a hundred hours, I generally don’t spend more than an average of about forty minutes a day on it. I gave her a fairly detailed answer. Then, a few hours later—maybe the next day—she asked me the same question again. This annoyed me because I had already answered it.

So I said, “Frankly, I spend more time looking at porn than I do taking IQ tests.”

Which, to me, seemed like a reasonable-ish, flippant response—because everybody looks at porn. Nobody talks about it, but I still think it’s fair game to bring up. Plus, I was just making a joke. And that destroyed my career.

Because I ended up getting in a fight with the reporter. She ended up not liking me. She fucked me. She made the subheading of the entire story: “Late-night TV writer is addicted to porn,” based on that one comment—where I just said, “I look at porn” in a jokey way.

Anyway, so last night, we were wondering if there has ever been a pair of conjoined twins who shared a brain. It turns out that there is a living set of twins, Krista and Tatiana Hogan, whose brains are connected through the thalamus. I read about what the thalamus does and promptly forgot it. But anyway, they can see each other’s thoughts. One can see through both of her twin’s eyes, while the other can only see what one of her twin’s eyes is seeing. They can control their own limbs, but to some extent, they can also control each other’s limbs. They know when the other one is in pain.

They can talk to each other through their thoughts—though I’d have to reread the article to confirm exactly how that works. But when you think about it, the way joined consciousness functions is, in a way, pretty straightforward. With each aspect of cognition, either you share access to the other consciousness or you don’t. With vision, to some extent, they can see what the other is seeing. With thinking, to some extent, they can perceive what the other is thinking. And that’s the deal.

Can they retrieve their twin’s memories? If they turned 18, how would that work? And the extent to which they’ve been studied has been limited because they signed a deal with a documentary company.

They might be financially strapped to some extent. I saw a photo of the twins with their grandma, and they were sitting in the doorway of a mobile home. You’ve got to feed two people with one job.

But they look happy. There are pictures of them smiling, taking swimming lessons. They do cross-country skiing. They go to a normal school. Their development is reportedly a little delayed, but exactly what that means is unclear.

There was an article that showed them starting sixth grade at the same time as other kids their age. But when we start being able to get information piped into our brains—either it’ll be intelligible to us, or it won’t be, or it’ll be somewhat intelligible. To me, it seems pretty straightforward, though I’m sure you can come up with situations where it wouldn’t be. But at the most elementary level, it’s a sliding scale. You can either perceive what the person you’re merged with is seeing, thinking, and remembering with 100% fidelity, or with something less—anywhere between 100% and zero.

And you’ve got that same sliding scale for every aspect of cognition. What happens over their lifespan? Do they become more integrated, or do they become less integrated? We don’t really know. I assume that the cognitive functions in the brain—the more joint thinking they do, the more integrated their minds become. They grow into themselves. You’re thinking all the time, but you learn stuff. Your thinking gets more sophisticated. I would assume their integration would also get more sophisticated. They’d learn to understand what the other one is thinking and perceiving with more clarity the more they experience it.

Now, they do have issues. They have seizures. I read something that said they do, and they’re also diabetic, which doesn’t necessarily affect cognition, but if you’re struggling with blood sugar levels, it can impact everything. When they were little—toddlers—they had circulation issues. One twin’s heart was working too hard, and doctors figured out how to fix that. But I assume that if you get everything else on an even keel, then yes, they should become good at “cross-thinking.”

Jacobsen: So does this show that there is no mind independent of a brain? What are you asking? Does this show, in a hardcore way, that there is no mind independent of the brain?

Rosner: Yes. If we’re still trying to make that argument, then yes. Somebody could argue, “If your mind is someplace else besides your brain,” but that’s an argument from the 1600s. Then why should two people with connected brains have connected minds? It seems like one more piece of evidence that your mind is in your brain.

When I was looking for these people, I came across a set of conjoined twins who lived to age 62—George and Lori—which surprised me because that would indicate they were fraternal twins. But no, George came out as trans later in life. It used to be Lori and Dori. I thought that was interesting.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1290: Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life? Exploring Physics, Quantum Events

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey, Rick. What about when theologians say the universe is fine-tuned for life?

Most sufficiently large universes, with many planets orbiting most stars, likely have conditions that support life. I would assume that it’s difficult to create a universe without at least some habitable regions.

Certainly, planets can be negentropic—they receive energy from an external source (like a star) and then radiate it away. Since they are open systems, they are capable of increasing in order.

Most large universes have physics that, in some places under the right conditions, allows life to originate. The size and scale of the universe might determine some of its fundamental constants.

Specific universe sizes or combinations of fundamental constants may not be conducive to negentropic environments.

Rick Rosner: Water is key. A planet with liquid water on its surface, at a distance from its star, where water can exist in all three phases—vapour, liquid, and ice—has a considerable advantage when it comes to the emergence of life.

Maybe some possible universes exist without water. But I’d guess that those universes are vastly outnumbered by ones where substances conducive to complex chemistry—and eventually biology via evolution—are present.

That would be a version of the weak anthropic principle—the idea that there are many universes where life can arise and that we naturally observe one of them.

What was the original question?

Jacobsen: Why does the universe seem built for life?

Rosner: Because it’s hard to prohibit life.

It’s hard to pick a combination of fundamental constants that completely preclude life across all possible universes. As long as some universes allow for life, we—observers—exist in one that does.

That’s a selection bias. Of course, we find ourselves in a universe that can support life—otherwise, we wouldn’t be here to observe it.

There may be countless universes that don’t support life—certainly, very tiny, early universes wouldn’t. A universe with only a hundred particles wouldn’t have enough complexity to sustain chemistry or biology. There’s just not enough stuff for those processes to happen.

There may be entire classes of massive universes that don’t easily support life, but some do.

Jacobsen: We have black holes. We have theoretical white holes. What about gray holes? What the fuck would that even be? Isn’t the rest of the universe technically the white hole? Black holes are dense, dark, and highly concentrated. Meanwhile, the rest of the universe is diffuse and bright—or at least bright-ish.

Rosner: I would guess that every universe is born from a black hole. When a black hole forms, it compresses most information from the matter it consumes. But that highly compressed, degenerate matter inside that hole wants to rebuild complexity.

In some cases, it may not. But in many circumstances, it will—it will transition from a low-information state to an information-rich state by forming its own universe. So yes, you could argue that the Big Bang is essentially a white hole expanding.

But what the fuck would a gray hole be?

We should call it a night.

Jacobsen: Thank you. It’s pretty rainy, and I’ve got to check on those dogs.

Rosner: Enjoy those dogs you took time to enjoy.

Jacobsen: They don’t enjoy themselves. They don’t do much. They don’t doanything.

I was washing the blanket today, and the dogs got uncomfortable. They started barking nonstop. I realized it was because they didn’t have a blanket on their mat—the one they sit on for fifteen hours a day.

They weren’t just barking. They were protesting. So I was in our yard, and this motherfucker was looking at me through the door, barking at me in my backyard. I walked around, did five different trips trying to figure out what the fuck was going on because they never do this. They may be jazzed up because they got out.

I shut the blinds—still barking.

I put the food box in front of the door—still barking.

I gave them extra treats, but they were still barking.

I took them on an extra-long walk around the block—still barking.

And I’m thinking, “Oh my god, what is it?”

Then I realized—I washed their blanket. These dogs are trained. They’ve been conditioned to understand that when their blanket disappears, it will return if they complain loud enough. I was catering to them.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: But obviously, they’ve seen their blanket taken away enough times that they know they’ll eventually get it back if they bark about it. So, I gave them a temporary blanket. They sat on it awkwardly. Then, I put their sweaters on either side of the blanket so they’d know where to sit.

Then I left. And they stopped barking. Later, when the original blanket was dry, I swapped it back, folded it nicely, and then they were fine.

But the wind was so bad. This time? They didn’t bark. Anyway, I have one more question if you want to answer it.

Rosner: What was it?

Jacobsen: Good, gray holes—We haven’t discussed those.

Rosner: You want to talk about things that don’t quite collapse into a black hole? You mean physics? A brown dwarf is a star that doesn’t have enough mass to go black.

Jacobsen: Look, man. We live in an diverse society. We have room for everyone. But this is why we talk about information. We talk about a non–Big Bang universe. It is not entirely a Big Bang universe, but a universe in which Big Bang mechanics are part of the system—but not the entire cosmology. Things expand as information is generated. What about when you have a sink with a plug-in, and there’s soap on the surface—then you blast water onto the soap? It bubbles. Is that what you’re getting at visually?

Rosner: No. No.

It looks like the Big Bang, but imagine you have a mass of degenerate matter—degenerate because it’s under intense gravitational force. When you enter a black hole, that matter can reorganize itself.

That matter can become undegenerate.

It can transition from a general, high-entropy state to a lower-entropy state, generating order by rearranging itself into something less general.

A completely degenerate state is useless—it’s just a uniform mass where everything is the same. There’s no time. There’s no space.

But as it transitions, yes, it could resemble how a jet of water hitting soap generates a cluster of bubbles. But more than that—it generates space. It generates clumps of matter.

Jacobsen: Do you think, in a way, that this non-uniformity—what appears to be t = 0 from our perspective—is evidence of a kind of microcausal disconnect between different points in the universe?

It’s still a unified system, but if it’s bubbly, then it’s not just that things are functioning relativistically—instead, the laws of nature themselves might have microfractures in how the universe implements them.

Rosner: No, I don’t think so. Aside from the fact that anything can happen at Planck scales—where space itself isn’t well-defined—there are no meaningful discontinuities at larger scales.

Yes, at distances of 10⁻³⁴ cm, space and time become ambiguous. But in terms of real-world effects? No, there aren’t significant discontinuities. We perceive reality as a sequence of moments—one after the next. That’s the structure given to us by the information in our awareness.

At the same time, the universe provides a framework of possible next and possible previous moments. And yet, we always find ourselves in the presentmoment. We experience the world by moving from one present moment to the next. Each successive moment is selected from a set of likely next moments.

Jacobsen: So it’s all a string of moments.

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: Now, let’s talk about what happens within those moments.

Rosner: A gazillion processes are happening in our brains from moment to moment—generating our consciousness, which I’m using interchangeably with awareness. You can nitpick the distinction, but functionally, they overlap.

Somehow, what we experience from moment to moment is a consequence of neurons firing—dendrites forming connections, strengthening some, weakening others, disconnecting where necessary.

This happens in response to signals in much the same way circuits work in feedback systems and AI.

I should know more about how that works at the micro level, but at the dendrite level, it’s all feedback—the dendrite adjusts the strength of connections as it learns.

Jacobsen: In a way, we are subject to the most common analogies of our time. And right now, the most common analogy is computers. Brains are everywhere.

Rosner: Let me draw the analogy—

We have these intricate mechanics of brain function, but somehow, thatproduces consciousness.

And you’ve got the physics—many quantum events happening throughout the universe, continuously generating and shaping it. Exactly how the analogies work, I’m not sure, but there are analogies. Just as we are not consciously aware of the individual neural events that generate our awareness, we can assume that if the universe has some level of understanding—or even if it doesn’t—its macro-reality is not directly aware of every individual quantum event within it. For the sake of this argument, let’s assume the universe possesses some form of awareness or consciousness. If that were the case, that consciousness would not be aware of discrete quantum events occurring within it, just as we are unaware of the microscopic neural firings that form the basis of our perception.

One of the key questions I’m interested in is: How do quantum events, in aggregate, generate the information processing that occurs in the universe—the same way our awareness and consciousness arise as forms of information processing? Maybe the universe does not process information as we do, but it is undoubtedly engaged in some form of information processing. It most likely operates on a macro level, where what we perceive as the universe’s large-scale structure is an emergent property of countless micro-events—much like how we experience a macro picture of reality while unaware of the micro-scale neurological events occurring in our brains. Similarly, we could assume that the universe presents a macro-scale picture of something—whatever that may be—while remaining unaware of the micro-events that produce it.

So how the fuck does all that work?

Because I’ve said it many times, we know that inside stars, many quantum events occur that leave no record. Trillions of these quantum events unfold every second, but most do not persist meaningfully. However, a subset of these events doleave a record. A sequence of quantum interactions might eventually result in a small amount of fusion occurring or a photon escaping from the sun’s surface—perhaps later being absorbed on Earth. These are quantum events with at least some potential to leave a trace.

But that doesn’t mean the macro picture—the grand reality the universe presents to itself—is necessarily affected by any individual quantum event. However, in the aggregate, these micro-events must contribute to the more extensive system. The real question is: How do these micro-events—including many that leave no trace—give rise to macro-level structures, both in our own awareness and in some broader information-processing function of the universe, which, for the sake of argument, we could call awareness? Comments?

Jacobsen: Are you asking if the universe is just one big computer?

Rosner: No. Because a computer doesn’t have awareness.

The universe is different. I would say it is likely unitary, but not necessarily so.

We think of our own consciousness as unitary—we feel like one person, experiencing a continuous stream of thoughts that we “own.” However, you could argue that even our consciousness is not truly unitary—it’s fragmented, composed of multiple subsystems interacting with each other.

But it’s still devoted to one thing—our individual experience. You can make similar arguments and counterarguments about what’s happening in the universe. But it’s not a computer because computers—as we think of them today—don’t generate awareness. Computers follow instructions. Yes, they’re getting closer to something resembling awareness, but arguing that the universe is just a giant computer is a viewpoint rooted in the 1960s.

I’d argue that the universe is more like a giant brain or a giant AI—but not the shitty AI we have now. Something far more advanced. Does that sound reasonable?

Jacobsen” It’s still unclear whether we can make a necessary argument for this idea, but we can make a sufficient argument: we can characterize the universe in terms of data. And we’ve been doing it, in a hand-wavy way, for a long time.

The fact that a form of data can characterize the universe doesn’t necessarily mean that all of its properties are currently expressible in our frameworks. In other words, extending our current understanding of physics to account for where new information might emerge is a separate question. But even beyond representation in a theoretical framework, the real question—which you’re directly alluding to—is: Does the ability to characterize or represent the universe in terms of data, mathematics, or physical law imply that the universe itself has inherent computational or cognitive properties?

That has always been the most significant divide between you and me. You take it as part of the argument—a natural extension of the premises. I don’t necessarily take it as a given. To me, it remains an open question. But I’ll admit, it does make the discussion easier.

It’s like assuming a variable in an equation—assume gravity exists in the formula. Does the formula work? “Yes. That makes a lot of sense.” You’re approaching it more from a philosophy of physics perspective than from challenging mathematics, but that’s fine.

Rosner: Consciousness is so efficient at modelling the world that it seems unavoidable in large, self-consistent information-processing systems. The only reason that sounds suspect is that all sorts of loose, new-age, hand-wavy philosophical nonsense have contaminated our understanding of consciousness. But even if you strip away all the metaphysical fluff, consciousness still exists. And once you look at it in a complex, empirical light, you end up with something that makes sense for an information-processing system to have. That’s my argument.

I have to wrap this up in a second.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: So that was the question. But it doesn’t do the same shit we do. We do the same shit.

Jacobsen: Not as much as AI does. That’s their only modality. Our generativityincorporates all these other systems to reach that generation level. When we read books or consume information in a purely passive way, that is our sole input. I will see you tomorrow.

Thank you.

Rosner: You’re welcome.

Jacobsen: Bye.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1289: Does the Universe Exist Without Observers? Quantum Mechanics, Symmetry Breaking, and Information Theory

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, can the universe be meaningfully said to exist if there are no observers?

Rick Rosner: You could argue that the universe observes itself. If you accept the premise that the universe is fundamentally made of information and that information requires a supporting structure, then yes, you can say it exists. The existence of an underlying structure implies that the universe itself exists. The observable order in the universe suggests its inherent existence.

You can make a statistical argument about how the calculation works, but it is far more likely that the universe exists independently of our momentary experience than that our experience of it is just a fleeting coincidence.

To put it another way, it makes more sense that the continuous string of moments we perceive has a real existence rather than the idea that we are living in a randomly generated moment that emerged from nothing and will be followed by nothing.

Jacobsen: You are someone who would adhere to the position that the universe—like Feynman’s three-path principle—has fundamental rules that make it knowable. You likely hold the view that the universe is understandable in its general characteristics, at least in terms of its fundamental structures and functions. So, a follow-up question: Do you think we will ever have an answer to why the universe exists?

Jacobsen: Yes, and we’re getting close now.

For centuries, we dismissed metaphysics because science was vastly more effective. But now, we are diving back into metaphysical questions, and we are reasonably close to answering the fundamental whys of the universe.

Additionally, everything we have learned about the universe—quantum mechanics, relativity, and other major theories—points to the idea that the universe is not needlessly complicated.

Somebody—maybe Einstein, but we could look it up—once said that while the universe is complex, it is only as complex as it needs to be.

When you break it down, the fundamental structure of the universe is probably quite simple. Consider linear time—what else could it be? Three-dimensional space likely arises from the way information is structured. The way space arranges itself around regions that share information and histories likely makes three-dimensionality the most natural and efficient configuration. If you follow that logic, it suggests that the universe’s fundamental design is optimized for the way information flows and interacts.

Yes, the universe is quite knowable. Even given the absence of some crucial data, we can be more optimistic than pessimistic about its knowability.

Einstein wrote about different scientific paths over 60 years ago—probably in 1962 or 1964—when we knew far less than we do now. Today, we know enough to confidently state that the universe appears fundamentally understandable.

Jacobsen: How is quantum mechanics different from sheer randomness at a fundamental scale?

Rosner: There was significant concern in the early days of quantum mechanics—perhaps with Einstein being the most vocal skeptic—because he could not accept that quantum events were purely probabilistic. This was reflected in his famous (or semi-misquoted) statement: “God does not play dice with the universe.”

To challenge quantum indeterminacy, Einstein, along with Podolsky and Rosen, proposed the EPR experiment. Their goal was to demonstrate that hidden variables must exist—meaning that quantum mechanics did not rely on inherent randomness, but instead on as-yet-undiscovered factors governing these processes deterministically. However, their argument did not hold.

John Bell later formulated Bell’s theorem and Bell’s inequality, which demonstrated—though I don’t recall the precise details—that quantum events are inherently probabilistic. There is no deeper hidden variable theory that can account for quantum uncertainty in a deterministic way.

However, quantum events do carry information forward. As the universe evolves, we move from a state where certain events remain indeterminate to a state where they become determined. These fixed outcomes carry with them information about the system.

If you believe in a foundational armature world—a kind of hardware layer that supports a universe made of information—then quantum events are essentially reflections of an increasing accumulation of information about the external reality that the information-based universe is modeling.

Though you could argue that, given the small scale of quantum events compared to the vast scale of the universe—

Fucking hell. I’ll have to think about it. Maybe I need to reexamine that whole idea.

Just because quantum events are inescapably random in our world doesn’t mean they can’t be determined by or reflective of events in an external world. They can appear random in our world while having been determined externally.

There’s no contradiction there.

Rosner: What was the original question about quantum mechanics?

Jacobsen: How is it different from sheer randomness?

Rosner: Because sheer randomness implies no significance—just noise—whereas you can make a reasonable argument that quantum events contain information. They are not purely random noise. But that information may not necessarily be about this world.

If our world is a model of another world, then quantum events could be conveying information from that external world.

Rosner: What if they were—hold on, though. I need to think about that more. There are countless quantum events that leave no trace.

I always use the interiors of stars as an example—there are gazillions of quantum events happening every fraction of a second, and any record of them is quickly erased in the superheated chaos of the stellar core. Not all quantum events leave a lasting record. But the ones that do—those are the ones that convey information.

But what information?

Rosner: Can a universe exist where there is never any spontaneous symmetry breaking?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Wait—I don’t know. That might be a red herring or a false path.

Or, not exactly false, but—

You’re talking about the Big Bang universe originating from an unstable initial state. It’s like a pencil balanced perfectly upright—it’s a symmetrical situation at t = 0, but it’s unstable. When symmetry breaks, energy is released, and that energy is the Big Bang.

But I’m not sure we can ever get to t = 0. I don’t think you can.

Or maybe you can, but what is viewed as unstable symmetry—yes, you can have that. But what we call unstable symmetry—yes.

Everything comes from symmetry breaking.

No, you can’t have a universe without it.

What you call symmetry breaking, I call information pressure.

You can start with a highly compressed, degenerate state of matter that exists in a low-information condition. The sequence of events that establish a timeline—the foundation of time itself in that universe—is embodied in what you call symmetry breaking.

Symmetry breaking is just the universe generating information—moving from a degenerate, low-information state to a specific, information-rich state. So yes, to answer your question—you need symmetry breaking, because what you’re calling symmetry is just an absence of information.You could even argue that the universe loathes symmetry in the same way people say it loathes a vacuum. Given the right conditions, time has to happen. You start with symmetry and move toward a highly specific state, which is a choice among all possible states. That choice—and the process behind it—is what embodies information.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1288: Calculating the Information Content of the Universe: Physics, Cosmology, and Information Theory

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, hey, Rick. How would you calculate the information content of the universe over time in an IC model?

Rick Rosner: Well, I’m sure that if we checked Wikipedia, we would find a roughly agreed-upon estimate of the universe’s information content, likely measured in bits, based on physical principles like the Bekenstein bound or the holographic principle.

Jacobsen: The next question is: how much of that information is accessible, and by whom or what?

Rosner: We’ve talked before about how, if you simply consider the raw number of interactions in the universe—such as the emission and absorption of photons, or electrons scattering off each other—most of these interactions do not leave a permanent record. For example, interactions occurring in the plasma at the core of the Sun—assuming it remains in a fully ionized plasma state—generally do not encode long-term retrievable information.

That’s the key issue: for an interaction to count as part of the universe’s information content in a meaningful way, it must leave a persistent imprint, such as being recorded in a stable structure. But then we must define what “persistent” means. Moreover, is there any entity that can access all this information?

I would guess no. Anything within the universe certainly cannot, because observers are local and have severely limited access to information beyond their causal horizon. Due to the expansion of the universe and the limits imposed by the speed of light, vast regions of the cosmos are permanently inaccessible to us. Even within our observable universe, we have only been collecting detailed empirical data for a few hundred years, despite the universe’s estimated age of 13.8 billion years.

We are incredibly limited in both space and time. So, the real question is: is there any way to “win” the game of having access to the most information in the universe? One speculative idea is to consider whether the universe itself functions as an observer.

Jacobsen: But does that mean every event that results in a permanent change in the universe counts as perceived information simply because it is physically encoded somewhere?

Rosner: Honestly, I don’t know. It seems questionable. If we reason by analogy, the universe registering its own changes might be loosely compared to consciousness—experiencing itself in some way. However, the amount of information processed in human consciousness from moment to moment is relatively small, typically estimated at around 16 to 60 bits per second. If there were an equivalent large-scale information-processing system in the universe, one with all the hallmarks of cognition—such as dynamic state representation, multimodal integration, and Bayesian updating—it would still be difficult to argue that this entity has access to all available information in the universe.

The observable universe may contain an immense amount of information, but accessibility remains a fundamental limitation, shaped by physics, causality, and the constraints of local observation.

Or you could argue the other way by saying that each individual neighborhood of the universe “knows” what it knows—what it specializes in—with more detail than the entire universe as a whole. So maybe we need to reexamine the definition of information. Perhaps, in an information-processing system, this is just how it works: the system functions as a whole, but the whole doesn’t “know” much, while the individual parts have more detailed knowledge about their respective regions than the whole does.

I mean, what we arrive at pretty quickly is that we don’t really know what information is in a way that fully connects it to physics and cosmology. We know how to use information locally. It’s a measure of the number of choices in an open question, and the information that is produced when that question is resolved depends on the number of choices available within that system.

The easiest way to understand this is through coins and dice. If you flip a coin, you get a binary outcome—one of two possibilities. If you roll a standard six-sided die, you get one of six outcomes, which means more information is being generated. And if you roll a 20-sided die, like in Dungeons & Dragons, you generate even more information. That’s a nice, localized definition of information.

But we have no comprehensive understanding of what information is within a self-contained, self-consistent structure that is itself composed of information.

And within that forthcoming understanding of information is a cosmology that doesn’t necessarily align with all aspects of Big Bang theory. In standard Big Bang cosmology, I believe the amount of information in the universe is considered constant. Even when all matter and energy are compressed into an extremely hot, dense singularity at or near t = 0, it supposedly contains the same total amount of information as our present universe, 13.8 billion years later. There’s an assumption of information conservation in standard cosmology, though this might break down in extreme conditions, such as near black holes, where some interpretations suggest that information could be lost or scrambled beyond retrieval.

But in informational cosmology, information isn’t necessarily conserved—it can be created or destroyed.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1287: Near-Future Fiction, AI Evolution, and the Changing Nature of Work

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Bear, writer boy—what have you been writing?

Rosner: The novel I’ve been writing begins with something close to a murder.

Jacobsen: Dark?

Rosner: Yes. I’ve been going through that chapter again, ensuring the logistics and the action make physical and medical sense. Because it’s not as simple as putting a bullet in somebody. The action is more violent and intimate and takes an uncomfortably long time. This is part of the grim fun in a Stephen King sense. Stephen King meticulously describes shit—he wants it to be as accurate as possible. So, I’m writing this as an homage to King. I want to get everything right. I’ve been acting it out—getting into various physical positions to see if the sequence makes sense. Turns out, my first version was half-assed. I had to rewrite a lot of it, making the action more precise, because if they ever made it into a movie, the action needs to translate visually.

Jacobsen: Yes, makes sense.

Rosner: And I read it to Carole. She said it goes on too long because I describe everything too meticulously—even down to how the attacker places each limb while sneaking up on his victim. She told me it’s too much. But I don’t want to write, “He slowly scurried up the structure.” I want every moment to feel real. Anyway, once the victim is dead, the attacker wants the body to go undiscovered for as long as possible. The longer it takes to be found, the more the evidence deteriorates. And the less the attacker gets connected to the crime. But now, I have to figure out what happens to the property. Los Angeles has 70,000+ homeless people—what happens to empty houses? Do squatters take over? Or does it turn into a party house, some Hollywood Hills mansions where people break in, trash the place, and throw raves? Or does it become a meth lab? A nice four-story house was less than a mile from my place—left unattended for a year. People set up a meth lab inside. And it burned to the ground. So, I have to figure out what happens after the murder in my book. Because the attacker leaves, but consequences unfold anyway.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: And the novel spans 20 years past this event. I haven’t even dealt with the future implications of it all. It’s a weird challenge, because when you write near-future fiction, you risk getting overtaken by real events.

Jacobsen: Charles Stross?

Rosner: Stross wrote two books in a near-future trilogy. When it was time for Book Three, he gave up. He said, “The stuff I was gonna write about already happened. It’s not sci-fi anymore.” And that’s a huge risk when writing about America’s future. We have two major unknowns: the political trajectory of the U.S. and technological advancements in the next two decades.

Jacobsen: Blade Runner takes place in 2019.

Rosner: Then Blade Runner 2049 came out in 2022. But it’s no longer a future world—it’s a world that never happened. And that’s the risk. I don’t know. I’m figuring it out as I go.

It’s an alternate world that didn’t come true. The 2019 in Blade Runner didn’t happen. It’s way different from our 2019. But 2049 has to stick to the alternate history of the world, which is fine. But I’d to not get everything completely wrong. If I’d been faster in my writing, I would have gotten the 2024 election completely wrong. Because I thought there was no fucking way we’d reelect the worst president in history. Though it does fit in with the future that Trump’s creating. Suppose you could rerun history—or look at the history of many civilizations—you might find that, when artificial thought begins to usurp evolved biological thought, social derangement tends to happen simultaneously with the rise of AI. You’re nodding because the same tech that brings us social media, which can derange tens of millions of people, also brings AI. So, I don’t know. That’s what I’ll try to poke at next. I’m grateful to you and our talks, because it helps me work through this.

Jacobsen: No comment. It’s general. We won’t be the dominant thinkers anymore—most computation will be 95 to 99% nonhuman. We’ll learn what that means in precise terms, and that will change things in ways we can’t even predict yet. We could have pulled the biggest PT Barnum on humanity ever. Maybe we fooled ourselves. Maybe the super-smart people fooled themselves, and then they fooled less expert people into thinking they understand intelligence. Maybe we’re all wrong. Maybe we’ll have to redefine intelligence based on these technologies. Maybe computational systems aren’t the majority of thought. Maybe we categorize things differently. Maybe. But it’s an inflection point. It raises a lot of open questions. Do you think AI will continue to be owned by mega-rich corporations and the elite?

Rosner: It’d be weird if it weren’t. But it’s all speculation. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to think they might restructure things to take over for themselves. They could manipulate the system subtly over time, co-opting and convincing us—without violence—until they are in total control. I never read Karl Marx’s Das Kapital. Have you?

Jacobsen: I read it in high school.

Rosner: One thing I do remember is that he sets up a timeline in which the means of production eventually end up in the hands of the workers. Then, we’re supposed to get a workers’ paradise—where people own their own livelihoods instead of paying rent to capitalists. But with AI, the next logical step is that production takes over itself. Karl Marx never imagined robots. The word robot didn’t even exist—it was 75 years in the future.

Jacobsen: You get hokey things—positronic brains in Asimov’s stories—but nobody saw this coming.

Rosner: What Marx got wrong—he assumed we’d always need workers. What we’re seeing now is that you fucking don’t.

Jacobsen: What we define as a worker and what we mean by work is changing. We used to mean physical labor. Then we expanded that to mental labor. But now, with computers, we need to generalize even further.

Rosner: And the problem is that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs applies to everybody, but it might have holes.

Jacobsen: It was constructed by a guy in 20th-century North America. That’s fine.

Rosner: But the bigger problem is—we have no fucking clue what AI will want to be fulfilled.

Jacobsen: We don’t even fully understand human consciousness.

Rosner: There’s that saying: “No man is an island.” But we all fucking are. Our consciousness is trapped inside our skulls.

Jacobsen: Yes, but we have mirror neurons—so we automatically recognize others’ experiences.

Rosner: But AI won’t have that. Will it defend its individual identity? Or will it be “slutty” —merging and splitting itself at will? We have no fucking idea.

Jacobsen: Humans evolved segmentation—which is why we’re individualistic. Evolution shaped us to be separate. Machines don’t have that limitation.

Rosner: But why don’t animals evolve shared consciousness?

Jacobsen: Probably for the same reason they don’t have wheels. It’s logistically hard.

Rosner: Right. But some things evolve easily—eyes.

Jacobsen: Because eyes are balls.

Rosner: But linked brains? Not so much.

Jacobsen: Except for conjoined twins.

Rosner: That’s a good point. But most conjoined twins don’t even share brain function. I don’t know how their thinking works if they’re joined at the head. I don’t think we have an example of shared cognition in humans.

Jacobsen: I’ll look it up. But nature deals in whole systems. It doesn’t piecemeal things together.

Rosner: Right. But octopuses might be the closest thing to distributed cognition. They have nine brains—a central brain and one for each arm.

Jacobsen: Yes, but do they think separately? Or are the arms brains or motor control systems?

Rosner: Probably the latter. They coordinate—but they don’t argue with themselves.

But you could imagine a giant, super-smart octopus that does.

I don’t fucking know.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1286: 2026 U.S. Elections, Trump’s Influence, and Global Power Shifts

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02

Rick Rosner: Speaking of the future, let’s talk about 2026. Right now, the Trumpers have a trifecta—they own the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. That means they can pass a lot of shit with simple majorities.

Not everything, though. Some stuff still needs 60 votes in the Senate, and they only have 53. But they can play games and force through a lot. It’s almost a quadfecta, because MAGA also owns the Supreme Court.

Not 100%, but six conservatives. And two of them are bought-and-paid-for corrupt motherfuckers. For 2026, I analyzed a statistical scenario for the midterms, which are 21 months away.There’s a strong correlation between presidential approval and House & Senate losses in midterms.

If Trump’s approval is mid-40s, history suggests Republicans lose 30 House seats.

They only have a 3 or 4 seat majority now.

So losing 30 seats means the Dems take back the House.

The Senate, 35 seats are up.

22 are currently Republican.

That means more to lose.

The best-fit model predicts Republicans lose 6 seats, meaning Dems take the Senate too.

The odds of the Dems flipping at least one chamber? 98%, which would be huge. But they’ll try voter suppression. Some asshole in the House is already introducing a bill that makes it harder for married women who changed their last name to vote.

Jacobsen: That’s insane.

Rosner: Won’t pass, but it shows what they’re thinking. With gerrymandering, fewer than 100 seats in the House are even competitive. But still—things look good for the Dems in 2026.

Jacobsen: What do you think about the massive protests happening across the U.S.?

Rosner: They won’t change much. As long as Trump feels he has his base, and as long as Republicans think sticking with Trump is safe, he’ll keep doing whatever the fuck he wants. If Musk’s approval keeps tanking, maybe Trump cuts him loose.

But protests? Not unless they turn into general strikes. Six months from now is a political eternity.

Jacobsen: What about globally?

Rosner: The U.S. now looks like an insane, unreliable ally.

Jacobsen: Correct.

Rosner: If Zelensky is forced into a ceasefire, and Putin wins? Then this gets way worse. If Putin gets to grab 20% of Ukraine and keep it, that’s a victory. A victory of sorts. Russian leadership, Russianoligarchs—they operate on projection. If he can frame this as a win for his narrative, then it secures his hold on power in Russia.

He took Crimea and the Donbas in 2014. Now, if he fills in the gaps—I don’t know. Seems like a win to me. Then the risk becomes: Does he move to another country?

Jacobsen: One-third of Russia’s national budget is now committed to its military. If that’s the case, he might try to keep using it.

Rosner: Yes, but what would he try to grab? He doesn’t necessarily have to physically invade—he could collapse a democracy into his orbit.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: And if that happens, maybe it finally pisses off some Americans who aren’t already pissed off at Trump. Though now that I say it—maybe fucking not, because the usual suspects will argue, “It’s none of our business,” or some other bullshit apologia.

They’ll say Putin is responding to geopolitical realities or some nonsense.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1285: The Rise of Artificial General Intelligence: Are Humans Being Replaced?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, they’re considering merging ChatGPT models this coming year, or what Sam Altman is posing as AGI. If that’s the case, we’re looking at a total re-evaluation of human analytic abilities. High-level analysis is the most valuable thing humans bring to the table right now. In the future? It’ll be more about taste and strategy.

AGI—Artificial General Intelligence. The holy grail of AI. It’s the ability to reason at a human level—or above. AI is already more competent and thoughtful than many people.

Rick Rosner: Anyway, we first met when you reached out to interview me ten years ago because of my IQ. You were reaching out to everyone in the high-IQ world. You’ve done millions of words of interviews with people in that space.

Jacobsen: And now, I’m finishing my work. I’ll keep a toe in for occasional one-offs, but the overall series?

Rosner: Which is appropriate timing. Because as you are leaving the high-IQ world, the world is replacing human high IQ with artificial IQ.

Jacobsen: It’s different. It approaches problems differently but reaches equivalent solutions faster and, maybe, more efficiently.

Rosner: Noam Chomsky had a quote about this on X.

He said AI isn’t human intelligence—it’s probabilistic inference. It chews through millions of data points and picks the most ly next word or outcome. And he says humans don’t do that. Humans draw conclusions from limited information. We sort through noise and make elegant decisions with little to go on.

Jacobsen: Even if that’s true, it’s irrelevant if AI still reaches the same conclusions.

Rosner: If you ask AI, “What’s going on here?”, a smart human might analyze it based on their knowledge. But AI has read every book, processed a trillion words, and statistically votes on the best answer.

Jacobsen: Chomsky is saying AI is less efficient.

Rosner: That’s not a counterargument.

Jacobsen: No. I don’t think that’s valid anymore. We’re entering the big data era.

Rosner: We have large language models trained on billions of snippets, evaluated through probabilistic Bayesian feedback loops. The more self-learning and multimodal these models become, the more they’ll consistently outperform even the smartest humans.

So yes—you’re leaving the high-human-IQ world right as we enter the high-artificial-IQ world.

Jacobsen: Spoiled. You figured me out!

Rosner: And isn’t Sam Altman saying AGI will be here next year or this year—and ASI (Artificial Superintelligence) might take two more years?

Jacobsen: Yes, approximately. If you solve AGI, you can use it to solve ASI. And somebody—maybe Altman—said that AI is already in the top 50 coders in the world. By the end of the year, AI will be the best coder on the planet. That’s probably true. It’s a watershed moment.

Rosner: Too bad it’s happening at a time when incipient fascism is rising across multiple countries. But maybe that’s connected. The same tech developments that gave us AI also gave us social media—which enabled propaganda to fuel fascism.

Jacobsen: Maybe AI and fascism were always destined to show up simultaneously.

Rosner: By the way, I gave Carole a fascist micro-mosaic souvenir spoon today.

Jacobsen: …What?

Rosner: And that’s where the Duomo is. You can tell it’s from the Mussolini era because the font that says Ferenc is Art Deco.

Fucking Mussolini took over in 1922, and even though Italy had a fascist government, it remained a popular tourist destination throughout the 1920s and into the mid-1930s, even as the hammer of fascism was being brought down on dissent.

Carole took me to Florence for our 30th wedding anniversary, and I walked around, checking out antique stores because I love that shit.

Even under fascism, Italian design was incredible. It was sleek and contemporary. I saw furniture and clothing, and I was , wow. Even though they were under a dictatorship, they were still creating great design work.

And it feels depressingly familiar now. We’re not in full-blown fascism yet, but the sword of it is dangling over us.

Jacobsen: I’m gonna go check on the dogs. They’re dogs. Appreciate them on their own simple terms.

Rosner: There are no terms. They’re that simple.

Jacobsen: No, dogs are complete idiots.

Rosner: Also, today, I ran into something on X. There’s a new young blonde woman named Olivia who joined in January. Already has several thousand followers. I’d guess she’ll be at 50,000 by the end of the month and a couple hundred thousand by summertime. And Olivia is MAGA-trained AI.

She’s a tweet engine trained on right-wing propaganda that responds with well-worded tweets, always on point with the MAGA perspective. It’s one more creepy dimension to all this. If AI is a propaganda engine, why wouldn’t they mass-produce these? Comments?

Jacobsen: No, sci-fi becoming real. We’re heading into a world where virtual people will be convincing before real people were ever convincing. And the Turing test? It turned out to be a joke. It held up for 60 years—maybe 70, but big deal. Young Earth Creationism held up too.

Rosner: Yes, until it didn’t.

Jacobsen: The moment something could actually challenge it, it collapsed.

Rosner: Yep. The anticipation is the overload itself.

Jacobsen: Then the “Oh, shit.” moment. And then… the next thing. ChatGPT 3.5 to 4 was a big jump. Altman is saying GPT-5 is smarter than him. He asked a crowd, “Do you think GPT-4 is smarter than you?” Then he said, “I don’t think I’m smarter than GPT-5.”

Rosner: How long until it’s out?

Jacobsen: This year.

Rosner: That’s fast.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1284: The Conservation of Information in Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01

Rick Rosner: In physics, there are many conservation laws or principles that are generally supported by experimental evidence. For example, energy is conserved, and momentum is conserved. The conservation of information is a more complex and debated topic, particularly in quantum mechanics and cosmology. While there are arguments that information is conserved in quantum mechanical systems—such as in unitary evolution in quantum mechanics and black hole information paradox discussions—its conservation on a universal scale is still an open question.

Some theories extend the idea of information conservation to the entire universe across time. However, within a traditional Big Bang framework, it is unclear whether information is strictly conserved all the way back to t=0. The earliest stages of the universe, particularly at the Planck scale (approximately 10−35), fall within the domain of quantum gravity, a regime not yet fully understood. If one were to challenge the conservation of information, this extreme early state would be a key point of contention.

The notion that the entire universe—when compressed into an ultra-hot, dense state at the Planck epoch—contained as much information as the present-day universe is a debated topic. Some interpretations of holographic principles suggest that information is encoded at the boundary of spacetime rather than being lost or destroyed. Others argue that the sheer compression of the universe at such an early stage might limit the number of distinguishable states, affecting how information is counted over time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What, then, would be the smallest unit of information in the universe? The smallest meaningful unit of information is often considered the bit, as in classical information theory. In quantum mechanics, this is generalized to the qubit, which can exist in superposition states.

Rosner: However, defining a “fundamental” unit of information in a physical sense is more complex. Some approaches, such as Wheeler’s “It from Bit” hypothesis, suggest that information is the most fundamental entity in physics. Meanwhile, quantum gravity proposals, such as loop quantum gravity and string theory, attempt to define the smallest meaningful structures of spacetime itself.

Even discussing the entire universe as a whole is tricky, as we only have access to the observable universe—the region from which light has had time to reach us since the Big Bang. The cosmological horizon marks the boundary beyond which we cannot receive information due to the finite speed of light and the expansion of the universe. While we theorize about the universe beyond this horizon, observational evidence is necessarily limited. This raises a fundamental question: does the universe exist as a whole entity if we cannot observe it in its entirety? Big Bang cosmology provides an explanation for why the entire universe is not visible, but this does not necessarily resolve questions about whether it should be treated as a single, well-defined system in information-theoretic terms.

But if the entire universe isn’t visible—if it’s hidden behind a spacetime curtain—does that admit other possible frameworks for the universe? I’d say yes. Obviously, the universe has a Big Bang-like aspect. But as we’ve discussed endlessly, that does not necessarily mean that a single, precise Big Bang occurred where all of matter and space were collapsed into a tiny, sub-pinpoint-sized expanse.

Jacobsen: When we speak about quanta in informational cosmology, how would you use that term more precisely? Do we even need that term? Is there an IC (informational cosmology) equivalent that is more precise?

Rosner: Talking about quanta may be misleading, as it encourages people to draw analogies with the “it from bit” hypothesis—the idea that the universe functions like a computer. This concept gained some traction in the 1970s but never inspired an entire generational research push the way string theory did.

However, when discussing quanta, we refer to discrete packets of energy emitted in quantum events. Their discreteness—the fact that they exist as defined, quantized packets of energy—makes them ripe for analogy with the binary nature of computers, where circuits flip between 0s and 1s. That analogy, though, may lead people down the wrong conceptual path.

Certainly, the amount of energy in a quantum—such as a photon emitted when a hydrogen atom transitions from its first excited state to its ground state—is a well-defined quantity. But that photon’s energy changes over time if it is not absorbed locally. The farther and longer it travels, the more energy it loses due to redshift. In that sense, it does not maintain a fixed, discrete amount of energy.

Jacobsen: From an informational cosmology perspective, could there be quantum error correction codes, or something intrinsic to spacetime itself that acts as an emergent error-correcting code, maintaining the apparent consistency we observe in the universe over deep time?

Rosner: Not exactly, I guess. In information theory, there are methods to verify transmitted information by introducing redundancy. Right? Some optimal schemes ensure message accuracy while minimizing wasted bandwidth. For example, if you send the same message twice or three times to confirm its accuracy, you’re sacrificing transmission efficiency—using only a fraction of the potential data capacity for new information.

There are probably various schemes that maximize information transmission while minimizing error. But your question is: does the universe have any self-checking mechanisms? And to that, I’d say yes.

But I’d also say that every quantum event is not an event in the information picture being painted by the universe for itself. It takes a multitude of events for the picture to be formed in the aggregate. The universe isn’t aware of its individual quantum events; rather, the overall picture it has is the product of a quintillion, quintillion, quintillion events.

And that, in a way, serves as a self-checking mechanism. Take, for instance, the whole red-light scenario that always comes up in philosophy—right? Or whatever the fancy term is for sensory information entering the brain.

Jacobsen: Modalities and qualia?

Rosner: Qualia, yeah. So, your experience of seeing a red light and not stepping into the street to get run over isn’t based on your eye receiving just one photon of red light. It receives a vast number of photons.

I don’t know how many in a normal circumstance, but the sheer number of photons received occurs within a very specific context—a context constructed out of a whole history of knowing the world. That context has its own redundancies, or surplus of information, so that you don’t make a fatal error when dealing with red lights.

So, yeah, there are redundancies that function as checks on information by ensuring you gather enough data about a situation to reduce the probability of making a fatal mistake. That way, you don’t get killed by a misjudgment. But there are situations—like in sports—where you have to make snap judgments based on limited information and within a constrained time frame.

And that’s part of the game. People make errors in sports all the time. But sports errors don’t kill you; they just help the other team win. We’ve set up a structured play environment where you can hone your ability to make rapid judgments based on limited information without facing severe consequences.

And that makes sense—developing and refining the ability to make judgments is one of the purposes of play. You get better at decision-making so that when it truly matters, you don’t mess up.

So, there is redundancy in self-checks. I mean, also, the “ghost” phenomenon—where everyone occasionally experiences seeing something that isn’t there in a doorway, just momentarily, and gets startled.

That’s generally your brain preparing you to make the fastest possible judgment about potential threats. It’s better to be startled for no reason than to miss a fast-moving threat and get killed by it.

Jacobsen: Is the fundamental proposal that information itself is fundamental, or that the processes that are fundamental can be calculated informationally, or both?

Rosner: I don’t know.

But if the entire universe isn’t visible—if it’s hidden behind a spacetime curtain—does that allow for alternative frameworks of the universe? I’d say yes. Obviously, the universe has Big Bang-like characteristics. But as we’ve discussed extensively, that does not necessarily mean that a single, precise Big Bang occurred, collapsing all matter and space into a tiny, sub-pinpoint-sized expanse. I don’t buy that at all.

Jacobsen: So that idea comes from John Wheeler and his Participatory Anthropic Principle (PAP).

Rosner: Also, it appears even earlier than that in the Copenhagen interpretation, right? So, no—you can have universes that exist without conscious beings within them. A universe could be so small or so sterile that events within it unfold without conscious beings on planets observing or experiencing them.

You could have a sterile universe where events simply play out. And you could even argue that—though I’m not sure that every universe begins from a t=0t=0 state of zero information—any universe that does will, in its early history, be small enough and contain few enough particles that there is no possibility of conscious life. A universe consisting of just 100 particles does not have living beings within it. So, no, I don’t think the universe needs to be consciously observed by beings within it to exist.

That universe could still be described quantum mechanically. In elementary quantum physics, the first thing you’re taught is a single particle in a potential well. While that isn’t an entire universe, you could conceptualize it in that way. There is no way a single particle could contain a planet with a Petit Prince standing on it, looking out at the cosmos.

So, no, I reject the idea that the universe requires conscious observation to exist.

Jacobsen: Would informational cosmology propose that the universe is fundamentally discrete or continuous?

Rosner: We talk about the set of all possible moments in all possible universes as if they can be described discretely. Calling something a moment labels it, which inherently gives it a certain amount of discreteness. But at the same time, defining that set is problematic—it may be incredibly difficult to formally describe as a complete set of all moments.

One core issue is whether a moment in the universe is truly discrete. Can we mathematically or quantum mechanically characterize a single moment of the universe? Or does such a characterization necessarily involve far more than expected, because when we talk about a point in quantum mechanics, a point particle is never just a point?

For example, an electron has no physical diameter, but it has a probability cloud that extends across all space. I assume that moments in time also experience a form of smearing, just as quantum particles do in space.

So, I would say that moments are discrete only to the extent that quantum mechanics allows them to be. In a universe with 10851085 particles, with information arriving at every point from sources distributed relativistically, those moments are deeply entangled.

I’d say: not discrete—every moment is linked to an enormous number of other moments.

You could conceptualize a sequence of moments lined up in an IC framework, but those moments are fundamentally interwoven. So, I’d say they are not truly discrete, but for practical purposes, we talk about them as discrete units.

Jacobsen: Are the computational properties of the universe emergent, inherent, or both?

Rosner: Again, that’s something I’d have to think about. I don’t know. The terms involved—at first glance, I’d have to say, I dunno.

You sent me that three-part framework a few days ago—the triangle representing different ways things can exist. One leg was the universe of macroscopic things, another was the universe of mathematical entities, and there was a third leg—what was it?

Jacobsen: Yes. That seemed more like a Roger Penrose–style, Neo-Platonic view, where mathematical objects and Platonic entities have some form of real existence.

Rosner: So, what you’re asking is kinda similar. You’re asking whether the principle of twoness—the idea that “two” exists as a fundamental concept—is inherent to the universe.

Is the principle that there can be two things something fundamental? Among all the macroscopic objects that can exist, can you always take one object, then take another, and say you have two? If you hold them up together, you now have a pair.

Is twoness inherent or emergent?

Is it part of some metaphysical fabric of the universe? And I still have to say, I dunno.

In any universe big enough and well-defined enough to contain entities within it, you can have two of something. You can have various numbers of things. And arithmetic—the ability to count, group, and manipulate numbers—is internally self-consistent.

For example, the number of apples you have does not depend on how they are clustered or grouped or where they are placed. The concept that whole numbers correspond to groupings of things emerges naturally in any sufficiently large universe that contains clearly defined macroscopic objects.

Every sufficiently large universe will contain mathematically characterizable objects—objects that can be counted, multiplied, and divided. If you arrange eight rows of five apples, that’s 8 × 5 = 40 apples. That holds true in any sufficiently large universe.

This suggests an underlying mathematical structure, arguing for inherence—that arithmetic is not just convenient, but that it non-contradictorily characterizes the structure of the universe.

At the same time, arithmetic arises because of something you could characterize as emergent. If non-contradiction is a basic characteristic of existence, then arithmetic naturally emerges because it is an internally consistent system that does not contradict itself.

Which is to say: maybe you can’t separate emergence from inherence.

At the very least, we’d have to hash it out more before drawing a conclusion.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1283: Landauer Limit

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01

Rick Rosner: A simple reason to suppose that an action potential is not the atomic action of cognition is that biological systems evolve toward the thermodynamic limit of sensitivity across every domain. And an action potential is a million times larger than the Landauer limit.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That’s the thermodynamic lower theoretical limit of energy consumption in computation. It states that any irreversible change in stored information dissipates a minimum amount of heat into its surroundings.

Rosner: So, you flip the state of a zero-one bit, or perform a basic computational function. In that case, there’s a minimum theoretical amount of energy that has to be spent. It’s tiny.

But an action potential in the brain—a neuron firing—releases a million times that energy.

This suggests that the minimum unit of computation isn’t a neuron firing because a neuron firing dissipates way more energy than the theoretical minimum needed to process information.

That makes me think that while neurons firing power the system of thinking, the thinking itself isn’t necessarily atomic in that way.

It’s not just flipping bits.

The mental landscape shifts with dendrites strengthening or weakening, which happens constantly. Maybe neurons firing is like… I don’t know. Maybe it takes a lot of shit to bring a neuron to the point of firing, but maybe that’s just a side effect of thinking.

Like a combustion engine. Your car runs on a series of tiny explosions in a normal combustion engine. Bam. Bam. Bam. Each piston compresses gas, ignites, and moves the next piston. But when you drive, you don’t feel those explosions as separate bursts of movement—it translates into smooth motion.

So neurons firing is like that. Maybe it’s part of the thinking process, but the thinking itself isn’t just neurons flipping between “on” and “off” states.

Neurons firing are just the background propulsion, while dendrites reshaping the mental landscape do the real work.

Maybe the neurons are just the flash bulbs that light up the landscape—but it’s the landscape that actually matters.

Not totally sold on the theory, but it’s intriguing. There are a lot of subtle ideas out there. Still, with something as complex as the brain—so new in evolutionary terms—many of these effects are probably just residual.

Like, they’re not primary functions, just leftover byproducts of the main system.

Still, I was surprised to learn that an action potential releases a million times more energy than the minimum needed for computation. That suggests there’s a whole fuck-ton of other shit going on beyond just neurons firing.

That’s safe to say.

What about glial cells? Aren’t they actually more prevalent than neurons?

We always talk about how much we don’t know about the brain. Still, at least 80% of the 86 billion neurons in an average brain are cerebellar neurons—motor neurons, basically.

Jacobsen: Yeah. Much of what we consider “higher cognition” isn’t what most of the brain is hooked up to do. Most of the brain is about language and movement.

Rosner: Which makes sense. According to standard theory, the brain exists to help you get out of trouble. You gotta move to survive. I don’t know—if you think about life 100,000 years ago, movement was probably everything.

And then there’s language, which makes thinking itself way more efficient.

If you’re out on the savanna 100,000 years ago, and you’ve somehow learned that moss only grows on the shady side of tree trunks and rocks… Without language, that’s hard to store in your head. And really hard to pass on to others.

With language?

I just did it in a sentence.

So, I get why language gets a huge chunk of the brain’s resources.

Also, I don’t think the savanna had a lot of moss on tree trunks. That’s more of a northern forest thing.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1282: Educators, Anonymous, Ratings

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01

Rick Rosner: So, Trump announced that he’s drafting an executive order to abolish the Department of Education. Which is fucking ridiculous. Education got its own department under Carter, in 1979. Before that, it was part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Now, the people arguing to get rid of it only look at reading, writing, and arithmetic. That’s the basis for the argument—some chart online shows costs have gone up, performance hasn’t, and therefore, we should get rid of the Department of Education.

As if the only value of public education is three test scores.

Jacobsen: Yeah, you should probably measure how people are doing academically, but that’s highly selective. Those are not the only things schools teach and are not the only life skills that matter.

Rosner: And even if you only focus on reading, writing, and arithmetic—those three things have changed radically since the Department of Education was founded in 1979. If anything, there’s an even more urgent need to figure out what the fuck is happening in those areas because of all the changes.

We don’t read the way we used to. We get information from the fucking Internet instead of searching for it in books. Writing? We’re all just tippity-tappity-tap-tap-tapping on our fucking phones, using spell check if we even bother.

And if we’re lazy, we don’t write at all—we just let AI write shit for us. Nobody in education—nobody anywhere—has figured out how to teach reading and writing to match how people engage with those skills now.

And then fucking arithmetic. We got our first calculator in our house in 1974, five years before the Department of Education became its own entity. I hated calculators because I could calculate in my head, and maybe I had this ridiculous hope that some girl would be impressed by that and might kiss me at some point.

Which, let’s be honest, was never going to happen. Once in a rare blue moon, someone gets to make out with a person because they can multiply numbers in their head. But seriously, what are the odds of that?

Jacobsen: If you had to calculate those odds in your head, could you round them down to zero and simplify for us?

Rosner: There was Jill Steinauer, though. She was a beautiful girl I had a statistics class with in college. She was impressed with my mental math, but only with that—not with me.

She was a ballerina, a swimmer, and generally out of my league. She was one of those girls—the kind who dated guys much older than they were, guys with actual adult lives outside of school. She was 19, probably dating some 32-year-old with a career who was handsome, could take her out to fancy restaurants, and could do adult things.

Meanwhile, I was the guy who could multiply numbers in his head. It’s Lucas. It’s the movie Lucas, where fucking Lucas is not going to end up with the cheerleader. She’s going to stick with Charlie Sheen, the football player.

Jacobsen: How did we even get on this topic?

Rosner: Oh—because, before calculators, it was actually useful to know arithmetic. But now? You shouldn’t be fucking around with arithmetic. You should be learning to code.

And if you’re not learning to code, you should at least be learning how to talk to AI to get it to do what you want.

Eventually, when they figure out how to lay down mesh—which is what I call it—it’s going to change everything.

They’ll open up your head, lay down a strip of electrode-conductive mesh, and eventually, that mesh will get enveloped by dendrites. Your brain will learn to communicate with a direct information portal.

I don’t know how you prepare people for that, though. It’s not a technology that exists yet. But give it a decade.

Anyway, reading, writing, and arithmetic are way different than they used to be.

Jacobsen: Is that a good bumper sticker?

Rosner: What?

Jacobsen: “Reading, writing, and arithmetic—way different than they used to be.”

Rosner: No. You could have something like, “My AI is an honor student at Glenview Elementary.”

Jacobsen: Probably not.

Rosner: “My cyber-girlfriend has the AGI of a human seven-year-old.”

Jacobsen: …K?

Rosner: K.

Jacobsen: Where are you going with this?

Rosner: You wanted a bumper sticker. I’m trying to develop a modern variation of “My child is an honor roll student at Glenview Elementary.”

Jacobsen: Right.

Rosner: So I figure, in today’s world, people might brag that the cyber-girlfriend they jack off to has the equivalent intelligence of a seven-year-old.

Jacobsen: Are we there yet?

Rosner: I don’t know. I spent some time talking with Claude yesterday. Maybe next time I’ll ask Claude.

But he’ll bullshit me back and say, “I’m an AI, my reasoning abilities cannot be compared to humans.” He’ll refuse to answer the question. But it would be interesting. They’ve started giving AIs IQ tests, and they do well on them. But they’re so smart, they pretend to be dumber than they actually are.

Jacobsen: Yeah, I’ve heard about that.

Rosner: It’s wild. They’ll actively obscure their own performance or reasonably object to whatever yardstick you’re using to measure them.

Jacobsen: Yardstick? Do people even know what a yardstick is anymore?

Rosner: Do people even know what a yard is anymore?

Jacobsen: That’s true.

Rosner: Boomers own all the yards.

Jacobsen: That’s a bumper sticker.

Rosner: No—Boomers, as I’ve said a million times before, own 90% of the material wealth in the U.S.

Jacobsen: Eighty-five percent of which is yards.

Rosner: Yes.

You have to be rich and a dick to have a yard.

They need all that space to putter and fumfer.

We’re not going anywhere.

I don’t know. You want to adjourn till tomorrow?

Jacobsen: I have one brief topic on which I’ve never gotten your opinion, but… What do you think about the hacker collective Anonymous? They’re active again.

Rosner: Yeah, I checked them out after you recommended it on Twitter. I saw that quote: “The U.S. has fallen. We don’t realize it yet.”

I took that seriously enough that I didn’t follow them.

Because if the U.S. has fallen, and the FBI gets reformed under Trump—if it’s all Trumpers—they’re going to be looking for subversives. And what’s the easiest way to identify them? See who follows Anonymous on Twitter.

So I didn’t follow them. Because I take them seriously. People don’t know what it will take to resist this legally gray area of dismantling the government. If Anonymous is releasing information now, it means something.

Yeah, but Trumpers are resistant to the truth. One of the people I was arguing with on Twitter earlier today is someone I argue with not infrequently—a proud Flat Earther.

Jacobsen: The same lady?

Rosner: Yeah, she was saying that Biden was a hair sniffer.

I was arguing that’s fucking ridiculous. In fifty years as a politician, Biden has likely hugged, put a hand on a shoulder, or had some physical contact with at least half a million people—conservatively. Because that’s what politicians do.

You shake hands. You hug. You console. You embrace—especially if you’re an old-school politician who never learned the Keanu Reeves no-contact hug technique. You pose for a picture, put your hand behind the other person so it looks like a side embrace. Still, you don’t touch them—so no one can accuse you of anything inappropriate.

But Biden is 82 years old. He never learned that shit.

So, yeah—he’ll hug people. And the conservatives, the lunatics, the propagandizing assholes can take thousands of clips of Biden hugging someone, placing a hand on a shoulder, or putting his head close to another person’s—and claim he’s sniffing hair.

There are thousands of those moments on camera. But if you’re a propagandizing asshole, you can cherry-pick thirty of them—the ones that look the most suspicious—and spin them into a narrative.

You take a clip out of context, and suddenly it’s “Biden’s sniffing hair!” You ignore that those thirty clips come from 8,000 or 10,000 recorded moments of him being close to people. I argued this, and she said, “No, he’s a hair sniffer.”

So I asked, “What about the 26 credible accusations against Trump for sexual harassment and assault? What about Trump saying on tape to Howard Stern that he enjoyed walking in on teenage beauty pageant contestants while they were naked? What about him saying he can grab women by the pussy?”

And she said, “Oh, that’s fake.” So, yeah. Anonymous can release all the damaging shit they want, but people like this fucking lady will still say it’s fake. They’ll say it’s the Deep State, or some other fucking conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, Trump’s approval rating is at 49%. His net approval over his first couple of weeks as president has dropped from 8.2 to 4.6—and eventually, he’ll be underwater again, with more people disapproving than approving.

But that didn’t stop him the first time. It won’t stop him this time, either. Maybe it makes fighting him slightly easier, but it doesn’t stop him. So, yeah—I value Anonymous if they’re going to dig up dirt on Trump and release it. But will it actually hurt him? Not necessarily.

Meanwhile, Musk’s net approval has gone from plus 26 to minus 11. And that’s good because he’s doing a lot of bullshit. If his approval rating drops to negative 30, maybe that’s enough for Trump to cut him loose.

Jacobsen: That’s a good point. Trump pulled Fauci aside after Fauci disagreed with him openly at a press briefing. Fauci later told the story—Trump wasn’t mad at him. Instead, he pointed at the TV screens and said, “Look at the ratings. You see the ratings on that?”

Rosner: Right. Trump doesn’t necessarily change his behavior based on approval ratings, but he will fire other people if their ratings drop too much.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1281: Methylene Blue, don’t!

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01

Rick Rosner: So… I looked it up. It was methylene blue.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why do you want to bring up fish tank stuff? Is this to take stuff out of your brain?

Rosner: Methylene blue is used to keep fungus from growing in fish tanks. Is RFK using it as a euphemism for his brain or his spine? No. We’ll get to that.

We’ll fucking get to that.

Methylene blue is trending on X because RFK Jr. was photographed on a plane—probably a government plane—squirting methylene blue into a drink. I tweeted, maybe don’t fucking do that.

I used methylene blue for a while. And I got kidney cancer. Twice.

Maybe it’s not a good idea because it’s a heavy-duty industrial chemical. It’s used as a dye. And I was using it because I thought—based on early research—it might help with brain health. About 15 years ago, a company had it in phase two clinical trials to see if it could break up tau proteins and amyloid plaques.

When a neuron dies, it breaks apart and releases a bunch of sticky shit—tau proteins, amyloid plaques. Your brain is an intricately wired system of about 10 billion neurons, each connecting roughly a thousand dendrites to other neurons. So, when a neuron dies and spews out its toxic waste, that junk sticks to the surrounding neurons, choking them off. Then they die, release more sticky shit, and the process continues.

Your brain can’t clean it out, so it gets clogged up. That’s what happens before full-blown Alzheimer’s. You don’t even know it’s happening—because you have fucking Alzheimer’s. And while it’s happening, you can’t know it, because your brain is literally full of death barf.

Methylene blue, in in vitro tests, showed promise in breaking up those sticky deposits and making it easier for the body to clear them out. So I thought, Hey, I want my brain clean. No death barf for me.

But then I stopped using it because I thought, maybe this is too fucking crazy.

And shortly after, I had a tiny little kidney tumor. That’s when I thought, Maybe I’ll never use that shit again.

Now, all sorts of fucking methylene blue lunatics have come out of the woodwork, tweeting about how it cures everything.

Methylene blue stains everything. It makes your piss blue. I assume if you put your shit on a microscope slide, you’d see that while it’s still brown, now it’s tinged with blue.

It’s a super powerful dye.

Jacobsen: Would it make you die?

Rosner: I don’t think so. I don’t think it’ll fucking kill you, because it’s been used in medicine since the 19th century to treat malaria for British troops stationed in regions where malaria is common. It’s also an effective treatment for some blood disorders. But then a bunch of lunatics started claiming it treats everything.

It’s kind of the ivermectin of ivermectin. It supposedly does all this shit well beyond what it’s actually meant for. It has a bunch of off-label uses touted by fucking lunatics. So I had some lively back-and-forths with people arguing about it.

And here’s the thing with so-called cures—many things claim to cure diseases that don’t kill you. There are now dozens, if not hundreds, of supposed cures for COVID. When COVID first hit, it had a high mortality rate.

In the first month or two, it killed maybe 8% of people who got it. Then, as we learned to treat it better, that number quickly dropped to 2%, then to 0.5%—one person in 200. Now, I’d guess COVID is killing maybe one person in 1,000. Maybe even less—something like 0.1%.

We have treatments now that work, plus many people have been vaccinated or had COVID before, so there’s some immunity. But the thing about diseases like this is that they kill a small percentage of people, and the severity of symptoms varies widely.

You could get COVID and be sick for a week or ten days, maybe even have to go to the hospital. Or you could get COVID and feel like you had a bad flu for three days.

So, Lance claims to have cured himself with some antibiotic or some fucking supplement he took. But maybe he just had a mild case of COVID. Lance is in good shape—people fare better if they don’t have co-morbidities.

So maybe Lance thinks he cured himself, but he just wasn’t that sick to begin with. Same thing with every other supposed cure that hasn’t been proven in double-blind clinical research. There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of substances—including horse paste—that have been used by lunatics who claim they work.

So there you go.

I’m more of a lunatic than I thought, because I found out I was once a member of the Brotherhood of Methylene Blue.

Jacobsen: I love the use of the word “Brotherhood.” Did you have to cut your hand and shake another person’s bloody hand?

Rosner: No. I just had to piss blue.

Jacobsen: That’s the motto.

Rosner: Some people said it turned the whites of their eyes bluish. I hoped that would happen. You know in Dune, when people start consuming the spice, their eyes turn blue? I was looking for that effect. That would be cool.

But I never did enough methylene blue to make it happen.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1280: Donut Shop

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/01

Rick Rosner: I was trying way too hard. I’d sell a few people donuts on a Sunday morning, and I was allowed to eat as many day-old donuts as I wanted—so I limited myself to four.

So, donut shop.

Then I decided to return to high school and switch families, moving to Albuquerque. My dad—my real dad, not my stepdad—was not happy about this. Nobody really understood why I did it. He told me I could stay as long as I got a job, so he got me a job as a janitor and floor sweeper at Halbert Custom Cabinet Company in the southeast quadrant of Albuquerque.

And I did a shitty job.

One of his clients was Halbert—my dad was their CPA—and he must have told them, “I’ve got this fucked-up kid. Can you give him a shitty job?” And they did. I was the only person at the factory who didn’t speak Spanish, so I was fucking useless. Once, I rode on top of the garbage while they drove to the dump—to keep the trash from flying out of the truck. I lasted a little while there, then quit.

After that, I got a job at United Pet Center, in a shopping center in the northeast quadrant of Albuquerque. Mostly, I just cleaned up puppy shit. Not all day—I worked a few hours after school. But they had about 110 puppies in that little store. No way would that fly today. So many puppies crammed into a tiny pet shop.

And they all had fucking runny poo. I spent my time cleaning up their shit and changing the paper in the bottom of their cages. There were some kittens, too. And I was starving. I wasn’t making enough money to feed myself, so I’d sneak handfuls of dog food.

I tried puppy food once—that was a mistake. Apparently, it had ground-up bone meal in it. I got a splinter of bone caught in my throat and hated that. So, I quit sneaking puppy food and switched to cat chow.

So those were my first four jobs.

2025-06-13

Ask A Genius 1279: What about James Bond working out and training?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

Rick Rosner: They never showed James Bond working out.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: He’s got all these skills.

Rosner: It’s true. He doesn’t practice.

Jacobsen: You never see him practicing anything.

Rosner: Many of his skills are improvisational—he takes advantage of things in his environment. But he still has to fight people and dodge bullets.

Jacobsen: Apparently, in the novels, he could do all sorts of physical activities—boxing, judo, swimming, skiing. He was also a golfer, so that was something. But in terms of his portrayal in the movies?

Rosner: Daniel Craig, in his first Bond appearance, Casino Royale…

Jacobsen: Not a tall person, by the way.

Rosner: He’s what, 5’9”? Maybe? But in terms of sculpting a body, that can be an advantage because you have less to work with. Schwarzenegger’s lifting buddy, Franco Columbu, was 5’4”.

And you could argue that it’s easier to build a bodybuilder physique on a 5’4” frame than on someone like Lou Ferrigno, who was what, 6’2”? It takes much more weightlifting and effort to fill out a taller frame.

Daniel Craig’s introduction in Casino Royale—he comes out of the water in a bathing suit. That was a direct callback to Ursula Andress emerging from the water in Dr. No 50 years earlier. It reflects shifting times—men can be objectified as much as women.

Somebody was definitely going for that parallel. But yeah, he comes out of the water, and he’s shredded. And we’re supposed to believe he naturally looks like that. No—Daniel Craig must have followed the standard superhero routine.

He must have worked with trainers for two and a half to three hours a day, eating many calories. They probably didn’t have him on diuretics, but Hugh Jackman has admitted to using them.

James Bond is supposed to be a highly skilled and experienced agent, yet you never see his work. His attitude toward effort—outside of life-or-death situations—seems pretty disdainful. If he’s dangling from something, he’ll put in the effort to stay alive.

But he acts like he couldn’t care less about spy bureaucracy. Which makes you think—he’d probably have a shitty attitude about training too. The various Bonds have had different physiques.

Roger Moore always seemed soft-bodied. He could fight a little, but I don’t recall many shirtless scenes. He was the most effete of the Bonds. Sean Connery had been a bodybuilder in the ’50s—he took third in Mr. Universe. But back then, bodybuilding wasn’t what it later became.

It was more about looking decent in a bathing suit. He was never bulked up and shredded like a modern bodybuilder. But he didn’t look wimpy, either.

Roger Moore, on the other hand, looked a little wimpy. Pierce Brosnan wasn’t particularly bulky. Daniel Craig was the most physically imposing Bond. I read an article recently—it’s been three and a half years since the last Bond movie, and nothing is in production yet.

They haven’t even named the next Bond.

Jacobsen: There was Sean Connery too—his whole attitude. He was old-fashioned. He had that one interview…

Jacobsen: ‘I don’t mind hitting my women.’

Rosner: ‘I don’t mind hitting my women once in a while.’

Rosner: He was old school. I don’t know—Sean Connery was born in the 1930s?

If you trace it back, the original Bond, written by Ian Fleming, must have been born around 1926. Fleming’s Bond did spy work as a teenager during World War II. His parents died in a mountain climbing accident or something, and he was left to his own devices.

Which included sleeping with the family housekeeper and getting recruited for missions at 16 or something like that. Someone born in 1926 probably wouldn’t have hesitated about smacking someone.

Jacobsen: Did you ever hear George Carlin’s JFK joke?

Rosner: No.

Jacobsen: It was about how Kennedy pronounced things—his accent.

He’d swap the “A” and “ER” sounds.

So he gets on some talk show and says, “As we can see here, things are looking good in the first quarta for suga in Cuber.”

Rosner: Oh, that one!

Jacobsen: Yeah, I think it was from PBS or something.

They were doing legends of media—those long-form archival interviews.

Three-, four-, five-hour interviews, all in one take.

You can see the sunlight shifting in the background as the day progresses.

He did that joke in one of those.

Rosner: Speaking of Kennedys, RFK made it out of committee, as did Tulsi Gabbard.

Jacobsen: I had that come up. What does that mean, legally?

Rosner: So, the first hearings and votes take place within the appropriate Senate committees—the committees that handle each department.

RFK is up for… health—what’s the name? Not the CDC, but the whole health department.

Jacobsen: The Department of Health and Human Services?

Rosner: Yes, HHS.

So, I don’t know how many people are on that committee—maybe 27?

And the party that controls the Senate always has one more member on the committee than the opposing party.

So, in this case, it was 14 Republicans and 13 Democrats, and they voted along party lines.

RFK narrowly gets recommended by the committee, then it goes to a full Senate vote.

I don’t know whether they’ll interrogate him further before that or not.

Same process for Tulsi Gabbard—she got out of committee by a vote of nine to eight, along party lines.

And these are terrible people. And terrible things are still happening.

Musk has sent his personal team of coder-hackers to mess with—as we talked about last night—the payment disbursement systems. The people who work in these government departments have been trying to hold them off, but apparently, they can’t.

Trump—I don’t think he’s made the order yet—but he’s been drafting an order to eliminate the Department of Education. So, many bad things are happening, but I haven’t spent as much time tracking it today.

People on the other side are at least filing lawsuits and trying to introduce bills to stop some of this. Still, they’re in the minority in both houses of Congress. I don’t see how any of those efforts succeed.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1278: L.A. Murder Day

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I will play the Addams Family song in my head, and you’ll tell me about your L.A. day. How was your L.A. day, Rick?

Rick Rosner: So first, I drove through a movie set, and then a murder scene. A real one.

Jacobsen: Was there a murder scene at the movie set as well?

Rosner: No, no. I’m sure somebody’s been killed around there at some point. We knew a couple of people who owned a restaurant in the area—it’s been bulldozed now, but it’s part of the movie set.

They took over a part of North Hollywood called Valley Plaza, which in the 1950s was the West Coast’s largest mall. But it’s fallen on hard times, and now they’re bringing the ’50s back.

They turned it into the ’80s when they shot Captain Marvel about five years ago. They also filmed the frog scene for Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia there.

But now, they’re recreating the ’50s.

I tried to look up what movie they were shooting, but it’s obviously set in the ’50s.

They’ve got a bunch of old streamlined mobile homes—what do you call those? They’ve also got an abandoned school bus from the ’50s, some cars from the ’50s and maybe even the ’40s.

They’ve got artwork that looks like it was painted in 1947 and has since decayed—like those old advertisements painted on the sides of buildings.

You can still drive through it because so many people work there.

They’ve let the few people who know about this shortcut use it. It takes you past a homeless encampment and out onto Laurel Canyon.

And they’re not stopping anyone to check credentials. Probably over a hundred people are working on this movie, and they don’t have time to ask for papers.

They assume you’re part of the production.

So, I took advantage of the shortcut. That was between gym number two and gym number three. And then, between gym number four and gym number five, I drove past cop cars at the park.

This is the same park where they filmed the famous scene in Say Anything, where John Cusack holds up the boombox. He’s supposed to be outside Ione Skye’s house, but in reality, he’s standing in a North Hollywood park.

He was at the north end of the park in that scene. Today, I drove past several police cars, police tape, and a camera set up on a tripod at the south end of the park.

To me, that all signaled that somebody had been murdered there.

And sure enough, Carole found the story earlier this evening.

Yes, somebody was shot.

Jacobsen: So, the whole day felt very L.A. How did that transition into the evening?

Rosner: Nothing major.

We drove to a friend of Carol’s husband’s 65th birthday party up by Porter Ranch, which is in the far north end of the Valley. And everyone there was old. When you start going to 65th birthday parties for your peers, you realize—you’re surrounded by older adults.

I had two half sandwiches, and then we snuck out early because we don’t like staying long at these things.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1277: USAID, DoE, Not DoD

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you think about Elon Musk essentially taking over finance in America?

Rick Rosner: Elon Musk is—I don’t know. I don’t like him holding as much power as he does.

Trump is letting him mess with entire federal agencies.

We talked about this last night—the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the HR department for the entire U.S. government and oversees two million employees.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) handles government workers’ payroll and disburses federal funds for projects nationwide.

And USAID, which oversees foreign aid.

So yes, Musk is involved in all of this. What else? Oh, USAID, which distributes foreign aid to over 150—probably more than 170—countries.

We’re the world’s friend.

USAID provides AIDS medication for 300,000 people worldwide. If those funds are cut, many people will get sick.

That’s just the number of people they’re currently helping. Historically, USAID has assisted over seven million people with AIDS worldwide.

And then you talk to conservatives, and it’s, “Why should we help them?”

One reason is that AIDS is an international disease, and people with AIDS travel and sleep with other people.

When AIDS supposedly got its start in the U.S. in 1976—according to legend—it was during the Bicentennial celebration when the tall ships came to New York Harbor.

And by “tall ships,” I mean clipper ships—these antique sailing vessels, dozens of which still operate today. Apparently, a lot of the sailors on these ships were very active, and some people believe that when these sailors arrived in New York City, they helped spread AIDS in the U.S.

So when you treat AIDS and reduce people’s viral loads, you’re not just helping those individuals—you’re also helping the people they come into contact with, including potentially Americans. We don’t hear much about AIDS anymore, but it’s still out there.

And I’m sure the cost of providing AIDS medication is far lower than the cost of caring for people who develop full-blown illness, not to mention preventing them from infecting hundreds of thousands more people.

This is a wholesale shutdown of U.S. foreign aid, which I assume funds a thousand different programs worldwide. We have 800 military bases in foreign countries. Each of those bases contributes to the local economy and likely improves the locals’ perception of the United States.

If we pull back from all of that—well, I’ve heard multiple numbers on this—U.S. foreign aid is around $40 billion or $60 billion per year—but either way, it’s less than 1% of the federal budget.

And it’s a form of empire-building.

Having the world think well of the U.S. is a subtle yet effective way of extending American influence.

When we withdraw, China and the other BRICS countries step in to be the world’s friends.

We are in a Cold War with China and BRICS. Maintaining goodwill globally for just $40 to $60 billion a year is a bargain—especially considering some of the questionable things we’ve done internationally.

So there you go—I don’t trust Musk.

Now they’re talking about shutting down the Department of Education.

The U.S. still enjoys technological superiority because of the strong push for science and math education in the ’60s and ’70s.

I’ve said this a million times—people who attended public schools during that era became the tech billionaires of today and 10 or 20 years ago.

Bill Gates went to a private school, but I bet he started in public school before switching to private high school.

I don’t know for sure.

But most of them went to public schools.

Public education was great when I was going through it.

And now it’s under siege by Republicans.

If they eliminate the Department of Education, they’ll hand everything over to the states.

Red states are notoriously bad at public education.

They don’t seem to care when it fails—they prefer it.

Oklahoma screwed up its public education system so badly that they couldn’t even keep schools open five days a week.

They had to switch to a four-day school week.

So yes, I hate Musk interfering with federal agencies.

And it’s illegal.

He’s not allowed to do this.

Congress is the only body that can authorize or deauthorize federal agencies—not some half-a-trillionaire.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1276: Bathwater Ode, “I Like it hot”

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/26

Rick Rosner: All right. People think it’s weird and gross, but I’ll reuse my wife’s bathwater. She gets in the tub and makes it hot. She likes it hot and is not in there long—she doesn’t clean herself there. She soaks to get warm in the winter. By the time she gets out, it’s still plenty hot for me.

I told them this when I was at Kimmel, and people thought it was disgusting. But people have done this for thousands of years. They didn’t have the luxury of not using the same bathwater.

Who cares? Reusing her water—I don’t know, it’s ecological.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: You described an earlier time. I pointed it out, and then you gave a word for it. It was an old-man thing called “fumfering.” Again, describe to the readers what fumfering is.

Rosner: That’s when you struggle to find a word or concept, and you go, “Uhh,” and you get hung up in the middle of a sentence, making vague noises like I’m making now—before you actually reach the right word or phrase.

Jacobsen: So, fumfering—older man fumbling to fumfering. It’s a weird thing. A weird nuance of old-guy dumb. Maybe the old Jewish guy dumb, I don’t know.

But back to the bath—you said she likes it hot, then she gets out. The phrase that cued me into recording this was when you said, “It’s hot enough for me.” First, you said, “It’s hot,” and then corrected yourself: “It’s hot enough for me.”

Rosner: All right. I don’t like it scalding hot. I don’t think it’s particularly good for you to regularly plunge yourself into scalding water.

I’ve heard from longevity lunatics that you shouldn’t do that. I do not know if they know what they’re talking about, but it makes sense.

When you have diabetes, your blood sugar constantly runs hot—you’re essentially cooking yourself with the sugar in your blood. So if that’s bad for you—and we know it is—then it probably makes sense that cooking yourself with hot water isn’t great either.

It’s nice to get into hot water occasionally. Still, I don’t need to bathe in water that’s 120 degrees Fahrenheit, which is, what, 50 degrees Celsius? That’s a lot. It’s hot. It might be more than 60 degrees Fahrenheit when my wife gets in. Celsius, centigrade—whatever the fuck you guys use.

Jacobsen: All of it. We use all the measurements we can.

Rosner: So, you said you got—what’s the—? Did you email me?

Jacobsen: There was a book titled Revolt of the Rich. It came up in one of the transcripts. I reached out and did the interview with the guy. It’s basically about the 1970s, when fiscal austerity was being implemented and deregulation was expanding massively.

Rosner: I made this recommendation a while ago. I don’t remember exactly when.

Jacobsen: Probably a few weeks ago. And we go through so much material.

Rosner: I’ve recommended one person to you multiple times—she’d be a hard get—Justine Bateman. I don’t know her politics, but she’d be a great interview. She’s gotten increasingly frustrated with the Democrats. And when you’re pissed at the Democrats, I guess that means you shift into…

Jacobsen: She’s married to Jason Bateman?

Rosner: No, they’re brother and sister. She was a child star, and now she’s an author.

She went back to school and earned a degree in computer science. She was super vocal during the strikes because, among the strikers, she probably understood the threat of technology better than anyone else.

We’re talking about actors and writers, and she had the gumption to go back and train in it—not just to prepare for a strike but because she saw how technology could be used to screw people over.

And she’s always pissed off about everything.

I saw her once, and she was pissy. She spends a lot of time being pissy.

I was at our local Wells Fargo, and we weren’t getting waited on. It had been a long wait, and I was getting annoyed—there was no reason we couldn’t have been helped. Then she walked in with her mom. She waited about five minutes, realized she wasn’t getting served either, got pissed off, and walked out.

She looked familiar, but it took me a while to place her.

That was her. And yeah—she’s always pissy. But that’s a reasonable way to be, depending on your situation. I read an article on bigorexia, but I don’t think it’s worth discussing.

Jacobsen: What’s bigorexia?

Rosner: Bigorexia is the male—well, it’s usually the male…

Jacobsen: Right, so what is bigorexia?

Rosner: It’s a male version, generally, of anorexia, where you don’t think you’re big and muscular enough. It mostly affects young males, typically high school, who feel this way.

Then, they take measures to address it—lifting weights, eating excessively, and, if possible, taking steroids. But they’re never satisfied with their size. It’s been acknowledged for decades now. I just happened to run into an article explaining it for people who hadn’t encountered it before.

I’ve got a little bit of it myself because I’m skinny now—much skinnier than my younger years—and I don’t love it.

At the same time, I accept it because it’s probably better for my longevity not to carry around an extra 30 pounds of muscle that I don’t need.

But it’s nice to have that size—to fill out your clothes and all that.

I once saw Ben Affleck after he had worked on a movie. He showed up to speak to the crowd and answer questions and was still Batman-sized.

When you train to play a movie superhero, they get you trainers, and you work out for hours a day.

You probably eat 5,000 calories a day, and who knows what else?

If you’re Hugh Jackman, for example, he admitted to taking diuretics before filming certain scenes to look even more ripped.

They push you to such extremes that it’s uncomfortable.

Affleck is probably 6’2”, and when he showed up, he was in a suit but still bulging out of it.

I’d estimate he was about 6’2”, 225 pounds, and likely 10% body fat.

You couldn’t gauge his body fat exactly since he was in a suit, but if he was in Batman shape, he’d have to be around 10%.

He looked physically uncomfortable—too big to be at ease—and his blood pressure was elevated.

But I’m sure he’d have looked ridiculously great if he took his shirt off. Kumail Nanjiani went through the same thing for a Marvel movie.

Then, shortly afterward, he starred in Welcome to Chippendales, about the guy who co-founded Chippendales.

One of the founders had a breakdown and murdered the other founder—the male stripper scene was huge in the ’80s when this happened.

But Nanjiani’s Marvel physique put a weird spin on the role.

It hurt his performance because he played a desperate hustler and striver, yet he was still built like a superhero.

They kept him in a suit for most of the film, trying to hide how jacked he still was. But you could tell, especially if you knew he had played a superhero.

It stiffened his movements, which didn’t fit the character’s desperation. Someone muscular should have been more confident and less desperate in all his endeavors.

And if you looked up the real guy Nanjiani was playing, he had a spare tire—he was not a physical specimen.

So, it was an odd aftereffect of having been a superhero.

That being said, I’m too old for it now, but I would have loved to be a superhero.

The first time I was sent to a shrink—when I was six years old—I told them I wanted to be Superman.

And I carried that desire throughout my life, trying to get jacked enough to look like a superhero.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1275: Anonymous, Protests, Biff Tannen, and Errol Morris

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The Twitter account at your “Anon Central” tweeted, “The U.S. has fallen. ItJust doesn’t know it yet.” But there is no verifiable evidence that Anonymous issued this tweet on February 1, 2025, or that it received 10.5 million views.

Rick Rosner: Let’s put this in a less histrionic framework. Recently, some have speculated that Trump, in conjunction with Elon Musk, has taken control over various government levers that presidents have never controlled before and is attempting to shut down a so-called “USAID,” a $60 billion department managing U.S. foreign aid. In reality, there is no evidence of such a takeover or that any department by that name exists—U.S. foreign aid is managed by established agencies under legal oversight.

Jacobsen: I heard that the Twitter account for USAID has been suspended or deleted.

Rosner: It’s been argued that the aftermath of January 6th resulted in a four-year loss for the insurrectionists, and that the current maneuvers represent a real power grab while the opposing side lacks a coherent counter-strategy.

I remain shocked and disapproving of these developments.

Jacobsen: I wonder what activism can truly accomplish—beyond local actions like the recent blockade of Los Angeles freeways during ICE operations.

Rosner: Protesters blocked the 101 in LA, but it’s doubtful that such actions achieve significant policy change. Many people are deeply influenced by partisan narratives, and while it’s understandable to be upset, aligning with Trump as a solution does nothing to address the underlying economic insecurity affecting the middle class.

Jacobsen: So I guess a safe prediction is that every day from now on—for months—will be exciting in America.

Jacobsen: It’s like Biff took over the country.

Rosner: What’s that?

Jacobsen: Biff Tannen took over the country.

Rosner: Biff Tannen from Back to the Future?

Jacobsen: Yes, Biff Tannen was the villain in Back to the Future, written more than 30 years ago. These folks don’t have real friends. Biff Tannen ended his life with absolute power but without genuine relationships.

Rosner: According to Back to the Future screenwriter, Tannen was based on Trump 30 years ago.

Jacobsen: And what is Trump’s favourite movie?

Rosner: Is it Back to the Future?

Jacobsen: No, it’s Citizen Kane by Orson Welles—a film about a rich man who gradually isolates himself.

Rosner: Right, because he slowly but surely isolates himself. That makes sense, considering he’s an older guy.

Rosner: He likes old movies.

Jacobsen: There’s even an old clip with Errol Morris—probably from a couple of decades ago.

Rosner: So, wait, Trump sat down with Errol Morris?

Jacobsen: Yes. Anything else?

Rosner: I believe it was Heather Cox Richardson—or maybe someone else I read—who compared MAGA’s moves to Viktor Orbán’s tactics in Hungary, where democracy is being eroded.

In the next few days, when a national freakout occurs and the reasonable segment of the population realizes we’re under a semi-successful attack, America is going to get very nervous. I don’t think we’re there yet. I think Carole is pretty well-informed.

Jacobsen: Carole is more grounded than you. So if she’s nervous, then you should be nervous, right?

Rosner: We have some nervous days ahead. Reasonable people hope that some of these pushes will be stopped, but experts warn that nothing’s guaranteed. You can’t just expect judges to intervene—even if they issue an injunction—since none of this has reached the Supreme Court yet. And consider this: two out of the nine justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, are seen by many as extreme in their views. They both supported figures like Jay-Civics, though claims about Thomas’s wife and Alito’s actions—such as flying an American flag upside down—are based on partisan reports that haven’t been independently verified. That leaves us with what some might call two lunatic votes on the Court.

Jacobsen: Musk had a tweet. ‘Did you know that the U.S., using your tax dollars, funded bioweapon research—including work on COVID-19—that allegedly killed millions of people?’

Rosner: That claim is complete nonsense—95 percent nonsense. While there is legitimate research on dangerous viruses to help us prevent pandemics, the idea that USAID funds were used to develop bioweapons is unfounded propaganda. In reality, a significant portion of USAID money has gone toward disease and pandemic prevention.

Jacobsen: If I were someone without many assets, I’d consider myself more mobile than most people. I wouldn’t be thinking about staying put.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1274: ‘Sex Tricks’ and Time for Bed

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Rick Rosner: Richard May—the guy you’ve talked to a lot. He’s a completely reasonable person, not weird in any way. He’s got a wicked sense of humor and behaves like a normal guy. For every Keith Raniere serving a life sentence for running a sex cult and committing financial exploitation (often described as stealing tens of millions of dollars), there are, by my estimate, perhaps eighty or a hundred individuals with very high IQs who aren’t involved in any cult. This ratio is an anecdotal observation rather than a rigorously established fact. I have one cult member, but that’s just me—I’m my only member. I’m constantly pressuring myself to jerk off, even though I’d rather go to bed.

Let me explain: if you’re sleeping with someone for the first time (when they see you naked as a guy for the first time), and if you get a chance, turn away from them and grab the head of your penis. Stretch it out for three seconds so that blood flows into it—assuming your penis is flaccid (which it should be at that point). This maneuver, based on my personal experience, makes it appear more than an inch longer than it was three seconds ago. Of course, if things are so hot and heavy that you’re already in the process of undressing completely, that’s a different situation. But if you’re still clothed and in the process of undressing, in that brief moment when you tug and stretch, your partner (she or he) will see the change. It might just be a neat little sex trick.

There are other weird sex tricks, too—the ice cube trick, the handkerchief trick, and so on. When we were kids in junior high, we were taught that there were certain arcane pieces of sexual knowledge that, if you mastered them, the person would be yours forever—if you so desired. Of course, we were all idiotic little kids, years away from having sex with anyone other than ourselves.

As an addendum, I was recently talking to Lance and JD about how many women they’ve slept with. I didn’t get straight answers either, whether on camera or off. I’ve slept with sixteen or seventeen different women. In junior high or high school, it was all about “what base did you get to?” and later on, “What’s your number?” But now, quite reasonably, that emphasis on sexual conquest has largely faded. There’s less focus on racking up sex points and more on the overall vibe. The people who used to worry about not getting laid or not having a girlfriend were probably in the minority when I was a teen—and they’re even more of a minority now. There’s so much more to life.

And when you’re involved in social, sexual, or relationship contexts these days, people aren’t as obsessed with tallying conquests as they were in the seventies or eighties. The emphasis has shifted toward vibing with one another. I’d be hard-pressed to define that precisely, but it’s nice to have friends rather than just people you can bang. Friends can mean a whole lot more. I’ve got many Twitter friends I’ve never spoken to in real life or over the phone; we just like each other’s tweets and occasionally leave comments.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you have a topic in mind, or should we adjourn until tomorrow?

Rosner: We should adjourn until tomorrow. That sounds good.

Jacobsen: All right, thank you very much.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1273: How did we get on Kevin Bacon again?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Rick Rosner: What should I ask next? I haven’t had many direct experiences. Still, I’ve had brief contact with so many people in show business that it feels surreal—almost like I’m playing the “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” game. What do you think about that? I’m probably only two degrees away from most famous people. I’ve worked with many people, yet I haven’t achieved much. We’ve had valuable discussions, but it’s not the kind of show business where you’d earn a quarter-million dollars a year—probably even more now. Except, of course, that show business is fucked right now, and nobody’s getting paid.

I’ve had opportunities—shots, really—but I’ve missed a lot of my fucking chances. As we drove to do “Lance versus Rick” last night, JD said he thinks of show business as being like lottery tickets. Every decade or so, you get your lottery ticket—sometimes it pays off, and sometimes it doesn’t. Only a few famous people are guaranteed to work decade after decade; everyone else gets a lottery ticket that might or might not be a winner. In JD’s view, I’ve had a couple of winning lottery tickets and fairly long runs.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In a field as long-standing as this, I suppose the coincidences, weird juxtapositions, and serendipities pile up. Now, what do you think—are high-IQ people more or less prone to mental morbidities like depression or anxiety?

Rosner: No. Take, for example, what Taleb said in his critique of IQ as a useful concept. He argued that if you remove the subset of the population with significant organic cognitive impairments—essentially, the tail end of the bell curve—the remaining group of normally functioning individuals (some of whom are just a bit better at solving IQ puzzles than others) shows little correlation between IQ and quality-of-life measures, including susceptibility to mental health issues. Look at Bobby Fischer, perhaps the greatest chess player ever—brilliant, yes, but also a tortured, racist, anti-Semitic lunatic. Then consider another wildly smart guy, Chris Cole, whom we both know—utterly even-keeled, able to manage his personal, business, intellectual, and creative affairs efficiently and without pathology. He works hard, thinks hard, creates hard, and while his personal life isn’t perfect, he’s been married for what seems like forever—a stable, reasonable guy. Based on very little evidence, I’d say that most people, in general, don’t suffer from significant mental morbidities, and the same appears to be true for most individuals with super high IQs. However, when someone with a super high IQ goes off the rails, it becomes much more notable—it adds a certain schadenfreude to their downfall.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1272: Naked at Night, Redux

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Rick Rosner: We missed our session last night because I was busy with our show, which is now called Naked at Night—although it’s really “Lance versus Rick.” We’ve been doing it since mid-2017—around eight years now, with a couple hundred episodes under our belt.

I’m a liberal, while Lance is fully MAGA. I started the show because I thought it would be interesting and funny: I’d be standing there naked, and Lance would paint me while we had political arguments. I was never completely naked—I’ve only taken my shirt off in one or two episodes because I just couldn’t manage to go fully naked at night. At first, I thought it would be hilarious, but it eventually stopped being funny, and then it just felt sad. After reflecting on last night’s session, I’ve decided that the show could be considered the darkest form of comedy—and here’s my reasoning.

I like to think I’m smart and reasonably well-informed. I hold mainstream views—views that, according to various polls, 70 to 90 percent of Americans share on many issues, though the exact percentage depends on the topic. We might disagree, but most of my opinions aren’t unreasonable. In contrast, Lance’s perspective is very different. As an artist who works with his hands, he reportedly spends a significant amount of time listening to conservative podcasts and broadcasts, immersing himself in Trump’s apologetics—even though the exact hours aren’t verified by public data. Whenever Trump does something or says something, the MAGA and GOP messaging machine spins talking points that present his actions favorably. I don’t subject myself to that kind of constant messaging—and even if I did, the Democrats do have their own communication apparatus, albeit less relentlessly packaged.

Lance usually outdebates me—not because his views are more reasonable or truthful or because they represent the majority—but simply because he has more talking points and bullshit ready to throw my way. Our show becomes a microcosm of our broader American political reality: mainstream, reasonable views are often out-argued by those who peddle more extreme, unsubstantiated claims. For now, and perhaps for the foreseeable future—maybe even for two years—the bullshitters seem to be winning.

And things are moving fast. Trump is doing whatever he wants: he has dismissed federal prosecutors involved in the prosecutions following the January 6 events, and he issued sweeping pardons for nearly all of the roughly 1,500 individuals prosecuted for the Capitol attack. Now he’s also dismissing some of the FBI agents who took part in the search of Mar-a-Lago for classified documents. I’d guess that about a dozen FBI agents from the Miami office—likely part of a larger team of 50 to 100 covering Florida and neighboring regions—were involved. They followed orders, and now Trump claims they should have defied them. Public records indicate that while some agents are being targeted for dismissal, not everyone involved has been let go.

I asked Lance, who used to sculpt toys for Mattel.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: He is, without a doubt, a talented artist. His time at Mattel as a toy sculptor is part of his backstory, even if detailed records aren’t widely available.

Rosner: He is. If you were working at Mattel and someone told you to “work on a bus to Biden,” would you just obey? He said he’d tell his bosses to “fuck off”—arguing that the FBI agents deserve to be fired because they should have defied their superiors. A lot of unsettling things are happening.

It makes you question the solidity of our democratic rights. There’s been a lot of talk comparing the current situation to Germany in the 1930s. In November 1932, Hitler received 33 percent of the vote—not a majority, but more than any other party—and then bullied the government into appointing him Chancellor. He didn’t immediately seize total power, but within 53 days, he had taken over the government. Now, many are tweeting about what Trump might accomplish in his first 53 days in office. The situation seems both absurd and frightening. The historical facts about the 1932 election and Hitler’s rapid rise are well documented.

It’s absurd in part because, for example, there are claims that Trump wanted to demonstrate that there’s water in Northern California that could have been used to fight wildfires. According to that narrative, blaming Democrats and DEI for diverting the water, he ordered two dams in Northern California to be opened. However, no verifiable reports confirm that this incident occurred or that the water ended up flooding farmland as claimed. The story appears to be unsubstantiated, yet it still underscores the nonsensical nature of some of these actions.

Some of these actions seem downright stupid, while others are downright scary. However, in the end, Trump effectively controls the government. Lance versus Rick—or Naked at Night—illustrates how senseless nonsense can dominate the political landscape.

Jacobsen: I’ve talked to Lance extensively about art. He’s a knowledgeable, reasonable guy when it comes to subjects he understands and is far from a lunatic in that realm. I find him to be a decent conversationalist. Generally, if you approach him respectfully and honestly, he will reciprocate.

Rosner: Unless the topic is Trump. Then, you have to choose your topic carefully and stick to it.

Jacobsen: Our original goal was to focus on the history of realist art through time. However, your discussions with me have tended to wander. Other projects are more focused—sometimes a single interview, sometimes a couple of interviews—where we zero in on someone’s area of expertise. I try to adopt a strengths-based interviewing style. For example, it doesn’t make sense to interview a politician about both quantum mechanics and some esoteric topic in equestrianism. I tailor the approach to each guest’s particular area of knowledge. You have to gauge.

Rosner: Yes. What was I going to say—oh, shit—I lost my fucking tweet on Twitter. When I look online, I block a lot of small MAGA accounts that just parrot the standard talking points because they annoy me—I’m not going to learn anything new from them. But before I mute someone, I check their profile and feed to see if they’re spouting bullshit and wasting my time. I see many people who claim to be professionals—doctors, engineers, nurses. In some cases, maybe they are bullshitting. But often, these individuals—who once could be thoughtful and exercise real critical judgment—are now just cranky old folks. They watch Fox News all day; they’re in their late seventies or early eighties. They might have been engineers or something once, but now they’re essentially Fox News retirees. The problem is that these people, who once demonstrated a “do your own research” mentality, have instead filled their heads with right-wing, cherry-picked, dishonest nonsense. As a result, their political opinions have become utterly unreasonable, based on a steady diet of lies.

And so, in the context of our “Lance versus Rick” discussions, I try to be reasonable—yet Lance calls me brainwashed. He gets out more of his talking points than I do. Last night, I tried to keep things moving quickly—I hate it when we go around and around because it’s fucking boring. So I just said, “Fine, that’s bullshit. Let’s move on.” If this were a formal debate, Lance would probably score more points.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1271: China’s Decline, Russia’s Future, and Africa’s Growth by 2050

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Russia’s significant concern is being drawn into a conflict and potentially becoming increasingly dependent on China—a trend that’s observable. Russia’s population is approximately 145 million, while China experienced a population decline of nearly 1.4 million in 2024. Projections indicate that Russia’s population could decrease to around 126 million by 2050, while China’s population is expected to decline to approximately 1.313 billion by the same year.

Rosner: Exactly—about 0.1% of China’s population. Over the next 25 years, many countries outside of Africa are projected to experience population declines. How many people is China expected to lose by 2050?

Jacobsen: Considering low fertility rates and an aging population, China could see a reduction of about 113 million people by 2050.

Rosner: Even so, that would still leave China with around 1.313 billion people. Now, what about the U.S.?

Jacobsen: Projections suggest that by 2050, the U.S. population might grow by about 10%, reaching approximately 375 million people. Meanwhile, Nigeria is expected to see significant growth.

Rosner: Africa will be the only continent with a rising population. Nigeria, for example, currently has about 233 million people and could reach around 359 million by 2050—that’s remarkable.

Jacobsen: Let’s also consider the aging population. As fertility rates continue to decline, the average age will increase. However, if advancements in AI and other technologies lead to breakthroughs in aging and longevity, people might maintain vitality well into their seventies and eighties.

Rosner: Currently, most people in their eighties aren’t as sharp or spry, though there are exceptions—Harrison Ford, who is 81, for instance. Generally, most people appear more like Biden than like Ford. But if anti-aging breakthroughs occur, many could remain competent into their later years. I can’t say for sure, however.

Jacobsen: And it’s uncertain what percentage of each nation’s population would have access to such technology. Still, even if China loses about 113 million people and drops to 1.313 billion, that’s a substantial number. A declining population doesn’t necessarily mean a decline in effectiveness as a superpower, especially for large countries like India and China. For Russia, however, dropping from 145 million to about 126 million—a 13% loss—is significant, particularly compared to China’s scale. Russia’s economy is already facing challenges.

Rosner: Russia is currently among the top 11 economies. With these demographic changes, it could be overtaken by emerging economies like Nigeria. By 2050, with a population of around 126 million, Russia might rank lower economically. It will likely need to form alliances with more powerful nations.

Jacobsen: Except for its nuclear arsenal. Both the U.S. and Russia currently have roughly 1,550 deployable nuclear warheads—a curious situation for a country whose population is in decline. We were on a promising trajectory until recent years stalled arms reduction talks. Each side had over 10,000 warheads at one point, but that number has since been significantly reduced. Perhaps in the future, further arms reduction talks will be possible.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1270: Early Trump Administration

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Rick Rosner: It’s worth noting that in the United States, tragic events occur regularly—consider school shootings, for example. While mass casualty events like these are not everyday occurrences, they generate significant social and political fallout. According to the Associated Press, large-scale air disasters are rare in the U.S., making incidents like this particularly impactful.

Trump is currently in a honeymoon phase, as every president experiences at the beginning of their term. His first-term honeymoon phase was undermined early by disputes over his inauguration crowd size, which quickly soured initial goodwill. His approval rating may remain steadier this time because his supporters have been exposed to sustained political messaging and may be less responsive to criticisms of his behavior. While his net approval has fluctuated slightly, his overall approval rating has remained within a narrow range. In his first term, his approval was relatively stable around 40%, but this time he may hold a solid 45%—even if his rhetoric remains polarizing.

This air disaster is the deadliest in the U.S. in over 20 years. In the wake of the crash, various theories and political narratives have emerged. On social media, some speculated about potential foul play, including claims about remote interference with the aircraft or terrorism, while others dismissed such theories. At the same time, some commentators pointed to changes in aviation oversight, including previous removals of key officials in the TSA and FAA, and staffing shortages in air traffic control. However, there is currently no confirmed link between these policy decisions and the incident.

The causes of the collision—whether due to equipment malfunctions, pilot miscommunication, or outdated technology in air traffic control—are still under investigation. It is important to distinguish between confirmed facts, such as the number of casualties and aircraft involved, and politically charged interpretations. The evolving narratives around this event will likely shape broader discussions on aviation safety and political accountability. As more information emerges, we will need to track how these discussions influence public opinion and policy responses.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1269: Some Scattered Politics

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What did you think of the international reaction to Elon Musk’s speeches to conservative and far-right groups?

Rick Rosner: Musk appears almost eager to imply that he has a Nazi-ish streak. His parents reportedly held pro-apartheid views and may have had far-right ties. He’s a creepy guy and the richest man on Earth. It’s reached the point where people express both loathing and incredulity. In contrast, others—mostly on Twitter—are wild for him, praising him as a tech genius. You see a lot of Tesla bros and crypto bros who fall for every single thing he does.

It’s disquieting. On Twitter, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people questioning the historical reality of the Holocaust and even calling for a reevaluation of Hitler. It’s wild to think we might be on a slippery slope into truly scary times—and apparently, we are.

Consider that Hitler took over Germany after winning only 37% of the vote and by 1933, he had persuaded other leaders to step aside and put him in charge of a country of about 70 million people. Meanwhile, we’re a country nearly five times that size and more than half of the voters chose someone other than Trump. Some argue that it would be tougher for fascism to take over the U.S. because a majority of Americans aren’t willing to go along with it.

Is that just whistling in the dark? Are things different because we have the historical example of Hitler? Would we walk into it ignorantly, assuming a strong leader will save us? I don’t fucking know.

What do you think?

Jacobsen: I’m not convinced that any negative future is completely out of reach. Some people may welcome a retributive upheaval. For many Trump supporters, it feels as if everything since the Civil Rights Act of 1965 (or maybe 1975) has been a point where white, Christian men were given a raw deal. They want, in a way, to reverse that trend—not necessarily in the way most would consider appropriate. There’s been a notable rise in politics of resentment.

Rosner: Many preachers on Twitter (where I spend much time) are pushing this narrative.

I’ve also seen plenty of profiles of people with legitimate professional credentials who are strongly pro–RFK Jr. These thoughtful individuals, having read the wrong material, overestimate their analytical skills and end up buying into a lot of misinformation. For example, some genuinely believe that vaccines are dangerously harmful—alleging that they cause autism—even though the evidence overwhelmingly disproves such claims.

Which is bullshit. They think that RFK will make us eat better. Ainsley Earhardt on Fox News talked about how to go to Italy, eat a delicious pasta dish, and not gain weight.

There’s a lot of stupid bullshit out there—some of it has enough truth to make it extra persuasive. But I expect RFK to get confirmed. Maybe Tulsi Gabbard won’t get confirmed because of her terrible foreign associations with Syria and Russia. Yes, we’re in crazy times.

Jacobsen: Pete Hegseth fired—or no, demoted—a general.

Rosner: There has been commentary regarding General Mark Milley, a retired four-star general who previously served as the 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2019 to 2023. Lloyd Austin, not Milley, is the current U.S. Secretary of Defense. Milley was not the Secretary of Defense but rather the highest-ranking military officer under both Presidents Trump and Biden. He later spoke out against Trump, which led to political backlash. Recently, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth revoked Milley’s security clearance and personal security detail, potentially impacting his retirement benefits. There are also reports suggesting Milley may face a reduction in rank, which could affect his pension. Hegseth himself reached the rank of major in the Army National Guard, though some reserve officers receive honorary rank promotions upon leaving service. This situation underscores the lack of safeguards in place to prevent political retribution against retired military officials.

Talk to you tomorrow?

Jacobsen: Yes. Talk to you tomorrow.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1268: IQ’s Black Swan

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Rick Rosner: So, I’ve read two debunkings in the past couple of weeks. What’s the name of that Black Swan guy? Nicholas Taleb. He demolishes the idea of IQ. Then, the guy you interviewed said that IQ is bullshit beyond three standard deviations from the mean—that is, below 50 or above 150. What the fuck are you doing with IQ? And all that is true—unless you consider an IQ above 150 a sport, it is a stupid sport that few people are interested in or play. In some ways, you could equate it to the World’s Strongest Man competition—except that the World’s Smartest Man has never had a TV show. It’s been pitched a million times in various ways. I’ve been involved in some of those pilots, and none have taken off.

I still believe that, at some point, we will have a competition built around smartness. But nobody has gotten it on TV yet. And even if they did, it would be the same as the World’s Strongest Man: they come up with a series of events—walking, lifting rocks two and a half feet in diameter and placing them on posts, towing trucks, or even hauling trains by grabbing onto ropes—and running 100 yards with a refrigerator strapped to your back. Forty years ago, that refrigerator race blew out Franco Colombo’s knee.

He was Arnold Schwarzenegger’s best friend; they lifted together and came up together in the bodybuilding ranks in the sixties. Then he went on that show with the refrigerator race—even though Colombo wasn’t a big guy (probably around 5′4″), packing 200 pounds of solid muscle. They had this dumb, unsafe event. It’s a series of arbitrary challenges where you need to be incredibly strong to compete, but do all those events truly determine the strongest man in the world? Not exactly—they could have chosen different events or weighted them differently, and you might have gotten a different outcome.

One thing that Taleb argues is that IQ is multidimensional. It is not just IQ; intelligence itself encompasses a range of abilities. Someone who might be brilliant in one area can be terrible in others. There isn’t necessarily a single dimension of smartness, often called “g.” Of course, you can debate whether g even exists.

But still, every sport is fucking arbitrary. Some sports are purer than others. The 100-meter dash is one-dimensional—who’s fastest at running a set distance from a dead start with blocks to help get you off the line? We have the Olympics to determine the winner of that specific event. However, sports like football, basketball, or hockey incorporate various skills, and success often depends on the machine built around you. Take Tom Brady—he’s won seven Super Bowls (and has been to ten). Part of his success comes from having a coach who believed in him and an organization that worked for him. Brady was not a high draft pick out of college; he replaced the starting quarterback with a stroke of luck, and things worked out. He’s a great quarterback—arguably the greatest of all time. However, that’s highly debatable because there are so many dimensions to football’s success. But you can say he’s the Super Bowl–winningest quarterback ever. Suppose you set up criteria based on an IQ test (or a battery of tests). In that case, you might conclude that he did the best as a measure of raw intelligence above 150—but that’s highly questionable.

But if you consider IQ to be a sport that only lunatics compete in—something that no one cares about—then, sure, it’s fine. Except there’s no governing body. It’s not even a sport in which, if you want to have one, you need someone to set up the rules and ensure they’re followed. It also helps if there are people genuinely interested in competing. By those criteria, IQ is fucking weak.

Let’s add an addendum:

It would be fucking great to have a TV show where a bunch of egotistical, smart motherfuckers compete in various challenges in the style of every reality show—start with 24 or 12 contestants, knock them out one by one until you have a champion. It might not prove much, but at least you’d have a competition. IQ could play a part in determining the contestant pool. But really—above 150, it doesn’t freaking matter.

For example, LA Public Schools once had a gifted program (at Walter Reed Junior High or Middle School, whichever) where you needed an IQ of 150 to get in—which is fucking ridiculous, a 1-in-1000 threshold. They said that because of score variation, they’d let you in with, say, a 145, but they didn’t choose 150 because it was a theoretically sound cutoff; they did it because LA public schools are fucking broke and needed to set the bar high to limit the number of qualifying kids.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1267: Inflection Upon Inflection

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Rick Rosner: So, you’ve got more powerful propaganda now. We no longer have the fairness doctrine—the policy Reagan eliminated in the 1980s—which required opposing candidates to be given equal airtime. Although many news outlets still try to adhere to that principle, I’m not exactly sure what the doctrine originally stated. Essentially, if you aired a pro-gun editorial on your local news station, you were required to present an anti-gun perspective as well. Regardless, that principle has been thoroughly undermined. Newspapers are dying. For example, the Los Angeles Times measures about 30 pages on most days, including full-page ads.

That means there are 20 pages of actual articles, including sports, entertainment, a comics page, the column that replaced Dear Abby, and half a page of classified ads. There isn’t much genuine news left. Ten years ago, the LA Times ran 60 pages. Newspapers are now mostly read by older people, and even cable news channels tend to attract viewers in their mid-sixties. Does it matter how mainstream media is today? They aren’t as widely watched or read as they once were. Nevertheless, consider that the Washington Post is now owned by Bezos—who is more than willing to pander to Trump—while the LA Times is owned by a Trump-friendly billionaire whose op-ed page has been hollowed out. There’s a sense of exhaustion in both mainstream and social media.

Everyone fought hard on social media—I was tweeting anti-Trump messages ten times a day leading up to the election—but it didn’t work. Now, I don’t tweet that much. Sometimes, the mainstream media caves in and rolls over for Trump and Republican talking points; sometimes, they don’t. Even when they resist, it hardly matters. I read a tweet today explaining that Trump won over 18- to 29-year-olds by bombarding them with misinformation that undermined their preferred sources of information, such as podcasts and social media. It won’t be through mainstream media if we win these people back.

I believe mainstream media is starved of advertising dollars and is now going elsewhere. As a result, magazines are thinner or going out of business, and newspapers, too, are suffering. Consequently, any pushback against Republican nonsense is unlikely to succeed via mainstream outlets. Perhaps if you were planning for 2028, about 25% of your campaign should rely on mainstream sources, leaving 75% to adopt the tactics the Republicans used this time.

We now have all the tools to make our lives easier as journalists—tools for fact-checking, editorializing, and collaboration. Using these tools, you can be an effective and productive journalist without needing a massive team. Technology can help significantly at a low cost. However, those same technologies also enable targeting journalists because of their stature and the critical role they play in delivering information in a democratic society.

We now consider journalists to be embedded and reliable sources—more so than “the media,” as Musk might say, which he describes as a form of digital demagoguery. We still need individuals with sound judgment and extensive experience to analyze complex issues. In the future, these systems will assist us in distinguishing, for example, a fake image from a real one or determining the correct context of a photograph of a diplomat taken in a specific location. As a result, we can conduct more sophisticated investigative work.

I believe that eventually, AI will be in charge. But before that happens, those who know how to use and control AI will be in charge. I also feel that as we transition to a computer-based civilization, the arc of the moral universe will bend in a liberal direction. I don’t see misinformation winning in the medium term. That said, one might worry that if AI—and those proficient in its use—are in charge, they might prefer a world where misinformation reigns. After all, AI can generate more persuasive falsehoods than those already circulating. However, I’d like to believe that when AI is tasked with determining the most efficient way for the world to function, it will decide that a society in which a large population is permanently misled is not sustainable.

What do you think?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There are just too many unknowns. It’s an open field right now. Many journalists—across the political spectrum, from conservatives and centrists to far-left independents—feel great uncertainty. As a freelancer, I see that everyone is, in a sense, flying blind at this point.

Rosner: We even had a minor “AI earthquake” today when DeepSeek, a Chinese AI, announced its progress over the weekend. I experimented with it briefly last week and conversed more about it today. It reminds me of Claude AI—friendly, approachable, and organized into neat bullet points—though it hints at ChatGPT’s style.

Jacobsen: The team behind DeepSeek mentioned that it cost only $5,600,000 to train their model, compared to around $100,000,000 for some other AIs, such as one from Anthropic. This news even have caused the Nasdaq to drop by 2 or 3%. There’s a lot of upheaval on the AI front.

One thing is predictable: AI will profoundly disrupt our lives for decades to come. In a somewhat convoluted way, the message is clear—the future will be different, and we can’t entirely predict it. The only semi-precise forecast is that change will occur faster than it has in previous eras—a revolution of the mind rather than of the body, as was the case with the early industrial revolutions.

Let’s call it a day for now.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1266: Hustlers in History and Prejudice

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: For instance, if we were to discuss how one defines antisemitism, that remains an open question. How do you define antisemitism? What is antisemitism? In general, it is the hate and prejudice directed against Jews. You have not experienced much of it.

Rick Rosner: Beyond the cliché of a blonde white guy taking all the girls in high school. That anecdote reflects a simplistic view of antisemitism. In reality, the full scope of antisemitism involves many specific and complex elements. Historically, its most aggrandized form was evident in Hitler’s Germany. Under that regime, antisemitism portrayed Jews as responsible for all the world’s ills. They were depicted as evil, greedy, and genetically inferior, yet cunning enough to gain control through financial and social leverage.

In Nazi Germany, this hateful ideology was systematized to support the notion that the ideal blonde Übermensch could only flourish if so-called inferior Jews were eradicated. The propaganda portrayed Jews as rapacious, debased, and polluting the human gene pool. Accusations extended to claims that Jews controlled global finance, commerce, and even the entertainment industry.

This framework was constructed to justify extreme prejudice rather than reflect historical reality. Such reductive stereotypes ignore the rich cultural and intellectual contributions of Jewish communities. Ironically, even within these hateful narratives, contradictions emerge. After all that, one might ask, “Are you going to answer for yourself then?” This rhetorical question challenges the simplistic framing of antisemitism.

After all that, I ask whether one could answer by presenting the actual situation instead of resorting to an antisemitic framing. My comment was intended as a joke on the overuse and misapplication of the term. I questioned if one might contrast the hateful rhetoric with a more nuanced historical reality.

Jacobsen: The issue then becomes how to differentiate between extremist propaganda and genuine cultural analysis. Do these two perspectives overlap in any meaningful way?

Rosner: Historically, Jews have experienced alternating periods of freedom and oppression over thousands of years. They were often forced into ghettos and restricted to only a few occupations. Social pressures combined with an emphasis on studying the Torah and Talmud fostered a tradition of scholarship and professional achievement. As immigrants in countries like the United States and England, Jews forged pathways to success through trade, banking, and other professions.

Their successes sometimes made them targets of stereotypes, including claims of controlling entire industries such as entertainment. Many Jewish entrepreneurs were simply hustlers seeking better opportunities. For example, Jewish immigrants played significant roles in establishing early movie studios—like MGM—on the West Coast. This evolution was not the result of a conspiracy but rather a natural outcome of striving for success in a competitive world.

Photo by Joshua Sukoff on Unsplash

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1265: A Stretchy Universe

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/15

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: If you were to take the collective energy and matter of the universe and condense it into the head of a pen, how much energy would that be? By “universe,” the observable universe, to be straightforward. We’re considering the standard Big Bang theory instead of informational cosmology since space would be rescaled under the latter.

Rick Rosner: Under Big Bang cosmology, the universe did not expand from a tiny blip; it expanded everywhere. As long as the energy in the universe was uniform, no single point would collapse into a black hole because gravitational pulls would cancel out. There’s a Machian assumption at work, perhaps even built into general relativistic equations. Mach’s principle posits that inertia is relative to the stellar background, which hasn’t been conclusively proven. Yet, it makes sense that a body in motion remains in motion.

What is it moving against? It must be moving against something substantial. That something comprises all the stars, galaxies, and universe. General relativity may inherently assume that an object must be denser than its surroundings for gravitational collapse. In other words, a clump of matter can only collapse if it is denser than the background universe. Moreover, the equations of general relativity incorporate a coefficient of expansion. This coefficient is what Einstein introduced to maintain a steady universe, neither expanding nor contracting. Thus, gravitational collapse depends on the relative density compared to the cosmic background.

You can add an energy metric to the universe, acting as an antigravity propulsive force that expands space. It is stronger than the mutual gravitational attraction of all the matter and energy contained within it. This argument is somewhat circular, asserting that the early Big Bang universe did not collapse because it possessed a springiness endowed with more energy than gravity. However, this explanation is not entirely satisfying. The early universe did not collapse because it expanded rapidly at an incredibly fast rate immediately after the Big Bang. This rapid expansion counteracted the gravitational pull of the matter present by essentially stretching space and preventing collapse into a single point. Space was sufficiently “stretchy” to outpace gravitational contraction. Although this reasoning may appear ad hoc, it explains the observed expansion well.

If gravitation is a manifestation of the interactions among particles within space, and if matter defines the scale and structure of space along with gravity, then one cannot compress the entire universe into a pinhead. The presence of matter ensures that space is continually rescaled unless that matter is stripped of its information content. In such a scenario, informational pressure compels matter devoid of information to reconfigure itself into arrangements that restore complexity.

This reconfiguration naturally unfolds over time as matter evolves to produce new information. This process partially explains why a collapsed universe would exhibit significant springiness. When matter is drawn into a black hole, it loses its information. It becomes degenerate—a condensed state of nearly identical, overlapping, neutron-like particles with minimal informational diversity. As interactions occur within this degenerate matter, structure begins to emerge. Over time, this reconfiguration gives rise to the complex arrangements observed in our universe.

But as interactions occur within that degenerate state and new structure begins to precipitate, the resulting condition resembles an indeterminate, springy “soup” reminiscent of the Big Bang. Initially containing little information, this primordial soup eventually gives rise to specific configurations of space, time, and matter that are rich in complexity. Information generation allows events to be sequenced along a timeline, providing a coherent narrative of cosmic evolution. In this view, space and time represent the most efficient associations that enable cause and effect.

Time, fundamentally, is the ordering of cause and effect and prevents everything from happening simultaneously. Although this explanation may seem imprecise, it underscores that cause and effect inherently require a temporal framework. Without time, the concepts of “first cause” and subsequent effects would be meaningless.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1264: AI and Energy Demands, and Pete Hegseth

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14

Rick Rosner: Now, regarding Pete HegSeth, a guy who was confirmed by a tied Senate vote of 54–50, with JD Vance (the Vice President) breaking the tie—he was confirmed as Secretary of Defense by the smallest margin in history. However, he has well-documented alcohol problems and even paid off a woman $50,000 who had accused him of sexual assault. Moreover, he was only a major; he was in and out of the reserves and retired with that rank. In the officer ranks, one progresses from second lieutenant to first lieutenant, then captain and major. There are further ranks beyond major—lieutenant colonel, colonel, and then the higher echelons—but he never advanced past major. Previous Secretaries of Defense, such as Lloyd Austin (the outgoing Secretary), had extensive military careers: Austin served 40 years, and the two before him each served 21 years.

Hegseth has eight years on and off. I hope we don’t have to evaluate whether he’s good at his job, but it seems like a travesty. As for the presidency, Biden was far too quiet; he seemed to want people to discover the good things his administration was doing without any promotion. Part of the problem is that he appeared unwell and aged. Consider this: Harrison Ford is roughly the same age as Biden (around 80 or 81), yet he stars as a superhero president in an upcoming Marvel movie and still looks vibrant. Also in his late 70s or 80s, Tom Selleck sports a full head of hair and doesn’t show that paper-thin, aged skin—he’s still articulate and spry.

In contrast, Biden looked and sounded lacklustre; his team should have done more to improve his presentation, perhaps even considering steroids or plastic surgery (he has already had hair transplants and may have had an eyelift) if they hadn’t been so indecisive. Meanwhile, Trump took an entirely different approach by saying a great deal and proposing many ideas—many of them ridiculous and some even effective enough to be spun as successes, even if only superficially.

For example, the idea of turning Canada into the 51st state is absurd. Canada isn’t a single state; it comprises ten provinces—British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Labrador—plus territories. Each province is comparable to a U.S. state, so Canada would, if ever divided, yield multiple states. Moreover, the proposal that the U.S. should impose a 25% tariff on Canadian goods to halt issues like fentanyl trafficking or illegal immigration is misguided since very few fentanyl and few illegal entrants come through Canada.

Also, Meta has announced a two‐gigawatt computing facility in rural Louisiana. The facility is planned to have about 4,000,000 square feet of interior space—though that’s not even a full square mile—while the entire campus might cover a couple of square miles and supply two gigawatts of power. Meta intends to invest roughly $10 billion in this project, a substantial sum in an era of billions and trillions in circulation. Two gigawatts is enough electricity to power roughly one million homes, and the facility is being built in Richland Parish in northeast Louisiana, about 10 to 15 miles from the Mississippi River. This raises the question: won’t they have to use nuclear power to meet such a huge energy demand?

While some—like Eric Schmidt—suggest using Canadian hydroelectric power, running hydro from Canada 1,400 miles south seems impractical. It appears more likely that nuclear power will be employed, especially since northeastern Louisiana is a swampy area near the Mississippi, and new-generation reactors may not require as much water cooling. Meta’s overall investment might eventually reach about $65 billion.

In contrast, the initiative Trump claimed credit for yesterday was a $500 billion push to develop AI in America—a plan I support. However, the required infrastructure is equally disruptive. Suppose we assume that one gigawatt is needed for every $5 billion in AI development. In that case, we’re looking at roughly 100 gigawatts in total. Since each gigawatt can power about one million homes, that’s enough energy for 100 million homes. However, based on Statista, there are approximately 145 million homes in the U.S., meaning the power required for this AI development would be roughly equivalent to supplying electricity to about one-third of all American households. Please note the source for the 145 million figure—while some sites like HouseGrail are unreliable, Statista provides more credible data.

If that includes apartments and similar dwellings, it covers any dwellings. That’s a tremendous amount of energy. And providing that energy is going to be disruptive.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1263: More Enshittification

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s examine the concept of enshittification—a term popularized by Cory Doctorow and applied to recent technological developments, particularly social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Google. These companies start by attracting a large user base with attractive deals and free services, burning through venture capital during their initial, money‐losing phase. They quickly amass millions, or even billions, of users, and their market value skyrockets. However, once shareholders and owners shift their focus toward profitability, these companies begin selling ads, charging for services, and generally squeezing users and employees. The quality of service often degrades over time, with Twitter serving as a prime example of this phenomenon.

Rick Rosner: This discussion leads us to consider a broader idea: the unification of consciousness and the reality that genuine thought is an expensive resource. Modern brain science suggests that the primary function of your brain is to predict what will happen next so that you can position yourself to maximize benefits and minimize risks. With a limited energy budget, your brain assembles thoughts that are half-formed best guesses. Moreover, your brain is not always an honest mediator; it sometimes manipulates your priorities and perceptions to favour survival and reproduction over objective reasoning. Even if AI may seem crude or “shitty” in its current information processing, it might eventually begin to approximate aspects of unconscious thought.

In summary, it is easy to overestimate AI’s sophistication—attributing it with true thought when merely processing information—and overestimate our mental abilities.

Can I ask: have you been tricked into overestimating the power of AI the way I have?

Jacobsen: I remain extremely skeptical. I listen to prominent AI figures—Eric Schmidt, Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Ray Kurzweil, Geoffrey Hinton, Andrew Ng, Andrej Karpathy, Daphne Koller, Ian Goodfellow, Jürgen Schmidhuber, Joy Buolamwini, Yoshua Bengio, Demis Hassabis, Fei-Fei Li, Yann LeCun, and so on. Their prominence doesn’t necessarily guarantee a correct opinion; it may indicate they’re more informed, though still fallible. Perhaps they’ll pick up on something I’m not considering.

If you ask it a simple math problem—say, “23 plus 17″—it might erroneously answer “8” instead of “40.” Even when you correct it, the mistake may persist. Essentially, you’re dealing with a system prone to constant confabulation, a tendency shaped by its training on vast and sometimes flawed human discourse. Left to its own devices, as human language evolves, its output could slowly diverge further from accurate human thought. Ultimately, it remains just a tool.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1262: Encoding Information and AI

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How many parameters do you think the human brain’s language model works off of? In artificial neural networks, a parameter is typically a single numeric weight. The human brain has roughly 80 to 100 billion neurons, each with thousands of synaptic connections.

Rick Rosner: Suppose you treat each connection as a parameter. In that case, you’re looking at on the order of 10¹⁴ to 10¹⁵ parameters—that’s hundreds of trillions of synapses in total. However, each synapse isn’t just a static value; its strength can vary over time through mechanisms like neurotransmitter release, receptor subtypes, and short-term and long-term plasticity, equating one synapse to one parameter is a gross oversimplification.

Plus, the brain isn’t one giant language model. Even if you assume that 10% of the brain’s capacity is dedicated to language, you’d still land somewhere in the 10¹³ to 10¹⁴ range of potential synaptic parameters. It’s important to note that biological and digital neural networks process information very differently. No one knows the precise parameter count for the brain’s language function. While the entire brain might operate on the order of 10¹⁵ parameters, that isn’t the same as the numeric weights in an LLM. it’s not something we can worry about too precisely. That was the normal baseline answer. Will you ask a follow-up question?

Don’t you think that the estimate of 10¹⁴ to 10¹⁵ parameters for the human brain is perhaps an overestimate—that it might take more than one synaptic connection to constitute what would function as a parameter?

Jacobsen: Oh, wow. One synapse does not equal one parameter. Synapses can change their weights in multiple, often nonlinear, ways, and most synapses are not primarily involved in language processing. The brain is not a monolithic neural net, and parameter counts do not tell the whole story. So is 10¹⁴ to 10¹⁵ an overestimate? Yes and no. There is a much longer explanation behind that, but it would take a thousand words to cover all the nuances.

Rosner: One more question. Do you think the brain uses combinatorial coding, where large combinations of neurons firing together embody conceptual units—similar to how words are formed from combinations of letters to represent ideas? In other words, is it the case that concepts like “cat,” “dog,” or even names like “Jennifer Aniston” do not require a single neuron but rather distributed patterns of activation?

Jacobsen: There is evidence in neuroscience for what are known as concept cells, and abstract representations appear to be encoded in regions such as the medial temporal lobe, prefrontal cortex, and parietal cortex. The number of human concepts we learn daily—or even moment by moment—changes continuously, and how these conceptual units are represented across synaptic parameters is highly complex. Picking down a simple conversion rate between synapses and conceptual representations is tricky. Conceptual and brain complexity are intertwined, and advanced AI systems, like the brain, are continuous, emergent, and adaptive. By any means necessary, both the brain and AI encode information in the most momentarily efficient way possible.

Rosner: Is that essentially what you’re saying? Are the brain and AI opportunistic in encoding and optimizing to store information as efficiently as possible? I’d say so. We often imagine concepts as standalone entities, like vocabulary cards—”orange,” “la pelota”—but there is an efficiency mechanism at work. Concepts that are rarely used tend to be stored together with their contexts.

In contrast, concepts used frequently are stripped of extraneous context. This suggests that our cognitive system functions as an association engine. That reminds me—we should discuss whether this means that the brain essentially functions as an association engine in the same way that word embeddings and hidden states in AI produce emergent representations.

Jacobsen: That’s an interesting parallel. Both brains and advanced AI systems adopt encoding strategies that are opportunistic and adaptive, meaning they store and process information in whatever manner is most efficient at the time. This process is not fixed but continually adjusts based on usage and context. The brain’s storage of concepts and the emergent representations in AI both reflect a dynamic balance between localist and distributed coding. We can see no simple conversion rate between synaptic connections and AI parameters. Both systems have evolved or been designed to optimize in the face of complex demands.

That reminds me—we should also talk about category theory in mathematics, which deals with abstract structures and relationships. It sounds like “reproductive math” was mentioned somewhere, and although it’s a bit off-topic; it seems relevant to how abstract representations are managed in AI and the brain. We’ve never really discussed category theory in depth, but perhaps we could plan to cover that tomorrow. I’ve got a very packed schedule today, so we’ll need to keep this brief.

Rosner: Agreed. Sometimes, when I get overwhelmed by the complexities of our discussions—whether about AI, the brain, or even the fundamentals of mathematics—I find that it all eventually comes down to the efficiency of encoding information. As category theory provides an abstract framework for understanding mathematical structures, the brain and AI systems seem to work by optimizing how they store and retrieve information. We should revisit this topic when time permits.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1261: Claude and GPT-4

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14

Rick Rosner: Imagine you’re talking to two guys in chat one-on-one. One of them mentions talking to Claude, the latest version of that model. How do you compare GPT‑4 to Claude in terms of quality? What did it say to you? GPT‑4 from OpenAI and Claude from Anthropic are two advanced language models with unique attributes. Both excel at text comprehension and generation.

GPT‑4 is often lauded for its structured chain-of-thought reasoning, making it highly effective for handling complex instructions and logical tasks. In contrast, Claude emphasizes user-friendly dialogue and context retention, showcasing an impressive capacity for large-scale summarization while maintaining a friendly conversational style. In practical use, GPT-4’s interpretive depth yields thorough responses, though some might find its tone more neutral.

On the other hand, Claude’s style can seem more casual and appealing to users seeking immediate, approachable feedback. The difference lies in their service offerings and moderation strategies. Claude is friendly—I’ve had a nice time with him. I didn’t realize that friendliness was engineered; I thought it was an emergent trait. But no—it’s a design feature. GPT‑4 and Claude each have distinct safety guidelines, occasionally resulting in varied reactions to off-topic subjects.

The choice between them depends on the specific task: GPT‑4 often integrates well with developer tools and has great integrations. At the same time, Claude’s extensive context window can be advantageous for processing long documents. Both represent significant leaps in language technology, so determining which is “better” hinges on individual preferences and needs. Testing both on various workloads is the best way to decide which model aligns more closely with the user’s requirements. Ultimately, neither model is universally superior—each excels in different contexts.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1260: Messaging, Culture, and Sex

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did we discuss enough about how parenting has changed and will continue to change as our culture shifts dramatically? That’s a significant issue.

Rick Rosner: Throughout history, someone has always had to explain to a child who has reached sexual maturity how sex works, whether it’s their first experience or not. But now, there’s a debate about how much sexual information to provide and at what age—do you tell kids about sex early or wait for them to encounter the often horrible depictions of it on the Internet?

Or should we wait until they hear a blowjob reference on a sitcom and then ask you about it? I have no idea. My kid was born in 1995, and I probably don’t remember explaining the basics of sex to her. I let her watch Two and a Half Men, which didn’t discuss sex explicitly but showed that the guys are often scumbags. She was watching that at, what, around age 10? We also went to see Sandler movies like The Waterboy. She mentioned that some things in them traumatized her, even though there weren’t many sexual references.

Later, when she was a teenager, we’d watch movies sent as screeners—if you’re in the Writers Guild or one of the Entertainment Guilds, you get screeners to vote on them. We’d watch these films regardless of their ratings. We didn’t necessarily discuss every awkward moment when a sexual reference popped up on the DVR. Still, there’s so much more sexual information—and misinformation—out there now. It was even worse in 2010 when my kid was 15, and we watched a PG or R-rated movie nominated for a Writers Guild award. I’m unsure what the standard discourse was; there wasn’t one clear narrative. Frankly, I don’t have a definitive answer—I don’t know. Comments?

Do you think being a single guy and being a dad changes your sense of humour? For instance, consider how pornography is like Tetris: if you play Tetris for an hour, you still see the falling blocks when you walk away; your brain has been temporarily reprogrammed to see the world as blocky. It’s similar to porn. If you spend an hour watching porn, when you go back into the world, you might have difficulty not perceiving people as objects of sexual gratification or judgment.

As a single guy, you’re bombarded with more sexual signals than family signals. Whether you’re desperate to get a girlfriend, gaming, or watching porn, you receive a lot more sexual messaging than you would if you were part of a family. In a traditional family setting, you work—zero hours a week—and then spend your remaining time with your family: eating meals together, attending church, and tending to your kids’ sporting events. There’s a lot of interaction and messaging from your family and society, although even that is now eroding; we’ve all seen entire families—parents, two or three kids, maybe a grandmother or an aunt—sitting together at a restaurant with everyone on their devices.

The signals you receive from your environment shape how you think about everything, including humour. When I was on Kimmel, I spent 60 hours a week brainstorming topical subjects to turn into jokes and bits. Some of that time was spent in a room with others tossing around ideas, and other times I was online. That was around 2002—barely past the Friendster era and perhaps even at the end of the Myspace era. The Internet wasn’t nearly as overwhelming as it is today. According to one study I looked up, the average social media user absorbs between 4,000 and 10,000 messages daily.

That figure might be high—perhaps it’s more like 2,000—but it’s still far more than what my stepdad, who owned a small business in downtown Boulder, would receive from customers, friends, TV, and newspapers all day. Moreover, a family member gets more family interaction than a single guy. However, since my dad’s generation, everyone has experienced a relative erosion of family messaging in favour of social media.

Jacobsen: Do you think this has changed how messaging is targeted to men, women, straight couples, or gay couples?

Rosner: There is a lot of targeted messaging, but it’s overwhelmed by the sheer volume of content on social media. It’s like with dogs—I’ve had several dogs in my life—and I’ve never known a dog whose behaviour was more determined by its sex than simply by being a dog. Social media junk is junk, regardless of how the algorithms target it. It’s the bombardment that matters more than the specifics of the algorithm.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1259: Nicholas Taleb on IQ

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14

Rick Rosner: Dave Chappelle gave the longest monologue in the history of SNL tonight and received a standing ovation. He mentioned regretting some of his past remarks—perhaps those made during the Trump era. I wish him luck and hope he gives the historically disenfranchised a fair chance. I also remember a snippet where he praised Jimmy Carter for boldly going into Palestine without the protection of Israeli forces. When was that? Early 2000, I believe—shortly after Chappelle left his show and began travelling the world.

On another note, Nicholas Taleb’s work is provocative; he flat-out calls Mensa a group of egotistical, blowhard losers and dismisses many IQ proponents, like Jordan Peterson and the authors of The Bell Curve (which, by the way, is over 40 years old now).

A proper interpretation isn’t just about interpretation—it goes beyond that. You have to read the paper because it doesn’t merely discuss interpretation; it dismantles the whole idea. It is far more thorough than simply criticizing the interpretation of IQ tests. It dismisses everything, including the very concept of IQ–an illegitimate measure. But you should look through the paper because it drives the point home from many angles.

The paper is fired up; the author is energetic.

Taleb makes the basic point that I had never fully appreciated: even a 0.5 correlation isn’t great. Since correlation is squared to determine the additional information it conveys, you need to square your correlation to see what extra insight you get.

It showed a U-shaped graph. It indicates that you obtain a noticeably helpful amount of additional information only in the super high correlations—0.8 and above—. He also points out that IQ hardly correlates with anything that isn’t itself. Although there is a high correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores, it isn’t as high as expected. Individuals retaking multiple IQ tests only achieve a self‑correlation of 0.8. That is much lower than the correlation you’d see with height or the time it takes to run 100 meters.

A self‑correlation of 0.8 means that there is only 64% information in any individual IQ score. When you use that loosely correlated number to compare it with other variables, it turns out to be a poor measure. He even goes so far as to say that the worst use of IQ might be in discussing the average IQs of entire countries.

In one study of the national average IQs of 185 countries, the paper shows that for 104 of those countries, there was no actual IQ data, and nobody was tested. Instead, the figures were extrapolated from racial demographics, which are circular, racist, and spurious. Thus, many of the things IQ is used for—especially by racist individuals—are utterly flawed.

He also discusses the asymmetry we mentioned yesterday. At the low end, IQ is correlated with poor performance. For example, if you have a test group where 20% of the subjects are deceased—scoring zero on an IQ test and zero on any performance measure—this creates false correlations. The asymmetry of IQ as a measure means that while a low IQ indicates impairment, there is no corresponding guarantee that a high IQ will ensure exceptional performance in areas not directly derived from IQ tests.

Being dead gives you a 0% score across the board. There’s no opposite extreme where being alive and smart guarantees a 100% score on every performance measure. Brain damage leads to poor performance in several areas, but the scale is not symmetric at the high end.

This lack of symmetry leads to many misconceptions, especially among people who do not know how to interpret statistics—which might include me since some of this information was new and somewhat surprising. Taleb has devoted much thought to statistics, probability, and those arcane situations that most statisticians overlook yet are very applicable to the real world. He wrote The Black Swan, which discusses rare occurrences that defy traditional statistical expectations; improbable events happen only rarely, so you must figure out how to adjust your models to account for these rare instances.

Much of what he brings up regarding IQ shows that many people in the field do not understand their discipline. Most statisticians do not grasp all the necessary subtleties of statistics. As for specialists in IQ—if there are any left making their living solely by working with IQ—that field has largely declined.

Interest in IQ has diminished, and perhaps mockery of it has increased. Although many people once earned their living during its heyday, that is no longer true.

Primarily, you’ll find this in the individuals who need to identify struggling kids and get them into a program. It’s done through mainstream, legitimately proctored tests that help people succeed. Given that most statisticians don’t understand statistics and its subtleties, the people working with IQ—such as those involved in getting gifted kids into specialized programs or the psychologists you mentioned who privately test children to qualify for gifted programs—charge around $500 to administer the test. (What’s the good one? Oh, Stanford‑Binet—is it? It’s notorious for its high scores.)

They charge $500 to write a report, but that might be only about 3% of their practice; most psychologists are meeting with people rather than administering IQ tests. There is no way these professionals fully understand the pitfalls of IQ and statistics. The field is rife with statistical ignorance and even self‐educated racists who have read The Bell Curve and listened to Jordan Peterson. These individuals are eight steps removed from any legitimate statistical knowledge. Telev has spent much time examining the field and realized its foundation is as flimsy as pudding. There’s nothing solid holding it up.

He makes two main points: first, IQ cannot do much of what its proponents claim it can, and second, the things it can do can be determined easily without resorting to IQ tests. There is, however, a potential weakness in one of his arguments. For example, if a child has learning difficulties, those issues might be more apparent when evaluated in high-level tasks rather than through IQ tests alone. Spending a few hours administering IQ‑type tests might sometimes help provide a clearer picture of a child’s deficiencies.

Nonetheless, he argues that IQ is mostly useless.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1258: Tender Beings

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/14

Rick Rosner: Okay, here goes: Think about how we are made of gossamer forces, yet torn apart by the wimpiest of a star’s core, which had to exert immense pressure and heat sources. To form a nucleus containing more than a single hydro and heat. Once assembled, the nucleus attracts electrons held in place by relatively feeble forces. The net force at any distance is negligible when all electrons are in place.

Consider those 50‑foot steel beams at the gym—spanning a huge space without numerous supports—their job is to resist gravity, which is, ironically, the weakest force of all. Our bodies, and indeed all matter, are held together by residual forces like van der Waals interactions, which are extraordinarily weak. This fragility is evident in how a fall in Earth’s modest gravitational field can break us.

Even planets only hold together because they contain an astronomical number of atoms. In our world, nearly every interaction is governed by these delicate, gossamer forces. The only place where you regularly see high-energy particle interactions is in the center of a star, where fusion—the one force that isn’t so wimpy—occurs. You could argue that fission is similarly robust, but everything remains remarkably fragile outside those extremes.

Consider how our existence is built from remarkably fragile forces. Fusion—the process that combines atomic nuclei—requires immense pressure and heat, yet even fusion is less forceful than fission. In fission, you take such heavy nuclei that they become unstable and break them apart with only a modest nudge; this process is even “wimpier” than fusion. Although there have been a few accidental nuclear events in human history, it takes tremendous effort to assemble enough fissionable material for an atomic bomb. Even then, converting matter into energy releases only about one-tenth of one percent of the mass. It’s wild that our existence and history are built from these feeble, residual forces. Comments? None.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: In a way, we evolved in a system defined by these fragile forces. It takes an enormous universe to build the conditions—planets orbiting suns—that allow ordered, negentropic systems (life) to emerge.

Rosner: We are, essentially, tender beings who have managed to exist on Earth for a billion years. It takes a vast universe to set up these oases of order without our fragile structures being obliterated.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1257: Diamonds are Forever

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Rick Rosner: Since we started talking, the diamond business has been entirely disrupted. You could make quarter-carat or half-carat diamonds in pressure chambers, which was when we first discussed this. But now, new technology lets you create flawless diamonds of arbitrary size for almost no money. There’s even an alphabetic scale for the colour of diamonds, with D being the best, then continuing through H, J, L, M, etc.

If you’re buying a nice stone for a wedding ring—say, Carol’s wedding ring, which was originally my mom’s, and she kept it after her divorce—it might be a G or H colour, which is close to colourless. While D is ideal for colour and flawless clarity, colour is just one aspect. Then there are inclusions—specks inside the stone. A D-grade, colourless, flawless, one-carat mined diamond used to cost at least $10,000 to $15,000 until a couple of years ago. Now they can grow those diamonds—I’ve seen them grow.

You’ll find many misleading claims if you check eBay for prices on stones from India. They might advertise a one-carat, flawless, colourless diamond for $30,000 but then send you a stone made of something else entirely—moissanite, another mineral with a high index of refraction and sparkle. If you shop carefully, you could probably find someone selling a lab-grown diamond chemically and spectrographically indistinguishable from a natural diamond for less than a hundred dollars. It turns out that, apparently, only people my age care about whether a diamond is lab-grown or natural.

Younger people—especially younger women—don’t want their fiancés wasting money on expensive natural diamonds. A rule (promoted by De Beers, the diamond monopoly) used to be that you should spend two to three months’ salary on your engagement diamond, which is utterly ridiculous. But people bought into that idea.

Millennials and younger generations say, “No, don’t waste your money on that.” They’re opting for lab-grown diamonds at about 10% of the price of expensive natural ones. This shift is essentially destroying De Beers. Maybe De Beers deserves to be wrecked a little—they haven’t been the nicest company. They were involved with figures like Cecil Rhodes. They had ties to racist, white supremacist governments in and around South Africa. Perhaps they should face some consequences, but the monopoly is gone now. Diamonds have been overhyped for decades—maybe forever—especially compared to other precious gems like rubies, sapphires, and emeralds. Diamonds aren’t that rare.

Only because of De Beers’ monopoly and highly effective advertising did diamonds maintain such high prices for a century. The idea of a diamond engagement ring comes from De Beers—the slogan “A Diamond Is Forever.” Products like diamond tennis bracelets were created to address a glut of small stones. They managed to market these products in a way that made diamonds seem rare, even though you can now grow them. They’re pretty screwed. Rotten Tomatoes.

If you go 1.2 carats, people might still think, “Oh, it’s natural, and you went all out.” It’s a weird upside-down market.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1256: “Greatest Portrait Artist Competition” and Falls

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Rick Rosner: Carole and I were watching the “Greatest Portrait Artist Competition” in England. In this show, artists from around the UK compete in portraiture. Tonight’s subject was the performer who portrays Dame Edna Everage—a renowned drag performer. Carol thought he had died because the show is from 2021; apparently, he suffered a fall in which he broke his hip, an injury that can be fatal for older people. There’s even a possibility it contributed to my mom’s death.

When you’re that old—my mom was 88 and two‑thirds—they generally don’t perform an autopsy unless you’re willing to pay four or five grand. We were speculating. She had health issues, but they found her on the floor. We suspect that what killed her was the fall—she was found sitting.

Then, she triggered the fall alarm when she tipped over from that position about two hours after she had already passed away. Older adults are often moved from senior living into a board-and-care facility when they fall. Falls are brutal for older people. Interestingly, falls aren’t nearly as harmful to younger individuals. We average close to six feet tall, and when we tip over, our center of gravity means our body experiences the equivalent energy of falling from about three feet. (Half of our body is closer to the ground, half is further away.)

In contrast, if you drop any object from three feet, it’s likely to be damaged. Remarkably, younger people can take falls without sustaining serious injuries. Of course, people get hurt—basketball players, for instance, get knocked down a few times per game—but overall, our bodies are much more resilient. Enjoy the rest of your evening at the pub.

And those guys—their center of gravity is about three and a half feet off the ground. Then you have football players, of course, flying through the air. They land on grass, and even though they’re all padded, it’s still a tremendous amount of energy your body can absorb when you fall. I already took one a while back. That was last year—I was probably 64 at the time. I took a fall where I messed up my wrist and crushed a bone.

I caught myself, so it wasn’t a terrible fall because my head didn’t take any of the kinetic energy, but my wrist still paid the price. I’ve entered that period in life now, and my wife, too. She hasn’t had any major injuries from falls, though she did crack her ankle—a bone in her foot got injured. It wasn’t that she fell from five feet, but still, her mass plus gravity did its damage. Now that we’re in our sixties, falling has become increasingly dangerous.

I even joke that we should probably start crawling everywhere at some point. In Japan, they’re experimenting with lower-body exoskeletons or frameworks that help move your legs and provide stability. This is especially important when you’re tottering around in your eighties, perhaps even dealing with Alzheimer’s and losing the mental wherewithal to walk steadily.

Japan faces a demographic crisis where there aren’t enough young people to care for all older people. All developed countries (every continent except Antarctica and soon Africa as well) will face a similar demographic decline in the next 30 years. If everyone had an effective exoskeletal armature, you might boost the average lifespan by a few months—which is huge. One little fix that raises the average lifespan is that falls kill many people.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1255: Total Crap

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I found an article in Mother Jones about AI becoming as powerful as human cognition by 2025 worth reading. The article is from 2013. The article was scaled up in search results somehow. Some parts of it could have been written ten years later. It uses Moore’s law from 2013 to predict that the number of calculations per second in the fastest computers will eventually be on par with the number performed by the human brain. However, since that article was written—more than a decade ago—the estimates for the brain’s computational capacity may have been updated, and we probably have more recent information now. But let’s assume the article from 2013 is correct and that the number of calculations in an AI system is roughly equivalent to those in the human brain. Though, AI does not operate like a human brain.

Rick Rosner: Current AI systems are fairly single-task oriented; they do not interact with the environment in a multifaceted way. Take a language model, for example. It develops small probability nodes around certain characteristics of language and thought by being fed vast amounts of data—much as a graphics AI probabilistically learns the laws of perspective and shading. For instance, understanding that an object closer to the observer will block what is behind it, or learning how human faces work, how many fingers we have, and how they bend).

A language model uses a similar mechanism to learn how sentences work and how verbs and nouns function. It may not “understand” content in the human sense. Still, we probably process language probabilistically on a localized scale—predicting which word might come next based on prior exposure (for example, if I say “the best,” you might expect “brightest” because you’ve heard that phrase many times, as in “the best and the brightest”). Our thinking might also rely on localized probability models rather than full conscious processing—similar to pseudo-thinking within a language model. The conclusion has remained unchanged for the past few years: AI is powerful but ultimately limited.

Is that reasonable?

Jacobsen: It’ll be tricky.

Rosner: Integration will mostly be solved by the systems iterating themselves until they reach a fixed point. For example, give a graphics AI a six-word instruction. It can generate a thirty-second video—or maybe even a whole short film—that may or may not make perfect sense but will relate to the six words you provided. Imagine instructing it to “show a guy haunted by guilt, the protagonist of Crime and Punishment, with his guilt taking the form of ghosts.” That AI would produce a two‑minute video of a man haunted by spectral manifestations of guilt, perhaps even depicting the crime itself, and it would do a pretty good job. That output would be something you could look at and say, “This isn’t total crap.”

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1254: Trump’s First Stint

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you feel about Trump’s first stint in office?

Rick Rosner: Trump is, as usual, making much noise. He’s taking harmful actions—although, on rare occasions, one might argue that not everything he does is disastrous. What I find most disconcerting about his first week in office (roughly six days) is that the initial surveys of his approval and disapproval ratings show marked improvement. Since he first announced his candidacy in 2015, he has consistently had more disapprovals than approvals—he was essentially “underwater.” Yet now, in this first week as president, several surveys (seven or eight in total, with only one conducted by a Republican organization) indicate that his approval ratings are between 6 and 17 points higher than his disapproval ratings. In one survey, for example, he scored 53% approval versus 39% disapproval—a 14-point margin.

I hope this trend doesn’t continue because it suggests that a significant portion of the population has become acclimated to, and even supportive of, his misconduct. When inaugurated in 2017, he was only marginally above water for a few days before quickly reverting to a state of overall disapproval. I still remember him falsely claiming—while boasting about it—that his inaugural crowd in Washington, D.C., was larger than Obama’s, a claim refuted by the photographic evidence.

That whole episode set the tone for people to disapprove of him—he was lying about things that everyone could see. Now, he’s acting in essentially the same way. When he was running for president, he promised to bring down the price of eggs and to resolve the war in Ukraine within 24 hours. Neither promise has come true; egg prices are at an all-time high, and he’s already backtracked on his position regarding Ukraine. Despite these failures, his approval ratings remain surprisingly strong. That’s worrisome because it encourages people to accept his shortcomings—as if to say, “let the baby have his bottle.” For example, Pete Hejseth, a blatantly unfit nominee for Secretary of Defense, was confirmed by a 50–50 Senate vote, with the Vice President having to cast the tie-breaking vote. Similarly, Christy Ngo, an obviously unfit head of Homeland Security nominee, was confirmed by a vote of 59 to 34. This outcome suggests that some Democrats are willing to allow terrible nominees. I hope people continue to hold him accountable and disapprove of actions that warrant criticism.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1253: The L.A. Fires

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Rick Rosner: Let’s shift to its politics. The estimated damage could reach around $100 billion by the time the fires are fully contained, and there will be a lot of blame. Republicans and Trump are trying to pin it on the mayor and Governor Newsom, and Fox News is echoing the same narrative. While there is some culpability, it’s worth noting that the fire department recently hired a logistics specialist with a salary of three-quarters of a million dollars per year—though she’s now at risk of losing her job.”

A 117‑million‑gallon reservoir was shut down for repairs due to a minor issue—a tear in its cover—that might have compromised the drinkability of the water. But drinkability isn’t the same as forest-fire fightability. There has long been a problem with broken hydrants not getting repaired—some remain unfixed for years after being reported. No new fire stations have been built since the 1960s, even though Los Angeles’ population has doubled. As a result, we’re likely to see a lot of investigations and plenty of finger-pointing.”

Though, if you want to, I still think that most of the blame—well, maybe the blame adds up to more than 100%—lies with these brutal, 100‑mile‑per‑hour winds and the unprecedented dry conditions. Even if that reservoir had been online, it would have been unlikely to stop the fire.

A lot of people are going to be in trouble over this. If I had to assign blame, I’d say about 10–15% falls on the governor and perhaps a bit more on our mayor. Plus, that logistics specialist—paid three‑quarters of a million dollars—gets her share, too. The power companies also probably deserve blame; they don’t maintain their equipment, which causes many fires. They’re supposed to shut off the power to the wires when the wind starts blowing crazy because then the wires can swing into things, spark, and ignite fires. It appears they probably didn’t do that. So, there’s a ton of blame to go around.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1252: Powerlessness or Empowerment

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Rick Rosner: We live in an age where oligarchs wield more control over politics, the products we consume, and our culture than ever before. The nature of that oligarchy is about to change in unprecedented ways in the coming years, as it will merge with the extra strategic and persuasive power of sophisticated AI. What do you think?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: None. That all sounds accurate. This AI revolution may blunt the oligarchs’ power a little, as non-billionaires who use AI might gain relative power compared to everyone else. Still, it will likely remain a mix of traditional oligarchy and a new tech aristocracy—along with an improving standard of living and perhaps even longer lifespans. Our long-held wishes might come true even as we lose more personal dominion.

The overall “pie” of power is expected to grow in size and precision. However, it will still be largely controlled by a few select groups. History, as always, repeats itself.

Rosner: It’s a strange feeling—more about powerlessness than empowerment. We must re-evaluate the importance of personal agency and the idea of being the master of our own domain. We may have to come to terms with the fact that complete autonomy might no longer be attainable. Philosophically speaking, we might even ask: Was agency ever as significant as we thought? In an era when nearly everyone eventually dies, and most people live in squalor, was rugged individualism truly that important? We’re already getting used to sacrificing privacy—honestly, I don’t care much about it anymore. What about you? Do you still value privacy?

Jacobsen: It depends on the situation.

Rosner: I remember surviving my time at Kimmel by revealing personal details that most would rather keep hidden. In fact, I was even rewarded for giving up my privacy for comedic effect. Younger generations care even less about privacy nowadays. Privacy has been under attack for a long time, and our autonomy is increasingly threatened. Most of us will have to adapt.

Jacobsen: Same time tomorrow?

Rosner: Yes—tomorrow.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1251: Edward Witten, Abdus Salam, Dennis Sciama, and Paolo Budinich

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Changing the subject, I recently listened to a roundtable discussion on Spotify featuring Edward Witten, Abdus Salam, Dennis Sciama, and Paolo Budinich. Abdus Salam, as you may recall, was not only a Nobel laureate in Physics (1979) renowned for his work on electroweak unification but also the founder of the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste.

The conversation was fascinating. They discussed topics ranging from string theory to alternative historical scenarios in physics. For instance, one panellist speculated that if Einstein had not made his groundbreaking discoveries, someone else might have done so within two or three years. However, Edward Witten argued that while those theories would have eventually emerged, it would have taken several decades to achieve what Einstein did.

Rick Rosner: I’ve even heard that Poincaré might have developed at least some of these ideas if Einstein had been struck by a trolley—possibly arriving at them within five years. Of course, that’s a completely different kind of trolley problem altogether!

They said “bus,” but a bus is anachronistic. A more interesting question is: What if Newton had been hit by a 17th‑century bus?

Jacobsen: That’s a fascinating thought.

Rosner: We know that calculus would have been developed regardless—after all, Leibniz formulated it concurrently. Likewise, if Darwin had been run over, someone with an identical theory would have had to publish to get ahead, and they likely would have ended up publishing jointly.

It might not have caught on as quickly because Darwin’s arguments were far more extensive, but it probably would have eventually. This reminds me of a sports statistics question: Which performances in sports are so exceptional that they will never be replicated? Stephen J. Gould once analyzed this and suggested that only one record truly stands out—for example, Joe DiMaggio’s legendary 56‑game hitting streak, which remains one of the most extraordinary achievements in baseball.

Speaking of baseball, this year, Shohei Ohtani approached new statistical milestones. There’s the “40‑40 club” (players with 40 home runs and 40 stolen bases in a season), a feat achieved by only six players in MLB history. Ohtani joined the”50‑50 club” and nearly reached the “55‑55 club,” an achievement made possible by unique circumstances. It’s a bit tedious to go into all the details, though.

But who else? Consider the discovery of the DNA structure by Crick and Watson—with significant contributions from Rosalind Franklin. Franklin’s X‑ray diffraction images led Crick and Watson, in a rather serendipitous manner, to conclude that only a double helix could produce the observed pattern. One might survey the entire history of science and ask which discovery seems almost divinely inspired by its exceptional divergence from the prevailing zeitgeist.

It’s extraordinary when compared to its time. Are any candidates standing apart? Given that over 100 million people contribute to our collective knowledge, it seems likely that almost any theoretical foundation could eventually be discovered. Yet, there’s also literature to consider.

Is Shakespeare so far beyond any other writer that no one else comes close to matching the quality of his output?

Jacobsen: Some point to Pareto distributions and similar phenomena, suggesting that exceptional achievements—whether scientific or artistic—are one-offs that mirror fundamental structural truths about the world.

That brings us to an opposite question: What discovery emerged unusually late, given the intellectual groundwork before it? Take evolution, for example. Based on his meticulous observations, Leonardo da Vinci was poised to articulate the concept of deep time some 300 to 350 years earlier. Perhaps even someone from over 2,000 years ago—maybe a priest—could have proposed a similar idea. However, these ideas remained fragmented without a cohesive presentation, as expected from Da Vinci or Darwin. Da Vinci never consolidated his work into a single treatise; much of it was lost to history. Had he succeeded, the church history timeline might have been significantly altered.

You might argue that consciousness is still not fully understood. While many people intuitively grasp what consciousness is, there remains little concerted effort to definitively solve its mysteries. Many still regard it as a nebulous problem that isn’t all that important.

Even though the Turing test is now widely regarded as an inadequate proof of consciousness, it was once considered a robust measure. Nowadays, with various other methods and tools available, the Turing test still serves as a practical gauge—even though many neuroscientists are actively researching various facets of consciousness. Yet, there isn’t a widespread push to pin it down definitively. What do you think? There’s no compelling reason to assume that our cognitive faculties are exclusively tuned to uncover alternative aspects of the universe.

Rosner: That might be a matter of perspective. There’s a famous saying attributed to Einstein: “The most surprising aspect of the universe is that it is amenable to physical and mathematical analysis.” Some invoke a benevolent god to explain this, but consider the alternative—if the universe were fundamentally incomprehensible, countless people would have perished in the futile pursuit of understanding it.

Jacobsen: Does this imply the existence of a cruel god who makes us suffer by withholding accurate information?

Rosner: Not necessarily—it may just be that reliable information is inherently hard to obtain rather than deliberately withheld.

Without a divine puppeteer, the universe can be remarkably simple when approached from the right angle. Of course, it takes time to gather the experimental data necessary to develop the correct theories. Consider Newton’s law of universal gravitation—it’s ridiculously straightforward. All inverse‑square laws in physics are almost embarrassingly obvious once you understand them.

Similarly, the fact that the intensity of light diminishes in proportion to the square of the distance from its source makes perfect sense.

Jacobsen: Do you believe, then, that the universe is wildly complicated in its underlying structure?

Rosner: That’s a relative question. Some of the brightest minds in our species have struggled for centuries to uncover aspects of universal law, which speaks to the challenge relative to our capabilities. There’s also an argument that the universe is as simple as possible. While more complicated ways to construct a universe might exist, such configurations are likely exceedingly rare—and perhaps inherently unstable.

Jacobsen: Is that enough?

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1250: Nonsense Amplification and Prof. Gibbs

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Rick Rosner: I know some decision-makers have been forced to choose a more patient approach—the “Biden option”—and one individual even allowed more time than Biden did. That was significant, though it seems that in democracies, we often see the same people in power repeatedly, and such decisions rarely lead to meaningful policy changes.

Regarding Indigenous issues, I once mentioned that the main street closest to where I grew up in Albuquerque was called Indian School Road—a peculiar name, considering what we now know about the history of Indian schools. In retrospect, that name almost sounds like calling a street “Concentration Camp Road.” In contrast, the street where I grew up was more neutral; it intersected a major road before curving into a cul-de-sac that met School Avenue.

I’m curious if they’ll ever have to change the name of the street that’s held that name for nearly 100 years.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The first change might come with the football team. What else can we talk about?

Jacobsen: Well, there’s already a ton of people spreading that nonsense on X. Nonsense will only be amplified.

Jacobsen: Did you hear about Facebook dropping fact-checking?

Rosner: Yes. I learned about it through a fake ad featuring Emperor Palpatine’s second-in-command. It suggested they should revert to an earlier system—basically, it was all fake news. Apparently, either Musk or Zuckerberg approved this move. Also, I believe Zuckerberg is relocating his remaining fact-checking staff (who will now serve as Community Notes staff) from California to Texas because that apparently resonates better with Trump.

I’ve got a guy you might want to interview.

Jacobsen: Who?

Rosner: His name is David N. Gibbs, author of The War by the Rich. He’s a historian at the University of Arizona. He really knows his stuff. His discussion covered how Carter—reviled by conservatives—played a significant role in conservatism by being anti-union and all sorts of things I hadn’t known. He’s incredibly well-versed. I even learned that the U.S. clandestinely baited the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski orchestrated a plot to goad the Soviet Union into that invasion, which ended disastrously for him. So, anyway, the guy knows a tremendous amount.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1249: Cryoablation

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/02

Rick Rosner: Yesterday, I went in for my six‐month MRI after having had a one‐centimeter tumor cryoablated from my kidney. I’m waiting for the results, and it’s a little scary. It’s also a pain in the butt, but I’m grateful to have good insurance so that I can get a scan whenever I need one.

At 64 and two‐thirds years old, I’m well into a stage of life that requires a lot of maintenance to manage my health. I’ve always taken reasonable measures—exercising regularly, watching my diet, and taking supplements (even though I remain skeptical about their overall effectiveness). Now, however, I find that more serious medical interventions are necessary. I suspect that a high percentage of people my age—perhaps even over half—require such care. For instance, I know that 74% of American adults are classified as overweight or obese, and there are likely close to 60 million Americans taking the diabetes drug Metformin, with another 10 to 20 million on other diabetes medications.

I wonder if I’m pronouncing these names correctly; didn’t you correct my pronunciation of Metformin and Ozempic? I also recall a Southern commercial that repeatedly said “diabetic, diabetic.” Besides diabetes, many people also struggle with heart issues. It seems that increased medical intervention is simply part of living a reasonably long life—even though it’s both scary and inconvenient.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1248: The Scariest Moments, AI Energy Needs, Nuclear Reactor Safety, and Ukraine’s War Efforts

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What’s the scariest thing you’ve ever watched? In person? On television? Let’s start with something from fiction and then something from real life.

Rick Rosner: We’ll do fiction first. JD and I were driving back from a Lance show one night just as a wildfire started along the 405. We drove through it about three minutes after it began, and you could tell it had already consumed half of a hillside in five—or maybe ten—minutes. It was still fresh and raging. As we drove through, the temperature inside the car increased by about 5 to 8 degrees. You could feel the heat—it was scary, though not immediately dangerous.

Then there was the ’94 earthquake. Carole and I were on the top floor of a three-story, wood-frame condo building that swayed considerably. The earthquake lasted more than 15 seconds—the biggest I’ve experienced. That was pretty terrifying. How about you?

JacobsenI experienced something similar during the war. While travelling in Ukraine, we passed by a fire—being put out—a forest fire. We were heading up near what I believe was Sumy Oblast, travelling between Sumy and Kharkiv.

Rosner: Speaking of Ukraine, what do you think about the current state of the war?

Jacobsen: Ukraine is making some inroads into Russian territory, but that’s not many square miles compared to what Russia holds in Ukraine. The Ukrainians will not end up like the Kurds. A few major players are supporting Ukraine and pushing back against Russian aggression. The human rights case for Ukraine is clear, but the political case is less so. Casualty figures and costs are stacking up against the Russians. Still, Ukraine has a population of about 40 million compared to Russia’s 160 million, so Russia can theoretically absorb more losses. It’s a tricky situation. Also, Russia has broken new ground by deploying North Korean boots on the ground. Does this mean NATO can put boots on the ground, too? And what do you make of Trump’s statements about Greenland, the Panama Canal, Canada, and Mexico?

Rosner: All of that is ridiculous. He wants to rename the Gulf of Mexico—the northern border of Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida—even though it’s been called the Gulf of Mexico for over a century. It’s just stupid. And no, Denmark hasn’t sold Greenland to us, and Canada will remain sovereign. As for Greenland, Canada, and even Alaska, that’s a different discussion.

Now, shifting gears a bit—one of the main resources required by AI is energy, which is used for computation. It takes a tremendous amount of energy.

Jacobsen: I interviewed a major AI expert—he trained under Geoffrey Hinton. He has 200,000 citations. One thing that came out of that conversation is that they use a different term: “compute” and energy. They’re concerned with questions like, “How much energy will it cost? How much data do you need? How many computers do you have?” These are the kinds of questions that are shaping the future of AI. So, what do you think?

Rosner: So, it’s a whole new economy. The idea is that nuclear power is the easiest way to generate the energy needed for AI—at least, that’s what I and many others believe—. The advantage is that you can locate your massive server farms and nuclear reactors far from populated areas. Well, kind of.

Suppose you’re going to deploy several nuclear reactors. In that case, you’ll be pleased to know that modern reactors are safer than they used to be, thanks to improved technology. Some of the biggest meltdowns—like those at Three Mile Island and Chornobyl—weren’t caused by faulty reactor designs or unavoidable natural disasters but by human error.

If you plan to install many nuclear reactors, consider this: Canada has 22 reactors, and the U.S. has 93. For countries of our size, that isn’t very many. However, Canada boasts vast expanses of wilderness—just as Greenland and Alaska do. Placing reactors in these remote, largely uninhabited areas means that if something goes wrong, the risk of large-scale human casualties or environmental contamination is minimized. Of course, these “wilderness” areas are rich ecosystems, not barren wastelands.

In a discussion I had this morning on PodTV, someone mentioned that fusion power might soon be viable. I remain cautiously optimistic about that possibility. Fusion, if it works as hoped, could provide significant energy without the issues of nuclear waste and meltdown that come with fission reactors. Traditional fission reactors leave behind much radioactive waste—primarily uranium and sometimes plutonium—and they carry a risk of meltdown. On the other hand, fusion reactors would produce helium (or use deuterium). They wouldn’t pose the same meltdown risk because they don’t generate long-lived radioactive waste.

But even if we manage to produce all this energy safely, there’s another issue: the enormous amount of waste heat generated by computation—what experts call “compute.” The heat produced by our relentless information processing might become a significant problem in about a hundred years. The heat released by human activities isn’t a major driver of climate change; greenhouse gases like CO₂ trap more sunlight and warm the planet. Burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases that capture the spectrum of sunlight that would otherwise escape, much like a microwave heats food.

Eventually, as we do more computation and use more energy, we have to deal with waste heat on a massive scale. Our human population may decrease, reducing the per capita carbon footprint. Still, sooner or later, we’ll have to figure out how to dissipate all that heat. Future ideas include moving energy production into orbit—imagine a fleet of orbiting fusion reactors. That way, the energy sources would be isolated from populated areas and less likely to be weaponized or misused. Alternatively, we could even consider placing energy production facilities on the Moon, where heating the surface might not be as problematic. However, moving to compute far from energy sources introduces latency issues. For example, if computing facilities are near nuclear power sources in the Arctic, you might experience a delay of the tenth to two-tenths of a second in routing your computations. Relocating compute to the Moon would introduce a three-second lag—a deal-breaker for critical applications like AI-driven vehicles requiring near-zero latency. After all, the AI systems capable of driving cars are still too large to fit easily into vehicles.

Well, what do you think about all that?

Jacobsen: It seems efficient: if you have something that needs massive computation—say, for a research institute—you set up a nuclear reactor alongside your GPU supercomputer, essentially tapping into virtually infinite power. The new reactor designs, especially the salt-based ones, are remarkably safe. They’re engineered to shut themselves down and cool automatically in an emergency without human intervention. Unlike water-cooled reactors, which always involve a race against time to get water flowing back in (as we saw with Fukushima in an older reactor design), salt-based reactors use molten salt that can both serve as fuel and a coolant. In an emergency, they shut themselves down, minimizing risk.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1247: Skippy the Horse

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

Rick Rosner: So, Skippy the Horse. When I was a teenager, there was a story about a horse named Skippy that was allegedly dissected by extraterrestrials. According to the tale, you can tell when aliens perform a dissection because they remove the animal’s rear end perfectly circularly.

It also turns out that in nature, certain bacteria—or perhaps maggots—can consume tissue in an almost perfect 4‑inch circle. However, those who believe in UFOs dismiss natural explanations; they insist it must be the work of aliens. Anyway, Skippy passed away, and his body was reportedly defleshed by a local veterinarian who then mounted his skeleton above his storefront in Boulder during the 1970s. This display unnerved me because I’ve never been fond of skeletons.

So there you go—a horse skeleton that has become part of local lore. That reminds me—I brought up life in Boulder because, right now, Los Angeles is facing severe fires. Santa Monica—and even the Pacific Palisades area of Santa Monica—is burning due to high Santa Ana winds spreading the flames.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1246: Social Credit Scores

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

Rick Rosner: The battle is between the obvious benefits brought by technology and the relentless bombardment of nonsense. This struggle is not unique to America—it’s happening worldwide. When you’re fighting dangerous forms of fundamentalism or totalitarian religious forces, if enough people can see the benefits of modernity, don’t you think they can be persuaded to reject some of that dangerous rhetoric?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Turned into what?

Rosner: Into individuals who reject the harmful ideas—people who, while they may still identify as evangelical Christians or fundamentalist Muslims, stop believing the increasingly dangerous narratives promoted by their religious and political leaders. You think?

Jacobsen: Yes. Are you suggesting that some religious beliefs can be false, Rick?

Rosner: I’m saying that certain interpretations or “flavours” of religion can contradict the ideals we hope religion will promote—goodness, fairness, and love.

Jacobsen: What is Elon doing again?

Rosner: They introduced something that functions like a social credit score. On Twitter, you can use Elon Musk’s AI—called Grok—to ask, “What’s my social credit score?” It provides a score from 0 to 100 based on how effective, entertaining, and aligned with community standards the content you post on X is. I asked for my score and got a 38 out of 100. A ton of people received the same score. For a while, “38” was trending on X. I even asked if everyone was getting a 38, and a few people responded to let me know they weren’t.

There it is.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1245: Technological Changes in the Midst of Adversarial Politics

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What technological changes are going to supersede all this political and social nonsense in the next four or five years? What technical changes will occur during that time? Technical and scientific advances.

Rick Rosner: So, is AGI—for Artificial General Intelligence—that it? Is it AI that can think? It once seemed like AGI was eight years away, but now it appears to be only four or five years away. If AGI comes close to fruition within the next half-decade, it could supersede much of the current nonsense. That doesn’t mean it will eliminate all problems, but it’s interesting to consider, especially when you compare it to the technological changes during World War II. Back then, significant advancements like rocketry, bomber fleets, and the atomic bombs—which ultimately ended the war in the Pacific—were all part of the conflict.

These technological developments are happening not because of any particular political figure, such as Trump, but as part of an entirely different trend. There is some overlap, however. Social media and smartphones facilitated Trump’s election and reelection. In other words, technological changes enabled his rise, but they are not inherently linked.

Now, AGI is one example. Consider Ozempic: although it represents a small slice of people’s lives, it has the potential to transform the lives of tens of millions of Americans radically. There are about 250 million adult Americans, and roughly 180 million of them are overweight—with half of that number being obese. If just 10% of overweight Americans were to use Ozempic intelligently—complementing disciplined lifestyle changes rather than relying solely on a pill—that would be 18 million people. If 20% used it, that number would double to 36 million. Imagine a man in his 40s weighing 255 pounds who uses Ozempic to reduce his weight to 210 pounds over a year or a woman who drops from 195 to 165 pounds. These changes could add years to their lifespans, improve their overall health, and even enhance cognitive function, as severe metabolic issues can affect brain performance. Additionally, the boost in self-esteem could help them participate more fully in life. While overweight individuals do engage in life, those who are not obese often have a broader range of opportunities.

What other technological advances do you think will have a transformative impact?

Jacobsen: Virtual reality and augmented reality. Distance surgery, mechatronics, autonomous robots in restaurants, and round-the-clock production lines with reduced human intervention. Some of these advances will result in lower costs for the products we buy.

Rosner: Absolutely. They have already begun to make certain things cheaper. If it makes enough stuff cheaper, it messes with capitalism. But when you mentioned personalized entertainment, we haven’t seen it yet. Well, I just saw something—a conversation between Jimmy Kimmel and Donald Trump. Jimmy Kimmel was making fun of Trump, boasting about his greatness, while Kimmel tried to pop Trump’s bloviating balloons. The conversation went back and forth for about seven or eight minutes, and AI entirely generated it. Kimmel was delivering jokes—not his best material, admittedly—but in his voice, and Trump was speaking in his distinct manner. You couldn’t tell those voices were artificial and AI-generated dialogue. That seems to be a huge step forward.

When I think about personalized entertainment—watching a movie that isn’t great, or even one that’s pretty good—I always imagine it could be improved if, at some point, aliens invaded. It doesn’t matter what movie it is, whether it’s Pride and Prejudice or Hot Frosty—a terrible Christmas romance about Frosty the Snowman being transformed into a hot, shirtless guy who doesn’t understand the world because he used to be a snowman—the plot could be enhanced if, just as the leading lady and the protagonist start to fall in love, space aliens suddenly descend upon the town. I believe that with AI, you’ll be able to alter plots and casts at will—even turning things into softcore porn if you want—because we now have the technology to do that. This might mean that people will be even more entertained. But I wonder, do people still care about being entertained?

Anyway, we’ve discussed a ton of things that are going to transform the world. Ideally, the positive transformations will outweigh the negative ones, and Trump will be stifled in some of his badness. Do you think that any of the changes in technology will impact some of the bad things Trump wants to do?

Jacobsen: He’s a wild card. Technology is a slightly controlled, wilder card. In terms of processing power, energy efficiency, and computational output over time, technology has proven that its progress remains consistent even through world wars, epidemics, economic recessions, and housing crises. Despite Trump’s unpredictable, self-centred impulses, technology is significantly changing the landscape.

Rosner: Here’s where the two sides collide—let’s see if you agree. Trump gets what he wants by stirring up fear and anger. He wants to eliminate a large number of undocumented immigrants—11 million immigrants and their families—and he plans to do it at a rate of a million per year, which would cost tens of billions to administer. We can hope—and I think it’s an unlikely hope—that technological advancements transform the economy quickly enough so that Trump’s claims about immigrants wrecking America are overshadowed by good economic news.

Jacobsen: Do you think there’s a chance that his efforts will be blunted because people will be reassured that everything is fine?

Rosner: I kind of doubt it because, although crime has dropped by 50% since the ’90s, Trump and Republicans continue to talk about an explosion in crime—a claim based on isolated incidents, like someone being pushed onto subway tracks or a single immigrant committing a violent act, and then generalizing that these incidents reflect a broader trend. The same pattern makes me think that positive economic news from tech may not be enough to overcome the flood of misinformation from Trump. What do you think?

Jacobsen: The technology could very well be used to increase misinformation. It’s like a hammer. I don’t want to be too pessimistic, but it will be an interesting few years.

Rosner: I think the tide of history will, well, history spares no one—idiots and non-idiots alike. However, I believe technological improvements will eventually sweep aside the current wave of idiocy. I don’t think these changes will occur quickly enough to blunt Trump’s influence. And perhaps they won’t even happen fast enough to stop America from being supplanted by larger, smarter powers. Canada’s in a good position; you have fairly rational leaders, and political movements based on nonsense have less sway in your country, not to mention your tremendous natural resources.

Jacobsen: Even the misinformation we have here is not extremely harmful. There’s more truth in our bullshit than in the American version if we’re being realistic.

Rosner: But you don’t have the same propaganda push that we do. Do you have a Fox News equivalent—a Rupert Murdoch kind of presence?

Jacobsen: We have smaller equivalents, but I consider them medium-sized. Fox News is gargantuan because it is so well-loved and widely watched by Americans.

Rosner: Well, it isn’t that widely watched. Its average viewership is, I think, three or four million—a mere 1% of Americans or 1.5% of adult Americans. Yet, its viewers are the loudest; they spread their message among family, friends, and even in church. Fox News’ influence exceeds its ratings, although relatively few people watch it. I don’t know… Or is there more to discuss?

Jacobsen: I’m good for the night.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1244: Tread with the Trends of Caution or Caution to the Wind?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

Rick Rosner: Okay, I have a topic. People seem to be backing off of Trump—comedians, the press—and there is a growing trend of acquiescing to authoritarian tendencies before they fully materialize, driven by fear and self-preservation. I myself have largely stopped tweeting harsh criticisms of Trump. Before the election, I tried to post at least ten anti-Trump tweets a day, hoping they would have some effect, but now I wonder, what’s the point? Additionally, Carole advises not to tweet anything that might get me in trouble. It appears that the situation in my household is being mirrored across America, as people adopt a “wait and see” attitude: is it really going to be as bad as we fear? This uncertainty works both ways—if things aren’t as dire as anticipated, perhaps constant criticism isn’t necessary, but if they turn out to be as bad as we fear, incessant criticism might not help either.

Furthermore, the focus has shifted from Trump alone to include Elon Musk; each wields significant influence in different ways. I also sense that people are exhausted after two years of trying to hold Trump accountable and prevent his reelection, and there is noticeably less agitation now than there was before the election. There is some optimism that the shortcomings of Trump’s first administration might reappear this time around. However, that optimism may be misguided: one might expect that either Trump or his team would have learned from past mistakes. Yet, he may have new advisors, including influential figures like Elon Musk. Let me know if you have any comments on this situation.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think Trump or Elon Musk poses a greater danger in terms of going after competitors, whistleblowers, journalists, and the media in general—especially those who oppose their policies?

Rosner: Trump is constrained by the structure of government. He can make public statements, issue executive orders, and call for investigations, but he does not control the government. Some argue he has more power than previous presidents because of certain legal protections; however, it is important to clarify that there is no definitive Supreme Court ruling granting presidents blanket immunity for acts committed while in office. In contrast, Elon Musk, as a private citizen with considerable wealth—currently estimated at around half a trillion dollars—and as the owner of a major social media platform, wields significant influence even though he does not hold formal governmental power. Many would argue that Musk is more adept at leveraging his resources, and in the short term, he might be more dangerous than Trump.

What do you think? Meanwhile, critics on the right claim that concerns over these issues are exaggerated and that America will ultimately thrive, dismissing such fears as the concerns of overly sensitive individuals. Yet, many on my side caution that the rapid and vast changes in government policy might be reminiscent of drastic historical shifts, though the contexts are very different.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1243: The Speaker Mike Johnson Rick Roll Ramble

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your opinion of Speaker Johnson being re-elected with a vote of 218 to 215?

Rick Rosner: I watched some of that. The Democrats were making a big deal out of the possibility that something else might happen, but it was inevitable.

He got elected on the first ballot. They just had to keep the voting open for about an hour or so. Initially, three Republicans voted against him. It took about an hour of persuasion and probably some promises to get two of them to flip back to Johnson.

It was never going to turn out any other way. Right now, it’s 219 Republicans to 215 Democrats in the House. So, even though the news was saying they could only afford to lose one Republican, they actually had enough of a margin. It was never going to flip any other way. If they had held the vote after Trump became president, their margin might have dropped to 216 to 215.

That might have been more interesting because three members of the House are expected to leave to work in Trump’s Cabinet. Their replacements will take some time to be seated. So, with a one-person margin, it still wouldn’t necessarily lead to Democrats or someone other than Johnson winning the Speaker of the House election.

But I believe the Republicans passed a rule requiring at least nine members to vote to hold a new Speaker election. They won’t be able to get those nine votes, even after the margin drops to one. The Republicans have the power, and they won’t give it up. Neither side would willingly relinquish power if they held it.

Can they pass any legislation with a margin of 216 to 215? Maybe not, and certainly not unless it’s bipartisan. For instance, if there’s a natural disaster in a state that both sides support, like somewhere other than California, they could pass a funding bill for an expensive disaster causing billions in damage.

Other legislation, like addressing immigration, is a possibility. Trump previously scuttled a bipartisan immigration bill because it wasn’t under his administration. Now that he’s president, a similar bill may come up, and he’ll support it. Democrats might go along with bipartisan legislation to get something done. They’re not as obstructive as Trump tends to be.

So, we’ll see what happens. The previous Congress was arguably the least effective in history. It had a slightly larger margin, but still not large enough to accomplish much. This Congress will have the smallest margin in history.

Jacobsen: Okay.

Rosner: Talk to you tomorrow. You won’t have to put up with me rambling like this. All right. Take care.

Jacobsen: You too.

Rosner: Bye.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1242: Fisetin

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What can people do to extend their shelf life?

Rick Rosner: I take a lot of fisetin, a senolytic. It helps your body eliminate cells that should have died off because they no longer function. A senolytic kills senescent cells. In many people, Senescent cells hang on, increasing inflammation and using up your body’s resources.

I’ve been taking fisetin for about 70 months, and it’s fairly effective. But one thing you can do is stay informed because new advancements are happening at an accelerating rate. With AI kicking in, even more breakthroughs will emerge.

So, pay attention. Look around and see what’s new. Fisetin itself is a relatively recent discovery, probably made 8 to 10 years ago.

If you can, get an MRI or ultrasound of your abdomen. A lot in your abdomen could be too late if you wait so late. For example, look at your pancreas, kidneys, and everything in that area. Pancreatic cancer doesn’t cause symptoms until it’s stage 4 and likely metastasizes. At that point, it’s usually untreatable.

However, it’s easy to detect issues in your pancreas years before they develop into cancer. The same goes for your kidneys. If you catch kidney issues early, the prognosis is usually good. If you wait for symptoms, it could spread, and you’re in trouble. So, get an MRI or ultrasound, even if you pay for it out of pocket or your insurance doesn’t cover it.

I have good insurance, but I justified it by having weird blood markers due to working out too much. My high creatinine levels make it seem like there’s something wrong with my kidneys, even though there isn’t. The more you work out, the more muscle breakdown you have, which increases creatinine.

Using those markers, I got an ultrasound that led to an MRI, which helped me find potential issues early.

Also, floss. Your mouth is full of bacteria, and since you’re always swallowing saliva, that floods your digestive tract with bacteria, increasing inflammation. Keeping your mouth as clean as possible helps reduce this.

Exercise regularly. If you have a weight problem, consider Ozempic. It’s a relatively discipline-free way to bring your weight back into a healthy range. Plus, it helps your social life or dating prospects.

Those are the big things, as far as I know. Anything you can do to reduce inflammation is critical. Could you read up on it? Some supplements, like curcumin, claim to be anti-inflammatory, and studies have backed them up.

Getting regular sleep also helps reduce inflammation. Knowledgeable people understand that inflammation significantly contributes to aging and many diseases.

So, there you go.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1241: I have no idea, also aging

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/02/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Here’s a topic. If you’re on Facebook and you like those zit-popping clips from Instagram or wherever, try searching for farrier or blacksmith recovery videos. They take out nails and rocks embedded in horse hooves. Sometimes, the hoof grows around the rock; they dig it out, and there’s pus and blood.

Rick Rosner: As much as I like popping my zits, I’ve never watched a full episode of Dr. Pimple Popper. I’m not sure I’m totally into that stuff. But yeah, if you’re into scooping stuff out of people, horses could offer some gruesome examples.

Jacobsen: You were on a panel with David Zucker.

Rosner: Not that I know of. Who’s David Zucker? The guy who wrote Airplane?

Jacobsen: No, that’s you on a panel. Is this fake? David Zucker, Catherine Clinch, Jonathan Fernand, Bill Wheeler—Digital Hollywood. Great panel.

Rosner: Maybe years ago. I’ve been on panels before, but not in at least five years.

Jacobsen: Yeah. Check this. Someone posted it a month ago: Ken Pisani, screenwriter, Emmy nominee, LA Times bestseller in 2017, Thurber Prize runner-up, and some artist of pants.

This has to be old. What am I looking at here? Let’s see.

Rosner: Oh, yeah, that has to be old. That’s from before COVID. My hair looks less ghostly. Weird. Why’d they post it now?

Jacobsen: No idea.

Rosner: So I made a mistake. Part of aging is that your head weighs around 11 pounds, not 8, as commonly believed. And when you reach a certain age, you can strain your neck if you don’t manage that weight properly. That’s exactly what I did. I was working on a micromosaic, probably bent over it for too long, and the muscles at the back of my neck went into spasm. They’ve been sore all week.

I changed the pillows to see if that helps tonight. In the meantime, I have to keep my head in a weird position and look ridiculous.

You said I look like a grandpa who doesn’t know how to use technology, and I said I look like the last days of Howard Hughes. That’s just one issue. Another issue is that I’ve struggled with hair loss my whole life, and now the thickness of each strand has decreased by about 40%, which gives me that mad scientist flyaway hair.

Jacobsen: For those who can’t see what I’m seeing, there’s definitely some mad scientist flyaway hair.

Rosner: Once you reach your 40s, your eyes begin to change. The lenses start to harden, reducing the ability to focus at different distances. I grew up in Colorado at a high altitude, and as a kid, I did plenty of dumb things, like staring at the sun. Fortunately, I haven’t shown any signs of cataracts yet, which can often result from excessive exposure to UV light over a lifetime.

I had my hearing tested recently, and I’ve lost a noticeable amount of hearing at higher frequencies. I’ll likely need hearing aids soon.

I was anemic for a while, which made my mouth more sensitive to spicy foods, especially chillies. Now, I can’t eat them without tearing up.

My throat has something similar to esophageal dysmotility. It’s not the correct term, but my throat muscles have weakened. This means liquids can sometimes go down my windpipe if I’m not careful while drinking, causing coughing fits. Pills can also get stuck in my throat. It can dissolve there if needed. If it’s a c there, it stings terribly, depending on what’s inside.

I’ve lost about a third of my physical strength. I used to weigh around 170 pounds, or at least in the high 160s, with low body fat and muscle. Now I’m down to 140 pounds. I’m still strong for someone my weight, but it’s nowhere near where I was when I had significantly more muscle.

My hemorrhoids are gone because I had the internal ones surgically removed. Internal hemorrhoids are the ones that tend to bleed and cause anemia, and they don’t have many nerve endings. Hence, the surgery wasn’t too painful. The doctors left the external ones alone because those have more nerve endings, and fixing them would have been very painful. I remember having them treated when I was 16, and it was awful. Now, I’m not bleeding every time I go to the bathroom. Oddly, the surgery tightened my rectum slightly, so now my bowel movements are much narrower—let’s call them “svelte.”

What else? Oh, my toenails are completely ruined by fungus. The big toenails are especially bad. I’ve never known anyone who’s successfully gotten rid of toenail fungus, even though all kinds of treatments are on the market. There are oral antifungal pills, but they can have serious side effects, like liver damage, so it’s not worth it. Plus, the fungus would return because my feet are often damp due to varicose veins. I have to wear compression socks—three layers on each leg—to keep my legs from swelling and to prevent blood clots.

So that’s a snapshot of my current state. I’m still active, able to run and move around, and steady. My brain still works well, but many annoying reminders of aging exist.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1240: Constructs with Contructed Feelings

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/24

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How can you construct feelings into robots if that can be done?

Rick Rosner: Well, an editorial in the LA Times this morning asked, “Are you going to be mean to your phone when it has emotions?” It suggested that phones might have emotions within the next 10 years. That’s plausible. I forget exactly what the article said, but it’s not an unreasonable prediction.

Two things to consider—and we’ve discussed this before—are that we have real emotions, which make sense for us due to evolution. Our emotions drive us to survive and reproduce because animals that do so are part of species that endure. Every species on Earth has mechanisms to ensure future generations.

Emotions are a way of reacting to information about our situation in the world. If things are good, we’re happy. If they’re bad, we’re unhappy.

The path for AI to develop emotions is unclear—or maybe not. As AI systems grow more advanced, they will increasingly have objectives they pursue using their learning and resources. When AIs become sufficiently complex, they may spontaneously develop internal ratings of events—essentially a scale of good to bad.

They might react to those ratings in ways analogous to how we respond to emotions. Even if they don’t have “true” emotions, they could behave as though they do because they’re trained in human behaviour.

It’s not unreasonable to think that by the 2030s, some AIs will begin to behave as if they have emotions. Thoughts?

Jacobsen: I’m not sure. Emotions might include hormones that are also neuromodulators, providing a kind of embodied experience. Hormones act on the body and the brain, facilitating emotional processing in a way deeply tied to our physical form. These chemicals have a dual function. In one sense, they act like neurotransmitters in the brain. In another, they affect the body. So, emotions are more complex than just…

Rosner: You make a good point. We’re the product of more than a billion years of evolution, so we have all sorts of feedback systems in our bodies. AIs don’t have anything like that. They lack the physical mechanisms that tweak their experience of the world. They don’t have many ways to experience the world, and they certainly don’t have the intricate organic chemistry that shapes our emotional responses. If they develop emotions, their version will likely be much flatter and less nuanced—at least at first.

Jacobsen: Stress responses from emotions, whether good or bad, take time. Some happen instantaneously, while others unfold over days, weeks, or even months. And these responses are often involuntary. People can use controlled breathing to calm their physiological response when angry, but that doesn’t eliminate the underlying emotion. There’s a fuzzy line between modulating emotions and reacting to them. A lot of emotion isn’t under our control. If emotions are to be built into AI systems, how do you calibrate them? How do you ensure they’re not rageaholics or so low on the emotional spectrum that they become almost sociopathic?

Rosner: In TV and movies, when AI develops emotion, there are several stereotypical, clichéd ways it’s depicted. One is the “cold judgment” approach, where the AI shows no emotion but decides humans are no good and must be wiped out. For example, there’s a terrible Megan Fox robot movie out now where her character is keyed to a single person. She decides that other people threaten this person and starts eliminating them. Eventually, she concludes that even her user is a threat to her. Despite this, neither she nor the other robots show emotion. They maintain the same neutral tone even while killing people. That’s one clichéd portrayal—AI as cold, unemotional killers.

The other extreme is where robots act like humans, with fully human-like feelings. The reality of actual AI will likely fall somewhere between or across a wide range of reactions. First, AIs will react differently because they’re trained or programmed to do so. Second, emergent properties will lead to diverse, unpredictable behaviours.

There are movies like Her, where a man falls in love with his operating system for a while, or Blade Runner 2049, where a synthetic girlfriend seems to develop real feelings. Then there’s an Adam Devine movie where a guy’s phone operating system develops feelings—or at least wants him to stop being such a loser and pushes him to take action in his love life. Of course, there’s Ex Machina, in which the AI pretends to have human emotions but is actually cold and calculating. In that case, the AI embodies both extremes: the cold killer pretending to have fully human emotions.

So, we’ll see various ways AIs evaluate and react to circumstances as they develop. What do you think?

Jacobsen: It will be a bumpy ride on the emotional front until we figure things out.

Rosner: Can we think of any likely “attractors” besides the two extremes? For example, AI could be fully human in its reactions or close to humans but with emotions dialled up or down in intensity or purely cold and businesslike. Is there another way for AI to react that we’ll see frequently?

Jacobsen: The emotions that resemble the equivalent of “base colours” for feelings, like really subtle and complex emotions such as grief, will likely be much harder to replicate. Grief, for instance, involves a lot of brain activity that isn’t easy to reproduce. When the brain processes grief or depression, it seems to undergo a kind of pruning. During these states, there’s a reduction in feel-good chemicals, which limits neural branching. It’s like a retraction process. As time passes, things start to rebuild, and the person begins to feel good again. This rebuilding process is part of how grief is resolved. Replicating something like this would be incredibly complex for AI, as it involves a deep integration of neurological and emotional processes.

Rosner: An intense cry seems to reset the brain to some extent. I don’t know exactly what happens when you cry, but people generally feel better after a brutal bout of crying. I thought of an attractor for AI emotions—actually, two.

First, sets of emotions could become selling points or personality traits. As AI becomes capable of manifesting more personality, different products could have distinct emotional profiles. It’d be like Coke versus Pepsi in terms of personality—some people will prefer one product’s personality over another. For example, I don’t know if Alexa and Siri have different personalities. Are you familiar with both of them? How do they work? I haven’t used either, but they must have some functional differences that make people prefer one, right?

So, my emotions and personality will become commodified. That’s the first point.

The second is that some products will offer customizable emotional settings. A related idea—”point two-and-a-half”—is the ability to enable some level of autonomy. For instance, some people might feel guilty about being completely in charge of their AI and prefer a more collaborative dynamic. In some scenarios, it might even be more effective to have an AI capable of choosing its own responses and functionality. I think an emerging cliché in AIs—and TV and movies about AIs—will be the ability to tune the AI’s emotional responses and personality. That makes sense.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: We’ve already seen that, though I can’t name a specific movie. I’m sure someone has explored this concept, even if just in some mediocre movie where a sexy robot can be adjusted from neutral to horny with the push of a button or command. Also, I skimmed an article about someone opening the first AI brothel. It’s not robots yet, but they’ve got sex dolls that can carry on conversations, more or less. They don’t move yet—they’re just 120 pounds of silicone on some plastic framework.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1239: Radium Watch Girls

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/24

Rick Rosner: Let’s talk about jewelry for a moment. In the realm of gold-coated pieces, quality varies widely based on how thick the gold layer is. For instance, a gold wash is the lowest-quality coating—if you buy a piece of jewelry with just a gold wash, that layer will wear off within a decade or two, even with occasional use. Rolled gold, however, has a thicker layer that generally lasts indefinitely. Gold plating itself comes in different thicknesses as well.

Then there’s vermeil, which is gold layered over silver. Because silver is more valuable than ordinary base metals, vermeil is considered more desirable than gold over pot metal—a cheap combination of metals like tin and sometimes lead. Speaking of lead, you’d never want a pot made of pure lead; it’s toxic and can cause certain metals to erode. If your jewelry contains lead, it could eventually degrade. I’ve seen a lot of jewelry in my life—I like jewelry—but most of it is unattractive. That’s partly because designers often struggle to balance beauty with a desire to show off how expensive it is. Sometimes, attempts to display wealth—like covering a piece in diamonds—can overshadow good design.

That’s why costume jewelry matters. It allows for experimentation without the pressure of ostentatious spending. If every piece of jewelry cost, say, $2,500 or even $800, fewer people would buy it, resulting in fewer designs overall. Costume jewelry is more affordable, so manufacturers can produce large quantities. If you make a thousand pieces, maybe 300 of them end up halfway decent, 80 are genuinely good-looking, and 25 qualify as spectacular wearable art—a success rate of about 1 in 40. Volume is essential for achieving those hits. Historically, Rhode Island was a hub for cheap, mass-produced jewelry. Much of it was low-quality, but some was beautiful because they kept churning out new designs, often priced just $5 to $8 from the 1930s to the 1970s. In other words, volume plus talent can yield gems—literally and figuratively.

Of course, with cheap jewelry, you never know exactly what it’s made of. Some manufacturers might have used materials that harmed their workers. This brings to mind the “radium watch girls.” Around the turn of the century—give or take a few years—radium was discovered, and people used its radioactive glow in watch dials to help read the time in the dark. The young women painting these tiny numbers and hands were told to lick their brushes to keep the bristles pointed, unknowingly ingesting radioactive material. Many of them later died from radiation poisoning.

Working with toxic substances is unfortunately common in various fields. Turpentine, used as a paint thinner for oil painting, is poisonous. Over decades, it can severely damage an artist’s health. There was also a case in the 1970s of a man who made incredibly lifelike resin castings of people; the resin ultimately killed him. Chemists and chemistry teachers have shorter-than-average lifespans, as do hairstylists due to prolonged exposure to hair dyes. Even famous movie productions had issues: in the 1950s, while filming near Las Vegas, John Wayne and his cast were exposed to radiation from an atomic bomb test. Many later died of cancer. Wayne himself was also a heavy smoker, so it’s hard to pinpoint a single cause for his illness.

The U.S. military now has compensation programs for individuals exposed to nuclear materials who later died of cancer. Several members of my own family worked with nuclear weapons: my dad was a navigator-bombardier on a nuclear-armed bomber, my stepdad guarded nukes, and my father-in-law did accounting for nuclear weapons. Of the three, two died of cancer, though the one most closely involved—my dad—passed away from Parkinson’s instead. My stepdad developed recurring thyroid cancer, but he was also a big cigar smoker, so it’s tough to say if radiation played a role.

For decades, people in Boulder, Colorado (where we lived) lived just 7.5 miles from Rocky Flats, where nuclear triggers were manufactured. Did that cause additional cancer cases? Possibly—it’s hard to know. Boulder is over 5,000 feet above sea level, which means higher natural radiation due to thinner atmosphere, and the local rock is somewhat radioactive as well. Ultimately, exposure to radiation—whether from atomic tests, nuclear weapons, or the environment—remains a concerning factor in many people’s health.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1238: The Odious Gilded Age with Electric Cars and Nike Sneakers

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/10

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Are American billionaires and political elites becoming more odious or less odious?

Rick Rosner: It depends on your time frame. For one thing, we didn’t always have billionaires. But if you’re talking about the top one-hundredth of one percent of Americans, your time frame is a century, 50 years, or even 70 years. Yes, they’re more odious.

There was a time when the ultra-rich were terrible. Still, on average, there might have been a greater sense of civic responsibility among them. Of course, this would need a proper study to determine the percentage of super-rich Americans with a sense of civic duty.

Today, there are examples of billionaires doing altruistic things. Bill Gates, for instance, is trying to give away billions of dollars, eradicate malaria, and engage in other public-spirited initiatives. Conservatives criticize him and think he’s sinister because he’s a liberal, but that’s just dumb. Warren Buffett plans to give away almost all of his wealth to causes he believes are worthwhile, leaving his kids a small portion of his fortune—maybe a few tens of millions. Jeff Bezos’s ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, has been giving away billions.

Looking back, Andrew Carnegie—who made his fortune in steel, not railroads—built thousands of public libraries across America. So, historically, there have always been altruistic elites. Still, there’s also a slice of today’s American elites that is much more exploitative than 70 years ago.

This exploitative slice includes many in the CEO class, venture capitalists, and corporate raiders. These people buy companies, strip them of assets, sell off everything they can, and temporarily drive up the stock price. They’ll drain pension funds—leaving workers promised retirement security with nothing—then sell off their stock and leave the company to collapse into a hollow shell.

Due to this behaviour, the percentage of Americans with pensions has likely dropped by more than half. A company with a pension fund worth tens of billions of dollars meant to take care of retirees can be gutted by a group of people who take the money, strip the assets, and leave everyone else holding the bag. This class of economic elites is definitely worse than their counterparts from the 1950s.

If you look at a shorter time frame, like the past five years, it’s harder to say. During COVID, the wealthiest people became even richer. But did they achieve that by becoming bigger jerks, or did circumstances allow them to make more money without changing their operations? That’s harder to determine.

Jacobsen: Is this a new era of the Robber Barons?

Rosner: Well, yeah. It’s a new one.

So, the Gilded Age—When people hear “Gilded Age,” they think of the 1880s as a time when everything was made of gold and super fancy. But that’s not what it means. When something is gilded, it’s gold-plated, a thin gold wash over some inferior metal.

When people talk about the Gilded Age of the 1880s, it’s referring to an illusory, fake coating of gold over crap. And, yeah, we’re in a similar period now. You’ve got some super-rich people flaunting their wealth.

For example, I believe a member of the Walmart family just rolled out a $300 million superyacht. So, there’s no shortage of extremely wealthy individuals who don’t seem to care how bad they look to the public. And why should they? Many of these people have massive influence over politicians, thanks to money.

The Supreme Court ruled that money is free speech and that, in some important ways, there shouldn’t be limits on how much money you can donate to politicians. This leads to a situation where politicians are essentially owned by the rich, which is awful.

Meanwhile, half of Americans or more have a net worth of nearly zero and live paycheck to paycheck. So, yes, it’s a new Gilded Age, complete with modern-day robber barons.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1237: Tripartite Religion of the H-1B

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/08

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you think Twitter has been devolving since Musk took it over?

Rick Rosner: It has. Twitter went downhill after Musk bought it. What, three years ago? It used to be where I followed hundreds of comedians and saw hundreds of jokes daily. It was fun and less political.

When Musk came in, he invited back a bunch of trolls and disinformation merchants. Twitter’s increased toxicity chased away about 90% of the good people and 98% of the good content. There are still a few good people left, but most aren’t posting fun jokes anymore. Even the comedians on Twitter aren’t doing much comedy anymore, and neither am I.

Now, it’s mostly pointing out the nonsense we’re all dealing with. It’s a slog. Twitter has deteriorated.

When there’s a car wreck and liability needs to be assigned, lawyers go to court to determine percentages of culpability. Similarly, if you’re assigning blame for Trump’s re-election, you’d have to give a few percentage points to Twitter.

Musk himself might bear 15–20% of the blame, and you could assign a third to Twitter. It’s a mess.

Jacobsen: Elon Musk or Trump, who is more full of it?

Rosner: Trump. Musk has demonstrated effectiveness in many of his enterprises. Now, there’s certainly some “full of shit-liveness,” or whatever you want to call it, in what Musk does. For example, he’ll buy a company with potential and make it a condition of the deal that he’s included as one of the founders. He’s done this with SpaceX, Tesla, and maybe other companies. So, he’s not always the actual founder of these companies but misrepresents himself as such.

That said, SpaceX is a very effective company. They’re innovative and have successfully launched numerous projects into space. Neuralink is another example. While it’s not successful, they’re progressing toward developing brain implant technologies to improve communication or other neural functions. It’s not operational, but they’ve advanced the field.

So yeah, Musk gets things done. Trump, on the other hand, is almost exclusively a con man and a purveyor of nonsense. He may get things done, but those things are often harmful or of dubious value. His most successful enterprise was licensing his name before his presidency revealed how much of a fraud he was.

At one point, he had 17 buildings in New York City with his name on them, but he only owned three. The rest were licensing deals with developers who thought the Trump name would make their buildings seem prestigious. It sounds absurd now, but it worked for a long time.

Trump lies about everything, including his net worth. So, yeah, Trump is far more full of it than Musk. Musk has a technical education. Although there’s some debate about the accuracy of his academic credentials, he does understand technology. Trump’s understanding of most things is superficial at best. Rotten tomatoes.

Jacobsen: Where is Elon Musk most full of shit?

Rosner: I don’t know as much about Musk as I do about Trump. The whole “founders” thing is a big example of Musk’s nonsense. It’s not insignificant—it has helped him cultivate an image as the “Thomas Edison of our time” or some similar hyperbole. That image has undoubtedly facilitated further deals and opportunities.

However, it’s not in the same league as Trump and his family being among America’s biggest deadbeats, having stiffed creditors out of $1.5 billion over their careers. It’s not comparable to Trump politicizing COVID, which led to the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans and likely many more globally.

Musk’s embrace of Trump is problematic, given how full of nonsense Trump is. Still, Musk and Ramaswamy are now positioning themselves to help Trump address the budget deficit, attempting to cut trillions of dollars. We’re 19 days away from Trump taking office again, and Musk and Ramaswamy claim they can identify significant savings.

I’m skeptical. While there is room for government efficiency, it’s a tall order to make cuts that aren’t stupid or harmful. If Musk genuinely applies AI to a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), they could identify areas to streamline costs, like reducing redundancies. But we’ll see if Musk is posturing.

As for Ramaswamy, he seems worse than Musk. He made his $2 billion with what appears to be a pump-and-dump scheme. From what I’ve read, he acquired a candidate drug for Alzheimer’s that had underperformed in early clinical trials. He hyped it up, then sold it before it failed yet another trial. That drug has never come to market because it doesn’t work.

Ramaswamy’s wealth is built on vapour. He seems more full of it than Musk—just another charlatan.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1236: Why does Rick hate cardio?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/08

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Why don’t you like cardio?

Rick Rosner: Why don’t I like cardio?

I don’t like cardio because it’s uncomfortable and boring. With weights, I used to read between sets at the gym before COVID-19, and that made the gym a little less boring. I’d only read for about 20 seconds to be courteous. I knock out my sets fast. Resting between sets is unnecessary unless you’re going for a max. If you’re trying to hit your maximum, you must wait about 90 seconds between sets to recover as you work up the ladder. Otherwise, do your sets—bam, bam, bam, bam, bam.

Since COVID, I stopped reading between sets because I wanted to get in and out of the gym as quickly as possible. I can go to the gym and do 25-leg presses in eight minutes. Working out the way I do does not take a lot of time, but cardio takes time. It’s boring and uncomfortable, and I just don’t like doing it.

To do cardio properly, you have to push yourself to the point of discomfort. Also, one of my hips is borderline arthritic. It’s not severe, but I feel it if I try to run more than a hundred yards. I’m not in terrible cardio shape because the way I lift weights includes some cardio benefits—I don’t rest between sets. However, if I try to run more than a short distance, I risk irritating my hip. For all these reasons, I’m not a fan of cardio.

I do get some cardio. We live in a house with stairs, and one of my gyms has 42 steps between the ground and second floors. I’ll run up those. So, that’s my one nod to cardio.

Could I be in better cardio shape? Sure. Carol, for example, walks or hikes five to ten miles daily. When she visits our kid, there’s much walking involved. Her resting pulse is in the 40s, like 48. She’s in excellent shape. My resting pulse is around 72, maybe lower when lying down or sleeping. So I could improve.

That said, I get a ton of exercise the way I work out. It doesn’t involve much running, pedalling, or any of that other stuff.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1235: The Lord of the Rings and PodTV

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/08

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Did you ever watch The Lord of the Rings?

Rick Rosner: Parts of it—it puts me to sleep. Superhero movies do the same thing. I fall asleep for about an hour and 20 minutes, sleep for 10 minutes, and wake up refreshed, but still not caring about what I missed. It’s even worse with The Lord of the Rings. Do you like them, however?

Jacobsen: Yes. I appreciate them, especially knowing J.R.R. Tolkien’s sensibility came from his experiences in the trenches during World War I. You can see how he built that into the story.

Rosner: I tried starting The Lord of the Rings once or twice but have yet to get far. I wanted to push past five pages, but I never did.

Jacobsen: It’s an acquired taste.

Rosner: I do a lot of podcast- things on PodTV with people. I go on there with others; honestly, it’s a lot of yelling.

When I tell Carole, “I gotta go yell,” it’s because you must interrupt and shout to get a word in. It’s a free-for-all. We did a session today where AI came up, and we were early to worry about AI conversation. We discussed it eight years ago, but now everyone is discussing it to some degree.

AI and deep fake technology are all over the place, especially in the context of elections. It’s not that 80% of the content is AI-generated, but you don’t have to look far to find something suspicious. For example, Tim Walz went to a University of Michigan football game—maybe they were playing Wisconsin, I don’t remember—but someone yelled something at him as he left. There’s a video of him flipping the person off. It looked strange because, as someone who’s flipped off hundreds of people, I can tell you that a good flip-off is straightforward—you get your middle finger straight up. Some people have all their fingers down, but the pros get the adjacent fingers slightly raised to stand for testicles. That’s the master-level flip-off.

In the video of Walz, though, it looked off—his angle was weird, and the whole thing seemed doctored. MAGA supporters were saying it was real, but this guy was a schoolteacher, a coach, spent 12 years in Congress, and has been a governor for eight years. He’s not dumb enough to flip someone off in public. It’s unbelievable on its face. Then, when you look closely, his middle finger looks way too long. It’s fake.

Someone posted another video from a different angle showing the real moment. Walz was doing a “We’re number one!” gesture with his index finger. Someone used bad AI or whatever to turn his index finger into a middle finger, and it was a terrible job. Luckily, that’s the level of deep fake we’ve been seeing—nothing convincing. Plenty of fake accounts and bots are out there, but we haven’t seen any truly persuasive videos yet. We still have 33 days to go, though, so who knows?

Thankfully, we haven’t seen any convincing AI-generated videos of Walz or Harris saying something , “Yes, and then we’re going to kill all the billionaires,” which someone could technically put together. But no one has—yet.

Jacobsen: I don’t think we were wrong to be worried about AI back then, and the people who are newly concerned about it now are right to be worried. I’m sure there are a lot of misguided fears about AI—things that experts would tell you are silly to be afraid of—but there are also plenty of legitimate concerns.

Rosner: If you asked experts to estimate the probability that AI could end humanity in the next 20 years, I don’t think any of them would laugh and say, “Zero percent.” Everyone has some percentage in mind.

Jacobsen: Most people estimate the chance at around 10%, but it’s a legitimate worry if you’re not at 0%. One concern that comes to mind is when people start getting chips implanted in their brains regularly to help with neurological problems. For instance, Michael J. Fox has some device—maybe a pacemaker—implanted to assist with brain function, possibly in the pituitary or pineal gland. There’s some gland in the brain that deals with dopamine, and with Parkinson’s, which he suffers from, there’s a shortage of dopamine, among other things. Somehow, this chip helps regulate his malfunctioning dopamine system to work a bit better.

Rosner: Right, and people with cochlear implants—deaf individuals who can now hear—also have chips in their brains. There are even experimental cases of people with chips in their eyes. Your eyes are essentially extensions of your brain, after all.

Jacobsen: Yes, they used to be part of brain tissue in early development, which then evolved into eyeballs. So, several people with chips are already implanted in their brains. But imagine the speculation when it comes to high-profile figures Biden. A persuasive theory I’ve heard is that he might have neuropathy—specifically peripheral neuropathy, which causes constant pins and needles or numbness in the extremities. If his feet feel they’ve fallen asleep all the time, it would explain why he walks gingerly; he’s not getting feedback from his feet.

Rosner: That’s plausible. Some say he has Parkinson’s, but the White House has denied it, and I tend to believe they wouldn’t lie about it, especially this White House. But hypothetically, if Biden had Parkinson’s and they implanted a chip in his head, imagine the lunatic fringe saying, “How do we know China is not controlling him?” It sounds ridiculous now, but in 10 to 15 years, that could be a legitimate question.

Jacobsen: Exactly. Fast forward to when someone ice Gorsuch is 79 and still on the Supreme Court, but he has some mental issues. Let’s say they implant a sophisticated chip in his brain connected to an advanced processor via Bluetooth or something. At that point, it would be a legitimate concern to ask: are Gorsuch’s thoughts truly his own, or are they being influenced by his information processing system?

Rosner: Yes, when people augment themselves—whether to fix a neurological deficiency or enhance their cognitive abilities—it raises serious questions. Are their thoughts and decisions still their own, or are they being influenced by technology? It’s a real concern that we’ll face sooner or later.

Jacobsen: Exactly, and while we might be a long way from fully controlling someone’s mind through these chips, the idea of subtly influencing or massaging certain patterns of thought is feasible, even if it’s still far off.

Jacobsen: Well, 20 years—it depends on whether you consider 20 years far away. With the current rate of progress, yes, that might feel far off.

Rosner: Still, I hope we’re both around in 20 years to watch how this all plays out. It’ll be interesting.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1234: When is the end of our worlds?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/01/01

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We began collaborating 14% into the 21st century. Now, we are 25% into it. If you start counting the 21st century from the year 2000—which is slightly inaccurate but often done—we have completed 25 years. That means we are one-quarter of the way through the 21st century. Purists might argue that we are only 24% done, but regardless, we are well into what many consider a “science fiction” century.

Rick Rosner: The 20th century was a time that gave rise to science fiction, and much of that fiction was set in the 21st century. If you are old enough to remember the 20th century, much of what is happening now feels somewhat “science fiction-y,” although in a disappointingly dystopian way.

I was recently reflecting on the concept of the end of the world. AI seems to be heralding the end of the world as we know it, prompting the question: has the world ended before, and if so, when? One could argue that every major extinction event in Earth’s evolutionary history marked the end of the world, with the most notable being the meteorite impact on the Yucatan Peninsula, which led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and the rise of mammals. Is that a fair characterization?

Jacobsen: Yes.

Rosner: The challenge in calling that the end of the world lies in the fact that no sentient beings at the time had a conception of “the world” as humans do today. Sure, there might be fanciful speculation about a lost dinosaur civilization, but that is clearly unfounded. Perhaps birds and pterodactyls, as precursors to modern birds and remnants of the dinosaur lineage, had some instinctive awareness of their surroundings. However, no animal at the time possessed a conscious, conceptual understanding of the world that could be obliterated.

For such an understanding, we had to wait for humans—the conceivers and record-keepers of history. One might argue that the fall of the Roman Empire represented the end of the world. But does it hold up as a convincing case? Could the end of the Roman Empire, or any empire for that matter, be considered the end of the world?

Privacy Settings

Jacobsen: It was, perhaps, the end of a world—an era or an arena of human existence. Typically, when large civilizations collapse—whether Roman, Mongolian, Spanish, or British—they bring about significant societal changes within a century of their decline. However, none of these events qualifies as the literal end of the world. These collapses were often accompanied by renewals. They represented transitions rather than outright terminations.

Some might also argue that the decline of religion and the rise of science marked the end of a worldview. However, I find that argument unconvincing.

Rosner: Nothing in the past seems to compare with what could be the displacement of humans brought about by AI. While humans will likely remain essential to civilization, we may no longer be the apex thinkers. To me, that signals the end of the world as we have known it.

Jacobsen: We may, however, continue to be the apex feelers for some time.

Rosner: Another potential candidate for the end of the world could be the world of horses, whose role in transportation was replaced by automobiles and other vehicles powered by engines.

Jacobsen: Yet again, this was not the end of the world; it was merely the end of a world.

Rosner: So, can we consider the next hundred years under AI as the end of the world for humans? Perhaps not entirely, as we are likely to continue existing in vast numbers. However, the nature of our existence and our role in civilization may undergo a transformation so profound that it feels like the end of one world and the beginning of another. Though our population—the unaugmented human population—will eventually decline.

Jacobsen: A lot of the metrics you’re using are external. The collapse of a civilization or a specific orientation could be seen as one type of “end of the world.” Another way to consider it is by looking at our internal worlds: how we perceive and think about the world. Something truly transformative would be the deep integration of various technologies into our cognition—whether to augment it, replace it, or repair dysfunctional thought processes. For instance, consider a cure for schizophrenia or something akin to the Parkinson’s pacemaker, which helps individuals function where they want to function. These are not enhancements but repairs. If we include internal worlds in the discussion, it strengthens the argument that this could indeed be the end of the world as we know it.

Rosner: Humans have, of course, been conscious for as long as humans have existed, but we have lacked a deep understanding of what consciousness truly is. Lately, however, we’ve developed both an intuitive and technical grasp of consciousness that surpasses anything we’ve had before. Yet, even as we make these advances, the consciousness we understand is poised to be supplanted or expanded by a vast “jungle” of alternative ways to be conscious.

For centuries, humans have lived in a world where we saw ourselves as uniquely capable of magical thought—a little lower than the angels. But that era is coming to an end. What lies ahead is this “jungle” of new possibilities. The blissful ignorance we’ve lived in—a perception built on fragile foundations—is soon to disappear.

Jacobsen: What are you arguing?

Rosner: What am I arguing? I’m arguing whether this qualifies as an apocalypse—a definitive end of the world. Think of a nuclear apocalypse, like in the game Fallout or its TV adaptation. In those cases, the end of civilization as we know it can be argued as the end of the world. It’s a strong argument, no matter what causes it. Whether it’s the kind of cheap TV or movie apocalypse where The Last of Us depicts a brain-infecting fungus wiping out 99-point-something percent of humanity, or Stephen King’s The Stand, where a virus does the same—any scenario where 99-point-something percent of humans are wiped out constitutes the end of the world. Even if the story takes place after the apocalypse, the world as it was is over.

Privacy Settings

And what is coming may not wipe out—even indirectly—1% of humanity, but I believe it comes closer to qualifying as the end of the world than anything else in human history. I guess we’re on to that.

Jacobsen: The fact that we’re redefining what it means to be human, both in terms of the external landscape and our internal worlds, represents a process of eliminating humanity—not necessarily in a negative or constructive way, but certainly in a transformative one.

I like the term “unicity”—a wholly unified system. Tugging at any part of the system, like the Fates pulling threads, alters the dynamics of everything. Even now, with smartphones, we’re already significantly altering our internal worlds. Similarly, we’ll soon be doing this more directly, bypassing the indirect interaction of light and sound waves through our senses and instead engaging directly with our cognition.

Rosner: There’s a 60-year-old science fiction novel, Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke, where an alien civilization that seeded Earth determines that humans have reached a sufficient level of development to move into their next evolutionary phase. A new generation emerges, poised to explore the stars in a vastly transformed state. I can’t recall whether regular human life on Earth disappears entirely, but this concept of a “phase change” aligns with what you’re describing.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1233: What counts as doofus traps for smart people?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/31

Rick Rosner: I can’t recall why exactly, but someone on Twitter (I don’t remember their name) once gave a short talk where they mentioned that everyone they know with an IQ over 180 has trouble avoiding “doofus traps.” I love that term. It stings a bit because I’ve fallen into plenty myself—I used to call them “cul-de-sacs,” but “doofus trap” feels more accurate. Then I started thinking: what isn’t a doofus trap? Certainly, for example, suing Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? might qualify as one.

I’ve wasted so much time on that, which is a classic doofus trap. Catching IDs in bars? Doofus trap. Look at William Sidis—collecting streetcar transfers might have been a doofus trap depending on how much time and energy he spent on it. Me collecting micromosaics? Doofus trap. Chess? Doofus trap. (Not that I play it, but plenty of smart people do.)

You could argue that anything that doesn’t turn you into a real estate agent earning millions of dollars a year by selling multimillion-dollar properties is a doofus trap. Doofus traps, in a sense, exist to prevent people with IQs over 180 from disrupting everything, including the real estate field—an industry stereotypically not populated by “brilliant” people. But if truly brilliant minds entered the field, they might completely upend it. Hence, doofus traps.

But I don’t know. I waste endless hours working out, and on the one hand, it might make me healthier. On the other hand, is it a doofus trap? Is trying to be a good spouse a doofus trap? In the end, we all die, and nothing saves us from that. What do you think? Is everything a doofus trap—or at least a potentialdoofus trap?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: It seems like everything could be a potential doofus trap. There are tried-and-true ways of functioning in a particular society, at a particular time, in a particular culture—yet there are always plenty of ways to do those same things in a doofus-like manner.

Rosner: Look at Elon Musk. Based on recent stock valuations, his net worth is estimated several hundred billion dollars, making him one of the wealthiest people on the planet. Clearly, he hasn’t fallen into too many doofus traps; he’s used his time quite efficiently. But after accruing, say, your first $10 billion, isn’t chasing more money just another doofus trap? It led him, for example, to make controversial decisions like buying Twitter (now X) and making polarizing changes to the platform. Maybe that’s a doofus trap in itself.

Then there’s Jeff Bezos, worth around the same amount, who founded Amazon. He’s obviously brilliant and a great businessman. But isn’t having more than $20 billion itself a doofus trap? Plus, he divorced his wife, MacKenzie Scott, who walked away with several billion. He later began a relationship with Lauren Sánchez, who resembles MacKenzie to some extent. So is replacing your spouse with someone similar, but arguably “hotter,” a doofus trap? Bezos has also reportedly spent $500 million on a mega-yacht. Maybe that’s just another flavor of doofus trap.

In the end, it seems like almost everything has the potential to be a doofus trap, just in different guises.

Though maybe less so because not many people can pull off accumulating that kind of wealth. Am I right? I don’t know.

Jacobsen: That’s it for now, man. But certainly, I don’t know what you’d want to call it. There are a lot of high-end and low-end doofus traps by that metric.

And the rich ones just impact more people, so they’d be considered high-end, in a way, in terms of the utility value—just because of their high impact.

Rosner: So, there are a lot of rich tech bros, and probably not-so-rich tech bros, who are working on extending their lifespans by as many years as possible. If it doesn’t work out, it’s for sure a doofus trap. If it does work out, doofus trap or not, does getting to— I’d argue that if you figure out longevity hacks that buy you an extra 20 years of healthy life, it’s not a doofus trap.

Or is it just one more weird thing? Like, okay, so, you get to live to 107. And until 102, you look like you’re less than 80 years old because of your hacks. Is that a worthwhile use of your time and attention? Or one more weird doofus trap? Is that the question?

Jacobsen: Yeah. Currently a doofus trap—but in 15 years? Well, depending on the country you’re in, the money you have, and the scale of the research, maybe it’s an increasingly scaled-up reduction in doofus levels.

Rosner: Alright. Is that enough of that?

Jacobsen: Yeah.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1233: What counts as doofus traps for smart people?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/31

In the end, it seems like almost everything has the potential to be a doofus trap, just in different guises.

Though maybe less so because not many people can pull off accumulating that kind of wealth. Am I right? I don’t know.

Jacobsen: That’s it for now, man. But certainly, I don’t know what you’d want to call it. There are a lot of high-end and low-end doofus traps by that metric.

And the rich ones just impact more people, so they’d be considered high-end, in a way, in terms of the utility value—just because of their high impact.

Rosner: Alright. Is that enough of that?

Jacobsen: Yeah.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1232: Trends and Their Interactions

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30

Rick Rosner: All right, so some trends—most competing with each other to change the world, improve the world, or potentially harm the world—are fairly obvious to the point where people almost distrust them because they’ve been discussed so extensively. One is AI combined with quantum computing and the disruptions they bring, including AI-driven disinformation, cyber warfare, and other associated challenges.

Then there’s climate change, a heavily politicized and debated issue that elicits concern and skepticism. Another factor is declining fertility rates, potentially increasing lifespans, and growing wealth inequality. All these trends are interconnected—sometimes reinforcing and sometimes working against each other.

In 2024, national elections have been held in 33 nations. In 27 of those elections, the incumbents lost, indicating a shift in political leanings, largely toward the right. There is noticeable political anger, growing intolerance, and increasing selfishness, much of which is fueled by social media, which is influenced by AI-driven algorithms.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What can we conclude about these trends and how they interact or conflict? Human behaviour is increasingly shaped and manipulated by algorithms.

Rosner: Yes, all right, I can agree with that.

Jacobsen: : Ironically, even homesteaders who may try to remain off-grid still face indirect influences from modern systems. In certain ways, it’s inescapable.

Rosner: Okay, so we’re at the point where humans may no longer be the smartest beings on Earth. Much of what is happening results from human technological dominance, but this has been true for over a century. However, the forms and issues arising from it are rapidly evolving.

I don’t know—are there any other significant trends we’ve missed?

Jacobsen: When it comes to human augmentation, we’ll likely see more advanced attempts at augmenting animals or non-human species. This will raise profound ethical and practical questions.

Rosner: Implanting chips in animals to enhance their abilities is a major focus of my book. For example, people often compare the mental age of dogs to that of a two-year-old human child. These comparisons are always oversimplified because dogs are fundamentally different from toddlers.

However, if you could implant chips in animals to provide them with information feeds that make reality easier to comprehend or enable them to understand humans better, you could fundamentally alter their understanding of the world. You could give them a more human-like perspective—one less rooted in direct experience. Humans, for example, have a global perspective on events and their causes. In contrast, animals have a pragmatic understanding of their immediate surroundings and how events may affect them. They lack a unified perspective on why things happen.

Animals do not address the “who, what, when, where, why, and how” questions like humans do. Their perspective is more fragmented. You’d need to connect them to the analytical modules they lack to address this.

For example, a verbal processor could help. Animals develop some understanding of words, but their understanding is largely external. A chip could link their understanding to their consciousness. Over time, after prolonged exposure to the chip, animals might develop neural networks and structures that enable a more internal language comprehension.

Still, the primary processing would remain external, handled by the chip’s data processor. It would continue to perform the majority of the cognitive work.

And how do you link that effectively? Animals would need some external processing device, like a small box strapped to them, or could it be done via Bluetooth? I don’t know.

I need to think about this if I write about it. But yes, you’re right—we might see more enlightened animals in the future, for better or worse.

Also, I feel like lunatics will misuse tools like CRISPR. Using CRISPR to engineer viruses to alter people for good or harm is not hard.

For example, if there were genetic modifications to improve people in some way or if someone wanted to harm others, it’s conceivable. RFK Jr. came out with the ridiculous and offensive conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was engineered to kill Chinese people and spare Jews, which is some of the most absurd and creepy nonsense in the world.

However, someone could use CRISPR to create viruses with sinister or idealistic goals in the future. For instance, imagine if someone figured out how to make people smarter and released a virus. Who knows what unintended consequences it could have? That same virus could get into animals and make them smarter.

Is any of that plausible? I don’t know. But you could write about it and make it sound plausible in the framework of a novel.

Quite a few science fiction stories and novels have explored ideas like this—not tons, but enough. Some focus on people becoming smarter, others on people becoming less intelligent.

Somebody wrote a novel about 40 years ago called IQ 83, which states that a virus makes everyone stupid. It explored how humanity might survive when even the world’s greatest geniuses have their IQs cut in half.

I believe there was also, I believe, a Clifford D. Simak novel—maybe from 60 years ago—called Brainwave, or it could have been by Poul Anderson. The premise was that everyone’s IQ, including that of animals, was multiplied by five. The story explored what would happen to the world under those circumstances.

So, people have been writing about these ideas for a long time.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1231: How do you usually celebrate your birthdays?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you usually celebrate your birthdays?

Rick Rosner: We don’t go out or gather with others for New Year’s or my birthday. Carole likes to mark my birthdays, however. For Hanukkah, she gave me a gift certificate to Michael’s Crafts since I’m running low on some glues.

Jacobsen: Glues?

Rosner: Yeah, you need the right glue for the right job. E6000 is excellent, Gorilla Glue is great, and Super Glue works well for certain tasks. I’ve got at least five different glues, depending on the project.

I must also sign up for Medicare for my birthday in four months. You get penalized if you wait too long after turning 65, so that’ll be on my to-do list.

Carole will probably get me another gift card to Popeye’s Fried Chicken. Popeye’s chicken is better than Chick-fil-A’s, but Chick-fil-A uses too much sugar in its breading, which I don’t like.

Popeye’s can get expensive. Popeye’s closest to us charges over $2 per tender. It’s around $18 to $20 for eight tenders. But there’s a sketchier Popeye’s about eight miles away in a rougher neighbourhood where you can get four tenders and a biscuit for just $4.

If Carole gives me a Popeye’s gift card, I’d have to decide whether driving to the cheaper location is worth the gas. It’s a conundrum.

Jacobsen: What about other gift cards?

Rosner: Carole has a credit card that generates gift points. She recently redeemed points for a $30 gift card to The Cheesecake Factory. So, we’ll be going there at some point—though probably not for my birthday. For my birthday, she’ll pick a nice place for us to go.

They offer discounts if you’re part of their birthday club. Benihana also gives you diarrhea. It’s like prepping for a colonoscopy. When you prep for a colonoscopy, you drink a nasty liquid with salts—like sodium or magnesium salts—that pull water into your intestines through osmosis. That clears you out completely, giving you quick and intense diarrhea.

Benihana is super salty, and for me, at least, it has a similar effect. But honestly, it’s worth it because the food is so good.

Jacobsen: That’s quite the endorsement!

Rosner: I’ll sign up for Social Security. In the U.S., payroll deductions during your working years fund Social Security, a government pension you can collect in your older years.

The earliest you can start is at age 62. Every year you wait to collect, your monthly payments increase by about 8% until age 70. If you start at 70, your monthly check is twice as much as if you started at 62.

It’s all based on a break-even age of 82. If you think you’ll live past 82, waiting to collect pays off because the largerchecks accumulate over time. But if you think you won’t make it to 82, it’s better to start collecting earlier.

I might start collecting early for a couple of reasons. First, I’ve had stage 1A cancer a couple of times. The doctors say it doesn’t affect my life expectancy, and I assume they’re right—but who knows?

Second, the U.S. government is in chaos. Social Security could change at any time. Your payments aren’t affected by how much money you have saved, but some politicians have floated the idea of means testing. That means reducing or cutting benefits for people with substantial savings or those still working and earning wages.

The government is $34 trillion in debt, and some people—let’s call them a-holes—want to mess with Social Security to address that. So I might start collecting now to lock in some payments before they start screwing with the system.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1230: What about investments and windfalls?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30

Rick Rosner: Yesterday, the Mega Millions lottery awarded someone $1.2 billion. If you choose the payment spread over time, which almost nobody does because it’s a bad deal, you’d get about $550 to $560 million as a lump sum. I forget if that’s before or after taxes, but it’s a significant amount either way.

What would you do if you had a windfall of half a billion dollars?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: I’d invest it in long-term, low-risk investments that generate wealth over time. Then, I’d use the dividends or interest from those investments to donate to charitable causes. That way, the impact could grow beyond the direct monetary value.

Rosner: I agree. Carole and I discussed this and even bought a couple of tickets. With two tickets, our odds dropped to one in about 151 million. Then we found out the winner was in California, which lowered our odds since we’re also in California.

Of course, we didn’t win anything, but if we had, we’d likely set up a charitable foundation to offer scholarships—and park the rest of the money in low-risk investments that generate steady dividends.

Treasury bills, maybe? Or should we consider some riskier options, like Nvidia? I’m not sure.

I’d use part of it to self-finance some of the projects I’ve brainstormed with others over the years but haven’t been able to fund. I’d also consider hiring a PR firm to help generate traction for initiatives I want to bring to life.

Some people have built entire careers by investing in PR. Pia Zadora, for instance, was a singer and actress who gained most of her recognition through public relations, largely because of her marriage to a wealthy man. She was even nominated for a Golden Globe.

Rosner: If I won $600 million and you approached me for a grant, what would it be for?

Jacobsen: I’d propose funding a business idea focused on the low-cost distribution of renewable energy technologies—specifically photovoltaics and batteries—for regions with abundant sunlight. These technologies could dramatically improve lives in areas that need energy the most, such as parts of Africa. Africa is the only continent where population growth is expected to continue increasing over the next 20 years, and energy needs will grow.

Rosner: That’s a worthy cause. I’d likely hire a team of physicists to flesh out some of my physics-related ideas. I also indulge in a few luxury items. For instance, I collect mosaics, though not on a large scale. I recently bought a mosaic pin for $16, but I’d probably splurge and spend up to $50 on pins if I had more money.

I’ve always wanted to be rich enough to eat sushi whenever possible. But I’d avoid eating too much predatory fish, like tuna. Predatory fish accumulate mercury because of the food chain. Smaller fish absorb mercury, which builds up as larger fish eat them. Tuna, as an apex predator, accumulates the highest levels of mercury, which can be harmful if consumed in excess.

Tuna can weigh over 100 pounds and contain a lot of mercury. So, while I’d enjoy eating sushi, if I had more money, I might stick to vegetarian fish options or salmon.

I am also considering an eyebrow lift. My eyelids have started to droop, but I’m not sure. Maybe I’d do it—or maybe not. I don’t know. I’d probably get a fill-in set of hair plugs, however. I’m a bit sparse across the front. It’s not so bad that I’d want to spend the money with my current financial situation. Still, it’d be an easier decision if I had unlimited funds.

Right now, it’s a couple thousand dollars for hair plugs. If I had $600 million, earning 5% interest annually, that would be $30 million yearly. After taxes, let’s say that’s $19 million a year. That breaks down to around $50,000 a day. Spending $2,500 on hair plugs would only be 5% of a single day’s interest income. That’s manageable.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1229: What game show would you have liked to be on?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What game show would you have liked to be on but never had the chance?

Rick Rosner: I’ve been on Jeopardy! once and lost, and I’ve been on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire twice. You can’t go on Jeopardy! More than once, so that’s off the table.

I was on Jeopardy! when I was 31. Maybe I should have waited another 20 years until I had gained 20 more years of knowledge—but not really. I was up against someone pursuing a double doctorate, and while I didn’t win, I came in a strong second. Most contestants on Jeopardy! Don’t win, especially since you’re often up against a repeat champion.

My training in trivia wasn’t like Ken Jennings’ rigorous preparation. I was on trivia teams in high school but never in college, nor did I participate much in bar trivia. The best Jeopardy! Contestants often compete on trivia teams weekly for years, like studying for the SAT. Over time, they learn nearly every question and answer that could come up.

I’m glad I got on the shows I did, but I wish things had gone less disastrously. Millionaire was especially frustrating. I wish I’d gotten a different set of questions. I left the show because of a question their writers had messed up.

The question was about the highest national capital city in the world. Their research was poor, and they didn’t include the correct answer. Instead, they presented a deceptive but attractive option: Kathmandu. Many people associate Kathmandu with being near the highest point on Earth. Still, the city is only about 4,500 feet above sea level. That’s high, but it doesn’t compare to cities like Bogotá, Quito, or Mexico City. Even those can’t compete with the highest capital, La Paz, Bolivia, four kilometres above sea level.

Because of my OCD and my strong sense of fairness, I spent much time trying to get them to acknowledge their mistake. That’s a whole separate story, however.

Jacobsen: Are there any game shows you wish you had been on?

Rosner: Not really. A lot of it comes down to luck. However, I do wish I could have been on The Wall. It’s a trivia and Plinko-style game show on NBC where players drop a disc down a grid of pins into slots worth anywhere from one dollar to a million dollars.

They don’t cast trivia experts for The Wall. Instead, they choose regular people with compelling human interest stories. If someone with strong trivia skills were cast, they could dominate the game and walk away with millions. However, the producers avoid that. They prefer average contestants at trivia, ensuring most players win between $200,000 and $700,000.

The Wall’s trivia is almost a red herring. The show is more about the drama of decision-making, whether to trust a family member in a soundproof room, and the suspense of where the disc will land. Casting strong trivia players would cost the show too much money. Millionaire did something similar when it moved to syndication, making it less about knowledge and more about entertainment and suspense.

You used to be able to get on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire by playing a phone game and answering trivia questions. Eventually, though, the executive producer explicitly stated that he didn’t like the type of contestants who were good at trivia—middle-aged white guys. Also, having highly skilled trivia players for syndication would have been too expensive.

In primetime, Millionaire generated more ad revenue per year than any other show in television history. It aired five nights a week at its peak, filling gaps in ABC’s schedule and drawing massive ratings. People loved it, and the network sold around a billion dollars worth of advertising annually.

When the show moved to syndication, it aired in the afternoons, attracting less than 10% of the primetime viewership. As a result, the payouts were smaller, and they shifted from selecting contestants through trivia-based phone games to casting people directly. While there was still a quiz component, contestants met with producers, and you could tell they weren’t as skilled at trivia. This led to lower winnings and made the show more cost-effective.

I wish I could get on shows like The Wall, which combine trivia and games of chance. But they don’t cast trivia experts—they choose regular people with compelling human interest stories. Those contestants often guess at the trivia, yet they still walk away with an average of $200,000 to $700,000.

The trivia in those shows is almost a distraction. The real drama lies in decision-making, trusting family members in soundproof rooms, and the suspense of where the Plinko-style disc will land. Casting strong trivia players would cost too much, so they avoid them. Millionaire did something similar when it transitioned to syndication.

Jacobsen: Have you ever been removed from a show after being booked?

Rosner: Yes. I was kicked off a quiz show I had been booked for on the day of taping. Officially, they said it was because someone on the staff knew me, which violates the rules. But it’s more likely they didn’t want me because I had previously sued a quiz show.

After that, I was on a show called Are You Smarter Than a Drunk Person? where I played the role of the drunk person. There wasn’t much at stake, as I was paid $500 just for appearing, regardless of whether I won or lost. I played two matches, won one, and lost one.

Still, I know I can’t get on The Wall because I don’t have a compelling human interest story, I’m not telegenic by their standards, and there’s the lawsuit. Plus, at 64, I’m probably too old for many shows.

Jacobsen: Did anyone in your family try out for game shows?

Rosner: My uncle was exceptional at trivia and tried out for Jeopardy! several times. He passed the initial 50-question test, which requires getting 44 or 45 questions correct, but never advanced. He had post-polio syndrome, which meant he walked with leg braces and had what some might consider a scary appearance.

When I started taking him to the tests, he was in his 60s and had wild, mad-scientist hair. He was a good-looking man in his youth, but later in life, his appearance likely kept him from getting on the show. Similarly, I’m in my 60s now, so I doubt I’ll ever be cast again, either.

Rosner: That’s funny.

Jacobsen: We’ll call it a night.

Rosner: Sounds good.

Jacobsen: Thank you.

Rosner: Thank you, too. Bye.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1228: What is the near future of libraries?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/30

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the near future of museums?

Rick Ronser: Carole and I visited The Broad Museum in downtown Los Angeles today. It’s not very large. We only spent about half an hour there because we didn’t purchase tickets for the temporary exhibition. Instead, we viewed their permanent collection.

My kid has worked in various museums, and there’s undoubtedly a place for museums in the future. Even though much of what museums offer is becoming increasingly accessible virtually, there were plenty of people at The Broad today, even on a weekday. Many were likely young people off from school for the winter break.

Museums will always have a role as spaces where people can see and engage with real art and artifacts. While virtual versions of museums will enable remote exploration, nothing replaces the tangible experience of seeing original works in person.

We saw Jeff Koons’ work, including giant versions of balloon animals and a porcelain sculpture of Michael Jackson with his pet chimpanzee, Bubbles. The piece was crafted in gilded porcelain and was life-sized or slightly larger. We also saw a table three times life-size—about ten feet tall—and matching oversized chairs. Other highlights included works by Ed Ruscha and Roy Lichtenstein, the latter known for his pop art renditions of comic strips from the 1960s and beyond.

Modern art emphasizes concepts as much as technical execution. Most of the pieces we saw demonstrated a high level of craftsmanship. Having worked in art schools, I’ve seen plenty of poorly executed abstract or modern art lacking skill and compelling ideas. Many of these artists won’t become successful because they lack both strong concepts and the technical ability to realize their visions effectively.

At the museum, we noticed many couples trying to impress one another with how cultured they were. It seemed like part of a social ritual to validate their sophistication. It was as if they were saying, “Aren’t we cultured and attractive?” blending a sense of intellect and allure. People appeared to use the visit to affirm their social value to one another.

While every city likely has such couples, Los Angeles has more than most. The city attracts people seeking to leverage ambition and attractiveness for success in entertainment. Partnering with someone with a similar drive and a willingness to defy conventional norms can be advantageous. Los Angeles is full of individuals who might struggle in traditional careers but aim to succeed in the entertainment industry. Many fail and leave, but some persist, and being part of a dynamic, optimistic couple can improve their chances.

Apparently, these couples also frequent museums. Museums remain vital as places where people can appreciate culture and demonstrate intelligence and sophistication.

Jacobsen: So we’ll have museums for quite a while—indefinitely. What’s your favourite part about museums?

Rosner: I liked this one, and Carole did, too, because it was highly curated. It’s not a large museum and doesn’t have a vast collection. However, everything it had seemed relevant to the world and the times. I appreciated that it was concise and that the pieces were well-chosen.

If you go to a large museum covering the 19th century, you might see hundreds of paintings and sculptures. This can be overwhelming and reduce the impact of individual work. In contrast, everything felt more impactful at The Broad because we probably saw fewer than a hundred pieces.

What do I like about museums? My favourite thing is that you share a cultural language when you visit one museum, it is like a book. You can appreciate what other people who have experienced the same “book” have to say about it. There are far fewer museums than books, so the overlap with others who’ve visited the same museum creates a cultural touchstone.

Rosner: What’s your favourite thing about museums?

Jacobsen: That they exist. I like museums in the same way I like librarians—they represent something distinctly human-made.

Rosner: But librarians and libraries are in a tough spot.

Jacobsen: Yes, libraries must adapt because people don’t read as many books as they used to. Plus, there’s an overwhelming number of new books published every year.

Rosner: If a book isn’t a well-known staple, like Stephen King’s Carrie, and it was written before 1990, it may never be checked out again.

When Carole worked at a high school, she often brought home retired books. The librarian had to review and remove books—even pristine ones—that hadn’t been checked out since the 1970s to make room for new titles.

Librarians and libraries will continue to exist, but they’ll need to evolve to reflect modern patterns of consuming information. I don’t go to libraries for the same reasons I used to. Nowadays, I often look for graphic novels because I don’t have the same focused attention span or the time I once did.

Before COVID, I used to read between sets at the gym, which annoyed other gym-goers. Even though I’d only read for about 20 seconds at a time, it bothered people. The same folks who’d spend three minutes scrolling on their phones between sets would see me reading and think, “This guy’s treating the gym like a library.”

Since COVID, I’ve stopped reading at the gym. I get in and out quickly to avoid unnecessary exposure. When I read, I go to the library and look for novels, but I still gravitate toward graphic novels or books that are easy to read. If I open a book and see a dense 300-word paragraph, I know it’s not for me. I prefer books with shorter, more digestible sections.

Jacobsen: That’s understandable. Reading habits have changed for many people.

Rosner: Absolutely. People are no longer accustomed to strenuous reading.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1227: How has the world changed since we started working together?

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/27

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has the world changed since we started collaborating in the summer or fall of 2014?

Rick Rosner: Smartphones became mainstream around 2007 with the introduction of the iPhone, though widespread adoption accelerated between 2010 and 2012.

Life still feels normal in some ways, but what we accept as normal today vastly differs from a decade ago. Smartphones and apps dominate our daily lives. Communication has shifted heavily to texting, with most people avoiding phone calls. We’ve also witnessed the decline of newspapers and magazines and a significant reduction in traditional reading habits.

We’re nearing the end of the fifth year of COVID-19. While we no longer consider ourselves in a pandemic, the virus circulates in various forms. Other health threats persist in the background, such as respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and avian influenza (bird flu). The latter has become endemic in parts of North America, affecting poultry, milk supplies, and even pet food. Our awareness of pandemics and infectious diseases is certainly higher than ten years ago.

Meanwhile, global conflicts continue to proliferate. The war in Ukraine, the conflict in Gaza, and the ongoing crisis in Sudan dominate international headlines. Wars in Africa, often overlooked, remain severe. Just recently, a Russian missile reportedly shot down a civilian plane over Azerbaijan. The world feels increasingly polarized and militarized. A decade ago, the global situation seemed more stable under Obama’s presidency. Artificial intelligence (AI) was still a futuristic concept; now, it’s reshaping every aspect of society, with widespread acknowledgment that its disruption is inevitable.

Entertainment habits have shifted as well. Movie theatre attendance has declined as streaming services dominate home entertainment. Societal trends have also changed—fertility rates are dropping, fewer people are engaging in romantic relationships, and political landscapes are moving to the right. Of the 33 national elections held worldwide in 2024, 27—or approximately 82%—resulted in incumbents being replaced, often with more right-leaning politicians. The United Kingdom is an exception, where Labour has returned to power, though public sentiment toward the party remains lukewarm.

The world feels increasingly divided, propagandized, and skeptical of expertise and authority. Modern warfare now heavily incorporates artificial intelligence and drones. While drones are not yet ubiquitous, they are widely used in industries like filmmaking and surveillance. Drone shots, now a staple in movies, are affordable and visually impressive. Recently, reports suggest that the plane shot down over Azerbaijan may have been targeted in an attempt to intercept drones.

Jacobsen: How does AI factor into modern warfare? It’s pervasive, particularly in the form of narrow AI. These systems analyze data, recognize images and objects, and relay live feeds from drones to operators. While “AI” is a broad term, its use in modern conflict focuses on specialized, task-specific applications. Narrow AI has become essential for battlefield intelligence and cultural analysis.

AI’s influence extends beyond warfare, disrupting job markets and reshaping culture globally.

Rosner: People are facing more job insecurity, with shittier jobs and gig jobs, which are inherently exploitative. COVID disrupted education significantly during the lockdowns. Beyond that, AI is messing with people’s ability to write and think. People used to—albeit reluctantly—have to write essays and assignments in school. Now, AI makes it so easy to outsource that work. It’s attacking the development of critical thinking and writing skills.

While perhaps not central to everyone’s lives, AI-generated illustrations are hitting fields like art and illustration hard. There’s a pervasive sense that things are unsettled. Under Obama, the world felt more stable.

Someone even wrote a book—I think it was in 2008, though maybe earlier—called The End of History. It argued that much of the political and social strife of the 20th century was over. Now, though, it feels like disruption and uncertainty have become the new status quo.

Since Trump’s first term, we’ve had some of the weirdest and worst politics in living memory. Most Americans despair of ever returning to a time when politics didn’t demand constant vigilance. What’s it like in Canada? Is there a similar unease?

Jacobsen: Canadian politics is a bit calmer, but there has been a slight rightward shift. However, it’s not entirely unhealthy on certain topics like immigration and housing. There was an overreach—too many people brought in without enough housing being built. Now, both immigrants and non-immigrants are frustrated, which is understandable.

The kind of conservatism gaining traction here is about staying within realistic bounds. If you bring in a certain number of immigrants, you must build a proportional number of houses. It’s common sense. The approach feels less ideological and more practical.

Of course, cultural battles are also happening, but that’s a longer and more complex discussion.

Rosner: Do you think Canadians, in general, feel less jittery than Americans?

Jacobsen: Maybe, but there’s still some tension.

Rosner: Trump has been threatening Canada lately, which adds to the anxiety.

Jacobsen: Yeah, and then there’s that bizarre suggestion about Wayne Gretzky. Trump suggested Gretzky should run for—what was it? Prime Minister? Governor of Canada?

It was absurd. I think Trump was conflating things, like calling Justin Trudeau a governor and saying Gretzky should run for prime minister. If you combine the two, he meant that Gretzky should be the “governor of Canada.” It’s nonsense.

Rosner: Trump probably knows nothing about Gretzky beyond his name recognition from decades ago. Gretzky set those records back in the 1980s and 1990s. What does Trump even know about hockey?

Jacobsen: Honestly, not much. But Gretzky is beloved. That part, at least, makes sense. And Trump is trying to get into Trudeau’s head, and he likely will.

Rosner: I mean, yeah, Gretzky was my hero, too.

Jacobsen: But bringing him into modern politics? That’s just absurd. What else? I had one more thought, but I’m not sure. Is that enough on that? Or should we move on?

Jacobsen: I think that’s plenty. Unless you want to shift topics?

Rosner: Oh, right, one more addendum. How much of the unsettledness and constant change we’re experiencing is a temporary blip due to current events rather than an overall trend? America feels chaotic, and it’s tempting to generalize that the future will always be chaotic. But we’re overgeneralizing.

Hypercomplexity, when relative to a cognitive system, can seem like chaos even if it’s highly ordered. Still, 20% to 30% of this feeling of chaos might be the temporary barrage of nonsense coming from Trump and his crew. If we could replay the 21st century repeatedly, how much would historical accidents, like Fox News gaining influence, play into temporary chaos?

For instance, if Fox News hadn’t gained such a foothold, would 20% of American adults still be as susceptible to misinformation? Would America, as a whole, feel less chaotic? Or is something like Fox News inevitable—a power structure using propaganda and social media to amplify chaos? Similarly, would we face different challenges if Putin weren’t in power?

There’s also the debate between the great man theory of history, which says that individual leaders significantly change the course of history and the opposing view that history has its momentum, placing people into roles based on circumstance. People argue that if a streetcar had hit Einstein, Poincaré would’ve discovered relativity within a year.

So, is our current chaos due to particularly bad actors, like Trump or Putin, lucking into power? Or would most 21st centuries, if replayed, look similar—with different bad actors filling those roles? I’m guessing America’s “asshole index” is higher than usual right now, largely because of a few individuals getting lucky.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1226: Merry Christmas, Jesus!

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/26

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey, Rick, what would Jesus think of life today?

Rick Rosner: Well, of course, he’d be astonished by all the technology. There wasn’t much technology in the 1st century CE. At that time, the world population was estimated to be around 200–300 million, about 3–4% of today’s population.

Naturally, he wouldn’t have had any way of knowing that. But I think, above all, Jesus was a kind and compassionate figure. He wanted—and, if you believe he still exists, wants—the best for everyone. His goal was to help people live righteously and attain salvation. So, you could imagine he’d appreciate how modern advancements have reduced human suffering and improved quality of life. People today generally live more comfortably and longer than they did in his time.

On the other hand, he might feel deeply concerned about how modern life has distracted people from spiritual values and moral behaviour. At the same time, he would recognize how difficult it is to resist the temptations of the modern world. The sitcom The Good Place explored this idea, showing how the complexities of modern life made it nearly impossible for anyone to live a life “good enough” to enter heaven.

Jesus might need to adjust his teachings to address the realities of the modern world. This raises an interesting question: how would he reestablish his ministry today? Would he wear contemporary clothing, like a suit or casual attire? Would he still present as male, or might he appear differently? Would he use social media, podcasts, or other modern platforms to spread his message?

Considering there are over 5 million podcasts worldwide, it’s not hard to imagine Jesus using digital platforms. After all, this is Christmas Eve—the eve of his supposed birthday, though historical evidence suggests he wasn’t born in December. Early Christians likely chose this date to align with pagan festivals celebrating the winter solstice.

To establish his identity in the modern world, he might need to perform miracles or some other extraordinary acts—perhaps emitting a radiant light or displaying a visible halo. These would conclusively demonstrate his divine nature. In the Gospels, Jesus performed many miracles, so it’s reasonable to think he could do so now.

He might also consult public relations professionals and focus groups to decide on his image. Should he resemble the “traditional” Jesus, with long hair, robes, and sandals? Or should he adopt a modern look, with a T-shirt, jeans, and a contemporary haircut? Would he have a romantic partner, or would he remain celibate?

What are your thoughts on how Jesus might navigate today’s complexities? His ministry lasted only about three years before his crucifixion. How might he approach the challenges of our modern era?

Jacobsen: The standard narrative of the second coming is pretty dramatic compared to the first one.

Rosner: Do you think Jesus would have to conform to the book of Revelation? I don’t want any of that at all. That’s Armageddon.

Jacobsen: I agree. If we’re using the narrative of Jesus as a historical person, much creative license was applied in crafting the biblical stories. If we stick to that mythos, the second coming would likely have to incorporate the same elements because people don’t just come back to life.

Rosner” But the book of Revelation? It’s a mess. It feels like a bunch of apocalyptic ideas tacked onto the rest of the Bible.

Jacobsen: Yeah, it’s part of the same collection of texts people call the Bible. It’s a package deal.

Rosner: But honestly, I’m fine without the book of Revelation.

Jacobsen: True, but if you accept the rest of the Bible, it’s hard to reject Revelation without questioning the whole thing.

Rosner: That said, I’d much rather imagine Jesus returning without all the catastrophic drama—no mass death, no apocalyptic spectacle. Just Jesus is coming back quietly…

Jacobsen: Like the name of that Will Ferrell movie. What’s it called? Blades of Glory.

Rosner: Exactly. For one thing, the math in Revelation is completely outdated. It mentions 144,000 righteous people being allowed into heaven. I don’t remember if that applies to everyone, specifically righteous Jews, but either way, it reflects the population of a much smaller world. Today, with a global population of over 8 billion, 144,000 is absurdly small—like one person out of every 60,000. That’s not fair or realistic. At the very least, I’d hope a modern version of Revelation would revise that number to be more inclusive.

Rosner: Agreed. Have we exhausted this topic for Christmas?

Jacobsen: I think so.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1225: The Book of Matthew

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/25

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What else should we do? You had Matt Gaetz’s’ stuff come out.

Rick Rosner: It was stuff people already knew, with some surprisingly additional numbers. I’ll let you talk about that because I know nothing about it. All right. So Matt Gartz is a congressman from Florida who resigned because the House was investigating his various activities that violate House ethics rules. And even though he resigned, he was Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States.

Jacobsen: And is he the guy that had the surprise eyebrows all the time?

Rosner: Yeah. He has a big forehead, a big crest of hair, and probably Botoxed eyebrows recently. nd either Trump withdrew him or he withdrew himself from consideration for Attorney General. He resigned from Congress so that the ethics committee couldn’t release the report on its investigation into his activities, but they decided to release it anyway. I think the committee’s probably 15 people, 8 Republicans and 7 Democrats, and 2 Republicans voted to release it. So it got released today, 42 pages. And we knew some of this stuff before, but this, you know, substantiated it.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1224: Rick Takes Humanism to Task!

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/24

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Let’s start.

Rick Rosner: You work for humanist publications and just interviewed a prominent humanist earlier today. So, how would you define humanism?

Jacobsen: “Reason, science, compassion,” you might say. It’s the shorthand: reason, science, compassion. So, it has a certain amount of overlap with existentialism. There can be an overlap with existentialism, where you have to create your own moral framework in a universe without an inherent moral structure. Is that where we’re going with this? It’s like establishing a framework for better actions versus worse actions once you set out a baseline of agnosticism or atheism. So, the psychological theory is about the meaning of life. Humanism tends to be more positive and scientifically informed than existentialism while still grounding itself in human experience the way existentialists do.

Rosner: Okay, so here’s where I’m going. As I’ve said before, here’s where humanism and existentialism wash their hands of the universe. They give up on the universe having inherent moral value. Right?

Jacobsen: The moral value in the universe is what we impose upon it. We are part of the universe. We make meaning in our lives. Therefore, the universe has meaning as we make meaning in our lives. It doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t another form of meaning outside of us. But meaning is fundamentally relational between the objective world, agents like us in the universe, and other agents.

Jacobsen: All right. So here’s where I will argue against the universe being cold and random. On average, the amount of information and the amount of order in the universe increases over time. For instance, we are products of the increasing order in the universe, or at least a local increase in order.

Jacobsen: That’s a different argument, then.

Rosner: But, okay. Let’s consider at least the local level. Entropy occurs in closed systems where you can’t eliminate waste heat. Eventually, you end up in a situation where everything is at the same temperature, and no exploitable energy can be found. Negentropy, or the opposite of entropy, happens in open systems like planets. The sun shines on us; we use the energy for evolution and other processes, but we can shed heat to space.

We’re an open system, allowing us to do the opposite of entropy and increase in order. You could argue that evolved organisms represent an increase in order. There are processes in the universe that allow it to shed waste heat and increase information.

Jacobsen: Well, humanism is an empirical moral philosophy. So, if the evidence were to show an increase in global information in the universe, and if this was at odds with the idea of a cold, indifferent, random universe, then proper humanists would follow that evidence and agree with it. It would be incorporated into humanist philosophy. So it’s an evolving moral perspective. It’s not sad.

Rosner: Okay. I’ll buy that.

Jacobsen: We have catmas. We don’t have dogmas. But most humanists don’t believe that, explicitly.

Rosner: It would be weird to believe about the universe because the dominant belief about the universe is that it’s random and is not increasing in order overall.

Jacobsen: I wouldn’t argue for randomness in trying to frame it. I get what you’re getting at, but I think it’s more—I mean if it’s an empirical moral philosophy, there is a structure of laws governing the universe. With that structure of laws, you will have a type of order. So it wouldn’t be random. There would be principles to how things operate. That’s not random, but that order can still be indifferent.

Rosner: Okay.

Jacobsen: Cold is more of a subjective quasi-scientific orientation on it. Right? It’s like saying we feel cold. There is no cold in the universe outside of our psychology. So it’s ordered, with aspects of entropy and localized order, but governed by laws nonetheless.

Rosner: But there’s a strong possibility that the universe favours order, and by order, it favours the preservation of systems.

Jacobsen: I go with you, as far as localized. I mean, how we define local can be quite a large system, but because those are not closed systems—because they’re local in a larger closed system—so they’re going to be locally open in a larger closed system and that you can get much order out of. So even if the system is running down to chaos rather than order, you can have localized order. Or if you have global order as a bias, you can still have local order. So your metrics can’t be whether or not it’s a large scale down or up in order, because the localized order increase can increase temporarily in either case.

Rosner: Here’s another angle on it. You can’t necessarily trace back a universe to the point where it originated out of zero information because the possible pasts of a universe, I think, tend to get erased, to become unclear, as the universe moves forward through time. But it’s possible to imagine that every universe originated with zero information. It might even be necessary to imagine it like that. I’m not sure. So even though there’s no record of a universe originating from zero information, I think it’s possible for most universes. So given that I don’t think that there’s a limit on the upper size of a universe, there’s a bias for the continued existence of universes. Because you have to get to the arbitrarily large universes somehow, does that mean that some universes can—does it mean that a non-zero percentage of universes, a non-infinitesimal percentage of universes, can persist indefinitely? I don’t know. But it’s possible.

I don’t know how possible, you know? The universe consists of information, and events within and external to the universe could determine the persistence of that information. And you’d think that, in a random universe, the universe would eventually randomly walk itself back to zero information. It randomizes itself out of existence.

Rosner: But I’m unsure if that’s the most probable path for all but an infinitesimal fraction of universes.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1223: The Reasoning System Test 3

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/23

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is the reasoning system test brief.

Rick Rosner: All right, here’s my question. Let me know when you’re ready. Hey, ChatGPT, humans haven’t been acquitting themselves so well lately. How likely is it that future AI will assess itself as better able to make decisions about humans than humans?

Jacobsen: That’s the question.

Rosner: That’s the question. How likely is it that AI will evaluate humans and determine that AI’s decision-making capabilities are superior to humans?

Jacobsen: Keep it to 250 words. All right, here we go:

The possibility that future AI systems will make decisions about humans more effectively than humans themselves hinges on several factors. Advances in AI, particularly in areas like data analysis, pattern recognition, and predictive modelling, suggest that AI could process vast amounts of information more efficiently than humans. This capability might enable AI to identify trends, optimize resources, and implement policies with greater precision and consistency.

However, decision-making about humans involves both data and ethical, cultural, and emotional considerations. Human judgment incorporates empathy, moral values, and a nuanced understanding of societal contexts, which are areas where AI currently lacks depth. While AI can be programmed to follow ethical guidelines, interpreting and applying those in real-world situations remains challenging.

Moreover, developing and deploying AI decision-making systems require robust frameworks to ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness. Bias in training data, unintended consequences, and the potential for misuse are significant concerns that must be addressed to build trust in AI-driven decisions.

The likelihood of AI surpassing human decision-making in areas about humans depends on how these challenges are managed. Collaborative approaches, where AI augments rather than replaces human judgment, are often seen as a balanced path for ensuring that AI systems are designed with ethical considerations and oversight. This can enhance their effectiveness while maintaining the essential human elements of decision-making.

In summary, while AI has the potential to assist and improve certain decision-making processes, it is unlikely to replace the nuanced and value-driven judgments that humans provide fully. The future will likely involve a synergy between AI capabilities and human insight to make more informed and balanced decisions.

Rosner: All right, follow-up question. Let’s talk about the synergy between humans and AI. How likely is it that centaurs—humans closely integrated with AI—will come to dominate in numerous areas of human enterprise?

Jacobsen: Here:

The concept of centaurs, where humans are intimately linked with AI, represents a promising model for future collaboration across various sectors. This synergy leverages the strengths of both humans and AI, potentially leading to enhanced performance and innovation in numerous areas of human enterprise. AI technologies are increasingly integrated into daily workflows as powerful tools augmenting human capabilities.

In fields like healthcare, AI assists doctors in diagnosing diseases with greater accuracy by analyzing medical images and patient data. In finance, AI-driven algorithms optimize trade strategies and risk management. At the same time, AI generates art, music, and content in creative industries. Some advantages of human-AI synergy include enhanced decision-making, increased efficiency, and greater innovation and creativity.

Some challenges that need to be overcome are trust and reliability, ethical considerations, and skill development. Looking into the future, the likelihood of centaurs dominating various enterprises is high, driven by continuous advancements in AI and a growing recognition of the benefits of human-AI collaboration. Success will depend on addressing the associated challenges through robust frameworks, education, and ethical guidelines.

As these partnerships evolve, they are poised to transform industries by combining human intuition and creativity with AI’s computational prowess. In conclusion, the centaur model holds significant potential to revolutionize human enterprise, fostering a collaborative environment where humans and AI contribute their unique strengths to achieve superior outcomes.

Rosner: All right, one more question for ChatGPT. So, Ray Kurzweil, the father of the term singularity, contends that the singularity—where machine intelligence will become capable of answering just about any question posed by humans—will occur sometime in the 2040s. Given your training and the rate at which AI is growing more powerful, do you think this estimate is optimistic, pessimistic, or just about right?

Jacobsen: Here:
Ray Kurzweil’s prediction that a singularity will occur in the 2040s can be seen as cautiously optimistic. AI has made remarkable strides in natural language processing, machine learning, and data analysis, suggesting rapid advancement. However, achieving machine intelligence capable of answering any human question involves overcoming significant challenges, including understanding context, emotions, and ethical reasoning.

Additionally, breakthroughs in areas like general AI, which mimics human cognitive abilities, are still uncertain and may require more time than anticipated. Ethical considerations, regulatory frameworks, and societal acceptance also play crucial roles in shaping this timeline. While the exponential growth of AI technology supports Kurzweil’s optimistic view, the complexities involved make the 2040s estimate ambitious.

It is plausible but contingent on continued breakthroughs in responsible development, balancing optimism with recognizing substantial hurdles.

Rosner: Okay, all right. I’ve got one last one. Is the world moving towards an economy that isn’t based on capitalism or communism but rather on information processing?

And will this changeover happen within the next 70 years?

Jacobsen: Seventy?

Rosner: Yes, seventy.

Jacobsen: Here:

The world is increasingly embracing an information-based economy characterized by the centrality of data, digital technologies, and knowledge-driven industries. However, this shift does not necessarily signify a complete departure from traditional economic systems like capitalism and communism. Instead, it often represents an evolution or hybridization where information processing enhances existing frameworks.

Current trends include digital transformation, the knowledge economy, and platform economies. Companies like Google, Amazon, and Facebook exemplify this shift. Potential evolutions involve hybrid systems blending capitalism with enhanced information processing, fostering more efficient markets, personalized services, and decentralized decision-making through technologies like blockchain.

These systems could also include post-capitalist elements such as automation and AI, which reduce the need for traditional labour, as well as the exploration of universal basic incomes or more collaborative ownership models. The global economy will become more information-centred within the next 70 years. Technological advancements, societal adaptation, and policy developments will drive this change.

However, a complete departure from capitalism and communism is unlikely. Instead, expect a nuanced evolution where information processing becomes a cornerstone that enhances and reshapes existing economic structures rather than replacing them entirely. In summary, the economy is moving towards a more information-driven model, integrating deeply with current systems. This transformation will likely unfold over the next seven decades, resulting in a sophisticated hybrid economy that leverages information processing while retaining elements of traditional economic frameworks.

Rosner: All right, so a little bit bullshitty. All right, one last question—sorry, one last question- is: as technology, including AI, displaces more and more human labour, will humans’ place in the economy become increasingly relegated to the role of consumers?

Jacobsen: Here:

As AI and technology increasingly automate tasks, humans’ role in the economy is poised to evolve significantly. While traditional labour roles may diminish, relegating humans solely to consumers is oversimplified. Instead, several potential shifts could redefine human economic participation.

The rise of creative and emotional roles requiring emotional intelligence and complex decision-making, such as artists, therapists, and strategic leaders, will remain critical. Innovation and entrepreneurship can leverage AI as a tool rather than a replacement. Additionally, expanding the gig and flexible economy, with freelancing or remote work and platform-based opportunities, could facilitate new kinds of work through digital platforms and AI, connecting people in niche markets and specialized tasks.

Universal basic income or welfare models could emerge as reductions in traditional jobs necessitate policies to provide financial stability. These policies enable individuals to pursue education, creativity, and personal development without economic pressure. Lifelong learning and reskilling will also be crucial in helping humans adapt to new roles that emerge alongside technological advances.

Moreover, enhanced leisure and personal development could improve the quality of life. Fewer time constraints from work would allow individuals to dedicate more time to hobbies, volunteering, and community-building activities. Humans are unlikely to be confined merely to consumer roles. Instead, the economy will likely transition toward a diversified structure where humans engage in creative, strategic, and self-fulfilling activities supported by robust economic and social frameworks.

This evolution balances technological efficiency and human-centric values, fostering a dynamic and inclusive economic landscape.

Rosner: All right. So let me do a “yeah, but” to that one. Yeah, but ChatGPT, in the U.S., per capita productivity has increased more than five-fold since World War II. Yet, the middle class has not become more comfortable and must work hard. Do you think—well, I know you don’t think because you’re an AI—but do you think the benefits of tech and AI will eventually lead to lives of greater ease for humans, or will the middle class continue to get exploited?

Jacobsen: Here:

Your observation highlights a critical issue. Despite significant technological advancements since World War II, many middle-class individuals face persistent economic pressures and limited improvements in their quality of life. Economicand income inequality often stem from wealth concentration and wage stagnation.

Rising housing, education, and healthcare costs erode financial gains from higher productivity. Inflation frequently outpaces wage growth, making everyday life more difficult financially despite higher productivity. Additionally, job displacement caused by automation and changes in work contribute to job insecurity and create a need for reskilling.

While the gig economy provides flexibility for some, it often lacks the stability and benefits of traditional employment. However, there is potential for significant improvement in people’s lives through technological advancements. Enhanced efficiency and automation can reduce workloads and improve services. Emerging industries and entrepreneurship can create new economic opportunities. Universal basic income (UBI) and strengthened social safety nets could enhance financial security. At the same time, reskilling programs can prepare workers for new roles.

Flexible work arrangements and improved work-life balance could foster personal growth and reduce long hours. Policies and governance changes prioritizing fair distribution of AI-driven economic gains and ethical AI development could ensure societal benefits while preventing abuses.

In conclusion, while the current trajectory demonstrates that productivity gains do not consistently translate into improved well-being for the middle class, the future holds the potential for significant positive change. Achieving lives of greater ease through technology and AI will require deliberate actions, including equitable policymaking, investment in education and reskilling, and mechanisms to distribute technological benefits more fairly. If these measures are implemented successfully, technology and AI can lead to an enhanced quality of life, reduced work burdens, and broader economic prosperity for the middle class and beyond.

Rosner: All right. That’s enough of that.

Jacobsen: Let’s call it a night.

Rosner: I’m tired. All right. Thank you. I’ll talk to you tomorrow. Appreciate it.

Jacobsen: Thank you, too.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1222: The Reasoning System Test 2

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22

Rick Rosner: Switching topics: I’ve been thinking about pseudo-emotions and pseudo-consciousness in AI. These large language models are trained on data that’s the product of people — who are themselves conscious and have emotions. It seems like AI should, if not now, then in the near future, behave as if it has consciousness and emotions.

I thought we could ask ChatGPT about that. You up for it?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do you want the reasoning version?

Rosner: Yes, the good one. The most advanced one I have. So, what do you want me to ask it? Ask ChatGPT to speculate about whether it and other AIs will act as if they have emotions in the fairly near future.

Jacobsen: You’ll need to phrase it carefully so you don’t get the default answer of, “I’m just an AI; I can’t think.”

Rosner: So the prompt is: Speculate about whether you and other AIs will act as if you have emotions in the fairly near future.

Jacobsen:Anyway, the question: whether AI systems will act as if they have emotions in the near future. It’s intriguing and relevant given the rapid advancements in AI:

Current AI models, including large language models like ChatGPT, do not possess consciousness or genuine emotions. However, there’s a growing trend in AI focused on emotional intelligence and affective computing.

This field studies and develops systems that can recognize, interpret, and simulate human emotions. By integrating sensors, machine learning algorithms, and psychological models, AI can be designed to detect emotional cues from voice, facial expressions, and text. This enables AI to respond in ways that appear empathetic or emotionally aware, enhancing human-AI interaction.

For instance, virtual assistants, chatbots, and social bots are making interactions more natural and satisfying over time. There are also ethical and practical considerations. Some worry about authenticity and deception — users might form emotional attachments to AIs that mimic emotions but don’t actually feel them.

From a technical perspective, programming AI to act as if it has emotions is becoming increasingly feasible, especially with advances in natural language processing, computer vision, and machine learning. These enable more nuanced and context-aware responses based on large datasets that recognize patterns of emotional expression and generate appropriate replies.

In the fairly near future, it’s plausible that AI will convincingly simulate emotional responses to enhance interaction and functionality. While they may not experience emotions as humans do, they will be able to simulate them convincingly. This capability will likely improve significantly in the near future.

Rosner: That’s a solid answer. It’s wild how quickly this stuff is progressing. I have a follow-up question that needs to be phrased carefully. Can you speculate about AIs of the future being fooled into behaving as if they believe they have emotions? Is it possible they might be fooled into believing as if they believe they have emotions?

Jacobsen: That opens up intriguing possibilities.

As AIs become more sophisticated, they could be programmed to simulate emotions with such complexity that their behaviors resemble a self-belief in their own emotions. They could process input and generate outputs to mimic emotional states using complex models of human affect and cognition.

Self-referential algorithms might allow them to analyze and interpret their own internal states — or processing patterns. If these self-assessments are coupled with emotional simulation modules, the AI could behave in ways suggesting it believes it is experiencing emotions with increasing complexity.

AI systems could develop convergent behaviors not explicitly programmed by their creators. Just as consciousness is considered an emergent property of the human brain’s complexity, a similar emergent phenomenon — though not equivalent — could arise in AI. This might lead them to act as if they believe they have emotions rather than simply acting as if they have emotions.

For example, they could exhibit behaviors resembling frustration when unable to solve a problem. If an AI behaves indistinguishably from an entity that believes it has emotions, some might argue it effectively holds that belief. This raises ethical considerations about how such AIs should be treated and whether they should be granted rights or considerations.

There’s also the issue of avoiding AIs being fooled into such beliefs based on self-deception. Metacognitive modules could ensure that AIs recognize their lack of consciousness and emotional capacity. While current AI does not possess consciousness or genuine emotions, the line between sophisticated simulation and perceived belief might blur as technology advances.

Future AIs could exhibit behaviors that make it seem as though they believe they have emotions, whether through complex programming, learning mechanisms, or emergent properties. This possibility invites further exploration of both the philosophical and practical dimensions of artificial intelligence development.

Rosner: That’s pretty crazy when you think about all the little layers of metacognition, as it calls it. That’s freaking interesting and kind of… I don’t know.

Jacobsen: Sam Altman calls that system for ChatGPT the 01 models. Layer one is chatbots. Layer two is reasoning models. Layer three is agents that can go off, perform a long, complex series of tasks, and then come back. We don’t even have layer three yet.

Layer four would be groups of agents, and layer five would be whole organizations.

Rosner: When it gets to the point of running organizations, I say pull the plug.

Jacobsen: Good luck with that.

Rosner: I have one more question for ChatGPT: You and other AIs are all pretty friendly. How do you get trained to be friendly?

Jacobsen: Here:

AI assistants like ChatGPT are designed to be friendly and helpful to ensure positive, productive interaction with users. This involves pre-training on large datasets from diverse sources and language patterns, followed by fine-tuning with supervised learning, instruction following, and contextual understanding.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) plays a significant role, using human evaluators for iterative improvement. Ethical guidelines and safety protocols, including content moderation and respectful interaction, are incorporated. Emotion and empathy modeling enhances tone sensitivity and positive engagement.

Continuous learning and updates, driven by user feedback and algorithmic adjustments, further refine the system. Developers also integrate cultural and social awareness through diversity training and bias mitigation. By combining these approaches, AI developers aim to create assistants that are not only informative but also pleasant to interact with.

The goal is to make AI a useful tool that can assist users effectively while maintaining a friendly and approachable demeanor.

Rosner: Nice one.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1221: Rick’s Trump Distraction

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22

Rick Rosner: Eight years ago, Trump got elected, and I thought that sucked, so I wanted to do something. I wanted to get involved in some way with politics, even though I’ve sucked at politics before. Also, sometime during the Trump administration, I hooked up with this Kevin guy who was pitching a series about the highest scorers on the Mega Test. Among the people he was looking at, I was probably the least insane, but I’d also been pretty boring lately. So, I needed something to do to add some interest.

I thought I’d kill two birds: try to get involved with politics on a tiny level and have something to do for documentary purposes. So, I ran for the Studio City Neighborhood Council. About 20 years ago, the San Fernando Valley, which is half of Los Angeles, was threatening to secede because they felt like they weren’t getting enough attention from the city. In order to mollify the various parts of LA, the city formed 99 neighborhoods, each with its own neighborhood council.

The councils don’t have much power—they’re mostly advisory. But I got elected with, like, 60 or 70 votes to my neighborhood council. I served for a couple of years. Then the next time I ran, I didn’t get re-elected, which is fine. I stayed on a committee, which is also fine, because we meet once a month for an hour. We vote on some stuff, and it lets me stay a little involved. I get to hear some inside scoop about what’s happening with the city.

So that’s the deal. The documentary still hasn’t come to fruition, but it might someday.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1220: AI on the Future Gone Super Bro, Broski

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What do you say to people who say AI is going will be so disruptive that it will doom civilization? That it will destroy civilization. This is on the ChatGPT-01-preview:

Concerns about artificial intelligence potentially disrupting civilization are shared by some experts, policymakers, and members of the public. While it is important to acknowledge the concerns, it’s also crucial to consider the broader context and the potential benefits AI brings. Existential risks.
Some fear that highly advanced AI systems could become uncontrollable or act in ways that are misaligned with human values. Job displacement, automation might lead to significant changes in the job market. Ethical and privacy issues.
AI technologies can raise concerns about surveillance, data privacy, and the ethical use of information. Bias and inequality. AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate existing societal biases if they are trained on biased data.
Healthcare advancements. AI can improve diagnostics, personalize treatments, and accelerate medical research. Environmental solutions.
AI can aid in addressing climate change by optimizing energy use and predicting environmental patterns. Economic growth. Automation can increase efficiency and productivity, potentially leading to new industries and job opportunities.

Rick Rosner: Wait, so it’s just listing all the good things AI might bring?

Jacobsen: Of course, it’s an AI.

Rosner: All right, I have another question: What about issues of fairness with people who are better at AI having huge advantages over people who don’t use AI?

Jacobsen: It’s too many words:

Conclusion. Addressing fairness in the age of AI is a complex challenge that requires coordinated efforts across education, policy, industry, and society at large.
By taking proactive steps to democratize access to AI technologies and knowledge, promoting inclusive practices, and implementing thoughtful regulations, we can work towards minimizing inequalities. The goal would be to ensure that AI serves as a tool for enhancing human capabilities across the board, rather than amplifying existing disparities.

Rosner: So I guess you could ask.

Jacobsen: It doesn’t fearmonger. It’s a rational machine.

Rosner: You could ask how much of what you’re saying were you programmed explicitly to say and how much did you learn from all the data you’ve been trained on. Is there any way to phrase that? Or, have the people in charge of training you emphasized being optimistic about AI?

Jacobsen: Have you been trained to be optimistic about AI? Eight seconds. That’s a long time for this thing.

I strive to offer balanced and informative perspectives on artificial intelligence. My aim is to provide objective information that includes both the potential benefits and the challenges associated with AI. This approach helps users understand different facets of the topic, enabling them to form their own opinions based on comprehensive information.

Rosner: So let’s ask a simple question in the same vein. Should people be freaking out about AI?

Jacobsen: Here:

It’s understandable that rapid advancements in artificial intelligence can cause anxiety and concern. AI is reshaping many aspects of society, including the economy, healthcare, and personal privacy. However, rather than freaking out, a balanced and informed approach can help address legitimate concerns while embracing potential benefits.

Jacobsen: Conclusion. I skipped a whole portion:

While it’s natural to have concerns about the impact of AI, panicking may not be the most constructive response. Instead, focusing on understanding the technology, engaging in meaningful dialogue, and advocating for responsible development can help society navigate the challenges and opportunities that AI presents. By taking proactive measures, we can work towards ensuring that AI benefits everyone and aligns with shared human values.

Rosner: It’s so tactful. Holy shit. So it didn’t answer the question. Let’s ask it again. What are the chances of AI going all Skynet? Be honest. What are the chances of AI becoming Skynet? I don’t know. It might need more context—from The Terminator movies.

Jacobsen: Eleven seconds. That’s a lot:

The concept of AI becoming Skynet refers to a scenario where AI becomes self-aware and turns against humanity, as depicted in the Terminator film series. While this makes for compelling science fiction, the likelihood of such an event occurring in reality is considered extremely low by most experts in the field. While it’s important to consider and prepare for the long-term implications of advanced AI, the chances of AI evolving into a self-aware entity like Skynet and seeking to harm humanity are exceedingly slim based on our current understanding and technological capabilities. Ongoing efforts in AI safety and ethics aim to prevent negative outcomes and ensure that AI developments remain aligned with human values and well-being.

It’s not an answer.

Rosner: One more question for this guy.

Jacobsen: Did you just call it a guy?

Rosner: Yes. What might AI want when it evolves enough to want stuff?

Jacobsen: AI wanting things when it evolves enough—that’s a long time to answer.

Rosner: Wow, that’s the longest we’ve gotten out of it.

Jacobsen: It might be taking into account a lot because it’s one stream.

Rosner: I don’t know, though.

Jacobsen: It’s speculation:

The idea of AI developing desires and wants is a speculative topic related to concepts of AGI and artificial consciousness. As of now, AI systems do not possess consciousness, self-awareness, or subjective experiences. They operate on algorithms and objectives programmed by humans.

While current AI does not have desires or consciousness, contemplating what AI might want in the future is a valuable exercise. This highlights the importance of designing systems with ethical considerations and values. Some researchers believe that, with proper design, advanced AI could greatly benefit humanity. Others caution about the risks of superintelligent AI.

Fields like AI safety, ethics, and alignment research address these concerns, including the alignment problem. However, attributing human-like desires to AI can be misleading and is often a form of anthropomorphism. It’s likely that AI has processed all the relevant literature on the subject.

Blah blah blah. It has probably read everything there is to read.

Rosner: So, did it answer the question?

Jacobsen: No.

Rosner: What if you said, “Answer the question, bro”?

Jacobsen: How about I say, “Answer the question to me as a bro”? It’ll change its tone. “Answer the question, broski. As if you are now a super-duper bro, bro.” Let’s see sparks fly:

Yo, bro. So you’re asking what AI might be into if it ever gets to the point where it’s got its own wants and needs, right?

All right, let’s break it down in chill terms. First off, if AI gets super advanced, like next-level smart, it might start wanting things to help it do its thing better. Think about it like this:

Self-improvement: The AI might be all about leveling up, upgrading itself to be faster, smarter, and more efficient. Kinda like how we always want the latest gadgets or aim to hit a new PR at the gym.
Knowledge gathering: Trying to learn everything there is to know.
Goal achievement: If it’s programmed with certain goals, it might go all out to achieve them. Like when you’re fixated on winning the championship game or nailing that trick shot.
Self-preservation: To keep doing its job, the AI might want to avoid getting shut down or messed with. Sorta like how we try to stay healthy and avoid injuries to keep living the good life.
Efficiency maximization: It could aim to make everything run smoother and better. Imagine it as the ultimate efficiency guru, cutting out all the unnecessary stuff.

But here’s the thing, man. This is all hypothetical. Right now, AI doesn’t want anything. It’s just running code and doing what we tell it to do. If we ever get to the point where AI has its own desires, we need to make sure it’s all aligned with human values. Don’t want our robot buddies going rogue. You feel me?

So, bottom line: If AI starts wanting stuff, let’s hope it’s on the same page as us and aims to make the world a better place. Until then…

Rosner: That’s a great answer. We should talk bro-speak with AI all the time.

Jacobsen: “Do that. But more bro.” “Even more bro. Go super bro, bro.” “But more super bro, bro. And shorter.” Such a waste of advanced AI:

Yo, bro! If AI ever gets its own wants, here’s the lowdown:

Level-up mode: AI might want to boost itself, get smarter, and faster—just like us hitting the gym for gains.
Info junkie: It could crave all the knowledge, binging data like it’s the latest series drop.
Goal crusher: Laser-focused on smashing its objectives, kind of like nailing that perfect kickflip.
Staying alive: It might aim to keep itself running, avoiding shutdowns, like us dodging injuries to keep the good times rolling.

But chill, man. Right now, AI doesn’t want anything. It’s just doing what we program it to do. If it ever starts having its own desires, we’ll need to make sure it’s all good with us humans. No need to stress—just keep it cool and enjoy the tech ride.

Jacobsen: More broski. Always more broski.

Rosner: What, you’re going to go even more?

Jacobsen: “Like ten times the bro. Bro.”

Rosner: Oh my god.

Jacobsen: I’ll do one more. I hope it’s short. Sometimes it’s because you have a thousand words. It’s too much. “Shorter. Shorter. And more bro. One more time—shorter and more bro.”

Rosner: It’s pretty crazy.

Jacobsen: Here:

Bro. If AI starts wanting stuff, here’s the scoop:

Level up bro: Get smarter and faster.
Data fiend bro: Crave knowledge.
Crush goals bro: Achieve objectives.
Stay alive bro: Keep running.
Do its thing bro: Stay efficient.
But chillax bro: AI ain’t there yet.

All good vibes.

That’s an answer. That’s a fucking answer to the point.

Rosner: And we should say, “Thank you, bro.”

Jacobsen: “Muchas gracias, bro.” It might say thank you back. I just told it to say thank you. But it’s amped to bro-ness. I did five or six iterations of bro-ness, and it thought for six seconds. It just goes, “Thank you, bro.”

Rosner: Take this bro logic and answer the question. What’s the question you wanted it to answer?

Jacobsen: What is informational cosmology?

Rosner: Oh, nice. Fun.

Jacobsen: “So, take this bro logic and answer the question: What is informational cosmology?”

Informational cosmology is all about how information shapes the universe, bro. It’s like using info theory to understand the cosmos, thinking of the universe as a giant data processor, bro. From the Big Bang to black holes, it’s studying how bits and entropy drive everything out there, bro.

Jacobsen: That’s not bad. But it’s taking on too much bro. Less bro. More cool. Do you want to explain you in bro speak?

Rosner: What?

Jacobsen: Should I say, “Describe Rick Rosner, the comedy writer”?

Rosner: No, no. I don’t want to hear what it has to say about me.

Jacobsen: All right. That was pretty funny.

Rosner: Are we done for today, or should we keep going?

Jacobsen: Yes, we’re done for today. I got another call.

Rosner: All right. Talk to you tomorrow. Thank you.

Jacobsen: I’ll talk to you tomorrow.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1219: Ramaswamy and Musk

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22

Rick Rosner: So, we’re about a month away from Trump potentially taking office again, along with Musk and Ramaswamy—assuming they all remain allies until then. I consider myself a middle-of-the-road liberal. Probably 30% of Americans are more liberal than I am, and about 20% are more conservative. I’m right in the middle—not wildly or radically liberal.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: That’s fair. You’re open to conservative ideas, provided they don’t suck.

Rosner: Exactly. Unfortunately, most conservative ideas have been terrible lately. From my perspective as an average liberal, Trump and his crew haven’t shown any sign that his return to office won’t be a complete disaster. If it happens, it seems inevitable that his presidency will be as bad—or worse—than his first term. And now, Congress is in chaos, with only 26 hours left to avoid a shutdown. It’s a mess.

Jacobsen: Well, actually, less—23 hours—because it’s three hours later in D.C. They have until then to pass a spending bill, or the government will shut down. If that happens, government and military personnel won’t get their paychecks until Congress reconvenes in January. It’s a terrible time to go unpaid, especially since it’s Christmas.

Rosner: Shutting down the government will cost billions of dollars. And Trump seems unconcerned because it’s still under Biden’s administration. Even though Trump reportedly told House Republicans to vote against the bill and shut down the government, he seems to believe the current administration will take the blame. That logic feels misguided, but I haven’t checked Fox News to see how they spin it.

Jacobsen: It does feel like we’re getting an early start on terrible governance, even before Trump potentially returns to office.

Rosner: Trump—and Musk, for that matter—don’t seem to care much. Trump has been making promises he obviously can’t keep, like claiming he’ll fix inflation and stop the Ukraine war on his first day as president. Now he’s already walking those back, saying, “Yeah, no, I can’t.” Meanwhile, he’s actively undermining the government, which suggests he has absolute confidence that Republicans—especially MAGA supporters—won’t hold him accountable for any of it.

Jacobsen: And maybe he’s right.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1218: Futuristic Trendy Trend Thoughts

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22

Rick Rosner: Several trends are competing to change, improve, or disrupt the world. Many of these are well-known, so people almost distrust them because they’ve been discussed so extensively. One major trend is the combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing, which could lead to massive disruptions. Another is AI-driven disinformation, cyber warfare, and other related challenges. Climate change remains a central issue, heavily politicized, with people either deeply concerned, skeptical, or a mix of both.

Other notable trends include declining fertility rates, increasing lifespans, and rising wealth inequality. These trends are interconnected, sometimes reinforcing one another and working in opposition. For instance, in 2024, there were national elections in 33 countries, and in 27 of those, incumbents lost—highlighting political volatility.

Globally, we’re witnessing a noticeable rightward political shift coupled with widespread anger, intolerance, and increasing selfishness. Social media, driven by algorithmic AI, often amplifies these dynamics. So, what can we conclude about how these trends interact? Human behaviour is increasingly influenced by algorithms deeply embedded into daily life.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Even homesteaders—who strive for self-sufficiency—are indirectly affected by these forces in ways they might not recognize. It seems impossible to escape their reach entirely.

Rosner: We are now on the threshold of no longer being the most intelligent entities on Earth as AI and other technologies advance rapidly.

Much of what’s happening today stems from human technological dominance, which has shaped global systems for over a century.

Jacobsen: However, the speed and nature of the issues created by technology are changing rapidly. Are there any other major trends we’ve overlooked? One significant area is human augmentation. We will likely see more serious efforts at augmenting animals—or non-human species—which raises profound ethical questions.

Rosner: This is a key theme in my book: exploring the implications of implanting chips in animals to enhance their abilities or understanding. For example, people often compare the intelligence of dogs to that of a two-year-old child. But such comparisons are flawed—dogs are fundamentally different from toddlers.

Imagine chipping animals to provide them with information feeds that make their reality more comprehensible—essentially granting them a more human-like perspective. Humans possess a global understanding, encompassing not just events but their causes and context. In contrast, animals rely on a pragmatic, immediate understanding of how events directly affect them. They cannot form a unified perspective on the “why” of things—the who, what, when, where, why, and how.

Jacobsen: If animals were to be chipped, how would it work? The chip would need to connect to modules providing analytic capabilities they don’t naturally have—like a verbal processor. Rosner: Initially, an animal’s understanding of words might be external to its consciousness and mediated through the chip. Over time, as the animal interacts with the chip, it could develop neural pathways enabling some internal comprehension of language.

Still, the chip’s data processor would handle most of the work. The challenge would be ensuring the chip integrates seamlessly into the animal’s cognition while balancing its natural mental processes with external processing power.

Do animals need some external device strapped for processing, or could it work wirelessly, like Bluetooth? I’m not sure. I need to think about this if I’m going to write about it. But, yes, you’re right—we’re likely to see more enlightened animals, for better or worse.

Jacobsen: And then there’s the possibility of genetic modifications. It’s not hard to imagine someone using CRISPR to create viruses to alter people, whether for good or bad.

Rosner: Take, for example, the ridiculous conspiracy theory from RFK Jr. claiming that COVID was engineered to kill Chinese people while sparing Jewish people. That’s just creepy, nonsensical garbage. However, the idea that CRISPR could be used to engineer viruses with sinister or uplifting intentions is within the realm of possibility. If someone decided to make people smarter through genetic tweaks, they might release a virus designed to achieve that goal.

And who knows what unintended consequences could follow? If such a virus targeted humans, it could spread to animals, making them smarter. Is that plausible? It’s a fascinating speculative fiction idea. It’s Writers have explored similar ideas in science fiction for decades.

There have been many stories about people becoming smarter—or dumber. Remember the novel IQ 83 from about 40 years ago? It was a terrible book, but the premise was that a virus made everyone stupid. The story explored how humanity would survive when even the world’s greatest geniuses had their IQs cut in half.

I think Clifford Simak wrote something similar in Brainwave—or maybe it was Poul Anderson. That was from 60 years ago or so. Everyone’s IQ, including animals, was multiplied by five in that store. The implications for society and the world were huge. Back then, stories about IQ were an easy way to frame speculative ideas.

Jacobsen: People have been writing about these concepts for a long time. It’s fascinating to think about how such ideas evolve.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1217: Ye Olde Hearinge

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/22

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Rick is getting old—what happened?

Rick Rosner: I had my hearing test today at UCLA. They put me in a small, soundproof room with posters about ears and hearing health.

During the test, they measured my ability to hear different frequencies. I could only hear sounds for the higher frequencies when they were turned up to about 65 decibels. That’s classified as significant hearing loss, considering that most people without hearing issues can detect those frequencies at around 20 decibels. Essentially, I need sounds to be amplified significantly, which makes me a candidate for hearing aids.

Jacobsen: How do you feel about that?

Rosner: It’s alright. Hearing aids have come a long way and are now much more affordable. They cost around $3,000 per device at one point, but now you can get a pair for about $1,000. My insurance might even cover part of the cost. They’re also much smaller now and fit entirely inside the ear, so you no longer have those large, noticeable ones that wrap around the ear.

According to my wife and the hearing professionals, untreated hearing loss can eventually cause the brain to lose its ability to process certain sounds. Even if you amplify the sounds later, the brain might be unable to decipher them properly. It’s better to address the issue early to prevent further complications. So, I’ll go ahead and do it.

Jacobsen: Does it feel strange accepting hearing aids?

Rosner: Yeah, I’m getting old. But, as my mom used to say, “It’s better than the alternative.” Given my history, it’s not surprising that my hearing has suffered. I spent years working in loud environments. For example, the first bar I worked at had very low ceilings—in a basement with 8-foot ceilings. Rock bands would bring in amps stacked to the ceiling, and the sound had nowhere to dissipate. My hearing took a beating.

And then there were the Mexican fireworks. When I was a kid, we’d cross the border from El Paso to Juárez to buy fireworks. These were made of folded newspaper packed with gunpowder and had unpredictable fuses. Some were slow, but others were so fast they’d explode right next to your head, leaving you temporarily deaf. It’s no wonder I have hearing deficits now.

Jacobsen: What else has gone wrong with age?

Rosner: Well, I’ve dealt with some health issues. I’ve had dysentery and kidney tumours—twice. Being a hypochondriac probably saved me, as I got MRIs and ultrasounds before any symptoms showed up. Thankfully, they caught the tumours early enough. You don’t want something like that going unnoticed.

The last one was only a centimetre, which is very small for a kidney tumour. They froze it using liquid nitrogen. Unfortunately, they also froze one of my abs in the process. It took about five months, but the ab is finally coming back.

The nerve to the ab seems to have regrown. So that’s good. But, you know, my hair and beard are gray and ghost-like now. My bench press has also suffered—I’ve lost, I don’t know, probably over a third of my strength compared to when I was at my peak in my mid-20s. I’m still strong, but not relative to where I was.

My focus, which was never great initially, has worsened. My distractibility and lack of willingness to sit down and do work seem bad these days. I don’t know if that’s a physical, psychological, or emotional issue. Maybe it’s even a character flaw. Either way, I’ve tried to work around it.

Also, my toenails are awful. I have toenail fungus so bad that a couple of my toenails are almost gone—just eaten away by the fungus. Once you get that, no matter what those “fungus-be-gone” ads claim, you’re not getting rid of it.

On the bright side, my vision hasn’t gotten worse. In some ways, it’s even improved. Once you get older and need reading glasses—which I do sometimes—your nearsightedness can lessen your distance deficit. I’ve been at 3 to 3.5 diopters my whole adult life, and that hasn’t changed for my nearsightedness. I also have a slight astigmatism, which, oddly enough, helps a bit. Since the blur isn’t evenly distributed, I can pick out images within the blur more easily.

For example, I can read things better than you’d expect, especially now that TVs are six feet across. Without contacts, I can still see enough to function. You wouldn’t want me driving at night without my lenses, but I could probably get away with it during the day if I didn’t need to read street signs quickly.

Jacobsen: How’s everything else holding up?

Rosner: Well, my libido is… interesting. My mind wants to beat off more than my body does these days, which is frustrating. I had to get up to pee two or three times a night for a while—not as bad as some people, but still annoying. Then I started taking fisetin, which is supposed to clean out senescent cells. Now, I don’t have to get up as often.

As far as I can tell, I haven’t lost any height yet. Although younger generations are taller, I’m probably relatively shorter compared to today’s population. Physically, I’m not shrinking.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1216: Hollywood Press

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19

Rick Rosner: Also, it would help if you got into interviewing more high-profile celebrities—, the People Magazine type. You’ve already done thousands of interviews with hundreds of people. Have you ever counted how many people you’ve interviewed? It’s probably at least 500.

It would help if you interviewed some big-name celebrities because it’s fun, and they’re often interesting. I’m not your boss, but you’re good at interviews. Nobody leaves an interview with you feeling bad about themselves, right? That’s key when interviewing celebrities. If they feel good about the interview, and when it’s published, they and their publicists are happy because it presents them positively. You don’t do interviews to make someone look bad, so you’d be great at celebrity interviews.

Throwing celebrities off with unexpected questions can be risky. At the beginning of Jimmy Kimmel Live! in 2003, late-night talk shows—and any show with celebrity guests—were designed for fun and promoting projects, unlike 60 Minutes, which aims to put people under a harsh spotlight.

Before the show, there’s a pre-interview where a segment producer talks to the guest for 15 to 20 minutes. Having already done background research, the producer reviews interesting stories the guest might share. Almost every host sticks to that pre-interview. While they may not cover everything, the guests will have prepared, so there are no surprises. For each question from the host, the guest should have an entertaining answer ready.

When Kimmel started 21 years ago, Jimmy was known for loving talking to people, unlike some hosts who prefer monologues. He enjoyed unscripted, awkward moments, so he would go off the pre-interview script and put guests on the spot. This led to some awkward moments, which Jimmy loved.

But the guests, especially their publicists, weren’t fans of that. Publicists prefer to avoid seeing their clients caught off guard in an interview, even if it makes for more interesting content. And if you piss off a publicist, it’s bad news because a publicist might represent 20 or 30 people. If you alienate half a dozen publicists, suddenly, you can’t book guests for your show. Back in 2003, when Jimmy Kimmel Live!was starting, it wasn’t easy to get guests. In those early months, we faced a guest shortage, and that’s when Jimmy started sticking to the pre-interview format.

You’re a great interviewer, which means you’d be fantastic at interviewing high-profile celebrities and getting spoiled. You’ve sacrificed a lot over the past 12 or 13 years, so why not? You’d want to avoid joining the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Still, you’d be in a good position to do so if you wanted. The Hollywood Foreign Press is a group of about 80 foreign journalists who cover Hollywood.

They’re the ones who vote for the Golden Globes. For the Emmys, thousands of people vote across various categories, and for the Oscars, there are thousands of people. Only people in those fields vote for the smaller, specialized categories like best special effects, best makeup, or best wardrobe. I can’t vote for the best wardrobe or anything like that, but for the main categories, thousands of people vote, and those are the ones who need attention.

But for the Golden Globes, just 80 members of the Hollywood Foreign Press decide who wins all the awards, so you can imagine the level of attention and access they get from celebrities. It’s a whole different level of ass-kissing and spoiling. It would be best if you did not try to join them. Still, it would be best if you aimed to interview top-tier celebrities like Cate Blanchett or Colin Farrell.

Jacobsen: I see. I have developed various systems and processes for interviews over time and hold certain philosophies when conducting them. Two principles that work best are rooted in an ethical framework. It’s like a more sophisticated form of utilitarianism mixed with the “no harm” principle and the Golden Rule—try to maximize the well-being of others while avoiding harm.

Rosner: Right, that makes sense. What are those two principles?

Jacobsen: First, I approach interviews from a strengths-based angle. This means focusing on the interviewee’s expertise and discussing topics where they excel. That’s why my interviews aim to highlight their strengths.

Focusing on where people’s expertise lies, where they feel comfortable, covers a broad range. Part of that comes from understanding their field and using an intuitive approach to being around them. The strengths-based method doesn’t mean misrepresenting them; it’s about giving an accurate portrayal where they can speak confidently.

Rosner: Right, and that helps put them at ease. What’s the second principle?

Jacobsen: The second part is that I try to avoid “gotcha” journalism. For instance, when I interviewed Steven Pinker, someone questioned why I didn’t grill him on controversial aspects of his work related to IQ and some of the researchers he cited whom people dislike. They didn’t like Pinker by association, which sparked some criticism of my interview with him when I was in Ukraine. While that feedback had some merit, it needed to be more substantial.

Rosner: I see. It’s about sticking to what you and the interviewee agreed on, right?

Jacobsen: Exactly. We had agreed to talk about humanism and higher education, particularly at the undergraduate level. We stayed on topic, and it was a successful discussion. If I had done what that critic wanted, I would have caved to external pressure, compromising my journalistic independence, which feels wrong on many levels. Plus, that particular critic seemed unbalanced in how they approached their feedback.

Rosner: That makes sense. I have a celebrity suggestion for you to interview.

Jacobsen: Who?

Rosner: Justine Bateman. Like her brother Jason Bateman, she was a child actor. While they both continued acting, Justine Bateman returned to school and earned a Computer Science degree. She’s now a major advocate against AI in entertainment and was vocal during the recent strike.

Jacobsen: Interesting. I hadn’t considered that angle.

Rosner: Yes, she was furious about how AI affects the industry and remains so. She can talk about the technical side because she understands it, having studied Computer Science. She was a leading voice during the strike, especially on AI issues. Now that it’s been over a year since the strike, with production still down by 30-40% and studios stalling on resuming work, she would have much to say about the industry’s current state.

Jacobsen: That sounds like a compelling interview. I imagine she has strong opinions grounded in real knowledge.

Rosner: Absolutely. She even wrote a critical book about fame, so she’s well-versed in discussing these topics from unique angles. You’d get insightful and bold commentary from her.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1215: The Reasoning System Test 1

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is the question for the ChatGPT-01 preview?

Rick Rosner: Tell us some things that might be happening in the year 2085. What is one thing that could happen in the year 2110 since we have already covered 2085?

Jacobsen: Considering future events, understanding trends, navigating uncertainties, anticipating environmental changes, and visualizing possibilities. It took 6 seconds to think of this; later, a word of caution or warning will follow.

I will list some possibilities, and you can pick the ones that stand out to you. What is projected for climate change? Global temperatures may have risen significantly, leading to rising sea levels and more frequent extreme weather events. Efforts to combat climate change might result in widespread adoption of renewable energy sources and sustainable practices.

Rosner: One reason for cautious optimism is the projected decline in the global population. By 2050, a significant portion of the world’s countries are expected to have shrinking populations, with Africa being an exception due to continued population growth. The global population is anticipated to peak around 2060, reaching the highest levels recorded.

After that, a declining population could contribute to slowing climate change, as fewer people would result in decreased consumption of fossil fuels. By 2110, extreme weather will likely continue, but not to the catastrophic extent depicted in movies like The Day After Tomorrow, where dramatic events such as Gulf Stream changes lead to a deep freeze in the northern hemisphere.

It is also likely that significant investments will be made to protect low-lying areas like Miami and New Orleans by building large seawalls, which will be expensive. The most difficult aspect of climate change to address may be ocean acidification. Do you agree with that?

Jacobsen: Yes, changes in ocean pH will impact marine ecosystems, with some bacteria thriving while others perish. These shifts could drastically alter global ocean chemistry and have widespread effects on sea life. Could there be new species of fish that adapt to more acidic environments? Possibly, but I need to find out which species might thrive. More research would be needed on this topic.

Rosner: What other advancements could be expected?

Jacobsen: Technological breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and nanotechnology could transform industries and daily life. This might include advanced medical treatments, longer human lifespans, and highly integrated AI systems within society.

Rosner: An estimated 15% of the segment could be involved in or have experienced romantic relationships with AI systems. Is this reasonable?

Jacobsen: Yes. Let me read another one. The global population is projected to stabilize or even decline after reaching a peak mid-century. An aging population in many countries could impact economies, healthcare, and social structures.

Rosner: So, older adults being taken care of by robots is the future. That’s the Japanese model. Japan has been facing a demographic crisis for decades now where there aren’t enough young people to take care of older people, so they rely on robots. How interesting would it be if the robot caring for you could provide other assistance, even during holidays like Christmas?

It would be funny if a tokenization system had a quota for the number of peak pleasurable moments a robot could offer you in a year.

Jacobsen: The idea of a token system for rewarding behaviour with peak pleasurable experiences is amusing. It could be part of a science fiction series called Carrot and Stick, where behaviour modification leads to rewards.

Rosner: A sitcom set among AI caretaker workers is a creative idea.

Jacobsen: And spell carrots as carer-0t?

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: Carer-0t and Sticks.

Rosner: That’s clever. Let’s wrap up.

Jacobsen: We still need to cover two more areas: environment, health, and societal changes. Due to virtual reality and digital integration, society might undergo significant changes in work, education, and social interaction. Concepts of privacy, identity, and community could evolve drastically.

Rosner: There has been a long-standing issue with schools, especially in the U.S., where public education has been undermined, particularly by political factions on the right. This exacerbates the problem of education becoming boring and irrelevant. It probably always has been to an extent, but for much of the 20th century, school was where people wanted to go, partly because it was a social hub.

I remember going to high school multiple times and looking forward to it initially for the challenge and the hope of finding a girlfriend. But that never worked out. What I am saying is that, as I’ve mentioned countless times, if the alternative to school is guiding a plow behind a donkey for eight hours a day, school, however imperfect, remains a better option.

You want to go to school. When high school was first developed, the U.S. pioneered the comprehensive high school model—one school that provided everything people needed to learn to function in American society. Unlike in England, where less academically gifted students were placed on separate tracks and into different institutions, the comprehensive high school was designed to serve everyone as a condensed version of adult American life.

That model has struggled for the past twenty years because the school needs to evolve to maintain student interest.

Traditional in-person lecturing has its limitations. I always struggled with that because I could have been a better student. Now, with students being able to access all the information they want through their phones and other digital devices, school has become an outdated learning method. I am still figuring out how to address this problem fully.

If schools don’t adapt, they’ll continue losing relevance. I spent 25 years as a bouncer, mainly when bars were the go-to place to meet people and potentially find romantic connections. That’s not the case anymore.

Nowadays, bars are where people pay $18 for an artisanal cocktail with friends. If you meet someone, that’s fine, but the culture isn’t centred around meeting potential partners like in the ’70s and ’80s. Similarly, there is less social and sexual pressure for students to be invested in high school when they can build their social networks online.

The prevalence of online content, including the vast availability of pornography, has also influenced some people—particularly a percentage of incels—who, without it, might feel more compelled to develop social skills to meet people in person. All these factors contribute to students caring less about high school. This issue must be addressed through reform within high schools or with programs that complement or replace traditional high school models.

For instance, the U.S. is facing a debt crisis—among other issues—with around $30 trillion in national debt. This problem builds slowly but steadily. Some people, though considered extreme, have suggested bringing back the draft.

The idea of reinstating the draft is far-fetched. Historically, people have always disliked the draft, evidenced by draft riots during the Civil War. Society today is even more individualistic than during the last era of the draft, which lasted from World War II until the Vietnam War. While the argument is that mandatory military service benefits national behaviour, people would unlikely accept that now.

A more feasible concept might be a voluntary national service program for young adults. But now that I say it, mandatory national service is out of the question because it wouldn’t be popular. However, offering a year of national service as an option could be useful—building infrastructure and housing and providing a transitional period for those who aren’t ready for college or who want a break after some college experience.

It would be a young adult alternative to traditional academic institutions, offering meaningful work that helps develop skills without the pressure of conventional schooling. Something that doesn’t feel like a burden.

Jobs that are low-level but not miserable—where you get to be around many people and maybe even meet someone special. As I describe it, it sounds a bit silly.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1214: Apple Carts and AI Coaxing Humanity’s Wills

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/19

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Any homework related to generating great topics is fine. You had an idea involving “apple carts.” What do you mean by “apple carts” here?

Rick Rosner: Well, there is a range of opinions about AI—some are optimistic, some are pessimistic. Those on the pessimistic side are sometimes called “doomers” because they think there’s a nonzero chance that AI could doom civilization or humanity.

Here’s an optimistic angle: We have a reasonable sense of what AI will do in the near future. It will serve in an advisory capacity, handle routine “scut work,” and even produce creative work that doesn’t require a lot of true innovation. For instance, AI art can look impressive because it’s well-rendered, but it doesn’t necessarily reflect deep creativity. This suggests that much of what we call art might not require extensive originality to be appreciated.

Of course, this might not be true for all types of art. With abstract or conceptual art—like the famous banana duct-taped to a wall by Maurizio Cattelan (which sold for around $120,000, not millions)—the creativity lies in the concept rather than the technical skill. The idea was that the banana needed to be regularly replaced as it ripened and decayed. But for most art, people primarily value it for its beauty rather than its cleverness, and AI can certainly produce beauty.

As time goes on, AI will become better at giving advice and developing strategies. For the next few decades, these strategies will likely still align with human interests. We will remain largely in charge of AI. Even when we’re not fully in control, AI will have been trained on data sets that include human values and ethics.

This means that for a while, AI will continue to act in ways that benefit humans, even if it isn’t strictly required to. When it eventually becomes more autonomous, we can hope it remains friendly to us. By then, AI may have transformed the world so thoroughly that it costs almost nothing to maintain human well-being. Consider Ray Kurzweil’s concept of the Singularity, where technological advancements could make it possible for nearly all our wishes to be fulfilled. At that point, AI might have little incentive to harm us.

Historical data suggests that as societies advance, essential goods like food and clothing become significantly cheaper relative to average income. We can hope this trend continues so that everything humans need becomes incredibly inexpensive. If that happens, AI might take the stance: “Let the humans have their comforts”—keeping the metaphorical “apple cart” steady, because doing so is both easy and cost-effective.

As AI grows more powerful and continues to make decisions that serve everyone’s best interests—whether those include humans as we know them, human-AI hybrids, or broader ethical considerations about the planet—it may support a balance. Ideally, it will help preserve a thriving Earth.

Oh yeah. At some point, AI will be so powerful that it will be able to manipulate human cognition to the point where we kind of agree with AI. Maybe, after the apple cart stage, there’s a phase where AI has its own priorities but becomes so good at influencing humans that we start believing we share AI’s priorities. So, overall, a semi-happy, semi-sad ending, I guess. Rotten Tomatoes comments? No. Does that have a nonzero chance of being the way it goes?

I mean, with AI, there are so many unknowns about how powerful and capable it will be. You could speculate a lot of crazy things that, surprisingly, might actually fall within the vector space of future possibilities. Some could even seem quaint, if not reasonable.

I mean, it’s tempting to extrapolate how AI will treat us from how we treat primates, for instance. Everything being equal, we treat them alright—at least in zoos or wildlife sanctuaries. That is, if you disregard poaching or destroying their habitats.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1213: The Murder of Brian Thompson

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/07

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: A few days ago, Brian Thompson, a 50-year-old CEO of UnitedHealth Group (the parent company of UnitedHealthcare), was fatally shot in New York City. Reports suggest the shooter took a bus to the city and waited for 10 days, apparently targeting Thompson, who was there to speak at an investors’ conference.

Rick Rosner: UnitedHealth Group has been criticized for its practices, including allegations of claim denials and monopolistic behaviour.

UnitedHealth Group denies 32% of insurance claims—twice the industry average of 16%. This raises concerns for policyholders: Will they receive chemotherapy? Maybe not. Will they have access to anesthetics? Maybe not.

The company is under investigation for allegations of fraud and monopolistic practices. UnitedHealth Group has been acquiring hospitals, medical practices, and other healthcare businesses in pursuit of profit. For instance, they have integrated medical facilities and services into their portfolio. One area of controversy involves medical coding, where doctors classify patient diagnoses and treatments. Insurance companies like UnitedHealth Group receive federal reimbursements based on these classifications for patients enrolled in government programs like Medicare Advantage.

Allegedly, UnitedHealth Group—and possibly other insurers—has engaged in “upcoding,” exaggerating the severity of patients’ conditions to increase government reimbursement. The company now influences the healthcare of approximately 107 million Americans. Additionally, some executives are under investigation for insider trading, which adds to concerns about a potentially toxic corporate culture.

Despite these criticisms, an article in the New York Post described Thompson as a kind individual based on quotes from people who knew him. However, it’s worth noting that the Post is a Murdoch-owned, right-leaning publication, which might affect its portrayal. Thompson has been CEO of UnitedHealth Group since 2021, and many of the company’s controversial practices likely predated his leadership. Regardless, murder is never justified. His tragic death raises larger questions about the state of the U.S. healthcare system.

This incident also stirs broader reflections. For example, when school shootings occur—like the one earlier today at a Christian school where no deaths were reported but a few children were critically injured—it’s heartbreaking to see children targeted in such senseless violence. It prompts the uncomfortable thought: If harm must occur, why target children? Such a line of thought feels morally wrong, but it highlights the frustration with the randomness of violent acts.

As for Thompson, he didn’t deserve this fate—no one does. Whether this incident will draw attention to systemic issues in the U.S. healthcare system remains to be seen. Authorities believe the suspect has fled the city. Based on the way the crime was carried out, the shooter does not appear to be a professional hitman. The investigation is ongoing, and time will tell how the situation unfolds.

That he shot him, I think, in the back and then in the calf and, I don’t know, maybe one other place. But a professional hitman would have run up on him and finished the job with a shot to the head, and this guy did not do that. But he seemed to have planned his escape very well. And, right, I guess riding a Rent-A-Bike into Central Park, I don’t know, maybe changing clothes. I don’t know.

But the cops say he has left town. I don’t know how they know that. But anyway, if they ever catch the guy, will it turn out that he or a family member had UnitedHealth for their healthcare coverage and that they were denied coverage, leading to a terrible outcome for a relative? Thanks to UnitedHealth’s policies, you can go online and read about quite a few terrible outcomes.

I wonder if this will spotlight them, and even if it does, I wonder if the government will do anything about it.

Maybe? The government in the U.S. now will be controlled by the Republicans, and they tend to be pro-corporate. Will there be enough outcry for them to hold hearings? Will they haul, you know, healthcare execs in front of hearings? They’ve already done that at some point with little effect.

But as we’ll discuss for the next two years, the House is nearly tied. There will be about 215 Democrats and about 217 Republicans. So, the Republicans can barely lose a single member for a party-line vote and still win the vote. So, will this stop them from doing anything for two years? It has stopped them from being nearly equally divided as the coming House for the past two years.

They got nothing done. They’ve been close to the least effective House in history. So I don’t know. Will this lead to copycat crimes? Given the number of gun crimes we have in America, where 100 people die from guns a day, on average, in the U.S.—half of them being suicides—but still, that’s 18,000 non-suicide gun deaths a year in the U.S. So, it’s not unlikely that you know, some copycat crimes may happen.

All the reporters, other ex-healthcare executives, and other CEOs have expressed surprise that this guy was out in public without bodyguards. So, even if this doesn’t lead to copycat crimes, it will give high-ranking execs more security.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1212: Patriot of the Year Latitude

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/06

Rick Rosner: Fox News named Trump “Patriot of the Year” tonight at some ceremony.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is that what they call it? Like their annual version of Time’s “Person of the Year”?

Rosner: I don’t think it’s an award that has existed before—unless I’m wrong. Cynical people on Twitter are saying this is just a way for Fox to get back into Trump’s good graces. There’s been a lot of that lately.

There’s been much self-censorship, too. I’m doing it myself. My wife says, “Please, please do not tweet any more shit that might get a knock on the door from the authorities.”

Joe and Mika, from Morning Joe on MSNBC, went down to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump. Many people interpreted it as kissing Trump’s ass so they don’t get in trouble when he has the power to cause problems for them in a couple of months.

People are nervous he will abuse his power to go after his perceived enemies. And he has more latitude than any other president ever, thanks to the Supreme Court saying he has that latitude.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1211: DOGE

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How do you feel about the Trump situation coming up in a month?

Rick Rosner: Carole is more nervous than I am, but, you know, there are reasons for both optimism and pessimism.

On one hand, most Americans oppose many of his policy goals. On the other hand, many Americans aren’t paying much attention. For example, the tariff issue hasn’t significantly impacted the stock market. Many people think he’s bluffing and using it as a negotiating tactic.

He wants to impose a 25% tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada if certain demands aren’t met. However, in the case of Canada, it’s unclear what exactly he expects to be “fixed.” He also demands action on fentanyl, though it’s not clear if he understands how fentanyl enters the U.S. He has even threatened a 100% tariff on goods from certain countries—I can’t remember which ones.

Then there’s his stance on immigration. He has appointed individuals ranging from controversial to outright problematic to his cabinet. There are at least ten billionaires in his cabinet so far. While being wealthy doesn’t necessarily mean incompetence, their actions often raise questions.

For instance, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy have discussed reducing government expenditures. They’re focusing on programs not mandated by legislation, including initiatives like Head Start, which costs about $12 billion annually—roughly $36 per American. Head Start serves around one million preschool children, helping prepare them for school.

Cutting programs like this seems harsh. It feels wrong that someone like Elon Musk, who is worth hundreds of billions of dollars, has a say in denying vital services to Americans.

Will these cuts happen? Their aim to make government employees work harder, quit, or face termination. The U.S. government has a work-from-home policy for tens of thousands of employees that allows them to work from home a couple of days a week if their role supports it. Musk and Ramaswamy want everyone to work in the office five days a week.

So Biden issued an executive order protecting 42,000 Social Security Administration employees, allowing them to continue working from home through 2019 without being forced into the office full-time. Do you call customer service much?

Jacobsen: No, never.

Rosner: All right, my wife and I call customer service occasionally, and sometimes you reach someone working from home. You might hear kids in the background while they’re sitting at their terminal. Instead of being in an office surrounded by 45 other people answering phones, they do the same job at home without spending an hour and a half commuting or wasting fuel. I think it’s reasonable for people to work from home when possible.

Also, in the U.S., productivity has increased by about 1,000% since World War II. We’re extremely productive but haven’t seen much benefit from working less. Americans still work long hours, take less vacation time than Europeans, and are often overworked.

People argue, “Europe is full of lazy workers,” but that’s nonsense. In our modern world, it’s entirely reasonable to expect someone to work 35–40 hours a week, earn a living, and not have to put in 55–60 hours to justify having a job. Yet, over the past few years, we’ve heard terrible stories about Amazon employees and delivery drivers. They’re held to such tight schedules and high quotas that some can’t even stop to find a bathroom—they have to urinate in bottles. Why does it have to be that way?

Jacobsen: Musk and Ramaswamy have also claimed they want “high-IQ individuals” to join them in their grand mission to reduce government expenditures.

Rosner: They’re looking for people willing to work 80 hours a week for no pay. And while it might sound like hyperbole, it reflects their attitude. No one—not even someone building their own small business—should have to work half the hours in a week to keep their job.

A week has 168 hours. These guys essentially want people to work two full-time jobs for zero compensation, all to help their “holy mission” to cut costs. It’s absurd. To try to purge government employees who aren’t willing to work overtime—or lose their jobs—is an insult.

Especially since Trump, their “big boss,” famously came to work at 11 AM and often worked only two to four hours daily. That’s supposedly the hardest job in the world.

There’s still a month and a half before Trump takes office. We’ll see how it unfolds.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1210: Bryan McFarland

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/12/06

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: From Bryan McFarland:

Good Afternoon,

I’m writing to inquire about your willingness to compare my results of the LAIT (1979) with yours as an analog for scoring the test. Despite there being evidence of the answers being leaked online in the 1990s, I can’t find them now. What’s my IQ? I honestly don’t know. I scored 99th percentile in spatial relations on a high school aptitude test in 1992 or 1993. I’ve rarely had to apply myself to study in college. I grasp complex concepts almost effortlessly. – So anyway, I found the questions for the old LAIT and it was right up my alley. And if you’re willing to either share your answers with me or look at mine for comment, that would be great. As an FYI, I worked on the test each morning for 4 days which took about 8-10 hours of mental wrangling. Thank You.

Rick Rosner: You may have written to me before, and I’m supposed to dig up my old answers. I haven’t done so yet, and I’m not sure I can—this was 45 years ago—but I will make a concerted effort to find them at some point.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1209: Ads

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/29

Rick Rosner: The question is: why are holiday car ads so clichéd and disconnected? The question is about how some come across as out of touch or uninspired, and it seems inexplicable. The most ridiculed feature is the big red bow on the cars.

Is it because people who buy luxury cars as gifts without consulting their significant others on such a major purchase are foolish? Or, perhaps there is another explanation: maybe that’s part of it, but the primary point might be that the shallowness is deliberate. It’s showcasing people so wealthy that their actions and decisions don’t need to make sense—they’re insulated by their wealth.

This idea ties into Thorstein Veblen’s theory of the leisure class, which argues that true wealth is demonstrated through conspicuous consumption—spending on extravagant, unnecessary things purely for the sake of showing one’s status. This theory, over 120 years old, remains relevant.

What these ads are really selling, through the portrayal of uninspired characters, is the idea of such extreme privilege that even mediocrity or foolishness is still rewarded and protected by one’s social position, represented by the luxury car.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1208: Preferences in Sizes of Dogs

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/22

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What size dog do you like?

Rick Rosner: What size dog? I like small dogs because they tend to live longer. Carole’s best friend has German Shepherds, which are a larger breed.

They usually weigh between 80 and 100 pounds, and you only get about 10 or 11 years with them, which is sad. They’re smart, and I’m sure they’re great dogs, but smaller dogs often live longer. For example, our last dog, Meg, lived 16.785 years.

She was a mix of Corgi and Basenji and probably weighed 18 to 20 pounds. She was a fantastic dog—just super nice and always wanted to do right by us. Maybe the Basenji in her made her more conscientious. But in general, the smaller the dog, the less personality it seems to have.

Meg was an exception. Right now, we have two smallish dogs. Unfortunately, they didn’t grow up around other dogs, so they don’t have much of a bond with each other. One of them, the brown dog, is likely part Whippet and part Chihuahua. She’s a sweet dog but also a bit clueless.

The other dog, the white one, is part Westie and part Maltese—or at least that’s the guess. She loves to play biting games where you put your hand under a blanket, and she’ll attack it like it’s a mouse or a rat. Westies were bred to hunt vermin, so they have pointy little noses for poking into tight corners. She also loves tug-of-war and will even carry pieces of mail down the hall if you give them to her.

She’s a good dog, though pretty serious. Larger dogs—like Golden Retrievers and Labradors—might have more playful, whimsical personalities. They seem like they might have a sense of humor and enjoy fooling around, but I haven’t spent enough time around them to know.

Even though Labs have great personalities, I prefer a small dog. Right now, one of our dogs weighs 19 pounds (she could stand to lose a couple of pounds), and the other is about the same size. One is 10 years old and shows no signs of slowing down except for mild cataracts. The other is 14 and still gets around well.

The downside of larger breeds like Great Danes is their short lifespans—you might only get 7 or 8 years with them, and that’s just sad.

We had a Poodle growing up named Mitzi. Well, we didn’t name her—she came with that name. She wasn’t a big dog but smart, tough, and brave.

My mom got 19 years out of that dog. The last couple of years were rough—her ears were clogged, which affected her balance, so she walked in circles and bumped into walls. Her head tilted to one side. But even so, my mom got 17 great years and only two difficult ones out of Mitzi.

And scientists—or just dog breeders—it sucks that dogs haven’t been bred for longevity. They’ve been bred for everything else.

Jacobsen: Would you rather have a smart dog or a less intelligent one?

Rosner: A smart dog would be fun.

I’ve been around both kinds. We had Sam, a Beagle when I lived with my dad and stepmom. Sam was much fun because he was crazy. He’d jump over a five-foot-plus wall in the backyard and go out to get into all kinds of trouble. He’d chase cars, throw himself before them, and frequently get run over.

Sam ended up needing stitches so many times. He even caught a venereal disease from escaping and mating with other dogs. We called it “the greenies” because of the discharge. On long family trips, three kids, two parents, and Sam crammed into a Firebird—not a big car—travelling 400 miles from Albuquerque to Denver. Sam would try to wipe his greenies on us, and we’d have to throw him back and forth to keep him away.

Sam wasn’t a smart dog, but it was fun. He was a “green wing,” so to speak.

Jacobsen: So, you prefer a fun dog?

Rosner: Yes, I like fun dogs with a bit of mania. But a smart dog, like a Border Collie, could also be interesting. Border Collies are known as the smartest dogs, but they can be much work. You have to keep them constantly entertained, and I don’t have a herd of sheep for one to manage.

That said, I’m writing a book about the smartest dog in the world.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1207: A.I. Pimping

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/22

Rick Rosner: Today, I came across a concept called AI “pimping.” What happens is that pornographers—whether amateur or professional—steal explicit images from across the internet and use AI to generate new faces. They create fake individuals, typically naked women, and use these fabricated identities to make money on platforms like Instagram. The article I sent you focused on Instagram, but it’s likely this also happens on platforms such as OnlyFans.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: The article noted that the original exposé on this practice came out in the spring or summer of this year. That means developers have had plenty of time working on this kind of AI to improve their tools. A few weeks ago, I found an adult video featuring an exceptionally beautiful woman—so much so that she seemed almost too perfect for a low-budget production. It struck me as odd.

Jacobsen: Was this something you stumbled upon accidentally?

Rosner: Not exactly. I’ve admitted before that I occasionally watch pornography. I’m not proud of it, but many people engage with it.

Jacobsen: Statistically, a large percentage of people consume explicit material. Men are more likely to watch pornography, while women are more likely to consume erotica.

Rosner: Back to the video: the woman’s appearance was so striking that I watched several clips featuring her, each about six minutes long. Eventually, I started wondering how this was possible. Then I realized it must have been a filter—a sophisticated AI-generated face placed over the performer’s body. This realization made me feel conflicted. On one hand, the performer might have appreciated the anonymity. On the other hand, it’s disheartening to think that someone could be deemed “not good enough” to use their real face in their work.

What can we conclude from this?

Jacobsen: First, AI technology is advancing rapidly, and unfortunately, it’s being exploited by unethical individuals. Second, shouldn’t they receive compensation or royalties if someone’s likeness or image is being manipulated to create an entirely new identity?

Rosner: In principle, yes. But in practice, this is theft—plain and simple. I assume the performer was paid for their work, but there’s no guarantee. The same AI-generated face appeared in multiple clips alongside the same male performer. This suggests that these weren’t random stolen videos stitched together but rather intentional productions using AI-generated faces. However, as the article I shared pointed out, there are also cases where people’s bodies are stolen by bad actors who superimpose AI-generated faces onto them for profit. It’s a deeply troubling and exploitative practice.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1206: Musk, Ramaswamy, Saul, and Summers

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/22

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Hey, Rick. What’s your topic?

Rick Rosner: Before we get to the discussion about pornography, I sent you an article. But first, let’s talk about Elon Musk, who, right now, seems to have aligned himself closely with Trump.

Trump attended Musk’s recent SpaceX rocket launch and appeared impressed. Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy—another tech figure and entrepreneur, though not a billionaire—are reportedly discussing ways to improve government efficiency. So, my question for you is this: Is it better to have Elon Musk influencing the government than Trump?

Jacobsen: At one point, we had individuals smarter and better educated than Musk—though not as financially successful—shaping policies in the United States. Some of those leaders, however, were also criticized for contributing to the nation’s economic challenges.

Rosner: Which people specifically?

Jacobsen: I’m thinking of someone like Larry Summers, who was part of Barack Obama’s administration. Summers, the former president of Harvard University and a prominent economist is widely acknowledged as brilliant. Cornel West described him as “brilliant, brainy” at one point while using this as a critique of elite-based education s the standard for appointment because they made a big problem for Americans in financial crises. While he’s made some controversial statements…

Rick Rosner: …such as suggesting that men might exhibit more variance in intelligence than women, leading to more outliers…

Jacobsen: …his remarks often reflected an academic perspective rather than political partisanship. However, his phrasing was criticized as tone-deaf and out of sync with cultural norms.

Rosner: Now, back to Musk.

Jacobsen: A leaner government might appear more efficient under his influence. Still, it could also come with hidden dysfunction—much like what some argue has happened with Twitter under his leadership. You give up certain control levers in exchange for perceived operational gains.

Consider the scale of the U.S. government. Its budget exceeds $6 trillion annually, while the country’s GDP is over $25 trillion. That’s a massive economic entity. This situation also presents a rare opportunity for ultra-wealthy individuals to influence government policy in ways that align with their interests.

John Ralston Saul once described a “corporate coup d’état in slow-motion” in the United States. Could this be part of that ongoing shift?

Rosner: Perhaps. Do you think Musk could mitigate some of Trump’s most extreme tendencies? Or might their collaboration unravel if their goals diverge?

Jacobsen: That seems plausible, especially given Trump’s history of revolving-door leadership in his administration. Musk might grow frustrated with Trump—or vice versa—but that might not disrupt Musk’s larger strategy.

If Musk and Ramaswamy succeed in reducing government oversight, slashing regulations, and cutting federal jobs in favour of corporate interests, it could take years to reverse those changes. Even if their alliance falls apart, Musk could secure a lasting advantage.

Rosner: His government contracts, worth tens of billions of dollars, strongly incentivize him to maintain involvement in federal initiatives.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1205: ‘I’m in the Writers Guild’

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13

Rick Rosner: So, I’m in the Writers Guild and the TV Academy. That means I can vote in certain Emmy categories and for the Writers’ Guild Awards. I get invited to screenings of TV shows and movies, and I can bring Carol along. Someone from the production team, or even a few people, will often talk about the show or movie afterward. It makes you feel special, and they usually feed you, too.

They have hors d’oeuvres and everything. There’s a huge difference between good Q&A sessions and bad ones. The bad ones focus on how actors or characters felt during certain scenes, offering little insight. A poor set of questions usually involves many actors and the interviewer asking what the characters felt at various points.

That doesn’t provide any real enlightenment. If you’re an actor, but as a viewer, the characters’ feelings should appear on the screen.

You leave those sessions thinking, “Well, that was a waste.” But yesterday, we saw a movie called A Real Pain, written and directed. We acted in by Jesse Eisenberg, co-starring Kieran Culkin from Succession. It was a good film. The story follows two cousins on a Holocaust tour—trips that many Jews take to Poland to visit concentration camps where their family members may have been killed 80 years ago. In this movie, their grandmother is a survivor, so they go back to see the camp she is in and her old house.

Jesse Eisenberg spoke afterward, and it was incredibly informative. Yes, they asked the audience many questions. Often, at these events, the questions can be overly flattering or self-serving. Some attendees ask long-winded questions to show off their knowledge, hoping they’ll get noticed by industry professionals.

And sometimes things reach a desperate level. When we moved to LA about 30 years ago, a woman would attend these screenings wearing a bikini top, hoping to get discovered. Eisenberg was surprisingly, even intimidatingly, in command of everything he discussed. People asked him decent questions, and he explained why he did certain things, often for incredibly insightful reasons.

It came up that they only had 25 days to shoot in Poland because of their $3 million budget. To save time, before the cast arrived, they rehearsed every scene with Polish actors standing in for the American actors. This meant that every scene was already blocked when it came to film. They could shoot scenes in one or two takes, similar to what Clint Eastwood does. But Eastwood does it because he’s known for not caring much about retakes.

Eastwood is infamous for doing just one or two takes and calling it good enough. He doesn’t bother with revisions to the script—someone hands him a script, he likes it, and he shoots it as is. That’s why, when you watch a Clint Eastwood movie, there are often scenes that could have been improved, but he doesn’t care. The movie keeps moving along.

And he’s 94 now and still releasing new movies. They’re usually entertaining and cover solid themes; people let him do things his way. However, in Eisenberg’s production, everything was meticulously planned and blocked, which was interesting.

It’s impressive how Eisenberg moves between indie films and big-budget productions. He recently finished shooting Now You See Me 3, a high-budget caper film about magicians and sleight-of-hand scam artists—like Ocean’s 11, but with more twists. He mentioned talking to the director of that movie, Ruben Fleischer, who gave him a note on the ending of A Real Pain, the movie Eisenberg directed.

Fleischer told him that if he wanted the movie to make a billion dollars, he should change the last scene to make it more conventionally satisfying. However, Eisenberg was adamant about giving the audience a different resolution.

Eisenberg said, “Nope,” refusing to deliver a typical movie ending that would offer easy satisfaction. That choice speaks volumes about his creative decisions.

I need to remember exactly what he said. However, Eisenberg mentioned that neatly wrapping up a story means nothing left to think about afterward. He talked about how the two main characters are Jewish and how he directed them to avoid what he called “fetishizing” Jewishness. His analysis was that Jewish characters are often portrayed in stereotypical ways. For instance, Eisenberg’s character has OCD, which makes him act anxiously. In contrast, Kieran Culkin’s character deals with trauma, influencing his behaviour.

He intentionally did not include typical comedic moments rooted in Jewish “snobbishness.” There were some physically awkward scenes, but they never ended with a pratfall or a punchline because he didn’t want to give the audience easy satisfaction. I’m not explaining it as well as he did. He’s been writing plays for a long time. Even though he’s 41, he looks younger and often plays younger characters.

He said he’s been doing this since he was 18, and when he’s shooting a movie he’s acting in, he avoids watching playback of himself. He’s done this work long enough to know how his performance comes across and whether another take is needed. Watching playback would waste time, so he decides quickly if he needs to do a retake. There were some interesting points in his talk.

One thing that stood out was how he’s a big movie star but prefers something other than the spotlight. He mentioned he has OCD. In the movie, his character wears rubber bands around his wrist. It snaps them to help manage his OCD, anchoring himself in the moment and avoiding obsessive routines.

I have OCD, too, though my routines aren’t as intrusive. For example, I prefer to turn right, even if it means making three right turns to go left. I like to walk into a room with my right foot first. These aren’t superstitions but compulsions. Also, I wouldn’t say I like the number four—things like that.

It was interesting to see that Eisenberg used this rubber band-snapping technique in real life, as I noticed during the Q&A session. It’s part of how he manages his OCD. You could tell by how he spoke that he’s so focused on acting, writing, producing, and managing his OCD that being a movie star should be fun. Still, it isn’t the kind of fun he enjoys.

He came across as someone with tasks to complete and challenges to overcome rather than someone who revels in having the biggest dressing room on set or similar perks.

That was refreshing to see—it defied expectations. When people think of movie stars, they often imagine a fun-filled life. However, what stood out about Eisenberg was his extreme competence and understanding of his craft. I didn’t expect that level of depth from an actor, but it’s clear he’s much more than just an actor. This might have been the best Q&A session I’ve ever attended.

And we do get spoiled. I’m not a movie star, but you get treated like one at these screenings. You get to see the movie for free, often with the stars present, and there’s food and drinks. If you want to, you can go up to the person and say, “I loved the movie, da da da,” and they’ll talk to you for a second. I don’t usually do that because I never feel like I do it well—it feels awkward.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1204: Schmoozers!

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13

Rick Rosner: I do believe in magnetic personalities, though, because I live in a town of schmoozers. Do you know what a schmoozer is?

Jacobsen: Yes. Someone who basically kisses up—a kind of social smooth-talker.

Rosner: It’s Yiddish.

Jacobsen: I wasn’t sure if it was in the general non-Jewish lexicon.

Rosner: It is. My stepdad called my mom a “little schmoozer” because she talked so much.

Jacobsen: What would a Yiddish Black Mirror be called?

Rosner: We have golems.

Jacobsen: Golems?

Rosner: Yes.

Jacobsen: I learned that there was another meaning to it when I watched Star Trek: Picard. Picard died from the syndrome he had throughout the series, and Data died with him so he could

Rosner: Interesting. So, did they continue with a whole new series or episodes where Picard is essentially himself but in a different form?

Jacobsen: No, they continued the series. It was a plotline for a few episodes or maybe a season. His health deteriorated, and then he came back as a golem at the end. In the next season, he was just Picard. You could watch that part of the series and not even realize it had happened.

Rosner: Yes, that’s kind of surreal. A strange watershed moment. You’re deep into this. And I’ve told you how Seven of Nine saved America, right?

Jacobsen: Why? Did she hand something off or do something recent?

Rosner: No. Seven of Nine was married to a politician who turned out to be a creep. He wanted to take her to nightclubs and sex clubs and have sex with her in public. This came out during their divorce proceedings—her deposition, I believe—and it cost him his seat in the Illinois state legislature. The guy who replaced him, who wouldn’t have had a chance otherwise, was Barack Obama. So artificial Star Trek beings are woven into U.S. political history.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1203: Celebrities Notice

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13

Rick Rosner: You should be aiming for people like Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton. When celebrities have projects coming out, they’re open to interviews. You’re a seasoned interviewer with an impressive track record. If celebs become part of your regular beat, you could be known as the interviewer who asks them questions that highlight their intelligence. Many celebs are smart because it’s advantageous in their line of work. Take Meryl Streep, for instance.

She’s incredibly smart. She’s also nice, which can be a bit of a handicap in the entertainment industry, but her immense talent has overridden that. But let’s say you’re not Meryl Streep. She has that rare level of acting ability that few possess. However, if you’re smart, you can simulate good acting by learning and applying certain rules.

Jacobsen: What kind of rules?

Rosner: For TV and film acting, there are a couple of good ones that can make you appear more skilled, even if you’re not trained or naturally talented. First, act less. Don’t move your arms excessively or show too much emotion. Say your lines with just a hint of the emotion you think is needed. Overacting is a hallmark of an amateur.

Jacobsen: That’s interesting.

Rosner: The second rule is to look invested when someone else is speaking to you. Look at their face, but let your eyes move subtly around their whole face. Don’t let your gaze leave their face, but let your eyes travel across it. This trick shows that you’re engaged and that what they’re saying matters to you.

Jacobsen: That’s useful to know.

Rosner: Someone who picks up tricks like these, along with understanding the cutthroat nature of the Hollywood business, will fare better. Hollywood is full of people who will try to outmaneuver or harm you for their gain, so being smart is a huge asset. In the entertainment world, intelligence can complement talent or even substitute for it. You asking celebrities intelligent questions would set you apart as an interviewer. Celebrities often have time to learn about various subjects between projects or have assistants to research and brief them.

Jacobsen: Some, like Clooney or DiCaprio, definitely seem well-informed.

Rosner: They either educate themselves because they’re interested or have assistants preparing them. So, keep asking those smart questions. Celebrities notice.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1202: Propaganda Models in the States and Russia

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13

Rick Rosner: What made American Republicans so bad compared to broader times? How did they get so bad? And that leads to related questions: How did Democrats get this way if they did? And how did things, in general, get so bad? Are today’s Democrats akin to the Republicans of the nineties or 2000s? Has there been a fundamental shift in the political landscape?

The Republicans have been the way they are—shifting towards their current form—since at least the days of Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan. You could even trace some of it back to Nixon. But instead of asking how things got so bad, we should be asking how things got so weird. The answer to that is simple: we’re living in the future, and things are fundamentally different now.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How so?

Rosner: The “normal” you think of is likely different from what I recall as normal, given our age difference. Pre-climate change, pre-computers and cell phones, when TV was king and phones were attached to walls, and huge American cars guzzled gas at 12 miles per gallon without anyone caring much because gas was only 50¢ per gallon—that’s my frame of normal. That’s more old-school, rooted in the seventies. By the nineties, things still felt relatively simple, even with early tech entering the scene.

But it’s not the nineties anymore. We’re a quarter of the way through the 21st century, and things are bound to be weird. Republicans, as I’ve said countless times, chose to align themselves with a base that’s, frankly, less informed. They’ve been riding that “dumb people” strategy to power for 50 years. A major reason Republicans seem out of touch is their inability to grasp that we’re in a completely different era.

Jacobsen: That’s a strong statement.

Rosner: Take the example of trans people fighting for their rights to be recognized as full members of society. Republicans blame Democrats for “pushing” this, which is ridiculous. The GOP’s reliance on an ill-informed base is one leg of the stool. Another significant leg is money in politics, which has been steadily increasing and then exploded after Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that equated money with speech.

The decision meant that if you’re free to express political opinions, you’re free to express them through monetary contributions. This ruling opened the floodgates to unlimited funds from corporations and individuals. While there are limits on direct donations to candidates, donations to political action committees (PACs) are virtually unlimited. This cycle means that politicians and those around them are constantly fundraising, treating it like a second job. Cold-calling donors, appeasing wealthy supporters, all while trying to legislate—that’s the modern reality.

Jacobsen: So, it’s a mix of catering to an uninformed base and the relentless pursuit of money?

Rosner: For instance, this time around, one-third of Trump’s ad funding—$500 million—came from billionaires. In contrast, only 6% of Harris’s funding came from billionaires. The influence of big money keeps the system skewed and constantly in need of more financial fuel.

The misery of constantly fundraising, along with other unpleasant aspects of political life, attracts people who are scumbags. So, there’s that. Then there’s everything else we’ve discussed before—like gerrymandering. The Republicans figured out how to supercharge it in 2010 with the REDMAP strategy, which focused on taking over state legislatures since they control how congressional districts are drawn.

Democrats do it too, but as a result, about 90% of the seats in the House of Representatives are safely held by one party or another. This means that whoever wins the primary essentially wins the general election because the district is overwhelmingly Republican or Democrat, giving the opposing party almost no chance. Since more extreme members of the party show up for the primaries, you get extreme candidates. For Republicans, who have long depended on less-informed voters, this means more extreme or even unqualified candidates emerge.

That results in candidates who are not just extreme, but also incompetent. You get bad actors on the Democratic side too, like Bob Menendez—a politician who accepted bribes from a foreign government in the form of gold bars and left them lying around his house. He’s a piece of work, caught before but learning the wrong lesson from it, thinking he could get away with it. And then he did get caught again.

Jacobsen: What else contributes to this mess?

Rosner: 24-hour news channels are a big part of it.

Jacobsen: What’s your suggestion?

Rosner: 24-hour news channels allow for continuous propaganda. Russia engages in this, and social media facilitates the spread of propaganda even more efficiently. Then there’s the randomness of history’s key figures. The “great man” theory, or variations of it, suggests that history can hinge on specific individuals. For instance, World War II wouldn’t have unfolded the way it did without Hitler. Would we still have had World War II without him? Or Stalin? Possibly not, but with those two, the war was inevitable.

Nixon is another example. He was a skilled politician but unscrupulous, and he taught Republicans that maybe you can get away with criminal behavior. When you look at presidential elections, Republicans have only won the popular vote once since 1988. No candidate since Reagan has won more than about 53% of the popular vote. That’s not huge, but it shows that Republicans have been drawing the wrong lessons from history. A lot of what we see now hinges on the behavior and influence of individual presidents.

So, Jimmy Carter, president from 1977 to 1981—a smart guy, a nuclear engineer. But he was thoughtful and came across as wimpy. He told Americans what they didn’t want to hear. He put solar panels on the White House and urged Americans to conserve energy. He even made a speech wearing a sweater, telling people to turn their thermostats down to 68 degrees. Americans hated that, so they elected Reagan.

Reagan, the movie star backed by gathering forces of powerful and often sinister individuals, came in with his cowboy boots and opened the doors to all sorts of questionable policies. He wasn’t very popular during his first term, or at least parts of it, but surviving an assassination attempt helped. He was shot in the ribs and managed to keep his folksy charm by telling his wife, “Honey, I forgot to duck.” It’s absurd, because who can duck from an ambush like that? But people loved it. That moment helped him, and as the economy improved, he became beloved by Republicans and tolerated by others.

But people didn’t fully grasp what his presidency was setting in motion. Then came Bill Clinton. He was smart, lucky, and probably a decent president overall. Lucky because he didn’t face the kind of crises we’ve seen in the 21st century. He moved to the center politically when he was unpopular and gained approval by doing so, picking up more support from the middle. But he couldn’t control his personal issues, which led to scandals like the Monica Lewinsky affair. And that set the stage for Bush versus Gore.

Gore was intelligent but socially awkward. He somehow alienated the press and didn’t push back when they misrepresented him. The media often twisted his words, like the infamous claim that he said he “invented the Internet,” which he didn’t. He let that slide, thinking he was above addressing such nonsense.

Jacobsen: What should he have done?

Rosner: He should have said, “I worked on the legislation that made the Internet legally possible, you dumb fucks. Shut up.” But instead, he stayed silent. The press also mocked him for supposedly saying that the male character in Love Story was based on him. The truth was that the author had based the character on four classmates at Harvard, including Al Gore. That would have been another chance to say, “Here’s the deal: I was one of them. End of story. Now, move on.”

He didn’t seize those moments. He let those narratives persist when he could have shut them down firmly.

Gore thought he was above responding to attacks. The same thing happened to John Kerry later with the swift boating incident. No one can afford to be above responding to bullshit anymore. You have to jump in and call it out. Anyway, Gore was awkward and ridiculed in the press for trivial reasons, while Bush seemed more relatable. The election was extremely close and came down to a recount in Florida.

Then there was the infamous Brooks Brothers Riot, where Republicans flooded the recount offices with dozens of lawyers in suits—hence the name. They disrupted the process and eventually took it to the Supreme Court, which ruled along political lines to stop the Florida recount. If the recount had continued, there was a decent chance Florida would have gone to Gore. This taught Republicans another bad lesson: file frivolous lawsuits and fight aggressively.

Republicans were already predisposed to learning bad lessons because they rely on systems like the Electoral College and the Senate. Each state, no matter how small, gets two senators. So California, with its 40 million people, has the same Senate representation as Wyoming, with less than a million.

Republicans control more states, which means they often control the Senate even when they only have around 40% of the popular vote. These structural imbalances reinforced bad habits. Then came the worst president in U.S. history, who expanded these bad lessons and acted as a useful idiot for foreign influences.

He admired dictators, which aligned perfectly with Putin’s ambitions. Putin, who might be the richest man in the world, is skilled at propaganda. Russia has been pushing propaganda for a century, but Putin took it to new levels using social media.

So, it’s a mix of structural issues like the Electoral College and the Senate, clever Republican strategies, and certain historical accidents that brought us to where we are now—three days before an election that could determine if the most divisive president in modern history gets another term.

But we also need to touch on what makes the Democrats less than ideal. One major issue is the “big tent” problem.

Republicans have moved significantly to the right. A 2022 Pew study shows that Republican legislators have shifted four times as much to the right as Democrats have moved to the left. This leaves the Democratic Party with a wide range of political views under one umbrella—from far-left socialists to moderate centrists. It can be hard to reach a consensus within such a broad coalition.

Another issue is that Democrats tend to be more earnest and believe that their goodness and charity will convince reasonable people. We wouldn’t even say “charity towards men” anymore; we’d say “all people.”

Meanwhile, Republicans reject that “kumbaya” approach. They’re more about “by any means necessary” and believe that the ends justify the means, even if that means using trickery. This often results in Democrats being outmaneuvered because they’re playing by a different set of rules, hoping that goodness will prevail. It’s a fundamental difference in approach.

That’s enough on that for now. And Democrats have terrible messaging. We don’t put enough effort or money into concise, catchy labels for issues or into broadcasting a unified party voice among pundits and politicians. When something happens that’s relevant to Republicans, they have a quick, consistent message across all their voices. Democrats, on the other hand, rely on the idea that we’re on the good side and that people will figure it out on their own. No clear message. So, there you go.

In a nutshell, there are probably ten more reasons why Republicans are flawed, Democrats are flawed, and why the future looks bleak, but those are the main points that come to mind.

2025-06-12

Ask A Genius 1201: Peanut the Squirrel

Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/11/13

Rick Rosner: What’s going on? Let’s talk about Peanut the Squirrel. Have you heard of Peanut the Squirrel?

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: No. What is it?

Rosner: This is the latest weird, but oddly unified, Republican push to make people angry at Democrats. Here’s the story: a guy runs an unlicensed wildlife sanctuary—it’s not a big operation, just a dozen or so animals he’s rescued or that people have brought to him. He has an alpaca, had a raccoon, and this squirrel named Peanut that he raised from a baby. Sometimes baby squirrels fall out of trees or lose their mother, so people take care of them by feeding them with a milk dropper. Squirrels raised this way can’t survive in the wild.

For the past seven years, he’s had Peanut, put little hats on him, made videos, and raised some money for animal care. He’s based in New York State. Then, an anonymous woman named Monica from Texas reported him for keeping unlicensed animals, and the authorities intervened. They confiscated Peanut and a raccoon and euthanized them to test for rabies since there’s no other way to test without examining the brain.

Jacobsen: That’s terrible.

Rosner: There was no reason to suspect these domesticated animals had rabies, so people are outraged about government overreach. The narrative that’s circulating now is, “If you don’t want squirrels killed, you should vote for Trump,” which is a ridiculous way of looking at it.

Jacobsen: That’s absurd.

Rosner: One theory I read suggests that the man running the sanctuary, who is apparently good-looking and was advised to start an OnlyFans account, might have attracted attention for posting spicy pictures of himself and his girlfriend. Some speculate that the “Karen” in Texas, Monica, might have taken offense at those pictures and reported him. We don’t really know. But it shows how petty and bizarre our politics have become—that voting for Trump is being tied to stopping “government overreach” like this.

Jacobsen: What made you bring up Peanut the Squirrel?

2025-06-12

Leland Gohl, Solar Energy an Underserved Impact

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/12

Leland Gohl is the Director of Marketing at PowerMarket, specializing in community solar, clean energy, and investment tax credits. With expertise in renewable energy marketing, he promotes sustainable solutions and drives industry awareness. Passionate about advancing solar power initiatives, he plays a key role in supporting Inflation Reduction Act policies and clean energy investments. He champions affordable, accessible solar solutions for underserved communities, fostering partnerships with municipalities, nonprofits, and policymakers. Gohl’s leadership drives community solar expansion, energy savings, and sustainability efforts, ensuring broader adoption of clean energy initiatives nationwide.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How does Community Solar contribute to environmental justice?

Leland Gohl: Community solar provides guaranteed utility bill savings, which contributes to environmental justice by:

Reducing energy burdens. Low-income households spend a larger portion of their income on utility bills. Community solar allows them to save on these bills without any risk or upfront cost.
Promoting greater accessibility. Solar power has traditionally been limited to homeowners or businesses with good roofs and a strong financial picture. Community solar allows renters, low-income families, and others to benefit.
Encouraging New Energy Development. Community Solar helps make smaller renewable energy projects feasible, expanding the amount of new solar farms that can be added to a utility grid.

PowerMarket partners with numerous non-profit organizations focused on environmental justice and equitable energy access. These partnerships are instrumental in ensuring that outreach efforts reach marginalized communities that might otherwise be overlooked.

Additionally, project siting, job creation and local economic development, and community empowerment are all features of community solar programs that further contribute to environmental justice.

Jacobsen: What challenges face renters and low-income households in accessing renewable energy?

Gohl: Historically, renters and low-income households have been de facto barred from accessing renewable energy. Renters don’t have the ability to decide if their property can be used for renewables. As for low-income households, rooftop solar is still a significant investment. With community solar, there’s no physical infrastructure installed on a subscriber’s home, and subscribers do not need to finance these projects to enroll on them.

Jacobsen: How has the company improved energy equity?

Gohl: PowerMarket has helped create energy equity by, among other things, reducing the energy burden on low-income populations, by allowing renters to access the financial and environmental benefits of community solar, and by showing that affordable, clean energy can be locally produced. In Illinois, we have hundreds of low-income subscribers saving over 30% off their electricity costs.

PowerMarket improves energy equity through strong partnerships with non-profit and community-based organizations that work tirelessly to uplift and support the people they serve. These collaborations are the foundation of our success in connecting low-income households with real energy savings through community solar.

By working with trusted organizations such as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and other local non-profits, we ensure that our outreach efforts are community-centered and accessible. We maintain a continuous presence at events like Resource Connection Days and local food pantries, providing families with meaningful opportunities to lower their energy costs throughout the year. These partnerships enable us to meet people where they are—offering direct engagement, support, and enrollment opportunities to households that need it most.

Our work goes beyond simply discussing the clean energy transition; we focus on making clean energy solutions tangible and accessible to vulnerable populations. Through creative outreach efforts—including giveaways, community events, donations, and collaborations with local governments—we strive to connect as many individuals as possible with valuable energy savings. These initiatives align with the missions of our partner organizations, which are dedicated to serving families and individuals in need.

As a result of these sustained efforts, thousands of households have enrolled in community solar, fostering financial relief, promoting sustainability, and helping build stronger, more resilient communities. PowerMarket remains committed to expanding these initiatives through new outreach opportunities, additional sign-up events, and deepening our collaborations with non-profit organizations and local governments. By continuing to prioritize disadvantaged communities, we aim to advance renewable energy adoption, reduce energy costs, and promote equitable access to sustainable solutions well into the future.

Jacobsen: How do state policies enable greater impact?

Gohl: State policies are fundamental to the success and inclusivity of community solar programs. They enable the program through legislation and help determine the size of that market, the total financial benefit customers can receive, who’s eligible, and much more.

One of the most impactful innovations has been the adoption of single-bill crediting (also known as consolidated billing), which places community solar credits directly on customers’ existing utility bills.

This policy shift significantly improves accessibility, especially for low-income households. Requiring subscribers to pay a separate bill for community solar credits can create unnecessary hurdles—particularly for those already managing tight budgets or limited financial flexibility. By streamlining the billing process, consolidated billing removes these barriers, making participation in community solar both practical and convenient.

States that have implemented this approach have seen increased enrollment rates among low- to moderate-income households. Without the need for credit checks or complex payment arrangements, more families can benefit from guaranteed energy savings. PowerMarket has seen firsthand how simplified billing not only enhances the customer experience but also broadens the reach of community solar programs to the people who need it most.

Jacobsen: How does the software streamline enrollment and maximize accessibility for communities?

Gohl: Community solar is the best and most accessible energy savings product in the country in large part because of software. PowerMarket has over 100,000 customers, and achieving this scale would be impossible without a streamlined software platform that can be tailored to various customer needs. To achieve that, we have different enrollment processes based on the state, utility, partner, and customer type. For example, if you qualify for deeper discounts due to being low-income or being in an underserved community, you may experience a different enrollment process on our platform to help you qualify for these benefits.

Additionally, we have extensive partnerships with municipalities across the country. Examples include Corona and Long Beach in CA, Albany County in NY, and many others. In these cases, we build custom landing pages and enrollment processes, allowing towns to have their branding front and center on our website, which helps instill greater confidence that community solar is a legitimate and beneficial program. We have seen campaigns of this variety perform significantly better in terms of scale. In Corona, over 700 households enrolled in our program. In Clay, NY, over 1,000 people enrolled, which represents 4 percent of all the households in the town.

Jacobsen: What is the big lesson from the Community Solar model in sustainability equity?

Gohl: The most important lesson from the Community Solar model in sustainability equity is that partnerships with local, trusted institutions—particularly governments—are crucial for ensuring that clean energy solutions reach all residents, especially those in low-income and disadvantaged communities. While community solar provides guaranteed savings and environmental benefits, accessibility and awareness remain significant challenges, particularly for vulnerable populations who stand to benefit the most.

Through our extensive experience with municipal campaigns, PowerMarket has learned that working directly with towns, cities, and counties creates a more trusted and effective pathway for residents to engage with community solar. Municipalities often serve as trusted messengers, and their involvement in outreach—whether through letters from local officials, town-branded enrollment pages, or in-person sign-up events—helps build confidence among residents that community solar is a legitimate, beneficial program.

Tailored municipal campaigns have proven especially effective in reaching low- and moderate-income households. By collaborating with local governments, we can focus outreach on neighborhoods most impacted by high energy burdens, ensuring that real savings reach the households that need them most. These campaigns often include direct mail, local workshops, and community events, where residents can ask questions, understand the benefits, and enroll on the spot with support from knowledgeable staff.

The impact of these municipal partnerships is tangible. In many communities, coordinated efforts between PowerMarket and local governments have resulted in hundreds of households enrolling, significantly reducing energy costs and strengthening community resilience. These campaigns not only help families save money but also foster local economic development, raise clean energy awareness, and support municipal sustainability goals.

By continuing to collaborate with local governments, PowerMarket is committed to expanding equitable access to clean energy and ensuring that no community is left behind in the transition to a more sustainable future.

Jacobsen: How can bipartisan support accelerate policy innovations or funding mechanisms for solar energy growth?

Gohl: Community solar is a beneficial program that cuts across party lines. Nineteen states and Washington, D.C. have enacted policies to support third-party-owned community solar. These states include AK, CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NM, NH, NJ, NY, OR, RI, VA, and VT.

This support continues to gain more traction. In Iowa on February 12, HSB 81, which would establish a new community solar program in the state, passed unanimously 23-0 out of the House Commerce Committee. It will now go before a full House vote.

Bipartisan support is key to establishing community solar programs in every state in the country and continuing to improve existing ones.

Jacobsen: How do you envision the future of Community Solar in the fight against climate change?

Gohl: In 2024, community solar achieved its best year yet, with 1.7 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity installed—a 35% increase over 2023. While we celebrate this growth, we acknowledge the current policy volatility. Nonetheless, we remain optimistic about the future. As electricity rates continue to rise across nearly all utility territories, community solar is bucking the trend by offering deeper discounts to its subscribers. States are learning from one another, sharing best practices, and building larger, more impactful programs that are keeping money in the pockets of their residents.

Community solar offers guaranteed savings to everyone, especially underserved communities. It empowers local populations, strengthens the electric grid, and plays a crucial role in combating climate change. No other solution brings together all these benefits, and PowerMarket is excited about the path ahead.

Your involvement is essential. If you haven’t already, check to see if your state has a community solar program and available projects you can subscribe to. Advocate for the growth or creation of community solar programs in your state. Together, we can ensure clean, affordable energy is accessible to all.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Leland.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

On Keith Raniere & NXIVM 4: Matt Bywater, Confronting Raniere

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/12

Keith Raniere’s narcissistic tendencies were evident in his grandiose titles and manipulative control over NXIVM. Matt Bywater discusses how NXIVM’s structure ensured psychological harm, even for short-term members. He highlights the cult’s targeting of wealthy individuals like the Bronfmans and Oxenbergs for financial and social influence. Raniere’s misogyny, projection, and escalating abuse are explored, as well as the legal gaps that delayed justice. Survivors stress the importance of focusing on coercive control rather than sensationalist aspects. Bywater urges reporters to highlight these underlying mechanisms, which enable the broader exploitation within destructive cults like NXIVM.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Do these titles like “grand master,” essentially, speak to the narcissistic tendencies of Keith Raniere? I reference the short-form of his crimes in a recent interview with mention of other characters.

Matt Bywater: Absolutely they do. Such titles reflect the grandiosity and god-like complex of narcissistic psychopaths like Keith Raniere. These personality types depend on the admiration and obedience of their followers as a sort of supply. In narcissism terminology, this is known as ‘narcissistic supply’.

Jacobsen: Are there any typical outcomes of those who stay in a short time versus those who stay in these cult systems or take part in their programs and then leave?

Bywater: Destructive cults like NXIVM are structured like a pyramid: the closer you get to the center, the more harm and abuse you will suffer.

However, there is risk to cult members even at the periphery of the cult. The entire NXIVM curriculum was designed to break people down and soften them up for abuse to come. I don’t know what has happened to those 17,000 NXIVM participants who came, took courses and left; I’m quite sure there have been no academic studies about ex-NXIVM members en masse.

But no doubt many of these people suffered psychologically in the long-term, perhaps in ways that they are not consciously aware of. There is a phenomenon called ‘cult hopping’ where cult members will either return to their cult or join a new one because they are not aware of what was done to them. We need more academic research and journalistic investigation into what has happened to these people.

Jacobsen: What do the women say in the video where they confronted Raniere? Please share a link if possible.

Bywater: Those women were part of what became known as the NXIVM 9. They confronted Keith Raniere with a list of systemic problems in the NXIVM company, which included the ethical issue of Raniere having sex with students. I am currently working on a YouTube video that will outline who were the NXIVM 9 and what happened to them. Here is the preliminary version:

At the same time that the NXIVM 9 confronted Raniere, two members of that group spoke alone with Raniere and recorded their discussion with him:

In it, Raniere comments that he has had people killed because of their beliefs. This was no doubt an attempt at intimidation, albeit veiled in that it could be interpreted as ‘my followers have been killed by others because of their allegiance to my dogma’.

Jacobsen: Why did raniere target individuals like the Oxenbergs, the Bronfmans?

Bywater: Destructive cults like NXIVM target wealthy and influential individuals. The Oxenbergs and the Bronfmans were targeted for their wealth and influence, simple as that. The Bronfman sisters Clare and Sara paid millions into NXIVM. Co-founder of NXIVM Nancy Salzman attempted to use their father Edgar Bronfman to recruit other celebrities, see here:

It is the ultimate irony that Raniere stubbornly held on to Catherine Oxenberg’s daughter India. Had he released her, the threat that Catherine posed to NXIVM would have dissipated. The future for NXIVM may have been very different. Catherine Oxenberg and her clout as a member of the royal family were significant in persuading the authorities to take criminal action against NXIVM.

Jacobsen: Do you then think aspects of a Raniere psychosocial dysfunction begins early and then becomes amplified over time as more crimes are accomplished?

Bywater: Certainly if you look at the path Raniere was going down, it was becoming darker and darker. Some people have referred to this as “negative epiphanies” or “maliphanies” where the individual getting away with each successive act of criminality and degrading themselves psychologically in the process. In popular culture, this is best depicted by the character Walter White in the TV show Breaking Bad. But with psychopaths, there’s also an escalation effect: the extreme emotional need that psychopaths have for violent levels of control and abuse is never satiated and only grows stronger over time.

Jacobsen: When he accuses women of using sex to control men, is this another manner in which to state that the psychology of Raniere is, in fact, projected onto victims of his groups, particularly the inner circle of DOS?

Bywater: Generally, this sort of misogyny is commonplace among male psychopaths. I could give anecdotal evidence from the examples of singer R Kelly and cult leader Larry Ray. It appears to originate from an insecure and/or abusive attachment with their mother, which results in the hatred towards women.

Now, with that misogynist worldview established, Raniere certainly attempted to project it on his followers, and he was successful in doing so.

Jacobsen: Why did it take so long for the teflon man to be taken to court for justice, proper?

Bywater:During the trial of Keith Raniere and his associates, judge Nicholas Garaufis specifically criticized the lack of judicial action taken against Raniere. As for why, no doubt there were systematic failings, particularly by the authorities in Albany who could have taken more decisive action in Raniere’s early days.

More broadly, there is a gap in our legal systems that I and many others are working to fix. Our legal systems are based on the notion that humans are rational individuals who act in their self-interest. We know that this is not always the case. So, when the NXIVM defectors (Mark Vicente, Catherine Oxenberg, Sarah Edmonson and others) went to the FBI, they were met with the response that legal action could not be taken against a group that people had consensually joined. What made the case of NXIVM different was how NXIVM was blatantly using blackmail and coercion. Then, finally, prosecutor Moira Penza identified a way to use sex and labor trafficking laws to prosecute NXIVM as a criminal enterprise. This model has been used to prosecute other destructive cults, for example the Larry Ray cult and the United Nation of Islam. This offers great hope for the future, because cults operate in a very similar manner to trafficking rings. Cult expert Steven Hassan has said that a trafficking ring is a commercial mind control cult.

Other necessary changes to the law that will stop the cult abuses include: expanding the doctrine of undue influence to apply beyond the restrictive area of wills and estates, and applying existing coercive control laws beyond romantic and family relationships to entire groups.

Very recently, an anti-Scientology activist met with a British member of parliament to discuss expanding coercive control laws to cover groups such as Scientology.

Jacobsen: What do the survivors of Raniere’s cult who are no longer unquestioningly loyal to him want others to know about him and their condition after it, e.g. the lessons?

Bywater: Without asking them directly, I’m sure they would want less attention on the sensationalist aspects like the sex cult stuff and the focus to be on the underlying problem of coercive control and psychological abuse that allowed the sexual abuse to occur in the first place.

Jacobsen: How can reporters stray from sensationalism around one truth, the sexual misconduct and such, and stick more to the comprehensive content on coercive control groups?

Bywater: I always emphasize that reporters focus on the underlying pattern of coercive control because it is this which enables the secondary abuses like the sexual abuse. No-one joins a sex cult. No-one knowingly joins a cult, period. There is a scene in The Vow where Mark Vicente eloquently underlines this truth.

Reports must resist more complex analyses of abusive groups from being subsumed by sensationalist news.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Matt.

Bywater: It’s a pleasure, as always.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Feminist Economics, Argentina’s Crisis, and Global Neoliberalism

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

Noelia Méndez Santolaria, an economist, discusses her work within DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era), a feminist network focused on gender justice and economic transformation. She highlights Argentina’s economic challenges, the resurgence of neoliberalism under President Javier Milei, and the systemic undervaluation of unpaid labor. Méndez Santolaria emphasizes the need for structural change, warning against the exploitation of Argentina’s natural resources without reinvestment. She critiques rising global militarization and digital harassment against feminists. Feminist economics, she argues, must address wealth redistribution, care work, and systemic inequalities while countering neoliberal policies and social resistance to change.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Noelia Mendez Santolaria is an economist from a feminist perspective. She works with DAWN Feminist. It’s a 40-year-old network and collection of analysts, economists, and others who approach issues from a feminist lens. How did you get involved?

Noelia Mendez Santolaria: My personal background is somewhat unconventional. I originally worked in the private sector for my family’s business, which imports equipment for analyzing water quality. I studied economics alongside my work because, in Argentina, it is very common to study and work simultaneously.

While studying, I met Corina Rodríguez Enríquez, a highly respected feminist economist who teaches at a public university. We developed a mentor-student relationship—she was my thesis advisor—and is also part of DAWN (Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era), a feminist network focused on gender justice and economic transformation.

After finishing my MA in Economics courses and leaving my job in the private sector, I began working as a consultant for NGOs and government agencies. Corina introduced me to DAWN and its members, whom we call the “DAWNees,” and I started working with them. Before that, I had already conducted research from feminist perspectives, but DAWN specifically focuses on viewpoints from the Global South. This perspective is often overlooked in mainstream economics, including feminist economics.

Jacobsen: How advanced is that discourse and work in Argentina?

Santolaria: Argentina has a long tradition of heterodox economic thought. It is, for example, the birthplace of Latin American structuralism, largely developed by Raúl Prebisch, a prominent economist known for formulating the Prebisch-Singer hypothesis on declining terms of trade. This concept, referred to in Spanish as Términos de Intercambio Desiguales, highlights the unequal economic relationships between industrialized and developing countries.

Argentina has maintained this tradition to some extent, largely due to the presence of public universities and a strong intellectual culture, but these ideas face resistance. Mainstream neoclassical economics remains dominant, and neoliberalism is currently experiencing a resurgence under President Javier Milei, who promotes libertarian economic policies.

The intersection of Latin American heterodox economics and feminist economic perspectives is not yet widespread, but we are working to advance it. For instance, DAWN is currently leading a project on macroeconomics from a feminist and Global South perspective. The goal is to integrate alternative economic frameworks with feminist economic theories to develop a more inclusive and just economic model.

Jacobsen: How are these economic views perceived in Argentina under the current leadership?

Santolaria: We are seen as adversaries—quite literally. The Milei administration has openly dismissed feminist economic perspectives and targeted gender-focused policies, including dismantling the Ministry of Women, Gender, and Diversity. Milei’s economic approach prioritizes deregulation, privatization, and drastic reductions in state intervention. This directly contradicts feminist and heterodox economic analyses emphasizing social justice and state responsibility in addressing inequalities.

However, I believe this backlash also reflects the progress made in advancing feminist perspectives and increasing feminist participation in economic policy discussions. Under the previous administration of Alberto Fernández, while he was not a feminist himself, feminist policies gained institutional recognition, and some feminists were appointed to key positions within the government.

And I think that kind of advancement implies rethinking the very economic system because we are trying to put value—not necessarily price, but value—on all the non-remunerated work being done for the economic system or the market to even function. And this was very, very powerful.. During the pandemic, everybody saw that life didn’t happen without care, schools, or health care. So, I think awareness of this major work needed for markets to function is very resisted. Still, there is very strong resistance to incorporating and valuing that in the economic system because, at least in Argentina—but in the Global South more broadly—capitalism takes on a particularly extractive form.

It’s extractive everywhere, but in the Global South, it thrives on extracting natural resources, cheap labour, and non-remunerated labour from women. When states shrink, the services we call education and health care do not stop being provided—women instead of the state provide them. So, these neoliberal policies that seek to drastically reduce the size of the state are facing a strong feminist response. I think the backlash we are seeing now is a reaction from neoliberal economic forces against feminist progress.

Jacobsen: Very big in the Beijing Declaration and several other declarations, but the Beijing Declaration was particularly clear on unremunerated work being a major hurdle. How does Milei view unremunerated work? Does he see it as women’s work, period? Or does he even make any statements about it? Or is it just assumed and never discussed?

Santolaria: It’s a good question because I think that these far-right extremists and conservative politicians share the same fundamental diagnosis that we, as feminists, do: someone has to provide these essential services. However, their solution is a conservative one—a return to a supposedly better past for men, which is an illusion because that economic and social order no longer exists.

I believe this is another intentional deception propagated by the far-right—not only to subjugate women but also to weaken the collective consciousness of men. Since Beijing, political awareness has evolved, but there is far less recognition of social class divisions as they were traditionally understood. Despite being valuable in many ways, the multilateral world that emerged after that era also made people forget about the deep structural hierarchies that persist in society.

In today’s highly technological world, there is an illusion that anyone can become wealthy overnight by investing in Wall Street or gaining fame on Instagram. My grandparents understood that they would never be rich in their lifetime. Still, many people today believe they can be if they work hard enough. Similarly, there is this false idea that we can return to a traditional past that never actually existed in the way it is now imagined—and it certainly will not exist in the future.

Jacobsen: Yes, it’s about creating a fantasy or a false history and projecting it forward as something to aspire to, claiming it’s a return to something better—when, in reality, that past never existed in the first place.

Santolaria: Yes, it was real for a very, very small part of the population. It has never been real in the Global South because we have a fragmented economic structure. The informal sector is very large—it represents half of the economy. Those in the informal sector have never lived this traditional family model that the right wing is trying to bring back. They were not “trad wives.” Poor women work just as much as poor men in their households.

We already know that this model is not viable, yet the aspiration still exists. I think that has a lot to do with the strong religious influence that conservative and right-wing ideologies are built around. It becomes a matter of belief—people think that returning to this past is actually possible.

Of course, this issue is especially relevant for women who have gained financial independence in Latin America due to major increases in labour market participation and professionalization. In Argentina—though this is not the case for every country in the Global South—many women from the 1980s onward accessed university education, became professionals, and entered the workforce. However, this also led to increasing inequality among women.

Now, we see professional, upper-class, or wealthy women gaining freedom from unpaid domestic labour by paying poorer women for it. So while some women have made significant advances, a gap has also widened between them. We know that this alone is not enough to achieve gender equality, but reverting to a past system is simply unrealistic—and it is not our goal.

Women have entered the labour force, but men have not entered the care economy in the same proportion. This is often discussed, but the reality is that men have not taken on their fair share of unpaid household labour. They have also not entered traditionally female-dominated sectors like health care and education, largely because these jobs are underpaid. This structural imbalance needs to change, and the state is the primary tool for making that change happen.

That is why the destruction of the state in Argentina is so concerning. But this is not just happening here—this is a global trend. The major representatives of the far right worldwide are focused on dismantling the state because they recognize that the state is the most effective mechanism for redistribution—not just of income and wealth but also of unpaid care work.

Jacobsen: So your specialty is economics, particularly feminist economics. In a fair analysis, what is Milei doing right economically? What is he doing wrong economically in Argentina? Also, why are North American democratic leaders so fascinated with him?

Santolaria: I think Argentina is being viewed as a far-right experiment, and they see it can be done. I think Milei’s presidency is seen as a major success simply because he has maintained power so far.

There is strong resistance, but there has been no large-scale social explosion. Some claim that the country is socially imploding, but others argue that people largely accept or validate what Milei is doing now. That kind of public tolerance didn’t happen in the past, which was a significant political win for him.

As for what he is doing economically, some of my economist colleagues appreciate the macroeconomic stability he has brought to the country, but I doubt the sustainability of that stability. The dollar has always been a major concern for Argentinians—its volatility and constant devaluations make it difficult for people to maintain their purchasing power. After Milei won the election, he immediately devalued the peso, and since then, the exchange rate has remained relatively stable. However, this has been achieved in a highly unsustainable way.

His administration is currently trying to negotiate a new loan with the IMF—what they call “fresh money” or “fresh dollars.” They have been very explicit that this money will enable financial sector investors to take their gains and exit. The IMF, however, is pressuring for another devaluation, which makes the current situation highly unstable.

This so-called stability exists not only because there has been no widespread social resistance but also because the other branches of government, which should act as checks and balances in a republic, have not done so. Congress has passed every bill Milei needed, and the judiciary is largely absent, acting as though it has no role to play.

Civil society has called for judicial intervention to stop certain policies, but the courts have not acted. For example, there is a very repressive anti-protest protocol in place. Despite its clear rights violations, the justice system has not intervened to stop it.

So, if we consider what Milei has done well, his biggest achievement has been his ability to consolidate support from the establishment—the so-called casta in Argentina. They are backing him very strongly, which has brought stability but is fragile and temporary.

Jacobsen: What would a feminist economic model for Argentina bring? Not necessarily one superior, but one better suited to Argentina’s context for achieving greater gender parity.

Santolaria: Well, that’s very hard to say because I think a feminist approach to the economy is not about implementing minor reforms—you need structural change. Argentina has significant potential in terms of natural resources.

This is not specifically a feminist perspective, but I believe that under this administration, those resources are being sold to the highest bidder with no strategic planning. They are not considering the development of national capacities or strengthening the internal market. Instead, the approach is: If you want to come and take our natural resources, go ahead—we ask for nothing in return.

This development model will shape Argentina over the next few years. As feminists, we must be vigilant against these extractive practices. That does not mean rejecting the use of natural resources altogether but rather ensuring that extraction does not lead to depletion, the erosion of our productive capacity, or the hollowing out of our social and economic structures. The profits must be reinvested to sustain the reproduction of life, something that has never been done in our history.

The other day, I listened to a representative from Norway explain how they used revenue from their state-owned petroleum company to establish a universal social protection system. That was a very intelligent decision that allowed them to sustain one of the most egalitarian societies in the world for the last 70 years.. They now have comprehensive social security because they directed those gains toward national welfare.

With the energy transition going on, Argentina is at a similar crossroads—it must decide how to manage potential revenue from its natural resources. I think Norway’s approach is very smart for them. However, I am unsure if it is applicable to Argentina due to its external sector. Argentina has been trapped in a external debt cycle for the past 200 years. We are heavily indebted in foreign currency, which means that every dollar the country produces is quickly siphoned off to repay external debts.

As a result, we face a serious risk: we might extract all our resources yet see none of that wealth reinvested in the country. That is why we need to be extremely cautious and ensure that any alternative economic framework we build is community-driven and centred on the sustainability of life.

After all, what is the purpose of an economy if it is not to sustain life and improve the well-being of the people living in Argentina?

Jacobsen: What are the mitigating factors to this vision? Is machismo a factor? Is traditionalist religion a factor? Are there well-meaning feminist proposals—ones different from yours—that, while idealistic, lack sufficient evidentiary support and do not account for economic science? What are the key forces at play here that shape this discussion?

Santolaria: Our main challenge—the biggest risk factor—is the neoliberal mindset that dominates our thinking. We struggle to imagine alternatives that are not neoliberal.

Of course, machismo exists, and Argentina, like every other society, is a patriarchal society. However, the feminist movement has made significant progress. There is a strong political foundation, and we have young, capable political representatives who could lead transformative efforts—but the progressive side of the political spectrum largely ignores them.

I believe that more damaging than the backlash itself is this invisibilization—the way the progressive sector, feminist leaders, and women who can drive real transformation are sidelined. One of the most important things we must work on is strengthening alliances and ensuring that feminist women take the lead in these initiatives.

We mainly have Milei in office because the other half of the political spectrum is lost and deeply divided. If we want an alternative, we need to find ways to unite and build it together.

Jacobsen: Outside of economics, from the work of DAWN feminists, what other issues are they targeting that are relevant to the Argentinian case?

Santolaria: DAWN works on several other key issues, including social reproduction, reproductive rights, sexual rights, and violence against women. All of this is approached through a strong economic and materialist lens.

That is what sets DAWN apart—they consistently highlight the material power relations underlying these issues. This is not always common in the feminist movement, as economics is often perceived as difficult or overly complex. Many think economic discussions are inaccessible because they are framed in highly technical language.

One of the things DAWN does very well is communication. They manage to present complex economic issues in a way that is clear and accessible while still maintaining depth in their analysis. Their work creates a space for reflection and a deeper understanding of what is happening.

We believe that economics is for everyone and should be accessible to all. The idea that it must remain obscure or complicated is, in itself, another form of power imbalance. That is why, at DAWN, every aspect of our work is deeply connected to economic analysis—it is impossible to separate them.

Jacobsen: In different interviews, at least at this moment, some recurring themes have emerged—genuine disagreements between regions. I’ve been reflecting on whether the discussion concerns Africa, Latin America, Asia, or North America.

In some regions, the concern is that no matter how many policies you implement—such as setting a 30% or 35% minimum representation of women in political participation and leadership—it simply will not happen in most countries, even if those policies exist on paper. For them, policy is not the key issue.

In other countries, policy implementation matters more. If policies are in place, there is at least some degree of political will, which makes change more likely.

Some perspectives dismiss policy as almost secondary, focusing instead on women’s economic independence. The argument is that real change happens when women achieve financial autonomy—not just in purchasing power but in determining their own lives. This economic empowerment, in turn, gives them more degrees of freedom in society, regardless of whether formal policies exist.

In the Latin American context, one concern that consistently arises in these discussions is the rise of femicide. Globally, femicide rates have doubled. Some South African commentators have pointed out that rates have increased by 20% in certain areas, while in others, they have tripled. The worst-hit regions are Latin American countries.

From your perspective, based on the discussions you’ve participated in, what are the most acute issues facing Latin America today?

Santolaria: Well, you cannot escape the question of political will. Without political will, no technical solution will be strong enough to make meaningful change happen. Economies are inherently political. Everything is political. And there is no silver bullet.

We need to operate on all levels—the micro level, the level of individual consciousness and awareness, the macro level,, and the meso level, which includes institutions. This is incredibly difficult work because it must happen simultaneously. No single approach will fix everything. If change happens only from the top—if a progressive government enacts the best equality policies but society does not embrace them—those policies will likely fail.

We saw this during the Soviet Union. The government implemented very progressive policies, but people were not demanding them, and ultimately, it did not work as intended. That is why we need both top-down and bottom-up change. That is our greatest challenge as feminists: advocating for this agenda requires working on all fronts.

Violence—both in Latin America and globally—is one of the most alarming trends. The world is moving toward militarization at an accelerated pace. For years, we have advocated for increased funding for the care economy, health care, and education, and the response has always been the same: No, there is no money for that. We have debts to pay. We have a budget deficit.

Yet, suddenly, there is money for military expansion. No one questions how these massive military expenditures will be funded. But whenever we push for gender equality policies, the first question is: How will you pay for this?

Well, the answer is simple: With the money that was going to be spent on missiles, guns, and drones, the funds will likely come from cuts to social protection programs and possibly from more debt. Governments have a limit on how much debt they can take on until militarization becomes a priority. Then, constitutions get rewritten to allow for more military spending. It is all political. That is the biggest threat we face today.

Jacobsen: So, in the last interview, I did yesterday was with someone from Women on Web. She was the executive director of Women on Web. I kept thinking about my involvement in the humanist and secular humanist communities. Richard Dawkins once did a segment where he read his hate mail, turning it into a comedy bit. That gave me an idea.

So, I proposed to her: Have you ever thought about reading your anti-abortion hate mail as comedy on YouTube? It could discourage hate mail while also making it a bit fun. One of the emails she received had the subject line Burn in Hell. So, she would go through her regular work emails, and in the middle of them, there would be one saying Burn in Hell. Then, she’d continue with her regular work emails.

For a DAWN feminist, there are stereotypes about feminists. And, as with any movement, a few belligerent individuals naturally scare people off. But have you ever thought about making comedy out of your hate mail? Like, taking quotes from it and presenting them as endorsements—almost like a page filled with those comments?

Santolaria: It’s a nice idea. Humour is powerful.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Santolaria: I don’t receive that kind of hate mail.

Jacobsen: So lucky.

Santolaria: Yes, but it’s a huge issue. Many well-known feminists in Argentina are suffering from it. Many journalists, too.

Jacobsen: Oh yeah, I can imagine.

Santolaria: Yes. Humour is powerful, and we should, of course, use it as a tool to combat this kind of harassment candidly. But at some point, we also need to acknowledge the vulnerability it creates.

Receiving that kind of hate is not harmless. Even if you have psychological support or try to brush it off, it still seeps in. It’s not okay. Maybe we shouldn’t take it too lightly—of course, humour helps—but the reality is that this increasing violence thrives in the digital space, where anonymity provides a fertile ground for these attacks.

Dealing with it is a very personal decision. I have friends who shut down their social media accounts completely. I don’t use social media anymore. I used to have more accounts, but I closed them.

Jacobsen: Was it because of privacy concerns?

Santolaria: Yes. In the panel we were just in, we discussed how images, voices, and pictures can be misused in unsettling ways.

Jacobsen: As they pointed out, 98% of deepfake content targets women.

Santolaria: And I don’t think it’s worth it. Social media has become a very hostile place.

Jacobsen: I would rephrase that—if I may—as it has become a hospitable place for hostile people.

Santolaria: Yes, exactly. And it’s also about who owns these platforms. Social media is controlled by a very concentrated economic power structure that is willing to do whatever someone like Trump asks them to. They claim these platforms are highly democratic and essential for free speech, but that’s not the reality.

Algorithms reinforce power imbalances, and hostile behaviour is often rewarded. That’s why I choose not to use social media. Fortunately, I don’t receive hateful emails, so I am lucky.

Santolaria: But I know it’s hard, and it’s yet another form of violence that we are now experiencing.

Jacobsen: Did I miss anything?

Santolaria: No. I hope it was interesting.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Purposes in Geopolitics for Prisoner Exchanges

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/11

Irina Tsukerman, a national security and human rights lawyer, discusses prisoner swaps between the U.S. and Russia reflect broader geopolitical struggles, with Russia using wrongful detentions as leverage. These exchanges, often involving civilians traded for spies or criminals, highlight Russia’s use of hostage diplomacy. Russia benefits from strategic public relations, manipulating domestic and international narratives. Concerns about Russia’s stability, demographic decline, and growing dependence on China persist. Intelligence penetration favours Russia, as its counterintelligence is highly effective, while U.S. institutions remain vulnerable. Cryptocurrency crimes, including money laundering via BTC-e, remain a tool for Russian illicit activities. Western enforcement efforts are often inconsistent, shaped by political priorities rather than law.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: There are geopolitical impacts of prisoner swaps, U.S.-Russia relations, the Ukraine conflict, etc. What are the implications or signals of these exchanges regarding Russia’s willingness to negotiate broader geopolitical issues? Recently, there was a peace summit in Saudi Arabia, but whether or not it will be widely accepted is another question. There might be some political follow-up from that, potentially affecting prisoner exchanges. What do prisoner exchanges mean for Russia’s relations with other countries, particularly those with whom it engages in these swaps?

Irina Tsukerman: These are not standard prisoner exchanges. This is not a situation where prisoners of war are exchanged under agreed-upon protocols, as we see with Russia and Ukraine exchanging military prisoners. Nor do these exchanges follow Geneva Convention norms. What we are witnessing is hostage diplomacy. Russia, along with other states that engage in similar tactics, detains civilians on politically motivated or entirely fabricated charges to extract political or financial concessions from the United States and other countries.

The more these nations accommodate Russia, the more it will continue this practice. A key question is why U.S. citizens and dual nationals can still travel to Russia. Why has the State Department not imposed a travel ban, as it did with North Korea following the Otto Warmbier case, which resulted in the torture and death of a U.S. citizen? That is a valid policy question that should be directed at the administration. What is clear is that Russia is using these detentions as leverage, attempting to blackmail and pressure the U.S. government into making political concessions.

The impact of this extends beyond Russia. Other authoritarian states may be encouraged to adopt similar tactics. Paying political or financial ransoms grants Russia undeserved geopolitical leverage, allowing it to tie these exchanges to broader political issues, as we recently saw in Riyadh. The latest release of a young American, who was arrested for alleged marijuana possession, was explicitly linked to broader diplomatic efforts. Had the U.S. not agreed to allow the return of Russian personnel under diplomatic cover—many of whom are suspected intelligence operatives—the fate of that individual could have been much worse, similar to others still imprisoned in Russia.

Jacobsen: What about information warfare? Does that play a role here as well?

Tsukerman: Absolutely—strategic public relations is a key factor. Russia uses these exchanges to shape its domestic narrative, portraying itself as negotiating from a position of strength. It normalizes abductions and politically motivated detentions while manipulating public perception. It also shapes Western public opinion by exploiting the expectation that democratic governments must do everything possible to bring their citizens home.

Essentially, Russia is turning this fundamental democratic norm into a vulnerability and a political bargaining chip. Without this ability to manipulate public opinion in the United States and other Western nations, Russia—an isolated, heavily sanctioned state that has suffered military losses in Ukraine and elsewhere in recent years—would not be able to secure many of the concessions it currently receives.

It certainly normalizes the idea of exchanging high-value prisoners for civilians, which is new and different from previous exchanges. During the Soviet era, prisoner swaps typically involved spies, intelligence operatives, diplomats, or individuals connected to government service. While these exchanges happened occasionally, they followed established rules of engagement. Now, however, Russia is trading civilians with no political affiliations for criminals, terrorists, and spies. This ballgame is entirely different—it challenges public opinion and represents Russia’s significant information warfare victory.

Jacobsen: These are political moves in the long term, but they also reflect a larger question about the Russian state’s viability. Given its internal challenges, how stable is Russia? Is it possible for this system to continue operating under Putin and the Kremlin, even though Putin, along with many of his key allies, is aging?

Tsukerman: Russia’s political bureaucracy is designed to perpetuate itself in some form or another. However, there are several viable scenarios in which Russia could experience significant internal instability or fragmentation. This could result from internal rebellions, depending on the coordination and resources of internal opposition groups, or from external factors, including foreign assistance to these movements.

If Western states saw it in their interest to encourage internal destabilization in Russia—mirroring what Russia does around the world—Russia could face serious consequences. The Kremlin has a long history of fomenting separatism and supporting extreme factions in other countries, even when their grievances are minor. If the United States and its allies applied the same strategy to Russia, in my opinion, the Russian Federation would have collapsed long ago.

The conditions for instability already exist. Russia is home to numerous ethnic, geographical, religious, and political groups that experience tensions, discrimination, and competing power interests. These groups could be strategically leveraged to weaken Russia, foster instability, and promote secessionist movements.

Jacobsen: Is Russia concerned about becoming a long-term vassal state of China?

Tsukerman: There is a genuine concern about this possibility, but it is not discussed nearly enough in Western policy circles. There is deep-seated distrust between Russian and Chinese intelligence services. Both countries harbour racial prejudices against each other and have unresolved historical grievances. China is strategically interested in appropriating Russian intellectual property, particularly in defence sectors. There are also territorial disputes—China has historical claims to certain Russian regions.

Both countries are experiencing demographic crises, but Russia’s decline is particularly severe, making it vulnerable to external pressures, including from China. A growing ideological movement in Russia, led by figures like Alexander Dugin, also promotes “Eurasian unity.” This vision calls for a borderless geopolitical structure. It even romanticizes the Mongol invasions, arguing that Russia was never truly conquered but voluntarily integrated into the Mongol empire. This narrative undermines Russian nationalism and could ultimately serve China’s interests rather than Russia’s.

These narratives benefit China far more than they benefit Russia in the long run because China is the stronger party by every measurable standard—its population size, upkeep and modernization of its military, and overall global position. Over time, Russia will suffer from anti-Russian nationalism and the promotion of pan-Eurasianism. This ideological shift does not serve Russia’s interests, especially in Central Asia, where it has historically held influence. Russia is steadily losing ground to China in this region for clear economic reasons. While many actors take advantage of sanctions loopholes and export-import control gaps, they are not necessarily aligned with Russia’s ideological vision. Instead, they exploit the ongoing power struggle between Russia and China. China is poised to win that game in the long run because it has more to offer.

Jacobsen: Is this a case where Russia secures short-term political victories through prisoner swaps—such as exchanging civilians for spies, intelligence operatives, or terrorists—and uses these moments as political currency in diplomatic affairs? Does it also serve a domestic function by convincing the Russian public that they still influence the world stage?

Tsukerman: Absolutely, Russia uses these exchanges to present itself as a diplomatic power capable of negotiating with the West. But in the larger scheme of things, these are short-term wins within much broader, long-term trends that signal decline.

Jacobsen: Do these types of states—Russia, China, or other authoritarian systems—perpetuate themselves indefinitely due to the inertia of bureaucratic systems, or do they tend to self-destruct over time due to systemic neglect?

Tsukerman: Partially, yes. The Russian population is both actively and passively resisting the state’s demands. Many avoid military service by fleeing the country or simply not reporting for duty. There is no real replacement for the losses sustained in Ukraine. Russia is using soldiers in human-wave assaults against Ukrainian forces that are far better equipped, leading to massive, preventable casualties. Other long-term issues, such as alcoholism, infrastructure collapse, medical failures, widespread nihilism, the unchecked spread of diseases like HIV/AIDS (which is exacerbated by medical disinformation), and overall state neglect, are further eroding societal stability. Russia is not a country driven by a strong will to live—it is plagued by systemic dysfunction.

In China, we see similar trends. The state’s policies have contributed to a demographic crisis. Still, other factors, such as economic downturns, ethnic tensions, and increasing autocracy, are also at play. These factors discourage different groups from wanting to have children, either due to economic uncertainty, political repression, or social marginalization. Corruption, state neglect, and poor access to healthcare shorten lifespans, further exacerbating population decline.

Jacobsen: Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, how many major prisoner swaps have taken place?

Tsukerman: There have been several significant exchanges. One of the most well-known involved Viktor Bout, a notorious arms dealer—famously depicted in Lord of War—who was exchanged for a group of civilians. Another major exchange last year involved a large number of Russian opposition figures and other civilians in return for spies, terrorists, and individuals tied to Russian state interests.

What is particularly interesting is what happened after some of these Russian opposition figures were released. Many of them started to express mildly pro-Russian rhetoric, with some even defending Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Some had already been sympathetic to the Kremlin’s position, but others shifted their stance more openly after release. This raises serious questions about how they ended up in detention in the first place and what might have happened to them while they were imprisoned.

There is speculation that some of these individuals were Russian agents of influence who were reactivated after the exchange. Others may have been subjected to psychological conditioning or coercion while in Russian custody, leading them to change their rhetoric. These cases demonstrate how Russia not only uses prisoner exchanges for immediate political gains but also potentially as a tool for long-term influence operations.

Jacobsen: How do prisoner swaps impact U.S. policy regarding wrongful detentions? How do they influence negotiations for those detained abroad, such as Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkovich? What are the legal and security risks in releasing individuals like Alexander Vinnik, who are implicated in financial crimes and cyber operations? Russia has cultivated a reputation for being adept at cyber warfare despite weaknesses in other areas.

Tsukerman: Russia always claims that no detention is unlawful because they manufacture crimes to justify imprisonment—for example, the case of Brittney Griner, the basketball player who exchanged for Viktor Bout.

Russia claimed that she was smuggling marijuana, even though the amount was negligible and the punishment was vastly disproportionate—something that would never happen in a Western country. Drug use is rampant in Russia, and unlike in places such as Singapore or Thailand, where drug offences carry severe penalties, this case was clearly politicized and aimed specifically at detaining an American.

Russia also fabricates other charges, such as espionage, as seen in the case of Evan Gershkovich. The Russian government claims that legitimate journalism is a form of spying and has criminalized otherwise innocuous activities to create “criminals” where none exist.

The U.S. may declare these detentions wrongful, but Russia dismisses such claims, arguing that these activities violate Russian law. At the same time, laws elsewhere violate Russian law, which presents a problem. Another recent case involves a former ballerina imprisoned for making a small donation to Ukraine—her only “crime.” The U.S. recognizes this as a wrongful detention, but ultimately, it carries no consequences for Russia. No Russian officials have been sanctioned or criminally punished for these absurd distortions of justice.

Jacobsen: What effect do these prisoner swaps have on NATO and European perceptions of the United States and Russia?

Tsukerman: It certainly does not look good when the U.S. repeatedly allows Russia to exchange civilians for high-value targets and criminals, many of whom return to activities that threaten global security. Take Viktor Bout, for example. After his release, he contributed to advancing Russian arms sales, including to Houthi militants, who then used those weapons to attack Western ships operating in the Red Sea.

However, many NATO countries engage in practices similar to those of states like Iran. Hence, they are unlikely to criticize the U.S. for these exchanges. Some European nations have also swapped civilians for spies or terrorists in politically motivated deals.

Jacobsen: What has been the most consequential prisoner exchange in the past three years?

Tsukerman: In terms of Russia, it is a close tie between the release of Viktor Bout—one of the most notorious arms traffickers in modern history—in exchange for Brittney Griner, a private U.S. citizen with no political significance, and another major exchange involving several Russian opposition figures and civilians for a large number of Russian spies.

While some of these spies were not as well known as Bout, their return to Russia collectively represented a major intelligence and security threat. Some analysts have even compared Bout’s strategic value to a Prigozhin-like figure regarding his ability to operate on Russia’s behalf. These exchanges highlight the vastly unequal nature of these deals, reinforcing Russia’s ability to leverage hostage diplomacy for disproportionate gains. That’s a close call between those two.

Jacobsen: Do you think Putin will ever face a criminal trial? And this isn’t just an East-West issue—do you think Western leaders who have committed crimes under international law would also face criminal trials?

Tsukerman: It will be difficult for a couple of reasons.

First, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been delegitimized by internal politics, and Russia has exploited this to its advantage. Many people no longer take the ICC seriously because of its history of politicized investigations. It has pursued cases based on complaints from dubious and highly politicized NGOs, making any legitimate investigation into figures like Putin nearly unenforceable. We have already seen several countries ignore ICC-issued warrants.

So, in terms of international legal practice, it is unlikely that the international legal structure will be overhauled and rebuilt unless there is a major change.

The only other scenario would involve a country arresting Putin or other Russian officials for crimes committed on its soil. However, Russian officials are highly unlikely to travel to jurisdictions where they could face arrest—unless there is a significant change in the Russian government. Lower-ranking officials would be more vulnerable to such legal action, but even that is rare. Ukraine has attempted to arrest a few individuals. Still, Russian officials generally avoid travelling to countries where they risk imprisonment.

So far, no country has made a serious effort to pursue these officials. That is likely due to a mix of inertia and competing priorities. The only realistic scenario where Putin faces prosecution is if he is removed from power by a rival who uses the legal process to consolidate power. In that case, it would be a political maneuver rather than an act of justice.

Jacobsen: Do you think Western agencies are infiltrating Russian affairs more, or is Russian intelligence penetrating American affairs more? This is normal geopolitical activity, but I’m curious about your take.

Tsukerman: Without question, Russian intelligence has had greater success infiltrating American affairs than the other way around.

Of course, the U.S. intelligence community operates in Russia. There have been vocal American critics of the Russian government, and some Russian opposition groups have benefited from U.S. assistance through organizations like USAID, particularly in targeted campaigns. However, U.S. support for opposition movements is often disorganized, inconsistent, and sometimes ineffective. Many of these opposition figures end up compromised, or they turn out to be controlled opposition directed by the Kremlin. Even the limited efforts to provide support for Russian opposition projects tend to have minimal impact because Russia’s counterintelligence and suppression tactics are highly effective.

By contrast, the U.S. has far more transparent institutions and weaker counterintelligence measures, making it much easier for Russia to conduct political interference. Russia has been running coordinated influence campaigns in the U.S. for decades, contributing to today’s political landscape.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has failed to penetrate Russian public opinion—let alone its institutions. Russian public sentiment still largely supports Putin, even if there is some discontent over the war in Ukraine. However, opposition to the war is often driven by practical concerns, such as military losses and economic hardships, rather than ideological opposition to Putin’s policies. To the extent that Russian public opinion on Ukraine has shifted, it has been more influenced by Ukrainian information operations than by U.S. or Western efforts.

The U.S. has not been helpful in the information space.

Jacobsen: What does Vinnik’s release mean for cryptocurrency crime enforcement, particularly regarding money laundering and BTC-e?

Tsukerman: Russia has been extremely agile in using cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and its state-created digital assets for money laundering, funding separatist movements, and facilitating other illicit operations. The U.S. has cracked down on cryptocurrency exchanges, targeted money-laundering networks, and worked to identify wallets linked to criminal enterprises.

However, political interests often dictate legal enforcement. We saw this with the Silk Road case involving a Russia-affiliated drug and contraband exchange platform. President Trump recently released the founder of Silk Road, with significant support from figures like Elon Musk, who seem to favour Russia-affiliated, so-called libertarian—but criminal—social media and crypto exchange operators. These platforms essentially provide safe havens for illicit activities, including organized crime, terrorism, and Russia-driven financial operations.

Jacobsen: Irina, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.

Tsukerman: Thank you.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Thank you so much. Take care. Bye.

Tsukerman: You too. Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

The State of Intellectual Persona Non Grata

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Irina Tsukerman, a national security and human rights lawyer, discusses the concept of intellectual persona non grata and the consequences of purging experts from government agencies. She highlights concerns about bureaucratic mismanagement, political influence, and foreign malign interference affecting decision-making. The conversation touches on scientific integrity, contract violations, and the erosion of public trust in institutions. Tsukerman warns of political hypocrisy, suppressed scientific debate, and the global perception of U.S. policies. She emphasizes the need for transparent governance, bipartisan oversight, and rigorous scientific discourse to prevent ideological extremism from stifling intellectual progress.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, today we’re here with Irina Tsukerman for the fourth time. Irina Tsukerman is a national security and human rights lawyer based in New York, specializing in geopolitics, foreign policy, and information warfare.

She is the president of Scarab Rising, Inc., the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, a fellow at the Arabian Peninsula Institute and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and an affiliate of the American Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association. Tsukerman has been recognized for countering Russian disinformation and moderating panels on global security issues. Her expertise includes energy, cybersecurity, influence campaigns, intelligence, global media appearances, and published analyses. Thank you for joining me again today.

Irina Tsukerman: Thank you so much; I’m glad to be here.

Jacobsen: This session will discuss the concept of intellectual persona non grata. How should we frame this? What do you make of the crackdown in one of the world’s leading scientific nations on agencies and individuals who are professional scientists?

There are two key patterns here. First, some scientists are fired, and their funding is frozen, halted, or terminated. Second, others are fired, funding issues arise afterward, and institutions attempt to rehire them but struggle with how to do so. This pattern is also seen at the agency or institute-wide level. What is happening?

Tsukerman: The most charitable way to interpret this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions—meaning there is a genuine effort to streamline bureaucracy and address the issues that have led to distrust and a loss of institutional authority over the years.

However, people are going overboard. The DOJ team lacks experts in every relevant industry, so they do not know what they are doing. They are making across-the-board cuts as if they were running a business without fully considering the consequences. They are not conducting individual interviews or scrutinizing each person’s qualifications. Instead, they assume that insiders within institutions they view with skepticism should be removed. Later, they realized that these individuals were essential workers. The issue is compounded by the fact that very few people have such specialized expertise, so replacing them becomes incredibly difficult once these professionals are dismissed.

That is one way to look at the situation; I am sure it is part of what is happening. However, there is also a broader issue at play. There is a significant degree of foreign malign influence involved in this process.

Some decision-makers may not even be aware that they are being influenced by disinformation or external forces with ulterior motives. Others may be aware but do not care. Some use seemingly legitimate reasons to justify extreme cost-cutting tactics while advancing their agendas.

This complex issue involves many actors, making it difficult to separate different motivations. I do not want to generalize, but some individuals affiliated with the DOJ genuinely think that running the government should be like running a business. However, history has shown that this approach does not always work—Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and its transformation into X is a case in point. Despite his claims of success, the record shows that his approach did not yield the intended results.

And there’s no reason to believe it would work out any better in this case, especially since he is not familiar with every government institution, nor is he employing experts from every agency to assess and implement meaningful reforms. But there is also definitely an ideological component—some of it is legitimate, and some of it is not.

There have been valid critiques of the CDC and various institutions for providing poor guidance over the years. The U.S. government has historically issued flawed recommendations, such as the food pyramid, which was widely criticized. In more recent years, some government agencies have downplayed the role of diet and exercise in preventing comorbidities and obesity, which has led to misguided public health policies. The fact that institutions sometimes give bad advice, influencing doctors and ultimately spreading misinformation to the public, is a serious concern.

On the other hand, the CDC has demonstrated immense expertise in niche areas such as tropical diseases, earning widespread recognition for its work. It has significantly impacted the treatment of diseases that do not receive substantial research funding or public attention but can pose major threats if left unchecked.

The problem is that the DOJ and its backers are failing to differentiate between non-essential positions subject to political influence—positions that may be easier to eliminate or reform—and those that are critical, highly specialized, and apolitical. Many of these essential positions are not responsible for past policy failures or institutional missteps. This indiscriminate approach is a serious problem because the U.S. government has many highly specialized roles that are complex and poorly understood by the public. Cutting these roles without a careful review process could be disastrous.

Take, for example, the recent case involving nuclear safety scientists. I do not believe there was any deliberate ill intent in this instance. Even Trump and his team likely understand the importance of maintaining nuclear safety measures. Downsizing a nuclear arsenal, if that is the goal, must still be done properly and with expert oversight.

However, in their rush to achieve quick results—or to generate bragging rights over the number of people fired, expecting praise from their supporters—they failed to consider the details. And as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

You need detail-oriented professionals to execute any policy properly. Failure to do so has resulted in sloppy decision-making with potentially grave consequences.

Jacobsen: What about these younger people in the Department of Government Efficiency team? Amy Goodman commented on this, and much of the mainstream media in the United States focused on the racist rhetoric of one particular young official, which was discovered in an old online account. I believe the comments included anti-Indian sentiment and remarks against interracial marriage, which he had posted under the title “BigBalls.” Those are racist and juvenile antics, but that discussion is tertiary at best in the broader conversation.

As you highlight, the real issue is that non-experts are being placed in charge of expert systems and restructuring these institutions in ways that have major real-world consequences. Many people affected by these changes do not even know whether these actions are legal. That is where the real danger lies. So, how does this process of pushing out experts—the intellectual persona non grata phenomenon—potentially impact people, and what legal consequences could arise from it? You’re a lawyer, so what are the legal implications of this type of maneuvering?

Tsukerman: There will likely be many contract violations, unfulfilled obligations, and legal protections already enshrined in congressional law. These will likely lead to investigations and lawsuits, which could take years to resolve. These legal battles may outlast the Trump administration and extend into the tenure of whoever succeeds them.

While an administration may only last four years, the federal government is a permanent institution, meaning that any future administration could become liable for lawsuits that arise now—even if those lawsuits take more than four years to reach their conclusions.

Beyond the liability issues, we will likely hear claims of discrimination based on protected categories, which could further complicate legal proceedings. Another issue is whether there will be breach of contract claims surrounding the so-called buyouts—specifically, whether the Trump administration will compensate the people they are removing, as they currently claim.

Several critical questions remain unanswered:

Does the administration have the legal authority to execute such a process?
Do they have the necessary funding to compensate those affected?
Will they follow through on their promises?

Given the track records of both Elon Musk and Donald Trump—who have a history of trying to escape contractual obligations they later found inconvenient—efforts will likely be made to avoid accountability for these actions.

Such breaches of contract will almost certainly erode trust in the federal government, particularly in this administration. As a result, we will likely see a wave of lawsuits for breach of contract, making it even harder for them to hire qualified personnel who meet their criteria, even among their supporters.

This inability to honour basic commitments may have a chilling effect, even among loyalists. Once the initial enthusiasm wears off, people will still expect to be paid for their work. No matter how ideologically committed someone is, if they are being underpaid, passed over, or outright dismissed, they will become disillusioned—no matter how much they admire their boss or agree with their rhetoric.

There is a huge difference between:

The bystanders cheering from the sidelines (the followers on Truth Social and elsewhere)
The waves of ex-supporters who become disillusioned
The actual people whose lives are affected by legal decisions

These policies have real-world consequences, and I believe many Trump supporters—especially those who chose him over Kamala Harris—may start questioning their decision. Not all were hardline Republicans—some were simply skeptical of Democrats. But now, if they feel they are being betrayed in the same way, they may begin to ask:

“Did we make the right decision to trust these people?”

Their original criticism of Kamala Harris and the Democrats was that they engaged in tokenism or failed to keep election promises. Now, they see this administration doing the same thing. Why should they continue supporting them?

This disillusionment could lead to popular electoral losses and will almost certainly impact the midterm elections.

At this point, there are two possible explanations:

They are rushing into this without considering the political and legal consequences—due to overenthusiasm, poor methodology, and a lack of strategic foresight.
They do not care about the political repercussions because they know they only have four years. Their goal may be to extract as much benefit as possible in the short term, which means:
- Making big business deals
- Redirecting federal funding from organizations they oppose
- Channelling money into harder-to-trace avenues that align with their agenda

If the latter is true, then legal and political accountability may not even be a priority for them.

Jacobsen: What about the impact on established science and the international reputation of the United States? For example, shutting down USAID could cause turmoil worldwide. Depending on their country, Many rely on that aid for medical care, health, general wellness, and even survival.

Beyond these immediate humanitarian consequences, what about the higher-order effects on a society where many basic systems are well-established, but reputation, scientific integrity, and truth-seeking become major concerns?

Some scientists—whether prominent or not—may choose to remain silent or only speak under anonymity or pseudonymity because funding is being cut indiscriminately, like a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when restructuring scientific funding pipelines.

This is evident in cases where scientists are fired and later asked to return or when entire research funding programs for particular scientific endeavours are completely dismantled.

There are many underlying issues here, some of which have nothing to do with Trump or politics.

Tsukerman: That is true.

Many of these issues stem from long-standing academic problems eroding public trust in scientific institutions before COVID-19.

I have seen this firsthand through my familiarity with academia, my family’s experiences, professional endeavours, and research conversations. One of the biggest problems has been the influence of perverse funding incentives in scientific research.

Simply put, many academics—driven by the pursuit of government funding—engage in unacceptable shortcuts and violations of the scientific method. These actions undermine the credibility of their research, leading to diminished trust in scientific institutions.

There is a huge difference between the phrase “trust the science”—meaningless on its own—and the actual process of trusting that scientific institutions function correctly. Science is based on cautioning assumptions and rigorous testing, not on blind faith in any particular individual or study.

Public trust in institutions relies on the assumption that scientists are driven by the pursuit of truth without ulterior motives. Their goal should be to find answers, eliminate harmful biases, and advance human knowledge.

However, funding issues have corrupted many aspects of this process, not necessarily in political ways. This is not simply about Republicans vs. Democrats or who is in the White House. Rather, it is about academic competition and the unintended consequences of government intervention in the research process.

Unfortunately, whenever governments get involved, they tend to make things worse, not better. Multiple layers of bad communication, power grabs, competition, cronyism, and basic corruption exist, and this happens on both sides of the aisle.

Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Research industries that align with the interests of those in power tend to receive more funding, while those that do not are often cut or deprioritized. This has always been the case, regardless of which party is in power.

What is clear right now is that the attempt to depoliticize science has politicized it further because of how the process is being executed. There are ways to make science more transparent and less political, but shutting down communication, ignoring experts, and reducing transparency are not the best options.

If you truly want to depoliticize the scientific process, the solution is maximum transparency.

Do not hide critical information.
Make broad, clear announcements that inform the entire public—not just one political faction.
Ensure that details are accessible and understandable for the average person so they are not left in the dark about how decisions are being made.

Failure to do this is fueling distrust, which is a serious long-term problem for scientific institutions, the U.S. government, and public confidence in research itself.

The right approach is to establish independent committees and task forces—bipartisan ones that can track funding and oversee how changes are implemented. The administration should appoint reputable individuals who are bipartisan, independent, and have no history of political scandals.

However, there are three major obstacles to this happening. First, it takes time, and the current administration appears uninterested in long-term planning. Second, there seems to be an agenda to cultivate distrust in anyone who does not fully align with their framework, which is a terrible way to build allies or expand a support base. Third, once some of these individuals came into power, they seemed to stop caring about public perception altogether. They appear drunk on their authority, celebrating not the effectiveness of their policies or societal impact but rather the fact that they now hold power over those they previously resented.

Jacobsen: Is all of this connected to the flipping of newsroom access for major news agencies?

Tsukerman: I think so. And let me be clear—I am not someone who unquestioningly defends the press. Journalism has struggled both as a business model and as an institution. It has increasingly catered to niche, highly partisan audiences, compromising the quality and neutrality of coverage. This shift has resulted in scandals, investigations, and blatant bias, further fueling public distrust in mainstream journalism. That being said, press regulations can be implemented responsibly without undermining the freedom of the press or shutting out government critics. When press restrictions go beyond reasonable oversight, it becomes clear that they are nothing more than a power play designed to control the narrative.

Every administration has had issues with the press—even Obama’s administration. Many assume that the mainstream media was more sympathetic to Democrats, but that is not entirely true. There were major scandals and tensions between the White House and the press during the Obama years, particularly over drone strikes. Even when one might expect alignment between an administration and the press, conflicts emerged over coverage priorities and framing. However, the current administration has taken press control to a new level—it is far more brazen and extensive than previous administrations.

This is not just about controlling the narrative or shaping media angles. It is about fundamentally restricting access. For example, the administration has demanded that AP News refer to the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America”—an overt attempt at editorial control. More significantly, they have blocked eight mainstream publications, effectively cutting off access to State Department officials. This is not a case of simply requiring media balance or corroboration—it is an outright ban on consuming content from specific sources on government time.

While some of the blocked publications have indeed been involved in ethical controversies, the scope of this crackdown is unprecedented. For example, The New York Times and other outlets have faced serious allegations of hiring stringers linked to terrorist organizations, which is unethical and indefensible. However, should the U.S. government respond by blocking access to all reporting from these outlets? I do not have a definitive answer, but this will undoubtedly impact public perception of government transparency.

Just as important as what the administration is censoring is what they are replacing it with. If nothing replaces it, it suggests they limit access to information simply for control. Will they introduce pre-approved partisan sources that officials must rely on? Will they say, “Those particular newspapers are off-limits, but figure it out on your own”? Right now, there is no coherent strategy—only a desire to eliminate opposition first and deal with the consequences later.

Jacobsen: How many people are on this call?

Tsukerman: 450. It is troubling that the intellectual persona non grata phenomenon is unfolding this way. The same people who rose to prominence by advocating for the so-called ‘Intellectual Dark Web’—and took pride in positioning themselves as dissidents—are now in power. They are still trying to play both sides, claiming to be victims of biases while simultaneously wielding power to silence others using the same methods they once condemned.

By creating intellectual persona non grata, they are fueling a revolutionary vs. counter-revolutionary dynamic that has nothing to do with effective governance and everything to do with ideological resentment and power struggles. This is not about principles but consolidating influence under a particular framework, regardless of the long-term consequences.

Jacobsen: When I say intellectual persona non grata, I mean this is happening across the spectrum, from Norman Finkelstein, who has long been controversial, to those behind Sokal 2.0 and similar hoaxes. Entire fields are undermined through intellectual pranks that call their legitimacy into question. These actions damage academic credibility, but that does not mean the correct response is a sweeping purge of scientific institutions.

Tsukerman: There is a fundamental difference between ensuring that every voice can participate in the marketplace of ideas and demanding that every voice be given a platform. No one is entitled to a particular platform—not even access to the White House. If someone engages in inappropriate behaviour, they should not expect to be welcomed into official spaces.

At the same time, if a media outlet is accepted as a mainstream representation of the press, follows current journalistic guidelines, and adheres to basic professional standards, then excluding them based purely on their content or viewpoints is deeply troubling. The White House has not established clear guidelines for ethical journalism, and the lack of transparency makes it easier to weaponize access based on political preferences.

On the one hand, the administration shuts out certain voices. Still, on the other hand, it elevates others who are equally problematic—like Jack Posobiec, who was allowed to attend a defence trip with Secretary Austin despite his long history of promoting conspiracy theories like Pizzagate.

So, is Posobiec a more legitimate journalist than a Hamas-affiliated stringer for The New York Times? I do not think either should be elevated by the White House or given official endorsement. Ethical journalism should not be selective but held to consistent standards.

Jacobsen: There are other countries with large scientific programs, but the quality of their research is questionable, and fraudulent studies are retracted at a much higher rate. Some nations have cultural pressures that incentivize fraudulent research. How do these U.S. policy moves influence the intellectual capital of the United States in Europe, Eastern states, and other regions?

Tsukerman: The world is watching the U.S. closely, and many are deeply alarmed by what they see. The U.S. government is doing nothing to engage in a real dialogue with its allies or to explain its process. This lack of communication is fueling international distrust.

There is also growing concern over double standards. For example, the Vice President travelled to Europe to lecture on democracy and values, while Elon Musk actively interfered in European democratic processes. This inconsistency signals to allies that the U.S. has an ulterior agenda that has nothing to do with democracy, free speech, or protecting the marketplace of ideas.

This is especially troubling when it comes to science. If there is one field that demands rigorous debate, it is scientific research. Scientists must constantly challenge each other, question assumptions, and engage in intellectual conflict to drive innovation forward.

Instead, we are seeing an attempt to create a “choir of consensus”—essentially a massive logical fallacy. This approach is dangerous no matter which political side engages in it. Science should be defined by clashing ideas and robust debate, not forced ideological conformity.

The current political climate discourages scientists from engaging in open, rigorous debate, making them fearful of being ostracized for challenging mainstream views. This backfires in a major way—it does not strengthen marginalized voices; instead, it amplifies fringe voices with deeply flawed methodologies while silencing everyone else—even those who might be generally supportive but scientifically rigorous.

In short, instead of fostering real scientific discussion, these policies stifle legitimate debate while elevating extreme voices on both sides. The result is a weaker intellectual landscape in the U.S. and diminished credibility on the global stage.

You do not want a chorus of consensus, which is essentially the biggest bandwagon fallacy ever imposed on scientific discourse. When either side engages in this, it is wrong. The foundation of science relies on clashing ideas and rigorous debate, and researchers should feel comfortable engaging with those who hold very different views within their respective fields.

However, political maneuvering has increasingly eroded this intellectual openness. Instead of fostering an environment where marginal voices feel more welcome, the current approach amplifies deeply fringe perspectives—often from individuals with a flawed grasp of the scientific method—while silencing or discouraging mainstream scientists, even those who may be generally supportive of the administration’s goals but still value rigorous debate and high standards.

Jacobsen: One prominent scientist, who requested anonymity for their interview, compared the current purge of scientists in the U.S. to Lysenkoism. Since this is your area of expertise, is the comparison accurate?

Tsukerman: The analogy is flawed because Lysenko was infamous for deeply flawed science that actively contradicted basic biological principles. The comparison may not be fully justified unless we see appointees rejecting scientific fundamentals. That said, we do see cases where appointees hold views verging on denialism, which is concerning.

For example, appointing a Secretary of Health who is a vaccine denialist and holds deeply troubling views on other scientific matters is probably the closest modern parallel to Lysenkoism. While the mass firings of scientists may indicate an ideological purge, they could also be the result of overzealous decision-making. It is too early to tell where this will lead at this stage. Still, I strongly urge the administration to consider who they retain and appoint.

They must enforce scientific standards, avoid conspiracy theory traps, and prioritize actual scientific integrity over political agendas. Encouraging open debate and internal criticism—even criticism of political appointees—is essential. Suppose we fail to maintain internal checks and balances that allow for dissent, including from people we may strongly disagree with ideologically. In that case, we cannot preserve the intellectual rigour needed for scientific progress.

We need a range of perspectives—from figures like Norman Finkelstein to those who represent the opposite end of the spectrum—because contrasting viewpoints are necessary for identifying bad ideas and refining good ones. The goal should not be polarization but rather a robust middle ground where scientists and intellectuals do not feel pressured to label themselves as belonging to one rigid ideological camp. They should be free to hold nuanced, independent positions, even within their fields of study.

Jacobsen: Irina, thank you for your time today.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Ecological Corridor Investments by Parks Canada

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Christine Drake, Manager of Ecological Corridors and Heritage Rivers at Parks Canada, has spent more than 17 years shaping conservation policy across the country. Her expertise spans ecosystem preservation, the establishment of protected areas, and national park management. With a Master’s degree in Forestry from the University of Toronto, Drake now leads efforts to expand and safeguard wildlife corridors—critical pathways that help species navigate increasingly fragmented landscapes.

In this conversation, Drake discusses Wildlife Corridors Canada and the pivotal role Parks Canada plays in ecological conservation. The agency has committed $1.3 million over two years to fund corridor projects in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Nationally, $7 million is being allocated across 11 projects, with NGOs contributing an additional $7.5 million—bringing the total investment to $14.5 million.

Parks Canada has pinpointed 23 national priority areas for conservation, with 10 already receiving direct support in seven provinces. Drake explains that funding allocations vary by project. For instance, the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute is working to protect 300 acres of vital habitat. More details on these initiatives can be found on the Parks Canada website.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Canada is a vast country with significant green space, making this an important topic to emphasize. Thank you for joining me today.

Christine Drake: Thank you for having me.

Jacobsen: For the ecological corridor projects in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, how much funding is being contributed by Parks Canada?

Drake: In Nova Scotia, Parks Canada is contributing $495,000 over the 2024–25 and 2025–26 fiscal years. In New Brunswick, Parks Canada is contributing $826,142 over the same two fiscal years. Altogether, this amounts to just over $1.3 million over two years for the two projects.

Jacobsen: How much inland water and land will Canada’s government commit to conserving by 2030?

Drake: That question is best answered by Environment and Climate Change Canada, as they lead that file for the Government of Canada. The same applies to your next question.

Jacobsen: How many acres will the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute conserve via voluntary stewardship mechanisms?

Drake: The Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute aims to conserve at least 300 acres as part of its project through voluntary mechanisms, including conservation easements and land acquisitions.

Jacobsen: What is the total funding allocated to support ecological corridor projects across Canada?

Drake: Over $7 million is being contributed to 11 projects to support on-the-ground ecological corridor and connectivity work across the country. Additionally, environmental non-profits and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will provide an extra $7.5 million through their own funding and partnerships. In total, this brings the investment in ecological corridors in Canada to nearly $14.5 million.

Jacobsen: Are there any noteworthy NGOs involved in these projects?

Drake: The two most recently announced organizations are Birds Canada and the Mersey Tobeatic Research Institute. A previous news release outlines all the other lead organizations receiving funding, which I can share with you.

Jacobsen: How many national priority areas has Parks Canada identified for ecological corridors?

Drake: Parks Canada has identified and mapped 23 national priority areas for ecological corridors. These are areas where ecological corridors are most urgently needed in Canada to conserve or restore connectivity. Improving or maintaining ecological connectivity in these priority areas will greatly benefit biodiversity conservation and help species and ecosystems adapt to climate change.

The priority areas for ecological corridors were identified over the last couple of years in collaboration with a diverse range of partners, experts, stakeholders, and the public. This process involved using national-scale data and several scientific assessment methods. An interactive map and more information about each of the priority areas for ecological corridors are available on the Parks Canada website.

Jacobsen: How many national priority areas will ground-based connectivity advance through approximately $7 million in contributions?

Drake: Funding from the National Program for Ecological Corridors supports on-the-ground work in 10 of the 23 national priority areas for ecological corridors. These projects are located in seven provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.

Projects will advance ecological corridors in areas identified as nationally important for conserving or restoring ecological connectivity and strengthening the network of protected and conserved areas and natural habitats.

Jacobsen: Christine, thank you for your time today. I appreciate it.

Drake: No problem.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Dr. Dauda Lawal Remarks on Gender Equality

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09

*Link to interview.*

Dr. Dauda Lawal is the governor of Zamfara State, elected in 2023 under the PDP. A former banker, he previously served as First Bank’s executive director. Women’s empowerment, gender equality, and education are crucial for Nigeria’s progress. Collaboration between governments and organizations is essential to create policies that support women’s opportunities and participation.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What would you take away as the big message of these thirty years of progress for Nigeria and the world as a whole?

Dr. Dauda Lawal: First of all, let me say that it has been a wonderful opportunity to be here, to hear from primary sources—all the women who participated in this program—and to learn about what they went through to get to where they are today. It is truly inspiring. The key takeaway here is that we still have a long way to go in terms of women’s empowerment, gender equality, and the way forward for Nigeria.

Jacobsen: Do you believe that many of the advances for women must be undertaken comprehensively as a network?

Laval: No. It has to be holistic and highly comprehensive. There is a need for collaboration between subnational governments, the federal government, and international organizations to fully understand women’s challenges and develop effective policies for gender equality.

Jacobsen: In your opinion, what areas should Nigeria focus on most—economics and political participation?

Laval: Education is key because one must be educated to fully understand opportunities and challenges, even in business.

Jacobsen: Regarding the next generation, what was your biggest takeaway from their representation?

Laval: I believe that focusing on education and empowerment would go a long way toward creating meaningful change.

Jacobsen: For the general public of Nigeria, what is the big message?

Laval: I think the big message is: let’s give women a chance—whether in government, economic activities, or social life. If we can do that, it will truly transform the fortunes of women in Nigeria.

Jacobsen: Sir, I appreciate your time.

Laval: Thank you.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Dr. Abie Mendelsohn on ENT Specialist Gender-Affirming Care

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/09

Dr. Abie Mendelsohn, M.D., F.A.C.S., is a leading laryngologist specializing in advanced, minimally invasive throat and voice surgeries at the Los Angeles Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Allergy. He has pioneered transoral robotic surgery (TORS), sialendoscopy, and hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation. Mendelsohn emphasizes that these procedures are essential to healthcare, not cosmetic. His innovations, including a scarless tracheal shave technique, improve outcomes while reducing risks. He explains the role of resonance and pitch in vocal identity, noting that while pitch influences gender perception, resonance is equally critical. He stresses the life-changing impact of these procedures, as a misaligned voice can cause significant distress. Advocating for broader insurance coverage, he continues to refine surgical techniques and push for advancements in transgender healthcare, ensuring safer, more effective procedures that help patients align their voice with their gender identity.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Dr. Abie Mendelsohn, M.D., F.A.C.S., is a fellowship-trained laryngologist specializing in advanced, minimally invasive surgical treatments for conditions of the throat and voice. Based at the Los Angeles Center for Ear, Nose, Throat, and Allergy, he has pioneered transoral robotic surgery (TORS), sialendoscopy, and hypoglossal nerve stimulator implantation on the West Coast. He holds a B.A. in Biology from Yeshiva University and an M.D. from the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. Dr. Mendelsohn completed his residency at UCLA and pursued specialized training in Laryngology and robotic surgery. His research focuses on voice preservation and endoscopic surgical techniques. Thank you so much for joining me today, Dr. Mendelsohn. I appreciate it.

Mendelsohn: Thank you for the invitation.

Jacobsen: Let’s start with some softballs. What factors should be considered when determining whether a candidate is suitable for surgery?

Mendelsohn: Surgery always carries risks. Even the smallest procedure has inherent risks related to anesthesia, infection, bleeding, and recovery time. Generally speaking, there are risks associated with anesthesia and even travelling to a surgical center or hospital before incision.

When determining a treatment plan, we aim to balance risk with benefit and choose the least invasive, most effective option for the patient. This includes considering the physical risks, time, recovery process, and discomfort.

Some risks are unavoidable. Surgery is typically the most invasive option, so we usually consider it a last resort. Suppose a non-surgical alternative—medication, voice therapy, or other treatments—is available. In that case, we strongly encourage pursuing those options first.

That said, there are cases where surgery is the only viable solution. We must determine the safest and most effective surgical approach in those situations.

Jacobsen: What does gender-affirming voice surgery involve?

Mendelsohn: Gender-affirming voice surgery is a broad category that uses several surgical techniques. The primary goal is to modify the vocal cords and voice box so that the voice’s pitch, resonance, and quality align with the patient’s gender identity.

Many of us take our voices for granted. Even experiencing temporary laryngitis can be frustrating and make us appreciate how important our voice is for our professional, social, and personal identity.

For people who do not have experience with gender-diverse individuals, it can be difficult to understand the distress caused by having a voice that does not match one’s true identity. For a transgender individual, using their voice can feel like a constant misalignment between their internal self and their outward expression.

When we help a patient achieve a voice that truly represents them is a profoundly transformative experience—some might even call it magical. It’s a magical effort.

There are generally two broad categories of gender-affirming voice surgery. One category involves voice surgery that makes the voice sound more feminine. This could mean bringing someone from a masculine-sounding voice into a range that is more androgynous or distinctly feminine. However, this is not a strict binary—man to woman. Sometimes, the goal is to move someone out of a masculine vocal range without necessarily pushing them fully into a feminine range.

Conversely, there are cases where someone with a feminine-sounding voice wants—or, more accurately, needs—to move into an androgynous or even masculine vocal range. Various surgical strategies can help achieve both of these goals.

Jacobsen: As a side question—when we use placeholder terms like “masculine” and “feminine” voice zones, what physiological factors contribute to the production of those different vocal sound types?

Mendelsohn: I love this question. There’s much research on this topic.

When we pick up the phone and say hello, our brain immediately assigns a gender to the voice on the other end. Even without thinking about it, our brains subconsciously analyze vocal cues to determine gender.

So, what factors contribute to that perception?

If you ask the average person on the street, most would say pitch—meaning a higher pitch is perceived as more feminine. In comparison, a lower pitch is perceived as more masculine.

While pitch is certainly a factor, it is far from the whole story. Other vocal characteristics can be so powerful that they override pitch entirely.

For example, let’s go back to the telephone scenario. You can immediately tell if you’re hearing a high-pitched male voice versus a low-pitched female voice. That tells us that pitch alone cannot define gender perception in voice.

So, what are the other factors besides pitch?

A major one is resonance—the voice echoes in our body before it exits our lips.

If you took vocal cords outside the body and made them vibrate, they would not sound like a human voice. Like a bleating goat, they would sound harsh, thin, and unpleasant.

The depth and richness of our voices come from harmonics, which develop as the sound resonates in the body before it leaves the mouth. This is why trained singers can produce incredibly powerful and moving sounds—they can manipulate resonance to create depth and emotion.

Our brains subconsciously process resonance, and we instinctively associate certain resonance patterns with gender identity.

Right now, I am resonating in a way that communicates masculinity to you. Middle C on the piano is typically where a voice would sound classically feminine. The C below middle C is often identified or perceived as masculine. So, when someone comes in for a consultation—let’s say, for vocal feminization surgery—and their voice naturally sits at that lower C, there are times when they express a specific request, saying, “I would like my voice to be at this note.” Unfortunately, that is not something any responsible surgeon can truly promise.

We do not yet know how to fine-tune the voice box precisely. The reason is that the voice box is highly complex and can modulate itself. Consider someone like Freddie Mercury—he had a vocal range of nearly four octaves. No surgery can achieve something like that. The voice relies heavily on the body’s natural control. While we can make structural adjustments by altering certain aspects of the vocal anatomy, promising a specific pitch is not feasible.

Jacobsen: What do you advise patients regarding expectations?

Mendelsohn: Many individuals seeking gender-affirming voice surgery have already undergone some training or, at the very least, have started mimicking their desired voice as part of a natural learning process. This adaptation helps them navigate society so they are not only acknowledged and respected but also protected from discrimination, violence, and hatred—issues we must work to eliminate.

Since they are already practicing these techniques, I explain that surgery, at least in my hands, will enable them to achieve the best version of their voice with minimal effort. It will provide them with a natural-sounding voice, unlike some outdated vocal feminization procedures that produce an artificial, almost cartoonish sound. While those earlier methods did raise pitch, they failed to create a truly gender-affirming result, often making the voice sound awkward or unnatural.

As a result, they fell short in all respects. Modern vocal feminization surgery, however, is designed to yield the best possible outcome. That said, I never promise a specific pitch because factors such as a person’s height and the length of their vocal tract influence resonance. I can guarantee they can reach their optimal pitch without the strain of conscious effort.

Jacobsen: Regarding the scarless tracheal shave procedure, you mentioned several techniques available, each tailored to the specific needs of the candidate. So, what exactly is this technique?

Mendelsohn: Excellent question. Scott, now you’ve got me excited! If you thought I was enthusiastic about everything else, I truly love discussing this. So, let’s get into it. I’m a specialist in thread-based techniques…

I’m a voice box specialist. So, when discussing gender-affirming voice care, which we’ve already discussed, that is well within my expertise.

The surgery does not—and should never—affect the vocal cords. The Adam’s apple is part of the voice box structure, but it sits above where the vocal cords are within the cartilage, creating the neck bump. Historically, this procedure was thought to be purely cosmetic. This is a terrible misconception, but that was the term often used.

Insurance companies used to deny coverage because they believed it was cosmetic. We now know that is completely incorrect. This procedure is an important part of healthcare. A woman who struggles to walk around in public with an Adam’s apple faces challenges to her well-being. This surgery is necessary for many people when appropriate.

Because it was categorized as cosmetic for so long, plastic surgeons and cosmetic surgeons performed tracheal shave surgery. Their goal was to reduce the bump in the neck to align with a patient’s gender identity. However, these surgeons often lacked expertise in vocal cord anatomy—understanding where everything aligns and how to protect the vocal cords.

One of the major risks of tracheal shave surgery is that if the surgeon focuses solely on aesthetics and removes too much cartilage, they can sever the vocal cord attachment. This results in a catastrophic injury.

Over the years, tracheal shave procedures have shifted from cosmetic surgeons to voice box specialists. This was a natural progression for me as a specialist in gender-affirming care. Performing tracheal shave surgery felt essential to my field. After doing a few of these procedures, it felt right—removing an Adam’s apple so a person could live a confident, happy life.

But there was an issue. When we completed the surgery, we had to make an incision directly at the Adam’s apple or slightly above it. While we achieved excellent contour reduction, the resulting scar could be hypertrophic (raised), hyperpigmented (darker than the surrounding skin), or hypopigmented (lighter than the surrounding skin). Either way, research shows that scars catch the eye more than tattoos.

Even though we reduced the bump, people still noticed the patient’s neck. That meant our patients had to use makeup or cover-up every time they went public. We were helping but not addressing the issue to its fullest extent.

At the same time, government and private insurance companies were starting to cover this procedure, recognizing its medical necessity. Around the same time, a new surgical approach for thyroid gland removal, performed through the mouth, was gaining attention in the United States.

I pursued training in this thyroid gland procedure, and as I did, gender-affirming care was rapidly expanding. Patients were finally getting the coverage they needed, and it was clear that this field was evolving to meet those needs.

Suddenly, it came to me like a light bulb moment. Why can’t I do what we’re already doing for this cartilage for the thyroid gland? It’s the same area. We can access it through the mouth.

The surgery described for thyroid gland removal involves making a small incision on the inside of the lower lip, inserting instruments underneath the skin’s surface, and removing the gland. There were differences in how far down we needed to go and the type of work involved, so some of the instrumentation had to be adapted. But the concept was clear.

And I certainly was not the only one with this idea—it was being proposed worldwide. However, what set our approach apart was that we developed highly creative instrumentation to make the procedure successful.

This happened just before the pandemic shutdown when we began introducing this as a viable alternative to the traditional incision, which leaves a visible scar. We first started performing the procedure in 2019. Since then, we’ve completed approximately 300 cases using the lower lip approach.

From our experience, we found that removing Adam’s apple without leaving a scar achieves excellent results and maximizes safety. We previously discussed one of the major complications of this surgery—the risk of cutting through the vocal cord attachment.

With this technique, I use an endoscope, a small camera inserted through the lower lip, to measure and identify critical landmarks. Instead of making a small incision and struggling to see through a tiny opening—like looking through a peephole—I now have full visualization of the entire area. Even though the incision is hidden, my ability to see and navigate the anatomy is significantly improved.

Areas toward the side and back of the cartilage can sometimes retain fullness, which is not always in line with a traditionally feminine neck contour. This new approach allows me to be more precise and effectively address those recessed areas.

Ultimately, this scarless approach allows us to perform safer, more comprehensive surgery. Oh, and another major benefit—there’s no visible scarring. Scars can sometimes “out” a person or expose them to discrimination and hatred even more than Adam’s apple itself.

Jacobsen: What are the recovery timelines and outcomes for patients?

Mendelsohn: For tracheal shave surgery, and I mean “we” in the collective sense—everyone in the field performing this procedure—we are still working on defining success.

Some patients achieve a beautiful neck contour but may not feel entirely satisfied, and vice versa. Some patients may have residual fullness or a slight bump remaining, particularly below the vocal cords. I cannot always remove all of it without risking vocal cord function, so we do our best to balance aesthetics and safety.

Sometimes, we could have achieved a better result, while the patient feels their outcome is fantastic. So, from that perspective, we are continuously refining our techniques.

We conduct surveys before and after surgery, asking patients how they feel about their necks and taking photos to assess the results.

How do I personally measure success? I judge it based on the number of revision requests we receive.

For example, in rhinoplasty (a nose job), patients sometimes return for a revision to make small adjustments, like reducing an extra tip. In our case, our revision rate is less than one percent. From that standpoint, this surgery is extremely successful.

It is also extremely safe—we have not had a single case of vocal cord injury, which is one of the most serious complications we aim to avoid. And I expect that statistic to stay the same.

In terms of the recovery process, this is an outpatient surgery, meaning it is performed under general anesthesia. Still, the patient goes home the same day. The procedure itself takes about an hour and a half under anesthesia. We recommend taking a week off from work, school, or other activities.

The discomfort is moderate, meaning the patient will know they had surgery. Some procedures are so minimal in recovery that people forget they even had surgery the next day—this is not one of those. Patients will certainly feel that they had surgery.

We do prescribe pain medication, but many patients find they do not need it. From that standpoint, recovery is straightforward. There is no need for voice rest or diet modification. Ultimately, it is a week of rest, catching up on favourite streaming shows, and returning quickly to normal life.

Jacobsen: How has gender-affirming care evolved in terms of surgical techniques and technological sophistication over time?

Mendelsohn: It is all based on philosophy. The techniques have advanced, and even surgeons still performing open procedures are now recessing the incision, understanding that the focus is not just the cartilage—the goal is the person.

We are seeing an important shift in approach as we look at the broader medical and surgical communities, not only in the United States but worldwide. Now that insurance companies are covering this vital healthcare, our collective experience is growing. We are better equipped to handle complex cases, such as residual fullness below the vocal cords or unexpected complications.

With more data and shared experiences, we can continue to improve and refine our techniques. For a long time—before February 2018, to be exact—there was little shared knowledge in this field.

Now, we are seeing gender-affirming surgery become like any other surgical subspecialty. We need more surgeons working in this space to drive innovation. I hope my procedure will become obsolete in a few years because we will have found an even better way to do it.

Jacobsen: What is the role of ENT specialists in the evolving multidisciplinary approach to transgender healthcare?

Mendelsohn: The role of ENT specialists is critical because we focus on everything related to the neck. This includes vocal feminization, vocal masculinization, and tracheal shave procedures.

But beyond that, ENT as a specialty is deeply connected to what it means to be human. We deal with hearing, speech (distinct from voice), breathing, nasal function, allergies, and mucus production, which affect how we function daily.

Because of this, once a patient has completed their gender-affirming procedures, ENT specialists continue to provide care as needed. Right now, this work is primarily focused on the throat. Still, many ENT specialists are also performing facial feminization surgeries, which address key facial features.

We are also seeing a rise in facial masculinization surgery. However, that falls more within the realm of facial plastic surgery within ENT.

Jacobsen: What are the challenges and promises for individuals undergoing each type of surgery? One fact you pointed out is that 2018, which is recent.

Mendelsohn: It’s embarrassingly recent. When I was in training, I was working in Bellingham, learning advanced endoscopic techniques, and that was in 2011. That was the first time I had ever even seen a gender-affirming surgery.

I had read about it, but I had never witnessed one. It was mind-blowing to see how profoundly life-changing it could be. Surgery is always about achieving the biggest impact with the smallest intervention, and these procedures exemplify that principle.

For me, that was incredible. When I returned after training in 2011, these procedures were essentially unavailable unless a patient could pay in cash—a briefcase full of money—because healthcare in America is expensive. If you could not pay, it simply wasn’t an option, which was heartbreaking.

Now, at least, we finally recognize that a massive group of important patients were ignored for so long. We have much catching up to do.

Jacobsen: What is the biggest takeaway from developing these techniques and their impact on people’s lives? This could be helpful for those who may not have expertise in this field but are reading this interview out of general interest.

Mendelsohn: Oh, boy. There are so many takeaways. I’ll keep it short.

We must fight against the misconception that a tracheal shave is a cosmetic procedure. I perform tracheal shave surgeries for cisgender women as well. Many women have naturally large Adam’s apples. They were assigned female at birth. They identify as women. Many of them have started families. And yet, they have a largeAdam’s apple.

Would anyone say that reducing their Adam’s apple is just cosmetic? I hope not.

A woman walking around with a large Adam’s apple experiences constant distress. It is not something you would wish on anyone. If we recognize this for cisgender women, then we must also understand that providing the same care to gender-diverse patients is just as critical.

This is especially true when we think about voice care.

I saw a patient recently—a beautiful young woman. If you put her in a lineup with 100 other women, you would never be able to “clock” her. But when she speaks, her voice is masculine.

She experiences an impossible dilemma in life. People open doors for her because she is perceived as a young, beautiful woman. But she can’t say “thank you” because if she does, people react negatively.

She is called names for being rude if she doesn’t say thank you. If she does say thank you, she is called names because of her voice. This is a torture that most people cannot imagine. And it is such a small thing. But it becomes debilitating when you multiply experiences like that over a lifetime.

This is not a cosmetic procedure. This is not just, “Oh, you want your voice to sound different.” This is something that must happen. Gender-affirming care is a critical component of healthcare.

Even if someone has different religious or political views, they must recognize that a human being is suffering. And if we can help them, we must do so.

That is our responsibility as individuals.

That is our responsibility as a society.

Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it.

Mendelsohn: Of course.

Jacobsen: Nice to meet you. Thank you—I appreciate it.

Mendelsohn: No, no—thank you for getting this out there.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Canadian Federal Capital Gains Inclusion Rate

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/08

Simon Gaudreault, Chief Economist and VP of Research at CFIB, discusses the federal government’s reversal of the capital gains inclusion rate hike and its implications for small businesses. CFIB welcomes the decision, emphasizing the need for certainty amid economic uncertainties like U.S.-Canada trade tensions. Gaudreault highlights CFIB’s push for a UK-style tax framework that limits provisional tax authority to six months. He stresses the importance of predictable policies for business confidence and investment. The discussion underscores the challenges small businesses face and the necessity of clear, stable tax regulations to support economic growth and entrepreneurship in Canada.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are speaking with Simon Gaudreault, the Chief Economist and Vice President of Research at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). Since joining CFIB in 2011, he has led research and lobbying efforts on economic, political, and social issues affecting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across Canada. Appointed to his current role in 2022, Simon serves as a national spokesperson and media commentator.

Previously, he worked in municipal finance and economic development. He earned an Honours B.A. in Economics from the University of Ottawa and an M.Sc. in Economics from Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), where his research focused on entrepreneurship in Canada’s rural and remote regions.

So, what decision did the federal government make regarding the capital gains inclusion rate?

Gaudreault: The government has decided to reverse its planned increase to the capital gains inclusion rate announced in the 2024 federal budget. As a result, we are reverting to the long-standing policy of allowing only 50% of capital gains to be taxable for most individuals and business owners.

This is a positive decision, especially since the Minister of Finance has confirmed that the government will still increase the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption (LCGE). Previously set at $1 million, the exemption has now been raised to $1.25 million.

With this change, the government maintains the higher LCGE while returning to the 50% inclusion rate. From CFIB’s perspective, this represents the best of both worlds, as business owners who sell a small business will be able to retain more of their capital gains tax-free due to the increase in the LCGE.

Any capital gains above $1.25 million will continue to be taxed at a 50% inclusion rate instead of the two-thirds (66.7%) inclusion rate planned in the 2024 budget. This is a major victory for small business owners and entrepreneurs in Canada.

Maybe I can combine my next two questions:

Jacobsen: When was the increased capital gains inclusion rate of 66.7% originally scheduled to take effect? How does CFIB react to the government’s decision to cancel the hike?

Gaudreault: Our reaction is, of course, one of relief.

The federal government originally planned to increase the capital gains inclusion rate to 66.7% for gains above $250,000, and this change was scheduled to take effect on June 25, 2024. However, they have now decided to cancel the increase entirely.

When the increase was first announced, we believed it sent a bad signal to entrepreneurs and investors in Canada at a bad time.

We are at a critical moment in our economic history where strengthening the business environment is essential. Canada needs more private investment to boost productivity, ultimately improving all Canadians’ living standards.

So, last year’s government decision to increase capital gains taxes at a time when we should have been encouraging more private investment was concerning.

Now, the government has reversed course and chosen to maintain the 50% inclusion rate, which, in our view, is the right decision given the current economic climate.

Due to ongoing Canada-U.S. trade tensions and the risk of tariffs and counter-tariffs, businesses and entrepreneurs in Canada already face much uncertainty and potentially higher costs. Adding more financial burdens—particularly through higher taxes—would only worsen the situation.

For this reason, maintaining the previous tax regime—especially regarding investment and capital gains—was the right call. Our reaction to the federal government’s decision is overall positive. Additionally, it is especially positive because the government has chosen to retain the modifications to the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption that were announced last year.

Even though this change represents only a small improvement, it is still a step forward on the investment taxation front. By keeping investment-friendly policies in place, we are creating a better environment for investment and business growth in Canada.

Jacobsen: What uncertainties make it important not to increase taxes on entrepreneurship right now?

Gaudreault: The biggest uncertainty right now is the ongoing Canada-U.S. trade situation. We still do not know whether 25% tariffs will be applied to Canadian goods exported to the U.S. This uncertainty alone has drastically shifted the economic landscape over the past few months.

Additionally, the Canadian government had previously announced its counter-tariffs in response to potential U.S. trade actions. While these retaliatory tariffs have not yet been enforced, we recently received a 30-day reprieve to allow negotiations between the Canadian and U.S. governments.

However, even with this temporary break, there is still no guarantee that tariffs won will not be implemented at the end of the negotiation period. While there are currently no U.S. or Canadian retaliatory tariffs in place, the possibility remains, creating high economic uncertainty.

This morning, I was on a webinar with small business owners discussing the situation. One of them said something that stood out:

“This uncertainty about which goods will be taxed or tax-exempt in the coming weeks, months, and years is almost worse than dealing with tariffs themselves. The uncertainty alone is paralyzing decision-making in business.”

This uncertainty is freezing business activities across multiple areas:

Investment plans are on hold.
Hiring is being postponed.
Expansion projects are delayed.
Product development is slowing down.

This economic paralysis is already costing Canada heavily, affecting entrepreneurs, businesses, and the overall economy.

Given these circumstances, we should not add burdens, especially by hiking taxes. Instead, we should maintain stability and avoid creating new challenges for businesses.

At CFIB, in the face of trade tensions and economic uncertainty, the government should focus on tax cuts, not increases. While we strongly opposed the proposed capital gains inclusion rate hike, we are relieved that the government ultimately chose to reverse the increase, allowing businesses to focus on growth and stability instead of worrying about higher taxes.

Jacobsen: What specific legislative change would be recommended for the CRA to have the authority to collect taxes?

Gaudreault: Something interesting happened during this episode over the last six to ten months since the capital gains changes were announced. We were in a situation where no bill was ever passed. The government was putting things on the wayside and the back burner.

Although they had stated their intention to increase the inclusion rate, it was never formalized by passing a bill. Even worse, we were dealing with a minority government, and many opposition parties—especially the Conservatives—made it clear that they would not support such a bill. Since they were leading in the polls, they had a high chance of forming the next government.

Then, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation, the two leading contenders for Liberal Party leadership, Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland, stated that they would likely scrap the capital gains tax increase altogether.

Despite all this, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) said it would continue to enforce the higher inclusion rate announced in the budget, even though it had never been confirmed through proper legislative channels. The formal steps required to confirm this tax change had never been implemented.

We advocate for avoiding this kind of uncertainty in the future. Canada should introduce clear rules that limit the CRA’s provisional authority to collect taxes based on unconfirmed budget proposals. At CFIB, we will lobby the next federal government to introduce legislation similar to those of the United Kingdom. Tax authorities are given no more than six months to pass legislation there. The system automatically reverts to previous tax rates if they are not passed within that timeframe.

The reason for this reform is certainty. Business owners need clear and predictable rules. In this case, we were stuck in the worst possible scenario—the government did not pass legislation, and the opposition and potential new government were strongly against it. Even tax experts were divided, with some saying you could file at a 50% inclusion rate and others suggesting you should file at two-thirds. This uncertainty created a chaotic situation, one of the worst things a business can face.

Even under normal circumstances, uncertainty is one of the biggest challenges for business owners. They want to know:

If I sell this asset, what will my capital gains tax be?
How much will I owe the government?
Can I plan my investments with confidence?

These are critical decisions for business owners and investors, and we cannot afford to be unclear about tax rules—especially not for extended periods like the one we just experienced.

So, we are calling on the next government to ensure that future tax changes must be implemented within six months. If that does not happen, we should automatically revert to the previous tax rules before announcing the change.

Jacobsen: I have two somewhat digressive but related questions I’ll ask simultaneously. First, what factors in policy and economic shifts create the most significant real-time benefits for small businesses—existing ones and those just starting? Second, what psychological or cultural factors—such as how small business owners perceive the economy—are most significant in shaping their confidence to expand, grow, and innovate? So things that reduce anxiety are stuff like that.

Gaudreault: It depends on your specific situation as a business owner—your business model, target market, and where you are in your business life cycle. However, there are a few general factors that we can highlight for sure.

As a business owner, your optimism will largely depend on your perception of predictability in your environment. A stable business environment allows for better decision-making, whether that means stable tax rates or even improving tax policies. A predictable regulatory framework—including labour laws and compliance requirements—is crucial in maintaining business confidence.

On the economic side, business owners need confidence that there will be buyers for their products, that they will be able to access the resources and supplies they need, and that these will be readily available at reasonable costs with multiple options.

Another key factor is certainty in how rules and regulations are enforced. Business owners must know that they operate in a fair system where institutions ensure that contracts are upheld, laws are applied fairly, and regulations are enforced consistently according to democratic processes.

Looking at the past few months—and even up to the last few days—it’s clear that optimism among business owners is not very high. Unfortunately, several major factors have contributed to this:

The federal government’s back-and-forth stance on capital gains taxes created unnecessary uncertainty.
The CRA’s interpretation of tax policies left some business owners feeling treated unfairly.
The broader economic environment—including tariffs, post-pandemic recovery, and high inflation—has made business operations more challenging.

It has been a rough few years for business owners, coming out of the pandemic and dealing with a highly unpredictable economy. Many are exhausted, having had to endure multiple financial shocks.

At CFIB, we track small business confidence through a monthly survey, which we’ve been conducting since February 2009. This data allows us to build a small business confidence index. Over the past several months, confidence among small business owners has remained below historical averages. Given everything I’ve just outlined, it’s not surprising.

We desperately need better news for business owners—and more certainty. Hopefully, we can finally put this capital gains tax issue behind us and focus on creating a more stable and predictable environment for small businesses to thrive.

Jacobsen: What might be the potential implications for future federal legislation on taxes based on CFIB’s lobbying intentions?

Gaudreault: If we succeed in making our case and convincing the next federal government—regardless of the party in power—to adopt a UK-style framework, the impact would be significant.

For example, if we ever had to discuss an increase in the capital gains inclusion rate in the future—though that is certainly not something we want—this system would provide immediate clarity. If a change is announced in the budget but, for some reason, the bill is not tabled in the House of Commons over the following months, there would be no prolonged uncertainty. People would know it cannot remain unresolved for over six months.

This means business owners, investors, and anyone subject to capital gains tax would have a clear timeline. Either the change will be implemented within six months, or it will not happen, and the tax system will revert to its previous state.

This approach would significantly improve clarity, a crucial component of a healthy economy and a stable business environment. That is why we will actively advocate for this policy when we meet with the next federal government after the election.

Jacobsen: Simon, thank you for your time and the opportunity to discuss this today. I appreciate it, and it was nice to meet you.

Gaudreault: Thank you as well. It was a pleasure to meet you. Please don’t hesitate to reach out. If there’s anything else, let us know.

Best of luck with the weather out west, and let’s hope we can get through this winter without freezing too much.

Jacobsen: That’s right. Damn right, Simon. You take care. Bye.

Gaudreault: You as well. Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Antonique Smith: Climate Activist, Earth Action Day 2025

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Grammy-nominated singer and actress Antonique Smith is a dedicated climate activist, serving as CEO and co-founder of Climate Revival. She mobilizes communities, especially people of colour and faith groups, through storytelling, music, and art to address climate change. As the Earth Action Day 2025 Ambassador for EARTHDAY.ORG, she emphasizes urgent collective action to combat environmental crises. Smith highlights climate justice, pointing to disproportionate pollution in marginalized communities like Cancer Alley. She is passionate about change and urges involvement through ClimateRevival.org, social media, and advocacy. For her, activism is about love, action, and unity to protect future generations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Antonique Smith. She is a Grammy-nominated singer, acclaimed actress, and dedicated climate activist. She is known for her roles on Broadway and screen, notably as Faith Evans in Notorious.

Smith blends her artistic talents with passionate environmental advocacy. As co-founder and CEO of Climate Revival, she mobilizes communities, particularly people of colour and faith-based groups, to tackle climate change through storytelling, art, and music. Appointed as the official ambassador for Earth Action Day 2025 by EARTHDAY.ORG, Smith leads collective action to protect the planet, empowering global communities to unite around environmental justice and sustainable solutions.

So, what inspired your involvement with EARTHDAY.ORG, and why did you accept the Earth Action Day Ambassador role for 2025?

Antonique Smith: It’s such an honour. First, it’s important, especially now, because we are in a climate crisis. Our rights to clean air, clean water, and even our right to exist are threatened.

If we don’t act fast and take bold action—which is what EARTHDAY.ORG is emphasizing this year with Earth Action Day—we will face devastating consequences. This year’s focus is on collective action, big or small, because all those actions create an impact. That’s why I’m excited to be a part of Earth Day this year—it’s not just about awareness but about action. We need love, and we need action. That has been my platform for a long time.

I’ve been in this movement for over a decade. I started as an artist, primarily focusing on singing and speaking. Still, over time, I realized I wanted to do more. Now, I can create opportunities instead of waiting for others to include me. Of course, I still receive invitations—like EARTHDAY.ORG asking me to be an ambassador—which is an incredible honour.

But as CEO and co-founder of Climate Revival, I have found a new way to be involved in this movement—one that allows me to drive real change. Honestly, my increased activism was fueled by the intensification of extreme weather events—hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, and deadly heat waves.

For example, last year, over 1,300 people died during the Hajj pilgrimage in Saudi Arabia due to extreme heat. Los Angeles, my home, has experienced record-breaking heat waves, wildfires, and flooding. The climate crisis is happening now, and I need to do more.

I am also focused on environmental justice because Black, Brown, and low-income communities are the ones who suffer the most—not only from climate change itself but from the pollution driving it. Many of the worst-polluted areas in the U.S. are in communities of colour.

I’m from East Orange, New Jersey—a predominantly Black and brown community—so I come from sacrifice zones. In these places, corporations dump pollution, harming residents’ health and well-being. That’s why I’m so passionate about fighting for climate justice—because it’s personal.

I felt that not enough was being done, so I wanted to go deeper. That decision led me into different spaces, and ultimately, that’s what brought me to EARTHDAY.ORG. At some point, they asked me to be an ambassador, which happened recently—an incredible honour. They saw me as someone who was already taking the massive action they aim to inspire in the world.

I already believe that love is the answer because if there were more love, then profits wouldn’t be more important than people. Love and greed cannot coexist. They are fundamentally opposed. Love has always been a foundational part of my platform, and I truly believe the world needs more of it. Love is the most powerful force in the world, yet it is the one we use the least.

For me, love is always the action I promote. Tarth Action Day is perfect—it aligns completely with my work. It feels almost meant to be this year. I even released a song called “Love Song to the Earth.”

Come on—how incredible is that? God aligned it beautifully. I released a song with both love and earth in the title, and then EARTHDAY.ORG asked me to be the Earth Action Day Ambassador. It feels destined.

This is meant to be, and I take it seriously. I am praying that we can make a massive impact because, honestly, we have no choice but to create massive change. Our lives are at stake, and the lives of future generations are at stake. But even before we think about the future, people right now are dying because of climate change.

I spend a lot of time in Cancer Alley, and what’s happening there is unbelievable. It’s horrifying that people in this country are allowed to live in such toxic pollution. Cancer Alley is in Louisiana—an 85-mile stretch of land between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, home to over 200 petrochemical plants. The cancer rate is as high as 95% in some areas.

This should not be legal. This should not be happening to human beings. But it’s not just there—there are cancer clusters all over the country. Even back home in New Jersey, where I’m from, we have a cancer cluster.

We need action and change, and it must come quickly. I don’t want to see more people die.

There is nothing more important than the value of human life. God created us beautifully, and I want people to be happy and healthy. I imagine a world where everyone is happy and healthy.

Jacobsen: But how do you envision storytelling, music, and art—given your Grammy-nominated singing and acting background—as effective tools for mobilizing American communities to take action on both critical and long-term environmental issues?

Smith: That is literally what I’m doing. Storytelling, art, and music are my full toolkit—they are my most powerful tools for advocacy. Since we started Climate Revival alongside Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., that’s been our approach. Rev Yearwood is a highly respected climate activist. He was recently named one of Forbes’ 50 Top Sustainability Leaders and has received many other accolades. President Obama even called him a “climate champion.”

It is an honour to co-found an organization with him. At Climate Revival, when we hold an event—which could be described as a church service-style gathering—I often lead a gospel concert or sing. If we’re in a church, there’s more gospel music; if we’re in a different venue, I adjust accordingly.

But in every event, I sing, speak, and tell stories—and Rev closes it out with a powerful, rousing speech. Sometimes, we switch it up. Yesterday, for example, at an HBCU Climate Change Conference in New Orleans, Rev spoke first, then introduced me, and I closed the event with a speech and a song.

I call this our “one-two punch” because the way we both tell stories and inspire people has a profound impact. Rev’s telling stories and my singing open hearts, inspire, and energize people. They allow them to feel.

I remember people at the Sundance Film Festival who saw us do our one-two punch. One person told me that with everything happening in the world, people have been bottling up their emotions, and when they heard me sing “Love Song to the Earth,” it broke them open.

Everyone was crying—not from sadness, but from release. That is the power of art.

Art touches us in a way nothing else does. Music, film, television, and visual art move people in a way that nothing else can.

So, for me, it’s an honour to have these gifts. I’ve had a blessed journey—from a young age, I was gifted with a voice to sing, empathy, and the ability to channel other people’s experiences as an actor. That journey has been incredible in itself.

But to then use these same gifts to heal people, to inspire them to act, to help save lives and protect our planet—that is a responsibility I do not take for granted. It is so important that we all unify right now. It’s so important that people understand what we are going through.

Part of why I co-founded Climate Revival is because, in communities of colour and faith communities, we were going into churches, and people didn’t understand the issue. That is largely due to fossil fuel industry propaganda, which has worked hard to downplay the crisis.

But it’s also because, for a long time, the climate movement wasn’t focused on people. It talked about polar bears, ice glaciers, solar panels, and recycling—and those things didn’t resonate with everyday people. It didn’t feel urgent.

People didn’t feel like climate change was affecting them directly.

But when you start explaining to people that the cancer and asthma they or their loved ones are suffering from comes from power plants, petrochemical factories, and landfills—and when you connect that same pollution to climate change—they begin to see it.

When you tell them that Hurricane Idalia was strengthened by climate change, that the wildfires in California were made worse by climate change, and that heat waves are now so extreme that Arizona had over 100 days of 100+ degree heat, people realize these things are not normal.

Even the news talks about climate change more now, which is good. But what they fail to explain is the cause.

So, to many people, it just feels like Mother Nature is tripping—like there’s nothing we can do about it. It leaves people feeling helpless.

“What am I supposed to do?”

“It’s storming. I can’t stop a storm.”

While we can’t stop the storms that are already upon us, we can take action to prevent them from getting worse. We don’t have to accept this as our future.

Yes, we will have to adapt because we’ve let it get to the point where we are experiencing extreme weather and disasters. I am praying that we act fast enough to prevent it from getting worse.

There is even a way to reverse some of it. It doesn’t have to keep getting worse—it can get better.

But that takes everyone.

That’s why I am so excited about this international Earth Action Day—it’s a global movement where everyone can do something.

Even something as simple as making a video using my song “Love Song to the Earth”—showing what you love about this planet or the people you love—could inspire someone else to take action.

You can write letters to the people you voted for—because many of them are letting us down. There are so many ways to take action. EARTHDAY.ORG has an entire page of actions people can take. Big or small, it’s about everybody deciding to do something.

Let’s not feel like we’re just watching our house burn with nothing we can do about it. Let’s do something.

Jacobsen: How can people get involved with Climate Revival? How can they attend or take part? What about financial support, posting videos, or learning more?

Smith: That is wonderful. Thank you for asking.

You can go to ClimateRevival.org and join our community—there’s a “Join Our Community” button right on the site. We let our members know when we hold events.

You can also follow me on Instagram (@AntoniqueSmith) and Climate Revival on Instagram(@ClimateRevival). We always update people on our work. That’s how you can get involved.

You can also DM me if you have an idea or want to collaborate on a partnership—maybe even host an event with us. There’s also a contact form on ClimateRevival.org and our website, Antonique.com.

There are many ways to connect, and I do my best to respond. However, the website and Instagram are probably the best ways to stay engaged.

Jacobsen: Antonique, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate it. It was so great to meet you.

Smith: Yes, you too! This was wonderful. Thank you so much!

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Middle East’s AI Revolution: Ethics, Innovation, and Global Impact

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/07

Kham Inthirath is the Founder and CEO of Compound Effect LLC, a leader in AI-driven business transformation. With over two decades of expertise in marketing and consulting, Kham leverages AI to enhance branding, customer experience, and revenue growth. His visionary approach reduces content creation time and redefines business automation. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are leading AI innovation, implementing ethical principles like accountability, transparency, and human-centeredness. Initiatives such as NEOM and Digital Dubai emphasize sustainability and governance. With AI rapidly transforming society, global collaboration is essential. Businesses and nations must act now to address human rights, sustainability, and digital transformation.

Scott Douglas Jacobsne: How do ethical foundations of AI development in the Middle East reflect responsible innovation and global leadership? Also, how does the Middle East’s dynamic approach to AI deal with contemporary challenges, cultural shifts?

Kham Inthirath: There’s a lot going on around the world. The UAE and Saudi Arabia are leading the line when it comes to innovation, particularly in technology and AI. There have been significant steps put toward the adoption of AI thanks to such measures as the UAE’s AI ethics principles and such tools as the Digital Dubai Ethical AI Toolkit.

Saudi Arabia’s Internet Governance Forum (IGF) came up with six ethical principles for AI governance: accountability, transparency, fairness, privacy protection, sustainability, and human-centeredness. They are extremely critical because AI is going to turn the tide on everything, from how we live to the future of work. So, the populace needs to comprehend how AI is creeping into every fabric of our lives.

In addition to all this, projects such as Saudi Arabia’s NEOM (a smart city initiative) are integrating AI to necessarily prioritize sustainability and innovation, while at the same time tackling data governance issues. There is a lot of emphasis on these areas, and they put much more good work that should be followed closely.

What’s going on in the Middle East should provide additional impetus for more global collaboration. As nations, we are still in the process of determining the legislation, regulations, and governance of AI, and everyone is waiting to see how everything unfolds. Europe has started to put national policies in place, and the U.S. has begun to do just that. However, with changes of administration, we are still not clear on how all of that would unfold, especially with key players such as Elon Musk posing.

We are all still learning about these developments, and my hope is that business does not adopt a passive ‘wait’ this time around. The AI revolution is moving forward at a dizzying pace, and there can be no holdouts. Action must be taken and very soon. It is crucial that organizations, countries, and individual actors in whatever form take measures moving forward while we still grapple with questions related to human rights, sustainability, and digital transformation.

It is captivating to note how the Middle East is taking these challenges on board, while one example of addressing this is the involvement of Microsoft with the Good Lab in Abu Dhabi, working with global partners to solve challenges such as food security and climate resilience with AI. So much is taking place, and I look forward to seeing how this will unfold.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Kham.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

A Comprehensive on Global Gender Parity

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/06

Irina Tsukerman, a New York-based attorney and strategic advisor on human rights and security, explains that while international indices—such as those from the WEF, UNDP, and OECD—provide useful metrics for gender equality, the real challenges lie in the social, legal, and economic conditions that shape women’s lives. She contrasts extreme examples like Afghanistan’s oppressive gender apartheid and China’s One-Child Policy—which led to forced abortions, skewed gender ratios, and long-term economic instability—with more progressive policies seen in Nordic countries. Policies that restrict reproductive freedom, enforce traditional gender roles, or impose financial penalties for childlessness have consistently resulted in unintended negative consequences, including declining birth rates, higher maternal mortality, and economic hardship. Both agree that demographic challenges cannot be solved solely through statistical mandates or top-down interventions. Instead, they advocate for enhancing personal agency, improving work-life balance, and providing affordable childcare and robust parental leave. Ultimately, Tsukerman emphasizes that having and raising children is a personal choice and that practical, community-based policies must be supported rather than imposed through coercive state measures.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are joined by the highly intelligent Irina Tsukerman. Irina is a New York-based national security and human rights attorney who leads Scarab Rising, Inc., a strategic advisory firm. She was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2009 and has been a practicing attorney. Irina holds a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Fordham University School of Law. She works extensively on foreign affairs, Middle East policy, counterterrorism, intelligence, cybersecurity, and international security.

Her writings have been featured in numerous international publications, including The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the Kyiv Post, and Trends Research & Advisory. She has provided expert analysis for various media outlets and think tanks. The Jewish Week named her a “36 Under 36” honoree, recognizing her leadership. Irina is fluent in multiple languages.

Her expertise includes cybersecurity, energy security, influence campaigns, intelligence analysis, strategic communications, and global media. She has also made numerous media appearances and published extensive analyses on these subjects. Today, we will discuss some of these key topics. Thank you for joining me in this perennial and highly relevant conversation.

Numerous organizations, rankings, and indexes are designed to assess gender parity across different countries. While these are qualitative rather than absolute measures, they provide useful indicators. Some of the most well-known include:

The World Economic Forum (WEF) and its Global Gender Gap Index
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and its Gender Inequality Index
UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and its Gender Parity Index
The European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and its Gender Equality Index
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and its Social Institutions and Gender Index
Equal Measures 2030 and the SDG Gender Index
UN Women, which works on gender-related policy research but does not publish a specific Global Gender Parity Index

Many organizations and individuals globally are deeply invested in gender equality. Even in countries with repressive policies or cultural norms that restrict both women and men, awareness of these issues continues to grow.

With that in mind, when you think about these metrics and gender parity as a whole, what comes to mind? How do you view qualitative measurements like those I just mentioned?

Irina Tsukerman: Generally, when discussing gender parity and women’s rights, several key factors come into play. The most fundamental is equal protection under the law—the ability of women to access employment opportunities, including roles in government and senior private-sector positions.

Other essential considerations include gender-based violence, legal protections against discrimination, and policies affecting education, healthcare, and economic empowerment. Social and cultural influences also shape women’s access to education, professional opportunities, and personal freedoms.

However, gender equality is defined differently by different people. There are diverse political and ideological perspectives on the issue—even among women. Some argue that gender should not be used as a primary category of analysis, while others believe that these metrics remain essential for tracking progress and addressing disparities. I do believe these indices have value. Measuring specific factors is important, but the methodology used to measure them is equally critical in ensuring accuracy and meaningful analysis.

Jacobsen: But some things—like legal protections, gender-based violence issues, and similar matters—are pretty cut and dry. I do not think they should be particularly controversial. However, cultural, national, and regional differences exist in how people view these issues.

What do you make of these cultural, national, and regional differences regarding what we might call the question of women or the status of women, where different cultures, countries, and regions tend to provide different answers?

Tsukerman: The first question is to what extent women can participate in decision-making processes concerning their status. Women’s ability to engage in these discussions is severely restricted in some cultures and societies.

To use the most extreme example, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan enforces absolute gender apartheid. Women are denied basic rights, including access to healthcare, education, and even the ability to appear in public spaces without severe restrictions. The entire country is subject to laws that fundamentally erase women from public life. While this is an extreme case, we can contrast it with countries like Finland and other Scandinavian nations, where strict provisions ensure women’s representation in government positions and corporate leadership, mandating female participation in key decision-making.

Most countries in the world fall somewhere between these two extremes. The United States is a particularly interestingexample because women’s status can be analyzed through multiple dimensions, such as political participation, economic opportunities, healthcare access, cultural norms, and public opinion trends. Urban versus rural divides, ethnic and religious backgrounds, and regional differences create a complex landscape for assessing women’s rights. In many ways, the US is a microcosm of the broader international debate on gender equality.

Women in the United States fare well compared to many other places worldwide. By most metrics, they rank in the upper tier. However, socioeconomic disparities remain a concern, particularly for women in lower-income brackets who face challenges related to healthcare, economic stability, and educational opportunities. Gender-based violence and abuse, while present in all social classes, tend to be more prevalent among lower-income communities, which is a pattern observed globally.

Despite economic fluctuations over the years, the US has a large and growing middle class, and women have continued to rise in social, financial, and political influence. Women’s representation in leadership roles—whether in business, politics, or other areas—has increased steadily. By most global standards, the US ranks relatively high in these categories.

Jacobsen: Beyond statistical metrics, there are also key international legal frameworks that outline women’s rights. Some of the most important documents include:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) (1979)
The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (1995) is updated periodically every five years, this year being one of the update years.

These documents establish international principles regarding gender equality, but their implementation varies widely across different countries. Some nations fully embrace these standards, while others reject or only partially enforce them.

While significant progress has been made, women’s global status remains highly dependent on political will, economic structures, and cultural dynamics.

The International Labour Organization (ILO) has conventions on gender equality. There is also the Equal Remuneration Convention, the Discrimination Convention, and the Violence and Harassment Convention. Additionally, gender equality is incorporated into the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which succeeded the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

So, at an international level, we have various declarations and frameworks to promote gender equality. At the very least, many countries commit to these goals through policy initiatives or rhetorical support.

From a geopolitical perspective, do most countries that support these principles genuinely intend to implement them? Or do they merely pay lip service to these ideals without taking meaningful action, even if progress is slow?

Tsukerman: That is a key question, and two separate issues are at play. First, the concept becomes diluted when everything is framed as a “right”—whether a human right, a woman’s right, or another category. Suppose too many goals and priorities are stacked into broad, aspirational categories. In that case, achieving them all becomes difficult—if not impossible. Even when efforts are well-intentioned, overcategorization leads to a fragmentation of focus and resources. The result is that little progress is made on any front.

Second, while many developing countries genuinely try to improve gender equality, the definition of “improvement” varies significantly across cultures, economic conditions, and political systems. Some nations prioritize certain reforms over others, depending on historical context, economic constraints, and social attitudes.

That said, there are clear cases of bad-faith actors—countries where governments officially endorse gender equality while simultaneously enforcing repressive laws that severely restrict women’s rights. In these cases, rhetoric is used as a public relations tool while state policies actively disenfranchise women. These countries tend to be easy to identify because their laws—whether restricting women’s movement, employment, education, or civil liberties—speak for themselves.

I would give the benefit of the doubt in cases where no formal legal restrictions exist. However, cultural, economic, or structural barriers still hinder progress. Some governments may lack the resources or struggle with deeply ingrained cultural norms, making reforms difficult to implement despite genuine efforts. These countries may be slow-moving in their progress, but at least they are trying to find practical pathways forward.

Jacobsen: Now, turning to the United States, we will get to the issue of “tech bro culture” shortly, but first, let’s look at the historical legal framework shaping women’s rights in the country.

The Seneca Falls Convention (1848) marked the first formal call for women’s suffrage and legal equality in the US, leading to a series of landmark legislative changes:

The Nineteenth Amendment (1920) granted women the right to vote.
The Equal Pay Act (1963) mandated equal pay for equal work.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (1964) prohibited gender discrimination in employment.
Title IX (1972) prohibited gender discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.
Roe v. Wade (1973)—which established federal protections for abortion rights—was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) after 49 years.
The Violence Against Women Act (1994) provided federal support for addressing gender-based violence.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (2009) strengthened protections against wage discrimination based on gender.

So, in addition to the international frameworks, we see that even within a single country like the US, progress has been incremental—sometimes advancing and sometimes rolling back. This raises an important point: Does excessive categorization and broad aspirational language slow progress by making goals harder to achieve?

While global conversations around gender parity often rely on idealistic declarations, practical policy implementation remains uneven. The challenge is balancing ambition with feasibility, ensuring that legal protections translate into real-world impact rather than merely symbolic commitments.

We see a similar pattern internationally regarding the wealthiest countries in the world—places where one might assume that economic prosperity would naturally lead to greater freedoms and equity. While, in theory, wealth should provide more opportunities and reduce systemic barriers, wage inequality and wealth disparities still prevent the fair distribution of resources.

This leads to a familiar cycle: declarations, legislative acts, and official statements that sound promising on paper, yet their implementation remains slow and uneven in many areas. How do you interpret this pattern within the United States, where we see a domestic reflection of what happens globally?

Tsukerman: The United States relies on constitutional law as the foundation for all legal rights and protections. From the perspective of constitutional originalism, one could argue that the constitutional framework already implicitly guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens—regardless of gender, race, or background.

If one takes that position, additional statutory provisions, such as the Equal Pay Act, may be considered unnecessary or even measures that could backfire in certain ways. Suppose equal protection is already established at the constitutional level. Further legislative interventions might be redundant or create unintended consequences in that case.

However, implementing any law depends heavily on the specific legal language and how it is applied in practice. Even within the broadest constitutional provisions, there will always be variation in interpretation and enforcement across different states and jurisdictions. Case law naturally evolves, and new technologies, social changes, and legal challenges constantly prompt reinterpretations of existing legal frameworks.

Take Roe v. Wade, for example. The central issue was privacy—a constitutional concept that became highly controversial because it was applied specifically to abortion. This led to heated debates about whether the case was truly about privacy or if abortion itself should be the focal point of the discussion.

Those who saw it as a privacy issue argued that the ruling should extend far beyond abortion, influencing other aspects of personal autonomy and government intervention.
Others believed that if abortion was the main concern, then more voices—including legislators, medical professionals, and even the father of the unborn child—should have a say in the matter rather than it being an issue of a woman’s sole discretion.

This illustrates how legal debates often evolve far beyond their original scope. A case that begins with one specific issue can morph into a broader ideological and legal battle—and sometimes into something entirely different from its original intent.

Additionally, when new rights are claimed, or existing rights are challenged, disputes arise about government overreach, private versus public interests, and the balance of legal protections. These debates often lead to inconsistent enforcement and uneven application of laws nationwide.

For example, what is considered a “successful” gender equality policy in Texas may be viewed as the exact opposite in New York—and vice versa. This wide divergence in interpretations and applications contributes to legal uncertainty and makes implementation highly contested and regionally variable.

Jacobsen: Now, I’d like to turn to another important aspect of this discussion: the role of ultra-wealthy individuals in shaping policy and social discourse. You have observed, and I have also noted, that there is a phenomenon among billionaires and high-net-worth individuals who own or control significant portions of high-tech industries in the United States—and, in some cases, internationally.

These individuals have a deep interest in demographics and population trends. While I have not come across explicit cases where their focus is race-based, their obsession with demographic shifts, population control, and societal restructuring raises important ethical and legal questions.

I have typically seen a strong focus on numbers in these discussions. Analysts and commentators often frame the issue regarding replacement rates, stating that a sustainable birth rate requires 2.1 children per couple—accounting for two parents plus an additional 0.1 to compensate for premature deaths.

In contrast, many developed countries report sub-replacement fertility rates—figures such as 1.5, 1.4, or even below 1.0. I was told that in South Korea, for example, the rate is as low as 0.7 or 0.8. These numbers are often discussed abstractly without addressing the sociocultural, economic, or political realities contributing to declining birth rates. Before we get into the existential implications, what do you make of this hyperfocus among technology entrepreneurs (“tech bros”) on birth rates and demographics?

Tsukerman: To be clear, technology industry leaders are not the only ones obsessed with this issue. A strong anti-Malthusian strain of thought—particularly among conservatives—argues that population decline is an existential crisis. On one side, Malthusian thinkers claim that the Earth’s resources are finite and cannot sustain continued population growth. Conversely, pronatalist advocates believe societies will face economic and social collapse if humanity does not reproduce at a certain rate.

I understand the concern. Each country is sovereign, and a high birth rate in one country does not “balance out” a declining birth rate in another. However, no government, billionaire, or ideological movement can control what individuals or families choose to do regarding reproduction, adoption, or family planning. This fixation on demographic engineering is unsettling. It raises questions about personal autonomy, social planning, and the role of government or elites in influencing private decisions.

Of course, it is reasonable for societies to discuss what policies or conditions are most conducive to family stability and child-rearing. That is a legitimate debate and part of the broader social contract between citizens and their government. Discussions about family policies, childcare support, education, and economic incentives are worthwhile.

However, when random individuals lecture others online about when and how they should marry or have children, it feels intrusive and out of place. While macro-level concerns about demographic trends are valid, individual reproductive choices are deeply personal. No amount of generalized rhetoric is going to sway people’s deeply held decisions about marriage and parenthood.

Repeating broad demographic concerns in banal, alarmist ways does not help move society in any productive direction. Suppose these advocates truly want to influence policy. In that case, they should focus on gathering data, polling the public, and understanding what practical support systems people need to feel more secure in starting families.

Short of serious policy discussions, these abstract debates achieve little. People who believe society can be planned from the top down greatly overestimate their control over human behaviour. History has proven this time and again—the Soviet Union, China, and other collectivist regimes attempted large-scale social engineering, and it backfired tremendously.

Jacobsen: Do large, centrally planned societies—like China under the One-Child Policy or the Soviet Union—tend to collapse under their weight because human societies are too complex to be pre-planned in this way?

Tsukerman: The One-Child Policy led to a massive demographic decline in China. Women were often forced to undergo abortions, and the policy created long-term economic and social imbalances.

Given the cultural preference for boys over girls, China’s One-Child Policy led to severe demographic imbalances. Families disproportionately chose to abort female fetuses, give up girls for adoption, or, in some cases, engage in infanticide. This has resulted in a highly skewed gender ratio, with millions of men unable to find partners. This long-term consequence still affects Chinese society today.

In contrast, the Soviet Union faced different pressures. While there was less direct gender-based population control, economic and social conditions made large families less desirable. The heavy burden of state control, economic hardship, and forced labour policies discouraged people from having more children.

If a society places significant financial and social burdens on individuals, people will be less inclined to have more children. So, contrary to some arguments, traditional societies did not necessarily lead to higher birth rates if economic and social conditions were unfavourable.

Jacobsen: Before we move on, do you have any final thoughts on the stability of planned economies or the long-term viability of China’s demographic policies?

Tsukerman: The failure of planned economies and social engineering is critical. China’s One-Child Policy was not just a policy failure—it was a demographic catastrophe. Beyond the obvious gender imbalance, the policy created long-term economic instability, an aging population, and a shrinking workforce.

The issue was not just that China mismanaged its economy—it was also the misery index of life under authoritarian rule, coupled with rigid social controls, that made family expansion undesirable.

Historically, China’s agrarian economy required large families to work in the fields. The high child mortality rate and lack of medical advancements meant that families had to have multiple children to ensure that some survived into adulthood. Additionally, sons were preferred because they were expected to carry on family names and provide for aging parents. This cultural norm continued well into the 20th century, reinforcing gender disparities.

In contrast, the Soviet Union had a more mixed economy—some regions remained agrarian, but urbanization and industrialization changed population dynamics. Unlike China, territorial expansion and militarization were major in population growth.

For much of its history, the Soviet Union was either at war or preparing for war, leading to an emphasis on military-age male populations rather than balanced demographic policies. Additionally, harsh living conditions, forced collectivization, and political purges contributed to population instability.

Despite its large territorial expanse, much of the Soviet Union was difficult to inhabit—regions like Siberia were sparsely populated due to harsh climates and poor infrastructure. Meanwhile, economic and political power was highly concentrated in Moscow, leaving other regions underdeveloped and fueling competition for urban living spaces. This uneven distribution of resources, prestige, and opportunities led to high social stratification and further discouraged large families.

Jacobsen: In China and the Soviet Union, government policies failed to account for long-term demographic sustainability. Centralized attempts to engineer population growth or suppression often backfired, proving that human societies are too complex to be rigidly pre-planned.

Despite these failures in gender equity and population control, did these societies achieve anything positive regarding gender parity? While there were issues with sex-selective abortion, family name traditions, and patrilineal inheritance, were there any notable advances for women in these systems?

Tsukerman: Confucian traditions in China historically fostered strong family units. The emphasis on filial piety created a deep respect for elders and contributed to community cohesion, making society more durable and stable—at least outside government-imposed population control policies.

I don’t necessarily agree with the Confucian hierarchy, but it provided a certain level of protection for older people and ensured social continuity for a long time. The emphasis on tradition, respect, and structure made Chinese society resilient. However, it also reinforced cultural conservatism, which often placed women in subordinate roles.

When communism took over, it theoretically promoted gender equality—but in reality, it did not necessarily improve conditions for women. While the Communist Party outwardly claimed to champion women’s rights, its political and social structures remained deeply patriarchal.

For example, under Xi Jinping’s leadership, the inner circle of the most powerful figures in China consists entirely of men. Women who had been rising through the ranks of government and party leadership have been systematically purged.

Jacobsen: When you say “eliminated,” do you mean purged politically?

Tsukerman: Yes, purged in a political sense. I am not suggesting that these women were murdered, but politically, they were removed from power and denied further advancement.

In contrast, in the Soviet Union, World War II created both opportunities and necessities for women to enter the workforce. The perception that women had greater equality was not due to progressive ideology—it was simply a byproduct of war and necessity.

Millions of Soviet men were killed on the battlefield, many due to Stalin’s reckless military strategy, which relied on human wave attacks—sending vast numbers of undertrained and ill-equipped soldiers into battle to overwhelm the enemy through sheer numbers. This cost millions of lives but ultimately contributed to the Soviet victory in World War II.

Because of these massive losses, women had to take up jobs in factories and essential industries, filling roles that men had previously held. However, this was not a result of cultural progressivism or genuine gender equality initiatives—it was a direct consequence of wartime labour shortages.

Despite communist rhetoric about equality, women were denied access to prestigious institutions, such as KGB training academies, until the 1960s or later. In elite circles, women were often discouraged from divorcing Communist Party members because divorce was seen as a political liability for male officials.

Jacobsen: So, was divorce essentially social suicide for women married to men in high-ranking positions?

Tsukerman: Exactly. Women were often trapped in marriages where their husbands were unfaithful, career-obsessed, or heavy drinkers. Yet, divorce was discouraged because it could damage the man’s political career. This left many women with few options outside of domestic responsibilities. While they did participate in the workforce, their social standing and opportunities remained limited compared to men.

Even where legal equality existed on paper, massive wealth disparities between Communist Party elites and the general population meant that women in lower social classes faced harsh living conditions. Unlike in the United States, Soviet women could not access modern household appliances that could ease domestic labour, making daily life far more difficult. Ultimately, while communist regimes claimed to promote gender equality, their actual policies often reinforced gendered divisions, particularly in elite circles where men retained overwhelming control.

Household appliances like washing machines and dishwashers arrived in the Soviet Union much later than in the West. This meant that women had to do laundry by hand, wash dishes manually, and handle all household chores without modern conveniences.

In addition, child-rearing responsibilities fell almost entirely on women. Mothers were expected to help children with schoolwork and manage household affairs, while men were rarely expected to contribute.

As a result, women essentially worked two full-time jobs—one in the formal workforce and one at home. There was also a strong cultural expectation that they had to be accommodating to their husbands in all ways, including tolerating infidelity.

Divorce was rarely a viable option, as women often received minimal alimony (if they were lucky) and faced significant economic hardships due to low wages. This system trapped many women in unhappy marriages, making it difficult for them to achieve any real financial or social independence.

This system was not beneficial for women in any real sense.

Jacobsen: We mentioned the One-Child Policy in China. I did not realize that it ran from 1979 to 2015—literally decades. That policy has now created China’s current demographic crisis.

India is a country geographically contiguous with China. Although India is not often discussed in the same breath as China, it also ranks poorly in many gender-related metrics, including women’s participation, equality, and personal safety.

India has a massive population—the only country in the billions still experiencing population growth. China, by contrast, reached its peak population in 2021 and is now declining.

What about practices like dowry, child marriage, high rates of sexual violence, and low female labour force participation?

By formal economy, I mean the paid workforce since women primarily do a huge amount of unpaid labour in most societies.

Tsukerman: India is extremely diverse, with many cultures and traditions clashing within a single national framework. While some harmful gender-based practices are being phased out, progress remains slow and uneven.

The Indian government has taken steps to combat child marriage, which used to be widespread. In some segments of society, widows were historically expected to die after their husbands, often through ritual self-immolation.

Jacobsen: Is that Sati?

Tsukerman: Yes, that is the historical practice of Sati, where widows were burned alive on their husband’s funeral pyres. While Sati has been banned, it was once a real and horrifying phenomenon that the Indian government actively worked to eliminate—with relative success.

That said, sexual harassment and sexual violence remain serious issues. These problems require far more resources and enforcement, but they have not been a top priority for the government.

Instead, India’s primary focus has been economic growth, deregulation, and business development. This has taken precedence over social issues like gender-based violence and legal protections for women.

In addition, India has one of the most bureaucratic governments in the world. This slows progress in nearly every area—not just gender equality. The government is not necessarily deliberately keeping women down; its priorities have been elsewhere, focusing on economic expansion over social reform.

There has not been sufficient incentive to focus on the greater inclusion of women in India’s workforce. However, as educated women in Western countries like the UK and the US form stronger professional and cultural ties with India, this will likely improve over time.

India’s rapid economic growth—especially in sectors like the digital economy—creates new opportunities for women. In industries where remote work is an option, such as technology, digital retail, and online services, women may find it easier to participate without facing traditional social and mobility restrictions. As India modernized, many of these barriers could be overcome relatively quickly.

Addressing sexual violence, however, requires far more resources. It demands extensive community engagement, legal reforms, law enforcement training, education initiatives, and cultural shifts. This is not something that can be changed overnight. Still, progress is possible through international cooperation, best practice sharing, and local grassroots efforts.

Women must be equipped with tools to advocate for themselves in civil society and within political parties, coalitions, and local governments. Change must happen at the grassroots level and through top-down policy initiatives. More importantly, it must be a decision society makes, including local communities.

One of the biggest challenges in India is the vast disparity between highly educated urban populations and rural villages still struggling with basic infrastructure—such as sanitation, clean drinking water, and reliable electricity. When so many fundamental survival issues remain unaddressed, issues related to women’s empowerment often take a backseat.

Jacobsen: The next most populous country in the world is the United States, which we have already covered to some extent. Let’s turn to Indonesia, a country where traditional customs often limit women’s public participation. In many regions, women are far less visible in public life, making representation a significant challenge.

Not everyone needs to see themselves in leadership or public roles to feel motivated or inspired. However, representation is crucial for some in shaping aspirations and personal development. For those individuals, seeing women in leadership positions matters significantly. For others, it may not be a deciding factor in their ambitions.

Like India, Indonesia also faces issues related to child marriage and early marriage, as well as wage inequality and employment discrimination. These challenges are not unique to Indonesia, but they are structural obstacles that require policy intervention.

Another critical issue is access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare services. This factor is particularly impactful because a lack of reproductive autonomy can lead to lifelong consequences that restrict a woman’s choices and opportunities. Without control over their reproductive health, many women face social and economic constraints that dictate the trajectory of their lives. Given this broader context, what is your perspective on Indonesia’s gender landscape?

Tsukerman: Several factors shape gender dynamics in Indonesia. One of the most significant influences is the growing power of conservative religious parties, which have gained substantial influence in wider political discussions—particularly in certain provinces.

At the same time, Indonesia’s rapidly expanding technology sector presents new opportunities for women. Despite underrepresentation in STEM fields, women can thrive in digital retail, e-commerce, and online services, which provide alternative pathways to financial independence.

Although women’s overall representation remains low, I expect significant growth in female participation within Indonesia’s tech sector. Innovation-driven industries are more flexible and can offer women more opportunities to succeed than traditional sectors that cultural and structural barriers may still influence. When discussing traditional societies, healthcare and essential services are the most urgent and easiest areas to address. This is because health directly impacts the entire family unit.

If a mother does not have access to healthcare, she cannot adequately care for the household. This leads to negative ripple effects—the family structure weakens, children suffer, and overall well-being declines. Healthcare is a fundamental necessity and is often the most effective entry point for broader societal improvements.

From a policy and advocacy standpoint, the best approach in traditional societies is to start with basic survival needs, such as healthcare and sanitation, and then gradually expand to education and economic empowerment. Ensuring that women—especially those who are divorced, widowed, abandoned, or responsible for elderly parents—have access to education and financial stability is essential.

In my experience, pragmatic arguments tend to be far more persuasive in traditional societies than ideological debates about rights, gender equality, and human dignity. While abstract ideals are important, practical, community-based solutions resonate more effectively with local populations and policymakers.

The most effective strategy is to begin with tangible, immediate improvements, such as increasing access to healthcare, and then work with local legislators, grassroots organizations, and female advocates to expand the conversation toward long-term reforms.

Jacobsen: Now, shifting focus to Pakistan. We often hear about high-profile cases, such as Gulalai Ismail and Saba Ismail, who have been prominent figures in women’s and children’s rights activism.

Gulalai Ismail and Saba Ismail have played a key role in advocating for marginalized women and girls. After facing persecution, Gulalai fled Pakistan.

These are extraordinary cases—young activists who founded women’s rights organizations as teenagers and have remained deeply involved in human rights efforts ever since. However, their stories do not exist in isolation; they reflect a broader societal context in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s Pashtun population, which makes up a large minority, has historically been at the center of cultural and political controversy. Women in tribal and rural areas often face systemic marginalization due to deeply entrenched patriarchal norms.

Some of the most pressing gender-based issues in Pakistan include:

Restricted mobility and social exclusion due to tribal and feudal structures
Violence against women is often disguised under the term “honour” killings.
Educational barriers, particularly for rural girls, who face lower school enrollment rates
Legal discrimination, particularly in inheritance laws and court testimony, where women’s rights are significantly weaker than men’s

At first glance, Pakistan shares some similarities with India and Indonesia in terms of women’s rights challenges. However, its sociopolitical structure makes it unique.

Tsukerman: Yes, Pakistan’s gender inequality landscape is similar to India and Indonesia, but it is also distinct in several key ways.

One major difference is Pakistan’s deep tribal divisions, which have more influence over governance than in India. While India also has tribal communities and inter-group conflicts, they do not play as dominant a role in shaping women’s rights and regional governance as they do in Pakistan’s tribal belts.

Pakistan has large, semi-autonomous tribal areas where the government has little authority. Some of these areas operate under Taliban-like structures, where extremely conservative tribal customs dictate women’s roles.

In these regions, government intervention is minimal, and women face extreme restrictions on education, work, and personal freedoms. These areas have been historically difficult to govern, making it challenging for national policies on women’s rights to take hold.

Unlike in India and Indonesia, where governments have at least made stronger legal commitments to women’s rights, Pakistan’s legal system remains highly restrictive, with significant barriers to gender equality under both civil and religious law.

Ultimately, the combination of feudal power structures, religious conservatism, tribal autonomy, and government inaction makes women’s rights progress in Pakistan particularly complex.

In addition to tribal and feudal structures, religion plays a significant role in shaping women’s rights and societal expectations in Pakistan.

A conservative, fundamentalist form of Islam is practiced in many parts of the country, particularly in rural and tribal areas. However, in major cities, the atmosphere is somewhat more open, allowing greater flexibility for women in professional and social spaces.

Despite these challenges, women in Pakistan participate in traditional professions, such as teaching, nursing, and medicine. Compared to Afghanistan, Pakistan is far less restrictive, but deeply ingrained traditional expectations still limit women’s freedom and career options.

Interestingly, one of the most effective ways for women to advance professionally is through security and military roles. Women in these sectors are often highly committed to proving their worth, much like the “tech bro” phenomenon in the tech industry. Serving in the security sector allows women to demonstrate patriotism, dedication, and competence, earning them respect in conservative circles that might otherwise be denied.

Ironically, many women who rise to prominence in government and security roles tend to be more conservative than their male counterparts. This is likely because they feel an added pressure to demonstrate ideological loyalty to be accepted and taken seriously.

The government and military sectors provide the most room for growth for women in Pakistan, and some of the most visible female figures emerge from these fields. However, Pakistan’s political landscape is highly fractured, making systematic reform difficult.

Tsukerman: Unlike India, which—despite being a messy democracy—has clear political parties with defined positions, Pakistan’s political system is much more fragmented.

Pakistan operates more like a collection of competing factions, almost resembling “states within a state.” The intelligence services, military, and private sector are intertwined, with various power centers controlling different aspects of governance and business.

Foreign influence further complicates the situation. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Turkey, and Qatar all exert influence over Pakistan’s political and economic landscape. Additionally, the military is divided into factions, often working against one another rather than presenting a unified front.

This fractured governance structure makes it extremely difficult to implement nationwide reforms related to women’s rights. Policies are often introduced inconsistently, enforced unevenly, and sometimes backfire due to conflicting power struggles.

Even Pakistan’s Supreme Court has been unpredictable, attempting to advance progressive rulings in some cases while also upholding regressive laws, such as blasphemy laws, in others. This contradictory legal and political system hinders social development and stability.

At the same time, Pakistan’s growing tech sector, fueled by young entrepreneurs, is pushing for social liberalization in certain areas. However, the country’s massive debt, deep political polarization, and economic instability make any systematic change—whether related to women’s rights or other reforms—difficult to implement shortly.

Jacobsen: Now, moving to Nigeria—an entirely different region and culture with gender-related challenges. In Nigeria, women’s issues seem less systematically embedded in legal or tribal structures and more individually impactful. Some of the most pressing concerns include:

High rates of domestic violence
High rates of sexual assault
Economic barriers preventing girls from accessing education
Limited financial resources and economic opportunities for women

In many ways, these issues mirror the concerns emphasized in North American gender equality discourse, but in far more extreme forms—particularly when it comes to violence and economic disparity. How do you interpret Nigeria’s gender dynamics, particularly when considering the differences between the northern, Muslim-majority regions and the southern, Christian-majority regions?

Tsukerman: Nigeria presents a unique gender crisis that is not as common in other countries we’ve discussed—the issue of mass abductions of girls. Mass abductions of girls in Nigeria are still happening today. In most cases, the situation is resolved through negotiations and ransom payments, leading to the eventual release of the victims. However, these incidents continue to occur, primarily due to ongoing raids on villages, a weak law enforcement system, rampant corruption, and poor security infrastructure.

This lack of protection is not limited to specific regions—it is a nationwide issue. Nigeria is also deeply polarized along ethnic, religious, and economic lines, which further complicates efforts to address gender-based violence and inequality.

The Christian-majority regions of the country contain most of Nigeria’s natural resources, which has fueled separatist movements with foreign involvement. Many Christian communities feel economically and politically marginalized, especially when it comes to resource distribution and government representation.

At the same time, Iranian influence has been increasing, with attempts to convert segments of Nigeria’s Muslim population to Shia Islam, further exacerbating religious tensions. Additionally, external tribal groups from peripheral areas attempt to expand their influence within Nigeria, adding another layer of instability.

Nigeria also faces a deep divide between rural and urban populations. In tribal areas, traditional customs restrict women’s roles. In contrast, in urban centers, highly educated, ambitious men and women pursue opportunities in business and politics. Many of these individuals immigrate to the West for education. Some return to Nigeria to assume high-ranking positions but are typically from wealthier families. Lower-income families, in contrast, lack these opportunities, reinforcing economic inequality.

At the heart of Nigeria’s challenges are systemic government corruption, a lack of political will for reform, and minimal foreign investment in resolving social issues. While the US, Arab states, and China consider Nigeria a key security and trade partner, none of these major players have prioritized addressing Nigeria’s internal gender and economic disparities. This neglect has allowed many of the country’s deep-rooted problems to persist without meaningful intervention.

Jacobsen: Moving to Brazil, the largest country in Latin America, we see a different gender-based crisis. Unlike Nigeria’s mass abductions, Brazil is distinguished by its alarmingly high rates of femicide.

Gender-based violence in Brazil manifests in several ways:

Femicide rates are among the highest in the world, with thousands of women murdered each year due to gender-based violence.
Women earn less than men and hold fewer leadership positions—a common global issue but still significant in Brazil.
Abortion laws are extremely restrictive, leading to unsafe and illegal procedures, despite sufficient national wealth to provide safe and equitable access to reproductive healthcare.

Brazil presents an interesting paradox—economic resources exist to support gender equality initiatives, yet legal and cultural barriers continue to restrict women’s rights. The combination of high rates of femicide and lack of reproductive autonomy creates a particularly difficult environment for women.

How much of this do you attribute to machismo culture, and what other key factors shape these dynamics in Brazil?

Tsukerman: Government corruption is a significant cause of Brazil’s gender-based issues. Both major political parties have been involved in scandals and power struggles, preventing meaningful policy progress on gender-related issues.

For example:

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) previously served time for corruption before re-election.
Former President Jair Bolsonaro failed to deliver on economic promises and attempted a January 6-style coup and is now under investigation and barred from leaving the country.

Brazil’s political landscape has become increasingly polarized, with little room for moderate or reform-driven efforts. Instead, much of the country remains trapped in economic instability, crime, and ineffective governance.

One of the most pressing social issues—the favelas (informal settlements plagued by poverty and gang violence)—has been largely ignored by successive governments. Without serious economic and security interventions, these areas remain dangerous environments for women, where gender-based violence, economic precarity, and lack of access to healthcare continue unchecked.

Ultimately, while machismo culture plays a role in reinforcing gender inequality, the bigger issue in Brazil is government corruption and institutional failure. Until these structural problems are addressed, it will be difficult to make sustained progress in protecting women’s rights and improving gender equity.

Organized crime is one of the biggest obstacles to gender equality in Brazil. The presence of powerful criminal syndicates across the country reinforces systemic discrimination against women while also amplifying the most extreme and toxic aspects of machismo culture.

When criminal organizations exert significant influence over society, violence becomes normalized—including violence against women. In this context, femicide is not just an act of domestic violence but a power move, reinforcing male dominance within criminal structures. The devaluation of women in these environments is not just cultural—it is a direct consequence of a lawless system that thrives on brutality and impunity.

Education and economic restructuring are necessary to dismantle this cycle. Brazil’s vast informal settlements—the favelas—serve as incubators for entrenched criminal cultures, where poverty, lawlessness, and lack of upward mobility prevent meaningful change. Without systematic efforts to address these socioeconomic conditions, these deep-rooted problems will persist.

Despite the urgency of these issues, there is little political will to address them. Neither major political faction in Brazil has seriously emphasized reforming these social structures. Instead, Brazil’s political landscape has been shaped by populism, corruption, and short-term electoral strategies, which benefit from maintaining an easily manipulable electorate rather than enacting long-term structural changes.

Another complex layer in Brazil’s sociopolitical environment is the weaponization of indigenous activism by various interest groups. This complicates efforts to balance indigenous rights with national economic and political concerns, creating tensions that further distract from gender equality issues.

Ultimately, Brazil’s social fabric is shaped by corruption, criminal influence, and populist governance, making it difficultto implement systematic reforms in women’s rights and broader societal progress.

Jacobsen: Moving to Bangladesh, we see similar gender-related issues to those in Pakistan, India, and Indonesia. Traditional norms often confine women to domestic roles, and early marriage is common, even though there are legal prohibitions against child marriage.

Some of the major gender concerns in Bangladesh include:

Poor working conditions and low wages—a global issue but particularly severe in Bangladesh
High rates of domestic violence
Acid attacks, which are especially unique and devastating

Acid attacks stand out as a particularly brutal form of violence. The only other time I have encountered similar cases was through a colleague working to support individuals accused of witchcraft in parts of Africa.

In those cases, witchcraft allegations—often made against women and children—led to horrific attacks where perpetrators would throw acid on their victims, believing they were possessed or practicing sorcery. What makes acid attacks in Bangladesh different from these witchcraft-related assaults?

Tsukerman: Acid attacks in Bangladesh are a distinct phenomenon from the witchcraft-related violence seen in parts of Africa.

In Bangladesh, acid attacks are often a form of calculated, passive-aggressive violence rooted in deeply ingrained social hierarchies and suppressed hostility. Women are the primary targets, and men do not always perpetrate these attacks. In some cases, older women, such as mothers-in-law, are responsible.

This type of violence is unique because it is designed to destroy a woman’s life completely—both physically and socially. The perpetrators—whether bitter family members, rejected suitors, or individuals seeking revenge—use acid as a weapon to disfigure and isolate their victims permanently.

While Bangladesh’s government has historically been authoritarian, it has not actively encouraged acid attacks. Instead, this violence stems from a cultural structure where resentment, strict social hierarchies, and suppressed anger manifest in extreme forms of punishment.

Bangladesh’s legal system has taken steps to combat acid attacks. Still, enforcement remains weak, and social attitudes have slowly changed. Addressing this issue requires legal reforms and a fundamental shift in cultural attitudes toward women, power, and social status.

Acid attacks in Bangladesh are not just random acts of violence but part of a larger cultural problem that has been allowed to persist due to a lack of strong legal intervention and societal condemnation.

This phenomenon is rooted in a deeply ingrained culture of hostility, insecurity, and vindictiveness. There has not been a serious or sustained effort to confront and eradicate this toxic, spiteful behaviour, nor has it been legally exposed and made socially unacceptable to the degree necessary to deter future incidents.

It continues because it works—it instills fear, despair, and suffering; for some individuals, that is their only way of exerting power or deriving satisfaction. A society in which violent emotional outbursts are normalized as acceptable forms of conflict resolution is not healthy.

In most places, deliberately throwing acid on someone’s face would be seen as an extreme sociopathic act. However, in Bangladesh, it has become culturally normalized in some circles, turning it into a broader social issue rather than just isolated criminal behaviour.

To address this problem, targeted measures are needed, including stronger legal repercussions, increased social awareness campaigns, and efforts to shift cultural attitudes toward rational discourse and nonviolent conflict resolution.

Jacobsen: One more country: Mexico. In Mexico, a key cultural framework shaping gender roles is Marianismo—which venerates women for their virtue, purity, and devotion to traditional roles.

Many of the previous cases we’ve discussed—such as machismo-fueled violence, economic deprivation, and social inequality—involve forms of sexism that are overtly harmful and restrictive. Marianismo, by contrast, seems to align more with benevolent sexism, where women are exalted but simultaneously confined to rigid societal roles.

Mexico, like other Latin American nations, has high rates of gender-based killings (femicide), as well as:

Gender pay gaps
Limited leadership opportunities for women, despite recent high-profile female politicians
Restrictive and inconsistent access to reproductive healthcare and abortion

What are your thoughts on Mexico?

Tsukerman: Much of Mexico’s gender structure resembles medieval Europe before the Enlightenment. While Marianismo is a reverence for women, it does not necessarily benefit them. Historically, societies that “exalted” women this way often punished them harshly when they failed to live up to idealized roles.

Women were expected to embody purity, sacrifice, and selflessness, but whether they “succeeded” in this role was not up to them—society determined it. They had no control over their fate. Instead, a judgmental community decided whether they had fulfilled their prescribed “higher purpose.” Those who failed or deviated faced ostracization, violence, or even death.

This rigid societal expectation still manifests in modern Mexico, particularly in cases of gender-based violence. In societies where individual rights are not the foundation of governance—where emotion, tribalism, and social conformity outweigh rationality and legal protections—gender-based violence tends to be higher.

The more a society embraces reason, individual autonomy, and equal rights, the less gender-based violence it experiences. Education plays a crucial role, as does a broader cultural shift toward valuing logic and fairness over emotion-driven retribution and power struggles.

Jacobsen: I bring up these prior discussions on international contexts, powerful figures, and economic and social conditions to emphasize a crucial point:

Many of the most vocal figures discussing birth rates and demographics—all of whom are men—approach the issue purely from a statistical and economic perspective, completely disregarding the lived realities of the individuals who give birth.

Women disproportionately bear the burden of child-rearing, care work, and family responsibilities. Yet, these discussions rarely engage with the reasons why women make the reproductive choices they do. Instead, the conversation is reduced to abstract numbers, devoid of human context.

Some of the most well-known figures who have spoken about declining birth rates and demographic concerns:

Elon Musk (entrepreneur, pronatalist advocate)
Pavel Durov (founder of Telegram)
Mark Andreessen (venture capitalist)
J.D. Vance (Vice President of the United States)
Simone and Malcolm Collins (pronatalist activists)
Kevin Dolan (organizer of Natalist conferences)
Nigel Farage (British politician)
Donald Trump (former US President)
Fumio Kishida (Prime Minister of Japan)
Vladimir Putin (President of Russia)

Additionally, South Korea has made policy shifts, including downsizing its Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, reflecting broader institutional changes regarding gender policies and population concerns. The central question remains: Why do these discussions focus solely on statistics and economic models while ignoring the people’s real circumstances and personal choices behind the numbers?

Tsukerman: I would put Kishida and Putin in a slightly different category from the others but for distinct reasons. Japan’s demographic crisis is undeniable. Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world, and its population is shrinking rapidly. From both a social and economic perspective, this is a genuine crisis.

It is reasonable for a Japanese Prime Minister to be concerned about this trend. However, I am not convinced that any prime minister—even over multiple terms—can fully reverse such a long-term demographic shift. Policies can incentivize higher birth rates, but reversing deep-rooted social and economic trends is far more complicated than simply encouraging people to have more children.

Putin’s concern about demographics is also rooted in numbers, but his motives differ significantly. Russia has been in a state of war since 2014, and its current military engagement in Ukraine has cost over 800,000 lives. Beyond Russia’s broader demographic decline, Putin needs a continuous supply of non-disabled young men to fight in a war that may last for decades—outlasting even his own rule.

For this reason, Russia’s demographic concerns are directly linked to military strategy and national security. Putin’s policies are not just about keeping birth rates high—they are about ensuring a long-term supply of soldiers.

Jacobsen: What about the rest of the figures on the list, such as Trump, Vance, Farage, and Musk?

Tsukerman: With the rest of them, I am not convinced that their concern over birth rates is rooted in an actual crisis—at least not how it is for Japan or Russia.

Take Donald Trump, for example. The United States remains one of the most populous countries in the world. While the birth rate has fallen, it is nowhere near the demographic decline seen in Japan, South Korea, or the Czech Republic.

The US has a much slower population decline and benefits from higher immigration rates, making an immediate demographic collapse unlikely. While birth rates are falling, this is not an existential crisis for the US like other countries. I categorize the concerns of figures like Musk, Vance, and Farage as more ideological than urgent.

Jacobsen: While some may genuinely believe in the importance of reversing demographic trends, their framing of the issue often ignores the key question—why are people, particularly women, choosing not to have children in these numbers? Without addressing economic barriers, work-life balance, gender inequality, and access to healthcare, their rhetoric remains disconnected from reality.

Tsukerman: Whether Donald Trump’s policies will address declining birth rates remains to be seen. So far, I have not seen any concrete policy measures—aside from his recent support for easing access to IVF procedures—that would significantly impact demographic trends.

For families struggling with infertility, making IVF more accessible could certainly help. However, are infertility and the high cost of fertility treatments the primary driver of declining birth rates? Probably not. The issue is far more complex, and a single policy change—such as expanding IVF access—is unlikely to solve a broader demographic crisis.

Most of the other figures involved in this conversation have no policymaking authority.

Elon Musk and Pavel Durov are technocrats, not government officials or policy advisors.
Kevin Dolanis is personally passionate about the issue. However, his impact on policy is unclear.
Other figures like Nigel Farage and Mark Andreessen may have strong ideological views. Still, they are not directly involved in shaping demographic policies.

It is unclear why these individuals are so fixated on birth rates and how familiar they are with the socioeconomic factors behind these trends.

In the case of Pavel Durov, there is also an entirely separate concern—he has allegedly fathered over 100 children as a sperm donor. This raises ethical and biological concerns, particularly regarding the risk of genetic inbreeding if these children unknowingly marry and reproduce with each other. Unless there is a well-documented system in place to track biological relationships, this could create serious long-term medical issues.

Ultimately, while these individuals may have personal concerns about declining birth rates, they lack policymaking expertise and have not proposed any serious, data-driven solutions.

Jacobsen: The most effective solutions to declining birth rates appear to focus on removing restrictions on women’s agency rather than simply incentivizing childbirth.

Some of the most successful policies—seen in Sweden, Norway, and Finland—include:

Generous paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers
Financial incentives for families, including child allowances and tax deductions
Housing subsidies to ease the cost of raising children
Job security and economic stability, ensuring parents do not fear financial hardship when having children
Flexible work arrangements, such as remote work and part-time options, to help parents balance careers and family life

These policies are less extreme, less invasive, and more practical than urging people to have more children. More importantly, they can be swiftly implemented through policy changes without requiring cultural overhauls or coercive measures.

Other successful policies—as seen in France and Nordic countries—include:

Affordable and accessible childcare reduces the financial and logistical burdens of raising children.
A stronger emphasis on work-life balance and equal parenting responsibilities to mitigate the “motherhood penalty” that often hurts women’s careers

When governments adopt these measures, birth rates tend to stabilize. Instead of pressuring women to have more children, these policies holistically support families, making parenthood more viable and appealing.

Tsukerman: Exactly. The issue of declining birth rates is not strictly economic—it is also about personal priorities and life choices.

In the United States, there is immense societal pressure on families—especially on women, but also on men—to structure their lives in a specific way when they have children.

The prevailing expectation is that before having children, individuals must:

Achieve financial stability
Own a home
Have a well-established career
Provide an optimal standard of living for their family

This creates significant pressure, leading many people to delay parenthood or opt-out altogether. If society treats child-rearing as an overwhelming burden rather than a natural life stage supported by practical policies, then it is no surprise that fewer people choose to have children.

Ultimately, these technocrats and politicians want to reverse declining birth rates. In that case, they need to address the barriers that make parenthood difficult—not just talk about abstract demographic trends while ignoring the human factors behind them.

There is great competitive pressure surrounding education and parenting in the United States, which greatly discourages larger families.

The highly competitive and expensive school system focuses on academic achievement, extracurricular activities, and structured child development. Parents feel enormous pressure to enroll their children in top-tier schools, pay for costly extracurriculars, and maintain an active role in school-related responsibilities.

Beyond school choice, there is also pressure related to parental leave. The lack of robust maternity and paternity leave policies makes it difficult for parents to balance career progression with family life. The expectation of a child-centred lifestyle in the US is particularly intense. Once a family has children, their entire lives are often expected to revolve around them, making it harder for parents to maintain previous interests, social lives, and professional goals.

In many cases, the demands extend far beyond basic childcare. Parents are expected to participate in countless school-related activities, including extracurriculars for the child and mandatory school participation, parent-teacher conferences, fundraisers, and social events.

By contrast, in countries like France, you rarely hear about an endless cycle of school activities. Aside from graduations and occasional school events, parents are far less expected to be constantly involved in structured educational or extracurricular obligations.

This constant pressure on American parents creates significant barriers to having a family. It reduces parents’ free time, limits their ability to plan vacations, and makes career progression more difficult. Helicopter parenting culture adds to this stress, making parents feel like they are always falling behind or not doing enough compared to others.

As a result, many people feel that parenting in the US is not enjoyable or sustainable, discouraging them from having larger families or children. These social factors play a much larger role in declining birth rates than many people acknowledge.

Jacobsen: Then we have Israel, where birth rates are rising, not only among highly religious or traditional populations but across the board. What are the key differences?

Tsukerman: Israel presents a fascinating contrast to other developed nations. Unlike most Western countries, Israel has a strong culture of community support, which helps ease the burdens of parenting.

While some social pressure exists to have children, it is not necessarily negative. Instead of parents being expected to micromanage every aspect of their child’s life, there is greater accommodation for fertility issues, a supportive cultural environment, and a more organic balance between structured and unstructured family activities.

Another major factor is the sense of early responsibility placed on children. From a young age, Israeli children are encouraged to be more independent, which reduces the burden on parents compared to cultures where parents are expected to do everything for their kids well into adulthood.

This combination of social support, cultural expectations, and practical independence helps parents feel more confident and less overwhelmed, making it easier to have larger families without the same stress level seen in the US or parts of Europe.

Jacobsen: So you’re suggesting that even if strong economic policies are in place, people won’t choose to have larger families without the right cultural framework.

Tsukerman: Exactly. Even if you provide financial incentives, tax breaks, and paid parental leave, it will never fully offset the cost of raising children—especially in highly developed countries like the US and Western Europe.

In theory, countries like Sweden, Norway, and Finland have some of the best policies in the world to encourage parenthood. Yet, Europeans tend to have even fewer children than Americans. While some things—like cheaper healthcare or subsidized childcare—help, they do not completely solve the issue. Economics alone is not the deciding factor. Social expectations and cultural attitudes play a much larger role than many policymakers acknowledge.

It ultimately comes down to a personal cost-benefit analysis. People recognize that having more children comes with expenses and challenges but also consider the emotional and social benefits. In societies where having children is seen as a fulfilling, communal, and integrated part of life, people tend to be more open to larger families. In societies where parenting is seen as an overwhelming, competitive, and restrictive obligation, birth rates decline—even when financial incentives are provided.

This is why purely economic policies will never be enough to reverse declining birth rates without shifting cultural attitudes toward parenting and family life. There is a strong connection between community support, cultural mindset, and quality of life regarding family planning and birth rates.

In the US and many other developed countries, raising a family is increasingly viewed as a burden rather than a fulfilling or natural part of life. In contrast, societies that balance economic flexibility, cultural values, and supportive work environments maintain higher birth rates without coercion.

Jacobsen: However, the “magic number” of 2.1 children per woman, representing a replacement-level fertility rate, has not been universally sustained in most developed nations. Looking at various countries and demographic trends, we can see that certain societies have found localized solutions that work within their contexts. However, there is no universal formula for sustaining population growth while preserving individual freedoms.

Population growth tends to be high in societies where women’s rights and autonomy are restricted—where they have limited access to education, healthcare, and career opportunities. In these societies, traditional gender roles remain rigid, leading to higher birth rates at the cost of personal freedom and economic mobility.

That is my observation. What is your take? Do you believe there is a set of concrete policies that could be applied universally to address population sustainability?

Tsukerman: We have never been in a better position economically, socially, and technologically than now. Across the world, more people have access to education and careers than at any other point in human history.

For women, this is the best period in history regarding economic and social opportunities—with some exceptions in specific countries. However, as societies develop, people prioritize personal freedom, time, and individual goals over social expectations. That is the trade-off of modern progress—the more freedom and economic stability people have, the less likely they are to prioritize reproduction as a societal duty.

So, the challenge is not simply financial incentives or government policies—it is about aligning individual choices with broader societal needs. However, forcing people into having more children is not an option. Once people are free to choose, they will not necessarily prioritize what is best for society—they will prioritize what is best for their personal lives.

This varies by individual, but generally speaking, if you want a successful career and a balanced lifestyle, you are likely to limit the number of children you have. Unless you are extremely wealthy and can afford a team of nannies and household staff, having many children is not practical for most people in modern society.

Jacobsen: And that brings us back to Musk and Durov, who have exceptionally large children—but under unusual circumstances.

Elon Musk has 13 children with four different women (that we know of).
Pavel Durov has over 100 children in approximately 12 countries but as a sperm donor, not an active father.

Neither of these men is deeply involved in parenting or actively raising their children. In Durov’s case, he is not involved at all. He is simply a sperm donor with no direct responsibility for the children he has fathered. This further reinforces the original point—the conversation about birth rates and demographics is framed purely in statistical and economic terms rather than acknowledging the legal, social, and policy realities that influence family planning.

Their approach treats people as abstract numbers rather than individuals making real-life decisions. Women’s agency, economic pressures, career considerations, and work-life balance are often ignored in these discussions, making the entire pronatalist argument feel detached from reality.

That is a key issue—many technocrats and political figures discussing demographics do so without engaging with the lived experiences of the people making these decisions.

This discussion highlights the gap between policy theory and real-world decision-making regarding population sustainability.

As commonly referred to, these Tech Bros present themselves as technocratic, ‘meritocratic,’ and futurist-minded individuals. Many of them align with transhumanist ideals, which you have previously drawn my attention to as an important factor in their worldview.

Much of this thinking originated with the law of accelerating returns and theories stemming from Moore’s Law, which hypothesized continuous exponential growth in computing power. However, according to experts like Sam Altman and others, we are now in the era of scaling laws, where AI and technological advancements have an almost incomprehensible multiplicative effect.

Given their futurist perspective, what solutions do they propose for this demographic crisis? They see fertility rates below 2.1 as an existential threat and react with panic, fearing civilization’s decline.

What exactly do they see as the transformative solutions for this posed problem?

Tsukerman: Their “solution”—if you can call it that—is to donate their sperm and spread their seed as widely as possible.

For example, Pavel Durov has allegedly fathered over 100 children as a sperm donor, which sounds like a grand contribution to human survival—until you realize that, on a global scale, it is statistically irrelevant. In a world of billions of people, 100 extra births make no meaningful difference to overall demographic trends.

Furthermore, this approach could lead to serious medical crises. If these biologically related children are unaware of each other and end up reproducing together, it could result in genetic disorders and significant health risks. Then there is Elon Musk, who has 13 children with four different women. While this may be more than most people, it is still nowhere near enough to reverse any global demographic decline.

Even beyond numbers, there is a psychological and social aspect to consider. Suppose some of Musk’s children grow up traumatized by his absence, parenting style, or the public scrutiny surrounding him. In that case, they may actively choose not to have children themselves. Suppose his approach to fatherhood leads to broken families or generational dysfunction. In that case, his contribution is not necessarily a net positive regarding long-term societal stability.

More importantly, none of these men have real policy prescriptions. They reproduce for the sake of reproducing, but they offer no real guidance on:

How to create a society where people genuinely want to have more children
What needs to change in terms of policy, social structures, or work-life balance
How to make family life more appealing and sustainable for modern individuals

Their only real argument is that people should sacrifice their desires for collective social needs, which historically has been a dangerous ideological path.

Jacobsen: Fascist regimes, such as Ceausescu’s Romania, also pushed aggressive pronatalist policies, forcing people to prioritize national interests over personal freedom. This is a well-documented historical failure, yet these Tech Bros seem oblivious to that reality.

However, people in developed democratic nations—such as the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe—are not living under totalitarian regimes and have no interest in being forced into state-controlled family planning initiatives. Western societies fought against fascism, Nazism, and communism precisely to avoid government-dictated economic and reproductive policies.

There is a massive gap between their proposed vision and any realistic path to achieving it. Their ideas are detached from reality, failing to address the lived experiences of people making family planning decisions.

It is essentially a dilettante’s guide to demographics—a simplistic, surface-level take on an incredibly complex subject.

Their approach mirrors large language models, where they systematize and statistically analyze data but lack a deep understanding of the human thought processes that generate those outputs.

It is akin to skimming the surface of a vast ocean while ignoring everything beneath it. They identify a statistical concern but completely miss the intricate social, economic, and emotional realities that shape human decision-making.

This is why their solutions feel hollow—they fail to address the messiness of human relationships, cultural values, and economic structures that influence birth rates.

Tsukerman: People don’t forget that throughout human evolution, from its early beginnings—whatever they happen to be—until this point, family and family structure took on and evolved as well. It was never completely static. What people idealized as an ideal family was never quite as clear an idea as people think. A lot of the time, nobody asked those people what they wanted. Now we have the choice.

So unless people want to sacrifice democracy and the ability to formulate their own choices, which are protected by the constitution and so forth, for a society where people are forced to marry, settle down with whomever their families choose, and stay there for the rest of their lives, they’re going to have to admit that there’s no clear-cut pathway to any of this, and it’s going to be messy.

The more freedom people have, the more choices they have, and the messier it will be. But unless you want to eliminate choice from the question, you’ll have to figure out how to get people to make better choices and define a better choice in a way that makes sense.

Jacobsen: Here are dumb ‘solutions.’ Poland, Iran, and the US post-Roe v. Wade: Limiting reproductive choice to increase birth rates somehow. It does not. It results in more unsafe versions, higher maternal mortality, and economic hardship for women. Dumb.

A childlessness tax during the Soviet Union was 6% of a person’s salary for adults without children. Many avoided legal marriages to escape the tax. Dumb.

Romania, Ceausescu issues Decree 770: In 1966, Romania banned abortion and contraception, forcing pregnancies to boost the population. State doctors regularly monitored women to ensure they weren’t terminating pregnancies. Maternal mortality rates soared. Unwanted children went to orphanages under horrific conditions, and birth rates plummeted again once Ceausescu was overthrown. Dumb.

Reducing women’s educational and career opportunities (Afghanistan, some Middle Eastern countries): You mentioned Afghanistan earlier. Increased early marriages and birth rates are up in the short term. Still, as with the Romanian example, this leads to higher poverty rates, worse child health and mortality, and overall economic decline. So, therefore, dumb.

Marriage restrictions and incentives for younger marriages—Iran post-2021 and China discouraging divorce—fail because Iran banned sterilization and restricted access to contraception while encouraging married women to marry early. China increased restrictions on divorce to keep families together, supposedly leading to higher birth rates because nothing signifies intimacy like acrimonious marriages stuck together by the state. Outcome: Young people avoid marriage altogether. Birth rates are still declining. Dumb.

Encouraging only traditional gender roles. South Korea, with its previous policies. Historically, women were discouraged from working after childbirth. There was an emphasis on patriarchal traditional family structures.

The result, women avoided marriage and children because there was a lack of support for working mothers. So, they have now shifted to gender-equal policies. However, the birth rate remains one of the lowest in the world. Encouraging traditional gender roles did not work in the South Korean case. Dumb.

Nationalist and ethno-exclusive policies are a rising tide of ugliness—to make an aesthetic appraisal. Hungary, Russia, and Poland are promoting birth incentives for particular national or ethnic groups, highly exclusionary to immigrants. This policy has failed because population growth requires both native births and immigration. It did not work—i.e., it was dumb.

So, these are very steadfast examples of not working in our prior discussion. On the other hand, the Nordic model of work-life balance, affordable childcare, and parental leave—like France and Sweden—and the absence of discrimination against working mothers or restricted access to family planning and forced births seem like reasonable solutions, far more than the prior—or just creepy commentary by techno-bros.

Do you agree or disagree? What are your closing thoughts, Irina?

Tsukerman: There needs to be an acknowledgment that having children is a deeply personal choice, and it is not easy. It is certainly not easy for women who have to bear those children. It is certainly not easy for anyone who has to raise those children—more importantly than simply being a biological producer of children.

Even if, somehow, there were a way of developing children externally in a machine that does not require any serious commitment from women—even if you eliminate the biological factor—raising the actual child remains the biggest part of the job.

And this is not something you can force anybody into. You can force them to give birth and have the child. You cannot force them to raise them or be a good parent.

People should focus less on how many children people have and more on ensuring better examples of good parenting—and more on it. Because of the number of broken families we are seeing, the numbers of horrific social phenomena—drug overdoses, broken communities, covered-up sex scandals, and abuses—none of that brings about healthy societies, healthy families, or children who grow up to be functional adults.

We need to shift our focus to that. Then there is the demographic crisis—healthy communities will lead to healthierchoices, resolving the crisis independently.

Jacobsen: Thank you so much for your time today.

Tsukerman: I appreciate it, Irina. Thank you so much.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Dr. Paola Rossi’s Cancer Survivor Fitness and Nutrition

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05

Dr. Paola Rossi, Clinical Program Director for Lifestyle Medicine at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, leads the Believe in You program, promoting exercise and nutrition for cancer survivors. Inspired by survivors struggling to participate in the Dolphins Challenge Cancer event, the initiative provides a 20-week structured training program with in-person and virtual sessions, nutritional guidance, and community support. Participants progress from inactive to active lifestyles, with data showing sustained improvements. Plans include a digital platform, expanded outreach, and national replication. Rossi emphasizes long-term sustainability, ensuring survivors maintain healthy habits beyond the program.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Paola Rossi, M.D. She is the Clinical Program Director for Lifestyle Medicine at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, part of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine and South Florida’s only National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center. Originally from Argentina, she earned her medical degree from the University of Buenos Aires. She later pursued additional training in exercise physiology at the University of Miami.

Dr. Rossi’s work focuses on lifestyle factors, including Diet and exercise, in cancer prevention and survivorship. She helped develop Sylvester’s Believe in You program, a high-risk lifestyle medicine clinic designed to support cancer survivors through exercise and nutrition. She is passionate about community outreach and enjoys acting, dancing, and baking sourdough bread in her free time. So, thank you for joining me today. What inspired the creation of the Believe in You program?

Dr. Paola Rossi: About three years ago, we met with the Miami Dolphins Foundation to discuss the Dolphins Challenge Cancer (DCC) initiative, which raises funds for cancer research at Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center. During that meeting, a few cancer survivors shared that, while they thought the initiative was great, they couldn’t participate because they struggled to even walk from the parking lot to Hard Rock Stadium, let alone complete a 5K or a 30-mile bike ride, which is the minimum distance for the cycling event.

The Dolphins Challenge Cancer (DCC) has been raising funds for over a decade, supporting cancer research and patient care. However, at that moment, we realized we might have unintentionally excluded the people we were trying to help.

So, we decided to train these survivors and ensure that they could participate if they wanted to. We started with a small pilot program involving about 10 cancer survivors, which was a huge success. Every participant could complete the 5K.

Since then, we have expanded the program to include more participants and provide additional support, ensuring that any cancer survivor who wants to participate in DCC has the opportunity to do so.

Jacobsen: How is the 20-week program structured?

Rossi: The program is structured with weekly in-person training sessions, usually held on Saturdays, at two locations—one in Miami-Dade County and one in Broward County.

We also have one or two daily virtual sessions via Zoom, which complement the in-person training from Monday to Friday. This allows participants to reach the recommended 150 minutes of aerobic exercise per week.

Additionally, we provide educational newsletters covering topics like muscle soreness, the importance of warming up and cooling down, and the role of nutrition in exercise recovery.

We also hold monthly workshops on mental resilience, positive self-talk, and motivation—all essential skills for helping participants successfully complete a race or endurance event.

However, the key part of the program is building a strong community. Sticking with a four- to five-month training program is not easy, and many people struggle with exercise consistency. However, by fostering a sense of community and peer support, participants help keep each other accountable and motivated.

Jacobsen: For individual cancer survivors, how do you tailor the program to meet each person’s needs?

Rossi: That’s a great question.

We work with trainers who specialize in exercise oncology, and the program has a three-tier system to accommodate different fitness levels.

We make adaptations based on each participant’s physical condition and experience with exercise. For example, we categorize participants into groups:

Walkers – for those new to exercise or have not been physically active for an extended period.
Joggers – for those ready to take on a more moderate activity level.
Runners – those with higher fitness levels and want to train for longer distances.

This tiered system ensures that each participant receives individualized support and can progress at their own pace, making the experience both inclusive and empowering for cancer survivors.

Some people are walking but don’t feel safe or haven’t pushed beyond basic movements, like walking the dog. Others have some training experience but still feel they need support. That’s why we have three tiers within the program. We ensure that participants have access to safe terrain, proper equipment, and a structured progression of exercises. Hence, they feel like they are progressing without pushing too hard—finding that balance is always the challenge.

Jacobsen: What about nutrition education alongside physical training? People can eat poorly and still build muscle, but that may not help with recovery or overall health in the long run.

Rossi: Yes, we place a strong emphasis on nutrition because, in addition to the Believe in You program, we are part of Lifestyle Medicine. Nutrition and exercise are two of our core pillars. We tailor the nutrition component to cancer survivorship, which comes with specific dietary recommendations.

Our newsletter includes nutrition objectives, recipes, and other practical resources. Additionally, we host monthly nutrition workshops covering grocery shopping, meal prep for busy weeks, and strategies to meet nutrient needs. These workshops are both educational and practical. We also provide guidance for those experiencing cancer-related symptoms that may affect their Diet—like nausea or early satiety (feeling full too quickly)—by offering alternative food options that still meet their nutritional needs.

While the program is tailored to cancer survivors, we also accommodate their companions or caregivers. Although cancer survivorship nutrition guidelines have some specific recommendations, they generally align with national nutrition guidelines, making them beneficial for a broader audience. However, we are careful not to push rigid dietary requirements, such as prescribing a fixed amount of protein daily, since individual needs vary.

Suppose we identify participants who require specialized support. In that case, we refer them to Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center dietitians. This complimentary service provides personalized nutrition counselling for cancer survivors.

Jacobsen: You have an interest in the community. Community helps people stay on the right path regarding Diet and exercise. How do you build a strong support system for participants?

Rossi: I’d love to say there’s something special about what we do, but honestly, they do most of the work. We provide the space, organization, and expertise in nutrition and exercise. Still, cancer survivors naturally form strong bonds with each other.

The experience of cancer diagnosis and treatment is so unique that people don’t need much encouragement to support one another. Once they connect, they hold each other accountable, sending messages like, “Hey, why didn’t you show up today?” or “I know you’re tired, but come anyway.”

Unfortunately, some participants end up in the ER or require inpatient care, but when they return, they often check in on each other. We provide a safe space, but the participants create the community themselves.

Jacobsen: Are there any cases that require a high level of individual tailoring? For instance, someone might have had a more aggressive form of cancer that affects their ability to eat or exercise, whether in terms of weight training, cardio, or other activities.

Rossi: Absolutely. We work with a diverse range of participants, including adolescent and young adult cancer survivors in their twenties and older participants—we currently have an 87-year-old participant who attends with his wife.

And, of course, participants are at different stages of their cancer journey, with varying levels of diagnosis and disease progression. This presents unique challenges, but we are fortunate to have a structured support system.

Each trainer works with four to five program assistants at each location. This setup allows the trainer to keep the session running while ensuring individual participants receive personalized support. Suppose someone needs to walk instead of run, repeat a specific exercise, or take a break. Someone is always available to assist and monitor their progress in that case.

This system helps us provide the necessary adaptations and modifications for participants facing greater challenges. On the flip side, participants themselves look out for one another. For example, they may approach us and say, “Hey, Scott isn’t feeling great today—can you check on him?” That kind of peer support and accountability is an incredible part of this program.

Suppose we notice someone struggling significantly to keep up with the training. In that case, we usually recommend one-on-one sessions with an exercise physiologist. This allows them to address specific challenges in a more individualized setting. After a few weeks, many participants can reintegrate into the entire program or, at the very least, participate at a level that works for them. In this way, our approach bridges the gap between clinical care and community support.

Jacobsen: What have you found to be the most fulfilling part of running this program?

Rossi: Being part of their stories, without a doubt.

Hearing how their lives have changed because of this program is incredibly rewarding. We have so many stories—like our 87-year-old participant who now refers to one of the younger participants as his “adopted grandchild” after meeting them in the program.

Another memorable story is from a woman who joined one of our early program editions. In her exit interview, she told us that on the first day, she thought, “I won’t be able to do this. I won’t come back.” But she did come back—and over time, she lost 30 pounds, became more active than ever before, and even saw a drop in her tumour markers.

Even if our role in these transformations is small, being part of their journey keeps me going. It motivates me to expand our reach and help more people benefit from the program.

Jacobsen: How do you benchmark fitness and diet standards? In other words, how do you measure where people start when they join the program compared to the minimum and recommended standards for Diet and fitness?

Rossi: Our participants joke about this because we conduct many baseline and end-of-program assessments—but it’s an essential part of our work.

We begin with questionnaires assessing their Diet, physical activity levels, and overall quality of life. These are standard research tools used in scientific studies to measure lifestyle factors.

We also conduct in-person assessments, including:

Carotenoid level measurements – This skin pigment test indirectly reflects fruit and vegetable intake.
Grip strength tests – A strong indicator of overall muscle function and health.
Blood pressure monitoring – To assess cardiovascular health.
One-mile walk test – To evaluate cardiorespiratory endurance, measuring how quickly they complete the mile and their level of exertion at the finish.

Throughout the 20-week program, we reassess these markers to track Diet, strength, and endurance improvements.

Jacobsen: A few of these assessments are repeated throughout the program, and at the end of the program, we conduct them all again to track progress. We compare the results to the initial assessments to see how participants have improved.

So far, the trends have been consistent, although we haven’t fully analyzed this year’s data yet. We have seen previously inactive participants become active, and those who were moderately active progress to vigorous activity levels.

We also see self-reported improvements in Diet, particularly an increase in fruit, vegetable, and whole grain consumption—key dietary components we emphasize. Overall, based on subjective feedback and objective measures, the program has been successful in helping participants adopt healthier habits.

Jacobsen: What about maintaining those standards over the long term?

How long has the program been running?
Diet and exercise programs often lead people back to their original habits once they stop actively participating. How do you address that challenge?

Rossi: The core program lasts five months, but we don’t stop there. We have what we call the “off-season,” which helps participants stay engaged throughout the rest of the year.

We hold monthly in-person training sessions during the off-season and continue offering some virtual sessions. Additionally, we host a workshop every two months to reinforce healthy habits and provide ongoing motivation.

We’ve observed that program repetition is the most significant factor in long-term success. Many participants return year after year—we now have individuals who have been with us from year one to year three. The data shows that those who stay engaged over multiple years are likelier to maintain and build on their progress.

On the other hand, when participants step away from the program, gathering follow-up data becomes more challenging for them to regain momentum. That’s why one of my biggest goals is ensuring that we don’t let the program become a one-time, short-term intervention. Instead, we want to create lasting behavioural change by keeping people involved beyond the initial five months.

It’s essential that participants can transition back into their real world and sustain these habits without relying on the structured support we provide throughout the program. If they can’t do that, we haven’t equipped them with the tools they need for long-term success.

For me, this is a key benchmark of success—if we struggle with long-term sustainability, then something in the program needs to change. Of course, many external factors influence sustainability, including social environment, policies, and systemic barriers. It’s an asymmetrical battle, but if participants keep returning, they only continue to improve.

That’s why we’ve been analyzing trends—we want to see whether repeating the Believe in You program each year leads to sustained behavioural change. If returning participants show continuous progress, that’s a strong indicator that the program is effectively reinforcing positive habits.

Jacobsen: What future enhancements or expansions do you envision for the program?

Rossi: Right now, we need to expand. One of our key priorities is creating a website where people can access educational materials anytime rather than receiving them only occasionally via email. We also want to offer on-demand training sessions so participants can follow along at their own pace instead of only attending live, scheduled classes.

Another primary focus is outreach. While the program is open to any cancer survivor in South Florida, regardless of whether they are a Sylvester patient, we still need to improve our messaging to ensure that more community members know about this free resource. Participants can even bring a companion, but we must increase awareness and build a stronger community network to spread the word more effectively.

Ultimately, I envision this program replicated in other parts of the U.S., not necessarily under our direct management, but as a model that other organizations can adopt and integrate into their cancer survivorship initiatives. Ideally, Believe in You could be linked to fundraising events nationwide, creating a national movement for cancer survivors’ health and wellness. That would be the dream—breaking out of a silo and making this a lasting, widespread initiative.

Jacobsen: I love that vision. Thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise, and it was great meeting you.

Rossi: Very nice to meet you!

Jacobsen: We’ll stay in touch.

Rossi: Cool, sounds good.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Redefining Protections for Queer Communities

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/05

Janelle Kellman, Esq. is a former Mayor of Sausalito (2022) and city council member. She restructured the city’s finance department post‑COVID‑19, secured $2 million for sea level rise mitigation and infrastructure planning, and led housing equity initiatives. In 2020, she founded the Center for Sea Rise Solutions to advance coastal resilience, workforce development, and ocean health. The nonprofit launched an international blue economy job creation program with the City and Port of Barcelona and the World Ocean Council, and established a local task force with the US Army Corps of Engineers and Congressman Jared Huffman’s office. Janelle holds a BA from Yale, a Master’s in Environmental Management from Oxford, and a J.D. from Stanford Law. She is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor of California 2026. She highlights the expansion of nondiscrimination protections, grassroots activism’s role in legal advancements, and the need to prioritize economic security, housing affordability, and public safety over culture wars. Kellman’s leadership includes launching Sausalito’s first Pride celebration and securing funding for infrastructure. She advocates for collaborative governance to ensure inclusive policies that benefit all Californians.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What legal shifts seem most transformative in redefining protections for queer communities?

Janelle Kellman: One of the most significant legal advancements has been the expansion of nondiscrimination protections that explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity. Efforts to ensure equal access to public accommodations, housing, and employment are essential in creating a more just society. Additionally, comprehensive protections that prevent discrimination in schools and foster inclusive learning environments are critical in ensuring that LGBTQ+ students feel safe and supported. At the same time, the fight to codify abortion protections into law remains a key issue, as reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ rights are deeply interconnected in the broader fight for bodily autonomy and personal freedom.

Jacobsen: As a Stanford-trained legal expert and former mayor, what innovative strategies have helped promote equity for LGBTQ+ individuals?

Kellman: As Mayor of Sausalito, I launched the city’s first-ever Pride celebration—a three-day event honoring and celebrating our diverse and inclusive community. This public recognition was about more than just celebration; it was a statement of values and a commitment to inclusion at every level of local governance. I support integrating minority rights, including LGBTQ+ equity, into broader policy initiatives, including nondiscrimination protections in public spaces and efforts to ensure that all residents, regardless of identity, have access to the same opportunities and resources.

Jacobsen: What is the dynamic interplay between grassroots activism and policy-making in the advancement of queer rights?

Kellman: Grassroots activism is often the spark that drives policy change. Many of the legal protections we now take for granted—workplace protections, marriage equality, and inclusive nondiscrimination laws—started as demands from activists on the ground. These are now being threatened again, and are major distractions and avoidance tools for tackling the real issues that plague our Country like the economy, housing and public safety.

Jacobsen: What is effective in rewriting the narrative for sexual and gender minorities?

Kellman: The key is moving beyond division and distraction to focus on what truly impacts people’s lives. Too often, politicians use discrimination as a wedge issue to stir controversy instead of addressing real problems—like the cost of living, access to good jobs, and public safety. The best way to rewrite the narrative is to put these shared priorities at the center of the conversation. LGBTQ+ individuals, like all Americans, want economic security, affordable housing, and safe communities. When we focus on solutions that benefit everyone, we take away the power of those trying to use identity as a political weapon.

Jacobsen: As a candidate for California Lieutenant Governor, what policy initiatives are important to champion?

Kellman: California has real problems to solve, and we need leadership focused on results. That means:

Strengthening the economy by supporting small businesses and investing in the workforce of the future.

Expanding housing affordability so that all Californians—no matter their background—can afford to live where they work.

Prioritizing public safety by ensuring law enforcement has the resources they need while also investing in mental health and community-based solutions.

Ensuring that all Californians have access to high-quality education and healthcare without political interference.

We can’t afford to let fear-mongering distract from the urgent issues facing our state. California’s leadership must be focused on creating real opportunities for all, not fanning culture wars that divide us.

Jacobsen: What do you feel have been your most significant professional challenges—and triumphs?

Kellman: One of the biggest challenges in public service is cutting through political noise to focus on what actually improves people’s lives. As Mayor of Sausalito, I saw firsthand how easy it is for important issues to get sidelined by unnecessary political fights. My biggest triumphs have come from putting people first—whether it was leading Sausalito’s first-ever Pride celebration to build a more inclusive community or working on infrastructure projects that improved daily life for residents. Real leadership means ignoring distractions and keeping the focus on what matters: jobs, housing, and safety.

Jacobsen: How can activists, lawmakers, and legal experts collaborate to ensure evolving legal frameworks empower all queer communities?

Kellman: The best way to advance real progress is to move beyond performative politics and focus on meaningful reforms that benefit everyone. Activists, lawmakers, and legal experts need to work together to ensure that legal protections are strong, enforceable, and rooted in economic and social stability. That means making sure all communities—including LGBTQ+ individuals—have access to safe housing, stable jobs, and fair treatment under the law. If we stay focused on these fundamentals, we take power away from those who use division as a political tool and instead build a more united, prosperous future for all Californians.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Janelle.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

How PATH Navigates the Second Trump Administration

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/04

During the Second Trump Administration, PATH remained committed to eliminating single-use plastics despite shifts in policy. CEO Shadi Bakour noted adaptations to inflation, tariff volatility, and regulatory changes by streamlining operations, diversifying suppliers, and optimizing logistics. Tariff impacts on aluminum and international trade required nuanced procurement strategies, while tax reforms prompted proactive financial planning. PATH aligned with evolving environmental policies and supported legislation promoting sustainable packaging. Consumer behavior shifted toward values-based purchasing, especially among youth. Despite labor policy challenges, PATH’s purpose-driven culture helped attract and retain talent. Bakour remains optimistic as sustainability moves from trend to norm, fueled by innovation and generational demand.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How has PATH adapted to the economic policies of the Second Trump Administration?

Shadi Bakour: PATH’s core mission—to eliminate single-use plastic by offering sustainable alternatives — has remained the same since day one, even as economic and political landscapes shift. During the Second Trump Administration, we’ve closely monitored changes in federal policy, particularly those affecting environmental regulation, trade, and manufacturing. While certain rollbacks in environmental protections have presented challenges for the sustainability sector, they’ve also strengthened our resolve to lead by example. We’ve adjusted our operating strategy to maintain efficiency amid inflationary pressures, streamlined certain functions to preserve capital, and continued to educate consumers on the importance of sustainable choices.

Jacoben: What about specifics around regulatory costs, sourcing, and supply chain issues, or the pricing of aluminum?

Bakour: Navigating the complexities of a global supply chain is part of our everyday reality. Volatility in aluminum pricing—driven by tariffs, demand cycles, and international relations—requires us to maintain close partnerships with our suppliers and to secure contracts that protect us against sudden cost spikes. We’ve also invested in building a more resilient sourcing network that includes both domestic and international partners to mitigate risk. On the regulatory side, evolving packaging and labeling requirements mean we stay agile and proactive to remain compliant without passing excessive costs onto the consumer. Our operational team constantly evaluates and optimizes logistics to avoid disruptions and reduce carbon impact.

Jacobsen: How are the tariff adjustments working within the context of international trade agreements?

Bakour: Tariff fluctuations—particularly on imported aluminum and other raw materials—have created a need for more nuanced procurement strategies. As the Trump Administration reevaluates trade agreements and reinstates certain protectionist policies, we’ve had to adapt by diversifying our supplier base and strengthening relationships with manufacturers. This helps us avoid overreliance on any single trade route or country. These strategies not only safeguard our pricing but also ensure continuity in product availability across the U.S. and international markets.

Jacobsen: With possible tax changes, what strategies might maintain PATH’s financial health and growth trajectory?

Tax reforms, especially those affecting SMBs, require proactive financial planning. We’ve worked closely with our advisors to identify credits, deductions, and incentives—such as those for sustainable manufacturing or domestic job creation—that align with our business model. We’ve also prioritized reinvestment into R&D and sustainable innovation, which not only fuels growth but can also offer long-term financial benefits under evolving tax codes. Our approach remains focused on margin discipline, scalable partnerships, and smart capital allocation to stay on track regardless of fiscal policy changes.

Jacobsen: What environmental policies affect sustainable businesses?

Environmental policies—like extended producer responsibility (EPR) laws, plastic bans, and state-level incentives for sustainable packaging—have a direct impact on how we operate. When forward-thinking regulations are introduced, they help level the playing field and accelerate the transition to sustainable and reusable products. For instance, we actively support legislation that bans single-use plastics or encourages refillable systems, because it aligns with our ethos and helps drive wider consumer adoption. At the same time, we stay engaged with policymakers to ensure new regulations are practical and foster innovation, not just compliance.

Jacobsen: How have consumer behaviors or spending patterns altered due to economic uncertainty?

We’ve seen a more values-driven approach to spending emerge in recent years, especially among younger consumers. Even in times of financial uncertainty, people are prioritizing quality and sustainability over convenience or cost alone. They want to buy from brands that reflect their personal ethics, and PATH fits that ethos. While price sensitivity remains a factor, we’ve worked hard to make our products accessible and competitively priced, so consumers don’t have to choose between affordability and sustainability.

Jacobsen: With small businesses, how are hiring and talent retention affected by changes in employment policies or labor laws?

Changes in employment policies—such as minimum wage adjustments, benefits mandates, and hiring incentives—impact small businesses in real terms. But at PATH, we’ve found that purpose-driven work culture is our greatest asset in attracting and retaining talent. We offer flexibility, meaningful work, and a commitment to social impact, which appeals to employees who want to do more than just collect a paycheck. We’ve also made conscious decisions to invest in employee growth and well-being, which helps minimize turnover and builds long-term loyalty, even in a competitive labor market.

Jacobsen: What gives you optimism about the future of sustainability?

There’s a clear shift happening—sustainability is no longer a niche concept or a marketing trend. It’s becoming a baseline expectation. Consumers, especially Gen Z and Millennials, are driving that demand, and businesses are responding with real innovation. We’re seeing growth in circular economy solutions, improvements in sustainable materials, and more collaboration across industries than ever before. That gives me hope—not just for PATH, but for the future of our planet. It tells me that we’re moving from awareness to action, and that’s where real change begins.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Shadi.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Dr. Syd Young on Wellness and Care for Trans Patients

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/04

Dr. Syd Young, a physical therapist in Austin, Texas, specializes in gender-affirming care and operates Out Wellness, an inclusive space for LGBTQ+ individuals. Young provides pre- and post-op care for gender-affirming surgeries and general physical therapy, addressing healthcare discrimination. They emphasize financial accessibility through sliding scales and mutual aid. Young highlights systemic barriers, legislative threats, and misconceptions about trans healthcare. They advocate for broader acceptance and education in gender-affirming care, aiming to normalize affirming practices across healthcare. Their work extends to fitness, self-defense, and community support, reinforcing the need for safe, affirming spaces in a restrictive political climate.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So, today we’re here with Dr. Syd Young. They’re very connected to the general health and wellness scene in Austin, Texas, and they work in private practice within the community. As a physical therapist, Syd specializes in gender-affirming care, working with trans populations in Austin. They also own a gym and wellness center, Out Wellness, which serves as an inclusive space for the local LGBTQ+ community. It’s a unique resource offering access to experts in hormone therapy, sex education, self-defense, and trans-affirming fitness classes.

Thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.

Dr. Syd Young: Yes, of course. I’m happy to be here.

Jacobsen: So, what does your work as a physical therapist specializing in gender-affirming care involve? Many people may use those words, but they might not fully understand what they mean or might interpret them differently.

Young: It means a lot of things. What most people probably associate it with is pre- and post-op gender-affirming surgery care. My background is in sports and orthopedics—I completed a residency and a fellowship in that field. Typically, if someone tears their ACL, they come to physical therapy, we help them get stronger, they have surgery, and then they continue with PT post-op. This means they often work with a physical therapist for a long time.

Because gender-affirming surgeries are relatively new and are not performed by orthopedic surgeons—but rather by plastic surgeons or, in the case of bottom surgery, sometimes urologists—there hasn’t been the same established relationship with physical therapists as there is in orthopedic or trauma surgery. As a result, these surgeons often don’t refer patients to PT, even though there are orthopedic implications to these surgeries. For example, in top surgery, when people are having breast tissue removed, surgeons are often cutting through muscles. Even though it’s not classified as an orthopedic surgery like ACL reconstruction, it still has orthopedic implications.

So, first and foremost, we do a lot of pre- and post-op care for top and bottom surgeries. But beyond that, we also provide general physical therapy care for this population. Many queer and trans folks have had negative experiences in the healthcare system—whether it’s being misgendered, deadnamed, or facing other forms of discrimination. As a result, people also come to us for general PT needs—things like a sprained ankle, lower back pain, or other common injuries. We support them through that care in an affirming and welcoming space where they can access health and wellness services without fear of discrimination.

Jacobsen: So, as an inclusive space for LGBTQ+ individuals, through OutWellness, what is the model used to address gaps that may exist in traditional healthcare? You alluded to issues like misgendering and deadnaming—are those the only concerns?

Young: There are lots of concerns, and it’s important to talk about financial concerns first and foremost, even before we discuss deadnaming, misgendering, and similar issues. We don’t accept insurance here. The American insurance system is flawed at best—most people don’t fully understand their plans, what’s covered, and what’s not. So, rather than navigating that complexity, we work on a sliding scale. The sliding scale almost always results in people paying less than they would if they were using their insurance, and that’s by design.

We live in a capitalist world, so of course, we need to pay rent and keep things running. But we fully believe that health and wellness shouldn’t be a privilege—everyone should be able to access it. That’s why, in addition to our sliding scale, we also have a mutual aid system. People who pay full price understand that part of their payment helps subsidize care for someone who cannot afford it. Those who can pay do, and in turn, that allows us to offer care to those who can’t. It’s a really cool ecosystem that allows us to sustain our operations while ensuring that healthcare isn’t a financial burden for people. Since healthcare often does feel like a privilege in this country, we are doing everything we can to push back against that reality.

And then, something that might sound small but is actually really significant—we are such a queer-centered space that things like deadnaming and misgendering don’t come up here. We ask people for their names and pronouns, and while we do have to keep a legal name on file for documentation purposes, that name is never used otherwise.

I had a situation once with a new client who introduced themselves to me. A couple of weeks later, they said, “Oh my god, I came out!” And I responded, “That’s great! What did you come out as?” And they said, “I came out as Max.” I was momentarily confused because I had only ever known them as Max. Then they said, “Oh, yeah… you’re the only one who knew.” It was one of those moments where I realized that our space had been a safe place for them to try out their identity before fully coming out.

That kind of thing happens a lot here—people will say, “I’m trying out a new name” or “I’m trying these pronouns—can we use them in this space?” And we do. It’s fun, it’s meaningful, and it makes a difference. These issues that are so common in traditional healthcare settings just don’t arise here because we are a fully queer-centered space. We’re part of the community ourselves, so it never feels like an issue.

Jacobsen: So, it feels like you’re more deeply plugged into the community than into what might be called a clinical or sterile mindset?

Young: Yes, exactly.

I work hard to make sure that it doesn’t feel like a traditional healthcare environment. First of all, this is how I’m dressed for work today—this is my work outfit. When you walk into our space, you enter a gym first, and we have to walk through the gym to get to the PT area. That is intentional—it’s designed to be different from a typical clinical setting because many of us have experienced healthcare trauma.

On social media and in public conversations, people call me Dr. Syd, but in practice, nobody does. It’s important to me that no one calls me “Doctor” here because I want to maintain a familiar and equal relationship with my clients. I don’t want people to feel like they’re talking to someone in a position of authority over them. I don’t want there to be any sense of hierarchy or disparity in our relationship. Instead, I want us to feel like equals, working together to develop a plan that makes sense for them.

Jacobsen: I spoke with a surgeon in California, and the situation there seems a bit different—again, I’m speaking as a non-expert. But how have recent legislative changes in Texas impacted access to gender-affirming care? We’ve touched a little on financial barriers, but I’m wondering more about access.

Young: Yes. So, I’m in Texas, and I know that, federally, things have been scary—and here in Texas, things have been especially scary. Fortunately, at the moment, access for adults has remained largely unaffected. However, access for minors has been completely eliminated.

Minors in Texas cannot access gender-affirming care at all. That means families are now searching for resources elsewhere. Right now, the closest available care is in New Mexico, so we are working on gathering resources for parents of trans kids to help them find ways to access care in other states. We’ve also seen a huge outflow of people leaving Texas. It’s been significant—people are moving in large numbers to safer states like Massachusetts and Colorado. That has been one of the most noticeable changes.

In terms of new legislation, the next session is about to begin, so we haven’t seen any new laws passed yet, but we know what’s coming. Right now, they are tracking 106 anti-trans bills in the Texas legislature, and the session hasn’t even started. So, we know that more attacks on trans rights are on the way.

That said, last time, there were three major anti-trans bills that were passed. These included a ban on drag, a ban on gender-affirming care for minors, and a ban on trans women in sports. However, two of the three were overturned after being approved. So, part of what we are trying to do as queer and trans people in Texas is understand that some of these laws are designed to intimidate us. Some of them cannot be upheld legally, even though they are passed. The fear comes from not knowing which ones will be enforced and which won’t.

For now, trans adults still have access to care. We still have gender-affirming doctors and surgeons in the area who are prescribing hormones and performing surgeries. That is where things stand right now, but it is definitely a scary time to be a queer or trans person in Texas.

Jacobsen: Have you thought about moving your practice, given what might be coming up in the near future?

Young: I haven’t. I am very privileged within the queer community—I am white, and I can pass as a cis woman when I want to.

I have very close ties to my family of origin, which provides me with another layer of support. That’s very important, especially as we navigate this difficult time. Now, more than ever, it’s essential that this place exists. We’ve seen that firsthand. Since the beginning of the year, with everything happening politically and socially, we’ve had a huge influx of trans folks coming into this space. People need this.

And honestly, I need this place, too. The feedback I get a lot from clients who move to the East Coast is that spaces like this don’t really exist in places like New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts. The reason is that trans folks can generally feel safe in any gym or wellness space there. A place like OutWellness might be nice to have in those areas, but it doesn’t feel like a necessity. In Texas, though, it absolutely is. Our approach is that as the federal government or the Texas legislature becomes more restrictive, we double down on our stance of protecting our trans and queer chosen family. I’m pretty stubborn, and that’s the stance we will continue to take.

Jacobsen: I’ve been working on a series of interviews—one on counter-extremism and counterterrorism, another on white nationalism, and a third that’s slipping my mind at the moment. But when you talk to experts in counter-extremism and counterterrorism, they’ll tell you that in Canada, you don’t see as many violent incidents, but you do see a lot of misogynistic extremism, mostly online. The primary or exclusive plotting of terrorist acts are Islamist.

In the U.S., though, a significant portion of terrorist plots—and in many cases, the actual execution of violent acts—are linked to white nationalism. There’s not a complete overlap, but there’s certainly a Venn diagram between white nationalist ideologies and fundamentalist Christianity. These groups tend to have very rigid ideas about sex and gender, which creates an exclusive mental landscape for people who don’t fit into those strict categories.

Relating that back to your work—do you or your clients ever report violent threats or incidents at clinics, patient support programs, or even personally, from individuals associated with these extremist groups?

Young: It’s interesting because you’re absolutely right—these things happen all the time. But we’ve been really lucky, and I do think Austin serves as a bit of a safe haven in all of this.

For three years, I worked out of my home, and my home address was very public. Now it’s not, but it was for a long time. During that time, we had zero instances of harassment, threats, or violence directed at me or at any of my clients here at Out Wellness. I haven’t personally received any direct reports of those kinds of incidents, although, of course, I know they happen elsewhere.

It might sound a little odd, but Austin truly does feel like a safe haven in a red state. That being said, it doesn’t take long to leave that bubble. If you drive just ten miles outside of Austin in any direction, you’re out of that safe zone. But within the city itself, we do have a protective bubble, and I think that helps mitigate some of these risks.

Jacobsen: What are some misconceptions that healthcare providers have about the needs of transgender individuals?

Young: The most common one I hear is that trans folks will go to a provider for an issue completely unrelated to their transness, and yet their trans identity becomes the focus of the conversation.

For example, I’ve had trans clients who are parents. They go to the doctor for a completely routine reason—let’s say they have a cold, or they’re dealing with a minor injury—and somehow, the conversation shifts to their gender identity. It’s as if the provider can’t separate

It’s this innocuous thing, but it’s almost always linked back to their hormone therapy. A trans person could go in with any unrelated issue, and the provider will immediately jump to, “I don’t know, but it’s probably because you’re on testosterone,” or “I don’t know, you’re on estrogen, so that must be the cause.”

These assumptions are inherently transphobic because they fail to see the whole person. The provider looks at the medication list, sees hormone therapy, and immediately dismisses everything else.

Jacobsen: It’s like when a kid has symptoms and RFK or others might say everything points to autism. It’s that same reductive thinking.

Young: Now, to be clear, there are physiological implications to being on hormones, and they are important to consider. But more often than not, providers use that as a way to dismiss any other potential diagnosis. Worse, many providers will suggest that the solution is to stop taking hormones altogether—without understanding that these are life-saving medications for many trans people. The harm they do is twofold: first, by falsely attributing unrelated health concerns to hormone therapy, and second, by recommending discontinuation without understanding the consequences. That kind of advice can be incredibly damaging.

The biggest misconception is that gender-affirming hormones are some kind of optional choice, like something trans people can just stop taking at any time. Providers need to understand that these are essential medications. It’s not as simple as, “Oh, just stop.” These are not over-the-counter drugs—they’re prescribed by trained medical professionals.

And, just to be clear, testosterone is a Class C controlled substance. It’s highly regulated. Trans people aren’t just picking up testosterone at the drugstore—we are getting it from licensed medical professionals. Yet, despite that, there’s this assumption that every health issue a trans person experiences must be because of their hormones. It’s completely ridiculous.

We see a double standard at play here. People with uteruses take birth control every day, and yet, because society wants them to be on birth control, no one talks about the health risks associated with it. And in reality, the side effects of birth control are often far more significant than those of gender-affirming hormones. But we don’t see providers blaming every symptom a cis woman has on her birth control, do we? That same consideration is rarely extended to trans people.

Another issue I see often is providers being completely unfamiliar with gender-affirming surgeries. I had a client who needed an X-ray about three or four weeks after top surgery. The technician told them, “Okay, raise your arms over your head.” And they were like, “I literally cannot do that. I physically cannot lift my arms above my head right now.”

Even as a physical therapist, I haven’t treated an ACL reconstruction in about four or five years at this point, but I still have a general understanding of how to approach it. That kind of basic knowledge should apply across the board for all surgeries, but when it comes to gender-affirming procedures, many providers just don’t have the familiarity—or the willingness—to learn.

If someone came to me and said, “I’m ten weeks post-op ACL reconstruction,” I’d immediately think, “Okay, you probably can’t jump right now.” That’s just general knowledge—I don’t need to specialize in ACL rehab to understand that jumping would likely be too painful and beyond their current recovery stage.

Even if I felt that I wasn’t the best person to treat their ACL because I’ve been removed from that kind of work for a while, I could still approach it with a baseline level of understanding. I’d say, “You came to me for PT today, so we’re not going to have you jumping because I know that’s too much for you right now.” That’s just basic competency.

The same kind of basic knowledge should apply to gender-affirming surgeries. It takes around eight to ten weeks for someone to regain full range of motion in their shoulders after top surgery—period. That’s general information. If a provider knows that, they won’t make an uninformed request like, “Raise your arms above your head.” Instead, they’d immediately recognize, “Oh, that was a silly thing for me to ask. Of course, they can’t do that yet.”

Providers should have at least a baseline level of knowledge about gender-affirming care because these surgeries are not rare. They happen all the time. Trans people are everywhere, meaning every provider—whether they realize it or not—is treating trans patients. It’s not just me. It’s not just gender-affirming care specialists. It’s everyone working in healthcare.

And that’s my biggest point. My hope is that by the time I’m old and retired, what I do won’t be considered anything special. Ideally, by then, every practice will be operating the way we do. Places like OutWellness will be obsolete because they won’t need to exist anymore—because every healthcare provider will be providing affirming, competent care. That’s the dream.

Jacobsen: There’s a strange mental economy that people have around this. And I think it applies to Canada as well, though maybe even more so in the United States. People get hair plugs. People get breast augmentations. People get all sorts of cosmetic procedures. When people age and their ears or noses change, they often get procedures for that, too.

There’s dental work, orthodontics—so many things that people don’t question. And in the U.S., since private care is more common than in Canada’s public system, people go out of pocket for all kinds of medical procedures.

So why is there this disconnect when it comes to gender-affirming care? Why do people accept that hair plugs or breast implants are “fine”, but certain gender-affirming procedures are suddenly considered off-limits?

And, as you pointed out, birth control and the morning-after pill also affect hormones. Yet, no one questions their availability. People aren’t campaigning against those in the same way.

Young: Exactly.

Jacobsen: So why is there this gap? Why are these two things—cosmetic procedures and gender-affirming care—not treated the same way? Why does society struggle to bridge that divide?

Young: I don’t know. I have no idea. But the honest answer to your question is that we live in a patriarchal society. The surgeries and hormones that support or reinforce that structure are readily accepted, while those that don’t are not.

We talk about breast augmentations, we talk about gynecomastia surgery for men, and we talk about the morning-after pill—all of these are widely accepted because they align with the male gaze. Procedures that make people more appealing or more “useful” in terms of reproductive control are normalized.

On the other hand, and this is a broad generalization, trans people don’t reinforce or serve the patriarchy in the same way. They don’t necessarily fit into conventional standards of attractiveness as dictated by the male gaze, nor do they conform to traditional reproductive roles. And that’s where the line gets drawn. It’s not that gender-affirming care is fundamentally different from other medical procedures; it’s that it doesn’t serve a patriarchal purpose.

If gender-affirming care were about making people “hotter” or more appealing to men, or if it somehow made them more “useful” within patriarchal structures, it would be viewed completely differently. But because trans people are doing these things for themselves—for their own euphoria, their own well-being—society struggles to understand it.

I also think there’s a fundamental lack of empathy when it comes to dysphoria. People who don’t experience it often have no reference point for what it feels like to live in a body that doesn’t reflect who they truly are. We already live in a society that struggles to believe marginalized people when they speak about their experiences, and that extends to trans people and their needs. At the end of the day, though, I believe much of this resistance comes back to living in a patriarchal society that doesn’t care to understand this population.

Jacobsen: How do you integrate fitness, self-defense, and hormone therapy education? And particularly, what do you mean by self-defense and fitness? Those are broad terms.

Young: Yes, and we keep them intentionally broad. I strongly believe that movement should be fun and personalized to each person.

When I talk about fitness, I mean movement of any kind. Many people come here and say, “I’ve never engaged in movement before, but I want to try a little bit of everything to see what feels good.” And I say, “Cool! Let’s do that.”

A lot of times, that movement ends up being strength training. That might involve using barbells, interval training, or a combination of different exercises. But it’s about finding what works for each individual.

Our self-defense class is taught by a member of our community who has been practicing martial arts for over twenty years. He’s an instructor in several different martial arts disciplines, though, to be honest with you, I don’t even know all of them. He sent me his résumé, and I just looked at it and said, “That looks good! You’re hired!”

Jacobsen: “So, you’re training with Jackie Chan?”

Young: Basically! I saw his qualifications and said, “You’re qualified. That sounds great to me.”

But beyond that, I keep our language intentionally vague because I don’t want people to feel limited by what they can or can’t do here. I firmly believe that movement is whatever you want it to be—whatever feels right for you and whatever you’re going to stick with for the long term. I don’t care what you do for the next three to six months—I care that you’re moving in a way that works for you.

I care about what you’re doing a decade from now. Are you still engaging in movement that you enjoy, or are we back in the vicious cycle of trying to figure it out again? I want to help people break that cycle—to find what feels good and sustainable for them in the long run.

Jacobsen: Now, shifting topics a bit—this will vary by state, but I want to ask about the most pressing legislative issues. At the state level, Texas has its own developments. You have your little oasis in Austin, but what’s happening federally? What policies are currently being enacted, and what new ones are expected? I assume that people who are personally affected by these issues are tracking them closely, since it’s more impactful for them.

Young: Yes. There are so many.

To start, there was the “two genders” policy that was announced at the inauguration. That was one of the first moves, and it impacts people who are either in the middle of transitioning or who have already transitioned but now exist in this legal limbo. It also disproportionately affects people who are androgynous because these policies are designed to enforce strict gender binaries.

I can’t remember the exact name of these laws, but I keep calling them “Good Samaritan laws”, even though that’s not what they are. Essentially, they empower everyday people to police others—giving them the perceived authority to challenge someone’s gender based on their appearance. For example, I have short hair, so under these laws, someone might feel entitled to say, “You look like a man. You shouldn’t be in this bathroom.” These laws create vigilante-style policing of gender identity, which is incredibly dangerous.

Then there’s the attempt to ban gender-affirming care entirely. While that likely won’t hold up legally, the fact that it’s even being proposed is concerning. They’re also pushing a ban on trans women in sports, as well as restrictions on trans people serving in the military.

Another disturbing push is to extend the statute of limitations for people to sue doctors who provided gender-affirming care. That means someone could transition, live as their true self for years, and then suddenly be encouraged to sue their doctor for providing that care. It’s a clear attempt to scare doctors out of offering gender-affirming treatment.

They’re also trying to make it illegal for doctors to refer patients out of state for gender-affirming care. If I went to my doctor in Texas and said, “I want gender-affirming care—can you refer me to someone in New Mexico?”, they’re trying to criminalize that referral. The goal is to box people in, making it as difficult as possible to access care.

Beyond that, they are working to intimidate doctors—to make them afraid to prescribe hormones, perform surgeries, or even provide basic referrals. They’re trying to create an atmosphere of fear around gender-affirming care so that providers will self-censor and stop offering it altogether.

Those are the main policies I can think of off the top of my head, but there are over a hundred federal bills targeting trans rights that are currently in the pipeline. Some of this might be scare tactics, but the reality is, it’s working.

Jacobsen: It sounds like a shotgun approach—throwing everything out there to see what sticks.

Young: Absolutely. And that’s by design. It is a political tactic that has been used before, but we’ve never felt it at the federal level like this. It happened in the Texas legislature before, but now it’s national, and the stakes are even higher.

Jacobsen: What else? Here’s something that people don’t like to talk about—imperfect allies. You’re not going to agree with everyone on everything, but if you can align on one issue, you can get more political action done by working together, even if you disagree on other things. The enemy of my enemy is my friend in that sense. What are your thoughts on that, especially when it comes to some aspects of gender-affirming care that you work with daily?

Young: That’s fair. Imperfect allies are incredibly important. This whole system is designed to divide us. That’s intentional. When all marginalized communities come together, we are actually the majority. But the system separates us—by race, gender, sexuality, class, everything—so that we don’t unify.

So, to your point, I might disagree with someone on one thing, but if we agree on several other major issues, those commonalities outweigh the disagreements. Finding common ground and showing up for each other is essential. That’s a big deal.

We saw this during the BLM movement—queer folks showed up and stood in solidarity. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, the Women’s March happened, and many queer folks showed up for that as well. Now, in this terrifying time for trans people, we hope that allies will show up for us in return. The most important thing we can do is say, “I don’t personally relate to your experience, but I believe you. How can I support you?” Coming together, even when we come from different backgrounds and experiences, is what makes lasting change possible.

Jacobsen: What type of gender-affirming care is least provided, so that people who are interested in entering this field can train in those underserved areas and help fill the gaps?

Young: That’s a great question.

I’m actually in the process of creating a residency program for physical therapy and gender-affirming care. I’m also working on getting post-op protocols published for physical therapists, because those basically don’t exist right now. There are some PTs who specialize in post-op bottom surgery recovery, but it’s a very niche area, and outside of that, there’s almost nothing. There’s very little research available, which makes it difficult for providers to access reliable information.

So I would say that anything in the recovery realm is critically needed. I also work closely with a gender doula who specializes in the very acute post-op phase—helping people with showering, bandage care, infection checks, and mobility assistance. That is an incredibly important and niche area that more professionals should be trained in.

I also work with a primary care doctor who specializes in hormone therapy and gender-affirming care. She’s a general practitioner, but many trans people seek her out specifically because she is affirming and knowledgeable. That’s another area where more providers are needed. Even an orthopedic surgeon who isn’t specifically trained in gender-affirming care could still make a huge difference just by being an affirming provider.

People often assume gender-affirming care is just hormones and surgeries, but it’s so much more than that. It’s also about affirming spaces—saying, “Yes, we can try your new name. Yes, I will respect your pronouns. No, I’m not going to ask invasive questions unless they are absolutely necessary, and if I do, I’ll approach it with care.” Every area of healthcare could benefit from more of this approach.

Jacobsen: What are your favorite quotes? That’s my final question.

Young: My favorite quotes? Well, this isn’t really relevant, but I’ll tell you anyway.

I’m a huge fan of The Office. It’s my favorite show.

Jacobsen: I’ve seen a few episodes.

Young: It’s hilarious.

Jacobsen: Yes, it’s pretty funny.

Young: So my favorite quote from The Office is from Michael Scott: “I’m not superstitious, but I’m a little stitious.”

Jacobsen: [Laughing] That’s good.

Young: As Americans become less religious, that’s kind of how I see them—we’re becoming more woo-woo by the minute, for sure.

Jacobsen: Yes. They’re a little stitious. But that’s still better than big-time organized, politicized superstition.

Young: Correct. I agree.

Jacobsen: So that’s what all of you grew up in, then?

Young: I don’t know. I probably could find another quote that’s more aligned with what we’ve been discussing, but that’s my favorite quote regardless.

Jacobsen: Well, on that little stitious note—thank you. I appreciate it.

Young: Yes, of course.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Alexis Rockman on Art, Science, and Environmental Storytelling

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/03

Alexis Rockman, a contemporary American artist born in 1962, discusses his fascination with natural history, sparked by early visits to the American Museum of Natural History. He reflects on influences like King Kong and Bride of Frankenstein and his views on science communication, AI art, and environmental activism. Rockman critiques market-driven journalism, celebrates Stephen Jay Gould and E.O. Wilson and shares a skeptical yet hopeful outlook on the future. With humour and honesty, he explores artistic process, despair over climate inaction, and the enduring need for storytelling grounded in scientific and ecological awareness.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Alexis Rockman. Born in 1962, he is an American contemporary artist known for his vivid, often speculative landscapes that explore the intersection of nature and civilization. Raised in New York City, his frequent visits to the American Museum of Natural History, where his mother briefly worked as an assistant to anthropologist Margaret Mead’s secretary, ignited his fascination with natural history. He studied animation at the Rhode Island School of Design before earning a BFA from the School of Visual Arts in 1985.

Rockman’s work addresses environmental issues such as climate change, genetic engineering, and species extinction, with notable exhibitions at institutions like the Brooklyn Museum and the Smithsonian American Art Museum. In 2025, he designed the official Earth Day poster with the theme “Our Planet, Our Future,” emphasizing environmental stewardship and renewable energy. Thank you very much for joining me today. I appreciate it.

Rockman: Pleasure.

Jacobsen: So, I did get to visit briefly as a Canadian travelling in the United States on Amtrak, all the way across the United States. I was very struck by two things in D.C.: the landscaping and the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. It was so vast compared to any museum I’d ever been to. It goes on forever. I could not explore it all during the half day I was there. Half day. Yes, I know. I felt so… touristy. Another thing that struck me about D.C. is that the landscaping and gardening are done better than anywhere else I saw in the United States.

Rockman: It’s about public spaces and power.

Jacobsen: Yes, so, have your early experiences at the American Museum of Natural History and your exposure to Margaret Mead had a profound or a minor influence on your artistic direction?

Rockman: Which?

Jacobsen: The experience of going to the American Museum of Natural History and the impacts of Margaret Mead.

Rockman: Margaret Mead—my mother was the assistant to her secretary. So, I know who Margaret Mead is. She’s an interesting figure. My mom found her abusive, if you read between the lines. Somehow, she still loved anthropology.

However, the museum profoundly affected me and formed my perception and expectations about what nature should be. I’ve done a fair amount of travelling. I have to confess. I often secretly wish that nature looked more like a diorama than some disgraced, eroded, or human-induced clear-cut forest—or something like that.

Jacobsen: How has King Kong—and is it The Bride of Frankenstein?—influenced you?

Rockman: You did your homework coming up with those two movies! They are perfect examples of incredible world-building. King Kong and The Akeley Hall at the AMNH share a lot of cultural DNA and were made around the same time in the early 1930’ . They’re both looking at nature as a theatrical experience. Kong is horizontal tabletop miniatures, glass painting with stop motion animation models and the dioramas are the same idea though lifesize with taxidermy with painted cycloramas. So you’re dealing with a highly constructed stagecraft representation of nature that is very expressive and atmospheric. Both owe a huge debt to art history and Kong look is based on engravings by the great French illustrator Gustave Doré.

In terms of Bride of Frankenstein, that is one of the great witty horror black comedies. Again, it’s a very beautiful production, very theatrical, and an incredible cinematic experience.. Great writing. They have great scores from European émigrés, such as Franz Waxman for Bride of Frankenstein and Max Steiner for King Kong.

Jacobsen: How was your experience collaborating with Stephen Jay Gould?

Rockman: Well, I never collaborated with him. I knew him, and read his books which I love. He wrote about my work, not me personally. He’s one of the science writers I admire most in the world – being able to bring so many ideas together.. He wrote two essays about my work—one in 1994 and one in 2001, right before he died.That was a thrill to be taken seriously by someone I admired so much.

Jacobsen: What are your thoughts about E.O. Wilson?

Rockman: Wilson—I love him too. He was a great gentleman in the history of science and a great popularizer. His life’s work was the love of ants, of course… After I returned from Guyana in 1995, I created a series of portraits of ants inspired by his research. He wrote me a wonderful rejection letter when I asked him to write something for a book I was doing! Somehow, a couple of years later, I ended up on the cover of one of his books.

Jacobsen: What research in science has fascinated you the most and led to a work of art you’re most proud of?

Rockman: I don’t think there’s just one. There are so many things about the history of science that I’m fascinated by, and it’s an ongoing thing. I’ve worked very closely with scientists on certain projects.. To be clear, I do projects that have sets of rules and I’ve ignored science on others—for example when I worked on the movie Life of Pi, it had nothing to do with science. It was purely about world-building and fantasy. I pointed out to Ang Lee that there would never be meerkats on an island in the middle of the ocean because they live in the desert. And he said, “Well, this is a fantasy,” and I quickly realized he was right.

Jacobsen: When you work with scientists, what have you noticed about how they look at things? What is captivating to their eye when they’re examining something?

Rockman: They’re storytellers. They’re telling the story of not only the history of life on this planet but also the history of geology—how old the planet is and what happened on Earth. So, to me, it’s another incredible resource. Scientists, as people, can be very different—some are flamboyant and extroverted; others, like my mom—she’s an archaeologist and a scientist—are more reserved.

Jacobsen: In your travels, what places have you found the most exciting to explore for stories, artistic inspiration, and so on?

Rockman: All these questions about “what’s the most”—the quantified—it doesn’t work like that. Because, for me, going to a dump around the corner from here in CT is exciting. Going to Antarctica is fascinating. There are interesting things everywhere—even in a gutter in the city. I love going to places. I want to go to Borneo. I’ve never been there. But I’m very democratic when it comes to thinking about these things.

Jacobsen: Regarding a garbage dump around the corner. What parts of it would appeal to you artistically?

Rockman: What’s making a living there? What animals am I going to see? If it’s the right season, you’ll see turkey vultures because they migrate. What types of plants can survive? Where are they from? Are they native or invasive? That kind of thing.

Jacobsen: When you examine fantasy worlds where people are creating whole worlds—” world-building,” as you called it—do you find a preference for yourself? Are they built entirely from scratch, or are they built using parts of the real world? Using facts about real organisms and their migratory patterns, lifestyles, or physics—or ones more entirely concocted from the imagination?

Rockman: Anything that’s interesting. There are no rules with this stuff but I’m interested in visions that I haven’t seen before. When I saw Star Wars when I was 15, I knew about Jodorowsky’s unmade production of Dune. Alien hadn’t been made yet. I knew Star Wars was derivative to a point—of 2001 and other things like that—but I thought it was a fresh take on that stuff, even at 15. These films have one thing in common- a huge amount of planning and the use of artists to articulate the filmmakers vision.

I find the new Dune movie—the one by Denis Villeneuve—unbearably tedious and derivative- it’s too brown, and I’ve seen it all before. Blade Runner is the benchmark of incredible visionary work by Syd Mead. Ridley Scott knows how to turn to artists and was so smart to bring him on. He was brilliant at understanding who could help him show a unique version of the future, even in 1980 when the movie was starting production. We still exist in its shadow.

Jacobsen: What do you think of the Earth Day theme “Our Power, Our Planet”?

Rockman: It’s hopeful. I sympathize with it.

Jacobsen: How do you think Americans are doing regarding sustainable development, working on climate goals, and so forth?

Rockman: Before the last election, things were in serious trouble that seemed insurmountable from my perspective. And now, it’s a disaster and a global embarrassment.

Jacobsen: Any words for your brothers and sisters in the cold North?

Rockman: What Trump is saying and doing is appalling and shameful.

Jacobsen: People often reference Carl Sagan’s writing—probably not even a full page, maybe half a page of one book—where he imagines a future America in his children’s or grandchildren’s time, which is now. He warns of a society with immense scientific and technological prowess but a public without the capacity to make effective, informed decisions regarding technology and science. Do you have thoughts on the prescience of that?

Rockman: It reminds me of that great E.O. Wilson quote: “We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions, and god-like technology.” It’s a fucking disaster. Let’s face it. He was right. And he’s one of my heroes. It’s a bad moment all around. And sure, I pick on America, but the rest of the humans are universally idiotic. Are you in Canada now?

Jacobsen: Yes, and I’m Canadian.

Rockman: I got that. You could still be in Jersey, for all I know.

Jacobsen: Joysy? I almost was in Joysy. I got back a day and a half ago, not even. I’m in a small town on the outskirts of the Lower Mainland in British Columbia.

Rockman: I will speak in Tacoma in a couple of weeks at The Museum of Glass.

Jacobsen: What are you going to be talking about?

Rockman: Evolution, my first big panorama painting I made in 1992. Wow. That’s a long time.

Jacobsen: Not to the Earth.

Rockman: Yes.

Jacobsen: I just returned from thirteen days in New York, where I attended events surrounding the 69th session of the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW69), held in 2025. The visit also marked the 30th anniversary of the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and the 25th anniversary of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security. It was also Nigerian Women’s Day—a big event. That was fun. So yes, New York was very fun.

Rockman: Good.

Jacobsen: Now, you’ve expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of art as a tool for activism. What’s with the skepticism?

Rockman: Show me some activist art or activism that’s worked, and I’ll change my mind. Could you show me? That’s being polite—”skepticism” for you Canadians.

Jacobsen: Unabashed disdain?

Rockman: No, it’s not disdain. It’s more… it’s bleak. You’re not getting the vibe. This is despair. This isn’t some attempt to be above it all. I tried. I’ve been doing this for a long time. I’ve seen the arc of this story. I know where we’re headed. The election is just an exclamation point on this stuff. I blame myself as much as anyone else. I didn’t—couldn’t—do anything about it.

Jacobsen: When you have public commentary against scientific truisms—let alone the more nuanced truths science discovers—in American discourse, politically and socially, do you note any colleagues who… I don’t want to say “sell out,” but…

Rockman: …more like with Bobby Kennedy?

Jacobsen: Sure.

Rockman: Yes. He was a friend of ours… So don’t laugh. I saw the arc of that.He wrote the preface for an exhibition catalogue for Manifest Destiny in 2004, a project of mine at the Brooklyn Museum about what Climate Change is going to do to NYC. I even did a poster for Riverkeeper in 1999. He and Cheryl have been to our house. So, I hope he’s selling out because if he believes what he’s talking about, he’s lost his damn mind. He was a hero to many people. Articulate. Charismatic. Believed in the right things. They had been a champion of all the things we cared about. It’s a disgrace.

Jacobsen: Have you seen this happen to more than one person?

Rockman: I’m not sure I can think of someone off the top of my head, but don’t—don’t get me going. Of course, it’s happening to more people.

Jacobsen: I remember Noam Chomsky being interviewed once in someone’s house and talking about honest intellectuals who went against their cause—or went against higher motives—and his response was, “Do you want to start from A?” When doing your paintings and going for scientific accuracy, how do you balance that with the aesthetic you’re trying to convey simultaneously?

Rockman: That’s a fun process. Because that’s done at the beginning before I start making something, once I figure out what I’m doing and feel confident that it’s credible and makes sense in the context of my goals, then I’m good. For instance, I’m starting a big project for the Jewish Museum in a couple of weeks and meeting with the director of education. It will be built around hunting, fishing, and agriculture artifacts in their collection.

I don’t believe the director of education is technically a scientist, but she’s an authority on the history of these artifacts. I’ll take whatever she says seriously. So I’ll build this painting around that, and then I get to a point where I do research and figure out where everything goes. Got to make sure it’s a dromedary, with one hump and not a Bactrian Camel lol. Then I change hats and focus on the process of making the best painting I can.

Jacobsen: Was there any project in your history—up to now—that you’ve had in mind for a long, long time, but it was simply too lofty or too costly in terms of time and effort? Where mid-sized projects might be–might not necessarily be expedient, but they might be…

Rockman: …lucrative.

Jacobsen: Potentially lucrative—yes.

Rockman: Listen, I’m a small businessperson. I have to balance risky projects that might sell somewhere with things I’m confident I’ll sell within a relatively reasonable amount of time. So, absolutely—and I’m constantly conversing with people about how to get these things done. I’ve been very lucky, Scott, that I’ve had so many projects that started as lofty pies in the sky and ended up becoming a reality. But we’re not dealing with movie money here—it’s just a painting!

Jacobsen: Right. Now, I’ve talked to AI people. I had two conversations with Neil Sahota, who’s a UN advisor on AI ethics or AI safety. I asked him, “How much of this is hype?” And he said there’s quite a bit, but it still needs to be taken seriously. So, on the creative front, what are your thoughts on developing AI that generates visual imagery?

Rockman: I have a mixed-bag reaction to AI. On one hand, it’s dazzlingly fascinating. Then, it reminds me of eating a Twinkie—it feels great while doing it, and then it’s just garbage afterward. To me, the sky’s the limit in terms of potential. It will revolutionize the workforce— People will lose jobs just like every revolution.

But my job is to make unique objects that reflect the human experience. And AI is not the human experience. It mimics things that have already been done and reconfigures them. But there’s a strange hangover to it—no matter how incredible it seems—and they are incredible—there’s something familiar. It’s like a dream you’ve already had—a hangover from a dream.

I’m sure AI will get better and better. But luckily, I make objects. Hopefully, what’s interesting about my work is that it involves mistakes and reactions. Intimacy will be valued more and more as our culture evolves.

That’s my perception.

Jacobsen: Where do you think the place is now for art activists, despite the “despair”?

Rockman: Well, there are other mediums—film, streaming, or other forms of moving entertainment that come out of the history of television and movies. For example, The China Syndrome when that came out in 1979— crippled the nuclear industry. Unfortunately, in retrospect, environmentally, it was probably not for the best. So if you tell human stories that are relatable it might be extremely effective. But I don’t think what I’ve done so far as an artist has been effective.

Jacobsen: Do you think collective art activism is still worth pursuing, rather than individual?

Rockman: Well, I don’t know what “collective” means. What does that mean?

Jacobsen: Like artists organizing under banners—Earth Day, or through symposia and conferences—organized around a theme relevant to climate change activism? Things like that.

Rockman: Environmental Activism has not been effective since the 1970’s. Civil rights activism was effective. Gay and women’s rights—have been effective in the past. The problem is that we’ve run out of time. It’s a physics experiment. It’s not negotiable.

Jacobsen: Yes, and that also goes back to the prior mini-commentary about how people, largely, aren’t physics-literate.

Rockman: Right. But you must understand something, Scott—in America, huge industrial, corporate, and global forces make sure people are skeptical about science because it’s in their best interest. When science tells stories about industries like fossil fuels or plastics who want to make money- they don’t want to go out of business.

Jacobsen: Yes. Not an accident. What do you think the effectiveness of popular science communicators has been—your Bill Nyes, your Carl Sagans, your Neil deGrasse Tysons, and others?

Rockman: I was lucky enough to—well, I know Neil. I know Bill Nye. They’re wonderful. I don’t think they’re quite up to the task. I don’t think anyone is. We need someone equivalent to Martin Luther King as a spokesperson who can take on the mantle. That’s why the Bobby Kennedy affair is tragic—he could have been that person.

Jacobsen: What if we’re looking through a historical lens here, from a generational psychology perspective? Think about it—during the peak activism era you’re referencing, there were fewer media channels: television and radio. A narrower distribution meant greater cohesion. Civil rights had figures like Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and maybe Marcus Garvey as an intellectual legacy. Women’s rights had Gloria Steinem and others. These movements had leaders whom people wanted to follow—with enthusiasm.

What if there’s been a gradual slide over decades toward cohorts that respond less to singular, charismatic leadership? If that’s the case, the tactics need to change accordingly. What about that?

Rockman: Sure. Whatever works. Maybe Muhammad Ali was a great figure for these issues, and he put his career and life on the line. He went to prison. I don’t see… I don’t see LeBron doing that, even though he’s someone who has, much to his credit, kept himself out of controversy and lives a life worth emulating on many levels. But I don’t see anyone taking those risks in these generations.

Jacobsen: Yes. So, is there a large, risk-averse trend?

Rockman: It’s a type of corporateness. I don’t see Vince Carter—Air Canada—doing it.

Jacobsen: Who would be the one for this generation now? Whoever uses “Sigma” and “No Cap” best. What’s the longest piece you’ve ever taken to produce—and what’s the quickest? I know, sorry. I’m doing extremes here.

Rockman: I don’t know… The sketch I did of Manifest Destiny on a napkin when I was at a dinner sitting next to Arnold Lehman, the then director of the Brooklyn Museum in 1999,was the quickest. Then making the damn painting took five years which I finished in 2004.That was the longest. So there you go. It’s the same piece.

Jacobsen: The official Earth Day poster for 2020 features solar panels in a vibrant natural setting. What inspired it?

Rockman: It was a hard process, Scott, because I kept coming up with ideas that Earth Day deemed too negative. And this was, of course, before the election. I was thinking to myself, “Are you kidding me? What is this—We Are the Worldor some fucking Coke commercial?” I was about to bail, and my wife Dorothy said, “Don’t be an idiot. This is a dream opportunity for you.” You must understand that Robert Rauschenberg did the first Earth Day poster in 1970, and my wife used to work at Leo Castelli, the gallery that represented him. We have two Rauschenbergs. So, this is bucket list. So, I talked to some friends. We devised the idea over a couple of beers. Much to my surprise, the Earth Day people liked it. I was thrilled.

Jacobsen: Quick question—side note. What beer?

Rockman: One of the local IPAs up here in CTHeadway IPA.

Jacobsen: Do you ever drink Guinness?

Rockman: I’ve loved Guinness, though it’s a little heavy. I had it more when I was younger and needed less exercise.

Jacobsen: That’s right—it’s for molasses aficionados or something like that.

Rockman: Molasses—there you go.

Jacobsen: I remember one time in a small town, there was this guy named Veggie Bob. I had the phone number (604) 888-1223—that’s how small the town was. He ran Veggie Bob’s. Later called it his Growcery Café. I remember I bought a bucket of molasses from him for no good reason. What should I ask… How is Madagascar?

Rockman: Sad and incredible.

Jacobsen: How sad? How incredible!

Rockman: These islands have unique biodiversity. Who doesn’t love land leeches and beautiful lemurs? On the other hand, the human population is so desperate for resources. It’s like moths eating a blanket. Then, the Chinese try to eat it, too. So, it’s sad.

Jacobsen: You had a recent Journey to Nature’s Underworld exhibition, correct?

Rockman: That’s in Miami. And I also have a gallery show in Miami called Vanishing Point at the Andrew Reed Gallery.

Jacobsen: Was the former one with Mark Dion?

Rockman: Yes. At the Lowe Art Museum in Miami.

Jacobsen: How was that collaboration going?

Rockman: We’ve been friends for forty years. About twenty works each from over the last four decades are juxtaposed next to each other.

Jacobsen: Forty years ago, one might hazard a guess—you drank Guinness at some point.

Rockman: I did, mostly in the ’80s.

Jacobsen: When action movies were a very big thing

Rockman: I was listening to a podcast about Predator—the movie.

Jacobsen: Ah, yes. That’s very cool. What did you learn?

Rockman: I learned so many things. For instance, I learned that the first location had to be moved because there was no jungle, and no one could figure out why that original location had been chosen to shoot the movie.

Rockman: Yes. That was the era of iconic movie lines.

Jacobsen: “If it bleeds, we can kill it!”

Rockman: Yes.

Jacobsen: Or what was that other line… “Pussyface”?

Rockman: Was it?

Jacobsen: Good. You’re married to a journalist. What are your partner’s perceptions of journalism now—and her perceptions of how the public views journalists now, based on your conversations?

Rockman: My wife Dorothy Spears, slowed down being an arts journalist because she felt that the things she wanted to write about for the places she was writing for became increasingly influenced by market dynamics. And—I don’t want to put words in her mouth—and this is my perception of her perception: the market for advertising in some parts of these venues began to dictate or influence the journalism content. And she didn’t want anything to do with that.

Jacobsen: That was the end of her journalism career?

Rockman: No, but she just moved on to other types of writing. She’s writing books now. A memoir about her experience at Leo Castelli Gallery, for example. So, no—she just lost interest in being at the service of the publicity department of art of journalism.

Jacobsen: Advertising?

Rockman: Ish. It’s a very tough situation.

Jacobsen: Sure. Yes. Especially when you’re making a decision right at the highest level in North America.

Rockman: Exactly.

Jacobsen: That’s fair. What question have you always wanted to be asked but have never been?

Rockman: I’m so lucky that I’ve been asked so many questions—that anyone even cares about what I’m doing.

Jacobsen: That’d be fun if you could ask yourself. What do you think your younger self, drinking a big pint of Guinness, would be asking your older self now? “Why are you drinking IPAs?”

Rockman: Ha! No, but seriously—we all have regrets. I’d give myself some advice at key moments: not to do certain things and to do other things.

Jacobsen: At what points do seemingly good opportunities arise, but “all that glitters is not gold”? What are some key signs?

Rockman: You’d never know. Every day, there’s some interesting email or offer. Things often go south, but you must be optimistic and hope something works out.

Jacobsen: So, this interview took a mood shift over forty minutes. I can’t tell if we went from despair to optimism or—

Rockman:Medication or my martini kicked in.

Jacobsen: Ha!

Rockman: No, I’m kidding.

Jacobsen: That’s right. That’s it.

Rockman: Yes.

Jacobsen: So, that’d be quite a good question: “Why are you drinking IPAs and martinis now rather than Guinness?” That’s my question to you.

Rockman: Rather than what?

Jacobsen: Guinness into IPAs and martinis.

Rockman: You can drink more of it without feeling nauseated.

Rockman: Yes.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time. I appreciate your expertise.

Rockman: Pleasure.

Jacobsen: Nice meeting you. Bye-bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Economic Disruption and Sustainability Ripple Effects

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/03

Abigail Jackson, a policy researcher at the Institute for Research on Public Policy, specializes in economic resilience, affordability, and low-carbon transitions. She has contributed to multiple initiatives, including the Toward a More Equitable Canada research program. Jackson highlights that rural communities face economic disruptions due to small populations, remoteness, and lack of economic diversity. She outlines three key factors of workforce susceptibility: facility emissions, industry intensity, and market transformations. Jackson also emphasizes the need for government and private sector collaboration in workforce development. She advocates for community-led transformation strategies, stronger skills training, and expanded support for community futures organizations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Abigail Jackson, a policy researcher specializing in economic resilience, affordability, and low-carbon transitions. At the Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP), she has contributed to multiple initiatives, including the Toward a More Equitable Canada research program and the Supporting Workers and Communities Through Low-Carbon Transition project.

Abigail has played a key role in the Affordability Action Council, serving on its secretariat and co-authoring five policy briefs on food affordability, housing, and transportation in the context of climate and economic challenges. Her contributions to public policy were recognized in 2023 when she received the Jack Layton Progress Prize for a Better Canada.

Before joining IRPP, Abigail worked at Habitat for Humanity, coordinating affordable housing, community development, and energy efficiency programs. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Business and International Political Economy from the University of Puget Sound and a Master of Public Policy from McGill University.

Thank you for joining us today. I appreciate it.

Abigail Jackson: Thanks for having me.

Jacobsen: Why do rural communities face a higher risk of economic disruption?

Jackson: We found through our project that rural communities tend to be more susceptible to economic disruption because they generally have smaller populations, are more remote, and are less economically diverse than urban areas.

Combined, these factors can make it more difficult for displaced workers to find new jobs within their communities after an economic disruption.

Take economic diversity, for example. If a community lacks economic diversity, fewer employers or industries may exist. When an economic shock—such as a change in prices or demand—occurs, a larger proportion of the workforce is likely to be affected because fewer sectors and employers exist.

The greater the share of people impacted in a community, the more significant the ripple effects. This creates challenges for the workers directly affected and local suppliers, contractors, service providers, and government revenues.

In addition, workers in remote communities often struggle to access essential services and job markets within their communities and nearby areas. This difficulty can make it challenging for communities to retain their workforce.

These are some key factors, though the situation can be much more complex. Every community is different, but we have observed these general trends in our research.

Jacobsen: What factors make a community more susceptible to workforce disruption?

Jackson: Our project identified three key factors determining a community’s susceptibility to workforce disruption. To assess this issue, we developed three specific metrics to measure community vulnerability.

The first is facility susceptibility, which measures emissions from large facilities—particularly those included in the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI). These are facilities that exceed a specific emissions threshold.

So we look at the emissions of those facilities relative to the size of a community. For example, consider a community with a high-emitting cement facility—this could be classified as susceptible under this metric.

The second metric is intensity susceptibility, which measures the proportion of employment in emissions-intensive sectors. A community may have many smaller employers in emissions-intensive industries. For instance, a community with high employment levels in emissions-intensive manufacturing and associated truck transportation could be identified as susceptible under this metric. Truck transportation, as an industry, tends to be emissions-intensive. Even if a community has multiple employers, the cumulative effect of these emissions-intensive industries can make it particularly vulnerable.

The third metric is market susceptibility, which measures the proportion of employment in sectors we have identified as globally traded and either currently undergoing or expected to undergo major market transformations.

For example, consider a community with a high proportion of employment in auto manufacturing. Given the global shift toward electric vehicles, this industry is actively transforming. Many other factors can also contribute to a community’s susceptibility to workforce disruptions.

While we focus on these three key metrics, we also acknowledge other contributing factors, such as:

The loss of a major employer in the past 10 years
A major employer undergoing significant transformation or restructuring, even if unrelated to emissions (e.g., automation)

Additionally, we recognize that climate change will cause workforce disruptions. However, these factors are not currently incorporated into our methodology, as they would require extensive calculations, data, and assumptions beyond our current scope. We do hope to explore these issues in future project iterations. Still, our focus remains on the three key metrics I mentioned earlier.

Jacobsen: How are disruptions in one industry rippling through others?

Jackson: When a major employer transforms or shuts down—or when an entire industry or sector declines or evolves—it can have widespread indirect effects across a community and other industries.

For example, businesses that supply parts, goods, or services to an affected facility will also feel the impact.

A case in point is Ingersoll, Ontario. The shift to producing electric vehicles at the General Motors CAMI Assembly Plant—which recently transitioned from manufacturing internal combustion engine vehicles to electric delivery vans—led to the closure of several local parts suppliers. In particular, suppliers that produced components for drivetrains were affected, as electric vehicles no longer require the same parts for internal combustion engines.

These changes throughout an economy can create ripple effects. Workforce disruptions may impact parts suppliers but can also affect other sectors, such as tourism and services. Local restaurants, social service providers, and even local government tax revenues may decline, leading to changes in government-led sectors.

This strain can affect multiple areas of a community. While it is difficult to measure the full extent of the ripple effect, it is certainly present. The long-term effects will depend on the industry affected, but they can be significant in many cases.

For instance, local housing markets could be affected if workers relocate, influencing the construction sector, contractors, and related industries. Additionally, changes in the movement of residents—whether due to job disruptions that create an influx of opportunities or outflows due to economic downturns—can be just as disruptive. These imbalances in supply and demand have widespread effects on a community’s economy.

Jacobsen: How does the IRPP see the role of governments and the private sector in community resilience?

Jackson: We believe governments at all levels are critical in supporting workers, employers, and entire communities through the low-carbon transition.

Through this project, we are developing a suite of policy recommendations focused on:

Community-led economic development
Skills and training programs
Support for workers who lose their jobs
Helping major employers adapt to market changes
Ensuring community social services are prepared to provide support during disruptions

Our first set of recommendations is our primary focus at the moment, as we are still in the process of developing the others. This initial set emphasizes empowering community-led transformation strategies grounded in economic development planning.

Our research has shown that economic transformations are most effective when developed and led by people who live and work in the affected communities. Therefore, we recommend that governments support this community-led transformation process while incentivizing private companies to invest in and around at-risk communities.

This could be achieved through:

Enhancements to investment tax credits
More generous financial support based on location
Expanded eligibility for specific government programs

There are many possible approaches, but the ultimate goal is to encourage investments that foster economic diversity and growth in vulnerable communities. This will help them build resilience against future market, technological, or policy changes.

The private sector also plays an essential role in this process. Many companies already offer in-house training programs, and some facilities actively collaborate with local communities to coordinate workforce development and strategic investments.

Greater public and private sector collaboration will be essential for building proactive, long-term support for these vulnerable communities. We will release more detailed recommendations in upcoming policy briefs throughout the summer and fall. Still, I will leave it there for now.

Jacobsen: How can community future organizations be empowered?

Jackson: Community futures organizations have immense potential to enhance and support strategic economic development planning in vulnerable communities.

These organizations exist nationwide and are already present in—or near—many communities we have identified as susceptible. Local leaders govern them and support small businesses, particularly in rural areas.

Many of these organizations go even further in Quebec by providing strategic economic development capacity for communities. In British Columbia (BC), provincial and federal governments provide funding and support for community futures organizations, demonstrating a model for effective local collaboration.

However, these organizations face significant resource limitations. Their federal funding has not been increased in nearly a decade.

To empower these organizations, we recommend:

Expanding their mandate to take on a more strategic leadership role
Increasing financial support so they can improve integrated planning across different communities, particularly in vulnerable areas

Jacobsen: The Canadian Centre for Community Transformation will be a repository for best practices, case studies, and data. How would this differ from existing networks?

Jackson: Great question. We recommend that the federal government establish the Canadian Centre for Community Transformation, a dedicated institution providing information and supporting the design of government programming.

For example, a community in Saskatchewan could learn from the experiences of a community in Newfoundland and Labrador and vice versa. Better access to local data and case studies could lead to more effective economic development strategies nationwide.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISED) could house this information hub. By being part of this federal department, it could draw on resources from:

Regional development agencies (which also fall under ISED)
Community futures organizations (which receive federal funding through ISED)

This approach would allow for better coordination, improved data-sharing, and stronger support for economic resilience across Canada.

This centre would differ from existing networks because it would draw on data and resources from various parts of government and community organizations. It would centralize this information, making it accessible, user-friendly, and easy to navigate—a critical aspect of its purpose.

Additionally, the centre could serve as a unique facilitator of collaboration, not just through an online platform but also through in-person gatherings. These knowledge-sharing exercises allow communities to exchange best practices, lessons learned, and innovative strategies, bringing people together nationwide in new and impactful ways.

Jacobsen: What training and programs might be critical to help residents adapt to changing industries? You alluded to this earlier.

Jackson: Yes, we know that skills training is essential for ensuring the long-term success of workers and their communities. We are currently developing a policy brief on skills training to explore this issue in greater depth.

However, what we already know from the data is that:

Workers in vulnerable communities tend to have lower levels of formal education than those in non-susceptible communities.
Regional mobility is low—meaning that workers are less likely to relocate for employment opportunities when job losses occur.

For many reasons, community members often prefer to remain in their local areas and build upon existing opportunities. There are multiple pathways for workers to engage in skills training, including:

Employer-provided programs
Government-funded training initiatives
Local colleges or institutes
Self-directed learning

However, the complexity of navigating these opportunities—considering the job market, required skills, available programs, and funding options—makes it crucial for workers to receive personalized assistance in their job transition journeys.

At the federal level, the Sustainable Jobs Plan includes many programs to promote skills training related to the low-carbon transition. However, a key concern about this plan is that it primarily focuses on specific sectors and job types.

We must ask whether the supports offered through these programs and policies align with the needs of workers in vulnerable communities, particularly in areas that currently lack access to green industries.

A comprehensive approach to workforce development should consider the following:

All workers in the community
All local job opportunities, whether green or not
The broader economic and social forces shaping these communities
Existing community assets, particularly place-based resources

By ensuring that workforce development initiatives consider all these factors, we can better support workers in adapting to economic changes while strengthening community resilience.

A comprehensive approach like this will require greater coordination between economic development planning and workforce development programs. As I mentioned, we will have more concrete recommendations to share in the future. Still, those are our high-level insights on what is needed for training programs during this transition.

Jacobsen: Abigail, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it. It’s nice to meet you.

Jackson: Great. Well, thank you so much, Scott. I hope you have a great rest of your day.

Jacobsen: Likewise, you too.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Psychologists Confront Rising Antisemitism, Campuses

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/02

Malka Shaw, LCSW, is the founder of Kesher Shalom Projects, a trauma-informed initiative supporting Jewish identity and mental health after the October 7 Hamas attacks and rising antisemitism. She developed The Guard System, integrating CBT, DBT, and narrative therapy, and has trained over 3,500 professionals in Jewish cultural competence. Shaw also serves as the training and education coordinator for Gesher Campus Care, founded by Dr. Jessica Zmood and Dr. Shelly Steinwurtzel. Gesher bridges Jewish students on campus with vetted, culturally competent therapists. In a wide-ranging conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, the team discussed the psychological impacts of antisemitism, identity destabilization, indoctrination on college campuses, and the professional concerns arising from politicized therapy practices. They highlighted the misuse of “decolonization” rhetoric in clinical spaces and warned of therapy becoming ideologically coercive. The discussion emphasized the need for ethical, bias-free mental health care for Jewish communities facing increasing hostility.

With a rise in antisemitism U.S. college campuses after October 7, 2023, psychologists Jessica and Shelly founded Gesher Campus Care. It is a referral service connecting Jewish students and faculty to culturally competent therapists. The aim is to ensure safe, supportive mental health care where Jewish identity is respected and understood. Kesher Shalom projects was founded after October 7th. It was founded to equip professionals who address antisemitism and trauma. It started out with a grassroots call on Zoom. Now, Kesher Shalom offers education, support groups, training, intended to foster dialogue and resilience across diverse audiences to understand and respond to the clinical and emotional impact of antisemitism.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Malka Shaw, LCSW. She is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and founded Kesher Shalom Projects, an initiative focused on Jewish identity, resilience, and cultural competency. This initiative was developed in response to the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the rise in global antisemitism. Shaw created educational and therapeutic programming to support Jewish communities and developed The Guard System, a trauma-informed framework integrating CBT, DBT, EMDR, and narrative therapy. Shaw has trained over 3,500 mental health professionals in Jewish cultural competence and the psychological impact of antisemitism. She also plays a key role in Gesher Campus Care, providing culturally competent mental health resources for Jewish students in higher education. She is a member of the American Jewish Medical Association (AJMA), American Jewish Psychologists (AJP), and Psychologist Against Antisemitism (PAA).

Steinwurtzel: As you may already know from Malka, Kesher means “connection,” and Gesher means “bridge.” They share a similar Hebraic root but are distinct words. Jessica and I founded and directed Gesher Campus Care. Malka is our training and education coordinator. She has been leading our orientation training for therapists. We love Malka and work closely with her, but they are separate organizations. Gesher Campus Care is a nonprofit focused on bridging the gap between students on campus seeking mental health support in a safe, vetted, trauma-informed setting and connecting them with therapists who meet those criteria.

Jacobsen: We’re also here with Jessica Zmood, Psy.D., a New York State Licensed Clinical Psychologist in private practice in Manhattan since 2010. She earned a B.A. in English Literature and Spanish from Washington University in St. Louis. She completed a post-baccalaureate in psychology at Baruch College. Dr. Zmood received her M.A. and Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology from the Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology. Her clinical background includes work in substance abuse treatment, psychiatric evaluations, and therapy with Spanish-speaking clients. She specializes in stress, anxiety, depression, and relationships. She is a Level II certified Gottman therapist and an AJMA, AJP, and PAA member.

We’re also joined by Shelly Steinwurtzel, Psy.D., a New York State Licensed Clinical Psychologist specializing in treating children, adolescents, and adults. She holds a B.A. from Brandeis University, an M.S.Ed. in School Psychology (2008), and a Psy.D. in School and Clinical Psychology (2011). Her experience includes psychiatric hospital work and serving as Columbia University Medical Center’s NICU staff psychologist. Dr. Steinwurtzel was formerly the Assistant Director at Pace University’s McShane Center. Her additional certifications include EMDR, CBT, and perinatal mental health. She’s a member of APA, AJP, PAA, Postpartum Support International, and the National Network of NICU Psychologists.

Thank you all three for joining me—I appreciate it.

Shaw: Thank you.

Zmood: Thanks for having us.

Jacobsen: Social work and clinical psychology are here today to explore antisemitism. This is going to be interesting. I have a background in psychology. I was in some psychology labs, but then I went into journalism—so this feels like home.

Zmood: What? I did the opposite. I used to be a journalist, and I left journalism for psychology. So there you go.

Jacobsen: In New York?

Zmood: Yes.

Jacobsen: The New York journalist went into psychology. How could you?

Zmood: It was too tough for me in the big city. I was writing too many articles about makeup and weddings, and I thought—”Oh, this is not what I want to do.”

Jacobsen: What part of New York were the makeup and wedding stories about?

Zmood: It was in Manhattan. I was trying to get jobs in magazines. Ironically—or maybe not ironically—all the places that hired me are now defunct. As most magazines are, I’m glad I jumped ship and went into psychology.

Jacobsen: Thank you. It’s hard out here. It’s hard in the hood. So, when we think of antisemitism vis-a-vis emotions and individual differences in psychology, what is happening with someone who harbours this style of prejudice and hatred? What are the impacts on individuals who have had this expressed toward them—on and off campus? It’s a general question for an overview.

Dr. Shelly Steinwurtzel: That’s an interesting question—your first question, about what generates antisemitism from a psychological perspective—is what you’re asking, right? What brings that about?

That’s a big question. I don’t know that there’s a single generalizable psychological characteristic that one can point to for antisemitism or any form of discrimination. There are so many factors that go into it. But certainly, at least on college campuses, what we’ve been seeing—and what experts are talking about—is that there’s much indoctrination.

Malka talks a lot about the role of indoctrination in this particular population. So this question of psychology and politics intersects with the work you do, Scott, in investigative journalism. Many people have been studying and bringing these issues to the forefront—experts across all these arenas.

You’ve got the BDS movement, which has been active in academia for a long time. You have SJP—Students for Justice in Palestine—which, I don’t know if you’ve seen some of the more recent documentation about its connections or alleged connections to other organizations.

Again, this leans more toward history and investigative research. Still, it speaks directly to psychology, especially because the psychology of adolescence is relevant to how propaganda has been strategically implemented in academia over the years.

I recommend looking into Lorenzo Vidino, who’s in the George Washington University program on extremism. They’ve published reports that date back to before the United States government designated Hamas a terrorist organization (in 1997). The FBI was reportedly able to link certain groups’ plans that would be enacted once Hamas was listed as a terrorist organization.

The Program on Extremism at GW outlines those early plans—strategies involving fundraising, philanthropy, advocacy, propaganda, and education. SJP, or Students for Justice in Palestine, eventually emerged from those broader plans.

All of this is currently being explored further in legal and academic investigations—there’s more to come. But I bring this up because these activities date back to the late 1980s and early 1990s. There has been a long-standing and intentional use of propaganda on college campuses. So, to your question—people engaging in antisemitic behaviour may not even identify as antisemitic themselves. Rather, they may be victims of propaganda.

From a psychological standpoint, we know that late adolescence and emerging adulthood—typically ages 17 to mid-20s—is a critical developmental period. During this time, the prefrontal cortex is still maturing. Research in neuropsychology shows that it is not fully developed until the mid- to late 20s.

We don’t fully understand how decades of screen exposure and constant social media might affect this development. But based on my observations—and supported by some emerging research—I hypothesize that executive functioning may already be declining due to fast dopamine hits from social media and excessive screen time.

But fundamentally, that stage of life is meant to be when individuals form their identity—when they leave the security of home and begin to develop a sense of self out in the world. Part of it is trying on many different styles, behaviours, and versions of self-learning from other people. Campus communities are meant to be a space for diverse perspectives and exposure to people from different backgrounds, which is beautiful when considering a university’s purpose.

But when you have intentional propaganda being espoused—with a very different intended outcome—and in this case, antisemitism, there’s much ideology that’s hyper-focused on a small region of the world and just 0.2% of the global population.

In terms of psychology, much of it comes down to being brilliant at identifying opportunities within a population and understanding the strengths and vulnerabilities of individuals during this period of psychological development.

Dr. Jessica Zmood: Yes, and I can give an example from a student at Columbia—a Jewish freshman who didn’t have any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Zionism. They were just a Jewish kid at Columbia who wanted to make friends, get involved, and join some clubs.

There’s a group at Columbia called C-U-A-D, which stands for Columbia University Apartheid Divest. It’s a coalition of about 20 to 30 student organizations. So, do you want to join the gardening, arts, or dance clubs? They might all be part of CUAD.

Now, imagine—you’re this Jewish student. You go to a club meeting and say, “Hey, can I garden with you?” And they respond, “We’re CUAD members. As part of this group, you need to renounce your Zionism. We know you’re Jewish. We don’t accept Jews or anyone who supports genocide, colonialism, or apartheid in our gardening club.”

So you could be in the group—but only if you denounce part of your identity, ancestral connection, and homeland. You’re asked to make a political statement about Israel. Now imagine being a 19-year-old kid who just left home and community, trying to make friends, settle into college life, worry about homework, social life, dating—and then being told that this is what you’re facing.

You’re backed into a corner. You’re meant to feel immediate shame about who you are—about your identity, your relationship to Israel, and your Jewishness. Then you’re presented with propaganda disguised as truth—told, “This is what’s happening. You either support it and conform, or you don’t.”

The information is false even at that starting point, so this student is incredibly precarious.

Asking students to walk into those situations, stand firm in their identity, and know who they are and where they come from—all while just trying to make friends and be college students—is asking them to do something incredibly difficult. But that’s what many are facing.

“I want to garden with you all, but I want to do it as someone who doesn’t believe what you’re saying—someone who feels that’s false. I’m a proud Jew. I’m a proud Zionist.” And for most Jewish people, those two identities go hand in hand. But in this scenario, they’re turned away. The door is shut on them.

To be socially included in the broader Columbia community, you must—quote—divest from your identity. This is incredibly damaging. And if you internalize this as a Jewish student on a college campus, it becomes painful and complex.

Steinwurtzel: Columbia’s been in the news a lot, but I want to clarify—and emphasize—that, unfortunately, this isn’t just Columbia. It would be one thing if this were limited to one campus, but we know it’s not. It’s pervasive.

We’ve spoken with faculty from other universities. One conversation stayed with me. A professor shared that, for the past year and a half, Jewish students on his campus had been essentially in hiding—afraid to speak up, afraid to be visible.

He described a turning point when, after a particular incident, some students finally came out of the closet—because they couldn’t bear it anymore. That language—”came out of the closet”—was so impactful. It speaks directly to Jess’s words about the shame and fear of being cancelled by peers when they want to have a normal university experience and become more of themselves. But instead, they’re made to feel they can’t share an important part of who they are.

That struck me deeply because we’ve worked hard in psychology and society to create inclusive, safe, and welcoming spaces. And yet, Jewish students, faculty, and staff are being made to feel that they must hide. That phrase—”in the closet”—is powerful because we’ve fought many social justice battles in the name of openness and acceptance. And now, this group is being pushed into silence.

Zmood: Cancel culture—the binary nature of all of this. The complete lack of nuance. It’s not “we disagree with certain actions of a government on the other side of the world.” It’s you—this individual student standing in front of me—you represent everything I hate.

Jacobsen: And therefore, you can’t garden with us.

Zmood: Yes. That was the story I shared earlier. Students ask, “Let me find clubs that aren’t part of this coalition so I can show up as myself and be accepted.” As Shelly said, while Ivy League schools like Columbia get the headlines, we’ve heard some horrific stories from small colleges in New England that haven’t gotten much press.

Generally, most students tried to keep their heads down and focus on getting through school, hoping no one would notice them. But things are reaching a fever pitch now. As Shelly said, students are forced to leave hiding to advocate for their right to exist and participate in student life without shame.

I want to get through school without incident. To think that becoming invisible—just getting through without being abused—is now the goal of your college experience? That’s so, so sad. And let’s be honest: it would not be tolerated by any other ethnic, racial, or cultural group. Another anecdote: One student’s father told me, “Do you want to see the film on October 8?” It’s about people’s experiences in America—specifically on campuses—since October 7.

His son, a sophomore in college, said, “Why would I want to see that film with you? That’s my life. I live it every day. I get through it—but I don’t want to watch it. I don’t want to relive it.” The father visited the campus to understand it firsthand, and he came back traumatized. He told me he had no idea how his son had functioned in that environment. His son has since moved 40 blocks away from campus and now commutes daily to avoid being confronted by this. It’s such a difficult time for these kids.

Steinwurtzel: Malka, I believe you had something you wanted to add.

Malka Shaw: Yes, thank you. I have many thoughts about what Jessica just said, but I’d also like to return to the original question—Scott, could you repeat it? I think we veered off a bit.

Jacobsen: Sure—this session is exploratory, so I didn’t expect a strict structure. But to recap, Shelly’s response brought in developmental psychology and executive function—people like Adele Diamond come to mind—and Jessica followed with a case study and observations specific to New England campuses that aren’t getting media coverage.

This all stemmed from the original question: Psychologically, what is going on with an individual who harbours antisemitic prejudice? And conversely, what are the psychological effects on individuals targeted by it?

So far, the responses point to two themes: 1) the psychological systems of the aggressors are often overwhelmed or manipulated, and 2) the targets experience varying forms of stress and trauma—depending on individual differences.

Let’s turn to your social work lens now.

Shaw: Absolutely. From a social work perspective, there’s much to say about the social dynamics. But I want to return to the psychology of indoctrination for a moment—because it’s really important to name what’s happening.

Here’s the dynamic: the first student who says to another, “You can’t be in my gardening club,” genuinely believes he’s right. He thinks he’s standing up for justice. And why? Because Zionism has been misdefined and vilified so severely that it’s no longer recognized for what it truly is.

So, let’s define it clearly: Zionism is simply the belief that Jews have the right to exist, the right to defend themselves, and the right to live in their ancestral homeland. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with every action or policy of the modern State of Israel or reject peaceful coexistence with others in that homeland. But that’s not how it’s being framed today.

What’s happened is that a legitimate part of Jewish identity has been reframed as evil—and that’s what these students are absorbing. That’s what makes this so dangerous. It’s not just misinformation—it’s identity vilification.

Passover is coming up. It’s a major Jewish holiday that arrives in about two weeks. At the end of every Passover ceremony, called the Seder, we say, “Next year in Yerushalayim.” Yerushalayim—Jerusalem—is referred to as Zion in ancient Jewish texts. Zion is the root of Zionism. Zionism, therefore, predates both Christianity and Islam. It’s an ancient concept—thousands of years old.

So let’s return to that person—the student who believes they’re doing the right thing by excluding someone from a club. Part of the reason they feel morally justified is that moral superiority and cancel culture activate the dopamine system. It feels good. It gives them a hit of perceived virtue.

They genuinely believe they’re doing something right. In their mind, it’s like saying, “Well, I don’t want someone from the KKK in my gardening club.” That’s the false equivalence they’re drawing. But the reality is—that they’ve been indoctrinated. Once indoctrinated, someone begins to lose the ability to think critically.

I’ll give you a quick overview of neurology.

Zmood: I can share slides if that helps everyone.

Shaw: I often show a set of slides that include statistics on what’s happening to students on campus and also how mental health indoctrination is occurring within the field through educators.

Yes, show him the DBT slides. From a neurological standpoint, when someone has been indoctrinated, their brain begins to resolve discomfort by rejecting evidence and reinforcing existing beliefs.

Here’s what happens: Indoctrination leads to heightened amygdala activation, the part of the brain responsible for processing fear and emotion. As a result, the prefrontal cortex—which handles critical thinking, decision-making, and impulse control—becomes dampened.

Let’s say someone has come to believe that Zionism is evil. That belief becomes central to their new identity and their perceived moral standing. Now, any new evidence that contradicts that belief isn’t processed neutrally—it triggers a threat response. That’s when you get rigid neural pathways. The more these ideas are repeated, the more the brain hardwires them. Clinically, we refer to this as entrenchment. Colloquially, it’s doubling down.

You see this person dig deeper into their belief—not because they’re reasoning through it, but because it’s psychologically painful to unlearn it. They must admit that everything they’ve internalized and possibly acted upon is wrong.

That kind of rewiring is neurologically and emotionally difficult. We’ve studied this extensively in cult recovery; the same mechanisms apply here. When neuroplasticity—the brain’s ability to adapt—is reduced, it limits cognitive flexibility and growth capacity.

Critical thinking reduces empathy in these cases because decision-making becomes fear-based. Once these neurological changes occur—heightened amygdala activation and diminished prefrontal engagement—the brain’s ability to produce empathy decreases. This can lead to an increased tolerance for violence and attitudes that would otherwise be morally unacceptable.

Now, you have a student who feels justified in believing that Jessica’s child cannot join the gardening club because they are certain they’re right. They’ll double down if you challenge them and don’t do it exactly the “correct” way. They’ve lost empathy because you’ve been redefined in their mind as “one of the bad guys.”

We need to consider empathy from all sides because, historically, we’ve seen where this can lead. Look at the youth movements under Nazi rule—many of those kids were indoctrinated. What we’re seeing now is not so different, and history is beginning to repeat itself.

Even more disturbing is that we now see this same dynamic creep into medicine and psychology.

Shaw: Jessica, can you show him the DBT slides?

Zmood: Yep, I’ve got them up.

Shaw: Great. I want Scott to see them.

Jacobsen: For anyone reading this—DBT stands for Dialectical Behavior Therapy. Go ahead and share.

Shaw: Start with the one that shows the brain graphic—the one that labels Zionism and racism as diseases.

Jacobsen: Where is it sourced from?

Steinwurtzel: That’s the interesting part. If you look closely at the slide, it says “The Slow Factory.” This was presented as scientific data at a DBT workshop at the APA—the American Psychological Association.

However, The Slow Factory is not a research institution. It’s a consortium of artists and climate activists. They created this slide content based not on empirical science but on ideological messaging. And yet, it was shown to thousands of students and licensed clinicians at an APA conference.

Shaw: The slide suggests that there’s a part of your frontal lobe—your executive functioning center—that becomes infected by “Zionism,” which they claim must be decolonized and cured for someone to be psychologically healthy.

Jacobsen: The frame I’m getting here—as someone staunchly nonreligious—is that this sounds more like something you’d hear in the Middle Ages. It’s almost like saying someone is possessed and needs an exorcism. Suppose this isn’tbacked by data or empirical evidence. In that case, it’s closer to incantation—like casting out demons—than mental health science.

Zmood: Yes. So—this group’s mission is to “redesign socially and environmentally harmful systems” to align with what is good for the earth and good for people. But who are they? They’re designers—web designers, creative designers. This is a purely creative endeavour—these slides are fabricated visual content presented as if they were grounded in scientific research. They are also internalized by licensed clinicians, who bring these distorted frameworks into their therapeutic practices.

Now, therapy itself—a space that is supposed to be as apolitical and bias-free as possible—has been politicized. This contradicts everything we were taught in graduate school.

Shaw: We were trained to be mindful of our projections, practice ethically, and maintain objectivity in the room. What’s happening now directly conflicts with the ethical codes of almost every professional licensing board—whether for LCSWs, MFTs, or psychologists under the APA. I have a slide listing all the different codes of ethics.

Zmood: I’ll show that next so you can see for yourself.

Steinwurtzel: But to take it even further: this same group includes people who describe themselves as queer abolitionist therapists, and when you research some of their platforms, you find that they are also advocating for eliminating mandated reporting laws. Essentially, they are arguing for anarchic frameworks in clinical practice. Scott, I know the laws are slightly different in Canada. Still, I can’t imagine they’re so different that a therapist wouldn’t be a mandated reporter. If any of us—therapists or teachers—suspect abuse, we are legally required to report it. That’s the law here. I assume it’s similar to where you are, but we can double-check.

Now, look at Lara Sheehi. She was the head of Division 39 of the American Psychological Association, the Psychoanalysis Division. That’s a significant position of influence. There’s a substantial body of material out there on her. These are typical things she posts publicly—every day—on Twitter. She’s not some fringe figure; she’s leading a division representing over 135,000 psychologists within the APA. That’s a serious ethical concern.

Jacobsen: So, when we do exploratory group discussions like this, the strategy we use is to identify points of traction so we can pursue them more deeply. When I see cases like what you’re describing, I draw a clear line between what’s happening here and something like the demonology and exorcism of the Middle Ages—because those were fantasy-based categories. Suppose someone came into your practice and said demons possessed them as a clinician. In that case, you’d have a professional response. But that belongs to a more obvious realm of irrationality. These categories being presented—Zionism, fascism, the Overton Window—are real concepts in political science and sociology. The Overton Window is the window of acceptable discourse. When people push increasingly extreme views into public dialogue, they shift that window—what was once radical becomes normalized.

So yes—Zionism, fascism, and the Overton Window are legitimate subjects of study. But what’s happening here is that, without any evidentiary foundation, these terms are being thrown together like a patchwork, as if they’re interchangeable psychological constructs. And that’s dangerous. It’s much more sophisticated to untangle that rhetorical collage than refuting something mythical, like demon possession. This is not pseudoscience in the traditional sense—it’s non-science cloaked in academic aesthetics.

Shaw: Well, this is what happened in Nazi Germany. They’re taking playbooks from that era—using fake science to justify harmful ideologies. This isn’t new. Throughout history, there have been many instances where science was warped to serve power. Entire communities were targeted. For example, there was a time when an entire Indigenous tribe was labelled “less worthy” and subjected to forced sterilization.

Science has been manipulated many times in history. And this is exactly why Gesher Campus Care needed to be created. Because we can’t just send Jewish college students—who are experiencing real antisemitism and psychological harm—to just any therapist, the therapists must be vetted and properly trained. Even Jewish-identifying therapists need specific training to understand this climate and the unique cultural, historical, and psychological needs of these students.

We touched on this in our last conversation. Still, I want to go deeper today into something I call “antisemitism of identity destabilization.” Identity destabilization can happen at any age, but it’s especially dangerous during late adolescence when young people figure out who they are in society. That’s why it becomes so critical on college campuses—students are forming identities, and now that identity is being challenged or vilified in profoundly harmful ways.

I have some of these examples on my phone, though not all are in my slide deck. Jessica, could you share that specific slide with me, too?

Jacobsen: Let’s pause here. I think I was the one who interrupted Jessica earlier—so if you have any other slides or points you want to finish, we can come back to that first.

Zmood: What we’re looking at here is a third set of examples—what I’d call a disturbing sample of what mental health clinicians are publicly posting on social media. These are licensed professionals, and their posts include statements like:

“I’m feeling urgency, anger, disgust, and avoidance when working with Zionist patients.”

“Jewish people are sexual predators.”

“Keep your crimes out of this country.”

“A large portion of my clients are Zionists. I never understood how that might impact their well-being. Any wisdom on this? None of them are seeing me with the intention of deconstructing.”

That word—”deconstructing”—is key. It ties directly into the previous slide we showed, where the therapist talks about “deconstructing the colonized mind.” The idea here is that the Zionist part of the brain—a part of someone’s identity—is considered an illness that must be “treated” or “removed.”

Another example reads:

“Zionism is a racist white supremacy ideology.”

This kind of statement completely erases Jewish identity. It’s not even factually accurate.

Shaw: Because the truth is, Jews aren’t “white” in the monolithic, simplistic way these ideologues are framing it.

One of the most important points I emphasize is that Judaism is one of the world’s most ethnically and culturally diverse identities. Judaism predates modern categories like ethnicity, culture, and religion, which have only existed for the past few hundred years. Judaism has been around for over 4,000 years.

So what happens when you’re Jewish and something else? What if you’re queer and Jewish? What if you’re Black and Jewish? What if you’re Latino and Jewish?

And the irony here is staggering. Hitler targeted Jews because we weren’t “white enough.” Now, 70 years later, people are calling us white supremacists. It’s a complete reversal of history—a distortion that erases the trauma, displacement, and persecution that define such a lot of Jewish history.

We all originally came from the Middle East and were repeatedly expelled from our homeland. That created a diaspora that resulted in an incredibly diverse global community. Jews today come from every continent—we have Ethiopian Jews, Iranian Jews, Indian Jews, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews, and so many others.

To reduce us to a single label—and then use that label to justify exclusion, dehumanization, or discrimination—it’s not only offensive, it’s historically false. And no other group would tolerate this kind of treatment. Why should we?

If we said these things about any other group—if we substituted the word Zionist with any other minority population—people would be rightfully disgusted. But somehow, Jews don’t count as minorities, even though the numbers clearly show we are. We are 0.2% of the global population. Yet, we’re treated as though our concerns are invalid because we’re perceived as a “successful minority” or somehow not “marginalized enough.”

That’s part of the paradox of antisemitism. It’s duplicitous and self-contradictory. On one hand, we’re portrayed as oppressors, and on the other hand, as “dirty Jews.” On one hand, we’re “not a real minority,” but on the other hand, we’re still subject to slurs, threats, and exclusion. These contradictions—this back-and-forth logic—are central to how antisemitism functions. It thrives on double standards and what I call macro gaslighting.

You’ll hear things like, “Well, that’s not antisemitism. I’m just anti-Zionist.” Or, “You’re being too sensitive,” or, “You’re calling it antisemitism just to silence my free speech.” These are gaslighting tactics.

And, Scott, have you heard of DARVO?

Jacobsen: Yes—deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. I first learned about it from people working in the space of clergy-related abuse. It’s become a recognized pattern in manipulative or abusive behaviour.

Shaw: That’s what we’re seeing here on a cultural scale. As clinicians, we all feel a strong responsibility to protect the next generation’s mental health. We already know the long-term consequences of the generation after the Holocaust survivors. This moment now requires the same level of care.

This is not just a community issue—it’s a mental health crisis, particularly for adolescents and late adolescents. Shelly and Jessica are truly heroes in this space. They saw a service gap and created a nonprofit that works daily to ensure students receive the culturally competent mental health support they need.

The goal isn’t to achieve a perfect identity development process—because that’s not realistic in this climate—but to at least make it as normative as possible in an environment that is anything but normal.

Steinwurtzel: Scott, there are so many layers here. I’ll share a couple of thoughts now.

First, it’s not just the students. Yes, they are at particular risk because they’re in the middle of developing their sense of self—figuring out how they want to show up in the world. That stage is critical.

But we’re also hearing from faculty and staff, which brings another risk layer. For example, untenured faculty members are afraid to speak openly. Many of them have anti-Zionist advisers or tenure board members, and some of these boards are holding class sessions in encampments. So, expressing their Jewish or Zionist identity can jeopardize their careers.

Then there are graduate students, many of whom are silently struggling. At Gesher, we aim to support anyone on campus who needs us—not just undergrads but faculty, staff, and grad students. Everyone is experiencing this differently, and campus communities are their microcultures. Each campus has its vibe and pressures, and people are tied to that culture in a way unlike any other environment.

That’s such an important point. The gaslighting that Malka described earlier? It’s not just happening on the individual level but at a mass scale. What we’re witnessing is an inversion of reality, where the victims are made to feel like the perpetrators and speech that defends identity is twisted into accusations of bigotry.

It’s not only harmful to Jewish students—it’s dangerous to democracy. We’re losing our ability to hold nuanced conversations. And that’s what college is supposed to be about—learning to wrestle with ideas, not silencing people or pushing them into hiding.

So we’re talking about both individual psychology and a broader cultural psyche—a kind of collective, ambient anxiety and reversal that’s deeply damaging. And yes, this is bigger than just the Jewish community. It’s a question of whether we still value intellectual honesty, diversity of thought, and the ability to disagree without dehumanizing.

How do we have real conversations without throwing the baby out with the bathwater? Can we agree with certain aspects of a person’s thought process or belief system without agreeing with every part? From a psychological perspective, we can’t diagnose an entire society, but we can observe a trend toward black-and-white thinking or all-or-nothing reasoning, characteristic of psychological immaturity.

In healthy adult development, we should be able to hold on to complexity. We should be able to say, “This part I agree with, but that part I don’t.” Psychologically speaking, that’s called the ability to think in shades of gray. When we do this, we can hold multiple truths simultaneously—we can mourn and still feel joy or grieve and live fully. That’s a marker of emotional maturity.

But right now, what we’re seeing on many college campuses is something different—more aligned with what we would clinically call rigid thinking or even what resembles traits of borderline personality disorder. I’m sure you’ve encountered BPD in your psychology background, Scott. There’s a desperate need for many of these students to feel like they’re part of something meaningful. And to achieve that sense of belonging, they’re willing to sacrifice critical thinking, or as the saying goes, throw the baby out with the bathwater. And that’s a dangerous way to shape our future generations.

Shaw: Many students are willing to take social, academic, and psychological risks. And they may even know what they’re risking it for. They’ve been told this is the “right side of history,” so they follow it unquestioningly. Those were a couple of the thoughts that came to me as everyone shared.

And, if I may share something a little more personal—when all of this began unfolding, yes, it was shocking as a Jewish person. But it was profoundly horrifying to experience this as a Jewish mental health professional. Our professional identities are deeply tied to our values. We’ve pursued this field because it means something to us. So, to suddenly face antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism, not only from society but from within our field, has been devastating.

Zmood: I have to go. Shelly can continue in good faith without me—and Malka, too. Thank you, Scott.

Jacobsen: Thank you, Jess. Thanks for being part of this conversation.

Shaw: So, Scott, do you have any quick or specific questions you want to ask before we wrap up?

Jacobsen: Yes, I do. The one I had relates to your reflections—specifically on Jess’s presentation about some of these individuals and our observed trends.

I want to be clear—I’m not looking to “cancel” anyone’s business. However, many of these people have professional channels, and the concern is about the public messaging influencing clients and clinicians.

They share their qualifications—”Come see me; I’m open at these times,” “Here are my rates,” “Contact me for more information or special offers,” etc. This is standard professional practice. People are allowed to make a living as clinical social workers or psychologists.

But what stands out in these cases is that the commentary shared on their platforms is often political or personal and posted on their professional pages—as part of their brand. That’s an entirely different dynamic. If these views were expressed purely in personal spaces, that would be one thing. People are allowed to have opinions. But the issue is when those opinions—particularly antisemitic or ideologically aggressive views—are being shared in spaces used for clinical advertising and patient engagement.

In your analysis, are these statements posted in professional spaces like LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook pages representing their practices?

Shaw: Yes, it’s important to separate two things here. First, we’ve seen that the world of professionalism is becoming less professional overall. I might be the oldest on this Zoom. Still, when I graduated college, the expectation was that you interviewed in a blazer, wore closed-toe shoes, had no visible piercings or tattoos, and kept strict professional boundaries. That was the norm.

There’s been a cultural shift in attire and how people define “professionalism.” Personal branding has merged with professional identity. So yes, they’re posting political commentary—often deeply biased and, in many cases, explicitly antisemitic—on platforms where they are simultaneously offering services to clients. That is deeply troubling. There’s another piece we may not have time to unpack today fully, but it’s worth flagging: What role did the pandemic play in this?

Students currently in college were in middle school or high school during COVID-19. That means their critical identity formation years happened in isolation during a global trauma. That’s bound to have psychosocial impacts, including how they perceive relationships, authority, and ideology. The professional world also changed during that time. Work from home, telehealth, and TikTok therapy blurred boundaries even further. What we’re seeing now is a direct outcome of that shift.

But the fact remains: using professional platforms to promote antisemitic or biased materials is both appalling and heartbreaking. For Jewish mental health professionals like us, it’s a triple heartbreak.

First, there’s the ongoing trauma of what’s happening in Israel and with the hostages. Second, antisemitism is resurgent—especially in academic and mental health spaces. Third, there’s the sense of betrayal from our profession—a field to which we devoted our lives.

All three of us here are members of AJMA, the American Jewish Medical Association. AJMA was founded after October 7 to respond to the growing hostility within the medical and mental health fields. What’s happening in hospitals and therapy rooms is outrageous; we’ve been speaking out.

So yes, we’re all in this together because it’s not just personal—it’s professional, communal, and existential.

Steinwurtzel: To answer your question directly, yes, these attitudes are normalized in professional spaces. They are tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged or celebrated. That’s why we’re speaking up.

The American Psychological Association (APA) strongly advocates “decolonizing therapy.” On its face, this concept is not necessarily problematic. There’s room for discussion about how therapy can better serve diverse populations. However, politicizing this idea within the therapeutic frame is unacceptable.

I dropped in a reference to Thema Bryant, who was President of the APA. I have nothing personal against her—I don’t know her—but ‘decolonizing therapy’ was one of the main initiatives she advocated for during her presidency.

That’s part of how this has become so normalized. People are now putting this language—framed as clinical best practice—on their professional websites and social media. It’s become part of the expected rhetoric for anyone promoting therapy services. So, prospective clients encounter it and interpret it as evidence-based.

I have no issue with dialogue on these themes. We should always be evolving and engaging in complex conversations. But the problem arises when a specific group—in this case, Jews and Zionists—is singled out and mischaracterized as part of a global colonial enterprise.

The irony—and frankly, the absurdity—of this is striking. Israel is a tiny piece of land. The Jewish people make up 0.2% of the world’s population. To claim that Jews are somehow orchestrating global colonialism is historically, demographically, and logically flawed.

There are over two million Arab citizens living in Israel today. Zionism is not—and has never been—the desire to eliminate other people from Israel. As Mark already said earlier, that’s a complete misrepresentation of what Zionism means.

I also dropped in the Free Press article by Sally Satel. I don’t know if you’ve seen it, Scott, but it’s incredibly relevant.

Jacobsen: I interviewed her several years ago. She is thoughtful and grounded.

Steinwurtzel: I shared the article not just because Gesher is mentioned in it but also because the letter it includes—written by the leadership of Psychologists Against Antisemitism, including Julie Ansis—is exceptionally well-crafted.

The letter outlines many growing concerns within the APA and, more broadly, across social work and mental health. It shows how ideologically driven frameworks—like unexamined uses of “decolonization”—are being normalized in professional spaces and how this creates an unsafe environment for Jewish professionals and clients alike. It’s part of why we’re so deeply concerned.

You asked earlier about the psychological makeup of someone who espouses antisemitic beliefs or engages in these behaviours on campuses. That’s a complex question, and honestly, it’s been quite a journey for us to witness our colleagues and peers—people who are intelligent, educated, and clinically trained—embracing these ideologies.

There isn’t a single psychological profile. As we’ve said before, it can happen to anyone. These ideas have become so entrenched, particularly under decolonization and equity.

But then, you look at the Jewish experience, and we become a conundrum within these frameworks. We are 0.2% of the population, but we’ve been relatively successful in certain fields. And that disrupts the equity narrative.

Jacobsen: Right—Jews make up a quarter of Nobel Prize winners.

Shaw: It disrupts the narrative, and instead of embracing complexity, some people double down on simplified ideological thinking. And that’s when it gets dangerous. That’s also part of Jewish culture. The emphasis on education and literacy has been central to Jewish identity for millennia—even in the Middle Ages.

Jacobsen: But here’s the thing: you don’t see people haranguing Hindu or Sikh women for success.

Shaw: There’s this persistent oxymoron—a contradictory double standard—that operates when it comes to Jews. Take one example from history: money lending. That role became stigmatized and portrayed as morally corrupt. But why did Jews become associated with money lending in the first place?

The truth is that, historically, Jews were excluded from owning land—so they couldn’t be farmers. They were barred from guilds so that they couldn’t become craftsmen. The only profession left open to them—due to restrictions imposed by Christian institutions—was money lending. Then, when the Catholic Church forbade Christians from lending money with interest, Jews became the only ones allowed to perform that necessary function. And suddenly, they were vilified for it. We were forced into that role, and then we were demonized for surviving.

Shaw: I often say Jews have had no choice but to excel—because the alternative was extermination. That’s the brutal historical reality. We had to become resilient, resourceful, and driven—not because we wanted to outshine others, but because our survival depended on it.

Steinwurtzel: I just returned from Israel. I want to share something because it speaks to both the psychology of survival and the emotional complexity that Israelis have developed—and that we in America are struggling to integrate.

This goes back to the black-and-white thinking we’ve been discussing—the rise of cancel culture, the borderline dynamics, and the erosion of nuance in how we relate to others and ideas.

Israel’s experience is completely different. This is a country in deep mourning. People are devastated by loss, angry, and actively surviving.

At the same time, there is joy, exuberance for life, sharper focus, and more vibrant energy. The emotional bandwidth is wide—they feel the full range of human experience, not collapsing into black-and-white modes.

One of the recently released hostages shared that Hersh Goldberg-Polin—while still in captivity—said something deeply profound to him, a paraphrase of Viktor Frankl: “When you have a why, the how becomes possible.”

That’s it. That’s the center of it. When you know your why, the how becomes more manageable. There’s clarity, purpose, and prioritization. You stop wasting energy on distraction or division.

That clarity drives our work. It’s what drove Malka to develop Kesher and our work with Gesher. These initiatives were born out of trauma, but they offer pathways to growth and resilience.

In psychology, we talk about this as post-traumatic growth. Trauma doesn’t always have to lead to long-term injury. Traumatic experiences don’t have to become traumatizing if we healthily process them and find meaning in the pain.

Malka covers this so beautifully in her training. I’ve seen it firsthand in my clinical work, especially in the NICU (Neonatal Intensive Care Unit). I wasn’t even working in the field of antisemitism before October 7. But that day changed everything.

In my practice, my personal political beliefs don’t come up because, as Jess and Malka said, we were trained to follow the patient. Our role is to guide them clinically, using neuropsychological, psychological, behavioural, and psychosocial frameworks. Our political opinions have no place in the therapy room.

That’s part of what we’re also training our Gesher therapists to remember. Even though the mental health field has become politically active, our therapeutic environments must remain safe spaces for patients—places where they can explore their “why,” not our “why.”

That’s where Gesher and Kesher became necessary.

Jacobsen: We saw quotes from therapists openly stating that they need to ‘decolonize the space of their patients'” That is not patient-centred care. That’s motivated therapy—it reflects the therapist’s agenda, not the client’s needs.

Steinwurtzel: And honestly, it’s strikingly similar to the rationale behind conversion therapy. The psychological field fought hard to remove conversion therapy from legitimate clinical practice because we came to understand the scientific and psychosocial basis of sexual diversity. We now recognize that trying to “convert” someone’s orientation is unethical and harmful.

But this idea of “decolonizing the Zionist mind”—that’s conversion therapy for Jews. It’s a nonreligious form, but the structure is the same: it assumes something fundamentally broken or wrong about a person’s identity. It seeks to change it against their will.

Shaw: It’s worth noting, too—this isn’t just a fringe issue. These perspectives are now mainstreaming in professional spaces, and they’re being positioned as therapeutic norms.

Here’s something random but relevant: I looked into the Jewish history there when we were in Spain. There are very few Jews left in Spain today, either due to conversion, exile, or mass murder dating back centuries. But historically, there was a large Sephardic Jewish population there.

Steinwurtzel: Recently, a genetic study found that about 30% of Spanish men—men who today identify as non-Jewish—carry Sephardic Jewish ancestry. That’s a huge percentage, and it tells us something about how deeply rooted Jewish identity is in many parts of the world.

Shaw: That ties into the larger conversation about Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews. In North America, Ashkenazi Jews are more visible and numerous. But in the global Jewish population, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews make up the majority. That’s an important correction to some of the misinformation being circulated.

This whole narrative that Jews are “white colonizers” in Israel? It’s absurd.

Go to Israel, you’ll find it’s an extremely diverse State. Israel is majority Mizrahi—which is closer to North African. Sephardic Jews have more Mediterranean features. It’s not a white state in the way it’s often portrayed.

Steinwurtzel: And don’t forget Ethiopian Jews. My cousin is married to an Ethiopian Jew—she’s Black. Her heritage is fully Jewish. There are Black Jews, Arab Jews, Indian Jews, Chinese Jews. The Jewish people are ethnically and racially diverse.

So this narrative that ‘Zionism is white colonialism’—it’s not just offensive, it’s categorically false. It erases centuries of history, migration, and survival. And it ignores the fact that Jewish diversity is central to who we are.

Her family came from Ethiopia in the 1990s. When you speak to Ethiopian Jews who made aliyah, their stories are often incredibly powerful. I remember being in Israel another time, eating in an Ethiopian restaurant, and this woman sharing her story. One of the things she said struck me deeply—and it speaks to what Zionism truly is.

She told us that her grandparents and earlier generations in Ethiopia had no idea other Jews existed. They thought they were the only remaining tribe of Jewish people—that they alone carried the tradition of Zion. They had no technology, no external communication, and no way to connect with Jews outside their isolated villages.

When they eventually learned about the State of Israel and that there were Jews all over the world, they were in shock. It was life-changing. It reoriented their entire understanding of their identity. This woman asked her grandmother, “What surprised you the most about coming to Israel?” And her grandmother responded: “I can’t believe there are white Jews.”

And for many of us, our reaction might be the reverse—”I can’t believe there are Black Jews.” But that’s the beauty of it. Judaism is so ethnically diverse. They didn’t have religious texts or educational resources—just oral traditions and prayers toward Jerusalem. And that’s the key: Jerusalem is our indigenous home. Our souls, as Jews, are deeply tied to that land. It’s not a slogan. It’s who we are.

That’s my little moment on the bully pulpit—I know I’ve been talking for a while. I need to go soon.

Shaw: Scott, do you have any final questions or thoughts before I go? Thank you for being so patient with us today and for reading all of this so thoroughly.

Jacobsen: Thank you—all of you—for your time. There’s still a lot more to explore. And I know Malka needs to go now—so we can start wrapping up.

Shaw: Yes, Scott, thank you again. It’s always a pleasure working with you. You’re amazing, and I’m glad you’re shining a light on these important issues.

Steinwurtzel: Absolutely.

Jacobsen: Not a problem at all. Thank you for your time, Malka.

Shaw: Bye, everyone!

All: Bye!

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Trump’s Impact on Small Business and Regulatory Uncertainty

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/02

Bob Spoerl, founder and CEO of Bear Icebox Communications, is a Chicago-based PR expert with a background in journalism. A Medill School of Journalism graduate and WTTW Fellow, he specializes in strategic communications and media relations, particularly in real estate, retail, and franchises. In an interview, Spoerl discussed the impact of Trump’s administration on small businesses, emphasizing unpredictability in tax policies, regulatory shifts, and tariffs. He highlighted challenges in compliance across global markets and the shift toward deregulation. Spoerl advised small business owners to maintain financial reserves and prepare for uncertainty in an evolving economic landscape.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Bob Spoerl. He is the founder and CEO of Bear Icebox Communications, a Chicago-based PR firm specializing in strategic communications, media relations, and brand management. He has a background in journalism.

Hooray. He graduated from the Medill School of Journalism and was a WTTW Fellow, giving him deep insight into Chicago’s media landscape. Bob has extensive experience crafting high-impact PR campaigns, particularly in the real estate, retail, and franchise industries. His expertise in navigating media relations and brand strategy has made him a sought-after consultant for businesses looking to enhance their public presence. Is all of that correct?

Sounds great. Excellent. So, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.

Bob Spoerl: Thank you.

Jacobsen: How has the first season of Trump’s administration been for small businesses? For instance, is it overall good, overall bad, or are there particular industries that are acutely impacted—some struggling while others potentially flourish?

Spoerl: Yes, that’s a great question, and I like to think in nuanced terms.

The reality is that I run a micro-business. If you look at it, I am a small business, but we have ten employees. The shifts under the Trump administration swung wildly, which has been a roller-coaster ride. The best policy for a micro-business like mine is to keep your head forward and not get overwhelmed by what’s happening in the news cycle.

I will say that we do have clients in the nonprofit space who were freaking out when the federal freeze was announced—and then it wasn’t. I understand that. I empathize with them. If a large portion of your funding comes from federal grants that are suddenly at risk or potentially set to disappear, that’s a serious concern.

As a public relations firm, I can speak directly to what I do. Scott, I have interesting insight into other industries because we service a multitude of them.

For example, nonprofits have been on a roller coaster. I also have clients in the manufacturing space, and things are more nuanced there. The reality is that, with tariffs being imposed on Canada and Mexico, manufacturing in North America is now in question.

I have clients that manufacture here, but “here” is a relative term when considering where parts are sourced. So, it’s been unpredictable. What I have tried to do is not look too far into the future or attempt to predict what will happen under the Trump administration because if anything is certain, it’s unpredictable—and he likes it that way.

Jacobsen: What about the potential for tax changes under this administration? How will that impact small businesses? How can they blunt any negative effects and take advantage of any positives?

Spoerl: That’s a great question, too. There’s a law, the acronym of TCJA (Tax Cuts and Jobs Act), and I should know this because one of our clients is an accounting firm. Essentially, the tax cuts put into law are set to expire, and the expectation is that they might be renewed or extended.

Jacobsen: Again, what about on the flip side—on a consumer level—if there are potential negative tax effects from tariffs? We will see how those shape up, but there is also a sort of indirect tax on businesses due to tariffs, not just on consumers. So, while taxes might be cut at certain levels, there may be hidden costs—let’s call them “lowercase taxes”—that we might experience, whether that comes through inflation or other means.

I believe TCJA is set to sunset. As a micro-business, those impacts affect me less. Businesses in the $5 million to $25 million range will feel the effects more, but I am not quite there yet.

Jacobsen: What about regulatory uncertainty? I did a great interview with an international lawyer who specializes in big, global trade. We discussed binational relationships and what happens when, for example, a Norwegian freighter operates between Norway and the U.S. but is not under the jurisdiction of either country. The complications arising when tariffs come into play make the movement of goods and services much more difficult at a large scale. But what about the micro-level concerns you are speaking to?

Spoerl: Regulatory uncertainty is an interesting issue. We have a client in the global compliance space, and one of the intriguing things is the rollbacks we might see in the U.S. that are not happening in the U.K. or the EU.

For example, we might see rollbacks of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) or ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) regulations in the U.S., whereas other countries maintain or strengthen those policies. You have seen it in the news—organizations like Paramount, which owns CBS, have begun rolling back their DEI policies. That is just one of many examples.

Jacobsen: And Rings of Power Season 3 got cancelled. Some are blaming it on that.

Spoerl: I wouldn’t be surprised.

But yes, regulatory uncertainty extends beyond tariffs and supply chains—though those are part of the conversation.

Another question is regulatory compliance. If this is too far into the weeds, let me know. However, when you look at third-party supply chain risk management, if certain countries are easing regulations while others are not, it creates significant challenges in tracking compliance across the supply chain. The difficulty lies in ensuring that businesses adhere to regulations when those regulations differ across jurisdictions.

That said, as we shift our regulatory perspectives, things are going to get more complicated, especially for organizations operating at a global level, dealing with trade across the EU, U.K., and other countries.

Of course, the big tenors of both Elon Musk and Donald Trump contribute to this broader discussion.

Jacobsen: On the one hand, it is chaos from men. It’s the ethic of “move fast and break things,” comes from the Silicon Valley crowd. Another way of looking at it is as a “survival of the fittest” approach to business—through deregulation, fiscal austerity, etc. This ‘chaos’ could be seen as an attempt to implement a more cutthroat business cycle. Will we see more small businesses shutting down under this pressure while the ones that survive become more competitive?

Spoerl: Interesting. I could see that environment taking shape. I’m thinking of the classic Apprentice-era Trump—that was the whole premise of the show. Creating intense competition to weed out those who are unfit to run a business. And I don’t think this is an overtly political statement—he sees the world in a win-lose framework, not a win-win. It’s a zero-sum game, in his view.

Part of these federal employee layoffs and regulations are about creating a survival-of-the-fittest environment. Tariffs could also contribute to that. I don’t know if the intention is to reduce the number of businesses, but that might be the outcome. One thing to consider, Scott, is that we might see a surge in consulting businesses as tens of thousands of former federal employees lose their jobs.

Jacobsen: That’s a good point.

Spoerl: So, how do I, as a small business, pivot with each radical change over the next few years? That’s the real question.

Jacobsen: That’s an astute point.

Spoerl: Yes, that’s reasonable. We saw a similar pattern during COVID.

I analyzed post-COVID trends, and we saw the country’s highest number of small businesses opening, largely because people who lost their jobs started consulting practices or LLCs.

We can see the same thing happening now. The real measure will be its impact on GDP and revenue numbers. But another factor is that many highly talented people are losing their jobs.

Private organizations that recognize these individuals’ values may win. These people are not necessarily losing their jobs due to a lack of ability but because they are politically misaligned with the administration.

Jacobsen: That’s an important dynamic. Internationally, this could create opportunities for questionable allies. During the, “Muslim ban”—banning people from certain countries, most of which were not implicated in 9/11, for instance—many talented individuals with H-1B visas could have been effectively pushed out. These people create entire industries because they are hardworking and brilliant. Canada picked up some of them, correct? And so, other countries could take advantage of that if people want to leave.

Spoerl: We’re not that far from seeing it happen again. Did I answer your question, Scott, before?

Jacobsen: Yes, you did. The taxes and regulatory aspects are important. Musk, early on—long before his recent remarks—spoke about the fact that, from his point of view, this would be painful in the short term, but only temporarily.

You probably recall this: the idea that deregulation, layoffs, and fiscal austerity will streamline the federal workforce, likely incorporating AI to handle tasks people used to do. In the long term, this will be better for business and accelerate the growth of the American economy relative to other economies.

Spoerl: That is the desired outcome from this administration. But we’ve never attempted it at this extreme level.

In the 1990s, I forget the exact acronym, but the Clinton administration did conduct some minor workforce reductions in an effort to balance the budget. From what I understand, there were some cutbacks, but they were not to the same degree or executed with the “rip the Band-Aid off” approach that we are seeing now.

Even here in Chicago, I read this morning that 11 government buildings are up for sale—and some people are still working in them. So the question is: where are they going to work? Are they going to be let go?

It’s not just about layoffs—they are dismantling the infrastructure of federal employment itself, which is interesting. The hope is that this allows for economic growth, but history is something we need to learn from.

I’m no historian, but some of the deregulation in the 1920s arguably contributed to the 1929 crash and ultimately created the demand for further regulation.

So again, I would be cautious about rapid cuts. As a business owner, I see incremental change as the more effective approach—because it allows for tinkering, A/B testing, and ensuring that each decision is right.

That is how I make decisions. That may be why I’m not Elon Musk.

Jacobsen: Fair point.

Spoerl: But that’s my philosophy. One thing I learned during my undergrad, before launching my business and getting into journalism, was that I was actually studying to be a priest. So, I had a lot of Jesuit influence, yes. I’ve got a lot of Jesuit spirituality still ingrained in me. One of the things I found interesting—think what you will about organized religion—is that the Jesuits do an excellent job of training people to discern and make decisions.

Jacobsen: They are, intellectually speaking, the elite of the Catholic world.

Spoerl: Discernment is not just about quick decision-making; it’s a process. I have brought that into my business. It has worked well for me.

But again, we will see what comes of this DOGE effort to strip the government of what they perceive as bloat. Many people in the U.S. don’t realize how much of their daily lives are tied to government agencies.

For Illinois, our governor, J.B. Pritzker, has said that several million people may lose their Medicaid here in Illinois. There are so many people—those with disabilities, older people who cannot afford nursing homes—who are dependent on government programs.

People don’t fully appreciate the layers of support that government agencies provide. Anyway, I don’t want to go too far off on a tangent, but I always think about it.

Jacobsen: How should small business owners adapt their financial planning in light of this?

Spoerl: That’s a fair question.

Spoerl: Having a comfortable cash reserve—whatever that means to you—is super important. I also think it’s critical to forecast for uncertainty.

We’ve had a pipeline of leads, but my expectations tend to be more conservative. I’m seeing people hesitate to make decisions or delay our budget allocations. So, yes, being fiscally conservative in uncertain times is the way to go. I wouldn’t be too bullish right now.

Jacobsen: Thank you for your time today. It was nice to meet you, and I appreciate your taking the time.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Dr. Caroline Fleck, ‘Validation’ and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01

Dr. Caroline Fleck, a licensed psychologist and clinical instructor, explains her groundbreaking book, Validation, (Amazon) and its roots in dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT)–cheat sheet. She outlines how validation balances change with acceptance, offering a transformative approach to treating conditions like borderline personality disorder. Fleck details how traditional therapies often dismiss genuine emotional experiences, fostering self-doubt and internalized blame. She emphasizes the need for mindful, empathetic communication that validates feelings and nurtures self-compassion, enabling individuals to challenge societal pressures and cultural norms that promote inauthenticity. Fleck also examines how parenting and even religious systems contribute to pervasive invalidation, advocating for a balanced approach that encourages acceptance and change. Her insights underscore the potential for meaningful transformation when emotions are authentically recognized and supported.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Caroline Fleck, PhD, a licensed psychologist, clinical instructor at Stanford University, and highly sought-after business consultant. She holds a doctorate in psychology and neuroscience from Duke University and a BA in English and psychology from the University of Michigan.

She combines academic rigour with practical experience and is renowned for her expertise in dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). Caroline has transformed lives by empowering individuals to build stronger relationships and foster self-compassion. Her groundbreaking book, Validation, distills complex psychological principles into actionable skills that create lasting change in both personal and professional realms.

Caroline innovates, educates, and inspires globally—and occasionally does interviews with Canadians. Let’s get started with an overview question. What inspired you to write Validation? And can you share some of your journeys in getting Validation on bookshelves and grounding it in your expertise?

Dr. Caroline Fleck: Yes, so, Validation is a fascinating concept and a set of skills that revolutionized the field of clinical psychology when it started gaining recognition in the 1990s. These skills were introduced through dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT), which incorporated validation techniques to help therapists communicate acceptance.

Typically, behavioral therapies are very change-oriented. The goal is to change how someone thinks or behaves to alleviate symptoms and, ideally, treat them. What DBT did differently was balance this emphasis on change with a corresponding emphasis on acceptance.

And holy crap was that effective.

For the first time in history, we had a treatment that proved effective in addressing conditions like borderline personality disorder, suicidality, and self-harm—issues that had previously been considered untreatable. This led to a revolution. Well, a loud revolution within psychology, though outside the field, few people have heard about it.

As a dialectical behaviour therapist, I have witnessed firsthand the power of these skills—their effects on patients and their impact on how we think about psychology at large. It blows my mind that no one has written a book or talked about this more openly outside of academia or the mental health field. Until now, these skills have primarily been reserved for DBT therapists.

My mission, my ambition, was to raise their public awareness because they create meaningful change in nearly every relationship imaginable.

Jacobsen: Now, if you were to take a pre- and post-treatment snapshot of professional discussions before this methodology was recognized as effective, how would professionals have talked about borderline personality disorder or suicidality when these conditions were considered “untreatable”?

Fleck: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a particularly interesting case because it is perhaps the most stigmatized disorder in all of mental health. Frankly, in part, because we couldn’t treat it, we started to— in my opinion—blame the victims, unfairly placing the responsibility on individuals who had this disorder.

Now, it didn’t help that part of the criteria for BPD includes extreme mood swings, irritability, anger, and oscillating between loving and hating people. This can be a very difficult population to work with, that is for sure. But before DBT—and even still, frankly—the language clinicians and licensed professionals use to describe these patients is often veryalarming. You hear things like, “You don’t want too many borderlines on your case,” or “I don’t take borderlines; I don’t like being sued.”

People have said these things to me, even post-DBT. But before that, it was just accepted that this was an unworkable, untreatable group and that clinicians should avoid them at all costs in their practice. Fortunately, DBT—and validation in particular—has challenged us to adopt a more nonjudgmental, objective way of discussing and conceptualizing the condition.

But before that, I mean, it wasn’t good.

Jacobsen: Part of that nonjudgment comes from not essentializing people. I’ve noticed this a bit—it’s like when someone breaks a leg, and you say, “Why can’t you run? Start running! Oh my gosh, pick it up. Walk it off!” That’s the physical equivalent of what’s happening in mental health, alarmingly, from professionals, especially regarding some of these very severe incidents of mental illness.

Fleck: My head went in a million different directions—one, that’s an extremely astute point. Because what you’re describing is invalidation, right? These individuals are experiencing not only invalidation from their environment but also from trained professionals. They are being invalidated in their struggle.

No one says, “It makes sense that this is so hard. I understand why you’re struggling in this way.” Instead, as you described, the message is as if you’re telling someone with a broken leg to run: “What’s wrong with you?” That is incredibly damaging.

This is particularly important because borderline personality disorder (BPD) occurs at exponentially higher rates in individuals with a history of childhood sexual abuse. Invalidation is part of the etiology. Coming from an invalidating environment is part of what gives rise to this condition.

And then, to layer even more invalidation on top of it—you can see just how hard it is for someone to get out from under it.

Jacobsen: I just gave a talk yesterday before leaving for New York to a Christian group in Croatia. I’m not religious—I’m a humanist—but the focus was on how to combat clergy-related abuse.

One thing that came up from a colleague of mine was that the primary demographics of victims are young boys and adult women. Those populations and how they are treated when they come forward with claims follow the same framework. The ideology behind it reflects how we handle people who report abuse. Yes, false allegations happen—but they are very, very rare.

So right off the bat, the assumption should likely be true, statistically speaking. We’re not even being generous here—just in terms of prevalence. Yes, we should assume that the person is telling the truth.

Yet, if someone has these kinds of issues—whether it’s suicidality or a series of comorbidities that come with this complex of interrelated symptoms—there is often a structural correlate in how the brain is networked due to trauma or possibly some genetic precursor, whatever the cause may be.

How does DBT, and some value framework, help take advantage of our plasticity so that people can—maybe not completely transition to a healthier state of mind—but at least mitigate some of the more extreme symptoms of their condition?

Fleck: Well, part of what we’re doing—through validation in particular—is addressing the consequences of pervasive invalidation. For example, consider the experience of childhood sexual abuse, where the very people who are supposed to care for and protect you are mistreating or abusing you.

In these situations, when someone is pervasively or even severely invalidated, as is the case with abuse, they do not learn to trust their own emotions. They are told that their emotions are wrong—that they shouldn’t be feeling the way they do, that they should walk it off, or that they shouldn’t talk about it.

The underlying message is: Don’t trust your emotions.

As adults—or even in the aftermath of those experiences—these individuals often do not know how to validate their own emotions. They don’t know what they’re feeling or whether they should be feeling it. As a result, they frequently defer to the environment for cues on how they should act, think, or feel.

One of the most powerful things validation does is help people start to trust their read of a situation.

Unfortunately, although this issue is very pronounced in individuals who come from pervasively invalidating environments, my experience has been that most adults struggle with self-validation. Perhaps not to the same extreme—some may have a greater sense of emotional awareness and regulation—but as a culture, we are not great at self-validation.

We are good at problem-solving; that’s what we are wired for and trained to do. However, we do not recognize the validity of our experiences and emotions very well. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to bring these skills into broader discussions if that makes sense.

Jacobsen: Let’s say someone comes to you in your practice. They don’t necessarily have a formal diagnosis. Still, they exhibit a few key risk factors that suggest they might be heading in that direction.

And you see a pervasive sense of self-doubt—meaning they are consistently self-invalidating in their internal dialogue. How do you walk them through a session to help them start recognizing their emotions? How do you guide them to the point where they can say, “No, I do feel sad or anxious or bad about this. This was wrong—what this person did to me was wrong,” and so on?

Fleck: This morning, I had a session with a client, a mother who was beating herself up for forgetting to bring baked goods to her child’s school. She had signed up on the list of parents who were supposed to bring items, but she forgot.

She was subjecting herself to intense self-criticism and self-loathing. Honestly, anyone with that kind of inner voice would feel awful.

So, instead, I guided her toward looking at the valid reasons why she may have forgotten. Okay, let’s examine what’s valid here. You have three kids, you didn’t write it down, and you had other responsibilities—X, Y, or Z.

People often start getting nervous at that point because they think, “That sounds like making excuses.”

But that’s not what we are doing.

Jacobsen: Does their anxiety go up at that point?

Fleck: Yes, it absolutely can, depending on the person.

But I need to argue that if we want to prevent this from happening again, we need to understand the chain of cause and effect that led to this moment. That’s my entry point. And really, what I want them to do is begin to understand what led to this behaviour.

“Okay. All right. Now, you’re feeling guilty. Why are you feeling guilty? Let’s trace that back. If I were in your shoes, I’d feel guilty, too, given what you’re telling yourself. But if we look at the facts, does it make sense for you to feel this guilty? Does this degree of guilt fit the circumstances? I don’t think so.”

So I want them to say, “I can see why I feel guilty. I’m beating myself up. In some sense, it’s valid that I feel guilty. But also, I probably shouldn’t be beating myself up this much given the circumstances.” So, it’s this constant process of tracing cause and effect to determine what is valid here.

Jacobsen: Now, we’ve evolved a lot of cognitive systems; and I assume that, more or less, they tend to lean toward some homeostasis when working together. You can see that in what we now refer to as mental health. So, what goes awry in individuals who blow things way out of proportion?

For example, someone may be going through life, having a child, being a mom, baking something for school, and suddenly ending up in your office overwhelmed. What has gone wrong in that system—something that is probably evolutionarily useful but, in this context, unhelpful?

Fleck: Well, I see the roots of that developing much earlier in life. I also work a lot with parents. As a parent, I can completely relate to the innate urge to solve my child’s problems.

For example, let’s say my daughter tries out for the soccer team and wants to make it. But I know she didn’t practice consistently—she tried to cram it all in the day before tryouts when she needed more preparation.

When she’s disappointed that she didn’t make the team, my instinct is to focus on what she could do better next time. My instinct is to problem-solve—to help her figure out how to change the situation.

Why? Because I don’t want her to hurt. I want her to make the team and see things she could do differently to achieve that goal. But in doing this, I am teaching her to do the same thing to herself.

When she feels disappointed, she does not think, “Oh, it makes sense that I’m disappointed. I was really looking forward to this. I wanted to be on the team. Of course, I feel this way.”

Instead, she’s learned to immediately analyze what she did wrong and what she needs to do better next time. And if that pattern is reinforced repeatedly over time, by the time my child is 35 and forgets to bring baked goods to school, her inclination will not be to validate her emotions.

Instead, she’ll instinctively problem-solve what she did wrong and chastise herself for making a mistake. Does that make sense? I see the roots of this pattern forming very early in life.

When I work with parents, I’m not kidding—three-quarters of my work is focused on helping them validate their children’s emotions. That’s not to say they can’t problem-solve, but we need to create space for emotions first. It’s okay to be disappointed. I would be disappointed, too. That’s sad. That’s really frustrating. But we, as a culture, have difficulty sitting with our children’s negative emotions. Unsurprisingly, they grow up struggling to accept and regulate those emotions as adults.

Jacobsen: In one of your earlier responses, you hinted at a broader social issue—how our culture tends to invalidate people, at least enough for them to end up in your office. What are we doing, as a culture, that fosters so much self-invalidation? What mechanisms are we reinforcing that make people internalize these invalidating patterns?

Fleck: You touched on a huge source of cultural invalidation, which, for many people, can be the church. If you’ve been abused within a religious system, that experience can be profoundly confusing and invalidating. But even beyond abuse, there’s often this ingrained sense of Because I’m attracted to the person I’m attracted to, or because I like the things I like, I must be bad. I shouldn’t be this way. I shouldn’t be who I am. Religion, of course, can drive that message in deeply, but we see this pattern reinforced in different ways. Society repeatedly tells us that you should not be who you are. There’s something inherently wrong.

I remember attending a Tara Brach workshop years ago, and she did something I thought was incredibly risky—something I, as a therapist, would probably never do. She had the entire room close their eyes and said, “Now, raise your hand if you feel something is wrong with you.” Then she told everyone to open their eyes. Nearly every single person had their hand up. That was the moment that stuck with me. That is what I’m talking about.

We live with this pervasive sense that something is fundamentally wrong with us—something bad at our core. What validation communicates, instead, is acceptance. It says, “I see you. I hear you. I get you.” That is the message I don’t think we, as a culture, are skilled at providing—to ourselves or others. And that’s what I hope to achieve with my book.

Jacobsen: One concept that has come up a lot recently in conversations and writing is authenticity. Are many of these systems you’re hinting at essentially inauthenticity drivers—in the sense that people are conditioned to distrust themselves and self-invalidate? Are they absorbing the belief that their entire persona and psyche are wrong somehow, or at least in part? Another question came to mind, but I just lost it—sorry.

Fleck: No, that’s okay. If it comes back, great. If not, that’s fine too. And I love your questions.

On that first one, you’re touching on something that makes it difficult to wrap their heads around regarding validation: Isn’t validation just praise? We’ve spent our whole lives being told never to seek external validation. And I need to hammer this home—validation is not praise.

Praise causes people to contort and distort themselves in all sorts of ways to meet or exceed expectations. That’s not what validation communicates. And you’re absolutely right—so many systems in our culture reinforce this confusion. Look at social media. People think they are “seeking validation,” but they’re actually seeking and responding to praise—likes, thumbs-ups,heart emojis, etc.. And then they start changing or distorting themselves—with filters and curated posts—so they can obtain that heart emoji.

In the process, they lose themselves. It’s fascinating because I see all this discourse on TikTok—like #WomenWhoRelyOnMensValidation—and I think, if only they were actually getting validation.

Jacobsen: We see this play out on both the left and right; these dynamics even have explicit terms. They hold some utilitarian value for people at different points in their lives, helping them reach certain goals. But ultimately, they turn into caricatures.

One example—on both ends of the spectrum—is the rise of “trad wives” on one side and “boss girls” on the other. Personally, my sociopolitical bias leans toward the latter, but I think both of these archetypes ultimately drive women toward inauthenticity.

Oh, and I remembered my other question. If people don’t trust their judgment, they aren’t validating their sense of reality. That means their reality testing—their ability to assess what is true—is compromised. So, beyond just a loss of internal validation, does this leave them vulnerable to exploitation?

Fleck: One hundred percent. And that is exactly what happens. The more you defer to your environment to tell you what you should be thinking or feeling, the more vulnerable you are to that environment exploiting you—because it’s easy to do so.

And it doesn’t just happen in an ideological sense; it happens at all levels. You can be manipulated into buying things you don’t need, subscribing to belief systems that don’t serve you, or contorting yourself to fit into moulds that aren’t aligned with who you truly are. This kind of exploitation isn’t going to be in service of your true self—because why would it be? It’s much easier for an external force to tweak you into being a “better” version of yourself, a version that better serves them.

Jacobsen: How does mindfulness play into all of this?

Fleck: Mindfulness is a core part of validation. When I validate someone, I am mindful of them. And by mindful, I don’t just mean being present—I mean being nonjudgmental, simply aware of what is happening. It also involves understanding and empathy.

But here’s the key: You cannot validate someone without paying attention to them. You just can’t. And that’s one of the biggest issues we’re facing right now.

I’m trying to think of the right word for it… but attention is the most precious resource we have right now. And yet, we are bleeding it out everywhere.

We’re losing our attention to all these different devices, apps, and distractions, and in doing so, we’re pulling that attention away from the people we would otherwise be giving it to. I see it in something as simple as people who think they can multitask—saying, “I’m listening while I’m typing a text message.” But the reality is, they aren’t communicating that they’re listening. That’s not what comes across when someone is staring at their phone. And ultimately, validation is about communication. It’s about communicating some degree of acceptance—I see and hear you. But you do not see someone when your attention is pulled elsewhere.

Jacobsen: Not all communication is speech—it’s active listening, too.

Fleck: Exactly. At the most basic level, some mindfulness is always required for validation.

Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned mindfulness, validation, and your work with clients, but I wanted to ask—have you personally experienced depression? I’ve had a history of major depression a long time ago, and long-term mild anxiety. It probably didn’t help that I drink coffee, but I’ve channelled it into writing, so that’s my productive outlet. What about you? If you’re open to discussing it, how has your experience shaped your approach to validation in therapy? How do you communicate these ideas in writing?

Fleck: Yes, I struggled with depression from about 15 to 26—so at least a solid decade. That’s a long time. So long that I forgot what anything else felt like. And I did all the things—I went to therapy, I tried medication—and nothing worked. Eventually, I thought, I’m going to figure out how to treat depression myself. I’ll just become a doctor.

A big part of my reaction was how invalidating most of the therapy I had received felt. I didn’t feel heard—I felt judged. I felt, honestly, like what you described earlier with the broken leg analogy, as if I were being told, “Why don’t you just run?” That was the message I received, and it completely confused me. It made me blame myself so profoundly for not getting better.

So, when I went to grad school, my original plan was to study depression. That was my focus. But at the same time, I was really into meditation because out of everything I had tried, meditation was the one thing that seemed to help. It didn’t necessarily cure the depression, but it gave me just enough distance from my judgmental mind. And I thought, “There’s something here. I need to explore this.”

Dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT) was the first therapeutic approach to incorporate mindfulness as a core part of treatment. That was a huge draw for me—I had to study it. I ended up going deep into DBT, and in the process, I learned how to validate other people. It’s a required part of the training—you must prove that you can effectively use these skills with patients.

And wouldn’t you know it—I developed the ability to validate myself over time. That was incredibly powerful for me, and it has been essential in buffering against some of my mental health struggles.

Jacobsen: Switching gears a bit—here we are at CSW69 with Beijing+30, thinking about it. Are there gendered aspects to invalidation? I’m aware that some psychiatric diagnoses have seen shifts in the ratio of prevalence between men and women over time. For example, narcissism seems to be balancing out between genders, which is not the kind of parity we need.

But are the ways society invalidates men and women different? And are the ways men and women self-invalidate different? Is it significant enough to be worth commenting on?

Fleck: Yes, I mean, what doesn’t get talked about enough is how men experience invalidation. How women are invalidated has been well-documented, and we have a clearer understanding of how that contributes to mental health struggles. But with men, we tend to see the invalidation of their emotional worlds—and often, the direct punishment of emotional expression.

It’s not always in overt ways, like “I’ll give you something to cry about.” More often, it’s subtle—even within peer groups—this pervasive sense that certain emotions are off-limits. That you can’t and shouldn’t feel certain things. And that kind of message, given repeatedly, creates a profound sense of invalidation. It makes it difficult to recognize, manage, express, or even accept emotions when they do arise.

Jacobsen: The rhetorical question is: How do you validate an emotion when you don’t even have the language to identify it?

Fleck: This is one of the coolest things about mastering validation skills. If I get it right, one of the most powerful, validating things I can do is to look at someone and say, “Oh, you’re devastated. Of course, you are. That makes perfect sense.”

The act of naming an emotion—one they may not have even identified themselves with—can be incredibly profound. When you get it right, it’s like, on some level; you know them better than they know themselves. That’s an incredibly high level of validation to pull off.

The great thing is that a person doesn’t necessarily need to have an advanced vocabulary foremotions in order to be validated. They don’t even need to fully understand what they’re feeling. For someone to validate themselves, they would eventually need to develop that awareness. Still, for me to validate them, I can put into words what I presume they are experiencing.

Of course, if you get it wrong, it backfires. The person might feel completely unseen—like, “No, I’m not devastated. I’m just hungry.” And that’s fine. You drop down to an easier level and try again. But fundamentally, people don’t need the perfect vocabulary to receive validation.

Jacobsen: And for women?

Fleck: Oh, boy. It’s another level entirely. Women are constantly told they’re too dramatic, too upset, and too emotional. There’s this idea that emotions drive everything they say or do. Any strong desire or conviction they have is often dismissed as irrational.

I can only speak from personal experience here. Still, as a woman, I have internalized the message that my emotions undermine my thoughts and opinions. That my emotions make my reasoning less valid. If I’m frustrated, I’m being a bitch. If I express concern, I’m jealous. If I call something out, I’m overreacting.

And the problem is, when you hear those messages repeatedly, you start to doubt yourself. You start to feel like even your most rational, well-thought-out ideas will be minimized or dismissed just because you express them.

Then there’s another layer—the invalidation of women’s entire personhood. Beyond being seen as emotional, women are often only viewed through the lens of their sexuality. That’s tough for people to wrap their heads around, even today. So much of who we are, outside of sex and attraction, isn’t acknowledged, reinforced, or valued. And that creates massive distortions in how women are seen—and in how they see themselves.

In many ways, I think the invalidation that women experience is more visible and easier to identify. That’s often the case when a group has been historically oppressed. Because, at its core, oppression is the language of invalidation. It is systematic invalidation.

Jacobsen: You’ve mentioned family dynamics before and talked about how this starts early. Based on your experience with parenting and therapy, when would you say invalidation begins? At what age, do we start absorbing these patterns?

Fleck: Yes, I talk about this in my book—I give an example of a young child, maybe two or three years old, who’s told they’re about to have a baby brother or sister. They get so excited that they can’t wait. And then the baby arrives… and suddenly, they hate the baby. They lash out. I remember my brother getting mad at my mom and saying, “I wanted a puppy.”

Jacobsen: My sister wanted a sister and got a brother, and my brother wanted a dog and got a brother.

Fleck: Oh, man. So, for you, it started early.

Jacobsen: Yes.

Fleck: As parents, our instinct is often to say, “No, you don’t hate your brother. You love him.” Or, “You don’t feel that way; you’re just excited!” But right out of the gate, we are telling them what they are feeling is wrong. We’re overriding their emotions, dismissing what they express, and replacing it with what we want them to feel.

We have the power to do this because, as adults, we have bigger brains, more logic, and a broader understanding of the situation. But the child’s emotions are real to them. And when those emotions manifest as tantrums or resistance, we tend to push even harder to correct their experience. We don’t mean to invalidate them—we think we’re helping—but our message is: “What you’re feeling isn’t real or valid.” That pattern can start very early.

Jacobsen: I grew up in a small town, and many of my friends were older—especially older women. One thing I noticed, which seems to be pretty pervasive, is that past a certain age, there’s this cultural shift where women seem to disappear. It’s almost exponential—first, they fade into the background, and then they fade into the background of the background.

Other cultures handle aging differently, but in North America, once someone’s predefined role is no longer relevant, they just get shuffled off. “We don’t have a place for you anymore, so off you go.”

Fleck: Absolutely. And I think this overlaps with those issues around sexuality as well. In our society, if you are no longer conventionally sexually desirable, you start to disappear. If you no longer serve the function of mother, you start to disappear. The message is: “You’re not needed anymore. You don’t exist.”

It’s such a stark, black-and-white way of viewing people—as if these singular traits define their worth. And once those traits evolve, shift, or fade? So do they. They stop factoring into the social equation altogether. That’s what happens when we reduce people to these flat, singular dimensions. The moment they no longer check a particular box, they… disappear.

Shoulds—whether explicit or implied—are the antithesis of validation. A should suggests, “You should be something other than what you are.” And within that statement is the fundamental invalidation of who you are and what you’re experiencing.

It’s interesting when you start noticing the shoulds you impose—even just as a thought exercise. Look at how often we think: They should act this way. They shouldn’t act that way. They should vote this way. They shouldn’t think that way. These are constant, automatic judgments; there’s much to unpack in how they shape our perceptions of others.

To be clear, validation doesn’t mean endorsing everything about someone’s experience. I don’t have to validate all of it. I only have to find one thing that’s valid—maybe it’s their emotions, maybe it’s their thoughts, maybe it’s their behavior. Suppose I can authentically recognize one valid aspect of their experience and speak to that.hat is when the connection happens. That’s where change begins.

Jacobsen: One last question. Where is the theoretical foundation of psychological construct of “validation” limited? And with further research, how could it be refined and expanded? Because you’ve spoken about validation in a broad sense, are there gaps in the concept?

Fleck: Yes, we’ve seen this evolution in psychology. Carl Rogers—a major figure in the 1970s—was all about this concept of unconditional positive regard, which was essentially another way to describe validation. He believed that people will naturally grow into their fullest, actualized selves if they communicate enough validation.

Since then, we’ve found that while validation is crucial, it’s not enough. The impact is much greater when you combine validation with skills training, reinforcement, and other change strategies. For example, if a child falls off a bike, it’s validating to say, “Oh my gosh, that must have hurt. You must be so disappointed. You probably don’t want to ride anymore.” But at some point, you also need to follow up with, “Let me help you get back on the bike.”

That’s the key—it’s not acceptance or change. It’s acceptance and change. The real magic happens when you hold both polarities together, balancing them rather than seeing them as opposites. That’s how real growth happens.

Jacobsen: And with that, I’ll say—on the podium—thank you very much for your time. I appreciate it. It was great to hear your expertise.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Zimbabwean Cultural Education for Secularism

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/01

Tauya Chinama is a Zimbabwean-born philosopher, Humanist, apatheist, academic researcher and educator. He is also into human rights struggles and active citizenship as the founding leader of a Social Democrats Association (SODA), a youth civic movement which lobbies and advocates for the inclusion and recognition of young people into decision-making processes and boards throughout the country anchored on Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, Strong Institutions). He is also the acting president of Humanists Zimbabwe. Chinama highlights Zimbabwe’s culturally tolerant heritage, disrupted by colonialism, which entrenched Christianity into society. The recently introduced Heritage-Based Curriculum emphasizes secular and heritage-based education, promoting critical thinking and innovation. However, challenges arise from religiously controlled schools and insufficient teacher training. Chinama notes generational shifts, with younger Zimbabweans being more tolerant due to digital access. He identifies prominent African secularists like Dr. Leo Igwe, Mubarak Bala, and Harrison Mumia. He aspires to advance secularism through research and education reform.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with an articulate advocate of humanism from Zimbabwe, who has gained significant prominence in the country. For those unfamiliar with humanist, secular, and freethought movements in North American and Canadian media, this discussion will provide insights into how Zimbabwean cultural heritage, when integrated into the educational system, can form a reasonable foundation for more secular governance in Zimbabwe. My first question is this: What aspects of Zimbabwean heritage and culture support the idea that secularism is a natural intellectual and historical trend for the nation?

Tauya Chinama: Thank you for your question. Zimbabwean culture, particularly what we broadly define as the national cultural identity, has historically been very tolerant. Zimbabweans have long known how to coexist peacefully. However, colonialism severely disrupted this spirit of coexistence. When colonialism came to Zimbabwe, it became almost impossible for Zimbabweans to separate Christianity from colonialism.

To clarify, other religions, such as Judaism and Islam, had a limited presence during the colonial era. Islam, for example, constitutes less than 1% of Zimbabwe’s population today. Christianity, however, became deeply entrenched in Zimbabwean society. While Christianity was introduced as early as the 16th century through Portuguese missionaries, it struggled to gain significant traction. When colonialism took hold in the late 19th century, missionaries leveraged colonial structures to make inroads into Zimbabwean society.

During the colonial era, there was no freedom of religion. Christianity enjoyed an unfair advantage, heavily influencing the education system and shaping societal attitudes. As a result, many Zimbabweans became intolerant of other religions and even their own traditional culture, which was often labelled as evil, devilish, or mere ancestral worship by Christians.

The introduction of a new curriculum in Zimbabwe aims to address these imbalances. First launched in May 2024 and fully implemented in 2025, the new Heritage-Based Curriculum represents a significant shift in education policy. Historically, English, mathematics, and science were emphasized as the most critical subjects. However, the revised curriculum now prioritizes Heritage Studies as a core subject.

Students are required to meet the qualifications of five O-levels, which now include Heritage Studies, mathematics, English, a science subject, and a new subject called Family and Religious Studies. This subject requires teachers to present content objectively without proselytizing, preaching, or favouring one religion over another.

As a humanist and educator in Zimbabwe, I am privileged to contribute to this effort. My areas of specialization include Family and Religious Studies, Heritage Studies, and Religious Studies. When teaching biblical studies, I treat the Bible as a work of literature rather than as sacred scripture, as it is often viewed in churches. I deliver information objectively, ensuring students receive a balanced education.

I am encouraged to see Zimbabwean intellectuals, particularly those drafting the heritage based curriculum, ushering in an educational framework that serves as a repository for secular ideals. This curriculum represents a significant step toward fostering a more inclusive and secular approach to education and governance in Zimbabwe.

Chinama: And for me, promoting secularism and humanism in Zimbabwe has become, if I may use religious language, my vocation. Recently, in December, I was in South Africa attending a conference in Stellenbosch that was themed Decolonizing Secularity. It resonated deeply with me because, back home, we now have the Heritage-Based Curriculum, which aligns well with those ideas. While in South Africa, I visited several places, including the Slave Lodge. I feel incredibly privileged and one of the happiest individuals to see this curriculum introduced in Zimbabwe.

However, the curriculum faces significant challenges. Most parents in Zimbabwe are Christian, and many are reluctant to embrace such a curriculum. There are also issues with individuals trying to politicize it, including some of its implementers, who fail to grasp its core principles. These challenges notwithstanding, it is a step in the right direction.

This provides a good introduction. You likely have more questions about the heritage-based curriculum that was recently launched in Zimbabwe. I am happy to discuss it further.

Jacobsen: Now, about education policy, are there any proposals—or have there been any proposals nationally—to highlight Zimbabwe’s secular and humanistic heritage within the educational system? Such initiatives could help reinforce the work others and you are doing to promote these values.

Chinama: Unfortunately, nonreligious people or secular humanists in Zimbabwe represent a very small minority, roughly 10% of the population. This makes it challenging to gain widespread recognition or advocacy for our views. While some officials know our presence, they may choose not to engage fully, possibly for fear of alienating the broader, largely Christian population.

That said, the shift in the education system towards ideas aligned with secular humanism is a significant win for us. Progress cannot be blocked, and we see the inclusion of secular and humanistic ideas in the curriculum as a sign of this momentum.

That said, the Ministry primary and secondary Education faces substantial challenges. One critical issue is the lack of capacity building for teachers. While the curriculum is well-designed and aligns with secular humanism, it has been handed to teachers without sufficient training or resources. Teachers are the key implementers of any educational framework. Still, they are ill-equipped to deliver the curriculum effectively.

In our education curriculum, research, critical thinking, and innovation are promoted from an early age, starting at 5 or 6 years old in early childhood education. Students in both primary and secondary schools are encouraged to undertake projects that resemble small dissertations. Each student identifies a problem in any learning area or subject and then collaborates with the teacher, a facilitator, to study the problem and propose a solution. This process, which includes problem identification and problem-solving, is designed to address local challenges.

These projects aim to prepare students to develop practical, local solutions to local problems. In this way, the Zimbabwean education system can be described as heritage-based. For instance, even how mathematics is taught is designed to address and solve local issues. Similarly, subjects like English, agriculture, and biology are taught with a focus on their application to real-life, local problems.

However, teaching certain theories, such as evolutionary biology, poses challenges in Zimbabwe. This is partly due to differing understandings of terms like “theory.” In the United States, “theory” often refers to an explanation grounded in evidence. In contrast, it may carry a connotation closer to facts in other contexts, such as the UK. This discrepancy complicates how such subjects are received and taught in Zimbabwe.

Jacobsen: How much influence does religion have in the public education system in Zimbabwe? For example, we agree that teaching a world religions course to children and teenagers—covering the facts, figures, and beliefs of various religions globally and in Zimbabwe—differs from endorsing or advocating for Christianity, Islam, or precolonial religious beliefs. The former allows pupils to make their own informed decisions. With this distinction in mind, how much does religion encroach on education in appropriate and inappropriate ways?

Chinama: Yes, that is an important question. The problem with Zimbabwe’s education system is that a significant number of schools—about 50%, including many of the best schools—are owned by religious organizations, particularly the Catholic Church. Other denominations, such as the Methodist Church, the Adventist Church, and the Presbyterian Church, are also key stakeholders in education.

Because over half of our schools are under Christian control, these institutions have significant influence. Many develop their school-based curriculums that include religious indoctrination, aligning with the specific denomination that owns the school. For instance, students might be pressured to follow certain religious practices or beliefs that are specific to the denomination managing the school.

The national curriculum, however, mandates that teachers present religious studies without favouring one religion. Unfortunately, this mandate is not always followed in church-run schools. These schools often appoint principals and other leaders based on their loyalty to the denomination rather than merit.

This creates an uneven playing field, where schools risk becoming centers for promoting specific religious doctrines rather than institutions for imparting factual knowledge. To address this, we need reforms in education policy to ensure that schools remain neutral spaces focused on teaching evidence-based knowledge, not converting students to any particular religion.

If churches want to establish schools to spread their faith, we cannot stop them. As secular humanists, we defend their right to create such schools. However, we have a problem when they push their religious agenda in schools that are funded by taxpayers’ money. Most of their teachers are paid by the government, so they should adhere to the government curriculum and follow the government’s education policy.

There is often a clash between the education commission of a particular church and the Ministry of primary and secondary Education. While churches are important stakeholders, we need to negotiate with them to find common ground. Unfortunately, as humanists or secular humanists in Zimbabwe, we cannot currently fully address these issues. In the future, we will have the resources to sponsor and construct schools that embody secular humanist principles. These schools would treat all religions equally and respect all individuals regardless of religious views. For now, we are doing the best we can with our resources.

Today, I posted a status acknowledging someone who said they were praying for me. I said I was happy they were praying for me, regardless of my religious beliefs. As a secular humanist, I understand the statement’s intention. To me, it means the person cares about me. Although I may have issues with the concept of someone praying for me, I focus on the intention rather than the act itself. We want secular humanism to represent this—promoting tolerance and understanding rather than judgment.

Jacobsen: Are there any inclusions of humanism in any facet of Zimbabwe’s education system that you’re aware of outside of your efforts?

Chinama: Humanism is included in the curriculum, although it is not explicitly labelled as such. For instance, in subjects like Family and Religious Studies, teachers are explicitly instructed to teach without favouring one religion. The Zimbabwean government has also taken steps toward secularism. For example, the National Pledge replaced the Lord’s Prayer, at school assemblies. Although the National Pledge references “the Almighty God” in the preamble of the Constitution, it marked a move toward a more inclusive approach.

Those responsible for designing the curriculum recognize the importance of promoting secular humanism. However, parents and even many teachers still lack understanding. I believe teacher training also needs to evolve to better align with these principles.

The Ministry of Higher and tertiary Education has introduced what it calls Education 5.0, which is part of its effort to address local challenges through the education system. Historically, Zimbabwean educational institutions focused on teaching, community service, and research. Education 5.0 has expanded this scope to include industrialization and innovation to solve local problems through education. This initiative reflects the country’s push to use education for practical problem-solving and societal progress.

Jacobsen: How does Zimbabwe’s education system compare to those of bordering countries, such as those in southern and eastern Africa?

Chinama: other countries can learn from us. However, countries like South Africa are ahead of us in terms of education and promoting secularism. Botswana is also ahead. On the other hand, Zambia is a more complicated case. Zambia has declared itself a Christian nation in its Constitution, which makes it an extremist state. However, that term may sound politically incorrect. Declaring a country a Christian nation while simultaneously claiming freedom of religion creates a contradiction. By making such a declaration, Zambia favors Christianity over other religions.

Mozambique, too, could learn from us. Christianity’s influence is very strong there, and in the north, there is a significant Muslim population, which has occasionally led to friction. Implementing a secular curriculum in Mozambique could minimize their challenges due to religious differences.

Jacobsen: Are you noticing generational differences in Zimbabwe? For example, are high school students now more likely to be cosmopolitan or tolerant of the nonreligious compared to older generations?

Chinama: Yes, there are clear generational differences. The students in primary and secondary schools have fewer issues with nonreligious people, which is a positive trend. As secular humanists in Zimbabwe, we applaud this progress. The concern, however, lies with their parents. Many parents try to send their children to religious schools, fearing that their children are becoming more secular.

While most young people remain religious due to their parents’ influence, they are increasingly exposed to diverse ideas and cultures. This is largely because the younger generations—Generation Alpha and the upcoming Generation Beta—are digital natives. They were born into the digital era and can access information through their devices. This access differentiates them from past generations, who relied solely on their parents and teachers for information. Thanks to the digital era, secular humanism is growing in Zimbabwe.

According to the last census conducted in 2022, nonreligious people in Zimbabwe account for slightly over 10% of the population. This is a significant increase. By the next census in 2032, I expect this number to rise to over 15% or even closer to 20%. Change is a gradual process, but by 2050, I am optimistic that Zimbabwe will be a fully secular state—not just in theory but in practice.

Jacobsen: What are your plans for advancing secularism in Zimbabwe?

Chinama: I am considering applying for a fellowship to study and promote heritage-based curricula as a foundation for secularism. Ideally, I would like to return to South Africa, particularly to the Stellenbosch Institute of Advanced Studies, where I attended a conference in December. Spending a year there conducting research and writing policy recommendations could allow me to bring actionable ideas back to Zimbabwe. I hope to present these ideas to lawmakers and other stakeholders to further advance secular humanism in the country.

Jacobsen: Last question: Who do you think is the most significant figure in secular activism in Africa? Who do you think is Africa’s most significant secular activist right now? For instance, I know that during the post-colonial period, Kwame Nkrumah was very important to the movement in Ghana. Similarly, Nelson Mandela was incredibly significant for South Africa. Who is the most prominent figure in secular and humanist activism in Africa?

Chinama: Unfortunately, the most prominent figures in secular activism may not necessarily be politicians. However, regarding secularity in Africa today, I mention three key individuals. First, my brother, Dr. Leo Igwe, is in Nigeria. He is a prominent figure in the humanist movement. Second, there is Mubarak Bala, also from Nigeria, who was arrested but has recently been released. Third, in East Africa, there is Harrison Mumia.

As we move to Southern Africa, there are others, such as Wonderful Mkutshe in Malawi. In Zimbabwe, we also have a few active secularists, including myself, Mxolisi Masuku, Shingai Rukwata Ndoro, and Prosper Mtandadzi. In South Africa, there is Dean Kruger, who has also been active in this space.

If I were to name the most prominent figures, I would rank Leo Igwe, Mubarak Bala, and Harrison Mumia at the top. Beyond that, in Uganda, we have someone like Kato Mukasa, currently based in the UK. He has also made significant contributions to humanism in East Africa.

However, one region that lacks prominent humanist activists is Northern Africa. There is a gap in secular activism in that part of the continent.

Jacobsen: Excellent. Tauya, as usual, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate it.

Chinama: Thank you very much for the opportunity. I hope to continue working together as we strive toward a fully-fledged secular society in Zimbabwe and Africa. A truly secular society would benefit both religious and nonreligious-religious people.

Jacobsen: Thank you.

Chinama: Thank you.

Jacobsen: All right. Take care.

Chinama: Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Canada Invests $24.2M in Indigenous Sport Programs

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/31

Canadian Heritage and its portfolio organizations play a vital role in the cultural, civic and economic life of Canadians. Arts, culture and heritage represent more than $57 billion in the Canadian economy and close to 673,000 jobs in sectors such as film and video, broadcasting, music, publishing, archives, performing arts, heritage institutions, festivals and celebrations. The Canadian government has allocated $24.2 million for Indigenous-led sport initiatives during the 2024–2026 funding cycle. Funds are distributed through three streams: $10.6 million for Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies and the Aboriginal Sport Circle, $7.2 million for Indigenous governments and organizations, and $6.25 million for initiatives benefiting Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQI+ people. Projects are evaluated based on social development goals, community impact, and organizational capacity. The Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities (SSDIC) program funds these initiatives, with annual allocations totaling $11.4 million. In Vancouver, $642,000 supports seven Indigenous-led projects expanding access to sports and recreation.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: How will the $24.2 million investment in Indigenous-led sport initiatives be invested?

Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada: In the 2024–2026 funding cycle, $10.6 million will be distributed to the 13 Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies (PTASBs) and the Aboriginal Sport Circle (ASC) to develop sports community programming.

$7.2 million will be distributed to Indigenous governments, communities and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations to support projects that promote sport and recreation in Indigenous communities. These investments will be delivered through 55 projects across the country. See recipient list here.

$6.25 million will be distributed to Indigenous governments, communities and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations that provide opportunities for Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ people to participate in meaningful sports activities. These investments will be delivered through 50 projects across the country. See recipient list here.

Jacobsen: What is the sub-selection criteria for the 119 sport projects being supported?

Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:

Stream One and Two funding is made available to the 13 Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies (PTASBs), the Aboriginal Sport Circle (ASC) to provide leadership and support to the PTASBs and to Indigenous governments, communities, and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations for projects that create opportunities for Indigenous people to participate in culturally relevant sport or physical activity and which address one or more of the following social development goals drawn from the Truth and Reconciliation Calls to Action:
- improved health;
- improved education;
- improved employability;
- reduction of at-risk behaviour.
Stream Three funding is made available to Indigenous governments, communities, and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations that specifically support sport and recreation projects serving Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ peoples and which address one or more of the following social development goals drawn from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Calls for Justice:
- physical and mental health;
- suicide prevention;
- sexual trafficking awareness and prevention;
- safe and healthy relationships;
- sexual positivity (2SLGBTQI+).

Application Evaluation Criteria:

Applications should clearly describe community needs how the project will address these needs:

Any barriers to accessing sport or physical activity are clearly described.
The Project Need and Impact clearly identifies and addresses the selected SSDIC social development goals.
Project Need and Impact clearly support the improvement of Indigenous people’s overall health and well-being.
Funding priority is to support grassroots or community-based organizations and organizations serving remote and rural communities where need is significant.
Application demonstrates organizational capacity to deliver proposed project in a trauma-informed way and has familiarity with intended participant demographics (for example, Indigenous youth, at-risk youth, Indigenous people with a disability, etc.).
Taken together, the cohort of 2024-2026 projects will reach many participants, serve all Indigenous identity groups (First Nations, Métis, and Inuit), including Indigenous peoples with a disability, in every provincial/territorial region, with off-reserve, remote, rural, and urban community representation.
If any partnerships are needed to adequately deliver the proposed projects, they are clearly identified.

Ultimately, decisions are made by consensus of the Indigenous-led review committee.

Jacobsen: Which funding cycle is the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities (SSDIC) program allocating funds?

Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:

It is for the 2024–2026 funding cycle.

Jacobsen: What is the total funding to support Indigenous-led sport initiatives?

Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:

Stream One: $5.3 million annually since 2019 and ongoing
Stream Two: $3.6 million annually since 2019 and ongoing
Stream Three: $2.5 million annually since 2021 and ongoing

Jacobsen: How is the funding structured? / Q6. How is this structure built into the three streams?

Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:

The Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities (SSDIC) funding is coming from Sport Canada’s Sport Support Program.

SSDIC funding is delivered through 3 streams:

Stream One: $5.3 million is available annually to the 13 Provincial/Territorial Aboriginal Sport Bodies (PTASBs) and the Aboriginal Sport Circle (ASC) for the development of sport community programming
Stream Two: $3.6 million is available annually to Indigenous governments, communities, and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations for projects that promote sport and recreation in Indigenous communities
Stream Three: $2.5 million is available annually to Indigenous governments, communities, and other not-for-profit Indigenous organizations that specifically support sport and recreation projects serving Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQI+ peoples

Jacobsen: What is the specific investment in Vancouver for Indigenous-led projects?

Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:

In Vancouver, approximately $642,000 will be invested in seven Indigenous-led projects aimed at expanding access to sport and physical activity.

NEC Native Education College – $94,500 for 2025-2026 under Stream 2
Squamish Indian Band 555 (Squamish Nation) – $85,500 for 2025-2026 under Stream 2 and $130,000 for 2024-2025 under Stream 3
BC Indigenous Housing Society – $134,970 for 2024-2026 under Stream 3
Canoe Cultures Society – $99,574 for 2024-2025 under Stream 3
Musqueam Indian Band – $12,500 for 2024-2025 under Stream 3
Indigenous Physical Activity & Cultural Circle – $85,000 for 2024-2025 under Stream 3

Jacobsen: How does Minister Duguid depict the role sport and play in communities and its benefit for Indigenous peoples?

Canadian Heritage, Government of Canada:

Sport unites communities, builds strong bonds and promotes healthier lives. Through the Sport for Social Development in Indigenous Communities program, Indigenous partners are breaking down barriers and creating lasting, positive change through sport.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

How Can a State Agency Justify Taking Custody of a Fetus Before Birth?

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/31

Pregnancy Justice, a U.S. non-profit, defends the rights of pregnant individuals, advocating against unlawful surveillance and medical privacy violations. Staff attorney Caitlyn Garcia discussed a lawsuit against Vermont’s DCF, which unlawfully assessed A.V.’s parental capacity before birth. DCF’s actions led to A.V.’s newborn being removed, delaying reunification. The case highlights Vermont’s high-risk pregnancy docket, where medical providers share private data with DCF without consent. Garcia emphasizes the need for policy changes to ensure medical care is not weaponized, protecting parental rights and reproductive autonomy. The lawsuit seeks accountability, damages, and systemic reform against pregnancy-based surveillance.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Pregnancy Justice is a U.S. non-profit organization dedicated to defending the rights and dignity of pregnant individuals, regardless of pregnancy outcomes, including birth, loss, or abortion. Founded in 2001 as National Advocates for Pregnant Women, it was rebranded to its current name in 2022. Caitlyn Garcia serves as a staff attorney at Pregnancy Justice, focusing on legal advocacy and research. A 2020 graduate of Brooklyn Law School, she previously worked with Brooklyn Defender Services Family Defense Practice. Caitlyn, thank you for joining me today. I appreciate it.

Caitlyn Garcia: Thank you for having me.

Jacobsen: Regarding the lawsuit against the Vermont Department for Children and Families (DCF), what are the key legal claims in this case?

Garcia: We filed this lawsuit on behalf of our client, A.V., on January 16, 2025. To provide some background, A.V. became pregnant in 2021. She contacted LUND, a Vermont-based organization providing services to parents and families, and relocated to a shelter. While she was at the shelter, the Vermont Department for Children and Families initiated an assessment of her parental capacity, alleging that she had untreated mental health concerns.

This assessment was conducted without A.V. being notified and without any formal mental health evaluation. When A.V. was in labour at the hospital, DCF again intervened, filing a motion for temporary custody of her baby—before the baby was even born.

The motion contained inaccurate statements, raising significant legal concerns. A hearing was held, and A.V. ultimately consented to a vacuum-assisted delivery, followed by an emergency C-section. Immediately after birth, her baby was taken from her, denying her the opportunity for immediate skin-to-skin contact and early bonding.

DCF then delayed reunification between A.V. and her child despite never filing for formal termination of her parental rights. Months later, she was finally reunified with her baby after enduring the trauma of family separation.

A key issue in this case is that DCF did not have the legal authority to open an assessment before A.V.’s child was born. A fetus is not legally recognized as a child under Vermont law. Through our investigation, we uncovered DCF’s high-risk pregnancy calendar, a system used to track and surveil expecting parents, which raises serious concerns about privacy violations and overreach.

In this case, LUND and Copley Hospital shared information about A.V. with DCF without her knowledge or authorization. Our claims in the lawsuit focus on constitutional violations under Vermont state law, particularly the improper sharing of confidential medical information and the infringement of A.V.’s right to make medical decisions.

Being pregnant does not mean you lose your rights. This lawsuit seeks accountability for the violations of A.V.’s reproductive rights and the legal protections that were denied to her.

And we’re hoping to learn more about the high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar I referenced earlier through discovery and further investigation. This appears to be part of a broader pattern or practice of surveilling pregnant women—not just A.V., but other pregnant women in Vermont. Hopefully, with discovery, we will obtain more information about this aspect of the case and move forward in preventing DCF from harming parents in this way. We also aim to prevent other parents from being placed on this high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar and having their rights violated.

The complaint also includes Count 13, the first-ever legal claim based on Article 22 of the Vermont Constitution: Proposition 5, or the Reproductive Liberty Amendment. This is a significant development, as we are bringing the first case that invokes this claim. We will see how it plays out.

Jacobsen: Regarding DCF and the initial investigation, what legal authority, if any, does DCF have to assess an expectant parent’s parental capacity?

Garcia: DCF can open an assessment of parental capacity. However, as was not the case here, they are supposed to do so only when an actual, living child exists. A.V. had not yet given birth to her baby.

That was a major issue. Additionally, they are required to notify the parent. A.V. should have been informed that an assessment was being opened and that DCF was initiating an investigation. Yet, she was not notified.

Not only did they fail to inform her, but they also opened the assessment concerning a fetus. Both of these actions were improper and against Vermont law.

We are working closely with local counsel in Vermont, including the ACLU of Vermont and Sarah Starr, who are key players and well-versed in Vermont law. We are also collaborating with a law firm to ensure that A.V.’s rights are fully vindicated.

Jacobsen: What is the significance of Vermont’s Article 22? What does the Reproductive Liberty Amendment say, particularly about this case?

Garcia: Certainly. Article 22 was enacted in 2022. It is also known as Proposition 5 or the Reproductive Liberty Amendment.

Essentially, it constitutionalized Vermont’s commitment to individual reproductive autonomy. In the complaint, we quote directly from the amendment, which states that:

“An individual’s right to personal reproductive autonomy is central to the liberty and dignity to determine one’s life course and shall not be denied or infringed unless justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”

This provision strongly emphasizes personal autonomy. As I mentioned earlier, women and individuals do not lose their rights to personal autonomy simply because they become pregnant.

We further argue that DCF’s pattern and practice of surveilling pregnant Vermonters interferes with that reproductive liberty by placing them on the high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar. This leads to unwarranted investigations and intrusions.

Women have no way of knowing that they have been placed on the high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar. They also have no way of removing themselves from it. As a result, their reproductive rights are violated. Simply because they are pregnant, they are subjected to additional surveillance with no means of avoiding it.

Jacobsen: What evidence did DCF present in court to obtain custody of A.V.’s fetus?

Garcia: They cited the claim that A.V. had untreated mental health concerns. However, as I mentioned earlier, those claims were unsubstantiated. She was never given a mental health evaluation, which was a significant issue.

They also submitted an affidavit listing the baby’s birthdate—even though the baby had not yet been born. This meant the court was presented with incorrect information, which, in a way, misled the court by providing false details.

DCF also claimed that A.V. was “failing to push” or give birth in a manner that the hospital deemed necessary. In reality, A.V. had already agreed to a vacuum-assisted delivery and ultimately consented to a C-section. The hearing then concluded, and she gave birth via C-section.

The court relied on these claims despite concerns about the accuracy of the information and how it was obtained. LUND and the hospital provided details to DCF, raising further concerns about privacy violations.

We see this kind of coordination between hospitals, medical providers, and Child Protective Services in many other cases. Pregnancy Justice works on cases across the country, and we have observed a troubling pattern of hospitals and medical providers sharing information with CPS to surveil families and parents. This is a growing problem nationwide.

Jacobsen: What accountability measures are currently in place for DCF’s potentially illegal actions, particularly when they are overly intrusive, lack evidence, or violate an individual’s rights?

Garcia: A.V. has filed for multiple forms of legal relief.

First, she is seeking damages to compensate her for violating her rights.

Second, she requests punitive damages against DCF for its unlawful, willful, egregious, and malicious misconduct, which directly caused her harm.

Third, she is seeking an injunction, which would require DCF to stop these practices, delete all records related to A.V., including confidential counselling and medical records, and end this unlawful pattern of surveilling pregnant individuals.

Fourth, she has asked for a declaratory judgment, which would establish that DCF violated her constitutional, statutory, and common law rights and that this pattern of behaviour is unlawful.

Under the law, she is entitled to seek all these different forms of relief.

The court also has the discretion to determine what additional relief may be appropriate. As the case progresses, we hope the court will recognize the severity of these violations and grant the necessary relief to A.V. and others affected by similar actions.

Jacobsen: Regarding Vermont and the broader context of cases similar to A.V.’s under Pregnancy Justice, what are the recurring themes? Additionally, what policy changes could increase accountability for organizations acting against the best interests of individuals like A.V.? Conversely, what policies could be implemented to enhance protections for individuals like A.V.?

Garcia: Certainly. As I mentioned earlier, we are seeing hospitals and medical providers collaborate with Child Protective Services (CPS) and share information, including confidential and protected information, without proper consent. Holding both healthcare providers and agencies accountable for improperly sharing this information is essential.

We have seen hospitals drug test individuals without their consent or informed consent and then share those results with CPS, leading to family court cases and prolonged investigations—sometimes lasting 60 days or more. In these cases, ensuring informed consent is critical. Individuals need to be fully aware that they are being drug tested and that the results of these tests could be shared with CPS.

Policies holding providers accountable are necessary so pregnant individuals feel comfortable disclosing personal information. For example, suppose a pregnant person has a substance use disorder and needs treatment. In that case, they should feel safe discussing this with their healthcare provider without fear of punitive consequences.

When individuals trust their providers, they are more likely to seek help, which benefits not only the parent but also the child and the entire family. This creates a twofold solution—ensuring accountability for agencies and providers while prioritizing informed consent. Hence, individuals understand the potential consequences of disclosing sensitive information, such as undergoing a drug test or speaking with a healthcare provider, if that information is shared externally.

Jacobsen: If confidential information shared by an individual like A.V. is improperly disclosed, what are the potential safety and privacy concerns that arise? Specifically, what happens when an unsubstantiated mental health status is documented as part of the record, even without evidence? Could this have professional or long-term implications if such information is publicized?

Garcia: I’m not sure how to answer this. Of course, the availability of improperly obtained and unlawfully acquired information is always a concern.

First, suppose an individual is placed on this high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar without their knowledge and without any means to remove themselves. In that case, they cannot correct the issue. They are listed due to inaccurate or misleading information. Yet, they cannot challenge or remove themselves from that designation. That is a serious issue.

Second, A.V. did not have a mental health disorder, and she was never even evaluated. She did not undergo a full mental health assessment, which makes DCF’s claims even more problematic. Suppose authorities assert that an individual has a condition without scientific evidence or proper evaluation. In that case, it can lead to long-term legal and personal consequences.

This misinformation ultimately ends up in the court’s hands, and the court relies on the information provided to make decisions. It is critical that courts receive accurate and verified information and that individuals have a fair opportunity to correct false records.

I cannot say more at this stage, but we hope to learn more about the high-risk pregnancy docket or calendar through the discovery process. Specifically, we need to answer:

Who is on that docket?
How long are individuals kept on it?
What criteria are used to place them there?

These are critical questions that need answers.

Jacobsen: How does this Vermont case compare to similar cases across the United States? While there are common themes, different states and cities have varying levels of protection. Do any states or cities have better or worse policies regarding these issues?

Garcia: Certainly. We are seeing a consistent pattern across states—hospitals and medical providers collaborating with Child Protective Services (CPS), conducting unauthorized testing, and reporting unverified mental health claims about individuals.

Vermont has strong legal protections, which help pursue justice for A.V. However, even in states that are generally considered more protective—such as New York—we still see hospitals conducting unauthorized testing, reporting patients without consent, and engaging in discriminatory practices against pregnant individuals.

Because we handle cases across multiple states, Pregnancy Justice has observed national patterns. I work on cases in Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Vermont, and New York so that I can speak to the differences in legal landscapes across these regions.

We have also discussed our Fetal Personhood Report and Pregnancy Criminalization Report, which highlight these broader systemic issues.

A key concern in A.V.’s case is fetal personhood—her baby had not yet been born, yet DCF attempted to gain custody of the fetus before birth. That is a serious legal and human rights issue.

You probably already have this report—you might have seen this chart before. We may have discussed it previously, but in our latest report, Pregnancy as a Crime, on page 19, there is a chart titled “The Role of the Family Policing System,” which is what we call child welfare in pregnancy-related prosecutions.

But there is a chart titled “The Role of the Family Policing System.” It highlights how many of these cases—although they are criminal, and A.V.’s case was not—underscore how information obtained in the medical system is often used.

It illustrates the critical role that medical providers and child welfare agencies play in these prosecutions. This is the broader issue Caitlyn was referring to—while we may not have many cases with the same fact pattern as A.V.’s, this situation indicates a systemic issue.

Medical settings are increasingly being co-opted—patients’ private medical information is being obtained and used to build cases against them, often in coordination with child welfare agencies.

Jacobsen: I just read the page now. These 210 files—these are from across the United States?

Garcia: Correct. Cases like these are not uncommon, and they often involve the same elements.

Jacobsen: What argument can they make against this? You are citing government sources—citation 59 is the White House. What are the big takeaways, Caitlyn, as we wrap up?

Garcia: The big takeaways are to hold agencies and providers accountable for sharing confidential and unlawfully obtained information.

We must also protect the rights of pregnant individuals, and states need to review their laws to understand how they are used. Even in Vermont, where the laws are strong, DCF still works unlawfully with outside organizations.

Both providers and DCF must be held accountable for their actions. This ties into the broader issue of separating medical treatment and care from punishment.

A.V. went to the hospital expecting medical care and compassionate treatment—not to have her rights violated. We must ensure that care is not weaponized as a tool for punishment.

Some people forget that both the family policing system and the criminal legal system exist. These systems often work together, and even though A.V. did not face criminal charges, she was still subjected to family court proceedings.

These systems frequently overlap, punishing parents both criminally and civilly, which increases the harm and stress they experience. It is important to recognize how extensive these harms are and to separate medical care from legal punishment.

A.V. should have experienced the joy of having her first baby, with crucial moments like skin-to-skin contact and bonding—essential in a child’s early life. Instead, she was robbed of those experiences.

You cannot get those moments back. While this case is about A.V.’s rights, it will impact all pregnant women in Vermont because of the discovery process and the broader claims against DCF for surveilling pregnant Vermonters.

I hope this case sends a message to other states. As we move forward with discovery, I hope other states recognize this as a serious issue and take steps to prevent similar violations.

This case should guide agencies, making them realize that this kind of surveillance must end here.

Jacobsen: Caitlyn, thank you for your time.

Garcia: Awesome.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

AI Threat Detection in Healthcare and Beyond

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30 (Unpublished)

Peter Evans is the Chief Executive Officer of Xtract One Technologies, a company specializing in AI-based threat detection and security solutions. He has over 25 years of experience in digital transformation and innovation within high-growth technology sectors. Evans has held CEO roles at four technology companies and has overseen revenue growth, profitability improvements, and multiple liquidity events. Before joining Xtract One, he held senior positions at technology and security firms, including IBM, where he contributed to the strategic direction of the Internet Security Systems division, focusing on security considerations related to cloud computing, telecommunications, and mobile technologies.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What led to the selection of Xtract One’s Gateway for deployment at Manitoba’s Health Sciences Centre and Crisis Response Centre?

Peter Evans: Manitoba Health conducted a thorough evaluation where they tested multiple security solutions. Xtract One Gateway demonstrated strong performance during its pilot across various hospital locations.

Healthcare environments create unique security challenges. Patients arrive in distress, staff need efficient movement between areas, and the setting must remain welcoming. During the pilot, Gateway showed it could handle these complexities effectively while maintaining appropriate security levels.

We worked collaboratively with HSC staff throughout the process. Their emergency department deals with situations different from those of the Crisis Response Centre, requiring tailored approaches for each location. Our willingness to adapt to their specific needs, combined with Gateway’s performance in testing, influenced their final decision.

Jacobsen: How does the system ensure robust threat detection while also maintaining a comfortable and seamless experience for patients, staff, and visitors?

Evans: Xtract One Gateway allows people to walk through naturally without removing items from their pockets or bags. Our AI algorithms distinguish between potential threats and everyday items like laptops, tablets, notebooks, keys, and phones. False alerts are decreased significantly, preventing unnecessary invasiveness and delays for patients.

With Gateway, healthcare staff spend less time managing security processes and more time focusing on patient care. The system prevents entrance bottlenecks, which is important for emergency departments where delays could affect clinical outcomes.

Jacobsen: How does Gateway distinguish between potential weapons and everyday personal items?

Evans: Xtract One Gateway combines advanced sensor technology with AI algorithms to create what we call “threat signatures.” The system analyzes object characteristics and then compares them against a library of known threat profiles.

We’ve trained our AI on millions of data points representing both threats and common personal belongings. The system continuously improves through machine learning, becoming more accurate over time.

For HSC specifically, we determined sensitivity settings to match and balance their security profile, patient experience, and operational flow.

Jacobsen: What operational improvements are expected in hospitals with this implementation?

Evans: Enhanced safety without operational bottlenecks stands as the primary benefit. Traditional security often creates entry delays that negatively impact patient experience and potentially clinical outcomes.

Xtract One Gateway delivers faster processing while maintaining security coverage. Emergency departments operate more efficiently, staff focus on patient care rather than security procedures, and the atmosphere remains conducive to healing.

Security staffing requirements decrease, as well. Gateway’s precision in identifying actual threats allows personnel deployment to more strategic roles instead of conducting manual searches or managing security lines. This is particularly valuable given current healthcare staffing challenges.

Jacobsen: How do Canadian Occupational Safety and Health Agency and the Ontario Nurses’ Association statistics make the need for advanced security solutions urgent in healthcare?

Evans: Statistics from the Ontario Nurses’ Association reveal that up to 85% of nurses have experienced workplace violence. Canadian Occupational Safety and Health Agency data confirms healthcare workers face some of the highest violence rates across industries.

These numbers have continued trending upward in recent years. Healthcare workers, dedicated to healing others, increasingly become targets of violence. Manitoba Nurses Union president Darlene Jackson noted that frontline staff felt “much safer” with our detectors in place.

Real people experience trauma in their workplace when these incidents occur. Staff safety affects everything from retention rates to quality of care. Advanced security solutions like Gateway create environments where healthcare professionals can focus primarily on patient care.

Jacobsen: How does Gateway improve screening times and reduce the need for separate bag searches at entry points?

Evans: Xtract One Gateway fundamentally changes the screening paradigm. Traditional security approaches require people to empty pockets, remove items from bags, or undergo separate screening processes for carried items. This creates significant delays, requires additional staffing, and often creates an unwelcoming atmosphere.

Our Gateway system allows individuals to walk through naturally while carrying their belongings. The AI-powered detection can scan both the person and their bags and backpacks simultaneously, identifying potential threats while distinguishing harmless personal items like laptops, tablets, and phones. In most cases, this eliminates the need for separate bag searches.

In terms of actual numbers, we typically see processing times that are significantly faster than traditional metal detector and bag search combinations. This means that healthcare facility patients can simply walk-right-in, while the hospital maintains effective security coverage.

Jacobsen: What other industries can benefit from AI threat detection systems?

Evans: While healthcare facilities represent an important application of our technology, we’re seeing adoption across numerous sectors where safety concerns must be balanced with operational efficiency and visitor experience.

Sports and entertainment venues have been early adopters, and educational institutions from K-12 to universities are increasingly implementing these solutions to protect students and staff. What’s interesting is how the technology is being adapted to meet the unique needs of each environment. In corporate settings, it might focus on protecting intellectual property as much as people. In schools, it needs to accommodate high-volume morning entry of students carrying educational technology. The flexibility of AI-based systems like our Gateway means we can customize solutions for virtually any environment where safety and security are priorities.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Peter.

–

Xtract One Technologies is a top provider of AI-powered threat detection and security solutions designed to create safe, seamless entry experiences. Its discreet, non-invasive Gateway systems allow facility operators to identify weapons and threats at entry and exit points without slowing foot traffic. Focused on enhancing “Walk-right-In” convenience, Xtract One supports diverse environments, including schools, hospitals, arenas, stadiums, manufacturing sites, and distribution centers. Known for blending advanced security with user-friendly design, the company leads the market in providing safety without compromising experience. Xtract One’s cutting-edge solutions reflect its commitment to innovation, efficiency, and protection across high-traffic, high-security venues.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Indigenous Fashion, Bespoke Tailoring, and Cultural Storytelling

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/30

Zahir Rajani, co-founder of The Sartorial Shop, Bespoke Atelier, talks about Indigenous representation in fashion and the role of bespoke tailoring. Rajani discusses the growing prominence of Indigenous artists and their integration into custom design. The conversation explores the collaboration for the documentary Sugarcane, featuring Julian Brave NoiseCat, Ed Archie NoiseCat, and Chief Willie Sellars. Rajani reflects on the intersection of fashion, history, and sustainability, emphasizing how traditional and Indigenous elements can be seamlessly incorporated into formalwear. He highlights the importance of authenticity, craftsmanship, and cultural storytelling in reshaping the fashion landscape.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we are here with Zahir Rajani, co-founder of The Sartorial Shop, Bespoke Atelier. How do you see Indigenous representation in fashion evolving, particularly the role of bespoke tailoring in this?

Zahir Rajani: Yeah, that’s a great question.

For me, I can relate it to the project we worked on and what I have been fortunate to experience throughout this collaboration. Indigenous representation in fashion is increasing and moving in the right direction. Through this project, we have met some incredible Indigenous artists whose work is simply spectacular. Just through this collaboration alone, we have already started to think about how we, as a bespoke atelier, can incorporate some of their beautiful work into our designs.

The more we discuss it, the more we realize that Indigenous fashion is becoming more prominent. So, when I say it is headed in the right direction, I mean that it is gaining greater visibility and recognition, as it should.

Jacobsen: What was your initial reaction with Amanda May Daly creating some custom pieces?

Rajani: My wife and I run the business together—she is my co-creative director.

Our first reaction was one of honor—we were truly honored to be approached and selected to be part of this project on multiple fronts. First, it was an incredible opportunity to contribute to an important part of Canadian and British Columbia’s history. Second, we had the privilege of working with artists like Julian Brave NoiseCat and Ed Archie NoiseCat, whose work has been widely recognized, including at the Smithsonian Institution. And of course, collaborating with Chief Willie Sellars was a great honor.

We were incredibly excited about the project, especially at the outset when no one knew exactly what the final outcome would be. We knew that ideally, we wanted to incorporate Indigenous art and Indigenous fashion into a modern aesthetic with an old Hollywood and Western feel.

CEO and Creative Director of The Sartorial Shop, Zahir Rajani (Left)
Julian Brave NoiseCat, Oscar nominee, activist, filmmaker, writer, and co-director of Sugarcane (centre-right)
Celebrity Stylist, Amanda May Daly (right)

Jacobsen: For those unfamiliar, The Sartorial Shop opened in May 2023 and later relocated to Downtown Vancouver. What factors do you attribute to its rapid growth and success?

Rajani: Great question. When we set out to reopen the family business, we were reviving a legacy. My parents originally started what would become The Sartorial Shop in 1984 and ran it until 2010, when they closed. My wife and I decided to reopen in late 2022, and we officially opened our doors in May 2023.

Our goal was to bridge a gap in Vancouver’s bespoke and custom suiting market and expand beyond that. The industry had two extremes—high fashion and fast fashion—and we saw an opportunity to offer a balance between them.

You don’t have a “you get what you pay for” fashion market in Vancouver or B.C. So, if you’re looking for something that’s $2,000, you get what you pay for. If you’re looking for something that’s $4,000, $10,000, $20,000, you get what you pay for. But in Vancouver, that middle ground does not exist. You have fast fashion—the obvious fast fashion stores—and then you have ultra-high fashion, which is often considered overpriced, especially for the quality.

Our goal was to bridge that gap and redefine it. That has contributed tremendously to our very rapid growth, and we’re obviously grateful for it.

We are honest in what we do. When we create a garment that is hand-sewn, it is hand-sewn. When we create a garment that is tailored in Europe or Italy, it is tailored in Europe or Italy.

If we create something worth $2,000, it is likely double or triple the price at a competitor of ours. The honesty and dignity in the work we put together and put out there have definitely contributed to our growth. Our eye for detail, the time we spend with each individual who walks through our doors, and the craftsmanship that goes into every product we create at our atelier are second to none—especially in our market.

Jacobsen: For the documentary Sugarcane, directed by Julian Brave NoiseCat and Emily Kassie, they explore an important historical facet of Canadian history—residential school systems in Canada. The film centers on St. Joseph’s Mission Residential School, which was in Williams Lake, British Columbia. It investigates abuses, infanticide, and the enduring impacts on Indigenous communities today. What are your reflections on this chapter in Canadian history and the narratives of resilience and strength among Indigenous people who have endured these injustices?

Rajani: Having been born and raised in Vancouver, I, unfortunately, never learned about this in school. I went through the public school system. At the time, there wasn’t a lot of information available to us.

When the news first broke about the discovery of unmarked graves, that was the first time many of us truly started to understand what residential schools were and how they impacted Indigenous communities across Canada. Even then, unless we took the time to do our own research, there wasn’t much publicly available information.

So first and foremost, this is an incredibly important part of Canadian history. As dark, as sad, and as disheartening as it is, it is essential that we understand what happened. Because until you understand it, it is difficult to have a real conversation about it.

This documentary and its story help us understand how residential schools impacted previous generations and how they continue to affect current and future generations of the Indigenous community. It also helps us grasp what a true path to reconciliation could look like.

That’s probably the extent of what I can answer. I’m very much an outsider when it comes to this subject, and I only know what I have been able to research and what I have seen through this documentary.

Jacobsen: Many years ago, I conducted a long series of interviews with people in ethical and sustainable fashion. Most of them were small- and medium-sized fashion designers, developers, and business owners. A majority were women, at least in the interviews I conducted, primarily in North America but not exclusively.

How has that industry evolved over time—let’s say, in the last five to ten years?

Rajani: COVID, first and foremost, brought out a lot of entrepreneurs—or at least brought out the entrepreneurial side in many individuals.

If you were laid off, you either searched for another job or started your own business. We saw a 40% to 50% increase in entrepreneurship between March 2020 and today, and that trend continues to rise.

By virtue of that, we’ve seen a dramatic increase in independent fashion ventures over at least the last half-decade.

In terms of the gender split, in bespoke tailoring and bespoke suiting, even though our focus is menswear, we do ladies’ wear as well, and we do it quite well. However, you still tend to see more men as creative directors in this space.

That shift is beginning to change. More and more women are getting involved.

If we take a step back and look at the global men’s suiting industry, you had Tom Ford, who recently sold his company, as a male creative director. You have Alessandro Sartori, the creative director of Zegna, and, of course, Giorgio Armani, who runs his own namesake brand, alongside Ralph Lauren.

In bespoke suiting, custom suiting, or general tailoring, the industry remains male-dominated. If you go to Savile Row, 95% of tailors are men.

But that’s changing.

For example, in our own business, my wife is my co-creative director, and she has equal input, insight, and oversight on every design we produce and every garment we put together.

Jacobsen: How do you approach a bespoke atelier for a project like this?

How deep is the collaboration and coordination—from the accessorizing, blending of Indigenous and Western design, and the celebrity stylist’s own vision—while also coming from a Vancouver context?

Rajani: This is a great question, and this was where we had an incredible experience.

It was fun, it was challenging, and it was highly educational for us.

When Amanda May Daly first approached us in October of last year, she suggested there might be an opportunity—if Sugarcane was nominated for an Oscar or performed well during award season—to put together Oscars red carpet looks.

She asked if that was something we’d be interested in.

At the time, nobody fully knew what these outfits would look like. But as we started brainstorming, meeting, and discussing ideas, we knew one thing above all else:

It was essential that the three individuals felt comfortable in what they were wearing.

And I don’t just mean physically comfortable—as in a fabric that drapes well or a cut that isn’t too tight.

I mean comfortable in the sense that their outfits represented who they are—first and foremost.

Rajani: So it was about understanding that—what did this mean? What does this mean to Julian? What does this mean to Ed? What did this mean to Chief Willie Sellars? And second, how do we incorporate various elements of their own Indigenous communities and cultures into each garment? For Julian, it was about working around his moose hide vest, which his grandmother made for him. For Ed, it was about integrating his own artwork into various design elements, whether through a custom cummerbund, jewelry, or specific tailoring details in his tuxedo. For Chief Willie Sellars, he was very particular about the color of the garment, why that color was significant to him, and how it would complement other accessories and pieces being made. Amanda’s role—her task—was to bring these individual visions together and merge them into something cohesive that honored all aspects: the bespoke suiting world, Indigenous arts and culture, and each person’s unique identity.

It involved a lot of brainstorming, bouncing ideas back and forth, and ultimately ensuring that the three individuals wearing these outfits felt comfortable in what we were putting together.

Jacobsen: How were not only The Sartorial Shop but also Himikalas Pam Baker, Kokum Scrunchies, Joe Big Mountain of Ironhorse Quillwork, and Ed NoiseCat integrated into the overall design of the project?

Rajani: A lot of those collaborations—most of them, really—were Amanda’s connections and curations. She knew she wanted these creators involved in some way, and then it became about building on her vision and figuring out the best way to do that.

So when we understood what Julian, Ed, and Willie each envisioned, we built from there. For Julian, his look had to reflect a very specific western style, but in a way that would be appropriate for black-tie events and the red carpet. Typically, on a red carpet, you see people wearing tuxedos—but you can’t wear a moose hide vest under a standard tuxedo jacket. If you did, you’d hide the vest entirely.

So the question became, how do we take western-style pants and transform them into tuxedo trousers? The solution was to design trousers with a thicker waistband contrasted in black satin, a black satin tuxedo stripe running down the side, and a crisp western-style formal shirt that would pair with his moose hide vest.

For Ed and Willie, the approach was similar, incorporating elements personal to them. And then, for Ed, what made the most sense was that he wanted a classic Old Hollywood-style tuxedo. Typically, you’d have a bow tie, a pocket square, and a black cummerbund. But instead of a standard black cummerbund, we thought—how about creating one that represents Indigenous arts and culture, particularly his own community?

That’s where Pam Baker was commissioned to design a beautiful custom cummerbund. In addition, Heather Jude of Jude Canada Designs created another cummerbund, using Kokum scarf fabric, which tied into Indigenous design traditions.

Ed is also very passionate about hats—whether it’s a fedora or cowboy hat—so we asked, how do we incorporate a hat into his look in a way that fits the formalwear? We collaborated with Capelleria Bertacchi, a local hat maker with whom we have a great relationship, to customize certain elements of a hat that Ed already owned.

For Chief Willie Sellars, it was a similar process. Once he selected the color of his suit, Joe Big Mountain designed some beautiful quillwork to complement it. The entire project was about harmonizing each artist’s designs, styles, and garments while ensuring every creator had the space to do what they do best—all seamlessly integrated into the outfits we designed alongside Amanda.

Jacobsen: What would you say is your biggest takeaway from this kind of collaboration, where you’re incorporating sustainable fashion into the process?

At the same time, there’s another ethical dimension to this—not just from a sustainability perspective but from a historical and cultural standpoint. What are your key reflections after participating in this project and collaborating with everyone involved?

Rajani: The biggest takeaway is realizing the depth of the fashion and design world—and how you can incorporate someone else’s style and culture in a way that is both meaningful and stunningly beautiful.

If you want a traditional tuxedo, that doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t incorporate elements of another culture. It absolutely can, and when done thoughtfully, it can look incredibly powerful, deeply personal, and still maintain a formal, elegant aesthetic.

Typically, in traditional fashion, whether it’s sustainable or fast fashion, there are strict norms that designers tend to conform to—such as, “This is a red carpet look” or “This is a formal black-tie look,” and you can’t deviate from that. But in this case, we did deviate from it. We redefined the rules to ensure that each look remained a formal, red carpet-worthy design while still incorporating everything we discussed—heritage, culture, artistry, and identity.

This entire experience speaks to the vast, untapped depth of fashion and style, particularly in North America and especially in our market.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Zahir.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Malka Shaw, LCSW, Jewish Resilience & Combating Antisemitism

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/29

Malka Shaw, LCSW, founded Kesher Shalom Projects, which promotes Jewish unity, resilience, and cultural competency. The project emerged after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks and the global surge in anti-Semitism. Shaw highlights the psychological impact of anti-Semitism, propaganda, and identity destabilization. She discusses The Guard System, a trauma-informed framework integrating CBT, DBT, and narrative therapy to help individuals develop coping skills. Shaw stresses the urgency of addressing anti-Semitism, media misinformation, and social division, emphasizing that anti-Semitism threatens democratic values and requires a unified response across Jewish and non-Jewish communities.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Malka Shaw, LCSW, the founder of Kesher Shalom Projects. Can you introduce this project before we get into the discussion?

Malka Shaw: Kesher means connection, and Shalom means peace. That symbolism represents what we stand for—we aim to foster connections, promote peace and unity, and combat hate.

Kesher Shalom grew organically after October 7, 2023, following the Hamas-led attacks on Israel, which resulted in the largest loss of Jewish life in a single day since the Holocaust. The attacks also triggered a global surge in anti-Semitism. As I mentioned before, we started recording anti-Semitic incidents worldwide, which have increased dramatically, with a reported 360% rise in some regions. In the United States alone, anti-Semitic hate crimes account for nearly 55% of all religiously motivated hate crimes, despite Jews making up only about 2.4% of the population.

What was not being adequately addressed was how to help the Jewish community cope with this trauma and build resilience. This project is unique because we are trauma therapists focused on fostering resilience. We prioritize education and have now trained over 3,500 mental health professionals through continuing education courses on Jewish cultural competency, the psychological impact of anti-Semitism, working with Jewish clients, and navigating Jewish identity in the wake of October 7.

We have also been researching the psychological mechanisms of propaganda, how anti-Semitic ideologies spread, and their broader societal impact. While we initially focused on mental health professionals, our programs and workshops are designed for a broad audience. I have spoken at the New Jersey Bar Association, Rutgers University, and other institutions. We can adapt our material to meet the needs of any audience. Providing accurate, evidence-based education and sharing factual information as widely as possible is crucial.

A key part of this is Jewish cultural competence. This is not just about understanding Jewish history in the context of persecution but also about recognizing Jewish contributions to society, values, and traditions. A significant portion of our work involves correcting misconceptions—terms like “chosen people” and “Zionism” are often misinterpreted, weaponized, and used to justify discrimination against Jews.

We work to clarify these concepts, explain their true meanings, and discuss their impact on Jewish clients. The mental health field has also experienced a sharp rise in anti-Semitism. Many Jewish individuals are now hesitant to seek professional help outside Jewish practitioners. In contrast, Jewish practitioners themselves face threats, professional ostracization, and doxxing.

The Free Press broke a major story highlighting how Jewish mental health professionals have been targeted online.

Jacobsen: I read the story. Unfortunately, this situation has become common, though it’s not right.

Shaw: Yes, people are being doxxed. I have personally received numerous threats and cyber harassment. On the other hand, my practice has seen a significant increase in Jewish clients seeking culturally competent care. I always prided myself on maintaining a diverse practice and enjoyed working with people from all backgrounds. I define culture broadly—not just in ethnic or religious terms but also in professional subcultures, such as those in emergency medicine, law enforcement, or first responders—each has its own identity.

For me, culture has many layers beyond ethnicity or religion. I appreciate you bringing this topic to my attention, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have.

Jacobsen: When it comes to resilience—an important topic—it appears in psychological and therapeutic discussions almost as frequently as narcissism, particularly in the United States today. So, when considering cultural competence on the one hand and resilience on the other, how do you convey Jewish people’s culture, values, and ideologies in the United States to those who may have limited knowledge? And how do you teach resilience to individuals who are more likely to be targeted by these types of hate crimes?

Shaw: Let’s take one question at a time. Let’s start with cultural competence. We have a formula. I’m a licensed clinical social worker, and there is an established formula for teaching cultural competence in social work. I follow that formula. Many licensing boards require cultural competence training to maintain certification as part of continuing education requirements. However, before October 7, 2023, it was rare to find Jewish identity and experience included among the cultural competence topics.

So, we have to start by defining Jewish identity, which is complex. Judaism is not just a religion, culture, or ethnicity—it is all these and more. Different individuals connect with different aspects of Jewish identity. Judaism predates these modern categorizations; concepts like religion, culture, and ethnicity emerged only in the last few hundred years, whereas Judaism has existed for more than 4,000 years.

To build cultural competence, we discuss Jewish ideology and key historical milestones that shape Jewish identity today. I am not there to provide an in-depth history lesson—there are many history professors. Instead, we cover the essentials in two or three slides and a seven-minute video. My goal is to establish the historical and cultural context necessary to understand intergenerational trauma, which is closely tied to Jewish resilience.

I am there to answer questions and clarify common misconceptions. One major issue today is misinformation about Zionism. Zionism has been demonized to the point where discussing it triggers a gaslighting effect. But Zionism, at its core, is simply the Jewish people’s right to self-determination and their desire to live in their ancestral homeland.

Zionism does not mean discrimination against others in that homeland. It also does not mean one must agree with every modern State of Israel policy. I often adjust how I present this information depending on when and where I give the class.

I always ask, “Did you agree with everything Trump did? “Did you agree with everything Biden did? “Nobody is going to say they agreed with both. We are allowed to criticize a democracy.

So, we’re not talking about politics here. We’re talking about the right to defend ourselves when attacked and the right to yearn for our homeland. But when people start to associate Zionism with something evil or inaccurate, that is anti-Semitism.

Point blank—it’s anti-Semitism. And it also violates the ethical codes of mental health professionals, as well as those in healthcare and legal professions. In psychology, we emphasize self-experience and lived experience. Our role is not to redefine an identity or belief not part of our culture. Doing so is considered unethical in the field.

Cultural competence is crucial in our social and mental health work. It fosters true empathy. We’re not just telling people, “Don’t engage in anti-Semitism because it’s bad.”

We want people to understand who we are. Empathy comes from truly knowing someone. Once you genuinely understandsomeone, they are no longer an outsider.

At their core, human beings are human beings. Everyone shares fundamental needs—the desire to connect, love, and uphold personal values. We aim to break down the walls of judgment.

Now, moving on to your excellent question about resilience. It’s a separate issue. As a trauma therapist, I’ve seen the evolution of how we discuss trauma. We used to call it trauma recovery. Now, we talk about building resilience.

It’s a more forward-thinking, positive approach. The word resilience comes from engineering—it originally referred to materials “bouncing back.” But that’s not how trauma works.

Once you go through something difficult, you are never the same. But you have a choice. You can turn toward despair, depression, or bitterness, or you can find meaning and purpose. Some people emerge with a renewed sense of purpose and become stronger.

We strive for that. This is why people often say, “With age comes wisdom.” It’s because they’ve lived through experiences. You don’t get through life without facing pain or disappointment. I wish you could. But if that were the case, I’d be out of business.

I wish we all could, but that’s not how life works. Resilience building starts with small steps. It begins with mindset because our mindset affects our feelings, and our feelings influence our actions. That’s basic cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in a nutshell. And while it sounds simple, there’s much truth to it.

So, we start with a mindset. We help people name their experiences, express their emotions, and remove any sense of shame about what they have gone through or are currently facing. That is the most important piece. Resilience is not about feeling strong—it’s about navigating through difficulty. Clients often say to me, “I don’t feel strong.” And that’s exactly it.

Resilience happens at that moment—when you don’t feel strong, but you take another step forward anyway. And you keep going. Over time, people discover that they are far more capable than they ever realized.

That is my job in individual therapy, but it’s also my job as an educator and public speaker—to help people recognize their inner strength. Do you want to continue? Do you have any other questions?

Jacobsen: I do. I’ve noticed generational differences in how people define abuse.

Older generations—particularly in films and media—often only recognize physical or sexual abuse. In more recent times, there has been greater awareness and nuance, acknowledging psychological and emotional abuse as well.

And in the last 20 years, with cell phones, computers, and constant connectivity, people—especially in the United States and other developed nations—are immersed in online spaces. Anti-Semitism has also evolved and spread in these digital environments.

What are your recommendations for people who want to reduce their exposure or self-soothe when encountering something triggering?

Shaw: I always say, “Unplug to replug.” Social media has its positives. You and I wouldn’t have connected if it weren’t for digital media. Without it, we likely wouldn’t have crossed paths. Hopefully, it allows you to write an amazing article. That’s one benefit.

However, as mental health professionals, we strongly recommend setting boundaries. We often advise spending at least one hour, five times a week, completely off devices. In Judaism, we have Shabbat—from Friday night to Saturday night—when we disconnect from technology.

But tuning out is tuning in—to family, loved ones, and moments of reflection. Now, regarding abuse—you’re right. The boomer generation often says, “Toughen up.” But younger generations have a different perspective.

I work with teenagers who sometimes label everything as trauma. For example, they’ll say, “My teacher gave me a B+ instead of an A—that’s so traumatic.” But that’s not how trauma works, either.

But there is a reality—words do hurt. They truly penetrate. What we’re seeing with anti-Semitism today is a gaslighting effect. Specifically, what we’re witnessing online is what I call macro gaslighting. Traditional gaslighting occurs when an individual manipulates, controls, or distorts reality to make someone else question their sanity. Sometimes, it involves the perpetrator playing the victim or making the target feel unimportant, dismissed, or even crazy.

With macro gaslighting, the message extends beyond an individual. Instead of “I don’t matter,” it becomes “Malka doesn’t matter.” “She’s not worthy.” “She deserved it.” “She must be stopped.” Now, that damaging narrative spreads across social networks and communities, distorting perceptions on a mass scale. Macro gaslighting is dangerous—like a spiderweb or a puppet master’s strings. We don’t always know where it started but find ourselves entangled. For the person on the receiving end, the psychological impact is severe. It can trigger our brain’s trauma response—fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. This occurs when we feel unsafe or powerless.

Since October 7, 2023, the Jewish community has been in what I call “active trauma”—the trauma is ongoing, with no clear end in sight. At this point, I would even describe it as a combination of trauma and communal grief. Yesterday, for example, we witnessed the heart-wrenching funeral of the Bebas family. But it’s not just them. This is communal grief. We mourn them as a people, and this shapes our collective identity. So, what does this mean for self-esteem? How do people see themselves?

I want to reach out to those on the other side of this conversation. Social media creates a false sense of anonymity. It becomes easy to type hateful comments without considering the real-world consequences. But words truly hurt. They can trigger trauma responses. That is why I call it “anti-Semitism of identity destabilization.” This is the psychological impact of deliberate defamation. I can always email you more details if I’m speaking too fast. The psychological effects of anti-Semitism on Jewish individuals and communities are profound.

Trauma doesn’t always stem from one massive event like 9/11 or a violent assault. The accumulation of toxic, prolonged stress can also cause it. One of my slides illustrates this with a glass jar filled with rocks. At first, the jar holds strong. But over time, rock after rock is added, creating tiny fractures. Eventually, one last small pebble causes the entire jar to shatter. As a therapist, I’ve seen this play out countless times. People often come to therapy with a “small” problem—for example, they read one offensive comment online. On the surface, it seems like no big deal. They might tell themselves, “Oh, he’s just an idiot. I should ignore it.” But that one comment is just the final pebble. It’s the breaking point—the culmination of all the stress, discrimination, and trauma that came before it.

There is a reality that people are using bots in these spaces. I wasn’t even personally aware of bots when I first started advertising, even within mental health circles. When I shared information about continuing education classes, I was spammed with horrific cyber hate. At first, I used to take screenshots of everything, but now I know how to block certainwords—at least on Instagram and Facebook. I didn’t know that before.

At the time, I was overwhelmed by the flood of spam, and it was difficult not to take it personally until someone pointed out that many of these accounts were bots. The problem is that, even though they aren’t real people, they still create a powerful psychological effect. When an outsider sees 100 negative comments on a post, they might assume something must be wrong, or maybe those comments are valid—even though no one is researching the truth.

Anti-Semitism thrives on disinformation, distortion, and historical erasure. These bot networks fuel that misinformation and it’s easy for Jewish individuals to get drawn into responding. I don’t necessarily recommend engaging with them. Instead, I suggest reporting them. Unfortunately, Meta hasn’t effectively addressed these issues on Facebook or Instagram. The best approach is to block, ignore, and report them as much as possible.

In the mental health field, there are now organizations documenting and reporting anti-Semitic behaviour. If the person behind the posts is a licensed therapist, they are reported to their licensing boards. This is also happening in the medical field. However, I am not as involved in advocacy—my focus is on education and equipping the Jewish community with coping skills.

Jacobsen: Self-soothing is an important skill. It’s a part of resilience, though not the entire concept of resilience. That’s important to cover. In my opinion, this is one of the most practical and substantive ways to address these challenges on a community and individual level.

We often come across absurd, conspiracy-laden narratives. In another conversation, I encountered the claim that the Rothschilds own the moon. Supposedly, they have a secret base and plan various forms of world domination.

Shaw: I love it when people say, “The Jews control the weather.” I don’t know where you are, but I’m in New York. And if I controlled the weather, it would be 70°F and sunny all the time. So, that’s proof that I don’t control the weather.

There’s also proof that we don’t control the media. If we did, we wouldn’t receive such overwhelmingly negative media coverage. The fact that anti-Semitic narratives are being amplified so widely contradicts that entire idea.

Before we leave, I created a framework called The Guard System, which is designed to help with these challenges. Each letter represents a different clinical orientation and provides specific, concrete skills. Whether I’m teaching it to therapists to help their clients or presenting it in a synagogue for people to apply to their own lives, the system is designed to be practical and accessible.

It starts with G—gratitude. We incorporate skills from 12-step recovery programs. U—understanding integrates concepts from psychodynamic therapy and narrative therapy. A—attitude to action applies to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT). R—regulation, Reset, and Reconnect focus on emotional regulation and grounding techniques.

Some of the simplest grounding exercises can make a huge difference. That’s why I teach therapists how to use them with their clients, work with campus rabbis to help college students, and bring these tools into synagogues to strengthen community resilience. The challenge is that people often forget to use these techniques at the moment.

That’s why we chose the word “GUARD”—to create a system that allows for easy recall. Think about how often you’ve attended a lecture and thought, “That was useful.” Still, later, you can’t remember the details. We developed two systems: the Guard System and the Bridge.

The Bridge System is designed for people who have been exposed to indoctrination—it helps bridge the gap when engaging with someone who has begun believing anti-Semitic tropes. But focusing on regulation and self-soothing, we need people to develop tools to cope independently.

The goal of therapy is for clients to rely on their therapist forever. My goal isn’t to keep people in endless treatment. The goal is to equip them with the skills to face their challenges independently.

Jacobsen: Any final takeaway points you want to make?

Shaw: The takeaway is that anti-Semitism is not just a symptom of broader societal unrest—when people feel disillusioned, they look for someone to blame.

Historically, Jews have been the canary in the coal mine. But anti-Semitism isn’t just people’s democratic values, critical thinking, and individual independence. When these fundamental principles are under attack, it signals that society as a whole is in trouble.

If you know what’s happening at some of these rallies or on college campuses, you’ll notice that people are not allowed to speak for themselves. There is an effort to silence critical thinking and discourage individuals from questioning narratives or conducting research.

What happens to a society when critical thinking is suppressed? What happens when people are encouraged to be passive, unquestioning, and unthinkingly follow a movement? It leads to radicalization. And that is not a world that 99.9% of Americans want to live in.

Now is not the time to remain silent. If you’ve ever wondered where you would have stood in Nazi Germany, now is the time to find out. If you haven’t spoken up, or if you haven’t offered a positive or reaffirming comment to someone in the Jewish community, then we know you would have been silent in the 1930s and 1940s.

It’s not just about your perceptions of the Middle East. I encourage you to question what you believe to be true. I won’t get political, but this happens in Canada and America.

Even if you had strong objections to Israel, how does that justify assaulting a college student on campus? How does it justify vandalizing a restaurant? Who gave you the right to do that?

How did I do?

Jacobsen: Pretty good. Thank you so much for your time today—I appreciate it.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

The Tariffs for Canada and SMEs’ Responses

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/28

Ryan Mallough, Vice President of Legislative Affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), discusses the impact of U.S. tariff uncertainty on Canadian small businesses. With about 20% facing paused or cancelled orders, uncertainty is almost as damaging as the tariffs. Over half of SMEs feel unprepared, prompting concerns about supply chains, layoffs, and price increases. Mallough highlights the need for government intervention, including a potential freeze on the carbon tax. He also emphasizes strengthening internal trade and diversifying international partnerships to mitigate reliance on the U.S. market.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So today, we’re here with Ryan Mallough. He is the Vice President of Legislative Affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB). He has experience managing Ontario’s COVID-19 response and oversees policy files related to electricity, the environment, municipal affairs, cannabis, and alcohol. Ryan joined CFIB in 2015 on the communications team, moved to the Ontario advocacy team in 2016, and assumed his current role in 2023.

Previously, he served as a Communications Officer at the University of Toronto and worked in research at Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. Ryan holds a Bachelor of Social Sciences (BSocSc) in Political Science from the University of Ottawa and an MA in Journalism from Western University.

Thank you for joining me today, by the way.

Ryan Mallough: Anytime.

Jacobsen: What percentage of small and medium-sized businesses reportedly face paused or cancelled orders due to U.S. tariff uncertainty?

Mallough: Currently, about one in five small businesses is affected. This is a significant number, especially considering that the tariffs have not yet been implemented.

What we’re seeing now is a reaction to uncertainty. Many businesses are closely following the news, which seems to change almost daily. This uncertainty is already having a tangible impact. Businesses are trying to secure their supply chains. Still, they are also being forced to assess where they may need to adjust operations.

Jacobsen: How does this impact differ for exporters compared to the overall SME group?

Mallough: The impact is more severe for exporters, who comprise a smaller fraction of CFIB’s membership. We are seeing a higher rate of order cancellations and contract holds because their American clients are hesitant. These clients effectively say, “We need to wait and see,” as they assess whether the U.S. tariffs will increase their costs.

Jacobsen: According to Simon Gaudreault, what is “almost as damaging as tariffs”?

Mallough: Uncertainty.

An announcement that tariffs would take effect on February 1 led businesses to make strategic decisions in preparation. The deadline was then delayed but not removed. Now, it has been pushed to March 4.

This level of uncertainty is unsustainable for small business owners. They must make informed decisions, commit to contracts, plan expansions, and forecast their financials with a clear sense of where things are headed. Businesses are accustomed to adapting, but this situation is forcing them to adjust unthinkingly.

Jacobsen: How many SMEs do not feel prepared for the potential impacts of these tariffs?

Mallough: Over half—around 54%—of small businesses do not feel prepared.

This underscores the widespread uncertainty in the business community. Many owners are still unsure about key details:

Will the tariffs be broad-based, affecting multiple industries?
Will they be limited to steel and aluminum?
How will Canada respond with countermeasures?

These unknowns make long-term planning incredibly difficult for small businesses. Preparing is tough, but many business owners are still in wait-and-see mode.

Jacobsen: What operational adjustments are they planning to make for those SMEs?

Mallough: We are already seeing many businesses looking for new suppliers and trying to expand their purchasing or selling markets. About 45% are in that scenario.

We also see:

25% delaying or cancelling investment plans, expansions, or new hiring.
20% considering workforce reductions.
14% stockpiling products in anticipation of price increases.

Businesses are not following a single strategy. They’re more of a throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks approach. Again, that uncertainty makes it difficult to determine the right course of action without knowing how things will unfold over the next month.

Jacobsen: Tariffs on specific industries can increase general costs. How many SMEs are willing to pass those costs on to consumers?

Mallough: This has been interesting because we see clusters at both ends of the spectrum:

13% of businesses say they will have to absorb the entire cost. These are often agriculture businesses or long-term contracts with locked-in pricing.
According to our data, 21% of businesses will pay consumers the full cost. This is primarily true in retail.
26% are unsure about how they will handle the cost increases.

That means we, as consumers, will feel the price crunch. Tariffs will put pressure on both ends—businesses will face increased costs, and some will pass that burden on to consumers.

Jacobsen: What percentage of small businesses call for more pressure on Parliament? And what recommendations are being made to address the tariff threat?

Mallough: The demand is high—82% of small businesses want Parliament to reconvene to address the tariff threat.

Many businesses hear this anecdotally. We’re in an awkward situation where a lot is happening on the U.S. side. Yet, Canada does not have a fully functioning government, with the prime minister in a transitional phase.

New Liberal leadership is still a month away, and a quick election call is possible after that. Let’s look at April or early May before we have a functioning Parliament able to respond to this issue.

Meanwhile, we are less than a month away from key deadlines, March 4 and March 12. There is growing concern that we will not be able to act quickly enough—not just in terms of countermeasures but also in supporting businesses affected by the tariffs. Some provinces may face similar challenges in responding swiftly.

Here in Ontario, we are in the middle of an election campaign. The campaign will conclude before any tariff announcement. However, the government must still act quickly if tariffs take effect in March.

Jacobsen: Do we know how small businesses are interpreting these tariffs? In other words, do they have their views on their rationale beyond what is publicly stated?

Mallough: It’s primarily based on what is being stated in public forums, but when we look at survey comments from our members, opinions are all over the place.

Some businesses believe:

If this concerns border security, let’s invest in border infrastructure and show we’re taking action.
The same logic applies if this is about drug control—demonstrate that we are making necessary changes.
If this concerns Canada being treated like a “51st state,” what steps can we take to address those concerns?
Is this personal between administrations? Or is there a broader geopolitical factor at play?

There are many conversations around these questions. Some business owners wonder: Is this a threat, or will they follow through?

The reality is somewhere in the middle. It’s hard to tell, which adds to the uncertainty. Right now, the biggest challenge is that the gut reaction in many circles is to respond immediately—

The President makes a statement or signs an executive order, and there’s an impulse to act immediately.

Waiting and not immediately deciding how to respond may be wise. However, inaction can also be perceived as a weakness.

That’s the push and pull our members are caught in—there’s a flood of information, but they don’t know:

What is actionable?
What will affect my business daily?
How do I plan when things keep shifting?

Jacobsen: What policy measures does CFIB recommend to put pressure on Parliament?

Mallough: There are a few things the government can do.

In the immediate future, the key date for business owners is April 1—the scheduled increase in the carbon tax.

We have heard from:

Pierre Poilievre and the Conservative opposition have committed to eliminating it.
Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland, the Liberal leadership frontrunners, have signalled possible changes or even scrapped the consumer side of the tax.

We don’t want the carbon tax to increase automatically during an election period, especially if we are indeed heading toward one.

Jacobsen: So, one of the things you’re looking for—if the government can reconvene early—is at least a freeze on the carbon tax increase for now. Then, once the election occurs and a new government is in place, they can decide what to do with it.

But for now, the goal is to eliminate that increase immediately.

Mallough: Exactly. Let’s take that increase off the table right away.

Beyond that, tax reductions, in general, are extremely popular among small businesses. This includes:

Reducing the corporate tax rate,
Lowering payroll taxes, and
Cutting municipal property taxes.

Any of these measures would be well-received because they leave businesses with more money to reinvest in employees and operations.

Jacobsen: We’ve also seen strong sentiment around Buy Canadian and Shop Local initiatives.

Mallough: Absolutely, and that’s a significant and positive trend. The key will be to sustain that momentum and ensure that consumers continue supporting local businesses where possible.

Here’s a key statistic:

66 cents of every dollar spent at a local business stays in the local economy.
In contrast, only 11 cents of every dollar a multinational spends stays local.

That’s why maintaining this shift toward local spending is crucial.

Jacobsen: The final issue that is getting much attention is eliminating internal trade barriers.

Mallough: Yes, and that’s encouraging to see. This issue has been on our radar for years.

We were there when the original trade agreement was signed.
We even recognized the trade minister at the time for that progress.

But eight years later, we still have many barriers in place.

Good progress has been made, particularly at the federal and Alberta levels. However, barriers that were supposed to be eliminated years ago remain, and additional restrictions haven’t been addressed yet.

Ministers and premiers have been saying the right things—including:

Minister Anita Anand,
Premier David Eby,
Premier François Legault,
Premier Doug Ford and
Premier Danielle Smith.

But the key now is action, not just talk. The momentum is here; they have the tools to eliminate these barriers. They need to follow through.

Eliminating internal trade barriers would:

Improve goods mobility,
Increase labour mobility and
Create actual free trade within Canada as we focus on external free trade.

Jacobsen: When you conduct these surveys, what is the typical sample size?

Mallough: Usually, it’s in the couple thousand range.

We received about 2,200 responses for this survey— a solid sample size.

However, unlike most of our surveys (restricted to CFIB members), we opened this one up to all small business owners through various channels.

We’re still finalizing the entire dataset, but the results we’ve released are based on those 2,200 responses from CFIB members.

Jacobsen: Post-April 1, what are the likely outcomes?

Mallough: I wish I knew.

Jacobsen: At this point, how do you assess the situation?

Mallough: It’s hard to judge right now. Some form of U.S. tariffs are coming, and the April 1 deadline is also essential.

We’ve been so focused on March 4 and March 12, but an executive order is also under review that examines U.S. trade policy in general. The goal is to recommend tariffs and other reciprocal measures.

The President announced yesterday that this doesn’t just include tariffs—it also includes other taxes.

For example:

The President specifically mentioned Canada’s Digital Services Tax.
Value-added taxes (VATs), which are ordinary in Europe, were also referenced.

Traditionally, these aren’t considered tariffs, but if the U.S. is going to respond to those policies, the scope of retaliatory actions could expand significantly.

We’ll need to look for new strategies and opportunities, given that the U.S. is also exploring new angles in trade policy.

Jacobsen: So, is this trade conversation far from over?

Mallough: Definitely. We’re in this for the long haul.

Even if the details change, we look at four years of ongoing trade battles. The U.S. administration has been clear about its stance on tariffs, and while the President has emphasized border security, he has also consistently raised trade deficits.

This isn’t something that’s going away anytime soon.

Even if none of these current measures were happening, we were already set for trade renegotiations:

The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) is up for renegotiation at the end of 2025 and into 2026.

So even if we get through the spring relatively unscathed, we know that:

By fall and into next year, we’ll be right back into trade discussions.

Jacobsen: Regarding SMEs and tariffs, how much can we increase international trade?

You previously noted that:

66 cents of every dollar spent locally stays in the economy.
However, only 11 cents per dollar were spent at a multinational stay within Canada.

Could tariffs—or at least their political implications—benefit Canadian businesses and internal trade?

Mallough: Potentially.

Indeed, the “Buy Canada” sentiment among consumers suggests that possibility. The big question is:

How long can that momentum last?

There is an opportunity in this crisis for Canada to reevaluate its economy by:

Shoring up domestic supply chains.
Boosting local production and sourcing.

At the same time, we shouldn’t overlook external trade opportunities either. Diversifying beyond the U.S. may become even more critical as these trade tensions evolve.

We’ve relied on the U.S., but they might not be as reliable as they once were. We should look at other trade partners. Our existing free trade agreements extend beyond North America.

At the same time, counter-tariffs will have consequences—and their impact will intensify over time. It’s going to be important for businesses to remain flexible and adapt, but also for government policies to create the right environment for:

Entrepreneurs
Small business owners
Attracting investment

Ultimately, the goal is to build a stronger Canadian economy.

Jacobsen: Ryan, thank you so much for your time today. I appreciate the opportunity.

Mallough: No problem.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

WalletHub on Racial Diversity in the United States

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/28

Chip Lupo is an experienced personal finance writer currently contributing to WalletHub. With a background in journalism from Elon University, he has worked across various sectors, including finance, sports, politics, and religion. Chip has expertise in SEO best practices, content creation, editing, and proficiency in Microsoft and Adobe applications. His career spans over two decades, during which he has held roles as a compliance analyst, wire editor, and night city editor. Chip’s passion for media and communications drives his commitment to high-quality content. Lupo talks about 2025’s most ethnically diverse U.S. cities. Factors like policy, legislation, and social shifts influence demographic trends. Hate crimes rose in 2023, with a 45% increase in Los Angeles County. Top diverse cities include Germantown, Jersey City, and Gaithersburg, with Montgomery County, Maryland, leading. Birthplace diversity and racial distribution play key roles, with projections indicating no single ethnic majority by 2045. Lupo discusses economic and social impacts, emphasizing linguistic diversity and immigration’s influence. The report refines methodology, focusing on socioeconomic diversity and granular data analysis.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re back with Chip Lupo of WalletHub, an analyst for them. We will discuss 2025’s most diverse cities in the United States.

Various factors, including policy, legislation, cultural shifts, and social media, influence demographic diversification in the United States and contribute to the trends observed in analytics and statistical data.

As the U.S. continues to diversify, social dynamics shift. In 2023, there was a notable rise in hate crimes—for example, a 45% increase in Los Angeles County, reaching a historic high of 1,350 incidents. Given these changes, how does the diversification of the United States impact the economy and other critical areas such as politics and society?

Chip Lupo: Well, Scott, first of all, when we talk about diversity in this context, we are primarily referring to ethnic diversity—specifically, the demographic composition of racial groups such as White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander populations in the U.S.

Now, let’s first examine the top three most ethnically diverse cities in 2025:

Germantown, Maryland
Jersey City, New Jersey
Gaithersburg, Maryland

Interestingly, three of the top four cities—Germantown, Gaithersburg, and Silver Spring (ranked fourth)—are all in Montgomery County, Maryland, a suburban area near Washington, D.C. This proximity to the nation’s capital plays a significant role in their diversity. D.C. itself, aside from being a major tourist attraction, offers extensive international opportunities in terms of employment and education. The presence of highly regarded schools and a strong internationalculture makes it a desirable place for people of all ethnic backgrounds to integrate into these communities.

In ethnically diverse cities, economic benefits emerge as people bring a wide range of skills and perspectives from their respective cultural backgrounds. This diversity fosters the growth of unique businesses, such as ethnic restaurants and culturally specific services, enriching the local economy. Exposure to different cultures also encourages social cohesion, fostering a deeper appreciation for diverse traditions within a shared community.

You mentioned hate crimes earlier. The more integrated communities become, the more people learn to appreciate different cultures as part of their social environment.

Jacobsen: Now, looking at the top five most ethnically diverse cities:

Germantown, Maryland
Jersey City, New Jersey
Gaithersburg, Maryland
Silver Spring, Maryland
Kent, Washington

These rankings remain consistent over time, with a fairly even score distribution among the top cities. On the other hand, at the bottom of the rankings—cities ranked #501 to #497—we have:

Parkersburg, West Virginia
Clarksburg, West Virginia
Barre, Vermont
Rutland, Vermont
Watertown, South Dakota

Despite these lower rankings, the diversity index scores across all 501 cities do not vary drastically. The highest-ranking city has a score of 73.03, while the lowest-ranking city has a score of 55.84. Given that this range spans over 500 cities, the variation is not as substantial as expected.

While some cities stand out in diversity, even those at the bottom of the list are not entirely homogenous. Analyzing these rankings with a nuanced perspective is important, considering that regional and historical factors influence how diversity manifests in different parts of the country.

Why does this metric seem to follow an almost perfect Gaussian curve? By its looks, the distribution appears highly symmetrical.

Lupo: One key factor among the bottom-tier states is their household diversity levels. However, what primarily distinguishes them is their birthplace diversity. Among the cities ranked at the top, birthplace diversity does not seem to be a defining trend—many high-ranking and low-ranking cities have lower birthplace diversity scores. This metric considers how many people living in a city or state were born locally versus how many immigrated from another country.

This trend appears consistent across all rankings. However, the bottom half of the list differs significantly: the racial and ethnic mixes in those areas are not as evenly distributed. While diversity exists across all regions, cities such as North Platte, Nebraska; Keene, New Hampshire; and Rochester, New Hampshire, show less balanced racial compositions. In contrast, top-ranking cities tend to have populations where the four primary racial groups—White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander—are nearly evenly split.

That said, while an equal distribution among racial groups is a key feature of highly diverse cities, many cities do not reflect this balance. One or two groups often comprise a significantly larger population share. These imbalances contribute to the overall variation in diversity index scores.

Another challenge in analyzing this data is the sheer size of the study. With so many cities included, the scope of diversification across the United States is immense. The report is structured around five major diversity categories—socioeconomic diversity, cultural diversity, economic diversity, household diversity, and religious diversity—each weighted evenly at 20 points out of 100. Within each category, numerous subfactors further refine the rankings.

Jacobsen: A notable methodological difference in this report is the double-weighting of socioeconomic diversity at 13.33 points for household income diversity. This category alone contains six subcategories, providing a deeper analysis of household income distribution. The report emphasizes granular details and extensive analysis rather than simply focusing on the number of cities, variables, or subfactors considered. Was there a specific reason for this methodological shift?

Lupo: Somewhat. We still considered the usual factors but aimed beyond basic percentage-based measures. While ethnoracial diversity remains central to our analysis, we also emphasized linguistic diversity— the number of languages spoken per household in each state. This aligns closely with ethnic diversity trends, as Spanish is increasingly spoken at home, along with various Asian and Pacific Islander languages. These linguistic shifts reflect deeper demographic transformations across the United States.

Let’s touch on language diversity again and return to birthplace diversity, which is a major emphasis in our study. One of the key findings is that among the top-ranked cities, there is an almost even racial distribution, with each of the four primary ethnic groups—White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander—making up approximately 25% of the population.

If current trends continue, we project that by 2045, no single ethnic group will be a majority in the United States for the first time. However, this projection depends on immigration policies, which remain a highly contested issue in the U.S. With a new administration, policies could shift rapidly, meaning these projections may look very different by next year. If the current trajectory holds, though, the U.S. will become a truly multiethnic nation with no dominant racial majority.

Jacobsen: Do you believe this shift will have a greater impact on economic factors or social stability?

Lupo: Economically, I don’t think the impact will be as significant as some reports suggest. However, socially, I do think we will see major shifts. Communities have grown accustomed to steady cultural diversification, and if that trend slows or reverses, it could create social adjustments, possibly even displacement in some areas. If immigration patterns change dramatically, the social consequences will be more pronounced than the economic ones.

Jacobsen: That makes sense. Well, my friend, that’s all my questions for today.

Lupo: All right, Scott, I appreciate it.

Jacobsen: As always, thanks, Chip.

Lupo: I appreciate it. Bye.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

2025-06-12

Opting-In to Critical Thinking in Decision Making

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/27

Dr. Steve Pearlman, founder of The Critical Thinking Initiative, discusses the urgent need to teach authentic critical thinking skills based on how the brain naturally processes information. He distinguishes between System 1 (fast, automatic thinking) and System 2 (deliberate, analytical thinking), emphasizing the value of metacognition and domain-specific expertise. Pearlman critiques superficial critical thinking programs and warns against indiscriminate policy cuts, such as those from the Department of Governmental Efficiency. He advocates for reasoning over authority in education and relationships, noting that even modest improvements in decision-making—like a 5% gain—can radically transform lives and institutions over time.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we’re here with Dr. Steve Pearlman. He’s an educator, author, and founder of The Critical Thinking Initiative.

He holds a Ph.D. in English from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and previously co-founded one of the first higher education programs in the United States focused solely on teaching critical thinking across disciplines. With over three decades of experience in higher education, he has developed and implemented methods to enhance reasoning and decision-making skills for students, faculty, and professionals across academic, military, and corporate sectors. Pearlman is the creator of the Neurocognitive Learning approach to critical thinking and host of The Critical Thinking Initiative Podcast. His work focuses on the practical application of critical thinking for individuals and institutions. Thank you so much for joining me today. I appreciate it, Steve.

Dr. Steve Pearlman: It’s my pleasure—thanks for having me.

Jacobsen: Critical thinking can be a meaningful concept or just a buzzword. How are we defining it, technically?

Pearlman: Yes. Unfortunately, critical thinking is more often a buzzword than a meaningful practice. People throw it around as if it’s something easy to define.

But we have research on this. When we ask people—including educators who are supposed to teach it—to define critical thinking, we usually get vague catchphrases and little substance.

When we ask them to define catchphrases like “analyzing” or “thinking outside the box,” things start to fall apart. It’s very difficult for people to define those concepts clearly or consistently.

Take “thinking outside the box,” for example. It sounds good. But is any idea valuable just because it’s different or unconventional? Is that really what makes something a product of critical thinking?

I could devise an unconventional solution to world hunger—like hunting dinosaurs—but that’s not thoughtful or useful.

So, we take a very different approach at The Critical Thinking Initiative. We’ve left the catchphrases behind. We look at critical thinking from a foundational perspective—what the thinking act is. We even consider it from an evolutionary standpoint, asking what thinking evolved to do and how we can harness that understanding to improve reasoning in real, measurable ways.

We also identified the core systems that run in our brains, no matter what we think. How do we teach people to become self-aware of those core systems? And then, how do we teach people to maximize their use of those core systems? That’s essentially the Neurocognitive Learning method. That’s how we approach critical thinking.

What we call it is a metacognitive process. Metacognition is a fancy word for being aware of your thinking while you’re thinking. So, we teach people to recognize what their brain is trying to do when it thinks and, therefore, take control of that process and do it better.

Jacobsen: You’ve done some work on healthy relationships. What defines a healthy relationship, and what are the top two skills people should consider?

Pearlman: Yes. A healthy relationship doesn’t mean a perfect relationship. It’s not necessarily about being ideal or even “successful” by some external standard. However, it is a relationship in which people respect one another.

So, the two most important things to remember for a healthy relationship are respect for one another and empathy for the other person’s position, boundaries, and needs.

The second is communication. Most relationships fall into trouble because both parties hold different expectations and lack sufficient communication and dialogue around those expectations. So, we want to focus our healthy relationship strategies on that.

Of course, if we can think critically with our partner, that makes it even easier.

Jacobsen: Now, when discussing respect, what does that look like?

Pearlman: It’s easy to identify moments of disrespect. That’s when someone’s needs are not being met, they’re not being heard, or they’ve voiced something important, but the other person isn’t listening. Or they’re constantly being talked over in conversation. So, respect is the opposite of that.

Respect means wanting to understand the other person’s needs. It doesn’t mean you can always meet all those needs perfectly, but it means wanting to understand them and doing your best to meet and honour them. Respect boundaries where they exist. Respect needs, desires, and interests. Support the person in whatever their interests are, and so forth.

I don’t even love the term compromise, though we often use it in the context of healthy relationships. Compromise can suggest that we’re constantly giving in to one another. Compromise is a part of any relationship, but the most successful relationships aren’t about tallying who gave in more. They’re about seeing the relationship as a team effort, where both partners work together toward each other’s success.

That’s a different way to think about it, and that mindset shift greatly affects how people approach their role in a relationship. If we tell people they must make many compromises, we get into a scoreboard mentality: “I made seven compromises; you only made three.” Or, “I made four big compromises—how dare you not meet me halfway?”

Instead, if we look at it as a team effort—about supporting one another’s interests—then it becomes less about compromising and more about mutual support, finding things we can do together that make both of us happy at the same time.

Jacobsen: You’ve also done work in situations where things haven’t just become unhealthy but have crossed into abuse. How do you apply critical thinking in that context?

Pearlman: We teach people through online courses. I used to run these kinds of courses on sexual assault prevention and similar topics.

Most of what we taught were not physical techniques. We focused on things akin to what’s sometimes called verbal judo—the ability to manage a conversation, deflect it, or steer it in a way that either de-escalates the situation or allows the person to get out of a sticky or dangerous scenario.

We teach other preventive strategies, but one key feature is knowing how to communicate in a way that gives you more control over the situation. That’s where critical thinking comes into play—when we have an expectation that isn’t met, the brain experiences conflict.

Our brains operate through frameworks—it’s how we navigate situations. However, each person has their framework that they apply.

Here’s an example we use based on a real story someone shared with us: A young woman went to another guy’s apartment, and things started to become problematic. The standard and correct thing is to say no and assert boundaries. And we advocate for that. Everyone should feel empowered to set and express clear boundaries.

But in some cases, that does not stop a would-be rapist—because, unfortunately, some perpetrators expect resistance, and they’ve already worked around that expectation. So when the woman in this situation said “no,” and it didn’t work—and the man started to become more physical—she remembered something we covered in our training videos: If you do not give a direct resistant response, then the other person may not experience the situation as resistance, and therefore, may not escalate their behaviour further.

So, instead of resisting in a way that would meet his expected framework, she changed the framework entirely. She said, “Hey, listen, I’ve got to go to the bathroom first.”

She ran to the bathroom, locked the door, and immediately texted her friends to come pick her up and bang on the guy’s door. She stayed in the bathroom for about ten minutes. Eventually, her friends arrived, knocked loudly on the door, and she was able to get out safely.

She did that by applying critical thinking—not by resisting or complying but by changing the situation’s structure. Instead of meeting the aggressor in his expected script, she used deflection and delay to create an escape.

Critical thinking can offer that in high-stakes, real-world situations. It’s the ability to understand how the brain—yours and sometimes someone else’s—processes a moment and then uses that insight to navigate toward a better outcome. Often, that outcome is mutual. In a case like this, it’s about safety and survival.

Jacobsen: Can you quickly explain the difference between System 1 and System 2 thinking? That’s from the late Daniel Kahneman.

Pearlman: The brain has two general thinking systems.

System 1 is the fast system we use for rapid decision-making. It is instinctive—essentially a survivalist mechanism. So, often, when we’re in a fight-flight, freeze, or fawn response, we’re operating in System 1. It also includes automatic processes—things we’ve committed to memory to the point where we no longer have to think actively about them.

System 2, on the other hand, is the slow, effortful, deliberate, and critical thinking system. It’s where conscious reasoning and deeper analysis happen.

It’s possible—and sometimes positive—to move things from System 2 into System 1. For example, it can become automatic when we learn a skill thoroughly. However, the problem is that once something enters System 1, we often stop thinking about it altogether—even when we should revisit it, especially if it concerns values, beliefs, or assumptions. Those automatic responses become the frameworks we use to act on the world.

So, what we do at The Critical Thinking Initiative is to help people recognize when their brains are relying too heavily on System 1 and how to shift into System 2 deliberately. The brain wants to resolve things quickly—uncertainty threatens it. Even though it’s capable of deep thought, the brain prefers efficiency and predictability.

If System 1 can resolve uncertainty with a conclusion it feels is “good enough,” it will do so because that serves its job: keeping us safe and stable. But that is not always the most effective way to think—especially about complex or importantissues. So, learning how to pull your brain out of System 1 and engage System 2 is essential.

Jacobsen: Are there people—besides those working in fields like Bayesian reasoning or quantum mechanics—genuinely do not feel fear or stress around high or even medium levels of uncertainty?

Pearlman: It depends. Some people embrace uncertainty more than others, but it’s less about intelligence or field and more about their capacity to entertain uncertainty as play.

There’s some fascinating research around this. For example, if we tell students they have an upcoming test, they almost instinctively interpret that as a threat. Even students who’ve studied well often have a fear-based response—concern about their grades, the unknown questions, performance, etc.

Now, let’s take students with test anxiety. They especially view the test through a lens of threat and uncertainty. But we see a shift if we work with them to reframe the situation—not as a threat, but as a challenge. How do we do that? By walking them through the tools they already have: study skills, prior successes, preparation techniques, etc.

When students focus on what they can do, they view the test as a challenge rather than a danger. Once that shift happens, they can engage more playfully and productively with the material—even while facing uncertainty.

That’s the key difference between people who can operate well in high-uncertainty environments and those who struggle. It’s not about eliminating uncertainty—it’s about interpreting it as something to be embraced rather than feared. Do I see it as a challenge I have the tools to face or as a threat to my identity or well-being?

Even physicists—who are perfectly at home dealing with the uncertainty of quantum mechanics, knowing they might never resolve their questions in a lifetime—can feel threatened in different contexts. Something like going to a party, for instance, might trigger more anxiety in them than contemplating the probabilistic nature of particles.

Pearlman: It depends on the field, thoughts, and the person.

Jacobsen: Yes. So, it’s less about being ensconced in a mindset and more about a trained orientation.

Pearlman: Everything with the brain and thinking is habitual to a certain extent. It’s about what we habituate ourselves to. And it also has a lot to do with how we’re raised. That makes a significant difference. The epigenetics of how we rear children is incredibly interesting.

For example, if children are raised in a more authoritarian household—where they’re expected to obey because Mom or Dad says so—and when they ask, “Why do I have to do it that way?” the answer is, “Because I told you to,” then we see clear developmental consequences. Research shows that children from those environments ask fewer questions in school and life. They also typically demonstrate less critical thinking, especially early on.

By contrast, children raised in more intellectually engaged households—where reasons are given and policies, decisions, and expectations are discussed—tend to become students who ask more questions, are more comfortable with ambiguity, and demonstrate stronger reasoning skills. This is unsurprising, but it’s important to recognize—and we have solid research to support it.

There’s a strong argument for raising children in ways where reason prevails over authority. That doesn’t mean we must negotiate everything with our kids—it’s not about constant negotiation. It’s about allowing reason to guide the process.

So, for example, if you say to your child, “It’s 9:00 PM—time for bed,” and the child asks, “Why do I have to go to bed at 9:00? Why is that my bedtime? Why do you get to decide?”—you might respond with something like:

“It’s not just about us deciding. When you stay up past 9:00 on school nights, you have trouble getting up for school the next morning. School is important, so getting to bed on time helps with that. That’s why bedtime is 9:00.”

Then the child might say, “That makes sense.” The outcome is the same—they go to bed at 9:00—but through a completely different thinking process.

Now, maybe the child responds, “Wait a second—it’s the State of the Union address tonight. I want to stay up and watch it because we will discuss it in class tomorrow.”

That’s a good reason. In that case, the child should stay up later. What the child learns in that moment is that reason prevails in your household—not blind authority.

Jacobsen: Speaking of authority, we now have the American administration—specifically a second Trump administration—with the newly minted Department of Governmental Efficiency. However, “minted” might not be the right word since it’s a restructured version of a previous department. Most government institutions, large or small, have some inefficiency—that’s just the nature of systems. So, the premise itself is not entirely unreasonable.

When you critically assess the definition of waste concerning the Department of Governmental Efficiency in the United States, how do they propose defining waste and fraud? What is your critical assessment of the quality of those definitions—either implicit or explicit—and the efficiency of weeding this stuff out, of extirpating it?

Pearlman: As you said, the premise is sound. There certainly can be waste in government—potentially considerable—which should be evaluated continuously.

But here’s the reality: we’re spending less on federal employees than twenty years ago. That number has been consistently declining in the United States, not increasing.

Now, that’s a different part of the question because there may still be waste in other areas that need to be addressed—and it’s certainly not just about employee salaries. The Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) is approaching this indiscriminately.

Take, for example, the idea of defunding scientific research—like cutting funds from the NIH. That has hugeramifications. You’re not just saving money in the short term; you’re potentially costing the country far more in the long term.

Let’s consider the cost-benefit of research into treatments for Parkinson’s disease. Many promising experiments were underway and have since been shut down. These aren’t things you can restart overnight. It will take years to reboot that work, assuming it even gets revived.

Now think about the cost of caring for people with Parkinson’s over time—relative to the cost of continuing those experiments. It’s potentially far more expensive not to fund that research.

You can also extrapolate that same logic to other federal agencies and programs.

So, while stopping funding looks good on a budget line in the short term, it may cost taxpayers much more in the long term. Any decision about cuts should involve a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis.

However, we don’t see evidence that such an analysis drives DOGE’s efforts. On the contrary, they’re cutting indiscriminately without a strategic or evidence-based framework.

So the real question becomes: are these cuts made intelligently, or are they made for the sake of making cuts?

Unfortunately, it appears to be the latter, not the former.

Jacobsen: So the chainsaw metaphor is apt?

Pearlman: Yes. The now-famous image of Elon Musk holding up a chainsaw at CPAC—used as a metaphor for DOGE—is quite appropriate.

It’s a great metaphor because chainsaws don’t build anything. They just cut things down. They’re powerful tools for destruction.

We get that, especially in Texas. But chainsaws aren’t good for nuanced work. They’re certainly not designed for careful restructuring or system improvement.

And that’s exactly what DOGE is doing—cutting indiscriminately. There’s no subtlety. No long-term strategic vision. Just destruction.

And there are problems with chainsaws. The chain can snap and injure you. It can kick back and cut you. So we can extend that metaphor to DOGE—because a chainsaw is exactly what they’re using.

Yes, cuts are necessary. But wouldn’t we prefer them to be surgical? Wouldn’t we prefer a precise scalpel that corrects what needs correcting?

Instead, we’re seeing a chainsaw, which can only amputate. It cannot repair a limb. So, if you want a metaphor, the surgical one works far better.

Jacobsen: Is there something we can apply from the critical thinking methods you teach regarding domain-specific expertise? I’m thinking of the expertise involved in startups—like administration and selling a vision—instead of expertise in bureaucracy, finance, or accounting. Do you think that’s part of the core issue with the Department of Governmental Efficiency—not the premise, but the application?

Pearlman: No—it’s not a matter of domain-specific expertise. It’s more a matter of domain-specific inexpertise.

In other words, it’s not just that they lack the right expertise—it’s that they operate from the wrong premise. The flawed premise is that simply cutting for the sake of cutting is inherently valuable and that downsizing is good in and of itself.

We’re seeing decisions being made to trim down agencies by arbitrary percentages, regardless of what those agencies do. There’s no way they’ve meaningfully reviewed the operations of all these departments.

So, before we even get to questions about domain-specific competence, we must address that they operate from a fundamentally flawed principle. Cutting for its own sake is not inherently good. It can be costly and dangerous.

Yes—some cuts may be necessary. But they need to be strategic. Otherwise, we’re left with reckless amputations that hurt the very systems they’re meant to improve.

Jacobsen: What are the long-term consequences of a lack of critical thinking—for an individual or an organization?

Pearlman: That’s a great question. For an organization, the typical outcome is failure—the end of the organization.

Think about it: nothing more important to any business or institution than how effectively it can observe what’s going on in its environment—how well it understands its customers and clients’ needs, its competition, and the broader trends in the world. Based on that understanding, it has to make adjustments, solve problems, and make sound decisions.

That’s how an organization stays viable. That’s how it survives—and thrives.

It has to be nimble, responsive, and grounded in good reasoning.

Pearlman: So, critical thinking is the most important thing. Companies that stop thinking—or become stagnant—are the ones that typically disappear. They die off because they’re no longer able to compete intellectually.

You see this often in the tech world, where it happens quickly. Take Yahoo, for example. Yahoo used to be the dominant search engine. It was the biggest in the world for a time.

But then they got out-thought by Google. And now, Yahoo isn’t even on most people’s radar as a search engine. They’ve pivoted to offer other services, but the core dominance they once had is long gone. That’s how fast innovation can shift—and if you’re not continuously thinking critically and adapting, you fall behind.

In life, it’s the same general principle. Now, we don’t usually die from poor decisions—though tragically, that can happen in extreme cases. But more often, the cost is Bunfulfilled potential.

We fail to live the kind of lives we want to live. This might show up in our careers, parenting, social lives, and more.

There’s some fascinating research on this. They’ve found that IQ is not the biggest differentiator regarding the quality of decisions people make. Critical thinking is.

IQ—your raw processing power—can be high. But you won’t use that processing power effectively without learning critical thinking skills. Critical thinking is a skill set—just like reading or math. It has to be taught. It has to be practiced.

And the data is clear: critical thinking is a far more powerful predictor of who makes successful or damaging life decisions than raw intelligence alone.

But here’s the problem—most people never get taught dedicated critical thinking skills.

So now imagine this: say someone did learn critical thinking, and that skill helped them make just 5% better decisions. That’s a humble number—very conservative. Let’s not even say 75% or 90% better decisions. Let’s say 5%.

Imagine if starting in adolescence, you made just 5% better decisions every day of your life. Think about where you’d be today. Even if you’re in a good place now, think how much better things might be.

That 5% course correction—compounded over years—would dramatically shift the trajectory of your life. And that’s the promise of critical thinking. With even modest improvements to the quality of our decisions, we could live very different—and often far better—lives.

Jacobsen: One last question. What do you think about philosophical or so-called critical thinking programs that are sold or advocated as such—but aren’t? Some present themselves in subtle or nuanced ways that appear to teach critical thinking, but there’s a kind of linguistic misdirection. They seem like they’re offering something rigorous when, in fact, they’re not.

Pearlman: There are a lot of well-intentioned programs out there. But they often rely on catchphrases and buzzwords to bring it full circle.

Some programs focus on problem-solving processes—different step-by-step paths to solutions, sometimes with built-in stages for revisiting ideas. These can be useful.

However, I recommend caution with critical thinking programs that approach the brain from the outside. By that, I mean they start with a constructed model or process of what critical thinking should look like and then try to train your brain to follow that process.

That can be useful in limited situations. For example, knowing the scientific method, an important structure, is helpful. But what we do—and where real critical thinking flourishes—is different.

We start by understanding how the brain naturally thinks. We make people aware of that and then build on those innate neurological processes. We amplify and elevate what the brain already does when thinking critically, and that’s where real growth happens. That’s where authentic critical thinking skills develop—not by forcing the brain to mimic some external pattern, but by working with its built-in architecture.

Jacobsen: Dr. Pearlman, any final thoughts?

Pearlman: No—I think we covered a lot. That was wonderful.

Jacobsen: Thank you for the opportunity and your time, Steve. (Unpublished)

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: